Sumerian

All of this is okay, but Islam has no issue with any business or industry as long as it isn't haram, and would not seek to ban it. An animal slaughterhouse with modern technologies would not be outlawed as long as it still observes the correct slaughtering manual, whether it uses tools of the past, or the present, or both. The importance is on the outcome - it being halal - not on the method of achieving it.

The United States never really lost a battle against armed insurgents in any of the countries you named, they just failed to maintain security in those areas. Iraq was easily occupied by the US, the Americans just couldn't stop the wave of car bombings and IED's. And it wasn't a case of they don't know the terrain, they had occupied it for years they knew exactly how Iraq's terrain is, it was due to their presence being unpopular in many areas and the ease of getting hold of a weapon in Iraq. Secondly, you are assuming that there would be no advantage for the US in fighting overseas vs fighting domestically. Would any American President command the use of an incredible amount of force, the likes of which we have seen in Iraq and Vietnam, against his own cities? Would the military itself obey such orders? If you remember when Donald Trump tried to invoke the Insurrection Act because of the rioting that had gone on in several American cities, many top officials and generals were opposed to that. It would be political suicide in many ways to use full American force against an American city. Anyway, my hypothetical scenario is envisioning a potential dictatorship-like administration (unpopular) taking hold of America and trying to rip away people's constitutional rights, leading to tens of millions of gunowners on the streets, including members of the police and National Guard, as well as gaining support from many influential politicians and persons that are opposed to this hypothetical dictatorship. I see that after a period of unrest and insurgency in the main cities, the President will be removed by his own cabinet or Congress and the military would refuse any illegal or excessive orders. Is that an impossible scenario in your eyes?

This argument never really made sense, because it assumes the United States Government will simply destroy any real armed uprising simply because of how powerful the US military is. This clearly ignores the fact that the US military hasn't been very successful in defeating armed insurgencies, even as the insurgents used basic weapons that regular Americans can buy or make. Another question is, if a true armed uprising did occur in the United States, would the US military really attack with all its might against the insurgents, especially if they take control of parts of the nations main cities? Or would the military refuse such orders? The truth is that an armed populas can act as a deterrent against a potential tyrannical regime.

An interesting question is where or when would the punishment of the grave come in for the fasiq believers.

I would say Islam has no issue with large scale investments, the banking system, modern industries and technology. But you aren't wrong.

You make a good point that an Islamic society does divide people into classes, whether it be slaves, slaveowners, Sayyeds, rich, poor, nobles, dhimmis, fuqaha, children born out of wedlock and so on. So no, Islam is not a equal society for all. Equality is something we are promised in the Afterlife, where everyone will be judged by their taqwa, but when it comes to the dunya, we are meant to be thankful in where Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has placed us. I wouldn't call it feudal though, as feudalism seems to imply a regressive tax on the general populas. As far as how Islam should be practiced in the relatively modern world, the jurists seems to have come to the conclusion that customary laws and legislation and the authority of the State is something that must be followed, and this seems to encompass financial and economic laws as well.

.

This is all the information you need brother: http://www.imamiyya.com/hadith/usul-kafi/book-4/chapter-40

There has always been a connection between Shi'a political revolutionaries, Sunni Islamists, and leftist revolutionary movements. Sometimes they will fight each other, and in other times they will ally with one another against a common enemy.

Because no one here is defending capitalism, and alot of Muslims in the West these days tend to support socialist ideals, and some of them even consider it Islamic. You can support whatever political or economic idea you want, but don't conflate it with Islam, and I believe that is what the O.P was trying to say.

Iran is not an example of an Islamic economy, in fact the economic laws of Iran changes while Islamic rulings do not change. For example, Iranian banks still use usury in many of their transactions. My belief is there is no "Islamic economy" per se, Islam has a set of rulings in place where some are considered capitalistic/individualistic and others socialist/collectivist. The role of the State in the affairs of the economy (such as nationalisation of certain sectors) is not entirely clear in the Holy Qur'an nor the hadiths, it would seem this would be up to the authorities to decide how they go about it based on what they believe is in the interest of the people living there, which is why Iran itself has a parliament and candidates themselves disagree on their own economic vision for the country, and I believe you would even find the clergy themselves disagree on what is in the interest of the country aswell. My point was merely related to the rulings that are known and not up for debate, such as the ability to own private property, own a business and be able to employ people for individual profit, which is basically against whatever socialism stands for, therefore rendering socialism as incompatible with our religion, just as capitalism would be especially in its pure form

Only stateless communism would theoretically shift "power to the people", but whenever a State implements socialism or communism, it ends up in State tyranny (too much power) and dictatorship. Anyway once again, Islam believes in individual power and that the individual can have rights over other individuals (employments, contracts), as long as there is no coercion and it is based on voluntary transactions, which is what happens in our daily lives. We are not supposed to view collectivism as a good thing - except where it can be good.

Islam recommends that, but doesn't obligate it. Which is why capitalism is also incompatible with Islam, just as socialism is.

Exactly why I said it is not "personal" (ayni), it is wajib kifa'i (communal obligation). And what some may fail to realise is there is no communal or personal obligation to make everyone's living standard good, the obligation only concerns the very extreme of things, for example allowing a Muslim to starve or thirst to death or any death (and perhaps disability, or extreme calamity) that can be prevented, would be a communal sin. You could argue that a social safety net and welfare would be imposed in an Islamic State for the sake of basic medical care, shelter, food and basic education, but that is about it. But as far as people living lavish and people living in harsh circumstances, that is a reality which is not an obligation for the Islamic community to fix or change. Different wealth classes are a norm of Islamic society, and certainly the means of production can be owned by the individual and not the collective. Once again, socialism is proven to be incompatible with Islam, and no more compatible than capitalism.

It is not a personal obligation if someone is dying or starving that they must be saved, except unless maybe he or she is the only one with the ability to save them. But then again, this is an extra circumstance, not a general ruling. Also in my experience, atleast in Middle Eastern Arab culture, everyone is generous, poor and rich. But that's not the subject. Let us stick to the subject.