Tags

, , , , , , ,


WarFree-Will’s Relationship to Justice and Equanimity

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

The chief purpose of Divine Justice is to ultimately establish that God’s ‘rule of law’ must be obeyed so that individual and collective human rights are consistently honored.  Albeit, the reality is that this ideal estate cannot be achieved until after the Day of Judgment.  Discussions that avoid these conditional relationships circumvent the core of Islam’s purpose and traditional dialogue as I will attempt to explain.

The chief human right among men is that of our inherent free-will to chose whether or not to obey Divine Directives, which are primal concepts that begin to gel in man’s consciousness with the fitrah of common sense.  All human rights, therefore, hang on this prerogative because God purposely subjected them to this primal freedom.  Accordingly, this means that humans have the temporal ‘right to sin’; a right that is removed from the individual on death, and from the collective at the final judgement. 

This right is the legal basis for non-compunction in religion and also why Muslims have no right to dispose the affairs of non-believers unless the latter freely submit to ‘authentic’ Muslim dominion rather than the current charade being propagated by sociopathic, Islamist mobs.[1]  Nevertheless, 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 Muslims do ‘change their mind’ and convert to another religion, please don’t murder them; just mark them and let them go in peace.  God willing, they will repent.  Hence, this elemental free-will option indicates that a limited and extremely discriminatory degree of social apartheid is, in fact, ‘Islamic’ when it comes to protecting those who choose Islam’s way of life, and for other communities that submit to Islamic sovereignty.

When leaders obey Spiritual Law, Muslim or not, all subsidiary human rights are distributed as a matter of course like waterfalls.  But when leaders choose disobedience, the inverse consequences of Spiritual Law are autonomously initiated.  Essentially, the unalterable Word of God‘s curse is thrown at them and those under their hand from the universal ether.  Hence, any shower of human rights consequently decreases per degree(s) of communal sin in harmony with the elevation of wicked tyranny.   This fact futher implies that those who knowingly submit to such tyranny partake in the crime(s) and consequently reap the harvest of harm.  Hence, the quality of leadership is extremely important for the well-being and benefit of mankind.  Presently, harm is universally, liberally and wantonly flowing upon the entire earth by means of this ponerogenesis.  It is the unalterable sunnah of the Divine Word.

‘Free Will‘ is singularly independent and its exercise has no possibility other than to provoke outcomes that follow pre-defined metaphysical determinants for good or evil.  And, mind you, even if you’re a neutral apologist, ‘no harm’ is actually a benefit.  Hence, man’s’ Free Will’ stands alone like a prince over the release of good and evil, benefit or harm.  This implies that all human rights are absolutely and ever contingent upon man’s free-will, which also indicates that human rights go begging their due when choices are made that counter inherent common sense. 

Internationally, especially under the NWO’s pathocratic fascism, human rights will unreservedly go ‘wanting’ until mankind’s leaders exercise the option to ‘hear and obey’ the Word of God; which, unfortunately, is not going to occur until sociopathic leaders and the attendants are removed from the ummah. According to Islamic eschatology, this will occur when Hadrat Isa (Jesus, the son of Mary) and Imam Mahdi (pbt) arrive on the scene.  This being the case, the question of human rights is simply a trial of man’s faith in God rather than the state, most especially for polities that do not throw off sociopathic parasites.  If mankind truly believed in God’s Word, all would fear our inevitable judgment and consequently choose what is best and then act on it.  Nonetheless, it seems that most people do not actually take the prophets seriosly and subconsciously convince themselves that hell is a myth and that paradise is an earthly realm for the hedonism of exceptionalists.[2]

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 caused a ‘gang’ mentality that directly contributed to civil war.  How so?  What right did every Muslim in Medina have to tithes that were brought in from out of their realm?  Like spoiled children, the distribution of unearned wealth fostered an offensive militancy, even bigotry, that heralded industrial sloth and the exogenous envy of other barbarians.  I’m afraid our righteous imams erred.

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 of the now rejected ‘chosen’ irresponsibly let livestock overgraze—mostly goats who eat every plant and its root—which then turned bountiful orchards and tillable lands into sand.[3]  Later on, 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 abbreviated litany does not reflect responsible husbandry.

Equity (what Jacobin collectivists call egalitarianism), is a principle that distributes wealth and justice, 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, (a) unripe minds, when given the franchise, tend to think that all distributions should be made in equal fractions of confiscated pies; or (b) according to the popular patriotic adoration of Machiavellian pathocrats and government employee sycophants.  This is a bit like dispensing jelly beans to children; a sort of thinking that falls afoul of Islam right into the troughs of Zionism’s Bolshevik mafia and Jesuit friendly socialism.

It is of note to remind readers that the spiritually mature among Medina’s Muslims refused their share of the ‘takings’ because they had no real need of it, which implies that they consciously (with a mature spirit) claimed no ‘right’ to the wealth of others.  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 enough to cause him to do so in order to preserve his and the community’s dignity, integrity, equity, and hence also, equanimity.  This is one of the forms of justice that prevents traditional socialist usury.

Unfortunately, Muslim leaders presently and at the time sought mob placation through a policy of appeasement rather than civil discipline.  As ‘Rightly Guided’ as they were in numerous matters, serious errors were made in this realm of elementary human affairs (Sociology-Psychology 101).  What right does a man who doesn’t work have to anything he has not earned save that of 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 particular ‘by the sweat of thy brow” 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?  If I educate two children, one to an M.D. degree 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 resultant social policies are impertinent intrusions into private affairs.  This has become a kind of waving of some else’s largess, much like that of American and British pathocrats of the Jacobin Conspiracy.  Among Muslims, this 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’ while the majority of collected funds remain undistrubuted or otherwise underutilized.[4]

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 themselves 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 and sin reign and now you know why.  Please make certain, therefore, that you consciously refrain from the right to sin.

In Conclusion 

The Body Politic of Islam is a ‘Living Organism’ created and established by God, not men.  Therefore, it cannot be imposed upon men as a conventional political institution any more than democracy can be foisted on a herd of elephants or monogamy on a Lion.  It simply is or isn’t.  It prospers in health or withers in illness according to the obedience of its constituencies to the instinctive righteousness of divine law.  When sick, it cannot be treated artificially with programs, new laws or reform.  The only curative medicine is that which is administered through the grace of submission.  We can study its components and come to an under-standing of its inherent qualities and mechanisms and, on occasion, apply the surgeon’s knife or the balm of admonishment.  But Islam cannot be artificially inseminated, cloned, or bionically restored to sentient potency by human effort alone because it absolutely requires the contingencies of God’s grace that attend the beneficial (positive) aspects of the spiritual determinants described above.

Muslim political viability and authority as Godly nations or vicegerents can only be so established and subsequently inherited by the next generation with the prayer that they will remain obedient. Alas, ‘if the salt loses its savor’ the potency needed for healthy reproduction depends upon salubrious habits, and the vigor of God’s Polity depends solely upon submission to God’s Will—His Law—His Holy Spirit—His Word—and not the chauvinist opinions of pot-bellied mullahs of psycho-pathology. 

There are certainly more spiritual maxims but I’ve exhausted my impetus to write on the theme so that further effort would be in vain.  Perhaps a later edition or another writer will advance the task.  I’ve been as honest and spirited as possible for the sake of what seems to me the veracity and incontrovertible position of mankind in the earth.  Muslim or no, the principles of God’s Kingdom stand before us all as a challenge to the disposition of our present (temporal) and future (everlasting) estates.  After all, what’s a human lifespan compared to forever?   

It is my hope the reader is better enabled to consider the enormity of any reform movement before raising sails for republics of Islamization Utopia.  Beware of pirates and their flags.  A vessel called ‘hope’ is easily launched and maintained well enough to reach the Isle of Peace and Prosperity but only ‘with the help of Allah’ rather than ensigns who mimic His enemies, as does the iconic flag of Malaysia.  Communal effort requires unanimous agreement in submission to divine law.  If you join such a crew, remember: you’re only a privileged brick in the house of God: a crew member of a much larger body politic.

Finally, bear in mind that when the last rank of souls has incarnated, both sides of God’s Laws will be fulfilled—for good or evil.  It really is that simple.


[1]     Muslim do however, have a right to set non-beleiving, non-submissive communities outside of their domestic boundaries, or otherwise relocate (flee from opression).

[2]       Hedonism is not just sexual incontinence, it is also the pursuit of pleasure as a matter of ethical principle and an ethical system that evaluates the pursuit of pleasure as the highest good.   Ibn Khaldun described this as the estate of a civilization steeped in the materialism that relaxes morals and discipline and thus, invites dissolution.

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

[4]       I have edited recent university papers by top Malay professors on the subject.