Home Global Village Is Imran’s Mullahism more barbaric or the liberal mindset?

Is Imran’s Mullahism more barbaric or the liberal mindset?

barbaric
  • 398
    Shares

Waqas Shabbir |

Liberals of the country are displeased with Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan. It is evident from their response on social media. Spreading hatred among countrymen, after all, has awful consequences and is a sin of epic proportions. Previously, Imran had dared to call liberals scum and warmongers of the country, when it is, in fact, Mullah’s and ultra conservatives in the establishment and the politicians who have historically embraced the extremist mindset resulting in bloodshed for decades.

It is an open secret that Pakistani madrassa teachings have been labelled entirely inappropriate for their allegedly Jihadist content and selective in creating and embedding extreme mindset which unleashes indiscriminate bloodshed and excruciating pain to the victims and society in general.

Who is more barbaric? Maybe both. With not so much to choose between the two, who is more brutal seculars/liberals or ultra-conservatives, decide it yourself?

This system of education primarily based on religion and being selective in picking and choosing the Islamic doctrines of choice to create and transform the Muslim minds which prompts the westerns or liberals to declare Pakistan the most dangerous nation in the world. But, it leads to a question. What triggered western-educated Khan to lament the liberals for being warmongers and bloodthirsty, when it appears to be the ‘other way around’. Why did Imran decide to form a political alliance with Sami-ul-Haq?

Read more: Imran Khan may not benefit from early elections: why he demands…

Is Imran confused in his ideology? Apparently, Imran’s condemnation and such extreme rhetoric reflect Khan’s perplexed personality torn between the east and west. Having seen his children raised up in a western society and at the same time condemning those educated in the west and are merely following their secular ideology sounds hypocritical. Does it reflect the real Khan?

Is Maulana Sami-ul-Haq not a product of the same Madrassa system? Why did Imran conduct a political meeting with such a backward, ultra-conservative and extremist man with proven connections to the barbaric Pakistan Tehreek-e-Taliban? Can he compromise on his ideology for political gains like leaders of other political parties? Maybe his sympathy for the Taliban and continuous rhetoric for holding talks with Taliban reflected his twisted ideology.

When 1625 UN and US inspectors collectively spent $1 billion searching 1700 sites and declared, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

What about the liberals in Pakistan’s society? Does western education or influence make someone sane? Does this training/education meddle with the minds of the ultra-liberals to behave prudently in the primarily conservative society of Pakistan?

Many professors, writers and artists in Pakistan feel disgusted on the treatment of women, and minorities in the country. Does religion (Islam) not dictate explicit doctrines on these issues? Since it does, then why do religious scholars fail to highlight and propagate these doctrines presented by Islam fourteen hundred years ago as compared to Europe and America, which formulated and legislated the rules regarding women empowerment and treatment of minorities with dignity only in the 20th century.

Read more: Has Imran Khan kicked-off his campaign against Asif Ali Zardari?

If the education meddles with the minds of the Muslim Youth in the Madrassa system, western training does the same with liberals. If ultra-conservatives in Pakistan are more dangerous than any other community in the world, then Americans from where Pakistani liberal drive their intellectual credentials become equally dangerous. As they notably stay numb despite having seen America killing thousands of innocent women, children and men across the globe in Latin American countries, the Korean peninsula, Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syria.  

The idea was to revamp, redesign and create the capitalistic minds in Southern American to counter the surge in socialism of ideological warriors who were born in Chile’s Catholic University and other universities.

Henry Kissinger stated in his book ‘Diplomacy’, “If the world truly wants peace, it needs to apply America’s moral prescriptions”. This moral application is witnessed across Middle East and in Afghanistan. Madeline Albright, a former secretary of the State, when asked about the death of half a million children in the illegitimate Iraq war, remarked in an interview that ‘I think it’s a very hard choice, but we think it was worth it’.

As China continues to spread its influence in this region, Afghanistan is the strategically crucial place to restrict China. Using the war of terror slogan, America entered Afghanistan to avoid dilution of its regional and global power. Naomi Klein, a Canadian author and social activist in her credible investigations found out that progressive socialism in South American countries like Chile, Argentina and Brazil threatened American Capitalistic credentials and potentially undermined the American corporates.

The threat of nationalism and slashed profits enraged the former feudal. They conspired with US corporates, CIA and American President’s office to start the war against these reformists who pursued Keynes’ policies. America wanted to kill this progression instantly. They devised a policy to introduce PhD programs in Chicago school of economics which later spread to other elite universities through US aid and additional corporate sponsorships (mainly by the Ford Corporation).

If ultra-conservatives in Pakistan are more dangerous than any other community in the world, then Americans from where Pakistani liberal drive their intellectual credentials become equally dangerous.

The idea was to revamp, redesign and create the capitalistic minds in Southern American to counter the surge in socialism of ideological warriors who were born in Chile’s Catholic University and other universities. These academic programs produced a bulk of new graduates who became faculty in the elite schools in Chile and elsewhere. They were the ambassadors of neoliberalism embedding new ideology replacing socialism.

Read more: What if Imran Khan is disqualified by Supreme Court?

I believe there is a perfect analogy with such US aid funded program targeting developing countries like Pakistan. They pick the brightest minds of Pakistan and transform them into a new breed of pseudo-liberals or ultra-liberals depending on the effect of the dose. They don’t utter a word against the American oppression and brutal policies across the world but love bashing Mullahs of Pakistan.

How many of these liberals lashing out at Khan spoke against the recent attempts of the US administration to convince China and Russia to deprive & insolate North Korea economically. The US has already put sanctions on North Korea, which are reminiscent of its design adopted in Chile against Salvador Allende and Saddam in Iraq.

When 1625 UN and US inspectors collectively spent $1 billion searching 1700 sites and declared, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Why did the US terrorise the millions in the country [Iraq]? Why don’t these liberal talk about the experimental programs deployed under neoliberalism in Iraq, killing scores every month? They love bashing Pakistani establishment and Mullah, but dramatically fail to mutter a word against the real tormentor.

Read more: Will Imran Khan lose 2018 elections?

Who is more barbaric? Maybe both. With not so much to choose between the two, who is more brutal seculars/liberals or ultra-conservatives, decide it yourself?


  • 398
    Shares

3 COMMENTS

  1. It’s all about Inclusiveness vs Exclusiveness… Imran Khan’s strategy of inclusiveness is all about bringing out a huge number of ‘Madrassa’ Students into the main stream life where they can learn the modern day subjects along with religious teachings so that they can also earn money through various professional fields instead of going into the lurch of terrorism…. where as liberals only want these students to be shot or bombed and all they want is that only their children get the quality education, this exclusiveness will only bring more disaster, that will only multiply terrorism… so Liberals(Libtards) are more dangerous.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.