History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Feckless fakirs, hobos, criminals, lawyers and other marginal types

August 13th, 2014 · No Comments


This post raised a lot of questions, but it is unfortunately not easy for me to deal with this issue. First, I am being tricked, as noted, into dealing with an issue that would produce murderous rage in many moslems. As noted: an unconscious suggestion from sufi enemies to get me killed.
In fact, it would not: times are changing and a way to get out of the current quagmire of Islam and globalization/ I think there are not a lot of options here and my ‘queerly logical/historical approach’ might help. So fungu to sufi occultists. But already I am disqualified from such an issue.

But there are larger issues here: what standards are needed to study, revise, and adopt legal frameworks, e.g. the Sharia. The latter is the object of critique by many secularists, but the question of how we legislate is not so simple.

Politicians? Lawyers? What about lying, clearly addressed in the sharia, to a wince. The main cadre of people who address legal issues are usually liars, in principle making them useless. They lie about their crimes, and that is also a problem. Lawyers are rarely criminals, but they seem to be shady characters anyway. They are usually the candidates in these situations.
Machiavellians are to legislate laws… Do these people have criminal records or moral vacuity. These are not simple questions. Tote, for example the war crimes on the record of most politicians, e.g. Israeli politicians.

What about myself? I will trump lawyers and politicians by telling the truth about my ‘crimes’ and then reflect on the pecking order of legal rogues.

In any case I am hardly able to tinker with Sharia being a ‘out-law’, but not outlaw, in the sense of being a non-person in the american (capitalist) society. I have no real place in American civilization. I spent decades unemployed with no recourse save to the company of criminals, and drunkards in the skidrows and railheads. Illegality starts with multiple trespass violations on railroad property in the evasion ritual of railroad dicks. There one rapidly shreds one’s resume with the bad company of criminals and drunkards. The former I generally managed to avoid, and stayed well short of felonious hell bound outlaws as a c0mpanion to drunkards in misdemaenor heaven and nights in jail: what is the virtue or vice in, for example, stealing a buck/fifty minibottle of shnapps from a liquor store to keep an alcoholic Indian under a railroad bridge from going into DT’s. To be arrested while that person goes into convulsions seems more a law broken by the state. That conceivably puts the best face on the shady reality, long since passed the statute of limitations: when cornered blame the sociological idiocy of the State itself.
It should be noted that one was beside this chaff, a straight arrow basically, beside criminals who mistrust honest people riding freight trains, and one might aspire to a jail record to ‘conform’ to the hobo standard. I have a bad feeling I would be judged to have no feeling for the subject of law. I could retaliate with a quote war from Shakespeare on lawyers, but I fear in vain.
So, the discussion of legal issues hardly seems promising from such a person, who ought at most to comment on the sidelines, or do bibliographical research. But, BUT, in any pecking order reckoning a moral pedigree, the question arises if the above is not actually superior to the criminal resumes of politicians, covered in lies.

Meanwhile life on the road could pass muster as the path of the Fakir, that sufi classic, the beggar/hobo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fakir. How, asked to comment on sharia and modernization are we to treat a Fakir in modern context by 1. Sharia 2 modern law and very important 3 spiritual law, in so far as Fakirs do request a hearing with the judges of spirit. Which are? What of law in Jesus and Mohammed…. I would say that sufis attempting to murder Fakirs would be covered in Sharia.

I think that judging Sharia by modern standards is inevitable, but that includes much hypocrisy: politicians guilty of war crimes are the judges of record for what is to constitute modernization in the imperial scheme of capitalist plunder.
How would we judge George Bush, say, after his war crimes in Iraq by 1. Sharia 2. modern legal judgements….Answer: modern legal judgments can be evaded by American political gangsters and expresidents.

This is a bit facile, and the discussion of Sharia and communism could be a great value, but I would not be able to do it right, obviously, but then who can?

It is really difficult to asses Islamic history and the modern mind can’t seem to get a hold of the subject. In the nonce, all the ideals of the Enlightenment seem long gone in the capitalist mafia zone now controlling globalization.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment