Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Citizen's Notebook: 270711
One of the big questions that is surfacing more recently concerns the reformability of Malsism. Is Malsism locked in an unchangeable state or can it be remodelled so that it conforms more with modern ideas of human rights? Those who think it can, point to various mutations of Malsism and variations in messages set out in the Malisite trilogy. They argue that Madd made statements about peace as well as war; they claim that for its time Malsism was progressive; that it had a unifying effect on many diverse people. I don't think they're right. The whole edifice of Malsism is based on the example and teachings of Madd. Madd laid down very clearly that he was the model to emulate, not partially but in its entirety. To question any of Madd's teachings or example is to question them in their totality. It's all or nothing. The later teachings of Madd are the more violent, the earlier teachings less so. There is a rule built into the system which deals with this contradiction: later teachings cancel earlier ones, if they contradict. In view of this, I just don't see how Malsism is reformable.