The point is not who or what created K-N, but that religious bigotry and anti-Ahmadi sentiment was used in South Asia long before the Saudis did anything, and therefore cannot be solely blamed on the Saudis.
I am not blaming it all on the Saudi's, am I?
Perhaps you need to reread my post because I explicitly state that Arabization during the 70's and 80's aided the religious bigotry and hatred that was low level at best. Once the process of Arabization started, it allowed anti-Shia and Anti-Ahmadi groups to function with state impunity.
And why did Pakistanis not oppose this 'anti-Ahmadi' movement then, if the only reason it became law was Saudi pressure on Bhutto? Where were the mass demonstrations and outrage against the vilification of an entire community in Pakistan?
Well prominent Pakistani's and civil societies did so, as for mass demonstrations, no one in Pakistan comes out to demonstrate anything en-mass.
Anti-Ahmadi sentiment in South Asian nations existed long before Bhutto did anything
in certain sections, it become prominent once the Anti-Ahmadi groups gained Saudi backing and were able to exert their pressure on the government.
Same thing happened against the Shias.
That is a rhetorical argument, not a factual one - a factual argument would involve evidence indicating direct Saudi pressure in enacting Blasphemy and anti-Ahmadi laws.
Where is your factual argument, all that you do is twist and turn things to negate a view.
I have given you proof of the Saudi involvement but you seem to be overlooking it like it does not have a bearing on Islamic laws that were implemented.
A factual argument would indicate Saudi involvement in promoting honor killings, rape by Jirga, marriages with the Quran, murders of female relatives over property etc.
But we agreed that those were cultural problems and I have stated the problems relating to religion that were promoted by Saudi's in Pakistan.
What about the Saudi role in sectarianism?
Ziaul Haq’s Islamization empowered the Sunni clergy and antagonized the country’s Shi’a minority. When the Shi’a demanded protection of their religious rights, Ziaul Haq and his intelligence services saw their protests as a sign of potential Iranian subversion.
The Iranians were, most likely, assisting Pakistan’s Shi’a with money, and Ziaul Haq invited the Saudis to help Sunni sectarian groups. The Afghan jihad had already resulted in the free flow of arms and military training for Sunni Islamists. Soon, some of these Sunni militants were attacking the Shi’a in an effort to purify Pakistan of their “heterodoxy.” Shi’a militias emerged to fight the Sunni extremists with similar tactics. During the last twenty five years, nearly two thousand people have been killed, and thousands more maimed, in attacks by zealots of the rival sects in Pakistan. Official Figures are not available for the period 1980-1989 but deaths by sectarian violence during that phase are estimated at several hundred . Between 1989 and 2004, 688 people were killed in 1,837 reported incidents of sectarian conflict. In 2005 sixty-two incidents resulted in 160 deaths, and in the first three months of 2006, six incidents occurred in which 136 people reportedly died. [2]
"Weeding Out the Heretics": Sectarianism in Pakistan » Current Trends in Islamist Ideology
Pakistan's problems have been exacerbated by a lack of governance, a lack of security, corrupt law enforcement and lack of justice for the common man, and not by the Saudis. Even with the existing Blasphemy and anti-Ahmadi laws in place, an independent law enforcement and judicial system would not allow the promotion and perpetration of violence in the name of religion that occurs in Pakistan today.
When did I blame it all on the Saudi's?
Guess you have turned to your own "strawman" arguments in order to deflect from the content of my post.
The Jamaat Ahl-e Hadith (party of the Tradition of the Prophet) was founded by Sayyid Nazir Husain Muhaddith Dehlavi. The Ahl-e Hadith differ from the Deobandis in holding that the Quran and the Hadith (recorded traditions of Prophet Mohammed) are the sole sources of law, while the Deobandis accept the vast corpus of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) and follow the Hanafi school of fiqh. Often called Wahhabis in South Asia, the Ahl-e Hadith have maintained close ties with the Wahhabi religious establishment of Saudi Arabia since the 1960s. They are vehemently opposed to Barelvi custom-based Sunni Islam; they are both anti-Sufi and anti-Shi’a.
"Weeding Out the Heretics": Sectarianism in Pakistan » Current Trends in Islamist Ideology
What about the terrorism that flourishes in Pakistan because of Saudi Arabia?
In order to have terrorists, in order to have supporters for terrorists, in order to have people who are willing to interpret religion in violent ways, […] you need particular interpretations of Islam [that] are being propagated out of schools that receive organizational and financial funding from Saudi Arabia. In fact, I would push it further: that these schools would not have existed without Saudi funding. They would not have proliferated across Pakistan […] without Saudi funding. They would not have had the kind of prowess that they have without Saudi funding, and they would not have trained as many people without Saudi funding. [49]
The Pakistani Madrassah and Terrorism: Made and Unmade Conclusions from the Literature | Puri | Perspectives on Terrorism
As Pakistan commentators often argue, the problems in Pakistan are not the existing laws, flawed laws or lack of laws, the problems in Pakistan are the lack of IMPLEMENTATION of the existing laws.
You mean to tell me that laws like Blashpemy laws and Hudood laws which were infact changed by Gen Mushy were not flawed.
Why talk of changing them when they are not flawed?
Again, the problem is that Pakistan's existing laws are not being implemented and governance has gone to the dogs, and not the presence of a token Saudi Scholar here and there.
This "token" Saudi created all the mess that we have suffered so much from.
What it would take to prove Zafarullah wrong is irrelevant, I am just pointing out, in the context of our discussion, that the Saudis did not influence Pakistan's leadership at the time, and therefore that particular incident cannot be used as justification for the argument that the 'Arabs are imposing Arab values on Pakistan'.
They could not influence the world through logic, they went on to try force instead.
And how can you be certain that the Arabs forced Dualibi on Zia, instead of Zia inviting Dualibi and having him assist in the framing of his so called 'Islamic Laws'?
It is because the Saudi said that they will only support the Afghan Jihad if Pakistan was willing to implement the laws.
I have a good source for this which I will post soon.
But Madudi was not brainwashed by the Saudis was he? He chose to pursue a particular ideology, and promote it, of his own volition, as did his followers. If he was successful in pressuring the government to follow his ideological agenda, then again that speaks to the weakness of the Pakistani leadership, or perhaps the ideological inclinations of the Pakistani leadership.
The Saudis used their money to promote their 'religious beliefs', much like the Yanks are doing in terms of trying to project their world view in Pakistan, the fault lies with Pakistanis in not presenting an equally forceful narrative and building a vocal lobby to influence Pakistani leadership.
Pakistans leadership only faltered once the outwardly pressure grew intense, lack of unity and fear of drastic change made Pakistani leaders seek dangerous alliances that harmed Pakistan.
Its a simple matter of short sightedness and not ideological inclinations of the Pakistani leadership.
Pakistanis are responsible for standing up to the Pakistani leadership when they take decisions that are supposedly 'alien to our demographic and culture', Pakistanis are responsible for thinking for themselves and vocalizing their opinions and pressuring their elected leadership to move the country in the direction Pakistanis want.
This is the reason why:
Javid Iqbal clearly said that moderate and liberal elements were silent because they feared harm at the hands of extremist forces. He equally despaired of politicians.
Was Jinnah secular? – The Express Tribune
Creating bogeyman in the 'Arabis and Agencies' is no way to be 'responsible', and will change nothing.
I agree, creating bogeyman in "RAW, CIA, MOSSAD, Kenya's NSIS etc" wont change anything either.
The what are 'Honor Killings, rape by Jirga, marriages with the Quran'?
Those are cultural problems.
'Pakization'? Is that something to be proud of in contrast to 'Arabization'? How about being responsible for our state of affairs and pressuring our leadership to reform the country and actually implement the existing laws?
Yes, Pakistan should free itself from Yahood o'Hanood aka Amreeka and Saudi.
But then the problem is the leaders we either 'elect', or support when they 'carry out coups'.
Not me who voted them in.
Why blame the Arabs for our own corrupt political class that we keep voting back into power, both through voting for them and apathy towards the electoral process?
Who is blaming the Arabs for all our ills, all I am doing here is pointing to the damage caused to us by the Arabs.
