"Muslims must remind themselves again of their responsibilities to God, to human beings, and to the natural world and also of their basic rights, the most important of which is the right to be God's servant and vicegerent here on earth. They must extend their hand in friendship to followers of other religions as ordered by the Quran and to live and let live with regard to those who have moved away from the world of faith altogether. they must even extend their hand to those Christian and primarily Protestant evangelists who express ignorant, hurtful, and even malicious and egregious views about Islam. Muslims must in this case turn the other cheek and prove in their actions that for them also Christ is sent by God and his words revered."
When the self is made strong by loveIts power rules the whole world
By love it is made lastingmore living, more burning, more glory.
For centuries Eastern intellecthave been absorbed in the question -Does God exist?I propose to raise a new question- new, that is to say, for the East -Does man exist?
"Try to resolve how could you know that earth is a sphere without having seen any space picture. And while considering that your senses can show you only flat surface."
He will bring another world into existence
A hundred words like this world of parts and wholes
Spring up, like roses, from the seed of his imagination.
He makes every raw nature ripe,
He puts the idols out of the sanctuary.
A part is not equal to its whole, of which it is a part. And that scientifically and evidently, it is proven to be so, with or without going into the interior of substances which, as 'parts', form up a 'whole'.
Construction of a whole and its deconstruction
Let's take a building and the 'thing(s)' that building is composed of, i.e., 'brick(s)'. We take those bricks and make a building out of them. What we are doing is making a whole out of those parts.
Suppose that now we deconstruct the building and lay its individual units (i.e., bricks) on the ground. My question to you is: Are those bricks individually equal to that building as a whole? Evidently not!
And metaphysically, the same concept has been used to explain the individuality of Self by poet-philosopher Iqbal. He uses the analogy of water drop and sea. He says that our Self is like a drop of water which is a part of a sea of other drops. Although the 'drop' apparently annihilates its individuality by uniting with other drops and thereby forming a sea, it never, however, loses its individuality by merely uniting with infinity or a large finite sea!
Thus a final chemical 'composition' (as a whole), made up of some substances, is of different nature than the individual elements (or substances) which it is composed of. In chemistry you may have come to study reactions and reversible reactions. In a simple chemical reaction, more than two substances (or even one provided some other medium or condition is fulfilled) react and give a product utterly different in chemical nature from the initial substances. On the other hand, in a reversible chemical reaction the formed product goes into a reversal with the aid of some conditions or reactors, and gives us back its original components (or parts). All chemical properties which we know of the parts and whole are always hugely different from each other. Both, the parts and wholes, exhibit different behaviors, are of non-similar nature and so on and so forth.
The unity of parts may be a necessary thing, but it is never prone to dissolve the individuality of the self, or part, into nothingness.
(Do you agree with my thoughts? If and if not, then why?)
From the Argus (Burlington, Washington) police blotter: "A citizen reported that five dogs had charged at him in a menacing manner. A deputy reported questioning the dogs in the neighbourhood - they all denied involvement."
Bertrand Russell: [in a small group discussion with the students following a lecture he had given at M.I.T, stated that] Physics does not concern itself with the nature of physical reality per se but with mathematical structures related to pointer readings.
Action, the art of doing, is the sole capital for contemplations such that both are functions of each other. That is to say: contemplation without action is death; and action without contemplation is self-defeating. It is like paddle-wheel combination. When wheel moves, paddle moves and when paddle rotates the wheel rotates. None of them can act in isolation without affecting the other. The logical lesson for man in this analogy is ceaseless action coupled with eternal contemplation for refinement of the former and expansion of later.
"History is only interpretation of human motives; and, since we are liable to misinterpret the motives of our contemporaries and even of our intimate friends and associates in daily life, it must be far more difficult rightly to interpret the motives of those who lived centuries before us. The record of history, therefore, should be accepted with great caution."
Good night, sweet prince,And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!
Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained no partial surrender may be effected unless both the sum payable on the partial surrender and the total after the surrender of the Participating Sum Assured and the Related Bonuses thereon and of all Further Paricipating Sums Assured and Related Bonuses thereon exceed a minimum sum which the Society shall determine at the time of partial surrender.
(Note: The news came on 14 January and the following excerpt from a news article was also published on the same date.)
Father of Deep Ecology:
[Naess] threw himself into environmental work and developed a theory that he called deep ecology. Its central tenet is the belief that all living beings have their own value and therefore, as Mr. Naess once put it, “need protection against the destruction of billions of humans.”
Deep ecology, which called for population reduction, soft technology and non-interference in the natural world, was eagerly taken up by environmentalists impatient with shallow ecology — another of Mr. Naess’s coinages — which did not confront technology and economic growth.
- Read the rest of the article about Arne Naess, a glimpse of his life and philosophy, here.
A home-made brown sugar used in South Asia. A variety made out of palm sap known as jaggery. It is produced out of sugar cane by boiling the syrup until it thickens. Gur is 65 per cent sucrose. The sugarcane is shredded and boiled in open cauldrons. When the syrup cools and solidifies, it is chopped into pieces. the losses in the home-made production of gur are 25 per cent more than in factory production. It generally takes a team of four people to prepare gur. There is no exact data on its pproduction because it is both produced and consumed within the peasant household. The estimated amount produced is 800-100,000 tons a year. In industrial areas and areas adjacent to sugar factories, over a third of farms growing sugarcane specialize in gur production. The main cantres of gur-making are Faisalabad, Sheikhupura, Sahiwal, Sargoda [city I belong to] (Punjab and Nawabshah (Sindh, province).
Nay, it isn't a comparison to the concrete-eyed other theories bearing same designation. Rather, it's more of quality and reality. I know you cannot wait, I must disclose it.
I died as mineral and became a plant,I died as plant and rose to animal,I died as animal and I was a Man.
Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?Yet once more I shall die as Man, to soarWith angels blest; but even angelhoodI must pass on: all except God doth perish.When I have sacrificed my angel-soul,I shall become no mind e'er conceived.Oh, let me not exist! for Non-existenceProclaims in organ tones: 'To Him we shall return'.
Being, with all its latent qualities,Doth permeate all mundane entities,Which, when they can receive them, show them forthIn the degrees of their capacities
When intuition judges something not by its 'meaning', it does so by the 'form' and 'position' of it. This not to say that it does so with any subject under its consideration. But, this is very much the case with grammatical analysis of language. However, as they say that an argument triggers off another, so is what happens when we talk about analyzing language in terms of grammar: Which comes first - language or grammar? This can be a moot debatable point. Yet, it may have been already resolved in the already present ocean of knowledge. In fact, it owes to the ignorance of the writer and his plight that he has read so much so less that he is unable to commit: I don't know sir.
'Twas brillig, and the slithy tovesDid gyre and gimble in the wabe:All mimsy were the borogoves,And the mome raths outgrabe.
Borogoves is a noun because it ends in -s and because it follows the. (All mimsy were the borogoves,)Slithy is an adjective because it comes between the and the plural noun toves. (...the slithy toves)