Ethics and morality of a Man

When a man imposes restrictions on a woman's dress or other things, it does not mean that the woman is wrong and unreliable; his only and only meaning is that he himself is wrong and unreliable. The danger he wants to save the woman is the danger himself. He wants to protect the woman from the dirty eyes, those eyes are not the creatures of another planet, if the woman goes out of the house to cover.

 Why? 

Because it stands out, co-education should be banned. Why? 

Because that's part of it. It is just that he kept on downloading millions of scriptures on his own, but in spite of this he could not improve his character and morals.

A woman for whom it has not been possible to identify her independent and free existence in the history of the last five thousand years. Gives. The fact is that he does not accept defeat. He could not face the fact that the fear of death and subsequent punishments and then the greed of the maidens who had given themselves again could not improve his character and morals. They say there is no oppression in religion. 

What a wonderful joke, if there is no coercion in religion then does a woman have the right to freedom of identity? Interestingly, the most feared people about women are these religious mullahs, even though they are the ones who have been training people on the basis of their "holy" books. Because they know that men cannot be trained by religious deceptions, they want to cover not only their homes but the women of the whole society. 

It is straightforward that if your book and you yourself are truthful, then instead of forcing woman, convince yourself (man) of this truth. That is not possible anyway. The man, being aware of the real nature of man and the ineffective and fictitious retribution in the holy books, knows that these books do not have the power to correct man. 

Therefore, on every front, his target is a woman. Remember that in a religious society where there are restrictions on women, understand that these scriptures have failed to train men.

If you look at the centuries-long history, every rule, every rule, every rule, every law was made by this man himself. In which the woman's part is extinct. Despite having so much power, it could not control itself. In any case, the woman has to understand that the scriptures that have not been able to train the man himself, they do not have the ability to protect the woman from the evil of the man, there is no wisdom in them except to impose oppression on the woman, their Keep raising your voice to recognize the reality and to recognize your existence and sovereignty. In the presence of these scriptures, the journey is difficult, but not impossible.

A story of the Day which is special ( Part - II )

The very Next Day , part of that story  

As soon as he opened his eyes in the morning, he quickly washed his face with water and sat back down to read a book. And then with the same continuity I finished the book in five or six days ... After the book was finished, it felt as if a glimpse of the world of philosophy had appeared for the first time, because the concepts contained in the book had shattered the preconceived notion of philosophy. After finishing the book, he started reading the book from the beginning. For the second time, it seemed as if the book, though dim, had shown itself ready to open. In short, the book was read continuously for five to six months, and each time it was read, the pleasure would be doubled and new doors would begin to open on philosophy.

One day, when I searched for the author's name on Facebook, I was surprised to find that the author is already on my friendlist and despite looking through many of his posts and comments, I could not recognize him. That this is the same person in the shadow of whose authorship my morning and evening and evenings fall in the morning.

After some time, I reached back to the same buxtal and asked the buxtal owner to give me all the books of Mr. Imran Shahid Bhandar in his buxtal. In other words, this time, contrary to his old habit, before buying, he was inclined to take books without turning the pages of a book, which may have been noticed by the owner of the bookstall as he knew me well in this regard. ... This time I found three more books by the author which I picked up and immediately reached home and sat down to read them and in a short time I also read these books many times.

As I mentioned above, after reading these books of the author, the preconceived notion of philosophy and philosophical concepts in his mind completely vanished and when he started looking at philosophy and philosophical concepts from a new angle. So it felt like the time had come to fix the distance of years in months ... 

A clear direction was found and running in that direction and direction was a little easier than before ... And especially the eminent philosophers like Emmanuel Kant, Hegel, Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin, Leuthard, Fuchs, Lucas, Hebermas, and Derrida have had access to them, albeit in a slightly smoother and easier way. ... Because we had spent a lot of time before that, trying to get some access to the basic concepts of these philosophers, but without any clear direction, we would turn around and go back to where we started. Used to be And after reading these important books of the author and understanding them according to our ability, we began to feel clearly that we are now moving forward and that too in a right and clear direction.

However, after that we got ample opportunities to establish strong rituals like friendship with the author which made it easier for us to understand philosophy.

Sometimes I think that on that day the devil had blown in my ear for the first and last time at the right time who persuaded me to pick up the book and take it home ... Otherwise, it is possible that I would still be able to find all the philosophical ideas standing on my head as before, and I would consider them to be standing on my feet in the same condition, and would insist on others to understand and meditate on these basic ideas in the same way.

A story of the Day which is special ( Part - I )

 It was winter ... When I woke up in the morning, my intention was to go out. After breakfast, he left the house and turned towards the bazaar without any intention because after leaving the house, he had not been mentally determined to go to a specific place. When I reached the bazaar, I passed by this special bookstall located in the city, from where I used to buy books for myself since childhood and bring them home. Since I haven't been to this bookstall in the last one year to buy a book, I entered the bookstall without any thought and took a cursory look at the books decorated everywhere. 

Reading the names of the books from the books, he reached the portion where the books of philosophy are arranged in an orderly manner. Since the early days of my youth I was fascinated with philosophy only to the extent of my name, but by then I would have taken home any book of philosophy that I had bought or asked for from a friend, etc. Forced to move away from. The main reason for this was not being able to grasp the philosophical issues properly.

Slipping his eyes from books, he went to a book (Philosophy of postmodernism (critical study) ... author Imran Shahid Bhindar).

Since I had already been reminded in my mind that no Easterner, apart from the West, was capable of writing anything on philosophy, I did not immediately touch the book after seeing the author's Eastern name. Then I don't know if it occurred to me that I reached for this book and picked up the book and saw its first page. Then I hurriedly turned many pages of the book together and looked at a page in the middle of the book. Some of Kant's key ideas were under discussion. The author had a wonderful discussion on some of the points in the canteen philosophy that were already in my mind. After reading two or three pages, I once again jumped from one page to another, and when I reached another page, I was astonished to see that the author had read the most important and profound There has been a discussion of anger over ideas ... 

Then he jumped on the last pages of the book and was overjoyed to learn that the author had made a deliberate attempt to dismantle Sufism and construction in a good way. I did not know how long I would stand and read the book and how much time had elapsed because the contents of the book had enchanted me and made me unaware of my surroundings.

Then Frederick Nietzsche said, "Satan whispered in my ear to take this important book with him."

After paying the price of the book, I immediately went back home ... As soon as he came home, he entered his room and sat back from the first page of the book to read it. I don't remember when I poured a cup of tea into my throat and how many bites I took down my throat. While reading the book, it was three o'clock in the night and I fell asleep with the book on my head with the intention of resting for a while.

Ghazali and Hume: Addiction and Disability Phase -III

 Socrates adds:

What were my hopes and what disappointments did I have to endure? Going forward, I saw that my philosopher, leaving the mind and every principle of order, began to work with the unique concepts of air, water, ether and the like. An example of this is when a person claims that the cause of every action of Socrates is the mind, but when it comes to the detailed explanation of my actions, he says that I am sitting here because my body is made of bones and muscles. The bones and the joints between them are strong, the muscles are flexible. ”(Conversations, 168)

The purpose of all this elaboration was to state that the questions which Ghazali raised and the ideas which he presented as a result of them had been discussed with Ghazali a thousand years ago, and he had also drawn conclusions about them. Aristotle's causal factor, which was dynamic in nature, which was the cause of all change and movement, seems to be the same causal factor in Anexus Ghorath's philosophy, while Socrates raises questions about Anexus Ghorath a thousand years before Ghazali. Yes, they have the same nature as Ghazali. As Socrates sarcastically says that the body is made up of "muscles", but where did the muscles come from? "The joints between the bones are tight."

 In this way, attempts have been made to make room for theological factors in one way or another. And as far as the separation between cause and effect in nature is concerned, on the basis of which Ghazali has tried to make a place for miracles, this concept of separation was present in the philosophy of coincidence and necessity which Ghazali achieved in pursuit of his goals. Uses for Ghazali seems to have known only Aristotle and Plato among the Greek philosophers. This is also the reason why almost all the philosophers before Anexus Goress had a scientific tendency and interpreted the universe on the basis of these factors. 

Since the idea of ​​moving the universe existed in Aristotle's philosophy itself, and from here the possibility could arise for Islamic theologians to harmonize Islamic theology with the concept of nature in Greek philosophy. However, skepticism about the creation of the universe and the concept of cause and effect did not mean much to the Greek materialists. 

The Greek materialists rejected the notion of cause and effect in the creation of the universe, that is, they did not recognize any such necessity in the creation of the universe, and Ghazali raised questions about this necessity in the universe A brief analysis of which has been given above. The "coincidence" on which Ghazali based his miraculous theological thought had already been discussed in Aristotle's "Physics". Ghazali did this by paving the way for theology on the basis of "coincidence" in nature.

to be continued......

Note: This description has to be provided only to dispel the impression that Hume borrowed the philosophy of skepticism from Ghazali. Hume's philosophy is based on "coincidence", which was present in Greek philosophy.

Ghazali and Hume: Addiction and Disability - Phase -II

To understand in more depth the nature of the relationship between coincidence and necessity, it is necessary to trace its roots to pre-Socrates Greek philosophy. So that we do not have much difficulty in coming to the conclusion that Ghazali has exploited a philosophical concept and imposed a religious concept on it from outside, which is a non-philosophical and irrational trend. Since it is based on the "coincidence" which Ghazali has dubbed "miracles", it is important that the concept be interpreted as it really is.

Annexa Ghorus, briefly mentioned above, was the first philosopher in Athens before Socrates, the philosopher who laid the foundations of philosophy in Athens. Although the scientific theory of the lunar eclipse of Aenexagorus is still considered 'correct' in the history of science, we are not concerned with it at the moment. It is important for us to know the significance of the concepts under which Aenexagorus described the universe, and how post-Anexaghorus Greek philosophers, especially Socrates and Aristotle, view it. Aristotle criticized Annexaghors in "Metaphysics" and wrote that Anexaghores interprets natural phenomena as far as possible in the light of natural factors, while the universe was not created for him at any particular moment. Where he cannot interpret cosmic phenomena under the concept of necessity within the universe, he imagines a "mind" beyond the universe, in order to advance his conclusions under the guise of continuity. 

Could maintain Basically, Annexaghorus denies the creation of the material universe, and acknowledges that whatever changes take place within matter, their motive is not from outside, but to scatter and compile their constituents within matter. The trend is there. Different forms of matter like water, fire, air, wood etc. are specific manifestations of matter and all of them have natural ability to collect their specific particles. And that ability gives them a certain identity in their present material form. Substances are constantly distributed to Anexagorus. A great scientist like Democrat, who did not believe in any rational force in the creation of the universe, thought that after the continuous distribution of matter there comes a time when matter particles are indivisible, and this whole process is spontaneous. 

The organization, harmony and balance in the material universe is due to the properties of matter itself. On the contrary, Anexus Goress concludes that the process of distribution of matter never stops, but that matter is permanently divisible. However, Anexagorus' views changed, and eventually, contrary to the scientific views of the Democrats, he was forced to say that there was a "mind" behind the material universe. Disabled justified. It is a philosophy that has far broader meanings than religious thought about the universe. This thought influenced Socrates. Socrates, who believed in God and was well-known as Annexagorus, was greatly disappointed when he tried to gain access to the reality of the universe in the light of Anexagorus' philosophy. In Plato's dialogue "Fedo" Socrates expresses this as follows:

"Then I heard a man, according to him, reading from the book Annexagoras, that our minds are the cause and effect of all things, and I was very pleased with the idea which seemed very reasonable, and said in my heart. If our mind is the cause, it will do its best and give everything its proper place. ”(Plato, Conversations, 167)

Ghazali and Hume: Addiction and Disability Phase -I

A general impression is that the questions that Ghazali has raised about the concept of necessity between cause and effect in relation to nature did not exist before Ghazali. This idea is the result of a complete ignorance of Greek philosophy. On this basis it is also claimed that the 17th century skeptic David Hume borrowed his philosophy from Ghazali. Eventually they come to the conclusion that Ghazali's own ideas are borrowed from Greek philosophy, which will be analyzed in the following lines. 

The tradition of materialism in Greek philosophy, which extends to Democrats and Epicurus before and after Anexoghurus, interprets natural factors under their spontaneous movement, which is a scientific phenomenon. The universe before Aenexagorus was interpreted from the point of view of materialism, which Aristotle mentions in detail in the first few pages of his book Metaphysics, and Aristotle views this dominant aspect of materialism with dislike. 

The reason for this is that only material addiction remains in it while other addictions (figurative, functional, singular) have no role. This is a definition in which there is no possibility of "coincidence", while Aristotle attaches great importance to "coincidence". It should be noted that it is 'coincidence' that leads Ghazali to 'miracles'. Coincidence undermines the notion of necessity. 

Materialists see necessity in nature while interpreting the creation of the universe as 'coincidence'. Aristotle and all the philosophers who were influenced by Aristotle, especially in the Islamic world, some of them agreed with Aristotle's philosophy of 'coincidence' did it. "Coincidence" means that there is no necessity in the universe all the time, but there is full scope for coincidences. Aristotle discusses the concept of coincidence in chapter four of his book, Physics, and says that, first of all, the Greek philosophers "do not accept coincidence, and if they do, they ignore it." He cites the example of Empedocles, whose scientific results are recognized not only in his own age but also in our age, according to Bertrand Russell.

Not only this, with the help of Empedocles it is believed that the body parts of animals come into being by chance. Coincidence means that there is room for something else in the absolute dictatorship of necessity. That is, it is not necessary that the cause always leads to a specific cause, but that the relationship between cause and effect may deteriorate and things may come into existence by chance. Ghazali cleverly expresses this in the words: "The affirmation of one does not imply the affirmation of the other, nor does the negation of the one imply the negation of the other." And Kamal borrows. 

As Ghazali seeks to accommodate some of the basic concepts of religion, he has failed to see "coincidence" as a manifestation of the internal forces of the universe, which is a feature of the universe itself and not of any. The work of an extraterrestrial being! Since "objectivity" is of primary importance in religion, Ghazali also had a search for the same purpose, or so to speak, the search for the factors that would pave the way for Ghazali to reach that goal.

Britain and Secularism: Some Concerns (First Principle of Secularism)

I think Britain is a liberal country but it has not yet risen to the level of secular. The first basic principle of secularism is to keep religion separate from state institutions. So is Britain a secular country in this regard? My answer is, no! Britain can only be called a secular country if it adheres to the basic tenets of secularism. What are the reasons I object to the fact that Britain is not a secular country? Let's take a brief look.

1. The point is, the Queen of England, who is the head of the Church of England, is the head of the United Kingdom constitutionally, albeit metaphorically.

2. Religious education in UK state schools has the same meaning that religion is not separate from state institutions, whereas it should be. This means banning religious education in schools.

3. Providing places of worship in government buildings is also a negation of secularism, such as universities, local councils and even parliament and other government institutions.

4. There should be a ban on taking oath on the basis of religious books in the courts. Religious oaths are unnecessary when everything comes to light in the investigation.

5. Most religious people are praying in a park, on a road or sidewalk. Allowing religious rites in public places is against secular society, because this act of worship is offensive to many secular people like me. Therefore, public places should be kept free from these superstitions.

6. Religion is an individual matter. Worship should be limited to homes and places of worship.

7. Funding of places of worship in the UK is also a negation of secularism, which should be stopped immediately.

8. The state should revoke the existing licenses, instead of issuing more licenses to the hundreds of religious TV channels that are open. This business in the name of religion is against secular values.

Because secularism should not only advocate the separation of religion in political matters, but also the state should separate itself from the social and cultural affairs of religion. I am not saying that the state should oppress anyone, but I am insisting only that the state should completely separate itself from religion. I am sending a detailed letter to Parliament in the next few days to bring British society in line with the basic tenets of secularism.