DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - How many useless arguments on SF are caused by semantic differences of terms?

**inilbowly** · 07-08-2012, 04:41 PM

[QUOTE=mubakr;789763]

Well isnt the very purpose the topic arguing against the notion that semantics cause useless arguments. You ignore the entire definition of capitalism as I have extracted from wikipedia:

Sourced from wikipidea:
Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit. Competitive markets, wage labor, capital accumulation, voluntary exchange, and personal finance are also considered capitalistic.

You go on a rant about how central banks and riba are central elements of capitalism when clearly capitalism can exist independent of usury dealings. Look at the definition again. Why do I need to accept the definition by wikipedia? There are other definitions by people that say something different. As we can see Capitalism in the real world operates with riba, no Capitalist or Socialist country today is free of a central bank. America had a Central Bank in 1914 so prior to this it may have been more Islamic, but it still allowed independent banks to charge Interest on loans. Why would a Muslim be so keen to ignore the obvious Riba in the Capitalist system? Maybe they want to reform Islam to fit into the dominant Capitalist frame.

07-08-2012, 04:41 PM	#20
inilbowly Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 497 Senior Member	[QUOTE=mubakr;789763] Well isnt the very purpose the topic arguing against the notion that semantics cause useless arguments. You ignore the entire definition of capitalism as I have extracted from wikipedia: Sourced from wikipidea: Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit. Competitive markets, wage labor, capital accumulation, voluntary exchange, and personal finance are also considered capitalistic. You go on a rant about how central banks and riba are central elements of capitalism when clearly capitalism can exist independent of usury dealings. Look at the definition again. Why do I need to accept the definition by wikipedia? There are other definitions by people that say something different. As we can see Capitalism in the real world operates with riba, no Capitalist or Socialist country today is free of a central bank. America had a Central Bank in 1914 so prior to this it may have been more Islamic, but it still allowed independent banks to charge Interest on loans. Why would a Muslim be so keen to ignore the obvious Riba in the Capitalist system? Maybe they want to reform Islam to fit into the dominant Capitalist frame.
	Quote