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.

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
George Bernard Shaw.
Moderates are a minor faction of this country, and the policy making form the birth of the state revloved around pleasing the majority, instead of educating them.
In my view problem lies in the identity of state itself, why state has to be a declared Muslim state, its an obstacle itself, whats the problem with adopting a secular identity. Now if you are going to say that , state been established that Muslim notion , then we should keep in mind that in 1971 fall of Dhaka proved that, we failed to establish a state on that ideology.
State is not impartial , and its intervention has encouraged and patronized that radical behavior.
And why we are screaming now, it was inevitable.
It is definite that a chain of incidents will start soon and catch every one into it.

People like Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, Tarek Fatah,Mobarak Haider can also be counted among few of the rationalist scholars of our country. These people are among those who were forced to leave the country and their survival was under threat. If their version(the way they have interpreted) of Islam is to be implemented, then i hope that sooner or later we would be able to revive and reclaim Islam.

[QUOTE=Gypsified;791200]Can you please conclude your essay in 2-3 lines?[/QUOTE]

Well...I meant to say, it's not as simple as it looks.And it's not the first time in the history.People had done a lot of efforts.Presently, I don't see anyone truly devoted.

Whole account was on how these things developed,re-developed and diminished again.

And the "Moderate" Muslims (of their times) themselves were seen as Persecutors.

Additionally

I will quote General Hameed " War with Russia was the only war we won, with the help of our ISI and I am the only General to win the war in Pakistan". (4 days before the Peshawar massacre)
And "I trained them and provided them weapons"

Our Army is full of such people even now.

Had we won the War? I don't think so.Russia failed, USA failed and now our Army is failing.

The problem runs a lot deeper to the very sources of Islam i.e. Quran, Sunnah and Hadith and to the basic way of how we extract and deduce 'Islam' out of these sources. The moderates or say 'dunyadar' Muslims won't be able root out the problem. But their pressure will help if some conditions are met...

Mutation, in the new generation of a species, leads to the birth of organisms who differ in their features from each other. Only those organisms survive whose features are compatible with the environment, and the rest of them die. Darwin called this process Natural Selection.

The way natural selection of species happens in the biological world, Natural Selection of ideas happens in the social world. Only those ideas survive that are fit and relevant to the contemporary world. The Islamism and pan-Islamism got popularized in Muslims in a response to the shortcomings of capitalism/colonialism and socialism in the 20th century. Now that the side effects of the capitalism are being handled exceedingly well, the soil is fertile for the seeds of an 'individualistic' Islam.

The problem lies with those madrassahs and schools that are teaching only one fiqh or interpretation of religion/history and therefore, not giving any options to child to select from. We need to, if nothing else, shut down such institutions and replace them with institutions where relatively neutral teachers teach a neutral syllabus.

I think it would be more appropriate to call for unity of 'anti taliban Muslims' instead of 'moderate Muslims' because it seems 'moderate Muslim' is just a loose term which is used to define less aggressive religious people, but it doesn't prove that there is any 'moderate banner' or moderate Islamic ideology which they follow. Moderate Muslims have a cocktail of various thoughts which they absorb or learn through personal experience while living abroad and dealing with different people or modern education etc. For example if people who hold anti taliban stance are considered moderates then that would make a huge number but then the same number will start declining when dealing with other things like relaxing hijab or mixed gathering etc, you will start noticing the very same people who were anti taliban seem to be subscribed to some of the same beliefs as taliban. Thus there is no chance of any unity arising between moderate Muslims and the only people who take benefit of that is extremists :D.

[QUOTE=mhmmdkashif;791338]I think it would be more appropriate to call for unity of 'anti taliban Muslims' instead of 'moderate Muslims' because it seems 'moderate Muslim' is just a loose term which is used to define less aggressive religious people, but it doesn't prove that there is any 'moderate banner' or moderate Islamic ideology which they follow. Moderate Muslims have a cocktail of various thoughts which they absorb or learn through personal experience while living abroad and dealing with different people or modern education etc. For example if people who hold anti taliban stance are considered moderates then that would make a huge number but then the same number will start declining when dealing with other things like relaxing hijab or mixed gathering etc, you will start noticing the very same people who were anti taliban seem to be subscribed to some of the same beliefs as taliban. Thus there is no chance of any unity arising between moderate Muslims and the only people who take benefit of that is extremists :D.[/QUOTE]

It looks simple but it's not much simpler.

To be a truly "Moderate Muslim" Firstly you need to pass through all the experiences which a Muslim passes through,all the trials and tribulations.
It involves both the true and deep knowledge and practise of Islam. Keeping both your religion and worldly affairs side by side reveals on you, how religion truly works, and how it changes lives of people.

Every body has it's own circle of influence and circle of experience. A practising Muslim has it's own.

The biggest dilemma is "Perfection" concept here. That what I have learnt is perfect. e.g If we say modern man and moderate Muslim Hassan Nisar said "There is no place of Poetry in Islam".
There is complete account on poetry in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim and even a Hadith telling Holy Prophet PBUH himself done poetry and even encouraged the good poets.
What authenticity is left in such person. On the other hand same person is saying only Quran and Hadith is enough. Such a disparity.
I am not against Nisar, but the sense of perfection and pride which we start to feel about our thoughts, is not something which is taking us towards moderation.
Now how I am supposed to follow you when you know nothing or very little about my religion?
We have supposed that a person having small or no beard, wearing Western dress is just a moderate Muslim.
We always quote Jinnah that he was a Moderate Muslim.
Remember what he said to his daughter when she asked to marry a Parsi
"This is against our traditions and religion".
There is a huge difference between a person saying I am a Muslim and a person truly learning and practising religion.

Every body knows what is this going on. Just pick up one book of Hadith i.e Bukhari and you will see each and every sign of these people.

I will quote a thing here and see an analogy in modern world. Some people are so much ahead in their ignorance that they want to learn nothing from history.

[B]فأتت الخوارج قريته فأخذوه وأخذوا ابنته فقدموا ابنته فقتلوها وزعم لي أبو الربيع السلولي أن اسم ابنته أم يزيد وأنها كانت تقول لهم يا أهل الإسلام إن أبي مصاب فلا تقتلوه وأما أنا فإنما أنا جارية والله ما أتيت فاحشة قط ولا آذيت جارة لي ولا تطلعت ولا تشرفت قط فقدموها ليقتلوها فأخذت تنادي ما ذنبي ما ذنبي ثم سقطت مغشيا عليها أو ميتة ثم قطعوها بأسيافهم
The Khawarij came to a village and they seized a man and his daughter. She said to them, “O people of Islam! Indeed, my father is an old man so do not kill him, and I am only a girl. By Allah, I have never been immoral and I have never harmed anyone.” They brought her to kill her and she kept saying, “What is my sin? What is my sin?” Then she fainted and they killed her with their swords.

Source: Tareekh At-Tabari 1512

إِذْ لَوْ قَوُوا هَؤُلَاءِ لَأَفْسَدُوا الْأَرْضَ كُلَّهَا عِرَاقًا وَشَامًا وَلَمْ يَتْرُكُوا طِفْلًا وَلَا طِفْلَةَ وَلَا رَجُلًا وَلَا امْرَأَةً لِأَنَّ النَّاسَ عِنْدَهُمْ قَدْ فَسَدُوا فَسَادًا لَا يُصْلِحُهُمْ إِلَّا الْقَتْلُ جُمْلَةً

If the Khawarij ever gained power, they would corrupt the entire earth, Iraq, and Syria. They would not leave a boy or a girl or a man or a woman, for in their view the people have become so corrupt that they cannot be reformed except by mass killing.

Source: Al-Bidayah wa Nihayah 10/584
[/B]

Open your eyes people. This was written 1000 years back.