The Turks argue that our political thinking requires that we be guided by our political experience

Concerning the birth of Islam, I am sure that I will now be able to prove to your consolation that it is also the birth of inductive reason. In Islam, since prophecy has reached its completion, The need arose. Behind this was the insightful realization that human beings could not always be run on crutches. In order to attain full self-consciousness, it was necessary to be left alone to use one's own resources. The recitation of the Qur'an repeatedly asking us to refer to reason and experience, the repeated emphasis of the Qur'an on the nature, history and human resources of knowledge, all these are different aspects of the Qur'an itself.

Muhammad Iqbal, New Formation, Fifth Lecture

"Conservatism is as bad a thing in religion as it is in any other field of human activity, it destroys the creative freedom of the self. And it closes the door to new areas of spirituality. "

Muhammad Iqbal, New Formation, Seventh Lecture

 Muhammad Iqbal, Khilafah and the Nation

which without hesitation points to the fact that the idea of ​​a universal caliphate has failed in practice. This was a useful idea as long as the Islamic Empire existed. Since the Islamic Empire was torn apart, independent units have been established, so this idea cannot be followed nor can it be considered as a living element of the Islamic organization. I can be useful. Instead of fulfilling a useful goal, it is an obstacle to the unity of the Muslim states. The Arabs have always supported their aspirations. And in Islam, all these differences are a sign of the power that was lost a long time ago. So why don't we try our political thinking. Learn from. "

Muhammad Iqbal, New Formation of Islamic Thought, Sixth Lecture.

Applying Dialectical Logic to Reason and Revelation

The intellect is a capacity of man which he uses to discover not only the universe, society and history but also his essence. In this respect the intellect is active, and its object is two-sided, first nature and then nature and the intellect's own function which is formed after acting on the object, which is a combination of intellect and object. On the contrary, the revelation sent by a third party is a "secret object" which depends entirely on "belief". If there is no belief, then revelation has no value except for a few pieces of paper. Pieces of paper that as text can only be the object of intellect, but intellect is never the object of revelation. The intellect itself has absolute function, which discovers its logical motion in history and society. To prove this logically, we must apply dialectical logic to revelation and reason.

This does not mean that no object, object, etc. exists, but it is a method of understanding the pre-existing object, object, universe. So if the question is asked what is the intellect, and the answer is that the intellect is the intellect, then nothing is gained from it, that is, if the intellect is equal to the intellect, then there is nothing, because we know this. Couldn't figure out what it is! Thus the answer to the question of what is intellect is that intellect is nothing. Nothing means that the intellect is not the intellect. Thus the intellect negates its own abstract character from which the meanings were to be derived. If we look at it from a philosophical level, two terms have been discovered: one is the intellect which was conceived, and the other is the negation of this conceived abstract intellect, which is bread or non-intellect. It is important to remember that we imagined the intellect to be analyzed, but this does not necessarily mean that the intellect already existed, because the intellect is proving to be not the intellect. 

The intellect that was already conceived was actually not intellect. Now the question is, what is this nonsense? If we look in the light of the last sections of the first book of Hegel's Encyclopedia, then this knot intellect is actually the universe, the object, the nature, the object, the external world. Thus, if it is said that the universe, nature, etc., are derived from within the intellect, then it would be equally true that the intellect, etc., are derived from within the universe, nature. In this way the intellect forms its object universe and the universe which is the opposite of the intellect finds its subject in the intellect. And the dialectical relationship between the two leads to an understanding of the interaction of the universe and the intellect itself. We now apply dialectical logic to revelation.

If the same question is asked of the revelation which asked the intellect what revelation is and the intellect is not brought into the middle, then the answer will be the same that revelation is "nothing" ie revelation is not really revelation. In discovering the interaction of the intellect, we have come to the conclusion that it is logically possible that what is "nothing", which was the second term, is actually the universe from which the intellect derives its meanings. But when it is said that revelation is "nothing", then the problem of understanding this "nothing" or not revelation arises. Revelation has no value if it remains within dialectical logic, because it is not possible to discover what revelation is! Whereas the whole 'reality' of revelation is not in its being revelation but in its being 'revelation'. During the analysis of the intellect, it was discovered that the object of the intellect, which is not the intellect or the universe, nature, etc., is not proved in the analysis of revelation. 

The reason for this is that without intellect, revelation has no meaning. If it is assumed that the object of revelation is the intellect, then the problem arises that the intellect has already discovered its object, and if the intellect is considered the object of revelation, then the function of revelation is called into question because the intellect itself Is active which is constantly forming concepts in its relationship with the universe, while revelation has become a need of intellect to form its own concepts. Therefore, if revelation is to be meaningful in any context, then it has to be the object of intellect as a text, otherwise it has no status.

Let us also assume that the intellect is the object of revelation, that is, the dialectical relationship between reason and the universe is the same dialectical relationship between reason and revelation. In the dialectical relationship between the intellect and the universe, all the activity of the intellect is due to the universe, although the intellect is active, which by its activity is Indian. As we have seen, the totality of revelation depends on the intellect, because revelation is not active in any way, so the revelation of the intellect is exposed just as the universe! Therefore, to claim that revelation is "superior" to reason in any respect is not logically correct.

A look at the current political scenario with PDM, & PTI

Much has been made clear and much remains to be done. The example set by the 11 parties participating in the PDM in the name of democracy and the supremacy of the constitution by the judiciary will be considered as an important chapter in the history of Pakistan. The letter that Imran Khan spoke of was absolutely correct. This was a foreign agenda, which seemed to be fulfilled, but left an indelible mark on Pakistan's politics. In his speech, Khan called India a "self-sufficient" country.

In fact, he was not addressing Indians, he was referring to "boots" and their "polishes". When one is said to be honorable, the other being told is honorable. A few weeks ago, he had said in the same shoes that he was sitting in the Prime Minister's House and if he came out on the streets, he would forbid him to live. This scene, however, remains to be seen.

Three years ago today, I had said to Solat Nagy, with whom he also agreed, that either they would humiliate Imran Khan and expel him, or they would kill him, for which there are still possibilities.

 What steps does Khan take going forward?

For us, however, it was astonishing how the whole opposition came together on one page and got on the boot mat. It became clear that it was a matter of two and a half, and in the name of democracy, the mob of all capitalists was forced to take off one person. Anyone who refused the mat was slapped and released. Where did the people and their basic human rights come from? The answer is no. The people are bound by political affiliation with "democratic" politicians.

Imran Khan's fault is that he is not only primarily aware of the political, social and economic process but also an incompetent political leader. The absence of any political, welfare, reform policy is proof of this. That is why he repeated the example of the state of Madinah every time. He exemplified a simple Islamic ideology based on a simple tribal system, which continued to operate not in the name of man, but out of fear of Allah. 

Ninety percent of which is now obsolete. The rosary in his hand at all times was nothing but religious hypocrisy, and that rosary could not save him from this humiliation nor could it help him in any other way. We have before us the examples of the fighting of the Islamic Caliphs, who were killed in the most humiliating way. The political use of religion is a sign of political defeat. That was the age of religion, the age of reason and logic. There was fear, here the role of responsibility towards human beings is decisive.

In this whole process, however, the role of liberals and some media channels looked very ugly. These guys sell everything for the envelope.

It is hoped, however, that Khan will unravel this heinous game himself. The stage is difficult. There is a danger to life, but it is necessary at the moment. If Khan speaks the truth and exposes the conspiracy and violence against the democratic process, then the hands and "boots" of the people are likely to fall.

Antonio Gramsci's, Theosophy's book "For Marx"

The idea came to me while reading Theosophy's book "For Marx". The idea is mine, not the Theosophists.

Antonio Gramsci's whole philosophy revolves around one point: that Marx and Engels, based on their "scientific philosophy", claimed that revolution would come first in the developed Western countries. 

This claim proved to be false. This false claim by Marx and Engels forced Gramsci to reconsider "scientific, historical, materialistic". Gramsci explored the role of ideology, which led to the Thessalonians, and later to Polynesia. Machiavelli, Adorno, etc. even surpassed Lakash. 

It became clear that Marx and Engels were completely wrong in their interpretations, in their predictions, they failed to analyze the situation. 

The position for the survival of mankind was completely correct, the solution completely failed. The important role of ideology, not the end of bourgeois philosophy, was its victory. 

So philosophy is not one, it is two. A bourgeoisie, which he denies. The second is the proletariat, which is ignorant of the philosophical power of the bourgeoisie.

French philosopher Jacques Derrida

The great twentieth-century French philosopher Jacques Derrida said in a lecture on Christianity that it has so much flexibility, so much potential for breadth of familiarity, so much tendency to self-destruct what form it will take in the future. It is impossible to predict. 

This conclusion of Derrida is so profound that it is not an easy task to understand.

What matters most is that when the religion of Christianity takes on such a form that it seems to the superficial mind that it is not Christianity but something else, then in Derrida's view it is nothing else, but There will be extended Christianity.

It seems to me that the idea is based on Derrida's conclusion that "there is nothing beyond the text."

As a result, the greatest danger is to those ideologues who, on the basis of their identities based on color, race, nation, religion, language and region, finalize their politics. 

When the modern philosophy of centralization and origin has become the postmodernism, then politics in the name of color, race, nation, region, religion, etc. is mere politics, not a real philosophy of clinging to any truth, but a delusion. Is tantamount to understanding reality.

Do you know the name of Hakim-ul-Ummah

Yes, exactly the same Muhammad Iqbal (Allama). He was a domineering thinker in fundamentally independent and important matters, which is why I appreciate him. The word ummah has a very wide meaning but Hakim Sahib is called the sage of ummah because he addressed the ummah which was based on "religion". Just as the rest of the affairs in this country are based on religious hypocrisy and religious lies, in the same way every basic concept of Hakim Sahib has been lied to by the expert confessors, or in other words they have not understood that What does Hakim Sahib want to say? Let us tell you in the words of Hakim Sahib what was the religion of Hakim Sahib, and after that how much space is left in "religion" so that he is not excluded from "religion"!

1. The basis of religion is revelation. Did Hakim Sahib believe in revelation? My claim is that the sages reject the concept of revelation presented in religion and their meaning of revelation is not exactly the same as the meaning of revelation presented in "religion". That is, Gabriel conveying the message of a god, etc. See your words about this.

Life in the world consciously takes care of its own needs and adjusts its direction in difficult times. This is what is called prophetic revelation in the language of religion. ”New Formation of Islamic Thought, Sixth Lecture.

It is clear that the consciousness of correcting the situation exists within the situation. No Jibril Sahib picks up a slip from anywhere and drips on the ground. Life tends to be self-directed and self-directed. Therefore, Hakim Muhammad Iqbal denies the revelation on the basis of which 'religion' was established.

2. The second question which is connected with the first question is, what is prophetic consciousness in Iqbal's view? The prophetic consciousness is not instilled with transcendence, but its roots are rooted in the earth itself. Let us consider the words of Hakim Sahib.

The Prophet can be defined as a kind of mystical consciousness in which the unitary experience leaps beyond its edges and seeks opportunities to reshape and reshape the forces of collective life. The ultimate center of life in his personality sinks into his own infinity to re-emerge and when he re-emerges he becomes fresh and energetic, destroys the old ways of life and discovers new directions. A small minority of human beings develops a psychic energy which I call prophetic consciousness. ”New Formation Fifth Lecture.

It's not too complicated to understand. Prophetic consciousness can be associated with a single individual and even a "small minority" can claim this consciousness. However, its roots are also connected with the inner infinity (Spirit-God) of the individual (finite), but its external aspect is the real world from which it is formed and also expresses this prophetic consciousness. Therefore, keep in mind that according to Iqbal, no god sends the "prophet" but he dives into his inner life to face the needs of external life and his inner life emerges with a deep consciousness. Yes, which in Iqbal's words is called prophetic consciousness. Therefore, the prophet is not sent from anywhere, but is born from the earth.

Keep these two basic ideas in mind. After this, the points which will be presented in Iqbal's own words, apart from calling Iqbal Hakim-ul-Ummah, he will be excluded from the Ummah.

TOP 10 Website to make Money Online for Free in 2022 for Everyone