Scientifically, (Political) Liberalism Does Not Stand

Logic is a tricky thing. It's just too logical for any logical, in the colloquial sense, analysis. Therefore, you have to
tackle logic logically with what logical science has set already. Logically, the above sentence stands.

Meet P and Q, P and Q are not variables, they are events. Yes, they vary, but they are not, logically speaking, variables. They can be equivelants, they can be contradictions, they can be necessary for one of them to stand so you can figure out what to make out of the other. They can be many other things too. Or they can simply be nothing and have no relationship whatsoever, and a waste of everybody's time.

With that established, we say P and Q, since they are events, must operate in a universe. And universally speaking (in that sense), P and Q are seperate events from their copied events in every single seperate world. Worlds, therefore, are what defines P and Q for us. That is, it is essential that you absorb and have an understanding of the world (existing in a given universe) in which these events take place in before you can make anything out of them. Let alone relate them. Or, as I say, they may be a waste of time in a given world and exist spacially.

Intermission. For all you physicists, engineers, mathematicians, and of any other waste-of-my-time major, sod off if you were going to bring subsets and proper subsets into this.

Consider the following diagram.

In short, and I'm really going fast here, P and Q above can, not only co-exist, but even relate to one another in that given world where these two events can stand. Between the two, there exists consistency.
However, when we have the following. We know that there is a problem. A logical problem.

Yes, the two events P and Q exist within the same world, and therefore, logically, the same universe. But there is absolutely no possible way for them to both stand in a given situation. Logically speaking: in which they can both be true. Only one can stand. Logically speaking: not only are they inconsistent, they are in given situations contradictories. An exhaustion of possible consistency in a given situation where these two events can never coincide.

Therefore, logically, in both senses of the word, anyone resorting to the last diagram in his given two events is simply (again, logically) confused.

Now think of these three events, which can only be represented by P and Q at any given same time, in any given situation:

a- Il islam. Not religion in general. I SAID NOT RELIGION IN GENERAL.
b- Liberalism. Mafhom il liberaleya in Kuwait.
c- Traditions in Kuwait: il 3aadat wil taghaleed.

Note: Do not contribute if you lack knowledge or understanding in any.


  • Im gonna give it a shot.. if you disagree and/or think im stupid dont be harsh cause at the time being my self-esteem is way below average.

    ok here goes..

    to satisfy both P & Q, we could try the following:

    ab + ac,

    but to get that we're gonna have to do the following:

    ab + ac = x/(a)

    which leaves us with only b+c

    unfortunately b+c won't work out without a cause then you'll end up without either b nor c.
    Ohhh I see..
    so are you saying we should go with only a.
    let z be kuwait and the rest of the world.
    a = z'


    so a, b and c could = desired solution.

    am i making any sense? hehehe

    By Blogger the11thmuse, at 6.2.06  

  • 11th
    i read that twice, and no actually i didnt understand

    however, u DONT WANT TO SATISFY P and Q becoz thats not the point .. u dont FORCE them to work together nor do you COMPROMISE (how can u compromise bel islam anyway? thats why i SPECIFIED islam and not religion as a whole)

    they either do or dont have a stance of consistency, in the case of P being il islam and Q being liberalism.. no they dont entail one another nor can one be the truth value of the other, in fact they CONTRADICT one another - hence i say the person wanting to FORCE or MAKE THEM WORK TOGETHER is "confused" .. there is a conflict (think homosexuality, think freedom of speech, think open relationships between genders.. think "equality" of inheritance between men and women.. need i say more?)

    u cant just take what u like from here and there, stick them together and say thats my opinion..

    well yeah, that is an opinion.. but it doesnt amount to anything logically

    HOWEVER, if P was still il islam, and Q was "3adat o taqaleed" .. they dont necessarily CONTRADICT nor NEGATE one another, rather there IS a kind of entailment and one operating as a truth value for the other

    e.g. what is the concept of 3eed in islam? what do u do the month before? where does on get the other from? so on and so forth..

    u didnt FORCE them to work together, u didnt MAKE them applicable .. that is what P and Q have become given the social, historical, geographical background (i.e. the wolrds in a given universe)

    btw, i really am not making this up.. it IS how its done logically :/

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 6.2.06  

  • Hi again,

    I shouldn't be giving my opinion due to the fact that I know I don't know enough about the topic. But Since, I did comment I should explain myself.

    ab+ ac = x/(a) (meant that islam should be compramised. and that should NOT be the case. I agree with you).

    a= z' meant not many people would like that
    ab+ac is what i thought the desired output should be where islam and libraliyeen(kuwaiti definition) + islam and taghaleed.
    this couldn't happen unless we compramise libarliyeen and taghaleed.

    thats what i meant in my previous comment..

    As I mentioned above, I shouldn't have given my opinion since I dont have one yet. I was just trying to work out the equation(logically).

    o thats pretty much it

    By Blogger the11thmuse, at 6.2.06  

  • rocket science

    By Blogger iDip, at 6.2.06  

  • 11th
    i think that's roughly the exact same thing except in a diff approach

    got it now sorry abt the whole boring rant then

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 6.2.06  

  • idip heheh it does make ur head spin, donnit?

    trust me i know

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 6.2.06  

  • masaak allah bil5air, tadree fe o5ook mayegra wayid, fa just wanted to post somthing and say hello :)

    By Blogger Hattorihanzo, at 6.2.06  

  • kan ibwiddi asharik bas you got me all confused had to stop reading down the middle. w mafahamt what youre trying to say. sorry.

    By Blogger A3sab, at 7.2.06  

  • we split kuwait in half the 10th district can be controlled by a and c and everything else by letter b. i know your gonna hate that. bas at least i gave it a shot. madri 3ad ana fahamt 3adil walla khirtah

    By Blogger A3sab, at 7.2.06  

  • Let me put it may way ;)

    (I)-Islam NRiG ("Not religion in general")
    (L)- Liberalism ALK (a la kuwait or as you pur it "Mafhom il liberaleya in Kuwait")
    (H) "Traditions in Kuwait: il 3aadat wil taghaleed."
    without logical jargon because logic doesn't (as theory) stand alone in reality (history is often illogical).


    (I) goes with (H) and (L) as longs as supporters of (I),(H) and (L) do not seek points of conflict.

    so graph 1 will do us all good as long as graph 2 is not enforced.

    By Blogger iDip, at 7.2.06  

  • This is me not contributing because unfortunately I am totally confused!

    By Blogger samboose, at 7.2.06  

  • Interesting... & it seems to me enough easy for understanding.
    Ok, I`m not going to discuss the last words... I know, I`m incompetent in this.

    So I just have my little question as usual.
    Sorry, it came to my head when I was reading your post:

    did you study logic at your university (or somewhere else)?
    If yes, then what do you think about it? Just your opinion & your appraisal (good/bad, we don`t need it/we need it & so on).

    Thank you.

    By Blogger Sever, at 7.2.06  

  • bo fay heh adri feek .. o ya hala walla 7abeeb il sha3b

    om mejrin mo 3an i hate that, but im disappointed

    so ur a muslim (A 3ala goltech, ma3ana la7thay thats not how to go abt it in LOGIC bas 3ashanech basee6a.. so u r A), and live in the B-dominated "part of kuwait" after ma gesamnaaha 3ashan suwad 3yonech

    so ur saying "3ady that i compromise with my islam, o 3ady that i am confused since im two things at the same time" .. ?

    let me put it this way.. can u be both STANDING UP AND SITTING DOWN at the same time? that contradicts itself, sure u can SAY IT but that wouldnt make ANY SENSE (i.e. u can say its ur opinion, bas ma laha ma3na in logic) and therefore it does not stand in THE REAL WORLD

    besides, the point was LOGICALLY you cant be a muslim and a liberal at the same time due to the conflict and contradictories

    prove me wrong o ana afselich el kuwait ;)

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 7.2.06  

  • idip
    if u dont want this to be discussed "logically" then thats a whoooole other topic..

    what u say about "not seeking points of conflict" is the subsets and proper subsets of each (il islam, el lebraleya, el 3adat wel taghaleed)

    but like i said to 11th:
    u cant just take what u like from here and there, stick them together and say thats my opinion..
    well yeah, that is an opinion.. but it doesnt amount to anything logically

    so in fact, idip, that IS compromise.. and compromise in this sense isnt anything but confusion heh

    samboose its not that difficult trust me.. but it is a spin i know
    im sure a 2nd read guarantees understanding

    yup i am studying logic in university..
    i think its great, its a great 'tool' to 'measure' ideas and ideals up against one another to see whether or not they both stand or only one or whatever kind of relation they possess

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 7.2.06  

  • "For all you physicists, engineers, mathematicians, and of any other WASTE-OF-MY-TIME MAJOR, sod off if you were going to bring subsets and proper subsets into this."



    Please enlighten us, what is not a 'waste' of time Einstein?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7.2.06  

  • anonymous
    thank u for proving the point, what is NOT a waste of time when it comes to majors????

    but hey what do i know, tarrakt el deraasa mn thaaltha thanawey o lal7een ashteghel kashair b ma7a6at banzeen el she3ib

    *ely sej emwanesni ena, to date, kel eli b yetfalsefon 3ala rasna are commenting anonymously .. wonder why ;)

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 7.2.06  

  • Ehem. I'm a bit hurt and insulted, for calling an engineering major a wasteof time, but this isn't the place to prove otherwise.

    Another meaning for logical is virtual, imaginary or to be untouchable but comprehendable. An example would be computer memory addresses.

    Any human-made concept has a loop-hole and is prone to failure.
    Any God-made concept has zero percent failure chance.
    From the above two points, only (a) stands and will always stand, while the others will eventually fail, create conflicts and be dismissed.

    The problem with world is that it's trying to force personal opinions, pleasure, goals and beliefs into religion. The world doesn't seem to understand that religion is a saturated entity and think it's just too smart and will eventually find a work around... Foolish world.

    By Blogger MBH, at 7.2.06  

  • MBH
    starting from ur 2nd paragraph down, that is absolutely right and an extremely valid argument

    and, also by LOGIC, u can prove that .. definitely worth a post in my opinion (who knows, one day perhaps)

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 7.2.06  

  • ُTemetwir,

    رأيك/منطقك صواب يحتمل الخطأ
    ورأيي/منطقي خطأ يحتمل الصواب

    I consider my “compromise” as a solution/answer, and my “confusion” as an “escape from illusions”.

    Regarding (I), (L) & (H):
    I like to think about them “the way they are”, since all the three mentioned factors lack logic.

    and things won't always go the way we want them to, nor the way of logic.

    c'est la vie ;)

    By Blogger iDip, at 7.2.06  

  • idip
    dont think of it as "who is right" and "who is wrong" .. think of the relationship that underlies between the two LOGICALLY

    your "opinion", therefore, is a completely different matter and namely: what ur thinking right now: to determine which is "the right one"

    you are suggesting, since you want to compromise from all three in search of an answer, that they are ALL "right" (they are ALL possible for answers/solutions as you put it)

    more 'logically' (scientifcally speaking) we would give them the value of T (truth)

    having established that, we would LOGICALLY expect the RELATIONSHIP between the three (since you are SEEKING answers, based on ur OPINION, that they all share the T value) to be CONSISTENT and IN AGREEMENT

    that is: in a GIVEN WORLD (a situation) I is T, then
    L is T

    therefore I = L, based on your LOGICAL DEFINITION based on your OPINION that seeks both I and L for the "solution/answer"

    however, does I actually equal L, given that, based on your (much respected) opinion they are both T?

    simply, no.. they contradict each other .. for example in the situation of drinking alcohol? perhaps some would argue with that, then, homosexuality? perhaps some would argue with that too, then, the questioning of God's existence?
    and so on and so forth

    therefore, it is a relationship of EITHER, OR

    *we are NOT debating whether or not I, individually, is "logical".. nor are we, individually, seeing whether L, alone, is "logical" or not.. (the same applied to H)

    we are merely seeing their relationship together

    so, if you are a Muslim.. you are therefore I

    and if you are a Liberal AT THE SAME TIME, you are L

    so.. the fact of the matter is, L does not stand simply because you cannot SEEK L, when you are I, because L and I contradict each other

    NOTE: what you say about "the compromise" of both and "mixing" of both is confusion..
    having established that your confusion is resulting from contradictions..
    when do you know who is right?

    therefore, L does not stand when I is present (in you being a muslim)


    to makes things really interesting: if you are L, then L gives you the ability to be I

    but I itself contradicts L (and vice versa obviously)

    therefore, again, no matter how you cut it.. L does not stand if you are I

    now its MY turn to tell you: C'EST LA VIE ;)

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 7.2.06  

  • 3ala magaal ibn-taimiyah:

    "logic is a science that the bright doesn't need, and the stupid doesn't get"

    By Blogger familiar_stranger, at 7.2.06  

  • in other words, if you don't get logic, you're not missing much, so don't feel bad about it.

    By Blogger familiar_stranger, at 7.2.06  

  • Temitwir,

    Thank you for this vibrant discussion,
    الله يكثر من امثالك

    By Blogger iDip, at 8.2.06  

  • Aha... I think so too!
    Priceless moment: the teacher of logic says to students "you all are unlogical!!!" - Teacher`s favourite phrase after 35 students get wrong answer for a sum.

    Yes, logic is great. But sometimes to be unlogical is perfect too.

    Ok, thanks & good luck :)

    By Blogger Sever, at 8.2.06  

  • FS,
    i have my differences with Ibn Taymeyah, and i am not sure when he said that but maybe he was referring to 3ilm il kalaam?
    i have to research my islamic history but i think 3elm el kalaam wasnt the greatest idea

    anyway, a rough translation for logic CAN be 'il fi6ra' in arabic :)

    always a pleasure bro, always a pleasure :)

    logic can be as simple as: dont put ur hand in a fire

    so human beings, BY NATURE, are logical whether we like to admit that or not

    thanks for the kind wishes :)

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 8.2.06  

  • maybe i am stupid or "basee6ah" as you put it . I still dont get it and i won't try to understand what your trying to say here.

    By Blogger A3sab, at 8.2.06  

  • ow itha islam and liberals don't mix then i say islami and muta2aslimeen dont mix either.

    By Blogger A3sab, at 8.2.06  

  • Dear Tem,

    I beg to differ, I think a more accurate translation for:

    3elm ilkalaam = logic, example would be something like "If A > B, and B > C, then A > C". This needs no observation of the real world, a blind/deaf person can reason that without external experiences.

    ilfe6ra = built-in instinct. example would be how an infant finds his mommies breast and sucks. or knows how to breathe once out of the womb.

    But I don't see instinct as the counter point of logic. I think the real opposite of logic is observation of the real world and recorded experimentation. example would be measuring the speed of light, thats something you can't "reason". You have to get a meter stick and a stopwatch and measure it in the lab.

    The 1st is a tool and a crutch to our limited mind's abilities. its all about "stating the obvious". and in some ways I dislike it.

    The 2nd I marvel at, and is something we humans aren't credited for.

    The 3rd is real science which I love and respect.

    By Blogger familiar_stranger, at 8.2.06  

  • om mejrin,
    and who ever said otherwise?

    however this isnt the place to state that, becoz i dont think there is any "islamy" in here

    aham shay ena we have established that u cannot be a liberal and a muslim lena it simply is a contradiction

    kelwa7ed yefachich b 3omra al7en o yeraji3 e7sabata :)

    hmm so yeah, logic is "3elm el kalam" .. but also el fe6ra has to do with "el man6eg" .. thats what i meant

    "But I don't see instinct as the counter point of logic"
    neither do i

    i kinda lost u after that, but if ur suggesting that logic is all abt stating the obvious .. then so is mathematics in a way

    anyway im really not sure whats going on now so lets leave it at that for the time being

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 8.2.06  

  • What you said makes perfect sense to me. I fall under the category of those who 'lack knowledge and/or understanding', so don't kill me

    But I agree with where you said that being a liberal and an islamy is impossible. As much as I tried to find a middle ground, I failed. So now I'm not looking for any middle ground; it's in our -or my- nature to act against the 'rules' and the way I'm supposed to act, so I'm just accepting being a bad person who cannot abide the rules all the time, and I try to be a .. errm, you know, better person and all.
    Fuckit, this is completely a different subject..

    A middle ground between being an Islamist and a Liberal, I mean.
    Uh, whatever ...

    By Blogger ScarlO, at 8.2.06  

  • scarlo
    thats not what im saying .. being a muslim is a whole different thing from being an "islamist"

    kelmat "islaamy" aslan ma laha asaas, but that is a totally different matter

    one which i am more than happy to debate with anyone who calls him or herself an 'islamist'


    anyway, what im proving is that u cannot be a muslim, and a liberal at the same time

    By Blogger Temetwir, at 8.2.06  

Post a Comment

<< Home