What's new

The confused liberal

Was his daughter there by his bedside when he was dying?

Yes ? No ?

Threw his daughter out? From where?

He left India.

She remained home.


She was there at his funeral. After he died. Fatima Jinnah was all along with Jinnah through his sickness and his stay at Ziarat.

Disowned his daughter and afterwards addressed her formally as Mrs Wadia.

Obviously he was the founding father he had to come to Pakistan, I wonder why daughter of first Governor General of Pakistan would prefer staying behind, unless her father did not care and encourage her to come along.
 
She was there at his funeral. After he died. Fatima Jinnah was all along with Jinnah through his sickness and his stay at Ziarat.

Disowned his daughter and afterwards addressed her formally as Mrs Wadia.

Obviously he was the founding father he had to come to Pakistan, I wonder why daughter of first Governor General of Pakistan would prefer staying behind, unless her father did not care and encourage her to come along.

Exactly. At his funeral. After he was gone. It was not a sudden death. He had been seriously ailing for some time. Why was she not there then?

She wanted nothing to do with him after her mother's death, which she took hard and blamed him in large measure for.

Fatima was Jinnah's sister. We are talking about his child.

Cheers, Doc
 
Exactly. At his funeral. After he was gone. It was not a sudden death. He had been seriously ailing for some time. Why was she not there then?

She wanted nothing to do with him after her mother's death, which she took hard and blamed him in large measure for.

Fatima was Jinnah's sister. We are talking about his child.

Cheers, Doc

He broke and wept at time of burying Maryam Jinnah. He would look at the their clothes locked in a chest, and his eyes would moisten (this is what his servants said). His associate said that his argument with his daughter was simply choosing a non Muslim to marry. His daughter had an argument involving her mom he replied her telling how his case was different.

And for blaming him, he was overburdened had little time for family, he had this wish of acting Romeo in college dramas he was human with feelings but a role to play for millions. If he did not have this human side he would not have married in the first place like his counterpart. He died of a disease and his deteriorating health would suggest him being human and full of feelings.

Peace now this thread has nothing to do with Jinnah and his daughter, you have your story we have ours. And history has never been my favorite subject.
 
You know in another time and another reality Islam could have been a liberals best friend what with "your religion unto you and mine unto me" which sorta equates to your "live and let live".

Sadly neanderathals have given that interpretation another meaning which is "my religion unto me and my religion unto you as well if you know what is good for you".

Ps. Now that I have managed to thoroughly confuse myself I leave the thread as a "confused liberal" :-)

Have you seen this advert on TV? This makes the best comment on the OP. :D

pzv5j7l.jpg
 
There is nothing confusing here unless people have intent to confuse. A liberal is somebody who is prepared to accept those who have differant beliefs or lifestyles than his/her self.

However acceptance cannot possibly extend to those who would restrict those freedoms. For if a liberal does not oppose these type of forces the environment which would enable his/her world view to flourish would be snuffed out.

And in the West if liberalism is ever snuffed out Muslims would feel the heat first. All extreme right wing racists hate liberals more than even Muslims as they see them as obstacle to implementing their tyranny.
1) When you become as intolerant as the ones you label you not longer are liberal except that you say so!
2) By eradicating you are becoming the same extreme who eradicate liberals on their land
3) Why differentiate yourself with a fancy title when you draw no line? Why not just call yourself an extreme?

Again accepting doesnt mean you need to reject/ follow/ restrict.

Accepting means accepting it and minding your own business....

As for those who cause mischief there is law for them, or are you saying the west is lawless? Why must you join the extreme bandwagon and still want to be called liberal?

Its strange people want to be called something but dont want to live within the definition....This is where the title comes the confused liberal!

I also don't think it is going to die out anytime soon, although at times it will face testing times from both sides. The extremist racist bigots white supremicists and the fanatic Muslims of the orthodox variety.

And at the thoretical level if the liberalism that so many at PDF and in the wider Muslim world love to hate so much did vanish the 10 million Muslims living in the West including many members of PDF who are resident in the West would face HS2. That is Holocaust 2.

Neo Nazis UK - Only liberalism is obstacle to these bigots.

73083097-anti-muslim-graffiti-defaces-a-shiite-mosque-gettyimages.jpg



2__National_Front_-_North_East_NF_at_Pegida_rally__Newcastle__which___1.jpg


images


neo-nazis-2.png


uber-nazis-620x400.jpg


auszi.jpg


Bothell_Hindu_Center_Get_Out_Muslims.jpg


White_Nationalists_UK.jpg
You are again confusing extremes to the basic liberal

Again the confused liberal?
 
That and large body of liberals occupying positions of influence in society. Teachers, writers, academics, trade unions and other parts of society who actively support liberalism in it's various manifestations. If that failed then we would have these guys taking over.

header.jpg


Poster_Waffen-SS_CoD1.png


And killing Muslim in a rehash of Holocaust

Belsen-mass-grave.jpg
Really way off topic.....

So I would say liberalism involves acts of omission and commission.

(i) Where you don't agree with a lifestyle like gay, differant religion, differant lifestyles you must not let those feelings hinder those groups. This is act of omission.

(ii) Where those who want to impose their worldview which would involve restricting everybodies right to lead diverging lives like extreme right wing neo nazis who would ban Islam and multicultural society you must oppose and do everything against these people to stop them from prevailing. This is act of commision.


Ps. The problem with some people is they are quite happy with liberalism when it protects their rights but jump up and down when it comes to other side of the coin. To have rights you have duties also.
It is surprising none of the studies I read or quoted shinned on this topic
2ndly, I think you have managed to derail it abit....

However this post brought it back hopefully!


As for act of commission I think it is more of the govt to do not the individual citizens until and unless the govt is oblivious about the act!

Those who restrict others are a nutcase and extremists....I dont know why everyone is soo interested in shining them with limelight and always using them as examples to promote them or something! There are a small group of extremists whom everyone wants to promote and bash!

What about the 90% of the population who isnt? No one wants to talk about them! Do they not deserve to live?
 
And here is the very example of one!

If you are liberal - accepting there is no condition that other has to accept too...then that other would be a liberal too...why call him anything else and fight?

It is always the conservatives who fight the liberals for their opinions.

Basically you are inferring that let the conservatives be conservatives but liberals should not express anything against conservatives.

How can a liberal be a liberal if he is not free to express what he thinks?
 
It is always the conservatives who fight the liberals for their opinions.

Basically you are inferring that let the conservatives be conservatives but liberals should not express anything against conservatives.

How can a liberal be a liberal if he is not free to express what he thinks?
Did you even read the OP!

It is based on research WHAT MAKES ONE WANT TO WEAR A TAG of liberalism and WHY!
 
Did you even read the OP!

It is based on research WHAT MAKES ONE WANT TO WEAR A TAG of liberalism and WHY!

I am talking about the question asked by Syed Ali Haider.

I read the OP , it is fine.
 
In today’s world many have started calling themselves liberal without actually knowing or even relating to the literal meanings of the word. A quick google shows that the word liberal means “willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.” However, those labelling themselves liberal are far from willing, not even close to respecting nor accepting any opinion different from their own.

The fine youth labelling themselves liberal seem to think that it means away from mainstream or more westernized/ modernized or anti religion. This leads them to reject, mock and criticize anything that is remotely different to their ways of thinking even something as small as a difference in opinion.

They outwardly ridicule those they term far extreme without realizing the similarities they share with these group, where the extreme can’t accept anything different from their own opinion or behavior and the confused liberal does exactly the same- an extraordinary similarity that goes unspoken about! Instead of being the opposite of the extreme they become the extreme and seem to fall on the other end of the same spectrum. Instead of being modern and well aware they seem to showcase a backward trend and habit of being extreme.

I have been reading different articles, research papers as well as chapters on liberal society and what defines a liberal and why they behave the way they do. Some of these resources showed that the word liberal was politically inclined others had a social touch and a handful mixed the two and took it to the political level. I wish to just summarize what I read and understood.

The social liberal is traditionally supposed to be broad minded and accepting. Theoretically, he or she is not supposed to disregard faith/ religion nor culture and customs but accept them irrespective of them not being in line with his or her thinking. However practically, this is hard to achieve as another psychological level is at play where people think they have “advanced” from such a thinking or they feel that a certain culture is too backward for them. What they forget is the meaning of liberal which is accepting. Accepting doesn’t mean that you have to follow it but it means you are above mocking or rejecting it!

Some studies as I have posted one such article (Social psychologists are almost all liberals—and it’s really hurting the field) summarizes a study showing that a set of mindset has caused a certain field to heavily represent biased results. This has led to many believing that the liberal label is the “in” thing.

The political liberals are another confused set who are not sure if they want to support the party as per its name for being a liberal party, hate the conservatives hence think the opposite is liberal or actually agree with all the policies of the liberal one, which is rarely true as per many research studies (Conover and Feldman, 1981; Schiffer, 2000).

Another research (Neve, 2015) uses five traits, “(1) openness to experience; (2) conscientiousness; (3) extraversion; (4) agreeableness and (5) neuroticism to study the effect childhood environment has on political label. [Openness refers to open mindedness and a set of other personalities that is defined with curiosity, imagination and high risk behaviors. The second trait denotes responsibility, order and organization, dutifulness and self-control leading to a need to achieve. Extraversion is connected to socialable, lively and proactive while agreeableness is related to empathy and willingness to compromise or cooperative. Finally, neurotism is linked to emotionally unstable and negative emotions”]. The study was done in America with American children where childhood trauma included physical and sexual abuse, number of friends as well as being in a safe neighbourhood.

The article points out that not only social issues but also the environment has a large influence in grooming an ideology and even points out something like childhood experiences can lead one to changing or choosing a certain political orientation (Neve, 2015). The study further states that childhood trauma as well as psychological threats such as insecurity (threat and uncertainty) does mould political choices.

If this is the case, then the trauma of those in countries where children see and experience far worse should also be highlighted when hurling accusations against a certain race or people.

Finally, I conclude, sure everyone has their own opinion, beliefs and understanding. Until and unless you find something wrong with them and are capable of explaining the wrong, no one should have the right to bash another’s opinion by wearing the liberal label since that label doesn’t give you any such powers.

References:

Conover, P. J. and Feldman, S. (1981). The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self-Identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 25 (4), pp. 617-645.

Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, e310.

Neve, J. D. (2015). Personality,ChildhoodExperience,andPoliticalIdeology. Political psychology 26 (1), 55-73.

Schiffer, A. J. (2000). I’M NOT THAT LIBERAL: Explaining Conservative Democratic Identification. Political behavior, 22 (4), 293-310.



@Slav Defence Forgive my lack of flow...I am really sleepy right now I may have made changes thinking it is "right" but actually re arranged the article to flow less than it was initially

@Secur @Armstrong kindly do give it a read

@Djinn @Umair Nawaz yaar wholese is in this field
Are you the writer of this post?

regards
 
A few simple questions: Does being "willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own" mean accepting opinions and views that run contrary to good social sense? Must a liberal society accept views that strike at the very heart of making it a liberal society, in name of being open to "new ideas"? No, liberalism is a two way street.

if it is a too way street then why call names to those who have specific ideas just like you?
 
if it is a too way street then why call names to those who have specific ideas just like you?

It is the receptiveness to new ideas that makes all the difference, without infringing on anyone else's rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom