A Sharia state and economics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Isambard
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 41
  • Views Views 7K
I

Isambard

Account Disabled
Messages
764
Reaction score
69
Hello

I finally got around to creating this thread (was sick for awhile and had an exam :()

In another thread, someone mentioned that a (ideal) Sharia state would be economically superior to the mixed economy of current western countries.

My question is why?

From my humble understanding of Shariah llaw, interest is a no-no, yet an ideal Shariah state would have considerable spending on social programs/public works.

If such a state were to exist, how would it deal with business cycles and growing inflation w/o interest rates?

Will have mroe questions when I think of em ;)
 
shari3a law in many ways is like a socialized democracy but there is nothing holding you from having your own business and growing and having competetion in essence (clean capitalism)... during the prophet's time a lady named Hind took from state funds to start her own business.. there is nothing stopping anyone from doing so.

If you look at the system in the U.S you'd be surprised how many are living under poverty level.. if not down right bankruptcy...
People only get the false impression of ownership, but their cars are leased with high interest, and so are there children's education as well as their mortgage and health care is a mess. In other words unless you are independently wealthy because you are Rockefeller or John Pierpont Morgan or related to them, you are in debt and paying for debt until the day you die.

I am not an accountant and I don't know the first thing about business or economics and am the first to admit it, but I am a U.S citizen and I see my colleagues even those who have had a fantastic graduate education making great sacrifices well into their forties so that the best years of their lives have passed them by.
They have children late, get married late because a big part of marriage is financial responsibility.. Many others take the low road have their kids at 14 and live off the rest tax money but that is no way to live.

Some live in NY and work in NJ and end up paying NY tax and NJ tax plus all the other cute things along where literally 1/2 of their sizeable salary is spent on funding Bush's wars and war campaigns on TV 'if your child wants to become a man listen' call the U.S army and these commercials are aimed at blacks and people from low socio-economic conditions if we can be any more obvious?

perhaps you can tell us where the advantage is of imposing ridiculous interests at rates of 22% and higher where people have no choice but pay their visas with their master cards and eventually falling behind on payment and not making any of it at all?

Either way the obligatory zakat will take care of where the state or any other banks falls short...
Justice for humanity doesn't mean justice for the elite few but for everyone..
my two cents.. anyone feel free to add, subtract, as acknowledged prior, business, finance and economics are about as exciting to me as a Reproduction of Mark Rothko 'Black on Grey'

peace!
 
Last edited:
Well it really has to do with the old question "better for one person to die to save the others, or for all to day to not make the choice?"

Without playing the interest rates, a gov't/central bank would have no way to curb business cycles. Sure they eventually bounce back, but with every cycle the recession typically gets worse and lasts a bit longer. Eventually what you get is a Depression (30s Depression for ex.).

Interest rates are also useful to control inflation and especially useful if you are to have a gov't with lots of spending (such as the model pro-Shariah folks proclaim) as gov't spending speeds up inflation.

Essentially, interest rates are used to control/stabilize the economy and a state w/o it just seems to me like using a car w/o a steering wheel
 
I disagree.. I say this because history records the height of economic/intellectual/scientific boom under sharia'a law that is unequaled today...

I think the problem is, you need to see how the other half lives to appreciate how the system isn't working. It is all one gargantuan lie

check out the national debt
U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 14 Oct 2007 at 08:37:40 PM GMT is:

$9,047,135,216,416.76

The estimated population of the United States is 303,254,550
so each citizen's share of this debt is $29,833.47.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.42 billion per day since September 29, 2006!
Concerned? Then tell Congress and the White House!
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/


with what little I know on the subject matter.. I'd say one of us is greatly disillusioned.. and I don't think it is me... I just happen to see very poor people on daily basis of whom interest hasn't helped any... and I fail to see how it will?

This was actually a project I wanted to take on in the future (openning an interest free bank for Muslims) but from the looks of things I'd rather divert my attention toward something more immediate and realistic...

peace!
 
Jazaka Allah akhi..I feel apprehensive entering into sciences well beyond my sphere and interest.. but I don't think I need an MBA to realize how a capitalist system has failed in many ways, the links you have provided are great.. I am off to do some reading!
:w:
 
I must confess to being a traditional Marxist which, oddly, is rather more compatible with my religion than you might think. A Sharia state is therefore only marginally less of a depressing prospect than a Western capitalist one - both oppress and alienate people from their true nature rather than allowing them to become what they truly have the potential to be. Something other than the disaster area humanity currently is.

Abolish property rights in favour of common ownership of the means of production. End of problem. :sunny:
 
Trumble said:
I must confess to being a traditional Marxist which, oddly, is rather more compatible with my religion than you might think. A Sharia state is therefore only marginally less of a depressing prospect than a Western capitalist one - both oppress and alienate people from their true nature rather than allowing them to become what they truly have the potential to be. Something other than the disaster area humanity currently is.

Abolish property rights in favour of common ownership of the means of production. End of problem. :sunny:
Click to expand...

You believe that common ownership and redistribution of wealth is the way to go correct? Then how can any one individual reach their potential when their labors do not benefit them to any greater extent than the guy or gal who doesn't put as much effort into their labors? Just curious how you believe Marxism leads to individuals reaching their potential.
 
Enough Keltoi is on your case trumble.. but there is nothing in Shari3a law that prevents clean capitalism, and I mean that as the example Isambard gave
Isambard said:
"better for one person to die to save the others, or for all to day to not make the choice?"
Click to expand...
is simply unacceptable.. It isn't ok for one poor guy to die so lots of rich people can live better.. and I already gave the example of a lady 1400 yrs ago taking from state fund to start her own business..
Prophet's first wife had her own business.. I don't see why excelling in business or anything else is bad really? or why we are to equate in the same economic status, someone who lives on handeouts to someone who works his behind off to be better and afford better for his family?
I mean even religiousely there is a distinction between someone who works all day and the other who worships all day.. the one working being the better of the two!

There is nothing wrong with clean competition especially where it benefits the people and gives them choices and forces others to have clean business habits!

peace!
 
Keltoi said:
You believe that common ownership and redistribution of wealth is the way to go correct?
Click to expand...

Common ownership does not involve 'redistribution' of wealth as that concept must necessary include private ownership.

Then how can any one individual reach their potential when their labors do not benefit them to any greater extent than the guy or gal who doesn't put as much effort into their labors? Just curious how you believe Marxism leads to individuals reaching their potential.
Click to expand...


An understanding of what Marxism IS would answer that question - it is precisely about realization of human potential; economics is a side-issue.

It rather depends on how you define 'potential'. If you define it in terms of acquiring material wealth you would have a point, but in a Marxist (I'll use that instead of 'communist' as there have been plenty of regimes claiming to be that that have been nothing of the sort) society that idea is meaningless. There are many sorts of 'potential' - many of which provide a far greater chance of obtaining happiness and self-realization than obtaining wealth. The Marxist idea that man can only self-realize when being able to fulfill his true nature as a productive 'species-being' is one, but most religious beliefs are, of course, another. The 'true' Christian position on material wealth as I understand it is that anything in excess of basic needs should be given away to those without sufficient resources to satisfy basic needs - but there an awful lot of rich Christians and an awful lot of starving people. What action would best realize the potential of both groups?
 
Trumble said:
Common ownership does not involve 'redistribution' of wealth as that concept must necessary include private ownership.




An understanding of what Marxism IS would answer that question - it is precisely about realization of human potential; economics is a side-issue.

It rather depends on how you define 'potential'. If you define it in terms of acquiring material wealth you would have a point, but in a Marxist (I'll use that instead of 'communist' as there have been plenty of regimes claiming to be that that have been nothing of the sort) society that idea is meaningless. There are many sorts of 'potential' - many of which provide a far greater chance of obtaining happiness and self-realization than obtaining wealth. The Marxist idea that man can only self-realize when being able to fulfill his true nature as a productive 'species-being' is one, but most religious beliefs are, of course, another. The 'true' Christian position on material wealth as I understand it is that anything in excess of basic needs should be given away to those without sufficient resources to satisfy basic needs - but there an awful lot of rich Christians and an awful lot of starving people. What action would best realize the potential of both groups?
Click to expand...

Well, I believe the opponents of Marxist economics would point to a stagnation of human creativity and innovation. Of course, according to Marx, true communism can only be achieved after a capitalist system has reached its peak, meaning the innovation and productivity is already there. It's an interesting debate, and my intention was not to attack your position, simply exploring the issue.
 
Trumble said:
Abolish property rights in favour of common ownership of the means of production. End of problem. :sunny:
Click to expand...

Oh many tried to do it, really many. Im sorry to say but as i see it, Marxism is like the Anti-Midas. Midas turned to gold everything that he touched. Marxism turned - to disaster everywhere it appeared. You have examples everywhere in world bro - Cuba, All former soviet countries,Cambodia.
 
Aaron85 said:
Oh many tried to do it, really many. Im sorry to say but as i see it, Marxism is like the Anti-Midas. Midas turned to gold everything that he touched. Marxism turned - to disaster everywhere it appeared. You have examples everywhere in world bro - Cuba, All former soviet countries,Cambodia.
Click to expand...

Marxism has never been tried in practice. In those countries, and others (most of which derive from Soviet and Maoist models that have very little to do with Marxism beyond some shared terminology) have claimed to, but in all cases the actual consequence has been the replacement of one ruling class with another, who have centred control of the means of production on themselves in all but name.

As Keltoi correctly states, it has never been tried because the necessary conditions for it have yet to occur.

BTW.. Cuba hardly belongs in that list. I don't like the regime as it is certainly repressive of political dissent, but it's laughable to claim that it is a 'disaster'. Their healthcare system is one of the best in the world, and without American sanctions the Cuban economy would have been more successful than any other in the Caribbean.
 
Trumble said:
BTW.. Cuba hardly belongs in that list. I don't like the regime as it is certainly repressive of political dissent, but it's laughable to claim that it is a 'disaster'. Their healthcare system is one of the best in the world, and without American sanctions the Cuban economy would have been more successful than any other in the Caribbean.
Click to expand...

for years cuba was definitely the most successful of all latin american countries. education, access to health care, elimination of poverty etc etc
of course, it used to receive massive amounts of aid from the ussr.
 
snakelegs said:
for years cuba was definitely the most successful of all latin american countries. education, access to health care, elimination of poverty etc etc
of course, it used to receive massive amounts of aid from the ussr.
Click to expand...

Like i was hearing Micheal Moore :okay: No offense of course.
 
snakelegs said:
don't know what you mean re: michael moore.
btw, i am not a marxist. i don't understand enough about economy to be any kind of -ist. :D
Click to expand...

You dont know Micheal Moore? :blind: He is the guy who made Fahrenheit 9/11 and recently he made a movie about benefits of current cuban health care and its superiority over american health care. :D
 
no, i didn't know he made one about health care in cuba.
i don't know anything about cuba in recent years, but i do know that american health care is a disgrace. :unhappy:
 
snakelegs said:
no, i didn't know he made one about health care in cuba.
i don't know anything about cuba in recent years, but i do know that american health care is a disgrace. :unhappy:
Click to expand...

So listen to Moore and go to Cuba :D Ok i now it was a bad joke :-[
 
PA, what I mean about interest rates isnt normative.

If you have business that arnt goverment run, and you have government spending, then youll get nastier and nastier recessions as well as increasing inflation.

The empires of old were able to skirt around this by plundering their neighbours and on the whole far less industrialized (and thus powerful) then states of today.

So then how would the Shariah state so many claim to be superior work this out? If it goes plundering, Im sure one of the many powerful nations of the world will see it as a threat and destroy it, so that leaves the economic development route. How will it deal with the very real consequences of development if the central tool to combat it is banned?

Trumble, my problem with Marx is that he was too idealistic. Thats not to say he was dumb or anything, just that he is very much a product of his time.
Check out Labour theory. It was at the core of Marxism but has been debunked pretty extensively since the days of Marx.

There is also the scernio called "Tradgity of the Commons" you may want to check out. Its a good reason to avoid communal ownership as opposed to invidual property.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top