What's new

Betrayed, Arabized

AZ

If you are at peace - no n eed to engage, what could be simpler ?

But what I think is happening is one of two things, wither you are having a problem mustering the integrity to acknowledge this grave problem of arabization or alternately, you find that you actually welcome this process -- because I note you have not had a problem with posts directed at me, but do have a problem when I respond -- So if you are at leace go elsewhere, this is not a thread you can contribute to
 
i wont defend it because i have no need or desire to. I'm Pakistani and I'm at peace with who I am.

it is you who is maybe confused.


and on that note, I am unsubcribing from this Goddamned, idiotic, needless thread. Making issues and hullabaloo out of non-issues.

AZ

If you are at peace - no n eed to engage, what could be simpler ?

But what I think is happening is one of two things, wither you are having a problem mustering the integrity to acknowledge this grave problem of arabization or alternately, you find that you actually welcome this process -- because I note you have not had a problem with posts directed at me, but do have a problem when I respond -- So if you are at leace go elsewhere, this is not a thread you can contribute to

Muse:

Notice the company rule book at play:

There is no problem. If there was, it has been fixed. Thus there is no problem.

Therefore, there is no such thing as Arabization. If there is, it is a non-issue. If it was an issue, it was fixed long ago. And if you don't agree with that, you must be against Islam and/or Pakistan, so therefore you lose the right to point anything out that goes against the military.

QED. :D
 
I know this rule - I'm having to deal with it elsewhere;) on this forum -- They can't just come up and say, "Kinda an arbi and I'm proud" - their rule is always, the radical is n.ot so much wrong and bad, but you are for pointing it out, so the the rest if the world, especially these "dot heads" (aren't I racist now?) here and reading this stuff,(Haw, Hai) will see just how lame we are (as if it's nuz to them)

Being against arbization, Islam and Pakistan? It's mothers milk to these people - they really are afraid to think about things, it hurts their heads -- I mean the lunes I can understand, they are lunes after all, but these enablers, these "flies on shyt", what can I tell you

It's going to be hard days night
 
You seem to be confusing the definition of Arabization and the its definition in context to its negative influence on Pakistan.

I gave a general definition of Arabization which by no means was denigrating or insulting to their culture or religion.

I then pointed out the factual negative influence of Arabization in another post.
It is not me who is being unclear - let me point out to you again your previous choice of words, in conjunction with your definition:

Please look at your definition here:

it is the growing influence of Arab culture and customs on Non-Arab Muslim countries. Arab societal behavior and norms have been wrongly intertwined with Islamic behavior and norms. The two being completely different as Arabic culture and custom is suitable for Arabs while Muslim culture and custom is suitable for all Muslims.

You don't talk of 'some' Arab culture and customs, but 'Arab culture and customs', implying that you are referring to all 'Arab culture and customs', and you call the influence of 'Arab and culture and customs' Arabization.

Now in your comment below, as in the comments of others, note how you refer to 'Arabization', which you define as the influence of 'Arab culture and customs'.

Murder and bigotry were not institutionalized until the Arabization kicked in.

So your argument becomes: 'Arab culture and customs have caused the institutionalization of Murder and bigotry in the societies they have influenced'.

How is your argument not then a 'denigration of Arab culture and Arab religious beliefs', given that Arab culture is influenced by religion, and vice versa?
Notice the underlined part and your own 'definition of Arabization' - if your definition is as you say it is, then your usage of the term 'Arabization' in the underlined sentence is a 'derogatory generalization' of 'Arab culture and customs', since you don't qualify your statement as 'Murder and bigotry were not institutionalized until some aspects of Arabization were absorbed into Pakistani society.

You can't have it both ways - either your definition is flawed or your usage of the phrase, and the usage of the phrase by the author of the article in the OP, as well as other commentators such as Muse, is flawed, and amount to derogatory generalizations.

Either the definition of 'Arabization' or the use of the term need to be qualified.

This has allowed you to successfully avoid the content of my post by concentrating on an unnecessary issue.
The content of your post/s was and has been addressed - you have failed to credibly establish any link between the adoption of 'Arab culture and customs by the people/culture/society of Pakistan' and the many social/cultural ills plaguing it, or even 'most' of the social and cultural ills plaguing it. What you have provided are isolated incidents that barely amount to circumstantial proof, of the Saudi government taking certain positions on international platforms. However, you have not supported the argument of those 'cultural positions' being either unique to Arabs or being suddenly implanted in Pakistanis.

Wordplay might work on others but it won't work on me, factuality on my part is being backed by references from credible sources all the while you deflect from the main issues by concentrating on this nonsensical matter.
I have addressed your references in my past posts - merely claiming they are credible and factual does not make them so - you ave to successfully refute the counter-arguments raised in response, and the issue of how 'Arabization' is both defined and used is by no means a 'nonsensical matter' - it is a crucial aspect of this discussion.
These so called rational/logical arguments refuting my POV revolve around avoiding core issues and concentrating upon falsification of definitions.
None of your 'sources' has been avoided - please read through my previous posts, I believe I responded to all of your attempts to link Pakistan's social ills to some external bogeyman. If I missed something, let me know and I'll be glad to answer.
 
muse u can convey ur views without name calling cant ya? coz wahabi baby,pakrabs sound pretty retarded.
No he and his ilk really can't avoid the name calling and racism.

See, as I pointed out earlier, these people are the mirror opposites of the religious extremists who cannot stop hurling epithets at their perceived 'enemy' 'Hindu Baniya' etc.

Denigrating the 'other', and therefore dehumanizing the 'other', makes it easier to focus rage and anger against the 'other'.

If you just paint them as 'people with a a different POV', what is the fun in that? Where is the 'rabble rousing' opportunity in that?
 
9/11 attacks resulted in the deaths of close to 3000 Americans - Americans, since then, have successfully defined to their people, who they are and who the attackers were/are -- Pakistanis after losing more than 30,000, still do not have the confidence to say who and what they are and who and what those killing them, those motivating them (ideology), those financing the insurgents and those enabling them.

After all, Pakistanis are extremely civil, the whole "dot head" thing is just a oversight - we can't call those who motivate the insurgents which have taken 30,000 lives, by words that describe them - anyways, you likes it good, you don't likes it, good. Either way the enemy will be defined, your gentle and fragile sensibilities (read Jamaati sensibilities) will just have to deal with it.

And once and only once we have created the awareness that is necessary, will we be open to refining, or as a friend puts it "precision strikes".
 
9/11 attacks resulted in the deaths of close to 3000 Americans - Americans, since then, have successfully defined to their people, who they are and who the attackers were/are -- Pakistanis after losing more than 30,000, still do not have the confidence to say who and what they are and who and what those killing them, those motivating them (ideology), those financing the insurgents and those enabling them.

After all, Pakistanis are extremely civil, the whole "dot head" thing is just a oversight - we can't call those who motivate the insurgents which have taken 30,000 lives, by words that describe them - anyways, you likes it good, you don't likes it, good. Either way the enemy will be defined, your gentle and fragile sensibilities (read Jamaati sensibilities) will just have to deal with it.

And once and only once we have created the awareness that is necessary, will we be open to refining, or as a friend puts it "precision strikes".
See, the difference is that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by 'foreigners' and masterminded by 'foreigners' based in another nations.

The majority of the 30,000 dead in Pakistan have died at the hands of Pakistanis, and the organizations perpetrating these terrorist massacres are mostly headed by Pakistanis - Baitullah Mehsud, Hakimullah Mehsid, Faqir Mohammed, Mullah Fazlullah etc.

Add in a corrupt and inept governing elite, and a lack of faith in the political process supposed to serve the people stricken by terror, poverty, natural disasters and poor infrastructure, and the 'Islamists' offering 'Utopian alternatives of Shariah Law', and the 'fence sitting' by many Pakistanis becomes a lot more understandable.

The war isn't just about 'terrorism' any more, when your family is dying of hunger and has no shelter due to poverty, floods and a creaking economy, when you are at your wits end due to corruption and power outages.

There is no comparison to be made between the US and Pakistani response to terrorism.
 
TO some there is no need for a comparison to be made - these apologists point to all kinds of differences, but ignore the basic similarity, individuals and groups motivated by an ideology arising from a particular area of the world, from a particular country, from a particular religious ideology - and of course the most basic, the justification of terrorism based on the religious quality of that ideology.

It is even more important for Pakistanis, than it was for Americans, to define clearly, who and what they are and who and what they are not - even more important for Pakistanis to define what is good, what is bad, what is right and what is wrong - OR be prepared for a whole lot more "shaheeds" as our admin call them.

The apologists must answer as to why Pakistanis should see the murderers of their families, compatriots, and servicemen, as "humans" and not monsters, these apologists must answer why Pakistanis must not be able to identify the origin of the ideology motivating terrorism justified by religion.

The apologists, are after all apologists, they may want to come across as merely "objective" - but those who are "objective" with regard to the murder of 30,000 of their compatriots and even worse, those who pretend to be "objective" when evaluating propositions in which this kind of terrorism is justifed by religion, must answer to the faithful, the morality of religion as a tool of political violence and political power.
 
TO some there is no need for a comparison to be made - these apologists point to all kinds of differences, but ignore the basic similarity, individuals and groups motivated by an ideology arising from a particular area of the world, from a particular country, from a particular religious ideology - and of course the most basic, the justification of terrorism based on the religious quality of that ideology.
You mean 'Islam'? Because outside of the AQ, I don't see 'Arabi's' bombing schools and police stations, which, in Pakistan, the TTP and associated Pakistani groups have done far more than AQ.

It is even more important for Pakistanis, than it was for Americans, to define clearly, who and what they are and who and what they are not - even more important for Pakistanis to define what is good, what is bad, what is right and what is wrong - OR be prepared for a whole lot more "shaheeds" as our admin call them.
It is important to define what we face and who we face, and it is 'US' (as in we, not the country), not some 'Arabi bogeyman'. And to facing our indigenous demons involves addressing several socio-economic and cultural issues and clearly defining the values we wish to live by as a nation - 'outsourcing' blame and creating external bogeymen to vilify does not address the problem. The Barelvi's oppose the Taliban and, by extension, the 'Deobandi/Wahabi ishtyle of Islam', but that does not stop them from advocating in favor of Blasphemy laws and promoting violence and intolerance against those that disagree with them. No Arabi bogeyman is going to stop 'rape by Jirga' and discrimination and denigration of women in our society - these are issues that Pakistanis have to think about and determine where they stand on them, both from a religious and cultural perspective.

You don't go into a debate and argue that something is wrong because XYZ practices it - you argue it is wrong by offering alternate interpretations of the justifications used by your opponent and/or refuting your opponents justifications.

Merely arguing that 'Wahabi interpretations of Islam/cultural values' are wrong because they are not 'indigenous to Pakistan' is a logically flawed argument and a flawed way of promoting an opposing POV.

The apologists must answer as to why Pakistanis should see the murderers of their families, compatriots, and servicemen, as "humans" and not monsters, these apologists must answer why Pakistanis must not be able to identify the origin of the ideology motivating terrorism justified by religion.
The origin of the ideology is in Pakistan, the murderers are Pakistani, those currently spreading the ideology of hate, intolerance and violence are Pakistani. Even if the 'Arabi' were at some point the source of the ideology, that time is long past. The current perpetrators of terrorism and those disseminating the ideology supporting terrorism are Pakistani. The ideology has been absorbed into Pakistan and it is now indigenous to Pakistan, even if followed by a minority.

must answer to the faithful, the morality of religion as a tool of political violence and political power.
Multiple polls in Pakistan would indicate that a significant majority of the 'faithful' wish to see 'Islamic Law implemented in Pakistan' (even though they differ on what exactly that means). The view that religion has a place in politics and daily life is already deeply ingrained in Pakistan, you cannot change that by merely positing that 'this is an Arabi view and wrong since it is alien to Pakistan', it is too late for that. The arguments for moderation in religion and tolerance and respect for all regardless of race and religion, is an argument that needs to be made using universal truths and a refutation of the justifications used by those in favor of intolerance, not by merely casting these beliefs as 'alien to Pakistan'.

At one point even Islam was 'alien to Pakistan'.
 
At one point even Islam was 'alien to Pakistan'.

Merci beaucoup...

since the whole issue has been.. in our quest to quantify the Arabization problem.. have we even started rejecting Islam itself??
 
Muse:

Notice the company rule book at play:

There is no problem. If there was, it has been fixed. Thus there is no problem.

Therefore, there is no such thing as Arabization. If there is, it is a non-issue. If it was an issue, it was fixed long ago. And if you don't agree with that, you must be against Islam and/or Pakistan, so therefore you lose the right to point anything out that goes against the military.

QED. :D

Merci beaucoup...

since the whole issue has been.. in our quest to quantify the Arabization problem.. have we even started rejecting Islam itself??

Nice play, with an eye to declare anybody wishing to exercise critical thought as being against Islam, being the next step, per the company rule book! :D

How predictable! :P
 
Nice play, with an eye to declare anybody wishing to exercise critical thought as being against Islam, being the next step, per the company rule book! :D

How predictable! :P

What predictable is your bringing in a "company rule book" defense play at the ten yard line.
Almost sounding like the very Mullah you so openly critique..
he has the same idea about the idea of liberalism..

So its ok for you to critique for the sake of critique and nobody should question it?
Suddenly. all is not fair on thy end Cheng..

Why is the critical thought so holy that it cannot be critiqued itself?
 
Salman108


Dancing is jahilyah, you say, Wahabi baby don't do that you say?

Bush Saudi Arabia Sword Dancing - YouTube


Saudi traditional wedding dance - YouTube

Saudi Arabia teen Girls dancing at home - YouTube

Pakrab slaves are now more wahabi than the arbi - beware arbis going to get the work permit looked into

What part of
What remains today in the arab culture are Tribal reminiscence of that culture which SHOULD be abolished just as well and if they are practiced then it is wrong.

did you fail to understand ?

And as for Arab girls dancing, teenage girls are having unplanned pregnancies too, Middle east, Europe, Pakistan ... Iran ..
everywhere.

So by your logic this behavior should be shamefully condemned ? or made fun of and encouraged ?

You are so consumed by your hate and loathing that your ability to clearly reason is gone !

TO the Mods:

This is third or fourth time, Muse has gone too far and brought down personal attack.
I'd like to see the rules of this forum be executed, or a PM from webby to allow me break the rules.
 
What predictable is your bringing in a "company rule book" defense play at the ten yard line.
Almost sounding like the very Mullah you so openly critique..
he has the same idea about the idea of liberalism..

So its ok for you to critique for the sake of critique and nobody should question it?
Suddenly. all is not fair on thy end Cheng..

Why is the critical thought so holy that it cannot be critiqued itself?

LOL my dear Santro.

I have no problems in discussing anything critically, as you should know by now. It is just that I find resorting to the "company rule book" pervasive, and predictably boring, not to mention stifling.
 
Wahabi fanatic Salman420 is frothing at the mouth since he's been busted selling snake oil in the disguise of Islam, telling us dance is unIslamic, music is unIslamic, Arts are UnIslamic - well, that's OK, because as we can see there is music and dance and art in Arabia, as there always has been - Abdul Wahab, the degenerate who graduated from no seminary, tried to kill culture and replace it with his heresy, but he and his fanatics have not been entirely successful.


since the whole issue has been.. in our quest to quantify the Arabization problem.. have we even started rejecting Islam itself??

Excellent question - You have correctly apprehended the thread --- well I suppose we have to begin by asking what is this "Islam" you seem to understand - Is it the same thing as Arab culture???? If it is then I think you should be prepared for a rude awakening, because IF Islam is arab culture then, of course it is on a trajectory to nowhere.

However, If Islam is the Guidance offered to all humanity with the recognition that there are as many ways to God, as there are faithful, If Islam is Guidance informed by "Rahman and Raheem", that is an Islam that holds relevance to all humanity, If Islam is FAITH in God and in this and only in this route, salvation, then Islam holds a message that all Humanity thirsts for.
 
Back
Top Bottom