Tolerance in Islam

While we deeply despise the barbarism of Israel against the Palestinians, it is equally important for us to remain humane and respectful of the existential rights of other religions. Islamic state in the Iraq and the Levant has recently declared a caliphate in Iraq whose sole purpose is to terrorize the people there. What it is doing in the name of creating a caliphate is that it is destroying and selling all the historical relics and sites in Iraq, all in the name of religion of Islam. Moreover, it has recently torched an 1800 years old church in Mosul, a town in Iraq. It has also expelled plenty of christians out of the country by threatening them either to convert to Islam, pay the taxes or to leave the country. As the people left, they also snatched their precious belongings including women's jewelry. All of this is being done in the name of Islam. On the other hand our wannabe caliphs are busy in celebrating picnics. This is not Islam. On the other hand this is worst degree of barbarism.

The idea of having a caliphate stems from the appointment of earliest rashidun caliphs in Islamic tradition. The four notable caliphs were Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA), Hazrat Umar (RA), Hazrat Usman (RA) and Hazrat Ali (RA). 

When hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) sent an army to Syria, he particularly directed them to completely spare a population that was indulged in worship of God. By saying this he literally referred to the Christian nation. 

In the era of Hazrat Umar (RA) when Egypt was conquered, he refused to pray in a church despite the request of the arch bishop. His (RA) argument was that if he (RA) prayed in the church the latter generations of Muslims may make it a point that since the caliph of Muslims had prayed in that church, it should be converted to a mosque. That was the sensitivity of hazrat Umar (RA) towards the christian religion. He (RA) also made many social reforms while keeping in view the senile jews of Arabia.

Similarly, a slave of Hazrat Umar (RA) was a christian. He remained so till the end of his life. One of the central tenets of Islam is that it cannot be forced. There is no compulsion in Islam. This is the bottom-line.

Hazrat Usman (RA) and Hazrat Ali (RA) simply followed his lead.

Another venerable caliph from the latter generations was Hazrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz (RA). It is quoted in the history of Islam that the rate of conversion to Islam in his era was the highest. One of the reasons was that he had confiscated all the property from the Banu Umayya (his native Arab tribe) and given it back to the government treasury. It is also quoted that his higher officials reported to him to maneuver monetary concessions to the non-Muslims and to place tax embargoes in a way so as to discourage their conversion to Islam. Upon this he severely scolded his officials saying that God sent Muhammad (PBUH) as a guide to humanity and not as a tax collector. 

Such is the religion of Islam. That is why too many people converted to Islam. And that is why even today it is still looked upon as a hope by the humanity.

Imposing a caliphate such as is being done by the Islamic state in Iraq is nothing more than barbarism and terrorism. This should clearly be abandoned as a bad idea of a worst degree. It is time that Muslims should themselves speak up against such brutal tendencies.

In the end I would like to share the prologue and the epilogue of the book titled Islam and tolerance written by hazrat hakeem Tariq Mehmood Chughtai (RA) from Ubqari institute. Ubqari magazine also has a special section on Islam and tolerance. This episode is particularly worth reading which is about how a companion of Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH), Abdullah ibn-e-Umar (RA), compassionately treated his jewish neighbor. Abdullah bin Umar (RA) was the son of hazrat Umar (RA), whos was the second caliph of Islam. Much of the conquests in the middle east happened in his era. These include Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Jerusalem. The book has been translated and is currently under review. But the prologue and epilogue are really worth reading. 

Prologue

During the reign of Ibrahim Lodhi, an issue of demolishing a Hindu temple arose during construction. The Hindus were not giving permission to demolish it. A great mufti of Muslims was called in the court to advise. On hearing the complete account, the mufti delivered a fatwa that the temple could not be demolished. Although this decision was incommodious for the King and the public, but he stood by his words and history is witness to this account that the temple was not destroyed.

The theology of Islam is not only peaceful for Muslims, but it also holds clear principles for the safety of the whole human society. The verse of Quran, Whoever kills a soul, it is as if he has slain mankind entirely, is in reality an expression of the summary of an unseen relationship amongst every individual, sect, religion, class and nation. The history of Islam is witness that whenever a ruler implemented Ikhlaq-e-Muhammadi as a superior ethical code in an Islamic Kingdom, then in his reign, non-Muslims and their places of worship were protected as well as those of the Muslims. And they were provided with the same religious and social freedom as the Muslims. Each epoch is ornate with innumerable auspicious events due to which not only the Islamic history is proud, rather the non-Muslims historians have also mentioned them in an impressive and appraising manner. The bright examples of these events are the circumstances of Ahl-e-Allah. Baba Fareed's (RA) brotherhood and tolerance with the followers of Sikh religion is not at all a secret. His name is present in the holy books of Sikh religion as a religious leader. Khuwaja Moin-ud-Din Chishtis (RA) behavior, his benevolence, and humanitarianism is a true reality that is even remembered today. Hazrat Khuwaja Abdullah (RA) says that be a flower and not a thorn, be a friend and not a stranger. All such incidents, events, stories and accounts are a small glimpse of Islam's tolerance towards the non-Muslims.

The humanitarian teachings of Ahl-e-Allah is evidence in itself of this reality that the true followers of Islam not only held sincere love for non-Muslims in their hearts, rather their affection would tie the non-Muslims in their golden chain of love.

In the current times when the whole world is engulfed in turbulence of violence, troubles and the mutual distances are increasing more than ever, it is needed more than ever to understand the true teachings of Islam and build the relation of humanity anew with a foundation of sincerity, bricks of love and mortar of elegant behavior. And a message should be delivered to the whole world that Islam is the religion of peace, brotherhood and love. Be it east or west, north or south, poor or rich, literate or illiterate, a high ranking official or poor labor, all of us are brothers.

This book is a small effort to bring in to notice the mutual tolerance and association amongst the Muslims and non-Muslims. If from the burning incinerator of hatred, even a single spark of love is kindled, I would not consider that my efforts have been wasted. 

Come! Become my companion in this mission and spread this message of The Centre of Peace and Spirituality in the world.

Desirous of Sincerity and Compliance

Lahore, Pakistan, Hakeem Muhammad Tariq

May 13, 2014 Mehmood Chughtai Majzoobi

Epilogue

Readers! Monthly Ubqari magazine has come out in the world with a message of peace and tranquility. And the way this message of peace and tranquility has been received by the world, the whole humanity is witness of that. Where Ubqari magazine is popular among the Muslims, at the same time it is equally popular, as it should be, among the Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and Jews. Come and join us! we should hold each other's hands irrespective of our religion, nationality, language, geography and ethnicity, to serve the whole humanity. By erasing the message of terrorism we should give a message of peace to the whole world. Let us erase the message of intolerance and distribute a message of peace and tolerance to the whole humanity.

On a separate note: In a way I am being dishonest to the institute by publishing this part of the book. But I think that the situation is urgent and dire specially in Iraq. I shall apologize to the institute latter.

 
Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

   by  ItzaFineDay 

On The Priming Potential of Stratfor

I have been thinking about writing something here for a long time. I have been postponing my next article for various other chores that have been consuming my time. One of those chores has been reading. The truth is that I have been reading each and every article of Stratfor since the past few months. I have been read every bit of what a free rider can get and I don't think that I possess the means to get a paid subscription at this moment, neither do I think that that is important.

I really wanted to reflect on George Friedman's Borderland series of articles that he finished writing around last month while traveling in Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Caucus. It was particularly touching to read how he was born to a Jewish family in Hungary and how his elders had to calculate the costs of Adolf Hitler's military excursions in Hungary at dining tables, and the calculations of the price the Jews would have to pay. Indeed, it is a pity. However, his trip to Europe was motivated by the recent Russian intrusion in Ukraine.

I have been reading Stratfor quite thoroughly. And the truth is that I have found it rather impressive. Their geopolitical weeklies are absolutely enlightening, albeit ruthless. But such is the nature of geopolitics. Right into the middle of the 21st century it still tends to remain ruthless.

As I have been reading Stratfor, I have been wondering of writing up a research proposal to analyze Stratfor for its objectivity. The proposal that I have in my mind's eye would require research to be carried out from a psychological point of view. I would roughly like to explain the proposal as follows.

Stratfor claims to be objective and non partisan. This is claimed in their core philosophy. The truth is that I have largely found it to be objective and non-partisan, except a few instances (where I have found it to be rather ambiguous). In reality, however, Stratfor might not really be as objective as it claims to be or as a reader like me finds it to be. This leads us to the idea that although Stratfor is objective most of the times and does not appear to be so some of the times, it is priming us in profound ways at times when it is actually not being objective whereas it is appearing to be so.

Stated in other words, when Stratfor is intentionally trying to manipulate the opinions of its readers by appearing as an innocent geopolitical analyst, whereas when it is actually not so, it is trying to psychologically prime us.

This can be a very nice idea to work on. It may as well lead to a very nice research based thesis. Having said it all, it is imperative to describe what priming really means in this context.

Priming is a psychological trick in which a subject is indirectly led into developing false beliefs and ideas by indirect manipulation, while the subject does not know that he/she is being played upon. For instance, in an easy exam in which everyone can do well (or everyone has done equally well on average), subjects can be asked to write down their about their ethnic backgrounds. Depending on their answers, some subjects would have the tendency to do poorly on the same type of exam as compared with others. The reason for this drift in performance is how they associate their ability to succeed with their ethnic roots on a subconscious level.

This is priming and I found this explanation in Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, a very nice book on snap judgements and other aspects of popular psychology.

   by  Pdro (GF) 

Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

Borderlands, Midlands or Whatever

Reading articles of George Friedman is always entertaining. Recently he traveled to Azerbaijan to reflect on the geopolitics of that particular region around the Caspian sea. From there he wrote an article, Borderlands: The View From Azerbaijan. There are quite a few interesting things in this article that I would like to reflect upon.

I have envied to be in the position of George Friedman for quite some time now. I have been reading Stratfor for almost the past thirteen years now. I started reading it in the wake of spetember 11. At that time I was only a passive reader and I presume that even being that was a great accomplishment for me. Now I feel like becoming a writer of that class, and perhaps I being over ambitious. Nonetheless, the idea that George Friedman has took the pain to travel all the way to Azerbaijan to understand the region by assimilating in it to some extent is enticing in its own right. The fact that he reflected on the region so comprehensively form there is also quite commendable. While reading this article I wondered so many times that he must have roamed around on the roads, talked to people and must have sat in a park to eventually write his thoughts. Literally, it reminded me of my trip to Austria once where I read Simon SIngh's book, Big Bang, in various parks of Graz. And when I was reading about Johannes Kepler, I was sitting in a park in which his statue was just in front me. I can imagine how one can feel while being so well connected in this way.

The article is very profound. The truth is that how George Friedman has reflected on Azerbaijan is very informative. I never knew so many things about that place that I know now. And I am sure plenty of the Muslims would not know many things as well. For instance, not only that plenty of the Muslims would not know that the majority of the people in Azerbaijan are Azeris, I suspect that most people would not even know what it really means to be an Azeri. It would not be an exaggeration on my part to say that most Shia people would also not know about such things.

The other thing we learn from this article is that the government of Azerbaijan is secular. I wonder if it is a good thing or a bad thing. However, if you are a western person, or a westernized person, you might be a little bit shocked at my previous sentence. In saying that the government is secular, George Friedman also points at the social status jews enjoy in Azerbaijan, and also Iran. Learning that jews can enjoy a decent social status in both countries and can even rise to the ranks of ministers and higher officials is only pleasing. But it appears that George Friedman likes the secularity of Azerbaijan more than religiosity of Iran. This is somewhat concerning.

I look at this as a problem. I look at it from a unique vantage point. And my vantage point ensues from my interaction with Europe and my readings about atheism. The fact is that I get a feeling that George Friedman finds it rather better for a country to be implementing human rights when it is secular as opposed to when it is religious. I find it evident from his tone. I wonder about this from a theological point of view. In awareness that one of the reasons that people abandon religion is because it is supposed to create rifts in the society, at the very least, and bellicose conflicts in the worst case. Islam is particularly framed as a terroristic religion in Western countries. It is not uncommon to find a poster in Copenhagen featuring a bearded man with a turban on his head, possibly with a bomb in it. It is a pity that Islam has earned this reputation. People tend to abandon religion for these reasons. I was in Copenhagen last winter when I read an advertisement on facebook that was about a cemetery free of religious symbols for atheists in Copenhagen, Odensea and other parts of the country. It appears that there are people who do not want to buy in to religion even on their deathbeds. This is a pity.

But my question is profound. Why would someone be opposed to religion while it is actually practicing humane values. This is understandable. The truth is that in classical Islam there is a lot of room for other religions. Jews and christians are revered for being the people of the book. Specially concerning jews, who have had a really nasty history, one can find that their golden age was those seven hundred years in which Muslims ruled in Spain. They could become ministers in courts and they assumed dignified official positions in offices. Classical Islam is a lot more than that. We have heard about prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that he was a very just man. People used to come to him to settle their disputes. And when jews and christians used to come to him to settle their disputes, he used to settle their disputes according to Torah and bible respectively, as opposed to the Holy Quran, that was revealed on him, just like Torah and Bible were revealed on prophet Moses (PBUH) and Jesus (respectively).

Given this, one wonders that why people prefer secularity over religiosity. Obviously from a rational point of view it is possible that there is no God, although given the massive evidence chances are slim. But for sake of an argument, let's say that God exists, then what is the harm in accepting this reality. I hope I have conveyed a part of my thought process comprehensively, although I feel that I need to refine my argument.

The last thing is very interesting. George Friedman goes a long way to discuss how Azerbaijan has been a subject of continuous criticism of the US state department for a long time for human rights concerns. It has been denied weapon sales due to such issues as well. George Friedman tries to play them down partly in wake of the need of Azerbaijan as a potential fixer of regional affairs particularly uprooted by Russia.

George Friedman is an opinion maker. He is also not any ordinary opinion maker. He does not do this directly. Neither is there any need for him to do it directly. The truth is that StratFor is such an enlightening institution that it keeps on informing its readers about geopolitical developments on a weekly basis in a way that no other think tank in the whole world does. Add on top of this cake the icing of objectivity and non-partisanship and what you get is a perfect way to bias yourself with its prophecies.

In as much as it is a good thing for countries to get closer, the truth is that their intentions need to be straightened up before they do that. Instead of liaising with Azerbaijan to counter Russia, would it not be a lot more wiser for the US to sit down with their diplomats and to try to resolve all the human right violations that the US thinks that Azerbaijan is guilty of, and to address some of the concerns of Azerbaijan has about the US. Making liaisons is obviously a good thing, as they can help us in winning wars. Intentions behind such liaisons matter to a great extent, as they can lead to lasting relationships and help in winning hearts.

The US made a similar liaison in the past with Afghanistan and Pakistan to counter the Soviet Union. Indeed, the Soviet Union was collapsed as a result of that. But some results of that relationship of geopolitical necessity were rather grave. And we have seen them manifest in the form of terrorism and war on terror.

Barrack Hussain Obama has been a good US president. He has been philosophical in choosing not to intervene in Syria in wake of use of chemical weapon. Moreover, he imposed some sanctions on Russia as a result of its intrusion in Ukraine. This has been a tremendous change in the attitude of the US foreign policy possibly for the first time in recent history. He and his administration needs to be commended for this. Would he make further liaisons that are genuinely candid or that fulfill geopolitical demands needs to be seen.

 
Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

  by  Niyaz from Baku 

Big Crimes in Little Kremlin

A few years ago the US attacked a certain city of Iraq. It was a part of their bigger operation in that country. The truth is that such operations had become quite commonplace in the last decade. The US and NATO were busy in liberating people either in Iraq or in Afghanistan. I would not be any exaggeration to assert that many people around the planet were either oblivious of the fine details of the events happening there or they did not have enough time to follow up the news. I was one of them. So as I heard about the attack, it was a surprise for me. Due to the astonishment of the event I rushed to a close friend of mine and told him about the incident. My friend is a Roman Catholic. I cannot disclose his complete identity due to the purpose of confidentiality. All I can say is that he is a Hungarian Romanian with Shaman roots. He is a very nice man and a very dear friend. He helped me in various critical phases of my life in which if he had not helped me, I would definitely have had very tough times.

As I broke the news of the incident to my friend. He accommodated me by absorbing the information. In order to emphasize the severity of the news I had to reiterate about the event to him twice. At last he assuaged my concerns by telling that it was after all not a very bad deal in relative terms. He further instigated me to consider a scenario in which Russia or China had invaded Iraq (or any other country for that matter). In the case of China he literally said that they might not even spare animals from getting into the oven when they decided to march. And while saying this the blue eyes of my friend were as bleak as the cold war itself.

My friend has an extremely cool personality. Everyone loved to hang around with him for a while when we were together. Muslims specially loved him. Moreover, we always used to love to suspect that he would convert to Islam one day. My friend has many qualities a good friend should have. One of them is that he can make you feel good about your present circumstances no matter how bad they are. He has a knack of showing that all the thinkable alternatives are worse than the current plight. Consider this incident for example. One day I told him that sometimes I wished that I had been born in the times of Alexander the great or some other similar dignitary from ancient past. My wish did not ensue from the misery of my lifestyle. Rather, I had a comfortable life. I wished to live in that era simply because I could have witnessed with my own eyes the glories of great empires as we see them in movies. However, my friend was very quick in discouraging me for nurturing such a desire. As soon as I told him about the wish he very quickly discouraged me by saying that it was a very bad desire since we could most probably have been slaves had we been born and living in any of those eras. This made quite a lot of sense to me for the first time in my life.

Consider seriously what would Chinese have done to a country if they invaded it. I have another friend who is from China. When we were together we used to tease him for having connections with Bruce Lee. He used to feel very proud about that. He even knew quite a bit of Kung Fu and related arts. Upon wheedling a lot, we could even persuade him to make those peculiar Bruce Lee sounds from his mouth, that he used to make while breaking wood or bones. 

One of our friends somehow knew that China has some sort of a problem with Tibet. I do not know what the problem really is. All I know is that there is some geopolitical problem between the two countries that has not been resolved since long. My friend used to ask him that how would he propose to solve the problem. Our Chinese friend used to say all the time that that was not a problem and all that he needed was a few tanks and a few men to take care of Tibet. This was his typical answer that he used to give us with his smiling face and we used to laugh. However, I am sure that he used to propose this solution not due to the viability of this sort of a solution, but to make up for his very limited ability of speaking in English. I believe that it was a much easier verbal short cut for him to speak like this.

But what would Chinese do if they ever invaded a country. Pakistan has always had very good terms with China and we really like them for so many things. Indeed, our relationship has always been cozy and we hope it to become cozier. But we also have an impression that on the day the Chinese decided to march out of their country to the rest of the world, they would even put every single green leaf in the broth. What we know about chinese is that they make soup out of even frogs and rattlers. Indeed, if this is true, then a war would just be a picnic trip for them. Let's hope that they learn and adopt better ways of dealing with world's problems.

Let's consider Russia now. Russians have developed a bit of a reputation for being at war for many decades. Every now and then we read about the cold war and geographical necessities of the Russians to expand their borders westward (and possibly also eastward). It has become a personality thing for them to project themselves like this. With Vladimir Putin as its facade the Russia looks all the more scary too. 

Let's try to recall Alexander Letvinienko for a while. He was an ex-KGB defector who had absconded to the UK. He was a critic of Kremlin and a particularly harsh critic of Mr. Putin. In the days when he was dying the news of his terminal illness were all over the media. I wonder if I read about him through Stratfor. If my memory is not betraying me, then I can assuredly say that Stratfor covered each and every aspect of that episode. 

The crux of the story is that he was given radioactive poisoning. One of the reasons why he was given radioactive poisoning was to give him a slow death in which he could see himself dying very slowly and helplessly. I even remember that I read something like that if he would die like this he would know who killed him. And that he would die slowly like this in front of his own eyes and wonder, and eventually know, that who killed him and that why he was killed. It took him around twenty days to die. And all of this happened in front of his very own eyes. It all happened as it was planned. Indeed, this is an extremely pathetic way of killing someone.

There is no safe mechanism of internal criticism in Russia as well. At the time of Alexander Letvinienko's death there was a discussion of assassination of another lady journalist whose name was probably Anna (Something). She was found dead in her apartment. Her crime was that she was a critic of Mr. Putin.

One of the crimes of Alexander Letvinienko was that he criticized the unspeakable atrocities committed by Kremlin in Chechnya. Indeed, what the Russians have been doing to Chechens is also extremely heinous. Or is it a lot more than that?

These days Mr. Putin is trying his luck in Ukraine. Are the eastern Ukrainians really happy that Russia has finally come for their redemption? What about their oligarchs? Perhaps they cherish the idea to live under the constant and perpetual bad influence of Russia that it actually is. We shall know about all of this from Crimea in due course.

On the other hand, it would have been much nicer of Russia and its people to model their polity on some sort of a democracy. But when did the people of Russia win an opportunity to have any influence in shaping a better government for their country? The truth is that no matter how much we detest the US or other such states for their hegemony and domineering tendencies, such polities at least have certain soft power mechanisms that make them appear as acceptable leaders on the world's political canvass. Whether they are their think tanks, better institutions, outreach mechanisms, higher education, research institutes, general liberty, economic aids and incentives, egalitarian societies or generally humane philosophies etc., in one way or the other many western states have these and many other appealing qualities that not only make them amenable as global leaders but also suitable for inhabitation by foreigners.

The truth is that Russia has no such mechanism by which it can project itself as a humane entity that it may wish to pretend to be. With Mr. Vladimir Putin as its facade, it appears to be a lot more fearsome and grotesque.

Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

  by  josef.stuefer 

Bonjour

Time passes very quickly. Most of the times we spend our present moment in trying to anticipate or plan about the future or to reconcile with the past and the time does not tend to pass. However, there is a lot of time of our lives that we have left behind when we look towards the hindsight.

A few years a go I had a privilege to work in France for one year. I was based in France telecom's R&D headquarters in Lannion as a researcher. Lannion is a nice little town in the South West of France in its province of Brittany. Like the rest of France, and most of Europe, Lannion is also extremely beautiful. And not only that the people are mostly also very friendly and extremely nice. The year lived in Lannion was very memorable. We were a few Pakistanis in the town who had befriended numerous French, Romanian and people from other nationalities. Together we had loads of fun. I wanted to write a bit more detailed article about my stay in Lannion, but I would save that for another time. I am writing this article for another purpose and a different experience.

I was lodged very close to France Telecom R&D. I could walk to work from home in around 15-20 minutes. This is not much. In order to walk conveniently and to enjoy the experience, I had found a combination of streets that were rather solitary and that were also full of typical Celtic flora and European houses. As I write this, I deeply yearn from inside to go and live there again. Walking to work and back used to be a healthy process that I really enjoyed. Sometimes it rained and I had to take a bus. But normally I preferred to walk. Walking also allowed me to develop new perspectives about my work, as it allowed me ample time to reflect and think about work. 

On a few occasions I passed by a small boy in one of the streets. And this is one of the reasons why I am writing this article. I will talk about the other reason latter below. The boy was around 6--8 years old. He'd be going school. He'd be well-dressed, well combed, neat and tidy, with a schoolbag hanging on his back. Whenever he'd pass by me, while robotically walking to the school, he'd say "Bonjour" to me loudly while his eyes were almost always lowered. The only things I clearly remember about him now are that he had blond hair, he'd be wearing large glasses with a brown frame, and that he had blue eyes.

I cannot forget this experience. And I have always wondered that definitely his mother may have taught him to behave nicely to strangers. Of course, such children can also be at a risk of being abused in some way due to their innocence. But the fact that he was being groomed and nurtured very elegantly should not be overlooked. Irrespective of his family background, and our cultural remoteness, I still think about that boy at times. And I think that he deserves enormous praise. I could never muster the courage to ask him his name and related things. All I'd say in return was Bonjour. I was wary that if I reacted in any way more or less than that, the pigeon will fly away, and I would never be able to see him again.

Let me digress a little bit to another topic for a while. This seemingly does not have any relevance with the context of this article. However, this is the second reason why I wanted to write this post. In as much as the two incidents are disconnected, the truth is that they come to my mind simultaneously. So, let us digress to Innocence of the Muslims for a short while. Recently I read somewhere that google has promised, in front of one of the relevant US courts of Law, to remove the movie from YouTube. This is a commendable effort indeed. This would not only allow Government of Pakistan to remove a ban from YouTube, it would also help in subsiding unnecessary rifts between various cultures and civilizations. 

When the movie was first released I had a chance to look at the movie a little bit. This is to say that I had a chance to look at the boy and the girl who starred in the movie. The truth is that I had a strong feeling that the people had been duped into playing those roles. This is quite embarrassing for those children as well.

I have a feeling that movies like these are not made without a purpose. One of the purpose they serve is obviously to uproot people. In this case they were Muslims. And in case of the Muslims, the other reason is to gauge the emotional temperature of the Muslim society. People react badly and they are termed as barbaric and terroristic. Indeed, this is a pity.

However, as I said earlier such movies create unnecessary rifts in the human society. As a general impression such movies are also self harming in a moral sense too. On the other hand we can learn so much good from the example of the boy that I quoted above. Irrespective of whether the boy came from a Christian family, or whether his parents had become atheists after loosing all hope on religion, due to its hyper institutionalization or terrorism, the truth is that they groomed him in a nice way to say hello to strangers. Such people should be remembered.

Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

A Great Book About Islam and Tolerance

Recently I had a chance to read a very nice book on the subject of Islam and tolerance. The book is written by Hazrat Hakeem Tariq Mehmood Majzoobi Chughtai, editor of the monthly Ubqari magazine. The book is basically a collection of almost all the episodes of the section, "Islam and Tolerance", that is published in the monthly Ubqari magazine. This means that almost all the episodes since around 2007 to 2014 have been compiled into a book. The book is in Urdu. The English version is due very shortly. 

The book covers almost all the aspects concerning human interaction in which Muslims should exhibit extreme tolerance and generosity towards non-Muslims. It begins with the Makkan period of Hazrat Muhammad (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) when he was confronted by the lethal hostility of his own uncles towards his religion. 

The rise of Islam coincides with the chronic hegemony of the Persian and Roman empires. The author discusses the abject plight of the christians and jews living under their rule. The Roman empire specially had a Christian disposition in running its state. The author discusses how Muslims guarded, restored and elevated the rights of the people of the book and other non-Muslim minorities. It is very interesting and enlightening to read that how strictly Muslim Caliphs used to oversee the delivery of rights to the common people by their governors. How religious freedom of the minorities was ensured enacted is also discussed in the book.

One of the important thing about the book is its presentation of the Islamic constitution of war. It is indeed quite enlightening to read that how Hazrat Muhammad (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) evolved an extremely humanistic war constitution as the Muslims started coming in conflict with their neighbors. For instance, it is profoundly surprising to read that Hazrat Muhammad (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) has forbidden Muslims to separate war prisoners from each other who are each other's relatives. It is also forbidden to torture or to kill the captives. Muslims should take good care of their food and clothing. And as soon as the enemy extends an apology, he/she should be forgiven immediately or the conflict should start to recede. This is extremely humane, specially considering the barbaric pre-Islamic Arabian peninsula where people could be decapitated for extremely trivial things.  

The book also talks about many other aspects from which one can draw conclusions on as to how to treat one's neighbors and related aspects. For instance, it is interesting to read how various people from medieval Islamic period used to treat their Jewish neighbors in the light of Prophetic Hadith of Hazrat Muhammad (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) and revelations of Allah.

As a whole the book addresses all sorts of people. It tells the Christians about the Islamic opinion of Jesus Christ (PBUH). It also tells that why, as a matter of principle,  one of the most veritable caliphs of Islam refused to pray in a Church in Egypt, as it was conquered. For the jews, it has a message that they perhaps owe a little bit of gratitude to the Muslim community, as their forefathers were supported by a just Islamic governance system when they had to face frequent diasporas. It reminds the love of Sufis to the Hindus. It invites the statesmen to review their public policies in its own light. It incites the modern civilizations to see if they can create peace conventions that are better than those of the religion of Islam. For the zealot, it has a message that fanaticism and terrorism are rather grotesque applications of religion. Lastly, the accounts of a few exchanges between various sufi saints and their contemporary Zoroastrian neighbors insinuate us to use reason to develop an argument. 

This book is a must read. Everyone should read it whether Muslim or non-Muslim. This is specially important to develop and refine opinions about Islam and for faith literacy. And even if you are a non-Muslim who is theoretically opposed to Islam or religion, you can at least refer it to a Muslim acquaintance. This may have collateral benefits.  

Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.

  by  Koshyk 

The Self Illusion

Sam Harris has to vowed to publish a book on the self sometime next year. The idea is to show is that self, or a sense of self, or whatever about that, is inherently an illusion. I hope that I would be able to read it and reflect on it. In the meanwhile I have found a rather suitable image that was floating on facebook. The image has a verse from the holy Quran that literally means that "life of this world is nothing except an illusion." It is interesting to note that Sam Harris agrees with the Holy Quran in some sense. It would be interesting to read his argument and to see how he would systematically disagree with religion on this issue, on which the religion basically almost assumes the same position as that of Sam Harris.  This image is a part of my preparation to read, and hope to understand, his upcoming book.

This is the 85th verse of the third surah of the Holy Quran, named surah Al-Imran. Imran (AS) was the father of prophets Musa and Haroon (AS) (Moses and Aaron). Al-Imran means the family of Imran.

 
Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

Worship Places of non-Muslims, Their Rights and Our Obligations

This is the title of a new book by hakeem Tariq Mehmood Chughtai. I have not had a chance to read the book itself. However, excerpts and essays from this book are published in the monthly Ubqari magazine. The author has written this book with tremendous curious inquiry. Examples are taken from the conduct of early Muslims viz a viz non-Muslims. Some parts of the book are also inspired by the writings and findings of Ibn-e-Zeb Bhikaari, who writes a column titled Islam and Tolerance in the monthly Ubqari magazine. Overall the articles are nice and specially thought provoking. In some instance one cannot avoid getting impressed. It is also an attempt to groom Muslims all over the world. 

It is specially very nice to read a few examples. I would really like to quote a couple of them about the disposition of early Muslims regarding non-Islam. Perhaps this would help us in developing nice and better traditions for a better prospective future. Following are the examples:

1 Episode 56 – February, 2011

When Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA) sent an army on the expedition of Syria, he addressed the emir of the army: ”You will find a nation which has devoted itself for the worship of Allah (i.e. the Christians). Leave them. I make ten recommendations for you. Do not kill any woman, child, or an old person. Do not cut a fruit bearing tree. Do not ruin a place that is inhabited. Do not slaughter goat or camel without need for eating. Do not burn any oasis. Do not cheat in the property that has been confiscated due to battle. And do not become cowards.

Similarly another example is as follows:

19 Episode 77 – November, 2012

When Ameer-ul-momineen hazrat Umar (RA) went to the church of Kaneesa and the time of prayers approached there, he said to Venice Batareeq, ”I want to offer my prayers.” Batareeq replied, ”Ameer-ul-momineen, you can offer your prayers here.” You (RA) refused to do so. Batareeq went to the church of Constantinople, but you (RA) did not offer your prayers there too. You (RA) offered your prayers outside the church in front of the door. And said to Batareeque that I did not offer the prayers inside the church so that in future Muslims do not capture the church following the logic that Umar (RA) had prayed there. After that you (RA) wrote a letter and gave it to Batareeque. In which it was written, ”Any Muslim cannot pray in the church with Azaan and jamaa (as a group prayer), although he can pray alone.

I find this second example quite impressive. Even if you do not like it, you can refer this to another Muslim you know. Perhaps this might be helpful in some sense. Every little helps!

The cover of the book is quite interesting in itself. It has a mosque, a church, and possibly a synagogue in it, which is a nice symbol of interfaith harmony. The location of Ubqari institute in Lahore is also very interesting. In its neighborhood lies a huge campus of Pakistan's council of churches. The view from the top of the institute in the morning is very nice. Upon looking around one finds a number of  huge churches surrounding the institute from all around.

Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

Geopolitical Weekly

We live in a world that is both peaceful and turmoiled at the same time. One moment we hear about a great technological breakthrough in a part of the world and the next moment we hear about a catastrophe in the vicinity of the same area. World's political landscape changes its facade very abruptly. As soon as one tires to catch up with the details of one event, another incident happens to conceal the details of the previous one under the mist of massive information. In order to keep us up with the pace of swiftly changing geopolitical scene, members of StratFor provide us with their geopolitical weekly reports.  In what follows is a reflection of various of StratFor's geopolitical weekly articles that were published over the last decade. The primary reason to write this article is to try to understand the basis of political dynamics of our world.

Around six years ago (possibly in 2007 or 2008), StratFor published an article concerning developments in Russia, China and Iraq. Precisely at that time the US troops were busy in trying to conquer a territory in Iraq. It was possibly a part of their exit strategy. At the same time Russia was gauging up itself to see if it could halt the oil and gas supply to the central Europe (possibly through Belarus) to see if it could achieve any political leverage from such a move. It was possibly a part of Russia's never ending desire, and inherent necessity, to be an expansive hegemony. At the same time Chinese had invented a sort of a thing by which they could destroy shuttles in the outer space. This sort of a thing could be useful in space warfare and could also possibly threaten US domination of world's oceans by challenging them in the space. The article was detailed and in a way provoked a reader loyal to the US to lament its futile and aimless struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan. The article ended in a very nice way, as it normally does, with a catchy phrase from George Friedman, the founder and CEO of StratFor. That was possibly like: In six years the US would regret that while it was fighting for a few streets in Baghdad, it must have thought about its higher stakes. We are probably living in that part of the history now.

Through StratFor we can learn many interesting things about many interesting places, events and phenomena. Through StratFor we learn that why geography necessitates some countries to be expansive and allows a few others to be conveniently adventurous. Russia is an interesting example of an expansive land that is not necessarily so due to its vanity and lust for power, but also due to its geographical constraints. In order to protect itself from foreign intruders it has to expand its borders closer to other countries so that, in time of need, it can fight wars with them in their own territories, closer to their capitals. 

Through StratFor we also learn that why the US is actually not only not an expansive country but also that it does not need to be. It is possibly detrimental for the US to be expansive. The US philosophy is to invade a country, keep it conquered for a while, disrupt its critical infrastructure, such as communications infrastructure, grab the resources and try to get the hell out of the place as soon as the things begin to look bad. Good examples of this are Vietnam and possibly Iraq. 

But these are not the only things we learn from StratFor. It offers us a lot more interesting perspectives and rationale for stimulus various nations have in doing whatever they are doing. The recent US decision to not intervene in Syria is a very good case in this regard. It is quite important to understand the US perspective in this regard. 

The traditional impression in the Muslim world has always been that the US is out to get them. This is so possibly since the early 80s when the US was in a cold war with Russia and had Pakistan and Afghanistan allied to it. The jihad was alright and the relationships were cozy. But there was an air of distrust at least on the Pakistani side. In the Muslim world the US has always been perceived as a villain who is out there to grab resources of technologically impoverished countries no matter what it costed. Incidentally many Muslim countries rich in oil and petroleum resources such as gulf and Arab countries. This explained reasons for keen US interest in those countries and also stimulus for invading Iraq. It is worth emphasizing that the invasion of Iraq was always seen as an attempt to grab Iraqi oil reserves all over the Muslim world. 

Recently the US decided to not to intervene in Syria in wake of the chemical attacks by the Assad regime. It is interesting to see what could have prohibited the US from intervening in Syria this time. 

What happened was that president Obama had announced at some point that it would not interfere directly in Syria until chemical weapons were used. In saying this what he had actually done was that he had raised the bar for its involvement in such a matter. Despite this announcement chemical weapons were allegedly used by the Assad regime. This was possibly an attempt to lure the US into the conflict. And despite some international pressure, particularly from Russia, the US managed to keep away from getting involved in Syria. 

The question is that why did it do this? The answer is provided by StratFor's geopolitical weekly article Obama's tightrope walk, and a series of related reports on Syria. In this article the binary choice that US had in either getting involved or staying away from the conflict in Syria is presented as a moral problem. Use of chemical weapons was a morally bad idea and to stay quiet on this was morally bad on part of the US so something had to be done about this. This is interesting to see as a matter of looking at the American moral landscape. This is also important to understand. The other choice, that is not to interfere in the Syrian conflict, is complicated to look at from an American perspective. However, this has also had a moral perspective. The simplest explanation of this is that the US have been very deeply involved with the Muslim world for more than over a decade. Although they have tried very hard to reform them (for good, from their vantage point) but their efforts have not borne much fruition. As a result a choice was to leave the Syrians on their own and let them evolve while they try to handle their problems themselves. In the article it is also stated very clearly that if the US had gotten involved there would definitely be at least a few deaths and atrocities, as it was inevitable, and that the US would have to bear the blame for all that in the media and elsewhere. As a conclusion, the US abandoned a position of higher morality to choose a position of weaker morality with fewer political consequences and did not get involved in the action. 

This is extremely important to understand and to analyze. Understanding this could have collateral intellectual advantages, even if there weren't any monetary rewards. Specially if the problem of this binary choice is presented to a congregation of Muslims and tell them that the US had to ponder over it for a while to decide which way to go, either no one would believe that the US looked at it from a moral perspective, or people would be disinterested. On the other hand, if you ask people on as to who is messing up Syria, Libya or Egypt, chances are that a large number of Muslims would point to the usual suspect, the US. That is why it is important to at least prolong this discourse a little bit so as to develop a better reflection for the people and also to provide them with more light to reflect upon. It could be good for you to read on irrespective of which part of the world you are from. 

Any idea that the US can act morally in handling conflicts or solving wars in nearly incomprehensible in the Muslim world at least. Moreover, Muslims believe in the superiority of the morality of war of Islam as well as they believe in the superiorities of moralities of other aspects of Islam. But a theological discussion is beyond the scope of this article. The truth is that the US has acted a lot more responsibly in dealing with the episode concerning the chemical weapon attack this time specially as compared to its all the previous interactions and interventions in the Muslim world. This must be appreciated. This precedent could also set a trend that could be better for the future of the whole world. President Barrack Obama and his cabinet must be applauded for this decision.

The question is that why does the US have to intervene and find an intervention morally binding? Good intentions, if any, always get diminished under the smog of negative criticism and the potential animosity that the US invites as a result. This has been answered more comprehensively by George Friedman that there is a moral camp in the US too that finds it imperative to intervene and deal with issues in which oppression is involved and atrocities are inflicted. Irrespective of whether this camp of humanists belongs to the civil society or elsewhere, the camp is important and interesting in its own right. That this camp of humanists is actually humane should be taken for granted on the face value. And this camp should be kept engaged for better appreciating various cultural ideas. Such camps can be useful in bringing about meaningful changes in the overall political climate of our world.

StratFor teaches us many other things too. It is a stated policy of StratFor that they are non-partisan and unbiased in preparing and presenting geopolitical intelligence. They also state that they pledge to do this despite the fact that pure non-partisanship and objectivity are impossible. Of course, if you are a Cuban then most of your loyalties will be Cuba, no matter how much you tend to favor a party that is in conflict with Cuba. This is a decent expectation as well. National pride, patriotism and loyalty are emotions worth cherishing. To this end, StratFor lives up to its stated objectives as much as possible as well. Recently StratFor republished a 2005 article that it published in 2005 concerning possible Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and its permanent dilemma. The article was reposted in light of the recent death of Ariel Sharon. It is a very detailed and indeed enlightening article. In this article George Friedman admits that jews encroached the lands of Palestinians as an aftermath of the holocaust. George also throws considerable light on aspects such as the Israeli methods of reducing Palestinian presence in Israel, Gaza and elsewhere. This is commendable in its own right. It is commendable specially given that the US has almost unanimously been believed to be a backer of Israel in almost all of the Muslim world. Any acknowledgement from a mainstream American think tank that uses words like "encroachment" to state the nature of, well, encroachment of Palestinian lands by Israelis is not only commendable but also extremely surprising. It would be additionally very nice of StratFor to find a better word for the struggle of Palestinians for this type of extreme oppression. StratFor continues to use the word terrorism to color all sorts of actions of Muslims. Or either the term terrorism should be described more broadly. I think that this comment of mine is self explanatory and does not need any further explanation apart from the fact that I am not advocating terrorism but only asking for its application to be limited to contexts in which it is actually terrorism that is being referred to. Where the oppression against a group of human beings is so extreme that they have to retaliate with unusual means to express their discomfort, the word terrorism should either not be used or it should be stated that it is being used with slightly different connotation. That no matter how minute that difference in connotations is intended would be less meaningful than the expression of the gesture itself. 

StratFor teaches us many more things than geopolitics of conflict, or merely geopolitics itself. Elections don't matter, institutions do is a very enlightening article written by Robert D. Kaplan. Apart from learning that the author knows that prevalence of widespread bribery in countries where institutions are poorly administered, it is nice to know that how the various Western institutions work. It is indeed a very liberating personal experience to have lived in the European countries and to have interacted with their bureaucrats in various offices such as police stations and passport offices. In the Western countries if the state owes you a right, it delivers it you immediately without any further mention or hint of an extraordinary favor that has been done, possibly by going out of the way. Whatever is your right is yours and the personnel feel naturally obliged to deliver it to you irrespective of whether you are affluent or destitute, an orphan or a son of an influential bureaucrat does not matter at all. This is a beauty of the organization of the Western countries and their institution that no amount of admiration can do justice to its elegance. Honesty comes for free in the European countries with a smiling face. We should hope that this remains like this forever. We also hope that it would change in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and India as well.

Another relevant article is about American Public's Indifference to Foreign Affairs. It is a pity to learn that an average American does not even know how to locate various countries on the world map. Michael Moore covered this to some extent in his Fahrenheit 9/11. This article also depicts the same. That americans are merely bothered about what is happening in the world unless it really starts to bother them. As a matter of fact it is a good thing that they do start getting bothered when it needs to be bothered. Otherwise, rest of the world would be at complete and isolated mercy of American foreign policy.

One of the very interesting things about the above mentioned article is that american foreign policy is now bent on taking a more hands-off approach to overseas conflicts. This is incredible.  

StratFor also does not shy away from writing about seemingly minor issues that apparently have no relevance with geopolitics. Have you ever considered that what is the role of a calendar, that possibly only has an aesthetic value at best in our daily life, with the grand geopolitical schemes? StratFor thinks that it does. Read geopolitics of the Gregorian calendar to find the appeal of one calendar system over the others.

In Asian status quo one learns about the nature of conflict between the Japanese and the Chinese. For many people of the world this would be an altogether new thing. They resemble a lot and it is hard to tell apart a Japanese from a Chinese. Their languages also possibly sound similar to the novice. Why then a conflict? But don't Indians and Pakistanis look alike and speak almost the same language?

If you have a decent basis in finance, then new investment platforms raise questions about China's banking system is for you. This is fun to read. At least one develops a view of how financial markets function in wake of hostile banking systems. 

I shall bounce back to where I started this discourse. In the beginning we were talking about StratFor and its prediction of Russia's resurgence as a regional hegemony. Reports Ukraine's Increasing Polarization and the Western Challenge and Ukraine and the Little Cold War talk about how Russia is playing its hand in Ukraine. It is also worth noticing that how it affects the Western European countries. It is also quite interesting to read that how the US is shaping its behavior relative to it.

George Friedman used to write very well. He still maintains his tradition. Now StraFor has a whole team of seasoned writers with it. Robert D. Kaplan's articles are very enlightening and shows a picture from different perspectives. 

Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

  by  Achilli Family | Journeys 

Soft Power

If you have decided to read through this article a little bit then surely you must have read the title and you may have found it eye-catching. So lets do a small thought experiment before you go any further with your reading. Just close your eyes for a few seconds and think about what ideas come to your mind regarding the term "soft power". It really depends on the mental associations you may have developed with the term over the course of your life. Let me elaborate a little bit from the point of view of my conscious mind. There are actually two ideas that come to my mind by default as I try to contemplate about the term soft power. 

One way of thinking about soft power is process of dominating a group of people with the application of force, either covertly or overtly, with the help of some useful tools of force, such as military equipment. Moreover, to make use of effective incentives in a way that they are enwrapped in appropriate diplomatic wheedling of the group that is being coerced or motivated. And to do it so effectively that the party being dominated cannot refuse the offers that are being made to them. Clearly, this method of applying force resembles that of the people like mafia and  gang leaders. One thing that is obvious about this way of coercion or motivation (or whatever) is that no matter how much the group that is being dominated may be allured about the beauty of the offers, their decision to accept the deal may still be a function of the underlying threat and its consequences if they did not accept the offer.

The other idea that comes to the mind concerning soft power lacks the use any conventional tools of force. According to this theme a person, or a group of people, is motivated in doing what you want them to do in a way that they also love to do it. This is the theme of the paper titled soft power by Joseph Nye. It is basically a theory to make people want what you want them to do. This is quite obvious and self explanatory. This also makes a lot more sense too. The previous explanation given in the paragraph above is not really of soft power, but actually of hard power made to look like soft power.

This theory of Joseph Nye and his whole paper is very important in many respects. Late Samuel-P-Huntington also made passing references to the concepts of hard and soft powers respectively in his clash of civilizations. It has become quite important to comprehend this theory in order to understand the demands of the era we live in. In his paper Nye also gives rationale for why it is important to apply soft power, as opposed to hard power, when it comes to dominating people.

According to Nye the most important question while defining power is "Power to do What?" According to Nye in our times there would be overlapping yet disparate areas that would define a periphery of their own for exertion of power. For instance, while military remains one institution, economics is another independent institution with its independent power structure and interplay not only with its counterparts across borders but also with other disciplines like military and sports etc. Nye suggests that it would be the complex interplay among all such important institutions that would define and shape the geopolitics of our world. According to Nye this would also shape the geopolitical landscape from the vantage point of hegemony. Lastly, and quite importantly, according to Nye, this need for a complex interplay across important and independent institutions would also constrain the employment of hard-power based solutions. Thus, this would give rise to the need of adopting soft power based solutions. 

Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

  by  Dominic's pics 

Marriage for Beginners

As soon as I got Marriage for Beginners in my hands, I wondered why I should read a book like this specially immediately after reading clash of civilizations.After all both books belong to entirely disparate disciplines. One deals with the institution of marriage and the other is about international affairs and affairs surrounding them. However, I immediately decided to read the book for two reasons in my mind. 

Even though clash of civilizations contains a set of indicators and predictions on as to how various civilizations will interact, and possibly come in conflict, with each other in the future (which is possibly the era we are living in now), it is, nonetheless, a book about civilizations too. In order to understand a civilization it is important to understand its culture and social norms. And I think that marriage is one institution that comprises of a set of rituals through which a culture, and in return, a civilization can be understood fairly easily. 

Marriage for beginners is a marvelous book written by Mary Williams as a guide for newly weds. It covers all the small and deep nitty-gritty details that prospective candidates of marriage may want to know. She has covered almost everything one can think of coming across as a married person. This includes, all the dos and donts, how to cook, how to clean, how to shop, how to window shop, how to make a budget and how to do budget shopping. It also has lost of valuable advice for people getting betrothed. Small emotional aspects like how to live with parents, how to deal with in-laws when they are bad and good, how to have due regards for them when they are being supportive. The book also has quite large tables to assist the reader in planning various things such as budgets and things like that.

It is a very nice book, even though it is quite old (it was written in 1967). It advocates on the adoption of simplicity and austerity in living one's life. To this end, the book has a very nice agenda for grooming people. It is a suitable guide and a family manual for almost any time and era and for any family. It even talks about the role of religion and religious beliefs and rituals on overall happiness in a marriage. Ms Williams has a very peculiar way of conveying her ideas. On the role of religion she says something like that every religious person believes in a heaven and that pursuit of heaven should be made easy for that person on this earth. This comment is both very funny and profound. 

The other, and main, reason why I picked up the book so quickly was that I had a strong idea that it must have been written very nicely. Moreover, and due to this, reading this could be quite useful for improving on reading comprehension and consequently on English. The book is indeed very nicely written. The author has made a very balanced use of vocabulary. The writing style is very nice. And the author also has a very nice expression indeed.

I have to mention that this book was given to me by my mother who was about to give it away in charity (or sell it off as a cheap book) but then she changed her mind just at the spur of the moment. I am happy that she did change her mind.

Psyops by PsyopsPrime is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://www.psyops.tk/.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.psyops.tk/.

  by  firemedic58