very well done..!

You are very true in all your comments Zuhaib.. But the thing that I have frequently used the words of Keats and it seems like a summary of the poem, is because of the fact that I wanted to expand the lines according to the poem. People have made a lot of explanations and interpretations of the lines taking them as separate lines from the rest of the poem. Thats why, there have been much controversy and diversity in the interpretations of these lines. I actually wanted to show that these lines are rather connected with the poem firmly, and an effort to draw out an explanation of these lines separating them from the poem will lead to a lot of different and confusing explanations.. I hope you get me..
And very much thanks for your valuable comments..
Awaiting your arrival..

__________________
"So my birth was the first of all my misfortunes". (Jean Jacques Rosseou)

Rich men have no fault”


Rich or poor both belonged to one`s own society .Sometimes poor get status of Rich man and Wealthy one has to submit towards miserable conditions. Human`s are made up of flesh and blood. They performed good deeds as well as vices and crimes. It is obvious when someone get extra power or wealth above average, got mad for misuse of power and wealth. However, above criteria is not valid in all cases. Life on this planet proceeded on the principle of selflessness. These wealthy esteemed people worked for humankind. So, It is not the wealthy status rather man`s own nature responsible for his fault.


Bill Gates, Abdu’s Sitar Eidehi and Imran khan`s welfare schemes are most recent examples of wealthy people, serving humanity. On the other hand, we have example of Hazrat Bahuddin zikriya Multani(R.A) who contained a lot of wealth .But he used it for humanity. However, history also tells us most of the Rich people misused their wealth .Like Jews, who introduced interest on wealth in Makkah. So man `s own nature is liable to faults, not rich ones.



Human society has suffered a lot due to man`s ambition to get unlimited power and wealth. Richness is not inherited status rather it is ascribed status. It is generalized; rich people do not follow folkways and mores .It is because society has few rich and more poor. Obviously, they will more observe the poor ones .Man `s nature is full of faults, not the richness ascriptions.

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

They will observe more the rich people.

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

'’Self done is well done’’

Expansion of an idea from 2012 CSS paper of Precise and composition


Aristotle said,’ Man is a social animal’’.It implies man is dependent on others. Reliance is good because it bonds the members of particular society. However, it should be restrained for productivity of individuals. It enables oneself to survive in bitter circumstances. So for survival, one will have to tackle the situation under his mind`s control. Moreover, person are able to reproduce innovative ideas, unknown to anyone .Sometimes, it leads towards inventions and discoveries.


Anthropologists point out the significance of Self-effort and creativity has developed civilizations .And parasitic life destroyed their marvels. Historians pin point this theme in its relation to Kings .Those, who managed in miserable environment are the reputed one. Akbar, Richard, Saladin, Mahmud Ghaznavi and The Holy prophet (P.B.U.H) are the world recognized leader .It is just of their self-work and hard work. Therefore, it glorifies the theme of self-work.

All the inventions and discoveries are the hallmark of this criterion. Holy Quran also lights on this theme, describing man earned wages by dint of his hard work is a friend of Allah. Muslim civilization in its culmination worked on the principle of,” Necessity is the mother of invention. So they rationalize laws creating field of ‘’asul’’ or ‘fiqa’ .They Euro-civilization it borrowed the principle of Muslim civilization .Their achievements have made them world greatest power of 19th century.


According to Iqbal,

Celebrated they were, embracing Islam.
Derogated you are, negating these.


Last but not the least it is acknowledged self-work is universally known .People are remembered for their countless efforts. Therefore, these people are followed as models.

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

. I have pointed out some mistakes rapidly. Go through, and correct them.
. You could have done better.
. You were good at your point but you could give another aspect of the topic.
. You can understand by this verse:
Jis Ghar Main ammeery ka shajir lagta hai,
un ka her aib humain huner lagta Hai
. What I can say; you could tell that, Ager Ameer gunah keray tu wo huner hai, un ki koee galty nhn, or ager ghareeb keray tu Gunah hai or us k liye e saza hai. You could have caught this aspect of the topic.
. Overall good efforts. Nice ideas. Good examples. Work on grammar.
. You can disagree with me, Sis G!

Rich men have no fault”


Rich or poor both are part of society .Sometimes poor get status of Rich man .Contrary to this Rich people have to submit towards miserable conditions. Humans are made up of flesh and blood. They perform good deeds as well as vices and crimes. It is obvious, when someone gets extra power or wealth above average, gets mad for misuse of power and wealth. However, above criteria is not valid in all cases. Life on this planet proceeded on the principle of selflessness. These wealthy esteemed people worked for humankind. So, It is not the wealthy status rather man`s own nature responsible for his fault.


Bill Gates, Abdu’s Sitar Eidehi and Imran khan`s welfare schemes are most recent examples of wealthy people, serving humanity. On the other hand, we have example of Hazrat Bahuddin zikriya Multani(R.A) who contained a lot of wealth .But he used it for humanity. However, history also tells us most of the Rich people misused their wealth .Like Jews, who introduced interest on wealth in Makkah. So man `s own nature is liable to faults, not rich ones.



Human society has suffered a lot due to man`s ambition to get unlimited power and wealth. Richness is not inherited status rather it is ascribed status. It is generalized; rich people do not follow folkways and mores .It is because society has few rich and more poor. Obviously, they will more observe the poor ones .Man `s nature is full of faults, not the richness ascriptions.


few ..stands for negative element and a few stands for positive .It is seen from oxford book .so I mention ''few''.I have tried to correct mistakes.So now see it .

you have well illustrated the theme . But life has two sides . and most of the students will light the heavier one and will criticize on rich people . so ,i tend to tilt from this approach.If it is well -written then no worries . I also agree to your stance .Again ,I ll say life is literature and literature is life .If one has proved the fact ,then it is right.

Thanx for encouraging me ,though younger but good in knowledge .stay blessed and also look the other too

__________________
"Wa tu izzu man-ta shaa, wa tu zillu man-ta shaa"

Thanks.
But, If you had favoured the topic that would have been well enough.
Overall you are good at your point. You can make it.
I do believe. May Allah Bless you, Sis G.

The statement emphasizes the nature of man-made rules. Rules are primarily to pacify and facilitate the concerns of masses but with the passage of time they lose their credibility. Keeping in view the greater interest of public, there is flexibility in the rules to be modified. If any rule allowed to run in the long run, it would become corrupt and creates social disintegration in society. Therefore G.B Shaw has rightly said that golden rule is that there is no golden rule. For instance, the apartheid policy of South Africa had created many problems for black people. They were not allowed to enter public places, restaurants and educational institutions. But with the passage of time the black people raised their voice and demand for fair justice and equality. They forced South African government to alter the rules for the black people and in the end, South African government modify the rules and polices. It restores policy of equal treatment of citizen irrespective of color, race. Similarly one have witnessed the foreign policy of US in the cold war era was based of curtailment of Communism in the Europe and Asia. But after the disintegration of Soviet Union, the policy of US has change. Now US is harping on the menace of terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Similarly the constitution of any state is also flexible and there is possibility to modify its shape in the order to pacify the demands of human rights, provincial autonomy and other petty issues. Hence there is no rule which one may call golden rule in the world. All rules are made to facilitate human beings and with passage of time they lose their glory. Therefore they need change.

The world has been experiencing evolution since ever. In stone age, man was scare of even his fellow. Later they started to live together leading towards great civilizations. There always have been morals practiced. These morals has also undergone drastic change. In past, scholars and educated people deserved the respect and fame within the community. Rich man, including Kings adored them. But with the passage of time, things got reverse turn. Now in this materialistic era, a man having much money is supposed to be the superior. They are considered to be trend setters. If they wear torn clothes, it is named as a "style". But if the same is practiced by a poor, they get the tag of "contemptible". A rich man does not have any fear of any punishment against committing a crime. On the other hand a mediocre has to suffer from severe consequences for being involved in even less objectionable deed.
This dual standard and hypocrisy has been causing hate among the Haves and Have nots'. Unrest can be observed in the societies ending in the insurgencies.