Emphatic speech by Owaisi in Parliament rejecting Z Security

Should our leaders enjoy special security at the cost of hard-earned money of the tax-payers? Aren't leaders supposed to be equal in status and opportunity to the voters as per the rights of equality mentioned in the constitution? Will the leaders enjoying the special security ever be able to get the real understanding of the fear under which the general public lives? 

Two days after his convoy was attacked by bullets at a toll plaza near Hapur, Asadduddin Owaisi made an emphatic speech in Parliament. Rejecting the offer of Z-security Mr. Owaisi called the attention of the house towards the root causes behind such hooliganism instead of conferring extra privileges to the parliamentarians. Apart from his personal choice of remaining free from the bodyguards with guns, he raised a more pertinent question of the equality between the rulers and the ruled which the democracy  proudly boasts. He said, "my life is not more important than the lives of Akhlaque and Pahlu (who were lynched by vigilante groups). I will be safe if the general public is safe". 

While one can question the intentions behind such statements calling them an emotional appeal by a populist leader to the community he caters, the deeper questions which arose out of his speech are nevertheless significant. Owaisi's request of providing safety to the masses before granting him any special privilege is the position any statesman and real leader would take. Under the existing situations in the country in which minorities are being hounded and lynched, this stance taken by a leader who claims himself to be their voice should be hailed. 

The real objective of democracy is not just to get an elected government but to usher in the society a social democracy wherein people are governed by none other than their equals. Lynchings of common citizens happening in the country where the Prime Minister enjoys special security worth hundreds of crores yearly can't be termed as the ideal democratic situation. Our elected representatives should have the moral courage to bring themselves down to the ground where the common citizens stand.

अब किसी राह पे चलना नहीं आसाँ जानाँ

अब किसी राह पे चलना नहीं आसाँ जानाँ !

हर समंदर में वह क़तरा होगा

हर समंदर में वह क़तरा होगा !!

Refuting Hamza Tzortis on the Problem of Evil

 In chapter 11 of his Book, Hamza deals with the age old philosophical problem of evil and suffering.

He claims that the atheistic position is wrong mainly on the following two grounds:

1. First and most importantly, they have isolated the two attributes of God i.e. His being omnipotent and merciful. They didn't take into consideration one more attribute of Him, which is being the most wise.

2. They have falsely assumed that Islamic revelation hasn't provided rational reasons for why God created evil and suffering.

The points which he presents under his second argument are totally irrelevant, redundant and sometimes unscientific. Hence, not worth refuting. Let's focus on the first argument.

Basically he says, *We kiddo human beings with our little brains can never comprehend the infinite wisdom of an infinite God. (by definition, he says, if He is fully comprehensible, He is not a God). Hence if children are born with bone-cancer or juvenile-Glaucoma, this is not just to be seen as suffering but as a small part of a grand cosmic scheme set up by the Most Wise, Most Merciful and All Powerful God. We may not understand the significance and purpose of the humongous scale of suffering which the Incas and Aztecs went through now, but there must definitely be some reason behind this which God only knows, as 'He has the picture, and we have just a pixel'.

To support his argument, Hamza quotes from the Quran the story of Moses and Khidar. The actions of Khidr, after-all, were apparently evil and an instrument of suffering. But seen with the knowledge of hindsight, they were meant either to stop a bigger future-evil or to bring a greater good in future. Hence he proves that current evils and sufferings may turn out to be a boon in future.

Now, imagine that God hasn’t provided us with any of the answers which Khidar gave to Moses in the Quran. Moses and Khidar parts without letting Moses know the actual reasons behind his particular behaviours. In that case, I have two arguments:

1. The argument of Hamza that everything however evil it might seem at a moment has some divine wisdom would have still been true (as we, the kiddos, after all can’t doubt the wisdom of God). So, what is the purpose that this story exactly serves ? None ! Why make such an effort ! Why use this story to prove your argument? The story is not proving your argument. The story actually is built upon your argument. This is not a proof. This is an example. Examples are useless as they can be cherry picked !

2. Secondly, even if we didn’t have those answers which Khidar provided in the end, the three stories mentioned in Quran are so simplistic that any intelligent human would have given many of such reasons, which would make the acts of Khidar appear full of wisdom. However, the stories of this planet are not so simplistic (see the video). The best of brains amongst Muslims and Non-Muslims both can’t help scratching their head while making sense of the humongous amount of suffering on this planet.

Furthermore, Hamza consistently keeps mentioning that sufferings are boon to the believers. What about disbelievers then? What about that gutter-cleaner born as Shudra in India whose son had contracted Chicken-pox and died ? Hamza cleary sees everything from the perspective of *believing humans*. What about the humongous amount of suffering animals are going through since even before the advent of Homo-Sapiens ?

करते हुए गुज़रा है फ़क़त हाए दिसम्बर

करते हुए गुज़रा है फ़क़त हाए दिसम्बर !

पीता हूँ धो के मैं उसी वादा-शिकन के पाँव

पीता हूँ धो के मैं उसी वादा-शिकन के पाँव !

दिल में किसी मुराद को मेहमाँ बनाएँगे

दिल में किसी मुराद को मेहमाँ बनाएँगे !