Secular Koranism with West Virginian Characteristics?
Secular Koranism - scenarios, stories etc
I am looking for a town to see how viable Secular Koranism as a legal system is for volunteers in a pilot scheme.
To assess the viability of Secular Koranism (SK)—a legal system proposed by Claire Khaw that adapts Koranic principles into a secular framework for governance—as a pilot scheme for volunteers in a town, Thurmond, West Virginia, offers an intriguing case. Its small size, historical context, and current challenges make it a potential testbed, though significant hurdles exist. Let’s explore how this could work, building on what makes Thurmond viable generally, and tailor it to SK’s framework.
Why Thurmond for a Secular Koranism Pilot?
Thurmond’s near-ghost-town status (population: 5 in 2020) and its isolation within the New River Gorge National Park provide a blank slate for a controlled experiment. SK aims to restore patriarchy, enforce marriage-based morality, and prioritize social cohesion through a legal system agnostic about religion but rooted in Koranic rules—minus theological demands like prayer or belief in God. A small, low-stakes setting like Thurmond minimizes external interference while allowing volunteers to test SK’s practical application.
Core Principles of Secular Koranism for the Pilot
Based on Khaw’s writings, SK emphasizes:
Mandatory Marriage Contracts: No no-fault divorce, promoting stable families.
Moral Regulation: Laws against extramarital sex, with penalties like corporal punishment (e.g., lashes for adultery, per Quran 24:2).
Economic Rules: Ban on usury, encouraging interest-free lending.
Social Order: Legalized prostitution in designated zones, balancing strict morality with pragmatism.
Governance: A one-party system led by a Supreme Leader interpreting SK principles.
For a pilot, volunteers would live under a simplified version of this system, enforced by a local council acting as a proto-Secular Koranist Party.
How It Could Work in Thurmond
Volunteer Recruitment (50–100 People):
Attract social conservatives or curious libertarians via online platforms (e.g., X) who align with SK’s focus on traditional family structures but don’t require Islamic faith. A minimum of 50–100 is needed for a viable micro-community, as discussed earlier.
Offer cheap or free housing in restored historic buildings (with NPS approval) as an incentive.
Legal Framework:
Volunteers sign a private contract agreeing to SK rules for a set period (e.g., 1 year), enforceable under U.S. contract law since Thurmond can’t override state or federal statutes.
Marriage becomes mandatory for cohabiting couples, with a local registrar (a volunteer) issuing contracts. Divorce requires mutual consent and mediation.
Simulated bans on usury—volunteers use a barter system or interest-free loans within the group.
Morality laws (e.g., no premarital sex) are self-policed, with disputes settled by a volunteer tribunal mimicking SK’s Koranist Courts.
Economic Viability:
Tourism remains the backbone. Volunteers run SK-themed attractions—e.g., “Living History of Secular Koranism”—blending Thurmond’s past with the pilot’s ethos, drawing curious visitors.
A small cooperative farm or artisan workshop (e.g., crafts sold online) supplements income, adhering to SK’s anti-usury stance.
Infrastructure:
Use existing buildings (post office, depot) for communal spaces. Internet (e.g., Starlink) enables remote work, aligning with Thurmond’s revival potential.
Minimal upgrades (solar power, water collection) keep costs low and fit SK’s utilitarian bent.
Governance:
A Supreme Leader—elected by volunteers—oversees the experiment, supported by a 5–10 member council. Decisions reflect SK’s authoritarian leanings but stay within U.S. legal bounds (e.g., no corporal punishment, just fines or expulsion).
Measuring Viability
Social Cohesion: Track marriage rates, disputes, and volunteer retention. Success looks like stable family units forming and sticking.
Economic Stability: Assess if tourism and small-scale production cover costs. Failure means reliance on external funds.
Volunteer Feedback: Surveys on whether SK feels fair, practical, or oppressive. High dropout rates signal flaws.
Challenges
Legal Limits: West Virginia and U.S. law trump SK’s harsher elements (e.g., no corporal punishment or forced marriage). The pilot must be a voluntary “opt-in” community, not a true legal system, limiting its scope.
Isolation: Thurmond’s remoteness (single-lane bridge, no major roads) deters volunteers and complicates supply chains.
NPS Oversight: The National Park Service owns most of Thurmond, so any pilot needs their buy-in—unlikely without a compelling case tying SK to historical preservation.
Cultural Fit: SK’s patriarchal, moralistic framework might clash with American individualism, even among volunteers. Recruiting enough committed participants is a gamble.
Scale: With only 5 current residents, scaling to 50–100 requires outsiders, risking group cohesion if newcomers don’t gel.
Alternative Angle: Why Not Thurmond?
Thurmond’s tiny size and federal ownership might make it too constrained. A slightly larger, less regulated town—like an unincorporated community in West Virginia with 100–500 residents—could offer more flexibility. Places like Matewan (pop. ~400), also tied to coal history, might work better, allowing a broader volunteer base and fewer bureaucratic hoops.
Verdict
Thurmond could host a small-scale SK pilot if framed as a social experiment within legal bounds, leveraging its tourism potential and isolation. Viability hinges on recruiting dedicated volunteers (50–100 minimum) and securing NPS cooperation. It’d test SK’s social engineering—marriage enforcement, moral codes—but not its full legal vision due to U.S. constraints. Success would mean a self-sustaining micro-society; failure would likely stem from dropout rates or economic collapse.