Saudi Arabia Has Devastated Pakistan’s History of Religious Tolerance and Diversity

[VCheng]

Ooops!
Not fair!!!

It's true, and therefore fair.

 

[Star Wars]

My assumption is that Jinnah's call for muslims to form a pure land served as an invitation to the zealots. The secular muslims stayed back in India while those who put religion over country had segregated to form Pakistan, albeit I still feel that such people are a minority.

Well, i might slightly Disagree , Pakistan's real problem began with the Zia regime. I believe his policy of Islamization slowly but steadily changed the society to what we see today. Generations of Pakistanis who were born after that were effected by his polices. While those born before that seem to have a more secular and liberal mindset.

Turkey was always a secular country isnt it?

Ottoman Empire's move into secularization started as early as late 18nth century and they had several social reforms through out the 19nth century. Which made it a lot easier for Turkey to get started as a secular country..

Au contraire, I see the youngsters on this forum as more open minded compared to the middle aged men/women on this forum. I must say that members like @faisal6309 @Secur @Arsalan @forcetrip @That Guy have often surprised me with their posts and such members form the majority, but unfortunately haters always scream the loudest.

Its the Middle aged folks which are trouble, i find both young and older Pakistanis to be a lot better

 

[Levina]

Its the Middle aged folks which are trouble

Then I guess you were right about ZuH's regime.

 

[Star Wars]

Then I guess you were right about ZuH's regime.

Its what i have noticed anyway, If the likes of Ayub Khan had continued to lead Pakistan. Then Pakistan we see today would be a lot different then Pakistan you see right now. There was a thread somewhere where pics of 50s and 60s Pakistan was being shared. Its rather interesting...

 

[Levina]

Its what i have noticed anyway, If the likes of Ayub Khan had continued to lead Pakistan. Then Pakistan we see today would be a lot different then Pakistan you see right now. There was a thread somewhere where pics of 50s and 60s Pakistan was being shared. Its rather interesting...

Yes, I remember visiting that thread once or twice,the same is true for many countries like Egypt.

 

[faisal6309]

Shias and Ahmadis have contributed so much in creating of Pakistan. Abdus Salam was good example in this post. But Pakistan didn't become like that in 1980s or after creating good relations with Saudi Arabia. These elements were already present in community. Actually it was Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who is responsible for that. Later Zia contributed in this with whatevr he had. Pakistan was a secular country before both of them and religion was not in such power it is now.

Saudi Arabia began funding religious establishments which gave them enormous power. People from Middle East still visit Pakistan for education purpose. I have seen many my self here in Lahore.

You are pretty wrong,

it was not KSA, but General cum President Zia ul Haq. Eventually, he leaded his army on request from Jordanian king, where no other barader mulk dared to send his army

It was forever living bhutto actually.

How people of Pakistan were religiously tolerant? many here are forgetting Pakistan was created on the basis of religion. They said they can not live with any other religion that's why Pakistan was created. This proves pakistanis are basically religiously intolerant.

Muslims and Hindus were one when fighting for independence from British. It was Hindus who indirectly forced Muslims create Pakistan.

Trust me most of us want to see a modern and vibrant Pakistan,not a nation which feels proud holding a AK 47.

We have our own clone AK-47.

Cannot dream for such nations for at least 1 or 2 centuries.

Its what i have noticed anyway, If the likes of Ayub Khan had continued to lead Pakistan. Then Pakistan we see today would be a lot different then Pakistan you see right now. There was a thread somewhere where pics of 50s and 60s Pakistan was being shared. Its rather interesting...

You should search how he was thrown out of power. This is wharlt happens when you try to do something good for country. Musharraf was better and we all know what happened.
Forget about what Pakistan was in 50s and 60s. You want to know what Pakistan today is?
One anglo-Pakistani family was forced to leave the area because they were the only Christians there. I myself became religious intolerant just by following some Mullahs in the past.
This Pakistan can only be fixed by destroying ideology of these religious extremists.

 

[HariPrasad]

Hi,

A cheap attempt by Indians to further strain ties between Pakistan and Arabia.

Wonder how is that even related to Indians.

(Obsession)

I show a video of Hasan Nisar ridiculing Pak Saudi relation. There are many in pakistan including people on PDF Pakistani members having same view.

 

[Ajit Kumar]

whatever happened shouldn't have happened. I am not against creation of Pakistan but I think religion is worst excuse to create a nation. It would have been better if Pakistan was created on the basis of ethnicity.
i dont want to get into debate of who forced whom. It is history now we can not change it. and truth is buried inside graves of Jinnah,Neharu,Gandhi. we can not know now what really happened at that time. Pakistan is truth now. only thing we can do now is to find a way to live peacefully.

I just want o know that if Pakistan was created on economic basis then why economic basis of a particular community is considered ? It should be created for all poor people. It is as if all Hindus were rich before 1947.

 

[faisal6309]

whatever happened shouldn't have happened. I am not against creation of Pakistan but I think religion is worst excuse to create a nation. It would have been better if Pakistan was created on the basis of ethnicity.
i dont want to get into debate of who forced whom. It is history now we can not change it. and truth is buried inside graves of Jinnah,Neharu,Gandhi. we can not know now what really happened at that time. Pakistan is truth now. only thing we can do now is to find a way to live peacefully.

There was no reason for division of British India on basis of ethnicity. Pakistan was created to give shelter to Muslims of British India. Pakistan even created Islamic Reconstruction of Pakistan to get check and balance on religious establishments but it was burnt to ashes. Muhammad Asad was one of the first Directors of this department.
What I mean to say is that Pakistan was basically created for Muslims but with all rights to non-Muslims as well. This is something Pakistan is unable to keep practice. The only solution I see for Pakistan is to install Caesaropapism.

 

[Ajit Kumar]

There was no reason for division of British India on basis of ethnicity. Pakistan was created to give shelter to Muslims of British India. Pakistan even created Islamic Reconstruction of Pakistan to get check and balance on religious establishments but it was burnt to ashes. Muhammad Asad was one of the first Directors of this department.
What I mean to say is that Pakistan was basically created for Muslims but with all rights to non-Muslims as well. This is something Pakistan is unable to keep practice. The only solution I see for Pakistan is to install Caesaropapism.

Why only muslims ? Why not all the poor people.

 

[faisal6309]

I just want o know that if Pakistan was created on economic basis then why economic basis of a particular community is considered ? It should be created for all poor people. It is as if all Hindus were rich before 1947.

Not all Hindus were rich. Most of them were dying because of hunger. Muslims were also rich and powerful. Quaid-e-Azam, Allama Iqbal, Nehru and all Congress as well as Muslim League leaders were financially strong. Even Gandhi struggled while studying abroad but then he later became financially strong but then he jumped into politics.

 

[Multani]

Saudi Arabia Has Devastated Pakistan’s History of Religious Tolerance and Diversity




Since Pakistan’s founding, religion, namely Islam, has fundamentally defined its political affairs. Despite this reality, however, Pakistan has historically accommodated its rich and long-standing history of Buddhist and mystic cultures, both of which predate the arrival of Islam around 720 CE. Indeed, for the first few decades of its existence, Pakistan was largely tolerant of its religious minority groups.

Since the 1980s, however, a more stringent political Sunni-Islam, imported from Saudi Arabia, has come to replace Pakistan’s culturally tolerant version of the faith. The rise of this new form of Islam was a product of a political alliance between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that began in the 1970s. As a result of this relationship, Pakistan’s various religious and ethnic groups, particularly Christiansand Shi’as, have been the victims of increasing attacks in the country.

How Pakistan’s Regional Politics Bred Sectarianism
Following the struggle for independence in 1947, Pakistan quickly emerged as a leading military, economic, and cultural center in the wider Middle East and West Asia. Its religious and ethnic diversity contributed to its success, with its most significant minority groups comprising Shi’a Muslims, Ahmadis, Hindus, and Christians, among others.

This diversity was reflected across various political and cultural fields. The founder of the Pakistani state, its first President, and some of the country’s earliest military chiefs were Sunni and Shi’a. Prominent academics, human rights activists, and military figures were Christian, particularly during the 1960s. Other high-ranking figures, including the Nobel Prize winner Abdus Salam, were from the Ahmadiya sect.

Pakistan’s political, military, economic, and cultural prowess also meant that, for much of its history, it enjoyed strong relationships with a diverse range of Arab countries, including Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and, to a lesser extent, Egypt and Libya.

During the Arab wars against Israel in 1967 and 1973, former Syrian President Hafez al Assad received substantial help from Pakistani pilots who helped fly Syrian aircraft and bring down Israeli planes. The Pakistani military went on to become a major trainer for the Syrian Air Force, regularly exchanging officers and providing military equipment to the Syrian regime.

Between 1970 and 1971, during the Jordanian civil war known as “Black September,” the Jordanian government deployed the Pakistani military to fight members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The events led to the permanent expulsion of Palestinian fighters from Jordan, which ultimately strengthened Pakistani-Jordanian relations.

When Gulf States were still in an embryonic state, throughout the 1960s and 70s, Pakistan was a driving force behind the development of infrastructure and military in these countries. Throughout this period, the Gulf’s rising elite, including former Crown Prince Muqrin and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, studied at Pakistan’s top boarding schools, army and air force academies, and staff colleges.

Ultimately, however, it was this growing affinity between Pakistan and the Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia, that gave rise to waves of anti-Shi’a and anti-Christian sectarianism in Pakistani society.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan: a Growing Friendship
Saudi Arabia’s relationship with Pakistan dates back as far as 1969 when the Kingdom requested that Pakistan fly Saudi jets to support Yemeni Royalists against Southern Yemeni dissidents in the Yemeni civil war. A report by the Brookings Center observed that, “In the 1970s and 1980s up to 15,000 Pakistani troops were stationed in the kingdom, some in a brigade combat force near the Israeli-Jordanian-Saudi border. The close ties continue between the militaries today.”

Several coinciding regional events in the 1970s and 80s brought Saudi-Pakistani relations to a crescendo: the overthrow of Iran’s Shah in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, accompanying rise in Shi’a militantism, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, all of which posed a major threat to Saudi Arabia’s regional power.

By pouring money into Pakistan’s political and military leadership, Saudi Arabia hoped to brace itself for what it perceived to be a coming Shiite threat. In fact, Zia ul Haq, who was president of Pakistan between 1977 and 1988, as well as current Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, have received significant financial backing from Saudi Arabia. The Saudis also financed the growth of various groups, including Jamat ud Dawa, Sipe Sahaba, and the Pakistani Taliban, – which also received patronage from the Sharif and ul Haq families – that have grown increasingly hostile toward religious minorities over the last few decades.

These events marked the beginning of what has become a lasting relationship, threatening Pakistan’s diverse religious fabric.

Nawaz Sharif and the Continuation of Saudi’s Legacy in Pakistan
Saudi Arabia’s continuing influence in Pakistan is largely a function of its strong relationship with the country’s elite. Nawaz Sharif, who was re-elected as prime minister in July 2013 after over a decade in exile in the Kingdom, has made no attempt to hide his penchant for his Sunni-Muslim friend, Saudi Arabia.

Despite Pakistan’s strong military and counter-intelligence ties to Syria’s ruling al-Assad family, Sharif put this five-decade old relationship on ice following heavy pressure from the Saudi Crown Prince Salman. Sharif went as far as to declare that Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s government had lost credibility, demanding he step down.

Likewise, Sharif has revealed his overt support for Lebanon’s Haririfamily, a prominent Sunni-Muslim family with close political and economic ties to Saudi Arabia. Sharif received help from the Hariri family during his years in Saudi exile.

But the most barefaced moment in Sharif’s Sunni-bias was when he supported Saudi Arabia’s intervention into Bahrain to suppress the on-going popular uprisings, which included various Shiits members of the Bahraini population. In return, Bahrain has naturalized Pakistani Sunni-Muslim families, particularly those associated with the Pakistani military and security service.

In a sense, Saudi Arabia already views Pakistan’s military and nuclear arsenal as part of its own repertoire of assets. And although Saudi officials would likely deny such claims, they see Pakistan as their right hand in dealing militarily with regional crises and responding to a perceived Shiite threat.

Given Sharif’s long-standing affinity toward Saudi Arabia, it is unsurprising that Pakistan initially indicated it would support the latest Saudi-led military attack on Yemen. It was only after opposition parties in Pakistan objected to the move’s unconstitutionality that Sharif withdrew military backing.

This was immediately followed by furious backlash from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), whose foreign minister publicly insulted Pakistan for the change in position. When Sharif’s interior minister, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, criticized the UAE in response, Sharif downgraded him. Since then, Sharif has made a number of visits to Saudi Arabia, in which he repeatedly reassured his Saudi partners that Pakistan would help enforce a blockade on Yemen and potentially help devise a new battle plan for Saudi intervention in the country.

The Sharif Family – Saudi Arabia’s Puppet Regime?
Since the 1960s, Saudi Arabia’s relationship with Pakistan has evolved to resemble that of a master and a puppet. While Sharif has remained close to the Saudi regime since he first received the Kingdom’s support in the 1970s, Saudi Arabia and the GCC States have exercised their military relationship with Pakistan with growing bravado. This has including trying to covertly purge the Pakistani military off Shi’a elements.

Sharif’s sectarian, pro-Saudi bias and his involvement in the attack on Yemen could potentially escalate this sectarianism domestically as well as regionally. Iran, for its part, is likely alarmed by Pakistan’s growing pro-Sunni bias. As Pakistan’s 40 million Shi’as are abandoned by the state and increasingly the targets of sectarian violence, Iran may begin actively helping this population, with potentially disastrous consequences for the region. Meanwhile, Christians, Ahmadis, and Buddhists, amongst other religious minorities, will continue to be exposed to rising sectarian attacks without anyone to protect them.

Against this backdrop, the country’s opposition parties and various intellectuals have spoken out against Sharif’s political gambit. Ultimately, however, Sharif and his proxies are likely to remain under the grip of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. This begs the question: to what extent is Sharif willing to develop relations with Saudi Arabia, at the expense of religious tolerance in his own country?

Silly, untrue article, blown out of proportion; does not match the reality of the Pakistani populace or land. Most of it is not true

 

[faisal6309]

Why only muslims ? Why not all the poor people.

Shelter for all Muslims as well as equal rights to all non-Muslims. That is why many non-Muslims didn't flee to India in start.

 

[Ajit Kumar]

Not all Hindus were rich. Most of them were dying because of hunger. Muslims were also rich and powerful. Quaid-e-Azam, Allama Iqbal, Nehru and all Congress as well as Muslim League leaders were financially strong. Even Gandhi struggled while studying abroad but then he later became financially strong but then he jumped into politics.

Then why a country is created for a special community ? If I am a secular person and and I have concerned for poors then I will create a country for all the poor oppressed not for just one one specific country.

Shelter for all Muslims as well as equal rights to all non-Muslims. That is why many non-Muslims didn't flee to India in start.

but why shelter for muslims only ? it should be shelter for all oppressed ?

 

[faisal6309]

Then why a country is created for a special community ? If I am a secular person and and I have concerned for poors then I will create a country for all the poor oppressed not for just one one specific country.

Why are you talking about poor again and again? Pakistan was created for giving shelter to Muslims from extremist Hindu majority of that time. Do you know how many problems happened just because of Muslims slaughtering cows at that time?