The universal correlation between the political and the moral culture

Professor Abdel Hakim Ahmin briefed me on Professor Hallaq’s answer About the same questions he asked me and him Mr. Abdul Rahmanand perhaps we changed the previous one or something similar, asking for my opinion on his answer.

I did not understand the motive unless it was general, but it does not matter to understand the reason for my media, and it seemed to me as if he was waiting to understand the nature of the disagreement between my position and his position, in which Professor Abdel Rahman participates, in criticizing postmodernism and its vision of the state.

Therefore, my answer is considered a continuation of the above I said it in the context of the confrontation between the particular and the universal In the matter, the contrast between good civilizations and evil civilizations, and the contrast between East and West. Historical laws do not differ in terms of universality from natural laws. This is my response to him:

Peace be upon you and God’s mercy and blessings be upon you:

Thank you for informing me of Professor Hallaq’s answer, which is an answer in which Professor Taha Abdel Rahman shares, and my position on their view does not require further explanation after I commented on it on many occasions.

I do not want my answer to be a quarrel with anyone, as I am not concerned about disputes in situations, because everyone has the right to disagree. But there is no harm in clarifying the fate of criticism when it turns into a fashion in words and is contradicted by behavior in actions.

Their position seems to me to have turned into a verbal “manicism” that contradicts an actual “adapted and comfortable” coexistence with what they claim to reject and do nothing to oppose it, as do the critics whose veneers they emulate, I mean the criticism of modernity by Westerners themselves.

I do not understand the comparison between an era in history that represents goodness and morality, and an era in which it lacks them. The most important moral thinkers in the world, from Aristotle and Plato to today, are distributed between the East and the West almost equally.

I miss my head and hit

The fact that this criticism did not wait for them, but rather began in the West, is evidence that their vision does not match the morals of the West, but rather it is an apology from them for not doing what morals require, that is, for actions to accompany words.

I have not heard either Hallaq or Abdul Rahman have an opinion on what is happening in their countries, or a commitment to the necessary reform in them based on what they claim is a post-modern criticism of the state, while they both live in the most corrupt regimes ever, and they are in the best condition with the authorities of their countries, and are quite happy. Great applause for them, because they speak of criticism and indifference to what is happening under the pretext of a Sufi position, not one of resistance but of surrender to events.

Therefore, I do not understand the contrast that they represent between an era in history that represents goodness and morality, and an era in which it is devoid of them, considering this to be representative of post-modernism and due to the meaning of the modern, immoral state, while the most important moral thinkers in the world, from Aristotle and Plato to today, are distributed among the East. And the West almost equally.

The two men were supposed to understand that criticism in this sense was not initiated by them, and that they were imitating it in a caricatured way, because their criticism is superficial and contents itself with imported slogans that are not accompanied by action, but rather it is accompanied by political cowardice with the logic of “I miss my head and strike” (Juha’s logic).

One of the signs of this that does not lie is that criticism in the modern Western state is based on the essence of morality, because it cannot prevent it, but rather adheres to the condition of its conditions, that is, the legitimacy of the political opposition. The problem, then, is in the distortion that may occur about the tools to achieve this condition, and not the lack of it. His presence.

Among the signs of the creation of the modern state are the freedom of opposition and freedom of expression, which is an expression of freedom, and there is no criticism of politics except one of two types or a combination of them, that is, efficiency in the conditions of meeting organic needs, and morality in the conditions of meeting spiritual needs.

The modern state relies on them, and therefore it does not prevent criticism of politics, and with moral and ethical standards that negate all their arguments, unlike the states that they claim were founded on morality and then disappeared because the modern state lacked it.

My goal here is to explain the reason for the misunderstanding that led them to turn criticism into caricature and “manicism.” I believe that their fundamental mistake is to confuse two logics that are inherent in all human groups:

• The logic of those with political power and the elites that legitimize their behavior is based on prioritizing the means and the tool over the end. The justified elites are often either the jurists of the afterlife or the philosophers of this world, of the same type as the religious elite and the secular elite.
• And the logic of human groups that are subject to this authority and their elite representatives who prioritize the goal and the meaning of dignity over the means and tools. These people are mostly victims of those. The freedom of opposition and freedom of expression – which is the expression of freedom – represents the morals of the group that is liberated from the tyranny of the rulers.

Peoples eventually, throughout long history, impose human brotherhood, and are gradually liberated from the five fanaticisms mentioned by Ibn Khaldun and extrapolated from the history of the Islamic Caliphate.

Anecdotal criticism is an imaginative science

Both logics exist in all civilizations, ancient and modern, pre-ancient and post-modern. Hence the mechanicalism in the formal criticism position of the two men, which does not go beyond words to actions, because they are peaceful to injustice and oppression in their homelands, and are happy to applaud words that are not tested by actions.

Anecdotal criticism is of the type of imaginary science (scientific science), but actual science is tested by experience: work in ethics is the test of criticism, just as experience is the test of theory.

Therefore, the thoughts of the two men do not go beyond talking about morality without practicing the examination of positions, because morality is not determined in words but in actions, just like knowledge which is not determined in words but in experience.

Failure to understand this is the cause of simplification that distorts the concept of criticism in the first place. What really impressed him was that they did not change their position even after what was proven by the flood, thanks to the revolutionary change that occurred in the positions of the youth of the West and many of its thinkers.

The people most revolting against the logic of politics that made Western states, politicians, and their elites abandon Zionism and Safavidism, the tools of the conflicting mafias in our region, are the Western peoples, with a moral and legal motive. Unlike the few Islamic elites who are not motivated by moral or legal motives, but rather by fanaticism towards their families or religious belief. The motive in the Western and Islamic cases was twofold:

• The political logic of the rulers and their elites is governed by interest and the prioritization of tools over ends. That is, the self-interested end justifies the evil means, which is the violence with which Ibn Khaldun explains the corruption of the meanings of humanity.
• And the logic of human ties that is reversed, perhaps because they are often the victim of this political logic, despite the fact that politics – especially in democracies – explains it by defending the “national interest” and the state’s interest (la raison d’état).

My opinion, then, is to reject Manichism, and to prove that all human beings share the same two logics, which are always an attempt to reconcile good and evil and between the two positions:

• The reformist, which is the essence of the difference between what is predominantly short and quick history, which is the history of governance.
• And the moral, which is the essence of what is evident in the slow transformations, which are the logic of long history.

Meaning that in the end, throughout long history, peoples impose human brotherhood, so they are gradually liberated from the five fanaticisms mentioned by Ibn Khaldun and extrapolated from the history of the Islamic Caliphate:

1. Blood nervousness and tribalism.
2. And the fanaticism of loyalty to the interests of the interests and loyalists.
3. And nationalistic fanaticism to repel loyalist control.
4. And the fanaticism of belief to transcend ethnic fanaticism.
5. To reach human brotherhood, which is the goal of peaceful coexistence among humans, especially now in the era of globalization.

The logic of the contrast between good and evil is a universal phenomenon, and we should not make judgments and consider good to be limited to the East and evil to the West.

Calf debt mafias

It can be said that the most important thing achieved by the Al-Aqsa Flood after the defeat of the so-called invincible army is what began to be evident in the vision of Western youth and many of the current Western intellectual elites who began to understand that the rulers in the West are no different from the rulers of the Third World:

They are governed by mafias that transcend the borders of countries, and they are mostly those who have the debt of the calf, that is, mafias Zionism And Safavidism, which combines both types of ethnic and sectarian justification, like ours.

The combination of religious and ethnic fascism is a common characteristic between the Israeli and Iranian policies in the world – God’s chosen people, and God’s chosen family – the rest of the peoples are considered their slaves, so the gohim of the Zionist mafia are equivalent to the Nasibiya in the Safavid era.

But not all Jews nor all Iranians say this: Therefore, the logic of the contrast between good and evil is a universal phenomenon. Some of the Jews are more defensive of the rights of the Palestinians than many of the Arab modernists, as well as the Iranians. We should not make judgments and consider good to be limited to the East and evil to the West.

This is because I do not believe that the laws of history differ from the laws of nature in terms of universality, and that the particularities that Hallaq and Abdel Rahman talk about are nothing but the populist folklore that these mafias use to justify their actions.

But that is not the morals of peoples, especially after Western youth realized – thanks to the criticism of some humane Western elites – that what is happening in the Third World is happening to them, and that they are victims like us of the corrupt money mafia and of the media mafia that serves it, that is, the misleading media.

Both of them represent one of the two dimensions of the calf’s religion: that is, the power of currency (the calf’s metal), and the power of the word (the calf’s bellowing). Anyone who claims that Muslims are immune from this is lying, as their rulers are civil mafias affiliated with Western mafias. This, at least, cannot prevent freedom of criticism, but it prevents it.

Therefore, both Hallaq and Abdel Rahman are unable to criticize his country’s authorities, and neutrality in such cases is cowardice and hypocrisy. Neutrality in actions and the claim of boldness in words express the essence of moral hypocrisy, because it combines the protection of self-interest with neutrality, and claims to defend values ​​in order to deceive the public: which is double stardom among the elite among those who have prestige and among the public among those who are ignorant.