Haulae haulae, softly thu kadham barda take a step meri jaan toward me beloved God, ethna bhi youun na dar therae, do not be afraid i am here with you sang mae haan chaltha rahoon, a partner and should you accept me, a companion for life my God. Jab thalak hai bani mujhae mae meri jaan, when you and I are separated my love mushkil hai suna safar yae bada, I understand this is because of the journey that was very difficult bar sang mae therae merae hai khuda, yet on the other side of life, death, we will find each other again, I will see you again my God. Sapna saja hai kal kissnae dekha, the dream of your gloriness is far away phir sae naya chal meri jaan, yet when revealed it is understood as life. Chal meri jaan, sochae bina, chal maeri jaan, foolishly let us begin and end this contract called life. Jag tho hai bada zulmi ieza, the world after all is too big to comprehend even for us eiski na suun yae hai kisi ka bina thus, do not listen to it call thora yakeen tho rukh merae humnava, you too can use the same discretion Love. Khud pae zara lafzo sae thu kar, Use this knowledge to free me, a lowly and unknowing human being from the world of bondage. Khushi ko baya jo bhi sanam, the happiness that was stolen from us will be returned I am certain as this is our story, God. Bhul ja jalkae basa, Together we can forget the incomprehensible world ever existed lae hum kahin apna jahan, so that we may chart out a path for ourselves chal meri jaan, come take me with you, God. Ho pal jo bhi humnae gavaayae, every second that I lost being without you aaa unka har jana bharkae complete it by bringing that knowledge home aanae valae palko manayae, or how else can I care for the second that is almost here. Aur unko dukh bana kae huum jeelae, as such let us make grief our happiness har khushi ko hum jeelae sufilae, and live out our lives like the saintly sufi, aae kae thujhae chal meri jaan, once and for all. I will then have also captured you. Dukhna bana har khushi sufilae, I promise a different life for you, a better one, one that a sufi saint would approve of. Ek thujhae kae aaaa chal meri jaan, therefore sochae bina, foolishly haulae haulae and softly, so softly thu kadham bada, take a step toward me meri jaan beloved, eithna bhi youun na dar therae sang, now that as man I am close to you once more. Mae haan chaltha rahoon jab thalak hai bani mujhae mae, this warring life that never sought peace came from hate. Therefore, I entreat you for a divorce and so that we can build a better life together today, O God.
There has to be a concomitant moral response to why people are driven to destroy one another. To do this here are some salient instructions to follow. Moral rights are a necessity and the way to begin this dialogue is with those whose dignities were violated beyond human recognition. It is a belief that moral human beings have to accept the values of those who survived the horrors of war as the standards of moral righteousness and therefore rights. Blasphemy against God are crimes and no one human being is blameless in this regard. The task lies now in identifying and removing that blasphemy as a means of resurrecting moral law. It is probably hubris to claim that victims of world war II, especially those who perished in labor camps both in Europe and in South Asia, the Jews and those under the rule of a deceitful dictatorship. Non-violent movements during that time is as good place as any to begin such a conversation. But these two events come up over and over again as crimes that are not acceptable. They are not forgivable and never will be because the incidents also were connected to the affairs of God in our lives. The Shoah is not something God accepted, and brutality as a means of living is also not what a loving God accepted. Therefore, the number one lesson that we must draw as moral is that one does not make victimhood a right to their personhood but rather a place of moral contestations. EVERYONE should be a part of this important appeal as it pertains to self-government demonstrated by MK Gandhi and by ambitious democracies in the world such as Israel. Proponents of terror such as ISIS and AlQeida are ruled by the same laws that govern Blasphemy in religion. Their blasphemous activities injure and remove the one on one relationship that human beings are ENTITLED to have with God. No one has the right to take this humanity away. Laws from important religious authorities such as the ones in Jerusalem will take being to take into account events and judge them accordingly. Thus, if one is a terrorist or is training to become one, they should know that the hand of justice is going to reach out to them and mete out concomitant punishment. The only relationship to law a human being has in our world is with free individuals. God is widely acknowledged as the chief advocate of liberty and thus of a different dimension of human freedom, moral liberty. We need God’s help to repair lives and the only way to accomplish is to obey his works. Licentious, predatory, incriminating and other murderous acts that plague our world today have to be accounted for. Both free and enslaved human beings if they espouse the validity of truth dejure establishes all laws, criminal, civil, moral, commercial and so and so forth. Such is the power of truth in action. It is then easy to remove corrupt and disgraced people, whether they are governments, politicians, terrorists, gangsters, law enforcement and every other kind of human being. Without God life is unlivable and this is a moral reality we all accept whether we are religious adherents or adherents of a greater power than ourselves. This is the ONLY way to curb human egotism, the culprit of all actions in this world and beyond.
Why all civil revolutions have been non-violent. Satyagraha as standards of the rule of values. Values as ascertained from the Rabbinate of Yerushalayim.
When the founding fathers set up that government which derived its powers “from the consent of the governed,” they knew exactly what they’d been missing. As colonists they’d had their taxes and their foreign and domestic policies determined for them by a distant government in which they’d had no representation whatsoever. People who lived thousands of miles away made decisions for them without their input and without recourse to anything but eventual revolution and separation.
When the founding fathers conceived of the “consent of the governed,” they thought of the people as a whole, realizing that not every individual would or could approve of every act of government. Indeed, it is inconceivable to think of a government acting in such a way that each person in the nation agrees with each decision arrived at by their government. The reality is that even in a government wonderfully representative of its people, some decisions are made that some people will disagree with.
Was “consent of the governed” created with this problem in mind? Must government keep every citizen completely happy and in agreement with each law and regulation it promulgates?
Not according to Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson envisioned the “consent of the governed” he wrote about not as individual consent, but as the consent of the people coming together to make their political decisions. Jefferson wrote “It must be acknowledged that the term ‘republic’ is of vague application in every language…Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea, I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.” (To J. Taylor, 1816)
In another letter to F. von Humboldt in 1817, Jefferson called the first principle of republicanism the “majority law,” and considered a majority of one to be as binding upon the whole as an unanimous vote. “This law disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism.”
For Jefferson this was a simple equation. A government of minority interests supports its own self-interest and inevitably oppresses the majority. No government at all–anarchy–leads inevitably to evil forces organizing oppressive regimes. Only a government by and of the majority has the capability of preserving the individual’s rights.
The sacredness of a one-vote majority for Jefferson was based on his understanding of the contentious nature of humanity. “An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing that never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry.” (Letter to J. Taylor, 1798)
What then, of the rights of the minority? Jefferson was well aware that a majority rule could be oppressive if the equal rights of minorities were violated. In his first inaugural address, he said, “Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” (1801)
But Jefferson relied on a polticially active, fair-minded majority to insist that individual rights of those they disagreed with be respected, if for nothing else, through their own self-interest. No other mechanism, no government or piece of paper can protect those rights. Power inevitably leads to corruption, so the power to protect the people’s rights must be invested in the people themselves. It thus becomes each citizen’s responsibility to look after his or her own rights and the rights of his neighbors.
But what about an apathetic or ignorant citizenry? How do we overcome the people not acting in their interests, or acting in a way we think foolish? Jefferson had an answer to this, too: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” (Letter to W. Jarvis, 1820)
Perhaps nothing is more important to an understanding of individual self-determination than the phrase, “consent of the governed.” Individuals continually confront others with different experiences or prejudices at odd with their own. In such an environment, a community must make its political decisions according to the will of the majority. It is that majority which, fairly instituted, constitutes the guarantor of individuals rights and the consent of the governed.
John Fisher led the British Admiralty for several years. He retired in 1910. Winston Churchill called him back into service when World War I started in 1914. Churchill knew that Fisher was a great warrior who had helped build the British Empire. He taught Churchill many lessons.
John Fisher wrote his memoirs in two books, titled Memories and Records. First of all he had a strong belief in God. He often quoted scriptures in these two books.
Fisher wrote, “Goschen was right (when first lord of the Admiralty); he quoted that old Athenian admiral who, when asked what governed a sea battle, replied, ‘Providence,’ and then with emphasis he added: ‘and a good admiral.’”
Fisher knew naval warfare as few men ever did in British history. In 1905, he predicted that Germany would start a war in August 1914! And it did. He had practical reasons for his prophecy, which I won’t go into in this article. The point is, he knew warfare extremely well.
Here is what he wrote about war (small caps emphasis mine throughout):
I largely agree with all you say about the politicians. No doubt our great handicap in this war is that nearly all the PARTY LEADERS GET THEIR POSITIONS THROUGH QUALITIES WHICH SERVE THEM ADMIRABLY IN PEACE TIME, BUT ARE FATAL IN WAR. The great art in politics in recent years has always seemed to me to be to pretend to lead, when you are really following the public bent of the moment. All sense of right and wrong is blunted, and no one stands up for what he honestly believes in but which may not at the moment be popular. If he does, he is regarded as a fool, and a “waster,” and may get out. A HABIT OF MIND IS THUS FORMED WHICH IS WHOLLY WANTING IN INITIATIVE, AND IN WAR THE INITIATIVE IS EVERYTHING. I agree with you absolutely: “Make up your mind, and strike! and strike hard and without mercy.”
Yes, “in war the initiative is everything.” Does the U.S. take the initiative in the Middle East war against terrorism? No, only the Muslims do. And the terrorist-sponsoring nations that supply radical terrorists with training and weapons—mainly Iran and Syria—go unpunished. Israel and the United States are afraid to take the initiative against these nations.
In time, the terrorist Muslims must win, because only they have courage enough to take the initiative.
Who is in charge of the war? Politicians and statesmen. Not warriors like Fisher who have real trust in God.
Do we even have such warriors anymore?
Elsewhere Fisher wrote,
FOR WAR, MY DEAR FRIEND, YOU WANT A TOTALLY DIFFERENTLY CONSTITUTED MIND TO THAT OF A STATESMAN AND POLITICIAN! …
War is big conceptions and quick decisions. Think in oceans. Shoot at sight! The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility. All we have done this war is to imitate the Germans! We have neither been Napoleonic in audacity nor Cromwellian in thoroughness nor Nelsonic in execution. Always, always, always “TOO LATE”!
The big problem is America and Israel are fighting their terrorist wars in moderation! We are going to wake up to that fact “too late”—if we don’t put our faith in God!
“War is big conceptions.” We must see the whole terrorist picture. That means getting to the source of terrorism. But we only fight the terrorist cells rather than the terrorist nations that produce and harbor them. We lack the will to fight the terrorist nations, which have the real power.
Fisher wrote, “Mahan truly says: ‘THE ASSUMPTION OF A SIMPLE DEFENSIVE IN WAR IS RUIN. War, once declared, must be waged offensively, aggressively. THE ENEMY MUST NOT BE FENDED OFF, BUT SMITTEN DOWN. You may then spare him every exaction, relinquish every gain. But till down he must be struck incessantly and remorselessly.’”
Our war on terrorism is a defensive war—and “A SIMPLE DEFENSIVE IN WAR IS RUIN.” The way we are fighting terrorism leads to catastrophe!
Do we dare ignore one of the great warriors of our recent past? His war spirit helped build the greatest empire this world has ever known. A lack of that same will and spirit, such as America exhibits today, always leads to disaster.
Whoever hits soonest and oftenest will win!
“The effectiveness of a fighting weapon,” wrote Mahan, “consists more in the method of its use and in the practiced skill of the human element that wields it than in the material perfection of the weapon itself. The sequel of a long period of peace is a demoralization of ideals. Those who rise in peace are men of formality and routine, cautious, inoffensive, safe up to the limits of their capacity, supremely conscientious, PUNCTILIOUS ABOUT EVERYTHING BUT WHAT IS ESSENTIAL, YET VOID ALTOGETHER OF INITIATIVE, impulse and originality.
“This was the difference between Hawke and Matthews. Hawke represented the spirit of war, the ardor, the swift initiative, the readiness of resource, the impatience of prescription and routine, WITHOUT WHICH NO GREAT THINGS ARE DONE! Matthews, the spirit of peace, the very reverse of all this!”
Today, we too are “punctilious about everything but what is essential.” What is essential for us today is a strong leader with real faith in God, “WITHOUT WHICH NO GREAT THINGS ARE DONE!” Many great things are undone without such a leader.
We need a warrior who knows that we cannot win without God’s help. A man of action. But where is such a war leader today?
The greatest naval leader Britain ever had was Lord Nelson. But he was hated by many in his own nation. Why? Because he practiced what was necessary to win wars!
John Fisher had this to say about him: “It was not ‘victory’ that Nelson ever desired. It was ‘annihilation’!”
We deceive ourselves today because we talk about “victories” against terrorists. BUT THERE IS NO WINNING THIS WAR UNTIL WE ANNIHILATE OUR REAL TERRORIST ENEMIES! That includes the terrorist-sponsoring nations.
There is a solution. But will we learn soon enough? We need real faith in God. But in this area also, most of our people have deceived themselves.
John Fisher had a miracle-working faith. Here is what he said:
When I was at Bath I read in the local paper a beautiful letter aptly alluding to the Mount Fiesole of Bath and quoting what has been termed that mysterious verse of David’s: “I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills.”
Well! the other day a great friend of that wonderful Hebrew scholar, Dr. Ginsburg—he died long since at Capri—told me that Ginsburg had said to him that all the revisers and translators had missed a peculiar Hebraism which quite alters the signification of this opening verse of the 121st Psalm: It should read: “‘Shall I lift up mine eyes to those hills? DOTH my help come from thence?”
And this is the explanation:
Those hills alluded to were the hills in which were the groves planted in honor of the idols toward which Israel had strayed. So in the second verse the inspired tongue says:
“No! My help cometh from the Lord! He who hath made Heaven and Earth! (not these idols).”
There is no shortage of help. All we have to do is turn to the God who created heaven and Earth. Whether we learn this lesson now or later, this is how terrorism is soon to be destroyed forever. But we could eliminate the worst suffering ever if we responded to the warning now. ▪
Civil Disobedience: An Encyclopedic History of Dissidence in the United States of America from the past to the current centuries. Mary Ellen Snodgrass – 2015 – 800 pages. The Baptist Story. Confiscation of Goods. Abraham Bloyce, Spinning Wheel. Phineas Coller, cow, kettle, tankard, pewter plates. Henry Fisk deacon, cow, five pewter plates. Jonathan Perry, saddle, steer. John Pike, Cow.
Throughout American history, people with strong beliefs that ran counter to society’s rules and laws have used civil disobedience to advance their causes. From the Boston Tea Party in 1773, to the Pullman Strike in 1894, to the draft card burnings and sit-ins of more recent times, civil disobedience has been a powerful force for effecting change in American society.This comprehensive A-Z encyclopedia provides a wealth of information on people, places, actions, and events that defied the law to focus attention on an issue or cause. It covers the causes and actions of activists across the political spectrum from colonial times to the present, and includes political, social economic, environmental, and a myriad of other issues.”Civil Disobedience” ties into all aspects of the American history curriculum, and is a rich source of material for essays and debates on critical issues and events that continue to influence our nation’s laws and values. It explores the philosophies, themes, concepts, and practices of activist groups and individuals, as well as the legislation they influenced. It includes a detailed chronology of civil disobedience, listings of acts of conscience and civil disobedience by act and by location, a bibliography of primary and secondary sources, and a comprehensive index complete the set. https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Disobedience-Encyclopedic-History-Dissidence/dp/0765681277.
Quotes about Imam Hussain by famous people, MK Gandhi, born Porbandar and Rabindranath Taogre in British India.
Mahatma Gandhi: “I learnt from Hussain how to achieve victory while being oppressed.” “My faith is that the progress of Islam does not depend on the use of sword by its believers, but the result of the supreme sacrifice of Hussain.” “If India wants to be a successful country, it must follow in the footsteps of Imam Hussain(R.A). “If I had an army like the 72 soldiers of Hussain, I would have won freedom for India in 24 hours.”