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

How compatible is Islam with socialism?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
18 hours ago, Northwest said:

Is it possible that the Islamic economy is relatively primitive compared to today’s, in the sense that envisions a relatively feudalistic rather than capitalistic structure? On the one hand it does allow or encourage certain mercantile activities, but on the other it stresses large landholdings, particularly agricultural, i.e., clerical endowments and feudal palaces. The sayyid could stand in as a representative of a de facto caste that tends to marry within the bloodline, and is responsible for upholding the spiritual and religious purity of the Islamic society, in terms of piety and knowledge. Islam’s emphasis on lineage and inheritance is somewhat reminiscent of the importance of the landed nobility under feudalism. Typically occupation or title was linked to a particular family or caste, like the jati in classical India. Like the feudal system, the Islamic economy also discourages speculative activity, primarily usurious or otherwise accumulative, that tends to fuel rapid and/or potentially disruptive investment via certain expressions of commerce. In some ways its equivalent is the antebellum economy of the Southern United States, which was also agricultural and slaveholding, although Islamic slavery is not necessarily based on race per se, but on other considerations that may or may not impinge on or overlap racial questions. Historically mobile capital played a key role in undermining the feudal, landowning nobility and in promoting the globalisation of speculative and industrial or “finance” capital. For instance, the end of the Middle Ages and the gradual rise of the Industrial Revolution displaced the remnant feudal landowners in England and elsewhere across Europe. Finally, the feudal system was relatively stable and lasted for millennia because it was rooted in the concept of Divine Law as well as local custom. Feudalism also predates modern ideologies that are products of the Industrial Revolution and, by extension, the concomitant rise of modern nation-states based on bourgeois, secularised “parliaments” etc. Much of the language in the Qur’ān and ahadith seems to convey a relatively feudal frame of reference vs. that of modern economies (by “feudal” I do not necessarily mean “obscurantist” or “backward,” but a historical system). Shia Islam also places central emphasis on the family of the Prophet Muhammad, and family (caste), especially landed, was a central institution in the premodern, feudal society. (Shia) Islam also has its own conception of chivalry that shares some commonalities with that of medieval European Christendom, however broadly. All this is important for one’s frame of reference: if Islam is fundamentally rooted in a premodern (not by any means “inferior”!) outlook and condition, then how may one practice Islam in a system that is its antithesis, the globalised, usurious, capitalist economy, based on industry and speculation rather than agriculture and limited mercantile activities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Development Team
On 7/2/2021 at 4:33 AM, Ali bin Hussein said:

*How do you even teach morality if societies basis is atheism. The law then becomes the enforced moral compass.

The morality of a society starts not in a senate or a court but at home and in places of worship. (Masjids, churches, synagogues) If morality isn't being taught and instilled at home, then the law is a fail-safe to keep the law-abiding citizen safe , idealistically speaking. The truth is we know that life is not ideal but it is never government's responsibility to teach morality to its ciitizens- that falls squarely on our parents and places of worship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
19 hours ago, Northwest said:

? I cannot read your response.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Sumerian said:

I wouldn't call it feudal though, as feudalism seems to imply a regressive tax on the general populas.

Have you studied the history of feudalism? Feudalism is much more than simply a “regressive tax” on the masses. I described feudalism below:

  • Primarily agricultural, with wealth based mainly on land, including slavery
  • System based on the fixed Divine Law as well as local custom
  • Clerical endowments, palaces, and so on
  • Occupation or title linked to a family (caste)
  • Importance of lineage (bloodline)
  • Limited upward or downward mobility
  • No large-scale investment or speculation
  • Concept of chivalry or its equivalent

For example, the line of the sayyid functions almost as a caste or jati, and is based essentially on birth rather than merit. No one can “become” a sayyid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Northwest said:

Have you studied the history of feudalism? Feudalism is much more than simply a “regressive tax” on the masses. I described feudalism below:

  • Primarily agricultural, with wealth based mainly on land, including slavery
  • System based on the fixed Divine Law as well as local custom
  • Clerical endowments, palaces, and so on
  • Occupation or title linked to a family (caste)
  • Importance of lineage (bloodline)
  • Limited upward or downward mobility
  • No large-scale investment or speculation
  • Concept of chivalry or its equivalent

For example, the line of the sayyid functions almost as a caste or jati, and is based essentially on birth rather than merit. No one can “become” a sayyid.

I would say Islam has no issue with large scale investments, the banking system, modern industries and technology.

But you aren't wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 7/10/2021 at 4:56 AM, Sumerian said:

I would say Islam has no issue with large scale investments, the banking system, modern industries and technology.

As far as I am aware, Islam does not advocate modern industrial techniques in, say, slaughtering animals during hajj, among other occasions. For example, modern industries employ methods such as asphyxiation, drugging, and electrical stunning, whereas Islam prescribes the use of spears, knives, or daggers instead. Additionally, Islam places great stress on calligraphy, as handwriting is explicitly mentioned in the Qur’ān (96:4), and also endorses memorisation and recitation. Skilled calligraphy, at least in its essence, cannot be replicated through computerisation. Furthermore, some studies have suggested that oral cultures tended to absorb and retain more information over time than do modern societies. For example, some studies have suggested that reading printed literature, e.g., physical copies of books, or engaging in handwriting on physical paper, bark, papyrus, etc. yields better memory than reading or typing online. After all, using a scribal pen to write calligraphy in classical Arabic is very different from mimicking the same using digital artwork such as graphical design or remastering. It uses and engages more and varied parts of the brain, as should be expected, given that premodern societies were not as sedentary as today’s. Additionally, the spirit, if not the letter, of Islam’s ritual purity would likely tend to spurn many products of modern industry that contain impure ingredients or rely on un-Islamic methods of sale and/or production. Much of modern society reflects a conscious, thoroughgoing attempt to replicate or simulate the essence of older activities, but in a different format or expression. In doing so much of the essence is gradually lost. Also, large-scale investment is often associated with social mobility that gradually tends to weaken the institutions and foundations of society, as people become more mobile and ties to kin such as family become strained. This is mostly due to the development of economies of scale, as well as increased wealth that feeds the desires of special interests, including governing elites, that seek to better mould or control society. Over time society becomes more centralised, and as economies of scale develop, efficiency temporarily increases, but then gradually declines due to ongoing centralisation. Also, centralisation tends to go against human nature, in that man is predisposed to localised, relatively small kinship networks of his own race, ethnos, and/or religion. Given that human biology varies wildly among geographic regions, owing in part to varying climatic factors, centralisation would tend to undermine the very foundations that produce successful communities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 7/19/2021 at 1:55 AM, Northwest said:

As far as I am aware, Islam does not advocate modern industrial techniques in, say, slaughtering animals during hajj, among other occasions. For example, modern industries employ methods such as asphyxiation, drugging, and electrical stunning, whereas Islam prescribes the use of spears, knives, or daggers instead. Additionally, Islam places great stress on calligraphy, as handwriting is explicitly mentioned in the Qur’ān (96:4), and also endorses memorisation and recitation. Skilled calligraphy, at least in its essence, cannot be replicated through computerisation. Furthermore, some studies have suggested that oral cultures tended to absorb and retain more information over time than do modern societies. For example, some studies have suggested that reading printed literature, e.g., physical copies of books, or engaging in handwriting on physical paper, bark, papyrus, etc. yields better memory than reading or typing online. After all, using a scribal pen to write calligraphy in classical Arabic is very different from mimicking the same using digital artwork such as graphical design or remastering. It uses and engages more and varied parts of the brain, as should be expected, given that premodern societies were not as sedentary as today’s. Additionally, the spirit, if not the letter, of Islam’s ritual purity would likely tend to spurn many products of modern industry that contain impure ingredients or rely on un-Islamic methods of sale and/or production. Much of modern society reflects a conscious, thoroughgoing attempt to replicate or simulate the essence of older activities, but in a different format or expression. In doing so much of the essence is gradually lost. Also, large-scale investment is often associated with social mobility that gradually tends to weaken the institutions and foundations of society, as people become more mobile and ties to kin such as family become strained. This is mostly due to the development of economies of scale, as well as increased wealth that feeds the desires of special interests, including governing elites, that seek to better mould or control society. Over time society becomes more centralised, and as economies of scale develop, efficiency temporarily increases, but then gradually declines due to ongoing centralisation. Also, centralisation tends to go against human nature, in that man is predisposed to localised, relatively small kinship networks of his own race, ethnos, and/or religion. Given that human biology varies wildly among geographic regions, owing in part to varying climatic factors, centralisation would tend to undermine the very foundations that produce successful communities.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism only works in the family unit, not as the political ideology. Socialism is not compatible with Islam. It always leads to tyranny. And socialism isn’t about taking care of the less fortunate. That is the way they sell it, but giving zakat and sadaqa is one thing, taking peoples wealth is another thing which is called theft. It also is overly secular and uses lgbtq as a weapon to enforce its control over the populace under the guise of tolerance. On top of that it leads to atheism. Socialism originally is seen as a precursor to communism. To hell with Karl Marx, Engels, Stalin, Trosky, Fidel and Che Guevara. Note that socialist leaders always live in luxury while the masses starve. Recall Madurai of Venezuela eating a damn empanada while his people ate dogs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
7 hours ago, MexicanVato said:

It also is overly secular

 

7 hours ago, MexicanVato said:

Note that socialist leaders always live in luxury while the masses starve.

These are valid and accurate criticisms. 

Socialism/communism with religious freedom is only mostly socialism/communism. I guess the early writers about communism had suffered or observed religious abuses and wanted to avoid them and this was their solution. 

And power always corrupts, so it's important to not have an elite leadership, and any power given to any individual must be of short limited duration and over only the minimum areas of life needed to do the job they are expected to do. 

I'm of the opinion (if you couldn't already tell) that communism is pretty good, with some significant flaws that need to be resolved so we can save our societies from falling into chaos when capitalism collapses under it's own weight. And as I've said before, Islam doesn't proscribe any particular economic system. It places limits and rules which can be applied as applicable within whatever economic structure exists in a society. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 7/21/2021 at 6:08 AM, MexicanVato said:

...giving zakat and sadaqa is one thing, taking peoples wealth is another thing which is called theft.

Any form of taxation—zakat included—can be seen as theft, at least theoretically. (Zakat, like khums, is involuntary, as opposed to sadaqah.) For example, advocates of Austrian economics view any involuntary transfer of income as theft. However, if one concludes that Islam does mandate at least some degree of taxation, then the question is not whether government is invested with the power to redistribute wealth, but rather the degree to which such transfer is viable. So if one were to regard any involuntary redistribution of income as theft, then one would in effect be calling zakat and khums theft as well.

On 7/21/2021 at 6:08 AM, MexicanVato said:

To hell with Karl Marx, Engels, Stalin, Trosky, Fidel and Che Guevara. Note that socialist leaders always live in luxury while the masses starve. Recall Madurai of Venezuela eating a damn empanada while his people ate dogs. 

On the other hand, if socialistic economics, even Marxist-Leninist, does not work in practice, then one might ask why the U.S. has spent so much money and effort trying to destabilise and overthrow governments such as those of the former USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, (North) Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and so on. Keep in mind that Iran has always maintained relatively cordial relations with socialistic governments such as those of Cuba, Venezuela, and Assad’s Syria, for instance, even if its own ideology differs somewhat from those of the latter regimes. If socialism does not work in practice, then presumably the U.S. could simply let the socialistic regimes fail on their own, not engage in embargoes, proxy wars, cold wars, sanctions, assassinations, hostile propaganda campaigns, and so on. The irony is that the U.S. Government has done more than the Cuban government has to prevent its own citizens from visiting and investing in Cuba. It is not the Cuban government that has shut out contact with the outside world, but the U.S. Government and its nonstop terrorist war on Cuba since 1959, which continues unabated to this day, even though Fidel and Raúl are no longer factors. The same USG has also waged a nonstop war on Venezuela under Chávez and now his successor Maduro. The irony is that the USG is the biggest exporter of so-called “cultural ’Marxism’” on matters such as feminism, LGBTQ+I nonsense, pornography, and so on, whereas traditional Marxist-Leninist governments such as the Stalinist USSR actually suppressed all these things and even jailed or executed homosexuals/sodomites. It was not the USSR or the Eastern Bloc that promoted the Beatles, the ‘60s “sexual revolution,” drug abuse (the West having long used narcotics as a tool of imperialism, as the Opium Wars illustrate, along with the CIA/Pentagon’s longtime control of the international heroin trade), abstract expressionism, and so on, but the USG, ironically often in the guise of “anticommunism,” as the USG wanted to corrupt the youth and prevent them from revolting against the capitalist system.

Edited by Northwest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 7/22/2021 at 5:08 PM, Northwest said:

Any form of taxation—zakat included—can be seen as theft, at least theoretically. (Zakat, like khums, is involuntary, as opposed to sadaqah.) For example, advocates of Austrian economics view any involuntary transfer of income as theft. However, if one concludes that Islam does mandate at least some degree of taxation, then the question is not whether government is invested with the power to redistribute wealth, but rather the degree to which such transfer is viable. So if one were to regard any involuntary redistribution of income as theft, then one would in effect be calling zakat and khums theft as well.

Both zakat and khums can be regarded as extremely minimal tax. Zakat is only taxed on certain things and isnt very much, and khums is usually just a 20% tax on surplus income, of which half of it (10%) goes to poor Hashemites.

There is no way any socialist would subscribe to such a tax system.

On 7/22/2021 at 5:08 PM, Northwest said:

On the other hand, if socialistic economics, even Marxist-Leninist, does not work in practice, then one might ask why the U.S. has spent so much money and effort trying to destabilise and overthrow governments such as those of the former USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, (North) Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and so on. Keep in mind that Iran has always maintained relatively cordial relations with socialistic governments such as those of Cuba, Venezuela, and Assad’s Syria, for instance, even if its own ideology differs somewhat from those of the latter regimes. If socialism does not work in practice, then presumably the U.S. could simply let the socialistic regimes fail on their own, not engage in embargoes, proxy wars, cold wars, sanctions, assassinations, hostile propaganda campaigns, and so on. The irony is that the U.S. Government has done more than the Cuban government has to prevent its own citizens from visiting and investing in Cuba. It is not the Cuban government that has shut out contact with the outside world, but the U.S. Government and its nonstop terrorist war on Cuba since 1959, which continues unabated to this day, even though Fidel and Raúl are no longer factors. The same USG has also waged a nonstop war on Venezuela under Chávez and now his successor Maduro. The irony is that the USG is the biggest exporter of so-called “cultural ’Marxism’” on matters such as feminism, LGBTQ+I nonsense, pornography, and so on, whereas traditional Marxist-Leninist governments such as the Stalinist USSR actually suppressed all these things and even jailed or executed homosexuals/sodomites. It was not the USSR or the Eastern Bloc that promoted the Beatles, the ‘60s “sexual revolution,” drug abuse (the West having long used narcotics as a tool of imperialism, as the Opium Wars illustrate, along with the CIA/Pentagon’s longtime control of the international heroin trade), abstract expressionism, and so on, but the USG, ironically often in the guise of “anticommunism,” as the USG wanted to corrupt the youth and prevent them from revolting against the capitalist system.

One should also ask why the capitalist countries always ended up with the upper hand when it came to having the economic ability to hurt another country.

Why couldn't the socialist countries ever hurt the US financially, why was it always the other way around? Could it possibly be because the US economy gained more clout and influence over the world because US private industry was always superior - in both providing goods and services - to whatever "innovation" these planned and centralised economies ever came up with? Could it be because the US dollar became the global currency, adapted by nearly every nation, including adversaries of the US? Why is it China only started to march towards being a superpower when it began to trade and liberalise, and now actually has the ability to hurt the US financially (when it couldn't before as a communist regime)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, Sumerian said:

There is no way any socialist would subscribe to such a tax system.

Who, me?

I think it's fine. Zakat should be the only "tax" on low to middle income believers. Zakat is much more fair and equitable than the Christian tithe, which serves the same purpose. 

And then also additional taxes on the absurdly rich. Islam doesn't prohibit additional taxation, it just specifies some to go to the religious leaders for distribution. For works of the state such as highways and medical care systems, additional taxation is needed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Why couldn't the socialist countries ever hurt the US financially, why was it always the other way around?

Because the US is really big and resource-rich. What's amazing is that it's very close to managing to fail in spite of its wealth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, notme said:

Who, me?

I think it's fine. Zakat should be the only "tax" on low to middle income believers. Zakat is much more fair and equitable than the Christian tithe, which serves the same purpose. 

Zakat is the tax on all believers who have to pay that tax, whether they are middle income, low income or as rich as Elon Musk.

7 hours ago, notme said:

And then also additional taxes on the absurdly rich. Islam doesn't prohibit additional taxation, it just specifies some to go to the religious leaders for distribution. For works of the state such as highways and medical care systems, additional taxation is needed. 

There really isn't any "additional tax" in Islam (other than jizya and kharaj, which is irrelevant in this era), that is the "Islamic taxation", anything else would be a wealth grab.

There isn't anything in the Holy Qur'an or the hadiths and seemingly in the edicts of the scholars specifying a certain tax on the "absurdly rich", or even allowing the creation of such a tax.

Property in Islam is sacroscant, just like life, and as long as you have paid your dues such as khums and zakat, everything else is technically yours and no one can or has the right to take that from you, no matter your wealth class.

Edited by Sumerian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, notme said:

Because the US is really big and resource-rich. What's amazing is that it's very close to managing to fail in spite of its wealth. 

Actually the majority of the wealth that the US has is not because of resources, but in any case, one could say the same about the former USSR, which had plenty of oil reserves itself, or the reserves of Venezuela, and other command economy countries, that have managed to fail every single time. Resources weren't the problem, it was the failed economic model of these countries.

At the same time, there are very successful "capitalist" countries that are successful without the need for a wide range of resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
53 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

There isn't anything in the Holy Qur'an or the hadiths and seemingly in the edicts of the scholars specifying a certain tax on the "absurdly rich", or even allowing the creation of such a tax.

Right, but there's nothing prohibiting it either. Using gasoline powered cars isn't specifically allowed by Islam, but neither is it prohibited. 

As a socialist/communist leaning person I was saying that zakat is fine, I agree with it. Additionally, those who have absurd amounts of excess should be taxed more. I didn't say the rich shouldn't pay zakat. Everyone who can should. 

56 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Property in Islam is sacroscant, just like life, and as long as you have paid your dues such as khums and zakat, everything else is technically yours and no one can or has the right to take that from you, no matter your wealth class.

So in an Islamic country there are no roads, schools, or other common-good tax-funded non religious projects? Show me where Islam prohibits governments from levying additional taxes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
46 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Actually the majority of the wealth that the US has is not because of resources, but in any case, one could say the same about the former USSR, which had plenty of oil reserves itself, or the reserves of Venezuela, and other command economy countries, that have managed to fail every single time. Resources weren't the problem, it was the failed economic model of these countries.

Wealth used to be from cropland, not oil. Much of the Soviet Union was tundra, mountains, and desert. 

Also, authoritarianism and communism are incompatible. If a government tries to do both, at least one will fail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, notme said:

Right, but there's nothing prohibiting it either. Using gasoline powered cars isn't specifically allowed by Islam, but neither is it prohibited. 

This is qiyas (analogy). Any attempt to involuntarily seize someone's wealth after they have paid their religious obligations is ghasb (usurpation) and theft.

1 hour ago, notme said:

As a socialist/communist leaning person I was saying that zakat is fine, I agree with it. Additionally, those who have absurd amounts of excess should be taxed more. I didn't say the rich shouldn't pay zakat. Everyone who can should. 

I'm saying all they have to pay is zakat, if it is obligated on them.

1 hour ago, notme said:

So in an Islamic country there are no roads, schools, or other common-good tax-funded non religious projects? Show me where Islam prohibits governments from levying additional taxes. 

Upon research I only found the opinion of two scholars, Al-Khamenei and Al-Shirazi.

Al-Khamenei seems to be of the belief that the Islamic Republic has a legal right to levy additional taxation, while Al-Shirazi says any taxation that isn't from the Islamic traditions and texts, such as khums and zakat, is haram.

Al-Sistani has an interesting position when asked if one is allowed to evade taxes, he says if there is a contract between you and the State where you have to pay taxes, then you must.

But if no such contract exists between you and the State, he says you should then refer to another scholar on this issue (if you wish to evade), otherwise you should refrain from that, as he hasn't issued an edict on such a circumstance.

I don't have any statement from him on whether it is allowed for a State to impose any additional taxes though.

1 hour ago, notme said:

Wealth used to be from cropland, not oil. Much of the Soviet Union was tundra, mountains, and desert. 

And yet they maintained one of the largest oil reserves in the world.

During its existence, the Soviet Union, when compared to any other country, had the largest supply of untapped energy resources within its borders. Total energy-production grew from 10.25 million barrels per day of oil equivalent (mbdoe) in 1960 to 27.58 million barrels per day of oil equivalent (mbdoe) in 1980.

1 hour ago, notme said:

Also, authoritarianism and communism are incompatible. If a government tries to do both, at least one will fail. 

So where is the non authoritarian communist state? 

Also just a question out of curiousity, do you believe in property rights? And do you believe them to be holy, which Islamic believes them to be?

Edited by Sumerian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
8 hours ago, Sumerian said:

So where is the non authoritarian communist state? 

Also just a question out of curiousity, do you believe in property rights? And do you believe them to be holy, which Islamic believes them to be?

Where is the non-authoritarian state? 

I believe in personal property, but private property is problematic. Please show me evidence that private property is holy according to Islam. 

8 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Al-Sistani has an interesting position when asked if one is allowed to evade taxes, he says if there is a contract between you and the State where you have to pay taxes, then you must.

Voluntarily living in and using the public resources of a country is an implied agreement to the contract of residency. Do you also believe people should not pay rent to live on someone else's private property? That also could be considered taxation by a landlord. 

 

8 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Any attempt to involuntarily seize someone's wealth after they have paid their religious obligations is ghasb (usurpation) and theft.

So all taxation by modern governments is theft? 

Taxation is not involuntary any more than rent is involuntary. A person can either pay their taxes or go live somewhere that doesn't have taxes. (Maybe in some non-authoritarian state:woot: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, notme said:

Where is the non-authoritarian state? 

I believe in personal property, but private property is problematic. Please show me evidence that private property is holy according to Islam. 

The evidence is very simple.

1) To die while defending your property is to die the death of a martyr, just as it is the case for dying for the sake of defending your family.

2) Usurpation, which means seizing someone's property or right, is a great sin, and no matter how long that property is seized, it must be returned to its owner. Any form of benefit one may recieve from this usurped property is also haram.

3) The Holy Qur'an says:

O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent. And do not kill yourselves [or one another]. Indeed, Allah is to you ever Merciful.

4) This to me is the conclusive evidence;

في حجة الوداع -: أيها الناس، اسمعوا ما أقول لكم واعقلوه عني: أي يوم أعظم حرمة ؟ قالوا: هذا اليوم. قال: فأي شهر أعظم حرمة؟ قالوا: هذا الشهر. قال: فأي بلد أعظم حرمة؟ قالوا: هذا البلد. قال: فإن دماءكم وأموالكم عليكم حرام كحرمة يومكم هذا في شهركم هذا في بلدكم هذا إلى يوم تلقونه فيسألكم عن أعمالكم، ألا هل بلغت؟ قالوا: نعم. قال: اللهم اشهد! ألا من كانت عنده أمانة فليؤدها إلى‏ من ائتمنه عليها؛ فإنه لا يحل دم امرئ مسلم ولا ماله إلا بطيب نفسه، ولاتظلموا أنفسكم، ولا ترجعوا بعدي كفارا

Basically, the Prophet (saww) is saying on his Farewell Hajj, that the blood and property of the Muslims is just as sacroscant as the Month of Dhi'l Hijjah and the place he is in (Mecca).

__

As far as the non-authoritarian communist State, I don't know of any and how it is possible. I don't even see how that is possible, because exchanging of goods and services seems like a very human thing to do.

Edited by Sumerian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
19 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

As far as the non-authoritarian communist State

I can't think of any non-authoritarian state, regardless of economic system. Can you? 

Thomas Paine referred to governments as "a necessary evil" precisely for this reason - they restrict free will. State is oppression and usurpation. However, in its absence or weakness or corruption those who have wealth will usurp all and everyone else will be reduced to slavery/serfdom. (Sounds like now. Amazing he saw this 250 years ago.)

If I own a piece of land and the state wants to build a highway across it, they will, whether I agree or not. Even under capitalism, private property is a delusion. You can't own Earth - it is for all The Creation, and yet that's "private property" and "state". I don't know the laws around the rest of the world, but in the United States, you don't have authority over your "private property", the state does. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
21 hours ago, Sumerian said:

One should also ask why the capitalist countries always ended up with the upper hand when it came to having the economic ability to hurt another country.

In regard to this, one might also ask why Iranian revolutionaries blamed the capitalist U.S. for perpetuating foreign economic control and underdevelopment of Iran. One might also ask why Iran nationalised most sectors of its economy, as well as adopted various forms/degrees of protectionism, in the months and years following the Revolution of 1979, notwithstanding subsequent economic liberalisation following the death of Imam Khomeini in 1989. From 1979 to 1989 the Iranian economy was very statist and centralised. It was essentially the antithesis of the classical-liberal model based on free trade and laissez-faire economics. Even today the Iranian government is on better terms with relatively “socialist“ states such as Venezuela and Cuba than it is with the “capitalist” U.S. and various EU members.

21 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Could it be because the US dollar became the global currency, adapted by nearly every nation, including adversaries of the US?

If you are attributing the supremacy of the USD to the superior economic model of the U.S., then maybe you should ask the Iranian government to stop complaining about American economic (as opposed to cultural and/or religious) imperialism, and tell the Iranians that the U.S. is dominant because its model of economics, on balance, is closer to Islam’s than Iran’s currently is. As of now I am unsure as to how one can entirely hold to a minimalist interpretation of Islam’s view of the state’s role in the economy. After all, the Islamic state does regulate certain forms of commerce by banning alcoholic beverages and/or addictive substances, and does not let the “free market” permit the sale of prostitutes and pornographic material. A laissez-faire model would not attempt to regulate certain expressions of commerce on moral grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, notme said:

I can't think of any non-authoritarian state, regardless of economic system. Can you? 

The ones that champion abd claim socialism have always been authoritarian.

1 hour ago, notme said:

Thomas Paine referred to governments as "a necessary evil" precisely for this reason - they restrict free will. State is oppression and usurpation. However, in its absence or weakness or corruption those who have wealth will usurp all and everyone else will be reduced to slavery/serfdom. (Sounds like now. Amazing he saw this 250 years ago.)

If I own a piece of land and the state wants to build a highway across it, they will, whether I agree or not. Even under capitalism, private property is a delusion. You can't own Earth - it is for all The Creation, and yet that's "private property" and "state". I don't know the laws around the rest of the world, but in the United States, you don't have authority over your "private property", the state does. 

In Islam, the just State is the executor of the Will of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), and therefore it also has its own rights that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bestowed upon it. Just as you have rights over the State, the State has rights over you. 

I am not saying government is evil at all, government is something we need, but it must follow the guidelines we have in our texts.

Islam also does have a concept of public ownership, this isn't a capitalist free for all religion, but it does support private property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
6 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

The ones that champion abd claim socialism have always been authoritarian.

Agreed.

The ones that champion "free market" have been too. I can't think of any existing non-authoritarian state. That was the point I've been trying to make and you've been evading acknowledging. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Northwest said:

In regard to this, one might also ask why Iranian revolutionaries blamed the capitalist U.S. for perpetuating foreign economic control and underdevelopment of Iran. One might also ask why Iran nationalised most sectors of its economy, as well as adopted various forms/degrees of protectionism, in the months and years following the Revolution of 1979, notwithstanding subsequent economic liberalisation following the death of Imam Khomeini in 1989. From 1979 to 1989 the Iranian economy was very statist and centralised. It was essentially the antithesis of the classical-liberal model based on free trade and laissez-faire economics. Even today the Iranian government is on better terms with relatively “socialist“ states such as Venezuela and Cuba than it is with the “capitalist” U.S. and various EU members.

The reason why Iran is on bad terms with the United States is not because of the economic model adopted by the US.

Iran has a better relationship with capitalist Russia than it ever did under the socialist USSR (which supported Saddam).

Iran is currently on its best ever terms with China, which is as capitalist as it has ever been.

Iran is not any less revolutionary now compared to 1979, in fact the Revolutionary Guards are more influential than ever, the reason for Iran's protectionism is Iran's response to potentially causing itself to be vulerable to US bullying, as the US and/or the West can simply takeover the Iranian economy, and then threaten to bring it to its knees for geopolitical purposes.

If the US ever made a promise, and followed through on it, that it will never use economic coercion or sanctions as a geopolitical tool, then Iran would be nowhere near as Statist as it is right now.

2 hours ago, Northwest said:

If you are attributing the supremacy of the USD to the superior economic model of the U.S., then maybe you should ask the Iranian government to stop complaining about American economic (as opposed to cultural and/or religious) imperialism, and tell the Iranians that the U.S. is dominant because its model of economics, on balance, is closer to Islam’s than Iran’s currently is. As of now I am unsure as to how one can entirely hold to a minimalist interpretation of Islam’s view of the state’s role in the economy. After all, the Islamic state does regulate certain forms of commerce by banning alcoholic beverages and/or addictive substances, and does not let the “free market” permit the sale of prostitutes and pornographic material. A laissez-faire model would not attempt to regulate certain expressions of commerce on moral grounds.

Well I don't expect Iran to compete with the US financially, the US is a much bigger country, but I do believe the wealth that the United States and financial relations that the US accumulated over the years is due to its economic model, and therefore it uses that power to coerce other countries.

There is a reason why the USSR couldn't compete economically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, notme said:

Agreed.

The ones that champion "free market" have been too. I can't think of any existing non-authoritarian state. That was the point I've been trying to make and you've been evading acknowledging. 

If you think countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and others are on the same authoritarian scale as Western countries, whether they be in Europe, North America or Oceania, then I don't know what to tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
Quote

...as The New York Times points out, Iran is “a tempting prospect for foreign investors,” representing “one of the last untouched markets in the world.” But under the current government in Tehran, the allure of the country to foreign businesses and investors as a field for profit-making remains unfulfilled. Instead, the “public sector dominates the economic scene,” squeezing out opportunities for private investment. Even worse from the perspective of Western investors salivating at the prospect of the generous profits Iran might disgorge, “Public-sector investments in transportation…utilities, telecommunications, and other infrastructure have grown over time,” not diminished. “The government plays a significant role in Iran’s economy, either directly through participation in the production and distribution of goods and services, or indirectly through policy intervention.” Indeed, Iran’s constitution defines the public sector as primary, and “the private sector as the means of furnishing the government’s needs rather than responding to market requirements.” ...

Other reasons why Iran’s economic policies are likely to have provoked the animosity of Western foreign policy decision-makers: Despite its leaders making noises about going on a privatizing binge, Iran’s public sector has soberly grown rather than shrunk. What’s more, large sectors of Iran’s economy remain off-limits to private ownership. “Since the Revolution, the government has retained monopoly rights to the extraction, processing, and sales of minerals from large and strategic mines.” Iran’s “agricultural policy is intended to support farmers and encourage production of strategically important crops,” not to open doors to Western agribusiness. “After the Revolution, many transportation companies, banks, and insurance companies were nationalized” while price controls and subsidies have been used to make important consumer goods affordable.

Western corporate communities and the states that serve them dislike state-owned enterprises that serve the self-directed development goals of independent foreign countries. They abhor the practice of foreign governments subsidizing and protecting local business enterprises because it makes the task of Western firms competing in overseas markets more difficult, and thereby limits the overseas profits of the West’s corporations. They revile regulations that protect local populations from pollution, desperation wages and deplorable working conditions, because they cut into profits. Some or all of these practices form significant parts of the economic policies of every country in the cross-hairs of Western foreign policy, including Libya under Gaddafi, Iran, Syria, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North Korea), Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Cuba.

Western governments don’t want to bring about a change of regime in Tehran to install a pliant government that will help expand Western power for power’s sake. They want to bring about a change of regime in Tehran that will cancel economic policies aimed at Iran’s self-development and replace them with policies that will open the country’s resources, markets, labor and land to the West’s banks, corporations and investors. They want free-trade, free-enterprise and free-markets and not what Iran currently offers: protected trade, state-owned and subsidized enterprises, and trade barriers. 

To reach the goal of turning Iran into a country that can disgorge a bonanza of profits to Western corporations and investors, the regime must be changed.

Source (published 15 January 2015)

Edited by Northwest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Northwest said:

But under the current government in Tehran, the allure of the country to foreign businesses and investors as a field for profit-making remains unfulfilled. Instead, the “public sector dominates the economic scene,” squeezing out opportunities for private investment. Even worse from the perspective of Western investors salivating at the prospect of the generous profits Iran might disgorge

Hi , Their problem is not with current government because after JCPOA agreement many investors from west have made great deal contracts with " the current government in Tehran" but due bullying & increasing sanctions then leaving deal by govt of America consequently all of european countries have halted or broken all deals so main obstacle against investment in Iran is govt. of America .

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

Western governments don’t want to bring about a change of regime in Tehran to install a pliant government that will help expand Western power for power’s sake. They want to bring about a change of regime in Tehran that will cancel economic policies aimed at Iran’s self-development and replace them with policies that will open the country’s resources, markets, labor and land to the West’s banks, corporations and investors.

This argument does not hold water, because all of western governments have done anything to topple down wholee of system of government in Iran but because they even have not been able to do it during presence of reformists in body of government so now they are hiding their agenda behinde these liberal-democracy  words. 

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

To reach the goal of turning Iran into a country that can disgorge a bonanza of profits to Western corporations and investors, the regime must be changed.

their agenda won't fulfill with regime change .

On 7/9/2021 at 11:44 AM, Sumerian said:

So no, Islam is not a equal society for all. Equality is something we are promised in the Afterlife,

you are mistaken norms & customs in muslim societies with Islamic teaching which as role model only Imam Ali (عليه السلام) could bring equality into society for a short time which after him no government could repeat it which only Imam Mahdi (aj) will bring back system of government of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) for a long term on  this life just with potential of this world .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

This argument does not hold water, because all of western governments have done anything to topple down wholee of system of government in Iran but because they even have not been able to do it during presence of reformists in body of government so now they are hiding their agenda behinde these liberal-democracy  words. 

So you concede that Western governments other than that of the U.S. have worked to undermine Iran since 1979. (For example, the British, French, and Germans also aided Saddam Hussein against Iran.) Isn’t their behaviour related to the fact that their corporations lost the influence that they wielded during the rule of the Shah? If so, then aren’t the sanctions and other forms of economic warfare a means to punish the Iranian government for retaining control of its resources? In other words, have not various Western regimes been attempting to ensure that their corporations seize control of Iranian resource?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
15 hours ago, Sumerian said:

The reason why Iran is on bad terms with the United States is not because of the economic model adopted by the US.

Well I don't expect Iran to compete with the US financially, the US is a much bigger country, but I do believe the wealth that the United States and financial relations that the US accumulated over the years is due to its economic model, and therefore it uses that power to coerce other countries.

In your view, why is the capitalistic U.S. so belligerent in its dealings with Iran, if its belligerence is unrelated to its economic model?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, Northwest said:

So you concede that Western governments other than that of the U.S. have worked to undermine Iran since 1979. (For example, the British, French, and Germans also aided Saddam Hussein against Iran.)

This is a fact which even soviet union aid to Iraq against Iran was equal or even more than sum up of all aids of europeans besides America to Iraq although during Shah It has no interest  in Iran . Therefore their only concern was not only the mentioned factors which all of them are just tip of Iceberg but on the other hand even current system of Iran even in it's weakest form is a great danger for their interests around the world & system of their countries which It is also is a great danger for both of capitalist & communist system  even in countries likewise Venezuela because in long term system of Iran is weakening influence of communism in latin America & any capitalist system in western countries .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
21 hours ago, Sumerian said:

If you think countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and others are on the same authoritarian scale as Western countries, whether they be in Europe, North America or Oceania, then I don't know what to tell you.

But is that due to economics or culture?  What were they like before they started communism?  (I genuinely don't know.)

I've heard from some Cubans that Cuba is bad, and from other Cubans, it's great.  I think it depends on perspective. I don't know though - maybe someone was lying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Capitalism and Communism are both way too based on "economic progress" and not enough on the good of humans and earth. Communism is really just a more advanced, more humane form of the same materialism. We need to move away from materialism entirely and move toward long term physical and spiritual health of all humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Northwest said:

In your view, why is the capitalistic U.S. so belligerent in its dealings with Iran, if its belligerence is unrelated to its economic model?

Because of Iran's opposition to Israel, its expansion of the Islamic Revolution beyond its borders, and the position it has taken on opposing Arab regimes, especially ones that are allied with the United States.

Link to comment
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...