Comment posted under this video
If we had a conversation for my channel, the points you are trying to make would be brought out more clearly to more people.
I have no idea why Hallaq is saying a theocracy is impossible. It is like saying a revolution is impossible. Once you have a revolution, you would change the current political ideology and the political system to the one of your choice, eg from feminism and liberal democracy to, say, a one party theocracy. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2014/05/secular-koranism.html A revolution is at least theoretically possible.
At the most, Hallaq must be saying that sharia would be impossible in a liberal secular state until and unless the state kicks out liberalism. Since the globohomo of liberalism is antithetical to Islamic principles, presumably Muslims in the West would want sharia. Without sharia, Islam would not work in the same way a car would not work without a battery.
How is the Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt relevant in telling us whether sharia could be implemented in the West after liberal democracy is taken out with the trash?
How is Foucault relevant in telling us whether sharia could be implemented in the West after liberal democracy is taken out with the trash?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFAqQiIVsF8 suggests he is a windbag and not Muslim.
Why are you, a Muslim, so enthusiastically recommending a book that is telling you that sharia in the West is in fact impossible?
35 comments:
It's not about revolutions, its about the very concept of a state, which carries with it modern connotations. Even if a revolution were to occur, a modern nation state would still undermine such a revolution and change the nature of the Sharia, which was never meant to be applied under state regulations.
How else would Koranic principles become legally enforceable without the state's involvement?
Just as they had been before the advent of states. Ummas used to adhere to the Sharia without it being considered a set of legal laws, it was simply a way of life, it wasn't intended to be imposed by governments.
also, modern governments are required to follow international laws and a set of fixed principles, unlike the sharia which is fluid, and answers only to itself and God, not international treaties. The sharia is a set of moral principles and guidelines, it is not a legal system.
Secular Koranism is intended to be a legal system.
I'm not aware of what secular Koranism is, do you mind giving me a brief overview.
Either way I don't think those two words should be put together, it leads to the same problems Hallaq was referring to in his book.
I just watched a couple of your videos and became familiar with the term.
I see where your coming from, but I don't consider it as something useful and definitely not something true to the shariah. If you haven't already, I highly recommend you read "the impossible state" by Hallaq, he explains how intertwined God and the shariah are, and the problems with a secular tradition that you're proposing.
Isn't conservatism basically what you're suggesting? Traditional rules without the need for a higher power, I don't see what the point is of a secular islamic paradigm.
Isn't Islam social conservatism? All the world religions promote patriarchy and all patriarchy cannot exist without marriage. The perfect patriarchy - 100% married parents. The perfect matriarchy - 100% unmarried parents. quran.com/24/2 makes all unmarried parents sex offenders and forbids all recreational sex between heterosexual couples not married to each other and LGBT couples. This concept used to be acknowledged by the marriage licence, which was in fact a licence to have sex and children. Just because extramarital sex is the sacrament of the Western matriarchy does not mean that its criminalisation is in theory impossible, however improbable you think it is. All it requires is the political will and this will be generated when Western governments decide to do something about the degeneracy of widespread bastardy. Presumably, they will only do something about it when it is pointed out again and again by monotheists who take the idea of of obeying God's laws seriously. Muslims with their sharia are the people most likely to do this since Jews and Christians have not lived in a theocracy for centuries and seem to have been politically indoctrinated to reject such an idea after centuries of secularist immersion. The West is now as Christian as a human skeleton used to be human and widespread bastardy is now the rule. The interesting question is whether Muslims living in the West will speak out or continue to pretend that this is nothing to do with them, whatever it is that you think Hallaq has said. If he had called his book The Possible Theocracy, he might well have sold more books and created more controversy, but it seems he is only saying what he thinks his liberal overlords wanted to hear. A better book to read would be Abdal Hakim Murad's Travelling Home of 10 essays, three of which I have now streamed about on my channel. Have you read the book? Who says what is "true to the sharia? You? Hallaq? Theocracy is a society that is governed by the laws of God and sharia is a legal system based on the laws of God. I don't see how any honest Muslim would deny that. I don't regard Hallaq as either Muslim or honest since he has obviously been paid to talk in the way he does at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFAqQiIVsF8&t=2568s
You have misunderstood Hallaq. His books is as much an attack on liberalism and modernity as it is about the sharia and an Islamic state. It's absurd to claim he's being paid, you should really check him out, he's one of the finest critics of secularism and modernity.
The Sharia is not just some set of laws. You cannot implement the Shariah before implementing the 'ibadat' part of the Shariah, which is the oneness of God and the spiritual deeds necessary, without which the Shariah is impossible, again, the Shariah is not simply a set of legal rules, it is a way of life and a set of moral guidelines.
And no it is not social conservatism, far from it.
Hallaq would love nothing more than to have an Islamic state, but the point he's making is that to have an Islamic nation state would completely change the nature of the shariah.
States require a government which is it's own sovereign and governs the Shariah, while it is the shariah which must be sovereign and govern the government, but given the nature of Nationalism, that's impossible.
Not to mention globalization and capitalism, which poses another problem to the Shariah. Corporations and capitalism mean anthropocentrism, individual self interests, greed, and yet another sovereign will outside of the Shariah.
These are just some of the problems. You cannot have secular koranism, its a contradiction and changes the nature of the shariah. You want to modernize the shariah based on modern principles, falling into the western paradigm and completely distorting our religion, we're trying to move away from western modernity, not become engulfed by it. Again, if you're so worried about these traditional principles then conservatism or any other secular laws could be implemented without the need for the Quran.
You are basically saying Westerners cannot have the benefit of Koranic laws without converting to Islam, aren't you?
Which of the following is true?
The reason why you are saying Westerners cannot have the benefit of Koranic laws without converting to Islam because
a) you don't think they deserve to have the benefit of Koranic laws unless they become Muslims, or
b) your saying there can be no Islamic State in the West unless Westerners convert to Islam makes them less likely to fear and hate you
How would you define social conservatism?
What is the nature of nationalism?
Sharia is theocracy and theocracy is a society that is governed by God;s laws. Secular Koranism is based on the Koran that contains God's laws. If Secular Koranism were implemented in your society, your society would be a theocracy.
What do you mean by "Western modernity" and how do you proposed to move away from it if you are a Muslim living in the West?
Conservatism is a failed ideology so why would I be proposing that Western governments use more of the same failed ideology?
Do you live in the West?
Sure Westerners could follow whatever Koranic laws they like, but that would not mean they are following sharia nor does that make them Islamic. I don't care whether or not they follow Koranic laws or whether or not they become Islamic, that is not my concern, I just don't think the Quran should be turned into a secular doctrine, again, there is no need for the Quran to do so, there are many other alternatives if that is your only concern.
I take Social Conservatism to mean a Western political Ideology based on pragmatism and conserving traditional principles which are usually Christian, sure you could have "Islamic Social Conservatism", but that also changes the true nature of Islam and enters it into a western paradigm.
When I say nationalism I mean the type of loyalty and citizenship which was enforced on people and has no basis in reality, they are "imagined communities" and carry with them their own doctrines and subjectivization to a sovereign nation state, the entire doctrine being an advent of western modernity.
By western modernity I mean the values and principles (usually positivist, empiricism, materialism, secularism, and the like) which were enforced on people through colonization and continues to colonize our epistemology and define who we are. It is an epistemological category that denies other ways of life and imposes itself on all cultures through different methods.
Moving away from it requires first and foremost to stay true to your own epistemology and values, and not try to adapt it to modern principles (i.e. secularism). There is no need to Islamisize the west, but muslims in the west need to grow spiritually and attain knowledge about Islam and modernity in order to criticize it and stay true to themselves. The shariah could still be somewhat adhered to on a personal level, and that's what should take priority.
Now a question for you, out of curiosity, what do you think about Iran? which is as close you could get to an Islamic state today.
I define social conservatism as the forbidding and punishment of extramarital sex eg quran.com/14/5, quran.com/14/6, quran.com/24/2 which is part of the culture of patriarchy. The perfect patriarchy would be 100% married parents. The perfect matriarchy would be 100% unmarried parents. The West is now a matriarchy.
I define nationalism as government in the national interest and of concern to any one who wishes to be politically engaged living under a government claiming to govern a sovereign nation. You clearly think nationalism is something evil, malign and false. If you have a country and a government then you are a nation. I think it is childish to deny the existence of nations just because you have taken against the idea of nationalism for your own peculiar reasons.
How is Western modernity defining who you or who your people are? Who and what are you anyway?
I have never visited Iran. So far it is able to stand up to America because it does not operate a liberal democracy.
No I don't live in the West, and I am as opposed to it as you are. And as for Iran don't get me wrong I highly respect Iran I just wanted to know your view.
Well that's a pretty narrow definition of conservatism, if you're so worried about marriage then that could solved without the need of a religion (although religion helps), I'm sure there are many secular laws which prevent such a thing. Either way, the Quran in its entirety shouldn't be rendered to a simple law forbidding unmarried sex, there is more to it than laws.
And no I never said it was evil and I never denied their existence, nationalism is present no doubt. What I meant is Nationalism is a pretty recent invention, there were no nations 2 centuries ago, I simply meant it is a new (western) advent which falsely divides people and creates new loyalties towards a government.
See this is why you shouldn't dismiss Foucault so fast, he talks about how power relations define people and normalize certain narratives. We live in an era of western modernity, we are enrolled in schools which follow a western template, we live under economies imposed by western powers, we judge our values and progress according to western narratives, we watch their movies, eat their food, and follow their laws. It's hard not to be defined by western modernity when we live in an era of eurocentrism. We live in an era of empiricism and positivism, and a distinction between is and ought, or facts from values, we don't consciously fall prey to western modernity, it is near inevitable. Our very nations and our loyalty to our government is testimony to that fact, we are only humans if we are citizens, and we could only survive if we endeavour to follow capitalist goals. As for your existential question, I'd rather not answer that because it is outside of my capabilities.
I highly recommend you read decolonial theorists and critics of modernity to better understand where I'm coming from (Hallaq has an excellent video on youtube called "beyond secularism, I highly highly recommend you watch it), there are many scholars such as Saba Mahmood, Walter Mignolo, Talal Asad, Enrique Dussel, Charles Taylor, and many others who speak about these issues.
Secular Koranism is actually a Western solution to a Western problem using Western ideas. It should please Muslims living in the West, but they invariably dismiss it for being illegitimate, apparently unaware that their sharia has not served them well from what we can tell from history. Nationalism has always existed as long as countries with governments have existed. The term was coined after WW1 and the breakup of the Austrian Empire. Because it led to WW2 with Hitler and Mussolini identifying with nationalism, it has had a bad reputation. Once nationalism has been rehabilitated from the antisemitism of Hitler and the militarism of Mussolini as government in the national interest, it would be quite easy to make the argument that it would be in the national interest to restore the patriarchy with Secular Koranism, since only under a patriarchy would enough good strong men be produced to defend the national interest. Secular Koranism is Third Position, being neither capitalist nor communist. It would ban usury and should attract enough non-Muslim support eventually when enough governments and individuals find the prospect of defaulting on their debts a good bargain for becoming a one party theocracy governed by the principles of Secular Koranism.
Modern problems shouldn't require modern solutions, as Audre Loure has said "For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house", in other words you cannot solve western modernity through western modernity.
I apologize but it doesn't please us Muslims, our shariah is perfectly capable and competent to solve our problems and dilemmas, we don't need any secular help, and definitely don't need western solutions.
Again, nationalism is a new advent, nationalism is contingent upon nation states, and nation states emerged somewhere between the 18th and 19th century, some coming much later. I don't find it troubling because of fascism, I find it troubling because of the subjectivization it entails and the new secular values it gives us.
You cannot and should not reduce the Quran to a set of laws, the Quran offers a way of life and a world view which relies heavily on tawhid and spirituality, without these 2 aspects you have stripped it away from everything the Quran stands for and rendered it nothing but a set of laws like any other, which doesn't even require a religion to do so.
why not just call them a new set of laws, why your reliance on the Quran? Christianity and Judaism along with many other ideologies contain the type of reforms you're talking about, and conservatism fits your description, why not just reform conservatism rather than trying to distort Islam?
If the problem is matriarchy caused by feminism, sluttery and bastardy, then the solution must be patriarchy which would shame sluts and slut-fuckers. If the destination is patriarchy, then the vehicle must be theocracy. quran.com/24/2 would shame unmarried parents who pump out bastards and badly parent them, turning them into the next generation of criminals. I think even atheists can see the benefit of low taxes, low crime, stable marriages, stable families, a stable society, a stable economy and a stable currency after usury is abolished. Modernism is feminism as far as I am concerned. the problem with modernism and feminism is that feminism relies on bribing men with extramarital sex to keep them quiescent in the matriarchy. The reason why we now have ever widening and deepening sexual liberation is the matriarchy's desperate attempt to keep its populace too distracted with their free porn and their cheap sex to question the matriarchy.
I have never heard of Audre Loure, but it seems she is a feminist. I have no idea why you think quoting from such a source would impress me. Her premise is idiotic: the master's tools would not dismantle the master's house unless used by someone to do so. It is not unheard of someone's weapon to be snatched from them and then used against them.
Unschooled in the tedious jargon of academic philosophy that you clearly like to use - and as a Muslim too! - let me say I have no idea what you mean when you say nationalism entails "subjectivisation".
I do not claim to have invented a new religion, only a new legal system. Secular Koranism is a new school of sharia, which I am sure Muslims like you will fall over yourselves to call illegitimate. Why urge on non-Muslims the failed religion of Christianity and why urge on gentiles the greater restrictions of Judaism? Conservatism is yet another failed ideology you are urging upon me doubtless as an act of malign encouragement. Muslims do not have exclusive intellectual property rights to the Koran, do they?
My bas it's Audre Lorde not Loure. I quoted her simply because her quote was relevant, and I referenced her, wasn't trying to impress you. Her premise is brilliant, your example shows you missed the point. You cannot use the same tools which enslave you to free yourself, for you'd still be encompassed by "the masters" framework. Master and tool here are metaphors, not to be taken literally like your example. If you attempt to solve the problem of modernity through modernity, then you are still encompassed by modernity and have simply evolved it, you haven't freed yourself from it. If you think the problem right now is unmarried sex, well that arises from a certain set of values which have led here, you intend on using those same values to solve the problems, you should instead introduce a new set of values (or tools) in order to solve the problems, otherwise you're just building upon the values you want to destroy, and still encompassed by modernity.
Modernity is definitely not feminism, I don't understand what your obsession with matriarchy and patriarchy is, but we still live in a patriarchy, and feminism is far from the problem. Just because there is immoral sex being practiced, doesn't mean we live in a matriarchy, and feminism isn't the sole cause of such actions.
You keep on quoting me verses from the Quran, yet you ignore the rest of the Quran that calls for a belief in God, a rejection of oppression (which is practiced today through modernity) and staying true to our beliefs. You cannot quote one verse and ignore the rest, and you definitely cannot secularize the Quran.
By subjectivization I mean the process through which we become subjects/citizens, it means through our nationality we uphold and belief certain principles to be ontological, such as our loyalty to our state and our "duty" to serve the nation and obey the nations rule.
I apologize for the use of "jargon", but if you intend to implement your own academic discipline (secular koranism) then I recommend you become accustomed to academic philosophy.
And I don't understand, does me being a Muslim entail I can't use academic language?
I have already defined matriarchy for you. Just as the foundation of patriarchy is marriage, the foundation of matriarchy is bastardy, and the link between bastardy and criminality is direct and undeniable.
Secular Koranism extracts from the Koran only its rules and ignore its stories as well as the threats and promises of God. Secular Koranism is simply an Islamic version of the Jefferson Bible.
Since we all live in defined territories belonging to governments, I don't see how we can escape death and the taxes of government as well as the possibility of conscription if we are men. There is nothing peculiar about this to our time.
It is ironic that you urge the use of the terms of Western philosophy when it is so stupid, when you could just opt to express yourself clearly without the use of these pointlessly vague and confusing terms. I prefer my words to be understood rather than puzzled over. To use the stupid terms of Western philosophy is to allow unwise and time-wasting Western philosophers who talk nonsense and confusion to control the terms of debate.
What makes you think you could extract those things without changing the entire nature of Quran? And which rules do you plan to extract? One of the rules is that the Quran is the ultimate word of God and shouldn't be meddled with, how do you overcome this? another rule is the necessity of accepting the oneness of God, examples are numerous and it seems like the only thing you're interested in is marriage and usury.
Well back then that wasn't the case, Jihad was optional, people only owed loyalty to God (not the government), and there was absolutely no higher authority other than God and the Shariah, not to mention there was no nation in the first place, there were ummas and tribes, which differs from our notion of nation.
Expressing myself without these philosophical concepts limits the dialogue. I could only get my points across clearly if I use these terms.
The Quran is the book for Muslims, it is complete and great as it is and doesn't need any secular interventions. If you think the problem right now is sex before marriage then raise awareness or introduce a bill, don't distort an entire religion.
Nothing I can do would change the nature of the Koran.
I plan to extract all the commandments and prohibitions of the Koran which would be universal insofar as they pertain to the Noahide laws
I am not proposing to "meddle" with the Koran since I am not proposing to edit it, redact it or add to it.
I do not deny the oneness of God but there is no need to compel anyone into believing in the oneness of God under Secular Koranism because 2:256 guarantees freedom of belief.
How odd that you, a Muslim, are denying the existence of these Muslim empires. https://www.metmuseum.org/learn/educators/curriculum-resources/art-of-the-islamic-world/introduction/chronology
You don't seem to understand the difference between a belief system and a legal system. I have not created a new religion as you seem to think I have. Secular Koranism is a legal system. There is no requirement for you to like it or adopt it.
It's been an interesting conversation, good luck with your secular Koranism, maybe instead of focusing so much on the legal aspects you should pay more attention to the spiritual aspects.
China is an empire and is also a nation with a defined territory. I am talking about nations with defined territories and empires of defined duration with governments while you seem to be talking about some fantasy nation.
What would Israel be if it expanded to its borders as defined in the Torah?
Secular Koranism is a legal system. If you want spirituality, you would go to someone else since I am a political philosopher and political activist, not a guru or witch doctor.
You're clearly not getting my point. China is a nation not an empire. 200 years ago there were no nations. No one would say "I'm American" or "I'm Iraqi" or "I'm Chinese" or whatever empires or divisions they had back then, there was no such thing as nationalism. It was a different way of life, there was no government that had judiciary powers and legislative powers, there were no national anthems, there were no strict borders like there are today, nation states haven't always existed, that's my simple point and I don't understand why it's so hard to grasp.
I don't know.
I was recommending you take the Quran for its full value, the Quran is as political as it is spiritual, I was merely making a recommendation that you actually study Islam and it's way of life.
How would you define nation and how would you define empire? Why is China not an empire when it has 56 ethnicities?
Well there are many definitions of a nation, most of which agree that a nation has a defined border, a defined population, and a government. There are certain other aspects, either way China fits the criteria.
Empires on the other hand are usually ruled over by a single monarch, have a constantly expanding (and sometimes receding) territory, and contain many states within them. Of course there were empires and there were sultanates and a variety of different forms of governance.
Nations however differ through their government for example, or through the loyalty to the state, as opposed to loyalty to an emperor or loyalty to the Sharia. Nationalism also means that everyone is a citizen of that nation, this wasn't the case in early form of governance, you weren't define by the empire you lived in.
There are several other differences, but you mean to tell me that the Sykes-Picot agreement (for example) didn't create new nationalities out of thin air? It was in 1916, not too long ago, and it created the nations of the Middle-East, you mean to tell me that these nations are natural and not a modern/european advent? The middle east was once a Sultanate, which carries with it major differences compared with modern nation-states.
Whether they are new or old nations, they have borders and boundaries containing Muslims. What is your point?
Never mind.
Why do you pretend that Islam is not a political ideology that would restore the patriarchy in your society/nation or that choosing sharia is not a political choice?
Why do you continue to deny that the distinction between religion and politics is a distinction without a difference?
Why do you pretend that Muslims have any right to say that non-Muslims cannot use the Book of Rules that is the Koran?
What do you think would be better for Muslims living in the West?
a) Continue to accept the degeneracy and chaos of their matriarchy
b) Use Secular Koranism to restore patriarchy in the West (which is now a degenerate matriarchy)
I never said Islam isn't political, it most definitely is. But it is also highly religious, you plan on taking one of the two halves.
Either way we're not talking about Islam, we're talking about your made up doctrine, so why use Islam, Shariah, and secular Koranism interchangeably?
"Secular koranism" is one thing while Islam and the Shariah is something else, don't conflate the two.
I never said non muslims cannot use the book, but non muslims should at least respect it and not take out parts that you find convenient.
That is a made up dichotomy and I don't find answering this relevant at all.
I do say that Secular Koranism is a New School of Sharia while denying that I have created a new religion. At the most, I have created a New School of Sharia which I know you and other Muslims of your ilk will fall over yourselves to declare illegitimate because it is not like your oh so much more successful interpretation of the Koran. Let us see whose interpretation is better then!
How have I shown that I have not respected the Koran? I respect it enough to say it is the best guide to humanity available and Western governments now over their heads in debt and losing the confidence of the people they presume to govern should take a leaf out of its book. But you are complaining, for some reason.
Are you seriously comparing your unheard of doctrine with the Shariah? You really think your "interpretation" poses the slightest challenge to the Shariah?
In complete honesty I do not care enough about your idea to complain about it. I'm simply telling you some of the problems with your proposition. You haven't created a new school of Shariah, it's not as simple as taking a "leaf out" of the Quran. Studying the Quran takes decades of learning and studying, and only the most learned of Islamic scholars could contribute to the Sharia, this is not an overstatement.
And again, there is no Sharia without it's spiritual components, what you are proposing is merely a law or two that would prohibit unmarried sex and usury, nothing remotely close to a "new school of Sharia"
I thank you--and respect--your appreciation for the Quran, but you should take it for what it really is and study it more in depth, if you're so interested with the Quran then maybe consider learning more about Islam. It all begins on an individual level, you cannot revolutionize the west, especially not using the Quran, if you haven't revolutionized yourself and your thought processes. I'm not saying you need to become a Muslim, I'm merely recommending you learn more about Islam and the true nature of the Quran.
Do you really think I have not read around the subject? Why don't you ask me some questions to test my knowledge of Islam?
I'll start with this question, could there be any form of Sharia that isn't intrinsically tied with the oneness of God (and subsequently accepting his messenger).
A follow up question, is there any action or deed that could be taken only politically without the link to the spiritual. For example is the forbidding of unmarried sex simply a matter of societal necessity.
And a last question, do you consider "secular Koranism" to be Islamic in any way?
Did *everyone* in Mecca really believe in God after the return of Muhammand to his city after the Islamic Revolution?
Once the principles of Secular Koranism are in force, general belief will follow after 2 or 3 generations. I am certainly not going to wait for everyone in the country to convert to Islam before asking them delicately if they would mind becoming a theocracy, as you appear to be suggesting.
For some reason, you seem to be less keen on dawah than me.
Spirituality is the reward we get when we think we are following God's laws correctly. It is therefore important that we know what these laws are, before we can even think of following them. I have no difficulty accepting the necessity and logic of theocracy if we are going to obey what are believed to be God's laws.
Secular Koranism is as Islamic as the Koran is Islamic. It is a one size fits all legal system that accommodates the atheist to the polytheist and only Muslim purists or hypocrites would object to it, either because they would be too afraid to be seen to be supporting such a radical proposal or for reasons of sheer bloody-mindedness want to be in the position to say to me: "It's our way or it's the highway." Secular Koranism does not need the permission or approval of these Muslims when they have themselves distorted and misinterpreted their religion so badly that they ended up being colonised and divided by Christian Europeans. Should the Western political establishment choose to adopt Secular Koranism, it need neither consult nor seek the approval of Muslims who have themselves ignored or distorted their own religious principles.
Yes when Muhammad implemented his constitution everyone believed in God... There may have been a select few who didn't, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a necessity to believe in God
No that's not what spirituality is, it's not about following laws, it's about knowing why we are following the laws. The absolute starting point is accepting God, there is no other alternative, you do not follow the laws then believe in God. You seem to be conflating legal issues with spiritual issues, again, they cannot be separated. I could elaborate on this point if you like.
No it most definitely is not. A "Jefferson Quran" is not Islamic. A secular interpretation of the Quran is as Islamic as atheism is Islamic.
It's extremely Ironic that you, a presumably non-muslim, is accusing me with hypocrisy and distortion. Do you understand what you're saying? You're saying we muslims have distorted our own religion, while proposing to secularize the Quran. You're saying a millennium worth of Islamic thought and scholars have distorted Islam, but you, someone unlearned in the principles of Islam, are going to fix it for us? Are you delusional? 80% of the globe was colonized by the Europeans, what does that have to do with anything?
Your theory is unheard of (and will probably remain unheard of), you have no one supporting your idea, and its all nonsensical to begin with, yet you have the audacity to question my belief and my religion.
The Western political establishment will never accept what you're proposing, and we don't need it to right now, for each their own.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you seriously lack the Islamic knowledge necessary to pursue what you're proposing.
I am saying it is not necessary to believe in God to implement Secular Koranism or any kind of legal system as long as you have enough political support to do so.
The people who would be interested in adopting Secular Koranism would be those who wish to restore patriarchy ie those who
a) aspire to be married parents
b) are already married parents and want the law to protect the institution of marriage
Even if the majority of voters now do not wish to live in a patriarchy, they could eventually be persuaded to do so by the media.
The political classes could in theory be persuaded that restoring the patriarchy would result in improved working conditions allowing them to enjoy higher status.
Even if the political classes are currently divided on whether they want to restore the patriarchy, a minority could still get their way if they were sufficiently focused and organised.
8:65-6
If there are among you 20 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 200. And if there are among you 100 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 1000.
If there are from you 100 [who are] steadfast, they will overcome 200. And if there are among you 1000, they will overcome 2000.
The people most likely to have a vested interest in the matriarchy and oppose the restoration of the patriarchy are:
a) feminists with the declared intention of destroying the patriarchy by undermining the institution of marriage
b) homosexuals who would be treated as sex offenders in a patriarchy
c) those who have no intention of becoming married parents
The above can be challenged on Kantian principles of universalisability as being immoral and legislating against the national interest.
The national interest is defined as at the very least ensuring minimum standards of sexual morality ie that most parents in our society are married parents.
An argument can be made that those who wish to maintain the status quo ie the matriarchy are atheists and nihilists who don't care what happens to their society after they are dead because they have no biological investment in the next generation. For these reasons alone they should be ignored by those who want their government to govern in the national interest and by politicians who wish to govern in the national interest.
Only under a patriarchy would enough good strong men be produced to defend the national interest. The best available guide to humanity is the Koran which criminalises extramarital sex and treats as sex offenders unmarried parents. A society wishing to enjoy the benefits of Koranic laws establishing a just and stable society must logically and necessarily become a theocracy.
Islam means the peace we get from submitting to Truth, Logic and Morality, does it not? What exactly is illogical or immoral about proposing to use the best available guide to mankind that is the Koran?
You object to my actively proposing a one party theocracy while ignoring your Islamic duty to enjoin good and forbid evil. You have a grudge against the West and would hate Westerners to succeed where you have failed.
80% of the globe was colonised by Christian Europeans because Muslims were so weak they allowed this to happen. Now that Christianity is kaput and it is fast becoming obvious that democracy is dementia, I expect Secular Koranism to become increasingly attractive even to Islamophobes.
Secular Koranism is no longer unheard of since you have now heard of it. How can it be nonsense since you have understood it and object to it?
The Western political establishment will reject my ideas for as long as they think that Christianity is not kaput, liberalism is logical and democracy is not dementia. Soon, even the most stubborn Islamophobe would have to admit that Christianity is kaput, democracy is dementia and liberalism in the 21st century only means sexual liberation, gay marriage and transgenderism, all of which are dysgenic, degenerate and entropic.
Post a Comment