Islam and Communism?

[RLG594]

Is Islam (meaning the core of the Religion, not doctrines by any modern Leaders), opposed to Socialism and Communism (in the Marxist sense) as a concept?

Why?

[doorster]

....

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Is Islam (meaning the core of the Religion, not doctrines by any modern Leaders), opposed to Socialism and Communism (in the Marxist sense) as a concept?

Why?

Because:

Marx's brand of Communism basically assumes atheism at the outset.

Peace

[Trumble]

in a word yes

in many word remember the socialism of Hitler? communism of Stalin?

The OP did say "in the Marxist sense", and for a reason. Marx's vision of communism actually has remarkably little resemblance to any attempt to put socialism/communism into practice in the 'real' world by the likes of Stalin and Mao. Hitler was not a socialist or communist, despite the use of the term 'National Socialism'.

I think we might have to search somewhat wider than Islamic websites for a sensible answer to this one, unless we have somebody present sufficiently acquainted with both Islam and Marx. I find a couple of articles by a Professor Mahmoud Youssef Shawarbi Dr Muhammed Fazlur Rahman Ansari but being charitable they were either concentrating on those 'real world' versions or, being rather less so, simply haven't got much of a clue about Marx.

Islam verses communism

Islam versus Marxism

Because:

Marx's brand of Communism basically assumes atheism at the outset.

It might 'basically assume' it but IMHO it certainly doesn't require it. I know rather less about Islam than I do Marx, but personally I don't see any great contradiction. Although Marx was certainly a determined atheist his philosophy is not necessarily atheistic.. he attempts to show only how and why theistic belief evolved and why it is no longer necessary. I think Lenin, another determined atheist, was the first to claim that atheism was a "natural and inseparable portion of Marxism".

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[doorster]

....

[czgibson]

Greetings,

It might 'basically assume' it but IMHO it certainly doesn't require it. I know rather less about Islam than I do Marx, but personally I don't see any great contradiction. Although Marx was certainly a determined atheist his philosophy is not necessarily atheistic.. he attempts to show only how and why theistic belief evolved and why it is no longer necessary. I think Lenin, another determined atheist, was the first to claim that atheism was a "natural and inseparable portion of Marxism".

Fair point.

It was just a guess! :)

Peace

[Trumble]

you might have to but I am satisfied with Islamic site (only if I can get it unblocked, wonder why they sabotage it if it is so nonsensical?)

You shouldn't be, at least in regard to the question that was actually asked. The only versions of 'communism' and 'socialism' I could find referred to at a selection of Islamic (and Christian) websites were not those of Marx, which is why, I'm certain, RLG594 was careful to draw the distinction.

[RLG594]

Well it appears Muslims have more misconceptions about Communists then communists have about Muslims.

To start with Hitler was actually a christian, he mandated creationism be taught in schools etc.

As for Marx, Lenin Stalin, alot of people dont know it, but communists are allowed to select a religion, if that religion is willing to have them, that is it accepts their ideas as moral. Marxism is Materialist, which is an Atheist was of analysing the world true, but a Materialist doesn't as a consequence have to be an atheist, he just has to be able to consider things on the assumption that God (Allah) will not change them on a whim.

For example, if you are considering jumping off a building, you can not make your decision based on the fact that Allah can reverse the laws of gravity and save you, you must assume that if you jump you will fall.

That being said I know plenty of Communists that would love to find religion, and given the fact that the whole base of communist idealology revolves around fighting oppression, exploitation (unjustly extracting profit from a worker), and yes financialization (interest banking, credit, and insurance included), I would imagine they would be quite open to Islam.

My point is while Islam is clearly not against gaining off the back of a worker (though on a small mutual scale, not the industrial scale of today), I have yet to see Islamic idealology forbid communal, or collective living.

In fact I would go as far to say that the reason more Communists, especially in non-Communist countries do not take a stronger stand in support of religion, lies in the fact that religion has been relentlessly hostile to them and has made it clear that they are not welcome/wanted. This just pushes them more to the militant godless camp as opposed to the personal choice camp.

[RLG594]

My point being, a Communist Party of the Leninist type has no problem with members choosing to adopt religion, so people like me who have an interest in Islam, are welcome to have that interest so long as they do not force it on the rest of the party. That is as long as the political objective is not compromised.

"If that is so, why do we not declare in our Programme that we are atheists? Why do we not forbid Christians and other believers in God to join our Party?

The answer to this question will serve to explain the very important difference in the way the question of religion is presented by the bourgeois democrats and the Social-Democrats." - Lenin


the Question here is, is it a crime or a sin for someone who puts Allah at the center of their personal Idealology to still hold on to an association with a group that has identical goals and morals but that holds them without putting God in the center of it all?

[Trumble]

That being said I know plenty of Communists that would love to find religion, and given the fact that the whole base of communist idealology revolves around fighting oppression, exploitation (unjustly extracting profit from a worker), and yes financialization (interest banking, credit, and insurance included), I would imagine they would be quite open to Islam.

I'm not at all sure you are talking about Marx, either? The fundamental problem for him was not so much exploitation (although that was/is a problem) or financialization, nor "fighting oppression", but the estrangement of workers from the activity and product of their labour, as described in his theory of alienation. In his solution to that too, though, I see no fundamental conflict with Islam.

[doorster]

My point being, a Communist Party of the Leninist type has no problem with members choosing to adopt religion, so people like me who have an interest in Islam, are welcome to have that interest so long as they do not force it on the rest of the party. That is as long as the political objective is not compromised.

"If that is so, why do we not declare in our Programme that we are atheists? Why do we not forbid Christians and other believers in God to join our Party?

The answer to this question will serve to explain the very important difference in the way the question of religion is presented by the bourgeois democrats and the Social-Democrats." - Lenin


the Question here is, is it a crime or a sin for someone who puts Allah at the center of their personal Idealology to still hold on to an association with a group that has identical goals and morals but that holds them without putting God in the center of it all?

I do stand corrected (beaten, defeated)

[RLG594]

I'm not at all sure you are talking about Marx, either? The fundamental problem for him was not so much exploitation (although that was/is a problem) or financialization, nor "fighting oppression", but the estrangement of workers from the activity and product of their labour, as described in his theory of alienation. In his solution to that too, though, I see no fundamental conflict with Islam.

I'm not at all sure you are talking about Marx, either? The fundamental problem for him was not so much exploitation (although that was/is a problem) or financialization, nor "fighting oppression", but the estrangement of workers from the activity and product of their labour, as described in his theory of alienation. In his solution to that too, though, I see no fundamental contradiction with Islam.

Well of course there are sectarian differences between different sorts of Marxists, different interpretations.

I see the revolutionary aspect, economic emancipation, as the core of Marxist theory.

The ending of the private extraction of surplus value, that is giving workers the full fruits of their labour, as opposed to profiting off them to me signals the most important bit of Marx's theory. With this of course comes the concept of working for the common good as opposed to onesself, which is what Marx's vision of the future is all about.

"History calls those men the greatest who have ennobled themselves by working for the common good; experience acclaims as happiest the man who has made the greatest number of people happy." -Karl Marx

There does not appear to be anything in Islam that speaks out against this concept, but Islam of course doesn't appear to speak out against ones right to accumulate wealth off the backs of his employees either, so long as he pays them their mutually agreed upon wages on time.

[Trumble]

There does not appear to be anything in Islam that speaks out against this concept, but Islam of course doesn't appear to speak out against ones right to accumulate wealth off the backs of his employees either, so long as he pays them their mutually agreed upon wages on time.

Islam is firmly rooted in its time and place of origin (he says, from one atheist to another!) In this context it's interesting to compare it with Christianity which offers rather less in the way of direct practical instruction on how to live, and hence is rather more amenable to socialism of one sort or another. Indeed, personally, I think Jesus' teachings as far as we know them are inherently socialistic although many of the firmest Christian believers, particularly in the US, would go to any lengths to deny it. Regardless, there are distinct and influential Christian socialist/communist movements particularly in South America while, as far as I am aware, there are no real Islamic equivalents.

[RLG594]

Islam is firmly rooted in its time and place of origin (he says, from one atheist to another!) In this context it's interesting to compare it with Christianity which offers rather less in the way of direct practical instruction on how to live, and hence is rather more amenable to socialism of one sort or another. Indeed, personally, I think Jesus' teachings as far as we know them are inherently socialistic although many of the firmest Christian believers, particularly in the US, would go to any lengths to deny it. Regardless, there are distinct and influential Christian socialist/communist movements particularly in South America while, as far as I am aware, there are no real Islamic equivalents.

indeed Christianity is more friendly to Socialism.

Read about the Apostles, book of Acts, chapter 4 was interesting.

The only rebuttal of course a communist with an interest in Islam would make is that:

God does not impregnate women, have children, or a 3 way split personality.

[Dawud_uk]

:sl: brothers and sisters,

peace be upon those who follow righteous guidance to the people of the book, and hi to everyone else.

is islam and communism compatable?

they are totally incompatable and i will inshallah (God willing) explain why.

first of all, though some communist parties claim you can belong to another way of life, it is impossible to belong to islam and communism at the same time because islam demands complete submission.

Muslims obey the shariah and the book of Allah and the sunnah of his messenger, if they instead obey secular law and a communist manifesto and the thoughts of mao, stalin and lenin then they have become disbelievers.

this is because Allah says in the Quran,

The right to legislate belongs only to Allah
Surah Yusuf, verse 40

this is clear, so if give this right to any other than Allah by voluntarily choosing them and putting them in authority over us to make their laws other than the laws of Allah then we will have disbelieved.

In Bukhari and Muslim, in a hadith narrated by Muadth Ibn Jabal (ra), that the Messenger Muhammad (saws) said: ‘The right of Allah over his servant is to submit to him exclusively and not to associate anything with him’.

This is further backed up when Allah says in the Quran,

We sent to every Ummah a messenger to command the people to submit to Allah exclusively and to reject Taghoot.
Surah An-Nahl 16:36

They are other evidences also but this should be sufficient and Abdullah is trying to hit all the keys so i will leave it to others if people are needing further evidences.

:sl:

[RLG594]

:sl: brothers and sisters,

peace be upon those who follow righteous guidance to the people of the book, and hi to everyone else.

is islam and communism compatable?

they are totally incompatable and i will inshallah (God willing) explain why.

first of all, though some communist parties claim you can belong to another way of life, it is impossible to belong to islam and communism at the same time because islam demands complete submission.

Muslims obey the shariah and the book of Allah and the sunnah of his messenger, if they instead obey secular law and a communist manifesto and the thoughts of mao, stalin and lenin then they have become disbelievers.

this is because Allah says in the Quran,

The right to legislate belongs only to Allah
Surah Yusuf, verse 40

this is clear, so if give this right to any other than Allah by voluntarily choosing them and putting them in authority over us to make their laws other than the laws of Allah then we will have disbelieved.

In Bukhari and Muslim, in a hadith narrated by Muadth Ibn Jabal (ra), that the Messenger Muhammad (saws) said: ‘The right of Allah over his servant is to submit to him exclusively and not to associate anything with him’.

This is further backed up when Allah says in the Quran,

We sent to every Ummah a messenger to command the people to submit to Allah exclusively and to reject Taghoot.
Surah An-Nahl 16:36

They are other evidences also but this should be sufficient and Abdullah is trying to hit all the keys so i will leave it to others if people are needing further evidences.

:sl:

So muslims can't be democrats either? Does being a communist necessarily disobey the Qu'ran? Communists don't worship their founding fathers, just respect them.

Believe in Allah and obey him. The evidence I seek is how is it not possible to support the basic tenants of Socialism without disobeying Allah?

In essense how is upholding certain political idealology belonging to another way of life?

If you want some help on this I can point out at least 1 or 2 things it can be argued Allah would frown upon.

"3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."

A communist idea that each individual should have to work for his wealth, and that when he dies what he gathered together in this world should go to public charity as opposed to his children.

And the idea that people that abandon their country/ defect, should not be able to claim ownership to the property they abandoned. It should like the Inheritence go to the public/ the poor.

Also note this thread has no hostile intent, if my continuation of ths discussion if percieved to be this I appologize, I am merely attempting to learn what a communist such as myself would have to change about himself (his thinking) to become a Muslim, if anything at all.

Another point I would like to make is the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, National Liberation Brigades, Jihad Jibril Brigades, and others in Palestine are all Communist, yet associate themselves with Islam as well.

Nearly all of their members are Muslim, and are in good standing with Hamas and Al Aqsa. How is this so?

[Dawud_uk]

So muslims can't be democrats either? Does being a communist necessarily disobey the Qu'ran? Communists don't worship their founding fathers, just respect them.

Believe in Allah and obey him. The evidence I seek is how is it not possible to support the basic tenants of Socialism without disobeying Allah?

In essense how is upholding certain political idealology belonging to another way of life?

If you want some help on this I can point out at least 1 or 2 things it can be argued Allah would frown upon.

"3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."

A communist idea that each individual should have to work for his wealth, and that when he dies what he gathered together in this world should go to public charity as opposed to his children.

And the idea that people that abandon their country/ defect, should not be able to claim ownership to the property they abandoned. It should like the Inheritence go to the public/ the poor.

Also note this thread has no hostile intent, if my continuation of ths discussion if percieved to be this I appologize, I am merely attempting to learn what a communist such as myself would have to change about himself (his thinking) to become a Muslim, if anything at all.

Another point I would like to make is the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, National Liberation Brigades, Jihad Jibril Brigades, and others in Palestine are all Communist, yet associate themselves with Islam as well.

Nearly all of their members are Muslim, and are in good standing with Hamas and Al Aqsa. How is this so?

yes muslims cannot be democrats either, we cannot be both a submitter to the laws of Allah and the laws made by man at the same time.

doesnt matter it communism, socialism, liberalism, or whichever ism you like.

in islam we are told to disbelieve in the taughoot (false gods) and then believe in Allah.

you say you dont worship marx but in obeying him instead of Allah what are you doing?

let me show you a verse of the Quran,

They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one Allah only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).

Surah Tawbah (chapter of repentence), verse 31

now some of the companions of muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) who had been people of the book before becomming muslim asked how did they take them as partners?

to which muhammad (pbuh) said didnt they follow them when they told them to do other than commanded by Allah?

so when Islam says x, we cannot say y, if we do then we have disbelieved.

islam is a total system of living, it covers everything, including society and government, law and judgement, economic and charitable, there is no aspect of life that it does not touch upon.

it is a complete system in a way no other system has ever achieved.

let me ask you a question, do you believe in a creator?

[RLG594]

yes muslims cannot be democrats either, we cannot be both a submitter to the laws of Allah and the laws made by man at the same time.

doesnt matter it communism, socialism, liberalism, or whichever ism you like.

in islam we are told to disbelieve in the taughoot (false gods) and then believe in Allah.

you say you dont worship marx but in obeying him instead of Allah what are you doing?

let me show you a verse of the Quran,

They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one Allah only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).

Surah Tawbah (chapter of repentence), verse 31

now some of the companions of muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) who had been people of the book before becomming muslim asked how did they take them as partners?

to which muhammad (pbuh) said didnt they follow them when they told them to do other than commanded by Allah?

so when Islam says x, we cannot say y, if we do then we have disbelieved.

islam is a total system of living, it covers everything, including society and government, law and judgement, economic and charitable, there is no aspect of life that it does not touch upon.

it is a complete system in a way no other system has ever achieved.

let me ask you a question, do you believe in a creator?

Yet I contend that there is nothing Islam tells us to do that communism does not. They do not run counter to one another, save in a few minor places, in which one can clearly choose Allah over anything written by Marx and still call himself a communist.

As for a creator I'm undecided, how am I to know? I'm just Robert. Though I would of course like to find out.

[S1aveofA11ah]

Yet I contend that there is nothing Islam tells us to do that communism does not. They do not run counter to one another, save in a few minor places, in which one can clearly choose Allah over anything written by Marx and still call himself a communist.

As for a creator I'm undecided, how am I to know? I'm just Robert. Though I would of course like to find out.

But you have as your religion: Atheist not agnostic

[RLG594]

But you have as your religion: Atheist not agnostic

Agnosticism and Atheism often overlap, for proof see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

They all fall into 1 big group of disbelievers, with some just disbelieving more or less then others.

[Zarmina]

I agree, Islam and Communism are completely different. Communism has proven to be a failure, and it is just as bad as an unregulated free market. Both extremes (communism and unregulated capitalism) are bad.

[RLG594]

I agree, Islam and Communism are completely different. Communism has proven to be a failure, and it is just as bad as an unregulated free market. Both extremes (communism and unregulated capitalism) are bad.

Well, this is a noble mainstream Idea. But Capitalism as you know it would still have to radically change to be compatible with Islam as well.

The Financial crisis today is just a minor bump in the credit market.

Removing Interest banking and Insurance would not qualify as a minor bump.

A world of Islam would have a very different face then the world of Capitalism, as what you know as 'Haraam' is in fact what makes the modern economy tick.

You can't remove the batteries and still expect the mechanism to work.

The choices, from what I understand become very limited, none of them qualify as 'mainstream' by todays standards. Communism though it may appear to be inferior to a system that provides its citizens with a better standard of living by exploiting human beings in 3rd world countries and doing amazing financial magic tricks with Riba as a propt, becomes in my opinion one of the remaining viable options in a world of Islam. This of course takes into account that noone has presented evidence that Socialism (in some form) would be entirely ruled out in an all-Muslim world.

[Dawud_uk]

RLG594,

i think there are more than minor differences, besides which it is not really that important how simular or different things are, let me explain...

The Commander of the Faithful, `Umar b. al-Khattâb, relates that he heard Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) say: "Actions are but by intentions and every man will have only what he intended. So whoever emigrated for Allah and His Messenger, then his emigration was for Allah and His Messenger. And whoever emigrated to attain something of this world or to marry a woman, then his emigration was for whatever reason he emigrated."
Recorded in Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim

so it would not matter if the whole of the way of life someone followed was indentical in almost every respect, still they would enter the hellfire if they did not do it for the sake of Allah.

in islam we are demanded to make total submission, this means more than praying, fasting, in a certain way.

it means everything in our lives should be done through this divine way, it cannot be otherwise otherwise we are not really submitting ourselves.

the root of the shariah, the divine given way of life is from God, he knows us best and we cannot reject that at all in our hearts, or through our tongues or our actions.

this is why i asked you whether you believed in a creator, because if you do then it is easy to choose between islam and communism, one is from man and the other from the word of God and his prophet (pbuh).

so the root of communism is disbelief, the root of islam is correct belief in God, you cannot ever reject the first for he later in any way.

We sent to every Ummah a messenger to command the people to submit to Allah exclusively and to reject Taghoot.
Surah An-Nahl 16:36

Now what is Taghoot? well it could literally mean a false god, a wooden or clay or stone idol, but it could also be a false idiology like democracy or communism.

Allah also says in the Quran,

Whoever rejects Taghoot and believes in Allah then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold.
Surah al Baqarah (Chapter of the Cow) verse 256

You see how here Allah tells people to disbelief in false gods and ways first then tells them to believe in Allah?

it is like the declaration of faith, there is none worthy of worship expect Allah.
first the negation and then the affirmation.

islam is also a political alliagence, it is to belong to a brotherhood of people the world over, loving them and wanting the best for them more than all others, loving them for the sake of the creator and being loved in the same way in return.

we also teach that a believer is better than a disbeliever, so where as you might be able to look at the surface laws and say there are similarities but we cannot say then are same as they have fundemental differences.

[RLG594]

RLG594,

i think there are more than minor differences, besides which it is not really that important how simular or different things are, let me explain...

The Commander of the Faithful, `Umar b. al-Khattâb, relates that he heard Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) say: "Actions are but by intentions and every man will have only what he intended. So whoever emigrated for Allah and His Messenger, then his emigration was for Allah and His Messenger. And whoever emigrated to attain something of this world or to marry a woman, then his emigration was for whatever reason he emigrated."
Recorded in Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim

so it would not matter if the whole of the way of life someone followed was indentical in almost every respect, still they would enter the hellfire if they did not do it for the sake of Allah.

in islam we are demanded to make total submission, this means more than praying, fasting, in a certain way.

it means everything in our lives should be done through this divine way, it cannot be otherwise otherwise we are not really submitting ourselves.

the root of the shariah, the divine given way of life is from God, he knows us best and we cannot reject that at all in our hearts, or through our tongues or our actions.

this is why i asked you whether you believed in a creator, because if you do then it is easy to choose between islam and communism, one is from man and the other from the word of God and his prophet (pbuh).

so the root of communism is disbelief, the root of islam is correct belief in God, you cannot ever reject the first for he later in any way.

We sent to every Ummah a messenger to command the people to submit to Allah exclusively and to reject Taghoot.
Surah An-Nahl 16:36

Now what is Taghoot? well it could literally mean a false god, a wooden or clay or stone idol, but it could also be a false idiology like democracy or communism.

Allah also says in the Quran,

Whoever rejects Taghoot and believes in Allah then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold.
Surah al Baqarah (Chapter of the Cow) verse 256

You see how here Allah tells people to disbelief in false gods and ways first then tells them to believe in Allah?

it is like the declaration of faith, there is none worthy of worship expect Allah.
first the negation and then the affirmation.

islam is also a political alliagence, it is to belong to a brotherhood of people the world over, loving them and wanting the best for them more than all others, loving them for the sake of the creator and being loved in the same way in return.

we also teach that a believer is better than a disbeliever, so where as you might be able to look at the surface laws and say there are similarities but we cannot say then are same as they have fundemental differences.

So detaching the Marx from Marxism, and still holding that Communism (as in communal living, worker control and sharing of the means of production, etc. the ideas), but doing it in the name of Allah is both possible and acceptable.

An example of the central arguement I have been stabbing at here is something like the following:

Allah clearly saw nothing wrong with slavery, yet does Allah forbid us from supporting a society in which slavery is Illegal, or on the same note does he forbid us from choosing to reject slavery ourselves?

Are we mandated to be slavemasters?

If so then I take the arguement that communism and Islam are incompatible to heart, if not I hope you see exactly what it is I am implying and why.

[Dawud_uk]

So detaching the Marx from Marxism, and still holding that Communism (as in communal living, worker control and sharing of the means of production, etc. the ideas), but doing it in the name of Allah is both possible and acceptable.

An example of the central arguement I have been stabbing at here is something like the following:

Allah clearly saw nothing wrong with slavery, yet does Allah forbid us from supporting a society in which slavery is Illegal, or on the same note does he forbid us from choosing to reject slavery ourselves?

Are we mandated to be slavemasters?

If so then I take the arguement that communism and Islam are incompatible to heart, if not I hope you see exactly what it is I am implying and why.

Even here there are problems, for example yes there is a simularity in that in islam tennant farming is a forbidden practice as it is exploitative of the poor just like usary (which i understand communism also forbids)

but the solution is not collective ownership, production, distribution etc.

in islam the ruling was given by the second rightly guided leader after muhammad (pbuh) who was called umar ibn al khattab and he would take back any land that couldnt be used by a man and his immediate household and give it to the poor.

as well as this the system of zakaah and other charity sees the poor looked after in islam so no need for such systems communism invented.

however if a person wished to own the land, work it and then give all of it away he is perfectly at liberty to do so and this would be a praiseworthy act but it isnt expected or insisted upon (and we saw what happened in soviet russia when it was insisted upon)

RE slavery, if you are muslim you dont have to own a slave, but you cannot say slavery is wrong or should be out lawed as it is clearly allowed under certain circumstances by Allah and his messenger (pbuh).

but also, remember a slave in islam has more rights than a servant in some ways and is treated simular to a member of the family, the way a slave is treated is nothing like the slavery of the western model in america or the slavery to the land in the east where the peasants are owned by the landowner.

[RLG594]

Even here there are problems, for example yes there is a simularity in that in islam tennant farming is a forbidden practice as it is exploitative of the poor just like usary (which i understand communism also forbids)

but the solution is not collective ownership, production, distribution etc.

in islam the ruling was given by the second rightly guided leader after muhammad (pbuh) who was called umar ibn al khattab and he would take back any land that couldnt be used by a man and his immediate household and give it to the poor.

as well as this the system of zakaah and other charity sees the poor looked after in islam so no need for such systems communism invented.

however if a person wished to own the land, work it and then give all of it away he is perfectly at liberty to do so and this would be a praiseworthy act but it isnt expected or insisted upon (and we saw what happened in soviet russia when it was insisted upon)

RE slavery, if you are muslim you dont have to own a slave, but you cannot say slavery is wrong or should be out lawed as it is clearly allowed under certain circumstances by Allah and his messenger (pbuh).

but also, remember a slave in islam has more rights than a servant in some ways and is treated simular to a member of the family, the way a slave is treated is nothing like the slavery of the western model in america or the slavery to the land in the east where the peasants are owned by the landowner.

This was an extremely helpfull clarification.

As for Tenant farming it is indeed illegal under any Communist system.

All land as you say that was too large for one man was not given to the poor but rather turned into a community or collective farm. The villagers and former farmers all must share the land, and work as a team to farm it, and at the end of the day each person gets a fair portion of the wealth created by said farm that matches up to the amount of work they put in.

The only reason small farms were allowed was because the poor peasentry grew (and former tenant farmers under serfdom) afraid of te 'state' taking away their land. They did not wish to share their land.

Naturally the communists understood this and established a system in which they could farm their own land, and sell the crops to the state, to be distributed accordingly.

This system does infact work, it's tried and true, in spite of seeing a few roadblocks (particuarly from the former landlords and rich farmers who resented their land being collectivized).

I still have 1 question however. Though the traditional Islamic system works no doubt, how do you deal with the industries that shut down without being permitted to consume usary?

Large sectors of the economy would shut down, leaving a huge chunk of the populace unemployed.

Most of these would be willing able bodied men, who must work under Islam. How do you find a way to put them to work without socializing or nationalizing any industry?

Certainly some degree of communism is required in this respect.

[anatolian]

But being a muslim doesn't disallow people from being a capitalist?

Most muslims live their capitalist life styles and 'benefit' from capitalism..I think the Islamic life style is similar to communism, except some major differences ofcourse. The first muslims lived a very basic communal life.They shared their benefits with the needies always without calculating..They always viewed each other as their real brother and helped..etc These are some of the basic tenets of Islam and maybe communists used them in developing their ideologies.

I am a muslim and although I'm not a communist, have sympathy for socialism/communism more than capitalism.

[alcurad]

^second that mostly. there is no problem following a social, political or economic theory/ideology as long as it doesn't disagree with Islam's main tenants,ie. worship god alone etc.
also,the story of the companion of the prophet Abu Tharr Al Ghafary is a very good example here.

[Dawud_uk]

This was an extremely helpfull clarification.

As for Tenant farming it is indeed illegal under any Communist system.

All land as you say that was too large for one man was not given to the poor but rather turned into a community or collective farm. The villagers and former farmers all must share the land, and work as a team to farm it, and at the end of the day each person gets a fair portion of the wealth created by said farm that matches up to the amount of work they put in.

The only reason small farms were allowed was because the poor peasentry grew (and former tenant farmers under serfdom) afraid of te 'state' taking away their land. They did not wish to share their land.

Naturally the communists understood this and established a system in which they could farm their own land, and sell the crops to the state, to be distributed accordingly.

This system does infact work, it's tried and true, in spite of seeing a few roadblocks (particuarly from the former landlords and rich farmers who resented their land being collectivized).

I still have 1 question however. Though the traditional Islamic system works no doubt, how do you deal with the industries that shut down without being permitted to consume usary?

Large sectors of the economy would shut down, leaving a huge chunk of the populace unemployed.

Most of these would be willing able bodied men, who must work under Islam. How do you find a way to put them to work without socializing or nationalizing any industry?

Certainly some degree of communism is required in this respect.

the problems i was referring to were the mass starvations in both soviet russia and communist china when they attempted land reform, they were a little more serious than a few road blocks, or at least were for the people that died anyway.

as for what would islam do with such a large body of able men? well as you know yourself i have no doubt, the capitalist west will not permit other idealogies to exist if they can avoid it, every time an islamic government comes about it is stamped out so those able bodied men are going to be needed elsewhere.

[Chuck]

I think Islam's economic system is in between capitalism and socialism as it has aspects of both.

[Chuck]

btw here is a hadith to ponder:

Imam Ahmad and at-Tabarani narrated a hadith of Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Just before the Hour there will be treacherous years in which the trustworthy one will be suspect and the suspect one will be trusted and in which ar-Ruwaybidah will speak." They asked, "Who is ar-Ruwaybidah?" He said, "The foolish person who talks about the community's business." In another narration there is, "The corrupt person who talks about the community's business."

[RLG594]

the problems i was referring to were the mass starvations in both soviet russia and communist china when they attempted land reform, they were a little more serious than a few road blocks, or at least were for the people that died anyway.

as for what would islam do with such a large body of able men? well as you know yourself i have no doubt, the capitalist west will not permit other idealogies to exist if they can avoid it, every time an islamic government comes about it is stamped out so those able bodied men are going to be needed elsewhere.

The mass starvations of which you speak are very distorted. There is much more behind them then you think.

Bear in mind the same 'scholars' who give you your information on Communism, give the rest of the country their information about Islam.

Every group ever to be considered an 'Enemy' of the western world has had evidence fabricated against them or stories made up, and made to appear to be truth.

[RLG594]

btw here is a hadith to ponder:

There needs to be more evidence put forward as to what is meant by the 'communitys business'.

[wth1257]

Is Islam (meaning the core of the Religion, not doctrines by any modern Leaders), opposed to Socialism and Communism (in the Marxist sense) as a concept?

Why?

look at Sayyed Qutb

[Dawud_uk]

The mass starvations of which you speak are very distorted. There is much more behind them then you think.

Bear in mind the same 'scholars' who give you your information on Communism, give the rest of the country their information about Islam.

Every group ever to be considered an 'Enemy' of the western world has had evidence fabricated against them or stories made up, and made to appear to be truth.

i have no doubt that i am lied to and fed distorted information everytime i pick up a book, for example who knows the british empire invented concentration camps or that winston churchill when secretary of war instigated a kurdish uprising so they could try out their new chemical weapons dropped from bi-planes.

so yes history is distorted but i also know the same will be true with you and communist authors. the trick is to read a wide range of different viewpoints and find the middle that seems most likely.

[Al-Zaara]

Communism has proven to be a failure

In Tito's Yugoslavia it worked very well, actually.

[wth1257]

The mass starvations of which you speak are very distorted. There is much more behind them then you think.

Bear in mind the same 'scholars' who give you your information on Communism, give the rest of the country their information about Islam.

Every group ever to be considered an 'Enemy' of the western world has had evidence fabricated against them or stories made up, and made to appear to be truth.

Orientalists are Soviet Scholars now?

[Dawud_uk]

In Tito's Yugoslavia it worked very well, actually.

as long as you didnt actually want to practice islam.

[Keltoi]

The starvations under Soviet communism and Chairman Mao are well documented from the people themselves. One can say that this was a symptom of bad interpretation and implementation of communist ideology, but the reality remains that where communism was attempted it turned into something hellish.

[wth1257]

The starvations under Soviet communism and Chairman Mao are well documented from the people themselves. One can say that this was a symptom of bad interpretation and implementation of communist ideology, but the reality remains that where communism was attempted it turned into something hellish.

I think his point was that in both Russia and China other factors were in play. To pretend that Imperial Russia was some lovely place that was turned into a poor place after those dastardly communists took over is to ignore the fact of what a hell on earth much of Russia was for most of the peasant/free serf population before hand or any of the positive benefits of communism such as significantly wider access to education. I mean there is a reason Chekhov, who was not a religious man, wrote about the Russian need for something to believe in just to get through life.

That's not to say the communist experiments in Russian and China did not have terrible consequences, but more factors were involved than a *******ized Leninist ideology. Also many Russians have a more positive memory of communism than you do.

Just to be clear I'm not a communist and really have no sympathy for Marxism or any derivatives of Hegelism or any form of historicism.

[Al-Zaara]

as long as you didnt actually want to practice islam.

No, they were quite free to do so. Things were really not as simplified as people think they were.

Nonetheless, I'd say Tita came the closest to an "communism-paradise".

[wth1257]

Things were really not as simplified as people think they were.

They rarely are:D

[alcurad]

not to go off topic, but this binary capitalist X communist doesn't even exist as it were, there are quasi-capitalist and quasi communist models. what is China for example following, or Russia or Europe or even the US, is it really that white and black..
the current economic crisis not to mention the ones before it are good indications of the holes in the capitalist leaning model.
I'd say 'real' capitalism is the most cut-throat competition model you could ever find, I'm not well versed in communist/marxist literature to add to wth1275 said^.

[Imam]

Also many Russians have a more positive memory of communism than you do. .

Exactly ...


The hell of communism is much better than the paradise of the rotten,inhuman capitalism.....with its evil values of profiteering, greed, selfishness, and hoarding.

[Trumble]

The hell of communism is much better than the paradise of the rotten,inhuman capitalism.....with its evil values of profiteering, greed, selfishness, and hoarding.

Communism as Marx foretold it has never even been attempted. The necessary social and, in particular, technological circumstances that would have made it possible never arose. I don't accept the view that 'communism' as practiced by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot among others has anything to recommend it above capitalism as practiced contemporaneously with those regimes.

However, the essential difference is that while various attempts to practice 'communism' failed because of much the problems as excessive capitalism, greed and corruption, as well a large helpings of incompetence those things are not inherent to communism. Not only can communism exist without them but, theoretically at least, it actually excludes the greed and corruption as nobody has anything to gain from them, having all they actually want (note, want, not just need) already. The same is not true of capitalism. Corruption is perhaps avoidable, as in incompetence (not that you would think that looking around at the moment) but greed is capitalism's driving force and it cannot exist without it. It is the ready availability of greed that has made capitalism so spectacularly successful... it relies on the majority of people being what they are as opposed to what they should be.

[Chuck]

There needs to be more evidence put forward as to what is meant by the 'communitys business'.

Thats all there is. But in Islam there is no such things as community owns all the business and share profits equally among all people i.e. "common ownership," which goes against main the tenets of communism. In Islam individuals and organizations doesn't share what they own, however, they do pay poor tax in the form of zakat which is less than what you have in socialist countries. But there is fundamental difference between zakat and tax in socialist countries. While rate of zakat is very low but it is levied on the wealth and not the profits, so each year small percentage of wealth is distributed from the rich to poor rather than just from profits from each year.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Trumble has a point; capitalism accepts human greed and that's why it is still around. Though, should point out that it was greed (amongst other variables) that led to the credit crunch...:p.

Islam and communism together in arms? I think it's more closer to capitalism than communism since there is no common ownership as Chuck rightly pointed out. However, whilst the business side of Islam is more capitalist, there is a supposed to be a strong level of cohesion between the residants, which is more closer to communism.

Really, though, the emphasis is placed more on ethical business as opposed to a complete economic theory: Be honest in your trading, try to minimise asymmetric information, don't push too hard on your debtors and pay your creditors on time. Just good business ethics really.

[RLG594]

:sl:
Trumble has a point; capitalism accepts human greed and that's why it is still around. Though, should point out that it was greed (amongst other variables) that led to the credit crunch...:p.

Islam and communism together in arms? I think it's more closer to capitalism than communism since there is no common ownership as Chuck rightly pointed out. However, whilst the business side of Islam is more capitalist, there is a supposed to be a strong level of cohesion between the residants, which is more closer to communism.

Really, though, the emphasis is placed more on ethical business as opposed to a complete economic theory: Be honest in your trading, try to minimise asymmetric information, don't push too hard on your debtors and pay your creditors on time. Just good business ethics really.

Yet what happends under Islamic law when you are caught NOT having good Business ethics? :-[

[Chuck]

Yet what happends under Islamic law when you are caught NOT having good Business ethics? :-[

chopping some hands off?

[RLG594]

Truth be told Islam is closer the Naziism in Economic theory (obviously not so much in Social Theory)

I mean this in no offensive way; but from what I hear so far it's true. But instead of Christianity, and 'Aryan' (Roman) cultural revival, It's Islam and Muslim Cultural Revival. National Socialism, that is unbreakable faith and a complete spiritual and moral Unity of Muslim society.

Naziism like Islam promotes small business and splits big business up amongst the 'Aryan' (Muslim) poor and middle classes, to be run under Nazi Supervision. (fair business practice is also rigidly enforced.)

Nazi Economic Policy in a nutshell.

The Title is 'Death to Lies!'

The Top of the snake (the most dangerous part) reads 'High Finance Capital' (Usury, mass exploitation, insurance, and all the things that goes with it), and the bottom (the underlying threat) reads 'Marxism'.

"We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease or sale at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders." - Adolf Hitler

"Fascism transcends democracy and liberalism; its regenerative action is based on granite foundations: the idea of hierarchy, of the participation of the whole population in the life of the State, social justice in the equitable distribution of rights and duties, the infusion of public life with moral principles, the affirmation of religious values, the prestige of the family, the ethical interpretation of the ideas of order, authority and liberty. In the light of this transcendence Europe will be able to find its way to enter a new phase of History."- Asvero Gravelli

"Life comes from God and returns to God. All life and all races follow God's ordinances. No people and no race can ignore them. We want the German youth to again recognize the religious nature of life. They must realize that God wants the individual as well as the whole people, and that they lose contact with life when they lose contact with God! God and nation are the two foundations of the life of the individual and the community. We want no shallow and superficial piety, rather a deep faith that God guides the world, that he controls it, and a consciousness of the relationship between God and each individual, and between God and the live of the people and the fatherland. The National Socialist state will promote such a deeply religious educational system. We want parents to support and strengthen this by honesty and by good example." - Adolf Hitler

full text and info found here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ng_fascism.htm

Like I said of course Muslims have different views in Reguards to race and such, but there appears to be MUCH more similarity to Naziism then Communism from what's been said in this thread thus far.

[RLG594]

minor typo in the first sentence, the= to

[Imam]

Truth be told Islam is closer the Naziism .

http://www.geocities.com/klomckin@am...r.html#READING

[RLG594]

http://www.geocities.com/klomckin@am...r.html#READING

As a heads up is it meant to be pro or anti Nazi?

[Chuck]

Like I said of course Muslims have different views in Reguards to race and such, but there appears to be MUCH more similarity to Naziism then Communism from what's been said in this thread thus far

Can you put in coherent and point to point way what exactly are the similarities, rather than some mambo jumbo?

So far similarities i can extract from your post:
(1) promotes small business and splits big business up amongst the 'Aryan' (Muslim) poor and middle classes
[where did you get that idea?]

(2) to be run under Nazi Supervision. (fair business practice is also rigidly enforced.)
[this is humorous as if businesses normally don't run under supervision by govt or any other authority]

(3) 'High Finance Capital' (Usury, mass exploitation, insurance, and all the things that goes with it)
[I don't know if Hitler was against interest or not. But usury is unlawful in united states too. Banking interest has certain limits before it comes usury and unlawful. There is nothing against insurance in Islam.]

Anyway what is your point if there are something similar with capitalism, socialism, Nazi German fiscal system, etc...?

You are trying to make some false dilemma and red herring?

[Fishman]

Truth be told Islam is closer the Naziism in Economic theory (obviously not so much in Social Theory)

:sl:
Hitler also believed in seatbelts and houses and being kind to animals! OMG America is Nazi!

Playing the Hitler card is silly. Nazis were evil because of their racist, fascist and authoritarian social ideas. Not because they opposed both Communism and greed, sentiments that most people probably hold.
:w:

[RLG594]

Can you put in coherent and point to point way what exactly are the similarities, rather than some mambo jumbo?

So far similarities you have shown:
(1) promotes small business and splits big business up amongst the 'Aryan' (Muslim) poor and middle classes
[where did you get that idea?]
(2) to be run under Nazi Supervision. (fair business practice is also rigidly enforced.)
[this is humorous as if businesses normally don't run under supervision by govt or any other authority]
(3) 'High Finance Capital' (Usury, mass exploitation, insurance, and all the things that goes with it)
[I don't know if Hitler was against interest or not. But usury is unlawful in united states too. Banking interest has certain limits before it comes usury and unlawful. There is nothing against insurance in Islam.]

Anyway what is your point if there are something similar with capitalism, socialism, Nazi German fiscal system, etc...?

You are trying to make some false dilemma and red herring?

1. Isam IS a system of small business. big business can not thrive under Islams moral guidelines and without Riba in modern society. Business would go under, and if it's not socialized it has to be broken down and redistributed. There aren't other workable options.

2. But Islam affects every aspect of life, including government and the economy.

If Islamic law isn't enforced in business, then what purpose does it serve?

3. I had heard that most Muslims were of the opinion that Insurance can be considered a type of Gambling, and is an unlawfull industry. Save like healthcare, which should be free anyway.

Again I mean no offence, but the Nazi German economic system bears more resemblence to Islam then Communism.

I ask you not jump to conclusions on this, it's not a red herring at all, or an aggressive arguement, but rather a neutral one.

As I said Nazi Social Policy (Meaning their idealology on race and such) was obviously different from Islam, I'm talking about sheer economics, and a few aspects of the legal system as well as their system of government.

[RLG594]

:sl:
Hitler also believed in seatbelts and houses and being kind to animals! OMG America is Nazi!

Playing the Hitler card is silly. Nazis were evil because of their racist, fascist and authoritarian social ideas. Not because they opposed both Communism and greed, sentiments that most people probably hold.
:w:

Not all their Ideals were authoritarian however, nor is Facism in a whole nother world compared to Islam. Depending of course on how you define your terms.

Also like I said it's not a card.

I'm objective and neutral, which means not only do I have to be fair, but I can not refrain from pointing out something because of prejudice.

I do not think the Nazis were 'Evil' in the full sense of the word, they just had some ideas on race I did not agree with. Take the racial aspect (which i propose is perhaps the 1 thing in which Islamic law and NSDAP policy greatly differ) out and look at everything else, and there is very little evil about them.

[Chuck]

1. Isam IS a system of small business. big business can not thrive under Islams moral guidelines and without Riba in modern society. Business would go under, and if it's not socialized it has to be broken down and redistributed. There aren't other workable options.

Riba is not needed to run multi-billion dollar businesses. Many multi-billion dollar businesses are operating without riba in Saudia, UAE, Qatar, Iran. There are many ways to raise capital without riba, for example, raising capital through IPO. Islamic finance is least touched by current financial crises here in mid-east, since they were less leveraged based on Islamic principles of finance compared to other financial systems. Neither these companies are small.

2. But Islam affects every aspect of life, including government and the economy.

If Islamic law isn't enforced in business, then what purpose does it serve?

law is always forced on business whether Islamic or any other. Whats your point really?

but the Nazi German economic system bears more resemblence to Islam then Communism.

you have not shown how except some superficial comments.

[aamirsaab]

Yet what happends under Islamic law when you are caught NOT having good Business ethics? :-[

Your business will go under because noone will trade with you any more.

:)

[RLG594]

you have not shown how except some superficial comments.

Perhaps I can demonstrate my point in this way.

To Highlight my point the following is a copy of the 25 points of the NSDAP program, with word like 'Aryan' replaced by Muslim, and 'Party' Religious Community.

Upon reviewing it what do you see that you disagree with and why, and what do you see that you would agree with and why?

Bear in mind content wise this is is basically an exact copy of a Nazi Document, with just minor modifications.

1. We demand the union of all Muslim Nations into a Greater Islamic Republic on the basis of the right of national self-determination, and under the banner of Allah.

2. We demand equality of rights for the Muslim people in its dealings with other nations, and the revocation of all Imperialist treaties signed under false pretenses.

3. We demand land and territory to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.

4. Only members of the Islamic Nation may be citizens of the State. Only those of Muslim faith, whatever be their race, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Jew may be a member of the nation.

5. Non-citizens may live in The Islamic Republic only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens.

6. The right to vote on the State's government and legislation shall be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, whether in the Greater Islamic Nation, in the states or in the smaller localities, shall be held by none but citizens.

We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of filling posts merely in accordance with special considerations, and without reference to character or abilities.

7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, Non Believers (and hence non-citizens) must be deported from the Republic.

8. All non-Muslim immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Muslims who entered The Islamic Republic after a set date shall be required to leave the Republic forthwith.

9. All Muslims shall have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every Muslim to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.


We demand therefore:

11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.

The breaking of the slavery of interest <- That is 100% unaltered from the Nazi Programme.

12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the Republic. We demand therefore, in the name of Allah, the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the temporary nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts which require interest to survive).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age. (This is not thought to mean healthcare, as keeping the citizenry healthy is not considered to be optional, medical care is free)

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease or sale at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders. Yet even the small traders must be accountable to the laws of Allah, as such the State reserves the right to inspect all business to ensure all such ventures are pursued fairly, and with clarity.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of excess land for communal purposes or to service either the poor or the Muslim community in general, without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished in accordance with Islamic law, whatever their background or race.

19. We demand that Roman Law, which serves a materialistic world order, be replaced by pure Islamic law.

20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education, with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working Muslim the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement and knowledge. The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs), and of the Religion of Allah and his Messenger. We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State. No Muslim eager to seek knowledge should be turned away.

21. The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth. In addition to this the State must encourage traditional family values in the Muslim way. It is the duty of every woman to ensure the maintenance of the home, and to properly raise her children, provided she has any.

22. We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the foundation of Allah's army.

23. We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press. To facilitate the creation of a Islamic national press we demand:

(a) that all editors of, and contributors to newspapers appearing in the Arabic language must be members of the nation, and hence be of the Muslim faith;
(b) that no non-Muslim newspapers may appear without the express permission of the State. They must not be printed in the Arabic language;
(c) that non-Muslims shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing Muslim newspapers, and that the penalty for contravening such a law shall be the suppression of any such newspaper, and the immediate deportation of the non-Muslims involved.
The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national Muslim welfare must be forbidden. We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our traditions or Religious way of life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand.

24. We demand freedom for all Muslim denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence nor offend any of Allah's people.

The Islamic Community, as such, stands for positive Islam, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.

25. To put the whole of this declaration into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Republic, inspired by the teachings of Islam; the unconditional authority of the religious central authority over the entire Republic and its organizations; and the formation of Islamic Institutions, for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Republic in the various Islamic states.

The leaders of the Islamic community promise to work ruthlessly -- and if (Allah wills) sacrifice their very lives -- to translate this declaration into action.

Allahu Akbar!

This is where my point that Islamic law is more compatible with Naziism then Communism stems from.

[alcurad]

but Nazism per Hitler is very incoherent when it comes to race.
the Islamic economic model hasn't been fully implemented in this day and age, so we have no way of confirming perceived dis/similarities.

[alcurad]

RLG594, there is much to disagree with: 4,5,7,8,11,22?,23:a,b,c,24 jewish reference.

[aamirsaab]

...
This is where my point that Islamic law is more compatible with Naziism then Communism stems from.

Which would make it the same as every other form of law system tbh.

[RLG594]

Which would make it the same as every other form of law system tbh.

lol probably true.

Again I'm not pointing out Nazi Economics and law is identical to Islam, just that they have alot more in common then Communism and Islam from what I see so far.

Of course in the end it is how Islam is Unique that matters, not how it is similar to something else.

[RLG594]

RLG594, there is much to disagree with: 4,5,7,8,11,22?,23:a,b,c,24 jewish reference.

4- Only because of the Jew Reference or the whole thing?

5- You agree with the second half though do you not? Foreigners must be subject to Islamic Law on Muslim soil?

7- understood

8- Understood

11- When is making money by a means that doesn't require you to earn it acceptable?

22- It means they demand they get rid of a secular army and create an Army that only wages war using the guidelines of God.

23- Understandable, but one does not have to stretch his imagination to see it happening

24- The threatening the existence part I assume?

Again bear in mind I did the best I could to alter the document as little as possible, to illustrate where I was coming from.

[Chuck]

I'll explain specifically why Islamic financial institutions are relatively better in current financial crises.

First I'll explain what was happening with housing financing in the US. Normally, when you own an equity in stock market, most financial institutions allow you to buy on margin. Margin is when you don't have to pay full amount for the stock but you pay portion of the stock to own all the stock, for example, pay just 20% of the stock value but they will give you full owner. They do this because brokers can sell more stock since buyer has to pay less amount and that increases the buying power.

say you want to purchase a stock for US$ 1 million and each share costs US$ 20, which will buy you 50,000 shares. So if you are buying on margin, you don't have to pay full amount (margin differs from one financial institution to another), so lets say you only have to pay $4 per share, so for 50,000 you only pay $ 200,000. Now you become greedy, so you say i can afford 50,000 more now on margin why not I buy 50,000 more. so you buy 100,000 shares on margin for $400,000 with total cost of 2 million. Broker is happy because without margin his commission would be (if commission is 0.25%) $1mio multiply .25% = $2,500, but with margin since you bought double, his commission is $5,000.

If you are really greedy with your $1million you can buy 250,000 shares with total cost of $5,000,000

advantage of that is if share value rises you make more profit, but if share prices goes down then you make more loss too. This is called financial leverage.
ex1 without margin:
a) 50,000 shares bought at $20, value increase to $25 new total value = 1,250,000; profit = $250,000 if you sell at that price.

b) value goes down to 15$ then new total value = $750,000; loss = $250,000.

ex2 (with margin):
a) 250,000 shares bought at $20, new price goes to $25 so new total value = $6,250,000; profit = $1,250,000

b) new share value $15, new total value = $3,750,000; loss = $1,250,000 (but you will get margin call at $1,000,000)

-------
Now I'll explain what a margin call is. In this example, you have margin of $4 per share so for 250,000 shares you need to keep a balance of $1million ($4 x 250,000) in your account. If price goes down to $19 thats loss of $1 per share, so you have lost $250,000 in your account. Now your account is $750,000 and you can keep 187,500 max # shares. Financial institution will take away 62,500 shares from you and sell it another person.

If you had bought 100,000 shares only then you will not have lost your shares on margin call if price went down to $19. since you need to keep only $400,000 as balance in your account. But you would loss shares if share devalues enough to affect your $400,000 balance. For example, if price went down to $13 per share. Then total value of your shares would come down to $1,300,000; loss of $700,000 so your balance would come down to $300,000. So now you can only keep 75,000 shares and FI will take away 25,000 shares.

Without margin FI can't take away the shares from you even if price comes down to $0, so will not get margin call and lose shares. So if price goes up next time, you can sell shares and get something.

Under Islamic Finance this type of leveraging is discouraged, so financial institutions limit buying/selling on margin as much as possible.

------
Regarding US housing crises, some people on wall street came up with brilliant idea that why don't they do this with housing stock. So they came with derivatives that allowed people to buy houses on margin and they also gave sub-prime loans which turned into this housing financial crises. Housing stock is of different nature and it is running in trillions of dollars, and price per house is big so bad effects of leveraging are quite visible.

--------
The thing I don't like about this financial system and which is plus point for Islamic financial system is that:
(1) as it is obvious average person suffer losses while financial institutions suck their money. For example, with margins average stock trader gets greedy and forgets what would happen if price goes against expectations, then FI takes away his stock and sell it to another buyer and makes a profit when average trader has lost money. So financial institution is earning double income (a) from commissions (b) selling margined out stock or foreclosures.

(2) This type of leveraging directs the money unnecessarily to wrong people as this encourages trading on price of shares, so too much money goes into commissions and reselling on margin calls. If this type leverage was not their then investor would focus on companies that are bringing value to them through innovations in technologies. For example, in recent years investors did not put their money in promising technology companies like solar energy, vertical farming, etc... but most were buying houses and hoping for the prices to go up and sell house for a profit. Which were inflationary profits rather then profits coming for goods and services that would be useful for US economy and created jobs and industries.

[Chuck]

your 1-25, too many points are questionable as Islamic, but they are entertaining. The only thing I completely agree in there is "Allahu Akbar!"

[Chuck]

here is the 25 National Socialist Program he talking about. Little background on those 25 points:

The National Socialist Program, also referred to as the 25-point program or 25-point plan was developed to formulate the party policies of, first, the Austrian German Workers Party (or DAP) and was copied later by Adolf Hitler's Nazi party. It is an amalgamation of demands that would be typically associated with various political trends. It was first developed in Vienna, at a German Workers Party congress, and was brought to Munich by Rudolf Jung, who was expelled from Czechoslovakia.[1] Josef Pfitzner, a Sudetenland German Nazi author, wrote that "the synthesis of the two great dynamic powers of the century, of the national and social idea, had been perfected in the German borderlands [i.e. Sudetenland] which thus were far ahead of their motherland."[2] The National Socialist program also contained a number of points that supported democracy and even called for wider democratic rights. These, like much of the program, lost their importance as the Party evolved, and were ignored by the Nazis after they rose to power.

At the time this program was written, Czechoslovakia and Austria did not exist as separate countries. They both existed under the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The programs of the Sudetenland and Austrian National Socialists developed under the Habsburg monarchy and in one single country at the time. Different German Worker parties developed in Vienna, Aussig, and Eger. Hitler and the other leaders that would later play a major role in Nazi Germany were not involved in the creation of the original National Socialist programs, a fact which explains the differences between these programs and the actions of the German Nazi Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

[RLG594]

I'll explain specifically why Islamic financial institutions are relatively better in current financial crises.

First I'll explain what was happening with housing financing in the US. Normally, when you own an equity in stock market, most financial institutions allow you to buy on margin. Margin is when you don't have to pay full amount for the stock but you pay portion of the stock to own all the stock, for example, pay just 20% of the stock value but they will give you full owner. They do this because brokers can sell more stock since buyer has to pay less amount and that increases the buying power.

say you want to purchase a stock for US$ 1 million and each share costs US$ 20, which will buy you 50,000 shares. So if you are buying on margin, you don't have to pay full amount (margin differs from one financial institution to another), so lets say you only have to pay $4 per share, so for 50,000 you only pay $ 200,000. Now you become greedy, so you say i can afford 50,000 more now on margin why not I buy 50,000 more. so you buy 100,000 shares on margin for $400,000 with total cost of 2 million. Broker is happy because without margin his commission would be (if commission is 0.25%) $1mio multiply .25% = $2,500, but with margin since you bought double, his commission is $5,000.

If you are really greedy with your $1million you can buy 250,000 shares with total cost of $5,000,000

advantage of that is if share value rises you make more profit, but if share prices goes down then you make more loss too. This is called financial leverage.
ex1 without margin:
a) 50,000 shares bought at $20, value increase to $25 new total value = 1,250,000; profit = $250,000 if you sell at that price.

b) value goes down to 15$ then new total value = $750,000; loss = $250,000.

ex2 (with margin):
a) 250,000 shares bought at $20, new price goes to $25 so new total value = $6,250,000; profit = $1,250,000

b) new share value $15, new total value = $3,750,000; loss = $1,250,000 (but you will get margin call at $1,000,000)

-------
Now I'll explain what a margin call is. In this example, you have margin of $4 per share so for 250,000 shares you need to keep a balance of $1million ($4 x 250,000) in your account. If price goes down to $19 thats loss of $1 per share, so you have lost $250,000 in your account. Now your account is $750,000 and you can keep 187,500 max # shares. Financial institution will take away 62,500 shares from you and sell it another person.

If you had bought 100,000 shares only then you will not have lost your shares on margin call if price went down to $19. since you need to keep only $400,000 as balance in your account. But you would loss shares if share devalues enough to affect your $400,000 balance. For example, if price went down to $13 per share. Then total value of your shares would come down to $1,300,000; loss of $700,000 so your balance would come down to $300,000. So now you can only keep 75,000 shares and FI will take away 25,000 shares.

Without margin FI can't take away the shares from you even if price comes down to $0, so will not get margin call and lose shares. So if price goes up next time, you can sell shares and get something.

Under Islamic Finance this type of leveraging is discouraged, so financial institutions limit buying/selling on margin as much as possible.

------
Regarding US housing crises, some people on wall street came up with brilliant idea that why don't they do this with housing stock. So they came with derivatives that allowed people to buy houses on margin and they also gave sub-prime loans which turned into this housing financial crises. Housing stock is of different nature and it is running in trillions of dollars, and price per house is big so bad effects of leveraging are quite visible.

--------
The thing I don't like about this financial system and which is plus point for Islamic financial system is that:
(1) as it is obvious average person suffer losses while financial institutions suck their money. For example, with margins average stock trader gets greedy and forgets what would happen if price goes against expectations, then FI takes away his stock and sell it to another buyer and makes a profit when average trader has lost money. So financial institution is earning double income (a) from commissions (b) selling margined out stock or foreclosures.

(2) This type of leveraging directs the money unnecessarily to wrong people as this encourages trading on price of shares, so too much money goes into commissions and reselling on margin calls. If this type leverage was not their then investor would focus on companies that are bringing value to them through innovations in technologies. For example, in recent years investors did not put their money in promising technology companies like solar energy, vertical farming, etc... but most were buying houses and hoping for the prices to go up and sell house for a profit. Which were inflationary profits rather then profits coming for goods and services that would be useful for US economy and created jobs and industries.

Well I had much more fundemental concerns, but first we must define our terms.

What do you believe should be forbidden in an Islamic system? As far as finances goes. What exactly is Usury? As it appears at first sight that different Muslims have different opinions in reguards to this term.

Also thanks for responding, I'm quite impressed by the level of patience people here have.

[Dawud_uk]

Communism as Marx foretold it has never even been attempted. The necessary social and, in particular, technological circumstances that would have made it possible never arose. I don't accept the view that 'communism' as practiced by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot among others has anything to recommend it above capitalism as practiced contemporaneously with those regimes.

However, the essential difference is that while various attempts to practice 'communism' failed because of much the problems as excessive capitalism, greed and corruption, as well a large helpings of incompetence those things are not inherent to communism. Not only can communism exist without them but, theoretically at least, it actually excludes the greed and corruption as nobody has anything to gain from them, having all they actually want (note, want, not just need) already. The same is not true of capitalism. Corruption is perhaps avoidable, as in incompetence (not that you would think that looking around at the moment) but greed is capitalism's driving force and it cannot exist without it. It is the ready availability of greed that has made capitalism so spectacularly successful... it relies on the majority of people being what they are as opposed to what they should be.

capitalism seeks to exploit mans base instincts to make the system work, communism some how believes they can be elimated and then everything will be ok.

ok islam seeks the middle path, that of managing mans desires into halal ways.

as to the nazi debate, it is silly. nazism contained some good things, so did communism, what is good or bad is in accordance with what Allah says is good or bad, not a man.

[alcurad]

24- Only because of the Jew Reference or the whole thing?

5- You agree with the second half though do you not? Foreigners must be subject to Islamic Law on Muslim soil?

7- understood

8- Understood

11- When is making money by a means that doesn't require you to earn it acceptable?

22- It means they demand they get rid of a secular army and create an Army that only wages war using the guidelines of God.

23- Understandable, but one does not have to stretch his imagination to see it happening

24- The threatening the existence part I assume?

Again bear in mind I did the best I could to alter the document as little as possible, to illustrate where I was coming from.

24.yeah, only the jewish reference.

5.everyone generally should be treated equally, thus all are to be under the same laws.

11. Inheritance.

23.too restrictive, not Islamic in any way.

24.yes the threatening part.

22.funny way of saying it..

[Chuck]

What do you believe should be forbidden in an Islamic system? As far as finances goes. What exactly is Usury? As it appears at first sight that different Muslims have different opinions in reguards to this term.

That is highly open ended question and would require very lengthy discussions. For a general introduction to Islamic finance here is a good article http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~elgamal/files/primer.pdf

Btw, the example of mine you quoted is not simply usury, but related to issues of financial leverage in Islamic finance. It is a very complicated topic and you need to have at least basic understanding of financial models. But anyway leverage is one of the issue where Islamic finance is different than conventional banking. The following article is good for showing where they differ in financial structure but difficult to understand for layman: http://www.newhorizon-islamicbanking...=view&id=10731

But I'll quote key point in the light of current financial crises:

Finally, due to prohibition of interest, Islamic banks cannot issue debt to finance the assets which consequently discourages creation of leverage. Due to the lack of leverage, Islamic banks can be considered less risky during a time of financial crisis. The current financial crisis was precipitated by excessive leverage and complexity in the financial system, which had developed multiple layers of intermediaries. Hence, the financing – or the claims on assets – became remote from the underlying assets. For Islamic banks, the financial intermediary is closely associated with the asset and is able to perform better monitoring of the asset as well as the obligor. These features can enhance the stability of the banking system.

[RLG594]

That is highly open ended question and would require very lengthy discussions. For a general introduction to Islamic finance here is a good article http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~elgamal/files/primer.pdf

Btw, the example of mine you quoted is not simply usury, but related to issues of financial leverage in Islamic finance. It is a very complicated topic and you need to have at least basic understanding of financial models. But anyway leverage is one of the issue where Islamic finance is different than conventional banking. The following article is good for showing where they differ in financial structure but difficult to understand for layman: http://www.newhorizon-islamicbanking...=view&id=10731

But I'll quote key point in the light of current financial crises:

Woah, the rice.edu link... very different, potentially thread resolving approach.

Bear in mind my concerns were 'fundemental'. I wasn't arguing that Islamic finance was unstable, but rather it could not replace our present institutions and continue to privately operate.

That article contradicts this inasmuch as it presents a whole new spin on the concept of Islamic Finance and Riba. I was told it was questionable for a Muslim to even keep the interest the bank pays him given given how and why it is there. I saw no way that Islamic finance could take the place of our present, for lack of a better word, 'banking magic tricks', that hold up modern capitalism. This article helps explain this, while making the case that it's more stable to boot.

Now the only question is, Does every Muslim agree with it?

[alcurad]

Now the only question is, Does every Muslim agree with it?

the one million dollar question as they say:)..

[Chuck]

Woah, the rice.edu link... very different, potentially thread resolving approach.

Bear in mind my concerns were 'fundemental'. I wasn't arguing that Islamic finance was unstable, but rather it could not replace our present institutions and continue to privately operate.

That article contradicts this inasmuch as it presents a whole new spin on the concept of Islamic Finance and Riba. I was told it was questionable for a Muslim to even keep the interest the bank pays him given given how and why it is there. I saw no way that Islamic finance could take the place of our present, for lack of a better word, 'banking magic tricks', that hold up modern capitalism. This article helps explain this, while making the case that it's more stable to boot.

Now the only question is, Does every Muslim agree with it?

You talk about fundamentals but you don't know fundamentals. Neither you understand fundamentals of finance and you come with preconceived notions that without interest banking won't work and interest is holding modern capitalism. Current capitalistic meltdown was brought down by this interest too. FYI, Islamic finance is booming. As far as agreement is concerned, any system you won't find agreement many issues, but there would be agreement on most of the basic principles which is true for Islamic finance too. And you don't expect every Muslim to use Islamic savings account, neither all muslims stay away from alcohol.

I don't mean to be rude, but I recommend before you discuss on a subject get educated about it first. You are making some loaded statements and you don't understand the mechanics.

Here is an investors forum, interesting discussion there: https://www.kitcomm.com/showthread.php?t=31877

This is wasting my time, I'm done here.

[Chuck]

kitcomm forum I didn't post for positive comments, but interesting discussion though. few people were emotionally charged, few didn't know how it works but at least they were asking questions, and few had misconceptions about Islam but nonetheless they appreciate Islamic principles of finance.

If anybody has specific questions about Islamic banking they can ask me.

[Chuck]

Bear in mind my concerns were 'fundemental'. I wasn't arguing that Islamic finance was unstable, but rather it could not replace our present institutions and continue to privately operate.

It is stable thats why it is performing better in times of crises and it is growing. In other words, it is operating as alternative financial system already. As far as continuation is concerned I don't have a crystal ball to predict the future but it is booming and already a trillion $ industry so it is here to stay for a long time.

[RLG594]

You talk about fundamentals but you don't know fundamentals. Neither you understand fundamentals of finance and you come with preconceived notions that without interest banking won't work and interest is holding modern capitalism. Current capitalistic meltdown was brought down by this interest too. FYI, Islamic finance is booming. As far as agreement is concerned, any system you won't find agreement many issues, but there would be agreement on most of the basic principles which is true for Islamic finance too. And you don't expect every Muslim to use Islamic savings account, neither all muslims stay away from alcohol.

I don't mean to be rude, but I recommend before you discuss on a subject get educated about it first. You are making some loaded statements and you don't understand the mechanics.

Here is an investors forum, interesting discussion there: https://www.kitcomm.com/showthread.php?t=31877

This is wasting my time, I'm done here.

angry angry. Fear not, I'm used to it coming from capitalists.

I will gladly explain my position in more detail in my next post.

And yes, you did mean to be rude, which is fine. You want me to be more detailed and demonstrate I know what I'm talking about or gtfo, I can understand that.

[alcurad]

hmm, much 'Islamic' commerce is actually the same old western models with a beard, thnx for sharing tho brother chuck:)

[Chuck]

hmm, much 'Islamic' commerce is actually the same old western models with a beard, thnx for sharing tho brother chuck:)

Oh yea Islamic finance is not much different then finance in US with few fundamental differences.

But I like to hear about old western models. Might be interesting.

[RLG594]

First before I proceed again terms need to be defined, what is an acceptable practice in Islamic Finance and what is not?

For example Reserve ratios. Are Islamic Banks allowed to have more money lent out as debt then they have actual deposits?

This classifies as a 'Fundemental' concern. I went on the assumption that such a concern would be understood. Capitalist growth is powered largely by credit, the current financial crisis proved this, especially in America. Screwing with the banks ability to hand out loans has EPIC consequences on the economy. The American Financial system for one relies on the Ability of business, but more importantly the consumer to get themselves into debt.

Now I don't think you can deny that in order for banks to remain privately owned, they need to be profitable. Agreed? Or do you think banks are just in it for the lulz? If banks cease to be profitable, they must be nationalized, or they just go under. Banks remain profitable by maintaining a constant cycle of debt and interest, that is attracting new deposits with interest, and giving out a significantly larger amount in the form of a loan, debt, which brings more money in the form of interest back into the bank.

Is this legal under Islam?

Similarly, even if the answer to the above was 'yes' if it is illegal to have more money out on loan then you have actual cash on hand, would not the banks similarly have a hard time operating at all, yet alone operating profitably?

And as mentioned earlier since the Capitalist economy runs on debt, and since nationalization from what I understood is out of the question in Islam, and the banks must therefore go under, and hence lose their ability to provide the loans to the people that actually buy the commodities and drive the entire economy, is it not logical to assume that a sudden conversion of a country like the United States to Islam would send the country to hell in a handbasket?

Also Are public Offerings and stock trading not all the same as gambling?

You Invest in a stock (you put your money forward) hoping it will gain value, yet knowlingly taking a risk that may well put you out of your home. Investing is no different then playing poker when you get down to the bottom of it.

You are right, I do not understand the principles of Islamic finance, because this depends entirely on what exactly is legal or illegal under Islam.

[alcurad]

why is nationalizing out of the question though?
about investing and gambling and changing to non-usury:

((Those who charge usury are in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence.

This is because they claim that usury is the same as commerce. However, God permits commerce, and prohibits usury.

Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with God.

As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever)) Qur'an, 2:275

[Chuck]

Are Islamic Banks allowed to have more money lent out as debt then they have actual deposits?

not more than 1/3 thats the limit most Islamic banks use.

Now I don't think you can deny that in order for banks to remain privately owned, they need to be profitable. Agreed?

Of course.

Or do you think banks are just in it for the lulz?

lulz work too.... LULZ

If banks cease to be profitable, they must be nationalized, or they just go under. Banks remain profitable by maintaining a constant cycle of debt and interest, that is attracting new deposits with interest, and giving out a significantly larger amount in the form of a loan, debt, which brings more money in the form of interest back into the bank.

Is this legal under Islam?

Islamic banks earn different way. Although people come up with many tricks but thats beside the point. Good Islamic banks earn through management fee, risk premium, and joint investment.

Also Are public Offerings and stock trading not all the same as gambling?

That depends. IPO are meant to generate capital for production. Stock trading doesn't normally add to production. Speculative stock trading on the price of stocks would be questionable under Islamic finance. But IPO, absolutely not. Stock trading for buying shares for ROI not. But stock trading is a complicated issue, nonetheless, it is not riba, although some stock trading practices would be questionable like 'naked short selling'. I think I'm making too complicated.

You Invest in a stock (you put your money forward) hoping it will gain value, yet knowlingly taking a risk that may well put you out of your home. Investing is no different then playing poker when you get down to the bottom of it.

Not really. I've well balanced portfolio, even with current down-turn my portfolio looks pretty good. Even if we go into 'great depression 2' I'll not lose my home, Alhamddulillah!

[RLG594]

So if I have some extra money I don't need under Islam it's ok to spend it on Slots?

[aamirsaab]

So if I have some extra money I don't need under Islam it's ok to spend it on Slots?

Nope - there is a difference between slots and investing money into a business.

Of course, if you really don't need that money, you could donate it. To me.