Revolution under Kant and under Islam

Submitted by Anne Julienne (Australia), Aug 18, 2010 at 17:42

The details and the nuance of Kant are critical to this debate. It is very very clear in Kant's writings that particular nation-states, like particular individuals, are to be respected and affirmed. However, just as the individual should not act alone without regard to the impact of his behaviour on his fellow man, just so the individual nation-state should not act alone without regard to the impact of its behaviour on fellow nation-states. It is very very important in this debate to understand that Islam does not see things this way. The Ummah is uniform or meant to be. Allah is One, not One among Many. Kant's vision more closely resembles the ideal of the court of King Arthur in which many individuals contributed to government by sitting at the round table. The UN is today's round table. But Kant would be deeply disturbed by the inclusion among those knights of clearly repressive tyrants aiming to take over the kingdom for themselves. As Historyscoper has observed, the UN will first be taken over by the OIC (if that is not already the case) and then by a single Caliph. That is definitely NOT Kant's vision. He did NOT envision a King Arthur - or rather an Islamic usurper - ruling alone. To uphold Kant is to uphold our own Western genius. Please please learn to discern and discriminate better.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".