Journey into Europe: Islam, Immigration, and Identity By Akbar Ahmad

The End of History and the Last Man is a 1992 book by Francis Fukuyama.In the book, Fukuyama argues that the advent of Western liberal democracy may signal the endpoint of humanity's sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government. An argument in favour of Fukuyama's thesis is the democratic peace theory, which argues that mature democracies rarely or never go to war with one another. This theory has faced criticism, with arguments largely resting on conflicting definitions of "war" and "mature democracy"

The Clash of Civilizations is a hypothesis that people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. The American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington argued that future wars would be fought not between countries, but between cultures, and that Islamic extremism would become the biggest threat to world peace.

Akbar Ahmad argues that western world considers Islam as an antithesis to western value. Islam is considered barbaric regressive and archaic religion which is contrary to western ethos of liberalisation, women emancipation, democracy and free speech. They consider Muslim as uncivilised alien who are bent upon polluting their political and social fabric.

On the other hand, Muslim feels that they are being cornered and discriminated due to their religious identity which itself is negation of Liberal values of the west. They think that west has failed to differentiate between modern and radical Islam. The modern Islam is true face of Muslim and radical Islam is the product of western misadventures that range from colonisation of Muslim land, supporting dictatorship in Muslim heartland and suppressing Muslim immigrants.

Akbar Ahmad argues that both Muslim and European are responsible for the current stalemate. European failed to understand that Islamic is civilization is not alien to Europe rather it is in the DNA of European civilization. Spain, not Italy was the cradle of rebirth of European Civilization. Fear has been mutated into hatreds

Islamic scholar failed to remove misperception on women Deomcracy  Jihad etc

Civilization is not bad but it is the education that matters.6 million books in Cordova vs 600in Europe. One Department Produce more research than entire middles east

An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding 1748

David Hume 1711-76 was a Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist, who is best known today for his highly influential system of philosophical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism. Beginning with his A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), Hume strove to create a total naturalistic science of man that examined the psychological basis of human nature. Against philosophical rationalists, Hume held that passion rather than reason governs human behaviour. Hume argued against the existence of innate ideas, positing that all human knowledge is founded solely in experience; Hume thus held that genuine knowledge must either be directly traceable to objects perceived in experience, or result from abstract reasoning about relations between ideas which are derived from experience, calling the rest "nothing but sophistry and illusion

Origin of ideas

 Next, Hume discusses the distinction between impressions and ideas. By "impressions", he means sensations, while by "ideas", he means memories and imaginings. According to Hume, the difference between the two is that ideas are less vivacious than impressions. For example, the idea of the taste of an orange is far inferior to the impression (or sensation) of actually eating one. Writing within the tradition of empiricism, he argues that impressions are the source of all ideas.

Hume accepts that ideas may be either the product of mere sensation, or of the imagination working in conjunction with sensation. According to Hume, the creative faculty makes use of (at least) four mental operations which produce imaginings out of sense-impressions. These operations are compounding (or the addition of one idea onto another, such as a horn on a horse to create a unicorn).

 However, Hume admits that there is one objection to his account: the problem of "The Missing Shade of Blue". In this thought-experiment, he asks us to imagine a man who has experienced every shade of blue except for one (see Fig. 1). He predicts that this man will be able to divine the color of this particular shade of blue, despite the fact that he has never experienced it. This seems to pose a serious problem for the empirical account, though Hume brushes it aside as an exceptional case

Association of ideas

In what is sometimes referred to as Hume's problem of induction, he argued that inductive reasoning and belief in causality cannot be justified rationally; instead, our trust in causality and induction result from custom and mental habit, and are attributable only to the experience of "constant conjunction" of events. This is because we can never actually perceive that one event causes another, but only that the two are always conjoined. Accordingly, to draw any causal inferences from past experience it is necessary to presuppose that the future will resemble the past, a presupposition which cannot itself be grounded in prior experience

The cornerstone of Hume's epistemology is the problem of induction. This may be the area of Hume's thought where his scepticism about human powers of reason is most pronounced. “experience cannot establish a necessary connection between cause and effect, because we can imagine without contradiction a case where the cause does not produce its usual effect…the reason why we mistakenly infer that there is something in the cause that necessarily produces its effect is because our past experiences have habituated us to think in this way– all other sciences are reduced to probability." He uses this skepticism to reject metaphysics and many theological views on the basis that they are not grounded in fact and observations, and are therefore beyond the reach of human understanding

Hume's opposition to the teleological argument for God's existence, the argument from design, is generally regarded as the most intellectually significant attempt to rebut the argument prior to Darwinism.” A very small part of this great system, during a very short time, is very imperfectly discovered to us; and do we thence pronounce decisively concerning the origin of the whole?” It mean we cannot trace back to God on the basis of cause and effect relationship because cause and effect have complex relationship and so is universe.

Hume's argument is that we cannot rationally justify the claim that nature will continue to be uniform, as justification comes in only two varieties—demonstrative reasoning and probable reasoning—and both of these are inadequate. With regard to demonstrative reasoning, Hume argues that the uniformity principle cannot be demonstrated, as it is "consistent and conceivable" that nature might stop being regular. Turning to probable reasoning, Hume argues that we cannot hold that nature will continue to be uniform because it has been in the past. As this is using the very sort of reasoning (induction) that is under question, it would be circular reasoning.[78] Thus, no form of justification will rationally warrant our inductive inferences

Empiricist philosophers, such as Hume and Berkeley, favoured the bundle theory of personal identity. In this theory, "the mind itself, far from being an independent power, is simply 'a bundle of perceptions' without unity or cohesive quality".[95] The self is nothing but a bundle of experiences linked by the relations of causation and resemblance; or, more accurately, that the empirically warranted idea of the self is just the idea of such a bundle (3 Minutes Philosophy)

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics. For example, courts of law make judgments, without bringing in metaphysics, about whether an individual was acting of their own free will in specific circumstances. It is assumed in a court of law that someone could have acted otherwise than in reality. Otherwise, no crime would have been committed. Similarly, political liberty is a non-metaphysical concept.

Hume defines the concept of necessity as "the uniformity, observable in the operations of nature; where similar objects are constantly conjoined together”, and liberty as "a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will”. He then argues that, according to these definitions, not only are the two compatible, but liberty requires necessity. For if our actions were not necessitated in the above sense, they would "have so little in connexion with motives, inclinations and circumstances, which one does not follow with a certain degree of uniformity from the other"

Suo Motu Powers of SCP

Article 184(3) empowers the SC to pass such orders that high courts can pass under Article 199 in relation to matters of public importance involving enforcement of fundamental rights, and it can also take suo-motu action without an aggrieved person petitioning the court. Without getting into the question of whether these powers vest in the SC or the office of the CJ, the first question is: can the SC make policy choices in exercise of 184(3) powers?

There are two related questions here. What do judges do and how do they do it? Do judges make the law or do they interpret and enforce it? If they do the former, they enter the domain of the legislature. If they don’t, can they make policy choices on behalf of lawmakers or the executive under the garb of interpreting and enforcing the law?

In this framework, citizens’ right to water would be the matter of principle that is to be upheld by the state. Whether this is done by building large dams or small or by harvesting rainwater or by replenishing aquifers or by doing all these things simultaneously would be a matter of policy. By deciding that citizens’ right to water is to be upheld by making large dams, financing for which will be sought through donations and overseen by the SC, it has forced a policy choice on the state. Anyone opposing this policy choice could be held in contempt of court.

The question thus remains, as an institution with enumerated powers (Article 175(2) says “No court shall have any jurisdiction save as is or maybe conferred on it by the constitution or by or under any law”), wherefrom does the SC derive the power to sponsor the Dam Project?

In Mustafa Impex 2016,CJP Saqib Nisar held that, “Article 90 states categorically what the federal government is; it consists of the prime minister and the federal ministers (ie the cabinet) ,the similarity with Articles 176 and 192 which respectively define the Supreme Court and the high court as consisting of the chief justice and judges).” It is interesting that he used the definition of the Supreme Court to affirm that just as the chief justice doesn’t comprise the SC all by himself, the PM doesn’t comprise the federal government.

A natural corollary in the 184(3) context is that the constitution vests this power in the SC and not the CJP. The constitution doesn’t elaborate any further how the 184(3) power is to be used. The Supreme Court Rules are silent as well. If efforts by the PM or ministers to make decisions that are to be made by the federal government are invalid, how is exercise of the 184(3) power by the CJP (when it belongs to the SC) valid exercise of 184(3) powers?

Individual power is vulnerable to arbitrariness and induces uncertainty, as opposed to what rule of law promises. The judicial arm is meant to guard the state and its citizens against arbitrary actions of the executive arm. But if the judicial arm’s power and functions are seen as driven by arbitrariness, who will guard against that?

And three, judicial overreach undermines executive authority. The vacuum theory, that other state institutions should step in because the executive or legislature doesn’t perform, is neither convincing nor not self-serving. The populist saviour model hasn’t worked. Suo-motu identification of problems hasn’t led to sustainable solutions.

A Theory of Justice by John Rawls

Rawls's theory of "justice as fairness" recommends equal basic rights, equality of opportunity, and promoting the interests of the least advantaged members of society. Rawls's argument for these principles of social justice uses a thought experiment called the "original position", in which people select what kind of society they would choose to live under if they did not know which social position they would personally occupy.

Rawls accepts that there is sheer inequality in the society owing to liberal capitalist system. In stark contrast to communists he isn’t in favour of demolishing the existing system to remove inequalities. Rather, He believes in distributive justice and is eager to equally distribute Liberty, Opportunity income and wealth. He concedes that it’s almost impossible to distribute all social values justly therefore he is willing to accept inequality to extent if it’s rigged in favour of weakest segment of the society. However, there is a question that who will ensure distributive justice and on what Principle? Rawls believes that people together shall ensure justice at their Original Position behind veil of ignorance.

Original Position is a hypothetical situation prior to the starting of society at which people are going to decide the principles that will govern the society they will live in. At original position, people will be behind veil of ignorance meaning thereby they would be unaware of their actual position, geographical location, religion, profession or their talent in the world.

Resultantly people would give credence to two principles of justice

First Principle: Equal Liberty

Second Principle: (a) Difference Principle: Inequality is justified if it favours the weakest segment of the society: Taxing the rich to spend on poor

Second Principle: (b) equality of opportunity

Criticism: The agreement that stems from the original position is both hypothetical and ahistorical. What if someone wants to gamble at original Position? What if the priorities with respect to justice are different at original position? Can we really bring equality in capitalistic system?

John Bordley Rawls (February 21, 1921 – November 24, 2002) was an American moral and political philosopher in the liberal tradition.He held the James Bryant Conant University Professorship at Harvard University and the Fulbright Fellowship at the University of Oxford. Rawls received both the Schock Prize for Logic and Philosophy and the National Humanities Medal in 1999, the latter presented by President Bill Clinton, in recognition of how Rawls's work "helped a whole generation of learned Americans revive their faith in democracy itself”

Dr.Iqbal's concept of Ego (Khudi)

Throughout history, prophets, poets and philosophers have appeared to remind human beings of their true nature --- a nature that consists of a temporal as well as a heavenly element. They have attempted to rekindle in the human beings the Divine Spark which is an integral part of their makeup. Speaking of this Divine Spark, the Qur’an notes that when Allah (SWT) created the first human being, He breathed His own spirit into this new creation (Al-Hijr 15:29 & Al-Sajdah 32:9). Consequently, human nature is not ‘‘human,’’ it is a ‘‘humanness’’ that has an element of the Divine in it. But after having been created ‘‘in the best conformation’’ (Al-Teen 95:4), the human being was reduced ‘‘to the lowest of the low’’ (Al- Teen 95:5). The question now arises as to whether the human individual can again rise to the original noble heights at which he/she was created.

Iqbal argues that khudi is the root of all existence, an entity which may appear to be perishable but which can attain immortality. The human ego or ‘‘I’’ has the potential of achieving permanence as an element in the constitution of the universe provided that it adopts a certain mode of life. The ego can evolve, progress, and succeed as well as degenerate, atrophy, and fail.

The human ego has the ability to grow by absorbing the elements of the universe, of which it appears to be an insignificant part, as well as the ability to incorporate the attributes of Allah (SWT).  Iqbal argues that the human ego has a central place in the universe, while it is, at the same time, intimately linked with the Ultimate Ego, or God Himself the ego has to pass through three stages which Iqbal describes in Asrar-e-Khudi. These three stages can be seen as the different spiritual phases through which the ego has to pass in its journey of spiritual ascension:

• Ita‘at, or obedience to the Divine Law;

• Dabt-e-Nafs, or self-control, which is the highest form of self-consciousness or egohood;

• Niyabat-e-Ilahi, or the vicegerency of God

Even though these three stages in the spiritual progression of the human ego superficially resemble Nietzsche’s three stages of the metamorphosis of the spirit, they are not the same. The fact that Nietzsche does not even accept the reality of the human ego is itself the most pressing evidence that the three stages in the development of the Iqbalian khudi are not identical with the three stages in the development of the Nietzschean spirit. Iqbal goes on to note that the existence of the ‘‘I’’ cannot be rejected just because it cannot be proven on intellectual grounds because the human ego is not a purely intellectual entity --- its existence is also rooted in inner experiences.

Since attaining permanence depends upon perfecting the self and bringing it in accord with the Divine Will, Iqbal appropriately exhorts that one should ‘‘know’’ his or her inner self. ‘‘Know thyself’’ is an exhortation that has been made numerous times before by many others; the problem is not in the exhortation itself but in its approach. According to Iqbal, all distinctly philosophical problems have ultimate solution in the self, but, unfortunately, it is this very self which is still ignored. The reason underlying the ignorance of the self is the fact that the self is thought of as being a material entity. But the human being is not only a material being, he/she also possesses a non-material component

In other words, there is an element in the composition of the human being that manifests itself and experiences reality quite differently from the bodily element of the human composition --- this non-corporeal element is the human soul. Together, the body and soul exist as a unit. Thus, the Iqbalian ‘‘self’’ is an entity in which the body and the soul have to work together. Both have to grow together and have to work harmoniously if the personality of an individual is to be strengthened. The body and the soul are indispensable for the needs of each other

When the human being forgets this Spark of Divinity within, he/she falls prey to the false sense of personal liberty --- a liberty which, in reality, is the worst form of slavery. Having lost sight of the Divine Spark within, the human being inevitably loses sight of all higher moral and ethical principles and, as a consequence, his/her life becomes totally subservient to the animal instincts of bodily flesh. As a result of neglecting the awareness and realization of the Divinity within, the Divine Spark fades away and eventually it is extinguished altogether.

The Iqbalian khudi, cannot fulfill its true potential if the individual avails him/herself only of the resources of science and philosophy. For Iqbal it is only religion that can provide us with the intimate and holistic knowledge of Reality --- the type of knowledge that is an essential prerequisite for the realization of our humanity.

Khudi requires the coupling of will to power and belief, eventually realizing itself in the form of yaqeen or a deep inner conviction. In fact, it is undaunted conviction that serves as the pivotal point for the ‘‘self’’ to act and react to the sensual temptations of life. However, this conviction will not actualize itself unless the individual understands that his/her life has a purpose, and that this purpose has an individual as well as a collective dimension The evolution and ascension of the ego is not merely a detached, personal, and individual event --- this spiritual development has a collective dimension too that cannot be ignored.

 Iqbal notes that a great deal of sacrifice and benevolence is required on the part of a person in order to bring the individual, self-preserving ego in harmony with the collective ego. Consequently, the guiding principle in life cannot be one of conflict between the ‘‘self’’ and other ‘‘selves’’ if the dynamic process of thedevelopment of khudi is to take place This constant interaction between the individual ego and the environment provides the ideal opportunity for self-evaluation. But one should not lose sight of the fact that the initial emphasis is on the individual ego. Only that individual ego which has attained a degree of self-realization and self-understanding will be able to genuinely understand and constructively engage with other individual egos.

 This is another way of saying that only that ego which has learned self-respect, self love, and self-affirmation will be able to extend respect and love to other selves, and also affirm their dignity and autonomy In the context of Iqbal’s philosophy, then, the progress of the individual human being depends on his/her relationship to the self, to the family, to the society, and ultimately to God. The gradual realization of this intricate and delicate web of relations will lead the individual to realize his/her fullest potential and significance.Ultimately, with the rise of ego-hood on Iqbalian terms, the individual can become the architect of human destiny

Why should I ask the sages regarding my origin?

It is my ultimate destiny that I am reallyconcerned about.

Elevate your khudi to such heights that before every decree

God Himself asks you: ‘‘Tell me, what is your wish?’’

Life was quite at ease when Apple and Black Berry were just fruits!

The presented adage reflects the paradox of our time in history, as in this era of Apples and Black Berrys, people haven't heard the voice of their near and dear ones in ages.Their fingers do the talkings and smileys carry emotions, retaining eye contact is thing of the past because constant interruption of the 'buzz' is more desirable!

As a matter of fact, no communication device on earth has the power to replace the joy, warmth and heart felt compassion of one to one meeting.There is no denying the glaring fact that gadgets have brought us close to people sitting thousands of miles away from us but paradoxically, our kith and kin have been pushed away from us!

In the age we are aging we are so much obsessed with Apples and Black Berrys that we have no quiet time to ponder the eternal mystery of birds in the sky, bees in the sun and flowers on the green hillside. In quintessence, the peace of mankind has been robbed owing to unwarranted and unjustified use of technology!

Technological advancement is not a bad occurrence at all rather our obsession with gadgets has turned the innovations into an inferno. In order to strike a fine balance between humanity and technology we should remember to give time to love to speak and to share precious thought in our mid with our loved ones...

After all life will not be measured by how many people like our status or Retweet our tweet but by the quality time spent with people who are very close to our heart!!!!!

By usmanwrites

Democracy: A fallacy

The definition of democracy is “the government of the people by the people” but that should be redefined when so many citizens in democratic countries feel disempowered.

Democracy’s failings are tragically playing out in its birthplace, Greece, where the government has to abide by diktats from Brussels else hurl the country into bankruptcy. The privilege of living in a democracy was no comfort to the 77-year-old retired pharmacist who shot himself in Athens’ Syntagma Square, fearing being reduced to eating from garbage cans.

As a concept, democracy is great, but, in practical terms, it’s grossly overrated and isn’t one size fits all. So isn’t it about time we quit prostrating ourselves before its altar, rid ourselves of the quasi taboo of even questioning its merits and began recognizing that it has warts? People in non-democratic countries who believe democracy is the cure to all their ills are sadly misguided. For one thing, it’s a system of governance that relies on an educated population who can understand the issues at stake. In Egypt, where 40 percent of citizens are unable to read or write and where over half live under or just over the poverty line, it’s no surprise that a large number are seduced by political parties that promote their agendas under religious slogans.

For another, it doesn’t work in nations where there are sectarian divisions or tribal links because voters will simply vote according to their ethnicity, religion or inherited personal loyalties. Democracy was forcibly introduced to Iraq but as long as there is a Shiite majority, Sunnis will feel excluded. And in Israel, whose Jewish population boasts that their state is the only democracy in the Middle East, there will never be an Arab-Israeli prime minister or president. Afghanistan is nominally a democracy but how on earth can democracy exist under foreign occupation?

Thirdly, in places where there’s corruption, its outcome can be manipulated by bribes or at the ballot box and in others by convoluted or unfair rules. In the US, former President George W. Bush’s two wins came under a cloud with the first having to be pronounced upon by the Supreme Court even though rival Al Gore received more of the popular vote—and the second having been marred by electronic ‘vote switching’ incidents that favoured Bush.

Fourthly, it provides citizens with the illusion that they are free to make choices or to have a say in the running of their country when nine-times-out-of-ten politicians promise the earth before they’re elected and do exactly as they please once they’re in office. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair didn’t care a jot that the overwhelming majority of British citizens were against the invasion of Iraq when he squandered the lives of servicemen and women, along with his nation’s surplus. Moreover, any prime minister or president who is elected with a small majority, say 55 percent, is not necessarily representative of the interests of the remaining 45 per cent.

The pro-democracy argument rests on the ability of citizens to vote out a leader they believe has let them down when his term ends, which has merit. However, countries that are suffering major long-term problems need long-term plans and programmes which successive elected governments, each with differing solutions, are unable to implement to fruition. Real decision-makers Take the US, for instance, where Democrats have been trying unsuccessfully to institute universal health care for decades. President Barack Obama managed to get a heavily watered-down version of Obamacare—“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”—passed by Congress but not only is the Supreme Court weighted in Republicans’ favour reviewing its constitutionality, all Republican presidential contenders have sworn to repeal it. Put simply, democracy lacks continuity.

Then, because democracy usually goes hand-in-hand with a capitalist system the real decision-makers are not ordinary people but bankers, corporate moguls and media barons who encourage a debt-ridden, materialistic society that keeps workers on a gruelling treadmill in order to purchase that ‘must have’ plasma TV and to keep up with mortgage payments on a home they think they own, when until that final payment it’s actually the property of the bank.

Democracy gives power to media bosses like Rupert Murdoch, who used to regularly drop in on Blair’s Downing Street without invitation, as which politician in his right mind would dare upset a guy who shapes voters’ perceptions in his tabloids. And, to my mind, the way that political candidates are funded by interest groups and lobbies in the US is wholly undemocratic as it means organisations use their cash and influence to manipulate policies.

To be fair, there are many nations in which democracy has been beneficial, comparatively wealthy Scandinavian countries come to mind, where democracy and capitalism are tempered by welfare systems. Many of democracy’s advocates admit it’s not perfect but say it’s the best available. I once thought the same because, like so many, I was brought-up in a country whose citizens are indoctrinated from an early age to automatically accept democracy as the gold standard. Most of us are so caught up in nomenclature that often we can’t see the forest for the trees. Any system that can provide people with a decent standard of living, homes, jobs, health care, education and essential freedoms is worthwhile.

By anonymous