Muhammad's Last Khutbah Outline

here is my outline, which I had to write out because I was not able to post it online.

Read More

We fear, but what else is there?

There have been many influential and inspirational activists who have committed themselves for the sake of what they believe it whether it be fighting for their human rights, or trying to fight against fear; each activist has definitely succeeded in one thing, being an activist. Two particular influential and inspirational activists who dedicated their lives to their work were the wonderful Aung San Suu Kyi and the incredible Malcolm X. Aung San Suu Kyi’s Freedom from Fear speech accentuates the idea of fear playing a great role in the development of a nation and person, while Malcolm X’s The Ballot or the Bullet speech reveals that the white man is the reason behind the oppression of the Black community; it is revealed through these two texts that the oppression and development of individuals are based on fear.

Even though Aung San Suu Kyi and Malcolm X’s speeches emphasize fear as the biggest obstacle for an individual, they both have some differences as well. Suu Kyi believes that “the root of human responsibility [is based on] the concept of perfection, the urge to achieve it, the intelligence to find a path towards it, and the will to follow that path,” while Malcolm X believes the root of human, particularly the African Americans’ responsibility is to go against the false promises of the white man and get their deserved rights, by going “towards either the ballot or the bullet,” to make that change. Suu Kyi sees action as going against fear that leads to corruption, and Malcolm X believes in going against the apparently “most powerful legislator,” the white man.

Aung San Suu Kyi’s Freedom from Fear speech powerfully underlines the idea that “it is not power that corrupts but fear.”  Suu Kyi believed that fear was the reason behind the development of a nation, but most importantly an individual. Suu Kyi’s quintessential revolution starts in the “spirit, born of an intellectual conviction,” which means that the basis of fear comes from the mind. Suu Kyi says that not only does fear result in corruption, “deviation from the right path,” or “aberration due to ignorance,” fear is also the main obstacle in an individual’s path from doing what’s right. Suu Kyi’s political philosophy supports this idea of fear being the main obstacle to the right path for an individual, which she has ultimately overcome. Malcolm X implicitly states that the reason behind the lack of activism in the Black community was because of fear of the white man. He, like Suu Kyi believes “in action on all fronts by whatever means necessary,” because to overcome fear “merely bodily courage [isn't enough] but absence of fear from the mind” is essential too. Both influential activists believed that fear was the reason behind an individual’s choices to do right, or do nothing. However, both activists’ speeches complement each other in the sense that both believe that fear is the greatest obstacle holding an individual from acting against injustice, whether politically or mentally.     

Read More

Machiavelli vs. Thoreau

Compare and Contrast Machiavelli and Thoreau.

Niccolo Machiavelli, an Italian philosopher who was best known for his work The Prince published in 1532; and a philosopher by the name of Henry David Thoreau—known for his Civil Disobedience—were not only philosophers, but incredibly influential people in their time as well as for modern day. Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of being in control and maintaining the stature a Prince has, while Thoreau believes in taking action against what we feel is unjust. However, even though the two philosophies may seem different, they also share similarities with each other.

                However, apart from their similarities, their philosophies also have differences.  Machiavelli believes in instilling fear in his subjects and being at powerful position, while Thoreau believes in nonviolent ways to take action against the government. Machiavelli says that “because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony,” it’s better to be a feared leader rather than a loved one. While Thoreau believes that the government should not be unjust towards its people and what may seem as injustice should be taken action against.  Thoreau thinks of government as “the machinery of society,” and sees the legislators as ones who “contemplate no essential reform[s] in the existing government.” However, Machiavelli has a different thought in mind because he believes that for a Prince to stay in authority and have control over the people, he must “not diverge from the good…but, if compelled then to know how to set about it.” Being so, Machiavelli and Thoreau don’t agree with each other on the level of authority and rules because of Thoreau’s standing up to the government belief, and Machiavelli’s it’s better to be feared than loved theory.

                Machiavelli and Thoreau’s philosophies go hand in hand because ultimately they are both agreeing that the morality of any action is founded only on the results of that action, rather than being founded on the action itself; if someone like a serial killer was punished, it would be justified since it is for the good of the people.  Machiavelli believes that it is better to be fear than loved by your subjects because “love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread punishment which never fails.” Similarly, Thoreau –even though he does not instill fear in his readers—accesses his position in a rebellious manner by influencing the people’s emotions by creating a need to take action against the government, rather than waiting around and  “voting for [something] right, [which] is [like] doing nothing for it.”  However, in a way both philosophers ideas relate back to each other; Thoreau and Machiavelli are both implicitly stating that the consequence of an action is what people should be concerned with, instead of just the action itself. Thoreau talks about the government as a machine, and how people should “consider whether the remedy [to stop the machine] will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law.” Thoreau, backs up Machiavelli’s famous statement, “the end justifies the mean” by saying that if you believe in something to be a successful action, and then do it, but don’t do it for the heck of doing it, rather an individual should break the law to cause a change to occur.

                Therefore, not only do Machiavelli and Thoreau share differential ideologies, but they also share similarities in their philosophies as well. This of course, is why Machiavelli and Thoreau have been successful in their philosophies, even in modern times. 

Read More

Let's have ourselves a bit of thanks!

Thanksgiving: one of America's beloved holidays; beloved for some more than others. Thanksgiving is celebrated by many, usually by inviting family and friends to a wonderful feast in order to, well, give thanks. It's strange how it’s called Thanksgiving, even though it’s more about "giving thanks." Sound like a reverted structure. Don't you think? But nonetheless, it’s a great holiday where anyone and everyone can come together have a happy ol' turkey or chicken; maybe some pie. But regardless of what you're eating, thanksgiving is a time to be thankful for what you have, rather than reminiscing about what you could have. Its not only about eating or visiting family that’s as big as Madea’s. It’s more about being thankful for that food, and that family and all the little things that are usually taken for granted. Thanksgiving is a time to enjoy the little things; like that cousin who always calls the turkey leg even before you can smell the turkey, or your aunt who will take only a small spoon of everything—because she’s on a new “diet”—even though she’s the first one waiting for desert. It’s about your sibling who stuffs their face with food right before your mom comes to the table to say grace, give thanks or maybe make a little speech. How fun! But, at the end of the day, it’s the one holiday—no matter how irritated or tired you get—you remember. You love that annoying uncle who only talks about politics, yes even at the dinner table. You love your grandfather who tells you about all of your mom’s mischievous adventures as a kid, and you absolutely love that you can finally be a complete family, at least once a year. Oh, and of course the Indians. Don’t forget them! 

Read More

Pakistan, United States, and Afghanistan! oh my!

Thesis: The Reluctant Fundamentalist represents the depression and discrimination 9/11 has left individuals of Arab or Muslim descent in the United States and portrays the ongoing tension between Pakistani's and Americans. 

 the trust issues between Pakistan and the United States pre-9/11 and post 9/11, and a clear understanding of the historical point of view of what it felt to be a Pakistani at such a significant and saddening time. 

The current US-Pakistani relationship is short of trust. The two countries have tried to create a stable relationship, especially with the war in Afghanistan, however it is unsuccessful because of the lack of trust. In The Reluctant Fundamentalist, Changez implicitly and explicitly references to the fact that America is shameful for not supporting Pakistan during its conflict with Afghanistan. Especially, since after 9/11, Pakistan had given its highest effort to win the satisfaction of the United States by performing actions like capturing members of Al-Qaeda and allowing the United States to plant military bases in order to attack Afghanistan. Changez says “I was saddened to find it in such a state...This was where I had come from…and it smacked of lowliness” (141). A man, who had seen his homeland change completely, was flustered at the thought that America was doing nothing to help even after Pakistan had aided them in a battle. Throughout the novel, Changez never permanently identified himself as an American, and it came to be of no surprise that a smile was revealed during the 9/11 incident. He had no ill intention towards either country, however because he was so attached to Pakistan from the start, he felt it was like a duty for him to side with his country, instead. This was basically a symbolic way of representing the relationship with the two countries because Changez smile was like the “I know you’re lying” type of smile, which is exactly the main reason behind the problematic countries.

The situation the US and Pakistan is currently in is an accurate representation of the relationship the two countries had during the time period this novel is set in. During the course of The Reluctant Fundamentalist, after 9/11 became a reality Changez depicted the US-Pakistani relationship as one that never had an effective set of rules or policies placed on either country. The way that Changez talks about America in the novel, it’s as if he’s let whatever pride he had in America die alongside with his love Erica. Changez “had always thought of America as a nation that looked forward; for the first time [he] was struck by its determination to look back” (131).  It’s as if Changez knew that United States and Pakistan weren't going to have the best of relations, and so his views on both countries had changed by the way he declared the United States shameful and unhelpful. Changez was mostly accurate in portraying the relationship because it just goes to show how moment or an incident can change everything. Pakistan wanted help from the United States, and in a moment that bond the two countries had was torn.

However, at the same time the portrayal of the US-Pakistani relationships was somewhat inaccurate. Since during the time around 9/11, Changez felt that Pakistan is dependent on support from the United States, and without that support they are feeble. However, Pakistan had not directly called to the United States to come and rescue them in their war against Afghanistan; help was more expected than asked for.  In The Reluctant Fundamentalist there is actually more disagreements between Pakistan and the US however the negative side of the relationship was not stressed during the novel at all. This is the reason it is important to read the novel through a historical point of view, because the disagreements, history, and content becomes clear and understandable. 

Topic Four 

Read More

Arranged Marriages Are Not Real Marriages.

Toulmin Analysis: Have You Ever Felt So Afraid And Alone, Even In A Crowded Room?

Claim: Young teens should not be forced into getting an arranged marriage.

Reasons:
•because it can lead to depression and suicide
•because it is basically a form of abuse
•because it is wrong for someone to be forced into such a bond like marriage.

Evidences:
"because it can lead to depression and suicide" - young teens, usually girls who are married at pre-mature ages are not happy with their relationship because they are forced to take part in things they've never learned or experience.
"because it is basically a form of abuse" - young teens are basically being forced into a bond where the in-laws will abuse them and so will their own parents for not following through on what they should be doing.
"because it is wrong for someone to be forced into such a bond like marriage." - marriage isn't just getting married and living happily ever after, someone who is too young to understand all the things that come along with the marriage will be stuck with the bond for the rest of their lives, and there are always consequences following an arranged marriage.

Warrants:
"because it can lead to depression and suicide" -
1. Due to the lack of unhappiness a young teen is faced with they turn to negative choices.
2. The mature experience they are revealed to after marriage leads them to take drastic measures.

"because it is basically a form of abuse " -
1. Families and their in-laws will usually abuse them, verbally, mentally and physically.
2. The young teens are being forced against their wills to be pushed into this bond and related work.

"because it is wrong for someone to be forced into such a bond like" -
1. It is morally wrong & insensitive.
2. Everyone should equally have the right to freedom of choice.


Backing:
"Due to the lack of unhappiness a young teen is faced with they turn to negative choices." - Everyone deserves a chance to be happy. Teens are not given the happiness they should be since they are constantly being forced to go beyond their will and do actions like burning themselves everyday in the kitchen everyday or hearing their families & in laws complain.

"The mature experience they are revealed to after marriage leads them to take drastic measures. " - Relationships that teens are forced into with their spouses are too much for them to handle since they are constantly trying to avoid or are being faced with physical attention from their spouse.

"Families and their in-laws will usually abuse them, verbally, mentally and physically. " - They are abused and neglected because both families believe the teens are not putting enough effort into what they're doing. On the other hand they're abused because neither the family or in-laws are too fond of them.

"The young teens are being forced against their wills to be pushed into this bond and related work." - Teens have no choice but to stick to this union that they're forced into. However, along with the marriage they are stuck with work like cooking and cleaning and caring for an entire family. But no one person can take so much load at such tender ages.

"It is morally wrong & insensitive." - There is no reason to expect a young teen to understand the bond of marriage and the consequences that comes with it since they have no learned or experienced any of it.

"Everyone should equally have the right to freedom of choice. " -
It is not right for someone to take the decisions for the good of a young teens life since they are too young to understand the consequences, nor do they have any say in the matter. They should be given the time necessary to choose a life partner, rather than being forced into one with some relative. They should have the right to chose, and not be forced.

The claim is a controversial and debatable one, however I believe that many will agree with the claim and reasons I have provided. However, there is a chance that the audience may not agree with the third claim because many people have different opinions towards it and it is a somewhat general statement. The evidence provided for the reasons are effective, however there may be a chance that I need more evidence backing up the reason about how teens are abused by being forced into marriage. Since abuse is a broad subject, it may be necessary to give more evidence to support that reason. Most of the warrants can be agreed with, however the audience may believe that the third claim about marriage being morally wrong and insensitive to be a general statement and possibly on the less truthful or trustworthy side. As well as the warrants regarding depression and suicide, which like the morally wrong one will need backing in order to be believable. However, I think the warrant about abuse should not affect the audience negatively and most likely will be able to pass by without too much backing. Lastly, I've left out some statistics and numbers in the argument which I believed would be fine since there is no reason to overflow the argument. Also, I've left about detailed references to real-life situations regarding marriage; this could have been effective for the audience to be persuaded to agree with this argument.

Read More

What Ever Happened To The Golden Rule?

In today’s society, equality is a deserved and guaranteed right for all, but when it comes to religion, that equality takes a complex turn. America is filled with open-minded individuals who are as great as can be. There was a time when everyone was able to practice their religion freely without any objection, but one date in history changed the lives of not only one individual, but thousands of individuals, especially of the Islamic faith. When equality is a deserved right for all, Muslims should be allowed that right as well. We never realized when religion became the key to turning a right into a wrong.  

Everyone is different in their own way; after all we’re just humans. If we were really perfect, we wouldn't need to have any kind of opinion. However, when that opinion leads to a hurtful situation, shouldn't there be a need for it to stop? Discrimination is a fancy word, but it’s a good enough word to describe a bully. Muslims are bullied, constantly by people who refuse to see into any other opinion.Here they are, Muslims I mean, 10 years later fighting for our right as individuals in America. We're unable to worship freely, heck we don’t even has a simple place of worship in most places. Of course, as the country advances greatly, the people are too. However, there is a certain discrimination towards at Muslims. Why? Well, September 11, 2001 was a tragic event that marks the day all Muslims were suddenly terrible people. The event damaged the lives of many innocent people, but does that mean every Muslim is equally to blame ? I believe not. Everyone’s opinions and hatred towards Muslims are, to an extent, understandable and of course I am not pointing anyone out because of their opinions. Nobody is perfect, but at least there should be equality among all people. No one person is better than the other. Muslims shouldn't be bullied, nor should any other individual. That’s not right.

Most of us are a part of a great community of working class folk, or are included among the “less than higher class” category. Every so often we hear of discrimination in the workplace between women and men. However, when religion plays into the picture, it is a bit complex than receiving a lower wage for the same job as a man. A Muslim woman, wearing her head scarf, called a hijab is almost instantly rejected for an interview she’s dreamed of almost her entire life, but why? The interviewer feels uncomfortable and subconsciously dislikes her. Does religion automatically recite the qualifications of an individual?  Many companies believe that their image may be ruined if they have a conservatively dressed woman work for them. Of course, if she is a religious individual, there’s no possible way for her to be a diligent worker. That just cannot be done. We learn from a young age “don’t judge a book by its cover,” but when we judge someone so harshly for the way they look or for what they believe in; is that justified? Close-mindedness creates a problem not only for American’s but for all the Muslims out there struggling just to live their lives. They aren't finding the necessities they desire because of their religion. It’s not “freedom of religion,” it’s more like “freedom to discriminate.”

            There was a golden rule that almost all of us were taught: “treat others the way you want to be treated.” But how is that possible when nowadays we believe that it’s okay to dislike someone based on their religion? Not all people are like this, I’m sure you aren't involved with that discrimination circle either. We shouldn't categorize, bully or discriminate against someone just because they’re Muslim. Yes, they’re Muslim, but does that mean they carry bombs around all the time looking to attack someone? No, that may just be a Muslim woman going to the grocery store because she has to go grocery shopping before her kids get home from school. There’s a need for open-minded people in society. We all make mistakes, we’re not perfect, but discrimination, hatred, and bullying because of religion, is not a mistake. It’s real.  

Read More