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

Is Islam Adaptable To Western Values?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

I came across this interesting piece by an academic recently and i just thought I would see if anyone has any views about anything he said, some of it seems rather controversial compared to the views i see around here for instance. Is he right or wrong? How right or wrong is he? Are his suggestions good ones or is he totally out of touch/sold out?

halimrane.png

.......................................................................................................................... halimrane2.png

Edited by kingpomba
Link to post
Share on other sites

The underlying question is whether democracy is compatible with our religious system. From what I've gathered, democracy as a framework of governance is definitely compatible. So where's the friction exactly? Well, it's the values that democracy upholds which Islam seems to refuse to acknowledge and accept in their entirety. This is the fundamental problem. The reason for this is because the sharia is hellbent on holding firmly onto, in my perspective, laws of yore. Until Muslims don't understand historical contextuality, there will be no strides towards enlightenment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

He looks like a greasy used-car salesman

What does this have anything to do with the discussion? It would be more beneficial to make comments about the article's content rather than attack his apparence or background.

Even though this "Dr." should be knowledgable about the fundamental ideals of Islam, his writing suggests otherwise. Islam is not restricted to morals, it spans all aspects of life therefore true Islamic nations cannot overlook Islamic teachings in the legal sector.

Edited by covertiman
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

What 'western values' should Islam adapt to that...

1) Islam didn't already have

or

2) That are detrimental to mankind?

An example of #1 is that women in Islam had the right to own property over a thousand years before most modern Western societies

an example of #2 is the western method of pushing every moral envelope until you have a situation like you have in England where you can't walk in a number of places at night without seeing drunks everywhere vomiting and doing the most gruesome of acts.

The reason for this is because the sharia is hellbent on holding firmly onto, in my perspective, laws of yore. Until Muslims don't understand historical contextuality, there will be no strides towards enlightenment.

As a person who actually works in the legal system in the U.S, Sharia law would solve many of our problems here, so it is actually quite enlightening in itself. As a clerk of the court, the vast, vast majority of cases i see a day (and i usually end up having to deal with aroud 200 misdemeanors per day) are:

1) Involve alcohol one way or another (Usually public drunkenness or disturbing the peace)

2) Involve drugs one way or another (usually possession of weed, oxycoden, or drug paraphenalia)

3) Shoplifiting (as a fun statistic, the vast majority of these are done by women)

4) Domestic abuse (a lot of times alcohol is involved)

If we lashed every person who was drunk or on drugs, the amount of people drinking and doing drugs would plummet. And if we chopped off the fingers/hands of people who stole (if they stole something worth over $X and they weren't in poverty and they weren't mentally impaired and they weren't forced to do it, etc etc. there's a long list of conditions for someone to deserve their fingers or hand chopped off) then the number of shoplifitings would plummet as well.

Alcohol in particular is a massive detriment to Western society and thousands of people die a year in one way or another because of it and Western governments have to spend billions of dollars because of it (becuase of healthcare, repairing roads messed up by drunk drivers, etc)

and banning alcohol in itself clearly was useless in the case of the U.S. The only way is if you implemented harsh punishements that would serve as a deterrent.

Is it really 'enlightened' to see the kind of public drunkenness that you see in the U.K?

Is it really 'enlightened' that more than half of the people who get out of jail in the U.S, end up going right back in jail?

i'll just say this; ask anyone who went to Hajj. In Saudi Arabia, shop-owners feel safe enough to leave their stores open while they go to pray, yet in the U.S, gas stations get robbed all of the time, in broad daylight.

Yes, there's many positive things in the Western judicial systems and in Western societies but the judicial system is lacking a lot of things that the Sharia provides and i don't really see anything in the societies that Islam didn't already have or that are a detriment so it would be foolish for us to copy it.

As for whether Islam is compatible with "Democratic principles", this is a very vauge and general term and even differs among different modern-day democracies (such as the limits to free-speech and freedom of the press) so it is more beneficial to specifically ask which particular principles they want to know Islam is/not compatible with.

And God Almighty knows best

Edited by ImamAliLover
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

The underlying question is whether democracy is compatible with our religious system. From what I've gathered, democracy as a framework of governance is definitely compatible. So where's the friction exactly? Well, it's the values that democracy upholds which Islam seems to refuse to acknowledge and accept in their entirety. This is the fundamental problem. The reason for this is because the sharia is hellbent on holding firmly onto, in my perspective, laws of yore. Until Muslims don't understand historical contextuality, there will be no strides towards enlightenment.

Democracy is a form of government. What does it have to do with any particular set of values? And why should Islam be subservient to 'democracy' (whatever you mean by that exactly), rather than the other way around?

Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

What 'western values' should Islam adapt to that...

1) Islam didn't already have

or

2) That are detrimental to mankind?

An example of #1 is that women in Islam had the right to own property over a thousand years before most modern Western societies

an example of #2 is the western method of pushing every moral envelope until you have a situation like you have in England where you can't walk in a number of places at night without seeing drunks everywhere vomiting and doing the most gruesome of acts.

1. Yes, in the past maybe Islam stood at level 3 and the rest at level 1, but that's no excuse for Islam to remain at level 3, while many western societies have moved on to level 4 to 8 or so.

2. This is where a reconciliation is made between democratic values and Islamic ethics. One way to settle this in a democratic state with Islamic instilled values would be to ban alcohol on the street but allow its consumption within bars. Therefore no ones right is infringed, neither is democracy infringed because it would be enacting on its utilitarianism to stop a greater harm for society.

If we lashed every person who was drunk or on drugs, the amount of people drinking and doing drugs would plummet. And if we chopped off the fingers/hands of people who stole (if they stole something worth over $X and they weren't in poverty and they weren't mentally impaired and they weren't forced to do it, etc etc. there's a long list of conditions for someone to deserve their fingers or hand chopped off) then the number of shoplifitings would plummet as well.

The positives of freedom outweigh its negatives. The problem with your approach is that it is meted out by fallible beings who are always prone to shallowness and mistakes, so this would lead to tyranny and injustice in the judicial system and court of law, whereas the kind of judicial punishments carried out by the west is far more apt and just taking into consideration our fallibility.

As for the ideals of democracy, I feel that a political system that gives rise to liberties in society, and guarantees a balanced and politically modern society is part of what Islam strives for anyway. Islam's inner spirit itself strives to establish a balanced and free society which treats both the individual and society as a whole with respect.

Yes, there's many positive things in the Western judicial systems and in Western societies but the judicial system is lacking a lot of things that the Sharia provides and i don't really see anything in the societies that Islam didn't already have or that are a detriment so it would be foolish for us to copy it.

Even you admit that there are some positives to western judicial systems. Though you're wrong to say that Sharia already provides a utopian system. For instance, the Sharia conception and perception of familial social structure is, frankly, primarily androcentric, and so from the vantage point of the female it's a far cry from what you'd call egalitarian. Absolute equality is a benefit a democratic system provides, an element that Sharia neglects and restricts.

The jurisprudence governing and attempt to resolve social and public difficulties by Islamic laws must be renewed by rationality and scientific magnanimity. Islam judicial law was a solution for simple, underdeveloped societies, but the problems of complex modern societies should be resolved by the tools of rationality and science instead of old style religious law solely.

Remember, a state should not have a taste, colour or odour. It should be neutral. It should seek to serve the citizens, not the other way round. The same applies to religion.

Democracy is a form of government. What does it have to do with any particular set of values? And why should Islam be subservient to 'democracy' (whatever you mean by that exactly), rather than the other way around?

The term democracy, by definition, is a Greek expression for power to the people. Therefore, it automatically carries a set of values and principles by which optimal effect of democracy is enabled. People power denotes all types of absolute liberties and egalitarianism. If these principles are not upheld, democracy becomes a facade and will not work.

Why should Islam conform to the values of democracy? Well, I don't mean it in the absolutist sense, but there are parts of Islamic law which need tweaking. The prophets founded a society based on faith and spirituality, not on legality. The heart of a religious society is freely chosen faith, not coercion and conformity. A true religious society is based upon free, invisible faith, and dynamic and varied religious underdranding.

I believe that the spirit of Islam embodies elements that democracy claims to uphold, which we must strive to realize, hence there can be reconciliation.

The problem with theocracies is that it restricts the rights of minorities hence it becomes a dictatorship. Considering the fact that there are many disputations within religious politics, a religious state must be governed by the hand of an infallible.

I'll also add a quote by the great Marbles. 'Finally, every government lead by religionists and which has religion drafted into the constitution is ultimately bound to become fascist.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Yes, in the past maybe Islam stood at level 3 and the rest at level 1, but that's no excuse for Islam to remain at level 3, while many western societies have moved on to level 4 to 8 or so.

Curious question, was this meant to be general rhetoric, or do you have any practical examples of activities that are incompatible with Islam, but practiced by the 'western societies' that took them to 'level 4 or 8'?

2. This is where a reconciliation is made between democratic values and Islamic ethics. One way to settle this in a democratic state with Islamic instilled values would be to ban alcohol on the street but allow its consumption within bars. Therefore no ones right is infringed, neither is democracy infringed because it would be enacting on its utilitarianism to stop a greater harm for society.

If the intoxicating effects of alcohol ended the moment they stepped out of the bars, I would have no problem agreeing with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Democracy is a form of government. What does it have to do with any particular set of values? And why should Islam be subservient to 'democracy' (whatever you mean by that exactly), rather than the other way around?

It is more than a form of government, democracy is a value within itself. You can actually have a flourishing democratic society without a voting system/presidents/hierarchical structure, in fact that would be preferred. There is this annoying tendency in muslims of equating rigid, electoral governmental frameworks with democracy, the US for example doesn't even come close to resembling a true democracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious question, was this meant to be general rhetoric, or do you have any practical examples of activities that are incompatible with Islam, but practiced by the 'western societies' that took them to 'level 4 or 8'?

A plethora of things which the declaration of human rights encompasses.

If the intoxicating effects of alcohol ended the moment they stepped out of the bars, I would have no problem agreeing with this.

There are Islamic states that allow the consumption of alcohol if a permit is obtained, and heavy drinking takes place there, yet it is heavily regulated at the same time. Hence, you never hear booze misdemeanour on the streets in these places. It's not an impossible feat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A plethora of things which the declaration of human rights encompasses.

Like what?

There are Islamic states that allow the consumption of alcohol if a permit is obtained, and heavy drinking takes place there, yet it is heavily regulated at the same time. Hence, you never hear booze misdemeanour on the streets in these places. It's not an impossible feat.

What do they do with heavily drunk people who walk out of bars?

You can actually have a flourishing democratic society without a voting system

I don't know if this was a joke, but just in case: how does democracy work without voting?

the US for example doesn't even come close to resembling a true democracy.

Can you please elaborate on this? What is it about the USA's system that takes it away from being a true democracy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I don't know if this was a joke, but just in case: how does democracy work without voting?

Can you please elaborate on this? What is it about the USA's system that takes it away from being a true democracy?

The US has a heavily corporatized, artificial political system where most candidates are literally bought. The general public is hardly involved at any meaningful level. Democracy isn't just turning up once every 4 years and voting for your favourite sell out, it requires direct involvement from the ground up. Generally speaking, since the dawn of the industrial revolution, this means public control over the means of production, that is democracy in the workplace. Big business in the US has waged a vicious class war on the working people of America. Unions theoretically speaking, are an instrument of democracy, they barely have any muscle in the States, hence the average US worker is overworked, stripped of benefits and severely restricted in political expression. That is not to say there is nothing democratic about American society, they do uphold some democratic values, but the state is far from a functioning democracy.

Democracy essentially calls for people coming together to resolve their own problems and progress collectively. This starts at home, extends onto the workplace and is generally then reflected in the political/judicial systems etc. A ballot box is not a prerequisite, but can certainly facilitate things. In any case, until the workforce (happens to be the majority of the population) is given the necessary freedoms to work collectively to control where and how the fruits of their labour are distributed, an artificial political framework will never reflect the wants and desires of the population. This is problem with the US, the working population in the US is not involved in managing their own work, hence they are severely ill informed. They are overworked and typically their source of information is an hour of heavily corporatized news, which is severely anti labour, pro war and sensationalist. Despite all this, the public still has views to the left of the parties, the issues are just never brought to the table, the growing seeds of discord and discontent led to the democratic occupy movement, which was so refreshing, lets hope things improve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The US has a heavily corporatized, artificial political system where most candidates are literally bought. The general public is hardly involved at any meaningful level. Democracy isn't just turning up once every 4 years and voting for your favourite sell out, it requires direct involvement from the ground up. Generally speaking, since the dawn of the industrial revolution, this means public control over the means of production, that is democracy in the workplace. Big business in the US has waged a vicious class war on the working people of America. Unions theoretically speaking, are an instrument of democracy, they barely have any muscle in the States, hence the average US worker is overworked, stripped of benefits and severely restricted in political expression. That is not to say there is nothing democratic about American society, they do uphold some democratic values, but the state is far from a functioning democracy.

Democracy essentially calls for people coming together to resolve their own problems and progress collectively. This starts at home, extends onto the workplace and is generally then reflected in the political/judicial systems etc. A ballot box is not a prerequisite, but can certainly facilitate things. In any case, until the workforce (happens to be the majority of the population) is given the necessary freedoms to work collectively to control where and how the fruits of their labour are distributed, an artificial political framework will never reflect the wants and desires of the population. This is problem with the US, the working population in the US is not involved in managing their own work, hence they are severely ill informed. They are overworked and typically their source of information is an hour of heavily corporatized news, which is severely anti labour, pro war and sensationalist. Despite all this, the public still has views to the left of the parties, the issues are just never brought to the table, the growing seeds of discord and discontent led to the democratic occupy movement, which was so refreshing, lets hope things improve.

This is written from someone, of course of this standpoint. We would not all agree. Corporations often need their massive size, to fund operations that build up the lower and middle classes. It is the larger corporations that are providing jobs for millions. Unions, and instrument of democracy with barely any muscle to fight? I would say unions have more than enough power to fight. And in my opinion, too much power. They empower lazy workers, providing them with money when often, they do not deserve a dime. Providing them with a job which they feel they are automatically entitled to, even when they havent earned it. Though I do agree, justifiable unions are a necessity, and our democracy is not true democracy.

I used to work for a large corporation, multi million, and they did work us very hard, but they also gave us adequate benefits. Benefits even greater than my current private job. They provided jobs for tens of thousands in the past few years. Meanwhile my new job, a private business manages all of its own work. And it works well and provides benefits that it can fund. And if anything, our private company relies on those larger corporations as well. So I wouldnt call it class warfare, I would call it acceptable economics. The only reason these corporations are large, is because we the people fund them, because they provide for us.

Edited by iDevonian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

2. This is where a reconciliation is made between democratic values and Islamic ethics. One way to settle this in a democratic state with Islamic instilled values would be to ban alcohol on the street but allow its consumption within bars. Therefore no ones right is infringed, neither is democracy infringed because it would be enacting on its utilitarianism to stop a greater harm for society.

May Allah(swt) guide you and guide me. You know that's not going to work because drunk people would and do come out of bars and throw up on the ground, beat each other up, get into accidents, etc.

People don't have a 'right' to cause a public distrubance, abuse other people, and take other people's lives simply because they don't stop themselves from drinking what their Lord has forbidden them to drink.

And i'm sure you also know that the only reason why alcohol isn't banned in Western societies, just as other harmful drugs like weeds, coke, meth, etc, is because alcohol is so ingrained in the Western-European culture. So there's nothing 'democratic' about allowing alcohol... unless you are of the view that banning harmful substances (such as almost every other drug) is 'undemocratic'?

The problem with your approach is that it is meted out by fallible beings who are always prone to shallowness and mistakes, so this would lead to tyranny and injustice in the judicial system and court of law, whereas the kind of judicial punishments carried out by the west is far more apt and just taking into consideration our fallibility.

This is the risk with every_single_judicial system.

As for the ideals of democracy, I feel that a political system that gives rise to liberties in society, and guarantees a balanced and politically modern society is part of what Islam strives for anyway. Islam's inner spirit itself strives to establish a balanced and free society which treats both the individual and society as a whole with respect.

No differences of agreement here.

Even you admit that there are some positives to western judicial systems. Though you're wrong to say that Sharia already provides a utopian system. For instance, the Sharia conception and perception of familial social structure is, frankly, primarily androcentric, and so from the vantage point of the female it's a far cry from what you'd call egalitarian. Absolute equality is a benefit a democratic system provides, an element that Sharia neglects and restricts.

What's so androcentric about stipulating that the house belongs to the wife and that the husband is obliged to provide for his wife's food, clothing, needs, and even extra (like for shopping) and the wife isn't obliged to pay a single cent? Sounds like a good deal to me.

And that's certainly better than the modern Western culture where woman have been tricked into working twice as hard because they are expected to not only take care of the house but are also now expected (generally, there's obviously exceptions) to work full-time job. So this so called 'women's-rights movement' only ended up making women work twice as hard and they suffer more than ever because more and more are becoming addicted to drugs and smoking than ever before and there are more homeless woman now than every before, all under the guise of 'equality'. Women don't need to fall into the traps of men to be equal. They can do better than that.

Remember, a state should not have a taste, colour or odour. It should be neutral. It should seek to serve the citizens, not the other way round.

It does by providing practical soultions that actual solve problems rather than just putting people in closets (aka prision) for a few months and then release them, only for them to go right back into jail because society hasn't given them a practical way of reforming themselves. If a guy can't help himself and is obsessed with stealing other people's things, let's see how much he'll steal with only one hand and if he still can't handle himself and keeps still still, let's see how much he steals with no hands. Problem solved.

i advise you to go to your local courthouse and ask to see the microfilms of cases. And i advise you to go through dozens of these cases (read each case from beginning to end) and you would be shocked. Then maybe you might understand why we don't want to adopt this judicial system that the cops, clerks of the court, and basically everyone who actually deals with criminal law says needs to be completely reformed.

The term democracy, by definition, is a Greek expression for power to the people. Therefore, it automatically carries a set of values and principles by which optimal effect of democracy is enabled. People power denotes all types of absolute liberties and egalitarianism. If these principles are not upheld, democracy becomes a facade and will not work.

Again, this is very vague and general. Please bring specific values and liberities. For example, books that are banned in the U.S or Germany are not banned in countries like say Sweden so these 'values' and 'liberties' differ even within democracies. So it would be more beneficial to bring specific examples.

The problem with theocracies is that it restricts the rights of minorities hence it becomes a dictatorship.

Do you know how many rights Jews in Iran have? They are even allowed to drink alcohol!

Religious minorities have many rights in Islam and i would advise you you study Islamic law very carefully and deeply and perhaps you'll see why we don't really feel any need to change Islam to suit the West. Yes, we need to change many Muslims to actually follow Islam, but Islam itself needs no changing.

Can you please elaborate on this? What is it about the USA's system that takes it away from being a true democracy?

The U.S has a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

And God Almighty knows best

Edited by ImamAliLover
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

This is written from someone, of course of this standpoint. Corporations often need their massive size, to fund operations that build up the lower and middle classes. It is the larger corporations that are providing jobs for millions. Unions, and instrument of democracy with barely any muscle to fight? I would say unions have more than enough power to fight. And in my opinion, too much power. They empower lazy workers, providing them with money when often, they do not deserve a dime. Though I do agree, justifiable unions are a necessity, and our democracy is not true democracy.

I used to work for a large corperation, multi million, and they did work us very hard, but they also gave us adequate benefits. Benefits even greater than my current job. They provided jobs for tens of thousands in the past few years. Meanwhile my new job, a private business manages all of its own work. And it works well and provides benefits that it can fund.

They didn't always give you benefits, workers before you had to fight for them, so you could have them, working conditions have generally improved, but overwhelming balance of power and capital is concentrated in the hands of a select few. Unions in the States do not have enough muscle to fight, I would urge you to study the US labour history, come back and let me know how many wars they have won. Also consider some European nations like Sweden, where the unions are relatively more powerful, and society more democratic. Almost all private institutions in Sweden are unionized, and they still rank as amongst one of the most dynamic and productive economies in the world. I wonder where all the lazy workers and fat welfare moms ran off too.

The whole lazy worker argument is not grounded in reality, I realize your local radio talk show host would have you believe otherwise. A man's labour is very dear to him, most of us have a spontaneous urge within ourselves to create, to learn, to work, to achieve something meaningful, and most meaningful progress and learning are mostly achieved collectively. However, if you are going subject your workers to robotic routines, overtime hours, with little benefits, and not give them an opportunity to self manage and create, then obviously you are facilitating a whole generation of incompetent, ill informed, and "lazy" fed up workers. Do you think if the plants auto plants in Detroit were self managed, the production would have shifted to Mexico or China as in the case of other plants? Soaring corporate profits which are concentrated in few hands without a care in the world for local communities, do you think that would be possible with a strong united workforce? It is true that there are unions who do not represent the best interest of the workers, you don't deal with this problem by denouncing unions all together. That unions are an instrument for democracy would be glaringly obvious to a child. Unions who do not represent the best interests of their workers need to be reformed, not eliminated. In any case, bad unions as you put it are hardly the problem, 99% of the blame lies elsewhere, but it is only the evil unions you will hear about in the press.

Edited by Mutah_King
Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't always give you benefits, workers before you had to fight for them, so you could have them, working conditions have generally improved, but overwhelming balance of power and capital is concentrated in the hands of a select few. Unions in the States do not have enough muscle to fight, I would urge you to study the US labour history, come back and let me know how many wars they have won. Also consider some European nations like Sweden, where the Unions are relatively more powerful, and society more democratic. Almost all private institutions in Sweden are unionized, and they still rank as amongst one of the most dynamic and productive economies in the world. I wonder where all the lazy workers and fat welfare moms ran off too.

The whole lazy worker argument is not grounded in reality, I realize your local radio talk show host would have you believe otherwise.

nd the best feats are always achieved collectively. However, if you are going subject your workers to robotic routines, overtime hours, with little benefits, and not give them an opportunity to self manage and create, then obviously you are facilitating a whole generation of incompetent, ill informed, and "lazy" fed up workers. Do you think if the plants auto plants in Detroit were self managed, the production would have shifted to Mexico or China as in the case of other plants? It is true that there are unions who do not represent the best interest of the workers, you don't deal with this problem by denouncing Unions all together, they are an instrument for democracy, that would be glaringly obvious to a child. Unions who do not represent the best interests of their workers need to be reformed, not eliminated. In any case, bad Unions as you put it are hardly the problem, 99% of the blame lies elsewhere, but it is only the unions you will hear about in the press.

The lazy worker argument is not grounded in reality? I see it every day, I work with these people, I see these people. I know people who have literally not worked a single day in their lives. I know people who have done things I will not speak of, and thanks to unions, they are making 6 figures doing less work than your average patty flipper at burger king. So, not only is my opinion grounded in reality, its grounded in personal experience. In my current job, we are given plenty of benefits, we self manage, we hardly ever are forced to work any overtime at all. Its not that unions do not represent the interests of the people, its that they often overcompensate those people.

The benefits very often handed out in this country are above and beyond necessary.

Edited by iDevonian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

The lazy worker argument is not grounded in reality? I see it every day, I work with these people, I see these people. I know people who have literally not worked a single day in their lives. I know people who have done things I will not speak of, and thanks to unions, they are making 6 figures doing less work than your average patty flipper at burger king. So, not only is my opinion grounded in reality, its grounded in personal experience. In my current job, we are given plenty of benefits, we self manage, we hardly ever are forced to work any overtime at all. Its not that unions do not represent the interests of the people, its that they often overcompensate those people.

How does your personal experience apply to countries like Sweden, where unions are strong and workers actually have some representation, more benefits, and means of democratic expression? Labour in the US has been crushed violently in the past, the US has an embarrassing labour history, take a look outside your personal experiences and try putting things into context.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does your personal experience apply to countries like Sweden, where unions are strong and workers actually have some representation. Labour in the US has been crushed violently in the past, the US has an embarrassing labour history, take a look outside your personal experiences and try putting things into context.

My personal experience applies to how things are ran here. And Im simply saying, these oversized corporations are not only benefiting the masses in their own industry, they are befitting the private sector as well. Ive worked for a corporation, probably the biggest of bigs, with the richest of rich, and in that experience, we were worked hard, but there was nothing unfair about it. They compensated me with more than adequate funds, more than adequate benefits, and they provided not only all of us (tens of thousands) with jobs, but also they with their practice provided work for related fields (more tens of thousands).

And so, they having their great multi million dollar size, with rich tycoons, is necessary to fund such massive operations. You were talking about class warfare and this concept of 99% vs the 1%. Well, if hundreds of thousands are relying on that 1%, then they deserve to be supported. Unions in this age where safety is necessary is great, but I wouldn't say there is any major issue here. Nothing that hasnt been in America for some time now. And I understand that how we run things is not pure democracy, Though its a functional democratic republic. And if people want to cut corners on these corporations, they better do it right.

Edited by iDevonian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

How does your personal experience apply to countries like Sweden, where unions are strong and workers actually have some representation, more benefits, and means of democratic expression? Labour in the US has been crushed violently in the past, the US has an embarrassing labour history, take a look outside your personal experiences and try putting things into context.

He doesn't know what he is talking about.

Even some of the American states with good labor unions are doing very well. A lot of them are blue states.

And all your International examples of the labor unions just validate how stupid some of the American talking heads on TV are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

My personal experience applies to how things are ran here. And Im simply saying, these oversized corporations are not only benefiting the masses in their own industry, they are befitting the private sector as well. Ive worked for a corporation, probably the biggest of bigs, with the richest of rich, and in that experience, we were worked hard, but there was nothing unfair about it. They compensated me with more than adequate funds, more than adequate benefits, and they provided not only all of us (tens of thousands) with jobs, but also they with their practice provided work for related fields (more tens of thousands).

And so, they having their great multi million dollar size, with rich tycoons, is necessary to fund such massive operations. You were talking about class warfare and this concept of 99% vs the 1%. Well, if hundreds of thousands are relying on that 1%, then they deserve to be supported.

Why are you going on about big corporations? No one has an issue with a big company, the issue is authority and capital being heavily concentrated in needless layers of management which typically mismanage these firms and do not function democratically. Also, you aren't the only worker living in the US, I have a few friends too who are compensated well with benefits, this is not true for the majority of the population.

No one is relying on the 1%, most of them should simply be dismissed and their responsibilities managed in a more democratic way. The public, due to heavy corporate propaganda, wasn't even truly aware of it's own predicament and had lost the ability to organize. This is why the occupy movement was important, it awakened a conciousness which was lying dormant just beneath the surface. Now the entire goal is to actually get together and organize which for obvious reasons is something the workers in the US are inept at doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you going on about big corporations? No one has an issue with a big company, the issue is authority and capital being heavily concentrated in needless layers of management which typically mismanage these firms and do not function democratically. Also, you aren't the only worker living in the US, I have a few friends too who are compensated well with benefits, this is not true for the majority of the population.

No one is relying on the 1%, most of them should simply be dismissed and their responsibilities managed in a more democratic way. The public, due to heavy corporate propaganda, wasn't even truly aware of it's own predicament and had lost the ability to organize. This is why the occupy movement was important, it awakened a conciousness which was lying dormant just beneath the surface. Now the entire goal is to actually get together and organize which for obvious reasons is something the workers in the US are inept at doing.

If a business grows and prospers, that would demonstrate that the business is not mismanaging itself. It is doing what a business does. And millions depend on those 1%. Hence why people choose to work for them. They are the providers. Now, of course we could start our own competitive business if we didnt want to rely on them. And many people do that too.

I couldnt speak for every corporation, however, the ones that exist, work. They are functional and beneficial entities. Statistically they are the providers of work, of funds, of jobs etc.

And the reason I am mentioning large corporations is because...thats normally what the 99% targets. Things like low taxes on the rich. Well, if the rich utilize greater funds to fund more jobs, then taxing them at higher rates would only weaken them and their ability to provide what they do.

Edited by iDevonian
Link to post
Share on other sites

May Allah(swt) guide you and guide me. You know that's not going to work because drunk people would and do come out of bars and throw up on the ground, beat each other up, get into accidents, etc.

People don't have a 'right' to cause a public distrubance, abuse other people, and take other people's lives simply because they don't stop themselves from drinking what their Lord has forbidden them to drink.

And i'm sure you also know that the only reason why alcohol isn't banned in Western societies, just as other harmful drugs like weeds, coke, meth, etc, is because alcohol is so ingrained in the Western-European culture. So there's nothing 'democratic' about allowing alcohol... unless you are of the view that banning harmful substances (such as almost every other drug) is 'undemocratic'?

Didn't you tell me Jews can drink Alcohol in Iran? So what's the problem?

And by the way, weed is outlawed in the US. No idea where you pulled that one from.

This is the risk with every_single_judicial system.

Yes, but the risk is doubled and more common with a religious judicial system. The punishments are too feudal as well, which makes it all the more worse. Just see how rape victims are treated in a religious judicial system as opposed to the one in the west.

No differences of agreement here.

Well it's not a guarantee Sharia law provides.

What's so androcentric about stipulating that the house belongs to the wife and that the husband is obliged to provide for his wife's food, clothing, needs, and even extra (like for shopping) and the wife isn't obliged to pay a single cent? Sounds like a good deal to me.

And that's certainly better than the modern Western culture where woman have been tricked into working twice as hard because they are expected to not only take care of the house but are also now expected (generally, there's obviously exceptions) to work full-time job. So this so called 'women's-rights movement' only ended up making women work twice as hard and they suffer more than ever because more and more are becoming addicted to drugs and smoking than ever before and there are more homeless woman now than every before, all under the guise of 'equality'. Women don't need to fall into the traps of men to be equal. They can do better than that.

Typical rhetoric, but what's on the ground is a whole different reality. Patriarchal systems would work if the husbands didn't abuse their roles. It also leads to all sorts of inequalities (islamic inheritance laws as a typical example) and women are subjected to the husband. If the husband demands sexual satisfaction, the wife must obey this; because in Islamic jurisprudence it's a 'right' of the husband and a 'duty' for the wife. If the wife refuses she is cursed by angels, according to narrations, so the husbands carnal thirst suddenly becomes a divine concern.

Women forcing themselves to take on male roles was incepted by far-right wing feminists, it has nothing to do with democracy.

Let me point out that women in western societies can also be housewives if they want, and women in Islamic societies can work if they want. Doesn't change the fact that democracy promotes optimum freedom, security and equality for all.

It does by providing practical soultions that actual solve problems rather than just putting people in closets (aka prision) for a few months and then release them, only for them to go right back into jail because society hasn't given them a practical way of reforming themselves. If a guy can't help himself and is obsessed with stealing other people's things, let's see how much he'll steal with only one hand and if he still can't handle himself and keeps still still, let's see how much he steals with no hands. Problem solved.

i advise you to go to your local courthouse and ask to see the microfilms of cases. And i advise you to go through dozens of these cases (read each case from beginning to end) and you would be shocked. Then maybe you might understand why we don't want to adopt this judicial system that the cops, clerks of the court, and basically everyone who actually deals with criminal law says needs to be completely reformed.

Ever heard of a rehab centre?

Anyway, locking someone away for theft is better than stealing an Infallible role without right.

Again, this is very vague and general. Please bring specific values and liberities. For example, books that are banned in the U.S or Germany are not banned in countries like say Sweden so these 'values' and 'liberties' differ even within democracies. So it would be more beneficial to bring specific examples.

I know of the variances, I was just giving Haydar an ad hoc definition of democracy. Generally though, the rights people are given in democratic countries trumps theocratic nations.

Do you know how many rights Jews in Iran have? They are even allowed to drink alcohol!

Religious minorities have many rights in Islam and i would advise you you study Islamic law very carefully and deeply and perhaps you'll see why we don't really feel any need to change Islam to suit the West. Yes, we need to change many Muslims to actually follow Islam, but Islam itself needs no changing.

Do they need a permit for its consumption? And how is it regulated in Iran?

Religious minorities have many rights in Iran? Are you sure? Is every religious denomination treated with equality in all aspects of governance? If so, what about the Bahai's?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Didn't you tell me Jews can drink Alcohol in Iran? So what's the problem?

i'm personally against even letting the Jews drink alcohol but if they become publically drunk, then it becomes a problem.

And by the way, weed is outlawed in the US. No idea where you pulled that one from.

And i know weed is banned. That's what i said here:

And i'm sure you also know that the only reason why alcohol isn't banned in Western societies, just as other harmful drugs like weeds, coke, meth, etc, is because alcohol is so ingrained in the Western-European culture.

ie, just as other harmful drugs like weed, coke, meth, etc. are banned.

Just see how rape victims are treated in a religious judicial system as opposed to the one in the west.

Really? Please me what the punishments for a rape victem is in an Islamic judicial system is please, using the Quran and Sunnah.

(islamic inheritance laws as a typical example)

The inheritance laws are perfectly fair. Women don't need as much money because it is incumbent upon her husband/father/brothers to provide for her, whereas she doesn't have to pay a dime if she doesn't want to. So the men need more money because they have women and children that they have to feed, clothe, provide shelter for, etc.

Ever heard of a rehab centre?

These are expensive, often don't work, and aren't used on a massive scale at least not in the U.S, so it's not a viable alternative.

Anyway, locking someone away for theft is better than stealing an Infallible role without right.

Not if they get probation lol

And not if they get released like a month later.

And even if they were locked away for years, what's the benefit in this? If i was a criminal thief, i would rather get my fingers chopped off and get on with my life than waste my life away in jail.

Do they need a permit for its consumption? And how is it regulated in Iran?

i honestly have no idea

You can see a good article on Jews in Iran:

http://www.jewishmag...n/jews-iran.htm

Of course i would disagree with the b.s last paragraph because the Jewish history of Iran (much of it during Islamic times) is well-known and what we see not is not that different to how Jews have almost always been treated throughout Islamic history but to each his own

Edited by ImamAliLover
Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm personally against even letting the Jews drink alcohol but if they become publically drunk, then it becomes a problem.

If Iran as an 'Islamic' republic can handle it, it's not too much of an issue. It can clearly be sternly regulated.

Democracy still has its legs intact.

Really? Please me what the punishments for a rape victem is in an Islamic judicial system is please, using the Quran and Sunnah.

Well the rape victim has to provide 4 witnesses in an Islamic court, which is usually an impossibility. If she fails to do so, she gets punished.

I don't call that a just system. Do you?

The inheritance laws are perfectly fair. Women don't need as much money because it is incumbent upon her husband/father/brothers to provide for her, whereas she doesn't have to pay a dime if she doesn't want to. So the men need more money because they have women and children that they have to feed, clothe, provide shelter for, etc.

This would work if husbands didn't abuse their position as head of the household, but this is seldom true.

The problem is that all the women have is their inheritance and dowry, that’s it. If they got divorced they couldn’t stand on their own and had to rely on inheritance which is not clear in number, it might be small, moderate or high, but one thing for sure, it can get used up because there is an increment in expenses but the earning is zilch. So, the inheritance and dowry is an emergency exit for women when they are divorced, if that so, they can’t spend it as they like, so their freedom of choosing and financial independence is non existent. What would they do? Seek another husband, be dependant again and obey them more intensely because the inheritance is running out?

The reason for men’s expense on women so that the women can’t decide on their own and have no control. So that this male dominance scheme may continues through their children. Patriarchy is brainwashing.

I have a question. What if the woman is working and the husband looks after the children, is there a problem with this? Or what if both husband and wife are working, as it usually is in our contemporary western society?

These are expensive, often don't work, and aren't used on a massive scale at least not in the U.S, so it's not a viable alternative.

The point is that there are many centres people can go to in order to solve their psychological/biological issues.

I want to point out that you're presupposing a fallacious view that human beings are static. Some people come out of solitary confinement completely changed, and if you chop off their fingers there would be less chance of reform and more chance of rebellion.

Not if they get probation lol

And not if they get released like a month later.

And even if they were locked away for years, what's the benefit in this? If i was a criminal thief, i would rather get my fingers chopped off and get on with my life than waste my life away in jail.

Well, as the saying goes, if you can't do the time don't do the crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question. What if the woman is working and the husband looks after the children, is there a problem with this? Or what if both husband and wife are working, as it usually is in our contemporary western society?

The husband still has to provide food, shelter, etc for the wife and children, and the wife is entitled to keep all the money she earns to herself. Poor husbands :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The husband still has to provide food, shelter, etc for the wife and children, and the wife is entitled to keep all the money she earns to herself. Poor husbands :)

That's false, but I'm not going to derail this thread. Familial social structure requires its own thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

If Iran as an 'Islamic' republic can handle it, it's not too much of an issue. It can clearly be sternly regulated.

It only works because the Jews are such a small group compared to the over 90-something precent of Muslims in the country. Not to mention that the Jews are going to naturally do everything they can to avoid losing any of their rights. Also Iran does whip and punish people for public drunkenness.

Well the rape victim has to provide 4 witnesses in an Islamic court, which is usually an impossibility.

4 people can see the DNA evidence.

Or what if both husband and wife are working, as it usually is in our contemporary western society?

If you are actually living in a western society and aren't keeping your head underneath the sand, then i don't need to explain to you the psychological or even simply societal issues that are the result of children growing up in households with both their mother and father working full time.........

The point is that there are many centres people can go to in order to solve their psychological/biological issues.

I want to point out that you're presupposing a fallacious view that human beings are static. Some people come out of solitary confinement completely changed, and if you chop off their fingers there would be less chance of reform and more chance of rebellion.

Having places to go doesn't mean much if it doesn't provide a practical soultion for the society. Shari'a does. Plus a lot of times, it isn't a matter of psychological/biological issues. A lot of times it's simply a matter of people having no respect for the property of others or thinking that they can get away with it (as we saw in the London riots recently).

And yes, in these subjects i talk in generalities. Of course there's a number of exceptions for almost every general phenomena

The husband still has to provide food, shelter, etc for the wife and children, and the wife is entitled to keep all the money she earns to herself. Poor husbands :)

Very true.

Even after divorce, he has no right to take that money unless she is proven to have committed adultery or the couple works something out:

الطَّلَاقُ مَرَّتَانِ ۖ فَإِمْسَاكٌ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ تَسْرِيحٌ بِإِحْسَانٍ ۗ وَلَا يَحِلُّ لَكُمْ أَنْ تَأْخُذُوا مِمَّا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ شَيْئًا إِلَّا أَنْ يَخَافَا أَلَّا يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ اللَّهِ ۖ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ اللَّهِ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا فِيمَا افْتَدَتْ بِهِ ۗ تِلْكَ حُدُودُ اللَّهِ فَلَا تَعْتَدُوهَا ۚ وَمَنْ يَتَعَدَّ حُدُودَ اللَّهِ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ {229}

[Shakir 2:229] Divorce may be (pronounced) twice, then keep (them) in good fellowship or let (them) go with kindness; and it is not lawful for you to take any part of what you have given them, unless both fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allah; then if you fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allah, there is no blame on them for what she gives up to become free thereby. These are the limits of Allah, so do not exceed them and whoever exceeds the limits of Allah these it is that are the unjust

وَإِنْ أَرَدْتُمُ اسْتِبْدَالَ زَوْجٍ مَكَانَ زَوْجٍ وَآتَيْتُمْ إِحْدَاهُنَّ قِنْطَارًا فَلَا تَأْخُذُوا مِنْهُ شَيْئًا ۚ أَتَأْخُذُونَهُ بُهْتَانًا وَإِثْمًا مُبِينًا {20}

[Shakir 4:20] And if you wish to have (one) wife in place of aِnother and you have given one of them a heap of gold, then take not from it anything; would you take it by slandering (her) and (doing her) manifest wrong?

وَكَيْفَ تَأْخُذُونَهُ وَقَدْ أَفْضَىٰ بَعْضُكُمْ إِلَىٰ بَعْضٍ وَأَخَذْنَ مِنْكُمْ مِيثَاقًا غَلِيظًا {21}

[Shakir 4:21] And how can you take it when one of you has already gone in to the other and they have made with you a firm covenant?

And Fear, since the basic and related questions of this thread have been answered, i see no need to continue, if that is alright with you.

Regards,

And God Almighty knows best

Edited by ImamAliLover
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...