(Interesting read that invokes Greek masters of rhetoric , its value in human affairs and current political affairs. F. Sheikh)

When it comes to rhetoric, Plato was right and Aristotle — not so much.

Distilled, Aristotle thought rhetoric good for democracy, though his definition of “by the people” was closer to our Founding Fathers’ intent of only certain people than to today’s more-the-merrier model. Given this assumption of a narrow, educated, self-governing populace, Aristotle likely envisioned that those practicing rhetoric would be guided by accepted rules of argument and engagement, emphasizing ethos (trust and credibility), pathos (appropriate use of emotion) and logos (logical argument and facts).

Plato, who was Aristotle’s mentor, thought otherwise — that rhetoric, or the art of persuasion, in the wrong hands was dangerous and likely to be abused to appeal to people’s base motives. He foresaw the unethical, dishonest uses that a skilled but immoral speaker could put his persuasive powers to, with credulous people eager to believe or buy whatever he was selling.

Which brings us unavoidably to Donald Trump, as if you hadn’t guessed.

We at least owe Trump thanks for bringing these two ancient philosophers out of history’s woodwork and back into the conversation. Trump also has inspired reconsideration of rhetoric’s rightful place in the classroom, where it was once considered an essential component of “a gentleman’s” education.

One such classroom can be found at the University of Virginia School of Law, where I was recently a guest lecturer. What better time to be reviewing rhetoric’s ancient rules and modern applications than during a presidential election that features one of the most blazing examples of unsavory rhetoric since Clark Stanley boiled a live rattlesnake at the 1893 World’s Fair in Chicago?

Click link for article;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/plato-would-have-predicted–and-been-horrified-by–trumps-rise/2016/04/26/3805cb80-0bec-11e6-a6b6-2e6de3695b0e_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

( A worth reading opinion column by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in Washington Post. F. Sheikh)

America faces a life-threatening illness even more deadly than the Zika or Ebola viruses: “Political correctness is killing our country,” Donald Trumpwarned on the “Today” show last month. Ben Carson told Bill O’Reilly last summer, when he was the leading Republican presidential candidate, that political correctness was “destroying our nation.” Ted Cruz criticizedPresident Obama’s ISIS strategy by claiming “political correctness is killing people.” Carly Fiorina said, “Political correctness is now choking candid conversation.” Marco Rubio complained that he doesn’t discuss his faith in public was because “I had been conditioned by political correctness.” Jeb Bush agreed: “The political correctness of our country needs to be shattered.”

Despite the uninhibited insults they’ve hurled at each other for the past couple months (Bush called Trump “unhinged”; Trump called Cruz “the definition of sleaze”; Rubio called Cruz a liar), the candidates who have sought the GOP nomination this year seem to agree that soft-pedaling our rhetoric is a mortal danger to the country. And a majority of Americans are with them: A Rasmussen Reports poll found that 79 percent of American adults think political correctness is a serious problem in the United States,

with 58 percent believing that the country has become too politically correct. Of those who believe we’re being too careful, 74 percent of Republicans, 66 percent of those not affiliated with a major political party and 35 percent of Democrats concur. Only 18 percent think we aren’t politically correct enough.

This is nonsense. Although the extremes of political correctness can sometimes be absurd, America needs this trend to help it fulfill the spirit of the Constitution. Our country was founded on principles of inclusion, which means acting compassionately toward the many different people who make up our nation. Almost every group who immigrated to America was at one time the outsider — mistreated, abused and taunted. Maturity means not having to relive our mistakes of the past, but learning from them and doing better. Our country needs more sensitivity, not less.

*          *          *          *         *          *

The apocalyptic backlash against a benign combination of good old-fashioned manners and simple sensitivity toward others is easy to understand. Many Americans feel growing rage, fear and frustration as the country continues to evolve into something different than what they are used to. Plus, new technology accelerates cultural change, and the erosion of familiar and comforting traditions leaves us uncertain and uncomfortable. Every generation mourns the loss of the good old days, and the perception of changeisn’t entirely imagined. For instance, in 1960, 73 percent of children age 18 and under lived in a home with two heterosexual parents in their first marriage. Now only 46 percent do. The country is 62 percent white today; whites will be a minority by 2043.

It’s true that efforts to show sensitivity and inclusiveness can go too far. It’s especially striking on campus: A survey at Yale University found 63 percent of students wanting professors to issue “trigger warnings” before saying anything that someone might find offensive or traumatic. Critics say the “microaggression movement” coddles students who should expect to be challenged to better prepare them for the real world outside. And students did seem coddled when 25 of them staged a UCLA sit-in because a professor corrected spelling and grammar errors on graduate-level essays. (They accused him of creating a “hostile campus climate” for students of color.) University of New Hampshire students received a list of resources to help them avoid offensive language such as “American” (because it suggests the United States is the only country in the Americas), homosexual (should be “same gender loving”), elderly (“people of advanced age”) and healthy (“non-disabled”). Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock say they won’t play college campuses anymore because the climate is so restrictive. Bill Maherclaims that “political correctness Nazis” “hound me to censor every joke and apologize for every single slight.

Outside the academy, some Americans have bridled at movements to replace “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays,” which seems to them a sinister attempt to restrict religious expression rather than a way to include non-Christians in the holiday spirit.

Here’s the problem with these attacks, though: Every political and social policy or tradition has examples of excess. We don’t define the value of a policy based on its most extreme manifestations. We can point to the absurd behavior of zealots around all of our most cherished values. We poke fun at helicopter parents for being overprotective, but we don’t erase safety laws and regulations that protect children.

A fairer critique would ask whether political correctness had solved the problem it was devised to address: Has it scrubbed away American prejudices? Certainly not yet, and of course it’s impossible to tell whether political correctness is even helping to diminish these, given how many other factors can influence behavior. But the task is worthy and vast: to erase centuries of bias in our country’s collective unconscious — and one way to do that is with language. For the same reason we no longer use terms that came to seem pejorative (Negro, colored, chick, bitch), we should eschew phrases tinged with hate (fag, cripple, retard) from our vocabulary.

There is some evidence that this works. Research at Cornell Universityconcluded that political correctness may aid the creativity of mixed-sex work teams by “reducing the uncertainty that people tend to experience while interacting with the opposite sex,” according to associate professor of organizational behavior Jack Goncalo. “[E]stablishing a clear guideline for how to behave appropriately in mixed-sex groups made both men and women more comfortable sharing their creative ideas,” he said.

Even on a purely anecdotal level, we can look around and see younger generations growing up to be more aware of instances of discrimination based on gender, race, religion, or gender identity and not accepting them. Armed with this awareness, young people are less likely to accept bullying or exploitation simply because it’s endorsed by a social code. (“Glee,” “Modern Family” and Macklemore’s “Same Love” are a few examples of pop-culture pushback.) They will be more self-reliant, stronger and more tolerant of others. Better Americans.

PC’s opponents point to its most extreme examples to argue for doing exactly what we did before political correctness showed us the racism, misogyny and homophobia embedded in our language: Nothing. Deriding political correctness gives people permission not to fix a problem, because the real problem, they tell us, is the cure. This is the logic of vaccination deniers and climate-change skeptics. Or all those hard-core smokers back in the 1960s and ’70s who laughed at the warning labels about the damage cigarette smoking could do. They accused the government of being a scold and boostedcigarette sales by over 7.8 billion in 1966, the year the labels first appeared on cigarette packs. Arrogantly clinging to wrong-headed traditions is not good for the country. Read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/22/kareem-abdul-jabbar-in-defense-of-political-correctness/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

” Trial Of Anjem Choudary, Defending Rights Of Extremists & Quandary Of Freedom Of Speech”

By Duncan Pike

“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels,”wrote H.L. Mencken. “For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”

Mencken dealt with a considerable cast of charlatans and rabble-rousers in his own day, but he could have been thinking of someone exactly like Anjem Choudary when he made his remark. Choudary, a British Islamist cleric, made the news recently when he was charged and taken into custody for “inviting support” for the Islamic State “in individual lectures which were subsequently published online.” After several delays, his trial is scheduled to begin March 7.

Choudary is in the news a lot, in fact, and as ‘scoundrels’ go has few contemporary equals. He is a familiar figure in the British media; well-spoken and self-assured, he frequently appears on television and gives interviews to argue in support of ISIS and other extreme Islamist causes. He has mastered the art of gaining publicity through statements and actions carefully calculated to incite outrage and inspire sensationalistic tabloid headlines.

Choudary has called the September 11 hijackers “magnificent martyrs,” and stated that non-Muslims cannot, by definition, be considered innocent: “When we say ‘innocent people,’ we mean Muslims—as far as non-Muslims are concerned they have not accepted Islam and as far as we are concerned that is a crime against God.” As for permissible tactics when confronting such ‘criminals,’ Choudary is unequivocal: “Terrorizing the enemy is, in fact, part of Islam,” he told Russia Today. “This is something that we must embrace and understand as far as the jurisprudence of jihad is concerned.”

Choudary has a flair for touching off gratuitous media spectacles and earning mass attention with little more than a press release. In 2010, Choudary announced that his group, Islam4UK, would march through the town of Wootton Bassett carrying hundreds of coffins, symbolizing Afghani Muslims who were “killed for political mileage and for the greedy interests of the oppressive US and UK regimes.” Wootton Bassett had previously obtained a degree of reverence in the UK as the site of solemn and well-attended funeral processions for British soldiers killed in the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—similar to Canada’s “Highway of Heroes.” This was so perfectly crafted to spark outrage that one can almost admire the skill involved. Islam4UK was furiously condemned by groups across the political spectrum, as well as by many Muslim organizations, with then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown calling the plans “abhorrent and offensive.” In the end, the march never went ahead: Choudary had already gained maximum media coverage, the point of the exercise.

Some might understandably read all of this and think, pace Mencken, that what we have here is something far worse than a mere scoundrel. And indeed, while Choudary has never been accused of direct involvement in acts of violence, he has unquestionably influenced some who have. One of the murderers of British Army soldier Lee Rigby in 2013 was formerly a member of Choudary’s Al-Muhajiroun extremist organization, and was reportedly heavily influenced by Choudary’s preaching. Likewise, a 2011 report by the Henry Jackson Society found 25 terrorism convictions between 1999 and 2010 were connected to Al-Muhajiroun, the precursor to Islam4UK.

As Douglas Murray, associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, told me, “[Choudary’s] followers have been involved in most of the major plots in the UK, including the attempt to do a Mumbai-style attack on the London Stock Exchange.”

Still, and to be perfectly clear, Choudary is not being charged with planning terrorist attacks, raising money for a terrorist organization or even the nebulous crime of ‘inciting violence.’ He is being charged with expressing a political opinion. The charges come under Section 12 of the UK’s 2000 Terrorism Act, which states that a person commits an offence if he “invites support for a proscribed organisation” or “addresses a meeting and the purpose of his address is to encourage support for a proscribed organisation or to further its activities.”

http://www.cjfe.org/the_free_speech_quandary_defending_the_rights_of_extremists

or

https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/free-speech-and-double-standards-2/

posted by f. sheikh

Shared by,Syed Ehtisham

In the Name of God, the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate Executive Summary of the Marrakesh Declaration on the Rights of Religious Minorities in Predominantly Muslim Majority Communities 25th-27th January 2016 WHEREAS, conditions in various parts of the Muslim World have deteriorated dangerously due to the use of violence and armed struggle as a tool for settling conflicts and imposing one’s point of view; WHEREAS, this situation has also weakened the authority of legitimate governments and enabled criminal groups to issue edicts attributed to Islam, but which, in fact, alarmingly distort its fundamental principles and goals in ways that have seriously harmed the population as a whole; WHEREAS, this year marks the 1,400th anniversary of the Charter of Medina, a constitutional contract between the Prophet Muhammad, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, and the people of Medina, which guaranteed the religious liberty of all, regardless of faith; WHEREAS, hundreds of Muslim scholars and intellectuals from over 120 countries, along with representatives of Islamic and international organizations, as well as leaders from diverse religious groups and nationalities, gathered in Marrakesh on this date to rearm the principles of the Charter of Medina at a major conference; WHEREAS, this conference was held under the auspices of His Majesty, King Mohammed VI of Morocco, and organized jointly by the Ministry of Endowment and Islamic Aairs in the Kingdom of Morocco and the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies based in the United Arab Emirates; AND NOTING the gravity of this situation aicting Muslims as well as peoples of other faiths throughout the world, and after thorough deliberation and discussion, the convened Muslim scholars and intellectuals: DECLARE HEREBY our firm commitment to the principles articulated in the Charter of Medina, whose provisions contained a number of the principles of constitutional contractual citizenship, such as freedom of movement, property ownership, mutual solidarity and defense, as well as principles of justice and equality before the law; and that, The objectives of the Charter of Medina provide a suitable framework for national constitutions in countries with Muslim majorities, and the United Nations Charter and related documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are in harmony with the Charter of Medina, including consideration for public order. NOTING FURTHER that deep reflection upon the various crises aicting humanity underscores the inevitable and urgent need for cooperation among all religious groups, we AFFIRM HEREBY that such cooperation must be based on a “Common Word,” requiring that such cooperation must go beyond mutual tolerance and respect, to providing full protection for the rights and liberties to all religious groups in a civilized manner that eschews coercion, bias, and arrogance. BASED ON ALL OF THE ABOVE, we hereby: Call upon Muslim scholars and intellectuals around the world to develop a jurisprudence of the concept of “citizenship” which is inclusive of diverse groups. Such jurisprudence shall be rooted in Islamic tradition and principles and mindful of global changes. Urge Muslim educational institutions and authorities to conduct a courageous review of educational curricula that addesses honestly and eectively any material that instigates aggression and extremism, leads to war and chaos, and results in the destruction of our shared societies; Call upon politicians and decision makers to take the political and legal steps necessary to establish a constitutional contractual relationship among its citizens, and to support all formulations and initiatives that aim to fortify relations and understanding among the various religious groups in the Muslim World; Call upon the educated, artistic, and creative members of our societies, as well as organizations of civil society, to establish a broad movement for the just treatment of religious minorites in Muslim countries and to raise awareness as to their rights, and to work together to ensure the success of these eorts. Call upon the various religious groups bound by the same national fabric to address their mutual state of selective amnesia that blocks memories of centuries of joint and shared living on the same land; we call upon them to rebuild the past by reviving this tradition of conviviality, and restoring our shared trust that has been eroded by extremists using acts of terror and aggression; Call upon representatives of the various religions, sects and denominations to confront all forms of religious bigotry, villification, and denegration of what people hold sacred, as well as all speech that promote hatred and bigotry; AND FINALLY, AFFIRM that it is unconscionable to employ religion for the purpose of aggressing upon the rights of religious minorities in Muslim countries. Marrakesh January 2016 ,27th In the Name of God, the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate Executive Summary of the Marrakesh Declaration on the Rights of Religious Minorities in Predominantly Muslim Majority Communities 25th-27th January 2016 WHEREAS, conditions in various parts of the Muslim World have deteriorated dangerously due to the use of violence and armed struggle as a tool for settling conflicts and imposing one’s point of view; WHEREAS, this situation has also weakened the authority of legitimate governments and enabled criminal groups to issue edicts attributed to Islam, but which, in fact, alarmingly distort its fundamental principles and goals in ways that have seriously harmed the population as a whole; WHEREAS, this year marks the 1,400th anniversary of the Charter of Medina, a constitutional contract between the Prophet Muhammad, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, and the people of Medina, which guaranteed the religious liberty of all, regardless of faith; WHEREAS, hundreds of Muslim scholars and intellectuals from over 120 countries, along with representatives of Islamic and international organizations, as well as leaders from diverse religious groups and nationalities, gathered in Marrakesh on this date to rearm the principles of the Charter of Medina at a major conference; WHEREAS, this conference was held under the auspices of His Majesty, King Mohammed VI of Morocco, and organized jointly by the Ministry of Endowment and Islamic Aairs in the Kingdom of Morocco and the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies based in the United Arab Emirates; AND NOTING the gravity of this situation aicting Muslims as well as peoples of other faiths throughout the world, and after thorough deliberation and discussion, the convened Muslim scholars and intellectuals: DECLARE HEREBY our firm commitment to the principles articulated in the Charter of Medina,