Muslim Nonarchy is another good answer

[MuslimNonarchist]

Peace all. Some of you may know me from the freetalklive BBS. I followed Gene the Christian Anarchist's Exodus from there to here for similar reasons. Like Gene I'm here promoting my own vision... in my case liberty hand in hand with Islam.

So, I'll also open with a defining post I originally put on the freetalklive BBS. It was never as popular or controversial and Gene's, but I never claimed to be anything but a Faithful Alternative to Christian Anarchy.

Why I say that Muslim Nonarchy is another good answer:

Rather than opposing the popular fiction of the day with a superior fiction, Muslim Nonarchy aims at the acknowledgment of the absolute reality beneath the fictions. Let us begin with the simplest of definitions (which will be expanded upon later). Removed of it's religious context "Muslims" simply means, "one who submits." Nonarchy is distinguished from anarchy in that the prefix "an-" implies opposition while "non-" acknowledges that in reality there is no hierarchy to appose. So, the surface definition of "Muslim Nonarchist" is "One who submits to no hierarchy." It is the acknowledgement that any perceived authority that one human being may have over another is a fiction, an illusion, and that in reality no such authority is legitimate.

But let's get a little deeper by critiquing Christian Anarchy a little.

The old guys who founded this fiction called USA understood (our rights) to be (inalienable) because they believed we were CREATED with them (by a Creator)... Certainly if you cut out a belief in "the Creator" you gut the authority for rights in the preceding ideal.  If you cut the Creator, where does the authority for your creation of rights come from? Little green men?  The Id?  Do you simply believe they are "just there"?

This is problematic because, while the Creator's existence or nonexistence is a matter of reality, it is not a matter of consensus. (Achieving consensus is another primary aim of Muslim Nonarchy). The belief or non belief in the Creator is irrelevant. Our inalienable rights are "just there" for some, and upon this reality we have consensus. Theism (specifically Christianity) can not be a basis with which to apply or deny a person's rights. Though the statements of the old guys who signed that document may be a reality, the document itself is a fiction.

I propose that "Muslim" is superior nomenclature to "Christian" to describe the reality of man's inalienable endowments. Indeed, by definition alone, a Christian may consider himself a Muslim, even in the religious context. Does a Chistian not aim at submitting his will to God? But an Islamic Muslim cannot consider himself a Christian, because he is not a worshiper of Christ, and neither is any other non-christian theist. But removed of the religious context, all human beings can consider themselves in submission to something. We enter the world in complete submission, dependant upon our parents for everything. Food, comfort and safety... and the occasional diaper change. When we reach the point of asserting our independence we demonstrate this through acts of disobedience (non submission). But, as humans, we naturally select something else to submit ourselves to, whether it's Christ, Allah, contract law, libertarian principles, logic, or even our own desires. And we leave this world in complete submission, to illness, to injury, or old age. The acknowledgment that the reality of human's nature is to be in submission discourages one from falling into the fiction of human dominance. Further, conjoined with the principles of Nonarchy, every human being possesses the inalienable right to choose what they submit to (even little green men, or the id.), which is the essence of the first amendment, and therefore to act in disobedience to anything else (especially the fiction of human dominance), which is the essence of the second amendment. (I will not discuss amendments further, acknowledging them as fiction, but I thought it might serve as an understandable metaphor.)

the old guys who founded the fiction USA understood the Christian idea that all
men were sinners and none are "good" enough to be entrusted with "ruling" over any other men.

As I've demonstrated Muslim Nonarchy covers the illegitimacy of human authority without resorting to man's "original sin" (which isn't even a matter of consensus among theists) and instead relies upon the submissive nature of mankind.

So the "experiment" was to put men in the rightful position as "creator" of the fiction USA.  As "creators", the fiction USA could have no authority over it's creators any more than we can have authority over God.  No authority = anarchy. The "experiment" has failed miserably as man (the rightful authority over the fiction USA) has "forgotten" that each one is "over" his "servant" fiction USA and has allowed the fiction to take on a form and power which is simulating a true entity (which it is not).   

The experiment failed because it commits the essential misconception... that one fiction must be regulated by another. That anarchy must exist to oppose authority instead of just acknowledging the reality that the authority never existed in the first place, in other words nonarchy. Further, by calling themselves "creators" even of a fiction, they illegitimately grant themselves authority, thus falling into the fiction of human dominance, which was ultimately the downfall of the experiment.

A final note about Nonarchy.

In addition to being, in my opinion, superior nomenclature for acknowledging the fiction of authority, it is also a philosophy of structured debate. I'd recommend reading into it. It's primary purpose is to achieve consensus between debaters to avoid rules, and promote nonintervention by the judge. It's really interesting, and I'd argue worth integrating more fully into the the concept of Muslim Nonarchy.

http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Shanahan1988Retirement.htm

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=971991

[penguins4me]

Please expound upon your definition of "Muslim" (my assumption would lead me to believe that is one who submits to Allah, using the Koran, even in the original Arabic, as the guidebook and Allah's literal words), and how/why Islam is both central to your proposed idea (same as "Christian Anarchy", I'd imagine?), and how Islam is able to incorporate more people than any other "God-based" theology?

[Fluff and Stuff]

Oh my god, the FTL BBS is full of regious people    And also, to each his own works well...

[Dave Ridley]

nice to have some followers of the Prophet who are interested in liberty! 

[Braddogg]

Oh God Allah...

FYP 

[David]

Welcome to nhfree.  Please ignore those who may not treat you with respect due to their following the pop culture muslim bashing.  A majority of folks here will respect you and treat you as an individual.   

[MuslimNonarchist]

Please expound upon your definition of "Muslim" (my assumption would lead me to believe that is one who submits to Allah, using the Koran, even in the original Arabic, as the guidebook and Allah's literal words), and how/why Islam is both central to your proposed idea (same as "Christian Anarchy", I'd imagine?), and how Islam is able to incorporate more people than any other "God-based" theology?

Mu = a semitic prefix meaning "One Who"
Salaam = Like the Hebrew "Shalom" meaning "Peace" or "Submission"

You're assumption is correct in it's most common usage. But the word itself does not contain a cognate of "Allah." It's implied. So the word Muslim, in this context, works on many different levels simultaneously.

For me, and any adherent of the religion of Islam, the common usage is meant. One who achieves inner peace through submission to Allah and His literal word in the Quran.

For Gene, and any adherent to any other religion, the implied meaning is still accurate. "Allah" is indeed the word Arabic speaking Jews and Christians use for God. "God" and "Allah" should rightfully be used interchangeably. "Allah" is a cognate of the Hebrew, "Eloh" which you see throughout the Bible as "Elohim," which is the royal plural. Similarly throughout the Quran you see the royal plural of "Allah" as "Allahuma."

For everyone else, who adheres to no religion at all, the implied meaning is obviously inaccurate, but I would argue that the literal meaning is accurate. Everyone is seeking peace of mind. And everyone is in submission to something, even if it's only the laws of physics. We are born in complete submission and we die in complete submission, and every step in between we are searching for the religion, philosophy, or political ideology which brings us peace.

I propose that the nature of mankind is to be in submission, and that those seeking dominance are suffering from an unnatural authoritarian pathology. Further, I do not want to conflate submissive with pacifistic. Submission to the religion/philosophy/ideology you choose must be voluntary, and if someone exerts dominance upon you than resistance is indeed a submissive act. We all choose our own masters, even if it is ourselves.

[penguins4me]

Thank you, MuslimNonarchist.

I did ask those questions for a reason: in my studies of fundamental Islam, meaning Islam as presented in the Koran and as referenced in Tarikh al-Tabari, I have learned that such theology is not one I would choose to live under, not under any circumstances I can think up at this time.

I do not wish to start (another) flamewar, so unless you state interest in what I've learned from the Koran and the Prophet, I'll just leave it be with "I respectfully disagree" with Islam being the ideal theology under which to live under/with in any system of government. :)

[MuslimNonarchist]

I don't know what you've read... but I certainly wouldn't want to live under any of the so called "Islamic" governments either.

[Lasse]

Okay, at first I thought this was a sarcastic post poking fun at ChristianAnarchist.

It isn't? Is this guy actually a member at the FTL BBS?

[MuslimNonarchist]

Okay, at first I thought this was a sarcastic post poking fun at ChristianAnarchist.

It isn't? Is this guy actually a member at the FTL BBS?

Both.

My choice of terms is intentionally a response to ChristianAnarchist. Don't ge me wrong. I like Gene alot. I am a Muslim, and I am a Nonarchist (which I'm still trying to define for myself), and I am a member of the FTL BBS. I am a work in progress.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Welcome to NHfree.  Just a newcomer here myself but I've lurked here in the past and prefer this board to freetalklive anyday.  I'm afraid that Ian's decision to let the trolls have free reign on his board will eventually destroy it (unless he changes the rules).  It's his board, of course and he can do with it as he wishes.  I will post here.  I must maintain my ftl ties in order to download my amp streams, however...

[Eli]

I'm interested to know if there are passages in the Quran that support your position?  I've heard Gene's argument for a Christian anarchy I'd love to hear the theological support for a non hierarchical sociecty in the Islamic texts.


I'm particulary curious (academically and professionally) what the prescriptions are for dispute resolution in the Quaran.

Welcome.

[J’raxis 270145]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_Islam

[Eli]

Yep. Read that.  Not a single quote from that religions Book.