"Islam without political dominance cannot survive."It is that belief, and not Islam, that is his true faith, the one he acts on.
One should use the correct names for things. This from Arabic words for Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines to know and use:
Irhab (eer-HAB) -- Arabic for terrorism, thus enabling us to call the al Qaeda-style killers irhabis, irhabists and irhabiyoun rather than the so-called "jihadis" and "jihadists" and "mujahideen" and "shahideen" they so badly want to be called.You will also sometimes see the word fasad, meaning "mischief", or fasadi, meaning "troublemaker".
Hirabah (hee-RAH-bah) -- Unholy War and forbidden "war against society" or what we would today call crimes against humanity.
Shaitan and shaitaniyah (shy-TAHN and shy-TAHN-ee-yah) – Islam’s Arabic words for Satan and satanic [example: Osama Abd' al-Shaitan, Osama Slave or Servant of Satan]
One might want to refer to such extremists as "uncivilized barbarians". A word that might be used is metawahesheen - متاواحشين
So depending on our attitude toward what irhabis really believe, one can call it irhabism, harab'ism, shaitanism, or fasadism.
Intolerance is indicative of those who have been taught to identify with a religion, but who don't really believe it, and don't have confidence it can survive or prevail in a competitive marketplace of ideas. It is not the true believers, but the nonbelievers pretending or deceiving themselves that they are believers. That is a problem of social pathology more than of religion proper.
We need to adopt proper labels for the sides in the clash. It is not the various traditional sects, or secularism vs. religious fanaticism. On the one side is constitutionalism, a belief in a rule of law, and particularly in a superior law from which all ordinary laws are derived, which embraces and protects any body of belief that teaches love, tolerance, and civic virtue. Constitutionalism is also a kind of religion, a civic religion as the political philosopher Montesquieu recommended, but a metareligion -- a religion about religions.
It is opposed by what? We have given many names to the opposition to constitutionalism: tyranny, fascism, totalitarianism, hate, intolerance, vice, barbarism, evil. But there is a danger in this, and a weakness that constitutionalists bring into the debate: We must avoid adopting the ways of the opposition, or we become them and they win. We also have the weakness that it is much easier to destroy than to create. Constitutionalism is about creation. But a single madman can destroy it all with the tools of modern technology.
We must gain control over the upbringing of all of our children. If we do not civilize them we will have barbarians in our midst, and civilization will fall.
Wow Jon,
ReplyDelete"Islam without political dominance cannot survive."
Your clarification of 'when your religion is about 'dominance' as a way of life and culture; as opposed to about an inner spiritual quest... well those were my words; I liked yours:
Intolerance is indicative of those who have been taught to identify with a religion, but who don't really believe it, and don't have confidence it can survive or prevail in a competitive marketplace of ideas. It is not the true believers, but the nonbelievers pretending or deceiving themselves that they are believers. That is a problem of social pathology more than of religion proper.
Also got food for thought from:
constitutionalism, a belief in a rule of law, and particularly in a superior law from which all ordinary laws are derived, which embraces and protects any body of belief that teaches love, tolerance, and civic virtue. Constitutionalism is also a kind of religion, a civic religion as the political philosopher Montesquieu recommended, but a metareligion -- a religion about religions.
One thing I may add is that there are many different forms of insecurity, all intertwined and affecting each other; from spiritual, emotional, psychological, finanicial, sexual, etc...
Also -- in my opinion -- the current paradigm of $lave and Cannon Fodder Breeding 'leadership' with its script of 'success' is the 'quantity of moron imbecile obedient script follower sheep slaves and cannon fodder'; as opposed to 'success' is the 'quality of sincere deep enquiry (vs fake and shallow tolerance) for controversial ideas and reciprocity amongst peers'...;
Put Differently: the paradigm of what is considered 'leadership' with its former focus on 'moron quantity' as opposed to latter 'peer quality' is based upon a combination of psychological, emotional, sexual, financial and intellectual insecurity.
Just an idea. ;-)
Lara
Arlen Spector, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are proven Rino's and not conservatives at all
ReplyDeleteSpread the word
New reader here.
ReplyDeleteNice job. Especially the comment re marketplace of ideas... the Truth, as you mention, can be hidden, buried, obscured... but never tarnished nor destroyed.
Can I recommend Milton's Areopagitica? I think you're barking up his tree. Truly masterful intellect he was. Very eloquent on why free exchange of ideas is preferred to all other paradigms.
We have long had Milton's Areopagitica online.
ReplyDeleteTold you I was a newbie!
ReplyDeleteWhile still a “newbie” in this arena, I seem deeper into this every time I get near it again.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to share a description that dramatically and suddenly improved my ability to ATTEMPT to understand this philosophical chaos.
Muslim refers to faith.
Islam refers to a system of governance.
If a person professes to be Muslim, that person is an inseparable part of Islam. Every tenet and every obligation of Islam bears upon those of the Muslim faith, because the faith is only a component of Islam. According to Islam, it is impossible to be Muslim and not be an Islamist.
All other “faiths” who argue for tolerance of faith for Muslims are being suckered into inviting in the governance of Islam by their naïve ignorance of the relationship that exists in the world of the Islamist.
That is by design. That is how Islamists, or clever co-conspirators, initiate destabilization, by making their opponents argue amongst themselves as they think they are arguing about freedom of religion.
The proper argument, of equivalent entities, at the appropriate FUNDAMENTAL level, that we in the USA must recognize, is that Islam, AS A SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE, is what conflicts with our system of governance, which is our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Rule of Law, and Bill of Rights. We have a Federalist Republic, unlike so many fools lately that scream falsely about our democracy.
Viewed in this manner, anyone can see we always did and always will have separation of church and state, meaning religion and governance. Our governance is totally independent of any kind of organized religious dominance. By contrast, the governance of Islam automatically brings it’s religion right along with it.
Therefore, when you argue for freedom of religion for the Muslim faith, you are actually inviting a competing system of governance, Islam, that will destroy your entire society. Our Constitution and Rule of Law can not be made to “share” governance. No one, and no society, can serve two masters. Rule of Law protects. Islam, along with unrestrained democracy, destroys. We see this exactly inevitable outcome anew, even this week, in the land of Egypt.