When the youth of Pakistan say they want freedom, they do not necessarily mean that they want to be emancipated from their government or societal rules and norms per se. Our definition of freedom is similar to the need to develop along with the rest of the world with respect to technology, education, career choice, and even socialization among other things. The Pakistani youth today are tied down by many rules in terms of what can and cannot be done freely within their country. The bad relations between the Muslim world and the West have created some element of demonization in modernity, and any attempt to be modernized is regarded as an attempt to be westernized. Moreover, it is a common knowledge about how most Islamic leaders feel about the West.

Thus, freedom, from a Pakistani perspective, implies having the room to choose modernization without fearing being labeled as westernized, and even more so, not fearing westernization considering that globalization is trending towards homogeneity in terms of cosmopolitan and consumer culture. A free Pakistan would thus be where a young woman can decide not to get married early and instead pursue a career in aviation, without being seen as a traitor to her people. Freedom will be when pursuing a career in rock music is not seen as a step towards the West but rather as a way of expressing oneself and reaching out to the larger music market.

This is something that may be better discussed by sociologists and politicians or theologians but I could say that religion is a way of life, and in a democratic world, a personal choice. It means that in most cases, when the state chooses one official religion they limit the relevance of that religion considering that it ceases to be a choice and becomes an obligation. Nevertheless, religion and democracy have a symbiotic relationship in that good religious practices and teachings should align with democracy in the context of propagating peace and harmony. Considering that there are quite a number of religions in the world today, having each one defining their version of democracy would cause many conflicts especially in countries, where these religions have to coexist. In essence, I believe that there is a universal definition of democracy that entails giving the majority their way and allowing the minority to also have their say on national matters. Regardless of religion, democracy is about giving the people the opportunity to decide on their fate in terms of politics and even social components of their lives like how they dress, what they eat, where they can or cannot go, the kind of careers they choose, and when they get married, among other things. Moreover, democracy concerns not only the government but also families at home.

When the international community decides to stay away from the affairs of a sovereign state in terms of the government activities and other aspects, they isolate the people of that country from the rest of the world, looking at them from a distance like powerful but unwilling onlookers. They breed the resentment of the victims because they are able to help but they are not doing anything. This is what happens when a non-democratic regime is allowed to terrorize the citizens. People generally appreciate being protected by their government but when the government is the threat, they expect the international community to intervene for them and when they do not, they make new enemies thus undermining international cohesion. Democracy is not just about towing the line in terms of political expectations in the global arena, but rather about keeping the peace both locally and internationally. When every government is committed to protecting their citizens and giving them the opportunity to participate in decision making, the international community is likely to be more at peace considering that there are no threats to the cohesion and every countrys citizens feel like a part of the international community. Generally, democracy is an enabler of international peace considering that negative attitudes towards the international community owing to being neglected under an undemocratic regime breed hostility and impede international cohesion. Therefore, in my attempt to bring the world together I start by fighting for democracy in my home country first.

There are many definitions of Sufism, and the most common factor in all these definitions would be the pursuit of truth and enlightenment with respect to knowing and relating with God. Unlike other forms of Islam, Sufism is mostly about seeking knowledge and spreading it to the ends of the world. We look for explanations on the various aspects of humanity from a divine perspective and when we find it, we go ahead and educate others. Rather than follow spiritual rules blindly, we try to establish their contexts before applying them to our specific circumstances. Concerning the impact of this belief on my views, I would say I am more analytical than most Muslims from other factions. I do not only take the scriptures as they are but rather study them as a group, discuss the possible intentions behind those laws by examining the historical context of the time when they were written, before coming up with an interpretation that is relevant and effective for our time. It has made me cautious as an individual in that even when I read a self-motivation book, I take it within my context by understanding the authors context and then comparing it to mine before understanding what the intentions and expected outcomes are. Being a Sufi Muslim has actually built my character in more ways than one.

From a local point of view, I see Palestinians coming out of their shells and accepting modernization as a concept that is necessary for individual growth as well as national development. In addition, while the attitude towards the west remains laced with skepticism even for the open-minded people, I foresee a world where we as a people will accept the relevance of the west as much as they will accept us. I see a world, where the Muslim world is considered as a threat to international peace and security but rather an element of diversity in a world, where one is only guilty once convicted of a crime and not based on ones appearance and dressing. Nevertheless, more importantly, I foresee a world, in which the international community unites to rescue people from an oppressive regime by peaceful interventions without using missiles and nuclear weapons. The world is moving fast to a time of ultimate globalization, in terms of, not only economic integration, but also socio cultural recognition and identities that transcend national affiliations. I believe that in the next 50 years, most of the worlds nations will be able to resolve any conflicts within their boundaries, with their neighbors and international community, and we will be able to enjoy globalization with limited challenges. That is the world I would be proud to leave behind for the next generation.

About the author

Rico Shenk holds MBA in Sociology. He works as a researcher at the dissertation writing service. He conducts researches on a wide range of topics coverind Sociology.