Posts Tagged ‘logic’

Soul, A Divine Manifestation.

November 29, 2017
“Reason is a light that God has kindled in the soul.”- Aristotle

To be Correct and precise:-–It is the Curiosity human Nature has been inculcated/kindled with (not the soul); that gives rise to Human reason and logic (a human construct). Its application, therefore, is limited (temporal)  in its scope. There are many a thing beyond and above human logic and reason !!!!

How to maintain focus while praying?

October 19, 2017


Related image

It is not unusual. This happens to most of the people.

One may, however, imagine either, 1) God is watching him OR, 2) He/She is standing in front of Allah(SWT), or He/She is watching Allah (SWT).

Seek help in patience and prayer; and truly it is hard save for the khaashi-oon, Who know that they will have to meet their Lord and that unto Him they are returning. (Q, 2: 44–45)

Successful indeed are the believers. Those who in prayer are khashi-oon. (Q, 23: 1–2)

Note: Khusu is not “mandatory” as is generally assumed, for it is not in the control of human being. The requirement in above verses is advisory only. In the first verse, its achievement is acknowledged to be difficult for a common man, but one should try his/her best to achieve it.  “Allah does not encumber anyone beyond his capacity” (Q, 2:286)

In Surah Al Aaraf, V-199 The Prophet has been asked by Allah (SWT) to “take to forbearance”.  Interpretation:- Accept what people can do easily and do not demand a high degree of performance in religious affairs.

Khushu Khuzu (submission and humbleness) this degree of veneration cannot be expected from everyone, as it is achieved by very few fortunate ones. This situation, therefore, According to the interpretation reported in Sahih Al Bukhari on the authority of Abdullah Ibn Zubair, falls under the purview of this verse (7:199).

Good News is that; when one struggles in such a situation to concentrate on his salah, gets rewarded doubly. Once for praying and once for struggling to concentrate. (H).

In Islamic parlance, it is called “Ehsan”. A concerted effort is required to attain this position/state. A few and far between really achieve it—-called Muhsenoon or khaashioon.

{(I seek refuge in all merciful Allah (SWT)}


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”. 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:-

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.…/…/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

The anthropocentric character of the Universe, Special status of man and yet his denial of God!

March 21, 2016


Qura’an–Surah Luqman 31, V-20– it is said–Don’t you see! How God has made beneficial to you whatsoever is in the Heavens and the Earth and showered you with overt and covert blessings, yet of men is he who disputes concerning Him; without knowledge, guidance or being enlightened from Scripture!

Qura’an—Surah At-Tin 95, V-4, 5  Surah Sajda 32, V-7 & 8 Surah Al Hijr 15, V-33 also said—We made man as the best of the creations (Masterpiece)–but from basal and lowly ingredients (such as blackened decaying mud and semen) and then turned him into the lowest of the low, Except those who believed and did righteous deeds. The point is that despite all these accolades, to excel to be Crown of the Creation, submission, belief and good deeds are inevitable requirements.

For further reading please access the following.

May GOD be dispensed with ?

November 25, 2015

BThree Faiths One God compos

The idea of Supreme-Being suggests a continuum of non local intelligence, permeating space and time. This is however, in contrast with Newtonian view of a perceptive tissues locked inside the skull. The mystical scriptures of religions express the idea of a single underlying reality embodied in a Supreme Being (GOD), the absolute self. We however, delude ourselves with the thought that we know much about the science and materiality and so overestimate material (in the sense of physical/evidentiary/empirical) causation and believe that it alone can affords us a true explanation of life. Materiality, on the other hand, is as inscrutable as non-materiality. As to the ultimate thing we can know nothing, and only when we admit this, do we return to state of sensibility. Nature will reveal anything we are capable enough to handle and clever enough to seek sincerely. From materialistic point of view, the life is supernatural and from life’s point of view, mind’s realm is supernatural. Higher in these invariably permeates and influences the lower as if to perpetrate a miraculous—Divine–intervention. A Divine Order and command over the universe of matter, life and mind. Acknowledging this Order is EXACTLY the faith in UNSEEN.


The idea of world as an organism has been called “Gaia Hypothesis”—named after mythical Greek goddess of earth. Mass consciousness effects suggest that there is a mind of Gaia. Individual neurons in a brain would find it hard to believe, that they are participating in a complex dance called “mass consciousness”, which affects the mind of Gaia. Similarly individuals participating, through life activities, in a complex dance affect the mind of God. God affirmed this in Qura’an, “I am what My slaves perceive/imagine Me as”


Evidence of Existence of God

There is a small segment of society which not only disbelieves in God but refutes Him too. Some go to the extent of, I guess out of spite, declaring His non existence. In this treatise therefore, a wide range of avenues are explored to reach a tenable proclamation justifying His existence for, an overwhelming majority of human-race, one way or other believes in God.


Traditional theosophy presents three well recognized modes/arguments for God’s existence.


1) Cosmological   2) Teleological   3) Ontological


  • Cosmological-a

Dependent character of the universe argument concludes that a necessary, self subsistent, being must exist. Reason being that everything that moves in the universe needs a mover. Every effect needs a cause—there exists a chain of observable causes at the end of which has to be a–principal–unmoved mover, an uncaused cause, by necessity–In absence whereof this universe would have been reduced to inexplicable and unintelligible.



Existence of physical/material universe; logically demands for a being, which is not just possible but “Necessary” to provide a ground and basis for its being—-That necessary being is God. (Contingency Doctrine)


First cosmological argument establishes that chronologically God pre-existed the universe as its “efficient Cause” Second argument established that God is Logically-prior reason of which universe is a “consequent” (popular philosophical arguments)


Both arguments put together compel us to acknowledge the God’s existence.

                   2) Teleological

Teleological argument or the design argument lays emphasis on Order, Harmony leading to Beauty and then moving onto Meaning and Purpose in creation. This sequential inter-dependent order in the creation demands of a conscious and intelligent being whose thoughts are being actualized with such a fine perfection.


Alternatively, if forms are analyzed from graduated or hierarchical scale of excellence, it would also demand a highest form/degree of perfection on the top to permeate to lesser degrees/forms to exist. Since everything is caused by the First cause, it must be par excellence (immaterial & uncaused).



        3) Ontological

Ontological argument proves the existence of God from the very basis of “perfection”

Since non existence is a sort of imperfection, therefore the “perfect Being—God” must necessarily exist.


Few more avenues are explored, which unwaveringly, leading to God’s Existence.



                    4) Law of causality

Universe was created in time. Time therefore, was created before the universe. The law of causality demands that what is created must, by necessity, have its Cause/Creator.

In Islamic parlance creation of time is crucial. It bifurcate the process in different categories. TAKWEEN (before the creation of time) –All the rules, physical, metaphysical were set and documented in Sacred Preserved Tablet (with God). This mode of Creation is sparingly used.  CREATION (after the creation of time)—this mode is continuous.


  •             5) Principle of Determination

Prior to the existence of the universe it was equally possible that it started existing (in the mind of its Creator-as “thought”) as Non-Entity. God being it’s determining principle—with respect to when to actualize it into form and with what governing rules.


  •                6) Priori Knowledge of God

I would consider belief in God as priori, and non empirical idea. Because I think experience here refers to the idea of measurement, and so the capacity of meditation as posteriori source, dependents on the idea that consciousness acts as a receptacle for information that cannot be taken in with any form through the senses—which is a priori claim. Therefore necessarily the proposition of God coming from mind must be founded on priori and non empirical statement. (Some may argue, this is true of all knowledge. maybe. But the case is more direct here).

  •                   7) Posteriori knowledge of God

Existence of God, I have had one of those experiences, which could also be classified as “God feelings” instead of knowledge of existence of God. (Depending on how the knowledge of “God” is defined) In any case, I think the term “Belief” is more appropriate here than the “knowledge” if we accept this, then this is a straightforward example of a posteriori belief. The belief has been predicated upon the experience. We can keep the term knowledge if we simplify the initial claim to be knowledge of profound and ineffable spiritual feelings rather than knowledge of the existence of God. The latter is a little dodgy, but no one will deny that the former constitute truly valid knowledge, albeit of the subjective kind. So here too we have a posteriori, in this case posteriori knowledge of spiritual experience. No one knows what the spiritual experience truly is until,–one experiences it—a clear cut example of a posteriori knowledge.



  •                             8) Public (reasoning) Justification for knowledge of God

Existence of God could also be demonstrated through public (reasoning for cognition of the knowledge of God). The justification will be presented on the lines of established “CONSENT   THEORIES” of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau; who developed “Consent theories of legitimacy”, but these three theorists seemed to oscillate between an empirical standard of consent and something deeper, a normative standard of consent. On the empirical account, we have public justification for (God feelings) knowledge of God which an individual experiences and actually believes, desires, and values as tangible effectuation (transitioning from psychological/emotional to physical comfort on a consistent basis) cementing further his conviction for the knowledge (existence) of God. On the normative account, we have public justification for (God feelings) knowledge of God Which an individual experiences and ideally believes, desires, and values as tangible effectuation (transitioning from psychological/emotional to physical comfort on consistent basis) Cementing further his conviction for the Knowledge (existence) of God. In the latter case, they sometimes speak of hypothetical consent (For familial or community reasons) One reason these theorists may have had for transitioning from actual to hypothetical consent is that they hoped to identify a rational justification of a “religious order” consequent upon “knowledge of existence of God” which, in the absence of an absolute and all encompassing acceptance by any given community, is hoped to enjoy widespread support within the relevant community — imagining public possessing superior information and cognitive abilities (delineated above) despite their diverse interests and reasons, still have conviction to comply with revealed knowledge of God even if this adherence did not permit them to act as they would like to.


(Note: The mechanism of “CONSENT THEORY” developed by the named scholars has been adapted and applied to religious institution–consequent upon Knowledge of God—instead-Author).



  •                                    9) Empirical evidence

Evidence——Everything is evidence which the historian can use as evidence. But what can he so use? It must be something here and now perceptible  empirical connotation that ‘reason to believe’ lacks: it sounds more natural, at least to some ears, to describe a priori philosophical considerations as reasons to believe some philosophical thesis.


Charles Sanders Peirce—Mixed empiricism and rationalism.


Whatever we find in the intellect is also incipiently present in sense.

Charles Peirce (1839–1914) was highly influential in laying the groundwork for today’s empirical scientific method Although Peirce severely criticized many elements of Descartes’ peculiar brand of rationalism, he did not reject rationalism outright. Indeed, he concurred with the main ideas of rationalism, most importantly the idea that rational concepts can be meaningful and the idea that rational concepts necessarily go beyond the data given by empirical observation. In later years he even emphasized the concept-driven side of the then ongoing debate between strict empiricism and strict rationalism, in part to counterbalance the excesses to which some of his cohorts had taken pragmatism under the “data-driven” strict-empiricist view.


As a result of greater familiarity with scientific and empirical deduction, the human mind tends naturally to shy away somewhat from purely intellectual deduction, particularly if the matter under investigation is non-material and insensible


Since the specialists in the empirical sciences devote all their mental energy to the sensory sciences, they are alien to matters that lie beyond sense perception. One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one’s thought to the logic of the empirical sciences and to fail to recognize the limits and boundaries of that logic. This alienation, this distance from non-sensory matters, this extraordinary trust in the data yielded by the empirical sciences, reaches such a point that testing and experimentation forms the whole mental structure and world view of such specialists. They regard experimentation as the only acceptable tool and means of cognition, as the sole criterion. They expect it to solve every problem.

The function of the sciences is to explain the relationships between phenomena; their aim is to establish the connection between events, not between God and events. In the experimental sciences, man is not at all concerned with God. One should not expect to be able to perceive supra-sensory realities by means of sensory criteria, or to see God in a laboratory. The sciences cannot carry out a laboratory experiment on the existence of God and then reach the verdict that if a thing is not physically observable and it cannot be established by means of laboratory experiment and mathematical calculation, it does not exist.


                      10) Denying God, Denying Reality

Does God exist? This is the question being constantly raised by Atheist. The question is often put forward in different guises but the premise is always the same; does God exist and what evidence (PROOF) is there to support this belief? In fact, I would argue that we don’t need any evidence of His existence. So the question itself needs debating.  It shouldn’t actually be “does God exist?”, but rather “what reasons do you have to reject His existence?”

God is an axiomatic belief. In other words, God’s existence is self-evidently true. In the language of philosophy it is also known as “Basic-Belief”. The idea of self-evident truths is accepted by all. Take science for example: science takes the world’s reality as a self-evident truth; it believes that the world is real. In other words, the physical world is separate and external from our minds and our thoughts.

An Innate Belief: Properly basic beliefs, axiomatic beliefs, and self-evident truths, do not require information transfer.  For me to understand what a spaghetti monster is, I require information to be transferred to me. For example, I require knowledge of western cuisine and Italian culture. But when it comes to the idea of God’s existence as the creator of the universe, you do not require any information transfer, whether from culture, or education. This is why sociologists and anthropologists argue that even if atheist children were stranded on a desert island, they would come to believe that something created the desert island. Self-evident truths do not have to be universal: Self-evident truths, basic beliefs or axioms can be individualized and do not have to have universal appeal.



  •                                          11) Principle of Oneness

There are two kinds of Oneness we are conversant with (a) Number one and also (b) reference to characteristic of Simplicity.  In the first case it applies to the worldly objects as well as to God, whereas in the later it applies ONLY to God; since any singularity (oneness) referred to, other than that of God, would be composite until reduced to an absolute singular.  It could, therefore, logically be argued that that “ONENESS” is inevitable for the creation of the universe. Hence that inevitably indivisible ONENESS is GOD.


There are numerous Muslims scholars who have expounded on the subject. Few most prominent ones are; Al kindi, Ibn Tufail, Ibn Sina, Abu Rushd, and Farabi..


Abu Rushd was an eminent Spanish Muslim scholar known in the West as (Averroes) mostly for his Islamic-legal work, He also tried to establish the belief in the existence of God and His attributes, through Qura’anic approach, by presenting various point of views within Islam. Few are presented here in brief.



Thought God is known through reason. Abu Rushd agreed but did not agree with their dialectical approach rather than philosophical. Asha’rites based this on several presuppositions. —world is temporal, bodies are composite of atoms, God neither eternal nor temporal and so on.



According to Abu Rushd

Qura’an recommends two rational philosophical ways to God.


Teleologicalthrough proof of providence everything in the universe has been created for the benefit and service to human being. Therefore the way universe has been organized and planned necessitates that there be a willful planner/designer of this universe, with a purpose of service to human being. That designer/planner is God.


CosmologicalThrough proof of Creation If something comes to life out of nothing or something lifeless is endowed with life suddenly that would necessitate a Creator i.e God.


Sufi, on the other hand, hold that mystical experience is the only method through which God can be recognized. This experience however, needs an extensive exercise in self discipline for its eventualization. It also draws heavily on the grace of almighty God. Thus it becomes the prerogatives of the selected few. Qura’an being the book of guidance for all would not therefore, recommend Sufi way for the understanding of divine existence in general.



The belief in God is universal: In spite of the number of atheists in the world, the belief in God is universal. A universal belief does not mean every single person on the planet must believe in it. A cross cultural consensus is enough evidence to substantiate the claim that God’s existence is a universal claim. Evidently there are more theists than atheists in the world, and this has always been the case from the beginning of recorded history and most likely will always be.


Atheistic fallacy proven by Godel’s incompleteness theorem

In 1931, the young mathematician Kurt Gödel made a landmark discovery, as powerful as anything Albert Einstein developed. Gödel’s discovery not only applied to mathematics but literally to everything, to all branches of science, logic, math, language, philosophy and human knowledge. It has truly earth-shattering implications. And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe.

OK, so what does this really mean? Why is this super-important, and not just an interesting geek factoid?

  • Faith and Reason are not enemies.In fact, the exact opposite is true. One is absolutely necessary for the other to exist. All reasoning ultimately traces back to faith in something that you cannot prove.
  • All closed systems depend on something outside the system.
  • You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle.
  • It cannot be PROVED that gravity will always be consistent at all times. It can only be observed that it’s consistently true every time. It cannot be proved that the universe is rational. It can only be observed that mathematical formulas like E=MC^2 do seem to perfectly describe what the universe does. It also can’t be proved that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either. It literally has to be taken on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that could not be scientifically proven. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, but only infer. (Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws.)
  • Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe.(If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too) There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but can not prove) will give you the right answer every time.)
  • The universe(all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
  • Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it. If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.
  • Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
  • Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause,because you can always draw a circle around an effect.
  • In the history of the universe we also see the introduction of information,some 3.5 billion years ago. It came in the form of the Genetic code, which is symbolic and immaterial
  • The information appears to have come from the outside, since information is not known to be an inherent property of matter, energy, space or time
  • All codes we know the origin of are designedby conscious beings.
  • Therefore whatever is outside the largest circle is a conscious being.
  • In breaking the deadlock between Darwin and Design and exploring the question of origin of information in depth, we add the information to the equation, we therefore conclude that not only is the thing outside the biggest circle infinite, immaterial but also conscious.
  • Isn’t it interesting how all these things sound suspiciously similar to how theologians have described God for thousands of years?
  • So it’s hardly surprising that 80-90% of the people in the world believe in some concept of God. Yes, it’s intuitive to most folks. But Gödel’s theorem indicates it’s also supremely logical. In fact it’s the only position one can take and stay in the realm of reason and logic.
  • The person who proudly proclaims, “You’re a man of faith, but I’m a man of science” doesn’t understand the roots of science or the nature of knowledge!
  • That high school geometry book is built on Euclid’s five postulates. Everyone knows the postulates are true, but in 2500 years nobody’s figured out a way to prove them.
  • Euclid’s 5 postulates aren’t formally provable and God is not formally provable either. But… just as you cannot build a coherent system of geometry without Euclid’s 5 postulates, neither can you build a coherent description of the universe without a First Cause and a Source of order.
  • Thus faith and science are not enemies, but allies. It’s been true for hundreds of years, but in 1931 this skinny young Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel proved
  • Godels two theorem acknowledges another concept of “Dualism” in the Creation. It is confirmed in Qura’an that everything has been created in pairs Even Muslim Article of faith starts by confirming this concept—“There is God but no god” Likewise matter and anti matter, However since matter is fractionally more than the anti-matter, therefore pervades.(adapted by the author as addendum to Godel’s theorem).
  • No time in the history of mankind has faith in “God” been more reasonable, more logical, or more thoroughly supported by science and mathematics.
  • Assumption to the contrary?

The mainstream secularization thesis states that as societies become more modernized, the authority and influence of religious beliefs and institutions will eventually disappear from public life and will only be relevant to individuals on a private level, if at all. As William Swatos, Jr and Kevin Christiano (2) argue.* (adapted as addendum to the Godel’s theore by the author)


Faith in the “unseen” is man’s conviction that there is an order of existence beyond the visible order which we confront here and now, a metaphysical, supernatural order that is seriously to be reckoned with.

Qura’an recognizes iman bil ghaib (Faith in the Unseen) as the source and ground of man’s conviction in the Ultimate Existence. In order to achieve the awareness of metaphysical realities Faith in the Unseen must preside over all recognized sources of knowledge although they are relevant in their own ways and capacities.

Mystics, as a consequence of their efforts towards the purification of soul and concentration on the Might and Majesty of God achieve an “I- Thou” encounter with Him. This is living assurance of His existence leaving absolutely no room for doubt or misgiving. This “I-Thou” experience becomes objectivized  “I” subsumes “Thou” and “Thou”— Yazid Bastami (famous mystic)  declares— “I am the Reality”  Since God sys  “I become his (the seeker’s) hearing, his seeing, his hands, his feet—so much so whatever he does, does through me. ( Hadith Qudsi)

Save the generations from becoming disillusioned.

May 3, 2015

It is alarming that schools, colleges, and universities in the West generally and in the United States specifically are working on a deliberate plan to churn out younger generation Anti-Religion, Anti-Nation. BBC recently aired a program where it was narrated that Christians are afraid of publically declaring themselves as Christians. The reason is that Atheists attack theist with such ferocity that most theists, because of lack of knowledge or religious befuddlement, take refuge in hiding their theistic beliefs. Surprisingly it is not the case with Christians only. Muslims are facing that dilemma twice—an attack from atheists—- and —another from Islamophobes. The result is that Muslims with little or no knowledge are also compelled to accept unsavory labels of “Secular-Muslims” or “liberal-Muslims” Some, to avoid these slanderous terms use a bit more acceptable term of “Contemporary-Muslims”–In an attempt to distinguish themselves as enlightened, modern Muslims. All of these classifications are untenable from an Islamic perspective. The point to ponder is why is it happening on such a massive scale and what forces are working behind it. Church, no doubt, has miserably failed to keep the Church goers and attract the new adherents. There could be several reasons for it, but few obvious ones are, commoditization of religion, commercialization of church activities, Misappropriation or nonreligious use of contributions. Mosques, on the other hand, are generally manned by illiterate, with little or no religious knowledge imams, who in many cases can’t even read or speak English. Their main role, therefore, is limited to leading the prayers. Main reason for poor quality Imams is financial constraints. A very famous mega Church leader in GA is planning to gather 15 million $ for buying an airplane for his personal use. Several  church-related figures have already been trashed in the media on similar accounts.

Why younger generation, is thronging to Atheism?

Another reason is the parent (s) casual and expedient lifestyle where religiosity takes a back seat. There is no concerted effort to instill the religious values in the mind and behavior of a kid. Freedom of religion and freedom of choice is overemphasized which culminates in an individualistic mindset– without any pre-set boundaries. Expedient morality bits starts from anywhere and to whatever one deems fit. Everyone establishes its own set of self-satisfying rules—which are bound to result in conflict at the wider stage of the world. When such minds, due to natural propensity or worldly compulsion, think to fall in conformity with the universally accepted values of morality and conduct, an insurmountable challenge is faced. They have to unlearn what they have been living by first, since childhood, and then learn the religious, new values, fresh. In the face of this arduous undertaking easiest and readily available course, therefore, is to resign to already pulling liberal/atheistic forces. Hence another fine mind is lost to the abyss of ATHEISM forever.

Our ambivalent or explicit approval of activities condemned in scriptures is another reason for this pandemic. Today any important personality has to think 100 times, before resorting to God in Public discourse, whereas coming out of the closet waving a flag of modern liberalism has become a matter of pride. The result is that most media outlets would flatly refuse to carry any opinion against gays and lesbians. Religions or religious figures, however, could be ridiculed and desecrated with perfect impunity in the name of freedom of expression. (Absolutely inapplicable to any opinion against gays and lesbians)  On several TV Channels, it is a fait accompli to replace the word God with extra-terrestrials or some other synonym. On History Channel on May 1st, 2015 2, PM show it was said that Moses went to the mountains not to meet God but extraterrestrials. We, therefore, have to reverse this situation with serious, all out efforts if we have to save this nation and country from disillusionment and ideological demise.

%d bloggers like this: