My Name is Sadiq Khan

My Name is Sadiq Khan

This picture was published in The Nation newspaper on May 08, 2016.

My View Of The Picture:

A great change was experienced in London in the month of May when Mr. Sadiq Khan was elected Mayor of London. For the first time in the history of London a Muslim became Mayor. Politically, Mr. Khan was the Member of Parliament for Tooting (constituency in the House of Commons) from 2005-2016. He belongs to a British Pakistani Family and his father was a bus driver. I personally never heard about Mr. Khan before his victory as Mayor. His win and his statement addressing Donald Trump forced me to learn a little more about him.

Mr. Khan in his statement said “Donald Trump’s ignorant view of Islam could make both our countries less safe – it risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays into the hands of the extremists. Donald Trump and those around him think that western liberal values are incompatible with mainstream Islam – London has proved him wrong”. Very nice Mr. Khan! You bluntly slapped down the views of Donald Trump and people like him. Looking at today’s world we see unrest, killing, madness and a lust for money everywhere. People like Trump are making this world more unsafe and fragile by giving mad statements. Not only Mr. Khan but Paris Mayor also said “Donald Trump is so stupid”. A good sign that people around the world think that he is a danger to the World. But let’s see whether American people think in the same way or not. It is amazing to see that Mr. Trump is in the final lineup of Presidential race by Republicans, which shows that many Americans want to see Donald Trump as next President of America. Oh my God! Fasten your seatbelts if he will be the next President of America and able to do what he is saying now.

Mr. Khan, very rightly said that people like Donald Trump are making both America and England less safe. Seems that he is sensibly predicting the outcome of irrational statements from Mr. Trump. Donald & Co are just acting like a bully boy in school. They are playing with fire! We are already facing sponsored terrorism around the world and due to such acts people who want to feel normal will only feel more unsafe and suppressed by Trump statements. As a result of this bully, suppressed people will eventually react violently just like in school when the bully suppresses many until one day one of his many victims gathers his courage and beats that bully. So, Mr. Trump, actually you are making your country more unsafe as stated and predicted by Mr. Khan. The world needs some calmness, some peace instead of more fights, killings and violence.

Looking at the picture, confident Mr. Khan is taking an oath on the Quran to become Mayor formally, I hope and pray that he will act like a true Muslim and try his best to make this world more peaceful, at least to the extent of his ambit.  Already Muslims and the image of their religion are being badly tarnished due to sponsored terrorism, fake Muslims and by those Muslims who do not know about the true spirit of Islam.

Therefore, Good Luck Mr. Khan! The task ahead is tough because it’s not only America who acts like a bully but your country always acts as an accomplice.


Poll of the Post

Will Mr. Khan able to bring positive change in the society of London?


9 Comments on My Name is Sadiq Khan

  1. A British citizen has been elected by British citizens (particularly the Londoners) and this has not happened the first time. In Britain everyone is a citizen having all civil and political and other rights. No second grade citizen. The state treats everyone equally really equally. If people see it as a great change (in the context of Nationalism – Pakistani Family – or in the context of religion – Muslim) then at least it is the beauty and triumph of secularism, and democracy, among other things.

    How innocent and how ignorant and how naive and how self-absolving to say: ‘ignorant view of Islam’, and other statements of such nature i.e. misunderstanding about Islam, misguided Muslims, misinterpretation, so on and so forth. If that is so then what is the ‘knowledgeable view of Islam’ and whose responsibility is it to present that to ‘ignorant others’ and who is guilty? One can very easily say others ‘ignorant’. But who is to blame: ‘the ignorant’ or ‘the knowledgeable’? Someone who is neither ‘ignorant’ nor ‘knowledgeable’ tries to look in the mirror, cannot, looks down, walks away, wondering about all this blame game.

    “Donald Trump and those around him think that western liberal values are incompatible with mainstream Islam – London has proved him wrong”. I don’t remember that Mr. Trump has made such a comparison or has implied such a thing. If he has done so one wonders what are ‘western liberal values’ and what is ‘mainstream Islam’? And more importantly why add qualification (mainstream) to Islam: is ‘mainstream Islam’ one thing and Islam other? Giving benefit of doubt, perhaps it is mainstream Muslims or mainstream followers of Islam. Okay if that is so just think that what mainstream followers of Islam think of the west and of the ‘western liberal values’? Any knowledgeable reader knows. And just think of the situation if Mr. Khan had stated that what such followers think. And one again wonders. If ‘London has proved him [Mr. Trump] wrong’ then who has been proven right? The western liberal values have been proven right by western people (here British citizens, the Londoners). By the way London has proved none wrong, but only proved that London has a system that is ingrained in ‘western liberal values’ and that system is working and bearing fruits for everyone.

    If Mr. Trump became president it would be the same system through which Mr. Khan became Mayor.

    Okay if he became president what he would do one cannot predict. Political campaign speeches are one thing and public office responsibilities are another thing. The statements Mr. Trump has been making one can hear around the world when the election campaigns start. Any knowledgeable reader knows that to what extremes followers of religions/ideologies go against others. And one should not be afraid (however, criticism and making Mr. Trump realize to use his senses before speaking is another thing). The United States of America has a Constitution. It has laws under that Constitution. USA is a country ruled by laws and not by men/women. However, like many Americans I am not for Mr. Trump. There is a way to deal with such a phenomenon and Americans know that.

    It was said ‘They [Mr. Trump. Donald & Co] are playing with fire!’ Two things. First, what is or who is ‘fire’? Is ‘fire’ Muslims? If that is so then this statement is not a peacemaker as it is threatening that don’t play with fire — otherwise? If ‘fire’ is terrorism (I would not use the term ‘sponsored terrorism’, although everything in this world is sponsored excepting perhaps a lonely man or woman in a jungle) then again it is a threatening statement. If not a threat but a fact then it acknowledges that ‘fire’ exists and in that case the problem is ‘fire’ not anyone who is point outing towards ‘fire’ and the question again comes whose duty or responsibility is it to extinguish that fire? In the same way it was said ‘suppressed people will eventually react violently’. And I go with the same reaction that I have given above. When one has decided to go for peace then language of violence should not be used. No need to threaten other, though it be bully.

    It is very very rare that the victims of bully unite against bully. Self-interests are great hurdle in these projects of unity (though to make a good person out of a bully is in everyone’s self-interest but even then). By the way if ever bully victims were nearing their unity the school term ended and the game was over. By the way there are grades of bullies. A strong bully. A weak bully. Weak bully cries against strong bully. But there is also a weaker bully who cries against weak bully. And this goes down unless the weakest bully does not find anyone to bully. Further when one is describing someone as bully one is admitting that one is weak and one is victim and one should be shown pity. I don’t think that it is the way to live in this world at least for those who want to get rid of bullies.

    It was said ‘I hope and pray that he will act like a true Muslim’. As I said ‘A British citizen has been elected by British citizens’. And what is or who is ‘true Muslim’? And when it is said that one can be a true Muslim then it follows that there can be other kinds of Muslims (as at other place ‘fake Muslims’ has been mentioned). And if there can be several kinds of Muslims then when one kind of Muslim commits some wrong then it cannot be said that he/she is not a Muslim (by calling him/her ‘fake Muslim’) just to avoid tarnishing. As all the crimes are committed by humans and one cannot say that the criminal is not human (just because he/she is not a true human).

    It was said ‘Already Muslims and the image of their religion are being badly tarnished due to sponsored terrorism, fake Muslims and by those Muslims who do not know about the true spirit of Islam.’ Whether these are ‘true Muslims’ whose image is being ‘tarnished’ or all the Muslims (including all types) or else? If I am not wrong Muslims believe that none can tarnish one’s reputation, and respect and tarnishing are in the hands of God. And if I am not wrong Muslims also believe that everyone is responsible for his/her actions (conduct) and one loses respect only because of his/her actions. If that is so then why blame someone else. And if I am not wrong Muslims also believe that Islam is forever and God is its protector then why fear?

    The quoted statement uses the words ‘their [Muslims’] religion’. It is perhaps inadvertent mistake. As Islam is not Muslim’s religion but Muslims are those people who follow the religion of Islam. According to Islamic teachings it is for all human beings. However, I pointed this out to avoid any misinterpretation by those who don’t know Islamic teachings.

    ‘Sponsored terrorism’ is a disputed and difficult and complex subject. Full of hypotheses, theories (including conspiracy theories), assertions. So as I said above I cannot go for this term. If this term has to be used then it should be mentioned that who is sponsoring what kind of terrorism to avoid ambiguity (and though it is easy to assert who is sponsoring one kind of terrorism but it is very difficult to produce evidence). However, terrorism is terrorism. Whether sponsored or whether result of extremism or whether result of misinterpretation. Once again even sponsored terrorism cannot tarnish Muslims or Islam. What can tarnish are Muslims’ actions. I have not heard any state head saying that Muslims are terrorists or Islam is a religion of terrorism.

    If the quoted statement is taken as it is then at least last part (‘those Muslims who do not know about the true spirit of Islam’) contradicts the first two assertions (‘sponsored terrorism’, and ‘fake Muslims’). The last part also gives a fodder to those who claim that Muslims are terrorist because it is being admitted that there are Muslims (though of one kind) who are related to the issue of tarnishing. And if there are such Muslims then again why blame ‘sponsored terrorism’. And why blame Mr. Trump if he uses such instances. Blame (perhaps responsibility) lies somewhere else. And I am reminded of someone who tried to look in the mirror but could not.

    It was said lastly ‘it’s not only America who acts like a bully but your [Mr. Khan] country always acts as an accomplice.’ This is the general attitude of Muslims towards these two countries unless they are not there. When they are there then what happens. Whole world of opportunities lies before them. They become citizens. They participate in politics. They get elected. It is pity that instead of analysing one occurrence we generalise and blame America or other countries. Even if there comes evidence of their involvement why not speak of other participants. To speak of America as a ‘bully’ and UK as an ‘accomplice’ does no benefit to people who don’t like America and UK (though these people’s egos’ may get satisfaction by judging others instead of themselves by shifting blame) and does no damage to America and UK. Instead of making assertions and generalizing about everything let’s try to look in the mirror. It is pity that on the one hand America and UK are portrayed as enemies (forgetting that millions of Muslims live their and not as ordinary residents but citizens) on the other hand successes of Muslim citizens of America and UK are celebrated. I wonder is this not hypocrisy or to put mildly are not these double-standards?

    As it is said don’t hate the person but their action so it should be the case with states that don’t hate (criticize) them rather criticize their particular actions and criticism and passing judgments is not same. If judgment is to be passed then it must be based on evidence for the occurrence in question.

    Long live humanity through human beings.

    A to B: Who are you?

    B: I am a human.

    A: That’s enough for me.

    • that deserve to be a post. 🙂 any how short reply of your comment from my side. I personally think you have mixed up the things. World needs to be calm not the hell which super powers are fueling more and more. So just to be popular we should refrain ourselves to give such remarks as Mr Trump is doing. Secondly if Mr. Trump has something wrong in his mind then it does not mean its because of Muslims. Lastly the recent reports from UK regarding British part in Iraq wars are not enough to let us know who are the big culprits? though now they will say sorry and will start again destructing the world.

      • My point is that analysis should not be one-sided and should not be generalized and every character in the story should be mentioned. It should be objective analysis, occurrence specific, and if the most prominent wrong-doer is to be charged then the less prominent ones (though they may be the main cause) should also be held accountable. To say that ‘super powers are fueling more and more’ and that they ‘will start again destructing the world’ are one-sided views (other characters are missing). If someone is to be charged it should be the particular person/group belonging to a state and not the entire state like you charged ‘it’s not only America who acts like a bully but your country always acts as an accomplice.’

        If super-powers don’t act like a superman but like a super-power (as super-powers do) they are not the only ones to blame and those who give them excuses or fodder should also be blamed.

        I got the impression from reading the blog that America and UK are responsible for everything and they are the aggressors and they are the ones who are the cause of miseries of Muslims. I object to this kind of analysis because, if not Muslims generally (like other ordinary human beings—including Americans and British people generally — they (Muslims) cannot be blamed), Muslim leaders should not be left from the analysis and should also be charged and held accountable. What Muslim leaders have been doing and are doing should also be taken into account. Muslim leaders too have been accomplice in many of the ugly things that we are facing today. Terrorism in Pakistan is a living example. I don’t think that it is anything to do with Muslims v. Non-Muslims, or East v. West, or Pakistan v. America/West. It is all about power and power has no religion, no race, and no nationality. The powerful do whatever they think is required to be in power.

        Mr. Trump’s remarks in question are worth condemning (and hate speech against any community, including Americans/Non-Muslims/West, should be condemned), but it is not Mr. Trump alone who is doing that. Politicians in political campaigns do such things. And from where something wrong came in the mind of Mr. Trump, of course due to actions of certain elements who call themselves Muslims (not because of Muslims generally) and that is the fodder/excuse. Why don’t Muslims themselves burn this fodder to ashes?

        • When we talk about issues between two groups, it should be analysed from both sides. For example when there is conflict between Muslim world and America plus UK. Both should be discussed. What Muslims did wrong and what America and UK did wrong. However, we know that America and UK has power so those who are powerful have more responsibility they should act more sensibly. Unfortunately, being powerful, instead of being responsible, America and UK reacted with extreme irresponsibly. Most of the unrest in the world is due to super powers. Iraq case is one big example. It is unfortunate that so many innocent people are being killed either by America or UK or so called Muslims which are not Muslims in my dictionary but still followers of both keep justifying such act.

    • Current situation around the world is very gloomy. The only thing we can do; be hopeful, speak up and don’t add miseries

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.