, , , , , ,

Free-Will’s Relationship to Justice and Equity

     Human Rights      Until men honor the rights of their neighbors, and until commerce is joined to truth, there will be war.

The entire purpose of Divine Justice is to establish among men and jinn the fact that God must be obeyed so that individual and collective rights can be honored.  Albeit, the reality is this estate cannot be achieved until after the divine intervention of the Day of Judgment.   Discussions that avoid these conditional relationships avoid the core of Islam’s purpose and are useless.  Let me explain.

The chief human right among men is that of inherent free-will to chose whether or not to obey Divine Directives, which begin with common sense.  All other human rights hang on this prerogative because God has subjected human privilege to this one elemental freedom.  Accordingly, this means that man does indeed have the ‘right to sin’

This is legal ground for non-compunction in religion as Al’Qur’an reminds us, and is also why Muslims have no right to dispose the affairs of non-believers unless they freely submit to ‘authentic’ Muslim dominion, not the current Islamist charade as embroidered by psychopathic mobs with rags on their heads.[1]  However, within an Islamic polity and those submitted to its protection, Shari’ah should be enforced among people who publicly confess their willful submission to God’s Kingdom.  But even if they do ‘change their mind’, please don’t murder them; just mark them and let them go and sin elsewhere.  God willing, they will repent.  Hence, this elemental free-will option indicates that a limited and extremely discriminatory degree of social apartheid is ‘Islamic’ when it comes to protecting those who choose Islam’s sphere of moral governance.

When leaders obey Spiritual Law, Muslim or not, all subsidiary human rights are distributed as a matter of course, much like cascades of water.  But when leaders choose disobedience, all the inverse consequences of the Spiritual Law book is autonamously thrown at them from the universal ether.  Hence, any shower of human rights consequently decreases per degree(s) of communal sin in harmony with the elevation of offensive tyranny.   Of course, this implies that those who knowingly submit to such tyranny partake in crimes against heaven and self (yes, that’s right, God hates cowards).  Under these all too common circumstances, blessing or cursing (benefit or harm) accordingly flow to the polity, which is why the quality of leadership is so very important.  Presently, we see harm universally, liberally and wantonly flowing for this reason.

‘Free Will’ is singularly independent and its exercise has no possi-bility other than outcomes that follow pre-defined spiritual determi-nants for good or for evil.  Hence, man’s ‘Free Will’ stands alone like a prince over good and evil, benefit or harm.   This means that all human rights are absolutely and ever contingent upon man’s free-will, and also that human rights go begging their due when choices are made for evil.  Internationally, especially under the NWO’s pathocratic fascism, human rights will unreservedly continue to go ‘wanting’ until mankind’s leaders exercise the option to ‘hear and obey’ the word of God; which, unfortunately, is not going to occur.   Thus, the question of human rights is a trial of man’s faith in God, not in the state, most especially for those who do  not throw off the sociopathic parasites at the top.  If mankind truly believed God’s word, all would fear our inevitable judgment and consequently choose what is best.  Nonethe-less, it seems that most do want to believe the prophets and subcon-sciously convince themselves that hell is a myth.  Tragic, isn’t it?

As for equity or justice: this is a matter that is too often subject to mediocre thinking and philosophical fancy.  The misapplication of this construct (justice) even helped create an undeserving welfare-state in nascent Islam, one that led to a ‘gang-like’ mentality that directly contributed to civil war.  How so?  What right did every Muslim in Medina have to tithes that were brought in?  Like spoiled children, the distribution of unearned wealth fostered an offensive militancy that heralded industrial sloth and exogenous envy.  The righteous leaders certainly goofed.

The proofs for this assertion are seen in (a) Hadrat Umar’s favoritism (nepotism) which opened the doors of civil war; and (b) that Arabs failed to properly manage nearly every piece of arable real estate acquired from exiled Jews.  These Semite cousins irresponsibly let livestock overgraze—mostly goats who eat every plant and its root—which then turned bountiful orchards and tillable lands into sand.[2]  Later, a similar desertification analogously happened to an imperialized rather than Islamized approach to governance, most especially in India; not to mention the insults that invited the ‘Hammer of God’ to ruin Baghdad.  This is not the responsible husbandry of Allah’s appointed vicegerents or that of claimers to the office. 

Equity (what Jacobins call egalitarianism), is a principle that distributes wealth, not according to the availability of booty and man’s desire, but rather allows the largess of heaven to flow in harmony with (i) human need, (ii) human ability, (iii) human efforts, and (iv) requirements for sustainable development.  The latter reality implies limits rather than industrial sprawls of monetized greed and unrestrained anonymous consumerism.  However, (i) unripe minds—some call ‘libtards’—when given the franchise think all distributions should be made in equal fractions of the confiscated pie; or (ii) according to man’s cunning for Machiavellian pathocrats.  Well, this is a bit like dispensing jelly beans to children who think the Wide World of Wrestling is real.  This kind of thinking falls afoul of Islam and right into the troughs of Zionism’s Bolshevik mafia cum Jesuit friendly socialism. 

It is of some note to remind readers that the spiritually mature amongst Medina’s Muslims refused their share of the takings because they had no real need of it.  This logically implies that they claimed no ‘right’ to the wealth.  Hence, one of the many lessons drawn from this conveniently overlooked fact is this: the man who does not work needs to be kicked in the seat of wisdom sufficiently to cause him to do so in order to preserve his and the community’s dignity and integrity.

Unfortunately, Muslim leaders presently, and at the time, sought mob placation through appeasement rather than civil discipline.  As ‘Rightly Guided’ as they were in other matters, serious errors were made in this realm of elementary human affairs and Sociology-Psychology 101.  What right does a man who doesn’t work have to anything he has not earned save his patrimony?  The Prophet Suleiman put it differently in his Book of Proverbs: “The [able bodied] man who does not work does not eat.”  I happen to like that law.

As an analogy for justice and equity, consider a man with two wives, one who is educated and the other a happy unlettered domestic.  Does he give the latest upgraded computer to both women just because some pot-bellied mullah says so?  Please, spare me this fetishist dross.  If I educate two children, one to an M.D. and the other to carpentry according to their respective capabilities, have I been unjust in my spending?  Preposterous injudiciousness has crept into Islamic jurisprudence and its social policies as impertinent intrusions into private affairs.  This has become a kind of waving of some else’s largess much like American and British pathocrats.  Among Muslims, it has even become part and parcel of those who administer zakat (charity funds).  For example, in Malaysia, so-called ‘administrators’ retain more than sixty per cent of contributions, ostensibly for ‘admin costs’. [3]

As for commerce and industry: if the cost of living is $1000/month but employees receive only $500, the owners of the business as well as the governors of the state who allow the injustice are thieves.  The scripture is clear that thieves are not permitted to enter Paradise, especially leaders who deny the fact till they meet the grave.  If you buy from the farmer for $1 and sell for $10 what he has produced by his labor but your costs are only $2.50, you’re a double thief and excellent shylock, having stolen from both farmer and consumer.  All of which (and more) indicates that If Muslims were to conduct them-selves equitably and honestly—not to mention intelligently—in their business affairs, more of mankind would wish to do business with them and the faith would spread by means of commercial benefit, as it once did. 

As it is now, however, war reigns and now you know why.  Please make certain you are not part of the cause. 

[1] Muslim do however, have a right to set their communities outside of their domestic boundaries, or relocate themselves.

[2]  See Prof. A. Hourainy’s History of the Arabs

[3]  I have edited recent university papers on the subject by top Malay professors  and so I know, first hand, that this is fact.