Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Hagop

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Hagop got a reaction from Ali_Hussain in The Nostalgia Thread   
    God this thread is making me feel old :(
  2. Like
    Hagop got a reaction from بعيد in Look At This Pic...what Do You Feel?   
    Salams,
    Joking aside, I think it's fair to say that Propaganda and I agree with the OP that US military intrusion into Muslim homes (and countries) sucks.
    To repeat: this picture tells me that American feminists wanted the same rights as their menfolk to oppress the peoples of the Muslim and Third Worlds. The fact that the woman soldier in the photo is white (and the victims of her oppression are Muslim and women of colour), tells me that white American feminists are some of the biggest hypocrites in this world.
  3. Like
    Hagop reacted to King in Wedding/engagement Party, Etc.   
    Do not post such ignorant nonsense about Africa. This is not the first time I have seen this on sc. Yes they need to take initiative but it is not as if they have not been gang raped by colonial powers. We should help out if it is within our capacity to do so, especially if our countries are still bent on exploiting their resources and strangling them with debt through conditional aid packages. Inshallah they will progress.
  4. Like
    Hagop reacted to baradar_jackson in Akhlaq & Sayr Wa Suluk Sub Forum   
    Akhlaq subforum is an ABSOLUTE necessity.
    Anyone who disagrees can go shoot himself...
  5. Like
    Hagop reacted to Propaganda_of_the_Deed in The Nostalgia Thread   
    Crystal Maze

  6. Like
    Hagop reacted to ThE-Samz in The Nostalgia Thread   
    who remembers 'It's a knockout' one of my fav shows when i first moved to london.

    i still watch this sometimes, its still jokes
  7. Like
    Hagop got a reaction from ThE-Samz in The Nostalgia Thread   
    God this thread is making me feel old :(
  8. Like
    Hagop got a reaction from ThE-Samz in The Nostalgia Thread   
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr_CJL1YQRc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MVonyVSQoM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94UDaYcUg68&feature=youtube_gdata_player

  9. Like
    Hagop got a reaction from Aarash_Australia in New Zealand Wants To Ban Hijab   
    Salams Arash,
    Yeah I think that on France you're actually spot on. No point in arguing on that one. You're also right that I've not considered Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau etc (we could probably stick the Englishman Tom Paine into that French tradition). Basically, the French state has had a massive problem with organized religion since the Jacobins.
    I think that for New Zealand to go ahead with this would be hypocrisy though, it being part of the Anglo-Saxon tradition of liberalism.
    I guess the funny thing is that more British Muslims were upset about the hijab ban than French ones. I have lots of personal experience of the Muslim community in Nice, it doesn't really surprise me that a majority were in favour. French Muslims with their false consciousness eh? :)
  10. Like
    Hagop reacted to ShiaBen in New Zealand Wants To Ban Hijab   
    France should be called secular. Not liberal secular, otherwise they're contradicting themselves.
  11. Like
    Hagop reacted to Saintly_Jinn23 in Can Religion And Capitalism Mix?   
    I agree with my old government teacher in his stating that the "capitalism" people worship today and hail above socialism is nothing more than an injection into capitalism of socialist concepts itself, rather than capitalism as originally laid out and conceived. "Capitalism" is not an economic system where you can buy and sell things to make money, capitalist societies aren't the only ones who have that. Socialism does not entail the absence of capital, the idea of eliminating capital entirely so as to eliminate capitalism was an idea introduced by Marx. Socialism on the other hand, absent of the Marxist methodology, basically does not see the presence of capital as entailing the presence of "capitalism"
    Capitalism arose after the ousting of the old feudal lords and monarchs by the bourgeoise who were before limited by sovereign lords in their expansion of enterprise, having to basically be a wing of the state enterprise headed by a monarch, and thus regulated by the monarchs and supplemental Parliaments. Which is pretty much the way the majority of Islamic civilization was run, both Sunni and Shia.
    True, but to be honest, "state capitalism" is not a real system so much as a moniker to criticize socialist states. As stated above, capitalism was essentially a system created by the bourgeoisie, rich business owners and noblemen, now having gotten rid of the monarchs and feudal lords who had dominion over them previously, to basically rule their own enterprise free of such regulation. So when the socialist republics arose, the champions of capitalist ideology criticized them by saying "How can you get mad at our expansion of enterprise and privatization when you buy, sell, privatize, and expand just as our corporate entities, only instead of a bunch of competing corporations, you just have one corporate entity without competition: the state." But many proponents of socialism countered that which was being pejoratively called "state capitalism," was a more natural, positive, unified, and democratic form of enterprise for the good of all citizens. And indeed, the old imperial regimes and monarchies and theocratic governments before the industrial revolution and in its early years were essentially "state capitalist" and that includes all medieval and gunpowder era Islamic empires. So, "state capitalism," is really just an insult levied against the socialist state by its ideological opponents.
    The one trouble with that sometimes arose with the monarchies and clerical establishments being in charge of the country's finances was when greed and absolute power got to people's heads and when property of the state became not a concept of public property, but a concept of private property for select individuals. The monarch took money, by force if need be, from the public to make a palace for himself and no one else, or "church property" became so privatized that the tithes were essentially used to build personal palaces for clerics rather than a community owned property. The bourgeoisie, victims of this as much as the peasantry, though primarily concerned with their own profits' loss than the well being of the peasants and blue collar workers of society, managed to rally the support of them to topple these kinds of establishments, but then proceeded to erect society where the exploitation was done by multiple competing factions rather than a singular state entity.
    Basically, in my view, the best feudal and theocratic societies were essentially socialist before they were called "socialist" but in the worse cases were "feudal capitalism," or "clerical capitalism,"
    The thing is though that concepts like public property, welfare, pension plans, social security are not capitalist concepts. Here in the USA, huge debate and name calling arises when anyone proposes amendments for greater welfare, public healthcare or property, and social security, because these things require money and the only people who can give the money for these things are the wealthy, who are generally the capitalists, and them having to take the time and money to kick down their profits puts limits, or in some cases even caps, the expansion of their enterprise. When these debates come up, the capitalists will basically just scream "socialist, socialist," at the proposers of these plans for greater welfare and public sectors to shut them up when the plan isn't profitable to them personally. But really, I think these ideas are inherently socialist, it's just when the capitalists like them because maybe they have a moment of compassion or see a means by which to exploit it for their own personal gain, it's not "socialism," but when it isn't to their individual profit, it's "Oh no, socialism." :dry:
  12. Like
    Hagop reacted to Saintly_Jinn23 in Can Religion And Capitalism Mix?   
    I don't think you quite understand how currency actually works. Money is circulated in society. You have a reserve of a certain property that is of value to people and that property is distribute piece-meal to the citizens of that society in the form of currency. Each piece of money someone has is considered a fraction of or credit for a fraction of that whole initial reserve. A society's actual wealth only increases when that actual reserve of a valuable property is increased. Otherwise, there is only a set amount that is circulated in society. Those who are the most wealthy in that society have the most of this property and those that are the least have the least amount of the property.
    Money circulates throughout society as it is spent. Basically imagine it like this: the money is spent from point A, to Point B, to Point C, up to Point D, and then it is spent from Point D to Point A again and the cycle starts over. Imagine that each point here is a class of citizens, each one buying something of value from another and that other buying something of value from another and so on in a circle. So if the flow of money is blocked at one point here and clogs instead of circulating properly like water through pipes, the other points do not receive adequate "hydration" so to speak.
    The point of the socialist people's government is that the idea that a government representative of the people and erected by the people has the job of ensuring, not that everyone has the same exact amount wealth, but that adequate circulation of the nation's money and resources is in place to make sure that regardless of whether there are those with more than everyone else that everyone still has a sufficient amount and nobody gets left behind. The only way to do this is make sure that those with more wealth kick down some of their wealth instead of just sitting on it and hording all the nation's wealth for themselves rather than allowing to wealth to circulate from the upper classes back down to the lower classes who gave that wealth to them in the first place.
    Zakat, khums, taxes. You are playing with semantics a bit. In Islam, a person who does not share their wealth and not only that hordes more wealth for himself that he will not share with the poor is a sinner and covetous of the riches of this life. People who exploit the labor and help of their employees by profiting from it but not sharing those profits with those people who were responsible for helping them are users. This is a fact, and people who do things in a society affect everyone in that society and must be punished in some way. Yes, people should desire to give zakat out of a genuine sincerity, just as people should not want to rape out a genuine sincerity, but this is not used as an excuse to not punish those who disregarded this sincerity and the law and raped or killed, severely the damaging with foul intent the physical and/or psychological well being of a fellow citizen and human being. They are still accountable and must be taken to task and the punishments for these things are a reminder to them that society, especially Islamic society, will not tolerate such people as murderers and rapists. Likewise, we should not tolerate greedy users and extortionists who horde the people's nation's wealth all for themselves, which is done at the expense of the livelihood of their fellow citizens. The people of a society need to stick together, care for each other, and progress together. The leader needs to care for his people and the rich need to care for the poor because a responsibility has been placed upon them by God, and the meek in turn reciprocate this generosity.
  13. Like
    Hagop reacted to Propaganda_of_the_Deed in The Nostalgia Thread   
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VthsQVsXwEg
    I'm sure you all owned one of these rulers at some point in school


  14. Like
    Hagop got a reaction from Propaganda_of_the_Deed in The Nostalgia Thread   
    God this thread is making me feel old :(
  15. Like
    Hagop reacted to Propaganda_of_the_Deed in The Nostalgia Thread   
    Astro Belts! *drools*
    Haven't had these since my early teens, back in those days it would cost 5 pence each, probably the same now but not sure.
    Man these were so good and sour, yet so sugary.


  16. Like
    Hagop reacted to AR2011 in The Nostalgia Thread   
    ^yum
    do u remember these?

  17. Like
    Hagop reacted to beardedbaker in Akhlaq & Sayr Wa Suluk Sub Forum   
    ahsant, I forgot about that request from my dear brother Muhammad Ali.
    either way, I think it would focus people's attention if we had a sub forum. And like brother MoAli said, we've got things like a cooking forum for the sisters, why not an spiritual wayfaring one?? What is Islam except akhlaq and ishq???
  18. Like
    Hagop reacted to cc_30 in Akhlaq & Sayr Wa Suluk Sub Forum   
    "I have been sent for makarim ul akhlaq"
    -Prophet Muhammad (s)
    I support :-)
  19. Like
    Hagop reacted to beardedbaker in Akhlaq & Sayr Wa Suluk Sub Forum   
    (bismillah)
    High time we had a dedicated akhlaq and tazkiyeh sub forum.
    What say you?
  20. Like
    Hagop reacted to King in Kashmir Issue   
    I think it depends on the source of social inequality in society and its correlation with macro-economic statistics. Social inequality today generally reflects economic inequality which generally means a high concentration of authority and subsequent class conflict/domination. The opposite would reflect a generally more democratic society where the populace is able to exert its will and force the state away from its imperial ambitions. There are some exceptions though, prior to the 1970s, the US was economically more equitable, yet the population was less likely to stand up and oppose its nation's imperial ambitions. I.e there was hardly any meaningful civil unrest well into the Vietnam war and through continuous US atrocities in Latin America, far worse than anything in the recent decades. The contemporary inequality in the states is as a result of a vicious class war from the business elite, peoples livelihoods are at stake, and hence the wars are not as popular as the ones before. There are of course moral reasons as well as the people are more civilized in general, but economics always plays a central role. In instances where a strong correlation exists, social inequality can lead to serious social unrest, especially if the wars are contributing to the problem. It generally just depends on how powerful the state/ruling elite are. As aggressive the US imperial ambitions are today, they are nothing compared to the post world war era. A powerful state can hence either sell its imperial ambitions to its people or simply get away with them due to weaker resistance
  21. Like
    Hagop got a reaction from shiasoldier786 in Look At This Pic...what Do You Feel?   
    Salams,
    Joking aside, I think it's fair to say that Propaganda and I agree with the OP that US military intrusion into Muslim homes (and countries) sucks.
    To repeat: this picture tells me that American feminists wanted the same rights as their menfolk to oppress the peoples of the Muslim and Third Worlds. The fact that the woman soldier in the photo is white (and the victims of her oppression are Muslim and women of colour), tells me that white American feminists are some of the biggest hypocrites in this world.
  22. Like
    Hagop got a reaction from muslimah1 in Look At This Pic...what Do You Feel?   
    Salams,
    Joking aside, I think it's fair to say that Propaganda and I agree with the OP that US military intrusion into Muslim homes (and countries) sucks.
    To repeat: this picture tells me that American feminists wanted the same rights as their menfolk to oppress the peoples of the Muslim and Third Worlds. The fact that the woman soldier in the photo is white (and the victims of her oppression are Muslim and women of colour), tells me that white American feminists are some of the biggest hypocrites in this world.
  23. Like
    Hagop got a reaction from Baka in Look At This Pic...what Do You Feel?   
    Salams,
    Joking aside, I think it's fair to say that Propaganda and I agree with the OP that US military intrusion into Muslim homes (and countries) sucks.
    To repeat: this picture tells me that American feminists wanted the same rights as their menfolk to oppress the peoples of the Muslim and Third Worlds. The fact that the woman soldier in the photo is white (and the victims of her oppression are Muslim and women of colour), tells me that white American feminists are some of the biggest hypocrites in this world.
  24. Like
    Hagop got a reaction from Propaganda_of_the_Deed in The Nostalgia Thread   
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr_CJL1YQRc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MVonyVSQoM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94UDaYcUg68&feature=youtube_gdata_player

  25. Like
    Hagop got a reaction from Propaganda_of_the_Deed in Look At This Pic...what Do You Feel?   
    Salams,
    Joking aside, I think it's fair to say that Propaganda and I agree with the OP that US military intrusion into Muslim homes (and countries) sucks.
    To repeat: this picture tells me that American feminists wanted the same rights as their menfolk to oppress the peoples of the Muslim and Third Worlds. The fact that the woman soldier in the photo is white (and the victims of her oppression are Muslim and women of colour), tells me that white American feminists are some of the biggest hypocrites in this world.
×
×
  • Create New...