Author Archives: Editors

America to Rethink of its Role in Global Affairs

Posted on by
Reply

America to Rethink of its Role in Global Affairs

Mahboob A Khawaja, Ph.D.

America under President Trump continues to foster an agenda of extreme perplexity, triviality and confusion in dealing with urgent global affairs. If the administration were to learn from the history, it must be candid, focused and redirect its strengths and weaknesses from the past and usher a new strategic direction of change and adaptability to the present and futuristic challenges of collaborative understanding with all the global powers. This should include the conflict in Syria, Iran nuclear deal, agreement on climate change and pursuing a balanced approach to Israel-Palestine issues.

How to Comprehend the Contradictions of the US Policy Behavior?

Lacking the visionary leadership, President Obama lost precious time and opportunities to deliver “Yes, We Can.” Now, President Trump is making headlines with inherent stagnation of inner look on the current global affairs. Every day is becoming a strange new media theater of absurdity, not distinguishing between the problems and solutions. American politics endured wide range of human, intellectual, political and material losses because of the wrong thinking, wrong actions and dubious performance of the former Obama and Bush administrations. The war agenda destroyed America’s capacity and credibility as an influential global power. The perpetrators of prolonged war agenda floating above the normal mindset must be abnormal – insane – irresponsible, utterly individualistic paranoid to make such move on behalf of the people who elected them for change and peacemaking.

World affairs are a complex discipline and often require serious and impartial mindset to see the issues objectively, rationally and dispassionately. The US Trump administration is uncertain and lacks imagination and repeating the blunders of the Bush era – acting like immature kids who get mad while playing with toys – behaving like the sadistic Razor King we read in European history who broiled his enemies and enjoyed witnessing the live killings.  Strangely, Obama lied about prospective change and opening up a dialogue with the Muslim world. This was a fiction, not a fact of policy shift to get elected. Often change bring hopes and optimism for something different – an escape from the cruel obsession of the few to something more conducive to the human nature. But you can only expect this from rational beings having fullest sense of moral, intellectual and professional accountability to the society that bestows legitimacy to their role and official standing, certainly not from those who appear to have lost all basic norms of morality and civilization.  Julia Dalton (“Is Obama the Trojan Horse, A Psychopath, A Bad Boyfriend or all Three?” OpenEdNews: 1/07/2012), a strong former supporter of Obama notes that President Obama was more of a psychopath and a Trojan horse than being an author of Audacity of Hope, and imaginative manipulator  of “Yes We Can” to win the elections.

Leaders or War Criminals to be Held Accountable

After the atrocities of the 2nd World War, the allied forces captured and tried many Nazis for crimes against humanity. Now, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Tony Blair and many others have been identified by the Kualalumpur International Commission on Crimes against Humanity as involved in the crimes against humanity for the killing of millions of innocent civilians men, women and children in Iraq. On June 28, 2005 at the Berlin Strategic Seminar (“America’s Indispensable Role in Securing the Future of Civilization” Executive Intelligence Review: 7/8/2005), American intellectual Lyndon LaRouche offered the following observations about President Bush and Cheney’s insanity to make them unfit for the policy making and leadership office:

 

“Now, the United States Constitution provides for impeachment. The intrinsic basis for impeachment, is not conviction for some crime. That is not sufficient basis for impeachment, because the question of the Presidency of the United States is the question of an institution, not of a person. But, if the person who occupies that institution is clinically insane, or is otherwise incompetent to serve, that is sufficient grounds for a charge of impeachment and for his removal from office. On the other hand, we have a Vice President, who is not necessarily a psychopath, but is a sociopath. The man must be removed from office. What we have now, as a result of the actions and continuing actions in the Senate, we have a bloc, being exerted by the U.S. Senate, against the dangers intrinsic in the incumbency of these two creatures, and the people who control them. And therefore, if the world is to be saved, these two creatures must be kept under control and removed from office—not four years or three years from now, but in the immediate future.”

Why did Obama not take action to bring all these culprits to justice?  Did Obama have similar characteristics and features of insanity like Bush, Blair and Cheney?  If so, should the Norwegian Nobel Committee have revoked the Peace Prize given to Obama without performance and accountability?  Julia Dalton finds it a fact of life that Obama is a wrong guy to occupy the post of president of the US:

“I know it’s hard to admit you made a mistake.  I get it.  You really believed this guy was “the one” and he is the one for the 1%: Wall Street, the too big to fail banks, the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, big oil, big pharma, i.e. the corporate fascist state he’s so gingerly locking into place…………And, therefore, I feel it’s my duty to do an intervention.  For those of you still deluding yourselves, who still can’t face reality I suggest therapy or better yet maybe pick up a copy of “He’s just Not That into You.”

Nothing is going to last unto eternity for sure; Obama faced many limitations and overburden too, the pinch of self-exalted individualistic opportunism, so common amongst all the political contenders of public goodness, civility and humanity. They all pretend like the puppets do, politicians are no different a specie but the same kind. Julia Dalton thinks so:

“The Obama brand is collapsing just as the Bush brand before him became so craven even the most deluded had to recognize the fraud that had been perpetrated upon the American people”

Could America Make a Navigational Change for a Peaceful Future?

Paul Craig Roberts (“the Next War on Washington’s Agenda.” OpenEdnews: 01/12/2012), spells out the ingrained political cynicism governing the Washington’s based military-industrial complex of which Mr. Obama was the latest willing participatory leader.

You wonder, what is this all fuss about?  President Trump as of October 14, 2017 is revisiting the traditional belligerent strategy against Iran by refusal to testify the Iranian compliance on the international nuclear agreement. It opens up new suspicious weakness in US policy behavior who could trust the American behavior even in situation of solid global agreement?  Paul Craig Roberts (“the Next War on Washington’s Agenda.”), noted three major reasons for the US policy pursuit against Iran:

“One is the neoconservative ideology, adopted by the US government that calls for the US to use its superior military and economic position to achieve world hegemony. This goal appeals to American hubris and to the power and profit that it serves….A second factor is Israel’s desire to eliminate all support for the Palestinians and for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Israel’s goal is to seize all of Palestine and the water resources of southern Lebanon. Eliminating Iran removes all obstacles to Israel’s expansion…..

It is unthinkable and irrational stance that if Iran develops the nuclear know-how and capacity and that it could threaten anyone in the region or beyond. We live in an age of actions-reactions and nuclear reprisals – no one would like to be candidate for the first strike to ensure self-destruction, and those who possess the nuclear capability know it well, understand its disastrous consequences to use the nuclear weapons. The North Korean nuclear crisis is a current example in global affairs. American leadership knows it well too. Imagine, if the Shah Reza Pahlavi, the absolute king of Iran was alive and buying the weapons from the US, would America move to strangle Iran? No, certainly NO. Isn’t this another myth of the continued bogus War on Terrorism raged on the false pretext of the WMD in Iraq?

Mankind looks for Hope for peace and co-existence amongst the divergent cultures and nations of the world. Global politics is not a system of moral principles or intellectual and political values but often a game – a cruel drama – a puppet show often staged to appease the few Dracula – a psychopath puzzle of few insane people who had nothing useful to contribute to the mankind except drudgery, deceit, lies and inborn deceptions – the previous net outcome of this thinking was the continuing bogus War on Terrorism.   Wars are planned, conspired and are the outcome of few cruel monsters – egomaniac mindsets, not of the electoral consensus of the rational beings dreaming of life as a gift from God, progressive in civility and nobility of thoughts and behaviors and being accountable to the rest of the humanity. The Europeans have come to realize these harsh facts after centuries of wide-ranging insanity and Two World Wars and killing of millions and millions of fellow Europeans just to maintain racial superiority, national borders, rule of the few obsessed with individualistic power. Should the Americans not learn from the annals of the darkest chapters of the modern European history?  Paul Craig Roberts attempts to reflect on this much needed historical Essence of Learning and the Urgent need for a Navigational Change:

“We, as Americans, need to ask ourselves what all this is about? Why is our government so provocative toward Islam, Russia, China, Iran?  What purpose, whose purpose is being served?  Certainly not ours…………Where do we go from here?    If not to nuclear destruction, Americans must wake up. Football games, porn, and shopping malls are one thing. Survival of human life is another. Washington, that is, “representative government,” consists only of a few powerful vested interests. These private interests, not the American people, control the US government. That is why nothing that the US government does benefits the American people.”

(Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in global security, peace and conflict resolution-international affairs with keen interests in Islamic-Western comparative cultures and civilizations, and author of several publications including Global Peace and Conflict Management: Man and Humanity in Search of New Thinking. Germany, May 2012. His forthcoming publications are entitled: One Humanity and the Remaking of Global Peace, Security and Conflict Resolution; and Global Peace, Security and Conflict Resolution: Approaches to Understand the Current Issues and Future-Making, Germany, 2017).

Is learning Arabic necessary to understand Quraa’n

Posted on by
1
Love with Prophet Muhammad (Peace-Be-Upon-Him)
By Irshad Mahmood – Director, Siraat-al-Mustaqeem Dawah Centre

We have seen many verbal claims that they truly love Prophet Muhammad (Peace-Be-Upon-Him), BUT when you ask if he/she understand his language, i.e. Quraanic Arabic Language and if yes, have you ever try to teach others his language (Quraanic Arabic) for free, answers of many will be no/never. How come one claims but do not promote his language so that people can understand him as well as the Quraan, which will Inshaa Allah help resolve many issues after understanding the Quraanic Message.

Those who don’t know Quraanic Arabic Language, must try their best to learn it now before it gets too late.

Those who know Quraanic Arabic Language, must start teaching others for free if possible, before it gets too late.

Every Musjids must start teaching Quraanic Arabic Language for free if possible, before it gets too late.

Those who have authority in Muslim Lands must plan to implement Quraanic Arabic Language for free in their region before it gets too late.

Those who are capable of passing this message to Muslims including authorities to start teaching Quraanic Arabic Language in those Muslims Lands, where national language is not Arabic, must do it now before it gets too late.

Media MUST Play an Active Role in Teaching Quraanic Arabic Language for free before it gets too late.

Those Islaamic Medias who don’t have any special columns/sessions for teaching free Quraanic Arabic Language may be questioned on the Day of Judgment.

Those who really love Prophet Muhammad (Peace-Be-Upon-Him) will sure try their best to learn and teach his Language (Quraanic Arabic Language).

Inshaa Allah this will be the starting point for the Unity of Muslim Ummah, since language is the starting point on exchange our ideas/thoughts. It will also hep clear many misunderstandings about Islaam.

Steps to Promote Quraanic Arabic Language in Muslim Lands:

1>    First 10 Years teach one subject Quraanic Arabic Language in all classes of schools/colleges/universities for free and remove all compulsory (mandatory) local/provincial languages otherwise kids will be too confused.
2>    Next 10 Years teach all those subjects in Quraanic Arabic Language for which there are materials/books etc. already available in other Arabic Countries.
3>    Finally after 20 years adopt Quraanic Arabic Language as National Language.

Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious. (Ref: Al_Quraan_016.125)

And withhold yourself with those who call on their Lord morning and evening desiring His goodwill, and let not your eyes pass from them (always yes sir, till Auliyaas and Global Auliyaas (Mujaddids) follow the Quraan and Really Authentic Sunnah), desiring the beauties of this world’s life; and do not follow him whose heart We have made unmindful to Our remembrance (Quraanic Directive), and he follows his low desires and his case is one in which due bounds are exceeded. (Al_Quraan_018.028)

Read Al-Quraan, the Miracle of Miracles and free from contradictions and errors

This Article May Save Sanity Of Many TFUSA Affiliates

Posted on by
1

Brief Thought by F. Sheikh on Article. Sometime in anger, frustration or irritation we may say or write things that we regret later on. It is especially true on social media and websites like Thinkers Forum USA (TFUSA) where we sometime write such a hurtful and insulting stuff that we will never find the courage to say to someone’ face. We do not know what effect it may have on targeted individual or individuals, but it surely has ill effect on writer’s mental and physical health because no mind at ease and peace can pour out insulting and hurtful thoughts. Massimo Pigliucci has written a great article on this subject and some worth heeding advice on how to avoid an anger talk trap, which in reality is a temporary insanity. Article is below.

People get angry for all sorts of reasons, from the trivial ones (someone cut me off on the highway) to the really serious ones (people keep dying in Syria and nobody is doing anything about it). But, mostly, anger arises for trivial reasons. That’s why the American Psychological Association has a section of its website devoted to anger management. Interestingly, it reads very much like one of the oldest treatises on the subject, On Anger, written by the Stoic philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca back in the first century CE.

Seneca thought that anger is a temporary madness, and that even when justified, we should never act on the basis of it because, though ‘other vices affect our judgment, anger affects our sanity: others come in mild attacks and grow unnoticed, but men’s minds plunge abruptly into anger. … Its intensity is in no way regulated by its origin: for it rises to the greatest heights from the most trivial beginnings.’
The perfect modern milieu for anger management is the internet. If you have a Twitter or Facebook account, or write, read or comment on a blog, you know what I mean. Heck, Twitter anger has been brought up to new heights (or lows, depending on your point of view) by the current president of the United States, Donald Trump.

I too write quite a bit on online forums. It’s part of my job as an educator, as well as, I think, my duty as a member of the human polis. The conversations I have with people from all over the world tend to be cordial and mutually instructive, but occasionally it gets nasty. A prominent author who recently disagreed with me on a technical matter quickly labelled me as belonging to a ‘department of bullshit’. Ouch! How is it possible not to get offended by this sort of thing, especially when it’s coming not from an anonymous troll, but from a famous guy with more than 200,000 followers? By implementing the advice of another Stoic philosopher, the second-century slave-turned-teacher Epictetus, who admonished his students in this way: ‘Remember that it is we who torment, we who make difficulties for ourselves – that is, our opinions do. What, for instance, does it mean to be insulted? Stand by a rock and insult it, and what have you accomplished? If someone responds to insult like a rock, what has the abuser gained with his invective?’

Indeed. Of course, to develop the attitude of a rock toward insults takes time and practice, but I’m getting better at it. So what did I do in response to the above-mentioned rant? I behaved like a rock. I simply ignored it, focusing my energy instead on answering genuine questions from others, doing my best to engage them in constructive conversations. As a result, said prominent author, I’m told, is livid with rage, while I retained my serenity.

Now, some people say that anger is the right response to certain circumstances, in reaction to injustice, for instance, and that – in moderation – it can be a motivating force for action. But Seneca would respond that to talk of moderate anger is to talk of flying pigs: there simply isn’t such a thing in the Universe. As for motivation, the Stoic take is that we are moved to action by positive emotions, such as a sense of indignation at having witnessed an injustice, or a desire to make the world a better place for everyone. Anger just isn’t necessary, and in fact it usually gets in the way.

The philosopher Martha Nussbaum gave a famous modern example of this in her Aeon essay on Nelson Mandela. As she tells the story, when Mandela was sent to prison – for 27 years – by the Apartheid government of South Africa, he was very, very angry. And for good reasons: not only was a grave injustice being perpetrated against him personally, but against his people more generally. Yet, at some point Mandela realised that nurturing his anger, and insisting in thinking of his political opponents as sub-human monsters, would lead nowhere. He needed to overcome that destructive emotion, to reach out to the other side, to build trust, if not friendship. He befriended his own guard, and eventually his gamble paid off: he was able to oversee one of those peaceful transitions to a better society that are unfortunately very rare in history.

Read Full Article

 posted by f.sheikh

American Higher Education System-An Unlikely Triumph- By David Labree

Posted on by
Reply

(In its first century the American higher-education system was a messy, disorganized joke. How did it rise to world dominance?- In 19th century most of the colleges were established by the land speculators to start cultural centers to sell their lands at higher prices surrounding these centers. By European standards, these colleges and universities were jokes. But this land speculative trend turned into higher education bonanza in the 20th century that provided first class higher education and research that world has ever seen. A fascinating story to read. F. sheikh)

From the perspective of 19th-century visitors to the United States, the country’s system of higher education was a joke. It wasn’t even a system, just a random assortment of institutions claiming to be colleges that were scattered around the countryside. Underfunded, academically underwhelming, located in small towns along the frontier, and lacking in compelling social function, the system seemed destined for obscurity. But by the second half of the 20th century, it had assumed a dominant position in the world market in higher education. Compared with peer institutions in other countries, it came to accumulate greater wealth, produce more scholarship, win more Nobel prizes, and attract a larger proportion of talented students and faculty. US universities dominate global rankings.

How did this remarkable transformation come about? The characteristics of the system that seemed to be disadvantages in the 19th century turned out to be advantages in the 20th. Its modest state funding, dependence on students, populist aura, and obsession with football gave it a degree of autonomy that has allowed it to stand astride the academic world.

The system emerged under trying circumstances early in US history, when the state was weak, the market strong, and the church divided. Lacking the strong support of church and state, which had fostered the growth of the first universities in medieval Europe, the first US colleges had to rely largely on support from local elites and tuition-paying student consumers. They came into being with the grant of a corporate charter from state government, but this only authorised these institutions. It didn’t fund them.

The rationale for starting a college in the 19th century usually had less to do with promoting higher learning than with pursuing profit. For most of US history, the primary source of wealth was land, but in a country with a lot more land than buyers, the challenge for speculators was how to convince people to buy their land rather than one of the many other available options. (George Washington, for instance, accumulated some 50,000 acres in the western territories, and spent much of his life unsuccessfully trying to monetise his holdings.) The situation became even more desperate in the mid-19th century, when the federal government started giving away land to homesteaders. One answer to this problem was to show that the land was not just another plot in a dusty agricultural village but prime real estate in an emerging cultural centre. And nothing said culture like a college. Speculators would ‘donate’ land for a college, gain a state charter, and then sell the land around it at a premium, much like developers today who build a golf course and then charge a high price for the houses that front on to it.

Of course, chartering a college is not the same as actually creating a functioning institution. So speculators typically sought to affiliate their emergent college with a religious denomination, which offered several advantages. One was that it segmented the market. A Presbyterian college would be more attractive to Presbyterian consumers than the Methodist college in the next town. Another was staffing. Until the late-19th century, nearly all presidents and most faculty at US colleges were clergymen, who were particularly attractive to college founders for two reasons. They were reasonably well-educated, and they were willing to work cheap. A third advantage was that the church just might be induced to contribute a little money from time to time to support its struggling offspring.

Often the motives of profit and faith converged in the same person, producing a distinctive American character – the clergyman-speculator. J B Grinnell was a Congregational minister who left the church he founded in Washington, DC, to establish a town out west as a speculative investment. In 1854 he settled on a location in Iowa, named the town Grinnell, gained a charter for a college, and started selling land for $1.62 an acre. Instead of organising a college from scratch, he convinced Iowa College to move from Davenport and assume the name Grinnell College.

This process of college development helps to explain a lot of things about the emergent form of the US higher-education system in the 19th century. Less than a quarter of the colleges were in the strip of land along the eastern seaboard where most Americans lived. More than half were in the Midwest and Southwest: the sparsely populated frontier. If your aim is to attract a lot of students, this was not a great business plan, but it was useful in attracting settlers. The frontier location also helps to explain the nominal church support for the colleges. In the competitive US setting where no church was dominant, it was each denomination for itself, so everyone wanted to plant the denominational flag in the new territories for fear of ceding the terrain to the opposition. Together, land speculation and sectarian competitions help to explain why, by 1880, Ohio had 37 colleges – and France just 16.