futureplanetconcept-blog

[futureplanetconcept-blog]

Boris Johnson’s Infamous Burka Comments: A hill I’ve chosen to die on.

In August 2018, the then aspiring Primeminister, Boris Johnson, wrote an article for The Telegraph, in which he criticised Denmark, along with other European countries for introducing bans on women wearing a burka in public spaces.

He did so on the grounds that any woman should be able to wear whatever they like in a free society. This point was willfully missed by Johnson’s critics who instead focused on one remark in the article where he said, women wearing it look like “letterboxes.” Those critics, in all their fury, slated him for being anti-Muslim, a racist, and a misogynist; accusations I object to given his actual point.

The critique that the garment makes you look like a letterbox is just like any other opinion on any other item of clothing. This happens all the time. We have tv shows dedicated to critiquing fashion. We have groups/communities/trends that are identifiable by their dress codes, and we’re all allowed an opinion on them. Even if the comment is nasty, any one is within their right to think and say such things. The one legitimate criticism I accept of Johnson here is that a prominent politician should not be making that sort of remark given their position and function in society. A social penalty should follow in such cases, but in this case, the accusations are inaccurate.

The main concern about his opinion is that it dehumanised Muslim women. If Johnson’s comments did that, it’s only because the garment is dehumanising, and what those aligned with his critics fail to realise is that it is designed to be dehumanising. The burka is one of the most misogynistic religious doctrines going. The idea behind women covering is that they are the property of their husbands/fathers and should not be seen by other men, (else they be raped.) This was another component of BJ’s article that was ignored, that the burka is a very conservative, sexist practise.

Another issue I have with the criticism of Johnson is the moral relativism. Some Western liberals decline to judge such practises and religious doctrines because they can’t objectively determine what is right or wrong, even though, this particular doctrine, they would never accept for their own daughters/wives or themselves. For the west it is clearly wrong, but somehow it’s a good thing for women in Afghanistan? I consider that to be a bigoted position on this subject.

The Burka is either forced upon Muslim women, as I hinted at above, or it is a choice. Where it is a choice (like in the west because of our laws of free expression and equality), then you could win money all day long betting on what the views of the women wearing a burka are. It is a conservative outfit. It is a symbol and a sign of conservative Islamic beliefs. What does the women choosing to wear it think of gay marriage, I wonder?

Thankfully, the burka is quite rare, but in most of those cases, the women are forced to wear it. Therefore, Boris’s critics are apologising for rape culture. Their sheer ignorance is leading a belief that the dress itself should be respected as a cultural treasure.

It’s possible that Boris was being insensitive to the women who are forced to wear it, but more likely is that by mocking the burka the intention was actually to highlight that it is a dehumanising garment forced upon women by a patriarchal ideology.

The other heavy accusation of Johnson’s piece is that his words were a dog whistle to racists. That somehow he was calling for and approving of, hatred towards Muslim women and approving of attacks on them. This is hysterical nonsense, but if we linger on it for a moment, and accept that such a statement could be a dog whistle, then I will point out that the Qur’an offers a much more dangerous signal to Muslims.

Sections of the Qur’an make it plainly clear who it doesn’t like and it repeats to the believers many violent calls to action against those it doesn’t like. What’s more, this book is believed to be the perfect word of the greater of the universe, much more influential than a clumsy politician with a bad haircut, right? Those claiming Johnson’s comments were a dog whistle are likely the same people who’ve bent over backwards to argue that Islamic scriptures are the most metaphorical of all metaphors or have denied its influence all together.

That is my defence of BJ’s comments. If you’re going to pick a side on him when this story inevitably crops up again, think carefully. Where the burka is forced upon women, it is done so because of a horrendous patriarchal ideology. Where it is a choice, it is not a feminist choice.

[futureplanetconcept-blog]

Condemning Terrorism

In response to this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-siema-iqbal/whats-the-solution_b_17301008.html Dear Dr Iqbal, 

I read your blog article in the Huffington Post and it raised a few questions that I’d be interested to hear you respond to.

First, I am fully aware that it is a very small percentage of Muslims that are terrorists. On social media after the tragic attacks, I imagine my news feed looked similar to yours, pictures of vigils, stories of the Muslims who helped at the scenes, and the Imams who publicly condemned the attacks. Those were shared by a majority of non-Muslims on my feed. 

You say that it’s infuriating that Muslims should have to condemn a terrorist attack because it has nothing to do with your communities. For the most part I agree with this. Only the individual should be responsible for their actions. However, the spotlight is on Islam because the link between the majority of terrorist attacks since 9/11 is Islam. When I say Islam, I am talking about the ideology, that has many interpretations, and not generalising all Muslim people. It is surely worth investigating why so many people with the same beliefs are committing similar acts of terror.

 “Condemning terrorism” is language the media use, but the main question that non-Muslims have for Muslims after such acts of extremism, is “What do you actually believe?” Do you believe in martyrdom, that those who die in defense of the faith will go directly to paradise? If so, what would count as “defense?” Do you believe that those who wish the leave Islam should be killed? Do you believe that anyone who insults the Prophet should be punished, including non-Muslims? Do you believe that infidels should be killed for rejecting Islam? It is these ideas that non-Muslims are confused as to whether or not they exist in Islamic theology, and, if so, to what extent the Muslim population believes such ideas to be moral. Having read the Qur’an, the works of religious scholars, and the experiences of ex-Muslims, these ideas seem to be a perfectly plausible interpretation of Islam, rather than a “hijacked” version.

In your article you play down the link between Islam and terrorism. Instead you suggest the triggers are, “drugs, alcohol, socioeconomic deprivation, mental health, domestic violence or foreign policy and a loss of protective factors i.e. breakdown in family structure, lack of sense of belonging,” and that “the vulnerable individuals may use ideology as a justification to carry out the final act of violence.” To wish to kill yourself in such a way as suicide bombing means you no longer value any part of your life, so the factors you mention should be looked into for each case, however, could it also be that the person no longer values life on Earth because they’re focused on the afterlife? If so, would inspiring that idea be a form of radicalising? Do Islamic scriptures and teachings provide any justification of violence? Does a mandate from God make these ideas of justified violence more dangerous than if a friend, a politician, or a newspaper incited similar violent behaviour? 

You say your work requires you to respect evidence. The evidence that an Islamic terrorist’s behaviour has roots in Islamic doctrines is clear, yet you appear to be obfuscating with this list of triggers. If you’re calling for honesty, each case must be individually assessed to determine what the true causes are. If the causes are mental health or drug abuse, we have treatments for that and campaigns to raise awareness of the dangers to prevent others from suffering the same fate. If the cause is religious extremism and radicalisation, should a similar campaign be in place to stop others from becoming radicalised? 

Further evidence shows that Islam has a political doctrine, which is referred to as Islamism, the desire to impose any doctrine of Islam over society. You say this term is inaccurate and offensive. I think that this term is useful for non-Muslims to distinguish groups like ISIS and Hizb ut-Tahrir from moderate Muslims – and for moderate Muslims to separate themselves from a fascist ideology. How is it inaccurate and offensive? Is it that you think that terrorism is a form of political violence only and therefore has no religious aspect? 

You also state that Islam does not need to reform and it is compatible with “British Values.” Again, plausible interpretations of Islam give some illiberal views that aren’t compatible with some British Values. Britain has made same-sex marriage legal. Recent polls have shown that 52% of British Muslims think that homosexuality should be illegal. Another obvious example from the Qur’an is verse 4:34, which permits a man to beat his wife. Are these values that homosexuality is immoral and that women are inferior to men not ideas that need reformed?

I don’t know a lot about how PREVENT is implemented and whether or not it targets and demonises people, but I know organisations such as Cage and MEND want to scrap it all together, as do some MPs. The evidence suggests that there are aspects of Islamic ideology that cause radicalisation, more so than other religions currently do, so focusing on Muslim communities doesn’t seem unwarranted - That is not to say that Islamist extremism is the only form of extremism or the only violent form of bigotry in our society. If PREVENT needs altering to be more effective then it should be, and criticism of it should be heard from all sides and accepted, but scrapping it in full with no replacement seems to be denying realities and ignoring the evidence. Given your own standard of evidence-based work, how would you respond to that?

Thank you.

[futureplanetconcept-blog]

Polarisation Has Come Full Circle

This week, after an anti-Muslim terrorist attack using an ISIS inspired methodology, the polarised views of people in the UK stretched so far apart they actually joined a circle as they proceeded to repeat each other’s arguments, seemingly unaware. 

The Far-Right have been calling for investigations into the ideology that inspires Islamist extremism, and surveillance of Mosques and communities that may preach hate of non-Muslims. The Far-Left have insisted that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. After this attack though, the roles have reversed. The Far-Left are now calling for newspapers, journalists, radio hosts, and activists to be held accountable for “radicalising” non-Muslims and giving a platform to “hate-preachers.” The Far-Right are distancing themselves and their beliefs from that of the attacker.

The Far-Right have pointed out that Finsbury Park Mosque, who’s attendees were the victims of this attack, has hosted extremist preachers in the past. This would be an attempt to justify the actions of the attacker and blame the victims. This is similar to attack on Charlie Hebdo where the Far-Left were quick to say that Charlie Hebdo was racist and had incited the attack themselves by offending Muslims.

As a friend of mine put it, “The Right and Left are now a parody of each other.” It would be funny if it wasn’t such a dangerous and toxic issue. Hopefully, as these arguments become more familiar in this crossover, more people will see the answer is somewhere in the middle.

For some commentators this attack has bolstered their position. Some supporters of the EDL have rejoiced about it on social media. Muslim rights organisations such as Cage UK and MEND want to scrap the Prevent strategy and make “Islamophobia” a criminal offence and are using this attack for that aim. Piers Morgan managed to shout louder than Tommy Robinson on Good Morning Britain, accusing him of Islamophobia and blasphemy. He insisted that Tommy was being disgraceful and offensive for holding the Qur’an in a way he didn’t like. Piers himself would have been arrested for comments he’s previously made about Islam if he were in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia that enforce the sort of blasphemy laws he was invoking today.

The hypocrisy around this issue has reached an entirely new level. Links: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/the-finsbury-park-attack-was-always-going-to-happen?utm_source=vicefbuk&utm_campaign=globa

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF-94BNfwXA

https://twitter.com/mendcommunity

https://twitter.com/mendcommunity/status/876832178432356352

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/20/lady-warsi-islamophobia-muslims-prejudice

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/19/finsbury-park-preachers-anti-muslim-hate-britain-islamophobia

[futureplanetconcept-blog]

The Role Of Ideology

After every Jihadist Terrorist attack the politicians quickly state, “This terrorist does not represent all Muslims.” Or in the particular case of Manchester, “This terrorist no more represents Muslims, than Jo Cox’s murder represented white people.” Or, even stranger, some have asked, “Does Ian Brady represent all white people?” These are false analogies because they fail to recognise how different ideologies are interpreted, specifically manmade ideology and dogmatic ideology. Whether or not all religions are manmade is irrelevant because that is not how they are believed to be or interpreted.

   Any ideology can inspire any action. In fact, our beliefs always influence our actions. Sometimes we don’t perceive that our actions do come from beliefs because we have substantial evidence to support them. E.g. If you believe it will rain later, you might carry an umbrella when you go out. You might not consider this a belief because you have evidence, the TV weather report told you it was highly likely to rain. Other beliefs are faith based. E.g. I believe England will win the World Cup next year, so I will buy a ticket to the cup final without waiting to see if they make it. With respect to this, the difference of how we interpret our ideologies is crucial.

   The murderer of Jo cox, Thomas Mair, believed that whites are a superior race, that Britain should be independent of Europe, and that it was important to protect it from the supposed threat of immigrants. These are all elements of the ideology of groups like the EDL, but nowhere in the EDL’s manifesto does it say anything about killing politicians, or killing any person, or attacking those of a different race, ethnicity, religion, or political party. Even if it did explicitly say to do those things the manifesto would still not be to blame for the person’s actions because it does not have any authority over an individual. Other than the person’s own authority there is nothing compelling them to follow through with such actions. White Supremacy is recognized as a manmade ideology and is therefore open to human criticism and can be countered by any number of arguments and evidence.

   The same criticism of religious ideologies does not have the same effect because religions are believed to be inspired by a divine dogma. Muslims believe it to be absolutely true that the Quran is the inerrant word of God, and use it as a guide to organize their entire lives around, covering marriage to what to eat and drink. By inserting God as an authority they hold themselves hostage to dogmatic principles. For the believer this means that the ideas within the Quran are the right answer no matter what. They can’t be critically analysed like any other book because they are believed to be incontrovertibly true. Therefore, the ideas within the book influence the believer’s every action. They are not following their own authority because they believe they are answering to a higher power. This faith compels them to act in accordance with Islamic teaching. For example, not eating pork, treating women as second-class citizens, and even killing infidels. The ideology can therefore be held accountable for influencing specific actions because if the same dogmatic principles were applied with different ideas the believer would perform different actions.

   Islam is an ideology that is believed to be divine, so it remains immune to human criticism and counterevidence in the minds of its believers. To convince a Jihadist not to kill a non-believer you have to convince them either that their religion is false, or that the religious idea influencing them to kill has a contradiction from within the same ideology. You can’t convince them that they have no right to kill on the basis that their ideology is just one of many. They believe they have a divine authority and an absolute truth.

   Inserting a Dogma changes the rules that all human beings otherwise live by. It is possible to believe that your ideology is right and accept that it may not be the only way, and that it is not infallible. E.g. I believe England will win the World Cup, but I know that it could be any other team. This system of human criticism and evidence leads to doubt in one’s convictions. Religious ideologies evade this doubt by claiming certainty, and for this reason the ideologies themselves must be examined when subscribers act with this certainty.

[futureplanetconcept-blog]

Without Foreign Interventions, How Do You Stand Up For Human Rights?

...Let's follow Jeremy Corbyn down the terrorism/foreign policy rabbit hole...

If our interventions in the Middle East are to blame for terrorist attacks in the UK, we shouldn’t intervene. Problem solved. But why are we intervening? We want to stop the killing of the wrong-type-of-Muslims by other Muslims. We want to stop Islamists from attacking Hindus (polytheists) in India and South Asia. We want to stop Islamists from invading and destroying the Jews in Israel. We want to stop Islamists from ethnically cleansing North Africa of Christians. That is not to say that all wars are religious and that Islamists are always the agressors, but Islamism is an issue Corbyn seems to deny. What is his foreign policy going to be? Apathy? We don't want to make it our problem? Will he not stand up for human rights globally?

Of course, throughout history there have been some corrupt governments leading us into foreign wars with selfish intentions, but our democratic system and our values have progressed morally away from what it was in the ages of Empires, where European armies took over as much land as they could, enslaved the people, and stole their resources. We have moved on ethically and now have a system where we value all individuals from all cultures. This is the true multi-culturalism value that has developed in Europe since WWII. This means our intentions in the Middle East now are to save and improve the lives of the people who live there, who suffer under oppression and persecution from dictators and cultural traditions. Even if The West did prop up those dictators we have now seen the error of that and are trying to fix it.

The non-intervention idea (with no other solution in mind), is a typical left-wing policy but it is actually illiberal. It’s neglect towards those less fortunate by denying them support. It’s the isolation theory that the US tried, but it failed, and they had to join the fight in WWII. To say we shouldn’t intervene because Islamists don’t like it is to surrender to terrorism. If Corbyn’s solution to terrorism is to stop intervening, what is his policy on Human Rights globally if it does not entail helping those who need it? 

[futureplanetconcept-blog]

The Case For Universal Human Rights

The only thing that is certain is that no one can be certain in his or her religious beliefs because religious belief is based on faith. Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence. Where there is no evidence there can be no certainty. This means that pluralism and secularism is the only thing that can work for everyone because it is not an ideology itself, but the rejection of ideas that have no credibility. It is the default setting. Through Pluralism and Secularism Universal Human Rights can be protected because no individual has the authority to impose any idea on another human being against their will and not without evidence that the idea contributes to the well being of that person.

[futureplanetconcept-blog]

The Islamist Misogyny In The Manchester Bombing

To say “the Manchester bomber targeted children” is true but gives us a warped view of his motivations. It makes him seem like a malicious, psychopath, whose mind we could never understand, when in fact we do know his ideology, and therefore, his motivation. More precisely, those targeted were teenage girls at an Ariana Grande concert. She’s a pop icon and sexually suggestive in her music. So her fans, in the killers mind, are corrupted by western ideas of sex and liberation. This was an attack on women, the right to express their sexuality, and ultimately their freedom. The oppression of women in most Islamic societies is clear to see, and the justification of it in their scriptures is also clear. This attack is most similar to the Orlando shooting in a Gay Club, where the “sin” that was punished that night was Homosexuality. (Not a psychopath. Not a lone wolf. Nothing to do with foreign policy.)

[futureplanetconcept-blog]

Beliefs Matter

To those saying they don't understand how such a coward could kill innocent children, I am perhaps being pedantic by addressing that concern literally, because I do, of course, understand that feeling and am equally sickened, saddened and outraged, but I think this needs to be said... They can do it because our beliefs influence our actions, and specific beliefs have specific consequences.

Examples... 1. If I believe it will rain later, I will carry an umbrella when I go out. 2. If I believe my car takes diesel fuel, I will fit the tank with diesel fuel not petrol. 3. If I believe that God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th, I too will rest on Sundays. 4. If I believe that life begins at the moment of conception and that destroying the embryo is murder, I will protest at Planned Parenthood centres, and warn of the evils of condom use in African villages where there are high levels of STDs. 5. If I believe that dying in defence of my religion is a noble cause that I will be rewarded for in the afterlife, I will be tempted to do it. If I also believe that death is not The End, but rather a "transfer" into a very real paradise, I will be willing to do it because suicide is a worthy cause and is not really dying. 6. If I believe that music is evil, that women are sinful for being openly sexual in public, that non-believers and apostates deserve punishment, and that any innocent children caught up in the punishment will not die, but will transfer directly to paradise.................................. You get suicide bombing at concerts.

Understanding the beliefs means the actions aren't surprising. The longer these ideas are protected from criticism, the longer we can expect more of the same.

Here is an interview with a Taliban member who defends killing innocent school children.

http://www.patheos.com/…/an-ex-muslims-peek-into-the-mind-…/

[futureplanetconcept-blog]

Trump On Syria

If you ask anyone “Was World War 2 a just war?” No one hesitates to answer. They answer (correctly) that Hitler was committing genocide and had to be stopped. The same thing is happening in Syria yet people seem unaware and unmotivated to stop it. President Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people multiple times. He has also used bombs, torture and execution against his people, but it is the chemical warfare that really has the world enraged. Although, not enraged enough to the point of action.

President Obama set a “red line” in 2013 and when Assad crossed it he called Obama’s bluff. Obama did nothing, so as not to get further into a Middle Eastern conflict like the disastrous war in Iraq. I have now learned that he tried to get the approval of Congress, in accordance with the constitution, to attack the Assad Regime but he was denied. This is the legal procedure that Trump has bypassed this week as he launched a missile strike on a Syrian air base said to store chemical weapons.

The response to this is baffling in some ways and yet not surprising. A kind of oxymoron that seems normal with Trump as Commander in Chief. When the latest official death toll was reported in 2016 so many on social media were outraged by the neglect The West had shown the Middle East by not taking action to stop the genocide, but this week as Trump has taken swift action the same people are complaining that the US is bombing people once again. They’re sharing memes like this, “So we’re bombing Syria to stop Syria from bombing Syria.” What is it these people want or expect of the situation?

The facts are that the Assad Regime is killing it’s own people and has used chemical weapons to do so. It is, therefore, clear that Assad does not care for his civilians. He is concerned only about his power and so negotiations at this point seem impossible. There is no chance for a peaceful solution, so a targeted attack on a weapons base to stop further chemical attacks on civilians is a good thing. Clearly the leftist critics haven’t looked that far into the details of the missile strike and must think the US bombed the centre of Damascus. It seems like they are against the action because Trump is calling the shots. His critics on the far-left can be so biased now that they’d probably complain if he legalised abortion nationwide and made it free. There also seems to be an apathetic response that we should keep our hands clean and not get involved. If so many would agree that a pacifist approach to the Nazis would have made us complicit, at some point they have to realise that this, like World War 2, is a just war to stop a genocidal dictator. Further moral blindness from the left is by not recognising the difference between The Wests intentions to save people by military force and the intentions of the dictatorships that murder anyone who stands in their way.

Of course, the situation is more complex. The involvement of Russia and ISIS, and the current US stance on refugees from that region makes the whole situation much more precarious. The US have risked backlash from Russia because Russia are backing Assad, and any action or lack of action serves as a narrative ISIS can use to target recruits. It is also deeply immoral to bomb a country knowing civilians will be caught up in it without offering refuge.

The way in which Trump conducted the situation is cause for concern. As I mentioned, he didn’t get approval from congress so it proves the only certain thing we know about him. That he is predictably unpredictable. There is no strategy behind this strike, and he has given no explanation so far, which is another requirement of the President in a situation like this. While I agree strikes against the Assad Regime are necessary, I don’t believe Trump is doing it for humanitarian reasons. This is him flexing his muscles. He is expressing to North Korea and China that he is willing to use force, and apparently quite wildly. To paraphrase Bill Maher, “[Trump] is still working things out like ‘Oooh, what does this button do?’” This also serves as misdirection in regards to Russia. Those who believe Trump is under Putin’s thumb are now confused as this clearly goes against what Putin would have wanted.

Trump is now doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. The Republicans have no strategy for the Syrian civil war, but have a man in charge willing to press the button without thinking about the consequences. “Bad.” But we already knew he wasn’t qualified for the job. Assad has to go and it will be the correct moral decision to remove him. Every life lost by collateral damage is a tragedy, but so too are the lives we fail to save (and have failed to save) that suffer from chemical gas attacks deployed by their own government. MUST SEE: David Frum and Maajid Nawaz shed light on the situation… http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-is-never-going-to-be-a-proper-president-says-david-frum-1.4061836 https://www.facebook.com/LBC/videos/10154915938511558/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

[futureplanetconcept-blog]

The Social Media Aftermath

In the aftermath of a terrorist attack social media pages go into a frenzy. This is understandable given that everyone is shocked, upset, anxious, scared, and angry that such a vile act has happened on our streets, and that such violence has become commonplace in our cities. The attack in London is, of course, being perceived as an act Islamic Terrorism; therefore, it is received in a predictable way on social media.

 First, the hashtag “PrayForLondon” spreads like wild fire on twitter. Second, everyone’s profile picture changes to the victim nation’s flag. Third, is the denial of any Islamic influence.  “Terrorism has no race, ethnicity, or religion” is the myth we embrace.

The show of solidarity on social media in the wake of the attacks in Paris and Belgium could be cynically viewed as virtue signaling. Most of us presume our neighbours would be saddened by such atrocities; we don’t expect them or need them to declare it publically. However, at this point, post Berlin and London attacks we accept that the social media action is the norm – if we want our friends to see pictures of our meals then surely we also want to share our opinion on a terrorist attack. It is the quickest and most effective way to give a public response on any given topic. I think we should absolutely show solidarity, and if social media is the way to do it most effectively en masse, then so be it. Another benefit of it being used in this way is that it is so visible. The victim’s families can see the huge support from people and that is certainly significant.

 The main problem with the profile picture changes is that the idea stems from the Charlie Hebdo massacre where we all thought we were showing solidarity and respect to the victims, but we actually gave in to the terrorist’s demands. That attack was about enforcing Islamic blasphemy laws on society. Some Muslims believe that the punishment for blasphemy or displaying images of the prophet should be death, and so this group took the law into their own hands and delivered their own justice. Instead of standing up for free speech by publishing the cartoon that triggered a group of Muslims to kill the staff of a magazine, the trend that swept social media was to share a picture of a pencil. This was not a symbol of free speech, but a betrayal of it. Out of fear, not one major media company published the “offensive” cartoon.

The next problem is the denial of Islamic influence. There is a comparison that Jihadist terrorists do no represent Islam, just as Neo-Nazi attacks on immigrants do not represent UKIP, for example. The difference here is crucial. It is a difference of dogmatic belief and manifesto, and it is not simply a matter of interpretation. An “alt right” manifesto can be an ideology that is subscribed to by many, but those people are fully aware that this is just an opinion and not a God given order. However, religious doctrines are believed to be the absolute truth, and are accepted on faith alone. This makes them near impossible to counter-argue if the believer is devout. People often choose to believe that these attacks have nothing to do with religion and will discard religious motives readily. They claim the person was just crazy and had, therefore, wildly misinterpreted the religion or that the murder itself is evidence that murderer cannot be religious. This quote from the Quran is often shared in attempt to prove that.

“If anyone killed a person, it would be as if he killed all of mankind.”

When people who push back on criticism of Islam they usually say, “you’re taking it out of context” or “you’re cherry picking verses,” yet here is a verse cherry picked and misquoted to suggest that Islam has no responsibility. The actual verse reads like this: “Because of that we ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.” – Quran 5:32

The verse clearly states exceptions for retaliation of murder and in war. There is no single person on group authority that can speak for Islam so any of its adherents can interpret this however they like and act accordingly. It is left to the attacker to decide if this is fair retaliation, or an act of “mischief in the land.” To which, no one could credibly say Islam had no responsibility. In accordance with other verses, they also decide who is “innocent.” To address the problem, we must try to understand religion as they understand it and not solely by our own conceptions.

The myth that attacks of this nature have nothing to do with religion, and specifically Islam will be harmful in the long term. How many times do we have to witness a Muslim terrorist invoke their God while murdering someone for us to acknowledge the link? Where straight lines can be drawn between the action and the religious doctrine we must call this out, criticise it, and work to eradicate such harmful beliefs. Here are some straight lines: suicide bombing and the belief in martyrdom, murder of British soldiers in retaliation for war (mischief) in Muslim lands, and death to blasphemers and the idea that God cannot be portrayed in image or insulted.

The problem with our social media trends in the aftermath of terrorism is that they get us no further to a solution and instead we pass around misconceptions of the problem. Of course, the general public shouldn’t need to be experts on Islam -  the onus is on our politicians to address the issues by speaking honestly about them, first of all. Then the public can follow suit and stop digesting and spreading false information. Our illuminated buildings and profile pictures of solidarity will be worthless if we don’t learn from each incident. This is happening too frequently and the global response is the same each time, and frankly not good enough.

[futureplanetconcept-blog]

The Moral Blindness of the Regressive Left

 The “Regressive Left” is “A group of people who place identity, usually placed on immutable characteristics, in a pecking order of social importance, such as race, gender and religion, where victimhood is the highest virtue to be had. This oppression olympics allows groups to compete for who is most oppressed, thus the most virtuous. And if someone isn’t as oppressed as you, then you have full authority to oppress them accordingly.” – Dave Rubin

The “Regressive Left” in the west is causing considerable problems to the progress of civilization by being morally blind to actions that harm liberalism. The term “Regressive Left” is used to describe those who defend groups they perceive to be oppressed without acknowledging that those groups themselves are actually causing some harm to others in society. That is not to say that every member of the group is a problem, but perhaps in some cases aspects of the group’s ideology is. Instead of making civil progress through values like free speech, the Regressive Left is protesting to limit speech, and in their view, it’s in order to protect people from offense. Therefore, this way of thinking is done with good intentions, but ultimately, their shallow understanding of the issues and cultures will create more problems than solutions.

The best way to show the scope of the problem is the countless examples. 

Firstly, the most recent example of the Regressive Left mentality is the protests of Trump’s refugee ban. The ban is about limiting, specifically, Islamic terrorism in the US. The implementation, effectiveness and ethics of it can be debated. However, in response to the ban, an image has been shared via social media with the numbers of deaths from different causes showing that lawn mowers kill more people (69), in the US than Islamic terrorists (9). First of all, that number is wrong. The Orlando shooting took 49 lives and wounded 53 others. Next, it fails to consider the terrorist plots that have been prevented.

Despite the numbers, this is an absolutely useless comparison. Are the people circulating this suggesting we need tougher legislation on lawn mower use and ownership? No, of course not, but they are suggesting that Islamism isn’t as big a threat as those on the right, centre, or the progressive side of left think it is.

The main stat on this ridiculous chart shows that 11,737 people were killed by other Americans with guns. This stat probably includes the Orlando shooting, and therefore removes any religious motivation despite the shooter’s pledge of allegiance to ISIS during the attack. In fact, this stat removes any motive from any murder. Has this person never watched a crime drama? The police always solve murders by discovering the motive.

People’s intentions are everything, and this is why the chart is a ridiculous comparison. The person steering the lawn mower almost certainly killed the person by accident, whereas Jihadist terrorists really do intend to kill people based on their Islamist ideology. The Religion of Peace website shows that 30227 Islamic terrorist attacks have occurred worldwide since September 11th 2001. The Regressive Left claiming that this is a minor problem is absurd.

 The intention here is to state, “Not all Muslims are terrorists.” We know they are not all terrorists. Of course not all Muslims are terrorists. Best estimates show 15-20% of Muslims are Islamists, however, just because it is a small percentage does not mean it is not a problem, especially when it only requires a small number of people to murder a large number of people. It also does not mean that the problem doesn’t have a religious component.

The most common tactic of debate by the Regressive Left is to point out a perceived hypocrisy. When commentators talk about the problems of Islamic Terrorism, the comeback is usually that Christians and other religions have also had terrorist adherents. It should be a stance of the left and liberalism to speak out against all terrorism or harmful practices. Instead we are seeing people defend Islam because its accusers are perceived to be picking on it instead of criticizing all religions equally. Another failing here is the idea that all religions are equally good and bad, when in actuality there are specific tenets that influence specific actions and behaviour.

In a similar scenario, the Regressive Left will make corrections that offer no solution or acknowledgement to any problem, but rather deflect responsibility. When questioned about the practice of FGM among Muslim communities, Reza Aslan said “FGM is an African problem not a Muslim problem.” If that is the case, it is still a problem, and Muslims (including non Africans) still practice it with theological justifications even if the theology is based on African practices. Again, liberals should be concerned when such barbarism is practiced anywhere instead of shifting blame.

The Regressive Left in its various forms is forgetting liberal principles, is blind to specific instances, and ignorant of facts. It is those with this mentality that are campaigning for safe spaces on campuses to hide from offense and banning speakers from universities who have a different point of view. They have forgotten that free speech is the right that protects everyone equally. These people have no objection to a feminist icon like Ayaan Hirsi Ali being placed on a list of Anti-Muslim extremists for her legitimate criticism of Islam despite her being a victim of FGM and living with death threats from Muslims. Similarly, they are happy to see someone be punched in the face for expressing an alternative opinion.

During WWII, the Jewish people specifically were being persecuted. Today, in the Middle East, Christians, Jews, and Yazidis are being persecuted specifically because of their religion. If asylum is about protecting those most vulnerable, then priority refuge should be given to these groups, but because Muslims are a minority in the west this is perceived to be bigoted against Muslims. In this case, this is a difficult issue because Muslims are also in extreme danger from other Muslims, which is another point that the Regressive Left fails to notice.

These things are hypocritical and show a total disregard for liberal values. We should hold all individuals to the same standard and not exonerate anyone that violates another’s human rights or protect people from criticism no matter their culture or beliefs. The blame game, identity politics, and inapt comparisons only help to strengthen those who threaten our values and mean us harm by misguiding people away from the facts of a given situation.

[futureplanetconcept-blog]

Trump’s Muslim Ban

President Trump has signed an executive order to prioritise Christian over Muslim refugees. This is an example of Trump acting on an ounce of truth but far from a full understanding of the situation. It is true that the Islamic State is persecuting Christians, Jews and Yazidis, among other minorities in Iraq and Syria. However, ISIS is also targeting Muslims for being the wrong type of Muslim or not conforming to their policies. So it is impossible to prioritise refugees based on religion when all are in danger.

It also true that Islam currently poses more of a threat than other religions. A tiny percentage of Muslims are terrorists, but 100% of Jihadists are Muslim. There is a significant ideological aspect to the problem. Should the US take measures to prevent Islamic terrorism? Yes. Is banning all Muslims a good strategy? No.

There is an Us vs. Them narrative in play as Muslims struggle with their identity in western societies that have some reservations to elements of Islam. Obama refused to name Islamism as the ideology most threatening to western society because he didn’t want to enrage Muslims by acknowledging it had something to do with Islam. An absurd idea suggesting that many moderate Muslims would become terrorists if he said the US was challenging Islamic Extremism. If he had differentiated Islamism, the desire to politically impose Islam on society, from Islam as practiced by individuals without political motives, he would have protected those Muslims who do now feel threatened by a backlash from bigots in the west. He would have reassured the Democrat voters who voted Republican this one time based on this single issue that the Democrats would have tackled it more effectively. Obama and Clinton let fear and hysteria fester and Trump thrived on it.

Trump is, of course, ill informed on this topic, as he seems to be about everything. He is setting up a restriction that actually will play into the Us vs. Them narrative. He is not making any distinctions between Islamists and moderate Muslims, and western Muslims may well see this as an attack on Muslims on the whole. Bin Laden wanted a long drawn out war in Afghanistan and he got it. ISIS wants America and Europe to demonize all Muslims so to extend the war, Trump has now granted that request.

Trump’s list of countries does not include the countries where the 9/11 hijackers came from and he has so far failed to acknowledge that many Jihadists are homegrown, like in the case of Boston and Orlando, or white western converts to Islam. This ban of refugees, which is apparently in effect for 120 days while they improve the vetting system, is a quick answer to a very complicated problem. We know that war hasn’t solved it, and we can be sure that banning travel and immigration will not solve it because the problem is ideological. Where is Trump’s strategy to tackle the causes of Islamic extremism?

If our terror-free future is to come through a reformation of Islam, only Muslims can achieve this and non-Muslims must support and encourage it however they can. Should this ban become a long term plan, it is the reformist Muslims we will have sacrificed. We won’t see the likes of Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Raif Badawi emerging and changing the minds of the Muslim Community if we don’t offer support to their project.

[futureplanetconcept-blog]

The Ever Defiant Donald Trump

Donald Trump might be the pettiest man on the planet. It seems he is always in an argument with someone on Twitter, from celebrities like Bill Maher, to just random people who want to troll him. He always has to have the last word. This was mildly amusing when he was just an annoying celebrity with an orange face, but now he is the President of the United States, and his posts on Twitter are a matter of national security.

Throughout his campaign, Trump was defiant and that is what his supporters liked about him. It was unconventional that he was even running, and his character followed suit. He was different to all other candidates, he spoke with careless controversy, and he would contradict any criticism no matter how truthful. Most people hoped, or expected him to start acting “presidential” when he was elected, but given his first week in charge, it’s clear that isn’t going to happen. His constant Twitter usage attests to it. Instead of focusing on being President, he is still condemning the news media, attacking Clinton voters (who he is now supposed to be working for, not just his own tribe), and gossiping about TV ratings.

This unprecedented use of social media is an act of defiance. He is controlling everything himself because his ego is most important to him. He is trying to shut down various media for criticizing him, and will reliably lie to protect his ego. In his CIA speech he claimed a million and a half people were at his inauguration, and that the rain stopped immediately when he started his speech.

His first acts as President are a display of power over the people, not for them. The more criticism he gets, the more likely he is to act in complete opposition to protests. Was it a coincidence that he scrapped abortion aid to foreign countries the day after the Women’s March? Surely, that wasn’t a top priority. It was a demonstration, and a “fuck you” to protesters. It seems he is reversing many of the executive orders Obama made just to show disapproval of Obama’s Presidency, and he will continue to make any executive order he can to show his audacity and to defy anyone who goes against him.

Most of us will have a friend like this who’ll never let an argument rest and refuse to be mocked in anyway despite mocking all other friends in the group, and we tend to let them get away with their behaviour to limit their damage. We have now elected this person to be President, the egomaniac that holds grudges and is utterly reckless. How do we limit the damage and retain our values while he runs amok?

[futureplanetconcept-blog]

Hypocrisy - part 2

Hypocrisy is a major problem in our current political discourse from politicians down to the public who have aligned on either side. Being a hypocrite discredits your own voice and your following arguments despite the validity of them. If you are seen to lie on one topic, then it is fair to assume you may lie on others. 

The US election came down to this because of the two, frankly, appalling options to choose from. You were forced to choose who was less worse than the other, rather than who was better than the other.

There is also a huge grey area because an election covers many issues, and it is unlikely that you will agree with one candidate on every topic. For example, you may have supported Clinton for her focus on Women’s health care despite knowing that she was allied with Saudi Arabia who commits a shocking number of human rights violations against women. This makes Clinton a hypocrite but not the voter. The same can be said about Trump on the exact same point, but from the opposite side. He vowed to tackle Islamic extremism partly because of its treatment of women, yet he said many sexist remarks and even assaulted a woman.

These poor standards have pitted the opposing sides against each other fiercely and the perception of the other is that they fully support everything their candidate has said. That is obviously incorrect. The hypocrisies have been used to attack supporters in the debate among the general public.

The first of these hypocrisies has to be the generalizations. The Left are focused on stopping stereotyping of minority groups, yet in this argument they’re more than happy to label Trump’s supporters as “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” etc. because Trump has proven himself to be those things. The Right accuses the protesters of being violent and sore losers even though there were large protests after Obama was elected. The hypocrisy is often tied in with stubbornness. There is proof that Trump has lied multiple times, yet his supporters will deny the charges as much as he does. Do these people really want to ban abortion or build a wall that much? Or is it somewhat a matter of tribalism? In the end they will have cut their nose off to spite their face. Trump has stacked his cabinet with inexperienced millionaires even though he had promised to “drain the swamp.”

Hypocrisy in the media is also a problem. News outlets should pride themselves on providing factual reports, yet that is not what we are seeing. The Huffington Post and CNN showed an inaccurate photo comparing the inauguration crowds of Trump and Obama as an attempt to claim some sort of win for the Left. It was unnecessary because Obama’s crowd was in fact bigger, but not by the margin they claimed it was. The truth should always be enough, but nowadays the media seem to think differently when they have a clear agenda. As the media compete with each other they like to point out the errors of other news reports with no consideration of their own dishonesty.

Social media is filled with memes and videos that serve a dual purpose. Firstly, to portray a message, and secondly, to get likes and views. It’s arguable which one takes priority. The nature of social media also means that the message never has to be verified, so we see so many attacks from both Left and Right without proper evidence.

This in-group out-group divide has led people to not value evidence, but instead to value the effectiveness of propaganda and to forget their principles. If the Left are concerned about Trump’s lies and his supporter’s denial of those lies, it is not a good tactic to smear him in response. Although, some are justly wondering how his lies haven’t tripped him up yet, and if they continue not to, how can the truth effectively be used to reason with someone?

The division of people is also leading groups to align with others that contradict their values. For example, feminist groups will often support movements stopping “Islamophobia” as a liberal cause and in the process they ignore women in the Muslim communities who are institutionally abused from religious practices. The English Defense League opposes the spread of Islam whilst insisting that England is a Christian nation, but freedom of religion requires secularism. George Bush claimed he had God on his side as he declared war on Iraq. There was a group set up called “Queers for Palestine” who seemingly ignored that homosexuals have almost no rights at all in Palestine.

Our values don’t have to be mutually exclusive. You can support multiple things at once and various points from two opposing sides. It is the group mentality that overlooks contradictions in order to preserve the group. This acceptance of hypocrisy is straying us away from rational thought and evidence. No one should choose to be wrong for a moment later than they are proven to be so. It does not show you have strong principles by doing so. Instead, it should be a principle to change your opinion if new evidence is persuasive enough. If we continue in this way there won’t be a high road left to take.

[futureplanetconcept-blog]

Hypocrisy - Part 1

Paul Joseph Watson, editor-at-large of Infowars, and now a prominent social media voice for the right-wing shared this post with the caption, “How Trump Happened.”

Brendan O’neill - “Trump?! How did this happen?!?!”

It happened because you banned super-sized sodas. And smoking in parks. And offensive ideas on campus. Because you branded people who oppose gay marriage as ‘homophobic,’ and people unsure about immigration as ‘racist.’ Because you treated people owning a gun and never having eaten a quinoa as signifiers of ‘fascism.’ Because you though correcting people’s attitudes was important than finding them jobs. Because you turned ‘white man’ from a description into an insult. Because you used slurs like ‘denier’ and ‘dangerous’ against anyone who doesn’t share your eco-pieties. Because you treated dissent as hate speech and criticism of Obama as extremism. Because you talked more about gender neutral toilets than home repossessions. Because you beautified Caitlyn Jenner. Because you policed people’s language, rubbished their parenting skills, took the piss out of their beliefs. Because you cried when someone mocked the Koran but laughed when they mocked the Bible. Because you said criticizing Islam is Islamophobia. Because you kept telling people “you can’t think that, you can’t say that, you can’t do that.” Because you turned politics into something done by for people into something done to them for their own good. Because you treated people like shit, and people don’t like being treated like shit. Trump happened because of you.

It does hit on some of the issues, but is also a mess of error and hypocrisy. The solution, as I advocate, lies somewhere in the middle. So let’s analyse it...

1. Super-size sodas? It’s free refills everywhere. A small size can easily be made into a super size if you get up off your arse and refill it.

2. Smoking in parks? If you want to smoke you are free to do so in private (and no one is challenging that freedom), but not where it damages the health of others, and the evidence shows that it does affect others. What is unfair about that?

3. Banning offensive ideas on campus is a very stupid move by the left. They have caved under pressure from those who wish to stop any criticism. Freedom of speech is the right that ensures all other rights – we cannot forget that.

4. Being against marriage equality is “homophobic.” What legitimate reason do you have to oppose a gay marriage that isn’t suggesting the superiority of heterosexuals? If your objection is at the word “homophobic” being used as a tarnishing label, like “racist,” “bigot,” and “Islamphobe,” (and we’ll get into that) then that is a misunderstanding. Homophobic can’t be applied in the same way because being gay is not a choice or an idea, so I refer you back to my original question.

5. It is dumb of the Left to brand those who have concerns about immigration as ‘racist.’ The word is used to stop debate and it certainly offers no viable plan for integration or controlling illegal immigration.

 6. I have no idea what Quinoa is. More labels branded by the left that have no grounds. Obviously, it is not fascist to own a gun, or to not want to give it up. There are plenty of good reasons for better and safer gun control but fascism doesn’t rank among them.

7. “Correcting people’s attitudes was more important than finding them jobs.”

That is two problems lumped together with no relevance to each other in any way. Do Trump supporters not have jobs? Does every person ranting to someone on Facebook about racism and sexism have a job to offer? Okay, I can actually see your point. Liberals have their priorities wrong, right? “Correcting people’s attitudes” is about making sure everyone is cared for, that includes the unemployed. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. The liberal public can’t be blamed for choices the Obama administration made, or policies they tried that failed. An argument against Trump is not an endorsement for every Democrat policy.

8. “White man” generally isn’t used as an insult but as an identifier of privilege and plea to consider the struggles of other races in our society, explicitly because of their race. Of course, as pointed out by the unemployment rates, white-men are also struggling because of various factors, but they aren’t struggling because of race. However, there are those on the left that do use “white male” to suggest that that person’s opinion is invalid. Ironically, it’s normally a white person making this point. Let’s stop identity politics.

 9. Climate change is a fact. Being a ‘denier’ is not a respectable belief, it is being objectively wrong.

10. You are well within your rights to criticize Obama. Others are within theirs to criticize Trump.

11. You rubbished your own parenting skills. “This generation are a bunch of spoilt brats, who are too sensitive because they were awarded participation trophies” was the most common insult of young protesters. Who spoiled the brats with participation awards, I wonder?

12. “Because you took the piss out of people’s beliefs. Because you cried when someone mocked the Quran, but laughed when they mocked the bible. Because you said criticizing Islam is Islamophobia.” The left’s blindness towards immoral Islamic doctrines is definitely worrying, and the accusations of Islamophobia, as well as some of the other labels were definitely used to stop debate. Look at your double standards, though. You complained that your beliefs were criticized and simultaneously complained that you were being stopped from criticizing other’s beliefs.

13. “You treated people like shit.” Are you saying you were treated like shit when someone complained about your homophobia, or your disgust at Caitlyn Jenner and gender neutral toilets? So, you were treated like shit because someone stood up to you treating people like shit? I’m not accusing you of hating Caitlyn Jenner or being homophobic, but if this is a complaint about the left, I struggle to see how someone on the left would have been “treating you like shit” if it wasn’t by opposing one of these typical issues.

So much of this election has been Us vs. Them rhetoric and therefore has been extremely hypocritical. I think people on both sides main objection was the other candidate, because of their corruption or misogyny, among other flaws, and what that symbolizes when that person becomes Commander in Chief. For many people a vote for Clinton was a vote against Trump, likewise a vote for Trump was a vote against Clinton. Which way a person voted out of only two (terrible) options does not reveal that person’s entire ideology.

“How Trump Happened” is interesting. It seems to mostly be a response from the inaction or over-action of the far left. It’s time to stop the labeling because that is a form of tarring everyone with the same brush (hypocrisy from the left), and means we’re arguing against opinions we think people have rather than what they actually have. Stop the hypocrisy of the Us vs. Them debate. Stop denying problems when the evidence is clear.

[futureplanetconcept-blog]

N.B. I acknowledge that any idea for change can be considered 'idealistic' - so I use the term here to mean 'progressive liberalism' given that Obama was a Democrat. Check out this article for an excellent analysis of the Obama legacy. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/15/obama-s-legacy-the-imperial-presidency-that-he-passes-on-to-trump.html

Obama: The President We Deserved But Not The One We Needed

President Obama is the ideal President. He is a man of exceptional intelligence, composure, and class. A quick glance through anyone’s Facebook newsfeed this week will prove his popularity from the amount of videos circulating of his great speeches, his fun interactions with the public, and his love for his family. His cool factor is at a level few politicians could ever dream of having.

When he speaks on any topic it’s clear that he has studied it in depth, and that he is incredibly passionate about his ideas for change and new policies. No one could rattle him in interviews even on the most difficult subjects. He speaks elegantly, with rational sense and with complete self-control. His speeches are always powerful not only in content but also delivery. In 8 years, you could count the times he made an “mmm” pause on only one hand.

 The changes he wanted to implement were all idealistic, such as, Obamacare, marriage equality, getting out of wars, and reducing gun crime. However, after 2 terms it seems they were not realistic. Obama arrived at a time of financial crisis, a surge of social justice battles, and various terrorist threats. This meant that not everyone was in a position to be as progressive as he was, therefore, he faced varying degrees of resistance to his ideas that perhaps he wasn’t anticipating and so it contributed to the polarizing of opinions. Most notable resistance was from his successor who claimed for years that Obama was not a legal citizen. How frustrating it must have been that that was the level of rationale he was challenged by – the complete opposite end of the scale to his own.

Obama had all the right ideas, the charisma, and leadership to be a great President, but he arrived too early in time to set in motion the change he had envisioned. He underestimated the effects getting out of the Middle East would have on the region (and the world), and he overestimated the people’s ability to welcome social equality changes at home. This was his failure, and his legacy is, regrettably, Donald Trump. Hopefully, soon, we will see the ideal future Obama had in mind, but our lesson from history should be that too much change too quickly doesn’t work. Consider that Martin Luther King jr was marching through American cities 100 years after the abolishment of slavery, sometimes that’s how slowly things can progress.

 Although, we should always strive for a better world, we have to deal with it in real terms and not by how we would like them to be. And so, we had a President who was calm, compassionate, progressive, wise, and knowledgeable. He was a real people’s champion, but at a time where we needed someone who understood the present situation more than the ideal future.

[futureplanetconcept-blog]

Obama: The President We Deserved But Not The One We Needed

President Obama is the ideal President. He is a man of exceptional intelligence, composure, and class. A quick glance through anyone’s Facebook newsfeed this week will prove his popularity from the amount of videos circulating of his great speeches, his fun interactions with the public, and his love for his family. His cool factor is at a level few politicians could ever dream of having.

When he speaks on any topic it’s clear that he has studied it in depth, and that he is incredibly passionate about his ideas for change and new policies. No one could rattle him in interviews even on the most difficult subjects. He speaks elegantly, with rational sense and with complete self-control. His speeches are always powerful not only in content but also delivery. In 8 years, you could count the times he made an “mmm” pause on only one hand.

 The changes he wanted to implement were all idealistic, such as, Obamacare, marriage equality, getting out of wars, and reducing gun crime. However, after 2 terms it seems they were not realistic. Obama arrived at a time of financial crisis, a surge of social justice battles, and various terrorist threats. This meant that not everyone was in a position to be as progressive as he was, therefore, he faced varying degrees of resistance to his ideas that perhaps he wasn’t anticipating and so it contributed to the polarizing of opinions. Most notable resistance was from his successor who claimed for years that Obama was not a legal citizen. How frustrating it must have been that that was the level of rationale he was challenged by – the complete opposite end of the scale to his own.

Obama had all the right ideas, the charisma, and leadership to be a great President, but he arrived too early in time to set in motion the change he had envisioned. He underestimated the effects getting out of the Middle East would have on the region (and the world), and he overestimated the people’s ability to welcome social equality changes at home. This was his failure, and his legacy is, regrettably, Donald Trump. Hopefully, soon, we will see the ideal future Obama had in mind, but our lesson from history should be that too much change too quickly doesn’t work. Consider that Martin Luther King jr was marching through American cities 100 years after the abolishment of slavery, sometimes that’s how slowly things can progress.

 Although, we should always strive for a better world, we have to deal with it in real terms and not by how we would like them to be. And so, we had a President who was calm, compassionate, progressive, wise, and knowledgeable. He was a real people’s champion, but at a time where we needed someone who understood the present situation more than the ideal future.