There are two forces at work in the Muslim world; a part of the population adheres to Western liberal beliefs and this part has actually increased over the last century, but this fact is masked by the corresponding rise in extremism in Muslim societies (extremism being a basically reactionary force). The natural flow of events dictates that the two sides will eventually come to a head and a vicious, bloody struggle for supremacy will follow. Very interestingly, I believe that we have already experienced one of these struggles i.e. the events in Pakistan in the 70s and 80s. Consider how the 60s were a time of progressive change and then reactionary forces began to gain momentum culminating in a mini-reversal during the 80s. I'd term this a "mini-struggle" and I believe that in the future too, we will only witness mini-reversals and mini-struggles and no large scale violence. In spite of these mini-reversals, the Muslim world will continue to move towards liberalism.

However, there is no doubt that this change in the Muslim world will be very slow and made even slower by the government's need to seek support from groups that have an interest in maintaining the status quo, as you pointed out. I don't think any of us will live to see major changes in the Muslim world (unless of course there are any unexpected, world changing events on the scale of the world wars).


I'll argue that although the extreme individualism of the West is bad, the extreme collectivism of Muslims and especially Pakistanis is worse because it fosters extreme resentment of others. This may sound like a paradox, but it isn't, think about it, collectivism always promotes an attitude of in-group cooperation and out-group hostility. The out-group hostility element is needed because without that survival would be difficult and as you pointed out, a lot of things depend on the ability to survive. Therefore, in a collectivist society a man may be very sympathetic to his own family, but care nothing for others. And if you look at Pakistan, this is EXACTLY what happens! So even though Pakistan and India are collectivist societies, you would find that Europeans are far more humane and helpful than either. I'd say that this attitude of out-group hostility is a major factor in the continued rivalry between Indian and Pakistan.

Of course, in theory, collectivism need not only extend up to the family or clan, but in practice, this is what happens. Also, extreme collectivism retards economic growth. In Western society, every individual is supposed to take care of him/herself, but in a collectivist society a large number of people may depend on one person. Again, this is exactly what happens in Pakistan. Women especially suffer the most in a collectivist society. Lets face it, a person can never be exactly free without economic independence and this is why I say all this talk of women rights is crap. These NGO campaigners can shout till they drop dead, but women will never be equal to men without financial independence. Not even men are equal to other men without paisa haha


USA is an exception. It may lead the liberal world by virtue of its economic and military strength, but by European standards, it is far from liberal. Its an irony really, the only nation that was founded on the principle of separation of church and state is now more religious than any other in the developed world (there are reasons for that, but that's another topic). But I think the important point is not the existence of a wealth gap, but its EXTENT. There will always be rich people and poor people and there will always be a considerable gap between them, but what matter is how big this gap is

In Pakistan, as in other Muslim countries, the state itself seems to be against liberalism, for reasons you've already mentioned (seeking support from groups against it) and this can only change in two ways, 1: A major catastrophic event or 2) effect of time and globalization that slowly makes Pakistanis more receptive to liberalism.

I don't think this is of any importance. The United States' colonial history is primarily English. Well, people from all over Europe migrated to the US, but the rich, white ruling class is primarily English, so I don't think its a big deal that they are related. BTW, I saw that chart that the little girl made (this was discovered by a 12 year old girl) and their relations are like 9th cousins thrice removed and stuff like that, not closely related at all. In fact, the girl found that she herself was Obama's 18th cousin :P

P.S. King John's decedents couldn't even save their land in Britain, let alone control events in the US.

And thanks for that post about Ibn Rushd, I'll study it in detail someday, had no knowledge about it.

I suppose we are in agreement over most of the things, you found the right words to describe it whereas I was just putting in thoughts which is why it was in 'raw form' perhaps . I would just add one thing, this struggle against extreme liberalism and extreme collectivism is nothing new in human history. It has always happened over history. For example some people would define 'pre Islamic Mecca' as a very liberal town and it gave rise to a very strong group . So I think we can relax and enjoy the show in Islamabad, nature will give it a shape

I think the biggest lesson for Pakistanis is only being true, honest and committed to the cause will put us on some path (of progress or whatever, at least a path ). Just following 'selfish genes', being jealous of others and trying to copy them is nonsensical

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

@ mhmmdkashif, hassan02

you are both agreeing that liberalism and collectivism are opposites, right? but wait, isn't maximizing social welfare a liberal phenomena? if it is then liberalism is not individualism but collectivism . again it is of because of misconstruing things. in the same vein utilitarianism you will say is an individual phenomena, right? but utilitarianism speaks of maximizing total utility by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. in fact ( as far as i know) liberalism and utilitarianism are the only political ideas which speak of redistributing wealth equitably.

so if I am right you have agreed on the wrong things. sorry for condescending .

also if all presidents of US are descendants of one person then what about the descendents of other royalty in US? why did not they get the opportunity of becoming presidents?

also if liberalism speaks of freedom then brother hassan why then do you think that US being 'more religious' is not right? If people are free to choose then they can choose anything they feel like. if they chose religion, what's the fuss.

apart from this discussion, if i speak of all phenomena being discussed on this forum i have reached the following conclusions:
1. the secularists say we need tolerance and education for secularism
2. the democratists also say that we need tolerance and education for democracy.
3. the Islamists also say that we need tolerance and education for an Islamic State.

conclusion then is that we don't need secularism or democracy or Islamism. we need tolerance and education. but because tolerance comes with knowledge, we need education, education, and education

regards

no they are not opposite, they make each other and they compete with each other for dominance, when one goes to extreme the other replaces it . Basically they are both parts of human nature. For example individuals make groups but groups become tyrannical and suppress individuals but humans can't live alone . So basically life goes through phases, liberalism is favored over collectivism when environment allows it and vice versa

Basically when a state is favoring liberalism it is trying to take care of individuals but when collective need arises then groups are favored . For example even an autocratic government can be liberal, you must have heard stories of 'good kings' hahaha

oops guess mixed up individualism with liberalism, although liberalism encourage individualism but liberalism, in easy words, would be like not stuck in dogma or something like that, it allows new thoughts and different approaches to come forward without fear of being labelled something like a heretic or ghaddar . That would be the easiest definition perhaps . liberal democracy arose out of 'let the people decide' approach in deadlock situations, for example. In old Muslim tradition it was perhaps 'let Allah decide' or something, so Muslims are still vary of liberalism

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.

mix up na karo na bhai jan. pehle hi dimagh ki kichri bani hui hai.

ok, so individualism/collectivism are social ideas? liberalism is a political idea? if muslims are vary of liberalism it is because they see (US) its results which they don't like i.e. old age houses, single mother, boy/girl friend culture. being the mulla here i resent all that too . i don't want that happening but i don't like extreme dogmatism either. we do need change. change is occurring but it is very superficial. like the boy/girl friend culture seeping through our colleges is not a true representative of change. it is not scientific method , which Ibn e Rushd recommended.

we are still where ghazali left us. but one part of the population is blindly following dogmatism and other is blindly following western liberalism . we haven't still taken any deliberate decision. we are still a very weak nation. we want things to become better but without making any efforts. "sarkari naukri abhi bhi top per hai". no one speaks of becoming physicists or mathematicians or great inventors or researchers. our horizon/vision is still very narrow. tankhwa khao, shadi karo, bachche peda karo. Allah Allah kher Salla.

as wealth is increasing in this country children are going to better schools. beaconhouse has become a franchise. but another part is living on streets. part of our future is living off garbage cans. as wealth gap increases crime rate increases because the needs of the poor are not met. the affluent part of the society then goes for harsher punishments. so it is discontentment for the poor and anxiety for the rich. this leads to higher psychological problems. in search of a cure some find the psychologist, some reach drugs and others go for religion.

aap ki banai hui kichri mein rang ghol raha hoon. so far so good?

No collectivism and individualism are opposites. It is a fact that liberalism. given its focus on guranteeing the rights of every individual will tend towards individualism, but that is another thing. What you are talking about, social welfare is different from traditional collectivism in the sense that the individuals in those systems are independent of each other. Scandinavian countries are the best example of the concept at this time and remember that in those countries, individuals are largely independent of each other

I don't say being more religious is wrong, but religious interference in politics is wrong and the US has reached that stage. In fact, Bush has gone on record saying that "God told me to invade Iraq, so I did" and there is no doubt that at least a portion of American politicians support Israel on the basis of religious prophecies. A country that believes its on a mission from God to invade other countries can hardly be described as liberal. That said, there is a VERY LARGE GAP between the younger generation of the US and its politicians. If we live that long, we are sure to witness massive changes in the US in the next 40-50 years!

Haha ya, but still it was a good discussion



Remember that selfish genes almost always give rise to non-selfish organisms because the organism's survival and therefore the gene's propagation often depends on cooperation

No collectivism and individualism are opposites. It is a fact that liberalism. given its focus on guranteeing the rights of every individual will tend towards individualism, but that is another thing. What you are talking about, social welfare is different from traditional collectivism in the sense that the individuals in those systems are independent of each other. Scandinavian countries are the best example of the concept at this time and remember that in those countries, individuals are largely independent of each other

individuals in traditional collectivism are independent or in liberalism?

I don't say being more religious is wrong, but religious interference in politics is wrong and the US has reached that stage. In fact, Bush has gone on record saying that "God told me to invade Iraq, so I did" and there is no doubt that at least a portion of American politicians support Israel on the basis of religious prophecies. A country that believes its on a mission from God to invade other countries can hardly be described as liberal. That said, there is a VERY LARGE GAP between the younger generation of the US and its politicians. If we live that long, we are sure to witness massive changes in the US in the next 40-50 years!

ahhh but the 'common' knowledge is that the US is free of religious interfernce, isn't it? and if the liberal can choose anything then the US chose God or were they not liberal from the very outset?

Depends on what standard you choose. By Pakistani standards the US would be totally secular, by French ones, not so much.

Bush or his other neo-con allies are fully entitled to believe whatever they want, they can do as many missions for God as they want to, but FORCING their beliefs on the entire nation and going to war is wrong. The moment you force your beliefs on someone, you can no longer be called a liberal.

is there an absolute secular country in the world? a country on which everyone agrees that it is a secular country?


also isn't US a democracy? isn't the president a true representative of the people? if not then was it CNN which chose the president for the people? if yes then can US be termed a true democracy? you might say yes but then will you please give an example of an absolute democracy?
regards

Groups are present in every democracy, usually called interest groups like trade unions, they would also protest and make demands of rights and have the capability to paralyze even the government of a superpower. But the purpose is seeking some interest, like a right or reduce excessive taxation. But here in Pakistan political groups come out for power and topple the government to get all people rid of tyranny. So it would mean there is high levels of 'selflessness' here in Pakistan and we would need some 'selfishness' .

__________________
The precondition for existence of a higher humanity is not the state, but the nation possessing the necessary ability.