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

2 hours ago, notme said:

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.

Well it depends what type of communism you are referring to. Many of these revolutions were inspired by the USSR, which believed in Leninism, which required a "strong State" to succeed.

Maoism and Stalinism were even bigger monsters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
18 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

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.

So you don’t think that American hostility to Iran is at all driven by economics? If so, then why did Iran initially nationalise key sectors of its economy, rather than open up following the ouster of the Shah? Certainly the U.S. has long opposed revolutionary Iran’s support for the Palestinians, but one would think that the U.S. would also wish to regain control of the Iranian economy. If the Iranian economy were fully capitalist, then the West would have already regained control of Iranian resources. By contrast, under the Shah the Iranian economy favoured foreign extraction and concession(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

So you don’t think that American hostility to Iran is at all driven by economics? If so, then why did Iran initially nationalise key sectors of its economy, rather than open up following the ouster of the Shah? Certainly the U.S. has long opposed revolutionary Iran’s support for the Palestinians, but one would think that the U.S. would also wish to regain control of the Iranian economy. If the Iranian economy were fully capitalist, then the West would have already regained control of Iranian resources. By contrast, under the Shah the Iranian economy favoured foreign extraction and concession(s).

No, I think Iran nationalised those institutions to protect itself from being vulnerable to a US economic campaign against it.

If Iran simply went through a revolution, and nationalised those sectors, but never opposed the US nor its allies, then the US wouldn't have cared at all, just as it doesn't care about the many other nations with centralised economies.

Look at current US-Vietnam relations, despite the fact that current communists in power in Vietnam were once enemies of the United States, they now enjoy a great relationship, mostly built up due to a common enemy in China. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 7/29/2021 at 6:58 AM, Sumerian said:

No, I think Iran nationalised those institutions to protect itself from being vulnerable to a US economic campaign against it.

If Iran simply went through a revolution, and nationalised those sectors, but never opposed the US nor its allies, then the US wouldn't have cared at all, just as it doesn't care about the many other nations with centralised economies.

Look at current US-Vietnam relations, despite the fact that current communists in power in Vietnam were once enemies of the United States, they now enjoy a great relationship, mostly built up due to a common enemy in China. 

@Sumerian

The U.S. did not normalise its relationship with Vietnam until 1995, following Vietnam’s shift toward a market economy:

Quote

...the Vietnamese government initiated the "Doi Moi" policy, or "renovation." This meant implementing a program of socio-economic reform to transform its centrally planned economy into a market-based system. The main features of this policy included the decollectivization of the agricultural sector, price liberalization, the relaxation of state control, the diversification of ownership rights, the establishment of a two-tier banking system, and the opening of the economy to free market forces. 6

In 1986, Vietnam initiated the Doi Moi policy and commenced the social and economic reform to revitalize the stagnant economy. ... It was not until late 1988 that the Vietnamese government made a turnaround into the array of the market-oriented transformation, and implemented a series of accelerated reform measures. Official price controls were abolished for almost all goods and services in the economy, and consumer goods sold through state outlets were priced at the free market level. 26 The Dong was devalued drastically to bring the official rate in line with the prevailing market rate. State-owned enterprises were granted more autonomy, and official state allocations and planning targets were abandoned. 27 ...

One radical change introduced by Doi Moi was the opening of the economy to foreign investment. Due to this feature, Doi Moi is well known as the "open door policy." ... The encouragement of foreign investment reflects both Vietnam's political preference and strategy. The domestic private sector was ideologically disfavored and had been constrained for several years. ... The Law on Companies and the Law on Private Enterprises, enacted on December 21, 1990, allowed private investors to start up and run their business as a limited liability company, shareholding company, or "private enterprise" (i.e. sole proprietorship). 32 ...

The Vietnamese Communist Party's Seventh Congress in 1991 was viewed as the watershed for the reform process in Vietnam. Comprehensive policies were adopted in anticipation of a mixed market economy.

Source

Also, following the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime, the post-Baathist government adopted free-market policies.

Quote

The new post-Saddam federal government should develop a modern legal system that recognizes property rights and is conducive to privatization; create a public information campaign that prepares the people for structural reforms and privatization; hire expatriates and Western-educated Arabic speakers with financial, legal, and business expertise for key economic positions; deregulate prices, including prices in the utility and energy sectors; prepare state assets in the utility, transportation, pipeline, energy, and other sectors for privatization; keep the budget balanced and inflation, taxes, and tariffs low; liberalize and expand trade; and launch an effort to join the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Source

Quote

In post-2003 Iraq, the United States perceived existing state-bourgeoisie networks as incompatible with its state-building project and sought to disband them.

Source

During the Iraq–Iran War the U.S.-backed Baathist regime began economic liberalisation:

Quote

Moreover, during the Iran-Iraq War Baghdad initiated a large-scale economic liberalization and privatization program, which ended up primarily benefiting cronies of the regime. The unintended consequences of this program included "high levels of inflation, unemployment, shortages in basic goods, growing and highly visible economic inequality, and the emergence of a brisk black market in foreign currencies."14

Source

Edited by Northwest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Northwest said:

@Sumerian

The U.S. did not normalise its relationship with Vietnam until 1995, following Vietnam’s shift toward a market economy:

Source

Also, following the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime, the post-Baathist government adopted free-market policies.

Source

Source

During the Iraq–Iran War the U.S.-backed Baathist regime began economic liberalisation:

Source

Even though these countries liberalised as a result of their relationship with the US, which will naturally bring about trade with the Western world, the regimes themselves did not fall, and Vietnam is just like China, it is capitalist but there is alot of central planning especially in key industries and sectors, and the Party is still very much in an authoritative position.

Speaking of which, the Iranian economy is not very different either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
Quote

Within an unhampered market society, these advocates of aristocracy go on to say, ... prevails a tendency toward a diminution of the inequality of incomes. While the average citizen becomes wealthier, the successful entrepreneurs seldom attain wealth that raises them far above the average level. ... The private life of a modern entrepreneur or executive differs much less from that of his employees than, centuries ago, the life of a feudal landlord differed from that of his serfs. ...

It is, in the eyes of these pro-aristocratic critics, a deplorable consequence of this trend toward equalisation and a rise in mass standards that the masses take a more active part in the nation's mental and political activities. They not only set artistic and literary standards; they are supreme in politics also. They now have comfort and leisure enough to play a decisive role in communal matters. But they are too narrow-minded to grasp the sense in sound policies. They judge all economic problems from the point of view of their own position in the process of production. ...

The great experiment of liberalism and democracy has proved to be self-liquidating. It has brought about the worst of all tyrannies. ...

You have the choice ... between the tyranny of men from the scum and the benevolent rule of wise kings and aristocracies. There has never been in history a lasting democratic system. The ancient and medieval republics were not genuine democracies; the masses — slaves and metics — never took part in government. Anyway, these republics too ended in demagogy and decay. If the rule of a Grand Inquisitor is inevitable, let him ... be a Roman cardinal, a Bourbon prince, or a British lord ... [not – ed.] a sadistic adventurer of low breeding.

Source

It is interesting to note that the bourgeoisie promoted not just capitalism, but also later, socialistic ideologies.

Edited by Northwest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

In a traditional, feudal society, absolute wealth is minimised, while relative inequality is accentuated, especially between families (castes), clans, and extended kin, as well as between master and slave/servant/serf, though relations are more personalised and atomisation is nonexistent. Movement between classes and stations is largely unheard of. Wealth is centred on landholdings rather than production, and superfluities are less extravagant.

Economies are localised, self-sufficient, and decentralised. Barter is common, and banking, if any, is circumscribed. Currency is in a fixed commodity such as gold or silver rather than paper (fiat). This reduces the overall volume and circulation of money in society, except as needed. Speculative activity is practically impossible. Globalisation, whether enforced through public or private entities, is essentially absent.

The priestly and military functions reign supreme, in descending order, over those of the farmer, merchant, lender, labourer, and so on. Feudal landowners are considered superior to investors, including financiers, as well as manual workers. Mercantile activity is restricted to serving the needs of the feudal landowners, as opposed to mass production (industry) and social services. Spiritual rather than material considerations prevail.

In this environment the machine serves man rather than vice versa, while man, in his stead and according to his individuated capacity, serves the Divine Will, while acting within a strictly regimented socio-spiritual hierarchy, including one’s foreordained station (status) in life, ordained by Providence from birth. Each caste, clan, kinship network, class, and station can focus on perfecting its role, down to the man, rather than succumb to greed or indolence.

The feudal regime is impervious to bargaining, being impregnable, so Divine Will, hence Law, prevails. There is no free movement of labour. There are no modern ideologies, technologies, or synthetic “solutions.” Traditional remedies, customs, and religions are sufficient. Classical feudalism tends toward monotheism, which expresses the fixed “chain of being,” or the organically interlocking relationships, duties and obligations that comprise feudal society.

Feudal society is corporatist, based on primogeniture, and organises activity into hereditary occupations, including guilds. Feudal society brings out and suppresses the innate virtues and vices, respectively, of each man’s lineage. Feudal society is based on sacred oral tradition as well as the written Law, mediated and interpreted by priests or scholars. A divinely appointed figurehead stands at the summit of and encapsulates the offices of feudal society.

The basic feudal structure, worldview, and tenor was similar in all societies, from Christian Europe to India and Japan:

Quote

In Hindi, the word ‘bazaru’ is an insult. Translated as ‘of the market,’ it does not sound so bad. Translated as ‘peddler,’ it captures the derision of feudal society for the market. ... In popular religion, to provide God, or his middleman, the guru, free service is a sign of deep piety (similar to the concept of liege and its equivalent in feudal society – ed.). ... Feudal land-based economies of kshatriyas value Lakshmi as Bhu-devi (tangible land) while market-based economies of vaishyas value Lakshmi as Shree-devi (intangible value). These two economies vie for power to dominate society. In art, the former is represented as a pot of grain, the latter by a pot of gold.

The battle between the Old World of Europe and the New World of America is a battle between kshatriyas and vaniks, with the kings of yore and their Church not supporting the newly emerging bands of industrialists, following the scientific revolution, who needed capital for their business. So they split from the old Church (Catholic), and created their own new church (Protestantism), that did not look down on moneylending, and moved from Europe to America to create a republic that supported free enterprise and did not care much for inherited entitlement.

In India, the feudal orders were legitimised by brahmins, who helped establish new villages especially in the south, and created systems for tax collection for God’s first servant, the king. The market forces were patronised by the monastic Buddhist and Jain orders, who looked down on violence that was integral to war and agricultural activities.

India favoured the kshatriya feudalism to market-based economies of vaishyas.

Source

Several Shia narrations suggest that agriculture, on balance, is superior to all other occupations, suggestive of feudalism:

Quote

4– Imam al-Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) said, 'The farmers are the treasures of mankind for they plant and harvest the good things that Allah has made grow. On the Day of Resurrection, they will occupy the best and nearest position [to Allah] and will be called the blessed ones.’[al-Kafi, v. 5, p. 261, no. 7]

5– Imam al-Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) said that the verse of Allah: "And on Allah do the believers rely"[Qur’an 3:160], refers to the farmers.’[Bihar al-Anwar, v. 103, p. 66, no. 16]

 

6– Imam al-Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) said, 'There is no occupation more beloved to Allah than agriculture, and every single prophet that Allah sent down was a farmer except Prophet Enoch [Prophet Enoch ((عليه السلام).) is known as Idris in the Arabic tradition (ed.)] ((عليه السلام).) who was a tailor.’[Mustadrak al-Wasa’il, v. 13, p. 461, no. 15898]

Source

Quote

The economic factor exercises a hypnosis and a tyranny over modern man. And, as often occurs in hypnosis, what the mind focuses on eventually becomes real. ...

Thus, in order to posit a new principle, what is needed is not to oppose one economic formula with another, but instead to radically change attitudes, to reject without compromise the materialistic premises from which the economic factor has been perceived as absolute.

What must be questioned is not the value of this or that economic system, but the value of the economy itself.

Thus, despite the fact that the antithesis between capitalism and Marxism dominates the background of recent times, it must be regarded as a pseudo-antithesis. In free-market economies, as well as in Marxist societies, the myth of production and its corollaries (e.g., standardization, monopolies, cartels, technocracy) are subject to the "hegemony" of the economy, becoming the primary factor on which the material conditions of existence are based.

Both systems regard as "backward" or as "underdeveloped" those civilizations that do not amount to "civilizations based on labor and production"—namely, those civilizations that, luckily for themselves, have not yet been caught up in the feverish industrial exploitation of every natural resource, the social and productive enslavement of all human possibilities, and the exaltation of technical and industrial standards; in other words, those civilizations that still enjoy a certain space and a relative freedom.

Thus, the true antithesis is not between capitalism and Marxism, but between a system in which the economy rules supreme (no matter in what form) and a system in which the economy is subordinated to extra-economic factors, within a wider and more complete order, such as to bestow a deep meaning upon human life and foster the development of its highest possibilities. ...

In order to resolve the problem, it is necessary, first of all, to reject the "neutral" interpretation of the economic phenomenon proper to a deviated sociology. The very economic life has a body and soul of its own, and inner moral factors have always determined its meaning and spirit.

Thus, in every normal civilization a purely economic man—that is, the one who sees the economy not as an order of means but rather as an order of ends to which he dedicates his main activities—was always rightly regarded as a man of lower social extraction: lower in a spiritual sense, and furthermore in a social or political one.

However, beyond the strict limitations that were established within the overall hierarchical system prior to the ascent of the economy, the superiority and the right of a class as a merely economic class may rightly be contested in the name of elementary human values.

Marxism gives rise to the proletarian and class mentality where it previously did not exist, stirring excitement and creating resentment and dissatisfaction in those societies where the individuals still lived in the station allotted to them by life. In those societies an individual contained his need and aspirations within natural limits; he did not yearn to become different from what he was, and thus he was innocent of that Entfremdung ("alienation") decried by Marxism.

Nevertheless, we need to side against the idea or myth of so-called social progress, which is another of the many pathological fixations of the economic era in general, and not the legacy of leftist movements alone. To this effect, the eschatological views of Marxism do not differ very much from the "Western" views of prosperityboth Weltanschauungen [worldviews] essentially coincide, as do their practical applications.

In both Marxism and free-market economies we find the same materialistic, antipolitical, and social view detaching the social order and people from any higher order and higher goal, positing what is "useful" as the only purpose (understood in a physical, vegetative, and earthly sense); by turning the "useful" into a criterion of progress, the values proper to every traditional structure are inverted.

In fact, we should not forget that the law, meaning, and sufficient reason for these structures have always consisted in references for man to something beyond himself and beyond the economy, wealth, or material poverty, all these things having only a secondary importance.

Thus, it can legitimately be claimed that the so-called improvement of social conditions should be regarded not as good but as evil, when its price consists of the enslavement of the single individual to the productive mechanism and to the social conglomerate; or in the degradation of the State to the "State based on work," and the degradation of society to "consumer society"; or in the elimination of every qualitative hierarchy (“woke” ideology certainly suffices – ed.); or in the atrophy of every spiritual sensibility and every "heroic" attitude.

The notion that indigence is always a source of abjection and vice—and that "advanced" social conditions represent its opposite—is the fairy tale told by materialistic ideologies, which contradict themselves when they uphold the other myth, according to which the "good guys" are on the side of the people and the oppressed workers and all the "bad guys" are to be found on the side of the wealthy classes, which are corrupt and exploitative. Both of these are fairy tales.

Source

Quote

When the Industrial Revolution began in Britain, in the late 1700s, there was lots of money to be made by investing in factories and mills, by opening up new markets, and by gaining control of sources of raw materials. The folks who had the most money to invest, however, were not so much in Britain but more in Holland. Holland was the leading Western power in the 1600s, and its bankers were the leading capitalists. In pursuit of profit, Dutch capital flowed to the British stock market, and thus the Dutch funded the rise of Britain, which subsequently eclipsed Holland both economically and geopolitically.

In this way British industrialism came to be dominated by wealthy investors, and capitalism became the dominant economic system. This led to a major social transformation. Britain had been essentially an aristocratic society, dominated by landholding families. As capitalism became dominant economically, capitalists became dominant politically. Tax structures and import-export policies were gradually changed to favor investors over landowners.

It was no longer economically viable to simply maintain an estate in the countryside: one needed to develop it, turn it to more productive use. ...

Unlike aristocrats, capitalists are not tied to a place, or to the maintenance of a place. Capital is disloyal and mobile — it flows to where the most growth can be found, as it flowed from Holland to Britain, then from Britain to the USA, and most recently from everywhere to China. ...

 

This detachment from place leads to a different kind of geopolitics under capitalism, as compared to aristocracy. A king goes to war when he sees an advantage to his nation in doing so. Historians can 'explain' the wars of pre-capitalist days, in terms of the aggrandizement of monarchs and nations.

A capitalist stirs up a war in order to make profits, and in fact our elite banking families have financed both sides of most military conflicts since at least World War 1. Hence historians have a hard time 'explaining' World War 1 in terms of national motivations and objectives.

In pre-capitalist days warfare was like chess, each side trying to win. Under capitalism warfare is more like a casino, where the players battle it out as long as they can get credit for more chips, and the real winner always turns out to be the house — the bankers who finance the war and decide who will be the last man standing. Not only are wars the most profitable of all capitalist ventures, but by choosing the winners, and managing the reconstruction, the elite banking families are able, over time, to tune the geopolitical configuration to suit their own interests.

Nations and populations are but pawns in their games. Millions die in wars, infrastructures are destroyed, and while the world mourns, the bankers are counting their winnings and making plans for their postwar reconstruction investments.

From their position of power, as the financiers of governments, the banking elite have over time perfected their methods of control. Staying always behind the scenes, they pull the strings controlling the media, the political parties, the intelligence agencies, the stock markets, and the offices of government. And perhaps their greatest lever of power is their control over currencies. By means of their central-bank scam, they engineer boom and bust cycles, and they print money from nothing and then loan it at interest to governments. The power of the banking elites is both absolute and subtle.

Some of the biggest men in the United States are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere, so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it. — President Woodrow Wilson

The End of Growth — Capitalists vs. Capitalism

It was always inevitable, on a finite planet, that there would be a limit to economic growth. Industrialization has enabled us to rush headlong toward that limit over the past two centuries. Production has become ever more efficient, markets have become ever more global, and finally we have reached the point where the paradigm of perpetual growth can no longer be maintained.

Capitalism is a vehicle that helped bring the bankers to absolute power, but they have no more loyalty to that system than they have to place, or to anything or anyone else. As mentioned earlier, they think on a global scale, with nations and populations as pawns. They define what money is and they issue it, just like the banker in a game of Monopoly. They can also make up a new game with a new kind of money. They have long outgrown any need to rely on any particular economic system in order to maintain their power. Capitalism was handy in an era of rapid growth. For an era of non-growth, a different game is being prepared.

Thus, capitalism has not been allowed to die a natural death. First it was put on a life-support system, as mentioned above, with globalization, privatization, derivative markets, etc. Then it was injected with a euthanasia death-drug, in the form of toxic derivatives. And when the planned collapse occurred, rather than industrial capitalism being bailed out, the elite bankers were bailed out. It's not that the banks were too big to fail, rather the bankers were too politically powerful to fail. They made governments an offer they couldn't refuse.

With the bailouts, Western governments delivered their nations in hock to the bankers. The governments are now in perpetual debt bondage to the bankers. Rather than the banks going into receivership, governments are now in receivership. Obama's cabinet and advisors are nearly all from Wall Street; they are in the White House so they can keep close watch over their new acquisition, the once sovereign USA. Perhaps they will soon be presiding over its liquidation.

In a non-growth economy, the mechanisms of production will become relatively static. Instead of corporations competing to innovate, we'll have production bureaucracies. They'll be semi-state, semi-private bureaucracies, concerned about budgets and quotas rather than growth, somewhat along the lines of the Soviet model. Such an environment is not driven by a need for growth capital, and it does not enable a profitable game of Monopoly. ...

 

In an era of non-growth, the focus of the game will be on the consumption side of the economy. The game will be aimed at controlling the necessities of life: access to food and energy. Population creates the demand for the necessities of life; the bankers intend to control the supply. Taxes will be mostly based on consumption, particularly of energy. That's what the global warming scare is all about, with its carbon taxes and carbon credits. ...

In terms of propaganda, this control over consumption is being sold as a solution to global warming and peak oil. The propaganda campaign has been very successful, and the whole environmental movement has been captured by it. In Copenhagen, demonstrators confronted the police, carrying signs in support of carbon taxes and carbon credits. But in fact the carbon regime has nothing to do with climate or with sustainability. It is all about micromanaging every aspect of our lives, as well as every aspect of the economy.

If the folks who are running things actually cared about sustainability, they'd be investing in efficient mass transit, and they'd be shifting agriculture from petroleum-intensive, water-intensive methods to sustainable methods. Instead they are mandating biofuels and selling us electric cars, which are no more sustainable or carbon-efficient than standard cars. Indeed, the real purpose behind biofuels is genocide. With food prices linked to energy prices, and agricultural land being converted from food production to fuel production, the result can only be a massive increase in third-world starvation. Depopulation has long been a stated goal in elite circles, and the Rockefeller dynasty has frequently been involved in eugenics projects of various kinds. ...

With the collapse, the bailouts, and the total failure to pursue any kind of effective recovery strategy, the signals are very clear: the system will be allowed to collapse totally, thus clearing the ground for a pre-architected 'solution'. Ground Zero can be seen as a metaphor, with the capitalist economy as the Twin Towers. And the toxic derivatives illustrate the fact that the collapse is actually a controlled demolition.

One can imagine many nightmare scenarios, given these various signals, these ominous signs. World Wars 1 and 2 were nightmares that really happened, with millions dying, and these same banking dynasties orchestrated those scenarios and then covered their tracks. We must also keep in mind the Shock Doctrine, where catastrophe is seen as opportunity — when 'things can be done that otherwise could not be accomplished'. We are still being impacted by the shock waves that were sent out on 9/11, and again when the financial system collapsed. And the really big shock, the general collapse of society, is yet to come. The ultimate version of the Shock Doctrine: 'If the collapse is total, we can accomplish any damned thing we want to.'

Source

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 9/14/2021 at 1:38 AM, Northwest said:

Several Shia narrations suggest that agriculture, on balance, is superior to all other occupations, suggestive of feudalism

Hi comparing feudalism from Shia viewpoint with other kinds of feudalism likewise westerner feudalism is comparing apples with oranges nevertheless Sunni version of feudalism of Ummayads & Abbasids & Ottomans is compatiblre with your classical definition of feudalism which nevertheless our Imams (عليه السلام) likewise Imam Ali(عليه السلام) & Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) have had farms & slaves but on the other hand they have been farmers on their lands without any difference & supperiority over other people who have been in their service which procedure of them for feudalism has been a unique way which has been in opposite of Ummayads & Abbasids & Ottomans  & classic feudalism but unfortunately has been negleted by everyone even by people who have been claiming following them which until end of Pahlavi era the classical feudalism has been the common feudalism but on the other hand after revolution we ssomehow could revive shia version of feudalism which has been introduced by our Imams under term of Jihad in argiculture or nevertheless we have a long way ahead of us for reaching to it's ideal point.

Quote

Ministry of Agriculture-Jahad

https://www.maj.ir/page-NewEnMain/en/0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Advanced Member

While feudal societies did not prohibit trade, they were wary of reliance on excessive trade, and preferred to be inwardly focussed on self-sufficiency, hence a local, agrarian economy based on production and storage of food, which in turn depended on sound land-management. Only essential products that could not be procured locally tended to be imported. In feudal societies, taxation as such did not exist, “payment” in labour being made instead. Mercantile values tend to be detrimental to the security of society, by promoting reliance on bourgeois financiers, speculators, advertisers, entertainers, “bought-and-paid-for“ politicians, and so on, creating a culture based on material greed rather than martial virtue. Excessive trade also tends to empower the comparatively parasitic towns at the expense of the productive countryside. Indirect producers such as industrialists tend to serve and/or favour the merchants and bankers at the expense of the direct producers, that is, the pastoralists. Notably, in the Bible, Cain, a “tiller of the ground” (Genesis 4:2), and his descendants founded the first city, divided the land into private property, established arts and manufactures, and so on (Genesis 4:16–22), yet are relatively disfavoured by God compared to pastoralists such as Abel. As mentioned previously, some Shia narrations aver that nearly all the Prophets were farmers, and in the Tanakh the favoured farmers tend to be pastoralists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
7 hours ago, Northwest said:

Notably, in the Bible, Cain, a “tiller of the ground” (Genesis 4:2), and his descendants founded the first city, divided the land into private property, established arts and manufactures, and so on (Genesis 4:16–22), yet are relatively disfavoured by God compared to pastoralists such as Abel. As mentioned previously, some Shia narrations aver that nearly all the Prophets were farmers, and in the Tanakh the favoured farmers tend to be pastoralists.

But Prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was a trader. Early Islam made use of trade routes and the towns that served them.And the issue around Fadak is about private property.

Islam may well promote ascetic behaviour, but at the same time it also encourages commercial, technological and economic development.

Whether exchange is undertaken by the state or private enterprise I think that Islam is agnostic about the two. The Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) practised private enterprise, the digging of the trench in the Battle of Khandaq was not outsourced to a commercial firm and was a communal venture.

Islam does however has a lot to say about the fairness of exchange and in particular issues such as corruption. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
22 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

But Prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was a trader. Early Islam made use of trade routes and the towns that served them.

True, but for some reason hadith include sections (cf. Mustadrak al-Wasa’il, v. 13, p. 461, no. 15898) stating that all the Prophets save Enoch engaged in farming. My point is that traditional—that is, feudal—societies do engage in trade, but do so at a relative minimum vs. other economic activities, because the settlements that exist tend to be sited close to a source of food and water. The settlements thus derive nourishment from local sources, and obtain a few essential commodities via trade, but do not depend solely or even largely upon the latter. Another factor is that, under feudalism, private ownership of land tended to be limited, ownership instead being invested in the community, tribe, or family rather than individuals. Up until the nineteenth century much land in the Islamic world tended to be communally owned, prior to the intrusion of European capital and the introduction of land reform that allowed land to be parcelled out to individuals (cf. the Tanzimat in the former Ottoman Empire). For much of history the notion of legal title concerning land ownership was relatively unknown in the Islamic world.

22 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Islam may well promote ascetic behaviour, but at the same time it also encourages commercial, technological and economic development.

However, there is a bit of tension between the acquisitive aspects of economic development and the spiritual asceticism that is inherent in Islam. The closest Western analogue may well be the so-called “Protestant” or late-Scholastic ethic, which lays emphasis on foresight, planning, saving, and investment—activities that may necessitate a low time-preference, that is, delayed gratification. The problem is that the fruits of this approach—the offspring of industrial production—often are designed to discourage rather than encourage low time preference, i.e., processed food, social media, popular entertainment, fiat currency, and so on. People themselves are no longer directly involved in producing necessities for their own sustenance, but rely on merchants, industrialists, and financiers to deliver finished products for their own comfort. Individual choice obviously plays a substantial role, but so do the incentives that are inherent in the material conditions of society. A society that is economically oriented toward the promotion of self-sufficient communities produces fewer superfluous luxuries and more essentials that are used and/or consumed by communities themselves. This, in turn, generates products that reinforce virtuous patterns of pattern in a continuous cycle rather than encourage potentially destructive disruptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
17 hours ago, Northwest said:

True, but for some reason hadith include sections (cf. Mustadrak al-Wasa’il, v. 13, p. 461, no. 15898) stating that all the Prophets save Enoch engaged in farming. My point is that traditional—that is, feudal—societies do engage in trade, but do so at a relative minimum vs. other economic activities, because the settlements that exist tend to be sited close to a source of food and water. The settlements thus derive nourishment from local sources, and obtain a few essential commodities via trade, but do not depend solely or even largely upon the latter. Another factor is that, under feudalism, private ownership of land tended to be limited, ownership instead being invested in the community, tribe, or family rather than individuals. Up until the nineteenth century much land in the Islamic world tended to be communally owned, prior to the intrusion of European capital and the introduction of land reform that allowed land to be parcelled out to individuals (cf. the Tanzimat in the former Ottoman Empire). For much of history the notion of legal title concerning land ownership was relatively unknown in the Islamic world.

However, there is a bit of tension between the acquisitive aspects of economic development and the spiritual asceticism that is inherent in Islam. The closest Western analogue may well be the so-called “Protestant” or late-Scholastic ethic, which lays emphasis on foresight, planning, saving, and investment—activities that may necessitate a low time-preference, that is, delayed gratification. The problem is that the fruits of this approach—the offspring of industrial production—often are designed to discourage rather than encourage low time preference, i.e., processed food, social media, popular entertainment, fiat currency, and so on. People themselves are no longer directly involved in producing necessities for their own sustenance, but rely on merchants, industrialists, and financiers to deliver finished products for their own comfort. Individual choice obviously plays a substantial role, but so do the incentives that are inherent in the material conditions of society. A society that is economically oriented toward the promotion of self-sufficient communities produces fewer superfluous luxuries and more essentials that are used and/or consumed by communities themselves. This, in turn, generates products that reinforce virtuous patterns of pattern in a continuous cycle rather than encourage potentially destructive disruptions.

@Haji 2003

Essentially, the feudal order was defined by personalised relationships between individual sovereigns and their servants or slaves. The sovereign possessed, or rather tenanted, the land and its resources by divine permission, and his servants or slaves received protection in exchange for service, whether agricultural or military, “wages” being paid in terms of food, water, and shelter. Therefore, the use of the term “wage” in the Tanakh often refers to labourers being provided the basic necessities of life by their overlords, and as such did not refer to payment in currency. Typically, under feudalism only merchants relied on currency in transactions, usually gold or silver rather than paper (“fiat”), and often resorted to barter as well. In some sense feudalism was like a premodern form of socialist patrimony. Acts 2:43–5 and Acts 4:32 refer to communal ownership, and many sayings of Prophet Jesus in the Gospels are disdainful of material gain or hoarding. The development of capitalism in the Muslim world and elsewhere has tended to be a product of bureaucratic centralisation forged by an alliance of merchants and a minority of former feudal lords who have sought to establish strong states. This in turn undermined the old order of social and thus religious relations, giving way to a system based on contractual legalism. Ironically, the strengthening of capitalism through the centralisation of capital led to circumstances that caused the collapse of the Umayyad and Abbasid regimes, by creating a large class of landless labourers and promoting excessive taxation on nomadic tribes and recalcitrant feudal lords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
On 12/6/2021 at 6:06 PM, Northwest said:

A society that is economically oriented toward the promotion of self-sufficient communities produces fewer superfluous luxuries and more essentials that are used and/or consumed by communities themselves.

The problem here is that economic, technological and social development can't happen with self-sufficiency. Intelligent design created a planet whose resources are 'stranded' and effectively useless unless there is a global trading system.

The creation of superfluous luxuries is concomitant with the development of technologies that increase productivity. Youtube videos can be used to learn otherwise difficult to master tasks, but they can also be used to waste time. Each new tech development exercises man's ability to exercise self-control to a higher degree and once that is mastered the game opens up a new level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

The problem here is that economic, technological and social development can't happen with self-sufficiency. Intelligent design created a planet whose resources are 'stranded' and effectively useless unless there is a global trading system.

@Haji 2003

The Inca Empire was quite “advanced” in all three categories, despite being a self-sufficient, feudalistic society. Of course, this was partly due to the fertility of the realm, so the Inca regime may have been a relative outlier historically, but self-sufficiency is not necessarily incompatible with development. The USSR under Stalin achieved industrialisation, mass education, and hygiene while having a much smaller merchant fleet than the industrialised capitalist states. Of course, these gains were accomplished through socially costly—even deadly—actions such as collectivisation and mechanisation of agriculture, but once attained the advances helped the USSR defeat the largest invasion in mankind‘s history with a minimum of outside assistance. (The last two links make clear that Lend-Lease made up only a small percentage of Soviet defence expenditure during the Great Patriotic War of 1941–5.) Of course, to be fair, the USSR, like its Russian Imperial predecessor, had the advantage of being territorially expansive and rich in natural resources.

13 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

The creation of superfluous luxuries is concomitant with the development of technologies that increase productivity. Youtube videos can be used to learn otherwise difficult to master tasks, but they can also be used to waste time. Each new tech development exercises man's ability to exercise self-control to a higher degree and once that is mastered the game opens up a new level.

Works such as those by Nicholas Wade (The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains) and Neil Postman (Amusing Ourselves to Death) have made clear that the development of mass society through telecommunications, computer networks, and social media have, along with increasingly sedentary lifestyles and insalubrious dietary regimes, led to changes in human neurology that have resulted in reduced intelligence (especially IQ), attention-span, and vocabulary, among other deleterious effects. The problem does not lie entirely with technology per se, but the manner in which it is designed and implemented. Social-media platforms such as YouTube and Twitter encourage visual manners of presentation and ways of thinking instead of analytical, along with the development of shorthand, slang, and so on. Ideally, television and the Internet should present the same level of quality that one would expect of classical English literature such as the works of Shakespeare—or, for that matter, of mankind’s collective intellectual treasury, up to and including the greatest legacies of classical Islamic civilisation. We as a species have been far too cavalier about the importance of high culture and have instead geared technology toward satisfying the basest rather than the noblest instincts, tastes, inclinations, habits, syntaxes (both in writing and in speech), and so on. The problem is that the profit-motive does not take into account immaterial, much less spiritual, aspects such as aesthetics, which in turn is linked to moral principles and hierarchical virtues. One cannot, therefore, entirely contest the notion that technological development tends, whether intentionally or inadvertently, to best the restraints of traditionalist conservatism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
11 hours ago, Northwest said:

The USSR under Stalin achieved industrialisation, mass education, and hygiene while having a much smaller merchant fleet than the industrialised capitalist states. Of course, these gains were accomplished through socially costly—even deadly—actions such as collectivisation and mechanisation of agriculture, but once attained the advances helped the USSR defeat the largest invasion in mankind‘s history with a minimum of outside assistance.

You point out the small scale of the Allied lend-lease programme but clearly it was valuable enough for the Russians to agree to it - notwithstanding the negative propaganda value of receiving help from capitalists.

As you note, a reason for the lack of the USSRs lack of outside assistance was due to Tsarist expansionism.

For example, the Azerbaijani oilfields that Hitler was after (Operation Case Blue) used to belong to Iran, before Tsarist Russia took control of Azerbaijan from Iran. Had it not been for this stolen Iranian oil, there would have been no Soviet defence.

I agree that for a certain basic level of development (your Inca example) autarky works. But as development progresses you need complex supply chains. Mobile phones and other modern developments need a combination of inputs that no single country has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Advanced Member
On 12/8/2021 at 11:24 PM, Haji 2003 said:

I agree that for a certain basic level of development (your Inca example) autarky works. But as development progresses you need complex supply chains. Mobile phones and other modern developments need a combination of inputs that no single country has.

@Haji 2003

My main point is that many educated Muslims seem to concur that Islamic economics are basically “capitalist” in tenor, securing private property and commerce based on bureaucratic legal contracts, open borders, free trade, and a minimalistic state, as evidenced by encouragement of self-betterment vs. begging for communal assistance. Although terms like “capitalist” may seem misleading because, per these Muslims, there is no other economy than the Islamic economy and the Islamic economy is fundamentally capitalist, it is true that this understanding of Islam shares more with Western economic (classical) liberalism, or even Calvinism (the so-called “Protestant” ethic), than with socialism, aside from the prohibition on usury. If this is the case then “Islamic” economics would basically be no more than an interest-free copy of the (Western-run) IMF and the World Bank’s policies, including large-scale privatisation, elimination of subsidies, reliance on free trade vs. autarky, and so on. The West already relies on voluntary, corporate charity via the private sector, and many modern Islamic scholars seem to treat zakat, aside from its being obligatory, as functionally similar to Western-style charity, except in the realm of usury.

If redistributive, socialistic, and autarkic measures are much more inefficient than capitalistic ones, then I wonder why the West and its financial elites have consistently sought to prevent nationalisation, land reform, and autarky in the so-called “Second” and “Third” (developing) worlds. For example, the West supported coups in Latin America, Asia, and Africa to preempt socialistic and nationalistic movements that threatened foreign capital with expropriation, trade-barriers, and so on. On the other hand, Sunni Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) have frequently allied with the West vs. socialistic and nationalistic movements. Erdoğan’s AKP, for instance, came into power in 2001 with Western support and blessing that lasted until 2013 (Gezi Park protests) or so. Even today Turkey’s volume of trade with Israel is large and continues to develop. One should thus ignore Erdoğan’s “anti-Zionist” politicking and look at the economic facts on the ground that indicate Turkey’s continued loyalty to the Western/Zionist capitalist model. If some Islamist groups are in basic overall agreement with the Western/Zionist financial elites on economic policy sans usury, then they can hardly be called “anti-imperialist” or even “anti-Zionist” movements. Even the Iranian government has adopted Western economic prescriptions in several areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

@Northwest You said:

7 hours ago, Northwest said:

many educated Muslims seem to concur that Islamic economics are basically “capitalist” in tenor, securing private property and commerce based on bureaucratic legal contracts, open borders, free trade, and a minimalistic state,

The above reminds me of Reader's Digest articles about Muslim countries in the 1970s and 80s. At that time the challenge was very much against communism and the above perceived features of Islamic society were highlighted as a means of making common cause with western aligned Muslim countries such as Saudi and Iran.

I think the Islamic reality is more complex than that. Clearly Islam is associated with mercantilism (given the profession of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)). But one of the points of difference between Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) and his Umayyad contemporaries is his emphasis on social justice.

Here is an extract from a commentary on the Nahjul Balagha:

Quote

It is under the protection of a State that the believers strive for Allah’s sake, and the unbelievers derive material benefit from their worldly endeavors, and men attain the fruits of their labor. It is through the authority of the State that taxes are collected, aggressors are repelled, the security of highways is maintained, and the weak reclaim their rights (through the courts of law) from the strong. (This process continues) until the good citizens are happy and secure from the evils of miscreants (Nahjul-Balagha, Khutab 40).

https://www.duas.org/pdfs/Nahjul-Balagha.pdf

I'm quite comfortable with the idea that one objective for an Islamic state is social justice. The latter includes economic justice. If you take the example of healthcare and assess the health inequalities that arise in the American system, that do not arise in e.g. European ones, then certainly an Islamic state would be more likely to have healthcare systems more similar to the European version.

7 hours ago, Northwest said:

The West already relies on voluntary, corporate charity via the private sector,

Again more so the United States than European societies and I think the differences highlight the problems inherent in the American approach - where individuals and their tax exempt foundations start to challenge the authority of the State - this simply becomes a means by which the rich can exercise power over the poor.

As for the issue of usury, I think this has very deep implications around the issue of capital accumulation by individuals and groups and also the manner in which risk taking functions in society. My understanding is that Islam encourages those with capital to take risks and therefore contribute to economic development and it discourages individuals from 'hoarding' capital which denies its application to productive use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
On 1/12/2022 at 5:35 PM, Northwest said:

I wonder why the West and its financial elites have consistently sought to prevent nationalisation, land reform, and autarky in the so-called “Second” and “Third” (developing) worlds.


An interesting piece in today's Financial Times. It's behind a paywall, but other media may have covered it as well:

 

Quote

 

Bain’s work shines a light on the nexus between business and politics in South Africa and follows criticism of peers such as McKinsey and KPMG. Raymond Zondo, the deputy chief justice, found that the Boston-based firm’s consultants helped Zuma undermine the post-apartheid nation through so-called “state capture” — the manipulation of public resources for private gain. Zondo has called for all Bain’s work in the South African public sector to be re-examined.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/b1bb5dd0-e7ce-4e15-ac48-05d2d990f6c7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 1/12/2022 at 10:33 PM, Haji 2003 said:

@Northwest You said:

The above reminds me of Reader's Digest articles about Muslim countries in the 1970s and 80s. At that time the challenge was very much against communism and the above perceived features of Islamic society were highlighted as a means of making common cause with western aligned Muslim countries such as Saudi and Iran.

@Haji 2003

These “perceived features” reflected the fact that Muslim societies then were opposed to economic nationalism and collectivism, favouring instead open borders, free trade, supranational governance, and capitalistic economics. Within this context the lower classes were said to be responsible for their state, either by genetics or irresponsibility, thereby reducing the incentive of the ruling bourgeoisie to offer charity, except as a last-ditch, pragmatic measure in the direst circumstances, while also preventing the nationalisation and collectivisation of resources.

On 1/12/2022 at 10:33 PM, Haji 2003 said:

I think the Islamic reality is more complex than that. Clearly Islam is associated with mercantilism (given the profession of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)). But one of the points of difference between Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) and his Umayyad contemporaries is his emphasis on social justice.

“Social justice” is a rather vague term that fits comfortably within bourgeois charity and supply-side economics (see below):

On 1/12/2022 at 10:33 PM, Haji 2003 said:

Again more so the United States than European societies and I think the differences highlight the problems inherent in the American approach - where individuals and their tax exempt foundations start to challenge the authority of the State - this simply becomes a means by which the rich can exercise power over the poor.

My understanding is that Islam encourages those with capital to take risks...

Removing tax exemptions and abolishing usury would not necessarily challenge the Western-led economic order in toto. After all, plenty of Western elites argue for value-added, sales, and income taxes, while retaining the capitalist system. Many of them even support austerity, deregulation, and privatisation in addition to these measures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
15 hours ago, Northwest said:

These “perceived features” reflected the fact that Muslim societies then were opposed to economic nationalism and collectivism, favouring instead open borders, free trade, supranational governance, and capitalistic economics.

This was more than likely a throwback to the colonial era. Interestingly post Independence Pakistan and India pursued quite different policies.

Pakistan was along the open-markets approach you mention, India was much more Soviet inspired. India endured some level of hardship for about 40 years (not being able to drink Coke etc.), but since then has outperformed Pakistan.

I believe that the NON - open borders, free trade, supranational governance, and capitalistic economics approach can be effective for at least certain periods and at certain times of an economy's development. The development of China is another example that I think supports this idea.

Now that the US does not have the advantage in every arena, we're finding Americans appreciating this as well!

15 hours ago, Northwest said:

“Social justice” is a rather vague term that fits comfortably within bourgeois charity and supply-side economics (see below):

Ultimately adherence to social justice can be measured and societies can decide how much or little of it that they want. There is also a debate to be had about suitable proxies for social justice.

One measure is the Gini co-efficient, which measures income inquality:

Quote

Nordic and Central Eastern European countries dominate this list, claiming seven of the top 10 slots. Inequality is generally lower in Europe than elsewhere in the world, and the Gini coefficient offers quantifiable proof of that fact. The United States has a Gini coefficient of 41.1. In 2015, the top 1% of earners in the United States averaged 40 times more income than the bottom 90%. In the U.S., poverty is a growing issue, where an estimated 12.3-17.8 percent below the poverty level (see Poverty Rate by Country). Many of these low-wage workers live paycheck-to-paycheck and have no sick days, pension, or health insurance.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country

The quotation above refers to another measure, which is the % of the population living below the poverty level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
15 hours ago, Northwest said:

Removing tax exemptions and abolishing usury would not necessarily challenge the Western-led economic order in toto.

I am not writing about challenging the Western led economic order. The focus has been on those aspects of socialism that seem to be consistent with Islam.

To that end there are Western economies (Scandinavian ones) that also seem consistent with various socialist principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest NewDisplayName

Islam is not really compatible with Socialism, given the latter's antipathy towards religion. The economic policy most compatible with Islam is free-market capitalism with strong regulations and social safety nets (i.e. banning of usury, Zakat, heavy emphasis on charity, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 1/18/2022 at 1:42 AM, Guest NewDisplayName said:

Islam is not really compatible with Socialism, given the latter's antipathy towards religion. The economic policy most compatible with Islam is free-market capitalism with strong regulations and social safety nets (i.e. banning of usury, Zakat, heavy emphasis on charity, etc.).

Is it theoretically possible to develop a religious version of socialism, without the materialistic and atheistic “baggage”?

Also, I wouldn’t necessarily claim that “free-market” Islam(-ism) institutes “strong regulations and social safety nets.” While it does implement extensive charitable functions, it also places stringent means-testing on the recipients of social welfare. It is largely about ensuring that the lower classes do not beg for assistance and instead become self-reliant rather than possible burdens on the upper classes. For instance, a description of the AKP’s charitable system in Turkey:

Quote

As part of their application, each potential recipient was expected to provide a number of documents such as a cover letter, a completed application form, a photocopy of one’s national ID card, and a muhtar1 -issued poverty certificate, etc. ... As a technique of eligibility, social investigation focused on finding the truth about poverty because as one volunteer put it, “Applicants were known to lie.” ...new technologies of determining deservingness made the poor an object of state surveillance, thereby transforming social assistance into a new technique for disciplining the poor.

Based on this description, neoliberal Islam is basically an interest-free version of the GOP economic platform and/or Austrian-style economics (cf. Ludwig von Mises). It is rather hostile, or at least defensive, toward the lower classes, and does its best to ensure that the latter behave deferentially toward the upper classes, who are seen as having “earned” their position by meritorious patterns of behaviour (virtue). Only the elderly, orphans, and widows are treated paternalistically.

The question, then, is whether mimicking the prescriptions of the IMF and the World Bank merely absorbs Islam into the West. After all, these financial institutions have a history of promoting several of the aforementioned economic policies, in order to “open up” foreign economies to trade and investment. If Islamists end up endorsing several of these Western-recommended policies, then they can hardly be seen as foci of resistance to Western domination.

@Ashvazdanghe, do you know anything about Hezbollah’s economic policies in Lebanon? I cannot find reliable reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I don't want to be a party-pooper here, but all this talk of economic/political systems (that are not Islam) is just pointless. I understand that intellectual discourse and analysis is good since it adds to one's knowledge, but putting one's energy in enforcing a certain secular system, however righteous it deems itself to be, in this world is pointless for us as Shia of Ahlulbayt. Our political energy should be focused on standing up against Taghut in the name of Islam and the oppressed. Everything else is wasted energy.

Capitalist or socialist, both are Taghut since they aren't Islam. (Yes one might be better than the other, everything is relative, but it is still Taghut.

And by the way despite there being "similarities" between Islam and "socialism" and socialism allowing for "religious freedom", that doesn't excuse us from adopting their ideology. Their ideology is not Tawheed and their so called "religious freedom" is a "freedom" as long as it doesn't pose a threat towards their system.

Read Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic Government or Ayatollah Baqir Sadr's Our Philosophy.

Or watch these lectures of Sheikh Sekalshfar below:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
47 minutes ago, Northwest said:

do you know anything about Hezbollah’s economic policies in Lebanon? I cannot find reliable reports.

Hi unfortunately  I'm not aware about their economic  policy which only I know that Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) has given permission to Sayed Hasan Nasrullah invest collected Khums &  Zakat & chaities for welfare  of Shias of Lebanon  .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, Berber-Shia said:

Our political energy should be focused on standing up against Taghut in the name of Islam and the oppressed.

@Berber-Shia

My only problem is when some people throw around terms like “the oppressed” without defining them. Otherwise, unless placed within an Islamic context, phrases like “the oppressed” can be taken to refer to any group that considers itself “oppressed.” The same thing happened during the Islamic Revolution in Iran. The socialist-inclined elements took “the oppressed” to refer to the Islamic proletariat, whereas men such as Imam Khomeini understood “the oppressed” in a different light.

8 minutes ago, Berber-Shia said:

Capitalist or socialist, both are Taghut since they aren't Islam. (Yes, one might be better than the other, everything is relative, but it is still Taghut.)

Alternately, one could conclude that capitalism was originally part of Islam but was later distorted and altered under a non-Islamic framework. Capitalism as it stands in the West might be Taghut, but if you remove the offending elements then it might be considered “Islamic.” For example, under Islam the market economy might have been understood as intrinsic to Islam itself and therefore there was no concept of “capitalism” per se, for the very term itself did not exist, even though the Islamic system might have been fundamentally “capitalist,” excepting certain features that were adopted under non-Islamic frameworks.

8 minutes ago, Berber-Shia said:

And by the way despite there being "similarities" between Islam and "socialism" and socialism allowing for "religious freedom", that doesn't excuse us from adopting their ideology.

I was only referring to a socialism that believes in God and is not Marxian. When you say that Islam opposes socialism, do you mean atheistic socialism or socialism as a whole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 minutes ago, Northwest said:

Alternately, one could conclude that capitalism was originally part of Islam

Where would you conclude that from? Capitalism, socialism and communism are all enlightenment ideas that came from Europe from the 17th century on and spread through colonialism. 

Capitalism's main ideology is the right to amass as much wealth as one wishes. That goes against Islam. Look at surah Al-Humazah.

15 minutes ago, Northwest said:

I was only referring to a socialism that believes in God and is not Marxian. When you say that Islam opposes socialism, do you mean atheistic socialism or socialism as a whole?

Socialism as a whole. Why? Because most if not all socialistic ideologies rely on either dialectical materialism or historical materialism. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) gave us Islam in its complete form, that means also for political and economical means. So no need to merge Islam with socialism either.

 

I think it's a mistake to identify God given rights and duties as things that stem from a man-made ideology. It is a God given right to own property, it's not a "capitalistic" thing. It is a God given duty to share some of your unused wealth, it's not a "socialistic" idea.

اَللّٰهُ أَعْلَم‎ 

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...