WEF and Globalization

[Ashvazdanghe]

15 hours ago, Northwest said:

After all, why not use one’s wealth to provide free religious education and housing on behalf of the Islamic community? Thinking like a businessman tends to make people stingy and reluctant to invest in “unprofitable” activities.

Hi at least in Iran we have a strong community of charity men from religious businesmen which they work as NGOs who donate not only for free religious education and housing on behalf of the Islamic community which also in similar fashion they make schools & houses & hospitals & etc for supporting needy people & centers for learning & spreading new technologies .

https://salamat-charity.ir/

Quote

Introduction

Islamic Iran has been the pioneer of various branches of science and technology in the world for centuries and it has since introduced hundreds of wise men to human society. But this great place regressed from producing science to mere imitation and translation of others for some reasons. Now that with the efforts of the scientists and managers of this region, an attempt has been made again to elevate that great place, some of the country's science and technology enthusiasts are determined to facilitate the difficult path of the advancement of science and technology, given the high aspiration of Iranian scientists, craftsmen, technologists, benefactors and the general public. Because they believe that gaining that magnificent grandeur and passing through this decisive historical stage is not solely possible by financial and management abilities. And, as always, it is the people who must embark on this difficult path to restore that great heritage.
Accordingly, and in order to attract public participation in social development, the " Iranians Philanthropist Association for Development of Science and Technology " has been formed to organize and coordinate the resources and facilities and volunteer forces of the people active in the development of science and technology in the country.
The headquarters of the Association is located in Pardis Technology Park and, if necessary, other centers, branches and offices in large cities of Iran or abroad, which have scientific organizations and groups and wish to participate in the activities of the society, will be stablished.
The Association is interested in collaborating with Iranian universities and research centers, scientific unions and Iranian scientists and researchers in all its activities. The association's vision is to encourage and support innovation in scientific and technological research in Iran and to develop ways and tools for coordination and collaboration between researchers and scientific organizations to apply their knowledge to serve the country's progress.

https://www.techngo.ir/fa

https://www.ch-iran.ir/Portal/#/Frontpage

[Silas]

On 2/25/2023 at 9:31 AM, Northwest said:

@Silas

Well, Islam, like religion in general, is fundamentally ideological. It is, among other things, an ideological principle in and of itself. When applied systematically, it is an ideology of ideologies, conditioning all other ideologies. Moreover, Islam, like religion in general, is all-encompassing, so it certainly encompasses the economic sphere, in addition to all other spheres. The problem with your argument is that every system is ultimately based on an ideological premise or foundation. Also, people need an ideology in order to live and thrive. Idealism motivates some of man’s highest spiritual ideals. (Of course, it can also motivate some of his worst, but one still needs idealism to live a good, spiritual life. The fact that idealism has also produced totalitarianism is no excuse to forego it.)

This is true, but I don’t see your point. It is simply impossible to become totally anti-ideological. As mentioned previously, religion, being a way of life, is also ideological.

I disagree with this. Those “markets and trinkets” have an underlying ethos that conditions human behaviour. A medieval economic system, or feudalism, has different values from those of a modern capitalist economy. The values of the medieval Church took on a distinctive form in practice, owing to the socioeconomic conditions that prevailed at the time. The Church in the age of capitalism also adapted itself to the new conditions, as the historical example of Protestantism illustrates. The medieval ban on usury evaporated as soon as capitalism arose in the Renaissance, for instance. Also, if “markets and trinkets” truly are irrelevant, then I suppose that you would be equally okay with a socialist economy as a market-based one, right, so long as religion is respected as well?

This comes dangerously close to legitimising the practices of wealthy groupings such as the Rockefeller dynasty, Klaus Schwab, et al. After all, if these elites are “charitable,” there is no grounds for coercive means to oppose globalist institutions such as the WEF, which of course are backed by the moneyed elite, including the financial. The elites of the WEF probably appreciate this kind of mindset, because a person who discards the role of class probably will not oppose the system that benefits the elites behind the WEF and its ilk. I’m not in favour of a particular economic system per se, but I am opposed to any system that creates a parasitical, idle class of intellectuals, bankers, and merchants who engage in social engineering on behalf of their class’s elitist, globalist self-interest.

If Klaus Schwab, for instance, were forced to work as a simple farmer, artisan, or productive labourer, he wouldn’t be engaged in the shenanigans that he is. If there are good bankers and merchants out there, I would certainly like to meet them, because money is power and the global power-structure is certainly opposed to the average man. It isn’t the government that opposes big capital, it is big capital that uses government to oppress the masses. Capital is being used as a means to impose harmful agendas such as depopulation, LBGTQ+I, extreme feminism, outsourcing, neoliberal economics, and so on. It is responsible for everything that the authentic Right and Left justly oppose, both in the social and economic spheres. I am simply opposed to this current system.

@Ashvazdanghe

Well, that’s precisely my point. They live very simple, austere lifestyles and are not “stingy” about spending their wealth on behalf of others. Probably this kind of mindset would also be opposed to profiteering in general. After all, why not use one’s wealth to provide free religious education and housing on behalf of the Islamic community? Thinking like a businessman tends to make people stingy and reluctant to invest in “unprofitable” activities. Unlike some people here, I am simply objecting to the mindset that implicitly presumes greater virtue on behalf of the banker, merchant, or industrialist than the farmer, artisan, or labourer. This is the same kind of mindset that idle, middle-class, university-educated intellectuals employ to look down upon so-called “deplorable” blue-collar workers such as those who refused to support Soros-backed Democrats. The same kind of mindset also presumes that the wealthy should not be “forced” to do the right thing, but only asked to contribute “voluntarily.” Personally, I am not in favour of taxing the wealthy, because the tax-codes will always favour the wealthy elites, while shifting the burden of taxation onto the lower classes. I am interested in more fundamental changes.

Here is the problem with your argument: you are elevating ideology above metaphysics and theology.

Islam may contain ideology, but it is not ideological, and this is a fundamental flaw western scholars make when trying to understand the religion. A passage from Richard M. Weaver is instructive here:

"Every man in a culture has three levels of conscious reflection: his specific ideas about things, his general beliefs, and his metaphysical dream. The first constitutes his worldliness, the second is applied to certain choices as they present themselves and the third which is the most important is his intuitive feeling about the immanent nature of reality."

The first two of those things he lists fall under the umbrella of ideology. In the fullest sense, ideology involves praxis, and is always directed at the endeavors of this world: political, civic, or cultural. The Marxist dresses up his ideology to be something more than it is, because his metaphysical dream is limited and materialist. The Muslim theologian/philosopher does not adhere to these limits.

Islam is not an "ideology of ideologies", it is metaphysical. That is its foundation.

[Silas]

As to the other issue brought up by Northwest:

"Capital is being used as a means to impose harmful agendas such as depopulation, LBGTQ+I, extreme feminism, outsourcing, neoliberal economics, and so on. It is responsible for everything that the authentic Right and Left justly oppose, both in the social and economic spheres. I am simply opposed to this current system."

I can sympathize, and agree with for the most part.

But I would say that we can "deploy capital" towards things that are harmful to society, or things that are beneficial (or neither). The market is not the problem, it is the people in the market. 

 

[Northwest]

11 hours ago, Silas said:

Here is the problem with your argument: you are elevating ideology above metaphysics and theology.

@Silas

To be frank, I think that you may be just as guilty of this as I may be. I shall return to this later.

11 hours ago, Silas said:

Islam may contain ideology, but it is not ideological, and this is a fundamental flaw western scholars make when trying to understand the religion.

I’m not so sure that this is correct. Ideology is defined as a system of ideas and ideals, and can be further considered a set of beliefs in general. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with underlying first principles (of being). Philosophically, an idea deals with a primordial, eternal pattern of being, and does not arise out of nothingness. So metaphysics seems to be an ideology of being. Metaphysics, like everything else, is fundamentally based on certain ideas. So even though ideology is not everything in Islam, Islam itself is based on an ideology of metaphysics.

11 hours ago, Silas said:

The Marxist dresses up his ideology to be something more than it is, because his metaphysical dream is limited and materialist. The Muslim theologian/philosopher does not adhere to these limits.

I can certainly agree with this. But I was not arguing for Marxism in and of itself per se—certainly not its anti-religious aspect or thrust. My argumentation also revolved around economics and the type of economic system that a religious, hence metaphysical, telos (aim) would adopt or accommodate, given that metaphysics is all-encompassing, dealing with the very ground or foundation of being, of a (lived) way of life.

11 hours ago, Silas said:

Islam is not an "ideology of ideologies", it is metaphysical. That is its foundation.

Metaphysics deals with the Idea of ideas, the eternal Reality of Being. Ideologies are ultimately based on ideas, the ultimate Ideology on the Idea of ideas. In that sense I think Islam is an ideology of ideologies, a complete system, that deals first and foremost with the Idea of ideas, which is metaphysical, from which all else flows, not excluding the mundane aspects of life and society.

11 hours ago, Silas said:

As to the other issue brought up by Northwest:

"Capital is being used as a means to impose harmful agendas such as depopulation, LBGTQ+I, extreme feminism, outsourcing, neoliberal economics, and so on. It is responsible for everything that the authentic Right and Left justly oppose, both in the social and economic spheres. I am simply opposed to this current system."

I can sympathize, and agree with for the most part.

But I would say that we can "deploy capital" towards things that are harmful to society, or things that are beneficial (or neither). The market is not the problem, it is the people in the market. 

If this is the case, then, your bolded statement can certainly be rephrased to apply to a socialistic or anti-market economy: “the absence of a market in socialism or feudalism is not the problem, but the people running the economy.” So if that is the case, if one society chooses the market, another socialism, and a third feudalism, what makes one of these systems superior? After all, if the morality of individual humans is the real problem, and people can be religious under different economic systems, why should one be compelled to choose the market over a non-market economy, or vice versa? Was the medieval Church Godless because it operated within a non-capitalist socioeconomic order, feudalism?

Also, I would be very interested in hearing your response to the crux of my argument, which you seemingly avoided:

Quote

Those “markets and trinkets” have an underlying ethos that conditions human behaviour. A medieval economic system, or feudalism, has different values from those of a modern capitalist economy. The values of the medieval Church took on a distinctive form in practice, owing to the socioeconomic conditions that prevailed at the time. The Church in the age of capitalism also adapted itself to the new conditions, as the historical example of Protestantism illustrates. The medieval ban on usury evaporated as soon as capitalism arose in the Renaissance, for instance. Also, if “markets and trinkets” truly are irrelevant, then I suppose that you would be equally okay with a socialist economy as a market-based one, right, so long as religion is respected as well?

Every activity has an ethos (dispositive spirit or drive) behind it. A spirit or drive is based on something that goes beyond mere reasoning, and in fact precedes the latter. Even the use of reason is ultimately based on emotion, for the latter explains “why” humans apply reasoning. So there is a moral, metaphysical component behind every action, and every action ultimately forms a coherent whole that makes up a system.

[Northwest]

On 2/25/2023 at 6:43 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi no because definition of asceticism is different in Christanity & Islam which ascetism in Christanity based on being a sitting duck without doing any useful activity

@Ashvazdanghe

This is really a caricature of medieval Christendom. After all, the medieval clergy were not merely idle, but played a vital role in contemporary scholarship, while the nobility fulfilled their feudal dues by protecting the realm, the peasantry worked the lords’ land, and so on. The medieval order would have collapsed if its ascetic ethos were based on idleness. In fact the manorial system was quite productive, even if its products, both material and social, were mostly not exported onto international markets. Your argument applies the same kind of reasoning that elites in developed market economies use to look down upon underdeveloped, “uncivilised” societies, e.g., those of the so-called Third World.

I think your view may be inadvertently informed by the anti-Christian propaganda that emanates from Zionist sources. A lot of Zionists look down on anyone who is not involved in white-collar work such as banking, trade, and so on. Today there is a large Muslim, predominantly Sunni, middle class that tends to ally itself with Zionists vs. lower-class Christians and other minorities. Here in the West, for instance, the Sunni elites constantly ally with the Zionists in demonising blue-collar Christians as “racists,” “deplorable,” and so on. There is a lot of reverse discrimination going on on the West, and it largely involves Zionists and Sunni Muslims allying against the native population. I know from experience.

Personally, I think society would be better off if nonessential, parasitical, usurious classes such as bankers, merchants, retailers, the white-collar intelligentsia, and so on did not exist. All the ills associated with liberalism would have never arose if these elements did not have a role to play in society, much less amass the money needed to control society. All the people who promote LBGTQ+I, extreme feminism, and so on arose in these idle classes. They never worked an honest day in their lives; they are all wealthy, or allied to or supported by the wealthy; and are ultimately tied to finance. It would be better if only essential, self-sufficient classes such as clergy, warriors (nobility), and farmers existed, providing needed services to society, without parasitism, idleness, or usury.

Edited February 28 by Northwest

[Ashvazdanghe]

18 hours ago, Northwest said:

I think your view may be inadvertently informed by the anti-Christian propaganda that emanates from Zionist sources. A lot of Zionists look down on anyone who is not involved in white-collar work such as banking, trade, and so on. Today there is a large Muslim, predominantly Sunni, middle class that tends to ally itself with Zionists vs. lower-class Christians and other minorities. Here in the West, for instance, the Sunni elites constantly ally with the Zionists in demonising blue-collar Christians as “racists,” “deplorable,” and so on. There is a lot of reverse discrimination going on on the West, and it largely involves Zionists and Sunni Muslims allying against the native population. I know from experience.

Hi I think you have not got my point which christanity has been divided into two classes due to extravagance & excess which one group of christian reformist has been obsesed with too much radical ascetism in opposition of traditionalists who hvae been obsseses with luxurius worldly lifestyle & collecting  too much wealth which zionists whether christians or Jew have acted as their bankers & merchants & etc which after reneissance both of these two gropus have initiated colonianism in cooperation with zionists which ascetic groups have been used as frontiers under guise of Christanity between “uncivilised” societies so then too reach class have initiated stablishing colonies  which both groups have cooperated with Zionists which also all of three have been looking down to any group other than them as lower class “uncivilised” societies which this viewpoint until now is following by Evangelists as blending of these Christian groups in cooperation with Zionists which Zionism have affected Sunnis as Wahabists & Shias as Bahais as Zionists brnchs of Islam which Bahais although pretending to helping poor natives likewise native Americans so then African people follow zionist procedures .

19 hours ago, Northwest said:

In fact the manorial system was quite productive, even if its products, both material and social, were mostly not exported onto international markets. Your argument applies the same kind of reasoning that elites in developed market economies use to look down upon underdeveloped, “uncivilised” societies, e.g., those of the so-called Third World.

 

19 hours ago, Northwest said:

It would be better if only essential, self-sufficient classes such as clergy, warriors (nobility), and farmers existed, providing needed services to society, without parasitism, idleness, or usury.

This class of Christanity has been a rare group which has totally perished by zionists & too wealthy & too much ascetic Christians which if could survive could be an ally of Shia muslims.

 

 

[Northwest]

7 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi I think you have not got my point which Christianity has been divided into two classes due to extravagance & excess which one group of christian reformist has been obsessed with too much radical asceticism in opposition of traditionalists who have been obsess with luxurious worldly lifestyle & collecting  too much wealth

@Ashvazdanghe

Those two classes, as you yourself conceded, did not arise within Christianity until the advent of the Renaissance.

7 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

This class of Christanity has been a rare group which has totally perished by zionists & too wealthy & too much ascetic Christians which if could survive could be an ally of Shia muslims.

It was not rare at all between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the rise of the Renaissance.

[Silas]

On 2/28/2023 at 7:15 AM, Northwest said:

@Silas

To be frank, I think that you may be just as guilty of this as I may be. I shall return to this later.

I’m not so sure that this is correct. Ideology is defined as a system of ideas and ideals, and can be further considered a set of beliefs in general. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with underlying first principles (of being). Philosophically, an idea deals with a primordial, eternal pattern of being, and does not arise out of nothingness. So metaphysics seems to be an ideology of being. Metaphysics, like everything else, is fundamentally based on certain ideas. So even though ideology is not everything in Islam, Islam itself is based on an ideology of metaphysics.

I can certainly agree with this. But I was not arguing for Marxism in and of itself per se—certainly not its anti-religious aspect or thrust. My argumentation also revolved around economics and the type of economic system that a religious, hence metaphysical, telos (aim) would adopt or accommodate, given that metaphysics is all-encompassing, dealing with the very ground or foundation of being, of a (lived) way of life.

Metaphysics deals with the Idea of ideas, the eternal Reality of Being. Ideologies are ultimately based on ideas, the ultimate Ideology on the Idea of ideas. In that sense I think Islam is an ideology of ideologies, a complete system, that deals first and foremost with the Idea of ideas, which is metaphysical, from which all else flows, not excluding the mundane aspects of life and society.

If this is the case, then, your bolded statement can certainly be rephrased to apply to a socialistic or anti-market economy: “the absence of a market in socialism or feudalism is not the problem, but the people running the economy.” So if that is the case, if one society chooses the market, another socialism, and a third feudalism, what makes one of these systems superior? After all, if the morality of individual humans is the real problem, and people can be religious under different economic systems, why should one be compelled to choose the market over a non-market economy, or vice versa? Was the medieval Church Godless because it operated within a non-capitalist socioeconomic order, feudalism?

Also, I would be very interested in hearing your response to the crux of my argument, which you seemingly avoided:

Every activity has an ethos (dispositive spirit or drive) behind it. A spirit or drive is based on something that goes beyond mere reasoning, and in fact precedes the latter. Even the use of reason is ultimately based on emotion, for the latter explains “why” humans apply reasoning. So there is a moral, metaphysical component behind every action, and every action ultimately forms a coherent whole that makes up a system.

Not to get too deep into semantics, but it is important here. You state:

"So metaphysics seems to be an ideology of being"

to which I say, metaphysics is a philosophy of being. Now why is this important? Because if we take the position of Ibn Sina, Aquinas, or even Gilson, ideology is of the practical order, while metaphysics and philosophy are of the speculative order (which goes all the way back to Aristotle). The OED defines ideology as:

"Any wide-ranging system of beliefs, ways of thought, and categories that provide the foundation of programmes of political and social action: an ideology is a conceptual scheme with a practical application"

Islam is not simply directed towards the practical order, although it does deal with practical things. It is not simply cultural, political, or civic. Allah is the formal object of Islam, not the society of man

Now as to your question " if one society chooses the market, another socialism, and a third feudalism, what makes one of these systems superior?", I am not sure I suggested one system was better than another. My general point was not to fall into the trap of defining man as homo economicus, and assigning greater importance to the market than which it is entitled. 

Socialism may work perfectly fine among good, honest, men. But those men are rare, unfortunately. 

But I tend toward the position of Weaver that property is the "last metaphysical right" --if I am not permitted possessions, land, or ownership over myself, I have no rights. 

 

 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

13 hours ago, Northwest said:

@Ashvazdanghe

Those two classes, as you yourself conceded, did not arise within Christianity until the advent of the Renaissance.

 

Hi these bipolarity of these classes have existed in Christanity since it begining however histoically they have seperated into two distinct groups at "advent of the Renaissance."

13 hours ago, Northwest said:

It was not rare at all between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the rise of the Renaissance.

Anyway in majority of time they have isolated in similar fashion of Shias between muslims which majority of contacts of Christians & Muslims have done  in wars & merchandise between Sunnis & Christians which only time that fair Christians have a limited contact with Shias has been ashort period of time of reigning  of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & after martyrdom of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) which ambassador of Roman empire has criticized curse Yazid for killing Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) & humilation progeny of prophet Muhammad (pbu) when caravan of captives of Karbala have attended in court of cursed Yazid which fate of that ambassador is unknown which cursed Yazid has ordered detaining & punishing him which after that his fate remained unknown which some sources he has been killed but roman empire has not done any reaction to killing of him .

[Northwest]

On 3/2/2023 at 1:38 AM, Silas said:

Not to get too deep into semantics, but it is important here. You state:

"So metaphysics seems to be an ideology of being"

to which I say, metaphysics is a philosophy of being. Now why is this important? Because if we take the position of Ibn Sina, Aquinas, or even Gilson, ideology is of the practical order, while metaphysics and philosophy are of the speculative order (which goes all the way back to Aristotle). The OED defines ideology as:

"Any wide-ranging system of beliefs, ways of thought, and categories that provide the foundation of programmes of political and social action: an ideology is a conceptual scheme with a practical application"

Islam is not simply directed towards the practical order, although it does deal with practical things. It is not simply cultural, political, or civic. Allah is the formal object of Islam, not the society of man

@Silas

For all intents and purposes, isn’t the ideological synonymous with the philosophical? The philosophical, or metaphysical, is the basis of the ideological. They do not stand in opposition to each other. One cannot know the speculative apart from the practical, for the practical hints at the speculative. If not for the practical order, to which we are indebted and whose rules we abide by, we would know nothing of the speculative. We would thus not know Allah but by the kind of society He desires. The speculative is meant for the here and now, not the here and now for the speculative. It is a guide to living in this world, so that one may thrive in the Next. One’s fate in the Hereafter flows from the collective society one foster in this world. Besides, Islam does not believe in original sin, so there is no hindrance to building an Islamic society. The objection, or excuse, that man is inherently too sinful for a particular mode of life does not apply here.

On 3/2/2023 at 1:38 AM, Silas said:

Now as to your question " if one society chooses the market, another socialism, and a third feudalism, what makes one of these systems superior?", I am not sure I suggested one system was better than another.

Regardless, by preferring private property and the market-based mode of exchange, you are clearly taking sides here. You clearly side with the capitalist economy vs. the feudal and socialistic/communistic ones. Of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, but in light of previous statements is disingenuous: for you previously stated that individual morality, not the economic system, holds primacy. So by that criterion just about any economic system is as good as another, provided that moral, religious individuals are in charge.

On 3/2/2023 at 1:38 AM, Silas said:

My general point was not to fall into the trap of defining man as homo economicus, and assigning greater importance to the market than which it is entitled.

You just did that by contradicting your earlier assertion that a) the type of economic system is irrelevant and b) individual morality is all that matters. By that criterion, what difference does it make if moral, religious people choose one economic system or another? Moral, religious people should be able to run a feudal or socialistic/communistic economy just as well as a market-based one. After all, the medieval Church operated within the confines of a non-capitalist, feudal economy. Virtue is all that matters, right?

On 3/2/2023 at 1:38 AM, Silas said:

Socialism may work perfectly fine among good, honest, men. But those men are rare, unfortunately.

By this measure no economy should be able to function properly. You are effectively claiming that we should design an economy according to man’s viciousness. Because man is sinful, we should promote an economic model that accommodates rather than suppresses his vice. Besides, the veracity of your assertion is questionable. Feudalism, for instance, worked quite well for millennia and was non-capitalist. The Middle Ages were a period of great chivalry and scholarship, for instance.

Your equation of private property with religious morality must also be questioned. For instance, the notion of a “right“ to private property developed as society secularised. It arose at the very end of the Middle Ages, gained traction in the Renaissance, and crystallised in the Enlightenment. During this same timeframe Europe became less religious and more secular. The early stage of the French Revolution proclaimed the right to absolute ownership, that is, private property. As the preceding link states:

Quote

Clearly, within an increasingly secular understanding of reality, the extension of the concept of basic rights to include private property rights was perfectly natural.

So as religion lost sway at the end of medievalism in Europe, the concept of a right to private property arose. Coincidence?

On 3/2/2023 at 1:38 AM, Silas said:

But I tend toward the position of Weaver that property is the "last metaphysical right" --if I am not permitted possessions, land, or ownership over myself, I have no rights. 

Is your body your possession? Is land? By what right can you claim absolute ownership of either? Did you create your own body or the land? Are you the Creator, the Master of the universe? After all, the Creator is the original proprietor, so creation is enslaved to its Creator. Man, as a slave of the Creator, is but a tenant on his Creator’s property. Private ownership thus puts man on the same level as his Creator.

If you are the absolute owner, then you, as the absolute owner, are entitled to act or to dispose of something as you see fit, owing to the rights conferred by absolute ownership. Private ownership thus ensures that error has rights: for if one owns one’s body or the land, one is free to do whatever one wishes with it. Obviously this is not the case: for man is also a social being and must act according to social obligations.

The absolute owner, by proclaiming his supposed right to private property, becomes a god. By contrast, a believing man cannot lay claim to absolute ownership, for absolute ownership excludes fellow believers. Is one believer more equal than another and deserving of exclusive right or access to something?

[Silas]

6 hours ago, Northwest said:

@Silas

For all intents and purposes, isn’t the ideological synonymous with the philosophical? The philosophical, or metaphysical, is the basis of the ideological. They do not stand in opposition to each other. One cannot know the speculative apart from the practical, for the practical hints at the speculative. If not for the practical order, to which we are indebted and whose rules we abide by, we would know nothing of the speculative. We would thus not know Allah but by the kind of society He desires. The speculative is meant for the here and now, not the here and now for the speculative. It is a guide to living in this world, so that one may thrive in the Next. One’s fate in the Hereafter flows from the collective society one foster in this world. Besides, Islam does not believe in original sin, so there is no hindrance to building an Islamic society. The objection, or excuse, that man is inherently too sinful for a particular mode of life does not apply here.

Regardless, by preferring private property and the market-based mode of exchange, you are clearly taking sides here. You clearly side with the capitalist economy vs. the feudal and socialistic/communistic ones. Of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, but in light of previous statements is disingenuous: for you previously stated that individual morality, not the economic system, holds primacy. So by that criterion just about any economic system is as good as another, provided that moral, religious individuals are in charge.

You just did that by contradicting your earlier assertion that a) the type of economic system is irrelevant and b) individual morality is all that matters. By that criterion, what difference does it make if moral, religious people choose one economic system or another? Moral, religious people should be able to run a feudal or socialistic/communistic economy just as well as a market-based one. After all, the medieval Church operated within the confines of a non-capitalist, feudal economy. Virtue is all that matters, right?

By this measure no economy should be able to function properly. You are effectively claiming that we should design an economy according to man’s viciousness. Because man is sinful, we should promote an economic model that accommodates rather than suppresses his vice. Besides, the veracity of your assertion is questionable. Feudalism, for instance, worked quite well for millennia and was non-capitalist. The Middle Ages were a period of great chivalry and scholarship, for instance.

Your equation of private property with religious morality must also be questioned. For instance, the notion of a “right“ to private property developed as society secularised. It arose at the very end of the Middle Ages, gained traction in the Renaissance, and crystallised in the Enlightenment. During this same timeframe Europe became less religious and more secular. The early stage of the French Revolution proclaimed the right to absolute ownership, that is, private property. As the preceding link states:

So as religion lost sway at the end of medievalism in Europe, the concept of a right to private property arose. Coincidence?

Is your body your possession? Is land? By what right can you claim absolute ownership of either? Did you create your own body or the land? Are you the Creator, the Master of the universe? After all, the Creator is the original proprietor, so creation is enslaved to its Creator. Man, as a slave of the Creator, is but a tenant on his Creator’s property. Private ownership thus puts man on the same level as his Creator.

If you are the absolute owner, then you, as the absolute owner, are entitled to act or to dispose of something as you see fit, owing to the rights conferred by absolute ownership. Private ownership thus ensures that error has rights: for if one owns one’s body or the land, one is free to do whatever one wishes with it. Obviously this is not the case: for man is also a social being and must act according to social obligations.

The absolute owner, by proclaiming his supposed right to private property, becomes a god. By contrast, a believing man cannot lay claim to absolute ownership, for absolute ownership excludes fellow believers. Is one believer more equal than another and deserving of exclusive right or access to something?

"For all intents and purposes, isn’t the ideological synonymous with the philosophical? "

It is not. The philosophical and the ideological have different formal objects and agendas. The philosophical seeks to understand first principles, the frontiers of metaphysics, and the limits of human knowledge. The ideological is directed towards human endeavors, outcomes, and practical matters

Now to more earthly matters ...

Are you making the claim that property should not exist? In other words, that my claim on a given object, or even myself, is somehow invalid? 

I would counter by saying that the second I give up my rights to property, someone will claim those rights, oftentimes with the backing of government. I am pretty sure the Cambodians who had their homes confiscated and were exiled to the rice fields had concrete ideas about private property. These hand-me-down Marxist  explanations as to why they deserved to have their possessions taken from them were of cold comfort. 

Likewise, you seem to be suggesting that a person does not have absolute right to the property of themselves. Does a man have a right to ownership over another man's body under the pretense that the other man should be subject to collective ownership? 

Enjoying the fruits which Allah gives us is not the same thing as pretending to be God. I can claim that I own myself, and that God is the ultimate owner, without inviting in some pernicious idea that other men also have some absolute claim over me. 

[Northwest]

On 3/4/2023 at 2:04 AM, Silas said:

Now to more earthly matters ...

Are you making the claim that property should not exist? In other words, that my claim on a given object, or even myself, is somehow invalid?

@Silas

I am making more of an argument against the right to absolute ownership. According to conservative sources such as the Hoover Institution, the concept of private property as a natural right only became widespread in the West once religion declined at the end of the Middle Ages. Why did the right to private property in the West only become absolutised as society secularised at the end of the Middle Ages?

On 3/4/2023 at 2:04 AM, Silas said:

Likewise, you seem to be suggesting that a person does not have absolute right to the property of themselves.

If that were the case, I would be perfectly entitled to dispose of my body as I see fit, up to and including various destructive behaviours. After all, it’s my own personal property, just like the house or land that I own, and I can sell it to someone else, destroy it, alter it, and so on. Obviously this is not the case, for suicide, among other things, isn’t religiously permissible. I also can’t simply destroy my house and land, for future generations may need them.

On 3/4/2023 at 2:04 AM, Silas said:

Does a man have a right to ownership over another man's body under the pretense that the other man should be subject to collective ownership?

Well, Islam permits private slavery, and communism is public slavery, so to be consistent one would need to oppose all ownership of man by man, whether under the aegis of a public slaveowner (the state) or a private one. Private slavery is basically small-scale communism, because it denies the right to own property by contract, and is nonconsensual. Soviet-style communism extends private slavery to the collective.

By no means am I defending Marxist-style slavery. But I think I am in good company when I describe slavery as communistic. After all, plenty of conservatives point out that communism is a form or expression of slavery, and that slavery is always destructive of the right to private ownership, because it enables the forcible, nonconsensual ownership of one man’s body by another.

On 3/4/2023 at 2:04 AM, Silas said:

I can claim that I own myself, and that God is the ultimate owner,

Either you own yourself or God does. In an ultimate sense it can’t be halfway.

On 3/4/2023 at 2:04 AM, Silas said:

without inviting in some pernicious idea that other men also have some absolute claim over me. 

I think the issue has to do with private vs. public claims. In the private sphere the patriarchal family arguably does have an absolute claim over children, wives, serfs, and so on, at least in traditional societies. That isn’t a bad thing per se. One could credibly make the argument that collective slavery is far worse than private slavery, though it isn’t consistent in formulating a property-rights-based vision of society.

[Haji 2003]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

Private slavery is basically small-scale communism, because it denies the right to own property by contract, and is nonconsensual.

 

I'd disagree with the non-consensual bit.

For example someone may well give their children up as slaves, if they felt that the owner would provide them with an environment far superior to what the parents had to offer.

The problem with all discussions of slavery is that people have a image fixed in their minds of what it is (from the Atlantic slave trade) and the historical practice was wildly different in all respects.

[Northwest]

3 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

I'd disagree with the non-consensual bit.

For example someone may well give their children up as slaves, if they felt that the owner would provide them with an environment far superior to what the parents had to offer.

@Haji 2003

You really missed my point. In the above case two masters are exchanging their property (children are equivalent to dependents or serfs). My point is that slavery is not based on free labour. A slave remains a slave and does not have ownership over his body and/or possessions. By contrast, a wage-labourer is free to quit his job and seek better opportunities, as soon as a contract expires. Slavery isn’t exactly “capitalist.”

3 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

The problem with all discussions of slavery is that people have an image fixed in their minds of what it is (from the Atlantic slave trade) and the historical practice was wildly different in all respects.

Much of this is coloured by present-day ideological currents. On the one hand we have modern liberals trying to prove that slavery is always immoral, illegal, racist, and/or inefficient. In response to the prevailing PC Muslims have a tendency to whitewash their own historical experience with slavery by protesting that it was “wildly different” from the now-deprecated trans-Atlantic slave-trade. So PC takes precedence over history on both sides.

[Northwest]

Quote

...the Virginia-born Fitzhugh attained national prominence in the late antebellum period as one of the most widely read defenders of a slave-based economy. Charles Sumner called him a “leading writer among Slave-masters,” and his regular contributions to the pro-South magazine DeBow’s Review gained him a national readership in the 1850s. ...

Fitzhugh was also an avowed anti-capitalist. Slavery’s greatest threat came from the free market economic doctrines of Europe, which were “tainted with abolition, and at war with our institutions.” To survive, he declared, the South must “throw Adam Smith, Say, Ricardo & Co., in the fire.”

Such rhetoric presents an under-acknowledged conundrum for modern historians. It is academically trendy at the moment to depict plantation slavery as an integral component of American capitalism. ...

Whereas Marx rejected chattel slavery and extrapolated a long historical march to an eventual socialist reordering through revolutionary upheaval, Fitzhugh saw a readily available alternative. “Slavery is a form, and the very best form, of socialism,” he explained. Wage labor, he predicted, would be forever insufficient to meet the needs of the laborer due to deprivation of his products from his skill. Slavery, to Fitzhugh’s convenience, could step in and fill the gap through the paternalistic provision of necessities for the enslaved, allegedly removing the “greed” of wage exploitation from the process. 

Source

Quote

For example, as Philip D. Morgan’s work has demonstrated, there were many more white slaves in Europe in the first half of the seventeenth century than there were African slaves in Virginia or in English North America as a whole (Morgan 2019, 89–91). ... And not to belabor the point, but what about Native American slaves, Native American slaveholders, and African American slaveholders in the United States, the last group numbering more than 3,700 in 1830? ...

Slave-based agriculture was profitable and viable for most slave owners, but did not necessarily benefit non-slaveholders living in the region or promote the long-term development of the region as a whole. Whether slavery did or did not reflect a “low-road” form of capitalism, it is clear that slave labor was not cheap, but expensive, much more so than labor in other cotton-producing areas in the nineteenth century, such as India. ...

However important cotton was to the South and to the United States in the antebellum period—and it was important—it was neither indispensable to American economic development nor served as the model or prototype for American capitalism as it developed after slavery’s demise. Indeed, the type of agricultural regime that came to characterize the South in the post-slavery era—low-wage, low-skill, and labor-intensive—differed significantly from both the much more capital-intensive, scientific agricultural system emerging in other parts of the country and, obviously, from the nation’s growing industrial economy, particularly in the manufacturing belt (Coclanis 2000; Coclanis 2020).

Source

[Haji 2003]

7 hours ago, Northwest said:

In the above case two masters are exchanging their property (children are equivalent to dependents or serfs).

OK, let's leave parents and kids out of the discussion, let's focus on principals. The same would apply if an individual willingly submitted themselves to being someone else's slave.

Bear in mind that within an Islamic system this is a two-way street. The owner is taking on obligations, costs and risks of clothing, housing and feeding the slave. In addition, there are all the religious injunctions for manumission.