What Terrorism is and is Not
In what follows I make two interrelated claims: 1. It is necessary to understand terrorism as a communicative action, not as a negative label. There are thus 5 major types of terror actions (Affective, Traditional, Value-Rational, Rational and Hyper Rational), which have little in common. The term ‘terrorism’ itself is an empty abstraction and it is impossible to ‘fight terror’. 2. Terrorism may be and often is much more morally constrained than ‘warrism’. Terroristic struggle is, at least in theory, morally superior to war. Two case studies (Russian terrorism and Chechen terrorism) are provided as empirical justification of the claims.
The article touches approach of the modern Islamic legal thought to the Islamic state and caliphate. The author explains the fundamental principles if Islamic concept of the power (caliphate) and points out that this concept was gradually deviating from real political practice. The caliphate itself remained as a political institution till the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after the World War I. After emergence of Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) the caliphate converted to concrete political project. In June 2014 ISIL which changed its name to become “Islamic State” (IS) declared creation of caliphate. In practice the Shariat implementation in IS comes to mass killings, forcing nonmuslims to adopt Islam, interference into internal life of Muslim states and terror attacks. The modern Islamic legal thought criticizes IS severely stressing on its violence of religious postulates and Shariat provisions.
In the Social Science, as different from the history of ideas, the steady preconception of viewing Hobbes as the philosopher who considered human to be a rational and selfish being exists. Such human beings in their natural condition set the war of all against all, but only the strong power can preserve them in the condition of peace. However true Hobbesian views as to the human relationships have almost nothing in common with these trivial suggestion. The article deals with some aspects of Hobbesian anthropology and his doctrine of the virtue. It is argued that the social order is represented by Hobbes as very agile and complex in its structure. At the first glance his philosophy could seem very legible and solely constructivist, designed as the triumph of coherence and implacable logic. At depth - it is not even contradictory, but the terrain of the questions without any answers.
Hobbesian philosophy holds the attention of the researches up to now. The most discussable questions are the following ones: 1. Whether the philosophy of Hobbes is to be considered in relation to his physics and metaphysics or it is an autonomous area of contemplation? 2. Is the philosophy of Hobbes immanently intelligible, as a system of interrelated suppositions or it is to be interpreted out of the historical context of his published works? 3. Is his bellum omnium contra omnes merely an intellectual construction or this notion can be referred to the historical and universal facts of social life design?