u/Tanksfly1939

I usually don't agree with with sub on quite a lot of issues, but I figured this is still the best place to post. People here would at least be more constructive than, say, in r/Islam.

When we see all the sorrow, oppression and unfairness taking place all over the world--how honest, hardworking people suffer while tyrants and snakes get away scot free--we often ask why a kind and merciful God would put his creations through all of this suffering.

We are invariably told that "it's a test from God", as if all of this hardship is just a temporary prelude to some kind of eternal pleasure and fulfilness (in this world or the next), while wrongdoers will also inevitably face justice sooner or later.

Aside from the fact that this "final reward" or "ultimate justice" never comes for countless people (at least in this world), why would God put his subjects through these "tests" to begin with? If God was truly both merciful and omnipotent, wouldn't he eliminate all of those hardships and ensure a truly carefree existence for his creations?

Now, to be clear, I am no Atheist or ex-Muslim, nor do I want this post to serve as ammunition for Islamophobia or anti-theism. However, during times of hardship, I often find myself sympathising with Atheists who also tend to ask these kinds of questions.

Like, why would God let his creations suffer so much just to "test" them?

It's literally all over my Facebook feed.

Apparently, a lot of roadside vendors and hawkers have been staging some kind of huge protest in response to the SCC evicting them from the streets. It has already been an issue for a couple of years, but things are really heating up quite a bit right now.

Of course, the comment sections (and most of the "Free Sylot" pages) are so full of bigotry towards "Abadis" that it felt like I accidentally walked into a Sylheti KKK rally. But I'm not delving too much into this topic since it has already been talked to death in this sub.

However, although FB comments generally tend to be a terrible representation of public opinion, a very large portion of Sylhetis do appear to be very much against the protests.

I've been away from Sylhet for over 3 years now, and so am kinda out of the loop regarding whatever's going on there. So can anyone who still lives there enlighten me regarding what is actually going on?

Gist is in the title basically. Arabic is deeply revered by many non-Arab Muslims (especially in South Asia), and knowledge and fluency in Arabic is often seen as strong evidence of religious devotion. This often leads to cases where religious non-Arab Muslims go out of their way to incorporate Arabic words into their daily vocabulary while also trying to sound more "Arab" (e.g., by saying "Ramadan" instead of "Ramazan", or "Suhoor" instead of "Sehri").

Of course, this is all very understandable since Arabic is the liturgical language of Islam, and the Quran (a.k.a, the *literal word of God himself* for Muslims) is also written in Arabic. I'm passing no particular judgement here.

However, I am curious as to how Muslims *Arabs* view their own language in this regard. I'm under the impression that, since they actually use Arabic in all aspects of their lives (not just religion), that religious reverence of Arabic would be a lot less potent.

Even if Jamaat or other such groups are just as bad as the BJP deep down, they don't seem to have the courage to be blunt or open about their extremist views, and very often get ridiculed or criticised when they do have slip ups.

Meanwhile, BJP politicians are out publically espousing genocidal rhetoric towards Indian Muslims. Assam's CM's (Chief Minister) casually posts images of himself pointing a gun at Muslim caricatures and gets applauded for it. Not to mention how WB's new CM publically says things like, "Only Muslims voted for Trinomool, Hindus and everyone else voted for us".

Imagine if Sadik Kayem openly said stuff like "only Muslims voted for Shibir, Hindus voted for League and Baam". The entirety of Bangladeshi social media would be up in arms, and Sadik's political opponents would have a field day tearing apart his reputation.

Not saying that extremism isn't a major problem in BD either, but why isn't it allowed to roam as freely in BD as it is in India?

The following text outlines my own observations regarding the state of Sylhet's economy (particularly Sylhet city). It explores the factors that makes Sylhet's economy truly unique from other regions in BD, as well as their implications for Sylhet's long-term economic tragectory.

I personally tended to feel pretty pessimistic regarding Sylhet's economic future.

1. The handful of sectors Sylhet's economy excessively depends on (e.g., remittances, tourism, tea) are not only at the mercy of external factors beyond its control, but remittances in particular (which have long insulated Sylhetis from the socioeconomic realities of BD) are also about to be hit hard by economic downturns + stricter immigration laws in the West.

2. Although those remittances have done wonders for Sylhet's economy in the past, they've also led people to neglect other vital sectors such as education, investment and infrastructure, resulting in a Nauru-esque "resource curse" of sorts:

> "why study for a degree or build a new road in my village, when I can just hop onto a plane to Heathrow and make a quick buck that way?"

The result is widespread poverty and low social mobility (especially for those living in tea plantations or haor areas) among those without the backing of rich relatives.

3. The prosperity stereotypically associated with Sylhet is also only really true for a minority of very rich and influential families rather than the majority. This steep social inequality, coupled with the aforementioned economic insulation, has created a tribalist and reactionary climate that is hostile towards any whiff of dissent or social change.

Given these factors, I'm highly doubtful whether Sylhet can develop economically while still retaining its unique cultural identity. It isn't just the poverty or standards of living for the majority, but also the friction between the strong reactionary elements of Sylheti society and the rapid social changes it will inevitably have to confront, which will cause a lot of social upheaval and internal resentment later down the line.

Although the presence of many Sylheti people in the new BNP government may offer a glimmer of hope, even they cannot do much if the underlying structural issues I mentioned aren't addressed. It is high time the more educated or better off of Sylhet's residents discussed all of these issues more openly and loudly.

Even with all of those social constraints, awareness and acknowledgement can go a long way into laying the groundwork for positive change in the long-run.

The Fast and Thinking models work just fine (tho the response times seem a bit long), but the Pro model almost instantly crashes with a "Something went wrong" message literally every time I give it a prompt.

Am I the only one having this issue? Or is Gemini Pro itself not working right now?

I don't have a Pro subscription btw

Türkiye under Atatürk is well known for its very radical and controversial French-style secularism. It viewed the Ottomans as religiously backwards, and instead sought to push religion away public life and disassociate Turkish identity from Islam. Needless to say, they weren't very fond of Islam or religion in general.

So why the hell does their flag still has that crescent on it? It's not only the most universally recognisable symbol of Islam, but the specific type of crescent is also basically the exact one used by those "backwards" Ottomans. It's basically equivalent to the Jacobins putting a cross on the French flag.

**(In case that latter statement sounds hyperbolic, keep in mind that Atatürk's policies were and are extremely radical and controversial by wider Muslim standards of the time, even if they're pretty benign from a modern European perspective)**

So why is this the case? If the Turks really wanted to de-emphasize their Muslim identity in favor of a purely ethnic Turkish one, wouldn't they not want a crescent (an explicit symbol of Islam) on their national flag?

Straight to the point: I am Sylheti by birth (as in I was fully born and raised there) but have non-Sylheti parents. I'm kind of in an uncanny valley where I'm noy fully Sylheti, but not fully "Abadi" either.

And this puts me in a hilarious contempt crossfire between both racist Sylhetis *and* racist non-Sylhetis. The former hate me for being an "Abadi", while the latter hate me for being "Sylodi" or having a "Sylodi" (read: "geraimma" or "oshuddho") accent.

For one, although I *personally* never really faced much hate or contempt from other Sylhetis for my origins, many of my other relatives *have* often complained about the whole "Abadi" garbage they face from other "purer" Sylhetis.

But then I move outside of Sylhet (Dhaka, specifically), and non-Sylhetis (not all or most, but still many) treat me either as an "oshikkhito gorib" for my non-standard accent, or as an exotic circus animal whose entire identity hinges on being a Sylheti with a "funny accent". Although I'm sure a lot of them didn't actually mean it, I've often felt singled out as an unwelcome foreigner or minority regardless.

This is probably why many other Sylhetis often avoid revealing their Sylheti identity to non-Sylhetis, especially if they live outside Sylhet, 'cause they understandably don't want to face that kind of shit.

If there is a moral to this story (I don't like writing posts without conclusions), it is that hate and prejudice has no identity or origin. It doesn't matter if you're Sylheti or not; if you're act like an asshole, you *are* an asshole and deserved to be treated as such.