To give an adequate exposition of the Philosophy of Atheism, it would be necessary to go into the historical changes of the belief in a Deity, from its earliest beginning to the present day. But that is not within the scope of the present paper. However, it is not out of place to mention, in passing, that the concept God, Supernatural Power, Spirit, Deity, or in whatever other term the essence of Theism may have found expression, has become more indefinite and obscure in the course of time and progress. In other words, the God idea is growing more impersonal and nebulous in- proportion as the human mind is learning to understand natural phenomena and in the degree that science progressively correlates human and social events.

God, today, no longer represents the same forces as in the beginning of His existence; neither does He direct human destiny with the same Iron hand as of yore. Rather does the God idea express a sort of spiritualistic stimalus to satisfy the fads and fancies of every shade of human weakness. In the course of human development the God idea has been forced to adapt itself to every phase of human affairs, which is perfectly consistent with the origin of the idea itself.

The conception of gods originated in fear and curiosity. Primitive man, unable to understand the phenomena of nature and harassed by them, saw in every terrifying manifestation some sinister force expressly directed against him; and as ignorance and fear are the parents of all superstition, the troubled fancy of primitive man wove the God idea.

Very aptly, the world-renowned atheist and anarchist, Michael Bakunin, says in his great work God and the State: “All religions, with their gods, their demi-gods, and their prophets, their messiahs and their saints, were created by the prejudiced fancy of men who had not attained the full development and full possession of their faculties. Consequently, the religious heaven is nothing but the mirage in which man, exalted by ignorance and faith, discovered his own image, but enlarged and reversed — that is divinised. The history of religions, of the birth, grandeur, and the decline of the gods who had succeeded one another in human belief, is nothing, therefore, but the development of the collective intelligence and conscience of mankind. As fast as they discovered, in the course of their historically progressive advance, either in themselves or in external nature, a quality, or even any great defect whatever, they attributed it to their gods, after having exaggerated and enlarged it beyond measure, after the manner of children, by an act of their religious fancy. . . . With all due respect, then, to the metaphysicians and religious idealists, philosophers, politicians or poets: the idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and practice.”

Thus the God idea, revived, readjusted, and enlarged or narrowed, according to the necessity of the time, has dominated humanity and will continue to do so until man will raise his head to the sunlit day, unafraid and with an awakened will to himself. In proportion as man learns to realize himself and mold his own destiny theism becomes superfluous. How far man will be able to find his relation to his fellows will depend entirely upon how much he can outgrow his dependence upon God.

Already there are indications that theism, which is the theory of speculation, is being replaced by Atheism, the science of demonstration; the one hangs in the metaphysical clouds of the Beyond, while the other has its roots firmly in the soil. It is the earth, not heaven, which man must rescue if he is truly to be saved.

The decline of theism is a most interesting spectacle, especially as manifested in the anxiety of the theists, whatever their particular brand. They realize, much to their distress, that the masses are growing daily more atheistic, more anti-religious; that they are quite willing to leave the Great Beyond and its heavenly domain to the angels and sparrows; because more and more the masses are becoming engrossed in the problems of their immediate existence.

How to bring the masses back to the God idea, the spirit, the First Cause, etc. – that is the most pressing question to all theists. Metaphysical as all these questions seem to be, they yet have a very marked physical background. Inasmuch as religion, “Divine Truth,” rewards and punishments are the trade-marks of the largest, the most corrupt and pernicious, the most powerful and lucrative industry in the world, not excepting the industry of manufacturing guns and munitions. It is the industry of befogging the human mind and stifling the human heart. Necessity knows no law; hence the majority of theists are compelled to take up every subject, even if it has no bearing upon a deity or revelation or the Great Beyond. Perhaps they sense the fact that humanity is growing weary of the hundred and one brands of God.

How to raise this dead level of theistic belief is really a matter of life and death for all denominations. Therefore their tolerance; but it is a tolerance not of understanding; but of weakness. Perhaps that explains the efforts fostered in all religious publications to combine variegated religious philosophies and conflicting theistic theories into one denominational trust. More and more, the various concepts “of the only tree God, the only pure spirit, — the only true religion” are tolerantly glossed over in the frantic effort to establish a common ground to rescue the modern mass from the “pernicious” influence of atheistic ideas.

It is characteristic of theistic “tolerance” that no one really cares what the people believe in, just so they believe or pretend to believe. To accomplish this end, the crudest and vulgarest methods are being used. Religious endeavor meetings and revivals with Billy Sunday as their champion -methods which must outrage every refined sense, and which in their effect upon the ignorant and curious often tend to create a mild state of insanity not infrequently coupled with eroto-mania. All these frantic efforts find approval and support from the earthly powers; from the Russian despot to the American President; from Rockefeller and Wanamaker down to the pettiest business man. They blow that capital invested in Billy Sunday, the Y.M.C.A., Christian Science, and various other religious institutions will return enormous profits from the subdued, tamed, and dull masses.

Consciously or unconsciously, most theists see in gods and devils, heaven and hell; reward and punishnient, a whip to lash the people into obedience, meekness and contentment. The truth is that theism would have lost its foeting long before this but for the combined support of Mammon and power. How thoroughly banlrupt it really is, is being demonstrated in the trenches and battlefields of Europe today.

Have not all theists painted their Deity as the god of love and goodness? Yet after thousands of years of such preachments the gods remain deaf to the agony of the human race. Confucius cares not for the poverty, squalor and misery of people of China. Buddha remains undisturbed in his philosophical indifference to the famine and starvation of outraged Hindoos; Jahve continues deaf to the bitter cry of Israel; while Jesus refuses to rise from the dead against his Christians who are butchering each other.

The burden of all song and praise “unto the Highest” has been that God stands for justice and mercy. Yet injustice among men is ever on the increase; the outrages committed against the masses in this country alone would seem enough to overflow the very heavens. But where are the gods to make an end to all these horrors, these wrongs, this inhumanity to man? No, not the gods, but MAN must rise in his mighty wrath. He, deceived by all the deities, betrayed by their emissaries, he, himself, must undertake to usher in justice upon the earth.

The philosophy of Atheism expresses the expansion and growth of the human mind. The philosophy of theism, if we can call it philosophy, is static and fixed. Even the mere attempt to pierce these mysteries represents, from the theistic point of view, non-belief in the all-embracing omnipotence, and even a denial of the wisdom of the divine powers outside of man. Fortunately, however, the human mind never was, and never can be, bound by fixities. Hence it is forging ahead in its restless march towards knowledge and life. The human mind is realizing “that the universe is not the result of a creative fiat by some divine intelligence, out of nothing, producing a masterpiece chaotic in perfect operation,” but that it is the product of chaotic forces operating through aeons of time, of clashes and cataclysms, of repulsion and attraction crystalizing through the principle of selection into what the theists call, “the universe guided into order and beauty.” As Joseph McCabe well points out in his Existence ot God: “a law of nature is not a formula drawn up by a legislator, but a mere summary of the observed facts — a ‘bundle of facts.’ Things do not act in a particular way because there is a law, but we state the ‘law’ because they act in that way.”

The philosophy of Atheism represents a concept of life without any metaphysical Beyond or Divine Regulator. It is the concept of an actual, real world with its liberating, expanding and beautifying possibilities, as against an unreal world, which, with its spirits, oracles, and mean contentment has kept humanity in helpless degradation.

It may seem a wild paradox, and yet it is pathetically true, that this real, visible world and our life should have been so long under the influence of metaphysical speculation, rather than of physical demonstrable forces. Under the lash of the theistic idea, this earth has served no other purpose than as a temporary station to test man’s capacity for immolation to the will of God. But the moment man attempted to ascertain the nature of that will, he was told that it was utterly futile for “finite human intelligence” to get beyond the all-powerful infinite will. Under the terrific weight of this omnipotence, man has been bowed into the dust — a willless creature, broken and sweating in the dark. The triumph of the philosophy of Atheism is to free man from the nightmare of gods; it means the dissolution of the phantoms of the beyond. Again and again the light of reason has dispelled the theistic nightmare, but poverty, misery and fear have recreated the phantoms — though whether old or new, whatever their external form, they differed little in their essence. Atheism, on the other hand, in its philosophic aspect refuses allegiance not merely to a definite concept of God, but it refuses all servitude to the God idea, and opposes the theistic principle as such. Gods in their individual function are not half as pernicious as the principle of theism which represents the belief in a supernatural, or even omnipotent, power to rule the earth and man upon it. It is the absolutism of theism, its pernicious influence upon humanity, its paralyzing effect upon thought and action, which Atheism is fighting with all its power.

The philosophy of Atheism has its root in the earth, in this life; its aim is the emancipation of the human race from all God-heads, be they Judaic, Christian, Mohammedan, Buddhistic, Brahministic, or what not. Mankind has been punished long and heavily for having created its gods; nothing but pain and persecution have been man’s lot since gods began. There is but one way out of this blunder: Man must break his fetters which have chained him to the gates of heaven and hell, so that he can begin to fashion out of his reawakened and illumined consciousness a new world upon earth.

Only after the triumph of the Atheistic philosophy in the minds and hearts of man will freedom and beauty be realized. Beauty as a gift from heaven has proved useless. It will, however, become the essence and impetus of life when man learns to see in the earth the only heaven fit for man. Atheism is already helping to free man from his dependence upon punishment and reward as the heavenly bargain- counter for the poor in spirit.

Do not all theists insist that there can be no morality, no justice, honesty or fidelity without the belief in a Divine Power? Based upon fear and hope, such morality has always been a vile product, imbued partiy with self- righteousness, partly with hypocrisy. As to truth, justice, and fidelity, who have been their brave exponents and daring proclaimers? Nearly always the godless ones: the Atheists; they lived, fought, and died for them. They knew that justice, truth, and fidelity are not, conditioned in heaven, but that they are related to and interwoven with the tremendous changes going on in the social and material life of the human race; not fixed and eternal, but fluctuating, even as life itself. To what heights the philosophy of Atheism may yet attain, no one can prophesy. But this much can already be predicted: only by its regenerating fire will human relations be purged from the horrors of the past

Thoughtful people are beginning to realize that moral precepts, imposed upon humanity through religious terror, have become stereotyped and have therefore lost all vitality. A glance at life today, at its disintegrating character, its conflicting interests with their hatreds, crimes, and greed, suffices to prove the sterility of theistic morality.

Man must get back to himself before he can learn his relation to his fellows. Prometheus chained to the Rock of Ages is doomed to remain the prey of the vultures of darkness. Unbind Prometheus, and you dispel the night and its horrors.

Atheism in its negation of gods is at the same time the strongest affirmation of man, and through man, the eternal yea to life, purpose, and beauty.

taken from The Anarchy Archives

convert this post to pdf.

by Mohamed Jean Veneuse – APOC
Email : tristanklein@hotmail.com

In accordance with the Poststructuralist theories espoused a philosopher in some book, interprets that “if power creates its own resistance, then the liberation from specific forms of power must take into account of the kind of resistance that is being engaged in, on pain of repeating that which one is trying to escape”.

Dimensions-The Epimenides paradox:
Towards the creation of Islamic
Poststructuralist Anarchist
Interpretation(s)

Preface: Times of Tearful Kings

Yesterday I woke up sucking a lemon. This is a mad pornographic confession of a proposed real. An infinite conversation coupled with silence, dispersed and reserved, very much alive in an infinite curvature of space, and intertwined, with the paradoxical limit of a realistic exacerbation of a frenzied virtual temporary autonomous zone. Confined in a simulacrum, frenzied, institutionalized and absurd diabolic racist structure, transpiring visa a vie the portal of a delinquent and schizophrenic mind, with a pure intention at heart attaining all the while a calculable “Weberian” notion of a charismatic leader, yet attempting at abstaining from vanity and its lured genealogy through a forced de-ejaculation of desire. Try and exercise will. The rapid production of this seemingly meta-theoretical language is potentially transportable to those at the grass-roots. Otherwise this production which is fed has resulted in nothing but a hygienic wreckage of my intentions and henceforth subsequent actions. This is not the Aalim’s (scholar’s) “know it all”, nor “is it a know it” anything, but rather it is a subtle confrontation, a shipwreck if you will, that through God’s help is left seductively open and filled with void and thus requires in essence Tayseer (Henceforth appeal to a disarmament of the AK and the laborious attempt at visibility to make easy), Ijtihad (the struggle whose doors have, out of hope, remain to be addressed as “the permanently possible”) and a form of initial dialogue(s) between the multiplicities that chose to engage in its dock(s); namely, hope.

Its attempt at evoking the rizhomatic (think of maps and ask yourself where they begin and if they end) is proposed to vulgarly assign and emphasize a “perhaps” to the possibility and then to observe. One prays that it will allow for the manifestation of an orgasmic pleasure of sorts. A smile as an act of charity maybe all that this engagement amounts to, if not regarded as a childish ignorant heap of trash. Yet the room is left open delivering an unbound ‘libidinal’ crystalline energy which could act in this play as a forum for opposition and an alternative to the bound productive, discovered and undiscovered, governing or autonomous bodies that lie in limbo and their respective forces within these maps and networks. Power gives rise to its own resistance…Then what?

This is the beginning of the end of the beginning. This is an Islamic Poststructuralist Anarchistic Interpretation. Domains will be provoked and the potential for any “venereal diseases” Wazo Bi-Allah, that may infect this interpretation will be injected, as absolute consciousness is interrupted by sensation, intentionally to allow for subsequent interpretations to remain autonomous and for it never to become reducible to a “given”. Rather in order to “understand” what has become a “habit” or “ritual” which a plenty have been accustomed to, it becomes necessary to evoke the conscious and unconscious. However what the interpretation requires are the “gift(s)”, knowledge and practice, and in daylight the outcome is a reciprocal “counter-gift”; it is freed. Respectively, pardon the vazaha poetry.

Paths of Nomadic Germinations & Politics of tactical Affinities

Bismi Allah. Alhum Ishrah Lee sadree Wayisr Lee Amree Washrah Okdatan Men Lisanee Yafqahu Qawlee. Learned to stay awake early but someone killed my show. You made your bed so lay in it. We (Those signified and whom identify as Muslim) ended up like the rose that grew from a razor blocked underground, only to find a posting upon rising to the surface; “No Trespassing”. Graffiti: “Fuck your politicians and Holy Wars” become visible and discovered, infiltrating our psyche as they “texture” the surface. Wrote this one dialing 1-800-Brooklyn after pulling up a green chair and watching Islam(s) being worn out, disheveled like clothes (Ibn Kathir: 87), pondering all the meanwhile when the Heaven will split asunder (Qurran: 84:1). Aggressive passion begins to beckon that one exercise patience and avoid bending the knee to superiors whilst stamping on subordinates; as Chinese Mandarins accomplished with the autonomous Forbidden City. Mandarins danced around gear shifts and slit through clouds with tactical magic potions for love and war as they migrated in rotation from province to province, like infinite nomadic Hijras (from Mecca to Medina and back), without knowledge of the dialects or matters of fate (for the “other” replace fate with chance). No Grat houses in England. No castles in Rhine. No grand villas in Italy. No city temples in Japan. No abodes amongst the freedom fighters or suffrage for Muslims and people of color other than the kill switch of palpable loneliness. Even in pretense, amongst clouds, we pretend to travel in player modes, as panther packs congregating underneath the flags of “black, shades of green and colored” skin, conflictingly embracing only “white masks” territorially, economically, politically and psychologically. We toil during Friday and Taraweeh prayers of the fasting month ecstatically in our proposed success as outlawed post-modern small time traders. In the meanwhile our mentality coincides now with the multiplicities of schizophrenic identities, a simulacrum if you will, where we are copies of an original whose meaning is “lost but somehow not forgotten”, engaging in ritual without a draft in our mental ecosophy. We are caught in “drama syndrome”, re-enacting the perpetual “guilt” of the colonialized. For some caught in an extreme we play a game of constructing the equivalent of a revolutionary crises, neurotically embracing a profound role within our breasts, suffering from dis-utopia as screams of reciprocated “blames” are requested from God upon the lured “white devil”. A “white devil” they proclaim has robbed us through appalling battles and left us bleeding. “The White devil” deprived us of the possibility of being human. The resultant is an alienation, a propagation of the racial stereotypes in an implacable drift, to the point of an absolute void, where what you do say embraces an a point of absolute void as an attempt at liberating yourself from isolation. To do those who embark on this, the necessity arises to examine ?????? (that which you are hiding from), quite blocking every compromise resulting from a defeat and construct away out of your identity crises and God knows best.

People of color keep the Gestapos packed, locked up in state prisons, busy by their own accord and as they fill up, the torturers, ourselves, screaming “How strange that it is that we suffer everlastingly?” The metaphysical denotation “everlastingly” is now a proclamation for everything discovered, but indeed the responsibility to venture on a search for the “Forbidden City” has faded within us as an inspiration Wa-oz Bi-Allah (God Forbid). People of color, for the most part, have forsaken justice and embraced absolute delivery as fair exchange for our “suffering”. We have become introverts of Jean Veneuse, categorizing “other” people of color in a tripod neurotic eye as we become frustrated with the anguish created by our own abandonment and the aggression which partially arises, due to its amalgamation with the devaluation and degradation that flows resentfully out of us. Repeat it three times: “Ruined are those who insist on hardship in matters of the Faith.”

Our prayers (intentions) ought to correspond to our compromised walks (actions), sedating an eruption within the ego of clusters, that are connected via networks, due to a mythical reaction (when based on homogenous categorizations based solely on categories of race, gender, ethnicity, religion and the like and dislike) to chosen dead and false germinations that remain unresponsive. Imprisoned, lacking air and surface space despite the barren land that lays ahead, dignity and strength waver, ever since we relapsed away from affinity based germination. For Muslims, veiled supplications are aroused leaving our faces with a place to sprout and live, though in the meanwhile we engage in heresy and hypocrisy, refusing to plant seeds (where intentions correspond to actions, within one’s best ability) sincerely, awaiting instead for God delivery us and resurrections to commence (Musnad Imam Ahmad: 2: 191). How then could supplications be accepted, when our acquired property is through theft, the food we eat is based upon the sufferings of a fellow species, and the drink is laced with additives?
Alas, every dormant formation needs to erupt following a cycle of uprisings and resistances against its seed coating(s). The question is when, internally and externally, will adequate moisture (that is the undiffused Ijtihad) dialectically vaporize into an identifiable Jihad on every discovered and undiscovered front. Repeat it three times: “Ruined are those who insist on hardship in matters of the Faith.” The hallucinogen oxygen and light require the temporal abandonment of the underground whip; to allow the hybridization process into the radicle, a temporary photosynthesized uprising, to commence (over come your fear and develop your difference as an “other” while recognizing potential roots from building solidarity with someone else). Otherwise and God knows best, expect situations of frustrations, instead of writing letters to our unborn seeds as a starting point for autonomy. Watch a priest carrying a prayer book, thought to be not subject to interpretations save from their end, and make him/her believe that the book of prayers is nothing more than a deck of cards to be adopted and implemented in given circumstances and situations. The echo of Ijtihad reigns. This is an offering of a folklore constituted in the tactical magic potions of poststructuralist germination(s). That is, the ability to partake in imperceptible transitions of maneuverability in accordance with the parlor inadequacies of these “postmodern” times. Allow for colored shadows to emerge, in place of the white masks and permit mobility on the surface level without a hegemonic strategy of one for all and all for one, in sight. Recall “Allah loves a slave who is pious, free of all wants and the unnoticed (Riyad Al-Saliheen: 597).

An infant is unaware of the limits to his/her own power of engaging in space maneuvers and thus becomes a Wizard of Oz because of the very absence of the superego in companionships, particularly those based on mutual struggles. The dormant superego has yet to access the child, making it revolt against itself and turning it into a coward. In midsummer festivals of Vedic times priests and prostitutes reviled one another and then engaged in intercourse; for the purpose(s) of germination(s) and Allah (SWT) knows best. This intercourse is like the helper cells of germination(s), co-existing with one another, intersecting at various junctures, easing the burden upon one another and themselves by confiscating residues and remnants of that authority that we covet for, forgetting meanwhile that the “original seed of that authority”, “will be a cause of humiliation and remorse on the Day of Resurrection (Riyad Al-Saliheen)” & capitalism, simply two of the suppressor cells. The new ghetto: Asabiyah (Social solidarity).
Begin to run wild and “Plough (the earth) well, for verily, plough-ing is a blessed task…sow many seeds” and become “like seed produce that puts forth its sprout then strengthens it, so it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stem, delighting the sowers” (Qurran: 48:29).
Now imagine if you could backup, abuse your own kind because they are of a different “race”, with your supreme ideology; you become null and void, with an empty soul, losing the will to survive all the meanwhile claiming your innocence on grounds of insanity because of what “wrong” has been done towards you. Till the end of time you lose touch, become arrogant, as you hegemonically terrorize and destroy those perceived to be below you, while dismissing that “On Doomsday, if any one has a palm-shoot in hand, he should plant it” (Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal: 5:440 and 3:184). Now who is to say if I am right and wrong, but what I see is breathing, raw and closer to achieve for tilling that which is barren. The missed Darce (lesson) created contemporary preachers positioned on phony pillars, a buried Ijtihad where every hand is a “losing” hand.

The last sermon of the Prophet, is now diluted, as all that is now beckoned and encountered is a proclamation and indoctrination of re-claimed islam-itude(s). We have created the anti-racism & fascism for our selves and abandoned by auditing the last sermon as diversity, multiplicity, the infinite Différend, is now being proposed to be an “ailment”. Need we be reminded that “an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action” (The Last Sermon). “All actions are but by intentions (that between the breasts),” and that everyone shall have that which is intended (Saheeh Al-Bukhari and Muslim). The demagogic “losing” hand engaged in running away, cheats its marriage and responsibility with an artificial superiority claiming authority, subjugating it with calculations of judgment after judgment, and as it is afraid to lower its guns to keep. It is now hereditary, this industrialized “claim to righteousness”, piety and the reciprocal ritualized pressure on a wound adorably still bleeding and a scar regulated by an addiction to terror. Perhaps I am forsaken. The demagogues have apparently attained knowledge of all our intentions, reconciling an abandoned monotheism with an embraced polytheism. The sun of your native “identity” is now nothing but a shadow, regurgitating the flood of lofty empty words as you listen to a tyrants voice and the “objectionable” is neither altered, with the hand, tongue nor with the heart.

An alternative lays in germinating. Germinate whilst you are in this world like a stranger, nomad, traveler/wayfarer for you know not “when evening comes, do not expect (to live till) morning, and when morning comes, do not expect (to live till) evening. Take from your health (a preparation) for your illness and from your life for your death” (Forty Hadith). Magic (Germinations) are revolts against the discovered “losing” hands of these demagogues. Embrace the sorcerer’s tactics as the Pitjentara youth did at the age of eight or ten in their sublime conquests for “white flesh” across desert terrains; embrace rudimentary nomadic fashions. Flirt with art and transition slowly from the insatiable empathetic abandonment coloured neurotic, to a network mosaic of refracted white tonalities. Accept going blind and stand on surface seashells only to abandon words, embrace silence and temporarily privilege another. Fast for a month in solidarity with those unprivileged. Feel what it is to have nothing for you are nothing. Witness the occupations of a former dispossessed network and the potential that is now paraded in an endeavoured conquest. Practice austerities for unions with the infinite.

Rhythmically even ballads of dead soldiers germinate in prison cells with no witnesses to scream bloody murder. Dis-alienate for “It is He Who sends down rain from the skies; with it We produce green [crops], out of which we produce grain, heaped up [at harvest]; out of the date-palm and its sheaths [or spathes] [come] clusters of dates hanging low and near; and [then there are] gardens of grapes, and olives, and pomegranates, each similar [in kind] yet different [in variety]; when they begin to bear fruit, feast your eyes with the fruit and the ripeness thereof. Behold! in these things there are signs for people who believe.(Qurran-6: 99)” For those who don’t have none but want some; let the punks know about the prelude: Everything they owe stipulated in the “constitution”.

Watch and witness the concepts of power and religion, as they de-funk, within Eurocentric Classical Traditions in Anarchism(s). “My People” are now living somewhere free and you begin to get a flash back: “You got what is mine and I want that”.

If we choose to rise then we become subjected to the stipulated personified union of an ideology of recently lost times, that shed tattoo tears for most cosmological inspirations, migrating instead to an overture of almost exclusively psychological value. Tectonic lines eroticize the isomorphic naked reality that lies in the midst of its “fantastic” fog leading to Astigmatism. With Astigmatism commissioned visions pry into the umbrella despite the image’s duty-bound alliance with the respective “distorted” and wavy mirror. To assume that the process of intercourse, between unions, has reached climax (no longer space for tactical affinities) acknowledges a restriction, impoverishment and paralyzed de-amplification of the skill in being somewhere else and seeing the mistress without feeling dutifully bound to her by marriage. Alternatively, one ought to ride the wave of the germinating nomad embracing the radiance without disregarding that which remains as multiplicities of discovered and undiscovered background choruses. Prepare an arsenal and reserve of disorderly, flourishing and “abused” radical “subaltern” literature(s) transitioning from the politics of demand to politics of tactical affinities in an attempt to minimize the hierarchy in your own mind, thereby terrorizing the manipulating and privileged center of marriage; ‘totalities and closed holisms’ of “Classical” Traditions. Our Muqqadimah (the beginning), pays homage to my Brother Ibn Khaldun, is a cloud ushered beneath the winds, not as a reaction to confusion, but as a hybrid of blackouts and the evident lack of sufficient light, for the spiritual and mental infinite family of toric singularities, belonging to known or unknown horizons. So let it begin. Power does not stop here. Let it dislodge into migratory radicles sufficed by intentions and actions dependent on Asabiyah(s); Affinities.

An Exodus towards “Chaos”

The birth of a “sub-cultural race” had begun. It’s inherent desires where in setting the stage to reconstruct the eminent and transcendent double-edged sword of worldly ignorance and venom. Its image would spiral continuously over the course of its history, resurrecting itself not merely as an idea passed from generation to generation, like that shadow of a whisper in the dark alleyways of the urbanized slums, but rather as a way of life.

European Classical Anarchism(s) conception of power and religion, require a rewinding of the tape back to the schisms between Bakunin and Marx, of the Paris Commune of 1871 and the International Working Men’s Association of 1872, through Michael Bakunin’s to its influence by Poststructuralist philosophies, where “minds and things” are called to jurists for deliberation, as for bodies (astral and vegetal) they are language where every word is a symptom.

Bakunin emphasized the indispensable need for the “disassembly” of both the State and the Western church for “the real enfranchisement of society” to begin. It is through this process of disassembly that these two top-down, hierarchical, exploitative, and suppressive structures are broken down and that their power is redistributed. Thus, there I derive, though do not constrain my language to two postulates that could be derived or are given rise to from the above statement: one regarding power and the second pertaining to religion. The first postulate recognizes that if there is to be any future for “humanity”, then the social setting in which they reside ought to be dictated not by an authority figure ( A Hobessian Sovereign or Leviathan), a ruling aristocracy, or even a national assembly, but rather, by an inverted “approach”. This bottom-up approach occurs through the “free association or federation of workers, starting with the associations, then going on to the communes, the regions, the nations, and, finally, culminating in a great international and universal federation”. This proposal highlights the nature of European Classical Anarchism(s) analysis of countering and resisting state power, unlike dimensions and interpretations of Marxism (artists that gave rise to the work to come), and the state’s insatiable infatuation with using a suppressive force. Bakunin’s conception is an articulation of power that based upon a negative, limited, centralized, confined and consolidated understanding of power as a force strictly utilized to serve the interests of the sovereign minority at the expense of the majority, through the mere existence of the authoritarian state. It is not that the minority possesses social evils that such a minority, need to be rid of or to undergo an “expropriation”, articulated through Kropotkin. Bakunin posits that it is through glorified social positions provided by the multiplicity of irrational inorganic and hence organized structures within a society that are based upon injustice, which such institutionalized forms of power exist and it is these types of evils that ultimately ought to be resisted!
In order to shed light on the Bakunin’s second postulate highlighted above regarding religion, I will shift focus onto another Classical Anarchist, the dearly beloved Emma. Goldman’s sentimentality reiterates Bakunin’s notions regarding religion and its ability to confiscate the masses and pollute them when she proclaims that the tyrannical “God, the State and society are nonexistent; that their promises are null and void, since they can only be fulfilled only by man’s subordination”. Goldman’s, religion is the dominion of the human mind. The fettered human mind requires liberation from this obtrusive structure, which is imposed upon, rather than consciously chosen by, the ignorant masses. Espoused in “Classical Anarchism(s)” is that “religion” masks its motivating force, namely, the attainment of social control and power, thereby degrading and humiliating the masses. This degradation and humiliation is germinated and nurtured by the constant obligation upon “la masse” to follow the preacher’s rhetoric, by responding to the shepherd who calls for the complete submission of the flock of sheep. After all, such preachers have been given a right by God, as in Nietzsche’s Christianity, and thus, their authority cannot be called into question by the common person. The image invoked is that of the preacher’s rhetoric of “truth” dissipating and spiraling downwards to the populous and thereby, in Goldman’s opinion, resembles that of top-down structure of the oppressive state. However, although it is notoriously “understood” that Goldman and Bakunin’s notions regarding “religion” are predominantly influenced by a particular type of a particular “sect” of “religion”; namely a particular form of Christianity brought forth by the formerly mentioned Constantinian shift, using the signifier “religion” to indicate a “particular perception or a particular kind” of it, remains inappropriate.

Classical Anarchism(s) objectives are primarily the reconstruction and liberation of humanity from the double-edged swords of worldly ignorance (the dominion of religion through its reliance on the blind following populous) and venom (the state through its exercise of forces of oppression). At this point, I will introduce and infract an examination of Classical Anarchist theorists’ notions of the totalistic conception of such a top-down model of power within a society, as being construed as purely negative and consolidated in the hands of a minority. It is construed since Bakunin’s vision of Anarchism as a “unique religion that can stir hearts and create a saving collective strength”, along with Goldman’s assertion that “Anarchism …stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion….liberation from the shackles and restraint of government” along with Anarchism(s) direct-active-capacity to permeate every phase of human endeavor, all indicate the potential for Anarchism(s) to be viewed contrarily as a positive, libratory form of power. Therefore, Bakunin and Goldman’s statements imply that power is not necessarily consolidated, centralized, restrictive, or repressive. Rather, power can possess a libratory attribute as well and the potential respectively, at least from a Classical Anarchist perspective, to liberate human beings.

As such, Anarchism(s) unconsciously “purified”, “Orientalist” and “classical” images of power mutates and spirals with the advent of Post-Structuralism, continuously through the course of its history, resurrecting Anarchism(s) not merely as an idea passed from generation to generation, but rather as a way of life. Whether such (Goldman and Bakunin) conceptions of Eurocentric Classical Anarchism(s) propagate the larval stage or discourse of Proudhon’s Mutualism, Bakunin’s Collectivism, Kropotkin’s Communism, French Anarcho-Syndicalism, or otherwise, they emulate bamboo roots in allowing organic and fluid attitudes to partake within and “underneath” the umbrella of moral self-realization and obligation without an authoritarian governance, be it state or religious, to enforce it. We begin to see a recurring “theme”, which requires more, as they represent blocks that ought to be comprehended for “Le Différend” to have room.

Insurgencies and Assaults upon the Exodus: Towards infinite migrations
An endorsement of the fundamental view described above, namely, that power is not solely oppressive and “negative” but resistive and “positive” as well propels itself to the forefront.
The single perception of that, which is “revolutionary” and total, associated with a European vision of Classical Anarchism(s) which lies in its idea of “oneness”. It becomes necessary for Eurocentric Classical Anarchism(s), and respectively its particular multiplicitous shade(s), to comprehend as an example, the cultural and ethnic diversities which had been discounted, consciously or unconsciously, amongst “anarchist/anti-authoritarian movements active today”.

This is due to the fact that, identities, whether they are associated with gender, sexuality, race, or religion, are immeasurable and infinite in their representations. “First wave Anarchism(s)”, as recognized by some though the term is not endorsed nor is particularly appealing to myself and its ability to re-conceptualize history and theory recognizes the latter’s development of “alternative” Anarchism(s), as they exist amongst what is defined by some as the “people without history”. The complexity and diversity of the multiple developments that branched out of “Classical Anarchism(s)” ought to be recognized and commended. Therefore, former writing(s) and literature of the Classical that have been presented witness an unspoken assumption that the state and religion are always the primary and dominant forces of oppression. Furthermore it is assumed that Classical Anarchism(s) is the sole savior and that only “it”, as if there is a one “it”, is/are capable of resisting the negative and oppressive forces, thus ushering in what Goldman refers to as the “new Dawn”. This viewpoint does not give much, if any, consideration to the historiography of Non-Eurocentric Anarchism(s) or other movements, like certain shades of Islam which will be briefly highlighted, that maybe anti-authoritarian and non-hierarchal (“Mutazillate” and “Kharijites”), and that predominantly reside in Non-European spaces. “The most available anarchist literature does not tell this history not to a necessarily malicious disregard of non-Western Anarchist movements but rather to the fact that even in the context of radical publishing, centuries of engrained Euro-centrism has not really been overcome”.

However a failure to grasp the complexity of such interconnectedness and an attempt to develop a genealogy of Non-Western forms of Anarchism(s) itself, on an international level though luring is destructive, as it too engages in holisms: Everything is not Everything… from Sam Mbah’s African Anarchism to Frank Fernandez’s Cuban Anarchism. The effect of this approach mirrors Classical Euro-centric Anarchism(s) tendency to utilize literature to totalize once more the “superficial surface” pertaining to the conceptions of power and religion. A case example of the “undiscovered subaltern other” is that of the Indigenous movement in the “West”. Though it could be easily contested that such a movement still geographically exists within the “Western hemisphere” this would be a misconstrued conception because of the context of what could be geographically defined as the “West” to begin with. Radical literature as “Wasase” conceptualizes what is defined as “Anarcho-Indigenism” as a starting point or a means of resisting post-colonialism, whether through the “Gandhian strategy of non-cooperation” or otherwise, state power and the Neo-Liberal Capitalist Global project.

Furthermore there are “philosophical connections between indigenous and some strains of Anarchist thought on the spirit of freedom and the ideals of a good society; parallel critical ideas and visions of post-imperial futures that emerge from the two traditions of thought” and which “have been noted by a few thinkers”. However, despite “Anarcho-Indigenism possessing” these characteristics, there is at times no mention of such a movement, although an entire section on Resistance in “Euro-Centric” literature is dedicated to such and such, thereby not acknowledging and gendering interest in “Le Différend”. The pitfall of Eurocentric Classical Anarchism(s)’s tendencies of ignoring certain Non-Western movements or oversimplifying them or imposing their own conceptions upon them lurks, though this does not imply that affinity and solidarity could take place at the grass-roots or within academia. Any broad analysis of “Non-Western Anarchism(s)” risks the development of an over-exaggeration of certain elements and relations which are espoused by the author, but that are, in reality, superficial. The examination of an Anarchism of India, as an example, may fail to mention or develop a critical examination of the “caste” system in Hinduism, along with a Gandhian perspective pertaining to it. Instead what is drawn upon is “Gandhi’s passion for collective liberation” and his endorsement of non-violent pacifism and the necessity of removing “social evil” which, according to Gandhi, is the cause of the “state evil”. Gandhi’s notion of the origins of the state as an oppressive force does differ drastically though from Goldman and Bakunin’s conception of the state as the source of the “social evil” and oppression. Upon conducting more research one would also find that in reference to the caste system in India, that through “Gandhi: Saint or Sinner”, Gandhi is quoted, as believing that “to destroy the caste system and adopt the Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation, which is the soul of the caste system…The hereditary principle is an eternal principle”. As such a more detailed study, reveals that Gandhi’s conception of the importance in preserving the caste system, though non-hierarchally, has “saved Hinduism from disintegration”. This alters and drastically undermines the belief mentioned earlier, regarding “Gandhi’s passion for collective liberation”, since it is radically different due Gandhi’s endorsement of a divided system of social order. However, what is often sought is a virtual “wish” to see Anarchistic conceptions of collective liberation as
“real” threads in India when in fact a contradiction is played upon and which more research has “uncovered”.

Once more, with the advent of Poststructuralist philosophy, the philosophical and political image(s) of power moves away from a centralized or subordinating and oppressive force to one that is interconnected and productive. The implications of this shift could simply be stated as follows:

Power is and always will be infinitely produced and consumed not solely in between the oppressors (state and religion) and resistors (Anarchists) as was formerly perceived by Eurocentric Classical Anarchists like Bakunin and Goldman. The repercussions of this are that, once more, “power not only intervenes in more places; its intervention is of different types” and that it is that power exercised through oppression that gives rise to resistance within a given “social space”. A chosen terrain for the conception of the “social space” lies in digesting a philosopher’s network.

If the imagery of an upside-down and uprooted tree in European Classical Anarchism(s) is juxtaposed with that of a decentralized multiplicity of networks in Post-Anarchism(s), then the philosophical tactics espoused by Goldman and Bakunin that are aimed at deconstructing the hierarchal and centralized state or religious powers are misconceived. Hence, oppression is never localized or confined to a social space, nor does it find its origins solely in the state or religion.

Oppression in Eurocentric Classical Anarchism(s) was displaced, and its effects undermined by European Classical Anarchism(s)’s displaced and misperceived roles of power. Furthermore, Classical Anarchism(s) identifies power through its suppressive force(s) rather than consciously recognizing the libratory or resistive force(s) which arises from it. The image of power with which Classical European Anarchism(s) “operates is that of a weight, pressing down- at times destroying- the actions, events, and desires with which it comes into contact”. This imagery, associated with Classical European Anarchists like Bakunin and Goldman, has an adverse psychological effect, relying primarily and solely on state decentralization as a form of resistance, thereby achieving no significant change, and even if there was historically it was merely temporarily, on the micro or macro levels. On this matter, a philosopher discovers that Bakunin and other Classical European Anarchists adopted a hegemonic vision of power, engaging with it only in the context of the “macro”, where the main objective of the “Classical Anarchist Project” was to call towards a “decentralization in order to resist the reductiveness of centralization while at the same time offering a vision of decentralization that was itself reductive”. This process became tautological in its nature, never really identifying the diversity of distinctive modes of resistance, like those adopted historically by Non-Western Anarchism(s), and the relationships that these modes have with power. In essence, this viewpoint leads to a one dimensional battle, pitting Classical Anarchism against an illusive, anonymous, and at times impersonal structure: authority. However, this section argues that neither the state nor religion necessarily assigns authority and that the authority’s resultant attributes, power, takes on various directions of motion, as the rhizome, within a given “social space”. Furthermore, though it is not disputed that there is such a force whose nature is oppressive by the state through its social structures, this force does not descend upon the social space it occupies, let alone exist on its own. It is accompanied by other exploitative forces and potentially resistive, forces, providing a dichotomous affair between both, with neither necessarily “winning” nor “losing” permanently. Instead, it is a temporary struggle, or tug of war, between these two “discovered” occupants of the networks within the recognized space. It ought to be understood as well, that in the process, these forces are never simply haphazardly “present” in a network but rather, are discovered through a collectivity of infinite sites territorialized by,through fate or chance (choose what you’d like) knowledge/ignorance (acknowledging that they exist, or have the potential to, in a given paradigm by studying literature) coupled with similarly infinite experience/inexperience (acknowledging that they exist, or have the potential to, in a given paradigm by direct action).

Poststructuralist philosophy thereby challenges Classical Anarchism(s) unitary, totalistic, and holistic views on power and liberation, as well as the resulting existentialist bleakness that such a viewpoint places upon an individual, in order to jettison the subject as a relevant source of its own constitution or action. Post-structuralism, “confine[s] itself to neither analyzing the interiority of the subject nor the exteriority of the structures, but rather to occupy itself with examining the networks of the contingent practices that produces both the subjects and structures”. The rejection of subjectivity as a “viable source of political activity” as well as the denial of a solely negative and repressive vision of power, represent some of the influences that Poststructuralist philosophy had upon some Classical Anarchism(s), as remnants and residue remain behind, through the theoretical and grassroots. The strategy as posited by some is a new type or hybrid of Anarchism(s), Post Anarchism or Poststructuralist Anarchism(s) (Though I disagree with the name!), whose perspective is defined through the rejection of the strategic concepts of power and subjectivity, in the context highlighted above, and instead sets them up as tactical a priori’s of traditional Eurocentric Classical Anarchism(s).

If these proposed “Post-Anarchistic” contours, “along with some of the specific theoretical interventions that characterize it” are indeed to fulfill their vowed promises of incorporating the infinite multiplicity of perspectives and “subject positions” along with their uncovering of the inescapable plurality of representations, then that covenant needs to be further developed through the conclusion of the author of ‘Who is this we that gives the gift? Native American Political Theory and the Western Tradition’. The author comments that the response of liberal multi-culturalism to diversity results in the exclusion of dissenting voices from intercultural dialogue. Although the author focuses on Native American and Indigenous identity, the same issues also apply to other minority groups. While the author’s theories may be utilized to examine “subaltern” groups other than Native Americans, it is important to avoid making generalizations that deny the different environments, cultures, and circumstances of other minority groups. Although the circumstances are different, there are indeed nodes or points of intersection worth examining, whether in the context of a particular type of oppression or its reciprocated force of resistance. Hence Solidarity without solidity! Thus, Post-Anarchism(s) intends to avoid tactically seeking a “single common language, but engage[s] in the creation of a diversity of languages that correspond to the diversity of” infinite subjectivities unlike Eurocentric or Non-Euro-centric Classical Anarchism(s), while supporting the idea that infinite subjectivities are yet unrecognized or undiscovered. However, to begin this task that involves the inclusion of the “subaltern other” in Post-Anarchism(s) it is necessary to remember that the potential for homogenizing needs to be evaded. In other wards, these Anarchistic elements, which a warrior chooses to highlight in accordance to his/her or hybrid of these socially constructed categories, particular visions of Anarchism(s) resulted in a broad and bleak vision of them, since as illustrated earlier they merely skim the contour of these movements, leading to an unjust and sometimes falsified representation of them.

Get Busy Child: The Muqaddimah:

In accordance with the Poststructuralist theories espoused a philosopher in some book, interprets that “if power creates its own resistance, then the liberation from specific forms of power must take into account of the kind of resistance that is being engaged in, on pain of repeating that which one is trying to escape”. Therefore, if as I believe that the genealogy of Eurocentric Classical philosophies has propelled itself solely to the forefront downplaying, in the meanwhile, the importance and agency of, as an example, the Non-Eurocentric, then the introduction of Islamic philosophies and an examination of their genealogy are necessary in Eurocentric academia as is vice versa.

“To take Islam(s) as an example – the ‘hyper-orthodox’ & the ulemocracy cannot so easily reduce it”, as had been done historically with regards to “religion” through Christianity by Nietzsche. It becomes necessary therefore to abstain from “a hegemonistic/universalistic ideology as to rule out divergent forms of ‘sacred politics’ informed by Sufism [e.g. the Naqshabandis], ‘radical’ Shia-ism [e.g. Ali Shariati], Isamilism, Islamic Humanism, Sunni-ism, the ‘Green Path’ of Col. Qadafi (part neo-Sufism, part anarcho-syndicalism), or even the ‘cosmopolitan Islam of Bosnia”. Henceforth to comprehend and indicate that there is and will not be a single “monolith” of Islam let alone Islamic fundamentalism, is more than just a slanting ray of the setting sun, an odor, a flavor, a draft, an ephemeral qualitative complex that owes its value to the “subjective aspect” which is never the last word of the search, but merely a “truth”. These variant and divergent traditions in Islam(s) could permit the creation of a new open, un-holistic constellation whose contours are defined, just as Poststructuralist philosophy(s) is, through the specific theoretical and theological interventions that characterize them and are committed to their creativity. In treading this ground it becomes important to tread cautiously, not solely to avoid the pitfalls due to generalizations which may not be true, and not hegemonic-ally exploiting a tradition of Islam(s) as the only “green shade”, as there will never be one so quite claiming, voluntarily and involuntarily, that your foliage is superior to another.

Ibn Khaldun, acclaimed by some as the forerunner of modern, historiography, sociology and economics, wrote Al-Muqqadimah- Prolegomena to History in the 14th century in Tunis. Ibn Khaldun’s grasp of the various branches, at the time, of Islam(s) theological and sociological models and practices of agency, identity, power, authority and the state, along with the influence of his writing(s) upon other Muslim scholars, has led to an engagement with the creativity of Islam(s). These Islam(s), in my opinion, retain the project of social justice, in the broadest sense, without necessarily having to rely on a theory of law based on a homogeneous collective identity and thus embrace the Poststructuralist philosophical concept of multiplicity.

The phantasmal lure of Ibn Khaldun prevails in his ability to fashion and engage with theoretical paradigms a priori to the philosophers examined above; Hegel and Nietzsche. Ibn Khaldun perceives “the state” as a natural goal of Asabiyah. Asabiyah is derived from the Arabic root asab (to bind); that is to bind the individuals into asabtun (a social group). Asabiyah is also derived from asaba, which designates the concept that is etymologically abstracted from the concrete form. Amongst the translations in which Asabiyah had been translated to are “spirit de corps”, “tribal spirit or loyalty” and “collective consciousness”. Asabiyah is an abstract concept, not necessarily prefaced in a consanguinal relation, but is rather a natural bond that can be used to measure the strength and stability of social groupings. It is social, as well as psychological and physical prescribed though not confined to nomadic or tribal groups and thus is heterogeneously subject to multiplicities in its variation to individual and collective, subjectivities and identities respectively. Ibn Khaldun highlights that once asabiyah has “established superiority over the people who share it, it will, by its very nature, seek superiority over people of other asabiyahs…if an asabiyah overpowers another asabiyah and makes it subservient to itself, the defeated one gives added power to the victorious one, which as a result sets its goal of domination higher than before”. Ibn Khaldun continues and posits respectively that “the weak people will have to submit to this new power”. One of the most important aspects of a dominant class’s hegemony is its ability “to struggle to assimilate and to conquer ‘ideologically’” a social space, whether intellectually or otherwise, while sacrificing the interests of numerous individuals “to serve the interests of the few”. This clearly resembles the work and perception of Ibn Khaldun, save that the Muslim philosopher and sociologist had discovered the logic of hegemony from his derived concept of asabiyah in the 14th century in contrast to Gramsci who writes regarding it in the 19th century. Alas Ibn Khaldun’s conception is not strictly however confined to the logic of hegemony and that of hegemony of hegemony (the struggle for power between two dominant groups), but rather I would venture and posit that he proposed a logic of affinity as well. Ibn Khaldun comments that “if an asabiyah is equal to another in strength, each will have to maintain its sway over its own domain and people…through cooperation”. This resembles and falls in line with Guattari’s “Fluidarity” and the author of “Gramsci is Dead: Anarchist Currents in the Newest Social Movements” whose representation of affinity based relationships as being non-coercive and non-universalizing, non-hierarchal and engaged in mutual aid offer a mutual un-soldering fusion. Since Ibn Khaldun anticipates the potential of communities equal in strength the potential thereby that he identifies that these groups refuse or are compelled not to exercise hierarchy or coerciveness in search for dominating “Le Différend” exists, whilst in the meanwhile these coming communities engage in mutual cooperation and respect. Ibn Khaldun engages in other worlds beyond those of merely abstract information, to engender universes of reference and existential territories where singularity and finitude are taken into consideration allowing thus for “Fluidarity” to exist, as friction begins to unfold between the associative commitment to the micro-politics of individuality and the macro-politics of solidarity.

The tenor of Eurocentric Classical philosophies undermines itself, as much as possible within a given social terrain, positing the necessity of offering a multi-polar approach, which engages in the spirit of affinity with Non-Eurocentric traditions that have the potential of revolting and reshaping the study of philosophy. They eliminate many things and many people in the course of a search of a telos, and these form an apparently incongruous group: observers, friends, philosophers, talkers, homeless, homosexuals à la grecque, transsexuals, intellectuals along with their varying degrees of participation and characterizations within the logos.

Islam(s) represent here “that which is veiled”, but that which is veiled “is not absent or invisible, since the veil is a sign of presence, its imaginal reality, its power…. is unseen”. The sweetest dreams that I offer is that of an Auturi who could be a nomad that identifies as a Muslim…the nomad that who has no horizon, coming from no land and errant, is dispossessed of any material belonging, and whose position of dispossession facilitates a chance of an encounter and also of an infinite disposed conversation

Dramatic Dead Ends: My Death toll in the thousands:

Un-trapping the double pincer movement(s), Islam(s) and Anarchism(s) are not consequences of Chernobyl-style accidents. One needs hardly mention the almost delirious stockpiling of thousands of dominant modes in which any attempt to homogenize any groupings of these could lead to collective extermination of any hope of “Fluidarity”.

“At the time I loved Gilbert, I still believed that love really existed outside ourselves…it seemed to me that if I had, my own accord, substituted the simulation of indifference for the sweetness of avowal, I would not have only deprived myself of a series of pleasures I had long dreamed of, but that I would have fabricated, to my own taste, a fictitious and worthless love.”

Sections of collective subjectivities are floundering or simply huddled around archaisms of religious and ideological fundamentalism. Moderation, leaning neither the far to the left or the right is a response to this crises. Visible relations of force of the grand scale are not to be discounted but rather they ought to take into account that which is of the molecular. All actions are but by intentions. Abstain from Demagoguery.

Chains of commands attempt to over-code all possible points and connections within the network to regimes in Arborescent systems that implement Hegelian dialectics that confine, dine and drink too little wine, us to an airtight vacuum in search of a pre-ordained “God-given” teleological outcome. Your fate with society is written. You cannot divert under the panoptic eye of surveillance, though once in a while you can shop at 9-11. However, Professor Challenger neither subscribes obedience to your rules. Professor Challenger just drilled a whole to the earth, spat on a button and the earth recognized ?????? (that veiled) as it was interrupted.

An alternative is to interrupt and engage in Bakhtinian dialogics, where no one is in control, decisions are emergent be they through consensus or otherwise, as are the very identities engaging in the process through which decisions are made. The Rhizomes implement that which is Bakhtinian, making a map and not a tracing, between semiotic chains utilizing the events of the social space and engaging with war-machines. Be ware of the false rhizomes that profess the local and multiple yet remain subject to a singular authoritarian logic. If the war-machine fails destroy it before it is incorporated into the state’s apparatus. Engage in community building and know thy neighbor: Node one. “…and do good to parents, kins-folk, orphans, the poor who beg, the neighbor who is near of kin, the neighbor who is a stranger…” (Qurran: 4:36) and if you’re interested recall that your neighbor is not immune from your mischief.

Ali Abd Al-Razeq’s expression in Al-Islam Wa-Usul Al-hukum offers a re-shaping. The government of the Islamic “state” can be of any kind: Node two. “It can be an autocracy or bureaucracy; a monarchy or republic, a dictatorship or constitutional or consultative government; it can be democratic, socialist or Bolshevik; that the prophet was nothing but a Rasul or messenger for a religious call, purely for the sake of religion, unblemished by any tendency to rule or call for the formation of a state”. On the contrary Islam is a religious unity and the prophet called for that unity. It should be realized that ‘al-risalah in itself required the prophet to acquire some power over the umma (nation and community). But this is very far from the leadership of kings and their power over their subjects. Hence one must not confuse the leadership of al-Risalah with that of a king”. It is untainted by the urge to rule. For recall that you(Muslims) are all guardians and you are all responsible for your wards. Node Three. If everything on Earth belongs to Allah (God) alone, and people are only entrusted with managing them, and live off the Earth and its products a paradox envelopes with the capitalist concept of ownership based on the Roman doctrine of “the right to use and abuse”. Islam lays the foundation for ecology, as the creations of Allah (including plants and animals). This is similar to the concept of private possessions, introduced by Proudhon’s “What is Property?” and shared by most Anarchists. A primary pillar, Zakat (Alms Tax), “ant-capitalist levy on wealth” and the right of the poor over the wealthy as opposed to Riba (Interest). Riba to increase or grow endlessly without a service or labor in exchange becomes the “The usury that is practiced to increase some people’s wealth, does not gain anything at God. But if you give to charity, seeking God’s pleasure, these are the ones who receive their reward many fold.”

Zakat acts a purification and a reminder for Muslims to remember “what truly matters in life”, to not forsake morality for the sake of materialism (Islam’s ethical conceptions of human relations and social organizations). A beloved Ramdan claims that, “The person who possess has duties before God and not before man. Islam does not conceive of poverty as a normal fact of the social universe. Nor does it envisage that the treatment to this distortion be the free generosity towards others, that in the hope of some miracle there will be a balance. The obligation places the question rather in the domain of morality and cannot be left to the discretion of each person. Social solidarity is a part of faith, as it is its most concrete testimony. It is not a question of goodness…rather a question of justice. Furthermore the managing of personal spending is to fight against egoism and hoarding.” To possess it is tantamount to having to share …it is impossible to shamelessly increase one’s property at the price of exploitation and social injustices.

Node Four. Ramadan’s proposal lay in the need of a concrete strategy and thought-out solutions which are inscribed in and by solidarity without solidity which alone will allows us to achieve a real alternative project, as Islam in its fundamentals is radically opposed to the existing liberal economic order. Cooperatives and the function of logics of “fluidarity” and affinity propelled by popular participation must be the subject of more in-depth studies. This is merely the beginning of the end of the beginning.

Node Five. An alternative view, illustrates a multiplicity of interpretation, Annihilating demagogues and gods of war where “The choice of the one placed ahead is delegated in Islam to those who leave themselves behind. One can be chosen by means of elections, a representative system or any other original idea. The important thing is that the people choose their representative. This means, fortiori, that one must be granted all the conditions that allow one the opportunity to choose with full knowledge of the facts. Any pressure or attempt (coercion), to influence public opinion must be the subject of strict regulations, for this means that there is a real deficit in the real participation of the people. Just as is the case, moreover, with ignorance, illiteracy and misery which are, as many social phenomena, obstructing the real participation of the grassroots. The multi-polar solidarity brings forth issues of contention where proof lies in Surat Al-Hajj, where in “In Islam general principles were given in the field of politics and social affairs. But the Qurran does not mention details and particulars which have been left for the Muslim ummah to formulate according to the needs of time and space.” Consensus and seeking consultation as Abu Hurirah’s “I’ve never seen anyone else who seeks consultation of his companions more than prophet” escalate Surat Al-Shura (43:38) to new heights higher than the sun.

Is it not more compatible with the Islamic method of Islamic legislation to leave matters to be brought before Shura unspecified and undefined, establishing only principles and general rules and leaving details to be worked out by Muslims in adapting the law of Islam to a particular time and place, or where Abu Hanbal, Abu Hanefa and the like prophets determining “indefinite lifestyle islam(s)” closing the door to Ijtihad. Engage in Asabiyah.

http://www.illegalvoices.org/index.php?option=com_simpleboard&func=view&catid=2&id=374

convert this post to pdf.

Islam means ’submission’. Submission of your whole existence to what your god decrees. It was thought up by the supporters of a seventh century Arabian gangster in order to consolidate their criminal organisation’s hold over the region. It is followed by over a billion people on this planet.

Muhammad was the sixth century equivalent of a travelling salesman or lorry driver. He drove his goods caravan and camel train across the Arabian peninsula, buying and selling cheap trinkets, dates, nuts, spices and fancy goods. He was born on April 20, 570 AD. Like all self-important nouveau-riche types, he embellished his family tree to claim a direct descendance to Abraham, the founder of the Jewish religion, of which Islam is a branch just like Christianity. However, despite the Arabs claiming to have invented arithmetic, Mo’s followers weren’t too clever at sums as his family tree goes back twenty-three generations to Abraham — approximately 2,700 years — meaning each father would had to have sired a baby boy at the age of over one hundred years. What is more plausible is that Muhammad was from a well-to-do business-class family.

Mo was brought up by a Bedouin wet-nurse in the desert, but lost both his parents young. He was raised by his uncle Abu Taib, a big business mogul in Mecca. He was given his own branch of the family business to take care of when he reached manhood. At 25 he married his 40-year-old boss and had some nippers. After she snuffed it, he started going into caves on his own and taking drugs. He was hallucinating all sorts of mad shit, seeing heaven and hell, going on fanciful journeys and even talking to the angel Gabriel! It was his ageing wife, in her late fifties, who first called Mo ‘prophet’. Whether she was humouring him, massaging his tender ego, or just having a laugh is of no matter as Mo decided that he liked the idea of being ‘god’s sole messenger on Earth’. Her cousin was a Christian and backed him up, probably to try and recruit him, but Mo considered himself the prophet, not Jesus.

Mo tried persuading everyone that he was in direct contact with the Judeo-Christian god. Most people ignored him, but gradually he gathered together a bunch of cranks who thought he was the top boy. Mo was frustrated by the Meccans’ adherence to idolatry and multitheism, and his group of hardcore Abrahamists were forced to flee to the Christian kingdom of Ethiopia for refuge. Mo however stayed in Mecca, until his family died, and his funds began to dry up. He then had another bout of bad dreams and hallucinations, this time involving a long journey to Jerusalem, and a discussion with Moses, Abraham and Jesus. He believed that he was the next prophet.

These delusions of grandeur were clearly going to his head, and surrounded like Elvis by a gaggle of yes-men and ‘friends’, he cut off all links with his family and moved to Yathrib, now called Medina. There, he and his gang started a protection-racket, whereby non-gang members, Jews, Christians and multitheists were taxed. Mo’s gang then became highwaymen, holding up caravans from Mecca. This racket grew until these armed thugs constituted his own private army. Many Meccans were murdered in cold blood by the criminals. After one slaughter, in Badr in 624, his flunkies declared their boss to be the son of god, or ‘god father’. All Jews were now expelled from Medina, and the remaining Medinans forced to acknowledge Mo’s rule. Mo, 52, then married his business partner and friend’s six year-old daughter Aisha, who became the third of his twelve wives. It’s a good job the News of the World wasn’t published in those days!

A protracted war broke out between the Medinan gang of Dirty Mo, and the Meccan gang led by Abu Sufyan. After The Battle of the Trench in 627, every Jewish man in the area was beheaded and the women and children raped and enslaved. Three years later Muhammad commanded an army of 10,000 men and forced the city of Mecca to bow to his rule, on pain of death. He now controlled all business in the Arabian peninsular. Mo snuffed it two years later, on June 8, 632, aged 62. Only his daughter Fatima from his first marriage survived him, and he refused to allow a woman to take over his gang.

A feud broke out between his son-in-law, Ali, and his adviser, Abu Bakr as to who should succeed Mo. Ali was defeated, and his supporters became Shi’at Ali (advocates of Ali). Abu Bakr took over Mo’s empire and began waging war against the Bedouins, Persians and the Byzantines.

Over the next two centuries, Dirty Mo’s unique mix of gangsterism and hero worship was forced upon the rest of the region — from north Africa to India, from Turkey to Madagascar. It grew into a ferociously superstitious cult, where any criticism of the legacy of Mo was considered blasphemous and punishable by death. His cult became known as ‘The Submission’ or ‘Islaam’ — and all free will and reason is replaced by the literal living of their lives by the Islamic FAQ, known as the Quran, which spells out the rules and regulations of being a proper Muhammad fan.

His followers are still divided between the Shi’ites (Ali) and the 85% of Moslems who call themselves Sunni. There is a huge tourism industry whereby cult members across the world visit Mecca to throw stones at it, the Haj pilgrimage. Unfortunately this is the point when fanatics tend to get a bit over-excited, resulting in stampedes and others disasters which have “blighted” the Haj in recent years.

All sorts of shit is banned in Muslim countries — homosexuality (punishment: death), masturbation (amputation), communism (death), and adultery, whereby any woman who so much as talks to another man may be punished.

This is the insane, sick belief system defended by liberals, and even some socialists today. Do you submit to it?

Islamic fundamentalists please note: Any fatwas as a result of this article should be sent to:

Class War
PO Box 467
London
E8 3QX
England

See also :

aNaRcHo AkBaR
Anarcho-Din
Iranian Anarchism
The Misery of Islam
The Muslim Anarchist Charter
The Muslim Postcolonial

convert this post to pdf.