Anarchism in the Qur'an
-
Peace everyone,
Personally, my favorite political system is democracy (particularly the swiss version of democracy). And I don't support anarchy. Because I think that anarchy is impractical and selfish. In my view, anarchy is not in the interest of the greater good. From my understanding of the Quran, democracy is compatible with the Quran. On the other hand, anarchy (lawlessness) seems to be incompatible with the Quran. Because the Quran contains many laws. For example, the Quran contains laws for theft, murder and adultery. But anarchy on the other hand, seems to contain no laws. Therefore I think that anarchy is not compatible with islam.
I would like to share a few paragraphs from the book "Deus ex Machina Progression of secular socialism" with you. The book is written by Chris Pilie and Trey Roberts. I consider the information about anarchy (in the book) very interesting.
A few paragraphs from page 32 in the book
Anarchy - rule by no one
This type of society is one that exists with the lack of a government. Since the evidence of history shows that governments cause terrible injustices, some may find that the best society is one that exists without government. Where this goes wrong is that with anarchy comes lawlessness.The ancient Greeks said, "without law there can be no freedom". This prescient statement rings true because as lawlessness and chaos ensues the people would ultimately rise up and give up their freedom and liberty for peace and order. This then would lead to an Oligarchy as the vacuum of anarchy is replaced with forceful order. This is why revolutionaries create anarchy to destabilize the civil society in order to re-organize the system under a new powerful ruling caste.
Also, I would like to share a quote with you.
"Our founding fathers agreed and held that some amount of government is a necessary force in any civilized orderly society. In a state of Anarchy however, everyone has to guard life liberty and property and the lives of family members. Everyone must be armed and movement is severely restricted because one?s property has to be protected at all times. Civilized people have always hired someone to do the guarding; a Sherriff, a police force, or some branch of government. Once law enforcement was in place the people were freer. They could leave their property work in the fields and so on. In short the proper amount of government makes everyone freer. There are some advocating Anarchy however, not because they want no government but because they don?t like what they have."
-
Peace everyone,
Personally, my favorite political system is democracy (particularly the swiss version of democracy). And I don't support anarchy. Because I think that anarchy is impractical and selfish. In my view, anarchy is not in the interest of the greater good. From my understanding of the Quran, democracy is compatible with the Quran. On the other hand, anarchy (lawlessness) seems to be incompatible with the Quran. Because the Quran contains many laws. For example, the Quran contains laws for theft, murder and adultery. But anarchy on the other hand, seems to contain no laws. Therefore I think that anarchy is not compatible with islam.
I would like to share a few paragraphs from the book "Deus ex Machina Progression of secular socialism" with you. The book is written by Chris Pilie and Trey Roberts. I consider the information about anarchy (in the book) very interesting.
A few paragraphs from page 32 in the book
Anarchy - rule by no one
This type of society is one that exists with the lack of a government. Since the evidence of history shows that governments cause terrible injustices, some may find that the best society is one that exists without government. Where this goes wrong is that with anarchy comes lawlessness.The ancient Greeks said, "without law there can be no freedom". This prescient statement rings true because as lawlessness and chaos ensues the people would ultimately rise up and give up their freedom and liberty for peace and order. This then would lead to an Oligarchy as the vacuum of anarchy is replaced with forceful order. This is why revolutionaries create anarchy to destabilize the civil society in order to re-organize the system under a new powerful ruling caste.
Also, I would like to share a quote with you.
"Our founding fathers agreed and held that some amount of government is a necessary force in any civilized orderly society. In a state of Anarchy however, everyone has to guard life liberty and property and the lives of family members. Everyone must be armed and movement is severely restricted because one?s property has to be protected at all times. Civilized people have always hired someone to do the guarding; a Sherriff, a police force, or some branch of government. Once law enforcement was in place the people were freer. They could leave their property work in the fields and so on. In short the proper amount of government makes everyone freer. There are some advocating Anarchy however, not because they want no government but because they don?t like what they have."
I have tried to explain why anarchy would not be successful to Abdun Nur, but he does not believe me.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Anarchism does not mean you have chaos and inequity, laws do that, people have not investigated anarchic models before dismissing them.
The present ?legal? system is based exclusively upon constructed legal fictions, such as corporation, and requires the creation of a legal fiction of citizenship applied to the living soul to impose State corporate policy, the court has no ability to act in arbitration of living soul?s only fictions. A corporation can only impose upon a fiction such as corporation, as a State grants all incorporated entities, including citizenship so is the author of these constructs, and therefore authorises; has authority over its creation.
Law models are based on a superior and an inferior, master slave, laws only exist for slaves as law is always positive. Laws use granted rights from the master to the slave as their foundation, and the slaves fight to defend the meagre rights they hold often without success.
Laws and rights are not a part of Islam or any equitable community, instead all have inherent power which is unalienable and immutable; it is derived from the nature of your creation, and binds all in reciprocation as everything is connected. The truths known as axioms are foundations that are self-evident, such as we exist on a shared planet and are dependent upon the air, water and myriad life it supports, therefore if a soul acts to pollute that environment it is an encroachment, if a soul prevents equitable utilization of the land and resources of that environment it is an encroachment, and so on.
If you truly wish to comprehend the terrente model of arbitration free of government or hierarchy I have written a series of short essays outlining its structure
here is the first one
http//servantofthelight.com/content/view/199/244/
-
Peace Man of Faith,
I have tried to explain why anarchy would not be successful to Abdun Nur, but he does not believe me.
As far as I know, people who follow monotheism (Quranic islam) don't need an anarchic community in order to serve the God. Also, I don't think that monotheists need an anarchic community to accomplish their purpose in life. Therefore, I don't think an anarchic community is necessary. I think if someone wants to join/establishing such a community, he/she should do a "cost-benefit analysis." And if he/she comes to the conclusion that he/she will lose more than he/she gains, then he/she should abandon the idea of joining/establishing such a community. But these are my views. And everyone might not agree. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
As mentioned earlier, I don't think that monotheists need an anarchic community to accomplish their purpose in life. Hence there is no need for an anarchic community, in my opinion. There are some clues to what the purpose/meaning of life might be in verse 117 and 187 in the Quran.
Quran 117 He is the One who has created the heavens and the earth in six days, and His Throne was upon the water; so as to test who from among you works the best. And when you say "You will be resurrected after the death," those who have rejected say "This is but clear magic!"
Quran 187 We have made what is on the earth an adornment for them, so that We will test them as to which of them is best in works.
In my first post in this thread, I said that it seems that anarchy is incompatible with the Quran. But I am open to reconsider my view. Because my view might be wrong. The Quran suggests that there is no compulsion in islam (see verse 2256). Hence if a group of people (e.g. monotheists) want to start an anarchic community, it seems that the Quran allows them to start such a community. But even if the Quran allows them to start such a community, this doesn't necessarily mean that the Quran encourages monotheists to establish such a community. From my understanding of the Quran, this highly inclusive, practical/functional and reality-based text, encourages monotheists to be a part of the world community. I believe that when people are part of the world community, they can serve a huge amount of people. They can be a part of the solutions to the current challenges humanity faces in this day and age, and the challenges humanity will face in the future. Also, they can create social reforms and strive to make the world a better place for everyone. In my view, the Quran doesn't encourage monotheists to seclude themselves by creating an anarchic community. Even if an anarchic community is compatible with the teachings of the Quran, this doesn't necessarily mean that the Quran encourages monotheists to join/establish such a community. This is important to keep in mind, in my opinion.
I think that joining/establishing a Quranic community, is closer to the spirit of the Quranic message. But even such a Quranic community seems impractical and exclusive. Even though I doubt that I will ever join a Quranic community, I don't believe that such a community is a bad idea. And I am open to joining/establishing a Quranic community with other monotheists in the future. However, if I am going to join/establish such a community with others, then I think the benefits of starting such a community must be more than the costs. Also, I think there is a possibility that a Quranic community will turn into a sectarian community. According to the teachings of the Quran, humanity is one nation (see verse 41, 1019, 3022 and 4913). And the Quran doesn't support sects (see verse 6159, 3022, 4213, 4214 and 984). In addition to that, there is a verse in the Quran which suggests that people should fight oppression (create reforms) until the systems in their societies become divine/godly (see verse 2193 and 839). So if it is possible to create a divine system in the world community, then what is the point of creating a Quranic community? I think it is worthwhile to ponder upon this question.
In my view, the Quran indirectly encourages monotheists to be a part of the world community and live among people of all faiths/ideologies/lifestyles. The Quran suggests that monotheists who acknowledge and promote reforms will be rewarded with security and be enabled to establish their system in their lifetime.
Quran 2455 God promises those among you who acknowledge and promote reforms, that He will make them successors on earth, as He made successors of those before them, He will enable for them their system which He has approved for them, and He will substitute security for them in place of fear, that they serve Me and do not associate anything with Me. As for those who reject after that, they are the transgressors.
In verse 2455 above, the Quran suggests that those (monotheists) who acknowledge and promote reforms will be rewarded with security and be enabled to establish their system in their lifetime. Hence I think this verse makes the whole idea of starting an anarchic community obsolete. Because those who acknowledge and promote reforms, will be rewarded with security and be enabled to establish their system in their lifetime. Therefore there is no need for an anarchic community, in my opinion. But each to their own, I guess.
-
I also adhere to libertarianism and voluntaryism. Muhammad, if anything, did not run a "state" as we know it today. They did not engage in huge conquests. They had consultation ("shura".) Seems like it was close to a voluntary society. They had rules and a hierarchy, but other than harming others, the Quran does not prescribe a punishment. Many commandments in the Quran are only for the "munineen."
-
Salam
Happy to see this subject here. I identify politically as a Libertarian Socialist and thus far in my quest feel Anarchism best jives with my understanding of the message.
I'll definitely be reading more here to obtain more knowledge.
Can you tell how stoked I am to be back? So, so, so much quality information here. So grateful.
Peace
-
Salam
Happy to see this subject here. I identify politically as a Libertarian Socialist and thus far in my quest feel Anarchism best jives with my understanding of the message.
I'll definitely be reading more here to obtain more knowledge.
Can you tell how stoked I am to be back? So, so, so much quality information here. So grateful.
Peace
Anarchic socialism doesnt exist. Its a farce. You need aggression/authority to impose socialism. Charity is part of voluntaryism/anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism.
-
Anarchic socialism doesnt exist. Its a farce. You need aggression/authority to impose socialism. Charity is part of voluntaryism/anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism.
Charity is a subject of your own free will and righteousness, no political regime ever can impose sadaqa on you or regulate it otherwise, you do it because you can and want and not necessarily via financial means, but also by spreading useful knowledge or otherwise helping others. So charity is not a part of any political concepts, they all are subject to dying out, holy spirit is there forever, however.
-
Charity is a subject of your own free will and righteousness, no political regime ever can impose sadaqa on you or regulate it otherwise, you do it because you can and want and not necessarily via financial means, but also by spreading useful knowledge or otherwise helping others. So charity is not a part of any political concepts
Where did I say otherwise?