Eyes of a Donkey and a Rooster Dr Shabir Choudhry, January 2026, London

  Eyes of a Donkey and a Rooster

Dr Shabir Choudhry, January 2026, London

The hadith narrated by Abu Huraira (RA) states that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said:

“When you hear the crowing of a rooster, ask Allah for His bounty, for it crows when it sees an angel. And when you hear the braying of a donkey, seek refuge in Allah from Satan, for it brays when it sees a devil.”

— Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith no. 3303

Analytical Interpretation

This hadith is traditionally understood within Islamic theology as part of the realm of the unseen (al-ghayb), where angels and devils exist beyond ordinary human perception. It does not attempt to provide a scientific explanation of animal behaviour; rather, it offers moral and spiritual guidance, teaching believers how to respond to everyday experiences with remembrance of God.

1. Symbolic and Spiritual Meaning

In classical Islamic thought, animals are recognised as possessing forms of perception that differ from, and in some cases exceed, those of human beings. This distinction is not meant to elevate animals above humans, but to remind humans of their spiritual vulnerability and the constant presence of moral forces—both benevolent and harmful—in the world.

The rooster, associated with dawn, wakefulness, and the transition from darkness to light, symbolises alertness, renewal, and divine mercy. Its crowing has long been linked to prayer times, making it a natural prompt for gratitude and supplication.

The donkey’s bray, sudden and jarring, functions as a contrasting reminder of disturbance and spiritual distraction, encouraging believers to seek protection from harmful influences.

2. Ethical and Psychological Function

From an ethical and psychological perspective, the hadith operates as a behavioural and spiritual cue. Ordinary sounds are transformed into moments of conscious reflection:

• gratitude and hope upon hearing the rooster,
• caution, humility, and self-examination upon hearing the donkey.

In this way, the hadith disciplines the believer’s inner state, not their scientific understanding of the world.

3. Not a Scientific Claim

It is important to emphasise that classical scholars did not interpret this narration as a biological or zoological assertion. Islamic tradition makes a clear distinction between:

• empirical knowledge (how animals physically behave), and
• spiritual instruction (how humans should respond ethically and spiritually).
• Attempting to force a modern scientific explanation onto the hadith risks missing its intended purpose and spiritual depth.
• 
  

4. Theological Context

Islamic theology associates angels with mercy, order, and obedience to God, while devils (shayāṭīn) represent temptation, chaos, and moral distraction. This hadith embeds that worldview into daily life, encouraging spiritual awareness without demanding sensory proof or visual confirmation.

Reflection on Human Perception and Cultural Attitudes

In many Asian cultures, donkeys are often perceived as unintelligent animals. When people wish to insult or belittle someone, they frequently invoke the image of a donkey or speak of a “donkey’s brain.” Yet this cultural assumption invites a deeper reflection.

Allah Almighty declares human beings to be the best of creation, endowed with reason, moral responsibility, and free will. And yet, according to this hadith, an animal commonly regarded as inferior perceives aspects of the unseen that humans cannot. This does not diminish human dignity; rather, it underscores the limits of human perception and the humility required before divine wisdom.

Similarly, the rooster—an animal humans routinely kill and consume—serves as a reminder of divine mercy and angelic presence. This does not imply that animals are superior to humans, but that Allah has distributed sensory capacities according to His wisdom, not human assumptions of status or worth.

Broader Implications

We do not know what faculties Allah has granted to other creatures, nor the full scope of their perception. In many ways, humanity is still discovering the complexity of creation—scientifically, psychologically, and spiritually.

This hadith ultimately teaches humility:

that knowledge is partial,

perception is limited,

And human superiority lies not in what we can see, but in how we respond to what we cannot.

Dr Shabir Choudhry is a London-based political analyst, author, and expert on South Asian affairs, with a focus on Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Kashmir. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

UAE and India agreements and their impact on South Asia and the Middle East. Dr Shabir Choudhry, 20 January 2026.

 UAE and India agreements and their impact on South Asia and the Middle East. Dr Shabir Choudhry, 20 January 2026.

The brief but highly substantive visit of UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed to India signals a strategic deepening of India–Gulf relations at a time of exceptional regional volatility. Its implications extend well beyond bilateral ties and will be felt across South Asia, the Middle East, and adjacent geopolitical theatres.

1. Strategic Realignment in the Middle East

The UAE–India partnership reflects a quiet but decisive shift in Gulf geopolitics:

·       The UAE is diversifying its strategic partnerships beyond traditional reliance on the United States.

 

·       India is emerging as a trusted, non-ideological partner—economically powerful, politically stable, and militarily capable without being overtly interventionist.

 

·       This strengthens a new axis: UAE–India (with Israel in the background through the Abraham Accords), reshaping West Asian power equations.

This alignment reduces the space for Pakistan’s traditional diplomatic leverage in the Gulf, which historically rested on religious affinity rather than economic or technological value.

2. Implications for Pakistan and South Asia

a. Pakistan’s Strategic Marginalisation

·       The UAE’s expanding defence, nuclear, and space cooperation with India highlights Pakistan’s declining relevance in Gulf strategic thinking.

 

·       Gulf states increasingly prioritise economic stability and technological partnership over ideological or religious solidarity.

• Pakistan’s internal instability, economic dependence, and militant legacy contrast sharply with India’s market size and predictability.

This does not mean hostility toward Pakistan, but it does mean reduced strategic indulgence.

b. Kashmir Narrative Weakens Further

·       The UAE has already demonstrated reluctance to internationalise Kashmir.

 

·       Closer UAE–India relations further dilute Pakistan’s ability to mobilise Gulf support on Kashmir.

 

·       Gulf capitals now see Kashmir primarily as a bilateral India–Pakistan issue, not a pan-Islamic cause.

3. Energy and Economic Consequences for South Asia

·       India securing long-term LNG supplies from the UAE strengthens its energy security, insulating it from Middle Eastern shocks.

 

·       This enhances India’s economic resilience relative to Pakistan, which remains energy-vulnerable and debt-dependent.

• The proposed $200 billion trade target by 2032 positions India as a central economic node linking South Asia to the Gulf.

This could gradually transform India into the economic gateway between the Middle East and South Asia.

4. Iran Factor: Strategic Balancing, Not Confrontation

·       Both India and the UAE maintain important ties with Iran but are increasingly constrained by US sanctions and regional instability.

The UAE–India coordination allows both to hedge:

·       Maintaining limited engagement with Iran

·       While reducing over-dependence on Tehran

• For Iran, this is a warning sign of strategic isolation, particularly if Gulf states quietly align with India, Israel, and Western interests.

However, neither India nor the UAE seeks open confrontation with Iran.

5. Gaza, Yemen, and Regional Conflict Management

·       The discussions on Gaza and Yemen indicate India’s growing diplomatic footprint in West Asian conflict management.

 

·       India’s invitation to Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace” reflects its new image as a responsible global stakeholder, even if New Delhi remains cautious.

• UAE–India coordination may encourage pragmatic de-escalation, not ideological positioning.

This marks a shift from emotional politics to transactional diplomacy.

6. Decline of Ideological Politics in the Muslim World

One of the most significant long-term impacts is ideological:

·       Gulf states are moving away from political Islam and jihad-centric narratives.

 

·       Security, trade, technology, and stability now define partnerships.

• India, despite being a Hindu-majority state, is treated as a legitimate and valued partner, undermining claims that global politics is driven by religious blocs.

This shift directly challenges narratives promoted by extremist groups and some state actors in South Asia.

7. Strategic Message to the United States and China

·       For Washington, UAE–India ties align broadly with US interests but also show Gulf states asserting greater autonomy.

 

·       For China, India’s growing role in the Gulf counters Beijing’s Belt and Road influence and complicates China–Pakistan strategic designs.

South Asia is no longer a peripheral theatre—it is increasingly linked to Middle Eastern stability.

Conclusion

The UAE President’s visit to India is not ceremonial. It represents:

• A recalibration of Middle Eastern alliances
• India’s rise as a key West Asian partner
• Pakistan’s relative diplomatic decline
• The erosion of theology-driven geopolitics
• A move toward a pragmatic, economy-first regional order

For South Asia and the Middle East alike, this signals a future shaped less by slogans and more by power, stability, and strategic value.

Dr Shabir Choudhry is a London-based political analyst, author, and expert on South Asian affairs, with a focus on Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Kashmir. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

 

Greenland: France to Occupy the Island to Fight Trump’s Takeover Ambitions? Peter Koenig.

 Greenland: France to Occupy the Island to Fight Trump’s Takeover Ambitions? Peter Koenig.

 

“The Gallic cock has crowed that, if the sovereignty of Denmark is affected, the consequences would be unprecedented. Ooh, what will they do?! Kidnap POTUS? [ President of the United States] Nuke the US? Course not. They’ll just sh*t their pants and give up Greenland. And that would be a great European precedent.” – Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev

French President Macron has announced he is moving troops to Greenland, to defend the autonomous Island and its owner, the Kingdom of Denmark, in case President Trump would attempt to take over Greenland.

 

It looks like other EU countries have done or are planning to do likewise, but they are not bragging about it as Macron does.

 

The world, the Western world, that is, could not become more ridiculous than that. Macron, a half-baked President of a half-baked country, threatens to attack, as in using weaponry against the US of A’s military? One or several European NATO member(s) – as divided as they are, the EU and its proxy, the European NATO — would dare to attack NATO’s “father” the United States?

 

Is this going to evolve into a conflict, as in one or more NATO countries against another NATO country, or several G7 members against another G7? Western absurdity seems limitless. George Orwell could have learned a lesson.

 

Would maybe Macron dare to nuke the Pentagon forces? Former Russian President Medvedev is probably not far from the truth by saying, “They’ll just sh*t their pants and give up Greenland.”

The French President did not say how many troops, warships, warplanes, vehicles, tanks, guns, he would send to Greenland. But he did say that

“French land, sea, and air forces are heading for Greenland to rebuff threats of annexation by the US and that he would stand alongside the Danish dependency.”

See this for more details.

Why does Macron make such nonsensical statements? Does he want to scare Trump, impress the French people and scare all of Europe – and the world, over a possibly French-induced WWIII – in defence of Greenland’s autonomy? European “leaders” (sic) like Macron are increasingly seen as a big joke.

 

Well, Trump has already responded. It appears that eight (8) EU countries are “fiercely” against the US takeover of Greenland. They include Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, the Netherlands, and the UK. Trump has declared on his TruthSocial platform that as of 1 February 2026 a 10% import tax will be levied on imports of all merchandise from these countries. And if the “resistance” persists, the tax will increase to 25% by 1 June 2026. This is in addition to the 15% general import taxes Trump has decreed for goods from the EU, a tariff already applied.

See this and this.

 

Nobody, of course, likes King Trump’s expansionist aspirations, especially when Denmark’s Prime Minister says, “Greenland is not for sale”, and Greenlanders want to keep their autonomy.

 

However, Denmark’s opposition to a US takeover might be seen as “the bark is worse than the bite.” After all, during WWII, after German occupation of Denmark in April 1940, the Danish Ambassador to the United States agreed “In the name of the King” with the United States, authorising the US to “defend the Danish colonies on Greenland from German aggression.”

This led to the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement and the creation of the Thule US air base, which was a joint US-Danish operation in Thule, the northwestern tip of Greenland. Meaning that the base was – maybe still is – flying the US and the Danish flag. The agreement also granted the US the right to expand its military presence in Greenland far beyond World War II – as we all know, up to this day and likely much longer. Nobody in Denmark has even insinuated that the US base should be evacuated.

 

To the contrary, in April 2023, the Thule base was moved just a few kilometres east to Greenland’s mainland (still considered the northwestern tip of Greenland) and renamed to Pituffik Space Base. All with the agreement of Denmark. And this, while President Trump’s Greenland aspirations were known since his first term in 2017-2021. These recent developments indicate that Denmark is basically happy with the US presence on its territory, i.e., in Greenland, probably for the same reasons of European-style fear: The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming.

Hence, the current Danish bark may indeed be worse than her bite.

 

How strong are the ties between Greenland and Mother Denmark? A 2025 poll indicated a majority of 84% of Greenlanders would support independence from Denmark, with 9% opposing. The total population of Greenland is about 55,700 (2025).

 

According to a January 2025 poll, after Trump declared that Greenland should belong to the US for “national security” reasons, 85% of Greenlanders do not want to become part of the United States.

 

Now, this could possibly change with a “little help” through money-flowing. Nowadays, in our ultra-capitalist, materialistic world, where ethics, virtues and moral principles are trampled on the ground, when dollar bills are held up as an incentive – a lot, if not all is possible. The Trump administration had already indicated that perhaps US$ 10,000 per citizen, a bit more for some, and maybe a lot more for some stubborn politicians – a million or two? — might turn the dream of Greenland’s sovereignty around.

 

Say with an average per person payout of some US$ 50,000 (a wild guess), the total cost for this huge, highly strategic and resources-rich island would be about US$ 2.8 to US$ 3 billion. And adding another few billion for the Danish Kingdom, covertly, of course, could possibly buy this jewel of an island for the US for something like US$ 10 to 20 billion? That’s peanuts for the master of fabricating dollar “wealth” – or national debt, never to be repaid to anyone but the US herself, an illusionary debt.

 

Besides, any “armed conflict” to take over Greenland would cost the US considerably more than 20  billion, plus a lot of blood, on both sides.

 

Now, there appears to be some opposition in the US public as well as in Congress to Trump’s expansionist dreams. But how long will that last, when all the benefits of Greenland, Venezuela, and others to come, are publicly explained and propagated in full colour?

 

We are living in a wild, wild, chaotic world. Of course, hardly anybody would seriously like to see Trump’s empire expansion, absorbing Greenland, Venezuela, and, who knows, how many more Western Hemisphere countries may be on the list. Yet, as things go, Greenland may become the 51^st State before Canada does. How is that for a step-by-step New World Order?

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

 

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst, regular author for Global Research, and a former Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

 

https://www.globalresearch.ca/greenland-france-occupy-fight-trump-takeover-ambitions/5912685