The right to legislate

The second bone of contention between the secular and Islamist schools, is man's right to legislate; this is reference to a previous entry where I made the claim that the difference between the two political viewpoints are not be as insurmountable as they might first appear.

Whereas the first point addressed was fairly general, and related to the perceived jurisdiction of the Islamic Shariah, the point discussed here is more specific, and potentially more problematic, as it is portrayed as being a dispute about the the sovreignty of the Creator verses that of the creation. The proponents of political Islam maintain that legislation is the exclusive right of the Creator, and any attempt to allow man to legislate is seen as a direct challenge to the Creator's sole sovreign right to legislate.

The purpose here is not to comment on the validity or consistency of either argument, but rather to caputre the essence of what each party is claiming, in an effort to understand why they differ, and how their differences could be reconciled.

Evidence is presented by the proponents of political Islam, in support of the argument that it is disebelief/Kufr to knowingly rule by other than what the Creator has revealed, or to knowingly support such a ruling system. This is because in origin the rule should be with the Creator alone, and referring to other than the Creator in any matter of ruling or judgement constitutes idolisation of the Taghoot (anything worshipped or obeyed instead of Allah), and is tantamount to disbelief/Kufr. Wahhabi literature abounds with such arguments, thoroughly supported by textual evidence from the scriptures.

How then, can such a view be reconciled with a view that maintains it is perfectly acceptable for man to judge, rule, legislate and be obeyed, without reference to the Creator or to religion? At face value, their argument is both water-tight and non-negotiable. Probing further however, reveals otherwise.

The Islamists' objection to man's ruling by other than what the Creator revealed hinges on three implicit assumptions:

• that the business of ruling is one of passing legal judgement, as in a court,
• that for all matters of ruling there is a known judgement revealed by the Creator, and
• that these judgements are being ignored by not being explicitly referred to in ruling.

While each of these points warrants a separate discussion, it is sufficient at this point to find suitable loopholes in the above to enable the secularist argument to pass the Islamist validity test. With a little effort, a workaround can be found for each of the above pivotal points; however the second of the three points is what I shall address here.

As discussed in a previous posting, the Islamists, while insisting that all aspects of human relationships (including politics) are addressed by Divine revelation, they nevertheless concede that the bulk of these relations that relate to politics and ruling, fall under the category of permissible (Mubah) actions. In other words, for those aspects of ruling that are permissible , the ruler is permitted to pass legislation, but is under no Islamic obligation to do so. Furthermore, in passing this legislation, the ruler is permitted to adopt whatever position he sees fit, provided that such laws do not cause the public to become sinful by preventing them for carrying out their obligations or forcing them to engage in prohibited actions.

The ruler is thus at liberty to choose any such laws that are deemed to serve the public good, whether these laws are taken from Islam or elsewhere. The ruler may therefore adopt laws originally drafted by the French or the Brazilian parliament, with no reference to Islam whatsoever, provided that he is satisfied that he is permitted to legislate in this matter, and that he has not caused anyone to be sinful. The Islamists may well accuse him of "ruling by other than what Allah revealed", to which his defence would be that he had ruled in accordance to what Allah had revealed, as Allah's revelation in this matter indicated permissibility. It is imporant to note that the permissibility here refers to the act of legislating, and not to the actions themselves that are being regulated by the legislation.

Thus, even according to the Islamist argument, a secular ruler may be exonerated for adopting and implementing man-made laws, thus bridging the second of the three divides between the two schools of political thought. Man does, after all, have the right to legislate; even according to the Islamists!

Politics of permissibility

In a previous entry, it was said that one of the points distinguishing the Islamists from the Muslim secularists is their attitude towards the Shariah and the jurisdiction of its rulings. In this and subsequent entries, I shall attempt to very briefly outline why I believe the two views have much more in common is at first apparent, and how the perceived incompatibility of the two political views is largely due to semantics and rhetoric.

With regards to the first point, the nature and jurisdiction of the Sharia, the secular school maintains that as a religion, Islam is mainly concerned with man's spiritual, moral and personal aspects, and has limited jurisdiction in the wider social context, and even less influence in matters of ruling. As such, they maintain that the affairs of the state, intended to organise public life, should not be influenced by religion, whose zone of influence is the individual.

The Islamists, on the other hand, argue that Islam is a complete way of life, encompassing the complete spectrum of human affairs and relationships, and cannot be divorced from the matters of the state. They go further, claiming that Islam is not only inherently political, but is also primarily concerned with achieving global superiority and dominance, and shaping the lives of all those fortunate enough to come under the influence of the single Islamic state.

Looking carefully at what each party is claiming, it is possible to construct an argument sufficiently close to each of the above positions to briefly bridge the gulf between them, allowing those in both camp open to independent thinking to engage in constructive dialogue or self-reflection.

The secularist argument, when rephrased in Islamist terms, simply states that the ruling class, like everyone else, are required by Allah to ensure their actions comply with Islamic law, i.e. that they carry out all their obligations and refrain from all prohibitions. The Muslim secularists don't generally have a problem with this, as Islam is deeply rooted in their cultural and religious heritage. To the secular ear, the Islamist argument sound something like this: the ruler is appointed by the people to implement Islamic law in public life, and the manner in which this justice is dispensed and this power manipulated must itself be according to Islamic law.

The difference between the two views seems to be in the understanding of what it means to comply with Islamic Sharia, and whether that is different from implementing it. It is generally agreed that every human action has an associated Islamic ruling, being either mandatory, rewardable, permissible, undesirable or forbidden; the differences arise when determining how these rulings are allocated.

The secularists would say that most actions, and in particular those in the public sphere, have not been addressed by the Islamic texts directly, and are therefore not covered by Islamic legislation, and are "permissible" by default. A Shariah-compliant government, from a secular point of view, is at liberty to use whatever means it sees fit to select and implement legislation to organise people's public actions within this "permissible" category. Such governance would neither legalise actions known to be prohibited in Islam, nor prohibit actions known to be obligations in Islam, and as such the Muslim secularists might be excused for wondering what all the fuss was about.

The Islamists would probably argue that no action is exempt from the all-encompassing Islamic Shariah, as the revelation deals with all aspects of human relations. To them, "permissibility by default" is akin to accusing the Creator of overlooking some actions in the revelation, and is strongly rejected. However they will concede that a large proportion of human actions does in fact fall under the "permissible" category, due to the existence of general evidences from the Islamic texts that indicate their permissibility.

The form of governance acceptable to such advocates would involve legislation being passed to organise public affairs within the this category because these actions are part of the Islamic Shariah, and hence implementation of such legislation is considered an implenentation of the Islamic Shairah. Bringing about such governance is considered an obligation (upon society) for which people should sacrifice their lives.

Notice how the difference between the two views is essentially semantic in nature: both parties agree that there is a category of Islamically-permissible human actions which have not been addressed explicitly by the Islamic texts. One party considers that sufficient to justify looking elsewhere when legislating in this area, while the other party considers permissibility to be an Islamic ruling in itself that must be adhered to when legislating in that area, in order for the legislation process itself to be permissible.

I can't see the difference between the two positions, in practice. Can you?

Examples of how these semantics are reflected in some Islamist literature will follow in subsequent entries, insha Allah.

Pedantic semantics

When it comes to politics and ruling, the Muslims seem divided between two competing camps, each with distinctly different political agendas: the secular establishments representing the ruling classes, political parties and intelligentsia, and the emerging Islamist movements representing the more politicised Islamic organisations and the growing religious grass-roots. Each camp also claim the loyalty of a fair number of esteemed Muslim scholars.

On the face of it, the two schools appear diametrically opposed to each other, with each presenting a mutually-exclusive view towards politics and matters of ruling and public life. However, beyond the rhetoric and accusations, it could be that the two schools are in fact more similar than they might first appear. It may well be that the areas of contention have more to do with semantics and pedantry than substantial differences on matters of creed or ideology.

And just to be clear about that, semantics is defined as:

the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings.

Pedantry is similarly defined as

undue display of learning; slavish attention to rules and details; excessive concern with minute details of formalism; narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules.

Listening to what is being said by both sides, it would appear that the main areas of controversy can be grouped under three main (closely-related) headings:

1. Are all actions subject to the Shariah, including those relating to politics and ruling?


2. Does man have the right to legislate, or is that only for Allah?


3. Can legislation be taken from "other than Islam"?

While both parties appear to differ bitterly on the answers to these three questions, in the following three entries I shall examine some of the main arguments put forward, and attempt to show how bridging the gulf between the two viewpoints can often be achieved simply by listening. I believe in most cases, the difference of opinion is somewhat artificial and the debate often exaggerated, leading to unnecessary polarisation, entrenchment and animosity. If only both sides were to agree on the use of a common language, perhaps the current stalemate could be broken.

This discussion is continued in a series of entries:

• Politics of permissibility
• The right to legislate
• Did you say "Kufr"?

Absolving responsibility

By claiming that all matters should be governed and decided by Allah, the Islamists effectively absolve themselves of responsibility.

"Clash of civilisations" meme

We keep hearing that the Muslim civilisation and that of the modern secular west are on an inevitable collision course, and that the re-emergence of the Islamic Caliphate will bring this clash to a confrontational head. This idea of a "clash of civilisations", isn't entirely new; the term was coined by Bernard Lewis in an essay in 1990, and later developed into a theory of global cultural conflict in a series of books in the 1990's.

This "clash of civilisations" meme (for meme is what is most certainly is) rapidly gained immense popularity, infecting academics and politicians alike in classical meme-fashion. The events of 911, coinciding with the emergence of the neoconservatives in the White House, created the ideal conditions for this meme to flourish.

The Islamists and the American neocons each trumpeted a new era of ideological battle, and it is the narrow agendas of these two cults that are inciting and sustaining the current War on Terror. Both parties rely for their ideological cover on the existence of the public perception of a fierce and formidable adversary bent on their annihilation.

As such their relationship is more one of mutually-beneficial symbiosis than mutual rivalry, as each has a stake in bolstering the image of the other. The Islamists are generally grateful for being portrayed with such a grandiose image, and the neocons appreciate the militant antagonism as it sustains their myth of an ideological battle. In many ways, this propaganda routine is reminiscent of the Cold War between the capitalist west and the Communist Soviet bloc, but unlike the very real ideological clashes of the late 20th century, the ideological battle between the West and the Islamists today hardly goes beyond the hollow rhetoric of politicians' statements and the fiery Islamist video broadcasts. It is simply self-sustaining propaganda.

Seen in the light of this meme, the War on Terror can be described as a proxy battle in a war between two mutually-sustaining symbiotic cult memes, both of which are variants of the same "they're out to get us" meme. The irony is that, unlike the Cold War, as each party relies on the other its own existence, according to the memetic rules of engagement there can be no winner in this war.

Related links

• TFTD: Real Motive for War on Terror
• Clash of Civilisations: Wikipedia
• The Power of Nightmares: BBC
• The Power of Nightmares: watch video
• The Clash of the Cults

Islamist piranha cults

In a previous entry, parallels were drawn between some aspects of the Islamist ideology and memetics. While the latter is by no means universally accepted model for human behaviour, the striking similarity between the two compels one to explore this further, if only to attempt to understand the mechanisms involved in what would otherwise be quite complex behavioural systems. In this entry, Islamist cults are likened to memes ... piranha memes!

A meme is defined as

Any unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.

A cult is defined as

A cohesive group of people devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be outside the mainstream, either due to its novel belief system, its idiosyncratic practices, or other causes.

A cult-meme is defined as

A kind of mono-culture (aka ideology), which tends to see itself as the only valid source of truth and understanding.

A piranha is defined as

An omnivorous freshwater fish known for its sharp teeth and an aggressive appetite for meat and flesh.

While a meme will, by definition, seek to replicate itself by infecting minds (particularly those minds that are either actively exploring new ideas, or are receptive to intellectual dialogue), this infection is not always done in an exclusive manner. In other words, many memes are perfectly happy coexisting with other memes, forming - you guessed it - memeplexes (aka meme complexes).

Islamist cults however, when viewed as memes, can be quite aggressive, cannibalistic even. Islamist cult memes not only infect a person's mind and then propagate like a virus, but tend also to feed on its host's cultural and intellectual stock, leeching like a parasite, and growing like a cancer.

At some point, the mind looses the ability to function indepndently of the Islamist cult meme, and takes conscious actions to block any efforts to de-contaminate it. The growth of such malignant memes continues until, wherever possible, they totally dominate their hosts' thinking and mould their relationships and behaviour. Such people then becomes active advocates and recruiters for the Islamist cause, and for all intents and purposes, they become the physical personification of the meme.

The almost unique thing about Islamist cult memes is their refusal to co-exist with other religious, ideological or political memes. The Islamist memes are monocratic, have a huge appetite for blood, and hardly ever give up; they either prevail or die in their struggle to dominate (they tend to prevail).

It is fascinating to think of the sociological change taking place during the Islamic revival as a series of bloody battles raging between opposing schools of cult-meme piranhas: the Islamist school (a far from homogeneous one) and the liberal secularist school. Other, more benign and tolerant memes, share the same waters, and feed on the scraps of this battle. This topic is worthy of further investigation.

Defined by bogeymen

Successful meme-based ideologies typically define themselves by defining the "other": an alliance of invariably malicious forces bent on the destruction of Islam and the corruption of its thoughts and creed. Their identity is thus primarily formed not by the Islamic culture, but by the prejudices (see related TFTD) formed by their portrayal of the dangers and threats of the "agents of Satan".

The West, in its entirety, is portrayed an enemy of Islam, and their governments are engaged in a Crusade to annihilate the Muslims. The Jews and Zionists are like a dagger in the side of the Muslim body, with territorial, political, economic and social ambitions - the old Protocols conspiracy. Needless to say, the Muslim rulers are seen as mere puppets, acting as agents for their Western masters, and similarly the government scholars (aka "scholars for dollars") are depicted as bearded mouthpieces for the agents of the infidels.

Democracy is portrayed as a threat, as it represents the sovereignty of man over the will of the Creator, and is the Trojan horse used by the West to undermine Islam and spread corruption and mischief. Human rights and the four freedoms are the values that underpin the liberal democracy, and are seen as the lethal venom with which the body of Islam is being injected. Secular Muslim organisations are a direct threat to the very idea of Islamism, and are demonised without question.

Other Islamist and Islamic groups are considered a threat because they threaten the exclusivity of the group's ideology, and challenge the "saved sect" status of its adherents. Those "non-practicing" Muslims who do not follow Islamic traditions aren't necessarily viewed as a threat, rather they are used to boost the Islamists' moral arrogance and self-righteousness.

Furthermore, they have a tendency to be critical of their history, demonising key personalities and belittling the status and contributions of the social, religious and political movements that constitute their Islamic culture and heritage; even the established schools of thought and philosophy are not exempt from criticism, and sometimes even blamed for the current state of backwardness and intellectual decline. The exeption to this is the so-called "golden era" of the first few generations of Islam, as this is portrayed as the Islamic Utopia for which all believers should aspire. Distancing their followers from their Islamic heritage reduces the competition for religious, political and intellectual authority and superiority, thus preserving the meme.

Human nature is such that these Islamist memes will constantly create suitable bogeymen to maintain sufficient inertia to allow them to weather most conditions. They successfully cultivate a unique blend of social, political and religions xenophobia that serves to preserve and enhance the very prejudices that brought these memes into existence. Weather this mechanism is the result of evolution or "intelligent design" is still unclear however.

Islamism: a self-referential meme?

In recent years, it has become fashionable amongst anthropologists and sociologists to describe almost all societal phenomena as memes - parasitic mental processes which propagate in the same manner as chain letters and computer viruses. A meme can also be defined as any self-referential belief system which contains within itself the instructions for its own propagation.

The Islamist ideology, as embodied by most Islamist groups, can be modelled as a self-perpetuating delusion. There is some merit in exploring how Islamism can be seen to function through the eyes of meme theory, and how it influences the behaviour of its adherents and opponents.

A meme carries exactly the same fear-driven psychological motivation as a chain letter - "If you propagate me then something nice will happen, if not then something horrible will happen". In order to justify themselves against attack by reason, memes place absolute reliance on faith, which is seen as being superior to reason. They also contain self-referential or circular claims to the truth such as

"This meme says it is the divine truth and can be proved by enlightened thought to be the truth. Since it is the divine truth whatever its says must be true. Therefore it must be divine truth because it says so and all competing memes must be either deviant, corrupt, or the work of the Devil".

These two types of self-referential statement "propagate me" and "I am the only truth" provide the driving force for Islamist memes to invade the minds of their hosts, and drive out all competing memes. In addition, many memes contain a strong tendency towards hatred and intolerance with instructions such as "Love and help people who believe in this meme, hate and attack people who do not". In memetics, these commands are seen as the main factor behind all religious hatred, wars, pogroms and persecutions throughout the centuries.

More detailed analysis will show that like a virus or parasitic worm, a successful meme must perform two actions:

- Ensure it takes up long-term residence in its host.
- Bring about the conditions for its spread.

According to meme theory, the Islamist ideology needs to establish itself in the mind of its host using some or all of the following mechanisms:

1. Promise heaven and salvation for its adherents.

2. Threaten punishment in hell for rejection.

These two are easily achieved by maintaining that the ideology espoused by this particular Islamic group is in fact Islam in its purest form, and hence it derives its divinity from that of the Creator, and its infallibility from that of the scriptures.

3. Boost the believers' egos by telling them they are "chosen" or superior to believers in false memes, and hence part of an elite "saved sect".

4. Disable the faculties of doubt and rejection ("immune response") by claiming that faith is superior to reason, and that the reasoning of the group's main patrons is superior to their own (ie don't bother arguing).

5. Establish itself as the One True Meme, usually by distorting some texts from the scripture containing a circular self-referential argument or justification for the exclusive validity of this group's methods (a practice known as exclusivism, see related entries here and here).

Once it has infected the mind of its host, a meme needs to propagate itself, and a successful Islamist meme will contain instructions for some or all of the following:

6. Convert, discredit, attack or neutralise all rival groups, thoughts or ideologies.

7. Intimidate and discriminate against doubters (potential rebels).

8. Enforced social isolation to "apostates"; an apostate is a host which has cured itself of the meme-infection. It is especially dangerous to the meme because it might pass on meme-resistance to others. Sympathisers with ex-Islamists often face intimidation and threats.

9. Censorship - prevent rival memes (groups, thoughts or ideologies) from reaching potential hosts (a theological doctrine known as 'Error has no rights').

Each of these points will be looked at in more detail insha Allah...

Related blog entries: Defined by bogeymen; Islanist piranha cults


Adapted from http://home.btclick.com/scimah/memes.htm

The comfort of certainty

The Islamist ideology, in most of its many forms, offers a coherent and (mainly) consistent viewpoint with which to perceive the world and make judgements about others. This is particularly welcome and comforting for many new recruits, as the "world outside" is full of diversity and ambiguity, with so few certainties that it can be quite disconcerting.

Within Islamism one is given a set of clear black-and-white criteria by which to determine right from wrong, and precise dogmatic manner by which to conduct oneself. This is quite reassuring for many, as things begin to make sense and fall into place in one's mind, according to the grand Islamist scheme. Dilemmas which have perplexed the world for centuries are magically resolved by the winning formula, inspiring the new ideologue with additional trust in his adopted school of thought.

This attitude also has the tendency of lulling those who subscribe to it into a false sense of security, as the adopted ideology is often synonymous with Islam itself, and just as Islam cannot be wrong, the Islamist ideology is likewise absolved of any shortcoming or imperfection, thus confirming and entrenching the delusion.

Adherents to the Islamist ideology will also tend to become zealously defensive of their doctrine, in the belief that this is in fact a defense of Islam itself. Productive dialogue thus becomes progressively more difficult as the advocate's personality and thinking moulds itself to the Islamists tenets and dogma, becomming more and more brittle with time, eventually solidifying and fossilising in a state almost unreachable by reasonable debate.

(... to be continued, insha Allah...)

Silence the Pied Piper?

The Brothers Grimm immortalised the fable of the Pied Piper, who used the mesmerising effect of his melodies to charm and enchant the children of Hamelin to follow him to an unknown destiny. While the people of Hamelin might have been justified in launching a manhunt for this colourful character, and might even have banned puplic pipe-playing, the long-term answer to the problem of their vulnerability lies within society itself.

Accepting this fact is a difficult yet necessary step along the long path of recovery, and unless the villagers are prepared to swallow this bitter pill and focus their attention inwards, they risk perpatuating the problem and remaining vulnerable to successive "attacks"

(to be continued, insha Allah)

Are they thinking what we're thinking?

How does one deal with a concerted and conceited effort to undermine the basic values that bind together the components of a society? How does one address a smugly self-righteous force bent on disrupting all social norms and reversing centuries of civilisation and progress?

What vocabulary can one use, and what common language do we share? What would our terms of reference be, and indeed, what would be the objective of such a discussion? Do we understand who we are dealing with, and do we appreciate their motivations and concerns? Should that even matter at all? Isn't this a simple clash between good and evil, where good (reason) is bound to prevail over evil (fanaticism)?

Those who choose to see this as a good-evil struggle assume not only that good and evil are absolutes and are recognised universally for what they are, regardless of ideology, but also that these Islamist groups are intentionally engaging in actions they perceive as being evil, for some ideological political ideal. While one may be excused for making the first assumption, it would take a deliberate negligence of recent events to justify the second.

(to be continued insha Allah)

(Islamism) Topics to consider

These are some miscellaneous points that need to be pursued; a continuation to the list started in a previous post, but more specifically focused on the Islamist mindset. Later on, common threads and themes can be deduced that cut across all these.

• Is Islamism created by the Islamists, or vice versa?
• What attracts would-be Islamists to this camp (see related TFTD)?
• How cynical should one be in considering their recruitment tactics?
• How conscious is the shift, and is there much self-reflection?
• What various strands of Islamism can be identified, and what do they have in common?
• How "leak-proof" is the Islamist ideology?
• Isn't it just a case of Islamic memes?
• What drives and motivates them as individuals, and as organisations?
• To what extent are their objectives/targets fixed, and how important are they?
• How successful are they at immunising themselves from any serious criticism or calls for change?
• Are these groupings self-sustaining and self-fulfilling? To what extent is it all just about being an Islamist?
• How do they interact between themselves? What is the general dynamic?
• ...
• (to be continued, insha Allah...)