What I Learned When I Put the Screen Down and Opened a Book for My Grandchildren

 I watch Raahima when she’s being read to. Not distracted. Not restless. Just still in that rare way children are when something inside them clicks into place.

A grandparent reading a book to a young child, showing quiet learning and shared attention without screens


A book opens. A voice changes slightly. A pause hangs in the air before the next sentence. And Raahima leans in — not physically always, sometimes it’s just her eyes — as if she knows something important is happening, even if she can’t name it yet.

Her mother, a PhD in Human Resources, reads to her the way serious people read to children. Slowly. Repeating a line if it feels right. Letting the rhythm do the work. There’s no rush to finish the book. That’s not the point. The point is the moment itself.

Her aunt, Dr. Maryam, does the same. Another voice. Another cadence. Another way of holding a story in the air long enough for it to settle. Raahima doesn’t know what degrees are. She doesn’t know what research means. But she knows voices. She knows presence. She knows when someone is truly with her.

And then there is Salar.

Older now. Curious in a different way. When his mother — a researcher and Doctor of Pharmacy — reads to him, you can see the questions forming before he asks them. He interrupts sometimes. Not because he’s bored, but because the story has stirred something. A connection. A challenge. A thought that wants out.

This is how learning begins. Not with devices. Not with interfaces. But with attention — shared attention — which is a fragile thing and strangely powerful.

I wish I could say I always understood this.

The truth is, I didn’t.

Lately, I had been giving Raahima far more screen time than I care to admit. Sometimes out of convenience. Sometimes out of fatigue. Sometimes because it felt harmless. A few minutes. Then a few more. A bright screen. A quiet child. Temporary peace.

Maryam argued with me about it. More than once. Gently, but firmly. She didn’t moralize. She didn’t dramatize. She just kept saying, this isn’t neutral. I listened, but not fully. It’s easy to nod and move on when the consequences don’t announce themselves immediately.

Then I watched a short video about children’s brain development. Nothing sensational. No scolding tone. Just small habits. Ordinary things. The kind that don’t trend because they’re too simple.
(5 Tiny Habits That Supercharge Your Child’s Brain Development.)

And I felt something close to a shudder.

Not guilt, exactly. Something heavier. Recognition.

I saw my own behavior reflected back at me — the casual way screens had slipped into moments that didn’t need them. The way silence had begun to feel uncomfortable. The way distraction had masqueraded as harmless entertainment.

I thought of Raahima’s eyes when she listens to a story. How different that stillness feels from the glazed calm of a child absorbed by a screen. One is alive. The other is quiet in a way that asks nothing of her.

None of this feels revolutionary inside our family. It feels obvious. Ordinary. The kind of thing people have done for generations without needing to justify it.

And yet, out there in the world, this simple act has quietly become controversial.

For years, we were told — confidently, relentlessly — that screens were the future of learning. That faster meant better. That interactive meant deeper. That children would thrive if we placed the right technology in their hands early enough.

But sitting with Raahima and Salar, watching them respond to books and voices and pages you can turn, it’s hard not to notice something else.

They remember.

Not everything. No one does. But they remember the feeling of the story. The sound of the words. The comfort of being read to. Salar recalls passages weeks later. Raahima lights up at a familiar line, a repeated phrase, a character she recognizes. There is continuity. Texture. Memory with weight.

Screens rarely offer that. They offer stimulation. Movement. Speed. But speed has a cost. It moves on before anything can sink in.

I’m not anti-technology. No one in this family is. Scientists, researchers, professionals — we live with technology every day. We rely on it. We respect it.

But that’s precisely why we’re cautious with it around children now.

People who spend their lives studying systems tend to notice patterns others miss. One of those patterns is this: the human mind does not absorb meaning at the pace machines deliver information.

Children need slowness. Repetition. Even boredom. They need time for a sentence to echo. For a question to form. For imagination to wander without being hijacked by the next animation.

When Raahima listens to a story, nothing else competes for her attention. No pop-ups. No sudden noises. Just the voice, the book, the shared space between adult and child.

That shared space matters more than we like to admit.

It’s where trust forms. Where language becomes intimate. Where thinking feels safe.

I’ve seen Salar struggle with a word, pause, look up, and try again — because the environment allows him to. No pressure to move on. Just patience.

Watching them now, I don’t see children being prepared for some abstract future. I see children becoming themselves — steadily, imperfectly, humanly.

That feels like preparation enough.

I didn’t need a policy debate to learn this.
I didn’t need to win an argument either.

I just needed to stop, watch, and admit — quietly — that something precious deserved more protection than I had been giving it.

Sometimes wisdom arrives like that.
Not loudly.
Not triumphantly.
Just in time.

Why Trump Suddenly Talked About Cuba

 It wasn’t about missiles. It was about fear, geography, and making Ukraine disappear.

Illustration showing Cuba highlighted near the United States as Donald Trump speaks, symbolizing geopolitical signaling and Cold War style rhetoric.


When Donald Trump mentioned Cuba again, the reaction was predictable. Old Cold War nerves twitched. Commentators reached for familiar phrases. Bay of Pigs. Missile Crisis. Russia at America’s doorstep.

But this was not a warning about Havana. It was a signal about Washington.

Trump did not bring up Cuba because a new crisis is unfolding there. He brought it up because Cuba remains one of the few places where America’s power can still be performed cheaply. No troops. No new wars. No congressional votes. Just memory and proximity.

That matters in an election year.

Cuba as Political Short-Hand

Cuba works in American politics the way Kashmir works in South Asia or Taiwan works in East Asia. It is less a place than a symbol. Mentioning it compresses decades of fear into one word. The public does the rest.

For American audiences, Cuba still carries the echo of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The mere suggestion of renewed attention there implies seriousness, danger, and leadership without demanding evidence of an actual threat.

Trump understands this instinctively. His political style relies on emotional geography. He names places that feel close, personal, and existential. Ukraine feels distant. Cuba does not.

So when Trump talks about Cuba, he is not updating foreign policy. He is updating the emotional map of American voters.

What Trump Wants to Achieve

First, he wants to recenter the idea of American primacy in its own hemisphere.

Trump’s foreign policy has always been territorial rather than ideological. He does not speak the language of alliances or values. He speaks the language of borders, backyards, and control. Cuba sits inside that frame perfectly.

Talking about Cuba reinforces the idea that the Western Hemisphere is America’s space. It signals that any foreign presence there, especially Russian, is inherently illegitimate. This plays well with voters who are skeptical of overseas commitments but deeply attached to the idea of homeland dominance.

Second, Trump wants to shift attention away from Ukraine without appearing weak.

Ukraine has become expensive in every sense. Financially. Politically. Emotionally. Public fatigue is visible. Trump cannot simply abandon the issue without consequences, but he can dilute it.

By redirecting attention to Cuba, he reframes the conversation. The danger is no longer something happening in Eastern Europe. It is something implied near Florida. This allows Trump to argue for restraint abroad while sounding vigilant at home.

It is not a retreat. It is a reorientation.

Third, Trump wants to preempt Russia’s signaling strategy.

Russia has used Cuba in recent years as a low-cost way to irritate Washington. Naval visits. Military cooperation agreements. Symbolic gestures designed to suggest reach without escalation.

By talking about Cuba first, Trump flips the script. He turns Russia’s quiet signal into a loud, domesticated talking point. Any Russian move afterward looks reactive rather than strategic. This is narrative containment, not military deterrence.

Why This Is Not a New Missile Crisis

The article you referenced is clear on one point. This is not 1962.

Russia today is not the Soviet Union. It lacks the economic capacity to subsidize Cuba at scale. It lacks the political appetite for permanent escalation in the U.S. backyard. Most importantly, it lacks the strategic payoff that nuclear brinkmanship once offered.

Cuba, meanwhile, is not a revolutionary prize. It is an economic liability. A country struggling with fuel shortages, blackouts, declining tourism, and shrinking remittances. Any serious militarization would make its internal crisis worse, not better.

Trump knows this. His advisers know this. Moscow knows this too.

Which is precisely why Cuba is useful as talk rather than action.

The View from the Global South

From Karachi, this rhetoric sounds familiar.

Countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Cuba have long been used as reference points in larger power games. Not because of what they are doing, but because of where they sit on the map.

In those moments, sovereignty becomes secondary to signaling. Economies become collateral. Ordinary people absorb the pressure while larger powers exchange messages.

Trump’s Cuba talk fits this pattern neatly. It treats the island less as a society and more as a sentence in someone else’s speech.

That is why the danger here is not escalation. It is normalization.

Normalizing the idea that small countries exist as levers. That proximity equals permission. That hardship is acceptable if it serves a strategic narrative.

What This Tells Us About Trump’s Worldview

Trump’s reference to Cuba reveals something consistent about his approach to power.

He prefers symbolic dominance over structural solutions.

He prefers short-term narrative wins over long-term stability.

And he prefers geographic intimidation over alliance management.

Cuba allows all three.

It offers the appearance of toughness without the cost of commitment. It allows Trump to sound decisive while keeping options open. And it plays directly into an American political tradition that still thinks in hemispheres and backyards.

The Real Question

The real question is not whether Cuba is becoming a flashpoint.

The real question is whether global politics is sliding back into a language where countries are valued less for their people and more for their usefulness as signals.

Trump did not revive the Cold War. But he did remind everyone how easily its habits can be reused.

And for those of us watching from outside Washington, that reminder lands less like strategy and more like déjà vu.

When Memory Dies, Lies Rush In: Why Holocaust Ignorance Is Dangerous

 

A quiet Holocaust memorial at dawn with a single candle symbolizing remembrance and fading historical memory.


Holocaust ignorance isn’t about books. It’s about what societies choose to forget.

I recently read a piece arguing that Americans need better Holocaust education. The author cited polls showing that many young people don’t know when the Holocaust happened, how Hitler came to power, or even what Auschwitz was.

The reaction was predictable. Some readers were alarmed. Others pushed back.
Not everyone reads history books, they said. Not everyone studies international relations.

Both sides are talking past the real issue.

This isn’t about turning every citizen into a historian. It’s about what happens to a society when its most catastrophic crimes slip out of shared memory.

I didn’t inherit this history. I learned it.

I didn’t grow up surrounded by survivors or family stories. I learned about the Holocaust the slow, unglamorous way. Books. Newspapers. Documentaries. Courses on international relations where history refused to stay abstract.

Once you’ve learned it properly, denial stops sounding provocative and starts sounding obscene. The scale alone makes denial collapse under its own weight.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth. Most people don’t learn history that way. They absorb it passively. From schools, culture, television, headlines, and now social media.

When those systems weaken, ignorance spreads. Not malicious ignorance. Just absence.

And absence never stays empty.

The real danger isn’t ignorance. It’s what fills the gap.

When collective memory fades, three things rush in fast.

Distortion.
Minimization.
Justification.

First the numbers are debated. Then the intent. Then the blame shifts. Eventually, the victims themselves are placed on trial.

This pattern is not unique to Jews or the Holocaust. Armenians know it. Rwandans know it. Bosnians know it. South Asians know it from famine, partition, and communal violence.

Denial does not begin with hatred. It begins with shrugging.

Why Holocaust memory feels existential to Jews

For many Jews, the Holocaust is not distant history. It is unfinished business.

Survivors are still dying. Funerals still close chapters. Entire family trees exist only in memory. When someone says, “I’m not sure it happened,” or “it was exaggerated,” Jews don’t hear curiosity.

They hear a warning.

History has taught them that erasure always comes before repetition. That forgetting is never neutral. That silence is often the first collaborator.

That’s why Holocaust education isn’t framed as optional cultural literacy. It’s framed as a firewall.

Social media made forgetting easier

This generation did not grow up arguing with textbooks. It grew up arguing with algorithms.

History now competes with:

  • influencers

  • rage clips

  • denial packaged as “just asking questions”

Genocide becomes content. Suffering becomes a debate format. Moral clarity dissolves into engagement metrics.

This doesn’t make young people immoral. It makes them vulnerable.

A South Asian mirror we don’t like to face

From Karachi, this debate feels familiar.

In South Asia, we live with our own selective amnesia. Ask young people about the Bengal famine, the violence of Partition, or the bureaucratic indifference that killed millions, and you’ll often get fragments. Half-stories. Numbers without context.

The pattern is identical. When history becomes uncomfortable, it is softened. When it becomes politically inconvenient, it is blurred. When memory fades, identity politics rush in to fill the void.

The Holocaust feels distant to many Americans. Partition feels distant to many Pakistanis and Indians. Distance makes denial tempting. Distance makes distortion easier.

The mechanism is the same everywhere.

This is not about ranking suffering

One reason Holocaust education provokes resistance is the fear that it crowds out other tragedies. That remembering one genocide means ignoring others.

It doesn’t have to work that way.

Remembering the Holocaust properly strengthens the case for remembering all mass violence. It teaches how bureaucratic murder works. How democracies slide into barbarism. How neighbors learn to look away.

Those lessons travel well. Across borders. Across religions. Across continents.

The real question

The real question isn’t why everyone must know this history.

It’s what kind of society forgets its worst crimes and calls that progress.

You don’t need to read dozens of books. You don’t need a degree in international relations. But a society that loses basic literacy about its darkest chapters becomes easy to manipulate.

Memory isn’t about guilt. It’s about defense.

When memory dies, lies rush in.
History shows us what comes next.

Australia Isn’t Debating Extremism. It’s Rehearsing Collective Guilt.

 Australia says it wants cohesion.

What it keeps reaching for, instead, is suspicion.

The trigger this time was familiar. A violent attack. Shock. Anger. Fear. And then, almost on cue, a familiar prescription from a familiar political voice. Former prime minister Scott Morrison called for better regulation of Muslim teaching, English-language sermons, and a national accreditation regime for imams. The justification, again, was extremism.

A mosque silhouette set against the Australian flag with the headline “Australia Isn’t Debating Extremism. It’s Rehearsing Collective Guilt,” illustrating the national debate over Muslims, security, and collective blame.


On the surface, the proposal sounds administrative. Boring, even. Regulation. Standards. Accountability. Words governments love because they sound neutral.

But neutrality vanishes the moment context enters the room.

The Australian National Imams Council didn’t deny the need to counter extremism. It denied something far more dangerous: the idea that an entire faith community should answer for the actions of individuals who, according to police, acted alone and without any religious organisation’s involvement.

That distinction matters. Not rhetorically. Structurally.

Because once a democracy accepts collective responsibility as a governing principle, it quietly abandons the rule it claims to defend: individual guilt, individual accountability, individual justice.

From Security to Suspicion

If the Bondi attack had been carried out by a white supremacist — as Christchurch was — would anyone have demanded licensing of political commentators? English-only ideological standards for churches? Accreditation of online forums where hatred festers daily?

They didn’t then. They won’t now.

Brenton Tarrant was radicalised on Australian soil. That fact is uncontested. Yet no one demanded “reform” of Australian political culture, media ecosystems, or online radicalisation pipelines after Christchurch. No group was asked to take responsibility for him. He was treated, correctly, as an individual criminal shaped by an ecosystem, not a faith.

That same logic evaporates when the attacker is Muslim.

Suddenly, the language shifts. Reform. Accountability. Community responsibility. The words sound reasonable until you ask the obvious question: why only one community carries this burden?

This is where security discourse slides into something else. Not policy. Not prevention. But moral profiling.

The Facebook Test

The clearest evidence isn’t in official statements. It’s in the comment sections.

Screenshots circulating beneath the news tell a more honest story than any press release. Muslim politicians are accused of divided loyalty. Media outlets are charged with “protecting Muslims.” Regulation is framed not as safety but as discipline.

One comment says it plainly without meaning to: If Muslims are complaining, Morrison must be right.

That isn’t logic. It’s resentment masquerading as common sense.

Another claims Muslims gain “confidence” when defended, as though equal citizenship itself is dangerous. The implication is unmistakable: belonging must be conditional. Gratitude must be visible. Silence is preferred.

This is how cohesion quietly dies. Not with violence, but with loyalty tests.

The Turkey Distraction

Turkey is frequently dragged into these conversations as a supposed model. State-paid imams. Centralised sermons. Government oversight.

What’s rarely mentioned is the price. Turkey’s model comes with heavy state control of religion, speech, and dissent. Journalists are jailed. Opposition figures silenced. Faith becomes an instrument of power rather than conscience.

You don’t get to import authoritarian tools without importing authoritarian consequences. Liberal democracies cannot selectively admire control while claiming freedom.

If Australia wants Turkey’s religious system, it must also accept Turkey’s political reality. No one proposing this seems eager to make that trade openly.

Regulation Isn’t the Problem. Selectivity Is.

Here’s the part often missed. Regulation itself isn’t inherently discriminatory. Many professions are regulated. Some religious roles already intersect with state systems.

The problem is why regulation is demanded, when, and from whom.

If every religious institution were subject to the same scrutiny, applied consistently and detached from acts of violence, the debate would look different. It would be slower. More technical. Less emotional.

Instead, regulation is proposed immediately after Muslim-linked violence, framed as a corrective measure for Islam itself. That framing transforms governance into accusation.

It tells Muslim citizens they are never just citizens. They are potential suspects, permanently adjacent to guilt.

What This Debate Is Really About

Australia is not struggling to understand extremism. It understands it well enough when it chooses to.

What it is struggling with is demographic permanence. The quiet realisation that Muslim Australians are not guests, not temporary, not apologetic minorities, but a lasting part of the national fabric.

That reality produces anxiety. Anxiety looks for outlets. Policy becomes a proxy for fear.

Calls for “cohesion” ring hollow when cohesion is demanded only from some. A society does not become safer by teaching one group it is always one incident away from collective blame.

Security built on inequality isn’t security. It’s surveillance with better branding.

The Line Democracies Cannot Cross

The Imams Council was right to push back, not because Islam is above scrutiny, but because democracies collapse when scrutiny becomes selective.

Once a state accepts that some citizens must constantly prove their innocence, it has already lost the moral argument against extremism. It has adopted extremism’s core logic: identity over individuality.

Australia still has a choice.

It can confront violence with consistency, courage, and equal standards. Or it can continue rehearsing collective guilt, mistaking it for leadership.

History is clear about where the second path leads.

China Didn’t Kill the Dollar. It Built a World That No Longer Needs It.

 On January 1, 2026, China flipped a switch that barely made Western headlines.

No emergency summit. No sanctions. No dramatic announcement.

The digital yuan began paying interest.

A split editorial illustration showing a fading U.S. dollar symbol connected to weakening SWIFT cables on one side, and a glowing digital yuan network spreading across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East on the other, representing a shift in the global financial system.


That quiet decision matters more than most trade wars, because it confirms something uncomfortable: this was never a pilot. It was a system waiting to go live.

For years, talk of de-dollarization sounded like background noise—BRICS chatter, academic speculation, YouTube hype. Too slow. Too political. Too fragmented. Then Russia was cut off from SWIFT in 2022, and suddenly everyone remembered what infrastructure really is.

Not ideology. Plumbing.

Money doesn’t move because it’s trusted.
It moves because the pipes are open.


SWIFT Was Never Neutral

Let’s clear up the most common misunderstanding.

SWIFT is not a payment system. It doesn’t hold money. It doesn’t move funds.
It sends messages—messages that tell banks who owes whom, in what currency, through which correspondent chain.

When those messages stop, money still exists on paper. It just can’t be used.

I’ve worked around international payments long enough to know this: being disconnected from SWIFT is not an inconvenience. It’s erasure.

That’s what happened to Russia in early 2022. Seven major banks were cut off. Roughly $300 billion in reserves were frozen. The ruble collapsed. Western officials called it “financial pressure.”

It was closer to financial decapitation.

For about three months, it worked.

Then Russia adapted. Trade shifted into rubles and yuan. Alternative channels emerged. And more importantly, dozens of other countries watched and quietly thought the same thing:

If this can happen to them, it can happen to us.


The Own Goal No One Wanted to Admit

This is where the double standard becomes impossible to ignore.

The United States invaded Iraq in 2003 on false premises. No SWIFT ban.
Saudi Arabia dismembered a journalist in a consulate. Business continued.
Israel bombs Gaza. Sanctions never materialize.

Russia crosses a border, and the financial death penalty is immediate.

You don’t need to defend Russia to see the message this sends: the so-called rules-based order applies its rules selectively.

Zoltan Pozsar once called the weaponization of the dollar the greatest own goal in financial history. He wasn’t exaggerating. The moment SWIFT became a weapon, it stopped being neutral infrastructure.

Trust, once conditional, doesn’t come back on demand.


China Wasn’t Loud. It Was Patient.

China didn’t respond with speeches. It responded with code.

CIPS—China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System—launched quietly in 2015. For years it looked underwhelming. Limited reach. Small volumes. Easy to dismiss.

That dismissal turned out to be a mistake.

By 2024, CIPS was processing nearly 16% of SWIFT’s volume, up from about 2% just four years earlier. Growth wasn’t linear. It was accelerating, following Chinese trade routes into Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America.

In December 2025, the People’s Bank of China updated CIPS rules to reduce dependence on SWIFT for final settlement. This wasn’t a pilot tweak. It was operational restructuring.

Then came the number that really changed the conversation.

By November 2025, there were 2.25 billion digital yuan wallets.

China has 1.4 billion people.

Which means this isn’t just domestic adoption. It’s cross-border seepage.

Transaction volume tells the same story: ¥16.7 trillion processed across billions of transactions—more than the GDP of Canada. And this was before the digital yuan started paying interest.


January 1, 2026: The Moment It Became Real

When the digital yuan began paying interest, it stopped being digital cash and became digital deposit money.

That distinction matters.

Cash sits idle. Deposits compete with banks.

Now Chinese citizens can hold state-issued money, earn interest, and bypass commercial banks entirely. More importantly, the central bank can adjust rates in real time, directly shaping saving and spending behavior.

This is monetary policy without intermediaries.

Call it authoritarian if you like. It still works.

Meanwhile, the United States debates a digital dollar. Europe studies a digital euro.

China deployed one.

Infrastructure beats intention every time.


The Shift No One Can Reverse

By 2025, more than 54% of China’s total trade was settled in yuan. In 2020, that figure was 18%. This wasn’t ideological nationalism. It was business logic.

Why convert into dollars first?
Why pay conversion fees twice?
Why absorb foreign-exchange risk?
Why route payments through New York when settlement can happen directly, in seconds, at a fraction of the cost?

At some point, efficiency beats habit.

IMF reserve data confirms the slow structural shift. Dollar reserves are declining, not collapsing, but the pace is accelerating. The yuan’s share remains small, yet its growth rate outpaces every other major currency.

This is how systems change. Quietly. Incrementally. Then suddenly.


How This Looks From Karachi, Not Washington

From Karachi, none of this feels abstract.

Here, SWIFT isn’t a symbol of global order. It’s the reason remittances get delayed, trade invoices stall, and banks over-comply out of fear. Exporters ship goods, watch them clear foreign ports, then wait weeks for payments because a correspondent bank somewhere decides the risk profile isn’t worth it.

No sanctions. No war. Just friction.

Families feel it too. Transfers flagged. Accounts frozen. Questions asked with no clear answers. This is what dependency looks like from the periphery: conditional access, invisible rules, no appeals desk.

So when countries across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East explore yuan settlement or alternative rails, it isn’t rebellion. It isn’t ideology.

It’s memory.

It’s lived experience.

It’s the understanding that access to the global financial system was never guaranteed—and never designed with places like Karachi in mind.


The Ending the West Isn’t Listening To

From Washington or Brussels, this still looks like a chess match. Percentages. Forecasts. Scenarios.

From the Global South, it looks like insurance.

The real question isn’t whether China can replace SWIFT.
It’s how long countries are willing to bet their economic survival on a system that can be switched off overnight.

The dollar didn’t lose ground because China attacked it.
It lost ground because trust was turned into leverage.

You cannot be the world’s reserve currency and a geopolitical weapon forever. Eventually, people build exits—not out of ambition, but out of caution.

China didn’t destroy the old system.
It built a parallel one and waited.

And once enough countries buy insurance, the old guarantees stop mattering.

The West Isn’t Afraid of Sharia. It’s Afraid of Remembering What It Did to Muslims

 Texas Republicans are not banning Sharia law.

They are banning a memory they do not want to confront.

Editorial image illustrating Western political fear contrasted with forgotten historical actions in Muslim countries.


Proposition 10 in the 2026 Texas Republican primary asks voters whether the state should prohibit Sharia law. The problem is simple and inconvenient. Sharia law has no legal standing in Texas. It never has. It never could. The U.S. Constitution already blocks religious law from replacing civil law.

So why ask the question at all?

Because this is not legislation. It is theater. And more precisely, it is historical avoidance dressed up as public safety.


A Phantom Threat That Doesn’t Exist

Texas has a population of roughly 30 million people. Muslims make up around 1.5 to 2 percent of that number. At most, that is about 600,000 people. They are spread across Houston, Dallas, Austin, and a few other urban centers. They do not control courts. They do not dominate school boards. They do not set state policy.

They cannot impose anything.

Yet they are being treated as if they are on the verge of taking over.

This should immediately raise a basic question. If the threat is imaginary, what is the fear really about?


Europe’s Selective Memory

European voices in these debates often say, “Look at Europe.” It sounds confident. It sounds experienced. It is also deeply selective.

Europe rarely remembers its own record in Muslim lands.

France ruled Algeria for over a century. The war of independence alone killed hundreds of thousands. Torture was systemic. Villages were erased. Even today, France hesitates to officially call it what it was.

Italy ran concentration camps in Libya in the early twentieth century. Tens of thousands died. This barely appears in European schoolbooks.

Britain presided over catastrophic famines in colonial India, including the Bengal famine, where millions died while food was exported. These were policy decisions, not accidents of nature.

And then there is Bosnia. A genocide against European Muslims in the 1990s, committed on European soil, while Europe debated and delayed.

When Europeans warn about Muslims, they often forget that many Muslim migrations began not with conquest, but with colonial collapse and imperial withdrawal.

Memory disappears when it becomes uncomfortable.


America’s Cleaner Story

The American version of forgetting is different, but just as effective.

American violence is usually framed as unintended. Mistakes were made. Intelligence failed. Good intentions went wrong.

Iraq is remembered as a war about Saddam Hussein, not about the millions displaced or killed and the region destabilized for a generation.

Afghanistan is remembered as a failed project, not as twenty years of night raids, drone strikes, and families living under constant fear.

Pakistan is discussed as an ally, rarely as a place where drones hovered over villages with no warning and no accountability.

Iran is treated as irrationally hostile, while the 1953 CIA-backed coup that destroyed its democracy is rarely mentioned.

Distance helps. So does technology. Most Americans never saw the consequences directly. War was professionalized. Sanitized. Exported.

What you do not see is easier to forget.


So What Are Texas Politicians Afraid Of?

Not Sharia. Sharia is a symbol, not a danger.

They are afraid of pluralism becoming ordinary.

Religious freedom is celebrated when it looks familiar. Churches, crosses, and Christian language feel safe. When a different religion practices the same freedom, suddenly freedom feels threatening.

They are afraid of demographics, not because Muslims are numerous, but because they are young, urban, educated, and increasingly visible.

They are afraid of losing narrative control. Once Muslims are seen as neighbors rather than suspects, the old stories stop working.

And most of all, they are afraid of questions.

Who destabilized whom?
Who ruled without consent?
Who drew borders, staged coups, backed dictators, and walked away?

Those questions are dangerous. So it is safer to invent a threat.


From Law to War to Dehumanization

Watch how the language escalates.

It starts with “law.”
Then becomes “invasion.”
Then shifts to “death cult.”

At that point, this is no longer politics. It is moral erasure.

Once a belief system is described as satanic or inherently violent, its followers stop being individuals. They become symbols. Targets. Acceptable collateral.

History shows where this road leads. It never ends with a ballot proposition.


The Quiet Irony

The loudest defenders of constitutional values in these debates are endorsing collective suspicion, religious tests, and symbolic bans. These are exactly the things the Constitution was designed to prevent.

The contradiction is not accidental.

It is easier to fear Muslims than to reckon with empire. Easier to ban an imaginary law than to face real history. Easier to mobilize voters with panic than with policy.

Texas is not afraid of Sharia law.

The West is afraid of remembering what it did to the Muslim world, and what that history says about the stories it tells itself today.

That is the fear beneath the noise.
And that is why a law that does not exist is suddenly treated as an existential threat.

Selective Islamophobia: Why “Jihad” Is a Fear in Europe but a Paycheck in the Gulf

 One of the ugliest comments under the German housing discrimination case didn’t come from a European nationalist. It came from an Indian user asking, “Who is responsible when she carries out a jihadist attack?”





A Pakistani woman applying for an apartment was instantly recast as a future terrorist. No evidence. No history. Just a name and a religion.

Now here’s the part no one wants to say out loud.

If Islam itself is the threat.

If Muslim identity automatically triggers fears of “jihad.”

Then why is the Middle East one of the largest employers of Indian workers?

Millions of Indians live and work in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Oman. They build cities, run hospitals, write code, fly planes, manage banks. These societies are not just Muslim-majority. They are where Islam originated and where its most conservative interpretations exist.

And yet, suddenly, Islam becomes an existential danger only when a Muslim woman applies for a flat in Germany.

That contradiction isn’t accidental. It’s convenient.

In the Gulf, Islam is tolerated because it pays.

In Europe, Islam is feared because it competes.

This isn’t about theology. It’s about where power flows.

When Indian workers migrate to Muslim countries for oil money, remittances, and opportunity, Islam is quietly ignored. When Muslim migrants seek dignity, housing, and legal protection in Europe, Islam is reframed as a security threat.

That’s not principled concern. That’s selective panic.

If someone genuinely believes Islam equals violence, consistency demands they boycott Muslim societies altogether. No Gulf jobs. No Middle East contracts. No silence when billions flow from Islamic states into global markets.

But no one does that. Because deep down, they know the truth.

Islam isn’t the problem.

Migration isn’t the problem.

A Pakistani woman renting a flat isn’t the problem.

The problem is this:

Europe is the first place where discrimination is being legally named, challenged, and punished.

And for people who were comfortable with quiet exclusion, that feels like an attack.

So they reach for the oldest weapon in the book.

Fear.

Wrapped in the word jihad.

That’s the real story hiding in those comments.



Why Cities from Jakarta to New York are Slowly Disappearing Beneath Our Feet: The Sinking Reality of Karachi

 I remember watching the ground crack in a neighboring urban block and wondering if the earth itself was tired of holding our weight. The bl...