Assalam Alaikum,

Though I do not agree with your main reasonung to justify Enlighten Moderation, but some of the things were very put in your post.

I think there is been a great confusion among ordinary people as to how they should interpret this term of Enlighten Moderation, some interpret it as socio-cultural dilemma, and some interpret it in strictly religious sense. I would argue it is both, and should be interpreted in socio-cultural-religious sense. Since this was the statement made by a certain individual on the international forum describing his vision for International relations of Islamic states with the west, than I find it to be inconsistent.

In the context of which it was first introduced, it was inconsistent, because west is not criticizing any particular nation or state for their own political shortcomings with Muslims, but blaming the religion for terrorism and such. Without acknowledging that this very religion was used as a tool to fight against communism, is now been criticized for being too FANATIC. So it does not matter as to how the Islamic states operate in the future with GORA SAHAB, they will still reject the religion as being fanatic.

I connect this issue to the broader sense of International relations, because the main conflict of the Cold war was the opposing man made ideologies of both sides that they fought over for half a century. But in this case, the ideology becomes an individual’s faith, therefore any idea to change ideology can be rejected at once because it contradicts the faith, and everything that is derived from it should be condemned.

This was my view on Enlighten Moderation with regards to International Relations, and if we were to analyze it as a social integration value point of view and such, than I would still very much argue that it negates that notion as well. Keeping in mind that Islam teaches us the rational approach within its boundary of teachings, but one should still bare in mind that religion and rational religious approach and such can only be interpreted by individuals who have authority on theology, by this I mean scholars. Therefore, any religious rational approach created by an average Joe, whose subject of interest is Military History should be rejected, similar to the example of a math teacher who adds 2+2=5.

I see no difference between western concepts of secularism and enlighten moderation, because both preach the same things, so anybody who is the byproduct of that will only preach his version of Islam, which will consequently be perverted and polluted ideology.

In the light of the above argument, I would encourage people to try to follow religion, because Islam is based on the principal of MAYANA RAWI, and teaches cohesion, brotherhood and integration and all that we lack so much as society. It is solely our fault for not following the religion properly, therefore religion cannot be blamed. Besides, this so called Enlighten Moderation is nothing but an extended version of secularism, that negates the ideology to which our country was build upon.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _
When I say that this ideology is been injected to us through media, let me than give you a brief example on that as well:

Even though the reaction of media outlets in the wake of earthquake was that of being sad and sorrow, but they reflected their sorrow in a very different way. When they integrated the sentimental songs from the movies along with HAMD and NAATS, and people criticizing them were shut, by their justification of playing sufiana kalaam and such, and people objecting it were declared to be narrow minded. Trust me the stuff that was played was nowhere near sufiana kalam as well a lot of the times.

I am specifically taking about the FM 103 channel that I get here via internet, and believe these channels have wide number of audience in urban areas of Pakistan. But that is just one example.


Thanks.