You cannot apply ethical principles to gauge a discipline whose primary pursuit is power. There will never be ethical politicians. There will be politicians who best serve your interests. And to serve these interests, they need power, & power is amoral - as noted by both Nietzsche & the more recent Robert Greene.
The reason many get disappointed with the politicians they elect, is because they impose subjective and tribal moral aspirations on an endeavour that's not fuelled by it, and would better serve the pulpit.
Realising this, the politician only needs to perform the voter's ethical aspirations to ascend to power before disrobing.
Any endeavour that demands human consensus cannot be sustained by ethical aspirations, because each human has subjective interests, which he can only attain through tribal negotiation.
And if it's possible to have ethical politicians, then list one ethical political leader in history, and I will point you to an aggrieved party.
You mean well in aspiring to ethical politics. It's noble and necessary: but it's not the ultimate currency. And it's important to understand this distinction. Only then can a community truly amass the necessary resources to realize their interests, to better their collective welfare.
Maza sun dauki mata a matsayin bayi, su kuma mata sun raina mazan suna ganin matsayin su daya (gender equality), maza bama kyautata zamantakewa kuma bama kyautata sakin ma da aka halatta; mata ma basa yi ma maza biyayya kuma suna ganin auren ma ba a bakin komai ba; dukan mu bama yi ma auren kallon ibada. Abinda muke gani shine, ‘yar wa zan aura don in dinga cika baki a cikin abokaina, haka ma matan wanene za su aura wanda yau suna Disney Land, gobe suna Maldives, jibi suna Santorini; haka dai haka dai. Dole aure ya dinga mutuwa kuwa! Mu koma ga Allah a lamuran mu; kyautata niyyar yin auren, daukar shi a matsayin ibadah, kudurin yin adalci, da sauran su.
“Marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one” (An-Nisa 4:3).
The verse opens a permission tied to a condition (justice), it doesn’t command it. The language here is one of allowance.
Unlike sunan such as witr, there’s no hadith where the Prophet ﷺ says something like “whoever marries more than one wife has done well” or frames polygyny as spiritually meritorious in itself.
Contrast this with something like getting married in general, which does carry that language (“marriage is from my sunnah,” and warnings against celibacy). Marriage itself leans toward sunnah/mustahabb for one who has the means and desire. Adding additional wives beyond that doesn’t carry the same textual weight.
You have to stand for something for your life to have meaning. You're an insignificant collections of bones and flesh, all you have is that spirit to stand for something beyond yourself.
it is an unwritten rule of life that after every prolonged period of hardship and uncertainty, there is going to be a period when you are going to achieve quantum leaps across multiple areas of your life. the only requirement is that you do not give up on yourself.
That reading is dying only attests to the supremacy of writing in the realm of intelligentsia because we generally tend to pivot to the least exerting ventures/mediums as human beings (game theory). The easier an activity, the more the subscribers. Because speech merely relays what's been birthed by writing. The very first evidence of thought is the written word. That first letter "A" we recited in nursery school was a written word first.
Anyone with a ring light on TikTok makes a sage. And all it takes is speech. It takes no exertion to say this and that, especially, when the applause is immediate. Now try writing a page, alone at night. Thread it into something - a story, a poem, music - without the applause, when it's just you and the darkness of the night. And you know, in the end, you will be judged entirely by the final output as a whole. Not the way you looked, how you were seated or standing, how you pronounced words, or the sound bites. None of that is held in regard if the writing is not coherent.
Yet, in speech, incoherence can still be forgiven if you look good, have a nice voice, had exceptional accompanying gestures etc. The author is not afforded such luxury. The only measure of his intelligence is the words crafted on the piece of paper. He must deliver exceptionally well to be afforded even a glance. Hence the "don't judge a book by it's cover". The scrutiny of his intelligence begins right from the title of the book.
You can say speech is relevant today, yes. But because it's a low hanging fruit. Mass consumption is not evidence of intelligence. Quite the opposite.
Due to fifa's new H2H rules, for the first time in World Cup history, we will see 2 teams actively wanting to lose a match. In the Austria vs Algeria match, both teams are safely through after beating Jordan due to the new H2H rule. However, the team that finishes in 2nd in Group J will face Spain, when the team that finishes 3rd will likely face Switzerland. Obviously with neither team wanting to face Spain, Austria will be hoping to lose and drop down to 3rd, whilst Alergia will be hoping for a draw or a loss to stay 3rd...
What a bizarre outcome this is.. 🤯