Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsified
So you're viewing it in a Western context. I'm not. By moderate Muslim I simply mean someone who believes that religious views should not be imposed on other with force, as opposed to an extremist who believes so.
In the context of the video, Abdul Aziz would be an extremist and someone not subscribing to his brand of religion (which is imposed on gunpoint) a moderate. Whether a person is a practicing or non-practicing Muslim is irrelevant to that.
|
However, I support this thought (which is controversial one of every time) if I see it simply but when I see the history, it leaves me perplexed a lot.
The things are quite much convoluted then the fact that someone wants to impose his views or his way to interpret the religion.
The term "Moderate Muslim" will be good for achieving short term purpose, but it will not help us in long run.
You can see what happened finally in Turkey, where Ataturk raised such voice but finally again the conservatives influenced a lot.
Because finally "Moderate Muslims" started to use Gun Point to enforce their views and gone to such extent that even hanged their prime minister.
However, I suppose everybody knows the basic history of Muslims, I will mention few again.
1. A thought that Every Muslim who commits a sin, becomes apostate and a person becoming apostate after accepting Islam, should be condemned to death.
Hazrat Uthman R.A was the first victim to get martyred under this belief.
All we are seeing is just a sequel, nothing else.
2. Then came a "Moderate" thought that a Muslim who commits the sin remains the Muslim but become a "Fasiq". Thus, making it forbidden to kill such a Muslim.
(Some people will think "Mu'tzala" as moderates, but you can see the history how they persecuted non-mu'tzala, so not me, but history refuted the fact)
And Now see "Ismailis" which every body knows are much prevalent in our agencies, now a days considered most peaceful, their history?
Now leaving this topic here.
Certain people are of the view that now, the terms like Shia,Sunni should be abolished. (Means to become Non-Conformist, without knowing the fact that "Non-Conformists" influenced sects inc. Sunni and Shia have proven more dangerous and this incident is also an example).
Leaving that topic here without further discussion.
Our Army who suffered in this incident more.(However, bloody civilians have lost more lives, but off-course it was an Army Public School) (Army officials usually call civilians as "bloody civilians")
Do we know who at first created (or precisely saying re-created or reinforced) them?
(And it had nothing to do with innocent army soldiers, who are just made to follow orders in best interest of nation, but from 1970's onward for best interest of some personal or non-national or anti-national motives.)
There are some hard facts as well.
Why we launched Syed Salahuddin and his army to fight in extreme conditions of Kargil War? Where was our so called Macho-ism at that time?
If P.M is of N-League? Who was the Steve Jobs of this league?
Then all at once, all our supports turned towards Uncle Sam after 9/11 and we took same people from their homes worth 1000 Dollar each and handed over to our uncle.
Leaving this topic here.
If we see the history of Shia Sunni Wars so we will see hitherto what is the basic reality. Are we really too much die hard followers of our own sects even? No.
If some Shia will kill my brother or father, I will join the Sunni faction (off-course not real) doing "Jihad" against them, and will start bombing Shias and a chain reaction will start. So, it's more a reactionary thing then mere a matter of "Sectarian Consciousness".
Even a man like Saladin was not free from this controversy.
To be a "Moderate Muslim" without knowing basics of our religion and with just a fabricated knowledge we inherited or attained by our school and college syllabus books, is an impossible thought (impossible for long run effects).
I don't know such learnt Moderate Muslims at least in my "Halqa-e-Ehbaab". People are either "Non-Serious" or "too much Serious" in this regard.
Mostly people avoid indulging in such things.
"Implementation by force" term can't be neglected at all. If some sect is determined based on his beliefs that he want to kill me/or any one(for my apostasy),I/or someone can't force him to change his thought for this and he will kill me. (A Mickey Mouse example but you can apply analogy from individual to state level).
(And especially where the term apostasy sometimes ranges from leaving the Salah to supporting the USA.)