@Wengerscoat defends Hafiz Saeed but calls other groups out who are mainstream.
Pakistan
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
Your posts suggest you really are unaware of the functions of different groups.
I am not defending him at all, if it were upto me I'd lock him up just so India can stop crying about it 24/7. I think if he is such a patriot then he should stay in his house instead of roaming around creating trouble for his country.
Considering I have lived in Pakistan I highly doubt it.
Doesn't make one knowledgeable on all subjects Pakistan.
I never claim to be all knowledgeable. But when you have lived there (and I still live there 1-2 months a year due to work) and when you have some chunks of your family there working in the judiciary and army or in places where you hear things then you know a lot more than the average joe.
You simply don't know or unaware of the power of the religious parties when it comes to the general public or the tableeghees.. Its our luck they're not in power but the fact nonsense laws such as blasphemy can't change is because of them.
Get well soon mate!
Hafiz Saeed is associated with Ahle-Hadith.
And as for tableeghi movement it's apolitical which is already pointed out by Sultan.
My understanding is that the Tablighi Jamaat functions strictly as a Da'wah movement. Its members take time out of their lives every year to travel and preach a form of Islam based on personal, individual self-improvement along Deobandi lines. However, there have been cases where Tablighis have gone on to become involved with militant groups later in life (I think one of the 7/7 bombers was one example), and I've read that such militant groups view the Tablighis as potential recruits.
There's something very wrong with the way you're talking about him. I hope when you educate yourself about what he has done in India, then you'll show some remorse.
It's not really up for debate that he's bigoted towards Ahmedis. I've posted a couple of videos here and there's more out there to be seen if you wish.
Then there's Imran inducting Aamir Liaquat into the party and then intervening to get him a ticket. Aamir Liaquat is, as I'm sure you very know, human scum. He shares Imran's bigotry towards Ahmedis as well as as being an all round dickhead. All this just a year after Amnesty basically called him out for being a cnut. His shows have been linked to murder of Ahmedis. But oh I forget, all this is "just politics". Silly me.
Defending terrorists and bigots. Naya Pakistan indeed.
No question about Aamir Liaquat, but is it not whataboutism bringing him into this? The reason why I am asking you to state his actions is because you are refuting the claim that he is just being politically correct.
The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf government on Tuesday defended a leading international academic appointed by Prime Minister Imran Khan to the Economic Advisory Council (EAC), saying that Pakistan "belongs to minorities as much as it belongs to the majority".
For the indians who have suddenly started caring for ahmedis.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1430925/w...back-after-vicious-campaign-targets-atif-mian
For the indians who have suddenly started caring for ahmedis.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1430925/w...back-after-vicious-campaign-targets-atif-mian
We've several Muslim ministers in the the cabinet. Clearly it absolves Modi of absolutely everything. Modi isn't a bigot anymore guys!
The reason why I am asking you to state his actions is because you are refuting the claim that he is just being politically correct.
Whataboutism? No. Imran appointed him and gave him a ticket and effectively brought back a certified hate mongerer into politics. Since you love to bring up Indian examples, this is akin to Modi appointing Yogi. Bigots get along very well. Being politically correct is not a reason to be a bigot.
All Imran has to do speak out against the ammendment which he'll not do because he's a bigot.
Please provide proof of IK's actions which label him a bigot close to Modi but I am glad you have acknowledged that he is a bigot and hope you dont want for him again in the next elections.
So there are no actions you can point out? Got it.
I don't really care for him, nor do I care for Indian 'proofs'. If an international court convicts him I'd be up for hanging him. But in India where even pigeons are called ISI agents I don't really care.
Yeah, keep parroting it as apolitical without living here.
Here’s a tidbit to lighten the mood here.
TIL petrol costs ₹51 per litre in Pakistan and it’s as expensive as ₹86 in India.
TIL petrol costs ₹51 per litre in Pakistan and it’s as expensive as ₹86 in India.
Any more of this type of language used in this post will be your last.
Here’s a tidbit to lighten the mood here.
TIL petrol costs ₹51 per litre in Pakistan and it’s as expensive as ₹86 in India.
What?
If you ignore his words and his actions as "Just politics" then I suppose not.
I'll leave it here. Apparently bigotry is tolerated on this site. Shame.
Like I said his words are just politically correct, as I have said before its a shame that he has to be politically correct to get elected but that does not make him a bigot. Like I said you have no proof from his time in KPK or currently.
In pre partition India both the hindu mahasbha and muslim league entered into an alliance to form governments despite campaigning against each other. Both are different sides of the same filthy coin.
MJJ, his words are not politically correct, his words are that of a politician who is doing maybe what is par for course in your country.
I regret posting in this thread and it's a shame that we have to get banned because we can't post like rational people. But I see how intelligent people I know defend Modi on similar lines as you've done with Imran Khan. But if this is just some weird subterfuge to strengthen his position and to bring true governance to all in Pakistan, then good luck to him.
That is what being politically correct is fishy in Pakistan, its sad but is the truth. It doesn't represent who he is as a person or how his government will behave within reasons. Also, for all of you the indians crying over modi comparisons, you guys seem to bring him up very quickly when its suitable.
I see you're accusing the Mods of accepting bigotry. Go post on a forum where you'll be comfortable.
Last edited:
I'm not bothered in the slightest about Modi comparisons, but I can't deny there are interesting parallels.
Which are?
Im not going to get involved in this subject bit I just want to say that bigotry is not condoned or encouraged on this site.
It's similar to the definition of terrorism. One mans terrorist and all that...Anyway, I got tired of him throwing accusations of bigotry around.
Oh man, you've nailed it.
Yep very true and as a phenomenon, it isn't limited to Pakistan either unfortunately. As I said, my wife has more than a few family members who will regularly discuss the idea that x group aren't real muslims because they do or don't do certain things, completely missing the irony of the fact that there will be many Muslims who would do the same for them. It is terrible and dangerous.
Well that is heartening to hear and I am glad you have clarified that. It just seemed that you may have been saying something different when you said you didn't think Ahmadis were muslims and that non Muslims won't understand how seriously Muslims take the religion but it is good that is not the case.
Anyway, as I keep saying, I hope Khan is great for Pakistan. Other than his comments about Ahmadis, he has made a lot of encouraging statements but he will have such a difficult time pushing anything through. I hope he's successful.
I couldn't care less how someone percieves themself, if they wish to be muslim, non-muslim, non religious, it's a very personal matter and I personally think it should always remain so.
For as long as there has been Islam, there has been a legal definition of who is a Muslim. Ahmadi Muslims recognise another Prophet after Muhammad (pbuh), so legally in Pakistan, people who adhere to their faith have been declared non Muslim. Muslims are regularly declaring each other Muslim or non Muslim, especially in our part of the world. There is a very immature approach to the takfeer. The difference in this case is that the state was used to declare takfeer in what was a political act hidden as religious "clarification".
Are they technically correct - yes they are.
Was it a wise thing to do - no it wasn't.
Should it be upheld - I don't think so, It causes more harm than good.
Will it be upheld - absolutely. It's become too politically charged for anyone to want to touch it. Life is a numbers game. Ahmadis are probably less than a million votes in a country of 200 million, where ~50% are illiterate and know only what they're "told".
For anyone interested, here's a long post breaking down Pakistan's various Islamic movements, hopefully it will show how diverse Pakistani Islam is. If I've missed something or got something wrong please comment.
On the broadest level, Pakistani Muslims are Sunnis, Shi'a and, for those willing to accept them as Muslim, Ahmadi. Most studies I've seen estimate the Shi'i population at around 15-20%, with the remaining 80-85% being Sunni with the exception of a few million Ahmadis who don't break the 2% mark. However it should be noted that in times past the distinction between Sunnis and Shi'a tended to be very blurred in rural areas, with many people not really understanding the difference or which they really belonged to. It's likely that today this is no longer really the case, as these identities have hardened as they became politicised in modern times.
Starting with the Shi'a, in Pakistan they are overwhelmingly Twelvers, the dominant form of Shi'ism today. They live scattered across Sindh and the Punjab, and in certain rural areas such as the Jhang region of the Punjab they have tended to belong to the more dominant landowning class, which explains in part why this region has experienced much anti-Shi'i sectarian violence. The Bhuttos of Sindh would be the most famous example of a successful Shi'i landowning family. There are also small, isolated communities in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan, some of whom are Afghan Hazaras. And there is a concentrated Twelver Shi'i population in Balistan in the north.
In the far north of Gilgit-Baltistan there is an Isma'ili Shi'i majority, and a small Isma'ili population in Karachi. Jinnah himself was descended from an Isma'ili Khoja family, although there is some controversy over his religious beliefs at the time of his death. While Twelvers believe the line of Shi'i Imams ended with the disappearance and occultation of the Twelfth Imam, Isma'ilis believe the line continues today in the figure of the Aga Khan, to whom they are devoted. And there are lots of other doctrinal and ritualistic difference which have evolved between them over the centuries.
The vast majority of Pakistan's Sunnis adhere in theory to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence which has historically held sway in Turkey, Central Asia, South Asia, and parts of the Middle East. However the actual practice of most South Asian Sunnis has tended to be centred around parochial shrines associated with revered Sufi figures rather than strict adherence to the sharia, and there has always been a general critique aimed at the rituals conducted at these shrines by the more sharia-minded. In the nineteenth century, due to a range of circumstances, this critique produced three competing reform movements which aimed to re-orient South Asian Muslim practice towards the sharia, the Qur'an and Hadith, and which have come to dominate Sunni Islam in Pakistan today.
The movement named for its founder Ahmad Riza Khan Barelvi sought to retain and incorporate many of the practices associated with the shrines into a broader sharia-minded program of reform. It allowed for the continued use of such shrines and the figures associated with them as a means of intercession with God and his prophet, and held a special reverence for Muhammad, who Ahmad Riza Khan believed embodied God's light in his person. This does not mean, however, that Ahmad Riza Khan was somehow less committed to the sharia - his movement was first and foremost dedicated to stressing devotion to Islamic law. Today the term 'Barelvi' has been applied to the majority of Pakistan's Sunnis. However it has become a kind of catch-all term for all Sufi-oriented practices and Muslims in Pakistan, whether or not they consciously adhere to Ahmad Riza Khan's teachings, so 'Barelvi' can mean different things to different people - it is most often employed to denote the 'popular' Islam of the masses.
The second movement was centred around the school of sharia established in Deoband in northern India in the 1860s. Ulama who taught there opposed the practice of shrine visitation and devotion to Sufi figures altogether, though they weren't necessarily opposed to private, individual Sufism. Also opposed to Shi'ism, they stressed strict adherence to the sharia in its Hanafi guise, and established places of learning all across South Asia. Today Deoband is said to be rivalled only by Cairo's al-Azhar as a prestigious place of Sunni learning. Deobandis are said to account for something like 20% of Pakistan's Sunnis, but I've no idea how these figures are estimated. Most madrasahs in Pakistan are Deobandi.
Barelvis and Deobandis have tended to be highly antagonistic toward each other. High ranking figures on each side have in the past labelled their opponents non-Muslim, and the two movements are generally locked in a polemical battle for the hearts and souls of Pakistani Sunnis.
The third movement - the Ahl al-Hadith or Ahl-i-Hadis in South Asian parlance - placed itself outside the Hanafi fold by rejecting all the Sunni schools of jurisprudence and stressing the need for a very literal and individual interpretation (ijtihad) of the Qur'an and Hadith. In this they resemble the Salafis of the Middle East and have often been called Wahhabis by their opponents. They have close links to Saudi Arabia and have a reputation for being extremely combative in debate, eloquent, and well-educated. A well known Ahl-i-Hadis adherent is Zakir Naik. They are a small minority in Pakistan, making up just a few percent of the Sunni population, but due to their high literacy and education tend to have a public presence disproportionate to their numbers. Members have been highly active in anti-Shi'i activism especially.
Finally we have the Ahmadis, who emerged from the same reformist milieu as the three previously mentioned groups. They believe that certain Islamic eschatological predictions were fulfilled in the figure of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, a Punjabi preacher of the late 19th century. Mirza Ghulam himself was a highly combative and some might say antagonistic preacher. In actual doctrine and legal reasoning there is apparently not much that distinguishes Ahmadis from Sunnis. However they oppose armed jihad whatever its justification, and obviously their view of Mirza Ghulam has provoked the condemnation of the other movements. They are also extremely missionary-minded which is undoubtedly another reason they draw such ire from others who find such activities threatening.
A word on Sufism - Sufism isn't a particular school or sect, it's a way of approaching Islam that stresses that man may come to know/understand God and his nature through means other than the texts and law. These means can be anything from silent, private contemplative meditation to full-on communal ceremonies involving music and dancing. This does not mean that Sufis were/are indifferent to the texts and law, far from it - the greatest legal minds in Islamic history tended also to be Sufi masters. Sufis have tended to organise around particular brotherhoods (turuq) associated with some distant founding father of the Middle Ages. In Pakistan the largest turuq would be the Chishtiyya, Qadiriyya, and I think the Naqshbandiyya. Of the groups mentioned above, only the Ahl-i-Hadis are opposed to Sufism as a matter of principle, though Deobandis oppose the communal Sufi devotions of the shrines. I don't know the Ahmadi stance on Sufism.
It should be said that there will be many, many Pakistani Muslims who reject being labelled as belonging to one or the other of these movements, and just see themselves as Muslim, or perhaps just as Sunni or Shi'a. While these identities have become hardened and politicised in modern times, they are still rather fluid in practice, and probably carry a good deal less weight in everyday life than many would assume. Also, although most of these movements have established political parties in their name, adherence to one needn't necessarily imply anything about one's politics. I haven't mentioned the Jamaat-i-Islami Islamist party, founded by Mawdudi, since it basically functions as a political party which in theory aims to transcend sectarianism and unite South Asians Muslims for political purposes, rather than a particular school or sect; in this it resembles the Muslim Brotherhood of the Middle East.
Starting with the Shi'a, in Pakistan they are overwhelmingly Twelvers, the dominant form of Shi'ism today. They live scattered across Sindh and the Punjab, and in certain rural areas such as the Jhang region of the Punjab they have tended to belong to the more dominant landowning class, which explains in part why this region has experienced much anti-Shi'i sectarian violence. The Bhuttos of Sindh would be the most famous example of a successful Shi'i landowning family. There are also small, isolated communities in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan, some of whom are Afghan Hazaras. And there is a concentrated Twelver Shi'i population in Balistan in the north.
In the far north of Gilgit-Baltistan there is an Isma'ili Shi'i majority, and a small Isma'ili population in Karachi. Jinnah himself was descended from an Isma'ili Khoja family, although there is some controversy over his religious beliefs at the time of his death. While Twelvers believe the line of Shi'i Imams ended with the disappearance and occultation of the Twelfth Imam, Isma'ilis believe the line continues today in the figure of the Aga Khan, to whom they are devoted. And there are lots of other doctrinal and ritualistic difference which have evolved between them over the centuries.
The vast majority of Pakistan's Sunnis adhere in theory to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence which has historically held sway in Turkey, Central Asia, South Asia, and parts of the Middle East. However the actual practice of most South Asian Sunnis has tended to be centred around parochial shrines associated with revered Sufi figures rather than strict adherence to the sharia, and there has always been a general critique aimed at the rituals conducted at these shrines by the more sharia-minded. In the nineteenth century, due to a range of circumstances, this critique produced three competing reform movements which aimed to re-orient South Asian Muslim practice towards the sharia, the Qur'an and Hadith, and which have come to dominate Sunni Islam in Pakistan today.
The movement named for its founder Ahmad Riza Khan Barelvi sought to retain and incorporate many of the practices associated with the shrines into a broader sharia-minded program of reform. It allowed for the continued use of such shrines and the figures associated with them as a means of intercession with God and his prophet, and held a special reverence for Muhammad, who Ahmad Riza Khan believed embodied God's light in his person. This does not mean, however, that Ahmad Riza Khan was somehow less committed to the sharia - his movement was first and foremost dedicated to stressing devotion to Islamic law. Today the term 'Barelvi' has been applied to the majority of Pakistan's Sunnis. However it has become a kind of catch-all term for all Sufi-oriented practices and Muslims in Pakistan, whether or not they consciously adhere to Ahmad Riza Khan's teachings, so 'Barelvi' can mean different things to different people - it is most often employed to denote the 'popular' Islam of the masses.
The second movement was centred around the school of sharia established in Deoband in northern India in the 1860s. Ulama who taught there opposed the practice of shrine visitation and devotion to Sufi figures altogether, though they weren't necessarily opposed to private, individual Sufism. Also opposed to Shi'ism, they stressed strict adherence to the sharia in its Hanafi guise, and established places of learning all across South Asia. Today Deoband is said to be rivalled only by Cairo's al-Azhar as a prestigious place of Sunni learning. Deobandis are said to account for something like 20% of Pakistan's Sunnis, but I've no idea how these figures are estimated. Most madrasahs in Pakistan are Deobandi.
Barelvis and Deobandis have tended to be highly antagonistic toward each other. High ranking figures on each side have in the past labelled their opponents non-Muslim, and the two movements are generally locked in a polemical battle for the hearts and souls of Pakistani Sunnis.
The third movement - the Ahl al-Hadith or Ahl-i-Hadis in South Asian parlance - placed itself outside the Hanafi fold by rejecting all the Sunni schools of jurisprudence and stressing the need for a very literal and individual interpretation (ijtihad) of the Qur'an and Hadith. In this they resemble the Salafis of the Middle East and have often been called Wahhabis by their opponents. They have close links to Saudi Arabia and have a reputation for being extremely combative in debate, eloquent, and well-educated. A well known Ahl-i-Hadis adherent is Zakir Naik. They are a small minority in Pakistan, making up just a few percent of the Sunni population, but due to their high literacy and education tend to have a public presence disproportionate to their numbers. Members have been highly active in anti-Shi'i activism especially.
Finally we have the Ahmadis, who emerged from the same reformist milieu as the three previously mentioned groups. They believe that certain Islamic eschatological predictions were fulfilled in the figure of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, a Punjabi preacher of the late 19th century. Mirza Ghulam himself was a highly combative and some might say antagonistic preacher. In actual doctrine and legal reasoning there is apparently not much that distinguishes Ahmadis from Sunnis. However they oppose armed jihad whatever its justification, and obviously their view of Mirza Ghulam has provoked the condemnation of the other movements. They are also extremely missionary-minded which is undoubtedly another reason they draw such ire from others who find such activities threatening.
A word on Sufism - Sufism isn't a particular school or sect, it's a way of approaching Islam that stresses that man may come to know/understand God and his nature through means other than the texts and law. These means can be anything from silent, private contemplative meditation to full-on communal ceremonies involving music and dancing. This does not mean that Sufis were/are indifferent to the texts and law, far from it - the greatest legal minds in Islamic history tended also to be Sufi masters. Sufis have tended to organise around particular brotherhoods (turuq) associated with some distant founding father of the Middle Ages. In Pakistan the largest turuq would be the Chishtiyya, Qadiriyya, and I think the Naqshbandiyya. Of the groups mentioned above, only the Ahl-i-Hadis are opposed to Sufism as a matter of principle, though Deobandis oppose the communal Sufi devotions of the shrines. I don't know the Ahmadi stance on Sufism.
It should be said that there will be many, many Pakistani Muslims who reject being labelled as belonging to one or the other of these movements, and just see themselves as Muslim, or perhaps just as Sunni or Shi'a. While these identities have become hardened and politicised in modern times, they are still rather fluid in practice, and probably carry a good deal less weight in everyday life than many would assume. Also, although most of these movements have established political parties in their name, adherence to one needn't necessarily imply anything about one's politics. I haven't mentioned the Jamaat-i-Islami Islamist party, founded by Mawdudi, since it basically functions as a political party which in theory aims to transcend sectarianism and unite South Asians Muslims for political purposes, rather than a particular school or sect; in this it resembles the Muslim Brotherhood of the Middle East.
Last edited:
Brilliantly put.