The Rebel Road…

I know you’ve come to kill me. Shoot, coward, you’re only going to kill a man. – Ernesto Che Guevara

Conversation with Mr. Amin regarding Islamic Economics(?!?), Human Rights and Privatization of Industry

leave a comment »

Firstly, let me just express how disgusted i am; i believe you had asked me when i was going to answer your post in another post on this same community – a post started by an imposter using a fake identity – where i told you that i was in the process of dealing with that fake-profile made by a ‘muslim brother’ of yours.

 

I come here now, FINALLY getting some time, and see how you’ve decided to create this little peer-pressure tactic and assuming that ive forfeited this debate. Does it make you feel happy that I’ve forfeited? lol.

 

If so by all means, go ahead, keep on thinking that ive forfeited – i dont mind. [:)]

 

 I quoted this translation:

 

“If anyone rules by other than what Allah has revealed, they are the disbelievers.” – (Maida, Ayah 44)

 

from a book titled, “The Islamic Ruling System: A Beacon of Justice”, page 9. As I had already stated, the word “yahkam” also means “to legislate”, and in context, it works perfectly fine; just because it’s not the sort of translation you want doesn’t mean I’m misquoting. Why do you always jump to conclusions?

 

 

LOL!!!

 

Not the translation I wanted???

 

Dude, NO tafseer of Quran – NO mainstream translation of the Holy Quran comes up with ‘to legislate’ as even a remote possibility of the connotation of this Ayat.

 

Are you trying to tell me I wrote all those tafseers? lol…

 

Puhleeze..

 

Answer to challenge 1: (Mismatched answer thought) [:P]

 

 “Islam is a deen (way of life), encompassing comprehensive guidance for all aspects of human existence, from personal worhsip to economics and government. The rules and lawas which emanate from the Islamic ‘aqeedah (creed) come from none other than Allah, the creator of mankind and the universe. Thus, they are free from the flaws and limitations that are necessarily inherent in man-made ideologies. It is only by the implementation of Islam that mankind can ever hope to be freed from the abyss in which it is currently submerged.

 

This paragraph is, at best, a repitition of base rhetoric. Notice it doesnt put ANYTHING forward except that it repeats the same old same old. Frankly, i have no idea why you even posted this. Anyway, moving on.

 

 It is the responsibility of every Muslim to understand fully about the details of this unique and perfect way of life. When we have done so, our minds will see clearly that the Systems of Islam provde the only practical solutions to the problems of the Ummah, and our hearts will yearn for their implementation in the world again.”

 

Just like the last paragraph – says alot but explains nothing.

 

 “In fact, these problems arise precisely as a result of manking neglecting the Islamic way of life and using his own mind to decide how to run his affairs. If indeed the mind was capable of producing the same organisation as we see in the universe, why is the ‘human’ world such a mess?”

 

So the author means to say that all the world’s problems exist because Muslims have turned away from Islam, eh?

 

Ok, lets take the example of the Islamic Society during Hazrat Mohammad’s (PBUH) time. Do you mean to say that poverty was totally eradicated, within the Muslim Society, during that time? Do you mean to say that there was no distinction between the Rich and the Poor based upon their distinct relationships to the means of production?

 

The reason i ask this, is because last time i checked, i remember reading that there were Rich individuals in Mecca and Medina (due to the fact that they were ‘big’ traders) and there were poor folk as well.

 

So my understanding is that Islam offers a system of Welfare-ism.

 

Now I ask you this, what need is there of welfare when you could actually achieve an equality of opportunity; when you could give an individual the means with which to achieve an honest and respectable living. Why would you not do that and give him charity? Is that not just an excuse to maintain hegemony? Is that not adding insult to injury?

Please explain.

 

 “In reality, only the power that gave the laws which proffer perfection to the processes of nature can achieve the same result in the affairs of mankind. The Islamic way of life means precisely that.

 

No, not really. The power that gave these laws also gave man, what in Allah’s own words is, rationality – the right and ability to choose.

 

Why do you need to alienate yourself from that ability and violate it? What purpose does that serve?

 

 “The divine law (hukm shari’i) can be defined as the speech of Allah related to the actions of the people.

 

“The Shariah (Islamic Law) addresses man and women as human beings, not people living in a particular time and place. And whether a man or a woman is living now or in 100 years time, they would still have the same basic needs and instincts, such as the need to eat and drink or the desire to procreate, and these would still have to be satisfied.

 

Permit me to say: maybe the divine voice SHOULD have addressed man and woman seperately because it clearly TREATS them seperately – It would take a rather formidable idiot to assert otherwise.

 

Let me show you how women are treated differently:

 

1.  A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a dirt field.

The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says:

Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like . . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

We should make no mistake about this verse. It includes sexual positions. In a footnote to this verse, Haleem says that Muslims in Medina heard from the Jews that “a child born from a woman approached from behind would have a squint.”

The hadith are the reports of Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran. Two reliable hadith collectors and editors are Bukhari (d. 870), Muslim (d. 875). After the Quran, the hadith come second in importance and sacredness among the vast majority of Muslims around the world.

Since the hadith is explicit, the readers are invited to click here and read for themselves, at their own discretion: Muslim nos. 3363-3365.

See these parallel hadith here and here.

We should have no doubt that the husband controlled their sex life. If a woman does not want to have sex, then angels curse her.

. . . “If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angels send their curses on her till morning.” (Bukhari)

 

2.  Husbands are a degree above their wives.

The Quran in Sura 2:228 says:

. . . Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status . . . (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 165)

Gender inequality shows up in a theological context. This hadith shows that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women.

The Prophet said, “I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women.” (Bukhari, emphasis added; see also these parallel traditions here and here.)

This parallel hadith explains that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women because they are ungrateful and harsh towards their husbands. There is no word about the husbands’ ingratitude and harshness. It should be noted that some Muslim missionaries and polemicists assert that since women make up the majority of the world, it only stands to reason that they would be the majority in hell. In reply, however, this misses the point—and may miss the possibility that women may be more spiritual than men. Regardless, the reason that women make up the majority in hell is their harshness and ingratitude. So it has nothing to do with a mathematical majority. Islam clearly does not honor women.

This next hadith says that women are part of an evil omen.

I heard the Prophet saying. “Evil omen is in three things: The horse, the woman and the house.” (Bukhari)

 

3.  A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female.

The Quran in Sura 4:11 says:

The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 311)

For how this religious law works out in early Islam, see these hadith here and here and here.

Malik (d. 795) is a founder of a major school of law. He composed a law book that is also considered a collection of reliable hadith: Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The First Formation of Islamic Law (rev. trans. Aisha Bewley, Inverness, Scotland: Madina Press, 1989, 2001). Malik writes:

The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us . . . about fixed shares of inheritance (fara’id) of children from the mother or father when one or the other dies is that if they leave male and female children, the male takes the portion of two females.

 

4.  A woman’s testimony counts half of a man’s testimony.

The Quran in Sura 2:282 says:

And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 205).

It seems that the foundational reason for having two women witnesses is that one of the women may “forget” something. This goes to the nature of womankind. Philosophers teach us that one of the main differences between animals and humans lies in humankind’s rationality. But this verse implies that a woman’s mind is weak.

This hadith removes any ambiguity about women’s abilities in Sura 2:282:

The Prophet said, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said, “Yes.” He said, “This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.” (Bukhari, emphasis added)

 

 

5.  Slave-girls are sexual property for their male owners.

The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:

And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war) . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319).

Sayyid Maududi (d. 1979), a highly respected traditional commentator and scholar, says in his comment on the verse that is it lawful for Muslim holy warriors to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive. But what happens if the husbands are captured with their wives? Maududi cites a school of law that says Muslims may not marry them, but two other schools say that the marriage between the captive husbands and wives is broken (note 44). But why would a debate over this cruelty emerge in the first place? No sex or marriage should take place between married female prisoners of war and their captors. In fact, no sex should take place between women captives and their overlords.

See also Suras 4:3; 23:5-6; 33:50; 70:22-30, all of which permit male slave-owners to have sex with their slave-girls. Suras 23:5-6 and 70:22-230 allow men to have sex with them in the Meccan period, during times of peace before Muhammad initiated his skirmishes and wars while being based in Medina.

The hadith demonstrate that Muslim jihadists actually have sex with the captured women, whether or not they are married. In the following hadith passage, Khumus is one-fifth of the spoils of war.

Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, just finished a relaxing bath. Why?

The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and . . . Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus).

What was Muhammad’s response to the person who hated Ali for this sexual act?

Do you hate Ali for this? . . . Don’t hate him, for he deserves more than that from [the] Khumus. (Bukhari)

 

6.  A man may be polygamous with up to four wives.

The Quran in Sura 4:3 says:

And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 305)

The clause “marry those who have fallen in your possession” means slave-girls who were captured after a war. Men may “marry” them because slaves do not incur very much expense, not as much as free women do. This means that the limit on four wives is artificial. Men could have sex with as many slave-girls as they wanted.

Maududi paraphrases the verse: “If you need more than one [wife] but are afraid that you might not be able to do justice to your wives from among the free people, you may turn to slave girls because in that case you will be burdened with less responsibilities” (note 6) (See Sura 4:24)

 

7.  A man may simply get rid of one of his undesirable wives.

The Quran in Sura 4:129 says:

It is not within your power to be perfectly equitable in your treatment with all your wives, even if you wish to be so; therefore, (in order to satisfy the dictates of Divine Law) do not lean towards one wife so as to leave the other in a state of suspense. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 381)

Maududi provides an interpretation of the verse (vol. 1, pp. 383-84, note 161). He writes:

Allah made it clear that the husband cannot literally keep equality between two or more wives because they themselves cannot be equal in all respects. It is too much to demand from a husband that he should mete out equal treatment to a beautiful wife and to an ugly wife, to a young wife and to an old wife, to a healthy wife and to an invalid wife, and to a good natured wife and to an ill-natured wife. These and like things naturally make a husband more inclined towards one wife than towards the other.

This means that wives are the source of a man’s inability to treat all of them equally. One is beautiful, while another is ugly. How can Allah demand from a husband super-human strength under changing circumstances in his wives?

Maududi continues:

In such cases, the Islamic law does not demand equal treatment between them in affection and love. What it does demand is that a wife should not be neglected as to be practically reduced to the position of the woman who has no husband at all. If the husband does not divorce her for any reason or at her own request, she should at least be treated as a wife. It is true that under such circumstances the husband is naturally inclined towards a favorite wife, but he should not, so to say, keep the other in such a state of suspense as if she were not his wife.

Maududi says here that the wife should not be suspended between marriage and divorce. If the husband stays with the no-longer desirable wife, then he should treat her fairly and provide for her.

 

8.  Husbands may hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives

 

The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is

most high and great. (Haleem, emphasis added).

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

 

Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi

married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have

not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” (Bukhari, emphasis added).

 

 

That kind of invalidates your point of view, Mr. Amin, that Islam treats men and women (and their subsequent ‘Rights’) as equal – it clearly does not.

 

 

 “As well it does not regard humans as just economic and social beings, rather as an integrated whole, which each person having various needs, be they social, economic, procreational or otherwise. Islam has given a hukm (divine rule) for all of these different areas in life.

 

Go on…

 

“Also, the process of Ijtihad (divine exertion from the Islamic texts by a scholar to ascertain a rule) is the method by which new issues can be evaluated according to the Shariah. So if an issue, like for example space exploration or electronic mailing, is not explicitly covered by the Islamic texts, there can be deduced by the process of Ijtihad a Hukm for that issue, thus enabling and ensuring that people can abide by Islam always.”

 

Well, i wanted to ask you, what exactly is the modern day ‘Ijtahadi’ consensus on space exploration?

Who conducted it?

Were there any astronauts present there?

Or Aeronautical engineers?

Or atleast some scientists?

Oh right, sorry.. i forgot, Mullahs know everything. [:)]

 

 “- The objective of the Islamic Economic System is not self-benefit or the amassing of wealth for the privileged few, but instead seeks to ensure that the basic necessities for life (food, clothing and shelter) is provided to each and every individual according to their needs  — it understands the issue as a ‘human problem’ and not merely an economic statistic

 

LOL! Thats funny. Uptil now, the Islamic economic system sounds very much like Welfare Socialism mixed with Communism.

Considering that ‘human intellect’ came up with ‘welfare socialism’ and Communism independently through scientific inquiry – seems to me it invalidates the books prior claim that the human mind is incapable of coming up with anything ‘good’. [:)]

 

 – The State will invest in infrastructure generally as well as transport, health and security to improve the standards of living for all

 

Its the same way in Communism.

 

 – Neither Riba nor private banks are allowed

 

The exact same thing in Communism.

 

 – Hoarding is not allowed

 

And yet, another exact similarity with Communism. [:)]

 

 

– Consequently, wealthy individuals will be motivated to invest and form companies with those possessing skill and labour – thus providing jobs, circulating wealth and stimulating the economy further”

 

[:)]

Thankyou. Thats exactly what i wanted to hear. So what you’re saying is that ‘Private Property’ is going to be maintained, right?

 

Thats exactly how ‘Welfare Capitalism’ is described.

 

In other words, the Islamic Economy is made up on precepts that are initially based on Welfare Socialism and Communism – but then take a fantastic turn in the direction of Welfare Capitalism as soon as ‘running’ the economy becomes a concern. Is that it?

 

Funny that.

 

But my dear man, let me return to my previous point – the concept of private property, itself, is in direct contention with ‘majority good’.

 

I mean to say that Private Property CANNOT exist in a system where the Majority’s Rights are:

 

1) Sustainably, and

2) fairly upheld.

 

Please read the following for an explanation as to HOW.

 

 Wage Labour and Capital  

 Karl Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm

 

For your ease i will now give you a summary of this argument:

 

 Estranged Labour

  by Karl Marx  

 

 We have started out from the premises of political economy. We have accepted its language and its laws. We presupposed private property; the separation of labour, capital, and land, and likewise of wages, profit, and capital; the division of labour; competition; the conception of exchange value, etc. From political economy itself, using its own words, we have shown that the worker sinks to the level of a commodity, and moreover the most wretched commodity of all; that the misery of the worker is in inverse proportion to the power and volume of his production; that the necessary consequence of competition is the accumulation of capital in a few hands and hence the restoration of monopoly in a more terrible form; and that, finally, the distinction between capitalist and landlord, between agricultural worker and industrial worker, disappears and the whole of society must split into the two classes of property owners and propertyless workers.

 

 

 Political economy proceeds from the fact of private property. It does not explain it. It grasps the material process of private property, the process through which it actually passes, in general and abstract formulae which it then takes as laws. It does not comprehend these laws – i.e., it does not show how they arise from the nature of private property. Political economy fails to explain the reason for the division between labour and capital. For example, when it defines the relation of wages to profit, it takes the interests of the capitalists as the basis of its analysis – i.e., it assumes what it is supposed to explain. Similarly, competition is frequently brought into the argument and explained in terms of external circumstances. Political economy teaches us nothing about the extent to which these external and apparently accidental circumstances are only the expression of a necessary development.   

 

 We have seen how exchange itself appears to political economy as an accidental fact. The only wheels which political economy sets in motion are greed, and the war of the avaricious – Competition.

 

Precisely because political economy fails to grasp the interconnections within the movement, it was possible to oppose, for example, the doctrine of competition to the doctrine of monopoly, the doctrine of craft freedom to the doctrine of the guild, and the doctrine of the division of landed property to the doctrine of the great estate; for competition, craft freedom, and division of landed property were developed and conceived only as accidental, deliberate, violent consequences of monopoly, of the guilds, and of feudal property, and not as their necessary, inevitable, and natural consequences.

 

We now have to grasp the essential connection between private property, greed, the separation of labour, capital and landed property, exchange and competition, value and the devaluation of man, monopoly, and competition, etc. – the connection between this entire system of estrangement and the money system.

 

We must avoid repeating the mistake of the political economist, who bases his explanations on some imaginary primordial condition. Such a primordial condition explains nothing. It simply pushes the question into the grey and nebulous distance. It assumes as facts and events what it is supposed to deduce – namely, the necessary relationships between two things, between, for example, the division of labour and exchange. Similarly, theology explains the origin of evil by the fall of Man – i.e., it assumes as a fact in the form of history what it should explain.

 

We shall start out from an  actual  economic fact.

 

 The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and extent. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he produces. The devaluation of the human world grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of the world of things. Labour not only produces commodities; it also produces itself and the workers as a commodity and it does so in the same proportion in which it produces commodities in general.

 

This fact simply means that the object that labour produces, its product, stands opposed to it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer. The product of labour is labour embodied and made material in an object, it is the objectification of labour. The realization of labour is its objectification. In the sphere of political economy, this realization of labour appears as a loss of reality for the worker[18], objectification as loss of and bondage to the object, and appropriation as estrangement, as alienation.[19]

 

So much does the realization of labour appear as loss of reality that the worker loses his reality to the point of dying of starvation. So much does objectification appear as loss of the object that the worker is robbed of the objects he needs most not only for life but also for work. Work itself becomes an object which he can only obtain through an enormous effort and with spasmodic interruptions. So much does the appropriation of the object appear as estrangement that the more objects the worker produces the fewer can he possess and the more he falls under the domination of his product, of capital.

 

 All these consequences are contained in this characteristic, that the worker is related to the product of labour as to an alien object. For it is clear that, according to this premise, the more the worker exerts himself in his work, the more powerful the alien, objective world becomes which he brings into being over against himself, the poorer he and his inner world become, and the less they belong to him. It is the same in religion. The more man puts into God, the less he retains within himself. The worker places his life in the object; but now it no longer belongs to him, but to the object. The greater his activity, therefore, the fewer objects the worker possesses. What the product of his labour is, he is not. Therefore, the greater this product, the less is he himself. The externalisation of the worker in his product means not only that his labour becomes an object, an external existence, but that it exists outside him, independently of him and alien to him, and begins to confront him as an autonomous power; that the life which he has bestowed on the object confronts him as hostile and alien.

 

Let us now take a closer look at objectification, at the production of the worker, and the estrangement, the loss of the object, of his product, that this entails.

 

The workers can create nothing without nature, without the sensuous external world. It is the material in which his labour realizes itself, in which it is active and from which, and by means of which, it produces.

 

But just as nature provides labour with the means of life, in the sense of labour cannot live without objects on which to exercise itself, so also it provides the means of life in the narrower sense, namely the means of physical subsistence of the worker.

 

 The more the worker appropriates the external world, sensuous nature, through his labour, the more he deprives himself of the means of life in two respects: firstly, the sensuous external world becomes less and less an object belonging to his labour, a means of life of his labour; and, secondly, it becomes less and less a means of life in the immediate sense, a means for the physical subsistence of the worker.

 

In these two respects, then, the worker becomes a slave of his object; firstly, in that he receives an object of labour, i.e., he receives work, and, secondly, in that he receives means of subsistence. Firstly, then, so that he can exist as a worker, and secondly as a physical subject. The culmination of this slavery is that it is only as a worker that he can maintain himself as a physical subject and only as a physical subject that he is a worker.

 

(The estrangement of the worker in his object is expressed according to the laws of political economy in the following way:

 

1. the more the worker produces, the less he has to consume;

2. the more value he creates, the more worthless he becomes;

3. the more his product is shaped, the more misshapen the worker;

4. the more civilized his object, the more barbarous the worker;

5. the more powerful the work, the more powerless the worker;

6. the more intelligent the work, the duller the worker and the more he becomes a slave of nature.)

 

 Political economy conceals the estrangement in the nature of labour by ignoring the direct relationship between the worker (labour) and production.  It is true that labour produces marvels for the rich, but it produces privation for the worker. It produces palaces, but hovels for the worker. It produces beauty, but deformity for the worker. It replaces labour by machines, but it casts some of the workers back into barbarous forms of labour and turns others into machines. It produces intelligence, but it produces idiocy and cretinism for the worker

 

 The direct relationship of labour to its products is the relationship of the worker to the objects of his production. The relationship of the rich man to the objects of production and to production itself is only a consequence of this first relationship, and confirms it. Later, we shall consider this second aspect. Therefore, when we ask what is the essential relationship of labour, we are asking about the relationship of the worker to production.

 

Up to now, we have considered the estrangement, the alienation of the worker, only from one aspect – i.e., the worker’s relationship to the products of his labour. But estrangement manifests itself not only in the result, but also in the act of production, within the activity of production itself. How could the product of the worker’s activity confront him as something alien if it were not for the fact that in the act of production he was estranging himself from himself? After all, the product is simply the resumé of the activity, of the production. So if the product of labour is alienation, production itself must be active alienation, the alienation of activity, the activity of alienation. The estrangement of the object of labour merely summarizes the estrangement, the alienation in the activity of labour itself.

 

What constitutes the alienation of labour?

 

For an answer to this question and more please continue to read HERE:

 Estranged Labour

 by Karl Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm

 

 “The Bait-ul-Mal”

 

“The Bait-ul-Mal is the central financial body of the Khilafah. It collects from six main sources: Jizya, Kharaj, national resources, trade, Ush’r, and Ghana’im. The outgoing is in four main areas:

 

1) Basic needs for all

2) Infrastructure for the state

3) Facilitate the Da’wah

4) Enough gold for currency

 

The objective is not to hoard the wealth of the nation, but rather to regulate and ensure the proper chanelling of the wealth of the State. The optimum situation is actually an empty Bait-ul-Mal, as that is the indication that the rights of the people are being fulfilled to the utmost capacity.” – “Introduction to the Systems of Islam”, page 62

 

Thats all nice, fine and dandy. But tell me this.

 

 Jizya:

 

How is Jizya NOT an insult to those who are, in terms of human rights, the equals of all Muslims?

 

What right do Muslims have to enforce a tax upon those who are not Muslms when the only differentiation between a Muslim and Non-Muslim is that of religion and nothing else?

 

Another example of how Human Rights are not figured into the equation for political dominance.

 

 Kharaj:

 

Its funny but this ‘tax’ isnt even BASED on anything within the Quran or Sunnah or Hadith – it is infact based on Ijma.

 

For a history regarding this tax read the following:

 

 In Islamic law, kharaj is a tax on agricultural land. Kharaj has no basis in the Qur’an or hadith, being rather the product of ijma, consensus of Islamic scholars, and urf, Islamic tradition.

 

Initially, after the first Islamic conquests in the 7th century, kharaj usually denoted a lump-sum duty levied upon the conquered provinces and collected by the officials of the former Byzantine and Sassanid empires or, more broadly, any kind of tax levied by Muslim conquerors on their non-Muslim subjects, dhimmis. At that time, kharaj was synonymous with jizyah, which later emerged as a poll tax paid by dhimmis. Muslims landowners, on the other hand, paid only ushr, a religious tithe, which carried a much lower rate of taxation.[1]

 

However, the mass conversion of Christians and Zoroastrians to Islam, largely driven by the desire to escape higher taxation, eroded the tax base of the Arab empire. On top of that, a large, but unsuccessful, expedition against the Byzantine Empire undertaken by the Umayyad caliph Sulayman in 717 brought the finances of the Umayyads to the brink of collapse. Even before Sulayman’s ascent to power, Al-Hajjaj, a governor of Iraq, attempted to raise revenues by demanding from Muslims a full rate of taxation, but that measure met with opposition and resentment. To address these problems, Sulayman’s successor Umar II worked out a compromise that beginning from 719, land from which kharaj was paid could not be transferred to Muslims, who could lease such land, but in that case, they would be required to pay kharaj from it. With the passage of time, the practical result of that reform was that kharaj was levied on most land without regard for the cultivator’s religion. The reforms of Umar II were finalized under the Abbasids and would thereafter form the model of tax systems in the Islamic state.[2]

 

 From that time on, kharaj was also used as a general term describing all kinds of taxes: for example, the classic tretease on taxation by the 9th century jurist Abu Yusuf was called Kitab al-Kharaj, i.e. The Book On Taxation.[1]

Wikipedia:  Kharaj

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

 

So tell me again, why is this tax applicable today when all it was ever constructed for, was to finance a failing Islamic State?

 

Oh right, I forgot. There isnt a reason – as usual – its just going to be done because it was done before. As simple as that. [:)]

 

 National resources

 

LOL!!!

 

National Resources? Anyway, yeah i agree. National Resources need to be included – but what i find funny is that i think it was included only for ‘special’ cases like Saudi Arabia whose ‘national resource’ is oil. [:)]

Isnt that so?

 

 Trade :

 

Oh yes, trade must be a very important part of the economy – nothing new there. But tell me this, will anyone else be trading with the ‘Islamic empire’? Or will the Islamic Empire be conducting trade within itself?

 

 

Ushr:

 

Is an intelligent Tax but, for the record, is limited to 5-10 percent of any produce.

 

 Ghana’im :

 

is basically War Booty and depends on how much ‘war’ occurs. Lol. Funny thing is War ‘booty’ includes slaves especially female slaves. I wonder how those figure into the larger framework of ‘taxation’. [:)]

 

 

 Islam has a unique system of taxation where there is no tax upon the poor.  

 

No, not really. It is not a unique system at all – you have to pick up a basic level economics handbook on ‘welfare states’ to see that not only are the ‘poor’ NOT taxed in a welfare state – they are given many of the basic necessities of life free of cost.

 

 There are only three types of regular taxes levied from those people who are able to pay:

 

1) Jizyah – A tax made on mature, male non-Muslim citisens who are able to pay it. This is much less than any tax on Muslim citisens.

 

2) Ushr – A tax levied on unconquered land under the jurisdiction of the State, at the rate of one tenth of the produce if the land is irrigated by rain, or one twentieth if it is artificially irrigated

 

3) Kharaj – A tax levied upon conquered land, whose rate is fixed by the Khalifah.

 

There are no income taxes.

There is no Value Added Tax (VAT).

There are no Death Duties.

There is no Road Tax.

 

Zakah is not part of the Islamic Economic System.

 

 

 On Jizya:

 

Please read the following:

 IslamOnline: jizya is “fair”

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003260.php

It says:

 

I have often encountered, in person and on radio shows, Muslims who claim that the jizya, the special tax required of non-Muslim dhimmis under Islamic law, was actually less than zakat, the Muslim obligation of charitable giving. This is patently absurd on the face of it, of course, since innumerable respected historians (including A.S. Tritton, Maxime Rodinson, and Bat Ye’or) have noted that it was money from the dhimmis, not from Muslims, that financed the early Islamic empires; indeed, Muslims paid nothing at all into the state treasury in the days when there were large populations (i.e., in Egypt and Syria) of conquered dhimmi Christians. Rodinson even points out in his biography of Muhammad that at certain times conversions to Islam were forbidden, as they were destroying the tax base! If the jizya had really been less than zakat, human nature being what it is, we would have seen large-scale conversions of Muslims to Christianity in the great Islamic empires — but of course we don’t, because who would want to exchange the position of the dominator for that of the dominated?

 

Nevertheless, today people read propaganda like Edward Said instead of history like Bat Ye’or, Tritton, and Rodinson, so they may be misled by this that recently appeared at IslamOnline (thanks to Ali Dashti for the link):

 

 Non-Muslims are called dhimmis and were required to pay a levy or jizya. The jizya was not paid as a bribe for practicing their faith, but rather as compensation for not serving in the army, protection for Crusading armies and tribal warfare. While most so-called journalists scream that the jizya is a tool of inequality, they fail to see that there is a tax levied on Muslims as well, the zakat, which non-Muslims are not required to pay.  

 

This assumes that jizya and zakat are equivalent, and other Muslims assert, as I have said, that the jizya is actually less than zakat. So let’s look at the record:

 

For non-Muslims in Muslim societies, there was not just jizya, but kharaj, the land tax. Tritton in The Caliphs and Their Non-Muslim Subjects equates the two: “Hafs, another governor of Egypt, announced that all dhimmis who abandoned their religion would be free from kharaj, which is jizya” (pp. 35-6). It is important to remember the two names because while the jizya was generally set at a fixed amount by the jurists (although this was highly adjustable), the kharaj was another matter. In the Hedaya, an Islamic legal manual, in a discussion about the purchase of land by a dhimmi, it declares: “it is lawful to require twice as much of a Zimmee [dhimmi] as of a Mussulman [Muslim], whence it is that, if such an one were to come before the collector with merchandise, twice as much would be exacted of him as of a Mussulman” (Hedaya I.vi).

 

Also Andrew Bostom has sent me these illuminating extracts:

 

 The voluntary character of the zakat contribution as a religious duty is emphasized by Qudama in the beginning of Chapter Thirteen, where he states that Muslims are trusted with the declaration of what is due from them, in contradistinction to other taxes which are compulsory and pursuable. The Saudi law by charging Muslims with this religious tax is following the old precepts who lay down that the rate of the tax is fixed in accordance with the persons from whom it is collected, i.e., from a Merchant of a foreign country 10 per cent, from a merchant of an allied country 5 per cent, and from a Muslim 2.5 per cent.

That’s from A. Ben Shemesh, Taxation in Islam Volume II, Qudama b. Ja’far’s Kitab Al-Kharaj. Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1965, p. 14.  

 

And this:

 

There is a desire to equate Zakat with Jiziyah to emphasize the fairness of the Islamic fiscal system. The Muslims pay Zakat and the non-Muslims Jiziyah. But the analogy is fallacious. The rate of Zakat tax is as low as 2.5 per cent and that on the apparent property only. All kinds of concessions are given in Zakat with regard to nisah or taxable minimum. In its collection no force is applied because force vitiates its character. On the other hand, the rate of Jiziyah is very high for the non-Muslims- 48, 24, and 12 silver tankahs for the rich, the middling and the poor, whatever the currency and whichever the country. Besides, what is central to Jiziyah is the humiliation of infidel always, particularly at the time of collection. What is central in Zakat is that it is voluntary; at least it cannot be collected by force. In India Zakat ceased to be a religious tax imposed only on the Muslims. Here Zakat was levied in the shape of customs duties on merchandise and grazing fee on all milk-producing animals or those which went to pasture, and was realized both from Muslims and non-Muslims. According to the Islamic law, ‘import duties for Muslims were 5 per cent and for non-Muslims 10 per cent of the commodity’. For, Abu Hanifa, whose Sunni school of law prevailed in India, would tax the merchandise of the Zimmis as imposts at double the Zakat fixed for Muslims.

From K.S. Lal, Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, Delhi, 1999, pp. 139-140.  

 

Note that both have jizya as double the rate of zakat, as per The Hedaya.

 

And of course the bottom line is that radical Muslims who are working to impose Sharia on Muslim and non-Muslim states, will endeavor also to reimpose the jizya. In the name of the equality of rights of all people, this must be resisted.

 

Two additional remarks. The payment of the jizyah was not only to collect revenue on which the Islamic state depended, but had to be made in conditions, as Lal says but that are not detailed in the quotation above, would demonstrate to one and all, Muslim and dhimmi alike, the inferior status of the dhimmi. The dhimmi was supposed to appear with the payment, and in many places he would be struck on the side of jaw, or otherwise. Not, that is, merely symbolically. In India where Hindus had to pay both zakat and jizya, one practice deserves mentioning (this may be in Lal, or on Sarkar, or elsewhere): the Hindu, treated as a kind of dhimmi even though, as a polytheist, he did not actually count as a member of the ahl al-Kitab or “people of the Book” (who, therefore, could be allowed to survive, and not convert, as long as they fully complied with their dhimmi status), would find that a Muslim would spit into his open mouth — quite a sign of his status.

 

There is something else. The payment either of jizyah, or the land-tax, kharaj, is only the best-known of the many disabilities, economic, political, and social, which dhimmis had to endure. Examples include the requirement that clothing of Christians and Jews, and their dwelling-places, bear marks indicating that they were either Christians or Jews. The zunnar, or belt, often blue, of the Christians, or the yellow star of the Jews (Hitler borrowed his idea from the “tolerant” court of Abbasid Baghdad), helped to identify people. And why would not need to identify them? Well, suppose one of them did not obey the rules pertaining to dhimmis. For example, dhimmis could not ride on horses, but only on donkeys, and only side-saddle, and they had to dismount whenever they came upon a Muslim. Dhimmis could not repair or build new houses of worship

 

. Dhimmis could not testify against Muslims in court, so if there were any quarrel, the Muslim would always win. And there were of course always the threat that if even a single dhimmi did not fulfill an obligation, or violated some prohibition, not only he, but his entire community could suffer

.Of course, even with this the massacre of whole communities — such as that of all the Jews in Grenada in 1066 — still went on, despite the payment of the “protection money” (Islamic defenders phrase it, rather cunningly, as “money spent for protection” — as if the Christians and Jews were merely paying for the local police, or fire department, rather than paying Muslims off for “protection” against Muslims themselves, who otherwise would be even harsher, and possibly kill those not conforming to the requirements of dhimmitude.

 

Among the Christians in the Balkans, and Bulgaria, the Ottoman Turks practiced the devshirme, the forced levy (kidnapping, really, by the Ottoman state) of Christian males to be trained up for service to the Ottomans. Although some (e.g. Bernard Lewis) present this as a rather innocuous fate, and Lewis goes so far as to suggest that Muslim parents were envious of the Christian children who were “recruited” (Lewis’ preposterous word) by the Ottomans (sounds more like agents from Istanbul fanned out, offering fat contracts in the manner of a Yankees agent in Santo Domingo than it what it really, and heart-rendingly, was — but then Lewis has never fully confronted the Ottoman treatment of non-Muslims, instead offering couleur locale, and some nunc pro tunc backdating of Kemalism).

 

While everyone finds reason to admire Kemal Pasha (and his friendshp with his dentist, Dr. Grunberg), and everyone is grateful that the Jews booted out of Spain so cruelly sought, and found refuge in, among other places (remember a little place called Amsterdam, and some of those portraits of rabbis by Rembrandt?), and of course in Salonika (where these Sephardic Jews replaced a previous group of Jews who had much earlier been forced to leave by the Ottomans) and elsewhere, gratitude has its limits, or should, in the historian who prides himself on his icy objectivity.

 

The most comprehensive statement of dhimmitude can be found in the works of Bat Ye’or, especially “Islam and Dhimmitude,” and above all, in its calm, Antoine Fattal’s Le statut legal des non-musulmanes aux pays d’Islam.” (I think I have the title right, but the last part may be off). Unfortunately, it remains to be translated into French — apparently, those who know of it either are hiding its existence, or are of the old school, and assume all graduate students know French. But this is a book for everyone — not least for those people presuming, in American law schools, to teach something they call “Islamic Law” but which is really theology. They at least ought to give a full accounting of how, under the Shari’a, non-Muslims are to be treated — it is of increasing relevance today. It may be Europe’s future. Why not find out now what that future holds in store?

From:  IslamOnline: jizya is “fair”

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003260.php

 

So the article, at the very least, explains how Jizya is NOT less than the money paid by an average Muslim.

 

Interesting…

 

But perhaps the most interesting aspect of this whole thing is the following: If ALL the islamic taxes were added up it would be seen that they amount to little over 14 percent.

 

For a system that is, admittedly, ‘welfare’ in its design this is extremely problematic. Why?

 

Simple. The Tax rate is, simply, not enough to finance ANY venture to fascilitate the citizens. Let us take the example of the few working welfare states we have in the world – Sweden and Denmark.

 

Let us see what Wikipedia has to say on the subject of Tax Rates within these countries:

 

 evidenced by places like Denmark (tax level at 50.4% of GDP in 2002) and Sweden (tax level at 50.3% of GDP in 2002).  

 

Wikipedia: Welfare States

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

 

Now it is clear that in order to provide the citizens with a basic service the tax rate must be near 50 percent – according to Islamic Economics, it is not. What does this mean?

 

This means that while the Islamic State will reach its pinnacle of perfection i.e an empty Bait-ul-maal, lol, this will not be because it has met, optimally, the needs of the people – rather because it simply does not have enough money to do what it wants.

 

Funny that. [:)]

 

 Public resources such as sources of water like rivers and lakes, sources of energy like electricity, and public utilities like parks, roads and railways cannot be privatised according to the wishes of the government. They remain public property as originally classified by Islam according to their nature. They will always remain public and cannot be owned by individuals wo may charge excessively and prevent the vital requirements of the people getting to them, as happens in the West.

 

But that means that while THESE things cannot be privatized, there are certain other industrial sectors which can – indeed should be privatized, according to the understanding of Islamic economists, right?

 

Lets look at the phenomenon of privatization taking Pakistan as an example:

 

 Privatization in Pakistan: A history of Corruption.

 by Mobeen Ahmed Chughtai.

 

 Introduction:

 

The Industrial situation of Pakistan, as it existed at the time of independence, was pitiful. With the Pakistani budget being a mere 140 million Rupees for the year 1947 and a handful of companies (159) registered at the time the economic prospects, as they existed at the time, were bleak. It is in spite of this that Pakistan achieved a remarkable Industrial growth during the 1950s and 1960s; equally remarkable (though in a negative manner) that since the 1970s there has been no appreciable growth in the Industrial Sector of Pakistan itself; indeed negative growth can clearly be seen to have occurred.

 

The author of this paper would like to bring to light key issues that have to be identified in order to understand the Industrial Sector’s growth in Pakistan in its formative years as well as the stagnation that followed. Furthermore, it will be shown that this stagnation is not a phenomenon divorced from the policies and manners followed by the government; that it is indeed a product of design. It will, therefore, be shown that the denationalization of public industrial units; handing them over to private entrepreneurs has constituted the most important breakdown of public industrial policy on the part of the Pakistani Government. The very phenomenon of Privatization, in the manner it has been conducted in Pakistan in the recent decades, will be challenged in light of economic (poverty, concentration of wealth and inequality) and social (misery and corruption) reality it generates. It will be shown, with particular examples, that the implementation of privatization of industrial units in the 1990s and 2000s has been carried out, not just inefficiently but, with the intent of corruption; that such privatization could never have a beneficial result for Pakistani society.

 

  The Beginning:

 

Pakistan came into being on August 14th, 1947 – this much we all know. It faced a lot of challenges – military threat from India, lack of government personnel, refuges from India etc – this much is taught to most in accordance with government syllabus on Pakistan Studies. However, what is not so obvious; indeed what is not taught to us are the economic realities that existed at the time of partition. Pakistan had virtually no resources, save what was promised to it by India as economic compensation for the disproportionate division of the Pre-Independence Industrial Sector (To date Pakistan has not received the full amount of this economic compensation). The very first budget, according to an edition of The Daily Jung, dated August 10th 1997, was nearly 140 million Rupees. The details of this budget were such that Rs. 890 million were initially projected by the government but this figure included Rs. 750 million (which were held with the Reserve Bank of India; an amount that was never paid). It is for this reason that the actual budget of the year 1947-48 came to (890 million – 750 million = ) Rs. 140 million.

 

As mentioned earlier the Industrial conditions in the geographical area that now constitutes contemporary day Pakistan, at the time of Partition, were pathetic. The Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress had the following to say on the subject;

 

In 1947 only some 5 percent of the large-scale industrial facilities in British India were located in what became Pakistan. The country started with virtually no industrial base and no institutional, financial, or energy resources. Three small hydroelectric power stations provided limited electricity to a few urban areas. Firewood and dung were the main sources of energy; commercial energy sources supplied only about 30 percent of the energy consumed. Further, there was a shortage of management personnel and skilled labor.

(Library of Congress, 2006).

 

While it is true that the poverty of the State of Pakistan, in 1947, was a great impetus for Industrialization but it would be entirely inaccurate to say that this was the ONLY incentive. Perhaps the greatest incentive to the development of an Industrial base in Pakistan was due to the reluctance, on the part of the State of Pakistan, to devalue the rupee when it became necessary to do so in the 1950s. This necessity was a direct precursor to Industrialization because Pakistan’s chief export, Jute, was sold all over the world especially to India. Any devaluation in the strength of the Pakistani Rupee would have drastic consequences for the Pakistani economy since it would, more than significantly, lower the benefit from Jute sales, in Real-Monetary terms.  It is ironic that, historically speaking, Pakistan took this decision to maintain trade ties with India but that it had the opposite effect. Since the Pakistani rupee had not been devalued, in comparison to the Indian Rupee or the pound sterling, the Indian Government found it difficult to maintain trade with Pakistan for Jute (since the Indian rupee had been devalued). This, further, complicated the situation for Pakistan which increased its efforts, for industrialization, in desperation.

 

Since the State of Pakistan found itself incapable of devaluing its currency, without loss of significant economic inflow, it decided to provide incentives for the growth of a local industrial sector. Mushtaq H. Khan, in his article ‘The Political Economy of Industrial Policy in Pakistan 1947-1971’, gives an account of this;

 

 First, Pakistan decided not to devalue the Pakistan Rupee in line with the Indian Rupee when sterling devalued against the dollar in 1949. This effectively overvalued the Pakistan Rupee against both the Indian Rupee and the pound to which the latter was linked and made it more expensive for India to import raw materials such as cotton and jute fibres from Pakistan. At the same time, it made imports of machines into Pakistan cheaper, particularly from the sterling area. This provided a strong incentive for Pakistani traders to enter industry and to step into the shoes of Calcutta and Bombay industrialists. The refusal to devalue was thus an expression of economic nationalism. It broke the trade links that the Pakistani regions had with India as an agricultural hinterland and provided an important spur for import substituting industrialization.  

(Khan, 14).

 

 The Industrialization:

 

Pakistan was formed from the agricultural hinterland of India. As such, even at the time of Partition, it depended heavily on agricultural and other raw-material based exports. So much so that in the 1950s Pakistan’s agriculture constituted 60% of its GNP while its manufacturing output was only 5.9 percent of the GNP (only 1.4% of the GNP was contributed by the Large Scale Manufacturing Sector). Pakistan underwent a tremendous Industrialization process in the decades of 1950 and 1960. In the 1950s the State of Pakistan encouraged private accumulation; the State of Pakistan implemented policies in line with Import Substitution to kick start its Industrial sector. Hassan N. Gardezi, in his article ‘Globalization and Pakistan’s Dilemma of Development’, says “Economic growth as measured by the rate of increase in Gross National Product (GNP) was accelerated from an average of 3.1 % in 1950s to 6.8 % in 1960s, reaching a record high of 10 % over the year 1969-70”.

What is even more interesting is that there were other, more sinister, elements, at work.

 

 Rise of the ‘Robber Barons’

 

Pakistan’s Robber Barons constitute an artificially created class of person, who was ‘entrusted’ with the job of Industrializing and modernizing Pakistan. The primary creation of this new class was undertaken in the 1960s under the military regime of Gen. Ayub Khan; the (in-)famous 22 Families. Important names, of the families created, in the Ayub Khan era include :

 

1 Dawood

2 Saigol 

3 Adamjee

4 Jalil

5 Colony

6 Fancy

7 Valika

8 Bawany

9 Crescent

10 Wazir Ali

11 Gandhara

12 Isphani

13 Habib

14 Khyber

15 Nisaht

16 Beco

17 Gul Ahmed

18 Arag

19. Hafiz

20. Karim

21. Milwala

22. Dada

 

Courtesy: Industrial Concentration and economic power in Pakistan by Lawerence White

 

  The Beginning:  

 

In Ayub Khan’s time this artificial creation of the Industrial Bourgeoisie was carried out through handing over the of the State-created and Public Industrial units to private hands. An account of, how utterly ridiculous and corrupt, this process can be understood from the manner in which the ‘handing over’ of Karnaphuli Paper Mill was done. An account of this was given by Shahid Rehman who comments on what Usman Umar Batliwala  said:

 

According to the Batliwala, Ahmad Dawood invited president Ayub Khan to inaugurate a school set up by Ahmad Dawood at Jessore, in East Pakistan, in 1959. At the ceremony, Nawab of Kalabagh, Chairman, WPIDC was disturbed by a report about the death of an official of Karnahuli Paper Mills in a clash between management and the workers. The govt had already decided that the project will be divested but no private sector entrepreneur was interested in taking over such a big project, chronically ill and in a dismal financial shape.  

 

 After the ceremony, Nawab Kalabagh invited Ahmad Dawood to a meeting and asked him to take over the paper mill. Initially Dawood refused but upon great persuasion, promised to consider the proposal. After pondering over the proposal for several days, Ahmad Dawood agreed to take over Karnaphuli Paper Mills and it was affiliated with Dawood group of Industries.

(Rehman, 84).

 

The Initial phase of this ‘handing over’ was managed by two organizations; The PIDC (Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation) and PICIC (Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation). Of course what is equally interesting is the manner in which these respective organizations were ‘organized’. Shahid Rehman says;

 

 While PIDC was divesting industrial projects set up with tax-payers money and govt-contracted loans, to big industrial groups, its sister organization, Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation (PICIC) was dishing out loans to the same people to launch new industries.

PICIC’s board of director included 13 members from the private sector and seven of them belonged to the leading families including Dawood, Adamjee, Bashir, Fancy, Jalil, Rangoonwala and Valika. It was headed by A W Adamjee with Ahmad Dawood as vice chairman. Heavily represented on the board of PICIC, these families made sure that loans sanctioned by the corporation rotated within same people. The dominance of the industrial families on PICIC board continues to-date.  

(Rehman, 84).

It is this fact; this corruption of a public forum for the management of public assets which contributed, in no small measure, to the disastrous rise in inequality that plagues Pakistan today.

 

 Nawaz Shareef:

 

The purpose for starting with Nawaz Shareef is because his political career, at least in Pakistani politics, started before Benazir Bhutto’s career due to the fact that he was the chief minister of Punjab during Gen. Zia-ul-Haq’s military regime. Gen. Zia re-activated the PICIC by ordering a commission to over-see denationalization of ‘sick’ industrial units. As Chief Minister at the time, Nawaz Shareef presided over the de-nationalization and privatization of many Industrial Units (till then under the purview of Punjab Industrial Development Board PIDB).

 

During his own tenure Nawaz Shareef proceeded to privatize relentlessly. There were two reasons for this; firstly he was an advocate of private enterprise, being an industrialist himself, and secondly he wanted to counter the Bhutto-oriented Nationalizing opinion in society. Within six weeks of coming to power though ‘democratic’ means Nawaz Shareef had privatized Muslim Commercial Bank (MCB). Ofcourse this bank was ‘sold’ to Mian Mansha, an industrialist, with whom Nawaz Shareef maintained close ties. Between March and August of 1991 a total of 125 Units were marked for Privatization. Of these 125 units, 81 were selected by bidders who placed a total of 235 bids on them. 25 bids were subsequently accepted.

 

The format of corruption undertaken by Nawaz Shareef can be judged from the following;

 

 Nawaz Sharif had earmarked 115 units for privatization and when his government was dismissed on April 18,1993, he had privatized two banks, 68 industrial units and 10% Shares of Sui Northern Gas Pipeline for a consideration of Rs 12,018 million. As opposition leader, Benazir hounded his privatization with charges of corruption and leading to concentration of wealth in few hands. So widespread were the charges of concentration of wealth that his government was forced to set up a committee headed by former Finance Secretary H U Beg to investigate into it. The report of the committee never saw the light of the day.

(Rehman, 39).

 

 Benazir Bhutto:

 

Benazir’s tenure was not much different from that of Nawaz. Very much like Nawaz Shareef had made an unholy alliance with Mian Mansha for personal benefit – Benazir Bhutto made one with Hashwani. Benazir Bhutto used the very loopholes that were previously used by her precursor Nawaz Shareef to do the exact same thing Nawaz Shareef used them for i.e Privatization. Mere cursory critique of the process of privatization, as it was handled by Nawaz Shareef, was made with particular emphasis on ‘mis-management’ and ‘poor understanding’ of the Privatization process by his government. It is obvious that the very paradigm of Privatization was not challenged because this government had the exact same interests. The following is an extract from the People’s Party Website; their version of what they wanted to implement;

 

Benazir Bhutto once again returned to the office of Prime Minister.Benazir Bhutto had redefined the Party programme at the Silver Jubilee of the Party at Lahore in November, 1992. The New Social contract envisaged a social market economy, Privatization of the means of production, downsizing of the government, devolution of power and decentralization to the level of Local Government

(Zaman, 4).

 

It is interesting, though, that a party with such ‘noble’ intentions decided to Privatize the SUI Gas Field This case is cited as one of the reasons for the dismissal of Benazir Bhutto’s government by Farooq Laghari;

 

The PPI deal was cited by President Farooq Leghari as an exemple of corruption of Benazir govt in both his dismissal order and later…. Khalid Anwar said that intrinsic value of Sui Gas field was 6 billion dollars and under the trilateral deal between Burmah, BHP and Hashoo, Sadaruddin Hashwani was getting the management of PPL for 24 million dollars

(Rehman, 54-55).

 

It should be mentioned here that perhaps Benazir found it less easy to pursue privatization than Nawaz owing to some quasi-socialist elements within her party. This is not to say, however, that relentless and corrupt privatization was not the hallmark of her tenure as well. 

 

 Musharraf:

 

In the opinion of the author it would be a good idea to understand the quantitative, and hence, qualitative difference between the privatizations done under Nawaz Shareef and Benazir Bhutto and Gen. Musharraf in order to recognize the role being played by Gen. Musharraf in the continuation of an already corrupt practice.

 

According to official figures, as revealed by the Privatization Commission Website, ALL privatizations uptil December 31st, 1997 amounted to Rs. 20,193 Million and US$ 1,153 Million.  Between 1991 and June 2004 ALL privatizations amounted to Rs. 134,289 million. But from July 2004 to April 2006 the total amount of Privatizations was Rs. 260,952 Million. As can be seen, the scale of privatizations during the phase of July 2004 and April 2006, in monetary terms, is far higher than ALL privatizations before it. One can clearly see that Gen. Musharraf has conducted more privatization in his tenure than any other ‘leader’.

 

The privatization of PTCL is an excellent example of how Gen. Musharraf is pursuing his interests. A visit to the PTCL website will present the following statement to the visitor;

 

The government through the Privatization Commission (PC) is pursing the privatization of PTCL in earnest. The government has envisaged the proposed sale of 26% of PTCL’s equity with transfer of management control. The Company is full cooperating with PC to achieve the privatization goal of the government.

(PTCL).

 

However it does not mention that this particular privatization was done through violent and oppressive means; where the army itself was involved in a military operation against the PTCL unions; where 500 hundred union workers were arbitrarily arrested for protesting – their civil right. Hina Zain relates;

 

 On the night of June 11, army and paramilitary troops were sent in to occupy important PTCL buildings and installations. In the process of the occupation hundreds of leading worker activists were arrested. As the bosses had forced the regime to restart the privatization process, the workers put intense pressure on the union leadership to restart the strike. The situation is very tense at the moment and reports are coming in of a breakdown in the telecommunication system in several districts. Two hundred and seventy thousand phones are out of order and the workers are threatening to cut transmission lines between major cities of the country tonight. The army signal corps has been called in to run the fibre optic network, however it is doubtful whether they have the necessary skills to run it.

(Zain, 2).

 

  Privatization, an Oasis?

Having established that Gen. Musharraf has committed, statistically speaking, a far greater extent of privatization than the previous democratic governments, I shall now qiestion the very concept of privatization.

 

The most important justification given for the purpose of privatization is to ensure efficiency within a sector or an industrial unit and to, therefore, make it more competitive. Dr. Akhter Hassan Khan has completed a detailed research on the question of Privatization in Pakistan  and has the following to say:

Better              Same               Worse              Total

PMEs *           9                      13                    16                    38

Misc.               3                      10                    1                     14

Ghee Mills       2                      12                    5                      19

Rice Mills        2                                            6                      8

Banks              2                      2                                            4

Total                18                    37                   28                    83

Percentage       22                    44                    34                    100%

Source: Impact and Analysis of Privatization in Pakistan: ADB

Report October 1998.

* Public Manufacturing Enterprises.

 

The above table clearly indicates that only 22% of the privatized units were performing better than in the pre-privatization period, 44% approximately the same and about the third i.e 34% worse than before. It is quite clear that the compelling reason for privatization that of improving the efficiency of the units, was only attained by about 1/5 of the units, whereas the rest were working with the same efficiency or worse than before. No wonder in the articlequoted above the authors had reached the conclusion that, “in Pakistan there is nothing hardly good or bad about public sector or even the private sector for that matter”. On the whole, operational efficiency deteriorated after privatization. Moreover, the most tragic consequence of privatization was the closure of many units which are listed below; –

 

1) Naya Daur Motors

2) Dandot Cement

3) Zeal Pak Cement

4) National Cement

5) General Refractories

6) Pak PVC

7) Swat Elutriation

8) Nowshera PVC

9) Nowshera Chemicals

10) Pak China Fertilizer

11) Karachi Pipe Mills

12) Metropolitan Steel

13) Pak Switchgear

14) Quality Steel

15) Indus Steel Pipe

16) Fazal Veg. Ghee

17) Haripur Veg. Oil

18) Khyber Veg.

19) Suraj Ghee Indus.

20) Hydari Veg. Ghee

 

 The closure of these units has played havoc to the national economy and the first phase of privatization has contributed to the lower rate of industrial and economic growth. The GDP growth which was above 6% in the 1980s declined to around 4% in the post privatization period.

(Khan, 5-6).

 

In light of this it comes as no surprise that the Industrial sector of Pakistan is not just stagnant but has experienced a negative growth; due to the mis-management of public industrial units and their handing over to private hands on unfair and corrupt precepts.

 

 Conclusion

 

It is clear that the individuals who have held power in Pakistan have never had the true interest of the people at heart. It is clear that all previous governments, whether Bourgeois Quasi-Democracies or outright Military Dictatorships, had personal interests at heart; The ‘democratic’ leaders wanted to line their pockets and transfer public industrial units into their private hands; the Army, as an institution, wanted to maintain its parasitic grip on Pakistani society and continue to bleed it, in the form of ridiculously huge military budgets, till society shrivels up and dies. It is also clear that the practice of Privatization as an economic policy has not only failed but is entirely counterproductive for social and economic benefit of the Pakistani Society.

 

We live in a country that is not just plagued with corruption but also by first world influence and intimidation. In such a situation, such elements as the Bourgeois PML-N, the ‘Nationalist’ PPP or the Army will continue to come into power until they choose to bow their heads to their foreign masters and continue to exploit the people at home.

 

In such a situation the only way in which real progressive change can come about it through any system of government based on the rule of the majority – based on the non-exploitative rule of the people.

 

So, Mr. Amin, you were saying something about Islam accepting Privatization?

LOL!

 

  Currency in the Khilafah can only be based upon Gold and Silver. Thus, it will be of real value itself, providing stability in the economy. It cannot be reproduced or destroyed, which would cause devaluation and inflation.”

 

So, Mr. Amin, you believe that inflation and devaluation is caused ONLY by the fact that currency is reproduced or destroyed?

 

Are you insane?

 

Let me show you why i ask that question:

 

 Inflation: What Is Inflation?

 http://www.investopedia.com/university/inflation/inflation1.asp

 

Inflation is defined as a sustained increase in the general level of prices for goods and services. It is measured as an annual percentage increase. As inflation rises, every dollar you own buys a smaller percentage of a good or service.

 

The value of a dollar does not stay constant when there is inflation. The value of a dollar is observed in terms of purchasing power, which is the real, tangible goods that money can buy. When inflation goes up, there is a decline in the purchasing power of money. For example, if the inflation rate is 2% annually, then theoretically a $1 pack of gum will cost $1.02 in a year. After inflation, your dollar can’t buy the same goods it could beforehand.

 

There are several variations on inflation:

 Deflation  is when the general level of prices is falling. This is the opposite of inflation.

 Hyperinflation  is unusually rapid inflation. In extreme cases, this can lead to the breakdown of a nation’s monetary system. One of the most notable examples of hyperinflation occurred in Germany in 1923, when prices rose 2,500% in one month!

 Stagflation  is the combination of high unemployment and economic stagnation with inflation. This happened in industrialized countries during the 1970s, when a bad economy was combined with OPEC raising oil prices.

 

In recent years, most developed countries have attempted to sustain an inflation rate of 2-3%.

 

 Causes of Inflation

 

Economists wake up in the morning hoping for a chance to debate the causes of inflation. There is no one cause that’s universally agreed upon, but at least two theories are generally accepted:

 

  Demand-Pull Inflation   – This theory can be summarized as “too much money chasing too few goods”. In other words, if demand is growing faster than supply, prices will increase. This usually occurs in growing economies.

 

  Cost-Push Inflation   – When companies’ costs go up, they need to increase prices to maintain their profit margins. Increased costs can include things such as wages, taxes, or increased costs of imports.

 

 Costs of Inflation  

 

Almost everyone thinks inflation is evil, but it isn’t necessarily so. Inflation affects different people in different ways. It also depends on whether inflation is anticipated or unanticipated. If the inflation rate corresponds to what the majority of people are expecting (anticipated inflation), then we can compensate and the cost isn’t high. For example, banks can vary their interest rates and workers can negotiate contracts that include automatic wage hikes as the price level goes up.

 

Problems arise when there is unanticipated inflation:

 

Creditors lose and debtors gain if the lender does not anticipate inflation correctly. For those who borrow, this is similar to getting an interest-free loan.

Uncertainty about what will happen next makes corporations and consumers less likely to spend. This hurts economic output in the long run.

People living off a fixed-income, such as retirees, see a decline in their purchasing power and, consequently, their standard of living.

The entire economy must absorb repricing costs (“menu costs”) as price lists, labels, menus and more have to be updated.

If the inflation rate is greater than that of other countries, domestic products become less competitive.

 

As you can see, some of the texts on Inflation that scientific economists refer to dont even take into account such minor problems like ‘destruction of currency’ since it occurs on such a small level. Similarly , the reproduction of money (illegal or otherwise) doesnt contribute to the problem as significantly as other factors do. Lets, atleast, try to concentrate on relevant problems rather than minor ones in an effort to come up with a ‘economic theory’. [:)]

 

And now, since you have, so eloquently, succeeded in making a fool out of yourself, let me return you to the wordings of my challenge. The challenge, you answered, said:

 

 1) I challenge you to prove to me that the systems practiced 1400 years ago can even BEGIN to cope with the needs of our times. Open challenge.

 

Whereas the explanation and answer you gave (hopelessly illogical as it is) was to the 5th challenge which stated:

 

 5) The sad fact of the matter is that Islam HAS no inherent Economic system. Please prove me wrong by giving me a detailed  description of the Islamic Economic system.

 

Clearly you were not thinking straight (as can be deduced from this answer you gave in explaining the economic system of Islam) when you answered the first challenge because it wasnt even concerning the economic system at all. If anything, it related to the social and political institution of the Khilafat and wanted you to prove how the Khalifa could POSSIBLY be a relevant force within the context of modern society. Indeed you failed to do even that.

 

Pity.


Answer to challenge 2:

 

 That would be a problem in application, not a problem within the system itself. Because we believe that Islam is a complete deen and cannot have any flaws, the problem with ordinances such as the one you mentioned is how the ideology is applied rather than the ideology itself.

 

Thank you. That is EXACTLY what i wanted you to say. So you think there is nothing wrong with Islamic Laws then. Great.

 

How do you explain the following:

 

 1) Child Marriage:

 The Quran in Sura 65:1, 4 says:

65:1 O Prophet, when you (and the believers) divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting-period and count the waiting-period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden. (Maududi, vol. 5, pp. 599 and 617, emphasis added)

Maududi correctly interprets the verse and states:

“Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible.”

(Maududi, vol. 5, p. 620, note 13, emphasis added)

 

 2) A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a dirt field.

The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says:

Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like . . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

We should make no mistake about this verse. It includes sexual positions. In a footnote to this verse, Haleem says that Muslims in Medina heard from the Jews that “a child born from a woman approached from behind would have a squint.”

The hadith are the reports of Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran. Two reliable hadith collectors and editors are Bukhari (d. 870), Muslim (d. 875). After the Quran, the hadith come second in importance and sacredness among the vast majority of Muslims around the world.

Since the hadith is explicit, the readers are invited to click here and read for themselves, at their own discretion: Muslim nos. 3363-3365.

See these parallel hadith here and here.

We should have no doubt that the husband controlled their sex life. If a woman does not want to have sex, then angels curse her.

. . . “If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angels send their curses on her till morning.” (Bukhari)


 3) Husbands are a degree above their wives.

The Quran in Sura 2:228 says:

. . . Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status . . . (Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 165)

Gender inequality shows up in a theological context. This hadith shows that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women.

The Prophet said, “I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women.” (Bukhari, emphasis added; see also these parallel traditions here and here.)

This parallel hadith explains that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women because they are ungrateful and harsh towards their husbands. There is no word about the husbands’ ingratitude and harshness. It should be noted that some Muslim missionaries and polemicists assert that since women make up the majority of the world, it only stands to reason that they would be the majority in hell. In reply, however, this misses the point—and may miss the possibility that women may be more spiritual than men. Regardless, the reason that women make up the majority in hell is their harshness and ingratitude. So it has nothing to do with a mathematical majority. Islam clearly does not honor women.

This next hadith says that women are part of an evil omen.

I heard the Prophet saying. “Evil omen is in three things: The horse, the woman and the house.” (Bukhari)

 

 4) A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female.

The Quran in Sura 4:11 says:

The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 311)

For how this religious law works out in early Islam, see these hadith here and here and here.

Malik (d. 795) is a founder of a major school of law. He composed a law book that is also considered a collection of reliable hadith: Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The First Formation of Islamic Law (rev. trans. Aisha Bewley, Inverness, Scotland: Madina Press, 1989, 2001). Malik writes:

The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us . . . about fixed shares of inheritance (fara’id) of children from the mother or father when one or the other dies is that if they leave male and female children, the male takes the portion of two females.


 5) A woman’s testimony counts half of a man’s testimony.

The Quran in Sura 2:282 says:

And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 205).

It seems that the foundational reason for having two women witnesses is that one of the women may “forget” something. This goes to the nature of womankind. Philosophers teach us that one of the main differences between animals and humans lies in humankind’s rationality. But this verse implies that a woman’s mind is weak.

This hadith removes any ambiguity about women’s abilities in Sura 2:282:

The Prophet said, “Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?” The women said, “Yes.” He said, “This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.” (Bukhari, emphasis added)

 

 6) A wife may remarry her ex-husband if and only if she marries another man, they have sex, and then this second man divorces her.

The Quran in Sura 2:230 says:

And if the husband divorces his wife (for the third time), she shall not remain his lawful wife after this (absolute) divorce, unless she marries another husband and the second husband divorces her. (In that case) there is no harm if they [the first couple] remarry . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 165)

The finally and absolutely divorced couple is not permitted to remarry each other unless she marries another man, they have sex, and he divorces her. Sura 2:230 engenders a divorce on the road to a possible reconciliation. Why should it be necessary to have the intervening steps of a second marriage and divorce before the first couple can work out their differences and get back together?

 

 7) Slave-girls are sexual property for their male owners.

The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:

And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war) . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319).

Sayyid Maududi (d. 1979), a highly respected traditional commentator and scholar, says in his comment on the verse that is it lawful for Muslim holy warriors to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive. But what happens if the husbands are captured with their wives? Maududi cites a school of law that says Muslims may not marry them, but two other schools say that the marriage between the captive husbands and wives is broken (note 44). But why would a debate over this cruelty emerge in the first place? No sex or marriage should take place between married female prisoners of war and their captors. In fact, no sex should take place between women captives and their overlords.

See also Suras 4:3; 23:5-6; 33:50; 70:22-30, all of which permit male slave-owners to have sex with their slave-girls. Suras 23:5-6 and 70:22-230 allow men to have sex with them in the Meccan period, during times of peace before Muhammad initiated his skirmishes and wars while being based in Medina.

The hadith demonstrate that Muslim jihadists actually have sex with the captured women, whether or not they are married. In the following hadith passage, Khumus is one-fifth of the spoils of war.

Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, just finished a relaxing bath. Why?

The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and . . . Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus).

What was Muhammad’s response to the person who hated Ali for this sexual act?

Do you hate Ali for this? . . . Don’t hate him, for he deserves more than that from [the] Khumus. (Bukhari)

 

 8) A man may be polygamous with up to four wives.

The Quran in Sura 4:3 says:

And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 305)

The clause “marry those who have fallen in your possession” means slave-girls who were captured after a war. Men may “marry” them because slaves do not incur very much expense, not as much as free women do. This means that the limit on four wives is artificial. Men could have sex with as many slave-girls as they wanted.

Maududi paraphrases the verse: “If you need more than one [wife] but are afraid that you might not be able to do justice to your wives from among the free people, you may turn to slave girls because in that case you will be burdened with less responsibilities” (note 6) (See Sura 4:24).

 

 9) A man may simply get rid of one of his undesirable wives.

The Quran in Sura 4:129 says:

It is not within your power to be perfectly equitable in your treatment with all your wives, even if you wish to be so; therefore, (in order to satisfy the dictates of Divine Law) do not lean towards one wife so as to leave the other in a state of suspense. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 381)

Maududi provides an interpretation of the verse (vol. 1, pp. 383-84, note 161). He writes:

Allah made it clear that the husband cannot literally keep equality between two or more wives because they themselves cannot be equal in all respects. It is too much to demand from a husband that he should mete out equal treatment to a beautiful wife and to an ugly wife, to a young wife and to an old wife, to a healthy wife and to an invalid wife, and to a good natured wife and to an ill-natured wife. These and like things naturally make a husband more inclined towards one wife than towards the other.

This means that wives are the source of a man’s inability to treat all of them equally. One is beautiful, while another is ugly. How can Allah demand from a husband super-human strength under changing circumstances in his wives?

Maududi continues:

In such cases, the Islamic law does not demand equal treatment between them in affection and love. What it does demand is that a wife should not be neglected as to be practically reduced to the position of the woman who has no husband at all. If the husband does not divorce her for any reason or at her own request, she should at least be treated as a wife. It is true that under such circumstances the husband is naturally inclined towards a favorite wife, but he should not, so to say, keep the other in such a state of suspense as if she were not his wife.

Maududi says here that the wife should not be suspended between marriage and divorce. If the husband stays with the no-longer desirable wife, then he should treat her fairly and provide for her.

 

 10) Husbands may hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives

 

The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is

most high and great. (Haleem, emphasis added).

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

 

Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi

married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have

not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” (Bukhari, emphasis added).

 

Though if you are someone who thinks that:

1) Marrying a child,
2) Derogatory remarks about women,
3) Inequality of Genders,
4) Disproportionate Inheritence,
5) Judicial discrimination,
6) Marital Oppression,
7) Treatment of females slaves as sexual property,
8) Male Dominance and Polygamy,
9) Disproportional Spouse-Rights,
10) Wife Beating,

are progressive steps then i Simply cannot debate with you because in my opinion, in the context of modern society, One would need to be significantly:

1) Oppressive,
2) Uncouth,
3) Sick

to support such policies. I certainly do NOT support them.

 

Answer to challenge 3:

 

 Is that not true equality? Communism works to give people only what they need within the parameters of equal distribution for all so that there are no “levels” of society. If this isn’t the case, then the levels within society will eventually result from people owning different things, and some having better than others. It’s human nature.

 

Ofcourse not!! Have you lost it?

 

True equality is NOT the equality of ‘possession’ – it is the equality of ‘opportunity’. It is the equality of the chance to gain something for one’s self.

 

But in your feudal mindset i can understand how u can automatically associate everything with ‘possession’; that you are equal to someone else if you possess exactly as much as the other one does. That is not how communism works!

 

Communism aims to equalize the OPPORTUNITY to possess – it aims to equalize the relationship human beings have with the means of production and thereby block all avenues of coercion.

 

 On Human Nature:

The first thing that needs to be asked is (assuming evolution is correct) whether there was ever any stage in history where people DID NOT NEED to fight over any resource (food or otherwise) simply because Resources were aplenty and Human population low?

It would indeed be not just illogical but idiotic to fight over something someone has when the same thing can be gained without violence. Such a society would have no exploitation since there would be nothing to create a power imbalance. Such a society is called a PRIMITIVE COMMUNIST society.

 

When did man start fighting over resources?

 

Surely when human population grew BEYOND obtainable resources. THIS is when conflict arose. THIS is when the first class of the STRONG and the WEAK came to be. Surely, in such a system the strong (by virtue of strength) EXPLOIT the weak. Surely this, too, according to our society would be immoral. But then again morality ITSELF is defined by the Objective-Material conditions that DEFINE that era. Since i am not LIVING in that era i would refrain from commenting on the MORALITY of such a system (since i dont want to sound Epoch-Centric).

 

But would that be hostile? Ofcourse. The Strong exploiting the weak through virtue of physical strengh HAVE to be hostile. It is the primitive nature of their social relationships that preclude any other (sophisticated) form of oppression.

 

Similarly, the Capitalist system (again shown by Lenin in his article, shown by Marx in his works; indeed shown by history itself) is based on exploitation; the most primitive weapon of which is War.. is hostility (case in point: US Imperialist War on Iraq).

 

So, as is evident, ‘human nature’ is not a static value – it is a transient and interactive phenomenon. Let us not equate the human nature of a greedy and exploitative system with the human nature of an non-exploitative one.

 

Answer to challenge 4:

 

 The Dialectic Theory claims that the system of society moves in one, irreversible direction through 4 stages: Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism.

 

To date, not a single “Communist State” has followed this process, and some have even broken it by going back (ex. Russia’s capitalist state).

 

I do have more, but again, I have no access to any research sources at the moment. Please bear with me.

 

 

I dont even have to spend alot of time on this one. Permit me to say you have a totally incorrect understanding of Communism and Dialectical Materialism.

 

First of all, who the hell told you that dialectical materialism says society moves in ONLY one direct IRREVERSIBALY???

hahahaha.

 

Let me give you the explanation of Dialectical materialism because i dont know what they’re teaching you over in the Madrasahs these days. [:)]

 

Dialectical Materialism is based on three main laws:

 

Laws of dialectics

The three laws of dialectics are:

 

1. The law of the unity and conflict of opposites;

2. The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes;

3. The law of the negation of the negation

 

It says nothing about irreversability and that is why your subsequent argument falls apart.

 

Kindly take the time to, at the very least, read something about a phenomenon before deciding to comment on it – it is generally a good practice. [:)]

 

Answer to challenge 5:

 

You’ve already acknowledged the fact that Islam actually does have one from my previous shallow description (there is so much more to go through), but it’s there.

 

eh? I have? Where? [:O]

hahaha

 

  That link I provided earlier takes you to a document which I believe to be absolutely correct and cannot be refuted (in terms of its description of the Islamic Economic System as well as its derailings of Capitalism and Communism), so if you still somehow feel like arguing for whatever reason, you might want to go start from there.

 

Oh i did. The book doesnt make any sense when modern day economics are taken into account – sorry to say. [:)]

 

Besides you posted the wrong answer under the wrong challenge. [:P]

Mind correcting that? [:)]

 

 

I have to refer to the Tafsir to show you the misinterpretations you’ve committed, but again, I’m away from home and thus am unable to. Give me some time to come back to this.

 

By all means, show me these mis-interpretations. I dont think how i could have done that since its plain as day in Maududi’s own words. I havent even commented in most of them. [:)]

 

 Hm. I take it you’re forfeiting, then.

 

Only if it makes you happy – you know how it pains me to sadden my ‘muslim brothers’ some of whom make efforts to discredit me by making fake profiles. LOL!

 

 

I’m going to China next Saturday, so unless you feel compelled to add something in the next week, I’m considering this debate over. You can’t win against Islam, and you’re very well aware of that.

 

Firstly, Have a safe trip (really).

 

Secondly, Please feel free to consider the debate over if it pleases you – i will however go on posting when and where i see fit whenever i get time. Hope you dont mind. [:)]

 

Thirdly, I’m not ‘trying’ to win against Islam. I’m saying that religion should be kept SEPERATE from politics – it is a position against the inclusion of ANY religion into the political sphere. Unfortunately the only two groups of people i find difficulty with, in accepting this are either Muslim Fundamentalists or Zionists – i dont have alot of respect for either catagory. [:)]

 

Anyway, keep it up. Who knows, you might get it right one of these days. [:)]

 

Oh and again, enjoy your trip to China.

 

In Solidarity,

Mobeen.

 

 Our Website:  http://www.cmkp.tk

 Discussion forum:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cmkp_pk/

 Orkut Community:  http://www.orkut.com/Community.aspx?cmm=5616161

Advertisements

Written by redtribution

October 1, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: