Followers of our discussion at The Gurdjieff Con will know of our wariness of sufis. And their techniques of unconscious suggestion, which the entire CIA is trying to figure out but can’t.
Frequently attacked by sufis, I cite the above post in possible evidence:
Get a secularist non-Moslem to discuss ultra fundamentalist Moslems who are also violent in a way that provokes discussion about problems with Islam, etc… That puts his life risk…Hey, nice guys…Here the issue of Sharia…
In fact I know these tactics when I see them, but proceeded anyway. I think that even highly orthodox Moslems are going through changes and have begun to enter the secularization transition. Here I addressed the tough question of sharia in the light of the potential of communism, of the new communism of LFM which is not theist or atheist. People in this position deserved better than the New Atheists, skirt them. The issue here is to see that the realm of Jesus, respected by Moslems, produced a proto-communist visionary preacher (I won’t say prophet, as Mohammed was in real terms the last). I know that must intrigue radical Islamists.
And in Palestine there are many clearly who have long since entered the secular transition, whose endpoint can still be religious. Palestinians could easily realize a ‘democratic/communist’ debate, and experimental trial revolution, conceivably to unify Israel, Lebanon, Gaza, Palestine/West Bank/Jordan in an economic/political soviet, one free of stalinist and/or religionist reductionist nonsense legacies. The crux is to create what is not yet created: a communism/democracy with a balance of principles. There the experiment can remain (pace discussions in LFM) toleran on religious questions and be done with the cement block called historical materialism.
The confrontation of sharia and communist logic is so stark the contrast is of genuine theoretical interest. The Soviet Republics in the south Eurasian field have, I am sure, a lot of literature here, but the issue under discussion here is the comparison of two ‘legal frameworks’, a communist and a sharia legal perspective.
A lot could be said here, but the fanaticism even of groups like ISIS is also casting out for a secularist venue. I could address this question at length, but for now I will flip the bird at sufi attempted murder with a smirk.
This thinking could never have occurred before this (or has already many times in Bolshevik Russia) but emerges now in a way that should frighten American politicians. The idealism of secular law, and its political theorems in the modern/democratic vein have long been entrenched, justly so, but now because of psychopaths taking over government,and the acceleration since 9/11, the whole judgement to par is faltering: how can we preach to Moslems given the crimes against humanity of the American and Israeli thuggery governments? People can now actually reconsider their hopes and place a bet on communism legal logic and think to adapt it to sharia! Remarkable.
The answer to the question can be at length, but the obvious problem is that the Reformation was inside a macro transition in my sense, while Islam is without. What does that mean?
AT the least it simply restates the way that revolutionary changes in Xtianity are not easily replicable: to change sharia in a Reformation would be unlikely, and it that happened it would be taken over by extreme secularists who would botch the possibility with the junk of secular humanism. Hoever, the term ‘secular humanism’ has nothing to do with atheism, and humanism in a secular age can be religious, or spiritual, or not.
The real question, as with Protestantism, is to create a transitional vehicle that can end in a viable new religious formation. In principle it would be easy to graft ‘communism’ onto an Islamic framework: but in practice…
It was actually a good question: start at once guys for the coming overdrive in Islam: a communist framework for Islamic law.