Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
your points are valid ...but they are not at all related to this thread....because the thread discusses 'desis'......what you mentioned is discussion about socio-political climate of USA.......where the terms have more significance in political terms........
I agree - I probably digressed significantly from the target/topic of this thread - desis. Cheers.
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
Liberal- a. ** Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry*. **b. * Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded ** Conservative- ** a. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
** b. Traditional or restrained in style**: a conservative dark suit.
Moderate -
**a.** not extreme or excessive; within due or reasonable limits moderate demands
**b.** (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who holds moderate views, esp in politics
the emboldened parts are my qualities...besides that I'm a pro-peace/anti war.
I tend to follow the traditional version of Islam but some people might mistake me as a liberal coz they interpret the Scripture wrongly. Oh and I'm all for progress etc but morals and ethics come first.
*
na main musa, na firaun
ki janan main kaun :/*
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
The definitions in this thread are quite varying. It seems I fall in all three categories on different occasions. 
We have discussed the definitions here more than guppies. not much fun!
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
So you and zareen are Nationalists, and that makes me Humanist not Liberal. 
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
Oh and I'm all for progress etc but morals and ethics come first.
Do you support stem cell research? Just curious...
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
Do you support stem cell research? Just curious...
Although, you asked hareem this question ..but I think stem cell research is a fascinating and very intriguing phenomenon. If successful and properly done, it would be a breakthrough for curing the whole iceberg of fatal/crippling diseases. Religiously and ethically too I would support it :)
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
Although, you asked hareem this question ..but I think stem cell research is a fascinating and very intriguing phenomenon. If successful and properly done, it would be a breakthrough for curing the whole iceberg of fatal/crippling diseases. Religiously and ethically too I would support it :)
Nice! I find it amazing that some people would deny others the wonders of this branch of science just because ACCORDING TO THEM, God said so.
Looks like these people haven't heard about "God's Mercy"...
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
We could create a separate thread on this topic as this would be going very off topic.
What I believe is that there’s a barrier b/w things we already know or are gradually discovering with the advent of science and technology and the boggling mysteries of life we still haven’t been able to understand (like life after death, creating life from non biological stuff etc) which is probably the barrier beyond which we aren’t supposed to know.
Also Allah says in Surah Alaq: Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous,
Who has taught (the writing) by the pen,*** Has taught man that which he knew not. (96:3-5)
***So all these things we are discovering, inventing are there because we have been made superior to all other Creations on basis of our knowledge. (Ashraf-ul-makhluqat). If Allah didn’t will it to happen we wouldn’t have made such breakthrough advances anyway.
What researchers are doing is just their job for the betterment of humanity…(huqooq-ul-ibaad, right) so ethically and religiously I find no reason not to support stem cell research.
ok back to the topic …
Err does this make me a liberal now? 
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
What I believe is that there's a barrier b/w things we already know or are gradually discovering with the advent of science and technology and the boggling mysteries of life we still haven't been able to understand (like life after death, creating life from non biological stuff etc) which is probably *the barrier beyond which we aren't supposed to know. *
I don't think there is any barrier beyond which we are "not supposed to know". Why would there be such a barrier? The only reason such a barrier can exist if knowledge beyond that will enable us to directly challenge Allah SWT, NAUZUBILLAH! And the difference in the knowledge of Allah and our own is beyond measure. Not if we were to live a hundred trillion years can we amass enough knowledge to even come close.
And anyways, even if we had knowledge enough to create an entire galaxy from scratch, even then that knowledge would stem from Allah SWT, who has command over everything that was, is and will be.
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
Made another thread for stem cell research here: http://www.paklinks.com/gs/all-views/517666-stem-cell-research-morals-and-religion.html
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
Peace Theorist
I'm not sure if I should be offended or proud of being classed a "moderate" and I guess you have lots of dissenting voices and people questioning the definitions you have given in the first post. Also you will find people seem to be your version of conservative in some cases and your version liberal in others ... The reason for this is because I believe you are trying to make the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" too broad.
I would have written down a number of dichotomies to demonstrate the position of people. I believe each dichotomy should be treated as a separate axis and they should not be confused for each other.
The only useful definition of the Lib vs Con dichotomy is that Liberals favour freedom over control and that Conservatives favour control over freedom. The former desire natural order and the latter desire policing.
Other than this there are other dichotomies worth noting each with their own definitions ... (I have made up some words in the absence of adequate terms)
Liberal vs Conservative (Type of governance)
Passivism vs Activism (Inclination of response to changing circumstances)
Tradition vs Modernity (Basis for Making Informed Decisions)
Diversifism vs Monoculturalism (Type of societal outlook)
Literalism vs Reflectionism (Orientation of behaviour mode with respect to Law or Religion)
Nationalism vs Humanism (Focus of supporting causes) (Is a nation made by the people or does it define them?)
Patriotism vs Subjectism (One's relationship with their country)
(Do you favour your rights to be given by your country or do you favour giving up your rights for your country?)
Communism vs Capitalism (Wealth distribution)
Elitism vs Universalism (Allocation of power)
Furthermore with each of these dichotomies there are strong (zealous), moderates, and slightly orientated people and although there may be trends for example many environmentalists are vegetarian it does not mean all of them are ... and hence no grouping should be made under any type.
For example: We have a Liberal and a Conservative now ask yourself which of the two is the "Nature Lover" and which of the two is the "City Lover"? It is actually impossible to decide ... because they are indeed on a separate axis.
However, some trends can be seen ... coming back to the strengths part ... The majority of warring rebellions in history have been led by zealous liberals, because they war they would be seen as "activists" as well. So it is often the case that many zealously inclined people in any of the dichotomies are activists unless of course they are zealously passive and if their activism is determined by a value that requires them to be in the middle of the other dichotomies. This is too detailed though ...
My personal take is that I avoid zealousness in all areas apart from improving myself in character. As a result I'm seen as a moderate ... however being a moderate does not mean that one lies between liberalism and conservatism - for a person who is moderately liberal is very different from a person who is moderately conservative. Rather those who are slightly liberal and slightly conservative are closer and the people on the fence are neither conservative nor liberal and do not feature on that axis ... The correct term to use for them is not moderate - but "central" ...
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
Another dichotomy is worth mentioning and that is:
Prudishness vs Permissiveness (Personal/Sexual outlook), these are often seen as Conservative and Liberal, but the truth is that the logic does not always follow.
Although many conservatives may be prudish, some are open and permissive when it comes to their sexuality and personal outlook. Also many people who desire less policing may in themselves be quite averse to sexual exhibitionism. I'm not saying that synonyms don't exist, but I am saying that there are far fewer out there than we normally think there to be.
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
Another important one prompted by the stem cell topic ...
Absolutism vs Relativism (Basis for Making Ethical Decisions)
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
thank you for such a thorough response @psyah bhai ..it kind of elaborates what I too was trying to say of the vast amount of variability of circumstances on which we all have different opinions.
But is there any conservative/liberal side to our religion?
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
@psyah
"For example: We have a Liberal and a Conservative now ask yourself which of the two is the "Nature Lover" and which of the two is the "City Lover"? It is actually impossible to decide ... because they are indeed on a separate axis."
One can be a nature lover and a city lover. In fact one can choose to live in a city and take public transportation so that minimizes fuel consumption. It is a fact that the green movement was started by liberals.
"However, some trends can be seen ... coming back to the strengths part ... The majority of warring rebellions in history have been led by zealous liberals, because they war they would be seen as "activists" as well. So it is often the case that many zealously inclined people in any of the dichotomies are activists unless of course they are zealously passive and if their activism is determined by a value that requires them to be in the middle of the other dichotomies."
I am not aware of a single war started by liberals. I would like some examples of "zealous liberals" starting wars. Even from India - Pak perspective, the folks who indulge in chest thumping are more likely to be right wing folks in each country, IMHO
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
........
I am not aware of a single war started by liberals. ...........
I know it is not about U.S. But have you heard of Vietnam War?
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
I know it is not about U.S. But have you heard of Vietnam War?
Good point Diwana. Liberal vs conservative viewpoints is not necessarily which party one belongs to. The president Lyndon Johnson was a democrat. Passing the civil rights act was liberal - going to war was not.
So yes, a democratic president palyed an active role in the vietnam war - but the biggest protestors of the war during those days were the true liberals.
In general, you will find that among the general population, liberals instinctively opose war - they need a rock solid reason to show war is a last resort.
Leaders on the other hand have other forces that guide their decision making process. They tend to become "moderates" once in power.
There are not too many liberals one can think of who have been in power - they aretoo nice to rise to the top.
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
Good point Diwana. Liberal vs conservative viewpoints is not necessarily which party one belongs to. The president Lyndon Johnson was a democrat. Passing the civil rights act was liberal - going to war was not.
So yes, a democratic president palyed an active role in the vietnam war - but the biggest protestors of the war during those days were the true liberals.
In general, you will find that among the general population, liberals instinctively opose war - they need a rock solid reason to show war is a last resort.
Leaders on the other hand have other forces that guide their decision making process. They tend to become "moderates" once in power.
There are not too many liberals one can think of who have been in power - they are*too nice to rise to the top*.
The phenomenon you described simply adds confusion as if liberals being in power were not responsible of that war.
Also, for a lot of people liberals and conservatives are the the different sides of the same coin.
The elections just make people divide and make them emotional. Results are largely the same for common man.
Both do and can ruin economy and both can take pride in saving the country from turmoil, however. Faces and words change.
Q: In your opinion conservatives are more towards war and are not too nice but liberals are? And in order to rise on top, liberals have to become like conservatives (not too nice?)
Re: Liberal vs. conserative vs. moderate desis
I had said in some earlier posts that conservatives and liberals are two sides of the same coin, both with an interest to do good, approaching task from different angles.
In the current climate, conservatives have become very right wing - and not too nice. So yes, to rise to the top, liberals have to move towards the center.
Just my opinion.
I agree in principle with you though that these labels can be divisive.