What's the harm with being in the middle?
Having the best of both? And not lean to the extremes of a liberal or conservative (fundamentalist).
Being a good Muslim, will also give equal rights, free justice, freedom of religion etc etc without being called a liberal and without doing all that Nunga-punga stuff (and the nunga punga stuff is associated with liberalism mostly). Although if we stick to Pakistan's case specifically, a good muslim will be hard to find.
If we find a Good Muslim, he will not be running around with a stick ordering people what to do and what not.
There is absolutely no harm in the middle way. The Pakistan that I grew up in; definitely until ZAB brought in Islamization act under pressure from Nizame –Mustafa movement, Pakistan society observed the middle way. This act by ZAB was a victory for the reactionary forces.
However, after the public flogging of Zia era, and the ISI support for the Afghan jihad, the schism between the liberals and the fundamentalist section of the society has grown. But can anyone honestly claim that crime has gone down as a result of public flogging by the bigot Zia?
In fact all the ills of the society such as corruption, hypocrisy, nepotism, drugs and gun running have increased. Pakistanis have not become better Muslims than they were before Zia; actually I believe that our forefathers were better Muslims in character well as in deeds than an average Pakistani today.
Support of Taliban during the post Zia PPP regime with bigots such as Hamid Gul at the helm of ISI was the nail in the coffin of moderate Pakistan. The chasm between the fundamentalists and the liberal sections of the society is now far too great.
Pakistani man on the street is too poor and too busy in earning a living to care about either. Anti-Pakistani forces such as JI and Deobandi political parties who were always against Pakistan are on the rise. These enemies of Pakistan exploit the anti US feeling in the Joe public. Thus liberal and moderate forces that were in fact responsible for creation of Pakistan in the first place, are now being labelled as Western agents as one can see by some of the posts in this thread.
Personally I would love to see Pakistan revert to the middle way that existed until 70’s. But realistically speaking, don’t think it is possible any more.
It is with deep regret but I have to admit that liberals such as PPP, when in power, have been found lacking in good governance and only concerned with lining their pocket. This has given an opportunity to the retrogressive forces to grab power by force.
Irony is that the reactionary forces don’t believe democracy or the elections, don’t believe in individual liberty (Saudis, Taliban regime in Afghanistan etc.) They carry out suicide bombings, sectarian killing and attack on Pakistan Army every day. Still all is forgiven by many educated and intellectual people who go on directly or indirectly supporting them. This is indeed baffeling but true.
) read my definition of liberal in above posts. You have not given me your definition of liberal but instead you are giving irrelevant examples which have nothing to do with liberalism. If peoples follow a particular beliefs or marry within same religion/nationality/ethnicities because they find more compatibility with them then that is their personal choice and freedom. It don't mean they are any less liberal than those who do not follow any scriptures. Again your thinking is wrong to assume that evolution in religion is necessary in order to call yourself liberal . Its also wrong to assume that liberalism has anything to do with what you wear sari/burqa/turban/salwar kameez/jeans etc. Whether you want to have 5 gfs or 4 wives is again irrelevant to liberalism. By your logic only atheist should considered liberal. Following or not following any religious scriptures has nothing to do with liberalism.
