Time for "Moderate" Muslims to Reclaim Islam.
 

Very few individuals in Pakistan are worthy of being called hero in the truest sense of the word, and I have to say that Jibran Nasir is one of them:

[url]https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152508103819599[/url]

If there really are any "moderate" Muslims in Pakistan, now is the time for them to reclaim their religion from mullahs and all other fathers of terror and bigotry in the name of religion. If this "silent majority" continues to be silent, then you can expect Islam being relegated to the same fate in future as Christianity is in the West today. Then you can wait till this terror knocks on your own door. Condemn it without any ifs and buts, without any vagueness and confusion, and prove with your actions that Islam really is a religion of peace.

The word "Moderate" creates confusion and its usage by Muslims will solidify it further.

There are either "Practicing", "Partially Practicing" or "Non-Practicing" Muslims only.

And how does that create confusion?

If you tell someone from the West, "I am a moderate Muslim"; that someone might as well take it that you have taken ingredients from Islam which are OK for the Westerners and that you have dropped certain elements NOT OK to them.

Examples:

1. It's okay to meet cordially with people not from your faith. (taken/adopted,OK)

2. Not okay to drink alcohol. (Dropped, NOT OK)

Just an example, no rebuttal of any sort, no hard feelings.

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.

[QUOTE=Gypsified;791151]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.[/QUOTE]

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.)

Can you please conclude your essay in 2-3 lines?

Curing the disease
 

Reclaiming a religion is not a thing for one has to take efforts.
Like fanatics, moderates are playing their parts, as being passive observers. There is no question of claiming it back, extremism is an expression of human nature, it can't be eliminated completely, but it can be modified.
More importantly it is easy to blame on a group for that henious crime which has been done in Peshawar. It was a cowardly act, but thing is that , what is required to stop that process which leads people to form such radical groups, there are hundred of factors are involved in it, but what we are doing , what our stat is doing ? We are not curing the disease, but efforts are just to treat it temporarily, and insurgence of such groups are inevitable, then whats the point to solve this probelm temprorily.
We are responsible , as a society we failed, as an individual we failed, even when are not actively participating in societal construction our passive behavior stand culprit because of its passive stand. It is time to wake up, we should cure the disease, not treat it temproraily.

Of course the state narrative will have to change and the state will have to stop exploiting religion for its grand designs. The state will have to deal with the sectarian and extremist outfits and lend its support to moderate voices in religion. But the point is, the state will remain unwilling to do that unless there is increasing amount of public pressure. I also understand that extremism will perhaps always remain so I'm not asking for its complete elimination, only countering it with a alternate narrative, which is almost nonexistent in today's Pakistan.

We can cure this disease at an individual level by countering Taliban apologists wherever we can. Both Gypsified and I have been doing it. This is our collective responsibility now. Taliban apologists try to obfuscate facts; they try to go back to history to confuse; and they try to shift the blame. They find ways to justify acts of terrorism. They might condemn an act of terror, however, they follow it with a 'BUT' and justify it. Once we change this Taliban-friendly mindset we will be able to uproot this disease from our society.