Some Islamic Scholarship on Slander

The prophet said:

r14.1: “Whoever speaks of the Book of Allah from his own opinion is in error.”

r1.0 (Nawawi)[Note, I believe Nawawi refers to a scholar]: “Every legally responsible person should refrain form saying anything except when there is a clear advantage to speaking.”

[Words I should learn from. I would be killed by Islamists before I convert to Islam, but obviously my wisdom cannot equal it…]

I have been often told that Islamic ideology is not my concern. From Reliance: r13.2 ‘Speaking about What Does not Concern one.’

“…it may be recommended, as when inspired by a good intention such as preventing others of accusing… allaying another’s timorousnes, cheering up… With [such] intentions it is not considered to be what does not concern one.”

One final entry, of which a certain group of published authors should pay closer heed:

r2.9 “This includes the slander of some… who make slanderous innuendos that are clearly understood as if they were plainly stated… this is slander.. r.2.11 unlawful for the person hearing it to listen and acquiesce to. It is obligatory whenever one hears someone begin to slander another to tell him to stop.. it is a sin for him not to.”

The Reliance suggests shunning the place where such slander is being spread, and if that is not possible, turning one’s heart away from it.

The Reliance

For the next few entries, I will be following habit of blog in speaking of which I know little.   I will relate for you what I read about in the Widely received manual of Islamic law: “Reliance of the Traveler”.

It behooves me as one who is deeply concerned about Islamic influences to inform myself.  It is high time learn enough about Islam to ask questions of Muslims in a meaningful way.  I should not rely on gross omissions or broad characterizations – how can one have a real conversation on that basis?

The Mysterious Disappearance of Benevolent Impartiality

I am somewhat perplexed by the abandonment of the pretext of impartiality in the news media.  The writings of Samuel Clemens suggests that the present circus is not unprecedented, but in the late 20th century, news reporters had built a mythos of being something of a branch of science.

This positioned them as powerful arbiters in public discourse.  They could plausibly pass for an indispensable mechanism of accountability.  Long before they abandoned this pretext, of course, this mechanism had been entirely co-opted.  Yet it remains something of a puzzle as to why short term electoral advantage could have so decisively facilitated abandoning this façade.

Even now, this decision – or perhaps impulse – continues the erosion of their authority.  Yet having for years engaged in the gnostic discipline of subtle manipulation, one might have credited them with the wisdom to appreciate the need to preserve this capital.  The fire sale of credibility has been astonishing.

Perhaps they thought their reputation could be recovered.  Perhaps it was animal impulse, such as that which drives stock market bubbles. Perhaps they had become complacent, the faith they had in their own myth overpowering their ability to exploit it.

I suspect it is a question best answered by some rebel historian of the future.  For a few readers, it will be their lot to share that fleeting privilege in solitude.

The Stillness of Suffering

This secular right blog encapsulates as well as any the state of the debate over assisted Suicide.  http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/the-slippery-slope/

Andrew Stuttaford writes: “Opponents of assisted suicide often warn how legalizing it would represent a slippery slope. That’s not an argument convincing to those who have slid very far down a slope themselves.”

The debate continues the slippery slope of fixating on the hope of ending the frightening prospect of lingering death.  The policy of doctor assisted suicide gains traction because the debate is an exchange  between philosophical reservations/speculative fears and the stark naked fact of intractable suffering.  This is my reply:

“…The debate that revolves upon our sympathy with those suffering lingering death has dangerously overlooked the failures of palliative medicine.

I emphasize that this issue must be framed in the context of health systems which are so often and so systematically neglecting best practices in palliative medicine.  There is a real pragmatic core here: the system is not doing the work it should.

The dignity of the dying without suicide continues to be neglected.  This glaring neglect will continue whether or not assisted suicide is legalized.  Until palliative medicine is taken more seriously, whoever wins this policy battle will win a hollow victory.

As I implied, if the system that fails to provide energies towards effective relief of suffering is to be tasked with ending lives, the path to “No pressure grandma… but you could relieve yourself, and us, of yourself” is not a path – it is the purpose.  It is the end.

A Fatal Conceit

I have something of an affection for Karl Popper who introduced me to the study of logic and evolution.  Popper was a product of modern rationalism and the illusion of neurological supremacy.  Human design is far more limited than our abstractions allow for.  This is not to say I reject reason.  The physical structure of the brain implies an extremely limited capacity to model objective reality.  My own observations, furthermore, have convinced me that our evolution has not provided us with an accurate capacity to trace our own limitations

The global financier and influence peddler Soros has glomed onto one of Popper’s phrases “piecemeal social engineering”. Engineering is goal-oriented optimization. Anyone seeking to engineer humans has decided on their own goal and intends to abrogate independent motives.

In SJWs Always Lie, Vox is quite explicit about the nature of the reforms offered by social engineering: Completely unobjectionable precepts, totally unqualified benevolence is made into policy in order that consensus can be enforced. Is it that way be design.

Social Engineering seems to promise incremental relief of our dissatisfaction. But for thousands of years, en have known this is a false hope, it is the vanity of vanities: Man takes upon himsef every desire, satisfies every hope, and when our plans came to fruition, we discover what our ancestors knew all along: we are naked.

“advocates… argued that globalization increases total wealth… The argument was misleading, because it ignored the fact that the winners seldom, if ever, compensate the losers.”

The tacit message here is that competition is producing asymmetries. Some objectives are pursued at the expense of others. Yet that is the very definition of economy: limitation of resources implies trade-offs.
He argues that capital flows, rather than widening opportunities, have been used to consolidate power over allocation of resources in the hands of a few. He admits that poorer states have become wealthier, but objects that inequality has increased within them. In reality, the direct result of governments wielding more control over resource allocation has been corruption and further consolidation of power. The internationalism he advocates amounts to the coordination of these powerful actors. Most of the common people are not globe trotting environmentalists. They want their state to protect interests, not the institutionalization of global governance.
He wants people to be “willing to sacrifice part of their sovereignty for the common good”. The term “common good” glosses over the heterogeneity of what is good. “The” common good is a euphemism for decisions made on behalf of others. He is correct in arguing that control of capital is hardly free. What he neglects to mention is that the policies of “regulators” have reinforced this state of affairs. The political trends he decries as fascism stem from the awareness of western people that the common good has come at the expense of the divergent interests among the public.
“Before its reunification, Germany was the main force driving European integration”
Nietzsche made an interesting observation about nihilism. Nihilism is not the absence of value, but their mutual annihilation. On the pretext of offering support for other’s aspirations, Soros is pointedly indirect, but his geopolitical gnosticism betrays a profound cognitive dissonance. His imagination of the good of the masses is precisely that: a creation of his own mind. . The hegemony of germany was the result of the economic unification. He ostensibly argues consolidation of peoples and nations is the source of the disproportionate power of the few. That is a problem which many people agree upon. As with the social justie warriors, he offers to share a solution among all people. Men like him are not troubled by the fact that global powers would decide upon which solution to be imposed to solve whose problems.

The Martyr God

 

Canadian’s belief in social engineering is all but unchallenged.  The precise form of analysis seldom varies the fundamental precept: appetites constitute the economic standard.   The case for social benefit programs is consciously reserved for those who agree. But they can hardly hide the fact that their analyses defaults to a question of who we feel with, how many satisfy to what extent.  I’m afraid, my dear friends, relatives, dying, delusional, those who we set out to make feel good are not inherently those to whom we wish well.

The arguments such as laid out as sympathetically as I can below (though more essentially in the second sentence), are justifications to implement benevolent aims.  The emotion of envy is bound up with the comfort of the less wealthy having steepeas marginal cost curves.  The arguments of writers like Milton Friedman gives instructive illustration of opportunity-costs but has to make case among a hundred policy proposals, each carried on the same message: “We have a problem, we can help.  Lunch is on us.”

Small government ideologues can’t persuade people against artificial monopolies,  how can they expect people will believe that it is contrary to their interests?  They have to see how it looks to have government institutions neglect long term effects of intervention systematically.  Political cycles have surely played their role, but don’t let cynicism overrate human foresight:  Humans look for effects visible on a scale of time we have evolved to act upon.

Canadian’s belief in social engineering is all but unchallenged.  The precise form of analysis seldom varies the fundamental precept: appetites constitute the economic standard.

Wikipedia.com says saloons promoted revenue by offering patrons who purchased a lunch if they bought a drink, giving rise to the pious observation “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”

Erstwhile trade-offs are now combined: They satisfy their appetite and be sociable, but also become entangled.. Free Lunch is the conduit to slavery to alcohol of some 1890’s American states.

I find too many people shrug off the too-familiar addage “No Free Lunch”.  Everyone knows there are trade offs, .   If Canada’s people want to give the hungry a free lunch, what have we given up?  Over-eating?

I strenuously object to the use of the word “Free”, which implies to be something with no cost.  The facile misues, even of cynics, of the term “Free Lunch” was my first cue that something was basically wrong with the concept of freedom.

Socially, Free means  imposing no preconditions on the beneficiary, it doesn’t mean nobody pays.  Even you will pay.

That is like new minted Council Member unexpectedly offered free lunch with big shots in the nice restaurant.  No pressure, no obligation.  But meet and speak with the people.  Very nice people, just getting friendly, no impropriety.  “And lunch was free”

Compassion drives liberal democracy, (trade is instrumental to requisite prosperity) The root of human rights is that you owe them a place under the  All surveying surveilling I.


 

Canadian’s belief in social engineering is all but unchallenged.  The precise form of analysis seldom varies the fundamental precept: appetites constitute the economic standard.

The arguments such as laid out above appear mostly developed as justifications to implement one or another benevolent aim.  The comfort of the less wealthy have steeper marginal cost curves.  The arguments of writers like Milton Friedman gives instructive illustration of opportunity-costs, but among a hundred policy proposals, each has the same message: “We have a problem, we can help.  Lunch is on us.”

If our government is competent to provide healthcare, policing, unemployment, disability, education, infrastructure, we should have a positive reason to permit reallocation of any combination of these responsibilies.. Let this anonymous person argue unmeasurable opportunity costs outweigh manifest benefits.

If internet is economically indispensable, our country as a whole benefits from ensuring access. Government in Canada shouldn’t offer to pay for cheaper internet because it is not.  The internet is us.  The economy is us. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

For some reason, they have confidence in appointing decision makers who will set those appointed by some indifference, some opposed into motion to effect better decisions more effectively.

The poor were given sustenance not reward. But now their primary need is met each day if but they accept their labour’s reward? ! Invite others, and with their company, you get more enjoyment than the cost of another drink. No worse off with another drink. But the Pub windows give a little cheer to the lonely streets but in their clowning kept sounding like recollection of  ecstasy of desperation to the sober passerby in the night.

For some, it is nothing less than slavery to alcohol purchased for a meal.

But “for free” I tell you this parlance does not stem from relative cost.  We would pay any price, even to enslave ourselves to be free.