Nihil sub sole novum

 

As time goes by, I realize how considerable and ad rem the Spanish proverb: Cría cuervos y te sacarán los ojos; which means Raise ravens, and they'll gouge your eyes out, anent Progressivism and Secularism which upon us they parasitize.

Does Seclurism provide pacifism? To answer the question, we have to take a few steps back to make a comparison between the primordial morphology of Islamic law "Fiqh" and Secularism Succinctly, Fiqh is the basic legislation of the Islamic nation, to which all public affairs are returned. Recently, with the trial of institutionalization of Islamic law, a great deal of comparative studies —covering parallel institutions of Islamic law and of the laws of some civil law countries, especially France and Anglo-American law— has been conducted. With the expansion of the Islamic empire, it became, in a relatively short time, the law of the land in vast regions extending from Spain to Central Asia. It was considered a norm higher than the will of the sovereign, contrary to what modern positivists would have us believe the law to be. So, Islamic law has a distinctive treatment of many cases not based on the precedent Roman law. For example, the treatment of the agnates —relatives through the male line of ascent— and the cognates —relatives through the female line of ascent— in field of inheritance law. Assuredly, Islamic law had influence over the posterior Common law. For example, the aval¹of medieval French law is said to be derived from the hawala of Islamic law. Not only there are paralelles between Islamic law and Common law but also with the law of USA; read the principle of agency on Roman, Islamic and Common law². Such comparisons and integrated lines provide a glimpse on how Fiqh wasn't separated from modern and institutionalized law, but, indeed, It has great influence and similarity, to a lesser extent, with many posterior and anterior laws. Thus, the disagreeableness of Secularism with Shari'a or any religion-based institution need to be revised so as by creating such political ideology, a [new] religion has been established. One can say that the secular thesis is defunct. To understand the thesis of secularization, It can be reduced into a structure of stances and associations of Neutralism, Agnosticism and Skepticism that compete with metaphysical and well-organized communities. Thus, Secularism is always conditioned by its religious context; religiosity, and antagonistically embodies the context of religion from which it emerges. Its narratives are disparate and largely based on discrepant premises that allow each Secular ideology to be a unique religion. Regarding aforesaid characteristics, if the structure of religion from which Secularism emerged is corrupt, the consequent ideology doesn't necessitate to be flourishing. Ultimately, the word [Peace] needs to be redefined akin to its etymology and conceptual history not based on our emotionally-derived time.

[¹] Loan, from the Italian word avallo, due to the trades within the Italian cities with Muslim traders.

[²] Compare between "waqf" and common law trust.

[Note] Islam is not an ideology.

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

«It is difficult to distinguish sharply between rational and non-rational inferences in the stream of mental experience, but it is clear that many of the half-conscious processes by which men form their political opinions are non-rational.» — Graham Wallas.
In a way, Ideology can be reduced to two main distinctive forms: substructure [social and psychological needs] and superstructure [a representation that transmitted from elites to mass people]. By system-justification, one has the motivations to support and to defend the existence of a defined social or economic system. The [X] ideology, for instance, provides certainty, maintains safety and well-being, minimizes the dissonance of epistemic needs and inconsistency, and yields the sense of belongings and superiority. Left-Right (Liberal vs Conservative) ideologies, as vestiges of the French Revolution, have two major dimensions and are most commonly emphasized: (1) resisting versus advocating social change (that is, maintaining vs. challenging tradition) and (2) accepting versus rejecting inequality (that is, challenging vs. maintaining hierarchy)¹. Thus, the attractiveness to the right is based on the desire to (challenge), rationality, epistemic and vindication. Whereas the attractiveness to the left is based on the desire to (change) with less rationality, epistemic and vindication. Succinctly, epistemic, existential, and relational motivations favour the adoption of System-Justifying Ideologies. So far in non-political context, conservatives (vs liberals) have higher potentiality to maintain discipline, structure and order. Conversely, liberals (vs conservatives) are prone to have items relating to art supply, indulgence and openness. Feminism, Progressivism or Secularism, as a liberal ideology, is prone to change, deconstruct and gravitate to the sensation-seeking insofar as influences their perceptive of society. Consequently, conservatism holds a barrier against the hedonic nihilistic culmination.
[¹] Jost, J. T., Nam, H. H., Amodio, D. M., Bavel, J. J. V. (2014, January 22). Political neuroscience: The beginning of a beautiful friendship. Wiley Online Library. Retrieved February 17, 2022, from «https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.12162»

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

The question of power of our modern societies essentially agitates me to a very complicated level. I don't hold any contemporary perspectives that may explain and answer it but Foucault's ascription this power to pleasure is really tempting. Pre-enlightenment societies, power was acquired through blood and on the corpora of the others. Such societies were governed by Monarch and absolute power and the law came down as a vertical order. So, with a rigid power like that, the order came with violence and torture. Thus, power is synonymous with violence, submission and murder. Deep into the mechanisms of power, blood constitutes one of the fundamental values in order to perpetuate the system and, in modern terms, to be able to reimburse the real winning coalition. To, literally, exemplify this dynamicity, we can take Shakespeare's Macbeth as an epitome; how he gets the sovereignty and sits on the throne by murdering King Duncan after being convinced by his wife; Lady Macbeth. However, after that, Lady Macbeth tries to wash the blood off her hands but she can't.
In our contemporary societies , power is distributed differently through very large entities; either societal or constitutional...etc. On the societal spectrum, we can observe the power as a matter of different scopes as parties; what types of parties do you attend?, schooling; In which school do you get your degree? and broadly through political elites who donate to campaign or attend fundraisers. Also, you can attain the power by define who are the people you associate with and who your parents are.
People within the aforementioned spectrum usually get the power by constituting a very interlaced relationships. The key and the enigma of this power is the pleasure a.k.a sexuality; Sex education, Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump's Miss America, Queer theory, Drag Queen, Pride Month, LGTV, Eroticism as a core philosophy, Feminism, Gender Identity, Dyke March, Travesti and Sexual Revolution. Such transition from Monarch to Democracy doesn't happen in a blink of eye, rather, it takes a cascading pathway to get into the final shape. Finally, If you want to know what's in the middle of Venn diagram just look at the one who merge between the opulence of violence and sex; Marquis de Sade. Ironically, de Sade was a nobleman of the Monarch; the old society and then became a revolutionary who overlapped the two moralities and egregiously depicted the transition to our contemporary society.

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

"Feminism suggests that all women, even those who feel liberated and powerful, are affected by female social inferiority, and that all men, even those who feel disadvantaged, benefit from male privilege."

I argue that such ideology is an extend of what has been established by Marxism and later on by Frankfurt school about Critical theory. Furthermore, feminism insists on the inferiority of all women despite their social status, by far, such anathema will be the standpoint of all feminist waves; especially the 3rd, the 4th and significantly the Intersectionality. Feminism has inherently what's called the "The Fetishism of Choice" by which — and upon their historic grievance claims that have been raised against the traditional society— It rejects greatly the societal value of choice. Ironically, It asserts that the choice of women shouldn't and mustn't endorse the cultural context in which the choice is based, which is completely fallacious; beauty standards as an epitome. The unilateral patriarchal oppression is, to a great extent, the main motto of many feminists ignoring a very historical fact; the privileges weren't based on gender but multi-factorial as wealth and power withal. To understand the whole process of deconstruction, one has to grasp the theses of feminism. The theses of feminism are based on there main broad discourses which are debunked theoretically and practically: The Entrenchment of Gender, The Existence of Patriarchy and The Need for Change¹. Debunking the first two theses, however, is biologically and historically established. Feminism problematizes the first two theses by dichotomizing sex and gender, referring the gender to a social-based construction; social constructionism. The latter abide, foremost, by culture, background and knowledge. Ignoring utterly the human traits is the substantial core of such discourses. About the third thesis, all feminists begin the change by embracing the first two theses revolutionizing against the traditional norms. Broadening the chasm is the main motif of Marxism to achieve its main destructive teleology. Finally and briefly, the ideology is propagandized and populariszd to change the societies by destructing its main unit; family, and to instigate completely individualized, egocentric, materialized, barbaric, relative and rootless society devoid of spirituality and the discussion becomes amenable to sophism. An epilogue:

« [...] c’est pourquoi, lorsqu’une société, abandonnant le culte austère de la vérité, se livre à l’idolâtrie de l’esprit, il n’y a plus d’espérance ; à l’ère des discussions succède l’ère des révolutions ; derrière les sophistes apparaissent les bourreaux. »

— Juan Donoso Cortés

[¹]: Freeden, Michael, Lyman Tower Sargent, and Marc Stears. 2013. The Oxford handbook of political ideologies.