Connect with us


Islam and the Free World: What Should be done as an imperative Survival (C)



3) No more political correctness. Political correctness means operatively “behaving socially right” or “behaving with fairness in societal interactions”. However, the deep sources of political correctness are in fact hypocritical hedonism combined with Western-Christian guilt and remorse that contradict the basic paradigms of Western culture and reflects illusionist and detached ideas about reality.

Like multiculturalism, relativism and other atrocious deluded academic pseudo-scientific ideas, those who use and force us to use political correctness serve in fact, intentionally or unintentionally, as collaborators with the enemies of modernity and freedoms. The problem is that Muslims believe and practice a totally different political culture that takes advantage of the situation to penetrate the inner fabric of modern society, to defeat it from within. They declare and pronounce their targets clearly and openly. The problem is with our own educational ignorance, political inhibitions, and reluctance to view reality truly and to speak out clearly outside of intimidation.

Unfortunately, political correctness has for a long time stripped the US citizens of their First Amendment rights, along with deeply hurting their flow of free ideas. More and more people have recently become victims of this plague, which mostly consists of Muslim organizations and the media outlets, seeking to demonize anyone who utters anything even the slightest bit critically relating to Islam.

The actor Gary Oldman has spoken out against the hypocrisy of political correctness: “I just think political correctness is crap… It is just the sheer hypocrisy of everyone… it means dishonesty and double standards that frustrate me the most.” Indeed, political correctness is the epitome of hypocrisy and double standards behavior. The US Constitution guarantees the right to express one’s ideas and beliefs freely, without fear of being charged by lawsuits and put in prison.

The Western states share a basic important political ethos and they are all liberal democracies. Unfortunately, these countries also recently share a deadly political ideology known as multiculturalism. It sits at the pinnacle of political correctness and moral relativism, and it is promoted with a religious fervor. Multiculturalism has become the driving ideology behind almost everything in Western life: politics, the law, education, and even the current correct thinking.

Those who do not think politically correct are labeled as racists and fascists; and are denounced as supporters of the old imperialist-colonialist world. However, this is not the real issue. The horrific situation is that the multicultural defenders promote knowingly or unknowingly the mono-cultural, mono-religious, racist, fascist, supremacist Islam. The essence of Islam is all what the multiculturalists are supposed to be against: tolerance of the other; equality of all races, religions and women; all the freedoms spectrum and civil rights; tolerance, equality and peace-making to one another.

Why do they do it? It has nothing to do with Islam. They know nothing of Islam and/or the Palestinians. They do not know Arabic and have never read the Qur’an and Islamic scriptures and they have not studied the Palestinians’ Hitleristic-Nazi hatred and incitement towards Israel. They suffer from deep ‘mental blindness’, failing to observe how Islam wreaks havoc in all of what the West loves and cherishes.

In Israel, the multiculturalists’ intentions have become a full-fledged philosophy of anti-Semitism that is transformed into a multi-cultural and a multinational state. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, by claiming that the State of Israel racist and colonialist. From here come the destructive anti-Semite formula that Israel must transform to a “state of all its citizens.” This kind of anti-Semitism negates the right of Jews to exist as a political entity with an independent homeland. The implication of these horrific atrocious ideas will be a Palestinian State from the sea to the desert and the disappearing of Israel as a nation and as a state.

The only reason is that the multiculturalists and politically correctness promoters deeply hate the West. They do not care about Islam and Muslims, but they do care in their deep hatred of the West. They hate its values and its way of life, and Islam has become the mechanism, the tool they employ in their way to bring Stalinism and Bolshevism as the law of the earth.

They are so idiotic and foolish that they do not ask themselves what will happen to them if Islam wins. Their hatred is so deep that they even promote their own extinction in what seems to be a collaboration that leads to their own annihilation. That is why Western peoples find themselves in an ongoing political nightmare, not because of Islam and its primitive barbarian ideology, but because their own political-cultural elites have abandoned them.

In the current tumultuous in fact dying Middle East, Israel is not only innocent of most of the regional and domestic problems, but it has nothing to do with the mired situation of the Islamic Tribal Anarchic Winter (there was never, even for one day “Arab Spring”). The failed states (exactly out of the US policy); the miserable social and economic backwardness; the political violence and extremism of cultural and religious causes; the wretched life of the Arab-Muslim peoples and the oppressive regimes; and the continuing wars permeating so deeply ME. But in the political correctness of Western language, Israel is the source of all troubles, being a colonialist Apartheid state.

Is this the situation? Let me put it bluntly: historically, the Jews have brought to Europe the light and the sciences and culture. However, the Europeans have persecuted and massacred the Jews to the point they become an extinct species. But the Europeans have forgotten two things: first, there is God Almighty, and second, there is no vacuum. The Jews left, and the Muslims entered. Please find the disparities.

Moreover, imagine Israel has vanished from the Middle East. What will happen in fact? The Islamic anarchic quarrels will intensify and would trigger ruinous war; weaken the Arab moderate states and strengthen Arab radicals, with the high-tide of Islam’s onslaught; and generally undermine Western influence to the point of disappearance.

He who think of a peaceful Palestinian state – think again. The territory will be torn out by inter-Arab fights and wars will be the main of regional politics. It is a fact for many years: as long as Israel exist, a Palestinian national political identity continues to exist. The possibility that the surrounding Arab states will let the Palestinians continue their destructive policies is an illusion shared by ignorant Westerners and local leftists, even not by the Palestinians themselves.    

Western national identity is based on two dimensions: Cultural, on the heritage of Western civilization; and political, on the principles of freedom, democracy and equality before the law and constitutionality. However, exactly these dimensions are under assault of “post-nationalists,” post-modernists, and relativists. Under the auspices of phony intellectualism of the Academia and the media, these groups constitute a proto-Messianic eschatology of deconstruction of the law and order among humanity. Everything that typifies the Western way of life as a cultural phenomenon will collapse and disappear.

The multiculturalist philosophy including all other “isms” must be totally thrown to the garbage can of history. These deluded ideas must be defeated and eliminated in all Western society. Politically correctness should do the same orbit and must be disintegrated. Those who immigrate to Western society must have the simple choice: either they respect Western laws and way of life with its Jewish-Christian cultural roots or they are free to leave.

It is so simple and totally justified. Imagine you invite out of benevolence a stranger to your home and he tries to take control of your house and impose his way of life and traditions – what would you do? Surely you will find a solution to this issue. Than why it is so difficult on the national level?

Another fact, which we have mentioned time and again: the entire countries around the world have absorbed minorities, ethnic and religious, the US being the best example. All of them have become loyal productive citizens, being proud with their new nationality. Only Muslims are not. Only Muslims resist integration and assimilation, and much more: they try by all means of Jihad and Da’wah to impose their religion and way of life. And they do it persistently and in consistency.      

We have to realize that political correctness and moral relativism have become our own worst political enemy. We fail, being optimistic concerning human nature and behavior; we stumble from failure to failure believing there is a solution to every problem and estimating that the reasons for the Muslims’ inhuman behavior are social and economic perspectives and our own history of imperialism and colonialism.

Look what is happening in British educational system. There is a long list of politically correct changes that gradually are bringing British education into conformity with Islamic Sharia law. Muslims demand that Islamic preachers be sent to every school to teach children about Islam. On the other hand, British schools drop the Jewish holocaust from history lessons, with the excuse to avoid offending Muslim pupils. It is not only the Jews: British teachers are also reluctant to discuss the medieval Crusades, in which Christians fought Muslim armies to defend Europe. The pick of these atrocities teachers are required to teach key Muslim contributions to humanity, fake and ridiculous, such as Algebra and the number zero. Schools across Britain are, in fact, increasingly banning pork from lunch menus to avoid offending Muslims, and huge numbers of schools have adopted a “no pork” policy and eating Halal foods.

In Germany, instead of studying the refusal of the Muslims to integrate into German society, and to avoid the emergence of a parallel legal system in Germany based on Islamic Shari’ah, German authorities have officially confirmed that they are monitoring German-language Internet websites that are critical of Muslim immigration and the Islamization of Europe. Please pay attention: German authorities do not monitor the Muslims use of the internet and other social media in their own many languages. Instead, German authorities monitor citizens who criticize Muslims and Islam on the Internet are fomenting hate and are thus criminally guilty of “breaching” the German constitution.

The guardians of German multiculturalism have been working overtime to accuse the critics of Islam of engaging in hate speech to try to intimidate the so-called “new right” into silence. They accuse that anti-Islam blogs “have promoted “infringements of human rights protected under our constitution.” Criticism of Muslims and Islam constitutes “an attack against the freedom of religion, which is protected by Article 4 of the Basic Law.” They also dare to equate criticism of Islam with anti-Semitism. In sum, those who criticise Islam are undemocratic and pose a threat to the German constitutional order.

Spiegel magazine asserts that those who criticise Islam represent a new form of extremism: “anti-Muslim scene is becoming increasingly dangerous… the question is whether the hatred of Muslims is enough to endanger freedom of religion and international understanding.” They all belong to the “far right.”

However, the TNS Enid political polling shows that the majority of Germans disagree with a statement by German President Christian that Islam “belongs in Germany.” Fewer than 5% of the Germans think Islam is a tolerant religion. Fewer than 10% of the Germans say that Islam is a peaceful religion. More than 40% of Germans believe that the practice of Islam should be vigorously restricted. Only 20% of the Germans believe that Islam is suitable for the Western world. Pew Research Center of 2011, states that 72% of the Germans believe Muslims do not want to integrate; and that 79% of the Germans believe Islam is “the most violent” religion.

Yet, Western political leaders, assisted with the heavy artillery of the Media and the academia continue their stupid-ignorant, in fact criminal policy of denying, appeasing and subduing Western civilization to the barbarity of Islam. They continue not to internalize that this deadly combination of the religious commandments of Islam and the cultural behavior of the Arabs and Muslims is the issue. Our greatest liability is the politically correct climate endorsed by Western leadership with the stormy support of the media and the academia which is negligently blind to the threat of Islam.

According to Yves Mamou, the horrific reality in Europe is that the state, the one that has the monopoly on violence, does not want to be at war with its Islamic residents, and in fact expresses the policy that it is afraid of its Muslim citizens. The rule of law has become protecting the violators of the law, the terrorists, are protected above all. Mamou details the crimes of the media, being in fact the Islamic terrorists’ best friend, the detached from reality excuses relating the Muslims atrocities in Germany and France of June-July, 2016:

The real victim is the terrorist. He was not a Muslim, Just a Lunatic. The problem is not Islam, but too many guns on the black market. The victims are responsible for their own murders. The attacker “self-radicalized” rapidly. ISIS is not Islamic, it is a right-wing organization.

The U.S. is mired in Political correctness, and this fact is indisputable. In a nutshell, it means not upsetting anyone due to their race, ethnicity, gender, physical disability, appearance, accent or anything else that might somehow cause psychological discomfort and sensibilities. Yet, this has become a mental disease, into a deadly plague.

For example, political correctness has claimed the 13 lives at Fort Hood massacre by not preventing and neutralizing Nidal Hasan Ali. Why? There was an elephant in the room, yet the culture of political correctness kept the concerned officers from reporting the behavior of Nidal Hasan Ali. This horrendous approach has caused the Fort Hood headquarters to “understand” the Islamic brutal way of life and behavior: “it is in their belief system, so it must be ok.” No. It is absolutely not ok. Muslims must adhere to the US belief system and way of life. That is why political correctness has become a deadly infection, and still the American people is not aware of the depths to which it has permeated Western culture and become a sickening situation.

Take the horrific frightening situation of the US Department of Homeland Security. On the managerial advisory level it is being run by Muslims sent by Muslim organizations like CAIR, the Council for American Islamic Relations; by MPAC, Muslim Public Affair Council,; and by ISNA, Islamic Society of North America. They sit in on brainstorming about investigative techniques that US agents are using in the field. Indeed, this is the pure situation of the cat guards the milk. That is nothing short of outrageous.

The horrific situation is that we do not behave and speak freely in front of the Muslims or when relating to Islam. We are so deeply intimidated, that there is no longer even politically correct, but Islamically correct. Avoidance of ‘insulting Islam’ has become a code word to our horrendous nightmares, a lethal weapon we impose on ourselves in capitulation and submission. We censor ourselves and our free speech at our own decision out of the deadly combination of intimidation, ignorance and Bolshevik slogans promoted by our own cultural elites and the media.

Muslims are fanatic and primitives. But in fact Western elites are the delusionists, the messianic and the dreamers. Muslims understand Western situation much better than we understand them or even ourselves. Muslims know Western elite is so infected with political correctness that it is more afraid of offending them than fighting them. In fact, in the “land of the free and home of the brave,” one could conceivably be charged with a hate crime for expressing opinions. Indeed, politically incorrect opinions and writings have become hate crime, and soon hate-speech police will be established to silence all criticism of Islam. Relativism and moral equivalence dominate the social sciences and humanities of the academia. Both stem from political correctness and strengthen it at the same time. This situation has stultified generations of students who become our politicians, diplomats, judges, and journalists.

Allan Bloom wrote of The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students. Melanie Phillips has published The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power. She blames relativism as the root cause of the Western decadence. So does Ralph Peters in his Endless War: Middle Eastern Islam vs. Western Civilization: “… one of the greatest obstacles we have to understanding our enemies is that our officer corps is too well educated in a formal sense. Officers with master’s degrees in international relations and Ph.D.s in government have become prisoners of the outdated theories…” The problem is these sciences ignore, in fact do not understand the reality of evil displayed by Muslims and motivated by Islam.

As the actor and comedian, John Cleese, says: political correctness has gone too far, especially on America’s college campuses, where he will no longer go to perform. There may even be something more sinister behind the insistence to be always be politically correct. “If you start to say we must not, we must not criticize or offend them then humor is gone. With humor goes a sense of proportion. Political correctness will lead to an Orwellian nightmare. Indeed, President Teddy Roosevelt put it: “to anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth”.

To show how ridiculous and detached this slogan of political correctness has become, the following lines written by an unknown person are important:

I wanted to send some sort of holiday greeting to my friends, but it is so difficult in today’s world to know exactly what to say without offending someone, especially with the current demands of political correctness afflicting us all. So I met with my attorney, and on his advice I wish to say the following:

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for a socially responsible, environmentally conscious, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the holiday, practiced with the most enjoyable traditions of religious persuasion or secular practices, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions. I also wish you a fiscally successful, medically uncomplicated recognition, and personally fulfilling, without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishes.

By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: this greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. Disclaimer: no trees were harmed in the sending of this message; however, a significant number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced.

The world has truly been turned upside down and inside out. It is a world in total chaos. Evil is being called good and good is thought to be evil. In a quest to be politically correct, which is really just a euphemism for willful ignorance and self-deception, and bears death wish, we are giving Islam a wide open door to control and subdue. It means in fact that Shari’ah become the law of the land.

Dismantling the nation-state will necessarily lead not only to acute instability but also to the formation of the ‘big brother’ state of Islam, a trend that will lead to the demise and fall of Western liberal democracy. Indeed, political correctness has become a deadly infection that influences us all and if we continue behaving accordingly, it will bring us into our demise.

4) No more appeasement. Western society and leaders have never learned the lessons of the history of appeasement. Defeatism was one of the main causes of military catastrophes. Dark evil regimes are never satisfied with the Rhineland and the Sudeten regions, and the Anschluss of Austria and seizure of Czechoslovakia, but work relentlessly to achieve world hegemony. For hundreds of years, the attempt at appeasement is a recurring factor in the fall of civilizations. While apocalyptic Islam poses a lethal threat to the Free World, we, from many reasons, try to cure the situation by appeasing, believing that it will suffice in calming the wolf.

Western leaders go out of their way to appease, to capitulate, and to give the Muslims more “protection money” and special treatment, the more the Muslims threaten us. But no less frightening is that they actively silence those among their own people who oppose the continued Islamic colonization of the Free World. The basic values of enlightenment are in danger, not only because of the emerging fanatic beliefs, but because too many people are trying to compromise the madness. When our leaders call Islam a great religion, they are appeasing, running away, if not lying outright. To call a most deadly threat to everything we cherish a great religion, legitimizes evil on the one hand and infuses the rest of us with a false belief. The Islamists have infiltrated our fortresses, our system of government and intend to ruin them from within.

It is a well-known lesson of history: more appeasement from the bullied always brings about more demands from the bully. Appeasement is disastrous and leads to annihilation. One must learn the dark lesson of the 1930s. Europe continued its appeasement policies the more Nazi Germany demanded concessions. Again and again Europe gave up and gave in, and again and again the Nazi aggressor demanded more and more. What was the result? Germany itself opened the Second World War by attacking and occupying Poland, on September 1, 1939. The appeasers continued with their run away policy, and the aggressor, never satisfied, continued with his occupation. Was the lesson learned? Not at all. Appeasement is never a safe policy nor an option; it is disastrous and it leads to catastrophes.

Let us look at the scene from another angle, put by Victor Davis Hanson: Hitler started World War II after he already remilitarized the Rhineland, absorbed Austria and dismantled Czechoslovakia. By doing all that he had created the largest German-speaking nation in European history. Imperial Japan had redrawn the map of Asia and the Pacific by occupying or annexing Indochina, Korea, Manchuria and Taiwan, to the swaths of coastal China. Therefore, attacking Hawaii, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Indonesia in 1941 was logical in a decade of Japanese aggression. Fascist Italy had already been remaking the map of the Mediterranean region. Benito Mussolini had annexed what is now Ethiopia, Albania and most of Libya. He promised Italians that the Mediterranean would soon be “mare nostrum,” our sea (again). Had Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese just been satisfied and consolidated their winnings, there was no evidence that the tired Western democracies would ever have stopped them.

But these leaders never stopped. After the end of the war and about 60 million people had perished and Europe was totally destroyed, the Western democracies blamed themselves for having appeased and empowered fascist empires. Well, what is happening today? The contemporary world amazingly resembles so much the late 1930s, so that even maps are again being redrawn.

The Islamic State wishes to bring the Islamic Sunni Caliphate borders back, from Andalusia to India. Shiite Iran wishes to bring its political hegemony over the entire Middle East, by proxies and by military successes: Continental (Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon) and maritime (Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb straits). At the same time, and more than ever, it wishes to destroy the Sunni version of Islam and to occupy the holy shrines of Islam in Saudi-Arabia. Here is the logical basis for Iran to have the bomb. The Middle East melts down to its gravest situation, with failed states (Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria); frightened states (Lebanon, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia), and defensive powers (Egypt, Saudi-Arabia). All the while Israel is shamelessly accused by the corrupt, impotent useless United Nations organization, shamelessly led by the OIC, the Organization of the Islamic Countries’ cartel that behaves like a Mafia. The UN’s treatment towards Israel has become an obsession, an incurable malaise.

The following conclusions should be taken from the history of the game of appeasement. It brings short-term glories of peace to the appeasers at the price of long-term military defeats to their allies. Appeasers consistently reiterate that the only alternative to their march of folly of appeasement is war. However, just the opposite is true: the price of appeasement is assured war. The appeasement of dictators by democratic regimes is a long steady road of failure, while the price of deterring balancing policy is successful containment of the aggressor. Appeasement is never an option; it is always a catastrophe.

5) No more ignorance. We must thoroughly read the Qur’an and other Islamic scriptures; we should learn about the Islamic religion and its culture; we should critically understand what Islamic aims and targets are; we must call a spade, a spade; we must stop explaining and rationalizing Muslims’ behavior, and start to believe in what they say. Western civilization cannot effectively combat the root causes of Islamic civilizational war by ignoring its nature and motives. That is we have to internalize Thomas Jefferson’s declaration: If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

However, it is much more. Ralph Peters in Endless War, focuses on the ideological nonsense perverting discussion of war, peace, and terrorism. Western civilization pays a horrific price for allowing the Muslims to take over the whole educational system, and to mold public opinion’s behavior and attitudes through controlling the media. Their aim is to eliminate our common sense, and the product is people, who are susceptible to wild lies and distortions; people that cannot put what they witness into context; and this vacuum brings capitulation and submission.

Oriana Fallaci has so correctly and succinctly remarked:

Wake up people, wake up. Paralyzed by the fear of appearing racist, you do not want to understand that the Muslim invasion has commenced. Drugged by the stupidity or shortsightedness of political correctness, you do not internalize that a religious war is transpiring here. A war, whose objective is to conquer our souls and rob us of our freedoms; a war conducted with the goal of destroying our civilization and our way of life. Stunned by the preponderance of false propaganda, you do not want to absorb that if we do not defend ourselves, if we do not battle, Jihad will win. It will win and destroy the world which we have built and ruin our culture and identity. Debating them is pointless; conducting a dialogue with them is useless; and demonstrating tolerance towards them is suicide. How is it that leftists never open their mouths against the Muslim world’s primitive, theocratic regimes, which have no democracy, no freedoms and no individual rights? Why were we killed in wars declared against the enemies of freedom and civilization? Are these principles invalid for the Islamic regimes? Enough of your double standards of morality; enough of your opacity and your hypocrisy. Crickets of all countries and languages stop the confusion and take sobriety. The mountain of Islam has not moved for 1400 years; that consciously opts for primitiveness and ignorance. Europe is becoming a province of Islam.

Continue Reading


Custodians of Islam, changing their Avatar



If we peek into the historical traces, it could be seen that the world has fought more wars on religion or for their state’s dignity and integrity than any other reason. It is mainly because accepting others ideologies either its religious or national, it’s hard to accept and this is at present the prevailing issue if someone looks deeper into the complex picture of geo-politics.

United Arab Emirates has passed new laws that have shocked the entire Muslim world. The Arab World has also been perceived as the “custodians of Islam” and other Muslim countries have look towards for the perfect implementation of misinterpreted “Islamic values”, ignoring the fact that mainly the values followed in the Arab world are Arabic not Islamic. There is huge difference among two interpretations.

UAE has recently relaxed its social constraints. These constraints that served as a shield from adopting the un-Islamic practices and pro-western values. UAE has allowed couples to cohabit; it has allowed drinking without fear of punishment. Lastly it has also it put off the honor crime from its menu means; they have criminalized the act of honor killing. The decision of UAE to revamp its policies depicts that UAE has chosen a “new” avatar, a more pro-western avatar, leaving the Islamic values behind.  The broadening of personal freedoms reflects that UAE is on its new journey to change its society at home.

After the announcement of new laws it seems as if United Arab Emirates is more focus on shifting their oil dependent economy or other industries. This includes inviting the high-flow of Israel and Western investments into their country at the cost of anything. They are aiming to boost UAE is the skyscraper tourist destination for Western tourists and fortune seekers, businesses regardless of its “legal hard-line Islamic System.”

Moreover, the major revamps came particularly right after the historic U.S brokered deal to normalize relations between UAE and Israel. The future will reveal but it can be foreseen that the days of monarchy are coming to end. It won’t happen in few years; it will take time but is surely going to happen. The decades old filthy rich monarchy will be replaced by “Democracy” for sure.

Other than the UAE, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is also on the same journey. The new monarch King Muhammad Bin Salman is also tilted towards “Western culture” and more “Liberalist thoughts and values”. He is also more inclined to bring on more liberal structures in their country, for examples recently Saudi Arabia has given more freedom to women for driving and is allowed to work with men at offices or any other workplaces. These drastic changes were considered as an impossible task to do but things are changing rapidly.

The question to ask is, now where would Pakistan tilt? Whose society would Pakistan look upon as the guardian and custodians of Islam and its Islamic values? The Arab countries have also had massive influence upon the Pakistani society particularly in religious terms. Pakistan has to bear the cost of “Wahabbism” clashing with “Shiaism” and other Islamic sects that were mainly brought by the Arabs into the country.

Many Pakistanis have considered the Arabs as their ideal and the Arabian society as an ideal society to live in. I have also heard people giving examples of “Islamic system of Saudi Arabia” and how loyal they are to the “Islamic values”. They are also perceived as the “Guardians” and “Custodians” of Islamic values. But now as they are inclined or totally moving towards Western system, would Pakistan also opt for liberalism in their country?

As there has always been an environment of confusion in the Pakistani society. This confusion is, wither to opt for democracy or go for an Islamic system. This has created a sharp separation in the Pakistani society, the one struggling to go totally Western (far-left), and the others trying to preserve the Islamic system (far-right).

After United Arab Emirates new laws, this question is becoming more complex. The transformation of United Arab Emirates adoption of Westernized values shows that it is only the Muslim world leaving its values behind and moving towards a borrowed baggage of cultures and values. The future will disclose that who will sit on the throne of “Custodian of Islam”. Till now the changing geo-political situation shows that it is Turkey that is striving to go for this throne.

On the current politics of Arab powers I would say, “A tree’s beauty lies in its branches, but its strength lies in its roots,” rightly said by Matshona Dhliwayo.

Continue Reading


Death of a Living Goddess and an Unfair verdict



Image source:

The Living Goddess of Nepal (Kumari), a prepubescent girl child, possessing divinity is a well established and widely held belief. She is worshipped so long as her virginity remains intact and dismissed when she starts to menstruate.  By all accounts, the reason she is highly revered has much to do with her virginity as the loss of holy status is inevitable after the first menstrual blood. Strong voices regarding child and human rights raised so far have brought remarkable reforms in Kumari practice; yet the elephant in the room, her dethronement after puberty, undeniably a serious problem, is often downplayed. The supposed divinity of the Goddess and it’s connection with pubescence, as outrageous as it sounds, triggers a couple of very important questions. Does the Living Goddess really possess divinity? More importantly, must not we ponder and assess the eventual end of her divinity?

The 19th century famous German philosopher  Friedrich Nietzche declared– God is dead — a metaphor used to describe the gradual decline of faith in God. The philosopher attributes the advent of Scientific revolution and Age of reason in bringing an end to the existence of God, thanks to rational arguments and modern inventions or discoveries. Unlike the death of Western God,  the Living Goddess of Nepal, or her holiness to be precise, meets a surprising death(end), figuratively speaking, at the hands of first menstruation. Sadly, just a few drops of innocent and natural blood, with rosy prospects of procreation and motherhood, is believed to have committed a grave crime that a verdict was passed against it long ago — puberty ends divinity.

Moreover, proclaiming divinity’s end, as soon as Kumari reaches adolescence, she is replaced by another “virgin” child. Even though blood oozing from any part of the body due to cuts or wounds leads to Goddess’ dismissal,  the menstrual blood in every occasion has turned out to be most fatal. To confirm this we can check the numbers of all former Kumaris, and should not get startled if considerable cases are associated with their first period. Matina Shakya(2008-2017) was replaced in 2017 by  Trishna Shakya (2017-present), after puberty ended her nine-year reign. When the same phenomenon hit Preeti Shakya (2001-2008) in 2008, she was shown the door to an anonymous life in the suburbs. Likewise, in 2010 the divine life for Chanira Bajracharya finished abruptly  at 15, on the day she first menstruated and Samita Bajracharya(2010-2014) was appointed the new Kumari of Patan City in her place. It is a pity that once highly hailed all-powerful Goddess, sooner or later becomes a “nobody”, useless and mere mortal. Devotees accustomed to bow down before the deity in the hope of blessings are certainly baffled when simple biological blood brings her supreme divinity to its knees.

What would be the general frame of her mind and psychological state when the child realizes that fending off the imminent demotion is far from possible? Gripped by trepidation, she would definitely not want the undesirable menstruation, the antagonist, to come and take away her most cherished goddess status. Samita was in total shock and emotional at her dismissal following the start of her first period. Similarly, Preeti couldn’t help shedding tears when her term ended at 12 ,and  banished out of the paradise, because of approaching menstruation, which is considered as flawed. This is highly likely to leave a false impression in the mind of a demoted child and the collective consciousness of people. To them puberty or “supposed” impure blood must appear a nemesis of Kumari, a nasty thing that ends her holiness.

God/Goddess’ existence is an unsolved riddle, yet lives of many great sages and mystics throughout the history of Indian subcontinent — Gautam Buddha, Mahavira, Shivapuri Baba, Meera Bai, Lalleshwari, Anandamayi Ma and so on —  convince godliness being a possible phenomenon. With no single exception these humans share two things in common; years of spiritual endeavours and eventual mystical/godliness experience. On the contrary, a girl child is expected to fulfill 32 physical qualities, before worshipped as a Living Goddess. Whether the girl child reaches the same transcendental state as the other divine beings shall always remain a debatable issue. Giving a benefit of doubt, for argument’s sake, we can assume that Kumari’s divinity is no lesser than those of highly revered personages. But would it be judicious to believe that a temporary biological phenomenon is capable of  ending divinity permanently?

In fact, literature on religion, spirituality and mysticism show that divinity is imperishable once obtained, which can be attested by the lives of human-turned holy beings. Thus what fizzles out at puberty’s touch, as in the case of Kumari, must be undeniably spurious and impotent . Above all, it is one thing to enjoy the prerogative of a goddess on chastity grounds but quite another to embark upon a spiritual journey and thereby attain godliness. Maybe the holiness does not exist inside the Living Goddess as believed and claimed, not at all, hence skepticism justified. Or perhaps it was there in profusion, but insofar as Nepalese society is accustomed to find coexistence of divinity and impure blood unbearable, it must have convinced us of the latter’s seemingly antagonistic role.

Challenging the popular yet pernicious existing belief that first menstruation ends divine power, I emphatically advocate that it is high time puberty is acquitted from a crime it “never” committed. Needless to say, since the inception of Kumari custom and up until the 21st century, Nepalese society’s fervent endorsement of such belief coupled with their reluctance to point fingers against the traditional practice certainly consolidated the superstition for many centuries. It “might” be our rights to continue long held old traditions and worship girl children in the form of goddesses, regardless of some compromises with their child and human rights. But we are not in the least entitled to mercilessly dethrone them under a completely false or trifle pretext. More importantly, we are not at liberty to dub a harmless biological phenomenon with an undeserved ugly reputation, on account of our illogical blood(menstrual) phobia. How many years or decades more it will take before we realize that menstruation is by no means impure, inauspicious and unholy?  Although the divinity of the Living Goddess appears disputable, one thing seems as clear as crystal, that the verdict passed against innocent pubescence to date was downright unfair. Unfortunately, the apotheosis of a girl child(woman) to a Living Goddess status is undermined by the fact that the Kumari practice explicitly condemns menses, an integral aspect of womanhood.

Continue Reading


From Islamism to Transcendentalism



Thomas Carlyle’s political philosophy can be applied to inform Islamism and the construction of a post-Islamist political doctrine. This is because Carlyle’s conception of transcendentalism in Sartor Resartus is itself a philosophical/theological construct in the Platonic lineage that is a successor to Islam. Carlyle satirically conceptualized transcendentalism in the 19th century in Sartor Resartus, a work of fiction. F.A. Lea, reflecting on and arguing on behalf of the merits of Carlyle’s forecasts of the future during the midst of World War II in his book Carlyle: Prophet of To-day, calls Sartor Resartus the “highest achievement of the Romantic movement in Europe.” “Romanticism” is a nebulous construct but it connotes the European reaction to Enlightenment rationalism and empirical science by seeking to prioritize what it took to be beyond the scope of both rigid scientific positivism and dogmatic theology/ideology such as intuition, nature, spirituality, and aesthetics.

An analytical treatment of transcendentalism in the context of the global political climate in 2020 demonstrates it can be applied in the context of political development as a cosmopolitan post-Islamism. By casting Carlyle’s transcendentalism as “cosmopolitan,” I argue that it is a post-Islamism that belongs to all the world and is applicable to be “at home” all over the world. As such, Carlyle’s transcendentalism is not a post-Islamism for the Middle East solely but could initially be most applicable in the context of Islamic Middle Eastern countries. Subscribers to liberalism, communism, and Islamism promote each ideology as global and cosmopolitan. Like Islam, Carlyle’s transcendentalism is a philosophy/theology that can be cast as a political doctrine to serve a political purpose. In Sartor Resartus, Carlyle offers a comprehensive philosophy that is simultaneously a moral, social, and political philosophy in much the same fashion as how Islam has been converted into the political ideology of Islamism.

               Carlyle’s transcendentalism is not a widely practiced philosophy and it has not, heretofore, been recognized as a political doctrine. Carlyle’s Sartor Resartus was a chief inspiration for American Transcendentalism as a 19th century intellectual and social movement led by perhaps the two most iconic American philosophers on the world stage—Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. Emerson and Thoreau were also inspired by Hinduism and Indian philosophy to elevate the mysticism of nature/spirituality as a primary focal point of their attention. Like Islamism, transcendentalism has yet to be constructed as a coherent doctrine that is accepted universally by those who identify with the respective doctrines. For example, both Islamism and transcendentalism are much less theoretically dogmatic than Marxism as a political doctrine.

Carlyle describes the tenets of the “philosophy of clothes”—a term synonymous with transcendentalism–through the voice of Professor Diogenes Teufelsdrӧckh, the protagonist in Sartor Resartus:

‘Whatsoever sensibly exists, whatsoever represents Spirit to Spirit, is properly a Clothing, a suit of Raiment, put on for a season, and to be laid off. Thus in this one pregnant subject of CLOTHES, rightly understood, is included all that men have thought, dreamed, done, and been: the whole external Universe and what it holds is but Clothing; and the essence of all Science lies in the PHILOSOPHY OF CLOTHES.’

Carlyle’s philosophy of clothes culminates in attaining transcendentalism. Carlyle defines transcendentalism succinctly as the view that matter is spirit and as such is the manifestation of spirit. In other words, transcendentalism views the entirety of the universe (and all that comprises it) as enchanted with spiritual divinity rather than entirely bereft of spiritual divinity. As such, transcendentalism is a minimalist and nominal theological dogma that offers no theological narrative beyond such a simple theism. Carlyle thus defines transcendentalism as the view that all that is material and immaterial in the entirety of the universe (and thus in the entirety of human history) is ephemeral and cannot be accounted for without considering it as symbolic of a divine spiritual order. Carlyle concludes that all science seeks to account for what comprises the universe and thus transcendentalism rests at the apex of all scientific deliberations. The role of a transcendentalist is to ponder the universe in its entirety as a manifestation of spirit.

Transcendentalism is relevant to politics as a prospective political doctrine in that it offers a means to achieve consensus and yield social solidarity in the context of local and national political communities and in the context of the global political community. Carlyle derives conceptions of social solidarity and renunciation (of antagonism and economic consumption) as corollaries of his conception of transcendentalism. At this juncture, it should be acknowledged that the New Age and counterculture that defined much of the West (and the world) in the 1960s and 1970s was an unconscious, incoherent, and non-mainstream reincarnation of American Transcendentalism as a descendant of American Transcendentalism. The elements of the New Age and counterculture—non-dogmatic spirituality, social solidarity, and renunciation of economic consumption—were once coherently constructed and deemed a superior philosophy relative to dogmatic theology and dogmatic materialism (aka capitalism and communism) by Thomas Carlyle, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Henry David Thoreau as modern Platonic philosophers.

Carlyle frames transcendentalism in another manner by asking, through the voice of Teufelsdrӧckh, “‘what is Nature? Ha! why do I not name thee GOD? Art thou not the ‘Living Garment of God?’ O Heavens, is it, in very deed, He, then, that ever speaks through thee; that lives and loves in thee, that lives and loves in me?’” It is in this context that Carlyle is “transcendental” in concluding that all matter embodies divine spirit. It is on this basis that Carlyle delivers what is perhaps the climactic thesis of Sartor Resartus, which is also a succinct definition of what he coins the “Everlasting Yea” as a concept that informs transcendentalism: “‘The Universe is not dead and demoniacal, a charnel-house with spectres; but god-like, and my Father’s!’” Upon attaining this perspective, Teufelsdrӧckh reflects on its social application and its implications to achieve social solidarity:

‘With other eyes too could I now look upon my fellow man; with an infinite Love, an infinite Pity. Poor, wandering, wayward man! Art thou not tried, and beaten with stripes, even as I am? Ever, whether thou bear the Royal mantle or the Beggar’s gabardine, art thou not so weary, so heavy-laden; and thy Bed of Rest is but a Grave. O my Brother, my Brother! why cannot I shelter thee in my bosom, and wipe away all tears from thy eyes.—Truly, the din of many-voiced Life, which, in this solitude, with the mind’s organ, I could hear, was no longer a maddening discord, but a melting one: like inarticulate cries…which in the ear of Heaven are prayers. The poor Earth, with her poor joys, was now my needy Mother, not my cruel Stepdame; Man, with his so mad Wants and so mean Endeavours, had become the dearer to me; and even for his sufferings and his sins, I now first named him Brother.’

The non-dogmatic (i.e. not Christian or Islamic but simultaneously post-Christian, post-Islamic, and post-dogmatic) view of humanity as an embodiment of spiritual divinity yields the legitimacy and validity of social solidarity and the corresponding renunciation of antagonism.

Carlyle theorizes of the primacy of human spiritual interests relative to and as a function of the insatiability of human material appetites. In this context, renunciation can be defended and legitimized as rational through Teufelsdrӧckh’s philosophical construction:

‘Man’s Unhappiness, as I construe, comes of his Greatness; it is because there is an Infinite in him, which with all his cunning he cannot quite bury under the Finite. Will the whole Finance Ministers and Upholsterers and Confectioners of modern Europe undertake, in joint-stock company, to make one Shoeblack HAPPY? They cannot accomplish it, above an hour or two; for the Shoeblack also has a Soul quite other than his Stomach; and would require, if you consider it, for his permanent satisfaction and saturation, simply this allotment, no more, and no less: God’s infinite Universe altogether to himself, therein to enjoy infinitely, and fill every wish as fast as it rose…So true is it, what I then said, that the Fraction of Life can be increased in value not so much by increasing your Numerator, as by lessening your Denominator. Nay, unless my Algebra deceive me, Unity itself divided by Zero will give Infinity. Make thy claim of wages a zero, then; thou hast the world under thy feet. Well did the Wisest of our time write: ‘It is only with Renunciation (Entsagen) that Life, properly speaking, can be said to begin.’’

Essentially, without pursuing renunciation humanity (at the level of the collective and at the level of the individual) is either consciously or unconsciously pursuing the satisfaction of an insatiable appetite for materialist consumption. Renunciation of materialist consumption is thus the only means for humanity (at the level of the collective and level of the individual) to not be dissatisfied and makes primary humanity’s non-materialist spirituality. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that humanity needs to achieve a decent material standard of living that crosses a minimal threshold and then renounce any additional materialist consumption (which is bound to entail the pursuit of infinite consumption). The current unprecedented and unsustainable nature of increasing consumer and national debt in the context of the United States provides an exemplary lens to view Carlyle’s conception of renunciation.

An inference that can be drawn from Sartor Resartus is that humanity must attain the “Everlasting Yea” at the level of the individual so that social solidarity could then be yielded at the collective level. A corollary inference could be made that human conflict in all its forms will persist and replicate itself indefinitely until every individual reaches the “Everlasting Yea.” Essentially, one must consciously come to the conclusion that not only oneself is the embodiment of divine spirit but all of one’s fellows embody divine spirit in the same non-dogmatic sense so as to renounce antagonism and achieve social solidarity. Dogmatic theologies, by contrast, facilitate dis-unity and conflict about their incommensurable theological doctrines.

Conflict, more generally, takes place because the antagonistic parties are unconscious of the notion that their disparate and highly dogmatic ideologies/theologies are individually and collectively “dream-theorems” and such a realization would unify them, ostensibly, into becoming transcendentalists. Carlyle asks, through the voice of Teufelsdrӧckh, “‘what are all your national Wars, with their Moscow Retreats, and sanguinary hate-filled Revolutions, but the Somnambulism of uneasy Sleepers?’” Carlyle implies that those who are sleeping to “dream-theorems” (i.e. ideologies/theologies themselves not transcendentalism), and thus not awake to transcendentalism, engage in wars and revolutions as a form of “sleep-walking” to their “dream-theorems.” Such wars and revolutions take place as a function of humanity collectively being unawake to and not subscribing to transcendentalism. Carlyle’s discussion of being unawake to transcendentalism is analogous to Plato’s allegory of the cave in the sense that non-transcendentalists are akin to those in the cave who think the shadows on the wall are the truth. By analogy, non-transcendentalists believe their dogmatic ideologies and/or theologies are truth when, from the vantage point of transcendentalism, they are arbitrary, mutually incommensurable, and thus fodder for mutually interminable conflict.

The inference can thus be made that Carlyle offers a gateway for humanity to achieve mutual accord rather than discord if hypothetically humanity were to universally attain to the “Everlasting Yea.” This is because the “Everlasting Yea” provides a communitarian model to attain communal existence through the transcendental rather than through divisive material attributes such as race, economic class, incommensurable dogmatic theological traditions, etc. Carlyle’s transcendentalism embodies a rationale for collective renunciation rather than collective antagonism.

The exposition of Carlyle’s transcendentalism and his derivative philosophical conclusions with respect to renunciation and social solidarity provides a foundation for the political application of transcendentalism as a prospective political doctrine. Transcendentalism’s relevance to politics is that the consideration of its prospective hegemony as an ideology itself provides a prospective telos for a populace to attain, a telos that has been hidden and has gone unrecognized in the analysis of Sartor Resartus and in the history of political thought.The universal popular consciousness of universal spiritual divinity (with the absence of dogma)could potentially facilitate renunciation and social solidarity popularly in much the same manner it did for Teufelsdrӧckh personally. The prospective phenomenon of transcendentalism’s political application could hypothetically connote a new stage of human political development. Carlyle’s transcendentalism supplies a coherent doctrine that could potentially be instrumental in achieving a material or political end. Transcendentalism is an anti-ideology in that it does not seek to proselytize converts to a strict dogma and is “immaterial” on economic matters in that it promotes renunciation rather than insatiable economic consumption. Carlyle makes known, through the voice of the narrator, that “wild as it looks, this Philosophy of Clothes, can we ever reach its real meaning, promises to reveal new-coming Eras, the first dim rudiments and already-budding germs of a nobler Era, in Universal History.”

Transcendentalism, Christianity, Islam, and Islamism

Transcendentalism can be cast as a successor philosophy/theology to Islam (and Islamism) because Carlyle and American Transcendentalism is recognized as post-Christian and Carlyle, Emerson, and Thoreau themselves consciously identified as post-Christian. As Islam was an evolution from Christianity subsequent to Christianity’s inauguration, transcendentalism was an evolution from both Christianity and Islam subsequent to Islam’s inauguration. Like Islam’s inherent recognition of the inadequacy of Christianity, transcendentalism was incarnated with the inherent view that the Christian and Islamic theological traditions needed to be built upon (and could be preserved as a function of being re-tailored) with an innovation.

Transcendentalism, as an evolution from Christianity and Islam, embodies a much different standing than a rejection of Christianity and Islam. Carlyle both praises and critiques Christianity and Islam and provides an argument in defense of transcendentalism as a doctrine on a higher plane. Such praise of Christianity and Islam alongside recognizing their inadequacies is literally not a popular track to take and leaves nearly the entire universe of the public uncomfortable in that transcendentalism is inherently a third-way to dogmatic theological tradition on the one hand and secular atheism on the other. Transcendentalism, by leaving Christians, Muslims, adherents to all other dogmatic theologies, and agnostics/atheists uneasy, can be cast and perceived as a type of Hegelian synthesis of theological dogmatism and atheism. As a synthesis, it too embodies a type of hybrid and moderation between the polar and comparatively extreme positions of theological dogmatism on the one end and the dogmatic faith in atheism on the other end. This is another lens to be able to cast and construct transcendentalism as a type of cosmopolitan consensus in the context of global religiosity.

               Carlyle is perhaps the most recognizable and most ardent European Islamo-phile in modern European intellectual history. He lectured publicly and courageously on Muhammad (and not Christ) as the embodiment of “Hero as Prophet” before a London audience (in the heart of Christendom) in 1840 and published his lecture in On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History. Although himself not a Muslim, Carlyle’s praise of Muhammad on multiple occasions makes possible the inference that Carlyle’s transcendentalism can be cast as and situated as an evolutionary development within the context of the Islamic tradition. Carlyle’s affinity toward Islam demonstrates a consensus between himself and Islam with respect to valuing the spiritual and divine over the material, earthly, and utilitarian. For example, Carlyle chastises Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism by drawing on Muhammad in On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History:

Benthamee Utility, virtue by Profit and Loss; reducing this God’s world to a dead brute Steam engine, the infinite celestial Soul of Man to a kind of Hay-balance for weighing hay and thistles on, pleasures and pains on:–If you ask me which gives, Mahomet or they, the beggarlier and falser view of Man and his Destinies in this Universe, I will answer, It is not Mahomet!

According to Carlyle, the “advance to a very different epoch of religion” from paganism to Islam is a “great change” and Carlyle remarks “what a change and progress is indicated here, in the universal condition and thoughts of men!” Casting Islam as a “change and progress” inherently casts it as a milestone in the continuous evolution of how humanity theorizes with respect to the divine. In this context of continuous theological evolution from paganism to Christianity to Islam, Carlyle characterizes Muhammad, perhaps coyly, as “by no means the truest of Prophets; but I do esteem him a true one.” In Sartor Resartus, Teufelsdrӧckh defines theology, what he calls “Church Clothes,” as “the Forms, the Vestures, under which men have at various periods embodied and represented for themselves the Religious Principle; that is to say, invested the Divine Idea of the World with a sensible and practically active Body, so that it might dwell among them as a living and life-giving WORD.” Such a characterization underscores Carlyle’s conception of the variability, evolution, and perhaps a level of arbitrariness of dogmatic theologies that naturally occurs in the context of history.

The juxtaposition of Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones with Carlyle’s Sartor Resartus is valuable in illustrating the prospective political application that can be made of Carlyle’s transcendentalism. Qutb can be cast as a type of “default” representative of Islamism, as there is no official representative of Islamism. Islamism can be defined as a pluralistic movement to revive Islam’s political application as a doctrine for governance in the 20th century since the end of the Caliphate of Constantinople in 1924. The political tactics associated with Islamism are diverse, ranging from grassroots political organizing in the context of political parties and electoral politics all the way to violent terrorism associated with terrorist groups. President Erdogan’s recent reversion of Hagia Sophia to an Islamic religious institution can be perceived as a mildly Islamist policy compared to the violent extremism of groups such as Taliban and ISIS.

Qutb’s Milestones is perhaps the most influential source of modern Islamic political theory and a chief intellectual inspiration for Islamism. The book’s influence on Islamism can be analogized to the influence of Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” on communism. In other words, Milestones is a call to action to implement Islamism as the sole hegemonic political doctrine and seeks to provide an intellectual defense of the supremacy of Islamism. Qutb is considered a spiritual and intellectual father of Islamism in general and the radical Islamist group al Qaeda, in particular.

An analytical and literal interpretation of Qutb leaves an opening to consider the possibility of the evolution of Islamism into transcendentalism. Qutb cryptically calls on “the establishment of Islamic society” on the basis of a “movement” that takes the “form of an evolutionary system.” Islam’s preservation in transcendentalism and transcendentalism’s capacity to be a universal, cosmopolitan, and non-dogmatic doctrine to achieve consensus in recognition of the divine order (alongside its commitments to renunciation of economic, racial, and national antagonisms) demonstrates the theoretical pathway by which Islamism could evolve and embrace transcendentalism as a new stage of political development. After all, it is the unyielding devotion to Islam as a singular, particularistic, ossified, and branded theological dogmatism on the part of Islamists that prevents the realization of what may be called the spirit of “Islamic society.” Moreover, the realization of the spirit of Islamism is prevented from taking place given that Islamists themselves each adhere to plural particularistic versions of Islam and themselves cannot agree with respect to the theology of Islam.

Carlyle’s conception of religion is in profound tension with Qutb’s commitment to Islam as the only valid religion. Qutb is adamant that Islam is the final doctrine to serve all of humanity’s needs both at the level of the individual and the collective and is the only viable totalizing doctrine to guide humanity both in the public and private spheres. He thus offers a basis as to why we should reverse course from being engulfed in jahiliyyah, a state in which God’s laws are rejected, to embrace Islam for every need in personal and social life.

Jahiliyyah is a term taken from the Koran and is usually translated as the “age of ignorance,” in reference to the pre-Islamic era on the Arabian peninsula. According to Qutb, Jahiliyyah in its modern incarnation “owes its existence to the putrid element of lordship of man over man, and which separates man from the all-embracing system of the universe.” Qutb writes that the extermination of Jahiliyyah has been humanity’s grand project and that modern Jahiliyyah has been the condition of humanity’s existence since the dawn of civilization, in both the pre-Islamic and post-Islamic eras. Elementally, Jahiliyyah as the hegemonic social order has persisted largely unchanged throughout the entirety of human history.All hegemonic non-Islamic political systems ranging from democracy to aristocracy to communism can be cast as Jahiliyyah since they perpetuate the rule of man over man and thus humanity’s oppression at the hands of humanity. Qutb theorizes on the prospects of a compromise with Jahiliyyah:

Islam does not accept any half-way compromise with Jahiliyyah. Whether it is the question of its concepts and ideology or the laws of life based on this concept, either Islam shall exist or Jahiliyyah. No third course is acceptable or agreeable to Islam in which Jahiliyyah and Islam share equally. Islam’s point of view in this regard is quite clear and bright. It says that Truth is a unit which cannot be analysed. If there will be no Truth, it shall be falsehood. Mutual intermixing and intermingling of Truth and Falsehood and their co-existence is impossible. Either the command of Allah will prevail or that of Jahiliyyah. Either the Divine code will operate or the desire of self-will rule.

Qutb describes the dynamics of the relationship between Islam and Jahiliyyah:

There is a wide yawning valley between Islam and Jahiliyyah which cannot be bridged for the purpose that both should be able to meet midway. If at all such a bridge could be built it could be for the purpose that the folk of Jahiliyyah should cross over and take refuge in the lap of Islam, whether they are the so-called Islam-professing residents of Islamic country or those residing outside it.

Qutb defines religion as “the system and way of life which brings under its fold the human life with all its details.” Qutb contends that the problem religion confronts is “to banish all the fabricated gods through the establishment of the rule of God, Most High.” Qutb, it can be inferred, vindicates Carlyle’s transcendentalism with his claim that all previous theological conceptions of god were “fabricated” while not suggesting precisely the rationale behind why he thinks all other gods were “fabricated” yet the Islamic god is an exception to the rule. Islam itself is a re-fabrication and evolution from Judaism and Christianity and is premised on the failure of these religions. Yet, Qutb calls on all “fabricated” gods to be banished and labels all Jewish and Christian societies as “Jahili” societies. Such a contradiction can be resolved by subscribing to Carlyle’s transcendentalism as a non-dogmatic and non-particularistic theism that can be positioned as post-Islamism.

Carlyle’s transcendentalism can be theorized and constructed as embodying and preserving Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in a non-denominational and non-dogmatic modern theism. As such, transcendentalism can be cast as a theism that is suitable for modern, cosmopolitan, and universal subscription. Transcendentalism is the opposite of atheism in that it is purely theism without the theology. It is a construct that can be applied to achieve an ideal social order. Just as Marxism is dogmatic atheist materialism and Islamism is a dogmatic political theology, transcendentalism is a non-dogmatic philosophical/theological construct. The application of an analytical and political lens to transcendentalism allows one to consider how the political and social orders on any scale (from a local community to the global community) could change if a simple and non-dogmatic theism reigned hegemonic.

Carlyle’s transcendentalism shows itself to embody what Qutb sought to argue is embodied by Islam, namely that Islam is “different in respect of its nature and reality from all concepts which have been rampant in the world so far.”According to Qutb, humanity must achieve a perfect harmony with the nature of the universe and such a harmony would naturally connote the “end” of human political development:

When man evolves an atmosphere of coordination and uniformity with nature, it results in the establishment of a state of concordance between the mutual relationship of man and the general struggle of life, for when man adopts an attitude of cooperation with nature it consequently follows in the birth of complete agreement between human life and the universe, and only one system prevails in the human life and the universe. Thus the collective side of mans’ life becomes free from mutual clash and discord, and mankind is benefitted with total goodness. Thereafter various (mysteries) of the universe do not remain secret any more. Man becomes the knower of natures’ secrets. Hidden powers of the universe become apparent to him, and he gets the trace of the hidden treasures in the spacious universe. He harnesses all those powers and treasures under the direction of God’s laws for the total well-being and prosperity of mankind, leaving no room for any clash or conflict between man and the nature. Otherwise there is a constant struggle between them and the desires and carnal passions are raising their head against the Divine code.

Qutb prescribes the ideal society as being a society not “in a condition that some are driven by greed while others burning with envy; that all of the affairs of the society are decided by the baton and sword, by threat, duress and violence; that the hearts of the population are desolate and their spirits broken, as is happening under the systems which are based on the authority of others than Allah’s.” For Qutb, Islamic society suppresses “all the frivolous prejudices and weak associations of race, colour, language, country, material considerations and geographical boundaries.”

According to Qutb:

[Communism] claimed to demolish all the walls which were raised by colour and race, nation and country and geography. But the foundations of this society were also not erected on the all-embracing base of “human friendship” rather “class conflict” was made the basis of this society. Viewing from this angle, the communist society is another facet of the ancient Roman society. While the Roman society conferred distinction on the “nobility” the communist society imparts this status to the “Proletariate”, and the underlying emotion is the feeling of hatred, malice and envy. Such a degraded and malicious society cannot bear any other fruit except exciting the base human feelings.

Carlyle concludes in a manner largely synonymous with Sayyid Qutb’s 20th century advocacy of Islamism: “for only in looking heavenward, take it in what sense you may, not in looking earthward, does what we can call Union, mutual Love, Society, begin to be possible.” Carlyle describes the teachings of Islam and how Islam’s core philosophical precepts are shared by Christianity and are thus not exclusive to a particularistic and ecclesiastical theological tradition but offer a universal, non-dogmatic, and non-branded application to philosophy/theology writ-large:

[God] made us at first, sustains us yet; we and all things are but the shadow of Him; a transitory garment veiling the Eternal Splendour. ‘allahakbar, God is great;’—and then also ‘Islam,’ That we must submit to God. That our whole strength lies in resigned submission to Him, whatsoever, He do to us. For this world, and for the other! The thing He sends to us, were it death and worse than death, shall be good, shall be best; we resign ourselves to God.—‘If this be Islam,’ says Goethe, ‘do we not all live in Islam?’ Yes, all of us that have any moral life; we all live so….I say, this is yet the only true morality known. A man is right and invincible, virtuous and on the road towards sure conquest, precisely while he joins himself to the great deep Law of the World, in spite of all superficial laws, temporary appearances, profit-and-loss calculations; he is victorious while he cooperates with that great central Law, not victorious otherwise:–and surely his first chance of cooperating with it, or getting into the course of it, is to know with his whole soul that it is; that it is good, and alone good! This is the soul of Islam; it is properly the soul of Christianity;–for Islam is definable as a confused form of Christianity; had Christianity not been, neither had it been. Christianity also commands us, before all, to be resigned to God….

Carlyle, in his lecture on Muhammad, remarks that “Islam means in its way Denial of Self, Annihilation of Self [and] this is yet the highest Wisdom that Heaven has revealed to our Earth.” In Sartor Resartus, Carlyle similarly comments that “Annihilation of Self [is] the first preliminary moral Act” to attaining the “Everlasting Yea,” which he casts as the highest philosophical perspective. Carlyle, in discussing Muhammad’s inspiration for the concept of annihilation of self, de-emphasizes the importance of Islam’s theological narrative and underscores Islam as a contribution to philosophy: “[Muhammad] called it revelation and the angel Gabriel;–who of us yet can know what to call it?  It is the ‘inspiration of the Almighty’ that giveth us understanding. To know; to get into the truth of anything, is ever a mystic act,–of which the best Logics can but babble on the surface.” In this quote, Carlyle sounds as if synonymous with Plato in his endorsement of the concept of intellectual and mystical intuition as a means of retrieving and realizing the Platonic Forms on Earth.

Carlyle too theorizes of what he takes to be the inadequacy of Christianity when he writes, as a question Teufelsdrӧckh would hypothetically pose to Voltaire:

“‘Sufficiently hast thou demonstrated this proposition, considerable or otherwise: That the Mythus of the Christian Religion looks not in the eighteenth century as it did in the eighth…But what next? Wilt thou help us to embody the divine Spirit of that Religion in a new Mythus, in a new vehicle and vesture, that our Souls, otherwise too like perishing, may live? What! thou hast no faculty in that kind?’”

The inference can be made while synthesizing Carlyle’s commentary on Christianity and Islam with Carlyle’s conceptualization of transcendentalism in Sartor Resartus that transcendentalism as a post-Christian and post-Islamic philosophy/theology has compatibility with Christianity and Islam and is a legitimate successor in their lineage. Essentially, Christianity and Islam can be viewed as milestones on the road to the incarnation of transcendentalism as a non-dogmatic and non-particularistic account of spiritual divinity. As such, the inference can also be made that Carlyle’s semi-endorsements of Christianity and Islam implies their preservation and embodiment in transcendentalism. An inference from this is, as a function of such compatibility among transcendentalism, Islam, and Christianity, Muslims and Christians can retain their theological beliefs in Islam and Christianity as creeds while also mutually adopting transcendentalism as a type of theological/philosophical consensus. Such a consensus would embody a means of being able to simultaneously retain one’s theological beliefs while avoiding hostile antagonism toward others that subscribe to disparate theological beliefs. On a larger scale, transcendentalism could provide the means to attain such a consensus among the adherents to the universe of non-transcendentalist ideologies and theologies that are incommensurable and thus naturally antagonistic toward one another. For example, in the Indian case, the religious conflict between Hinduism and Islam provides a context for the prospective application and inauguration of transcendentalism as a means to attain conflict resolution. 

John Rawls set about theorizing a prospective “overlapping consensus” to ensure the stability of liberalism since he articulated the problem of liberalism as follows: “How is it possible that there may exist over time a stable and just society of free and equal citizens profoundly divided by reasonable though incompatible religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines?” Carlyle’s transcendentalism offers such a prospective consensus, but on a larger scale beyond merely the scope of liberalism in the context of a nation-state. Transcendentalism also potentially can foster consensus among nation-states in the context of international relations by embodying simultaneously a post-ideological and non-nationalist doctrine.

Just as Islam has been appropriated for political purposes by Islamism, transcendentalism can be cast as a political doctrine to achieve what Islamism could not. Islamism could not achieve its aims to unite humanity in submission to the divine as a means to resolve economic, racial, and nationalist conflict (and all forms of conflict) because Islam is a dogmatic and particularistic theology that is mired in interminable conflict with competing dogmatic and particularistic theologies. Since Islam is in competition on the plane of dogmatic and particularistic theologies, such competition is incommensurable. There is no empirical means to establish the superiority of either Christianity or Islam (or any of the other dogmatic and particularistic theologies) over its counterparts in the realm of theology. As a function of this, there is no philosophical means to establish the superiority of Islamism in the realm of political ideology (that includes liberalism, Marxism, and fascism), which has necessarily resulted in jihad being the primary mechanism to establish Islamism as a hegemonic doctrine for governance.


Alasdair MacIntyre’s conceptualization of incommensurability informs Islamism’s status of being incapable of establishing its hegemony through mechanisms other than jihad.In After Virtue, MacIntyre asserts that, in the context of liberalism, it is impossible to achieve consensus of any form because political disagreements are incommensurable and thus interminable. MacIntyre conceives of incommensurability as taking place when divergent arguments with respect to a political, philosophical, and/or moral problem are logically valid, the conclusions follow from the premises, yet “the rival premises are such that we possess no rational way of weighing the claims of one as against another.” MacIntyre theorizes on the bleak nature of contemporary moral and political debates:

Moral philosophy, as it is dominantly understood, reflects the debates and disagreements of the culture so faithfully that its controversies turn out to be unsettlable in just the way that the political and moral debates themselves are. It follows that our society cannot hope to achieve moral consensus.

MacIntyre’s conceptualization of incommensurability provides a foundation to be able to assert that, as a function of there being no rational means of weighing the claims of Islam against the claims of Christianity (or any other dogmatic theology), there is no rational means of weighing the claims of Islamism against the claims of any other highly dogmatic political doctrine.

Transcendentalism, as a non-dogmatic and non-particularistic doctrine, has the means to achieve the aims of Islamism, namely universal world peace. Carlyle’s conception of transcendentalism was informed and influenced by Kant and Hegel, and it could be a fulfilment of their mutually-antagonistic doctrines. In the context of Hegel, Carlyle’s transcendentalism was conceptualized in Sartor Resartus ironically largely as a satirical parody (and refutation) of Hegelian philosophy. That Carlyle’s conception of transcendentalism itself could represent the synthesis of Hegelian dialectics to achieve the “end of history” in a political climate favorable to its inauguration as a practical ideology almost two centuries after the publication of Sartor Resartus should definitely be entertained. Transcendentalism has a favorable climate because we have witnessed the dissolution of Marxism (with the exception of China and a few other states) and fascism, leaving liberalism and Islamism as the remaining hegemonic ideologies. Liberalism is vulnerable to dissolution as a function of the COVID-19 pandemic dissolving the liberal dream of the pursuit of insatiable economic consumption as the “end of history” and the concurrent increasingly transgressive (i. e. violent) political contention in Europe and the United States with no long-term liberal resolution on the horizon. Carlyle’s transcendentalism could be a vehicle to secure Kant’s theory of a global“perpetual peace”by concurrently taking up the mantle of post-liberalism and post-Islamism.

The recognition of transcendentalism as such would leave only atheism/nihilism as a competitor doctrine. The elevation of the hegemony of atheism/nihilism promises only an elevation of perpetual discord in the context of every individual going down Nietzsche’s path of becoming an Übermensch and seeking to dominate all other individuals in the absence of any shared social doctrine. With the decline of Platonism and Christianity (and religiosity generally)in the West, we have in fact been witnessing atheist materialism wreak havoc in the form of Marxism on the left and fascism on the right as partners that engage in a mutual self-cancellation. Those elements that date from the 20th century have increasingly re-emerged in Europe and the United States in the 21st century under such guises as “anti-fascism” and populism and are bound only to lead to a similar conflagration as World War II.

Thoreau equated Carlyle with Muhammad as a means of underscoring what he took to be the magnitude of Carlyle’s influence: “[Carlyle] has the earnestness of a prophet. In an age of pedantry and dilettantism, he has no grain of these in his composition. There is no where else, surely, in recent readable English, or other books, such direct and effectual teaching, reproving, encouraging, stimulating, earnestly, vehemently, almost like Mahomet, like Luther.” Emerson comments, with respect to Carlyle, “He is a man of the world. He does not belong to this or that country only, but by his broad genius and talent of satire, which he throws about him, he is cosmopolitan; but his aims are as good as can be.”

That Carlyle wrote Sartor Resartus as a work of satirical fiction and a parody of Hegel’s historicism should not prevent an analytical treatment of Sartor Resartus. Carlyle’s cryptic verbosity, hyperbole, and satirical tone in Sartor Resartus has blinded readers from acknowledging the practical applications of Carlyle’s philosophical conclusions. To put it as a metaphor, Sartor Resartus is perceived as just another bookcase when in actuality it is a magic bookcase that embodies and conceals a passageway toward transcendentalism as a new doctrine. Transcendentalism can be constructed as a viable political doctrine as a function of being situated in the context of other doctrines. By doing such, the vulnerabilities of other doctrines can be seen through the “lens” of transcendentalism.

Carlyle’s transcendentalism is an alternative to all other ideologies and theologies, which are necessarily and inherently dogmatic, particularistic, and mutually incommensurable since they are themselves not transcendentalism. Carlyle chastises dogma when he writes, “Which of your Philosophical Systems is other than a dream-theorem; a net quotient, confidently given out, where divisor and dividend are both unknown?” Such dogmatic ideological and/or theological “dream-theorems” would not be so bad if they did not serve as fodder for non-violent and violent conflict between needlessly antagonized parties. Wars and revolutions continuously replicate because the world is unawake to and unconscious of transcendentalism as the means to put them  to an end. Ostensibly, dogma will fight dogma, identity will fight identity, nation will fight nation, and scarce resources will be antagonized over until there is a universal acceptance of transcendentalism as an anti-dogma and acceptance of renunciation as a rational social virtue that is a corollary (and derivative of transcendentalism).

The analogy to Plato’s allegory of the cave is valuable in this context because the philosopher descending back into the cave to bring wisdom to the cave-dwellers is analogous to a transcendentalist informing the uneasy sleepers of their somnambulism. As Plato wrote in The Republic:

You must go down, then, each in his turn, to live with the rest and let your eyes grow accustomed to the darkness. You will then see a thousand times better than those who live there always; you will recognize every image for what it is and know what it represents, because you have seen justice, beauty, and goodness in their reality; and so you and we shall find life in our commonwealth no mere dream, as it is in most existing states, where men live fighting one another about shadows and quarrelling for power, as if that were a great prize; whereas in truth government can be at its best and free from dissension only where the destined rulers are least desirous of holding office.

Carlyle himself never promoted transcendentalism, likely because the economic, political, and social climates would not have even facilitated his contemplation of transcendentalism as a viable hegemonic doctrine for governance in the context of what was then only the advent of the hegemony of industrial liberal capitalism in partnership with the longstanding and still-potent hegemony of Christianity.  

Teufelsdrӧckh speaks of “‘Religion, in unnoticed nooks, weaving for herself new Vestures’” and it is on such a basis the narrator in Sartor Resartusasks the question, “Teufelsdrӧckh himself being one of the loom-treaddles?” Carlyle follows up this question immediately with the following remark from the narrator of Sartor Resartus: “Elsewhere [Teufelsdrӧckh] quotes without censure that strange aphorism of Saint-Simon’s, concerning which and whom so much were to be said: L’age d’or qu’une aveugle tradition a place jusqu’ici dans le passé est devant nous; The golden age which a blind tradition has hitherto placed in the Past is Before us.” It is at this particular place in Sartor Resartus where the inference can be made that Carlyle prophesies that transcendentalism will become a viable doctrine in the future because transcendentalism is precisely the “new Vesture” that Teufelsdrӧckh “loom-treaddles” and such a vesture would inaugurate the new “golden age.”

Continue Reading



Economy3 mins ago

Flourishing Forex Market amidst Covid pandemic

The Covid-19 outbreak has halted the normal channel of life, people losing their livelihood and income has dwindled over the...

Environment2 hours ago

Step up action and adapt to ‘new climate reality’-Report

Though countries have made progress in planning for climate change adaptation, there are significant financing shortfalls in getting them to the stage...

Africa Today4 hours ago

Insecurity and bureaucracy hampering aid to Ethiopia’s Tigray region

Nearly three months after the start of conflict in Ethiopia’s Tigray region, hundreds of thousands of people have yet to...

Russia6 hours ago

How Crimea Strengthened Russia’s Eurasian Identity

While the west imagined Crimea was just a territorial dispute that had got out of hand and its annexation a...

South Asia8 hours ago

More about how democracy should be elected -Interview with Tannisha Avarrsekar

Tannisha Avarrsekar, a political activist who wants to increase equality in the representation of political candidates in India. In this...

Americas10 hours ago

Flames of Globalization in the Temple of Democracy

Authors: Alex Viryasov and Hunter Cawood On the eve of Orthodox Christmas, an angry mob stormed the “temple of democracy”...

Economy12 hours ago

Public Council Sets New Tasks to Support Russia-Africa Relations

In this interview with Armen Khachatryan, Deputy Chief Executive Officer and Programme Director at the Roscongress Foundation, and now a...