After an interesting discussion with fellow blogger and friend Rabia Shakoor of Grand Trunk Road , i thought that this theoretical piece will be helpful in understanding the concept of Banality of Evil which i have been continuously utilizing in my work on Fascism, Racism, esp lynching and Bengali and Balochi genocides. Rabia raises an important issue of “deniability”. I have utilized the concept of “silence” in this regards. The theoretician talks about “normalization”. This essentially is illusionary. All these in one way or another lead to deniability.  The point of further research will be how conscious is this denial?. Is it delusional? Opinions exist on the subject. Levinas for example doesn’t consider it unconscious. In a symposium on forgiveness in Paris he said “Its difficult to forgive some Germans , its difficult to forgive Heidegger”. Hannah Arendt on the other hand herself the victim of Holocaust has defended Heidegger. She had a relationship with him as well. Was Heidegger conscious of what he was doing? Was it routine? or Was he indifferent to all of it , or was he in denial. These are still unsolved issues. Wasnt the complicity of Heidegger in purging German academy it self an example of Banality of evil? or was the great philosopher genuinely unable to understand what was going around him??


From the book Triumph of the Market

by Edward S. Herman

The concept of the banality of evil came into prominence following the publication of Hannah Arendt’s 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, which was based on the trial of Adolph Eichmann in Jerusalem. Arendt’s thesis was that people who carry out unspeakable crimes, like Eichmann, a top administrator in the machinery of the Nazi death camps, may not be crazy fanatics at all, but rather ordinary individuals who simply accept the premises of their state and participate in any ongoing enterprise with the energy of good bureaucrats.

Hannah Arendt

Hannah Arendt

Normalizing the Unthinkable

Doing terrible things in an organized and systematic way rests on “normalization.” This is the process whereby ugly, degrading, murderous, and unspeakable acts become routine and are accepted as “the way things are done.” There is usually a division of labor in doing and rationalizing the unthinkable, with the direct brutalizing and killing done by one set of individuals; others keeping the machinery of death (sanitation, food supply) in order; still others producing the implements of killing, or working on improving technology (a better crematory gas, a longer burning and more adhesive napalm, bomb fragments that penetrate flesh in hard-to-trace patterns). It is the function of defense intellectuals and other experts, and the mainstream media, to normalize the unthinkable for the general public. The late Herman Kahn spent a lifetime making nuclear war palatable (On Thermonuclear War, Thinking About the Unthinkable), and this strangelovian phoney got very good press. ~

In an excellent article entitled “Normalizing the unthinkable,” in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists of March 1984, Lisa Peattie described how in the Nazi death camps work was “normalized” for the long-term prisoners as well as regular personnel: “[P]rison plumbers laid the water pipe in the crematorium and prison electricians wired the fences. The camp managers maintained standards and orderly process. The cobblestones which paved the crematorium yard at Auschwitz had to be perfectly scrubbed.” Peattie focused on the parallel between routinization in the death camps and the preparations for nuclear war, where the “unthinkable” is organized and prepared for in a division of labor participated in by people at many levels. Distance from execution helps render responsibility hazy. “Adolph Eichmann was a thoroughly responsible person, according to his understanding of responsibility. For him, it was clear that the heads of state set policy. His role was to implement, and fortunately, he felt, it was never part of his job actually to have to kill anyone.”



Peattie noted that the head of MlT’s main military research lab in the 1960s argued that “their concern was development, not use, of technology.” Just as in the death camps, in weapons labs and production facilities, resources are allocated on the basis of effective participation in the larger system, workers derive support from interactions with others in the mutual effort, and complicity is obscured by the routineness of the work, interdependence, and distance from the results.
Peattie also pointed out how, given the unparalleled disaster that would follow nuclear war, “resort is made to rendering the system playfully, via models and games.” There is also a vocabulary developed to help render the unthinkable palatable: “incidents,” “vulnerability indexes,” “weapons impacts,” and “resource availability.” She doesn’t mention it, but our old friend “collateral damage,” used in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, came out of the nukespeak tradition.

Slavery and Racism as Routine

When I was a boy, and an ardent baseball fan, I never questioned, or even noticed, that there were no Black baseball players in the big leagues. That was the way it was; racism was so routine that it took years of incidents, movement actions, reading, and real-world traumas to overturn my own deeply imbedded bias. Historically, this was a country in which human slavery was firmly institutionalized and routinized, with abolitionists in the pre-civil war years looked upon as violent extremists by the dominant elites and masses alike in the North.

The rationalizations for slavery were remarkable. A set of intellectuals arose in the South before 1860 that not only defended slavery, but argued its moral superiority on the grounds of its service to the slaves, to the disadvantage of the enslaving Whites! Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man, … is a superb account of how U.S. science at the highest levels constructed and maintained a “scientific” case for racism over many decades by mainly innocent and not consciously contrived scientific charlataury. The ability to put aside cultural blinders is rare. And it appears that what money and power demand, science and technology will provide, however outrageous the end.

Mainstream history has also successfully put Black slavery and oppression in a tolerable light. A powerful article by the late Nathan I. Huggins, “The Deforming Mirror of Truth: Slavery and the Master Narrative of American History, ” in the Winter 1991 issue of the Radical History Review, shows well how the “master narrative” in historiography has normalized Black slavery and post-1865 racism. Slavery was a “tragic error” (like the Vietnam War), rather than a rational and institutional choice; it has been marginalized as an aside or tangent, rather than recognized as a central and integral feature of U.S. history; and it has been portrayed as an error in process of rectification in a progressive evolution, rather than a terrible permanent scar that helps explain the Southern Strategy, the current attack on affirmative action, and the enlarging Black ghetto disaster of today.

Profits end Jobs in Death

Normalization of the unthinkable comes easily when money, status, power, and jobs are at stake. Companies and workers can always be found to manufacture poison gases, napalm, or instruments of torture, and intellectuals will be dredged up to justify their production and use. The rationalizations are hoary with age: government knows best, ours is a strictly defensive effort, or, if it wasn’t me somebody else would do it. There is also the retreat to ignorance, real, cultivated, or feigned. Consumer ignorance of process is important. Dr. Samuel Johnson avowed that we would kill a cow rather than forego eating meat, but visits to slaughterhouses have made quite a few people into vegetarians. A cover story of Newsweek some years ago, illustrating U.S. consumption of meat by showing livestock walking into a human mouth, elicited many protests-people don’t like to be reminded that steaks are obtained from slaughtered animals; they like to imagine that they are manufactured in factories, possibly out of biomass.

The bureaucratization of the use of animals for human ends is a large and controversial subject, but the potential for abuse is continuously realized as stock raisers, slaughterhouses, trappers, the Pentagon, the Animal Damage Control Agency, chemical, medical and cosmetic researchers, and academic entrepreneurs search for ways to improve the bottom line or fill in niches of “knowledge” that somebody will pay for. At the University of Pennsylvania a few years ago there was a Head Injury Lab, funded by the government, in which baboons were subjected to head injuries in the alleged interest of helping us (i.e., creatures with souls, the culmination of the evolutionary process, and the realization of the purpose of the cosmos). The lab was invaded by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), who among other things took away some records and films. The documentary which PETA made out of these materials, which showed these intelligent creatures having their heads smashed and rendered into zombies, also gave clear evidence that official rules of treatment of lab animals were violated, and, most important, that the participants’ attitudes toward the animals were insensitive and ugly. It was not hard to think of death camps watching the documentary of this lab in action. Yet the scientific community at Penn not only defends the use of animals against outside critics with passion and apparent unanimity, but has never to my knowledge admitted in public that the Head Injury Lab got out of hand.

In building weapons, contractors and the Pentagon have become quite sophisticated in spreading business over many states, to reach a critical mass of jobs, profits and legislators/media by congressional district to maximize the lobbying base for funding. Jobs are jobs, whether building schools or Peacekeeper Missiles or cutting down thousand-year-old redwood trees. I was slightly nauseated during the Vietnam War era by Boeing ads soliciting workers for its helicopter plant, touting itself as an “equal opportunity employer (EOE).” Maybe the Dachau camp management was also an EOE, for jobs that needed to be done and for which there was an effective demand.

Normalizing Shooting Human Fish in the Persian Gulf Barrel

Imperial Democracy in Iraq

Imperial Democracy in Iraq

In the Persian Gulf War of 1991 Uncle Sam was an EOE, and our boys and girls over there were doing their assigned jobs, repelling naked aggression in another Operation Just Cause. The war was forced upon us by Saddam Hussein’s rejection of the UN’s and “allies” insistence that he disgorge Kuwait, much as Bush “plainly” did not want war (Anthony Lewis).

Having made it Operation Just Cause No. 17, and a game with winners and losers, we could reasonably root for us-the moral force-to win. We were also defending Kuwait, and if once again the party being “saved” was “destroyed,” well, this was not our fault. Besides, there is the “principle,” of non-aggression, to which we are utterly devoted.

The media could thus focus on our brave boys, girls, generals, and officials to tell us all about their plans, moves, reactions, and miscellaneous thoughts. We could watch them in action as they took off, landed, ate, joked, and expressed their feelings on the enemy, weather, and folks back home in the Big PX. They were part of an extended family, doing a dirty job, but with clean bombs and with the moral certainty of a just cause.

The point was not often made that the enemy was relatively defenseless, and in somewhat the same position as the “natives” colonized, exterminated, and enslaved by the West in past centuries by virtue of muskets and machine guns … Our technical superiority reflected our moral superiority. If it all seemed like shooting human fish in a barrel, one must keep in mind that we were dealing with lesser creatures (grasshoppers, two-legged animals, cockroaches), people who don’t value life as much as we do, who allowed “another Hitler” to rule over them, and who stood in our way.

One of the effects of high-tech warfare, as well as the exclusive focus on “our” casualties, plus censorship (official and self), is that the public is spared the sight of burning flesh. That enemy casualties were given great prominence during the Vietnam War is one of the great, and now institutionalized, myths of that era. Morley Safer’s showing a GI applying a cigarette lighter to a Vietnamese thatched hut is used and referred to repeatedly as illustrating media boldness at that time because other cases would be hard to find. It caused CBS and Safer a lot of trouble (and he has been trying to make up for this sin ever since). Enormous government pressure and flak from other sources caused the media to provide grisly photos of enemy victims only with the greatest caution, and very infrequently, especially in light of the grisly reality. Capital intensive warfare in itself makes for distancing the public from the slaughter of mere gooks and Arabs. This is helpful in normalizing the unspeakable and unthinkable.

On February 5, 1991, the Philadelphia Inquirer carried an Associated Press dispatch by Alexander Higgins, “Marriage finds new expression in gulf: Honey, pass the bombs.” It is a little romance of a newly married couple, located at an air base in Saudi Arabia-and therefore regrettably obliged to sleep in separate tents-whose function is to load bombs on A-10 attack jets. It is a personal interest story, of two people and their relationship, with a job to do, in an unromantic setting. A fine study in the routinization of violence, of the banality of evil and the ways it is impressed on the public.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Hannah Arendt

Hannah Arendt

Book Cover BoE

Book Cover BoE


Shaheryar Ali

The way we think is the bases of every thing. . The way of thinking is what legitimizes one thing and condemns others. A particular “way of thinking” has been dominant in human societies since antiquity. It’s this way of thinking which has resulted in evolution of Religion, conventional Morality, hierarchical society and Patriarchy. Since the olden times certain philosophers have revolted against the “main stream” way of thinking, which essentially was based on a dichotomy of “thought” and “observation”. The constant friction between both and their advancement and evolution to this day is the main source of what I call “conventional way of thinking”. Its based on different , often contradictory understanding of concepts. Different ideas of Logic, Rationalism, empiricism and Idealism make this way of thinking.

Many philosophers of olden times revolted against way of thinking, they highlighted the ideas of “contradiction” “continuous flow”, “unity of opposites” and limitedness of apparent. They were often not accepted as “philosophers” but were called “Sophists”, “mystics”, poets and “insane” etc. Xeno gave a critique of motion, declared that a “flying arrow is at rest”. He was mocked for denying “motion”, he infact was criticizing the logical way of thing which looks at “Time” and “Space” as a fixed mechanical concept, showing that with there way of thinking “motion” can be shown to be a logical absurdity. Xeno’s paradoxes resulted in development of advance mathematics and with appearance of Quantum physics, his ideas about motion once again got new fame. Heraclites, Parmenides and others like them also revolted against “liner way of thinking”. In modern times Hegel developed “dialectics” and proposed it as “new logic” it was a celebration of contradiction, continuous motion, unity of opposites and mistrust of apparent.

Marx gave it a materialist touch in form of “dialectical materialism” which resulted in a first ever organized critique of the established way of thinking and its social manifestation. With dialectical thought emerged the critique of Morality, Family, Patriarchy, State, false consciousness, etc etc. Marx libertarian ideas were destroyed by the totalitarian and dogmatic regimes of Stalin and Mao. Against this back drop emerged the youth rebellion after 2nd world way whose expression in cultural arena was movements of “free love” and in politics “civil rights movement”, “Anti war movements”,” new left movement” and “revolution of 1968’ etc. These were the greatest challenges to conformity and established way of thinking. Most of it is now remembered as “Counter-Culture”.

During all these movements certain Hindu mystics emerged on international scene who associated with “peace” and “free love” movements. One such figure was OSHO. One of the most controversial figures of our times he has been maligned a lot. Osho should be called “anti mystic”. He challenged the conventional thinking, belief system and morality. His main ideas revolve around the quest of freedom and how conventional thought has actually brought all evils in the world. An excellent conversationalist, Osho has been called “Wittgenstein of religious thought”, his work is deconstructive, and he shows contradiction of conventional morality, thought and religion.

He was very popular in Pakistan during the cultural fascism of Zia. Rebel youth was attracted to his un inhibited talk on sex and freedom. After his fall from grace his ideas were largely forgotten but have seen a re emergence lately all over the world even in Pakistan. Osho was a trained philosophers, his talk is an expression of a sharp sense of humor and simplicity of expression. Those who have an interest in philosophy can see that in his simple lines he is usually commenting on some very serious philosophical problems.

This video is a short talk by him in which he speaks about concept of God and philosophical concept of contradiction. Its an excellent attack on organized religion, logical thinking and some politics

In this video Osho is criticizing philosophy, its an excellent attack on Idealism. [All proponents of non conventional way of thinking have condemned philosophy, from Xeno to Marx, Derrida and Deleuze want to destroy the whole tradition of western metaphysics as main cause of tyranny]

Few days back world celebrated Darwin’s 200th birthday. What do ideas of Darwin mean? The religious thought has taken a u turn on Darwin from total and violent rejection to cooption. Osho here puts things in perspective, those who have read Kant will enjoy his talk on “perfection”. Rediscovering Osho now will reveal a lot of new things, one need to be bit non judgmental and listen to him not considering all the package that we have inherited.

The Necessity of Atheism is a treatise on atheism by Percy Bysshe Shelley, published anonymously in 1811 while he was a student at University College, Oxford. A copy was sent as a pamphlet to all heads of Oxford colleges at the University. The content was so shocking to the authorities that he was expelled for not refusing authorship, together with his friend and fellow student, Thomas Jefferson Hogg.

A revised and expanded version was printed in 1813.

Here are some points:

  • There Is No God
    This negation must be understood solely to affect a creative Deity. The hypothesis of a pervading Spirit co-eternal with the universe remains unshaken.

If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him?
If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future?
If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers?
If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him?
If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses?

If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them?
If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him?
If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable?
If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees?
If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him?
If he has spoken, why is the universe not convinced?
If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest?

“If God wishes to be known, cherished, thanked, why does he not show himself under his favorable features to all these intelligent beings by whom he wishes to be loved and adored? Why not manifest himself to the whole earth in an unequivocal manner, much more capable of convincing us than these private revelations which seem to accuse the Divinity of an annoying partiality for some of his creatures? The all-powerful, should he not heave more convincing means by which to show man than these ridiculous metamorphoses, these pretended incarnations, which are attested by writers so little in agreement among themselves? In place of so many miracles, invented to prove the divine mission of so many legislators revered by the different people of the world, the Sovereign of these spirits, could he not convince the human mind in an instant of the things he wished to make known to it? Instead of hanging the sun in the vault of the firmament, instead of scattering stars without order, and the constellations which fill space, would it not have been more in conformity with the views of a God so jealous of his glory and so well-intentioned for mankind, to write, in a manner not subject to dispute, his name, his attributes, his permanent wishes in ineffaceable characters, equally understandable to all the inhabitants of the earth? No one would then be able to doubt the existence of God, of his clear will, of his visible intentions. Under the eyes of this so terrible God no one would have the audacity to violate his commands, no mortal would dare risk attracting his anger: finally, no man would have the effrontery to impose on his name or to interpret his will according to his own fancy”

“God is an hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof: the onus probandi rests on the theist”

The full text include thoughts on future of state as well and is a great read—–

The movement of Mysticism emerged as a reaction against the nexus of Arab imperialism, the Mullahs or the clerics and the emergence of culture of the rich and the fashionable , against which the “rough shirt” of wool became the symbol of resistance and etymological root of the word “sufi” [though controversial from Sof] , i continue the story from where I left it—Passion of Hallaj

Bayazeed and Rabiya shook the very foundations of “Islam” as Mullah considered it. Many of the great Sufis were killed by the Kings but they became the “heroes” of the masses . yet another result was the sudden increase in Conversions to Islam in the conquered land [ A comparative study of conversion to Islam during Arab Imperialism suggest that very little conversion occurred during Ummayed and early Abbasid periods, but a sudden surge occurred as Mysticism became a full movement] [A fact further highlighted by the fact that the”Sheria or law based Islam to this day is not popular in conquered moslem lands from Iran to Afghanistan to Sindh to India, Masses still have their attachment to Sufis though how much deranged it is]

At the time of Hussein this “rebel” movement had been tamed by Abbasid, they had learned that they had actually increased the strength of Sufis and others by killing and torturing them , so they wooed them. A prestigious University of Baghdad was given to the Mystics , the Nizammiya where “Mysticism” took the form of a scholarly Philosophy where Persian, Greek, Nestorian and the converts taught various discipline [ Hussein’s own grand father taught for some time the Philosophy of Being there]

Hussein’s grandfather was a Zoroastrian, his father converted to Islam , initially he didnt told his father but the wise old man soon discovered when he found that his grandson has been named “Hussein”. Why you named him Hussein? dont you know what happened to Hussein, he asked his son Mansoor! The son ignored , his eyes couldnt see the fire in the eyes of the child , which the fire worshiper had seen and made him anxious about the name! the fiery eyes that would later became the identification of Hussein . Years later Hussein will visit his father and ask him to re light the sacred fire which had been extinguished after the death of his grand father

Hussein learned Koran as a child and was educated by the mystics . His piety and intelligence became legend, the sufi teachers of his town couldnt answer his question, they were amazed by his piety and his attitude. he lived with the poor and the untouchables . Soon they were telling him . Go to Baghdad, Go to Junaid–

By the time Junaid became the Principle , Sufi movement was fully incorporated into State apparatus. It became elitist, scholarly and academic, totally cut from masses
It was this “alliance” that Hussein despised, he left the “Shrines” and lived in poorest suburbs. He stopped giving lectures to the “scholars” but talked to people in their own voice . He started challenging the “tenants” of Islam [those made by Mullahs” and exposed the hypocrisy of religious elite. who make people pray but who are evil themselves ; prayer was supposed to bring Piety and purity, who Fasted but but crimes increased, ] His first agitation was to Refuse to enter into Mecca when he went for the Hajj

He stood outside Mecca and refused to enter, he refused to answer the questions of the people and scholars. when they really annoyed him he declared ” I am waiting for the invitation from God, if he wants me to enter into his house, he should call me, i wont enter un invited”

It was this very “ego” that Iqbal would later call “Khudi” in “Khuda bunde se khud pooche , bata teri raza kiya he”

This answer infuriated all, the great scholar Wasil went to him and told him to be humble and as God doesn’t like this ego. he refused, later Junaid ordered him to move to Madina. As he entered Madina, his mood changed and he prayed in Prophet’s Mosque

As he returned to Baghdad, he mocked the Hajj, to exposed that people have made it a status symbol, a symbol of pride, and wealth

He made a replica of Kabba in his back yard, and started circling it, when people asked him “O shaik what are you doing, he replied, you think that revolving around the Stone and mud is Islam so i am doing it more than you”

He was actually repeating the thesis of one of earliest teachers of Sufis , the great lady Rabbiya al Basri, who had mocked this before.

He never saw the corporate Hajj culture fortunately, or God knows what he would have done. A culture which has destroyed the very essence of Hajj, spent million and live in 5 star hotel with air conditioned tent, spent dollars and be pious , and the people must spent all there life’s earning and be humiliated by authorities, live in a tent for the poor, and die in stampede.

If you are dictator who has killed innocent children learning Koran in Bajour on orders of Bush, the guardians of Kaa’ba will open gates of Kaaba 5 times for you. When a poor Dhimmi of this dictator overwhelmed by love kisses the wall of Prophet’s shrine, the guardians will beat him for “Shirik”

He never saw all this, but he knew it will happen so he did all this! The Mullahs and there Fatwa factories started working , Qaramati , Qaramati [A ismaili sect with anarchist tendencies who resisted the apparent and desired the hidden, insisted esoteric meaning of Hajj rather than its practice ] they started shouting . He was outraged , He started running on the streets of Baghdad shouting “Ahdam ul Kaa’ba”, “Demolish the Kaa’ba” They demanded his death [Later Sufis will discover divine wisdom in these words]

Tales of his piety grew from Baghdad to India, his prayers were answered in minuted, he cured the sick, etc, Junaid was “out raged”

He called him and snubbed him “you woo illiterate people around you, you mock religion, you perform miracles, you think these petty tricks are tasawuff? you live in low company”

Hussein sat at their feet and said “O shaik do i live with people more low than with whom Jesus use to live?” i dont do any thing, it He who does every thing, he makes me do things, he makes me say thing, ask Him to leave me”

With that he started running on streets of Baghdad, shouting “O Moslems your God is very cruel, any one on whom he shows love , is killed, he loved Ibrahim and thew him in fire, He loved Jonah and than put him in tummy of the fish, he loved Jesus and than put him on cross , he loved Hussein and got him killed in Kerbala, now he is after me.O moslems ask him to leave me.”

Hussein transcended the “traditional religions”. He traveled to Iran, Afghanistan, and even India, he passed through Multan and reached as far as River Ganges
After return from India he always wore the Saffron shirt of Hindu Mystics

He had discovered God, the Truth and Knowledge , he had discovered Islam , From Turkey to India his unmatched humanism left its marks , each region gave him a name, Hussein, Hallaj,Mansoor, the seer etc
Than he started protesting with the Poor of Baghdad against the evil Minister and the king, he led many procession
than they called for disobedience and refuse to pay the taxes

It was than that Minister went to king and asked him to implement the Fatwas on which Sunni, the Shia and the Sufis all agree. King refused to [ As he himself was once cured by prayer of Hussein and the Roman mother of the King was a follower of Hussein considering him Divine [in tradition of the Nestorian saints]

The minister told him that “People of Baghdad have refused to pay the taxes, the Fitna is on the Streets if u dont act the Abbasid throne will end”

The Mystics or the Sufis were accomplice to murder, not bcz of apostasy but because in their words “Hussein had divulged the “great secret” in open” to the masses”

It was this “Mysticism” that Iqbal later condemned , “Nikal kur Khangahon se ada kur rassam e Shabiri” Hussein left the Khangah and was abandoned by the Sufi Elite

He was put in Jail by the authorities for many years.Hussein was first “stoned” by the crowd , he remained silent. calm and at ease, the Mullahs and others watching in awe,

Junaid the principle of “Nizamiya” and one of teachers of Hussein signed the “Fatwas” by the Mullah. Others Sufis also signed it as their great teacher did

Only two Sufis refused to sign the decree of death. One was named “Shibli” the one who himself was in “junoon”
and one the Pious lady ‘Atiya”

When every one was stoning him they saw Shibli standing, The grand Mullah asked him to throw the stone as well, he refused, later the Mullahs said “o Shaik you are denying God’s sheria , Junaid has signed the fatwa as well

Shibli moved to the crowd and than threw some thing at Hussein, it was a Red Rose, as it touched Hussein,
He cried loudly , for the first time as said “even you Shibli? who knows the truth”

Later Hussein was tortured, he was “crucified” his hands and feet broken, when he died he was burned
his ashes were thrown in river

till that time, every thing that touched him shouted “Ana ul Haq”
Even the Shia clerics agreed on his death

I will die like Christ , he use to say , and did for the same reasons , the reasons of Truth!

“Ana ul Haq”, “I” am the truth” , became the cry of revolution in Moslem world, In Indo Pak ke is known as “Mansoor” a symbol of resistance, humanism, free speech and tolerance . What does that mean? “I” am Truth, Years later human knowledge would identify this “I” as the “Subjectivity”.

I” am the Truth [No “other” truth is needed, its free Human from all tyranny, I is the free Human, the Free moslem, whose hand is God’s hand] Its thought that creates the problem of “I” and “you” , observer and observed , universe and God . Every thing is one! and its the Truth, as Faiz said:

Uthe ga Ana ul Haq ka naara

Jo mein bhi hun or tum bhi ho—

The great French Scholar Louis Massignon , introduced Hussein to Europe, Since than Hussein’s views have great impact on European thought and morality. He is particularly revered by Gnostics, Thalamites, Neo Pagans as well

This is the link to “Tawasin” the English translation of the book written by Hussein

The Thelemic Church which has very high regards for Hussein

He is included in “Order of Maltese Cross”

He enjoys similar respect in other Gnostic churches as well!

Iqbal wrote a Persian poem on Hussein . Along with the great Iranian Poetess Quratulain who was also murdered by Mullahs bcz she refused to wear Hijab and became Babi
Iqbal mentioned both heroes of freedom in Javed Nama

Hallaj in desert

Islamic mysticism later accepted Hussein as the greatest of Saints and teacher who ever lived—

Albert Einstein

“One of the greatest minds of recent times was Albert Einstein , in one way or another he changed the way we think.He gave a radical new understanding of Physics and that of cosmos, which was extremely creative, it broke away the logical constraints of Newtonian mechanics . The religious establishment was very critical of him because of his open declaration against concept of personal God. After he died his views were delibrately distorted by religious people. He was converted into a believer , which he was not , his theory of relativity has been abused to prove religious concepts especially by Muslims. Einstein wrote an article “Why Socialism in Monthly Review , in 1949. In this article Einstein touched on a number of issues in subtle way, all of them now have emerged as phenomenal problem. The scope of science, the critique of “thought” itself, crisis of education . Despite Einstein’s modesty this article remains a superb piece of intellectual endeavor , we should all read it —”

Why Socialism?
By Albert Einstein Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is. Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has — as is well known — been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed toward a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and — if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous — are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half-unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supranational organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society — in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence — that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished — just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human beings which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time — which, looking back, seems so idyllic — is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor — not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production — that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods — may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production — although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. In so far as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present-day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

UNESCO like always is celebrating “World Philosophy day”. November 15th was the “world philosophy day”, but the celebrations were planned for the full week , the climax being the official event in Turkey on 21 to 23 of November . The invitation we saw was impressive , it read :

Dear Friends of Philosophy,

Dear Friends of Wisdom,

On behalf of UNESCO, the Turkish National Commission for UNESCO and the Philosophical Society of Turkey, it is a special pleasure for me to let you know that the main celebration of the World Philosophy Day this year will take place in Istanbul, hosted by Turkey.

The main aims of establishing such a Day is to call public attention to the enlightening role that philosophical reflection and knowledge can play in public life and in facing world problems, besides the benefits that philosophical education and the teaching of philosophy secure in the life of individuals, whatever their profession might be.

In a world in which, despite the efforts of the UN, one third of the human beings living on our planet �have to do with one or two dollars a day� and the gap between the rich and the poor is broadening, in which terrorism has become a method to achieve any aim; and in which obscurantist worldviews try to gain �and in fact had gained� ground in many parts of our world, we need philosophical knowledge and action based on it——–“

A very impressive letter that is in line with the tradition of Philosophy , the Leftist turn it has taken since Marx and the Enlightenment project it holds very dear. All seems great, it appears that philosophers understand the problems and have identified it, but the Sky is falling —-

As a student of Philosophy i remember when my term started with the question, “what is Philosophy.” The answer as the tradition goes always started with etymology , “Philosophia” in Greek means love or friendship towards “Sophia”, which is wisdom, skills, knowledge etc. As we go further we develop ideas about what Philosophy is , its simply “thinking about what we think about, and questioning what are known as established truths“. This makes Philosophy a very radical subject, a revolution in itself. Every thing we cherish , freedom, equality, social justice, tolerance , represent a philosophical tradition and project. Since Socrates, who is called father of philosophy , Philosophy has been linked with revolt and struggle as well. From Socrates to Sartre philosophers have stood up against norms, gods, states, kingdoms and tyrants and their legitimizing  claim has not been a birth right, a revelation from God , but a simple human virtue , the ability “to think” , and the ability to examine claims on rational grounds. This simple insistance on thinking has brought about this change , the change where in principle freedoms have been accepted by every one, but the sky is falling—–

When UNESCO was busy celebrating the “enlightening” tradition of philosophy, promising to spread the education of philosophy , Taslima Nasrin was being dragged from Calcutta by police , what is her crime . Its “thinking”. He crime is that she thinks and insists on expressing her thoughts , through language , her crime is that she doesnt accept the established or not so established truths , her crime is that she insists on examining God’s commands on rational grounds, her crimes is that she can show how what is known as  God’ s words cannot even stand up to a Man’s word or worse a Woman’s word. This crime has been committed by every thinking man , Socrates was killed for thinking , Bruno was burned alive for thinking but why the Sky is falling?

The Sky is falling because India is not ruled by godly priests , its not Vatican, Union of India was established on the highest of philosophical principles of Enlightenment , Modernity, Democracy, Socialism and Secularism , but here this woman is being dragged from one city to another for the crime of following the “foundation principles” of constitution of India.

The Sky is falling because the foremost secular and socialist Party of Asia , the defender of spirit of enlightenment in India , the Congress Party has maintained a criminal silance over all this. Congress government has become a party in terrorism against free thinking

The sky is falling because the Communist Party of India who call themselves “Marxist”, who owe their name and being to a “infidel” Atheist Philosopher Karl Marx failed to protect Taslima Nasrin and forced her out of Calcutta , the sky is falling because Biman Bose supported censorship!! The sky is falling that Communist Party bowed to Fascists , sky is falling because it showed that Communist Party government is no different that Nirandra Moodi’s government

Sky is falling because Taslima Nasrin has been accused of Blasphemy , she has been accused of criticizing and challenging Koran , sky is falling because it is the challenge which Koran itself gives to whole world , the Sky is falling because No thinking mind from the Muslim world has come out in support of Nasrin. Sky is falling because Muslim world for 700 years tolerated Philosophers who wrote books like “Contradictions of Koran”. Sky is falling because tradition of thinking has died in Muslim world which produced people like Averroes , Ibne Sina, those who criticized Islamic traditions, the sky is falling because the books of muslim theology are filled with  great debates between Imams and Atheist philosophers. These atheist philosophers ofcourse lived and florished in Muslim world and were called in courts to debate with muslim Imams.

The sky is falling because this was hundres of years ago , but today in 2007 no muslim intellectual came out to defend Muslim tradition of tolerating thought

The Sky is falling because in 9th century Ibn al Rawandi could live in Islamic caliphate and write books against Koran, Prophet hood and God, not only write , but publish and defend his works and Live freely. He could live freely after pointing out errors in Koran, he could live after questioning the concept  of God and Prophet , but in 2007 Taslima Nasrin cant do so , not in Bangladesh, not in secular India. This is Post Philosophy , Post Enlightenment world

The sky is falling that a woman who thinks so beautifully is being humiliated and tortured in Modern World by Marxists and secularists , what philosophy we want to spread??

Sky is falling because such a beautiful mind is being tormented–


Why wouldn’t Eve have eaten of the fruit?
Didn’t she have a hand to reach out with,
Fingers with which to make a fist?
Didn’t Eve have a stomach for feeling hunger,
A tongue for feeling thirst,
A heart with which to love?

Well, then, why wouldn’t Eve have eaten of the fruit?
Why would she merely have suppressed her wishes,
Regulated her steps,
Subdued her thirst?
Why would she have been so compelled
To keep Adam moving around in the Garden of Eden all their lives?

Because Eve did eat of the fruit,
There is sky and earth.
Because she has eaten, 

                    There are moon, sun, rivers, seas,

Because she has eaten, trees, plans and vines.

Taslima Nasrin– 


Iqbal“The inspiration behind these articles is the article by my friend Raza Rumi “Almost forgotten radical message of Iqbal”. I will approach it as a “Problem of Knowledge” , Knowledge being “To Know”


The principle failure in understanding Iqbal in Pakistan, which Raza has highlighted very thoughtfully is most profoundly an academic failure above every thing else! Iqbal has been studied and explained in the following academic paradigms:


1, Logical-Analytical Paradigm, which understood Iqbal as a “Reformer” in Modern sense! As the motor of modernity in Indian subcontinent was over overwhelmingly Marxist and Leftist, it historicized Iqbal highlighting his “Reformist Project”, Luther style, his Internationalism, his libertarian-Leftist leanings esp reading his work in light of his work on economics, and his poetic work on Europe , his concept of “eternal change” which was confused with Hegelian dialectics. This trend took shape by the efforts of Syed Sajjad Zaheer, Jan Nisar Akhtar and Syed Sibete Hassan. etc later is progressed further outside the Marxist-Leftist umbrella. By far this can be considered most academic of the trends but by no means true to Iqbal. The principle failure of this trend is the failure of its methodology itself, i.e. Logic and Analysis. Because of it Iqbal appears “contradictory” [Logic cannot over come contradiction, to this day Logic cant explain “Motion” very satisfactorily] Iqbal was a “Nationalist” but he opposes “Nationalism”, Iqbal was a “Socialists” but he opposes “Socialism”, Iqbal was lover of India but proposed “Partition”. Iqbal was a Sufi and Saint, but Iqbal vehemently opposed Sufism. Iqbal was an Islamist but he rejected every known version of Islam!!! All these are logical contradictions, due to use of Logic in Analyzing Iqbal but resulted in perception of Iqbal either as confused or an opportunist, changing his positions over time—

2. Second academic paradigm “Islamic Paradigm”, which was driven simply by ignorance. It considered Iqbal as a Sufi, a Saint and Messiah for Islam. Its spirit was simply icon worship. It developed in his life time as a “cult of Personality”, It never bothered about academic rigor or reading Iqbal. This trend didnt continued apart from “cult of Personality” that still exists in Pakistani Public

3. Third trend was the “Islamist Paradigm“. It also was a trend of Modernity but looked toward Fascism as its soul, Maududi and Hassan of Egypt were to extend this trend. This trend saw the “Power” and “Passion” axis in Iqbal as driving force of his Philosophy. It developed the existing understanding of “Islamic Revivalism” “Islamic Nationhood”, “Martyrdom” “segregation” “Sexism” “Anti westernism, later Anti Modernism” “Anti Communism” “glorification of Arab Imperialism” etc. This understanding was inoculated in Iqbal [Meaning was given to Iqbalian text]. This was Logical Anti thesis of the first trend! Due to formation of Pakistan and later her association with Imperialism it became the dominant trend in Iqbal Studies , the “Canonized” version of Iqbal. Neo Fascist Zia ul Haq’s destruction of Academy in Pakistan resulted in its dominance .”Knowledge departed” what was left was “Iqbal Academy“. Strictly speaking this was the “Revisionism”. All the ideology that was imposed on Iqbal was by one way or another rejected by him in the first place. Most of the academic work that emerged within this trend can easily be called “academic dishonesty.” Distortion, ideological motivated hermeneutic studies,selective reading, was one thing but most recently “out right” “de factulization” of historical Iqbal is underway. A typical example I saw a out right “denial” of the most severe opposition of Iqbal’s “Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam” by the traditional Islamic clerics of India, some of whom were the friends of Iqbal. This trend progressed from “Right wing revisionism” of Iqbal to “Ahistorical and Antihistorical analysis” Neo Fascist style. Result is Iqbal is perceived In Pakistani class rooms as Poet with Sword in hands urging the Muhammed Bin Kassims and Mehmoods of Ghazna of Islam to crush, loot and plunder the infidels , no one bothers to tell or explain that “opposition to Arab Imperialism” was actually one of Iqbal’s most cherished ideals. Opposition so great that Iqbal rejected the very understanding of Islam [Islam we know and practiced] that developed under its umbrella.

These are the 3 main academic paradigms which intend to decode and reveal Iqbal, all 3 of them actually hide and distort him, his image and his Philosophy. Ill like to comment on few sub-trends , that never gained general acceptance but nevertheless are worth mentioning


  1. Allama GA Pervez: A Modern academic of first rank, Pervez is included in the first trend because Philosophically he is Logical and Analytical, and represent the Indian version of “Linguistic turn” that Analytical Philosophy took after Wittgenstein. He studied Iqbal in strict Logcal-linear way and from him got 3 point on which he started his Project of “Islamic Reformation”
    1. Charge sheet against traditional “Islam”
    2. Analysis of Koran in Modern way
    3. Anti clericalism

Pervez expanded Iqbal’s theory of “Adulteration of Islam” by Arab Imperialism and Persian Metaphysics. Unlike Iqbal his sword was Logic, the result was an excellent attack on Hadith Literature, the Fikkah and Kalam, none of which could withstand his rigorous attacks. His work is iconoclastic and has influenced a whole generation of Liberals, and secularists in Pakistan. He subjected Koran to “Linguistic Analysis”, which gave importance to “structure of Prose”, “Syntax of Language” and “grammar” instead of “tradition”. In theory he “completed” the Lutheran style “Reformation” of Islam. The result is not very consistent with Iqbal’s Islam, becausein place of worshiping graves this is subjugation to Language! Anti clericals have become new Clerics and “Talou e Islam” a “Khankha” of Koran it self


  1. Ali Abbas Jalalpuri

Ali Abbas Jalalpuri was a very rigorous historian of Philosophy and Epistemology. As the dominant mode of Philosophy in Indian Subcontinent has been “Analytical” I include him in the first trend as well. He is amongst first of the Modern Pakistani academics who took interest in the “Question of Civilization”, “History of Ideas” and “Academic Clarity”, “Relationship of Metaphysics, Language and Folklore”, the questions which would eventually become most important issues for European Philosopher especially after “Structuralist” revolution in Paris. Jalalpuri was aware of the inconsistencies and contradictions in explaining Iqbal when subjected to traditional Analytical Model of Philosophy. Where to place Iqbal in the Web of Modern Philosophical Ideas?” was the question he faced and he thought he had theperfect solution. Instead of trying to put Iqbal in the Project of Modernity and face the problem of Contradiction, Jalalpuri placed Iqbal in the in traditional Islamic Philosophers or the “Kalamist”. So the “Paradox” is “Avoided”, Instead of Philosopher, Iqbal is a “Schoolmen” trying to complete “Islamic Scholasticism” after Ghezali. Jalalpuri is rigorous in his work. due to non existent academy , the trend ended with him. “Completing Islamic Scholasticism” is certainly a part of Iqbal’s work, but it’s a Part , not the whole.


On Knowing “Iqbal” what is my take , the model I think can explain iqbal will be next.



To be continued—