Archive for the ‘POLITICS’ Category

Declare–Rakhine–an Independent Rohingya Muslims State.

September 11, 2017

 

Rohingyas are living in Myanmar since 8th Century. A most persecuted Muslim minority since 2013 UN.The Rohingya faced Military crackdown in 1978,1991,1992, 2012, 2015 and NOW in 2016–2017. UN officials and HRW have described Myanmar’s persecution of the Rohingya as ethnic cleansing, while there have been warnings of an unfolding genocide.

 

Accession into Pakistan.

During the Pakistan Movement in the 1940s, Rohingya Muslims in western Burma organized a separatist movement to merge the region into East Pakistan. Before the Independence of Burma in January 1948, Muslim leaders from Arakan addressed themselves to Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, and asked his assistance in incorporating the Mayu region to Pakistan considering their religious affinity and geographical proximity with East Pakistan. The North Arakan Muslim League was founded in Akyab (modern Sittwe) two months later. The proposal never materialized since it was reportedly turned down by Jinnah, saying that he was not in a position to interfere into Burmese matters. After Jinnah’s refusal to accept northern Arakan into the Dominion of Pakistan, some Rohingya elders who supported a Jihad movement founded the Mujahid party in northern Arakan in 1947. The aim of the Mujahid party was to create an autonomous Muslim state in Arakan.

There are 103 million in and around Myanmar and about 105 million spread in other countries.

Yanghee Lee, the UN special investigator on Myanmar, believes the country wants to expel its entire Rohingya population.

 If UN can declare—East Taimour—& —South Sudan— for Christians, why not –Rakhine— for Rohingya Muslims?

Advertisements

Which Morality—Modern or Virtuous–is Right?

September 1, 2017
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (by Shakir Mumtaz January 2017)

(Morality based on common sense! Can common sense be trusted? Ethical Egoism says that “One person’s common sense may be another person’s naïve platitude” It is also called “revisionist theory” for it declares that “our common sense moral views may be mistaken, therefore, need to be changed”)

Morality predicates every facet of human life. It has always been, fervently, debated by the scholars and thinkers of almost all the societies, as to what constitutes morality, what should be its source and how its parameters should be determined and so on. I have therefore embarked on this interesting but multifarious topic to explore; by consulting various perspectives and sources, and present a cogent picture for the readers; to make up their own mind, after weighing for and against reasons and arguments.

Modern morality (or moral philosophy) has a rich and fascinating history. A great many thinkers have approached the subject from a wide variety of perspectives and have produced theories that both attract and repel the thoughtful people. Almost all the classical theories developed by philosophers of undoubted genius are, however, vulnerable to crippling objections. Hence, one is left wondering what to believe?

Derek Parfit, “Reasons and Persons” 1984 put it very aptly as “Non-religious ethics (Morality) is the youngest and least advanced” Thomas Hobbs, foremost British philosopher of 17th Century tried (unsuccessfully) to provide an alternative to Divine Philosophy*1 by arguing as follow. “Suppose we take away all the props for morality. We assume, first, that there is no God to issue commands and reward virtues; and second, that there are no moral facts built into the nature of things. Moreover, we deny that there is any sort of universal altruism built into human nature—we see people as essentially motivated to pursue their own interests. If we cannot appeal to God, moral facts or natural altruism, is there anything left on which morality might be found? After all this, he suggests an alternate, in the form of “Social contract” and commonly accepted mechanism (Govt.), to enforce the terms of the contract. Then he conjectures an untenable “state of nature”, insinuating absolute chaos, to support his hypothesis. “State of nature”*2 is governed by “the Laws of Nature” and Laws of Nature not only describes “how things are” but also “how things ought to be” as well. Things are always as they “ought to be” solemnly serving their natural purposes (Theory of the law of nature). He replaced God with altruism and moral facts and His command and control by an indispensable Government. Mundane and temporal end-result suggested was— “the gain of the benefits of social living”. This outrageous endeavor could simply be classed as a “Blatant Hobbesian Intellectual Egoism”{Dishonesty/Arrogance). After close scrutiny of this hypothesis, Thomas Hobbs is also found to be guilty of defying “the minimum conception of morality”. (By the way, Islamic theology makes use of “minimum conception” with respect to the performance of basic obligatory rituals, ensuring the salvation of the believers in the hereafter).

It might be of interest for the readers to know, that morality is not an issue as such in most parts; especially in predominantly monotheistic and polytheistic societies, of the world at all. Centuries-old religious ethos shaped their cultural traditions and social practices in consonance and the life goes on smoothly. The issue of morality, for the most part, arises when an equitable and just resolution is sought in the face of conflicting interests. It is generally thought that formulation of morality started from the Greeks. This treatise, therefore, would start from there; foregoing the issue of the actual origin of morality, which according to some sources goes back to Prophet Adam. Greek philosophers such as Pluto, Aristotle and Socrates and some other eminent scholars resorted to reason in formulating the moral laws of their time; while counting on the character to establish the virtuous traits of a man. Questions were framed as “What is the good of man?”, “What traits of character make one a good man?” This was happening 400 years before the time of Jesus Christ. With the spread of Christianity however, a new idea of “Law Giver” and “Obedience to His commands” was introduced. St Augustine, the most influential and prominent thinker of 4th Century, however, “distrusted the reason” and taught that virtuous life rests in the unwavering subordination to the commandments. From here on when the Christian Scholars, philosophers discussed the issue of virtues; it was within the context of “Divine Law”, and theological virtues including “Obedience” occupying the central place. On the contrary, Greeks gave “reason” the center stage. They viewed the “reason” the source of practical wisdom. Virtuous life for them was inseparable from the life of reason.

After renaissance, however, morality took another turn and Philosophers stopped turning to the Greek way of reasoning or Christian way of obedience to “Divine Law” but to its secular equivalent called “Moral Law”. “Divine Fiat” was replaced by “Human reason” and by following its directive would decide which actions are right? The question was changed from “what traits of character make a good person” to “what is the right thing to do?” “Virtue” was replaced by secular ‘rightness of actions” & “obligations” thereby promoting the element of individualism and self-interest (selfishness). Human reason gave rise to the conception of Hubristic “ought” as a standard for most advantageous actions; petrifying the Human-reason with inconsistency; hence similar reasoning was acceptable in one situation, but not in the other. Later moral theories from the seventeenth century onward; such as “Ethical egoism”, “Utilitarianism”, “Social Contract Theory”, all were developed and promoted in the same vein of individualism and self-centeredness.

Utilitarianism, in particular, proved to be the harbinger of Religion divested morality. A theory presented by David Hume (1711-1776) formalized by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), vehemently advocated by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) and his son James Mill. After the 18th and 19th century’s series of upheavals, America was a newly developing country and traditional morality was up in the air. Bentham’s conception of Religion divested morality; in conscious opposition to Christianity; especially for those escaping the Church of England’s persecution, proved to be a boon. He argued “Morality is not a matter of pleasing God, nor is it a matter of faithfulness to abstract rules. Morality is nothing more than the attempt to bring about as much happiness as possible in this world” Bentham was also given the assignment of reforming the laws and constitution of England along utilitarian lines. Needless to say that despite huge influence utilitarianism had severe flaws. One of its more developed forms, Act-Utilitarianism, recognized it to be a “radical doctrine” “that implied that many of our moral feelings may be mistaken” Ethical Egoism, as a “revisionist theory”, also asserted the same theme.

An Australian philosopher J.J.C Smart (1961) published a monograph, challenging the common sense (morality) as it cannot be trusted. His assertion challenges us to rethink matters that we have taken for granted. To accentuate the point further, here is the opinion of a Swedish Sociologist Gunner Myrdal which he gave after his classic study—American dilemma in 1944 ”There must be still other countless errors of the same sort that no living man can yet detect, because of the fog within which our type of Western cultures envelops us…”

Bentham and Mill were leading a revolution as radical as Marx and Darwin of 19th Century. To understand the radicalness of their theory an excerpt is quoted as “Gone are all references to God or to abstract moral rules written in the heavens. Morality is no longer to be understood as faithfulness to some divinely given code or to some set of inflexible rules” The concept of individualistic worldly happiness—known as “Hedonism”– was promoted. Mills introduction of the notion “Individual is sovereign” pushed it even further.

Kantian morality although, hovers around religious lines but; he seems to have circumvented God and religion; probably to prove that besides; all- encompassing God’s commands notion; there are rational and logical grounds on which Divine Morality could be asserted with the same potency. Kant however, abjured the serpent-windings of the Utilitarian theory because, he said, the theory is incompatible with human dignity. (God confers “dignity” to human—Qua’an 17:70). His formulation of “hypothetical Imperatives” VS “Categorical Imperatives” exposes the vainness of Modern Morality. It can, therefore, safely be deduced that most of these Religion-Divested Moral theories provide only plausible answers to the difficult questions, but lack the potency and conviction of Divine Morality– providing definitive solutions built in the rigor of observance of its rules and rituals. (All classic theorists, needless to say, hold not only opposing but critical views about Divine Morality).

Recent thinking on morality is ready to take yet another turn. Philosophers are debunking the ”Moral Law” theory as bankrupt and advocating radical idea to go back to virtue based Aristotelian Morality to salvage the subject. This idea was first floated by a British Philosopher G.E.M Anscombe in 1958; suggesting that modern moral philosophy is misguided because it rests on an incoherent notion of “law” without a “Law Giver” She further elaborated that the very concepts of obligation, duty, and rightness, on which the modern philosophers have concentrated their attention, are inextricably linked to this nonsensical idea. Therefore, she argued, we should return to Aristotelian approach, and virtue should once again take the center stage.

Philosophers in this camp share the opinion, that virtue-based morality is 
superior to the other kind of (Religion divested) morality because of the 
following reasons. 

1) Moral Motivation. Virtuous Morality is appealing because it provides a natural and attractive account of moral motivation while the other kind of morality falters on this account. It can be explained in terms of an example quoted, in Journal of philosophy in 1976, where the value of merit of morality was juxtaposed duty. In this case, a patient was visited by some friend; that made patient delighted but: when he found out that the visitor was just doing his duty and did not really come for him, the visit turned cold and bereft of moral value. The desire to do the right thing for the right reason and doing it out of an abstract sense of duty is not the same. 2) Ideals of Impartiality. Virtuous morality can accommodate partialities very well since it recognizes that some virtues are partial and some are not. It also recognizes that love of family and friends is an inescapable feature of the morally good life. Ideals of Impartiality in modern moral philosophy, however, do not add up. John Stewart Mill put the point very succinctly when writing about Utilitarianism that “Utilitarianism requires (the moral Agent) to be as strictly impartial as a benevolent and disinterested spectator”. A mother loves her children and cares for them in a way that she does not care for other children. “She is partial to them through and through”. Same is the case with friends and family members.

3) Divine Morality provides a pleasing practical “fit” between; – a) Impartiality of reason. b) Adherence to set rules for life, serving everyone’s interest. c) Fulfillment of our natural inclination and moral duty to care about others. Making morally behaving a natural dispensation. 4) An Anthropocentric view of Aristotle (and of many philosophers of ancient); which modern philosophers and scientists vehemently refute, has been categorically asserted in Qura’an. This assertion, in the same vein, also refutes the accusation of the human being as “vein-species”. https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/the-anthropocentric-character-of-the-universe-special-status-of-man-and-yet-his-denial-of-god/ Conclusion A trajectory of traits of both the schools of Philosophy has been presented above, making it easy for the readers, to weigh and decide for themselves.

  • 1Divine Philosophy—means virtue/religion based philosophy.
  • 2Always serving their purpose regardless of our favorable or unfavorable understanding of their operations.
  • 3 Moral philosophy and Modern Morality are interchangeably used.

Why Islam, cannot be Liberalized?

September 1, 2017
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why Islam, cannot be Liberalized?

From the earliest time of Islam; even during the period of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH); attempts had started being made, by various groups such as Jews, Christians, and Pagans, to change/reshape Islam. God, therefore, guided Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to guard against t he temptations of such offers. Saying: “They wish that you would soften [in your position], so they would soften [in return, their position toward you], and do not obey every worthless habitual swearer, [And] scorner, going about with malicious gossip – A preventer of good, transgressing and sinful, Cruel, and an illegitimate pretender” (Surah Al Qalam 68, V 9-13) God also guided the prophet (PBUH) saying: “O Prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination” (Qura’an 66:98)

“Many of the People of the Scripture (including liberals and reformists) wish they could turn you back to disbelief after you have believed, out of envy on their own account [even] after the truth has become clear to them. So pardon and overlook until Allah delivers His command. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent” (Qura’an 2:109). On the other hand, God took upon Himself to protect the main source of injunctions—The Holy Qura’an— declaring–”Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qura’n and indeed, We will be its guardian” (Qura’an, 15:9). And warned (interpolator, reformists) saying: God revealed the book (Qura’an) with the truth, and those who disagree about the book (its essence or injunctions) are far out in the schism. (Qura’an 2:176) Consequently, every single word, every single consonant, every single vowel has remained intact till this day and will remain so until the end of the world. Currently, there are lots of so-called– reformists, Muslim and Non-Muslim alike, keen to reform Islam to suit their Westaphalic whims and liberal values. They perhaps liken its intended reformation to the reformation movement in Christianity. Such reformers normally are bereft of the knowledge of Islam and even if they have some, it is scanty and facile. They, however, sure have the fervor and zealotry of an extremist— defined by a great American Political theorist–Michael Walzer.

An interesting characteristic of these so-called reformers is that they want to swim along the—propaganda inflicted– liberal-mindset, by distorting Islam to conform to its modern liberal values. In Qura’an, it is stated that when it is said to them (reformers)“Do not cause corruption on the earth,” they say, “We are but (Musleh) reformers”, “Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not” (2:11-12)

This genre of reformist may also be traced in the cross-pollination of Martin Luther King and Rousseau.

God issued an absolute command not to accept the offer of the Jews and Christians (with their corrupted/abrogated ideas–which, by implication, also applies to so-called reformers, liberals, and modernists) in the following words. “Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with you unless you follow their form of religion. Say:–Guidance of Allah is the only guidance. Were you to follow their desires after the knowledge which has reached you, then would you find neither protector nor helper against Allah” (Qura’an, 2:120). Here is yet another verse in Qura’an which forbids Muslims from wavering or taking an impermissible liberty in any field of life.”Those who believe, enter Islam completely, do not tow the lines of the Satan, who is your clear enemy” (Q 2:208) Supplemented by– “Life of this world is attractive (enticing) to nonbelievers; who ridicule those who believe—but—those who fear God(following all commands without deviation, distortion)will be successful (above disbelievers) in the hereafter” (Q 2:212)

After these absolute ordinances, no God fearing, sensible Muslim would dare accept their attenuating ideas. Recent chronology of the efforts to liberalize Islam Since the middle of the 19th century; due to the Protestant theological proliferation; a host of self-styled modernist, reformist, revivalist et al have sprouted in almost all Muslim-majority countries and in the western countries; with some concentration of Muslims. They pretend to have understood “The Real Islam” for the first time; adopting either an extremist or a liberal position, although both are untenable and in contravention of Islamic teachings of moderation. Sometimes they employ alien terms, to sound elitist and convincing, such as “religion is a matter of heart”, emotions or, a borrowed term from William James “religious experience” These pretenders, sometimes go as far as divesting Islam of its ritualistic performances; either absolutely or to a relegated level; consigning them to social exigencies or personal preferences, described as—a personal matter between man and God—-giving this deviation a flavor of Hobbesian individualism.

It is heart-wrenching to know that, Islam is being misconstrued and misrepresented in the West for a very long time, even by a leading publication such as Economist (London). “In persuading the Muslim majority countries to look upon themselves as the Eastern most part of the West, Economist argues, that Islam also implies one to one relationship between believer and the God he believes in, a direct contact without an intermediary and in this relationship, in which a single God speaks directly to the core of a single man, is the basis of individualism. The Protestant ethic is grounded on precisely the same concept” (Economist-Published on May 17-23, 1975 pg 80 Special Survey).

Tertiary guidance system in Islam The very concept of direct guidance (without an intermediary) in Islam is limited only to the first degree of guidance. (It is for every creature regardless of faith or level of comprehension) It is, however, not available, in the case of the second degree; where the intermediation of a prophet and scripture in inevitable, for it is specific to the believers to be imbued with the religious knowledge. Here is a Qura’anic verse which categorically excludes the nonbelievers (including doubters/agnostics) from the guidance of second degree; specific to Islam and a Muslims, for earlier Divine religions stand abrogated. “Whosoever believes in God, He guides his heart” (Q 64:11) also (Q47:11) & (Q 29:69) Third degree is reserved for the chosen ones such as:-“To whom God has blessed, namely, the prophets, the truthful, the martyrs and the righteous” (Q 4:69) further accentuated by “not the way of those who have earned your (God’s) wrath, nor of those who have gone astray” (Q 1:6 ){nonbelievers or apostates} (Note: – In the case of a gradual progress of some from 2nd to 3rd grade, an intermediation of 2nd level may, however, be involved. Very select few, such as the prophets and the men of God, would become entitled to special guidance absolutely directly—Example being the Prophet Muhammad, PBUH). For those, interested in further details on the subject of guidance, here is the link:- https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2016/10/03/psychological-dimension-of-quraan/

In Qura’an an emphasis is placed on the word “Musleh” which the reformers use to disguise their activities by, using colorful phrases—as mentioned above— and the ideas of social amelioration. Allah sternly warned such people by declaring: “And Allah knows the one who makes mischief distinct from him who promotes good” & “Do you think you will be left alone, as it is? God knows what you do (Q 2:220) & (9:16) Diehard reformist; who persist in their reformation agenda; mostly to appease their western impulse of modernity or to emulate western liberal values; while still claiming to their nostrum Islamic Identity, are in fact discreetly challenging the will of God as was done by the people of the old. “Evil is that for which they have sold out their selves: that they should deny what Allah has revealed, so they came out wrath upon wrath” Q 2:90 (Jews held a grudge against God as to why an Arab, (Muhammad-PBUH), instead of a Jew was awarded prophethood—for they wanted God to have acceded to their wish/desire).

This kind of strain of thought is often exhibited in complaints, atheist hurl at God’s retributive system.

Islam, in the Qura’an, Has been specifically designated as a moderate religion. In verse 143 of Surah Baqara, it is said: “We made you a moderate Ummah” (nation/community). Here is the exegetical account of this verse. God has bestowed upon the Islamic Ummah an unparalleled distinction of being moderate, balance, central and just. Exegetists also used a synonym “Mu’tadil” to fully explain the veracity of the word “Wast” (middle, central), which means moderate, temperate just, equal. For, it is of utmost importance for the health and vibrancy of any community/body to maintain its equilibrium and temperateness, else a deterioration or illness would ensue. This concept/doctrine of Moderation has been further elaborated in another verse (Q 57: 25) by pointing towards its objective, saying: “We sent Book and the Balance, so that men might uphold justice & We sent the iron in which there is great strength—it is of many uses for men” Book here signifies the source of guidance and Balance denotes justice, equilibrium, moderation and temperateness in man’s behavior with firmness and strength of the iron. The characteristics of the “TRUTH” & “JUSTICE” are further stressed in the verse (Q 7:181) “ We have created an Ummah (Of Muslims) which guides by the truth and by doing justice with it”(dispenses the justice guided by the truth).

EXCEPTIONALISM OF ISLAM Let us be clear about Islam that; it is distinctive in its relationship to politics and public life. Islam is different from any other Divine or even Major religions. It, therefore, entails profound ramifications for the world, we all live in. We may like it or not. We may accept it or not. Despite extreme Anti-Islam, Anti-Muslim sentiments, it is an enduring reality. The world has to understand it, respect it and live with its EXCEPTIONALISM.

Another fact to be borne in mind is that; Islam’s political dimension is also distinct from the West’s politico-religious experience of Protestant Reformation; followed by Enlightenment, culminated at modern-liberalism. That was in response to the Catholic Church’s Clerical stranglehold over the Christian doctrine and practices. Islamic doctrine and Practices, fortunately, face no such stranglehold, mainly due to its exceptionalism. Islam could not and would not be pushed into the private realm as was Christianity. This fact should be imprinted upon the minds of so–called Liberals and Reformists. Islamists from 1928 to date, despite their arduous gradualistic/continual approach, are reeling from their failures. Reformists, Liberals, therefore have no choice but to come to terms with Islam’s Exceptionalism. In mainstream Islam, clerics (unlike Catholic Clerics or Shia’a Clerics in Iran) do not wield power as such but rather provide a crucial check on the ruling class against excesses.Western cultural-essentialism however, prevents these liberals, reformists, from appreciating the role Islam is playing in the Muslim world and beyond.

These so-called reformists not only advocate a “progressive” (actually confuted) interpretation of the Islamic Laws but also its basic irrelevance to the public life—on the pattern of separation of religion from the politics in the west—the foundation of a pluralistic post-enlightenment, modern liberal society. Given the Islamic historical imperatives, it is not only difficult but almost impossible. Here is an interesting and enlightening quote, from late Harvard Scholar (a reformist) Shahab Ahmed: “of the capaciousness, complexity, and often outright contradiction contained within the historical phenomenon* of what we call Islam”. He further says: “But each faith tradition is also defined by boundaries expectations, and the accumulated weight of history. What religious scholars and lay believers alike have committed themselves to for centuries” –in the case of Islam, since its very founding— its (reformation) is irrelevant, for the simple reason that if something has never been done before, then it is least likely that it will start being done all of a sudden, fourteen centuries later.

It is continuously propagandized by the antagonists of Islam that it is a retrograde, medieval, backward, fundamentalist and anti-modernity religion of antiquity. Whereas Islam is the most modern, most sophisticated religion of any major religions. This presents us with a paradox: It is precisely the Islam and Islamic Law’s modern bent that makes Islam all the more relevant and resonant in today’s politics. Within Islam’s vast legal traditions, there are a number of ideas and precedents that lend themselves to modern notions of social justice, rule of law, egalitarianism, guaranteed women’s rights to own property, make their own living, compulsory redistribution of the wealth (Zakat—a mandatory year-end deduction/payment from the wealth held by a Muslim) and social security (Baitul-Mal—a state-managed public trust-fund) for older or handicapped people.

Freedom of Choice and rule of law Lacking, church-like (or Vatican like) dominant an institution, a Pope like head-clergy, availability of several schools of thought and the instrument of Ijtihad: there is ample scope of choice and adaptability. In Islam, due to its overarching corpus juris (Shari’a), both the caliph (head of state) and the subjects are treated equally. A caliph cannot claim unlimited or absolute (king-like) authority because the sovereignty belongs to God. All these instrumentalities ensure the freedom of choice and rule of law. (under the Islamic{ shaia’a}law, as the law of the land). In nutshell, there is no logical reason for Muslims to choose either Modernity or Liberal ReformationL over already most modern Islam. One could be fully modern and yet a fully-fledged good Muslim. Muslims, therefore, had never been in need of choosing between, their own traditions and those of others. Shura (Consultation) and Ijma’a (Consensus); the precursors of modern Democracy; are in fact, updated and repackaged products, borrowed from the Islamic heritage.

Failures of liberalization experiments At the time of religious and cultural encroachment through colonial rule, the assertion of Islam became distinctly political rather than just, or primarily, theological. Given its uniqueness, those (colonial) forces could not strip Islam of its better status, vibrancy and exceptionality: reducing it to just another religion. (Like Christianity) To the extreme surprise of many, Islam happened to be the most modern of Abrahamic religions. Islamic Corpus Juris (Sharia’a) proved to be more secular than the Christian conceptions of Law and Politics. It is a kind of the point of departure, since it is, kind of, the secularity of Sharia’a, which makes it more relevant and resonant in present political landscape. Islam already embraces the concepts of pluralism, politics, consultative and consensual processes (precursors of democracy) whereas, Christianity came into conflict and lost.

Egypt, Turkey, and Tunisia have a long history of reformation/liberalization of Islam as well as the Forced secularization (Westernization) experiments and their eventual failures. This trend, in the modern times, started in the 19th Century by Heavyweights such as Sayyed Qutub, Mohd Abduh, Jamal-Ud-din Afghani, Rashid Rida and Hassan Al Banna etc. This effort, despite miserable failures, is still underway owing to the current Islamists/reformers such as Ikhwan ul Muslemeen (Egypt), Erdogan (AKP), and Rached Ghannouchi (Ennahda). Ghannouchi of Tunisia tried to change Islamism and perhaps even Islam, assuming that the two are interrelated. He thought that the ideological divides somehow could be transcended by neutralizing them. The greatest failure of such Islamists/reformers is owed to their politicizing Islam; Polarization is inevitable when Islam seizes to be, as it once was, (unadulterated) the source of unity, solidarity, and consensus. The underlying reason for any such attempt’s failure is that Muslims by definition; as per the revised assessment of an Islamist Abdul Moneim Abul Futou; are Salafi, in the sense that they emulate the most pious earlier Aslaf (Prophet-PBUH, Companions, and two succeeding generations) and support the Sharia’a. Surprisingly, in most of the Muslim-majority countries and across the board, Muslims, despite all these reformation efforts, are becoming more devoutly observant.

He also confessed that the titles of liberal or Islamist/reformist are just for political exigency.
CONCLUSION Liberalism (a precursor of Atheism) and Islam cannot go together as the former fails to provide much except general disdain of religion and letting the men loose; to choose their own way of life (doing away even with the distinction between virtuousness and sinfulness); whereas later provides an affirmative vision for leading a benevolent and virtuous life in this world, as well as a blissful life in the next. (For a Muslim, it is the very foundation of his creed and purpose of being).

This is the main reason why liberals, reformists fall back on virulent anti-Islam attacks.

Islam for various cultural, historical and theological reasons is distinctive in how it relates to politics. Often recurring themes in the west such as “Islam is the Problem” and “Islam needs a reformation” are the result of liberals/reformists unwillingness and inability to understand, as to how and why Islam, in its original form, matters to so many all around the world? It is simply a modus Vivendi and raison d’etre for a Muslim.

Nation state & Islam Wael Hallaq, an Islamic Law scholar, charges Islamists being obsessed with the Modern-State. US foreign policy stalwarts such as Henry Kissinger and Dennis Ross charge them for being incompatible with the Westphalian order. It simply exposes the inherent weakness of the skewed thinking of Islamists/reformist. Nation state and Islam, despite their tenuousness, co-exist anyway!

Caliphate The concept of Caliphate, after the demise of Ottoman Empire in 1924, never died but rendered near-impossible. The emergence of Islamic State, despite its unwarranted violent behavior, colossal failures and possible annihilation, has nevertheless, resuscitated and strengthened the potential for a Pan-Islamic Caliphate on the Salafi Model (opposite to Islamic-State’s extremist model). For the West, The only long term solution (keeping up with its centuries-old traditions of inclusiveness and tolerance) is to let the Islam find its place in the western societies on the model of consensual democracy in the Western Europe. Islam for Muslims is as –non-negotiable—as the human rights are in the American Constitution and in those of many other countries. The operation of (Shari’a) courts should be allowed on the pattern of Canon Law Courts and Jewish Law Courts. West has to work around the ideological and foundational divides; which, most likely, will remain constant.

Statistical facts, validating the inexorability of Islam According to “The Almanac Book of Facts”, the population increased 137% within the past decade and the Christianity increased 46%, while Islam increased 235%. 100,000 people per year converting to Islam, only in America. For every 1 male convert to Islam 4 females convert to Islam.

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/ https://www.facebook.com/shakir.mumtaz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shakirmwp https://shakir2.wordpress.com/20…/…/10/disjunctive-sequel-2/

Source Material: Various Books, Qura’an, Tafseer and Shadi Hamid’s Islamic Exceptionalism.

*Much of the early Islamic history (not the religion) available today is based on the Ahadith and is challenged for lack of basis in primary source material and contradictions based on secondary material available. (History should not be confused with the actual Islam—primary source for which is, the Holy Qura’an and only authentic Ahadith as the secondary source). Italic text

Can Muslims be friends with non-Muslims, especially Jews and Christians?

May 7, 2017

“Oh you who believe, do not take (such) Jews and Christians as friends and allies who themselves are friends and allies of each other. And whoever of you (Muslims) turn to them (with friendship and alliance) becomes, verily, one of them; behold, Allah does not guide such evildoers.” (Qur’an, 5:51)

Answer.

It is rather enjoined upon Muslims to be compassionate, courteous and fair in dealing with Non-Muslims and especially so with the People-Of-Book. Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has set many examples of it.

It is, however, strictly forbidden to take them as intimate friends or supporters; for they are considered enemies of Allah, therefore for a Muslim one can not be his friend who is the enemy of his Lord. On the face of it, it may seem anti-social or discriminatory but logic and rationality defy such assertions.

Some Muslims; due to lack of understanding, quote verse (60:9); where it is mentioned that—-”Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion”, to justify being friends with Christians and Jews as moderate or liberal in their social behavior and Also presenting Islam; in their naivete, as a moderate, modern or liberal religion.

They are oblivious to the fact that Islam is the most modern, liberal and moderate of all Divine religions. (2:143)

The injunctions in verse (60:9) were applicable only to the war situation at the time of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and not to the normal situation of nowadays. (validated by the renunciation of such friendships—even for future by one of the noble sahabah–Ubadah Ibn Samit and some others. (Exegesis Ma’araful Quran pg 189, Vol 3).

Verse # 1 of the same surah clearly supports this viewpoint.

For a clear Understanding, one has to read all forbidding verse in conjunction, as ordained in verse 85 of surah Baqarah (2).

READ— A comprehensive writing on this Topic.

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2017/08/31/interpersonal-relationship-between-muslim-and-non-muslim/

Color-Coding Worship

February 8, 2017

 

Full length side view of creative business people standing in row against white background Stock Photo - 48353568

This phenomenon is peculiar to the west where people are recognized and operate by their color coding. Whites, Black, Brown and so on. This phenomenon does not enter in the thought-process of most other societies. In very few instances this codification could be a beneficial but overall, it is unhealthy and repugnant. Black Color, most often, is the common topic of discussion whereas others are just taken for granted and in opposition to it.

West always whining about the assimilation of migrants, never really seriously addressed the issue of African-American assimilation. It instead has festered into a stigma of the western society. Color-Codification, therefore, is bad and repugnant in opposition as well as in agreement. For when one tends to be in agreement within the codification, instantly, he, by implications, also assumes to be in opposition to the other groups. Then the society starts espousing biases and prejudices. Some of us cross all limits in color allegiance and become an accomplice in all probable ills. At the extremity, the aggrandizement and celebration of these wrongs take place at the cost of assimilation. As often seen, this behavior in the west has morphed into a culture of vengeance, defiance, and rejection. It at times tramples all boundaries of common sense, morality, and religiosity when color allegiance runs supreme. It is a very dangerous state of affairs for any multicultural and pluralist society. Academicians, intellectuals and Social scientists need to play their role in correcting this behavioral trend.

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/
https://www.facebook.com/shakir.mumtaz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shakirmwp/sandbox (Islam’s liberalization)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shakirmwp (Moral-Philosophy)
https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2014/…/10/disjunctive-sequel-2 (Sharia)
X
PUBLISHED
TRANSGENDERED–EUNUCH, Why Muslims are Shari’a Averse? & Masturbation from an Islamic perspective.
West’s Moral Dilemma. (Polygamy & POW women captured in War).
Psychological Dimension of Qura’an.(tnagibility & vassal).
X
UPCOMING ARTICLES.
The Scientific Explanation of Verse 4 of Surah Teen (Fig) # 95.
The Soul.
Empirical Evidence of God’s Existence.

Send authorization request, to reproduce or publish, in FB inbox, Please.

Liberalization? Not Islam.

January 14, 2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shakirmwp/sandbox

“Many of the People of the Scripture (including liberals and reformists) wish they
can turn you back to disbelief, afrter you have believed.

West’s moral dilemma!

October 30, 2016

Image result for Allama Iqbal's photos

Morality, in general, is a contentious subject but ironically, it becomes even more so in the Western setting for it is thought that i) they are the most righteous. ii) It is their right to set moral standard. iii) Elevated morality by divesting it from its bedrock– Religion. iv) Their standards should be emulated by all others.

Recently I was faced with two such issues and explaining them from an Islamic perspective, proved to be like fixing a square peg into the round hole of western morality. One was about the polygamy sanctioned in Islam and the other about the permissibility, of having intimate relations with the believing women, of the vanquished enemy, taken in as captives/enslaved —“What your right-hand posses”—Qura’an.

Polygamy, in western discourse, is an oft-recurring issue. This time, it cropped up as a fall-out of an Egyptian female professor Suad Saleh of Al-Azhar University’s interview aired on Egyptian T.V Al-Hayat. It was picked up and reproduced, with distorted English translation, by INQUISITR on 16th of January 2016. Offensive words were used to exploit and rile up public sentiments which; especially in the heavily charged atmosphere due to TRUMP factor, engendered the highest level of ISLAMOPHOBIA in the history of the USA.

My immediate response to the post was as under. (Edited for grammatical accuracy)

“Surprisingly Dr. Andrew Holt (An English-speaking Anti-Islam commentator exploiting and misleading the people) did not get appalled at the rampant fornication, infidelity and out of wedlock births in the western society but got appalled and concerned about the treatment of female POWs  in a very limited context of war. This clearly exposes the height of his hypocrisy. There has been hardly any war, in the human history, in which women have not been the worst victim of sexual abuse, including the most recent ones of Vietnam and Mid East; especially Iraq) If we do it with en-masse impunity across the board it is OK but if it is done in war situations on a minuscule level is too bad! Professor is simply playing insane to exploit the situation for his advantage. The situation explained by the lady professor is taken out of context for designed exploitation. Otherwise, in earlier scriptures, women have also been treated as the property of the man. In Islam, however, this treatment extended only to those who are taken as captives/slaves. It sure sounds heinous until thought through objectively; which is not as bad as sex slavery forced upon millions around the world for profiteering. It is actually a matter of perspective. It is objective for some and exploitative for the others. It’s positive implications, in  a particular, set of circumstances, however, cannot be overemphasized”

The theme of the interview was “expunging” the extramarital sex and Modern-day slavery; in the light of Islamic “Fiqh” (jurisprudence). For Muslim men are engaging in sexual slavery by buying slave women from poor countries,

Elaboration

The logic and rationale behind the permissibility of sexual relationship with captured women in war   are multifarious. The fact is that excesses are always committed in wars. Islamic laws, therefore, ensured the elimination of inevitably unbounded mistreatment through sanctification and accordance of rights; which were not even conceivable before Islam, as women were treated like a herd of animals. Slavery under Islam is distinguishable from usual slavery in the sense that it makes it incumbent upon the master to be fully responsible for all their worldly needs, under the concept called—“kafala” The master is permitted to have sexual relations with her but if she is not willing or comfortable then he is ordered either to marry her with another slave of her choice or sell her off. A slave woman cannot be forced to have sexual relations with the master. She also cannot be forced to have sexual relations with more than one man at a time. If a woman is captured along with her husband then that marriage remains intact and no one else can have sexual relation with her. Women other than people of the book are absolutely forbidden for such intimacy before their conversion, for which she cannot be forced. Raping a slave woman is a punishable crime like raping a free woman. ( Muwatta, Book 36,Chapter 16,Narration 14).  A child born to a slave woman (in whatever state, live, still, dead, premature) grants a special status of “UMM AL WALAD” (mother of a child) hence, she cannot be sold. She gets automatically emancipated at the death of her master even if he does not manumit her in his lifetime “… the very purpose of marriage is (to make) intercourse (permissible) but the purpose of possession (of slave-women) is not intercourse.” (Al-Muntaqa Sharah al-Muwatta, Darul Kitab al-Islami, Cairo, 1332 A.H. vol.4 p.82)

 

The concept of slavery sounds gruesome but justifies the end and purport; induces them to accept Islamic faith, which would necessitate either a formal marriage followed by complete integration into the family unit and society or freedom. A pertinent anecdote of the Prophet (PBUH) himself, who married slave or captured-in-war women, named “Juwairiyah”, “Qibtiyya” & “Safiyya” would invite a-man-of-intellect to reflect on this issue objectively. As a consequence, out of respect for “Juwariyah” becoming the mother of the faithful, more than 100 women of her tribe were also emancipated. Her father, who was the leader of his tribe, also became Muslim.

 

An important fact to be kept in mind is that in Islam there is no concept of “Rape” in a husband-wife relationship. A woman has to satisfy the sexual needs of the husband unless there is a permissible reason such as menstruation or some sickness etc. A slave woman, on the other hand, seems to have been given more latitude than a free woman. Needless to say, that master/husband has to be kind and compassionate (romantic, amorous) as is established by the Prophet (PBUH)’s Sunnah. Similar kindness has to be accorded to the Captured woman. It should also be borne in mind that Islam is a religion attuned to human nature. Human nature; tendencies and inclinations along with preemptive, preventive measures are, very much at the root of its injunctions. Excesses are committed in wars and would continue to be committed, despite UN Human rights and Geneva Convention declarations. Islam, therefore, has enforced a pre-emptive system, in the face of human frailties way before these declarations and laws were even conceived.

 

POLYGAMY

Polygamy had been rampant since pre-Islamic era. Prophet Solomon (R.A) reportedly had 300+ wives. Having a large harem of women/wives had been a norm. Polygamy, before 20th Century, had been in practice among Eskimos in Northern fringes of North America and Greenland when anyone hardly even knew about them. It is still practiced in North America and elsewhere in Americas; by Mormon and some other tribal communities. In the Middle East and Africa, it is a commonplace. It’s logical reason seems to be unbridled avarice and machismo. Then Arab and African tribal societies afforded it a political flavor; marriages began being solemnized for buying the loyalties of other tribes.  At the advent of Islam however; a limit of maximum four, at any given time, was set, thereby dispensing with the custom of numerous wives and countless children simultaneously.

Non-Muslims wonder and also object, that why it was not restricted to just one wife? Divine wisdom; in some matters challenges the objectivity of our ingrained ordinary beliefs; possibly for two reasons, either to leave us at the threshold of despair, rejection, and unbelief or, to transcend to a higher level of contemplation to appreciate the efficacy of Divine wisdom. Qura’an in Surah Nisa-4, V-129 clearly states that “you do not have the capacity to be judicious among your wives regardless of how sincerely you intend to. Therefore, do not lean towards one and neglect the other, leaving her hanging. And if you do the best you can God is forgiving and merciful”. It is also said in another verse # 3 of the same Surah that “if you fear that you won’t be able to do justice Just take only ONE

Great pioneering sociologist William Graham Summer in1906 explains the customs and traditions like this— “The right way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been handed down. The tradition is its own warrant. It is not held subject to verification by experience. The notion of right is in the folkways. It is not outside of them, of independent origin, and brought to test them. In the folkways whatever is, is right. This is because they are traditional, and, therefore, contain in themselves the authority of ancestral ghost. When we come to the folkways we are at the end of the analysis”

Herodotus—Greek author of First great narrative history wrote, which is also a recurring theme in the literature of social sciences— “Different cultures have different moral codes. What is thought right within one group may be utterly abhorrent to the people of another group, and vice versa” judging one right and other wrong means we have an independent standard. Whereas there is no such independent standard in reality; every standard is culture-bound.

These point of views (Divine wisdom expressed through human intellect) should be convincing enough to set aside the –vehement objection– as to why the polygamy, slavery, FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) have not been outlawed in Islam in one strike. Slavery and FGM are not approved in Islam. Islamic injunctions on these issues are annihilative in essence.

In the case of polygamy, however; there are several logical arguments which could be offered in its favor; but most intuitive would be that, since man belongs to the larger group of social animals hence his natural tendencies “ought” to be in line with that of the group—multiple mates. This is probably why there have always been more women than men to meet this threshold. Man, from the known history of mankind, has been endowed with the head of the family and beholder of rationality status. He has also been enjoying the companionship of numerous women to satisfy his natural propensities. The limitation of one wife seems to be unnatural, counter-intuitive and counter-productive.

Deviation from this natural order is vividly evident in the moral decay of the western, artificially constrained one-for-one, societies. The number of wives in Islam however, was restricted to rational maximum “four” commensurate with the level of social developments and level of responsibilities at the same time. (Pattern of Prophet Mohammad {PBUH}’s marriages with, more than one widow, one older than him and a business woman, divorcees, pubescent girl etc, on the one hand, sets the standard for a successful marital relationship while, on the other, proves the efficacy of more than one wife).

 

 

Historical perspective of polygamy

 Antique Egypt Law: A man could marry more than one woman under some circumstances.

Babel Law: according to Hammurabi laws if a woman could not bear a child or had a serious disease the husband could have a concubine.

Chinese Law: If the wealth of the husband were sufficient, he could marry secondary wives. Antique Brahmans: According to the book Vishnu, men could marry one, two, three or more women in accordance with their classes. In the laws of Manu, the husband had to choose his first wife from the same social class; he could marry a woman of lower classes as his second wife. Ancient Iran: Polygamy was legal.

Under Roman Law: It was permissible to have a concubine, without a legal wedding.
In The Bible (Old Testament) It is stated that Prophet Dawood (David) married several women. In Old, Testament polygamy is also mentioned in several other places. Polygamy existed in Judaism.

 

 

Blogshakir.shalimarinsurance.com
https://shakir2.wordpress.com/
https://www.facebook.com/shakir.mumtaz
https://plus.google.com/100769830879257255101/posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shakirmwp
https://shakir2.wordpress.com/20…/…/10/disjunctive-sequel-2/

End of the rope

August 24, 2016

It seems that Pakistan has reached its logical end for an imminent change. Turn of events is drastic and infuriating the army. The enemies within and without have come out charging. What is left is the move to nab those within Pakistan, hold summary trials and put them to gallows, for they have clearly committed the act of treason. Nawaz and his cohorts have premeditated this scenario as the last hope, for they see no way out of their predicaments otherwise. It should be assured that their nefarious designs do not succeed. Army should take the Judiciary into confidence and activate the Military courts for speedy prosecution of financial criminals and terrorist. The army should not try to Govern Pakistan, as usual, and install a technocrats-lead-government instead, for a longer period pending thorough clean-up.

President Trump would mean—AMEXIT!

July 14, 2016

Given the Worldwide disgust for Donald Trump, it can surely be envisaged that the USA would have a tough time maintaining its position as the most sought after country in the world. His dire lack of understanding of foreign affairs and foul mouthing is the main cause of this disgust; which unfortunately is not limited only to the people at the helm of affairs; but also common people at large. His demeanor, his abrasive communication style, his hairdo, even his shady business practices are all under  the minute scrutiny of these people. Those in his camp; trying their best to get him elected; would sure have to cut a sorry figure; should he be elected; though he has but a fairly remote possibility, for it would be a travesty. Justice Ruth Ginsberg’s recent remarks are just a tip of the iceberg. Another impending factor is his selection of VP. Should he pick someone like Newt Gingrich; who is known for his intransigence and confrontational politics, would be like committing suicide. Even the selection of Chris Christy would not sit very well. He sure would need someone with a softer image, astute, intelligent and well trained in international affairs personality; to brighten his chances, if at all, at the home front and internationally.

 

Hillary, though hugely favored by the establishment, Wall Street, and Corporate-America, also has some challenges but of different nature. She is blessed in the sense that, numerous forces are working to keep her troubles smothered. She however, most probably, would not be able to extend Democratic rule for 16 years. Despite excessive compromises, she might not be able to fulfill most of her campaign promises. She would be truncated to like a lame duck president, even in her first term. That would be regardless of the fact that; some republicans clandestinely wanted her to become the next president, for they do not want to endorse and work with Donald Trump at any cost. That, however, would not mean that she would be given a free hand. E-mail issue will keep her dodged. Although she is a shrewd politician, would not be able to gain the unwavering support of many even in her own party. She would not only abandon the “custodian of Obama legacy/agenda” position but may also work with republican to undo some of its components. Clintons sure would become richer whereas, Chelsea and her hubby, most likely, would land highly coveted positions. Chelsea may even dash into the politics. Obama’s nominated Supreme Court judge, most likely, would not be confirmed.

 

Bernie Saunders today on the 12th of July 2016 endorsed Hillary Clinton, which will send a wave of disappointment and disgust in his supporters, for Hillary was never their choice. Young voters, most likely, would stay away from the elections altogether, which may favor Trump. Hillary will keep nodding her head to Bernie’s speech as many times as she has to, once elected, it will be a different ball game. Bernie has proved to be the worst hope dasher in the recent electoral history of the USA. His strategic blunder, most likely, was playing a nice guy to Madam Secretary!

 

 

President Obama has severely compromised the dignity of the office of the President by   supporting Hillary Clinton. Her bungling of Bin-Ghazi situation, being swept under the carpet, is the blatant example of rich protecting rich. Have the whole world not been accusing the corrupt politicians of the third world for the same thing until yesterday? President should have stayed above the fray. He stooped down grotesquely from his mantle. He simply borrowed a page from the manual of dirty politics of the third world. Does this not tell us where we are heading as a Nation? Wake up fellows! Immigration, refugee issue, Islamophobia all are but petty issues, which are sucking up all our energies and distracting from the “REAL” issue. Oligarchy of tax-forgiven 1 % and their trillions stashed in off-shore banking units is the real issue. This money can pay our National debt many times over. We do not have to work at minimum wage and three jobs to make ends meet. America can easily afford free healthcare and free education; there will be no danger of social security going bankrupt, veterans going homeless. These corrupt self-serving politicians would not do it, for they can’t afford to annoy their masters.

.

Vitriolic White Man      

April 26, 2016

160311194851-trump-rally-protest-chaos-erin-acosta-00005212-large-169

                                                Current Presidential election campaign has exposed several fault lines of American society. Economic stagnation has veritably changed the mass-psychology, way of rationalization, level of tolerance and religiosity. Economic slumber of decades; engendered an undercurrent in the societal conduct; in the form of a vitriolic white man’s rebellion against immigrants and religions; which in its aftermath, must have landed sociologist, behaviorist and anthropologist alike on a unique learning curve.

 

Despite a recent uptick in economic activity; due to sustained steering coupled with huge capital injections, has not resulted in the alleviation of the average Joe. Although jobs are being generated and added to the workforce but mostly of part-time and temporary nature; which due to the global-parity-compulsions offer lower pay with least or no benefits. The result is that families are faced with a permanent state of uncertainty and fear. Due to shrinking or stagnant income in the face of rising costs; everyone has to pitch in to maintain their abode intact; which in turn has destroyed the fundamental structure of a family; more so of a white family, who used to be a conspicuous representation of a thriving, prosperous, well-knit American society. Father, who used to hold an esteemed status in familial-hierarchy, has either gone missing or become irrelevant. His role has been relegated to one of the breadwinners of a group. He now has to compete with younger people, of different tastes, odd work schedules, with a different set of issues, and somewhat better informed; pretending to be a family-head in control. In extreme cases, he has to even swap the role with his spouse. There is hardly an occasion for dinner table exchange of banalities. This has destroyed the inner core of the society transforming it into a bitter and intolerant one.

 

On the outer spectrum as well there is a huge shift due to the variegated flow of immigrants. They come with their own ingrained set of values; which are often at odd with American values; more so with inconceivably perverted values, which misleadingly are being boasted about and chaperoned as freedom of choice and expression.

 

In nut-shell white man is under a constant onslaught from every direction. First, he ceded to irreligiosity in the cloak of utilitarianism, then to the Abolition of slavery, then to the justification-of-equity in the shape of affirmative action, then to Mexicans and Latino workers. The recent spate of variegated immigrants, however, is the harshest, since it is at a (financially) hard time. There are not many jobs, not enough income, fractured family structure, degradation of moral values and society, as a whole, up in arms. It has pushed a sizeable segment of society in belligerent mode. A recent survey showing 24% increase in suicide rate (especially women) is an alarming vindication of societal frustration. They are vehemently against the influx of immigrant (mostly Muslim immigrants/refugees—given the sustained, premeditated demonization of Islam and Muslims). An unscrupulous, demagogue, presidential hopeful, Donald Trump, seized on these sentiments and started targeting Muslim and Mexican to win the election.

 

These immigrants come with their own set of values, work hard, get a good education and often land good jobs or establish successful businesses. They often stay and operate within their own groups except when they have to otherwise. They adopt American values but strictly based on necessity or compulsion. (Second generation, however, acts and behaves on more American less immigrant level). In fact, they traverse in parallel value-systems with ease; one from back home and the other need-based American. Their work ethics, moral standards, religious ethos and ratiocination; which are time-tested, put the white man under immense pressure despite their minimal proportion. White man seems to have been pushed to the wall for enumerated reasons. Ironically they feel under threat of being wiped out, as a majority, within their own country, which is ironically claimed and owned by all equally! They, as early settlers of several generations ago, think have an emphatically exclusive, claim and rights to America, unlike a newly sworn citizen. (Needless to say, it is the most cherished part of being an American for which some pay very heavy price).

 

This hurt is more pronounced in the middle-class and most in the lower middle class; who, more often, lay down an exclusive claim of being true American. These folks are so frustrated that they are ready to take on anything and everything. They think it is the matter of their survival. I am all sympathetic to their “Nationalistic” plight, but now this is other’s adopted/chosen home too; who after few generations would be standing with them, in the same shoes! The jingoistic course of action, chosen by them, therefore, is misleading and futile. They should rather, gain awareness, Learn, how to re-invent themselves, retrain, get educated, stay away from drugs, alcohol, pre-marital sex/pregnancies, hate, anger and frustration. Stop hating religions and God; because it simply deprives one of the privilege and faculty of contemplation, entailing humbleness and sense of gratitude. A recent jump in suicide rate could very well be related to this deprivation. Start having normal families and achievable goals. It won’t be long that you will become relevant and important as anyone else Stasis is unsustainable. Harboring negative feelings is an anecdote of self-immolation. Trump phenomenon, as people call it, is not really a solution to the ills of an American man. It is but an opportunistic cashing of the situation by a tabloid-famed, self-indulgent, demagogue. In the end, he probably would be flying high but you sure would be the in worst of a situation. The truth is that none of the politicians is interested in your or my welfare but his/her own. It is time for sagacity and wisdom to prevail. The choice is yours!

 

  1. shalimarinsurance.com
  2. https://www.facebook.com/shakir.mumtaz
  3. https://plus.google.com/100769830879257255101/posts
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shakirmwp

 


%d bloggers like this: