The fallacy of disbelief(polytheism, agnosticism, atheism etc).

The fallacy of Shirk (Disbelief= polytheism, atheism, agnosticism).

By this I do not mean that Shirk doesn't exist, or that there is nothing wrong with it. 

The GOD of all things

Contrarily, Polytheism and not recognizing the transcendence of GOD (that GOD is High, above all things) is the root cause of all that is base in this World.  Precisely because the ultimate principle that underlies the whole of being is Creation, and then Nourishment.

To recognize ONE Creator is to do justice to that principle of the Oneness of Origin and Sustenance for all.

To fail to recognize HIM is to do injustice to all that is. And that is the source of all imbalance, and all injustice. 

Polytheism

And even when polytheism tries to take the mantle of an ethic, of a type, it gets the balance wrong and confuses justice and mercy.

This because essentially you choose to serve whichever god you wish, a self serving choice, from the wish to identify with a particular group to the wishes for prosperity. For whatever reason that choice is always taken without principle.

Atheism & Agnosticism

And the like argument applies to those who deny GOD, their lives are subsumed by an irresolvable conflict of interests, of passions and of tin-pan ethics. Because they deny the greatest of principles, they are without principle. 

Their ethics have been shown to be contradictory for whilst they often-times would claim for it to be universal and then in the same breadth their actions would deny it’s universality to some, on the false basis that they are undeserved. Time and time again, this is their politics and their ethics; two faced, spurious, driven by lust and money even whilst they deny. 

Thank GOD, I have been born in a Nation that has a long history of principled behaviour. That I can see with my two eyes the wavering fools who cast themselves as the leaders of this World. 

Now, look at me, I started on an vein and then been caught on another, never would I make a successful gold-digger. 

Is Islam any better?

But since we are here, I must press on with the manifold implications of this stance. What then, I hear you ask, of the non-believers living under the duress of Islam?

Freedom of conscience

The first thing to realize is that the concept of freedom of conscience that Europe holds so dear, it learnt from Muslims. For long before the laws of equality of humanity ever broached the shores of Europe, European Jews and Nestorian Christians, and other Christian sects, were flying to the Muslim lands so that they would have the freedom to practice their religion without fear of persecution.

Liberalism is Islam without GOD

But that does not mean that Liberalism is Islamic, contrarily the universal justice of Islam when taken out of the context of a unitary source of nourishment and origin, leads to just that but without the boundaries that define true justice.

This because the primary function of justice should be the prevention of injustice, and not the seeking of redress.

A universal Justice?

Islam provides for such boundaries whereby everybody's rights are balanced, and it does this through setting law firmly within an ethic surrounded by on the one hand gratitude and generosity and on the other through a real emotive fear not just of a punishment, but more importantly of Godly displeasure, couched in the wonderful words of a literary masterpiece- the Qur'an. For if a man displeases GOD, who is both his creator and nourisher, whom then can he turn to?

Whereas, the justice of liberalism will always be too late. And it's redress can never be enough, because it is not framed by an absolute source but by the vagaries of man's thought. And then it always fails in it's universality, being dependent on individual men, their judgments, whims and fancies. 

A universal freedom?

And furthermore Liberalism can not free man from the narrowness of his arrogance, but only confirm him in it.

I should not need to draw examples from the American bill of rights which extends to the rich few, whilst they rape the World of its people and resource. Nor of the European universal human rights which does not extend to the Palestinian children living under occupation. Two faced, giving the lie to all they espouse. 

Justice and Freedom in Islam

Returning to the question of a non-believer living under the law of Islam. He would never worry over recourse to justice, primarily because our law of protection would extend fully to him. Many a time the Qur'an recalls to us that GOD loves the justice-doers, and that is irrespective of belief or nationality. As happened previously in our history, the people of the Book would be judged according to their own law. And those who have no principle would have the safety of knowledge that in regards to their beliefs they would be free to do as they liked, but in regards to social and family law they would be bound by our law.

Rights and Obligations

And so in the Muslim society, the individual has rights but not so long as it is detrimental to the family, and families have rights but not so long as they impinge on the rights of society, and none can overstep the boundaries established by GOD as being His rights over us, and then our rights over each other. 

The body of text which is Islam speaks in dept on these rights. 

And it is instructive to note the depth of meaning that can be ascribed to the Basmallah. 

The Basmallah

For most these are the words of dedication to GOD, made whenever you perform any act, but they are most often used when beginning to eat most often translated as "In the name of Allah (God), most gracious, most merciful.". 

However the import of these words was understood by the first Caliph, Abu Bakr as Sidique (ra), to be far greater than that. For after the passing of Muhammad (saw), whilst Arabia rocked under successive rebellions, and the Romans threatened from the North, causing him to send of the Muslim army to meet them, which was headed by a young novice of a captain, he advised the young captain on the rules of war and it's etiquettes beginning with "Do not eat food, but that you mention the Basmallah over it..."

Some might argue that to emphasize the small, is to emphasize the whole edifice of the religion. Indeed when you are in the thrall of great deeds, it is the small rituals and habits that keep you sane and grounded. 

But at the same time the Basmallah carries within it's potency a rendering of the rights of all things, no matter how small the morsel. That you partake of it in and by GOD's leave. And that by not doing so, you do an injustice to both it and yourself.

That it has a right, and that you can only subsume that right through taking leave and the name of the One who created and nourished it in the first instance. 

That is the Basmallah, and whilst it is the smallest of our religion, it is potentially the greatest. 

And it is that saying of those words in that circumstance that marks Islam to be "The Modern Religion". That all things have a right over you, and that those rights are balanced through the belief in the One Merciful God who continually nourishes us all, believers and non-believers alike.

A belief that guarantees a universal justice.

A reality, both past and future, that no liberalism could ever replicate. 

The fallacy of Shirk part 2 to follow.

And we send our peace and blessings on the noble Messenger, Muhammad (saw), may ALLAH t’ala reward him abundantly for we never would have been Muslim save for him. And I bear witness that there is no GOD, save ALLAH t’ala (GOD, most High) and Muhammad (saw) is His last and final Messenger. And I bear witness that Muhammad (saw), by GOD’s mighty grace, has completed his task, that which was entrusted him by GOD, and we are the recipients of the message down through the ages. Ameen.

Cups and Saucers, a Poem

Cups and saucers, pots and pans.
Like a boy in Alice's Wonderland.

My memories flood with fleeting impressions,
Like the smile of that Cheshire Cat.

"Drink me!", Shrinks me,
Till I'm small again, sitting in your lap.

Aprons and bangles, buckets and mops.
Spinning with my tops.

Bathing and drying, dressing is charming,
Powder's comforting spell,

Smashing and splashing,
Inkling and drinkling from my own special well.

O mother dear,
Thank you for all those times,
Thank you for your kind, consoling hands.

"Drink me!" and once again,
I'm a grown man.

But mother darling,
I'll forever be your grateful son.

Whilst you don on me my well worn apron.
And freely let me dabble here and there,

Ever stirring and mixing away,
And even to this day,
Guided by your tending hands.

Whilst the sweet smell of fresh baked cakes wafts by.
And sticky fingers reminisce,
With drippings of fresh kulfi malai.

O sweet mother dear,
These are the cherished
moments of my childhood.

Ever sweetened with the laughing tear,
Thank you, o my mother dear.

For removing all my fear,
With your comforting zone,
and an ever warm embrace.

A smiling face.
And a mockery of the chase.

O my mother dear,
Truly you deserve an everlasting big great whopping cheer.

Cos, for me you are without peer,
Without compare.
O, I do love you so, mother dear.

The End. 
Dedication, for my mother and all mothers, for my wife, the mother of my children.


And Muhammad (saw) said, "Heaven lies at the feet of (the) mother". Meaning in serving and being kind to them, for they themselves nurtured you and loved you whilst you were young.

Progressive Politics: Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and the Progressives. Making Sense of Partisanship.

Progressive Politics

I have often wondered at the difference between the Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. There everyone, no matter whom they are, views the Royals as being at best a quaint remnant of a bygone era (i.e. in support of a Republic as opposed to a Principality).

Indeed the very union of the Northern American States was at inception grounded in revolution against a distant English Crown. And so all of the founding fathers of America no matter where they stood on the broad political spectrum defined themselves in opposition to Royalism.

Royalists, Conservatives and Republicans.
Whilst in England the Conservative Party has traditionally been able to garner support from both the upper and lower classes. Joe Public's fascination and indeed identification with the Royals has been the prime reason for such paradoxical behaviour. And whilst Labour would seem the natural party for the worker class, it has traditionally garnered support from the more middling classes.

Then it always seemed strange to me being brought up on these isles that the Republican cause is most mirrored by the traditional Conservative party, who themselves have a strong Royalist sentiment. And that whilst Labour likewise is mirrored in the Democrat cause, the Democrat movement does not sound like a pro Worker movement.

Indeed the puzzle of these comparative politics was only heightened for me by the recent right Royal Snub that was afforded to the two former Labour premiers at Wills and Kate's wedding ceremony. But whilst Royalism and Conservatism sit well together in England, in order to understand their real import it is instructive to look across the pond to our cousins. There Politics is not complicated by the addition of the third royal factor, which defines a peculiar brand of patriotism based solely around the fortunes of one family.

Comparative Patriotism.
And even if we were to include the Patriotic element into our considerations we would note that Patriotism as a word and concept is more well-worn in the U.S than in England, where it essentially means a monolithic Roman-type Justice that "we (the U.S of A.) can do no wrong". To argue as Muhammad (saw) successfully argued, against the then prevalent Chiefs of Arabia, that to prevent a brother doing a wrong is to in fact aid and help him, is impossible within the U.S's Patriotic framework. Whilst in England Patriotism, being less well used, means many things to many people. It can mean, as recently evidenced, the fascination in the ongoing saga of one family, the support of our sporting heroes, the expulsion of foreign citizens or, as in the American case, the gung-ho support of our military adventures irrespective of the right or wrong footedness of them all. And so, mercifully, Patriotism as a political force is more moderate and more complex in the green gardens of England. Thus my wish to ignore it, in the belief that through simplifying the picture we can generate more understanding.

Progressives v/s Conservatives
What really helped answered the puzzle for me was reflection on the arguments for the Progressive Politics of both Labour and the Liberals in the previous electoral contest and in the run up to the referendum on the 5th of May.

Progressives stand in opposition to being Conservative. Both the Labour and Liberal camps claimed "progressiveness" for themselves in the recent election contest. But whilst each was talking the same language, they meant opposing things.

All progressives define themselves with reference to a regressive and blameworthy past. And it is what they see as blameworthy that is the crux of the matter.

The Conservatives see dependence on Welfare as such. Whilst it is undoubtably blameworthy it certainly cannot be called regressive. Rather the Welfare State belongs to a glorious past and a vision that was the then envy of the World. Even in the blandest of economic terms that views workforce as a commodity to be traded, the provision of a safety net, for those unable and incapable of work, is progressive.

The overt rise in the rampant abuse of our Welfare does not belong to our past, but has been exacerbated by our backdoor entry into Europe and the adoption of the European wide Human Rights legislation. Neither of those two ingredients have been successfully challenged by the now Conservatives. And indeed in these terms the only real regressive policy threatening today is the dismantling of the Welfare State.

This is precisely why the Cameronian reforms are doomed to failure, because they are themselves regressive. Whilst interestingly Cameronianism has never claimed a progressive pedigree.

The Labourian vision of a regressive past will not, at least not in words, try to dismantle Welfare. What they meant by progressive was an increasing participation of the private sector in public works.

Different words but essentially the same idea. And then the only question left to debate is whether or not the congruence of such policy would in fact cause the rolling back of the State, and whether or not such an eventuality might cause increasing disparity and injustice in our country.

The only party that really held a different progressive view for our country were the Liberals. For they saw Democracy as being in need of being saved. Small wonder given the expenses scandal.

Democracy constantly embattled
But if we look beyond that, the concept of Democracy constantly being embattled is core to Islamic Political Philosophy. When Abu Bakr as Sadeeq (as) first stood and said that he will wrestle the rights of the poor from the strong, until they have had their satisfaction, he was declaring a constant of human polity. Whilst it was Muhammad (saw) who, when asked by a stranger entering the Medinese Polity "Who is your leader?", replied "The one who best helps/serves the people" as a statement of fact. And so for Muslims representativeness is not sufficient if it does not lead to concrete public benefit.

And it seems that the progressive Labour camp forgot that the private sectors represents the haves whilst government is supposed to rebalance the tables which are weighted against the have-nots. Whilst the Conservatives stay true to their real import of weighting the game of life in favour of the haves.

That Royalism goes hand in hand with Conservatism is then no surprise when you consider the Royals to be one of the bigest blue chip dynastic companies that grace these shores.

The Case for AV
I started with a problem that has long been with me, and the above understanding clarified both the positions and names of the respective U.S parties. Republicans, as do Conservatives, believe in the smallness of the State because they are pro-business and anti-State or Federal interference in markets. Whilst Democrats feel as I do that the job of the State is to rebalance the table, to ensure that rights are upheld and that the Democracy of the small people flourishes through involvement and representation.

With this in mind there is no doubt that in the coming referendum I wil be voting for AV.

Our democracy needs saving.

Shafi
Published on my Blogger and on MySpace



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Smaller than an Atom

Smaller than an Atom (a poem).

What use to poem,
If there is neither reason,
nor rhyme.

A play on words,
Mere syntax.

Drab syllables,
Placed here,
Or..................................  there.

Or else,
Recorded events and emotions,

Played out as the needle spins
Atop vinyl. Played out.

Round and round.

Round and round.

No hope of change,
No desire to instruct.

Round and round.

Round and round.

Left our hearts to pound.
To the rhythm of the poets sound.

I desire neither that auspiciousness,
Nor the command that such poetry brings,
Even if the whole World were of my virtue, to sing.

But rather, for me,
To instruct is the height
Of all that I can be.

Would be,
Should be.

To shed some bare light
On the World's follies,
To instruct in the secrets of
The luminaries.

Secrets never meant to be,
Only that they have been lost.
Tarnished,
By the false interpretation of men whose words are but ghosts.

For they take what is real,
Live.
not surreal.
Them twist and turn,

And with a snakes forked tongue,
Change all that is said and done,
Into all that they want remembered and sung.

And by that they kill,
The lush spirit of the luminaries will.
But not so, is my wish.

To unwind and unsing their pittiless songs,
Full throttle against their rile,
Their contemptuous rattle and din.

Against their arrogant pride,
For the rationalists, us they chide.

Poke fun and belittle,
All that they cannot comprehend.

But smaller still are they
Who cannot see the miracle
In every atom of their being

In every sight peering from their seeing,
In every syllable that vents from me,
Shimmying down expanding corridors till it reachs my listeners ears.

And finds expression and meaning,
Resonating, reverberating within.

What chance is that that syllable doth resonate?
And can cause you to both beam and cry and ask questions of why?

Such rationalusts are incomprehensible.
Who cannot see the beauty in all that we have been given.

Who believe in their self,
Above all else.

Small as fools,
Giants, only, within their pride.


The END.
By Shafi Bachelani.

Glory be to GOD, most High,

Who provided us with light,
That we might see,

And words,
That we might understand.

And yet sometimes words carry meaning beyond their evident import.
I enjoy Jabberwocky, by Lewis Carroll.

Revolutions Coming Our Way

Revolution's coming our Way.

Revolution's coming our way,

People's power's, here to stay.

Democracy's flawed and failed.

Supporting tyrants, is just the last nail.

Now, let's throw that coffin six feet deep,

Covering it up for ages, for all time to keep.

So that another generation might not be deluded,

By its fine words, that forever blinded,

 bind-ed.

Us to hypocrisy's ways.

Which always made someone else pay.

Colonialism, of another name.

Whilst we left our brothers and sisters to suffer in pain.

(pause)

Kings, and Amirs, Fathers of the Nation.

Forever claiming that they were their own peoples salvation.

Titles given, taken for what?

For whatever reason it's long forgot.

Lids lifted, veils removed.

Hearts boiling, the people are moved.

For they have seen tyranny's true ear,

Glued shut, deaf to all just tears.

Brothered, twinned with Democracy's lifeless ear.

Where Politics is just another career.

Vested interests both of them have,

Our Politician's and their tyrannical other halves.

So the truth of this unholy relationship is laid bare,

Now is the time of change for all those who care.

Revolution's coming our way,

People's power's, here to stay.

But let it not be a flash in the pan,

Nor any entry for just another breed of man.

Who shouts in anger against all that is low,

Whilst on the morrow, he forgets

And upholds the Status Quo.

He is the son,

Of all that he hated, simply begot 

and then got.

So let the World unite in Our Flight.

Let the World unite in our flight,

From the vested interests of the few,

From the rampant hypocrisy of this democracy.

To clean shores,

Not of a lifeless ideology.

(pause)

But of an example, real,

Of the greatest of revolutionaries.

From a long line of Prophets, 

he was their seal.

Mohamed Shafi Bachelani.

Believing in Democracy,

But not of the Hypocritical Kind.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

God, our Father who art in Heaven

The Middling Nation.
In the Qur'an, our Messenger's Nation is termed the middling one. The Qur'an is an address to all men, women and Nations of this World, but primarily to the Nations that preceeded ours; our cousins the Jewish and Christian Nations. And so it is within this context that middling is to be understood.


The Judaic Nation is insular. For truly no man can be a Jew except that his parentage is of such.


The Christian Nation is evangelical, and is ever seen to bend and turn with the times so that it can evangelize all the more better. The Council of Nicea that promoted the trinitarian doctrine is just one prime example of such.


And so, we as a Nation do not evangelize nor are we insular. Instead we believe in the ascendency of Truth and Justice above all else, even when it is to our own personal self-detriment. A Truth and a Justice that is codified within the immutable text of the Qur'an, which we believe is GOD's words revealed through the noblest of Messengers.


However, we are not a Nation built around a single tribe, nor many tribes, rather for all Muslims, whether they be Chinese or African or European, the Messenger of GOD is their Messenger and as it were talks down through the ages intimately with each and every one of them.


And so it is with this understanding of our middling tradition that I approach each and every topic that I discuss.


It is not to convert, nor to explain a deficiency, but just simply to tell it as it is. Nor is it said in the interests of keeping some things hidden, the provender of a select few.


An Exemplary Nation.
Furthermore, whilst the Jews say that they are the Chosen Nation and the Christians say that none will enter Heaven save those who accept Jesus as saviour and redeemer of sins. I say neither.


That the middling Nation presumes in it's very conception not a domination, but an exemplary leader amongst the community of Nations. Nor do I say that none can attain Heaven save those who follow the Religion.


However, neither beliefs impinge on my following the words of GOD, that no religion will be accepted by HIM other than the religion of Islam (submission to HIS will and reliance on HIM).


GOD, Our Father Who Art in Heaven.
And so after length we come to it.
A Christian friend had the impression that our Lord GOD was different to his own.


The Christians call the Creator of All, because that is the essential first act of GOD, their "Father who art in Heaven".


It is meant in an allegorical sense to convey the sense of provider, the one who looks after us. But because of it's comparability with our own lives, it suffers the severe confusion of an anthropomorphic GOD; of God being in man's image, of God having a family with sons and daughters.


To accept that man is made in God's image does not imply the reflective notion that God be a man, with the concurrent needs of family and society.


In Islam the non-reflective nature of the relationship between GOD and the whole of creation, including man, is made abundantly clear through the use of negation.


That GOD is the ultimate Creator, who has neither father nor son.
The Creator, who Himself is not created nor born of any.
That GOD is the provider and sustainer who is Himself in need of no sustenance nor provision.
That GOD sees all, whilst none can see Him.
That GOD comprehends all, whilst none can comprehend Him.


And none is like unto HIM.


An Affirmation.
The Qur'an declares of itself that it is an affirmation of all the revelations that came before it (the revealed books being the Torah, Psalms and the Gospel).


That the GOD of the Torah, Psalms and Gospel, is the very same GOD that revealed the Qur'an.


For the sense of the Father GOD who provides, nurtures and cares, the Qur'an terms Rab= Lord, Provider of Sustenance. And it is a term without the ambiguity of Father, whilst retaining it's essence of thankfulness.


In the Lord's Prayer, GOD is called Father whilst then thanking Him for "our daily bread".


The opening of the Qur'an is Al-Fathihah which itself opens with: "All gratitude and thanks belongs to the Lord, Sustainer of all the Worlds".


Whilst Muslims often see the ambiguity of the terminology associated with the Bible as being caused by a loss in translation, the reality may be in it being a reaction against the first Nation. For the Judaic Nation often perceived the very same GOD as being the aloof Law-Maker and Law-Giver. And saw the religion as being one solely about the Law and not necessarily it's ethical spirit.


A Shifting Emphasis.
Jesus, a Prophet we name Nabi Isa (may GOD be pleased with him), often tried to instruct the Sanhedrin (Jewish Priests concerned with the Law) in their disregard of a balanced application of the Law, so that it's spirit of mercy might flow through. Muhammad (saw) did likewise in his application of our Shariah.


And it is this shifting of emphasis that is captured in the transformation of the terminology used for the same One GOD. Away from ELOHIM, and HIS name which the Judaic Priests feared to write, an impersonal aloof GOD to GOD the father, provider and carer of all.


However, the choice of "of our Father who art in Heaven" resonates a little further than that within our own human social experience. For is not the father the one who provides but also administers and upholds the law. Is he not the first to uphold the principle that the blind application of Law is both a necessary mercy and a blessing to all.


And so GOD the Father who art in Heaven, is the one and same Law-Giver GOD of Moses and the same Sovereign over all Creation, both Heaven and Earth, of the Muhammad (may he forever be blessed, the last Messenger sent from GOD with the completion of all that preceded it).


Shafi,
Telling it like it is, if GOD so wills!








- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

The Fanatical Holidaymaker

The Fanatical Holidaymaker.


On holiday with family in Bournemouth. After a wet and windy promenade on the beach front we retired to a luncheon of traditional battered cod 'n chips. Followed by an even more traditional, save of a different origin, ritual Zuhr Salaat.


Forgetting the virtues of Salaat for a man constantly in search of meaning, I want to focus on what I did after.
I spied the craven images of man and beast hanging on my hotel room wall. Of course on any other occasion they would have been just plain pictures, even to me.


But at that time, I covered them with cloth so that their forms would not be visible. And I thought, does that action make me a fanatic in the eyes of this World?


For most people I would be just that. Even though I did not seek to influence their own public perceptions of imagery, but in fact because I had to alter what they had sought to impose on me.


Cameron attacks Multiculturalism.
Cameron's attack on the failure of multiculturalism obviously leads on to questions of what he had hoped to gain from it. But for most British Politicians the question was not of gain, but because Multiculturalism naturally lead on from their traditionally tolerant disposition. This because today's World is shrinking and thence the pre-eminence of immigration. A traditional British disposition that at the turn of the 20th Century saw them play host to Karl Marx amongst others.


Traditions that made us Great.
Interesting then that Cameron should give voice to his values in a country that has no such tradition. That at the turn of the 20th Century saw the rise of fasicism. Are Cameron's values then not at odds with traditional British values? 


And like Blair, before him, is he not just playing poodle to Merkel's economic power, and ignoring our traditions. Then Cameron's and Blair's values that determine our policy are shown to be what they are, plainly feelings of inadequacy in the face of superior industrialization or markets. Playing poodle and undermining all that is Great about Britain is no way to up your game, no matter how you swing it.


Maybe he's appealing to our changing values?
Cameron may well argue and be justified in arguing that British values have changed, but then he should not seek to pull the wool over our eyes by appealing wrong-headedly to British traditions. Incredibly, if he were to argue that the now British values are based on a suspicion of immigration, then he would have to admit that the cause of the rise of such suspicion comes not from an indigenous population but from second and third generation immigrants themselves.


Maybe his position is plain and simply anti-Muslim?
And then if Cameron would fain admit to that position, then he is left solely with an anti-Muslim sentiment. He's not alone in that, but it can hardly be called traditional. After all Muslims were not public enemy number 1 twenty to thirty years ago.


So what's changed?
Well let's see, could it be something to do with oil being found in the Arabian peninsula. Well that's suits the timeline to a tee. And then with the World's economy booming on high because of cheap oil, is it a wonder that the Powers that be adopt a duplicitous, non-traditional and base foreign exploitative policy.


Muslims are people and when cornered, react as all people do!
No, put it that way then it's no wonder. It's no wonder then that there is free game on Muslims Worldwide. And it's no wonder that Muslims feel alienated and react aggressively, finding identity in a non-existent, non-traditional and even non-Islamic, but branded as such by bulls on both sides on the fence, ideology.


Back to the true fanatics.
I have met fanatics, and actually thinking about it not one of them was Muslim. My own definition of fanaticism would be the inability to step into another's shoes to see their arguments and reasons. Of course you cannot step into someone else's shoes if you cannot appreciate a common humanity between the two of you.


I know I can do that.
I know that all of the Muslims that I know can do that.


But that does not mean we have to adopt the precepts or values that public opinion, as dictated by the media savants, want us to adopt.
However, because we can appreciate them from the standpoint of their logic, it means that we are not fanatics.


Maybe at worst reactionaries to a failed foreign policies.


But the same cannot be said of the Camerons of this World, who cannot and will not step into our shoes. Because if they did, then with a clarity they would see the callousness of their words and the destruction that they might bring.


They are the true fanatics.
The only other difference is I chose to holiday in Bournemouth, and he chose Germany.


END.






Your Brother,


Shafi


(I had intended to talk more on MultiCulturalism, the imposition of values etc... I did no justice to those theme and hope to revisit them as soon as my pen rests upon my paper again.)






- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone