What does being a liberal mean?

[Joe Shearer]

It is because of the terminology muslims are not willing to accept but the ideas are in fact driven from Islam. We can list many social rules Islam established which gives the right for everyone. Countries who claim to be democratic are using the same system muslims used to have centuries ago.

Who did come with the system of election for instance? It was Islam. We can go on and on pulling examples to prove the point.

Add one more - British (English) Common Law is thought to have links with Sharia!!! At the time the Normans conquered England, Sicily was under yet another Norman dynasty, the d'Hautevilles. Sicily had a certain degree of Islamic influence; the King's Guard consisted of Muslim soldiers who were felt to be unbribable and unbeatable. It also had a very high level of governance; by the late 11th century, it was getting to be known around Europe. It was not surprising then for the Norman dynasty that had come to rule Britain to reach out to their Norman fellow-countrymen to find out how things should be done. Following this thread of thought is interesting for those whose interests lie in the history of jurisprudence.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir what does your history knowledge and information tell you about the event ......... or the biggest reason of difference / cause of different beliefs between Shiite and Sunnis?

I know nothing about the doctrinal differences that have grown up around the two sects, and depend entirely on my friend, Usman Sadozai, to guide me, taking his help to form a starting point. About the politics, I have an understanding that after being overlooked thrice by the Shura, when Ali was elevated to the Caliphate, a section of Muslims held that he was the first 'proper' Caliph; they did not recognise the other three Rashidun as genuine.

In general, leaving aside doctrine, it seems that Sunnis prefer an elected, or consensual Caliph; Shias prefer bloodline.

 

[I.R.A]

I have an understanding that after being overlooked thrice by the Shura, when Ali was elevated to the Caliphate, a section of Muslims held that he was the first 'proper' Caliph; they did not recognise the other three Rashidun as genuine.

In general, leaving aside doctrine, it seems that Sunnis prefer an elected, or consensual Caliph; Shias prefer bloodline.

Sir historic political differences (in fact fairy tales) have been converted into doctrinal differences. I have read good knowledgeable books exposing works of people like Tabri (the main source of Islamic history and narrations) and their true intentions.

Its a very long debate starting from how and what happened when Ali (May ALLAH be pleased with him) became a Caliph and ends at what actually happened in Karballa with Hussain (son of Ali). Regardless of what fairy tales wish to tell people, it remains a fact that Ameer Yazeed's nomination for Caliphate (during his father's life) and later becoming a Caliph was the biggest democratic event in whole of Islamic history. Would Muslims of today be liberal enough to accept this fact? Would they stop abusing the man for sins that he never committed? Will they be willing to look at the evidence (that Hussain's son Zain Ul Abideen was loyal supporter of Ameer Yazeed through out his Caliphate) which negates all the fairy tales they read in their books? Will they with open mind accept that during Ali's Caliphate Islam's expansion didn't happen and he was occupied with infighting?

This is what went wrong and Islam got stasis ........ too much faith in fairy tales and rejection of the truth. Result division which none of the earlier Muslims including Ali, Muawia, Yazeed and Hussain wished nor wanted.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir historic political differences (in fact fairy tales) have been converted into doctrinal differences. I have read good knowledgeable books exposing works of people like Tabri (the main source of Islamic history and narrations) and their true intentions.

Its a very long debate starting from how and what happened when Ali (May ALLAH be pleased with him) became a Caliph and ends at what actually happened in Karballa with Hussain (son of Ali). Regardless of what fairy tales wish to tell people, it remains a fact that Ameer Yazeed's nomination for Caliphate (during his father's life) and later becoming a Caliph was the biggest democratic event in whole of Islamic history. Would Muslims of today be liberal enough to accept this fact? Would they stop abusing the man for sins that he never committed? Will they be willing to look at the evidence (that Hussain's son Zain Ul Abideen was loyal supporter of Ameer Yazeed through out his Caliphate) which negates all the fairy tales they read in their books? Will they with open mind accept that during Ali's Caliphate Islam's expansion didn't happen and he was occupied with infighting?

This is what went wrong and Islam got stasis ........ too much faith in fairy tales and rejection of the truth. Result division which none of the earlier Muslims including Ali, Muawia, Yazeed and Hussain wished nor wanted.

I will definitely bear these pointers in mind when I dig deeper into Arabic history. Thanks for the inputs.

 

[Hithchiker]

Sir historic political differences (in fact fairy tales) have been converted into doctrinal differences. I have read good knowledgeable books exposing works of people like Tabri (the main source of Islamic history and narrations) and their true intentions.

Its a very long debate starting from how and what happened when Ali (May ALLAH be pleased with him) became a Caliph and ends at what actually happened in Karballa with Hussain (son of Ali). Regardless of what fairy tales wish to tell people, it remains a fact that Ameer Yazeed's nomination for Caliphate (during his father's life) and later becoming a Caliph was the biggest democratic event in whole of Islamic history. Would Muslims of today be liberal enough to accept this fact? Would they stop abusing the man for sins that he never committed? Will they be willing to look at the evidence (that Hussain's son Zain Ul Abideen was loyal supporter of Ameer Yazeed through out his Caliphate) which negates all the fairy tales they read in their books? Will they with open mind accept that during Ali's Caliphate Islam's expansion didn't happen and he was occupied with infighting?

This is what went wrong and Islam got stasis ........ too much faith in fairy tales and rejection of the truth. Result division which none of the earlier Muslims including Ali, Muawia, Yazeed and Hussain wished nor wanted.

No, Imam Zain ul Abideen choose to stay in Medina and focus on scholarly work..He never showed or given BAIT to yazed..
SIN ? was it not yazeed or his army who martyred Hussain ? Yazeed started a dynasty it was not a caliphate ..Was not Zian ul abedin poisoned by Ummayd ruler Al walid ?Last but not least how can one forget the event of Harrara...

 

[Hithchiker]

liberalism by definition it has two core concepts on which it is founded equality and liberty .all the other ideas like tolerance,equal rights for every race,gender equality,freedom of speech,freedom of religion and even democracy stems from these two core believes.the idea behind liberalism is it is not static and it continues to evolve with the time, morals and new issues but for one to be called a liberal he has to believe in these two core concepts.

liberals were always the most hated bunch of society throughout the history and many of were even send to gallows and lost their most valuable possession.why?because they were the first one to challenge the deeply rooted social norms or religious believes of their societies.the believes like the flat earth or geocentrism.But had they or no one else challenged such believes in their time we would still be living in medieval era.No matter how much they were hated in their time It was always the liberals who challenged and changed their societies who brought forward the new ideas like democracy in front of people living in a monarchy or gender equality in a patriarchal culture.conservatives of that time hated them but now the whole world is reaping the benefit of the forward thinking of few minds.

while west now has the balanced amount of liberals and conservatives in their populace who can openly and easily challenge each others ideas .same can't be said about Pakistan or many other Muslim countries.here the conservative population is more dominant who consider liberals and their believes a threat to their society.which is halting the growth of these countries.

when ever someone talk about oppressed groups, gender equality blasphemy law or minority rights whole society instantly assumes that he is here to spread vulgarity in their women and destroy foundation of Islam etc and instead of engaging him in a proper debate people become defensive and start hurling personal insults or fatwa e kuffar at the guy.why is it like that when even Islam it self was the most liberal religion(also the reason of it spreading so quickly) of the period which gave the minority and women the rights which were unheard at the time and promoted a healthy debate culture.answer is because these guys or the guy teaching them islam has nothing to do with Islam all they want to do retain as much power over the other groups as they can.they don't care if it is immoral or even unislamic. same was the case with the Church they didn't put Galileo to house arrest for life just because he was disagreeing with them he was imprisoned because he openly challenged the church's power by repeatedly publishing his work on heliocentrism while he was told to abandon the opinion,inciting people to think against the geocentric teaching of the church and ridiculing a pope in the process.

so when ever these imam masjid and so called Islamic scholars like fazul rehman feel threaten by an idea which can loosen their grip on the masses. they use their fatwa power to turn the people against the idea.even if it is totally in accordance to Islam i.e tolerating other sects and minorities or women working outside the house .

ever increasing terrorism and radicalization of Muslim countries can only be ended if they adopt to the tolerant and liberal values of modern word .other wise they will be left behind isolated and devastated.its time we move forward and break these chains of century old mindset.

@I.R.A @Joe Shearer @H!thchiker

Friend, there is no doubt religious extremism or misinterpretation of religion by certain fraction of group has done a great deal of damage to country..Lets image all this is gone and society (though i assume we as a society are still liberal) turned to liberalism , will the power shortage would be finished ? or charter plan from Switzerland will fly back with looted money ?or would we expect that the political malaise and the dirt-poor governance would improve as a result of being liberal ?Will the Pakistan army, freed from fighting the bad guys and go back to the barracks?Every effect has a cause, and the responsibility for the creation of the bigots falls squarely on those who call themselves secular and liberal.With the exception of General Ziaul Haq all other rulers were liberal and secular. From Mr. Jinnah to Gen. Ayub Khan, from Mr. Z. A. Bhutto to Gen. Pervez Musharraf and from Mr. Nawaz Sharif to Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, they were far from being religious or extremist or we can say fall in the category of being liberal.
The only true liberal are Pakistani people not the "designated one" who have never voted or bestowed position of power to nut cracks.
Its not being tolerant and liberal values the real curse is poverty .With it people will prone to radical ideas and every other disease..
The issue with Pakistani liberals are they tend to avoid the basic core of liberalism..They are the other extreme with every one being opposite to them is extremest..Liberalism simply means is peaceful co-existence in society even if you disagree with each other without enforcing there beliefs..
Problem with Pakistani liberals are they are not true liberal...For them Attack on lal masjid is justified but killing of anti state baluch leaders are against human rights..This is the dichotomy they have...Liberals are tend to be viewed as anti-state in general perception because of there behavior..Anything associated with religion is not tolerated among them..For them fashion shows are OK but if somebody wear burqa by own will they will declared it oppression and would demand ban..Is this liberalism ?
Pakistani liberals are not true liberals in fact..
People of Pakistan are in fact caught between these two extreme religious extremist and liberal extremist

 

[Hellhound]

Legislation is done to control people ............ and not to afford them liberty. Hence again I see mixing up of liberalism and legislation. Liberalism in my view has nothing to do with legislation, it doesn't make any sense for a law to be liberal for everyone, there always would be people who would twist and break law or not like it.

Selective liberalism is no liberalism ....................? So basically what you are advocating is .......... controlled liberalism? So how is it true liberalism? Can we even achieve true liberalism? If we cannot then what is the point of wishing for liberalism?

mate those laws are not there to make everyone happy or for the controlled liberalism but are there to ensure that you enjoy your views and freedom as long as they don't impact the freedom of others. so they can enjoy theirs too. as long you don't force your way of life on others you are free to do whatever you want.

Legislation is done to control people ............ and not to afford them liberty

what would you call gay marriage laws then they are their to provide liberty not to control people.

PS: A clarification ........ I hope you understand that this is all a debate and it has nothing to do with liking or disliking of anyone's thoughts, concepts, beliefs, ideas etc etc.

hahahaha don't worry brother i am an ENTP so it's my psyche to play with with new ideas and debate on them just for the fun of it.

 

[Hellhound]

not as bizarre as @Hellhound feared it might sound.

hahaha cutting one's throat was figure of speech. but sir i have floated the idea before on pakistan defence forum and many pakistanis were not so happy to see the word liberal and prophet in the same sentence.

 

[Hellhound]

Friend, there is no doubt religious extremism or misinterpretation of religion by certain fraction of group has done a great deal of damage to country..Lets image all this is gone and society (though i assume we as a society are still liberal) turned to liberalism , will the power shortage would be finished ? or charter plan from Switzerland will fly back with looted money ?or would we expect that the political malaise and the dirt-poor governance would improve as a result of being liberal ?Will the Pakistan army, freed from fighting the bad guys and go back to the barracks?Every effect has a cause, and the responsibility for the creation of the bigots falls squarely on those who call themselves secular and liberal.With the exception of General Ziaul Haq all other rulers were liberal and secular. From Mr. Jinnah to Gen. Ayub Khan, from Mr. Z. A. Bhutto to Gen. Pervez Musharraf and from Mr. Nawaz Sharif to Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, they were far from being religious or extremist or we can say fall in the category of being liberal.
The only true liberal are Pakistani people not the "designated one" who have never voted or bestowed position of power to nut cracks.
Its not being tolerant and liberal values the real curse is poverty .With it people will prone to radical ideas and every other disease..
The issue with Pakistani liberals are they tend to avoid the basic core of liberalism..They are the other extreme with every one being opposite to them is extremest..Liberalism simply means is peaceful co-existence in society even if you disagree with each other without enforcing there beliefs..
Problem with Pakistani liberals are they are not true liberal...For them Attack on lal masjid is justified but killing of anti state baluch leaders are against human rights..This is the dichotomy they have...Liberals are tend to be viewed as anti-state in general perception because of there behavior..Anything associated with religion is not tolerated among them..For them fashion shows are OK but if somebody wear burqa by own will they will declared it oppression and would demand ban..Is this liberalism ?
Pakistani liberals are not true liberals in fact..
People of Pakistan are in fact caught between these two extreme religious extremist and liberal extremist

no bro nothing of above things will happen even if above scenario happen tomorrow the mess is too big to be cleared in few months or even years but with extremism gone and people with this newfound capacity to think for themself unlike the current brain dead masses i am sure we will emerge as more ethical and moral nation than we are today and this will help our society to become more just, law abiding and less intrusive.they will demand more transparency and controls in institutions to keep them in check and once that happen people will force the government to do whatever it can to bring the stolen money back.

about those pakistani liberals that you are talking about i don't call them liberals but hypocrite. but even i don't think anyone rivals the extremism of TTP in pakistan and compering and naming these hypocrites equals to TTP is unjust in my opinion.

 

[Joe Shearer]

liberalism by definition it has two core concepts on which it is founded equality and liberty .all the other ideas like tolerance,equal rights for every race,gender equality,freedom of speech,freedom of religion and even democracy stems from these two core believes.the idea behind liberalism is it is not static and it continues to evolve with the time, morals and new issues but for one to be called a liberal he has to believe in these two core concepts.

liberals were always the most hated bunch of society throughout the history and many of were even send to gallows and lost their most valuable possession.why?because they were the first one to challenge the deeply rooted social norms or religious believes of their societies.the believes like the flat earth or geocentrism.But had they or no one else challenged such believes in their time we would still be living in medieval era.No matter how much they were hated in their time It was always the liberals who challenged and changed their societies who brought forward the new ideas like democracy in front of people living in a monarchy or gender equality in a patriarchal culture.conservatives of that time hated them but now the whole world is reaping the benefit of the forward thinking of few minds.

while west now has the balanced amount of liberals and conservatives in their populace who can openly and easily challenge each others ideas .same can't be said about Pakistan or many other Muslim countries.here the conservative population is more dominant who consider liberals and their believes a threat to their society.which is halting the growth of these countries.

when ever someone talk about oppressed groups, gender equality blasphemy law or minority rights whole society instantly assumes that he is here to spread vulgarity in their women and destroy foundation of Islam etc and instead of engaging him in a proper debate people become defensive and start hurling personal insults or fatwa e kuffar at the guy.why is it like that when even Islam it self was the most liberal religion(also the reason of it spreading so quickly) of the period which gave the minority and women the rights which were unheard at the time and promoted a healthy debate culture.answer is because these guys or the guy teaching them islam has nothing to do with Islam all they want to do retain as much power over the other groups as they can.they don't care if it is immoral or even unislamic. same was the case with the Church they didn't put Galileo to house arrest for life just because he was disagreeing with them he was imprisoned because he openly challenged the church's power by repeatedly publishing his work on heliocentrism while he was told to abandon the opinion,inciting people to think against the geocentric teaching of the church and ridiculing a pope in the process.

so when ever these imam masjid and so called Islamic scholars like fazul rehman feel threaten by an idea which can loosen their grip on the masses. they use their fatwa power to turn the people against the idea.even if it is totally in accordance to Islam i.e tolerating other sects and minorities or women working outside the house .

ever increasing terrorism and radicalization of Muslim countries can only be ended if they adopt to the tolerant and liberal values of modern word .other wise they will be left behind isolated and devastated.its time we move forward and break these chains of century old mindset.

@I.R.A @Joe Shearer @H!thchiker

If I may so without diverting the debate, if you replace Muslim by Hindu everywhere above, and if you place Hindustan (or Hindostan, the spelling of which is less misleading and reminds us that we are speaking of the land of Hind, not the land of Hindus) everywhere that you have said Pakistan, matters remain precisely the same.

It is social and religious conservatives, or rather, regressives, who are the dangerous people, and it is in the opposition to regressive values and thoughts and actions that liberalism is most clearly visible. Can liberalism be defined in one or two words or phrases? Equality and liberty have been suggested, and these are powerful, but conservatives can use these precise two desiderata without diluting their own social programme. I put it to you that a society captivated by religion can be the most egalitarian of societies; religion, sometimes, has that result. The most extreme religious doctrines do, in fact, conform to this egalitarian ideal; it can always be argued that reported failures of egalitarianism are due to individual failure of individual citizens or groups of citizens who have misunderstood that religion and its teaching and are hell-bent on imposing that apparent inequality on others.

Would liberty solve the problem, then? Not if we take our law courts' judgements into account, as a least common denominator of assessment. It has been argued, and argued successfully, that there can be no absolute liberty, that liberty has to be combined with restraint in areas where one individual's liberty clashes violently with another person's. There has to be liberty subject to preservation of liberty of all others. This, again, is instinctively alien to the most convincing spokespersons of liberal values, and has to be understood and upheld with tact and without imposition of the attribute in a blind manner.

We need to understand the role of liberalism in the context of the menaces facing both equality and liberty as delicately and with the maximum possible sympathy towards the views of other individuals, which, to that person, may be important for one reason or the other.

 

[Joe Shearer]

hahaha cutting one's throat was figure of speech. but sir i have floated the idea before on pakistan defence forum and many pakistanis were not so happy to see the word liberal and prophet in the same sentence.

True. I believe that is because religion itself and liberalism are not easily reconciled.

Religion is a system of faith, not a system of values.

 

[Hellhound]

Would liberty solve the problem, then? Not if we take our law courts' judgements into account, as a least common denominator of assessment. It has been argued, and argued successfully, that there can be no absolute liberty, that liberty has to be combined with restraint in areas where one individual's liberty clashes violently with another person's. There has to be liberty subject to preservation of liberty of all others. This, again, is instinctively alien to the most convincing spokespersons of liberal values, and has to be understood and upheld with tact and without imposition of the attribute in a blind manner.

can't agree with you more

mate those laws are not there to make everyone happy or for the controlled liberalism but are there to ensure that you enjoy your views and freedom as long as they don't impact the freedom of others. so they can enjoy theirs too. as long you don't force your way of life on others you are free to do whatever you want.

 

[I.R.A]

No, Imam Zain ul Abideen choose to stay in Medina and focus on scholarly work..He never showed or given BAIT to yazed..
SIN ? was it not yazeed or his army who martyred Hussain ? Yazeed started a dynasty it was not a caliphate ..Was not Zian ul abedin poisoned by Ummayd ruler Al walid ?Last but not least how can one forget the event of Harrara...

Bro Ameer Yazeed was Commander in Chief of forces that marched to Qastantunia (Constantinople), and renowned Companions like Ayub Ansari fought under his command (You should also read his announcement when he buried Ayub Ansari right next to enemy's castle wall). The soldiers under his command also included Hazrat Hussain. Which means they were all saying their prayers under Ameer Yazeed's Imamat. Ameer Yazeer also lead Hajj as an Ameer three times and these people followed him.

You should research about the relations Umayyad's and Hashmites had, the intermarriages and how those marriages kept happening even after Karbala. Some very close female members of both Hussain and Yazeed were married into one and others family and those marriages continued after Karbala. And to inform you the people who got killed at Karbala included three nephews of Ameer Yazeed.

And you should ask questions like how come in presence of Renowned companions of Muhammad Peace be upon him, Hazrat Hussain managed only his some (not all) close family members to follow him .......... do you expect the companions who were present in Ghazwa e Badar and many other Ghazwat to back out from supporting grandson of Muhammad Peace be upon him from a righteous cause?

Fairy tales are just fairy tales ............. be liberal enough to accept the truth no matter how hard it may seem.

mate those laws are not there to make everyone happy or for the controlled liberalism but are there to ensure that you enjoy your views and freedom as long as they don't impact the freedom of others. so they can enjoy theirs too. as long you don't force your way of life on others you are free to do whatever you want.

Bro here is what I think of liberalism

• Liberalism is being truthful ............ no matter what it doesn't get distorted nor it supports distortion
• Liberalism stands unique against all the opposition........... doesn't follow preconceived false beliefs and it is logical and honest enough to be respected by its opponents.
• Liberalism isn't dictation, it focuses its energy on free consent and puts results and consequences of combined action clear and transparent in front of its audience
• Being liberal is being careful ......... you are not liberal because you think what I believe is better, you are liberal because you want betterment of the society
• Liberalism is not borrowed ideas and concepts, its genuine in its nature and according to its people and their surroundings
• Liberalism is open to correction ......... even it comes from the opposition camp
• Liberalism is not liberalism if doesn't have a vision ........ it is practical, calculated and weighed
• Liberalism is natural and not alien illogical ritual or practice.
• Liberalism won't mind surrendering if it feels its surrender would bring the change it wanted.

Edit 1: Being liberal is not what you wish to wear and how you want to look like .......... it is how you think and perceive

Edit 2: Liberalism doesn't dictate it gets accepted.

Being liberal is difficult not because you are advocating Western ideas and culture but because you have a strict code of your own to follow and comply with. It takes a great deal of courage to accept and change.

what would you call gay marriage laws then they are their to provide liberty not to control people.

Laws needed to straighten out already straight people ...... so they don't object to anything unnatural happening in their straight society.

That is what I think of gay marriage laws or their prides or their support or whatever.

Religion is a system of faith, not a system of values.

Debatable. e.g. There exists a Deen that focuses on character building of free liberal humans. If you are truthful you are following God, if you are honest you are following God, if you care for other humans you are following God ........... the accountability in hereafter isn't only to check if you believed the God ......... it is every action and thought of your life.