I know there are a lot of mullas who are not into politics directly or indirectly. That is the appropriate position for mullay. Bear in mind that when I say politics I refer not to any political party, but politics broadly defined, i.e. “The activities associated with the governance of a country or area.”, where governance includes matters such as law, foreign policy etc. Im glad we agree that mullay should have much less of a role in such matters. I think you spend a lot of time talking about not to take things literally, well I think you do people who bash mullay a disservice. We only bash mullay to the extent that they share in our sad domestic and foreign politics (see post number 1).
See, heres your confusion again. In discussing Iqbal’s dim view of mullay our own perspectives on them are irrelevant. you repeatedly, to put it politely, rape language, just because you want Iqbal to say what you believe.
No problem at all, I am an educator. I hope hereon you will not try to claim that mullay are not a class.
No, he was talking about Mullay in the abstract i.e. as a class. I agree that he did not mean ‘ALL’ mullahs (i told you you’d come back to this banal point). With reference to him not meaning mullay who are well educated, well thats just your speculation.
There is no doubt Mullay can play a positive role. Lead namaz, conduct marriages, give good spiritual lectures on personal development etc etc. That being said there is a gulf between what Mullay can do, and what mullay as a class do. And this is where the many shairs I posted give an indication on what the perspective of Iqbal was, and what he believes Muslims must do to develop themselves. (i.e. develop themselves, deny mullay the role of religious gateway to Allah). He inherited the profound skepticism his European influences had of the clerical class, evident in the many quotes I’ve provided.
With respect to this showing he had no idea of typical mullay, Im afraid your logical skills suck as bad as your mathematical skills do. You cannot draw an inference from him opposing the removal of religious institutions entirely that he did not decry the power mullay currently had as arbiters of Godliness on the world. All through his ash’aar on mullay, he speaks of them categorically (look that word up).
Notice that in responding to your shair, I could just have said ‘oh he was referring to that minority of minorities that is good’. But I am not a dishonest debater. I do not extrapolate from the evidence I offer, beyond what the evidence itself compels. You on the other hand post one thing after years of goading, and then say things like ‘i’ve proved xyz’.
Here is an example of what you do. Refute is a synonym for proof. You have offered evidence for one, specific thing. He did not want the removal of religious institutions from the Muslim world. This cannot be conflated with proof for any of the following:
- He thought most mullay were not ‘fake’
- His poems on what mullay do are limited to a small segment of badly educated/fake mullay
- He didnt think that investing religious endeavour and authority in the hands of mullay was a bad thing
These are the points at issue. This is what has been granted so far:
- His poems do not mean that ALL mullay are ‘fake’ (a diversion you like to walk on every so often, on your own, alone, unprompted)
- He thought mullay have a role to play in Muslim society (not a minority or anomaly as I would claim if I were following your debating style, but as a class)
How limited that role is, and what the impact is when mullay exceed their role in society is what concerns me. At his time, and indeed in our own, mullay have vastly exceeded the role they should play. This is what Iqbal wanted to reverse. This is what the OP wants to reverse. This is what you should want to reverse. Whether you want to call them ‘fake’ mullay while you’re at it is fine by me.
Your troubles with statistics would require a herculean effort that is beyond me to fix, evident by your definition of symmetric distributions and your cluelessness on what a median is in them. Nevertheless please bear in mind that despite the obvious advantage I can take by exploiting your weaknesses in that area, it is you who keeps trying to post about distributions, outliers, normality and skewness, each time to hilarious effect. I have consistently used median, where I have, interchangeably with typical. That, is a reference to typicality, a way to talk about the class of mullay, of the representative mullah, in general, not a re ference to any hypothetical or real distribution or curve of mullay.
So was Gandhi, so what. At that time khilafat movement was a very anti-colonial movement, with significant ties to the general non-cooperative movement. Wrt the shair, You read jahad literally. I read jahad as endeavour (which includes the science of warfare). Read shikwa to note that he did not limit himself to envying the west’s prowess at war.
It is true that you have a way to keep coming up with bad answers and illogical responses that eventually wear down the patience of any rational person. I admit that I will only do this so long as I enjoy it.
