ZH:- Zaid Hamid can't name more than 3 Islamic philosophers. Not unpopular names. ZH:- Iqbal was an absolute expert in Persian.
Zaid Hamid, obviously. Persian language has three distinct varieties, Farsi, Darri and Tajik. Iqbal did his poetry mostly in Farsi. How can he be the absolute expert.? He said at one instance. Gar chi Hindi dar uzubat shakar ast… tarzi guftaar dari shireen tar ast. Means: even though in sweetness Urdu Hindi is sugar, but Dari is sweeter than that. Among his verses of poems, about verses are written in Dari, and from 15 of his collection 12 of them are in Dari language.
ZH:- Iqbal is one man army, one man trooper, and one man commander in chief. All he is, he is. All we know is that he was a very modest man. More on this topic can be read here. This is an interview of NFP. The past has to be bared to settle all accounts, so that one could proceed further. Barthold Brecht. Eqbal Ahmad , regarding the concept of separation of Church and State. In strict textual and formal legal terms, this may be true. But this standard generalization is not helpful in comprehending Muslim political praxis either historically or contemporaneously. In its most fundamental sense, politics involves a set of active links, both positive and negative, between civil society and institutions of power.
The organic links between religion and state power ended in A. For a time, the Caliph served in various parts of the Muslim world as a legitimizing symbol through the investiture of temporal rulers-Sultans, Amirs, and Khans-among them, successful rebels and usurpers. The Buwayhids, who ruled over Iraq and Fars as Amirs, kept the Caliphate in subjection for years until they were displaced in A. In , the Mongols sacked Baghdad, killed the Caliph and his kin, and terminated the Abbasid Caliphate, which had been for two centuries a Merovingian cipher.
Although the Caliphate was revived and claimed-at different times in various places, by a variety of rulers-it never quite mustered the allegiance of a majority of Muslims. Power, in effect, remained secularized in Muslim practice. Episode 5. Ali Azmat kick-started the show by telling us that Iqbal studied at Oxford, when in fact, Iqbal was a student at Cambridge University, located 84 miles away from Oxford.
Translation:-He had germs of Nationalism.
- Whats Love Got To Do With It.
- Courage to Differ: Deconstructing Zaid Hamid Archives.
- LEMON MARRIAGES MADE IN THE USA Why Americans Beat The World In Divorce And How To Reverse That Trend.
Comment: Yeah, Indian nationalism is a disease in your twisted logical framework. Sicily was a Muslim stronghold for centuries. Comment: - Muslim rule in Sicily was from A. D till A. That makes a total of and 2 years. Like I said before, you do the math. After the first 4 Khulafa-e-Rashideen and initial period of Umayyad Rule, there were splits and factions and so on.
Reference:- Hamari tarikh fehmi, paper by Hasan Jaafar Zaidi. Comment: - Iqbal was a member of the London Muslim League which was founded by Syed Amir Ali a Bengali philosopher and writer who was a contemporary of Sir Syed and who very few students of Pakistan history know because his efforts have been criminally neglected by our textbook writers.
ZH:- Federal Reserve was created in and it financed the global turmoil. Comment: - Federal Reserve was in fact created in A. D but US didn't take part in the world war until A. ZH:- Iqbal had predicted that after a world war, ideologies like democracy, liberalism, feminism, modern education will be implemented. Comment:-This is another demonstration of the lack of knowledge by Zaid Hamid.
Similarly, the first wave of Feminist movement started in late 19th century. The truth is exactly the opposite. Democracy lets loose all hues of aspirations and grievances which are suppressed or unrealized under autocracy. It arouses hopes and ambitions, often quite unpractical, and it relies not on authority but on argument, on controversy from the platform, in the press, in the parliament, gradually to educate people to the acceptance of a solution which may not be ideal but which is the only practical one under the circumstances of the time. Democratic governments have attendant difficulties but these are difficulties which human experience elsewhere shows to be surmountable.
Khawaja Masud, from his soon-to-be-published book Lessons of My Life. Episode 6. ZH:- Un ko talash kia, build kia aur ultimately tayar kar k deliver karwya dia,qaum bhe un ko bna k di. Translation:- He Iqbal found him Quaid-i-Azam , built him and later delivered, manufactured a nation for him as well. It can be seen from these letters that Zaid Hamid is concocting stories just for the sake of his convenience.
Courage to Differ: Deconstructing Zaid Hamid Archives
Another important point to note is that Quaid-i-Azam himself was a famous politician and barrister. ZH:- Un k munh se jo baten niklin,unko itefaq se kahi jane wali baten nhe kaha ja skta. Translation: Whatever he Iqbal said could not have been a co-incident. Comment:- Giving divine notions to otherwise not-divine matters is a specialty of Conspiracy merchants like Mister Zaid Zaman Hamid. He is trying to elevate Iqbal to the level of at least a Prophet. Iqbal never made such grandiose claims as he was a much wiser person than ZH. Comment: - This is an exact quote from Mr.
Most of the conversation that took place during the course of the programs was a mixture of English and Urdu. It has a cultural wing consisting of sirens in the shape of trendy looking androids that are fed burgers and French fries to further fatten their complete ignorance of reality.
One of the biggest successes in this respect has been conversion of Zion Hamid who was once an uncaring, burger-hopping DJ at a Tora Bora Disco. Comment: - Literally, it should be translated as knowledge, equanimity and government. Zaid Hamid gave his own description and a different twist to what Iqbal was saying. This is not only unethical, it is also deplorable.
Iqbal was a wise man and he would not have warned people against enlightenment. Another grand claim made by Zaid Hamid here. His complete essay can be read here. There are many deficiencies and pitfalls in the current economic systems and criticizing them is not a new phenomen. The "social system" is the parent system of those various systems that are embedded in it.
The early study of social structures has informed the study of institutions, culture and agency, social interaction, and history. Weber investigated and analyzed the institutions of modern society: market , bureaucracy private enterprise and public administration , and politics e.
One of the earliest and most comprehensive accounts of social structure was provided by Karl Marx, who related political, cultural, and religious life to the mode of production an underlying economic structure. Marx argued that the economic base substantially determined the cultural and political superstructure of a society. Subsequent Marxist accounts, such as that by Louis Althusser , proposed a more complex relationship that asserted the relative autonomy of cultural and political institutions, and a general determination by economic factors only "in the last instance".
A,  arguing that only the constitution of a multitude into a unity creates a "social structure" basing this approach on his concept of social will. In this context, Durkheim distinguished two forms of structural relationship: mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. The former describes structures that unite similar parts through a shared culture; the latter describes differentiated parts united through social exchange and material interdependence.
As did Marx and Weber, more generally, Georg Simmel developed a wide-ranging approach that provided observations and insights into domination and subordination, competition, division of labor, formation of parties, representation, inner solidarity coupled with exclusiveness toward the outside, and many similar features in the state, in a religious community, in an economic association, in an art school, and in family and kinship networks however diverse the interests that give rise to these associations, the forms in which interests are realized may yet be identical Crothers, Some follow Marx in trying to identify the basic dimensions of society that explain the other dimensions, most emphasizing either economic production or political power.
Still others, notably Peter Blau , follow Simmel in attempting to base a formal theory of social structure on numerical patterns in relationships—analyzing, for example, the ways in which factors like group size shape intergroup relations. The notion of social structure is intimately related to a variety of central topics in social science, including the relation of structure and agency.
The most influential attempts to combine the concept of social structure with agency are Anthony Giddens ' theory of structuration and Pierre Bourdieu 's practice theory. Giddens emphasizes the duality of structure and agency, in the sense that structures and agency cannot be conceived apart from one another. This permits him to argue that structures are neither independent of actors nor determining of their behavior, but rather sets of rules and competencies on which actors draw, and which, in the aggregate, they reproduce.
Bourdieu's practice theory also seeks a more supple account of social structure as embedded in, rather than determinative of, individual behavior. Other recent work by Margaret Archer morphogenesis theory , Tom R. Burns and collaborators actor-system dynamics theory and social rule system theory , and Immanuel Wallerstein World Systems Theory provided elaborations and applications of the sociological classics in structural sociology. Lopez and Scott distinguish between institutional structure and relational structure , where in the former:.
Social structure can also be divided into microstructure and macrostructure. Microstructure is the pattern of relations between most basic elements of social life, that cannot be further divided and have no social structure of their own for example, pattern of relations between individuals in a group composed of individuals - where individuals have no social structure, or a structure of organizations as a pattern of relations between social positions or social roles , where those positions and roles have no structure by themselves.
Macrostructure is thus a kind of 'second level' structure, a pattern of relations between objects that have their own structure for example, a political social structure between political parties, as political parties have their own social structure. Some types of social structures that modern sociologist differentiate are relation structures in family or larger family-like clan structures , communication structures how information is passed in organizations and sociometric structures structures of sympathy, antipathy and indifference in organisations - this was studied by Jacob L. Social rule system theory reduces the structures of 3 to particular rule system arrangements, that is, the types of basic structures of 1 and 2.
It shares with role theory , organizational and institutional sociology , and network analysis the concern with structural properties and developments and at the same time provides detailed conceptual tools needed to generate interesting, fruitful propositions and models and analyses. Some believe that social structure is naturally developed.
It may be caused by larger system needs, such as the need for labour , management , professional and military classes, or by conflicts between groups, such as competition among political parties or among elites and masses. The level of hostility can be seen from Searle's statement that "It would be a mistake to regard Derrida's discussion of Austin as a confrontation between two prominent philosophical traditions", to which Derrida replied that that sentence was "the only sentence of the 'reply' to which I can subscribe".
Austin's theory of the illocutionary act. While sympathetic to Austin's departure from a purely denotational account of language to one that includes "force", Derrida was sceptical of the framework of normativity employed by Austin. Derrida argued that Austin had missed the fact that any speech event is framed by a "structure of absence" the words that are left unsaid due to contextual constraints and by "iterability" the constraints on what can be said, imposed by what has been said in the past.
Derrida argued that the focus on intentionality in speech-act theory was misguided because intentionality is restricted to that which is already established as a possible intention. He also took issue with the way Austin had excluded the study of fiction, non-serious, or "parasitic" speech, wondering whether this exclusion was because Austin had considered these speech genres as governed by different structures of meaning, or hadn't considered them due to a lack of interest.
In his brief reply to Derrida, "Reiterating the Differences: A Reply to Derrida", Searle argued that Derrida's critique was unwarranted because it assumed that Austin's theory attempted to give a full account of language and meaning when its aim was much narrower. Searle considered the omission of parasitic discourse forms to be justified by the narrow scope of Austin's inquiry.
Some critics  have suggested that Searle, by being so grounded in the analytical tradition that he was unable to engage with Derrida's continental phenomenological tradition, was at fault for the unsuccessful nature of the exchange. Derrida, in his response to Searle "a b c Searle did not reply. Later in , Derrida tried to review his position and his critiques of Austin and Searle, reiterating that he found the constant appeal to "normality" in the analytical tradition to be problematic.
In the debate, Derrida praised Austin's work, but argued that Austin is wrong to banish what Austin calls "infelicities" from the "normal" operation of language. One "infelicity", for instance, occurs when it cannot be known whether a given speech act is "sincere" or "merely citational" and therefore possibly ironic. Derrida argues that every iteration is necessarily "citational", due to the graphematic nature of speech and writing, and that language could not work at all without the ever-present and ineradicable possibility of such alternate readings.
Derrida takes Searle to task for attempting to get around this issue by grounding final authority in the speaker's inaccessible "intention". Derrida argues that intention cannot possibly govern how an iteration signifies, once it becomes hearable or readable. All speech acts borrow from a language whose significance is determined by historical-linguistic context, and by the alternate possibilities that this context makes possible.
This significance, Derrida argues, cannot be altered or governed by the whims of intention. Derrida argued against the constant appeal to "normality" in the analytical tradition of which Austin and Searle were paradigmatic examples. In the description of the structure called "normal," "normative," "central," "ideal,"this possibility must be integrated as an essential possibility. The possibility cannot be treated as though it were a simple accident-marginal or parasitic.
It cannot be, and hence ought not to be, and this passage from can to ought reflects the entire difficulty. In the analysis of so-called normal cases, one neither can nor ought, in all theoretical rigor, to exclude the possibility of transgression. Not even provisionally, or out of allegedly methodological considerations. It would be a poor method, since this possibility of transgression tells us immediately and indispensably about the structure of the act said to be normal as well as about the structure of law in general.
Derrida argued that it was problematic to establish the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite, "for part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place—and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were". This question is all the more indispensable since the rules, and even the statements of the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites," are not things found in nature, but laws, symbolic inventions, or conventions, institutions that, in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.
He called Derrida's conclusion "preposterous" and stated that "Derrida, as far as I can tell, does not have an argument. He simply declares that there is nothing outside of texts Further, in an essay on religion and religious language, Habermas criticized Derrida's insistence on etymology and philology  see Etymological fallacy. The American philosopher Walter A. Popular criticism of deconstruction intensified following the Sokal affair , which many people took as an indicator of the quality of deconstruction as a whole, despite the absence of Derrida from Sokal's follow-up book Impostures Intellectuelles.
Chip Morningstar holds a view critical of deconstruction, believing it to be epistemologically challenged. He claims the humanities are subject to isolation and genetic drift due to their unaccountability to the world outside academia. During the Second International Conference on Cyberspace Santa Cruz, California, , he reportedly heckled deconstructionists off the stage.
We made fun of them. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. An approach to understanding the relationship between text and meaning. For deconstruction of buildings, see Deconstruction building. For the approach to post-modern architecture, see Deconstructivism. For other uses, see Deconstruction disambiguation. Main article: Metaphysics of presence. Further information: Yale school. Further information: Critical legal studies. See also: Limited Inc.
Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 8 September Evanston: Northwestern University Press. A decision that did not go through the ordeal of the undecidable would not be a free decision, it would only be the programmable application or unfolding of a calculable process The Bridge. Archived from the original on 16 May September Annual Review of Anthropology.
Institute of Historical Research. Applied Linguistics. Bern: Peter Lang. Retrieved 16 September Thinking Sounds. University of Toronto English Library. The New York Times. Retrieved 1 June Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Southern Methodist University. Writing and Difference New ed. London: Routledge. The model of hieroglyphic writing assembles more strikingly—though we find it in every form of writing—the diversity of the modes and functions of signs in dreams. Every sign—verbal or otherwise—may be used at different levels, in configurations and functions which are never prescribed by its "essence," but emerge from a play of differences.
University of Chicago Press. Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality. Cambridge, U. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jacques Derrida Reprint ed. A Taste for the Secret. I take great interest in questions of language and rhetoric, and I think they deserve enormous consideration; but there is a point where the authority of final jurisdiction is neither rhetorical nor linguistic, nor even discursive. The notion of trace or of text is introduced to mark the limits of the linguistic turn.
This is one more reason why I prefer to speak of 'mark' rather than of language. In the first place the mark is not anthropological; it is prelinguistic; it is the possibility of language, and it is every where there is a relation to another thing or relation to an other. For such relations, the mark has no need of language. Being and Time 1st ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Metaphor and Religious Language Paperback ed. Oxford: Clarendon. Limited Inc 4th ed. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press. What is Neostructuralism? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. A dictionary of critical theory. OUP Oxford, Entry: Neostructuralism. Hillis Miller, Paul De Man 1st ed. Hamden, Connecticut: Archon Books. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. New York: Fordham University Press. A Derrida DIctionary. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. Boston: Beacon Press. Deconstruction for Beginners. Danbury, Connecticut: Writers and Readers Publishing.
Deconstructions: A User's Guide. New York: Palgrave. One of the more persistent misunderstandings that has thus far forestalled a productive debate with Derrida's philosophical thought is the assumption, shared by many philosophers as well as literary critics, that within that thought just anything is possible. Derrida's philosophy is more often than not construed as a license for arbitrary free play in flagrant disregard of all established rules of argumentation, traditional requirements of thought, and ethical standards binding upon the interpretative community. Undoubtedly, some of the works of Derrida may not have been entirely innocent in this respect, and may have contributed, however obliquely, to fostering to some extent that very misconception.
But deconstruction which for many has come to designate the content and style of Derrida's thinking, reveals to even a superficial examination, a well-ordered procedure, a step-by-step type of argumentation based on an acute awareness of level-distinctions, a marked thoroughness and regularity. Jacques Derrida: Opening Lines. The Invention of Deconstruction. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Oxon: Routledge.