[EvaQWmrm]

Is there any good examples of this by the regular users?

[enfoires]

A good example will be one in which we have solved some problem.
I do not know of any but there might be.
Of course lot of time is consumed in this activity but I suppose some things are learned on the way.
Like we learn that people will try to hold on to their opinion even if there is evidence to the contrary.
So the conclusion is that Islam is not decided in these discussions.
Of course sometimes our own ideas get clarified.

And I would not know what would be an optimum level of hair-splitting.

[zueqhbyhp]

I say this cos on one post one dude said capitilism was bad, socialism was bad and democracy was bad
Another dude replied capitalism is good, socialism is good and democracy is good.
Both are correct from their own veiwpoint, so i think it was a useless argument, when all they had to do was define the semantic terms.
There has got to be thousands of other examples of this?
Theres optimum levels of hair splitting and then theres none at all
The middle way, as usual seems to be the perennial answer.

[GfBTWMmV]

I say this cos on one post one dude said capitilism was bad, socialism was bad and democracy was bad
Another dude replied capitalism is good, socialism is good and democracy is good.
Both are correct from their own veiwpoint, so i think it was a useless argument, when all they had to do was define the semantic terms.
There has got to be thousands of other examples of this?
Theres optimum levels of hair splitting and then theres none at all
The middle way, as usual seems to be the perennial answer.

You see this is the wonderful creation of Allah (SWT) called man. He is capable of so many things.
Obviously out of the opposite views only one can be correct at a time.
And which one is correct can not be decided by us.
That is why we need the Wahy.
Still people are besotted with their own opinion.
Implementing what Allah (SWT) wants us to do it difficult enough so it is a wonder as to how we can afford to have any opinion.

[rolex-buy]

I did not bother defining the terms in that particular thread because I have done so in other threads many times.

Capitalism is not just private property. Capitalism as it operates today is a mixed economy first of all, it is a mix of private property and socialism. Socialism is big government, I force you to give me money which I then give to someone else or I force you to use the service that only I provide, not on the basis of pay per use, but on how much I think you should pay, whether you like it or not, you have no choice.

Capitalism as it operates today is also founded on Riba, banking, central banking and paper money. All of these render it un-Islamic. So if someone says Capitalism is good and Socialism is good they would have to show how given all the problems with them I have identified.

I say this cos on one post one dude said capitilism was bad, socialism was bad and democracy was bad
Another dude replied capitalism is good, socialism is good and democracy is good.
Both are correct from their own veiwpoint, so i think it was a useless argument, when all they had to do was define the semantic terms.
There has got to be thousands of other examples of this?
Theres optimum levels of hair splitting and then theres none at all
The middle way, as usual seems to be the perennial answer.

[Rchzygnc]

The term “capitalism” used to mean an economic system in which capital was privately owned and traded; owners of capital got to judge how best to use it, and could draw on the foresight and creative ideas of entrepreneurs and innovative thinkers. This system of individual freedom and individual responsibility gave little scope for government to influence economic decision-making: success meant profits; failure meant losses. Corporations could exist only as long as free individuals willingly purchased their goods – and would go out of business quickly otherwise.

Capitalism became a world-beater in the 1800’s, when it developed capabilities for endemic innovation. Societies that adopted the capitalist system gained unrivaled prosperity, enjoyed widespread job satisfaction, obtained productivity growth that was the marvel of the world and ended mass privation.

Now the capitalist system has been corrupted. The managerial state has assumed responsibility for looking after everything from the incomes of the middle class to the profitability of large corporations to industrial advancement. This system, however, is not capitalism, but rather an economic order that harks back to Bismarck in the late nineteenth century and Mussolini in the twentieth: corporatism.
Not my definition of capitalism but a good one nonetheless. I just do not think capitalism was ever as pure as it claims in the quote. America grew rich because it killed off the indians and exploited the land. Britain grew rich because it forced people off the land and into cities to work in hell hole factories for 16 hours a day.

[allaboutauto.us]

You see this is the wonderful creation of Allah (SWT) called man. He is capable of so many things.
Obviously out of the opposite views only one can be correct at a time.
And which one is correct can not be decided by us.
That is why we need the Wahy.
Still people are besotted with their own opinion.
Implementing what Allah (SWT) wants us to do it difficult enough so it is a wonder as to how we can afford to have any opinion.

Was this a sarcasm?
I think both were correct as capitalism, as in free markets are good, democracy in terms of meritocracy is good, and socialism in terms of community cohesion is good.
Conversely, capitalism as a facilitator of fractional reserve banking is bad, democracy in terms of rule of man over God is bad, and socialism in terms of enlarged oppressive state beauracracies is bad.
Both views were correct, from their viewpoints?
Even in the madhab, opposite opinions can be correct.
The prophet said to his companions dont pray Asar till you get to a certain town.
One group said it means get to the town fast, so that you reach there before Asar, so they prayed Asar in the town
The other group said it means dont miss Asar if you havent reached the town, so they prayed outside the town.
They asked the prophet when they got back to madina, he was silent on the matter, giving approval to both.
Opposite opinons both were correct?

[xanax-buy-online.com]

Sidi Abu Zakir,
As a new comer sister needs to get settled at SF.
Kindly give her some respite. After that we can talk about technical problems.

So here is my PJ version of a good joke.

Husband (to his friend) : I am very accommodating with my wife about small maters. I do not interfere when it is decided that my relatives will not visit our house. I also do not interfere when it is decided that her relatives can stay as long as they want. But when it comes to big problems like Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan I just put my fu down - I do not budge at all.

[VtLe67WR]

I think both were correct as capitalism, as in free markets are good, democracy in terms of meritocracy is good, and socialism in terms of community cohesion is good.

Free markets do not exist and never have done. If you are interested read:

http://mutualist.org/id4.html
THE IRON FIST BEHIND THE INVISIBLE HAND
Corporate Capitalism As a State-Guaranteed System of Privilege
by Kevin A. Carson

Democracy has never been a meritocracy read Edward Bernays who shows how democracies manufacture consent by using propaganda to determine public opinion, in short the ruling elites rule and they become a oligarchy. Socialism promoted by the central government does not create social cohesion...only individuals living up to their moral and ethical values by voluntarily giving charity or helping the neighbour or the needy creates social cohesion.

[ToifvT5S]

Was this a sarcasm?

No. Not in the least sister.
I think both were correct as capitalism, as in free markets are good, democracy in terms of meritocracy is good, and socialism in terms of community cohesion is good.
Conversely, capitalism as a facilitator of fractional reserve banking is bad, democracy in terms of rule of man over God is bad, and socialism in terms of enlarged oppressive state beauracracies is bad.
Both views were correct, from their viewpoints?
Even in the madhab, opposite opinions can be correct.
The prophet said to his companions dont pray Asar till you get to a certain town.
One group said it means get to the town fast, so that you reach there before Asar, so they prayed Asar in the town
The other group said it means dont miss Asar if you havent reached the town, so they prayed outside the town.
They asked the prophet when they got back to madina, he was silent on the matter, giving approval to both.
Opposite opinons both were correct? You do have a point there sister.

[MarlboroCig]

Hey man I am going in a minute, my view was mentioned so I thought I would make myself clear. I am not bullying anyone, they are free to ignore me.

:salaam:

Sidi Abu Zakir,
As a new comer sister needs to get settled at SF.
Kindly give her some respite. After that we can talk about technical problems.

So here is my PJ version of a good joke.

Husband (to his friend) : I am very accommodating with my wife about small maters. I do not interfere when it is decided that my relatives will not visit our house. I also do not interfere when it is decided that her relatives can stay as long as they want. But when it comes to big problems like Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan I just put my fu down - I do not budge at all.

[pepBarihepe]

i respect divergent views. Humans are all different, my understanding of God cant be the same as yours or anyones cos we are all unique.
wats a PJ?

[clubcughSheet]

Hey man I am going in a minute, ...

Same here.

[ultramDoctoo]

I say this cos on one post one dude said capitilism was bad, socialism was bad and democracy was bad
Another dude replied capitalism is good, socialism is good and democracy is good.
Both are correct from their own veiwpoint, so i think it was a useless argument, when all they had to do was define the semantic terms.
There has got to be thousands of other examples of this?
Theres optimum levels of hair splitting and then theres none at all
The middle way, as usual seems to be the perennial answer.

this is why first we must understand how different people understand the definition

we could be discussing the same "term" but different understanding

thats why the internet should never replace real discussion and learning
nor should people argue indefinetely as brother maripat says

[nicktender]

PJ=Poor Joke.

[mas-dkt-sive]

How many useless arguments on SF are caused by semantic differences of terms?

I think you have raised an absolutely important topic. I realized that too. The problem is maybe people here have cross-professional interests which excite them about many topics but end up acting like polymaths myself included. Capitalism itself, the wikipedia article on it will requires days to digest and understand. I can probably come up with an essay thereafter showing that some aspects are clearly Islamic and some are not. Thats why I chose my words carefully telling AbuZakir dont say capitalism is bad because the prophets and sahaba practiced some aspects of capitalism like private property and free trade and barter. Say rather that capitalism in an atheistic-materialistic context i.e. unregulated, greedy, perverse, unchecked is dangerous.

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.

I was just telling AbuZakir dont say things like Capitalism is bad. An analogous simplistic statement would be Salafis are bad when clearly that is not the case. The more things are simplified the more rudimentary our judgement becomes and the more inaccurate it can be to society. But unless AbuZakir himself is a professional economist who has done ample study of capitalism and can distill things I would argue that simplifying and chanting things repeatedly when most people are not even clear on definitions and aspects of what we are talking about is unhelpful. As far as I know Caliph Uthman was an astute entrepreneur. He however was kept in check by Islamic moral values. He gave zakat, was not concerned solely about profit in this world and lived his life dedicated to Allah. However his capitalistic and business life have been recognized. I dont think any of the sahaba's worked and did business without any intention for profit. They however were not greedy and had a regulatory system in the form of Islam.

[Hixinfineedom]

[QUOTE=mubakr;789454]

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. So Central Banks, Banking, Fractional Reserve Banking and charging interest are not Capitalist?

I was just telling AbuZakir dont say things like Capitalism is bad. An analogous simplistic statement would be Salafis are bad when clearly that is not the case. The more things are simplified the more rudimentary our judgement becomes and the more inaccurate it can be to society. But unless AbuZakir himself is a professional economist who has done ample study of capitalism and can distill things I would argue that simplifying and chanting things repeatedly when most people are not even clear on definitions and aspects of what we are talking about is unhelpful. As far as I know Caliph Uthman was an astute entrepreneur. He however was kept in check by Islamic moral values. He gave zakat, was not concerned solely about profit in this world and lived his life dedicated to Allah. However his capitalistic and business life have been recognized. I dont think any of the sahaba's worked and did business without any intention for profit. The profit motive is natural, the Quran says trade is halal, riba (Central Banks and money lending and charging Interest) are haram, Capitalism without these would not be Capitalism. This is if we ignore the un-Islamic contracts and others laws that exist in Capitalism. To say that Uthman (RA) was a Capitalist is a slur because he operated as a businessman in a riba free economy and as such he was not a Capitalist.

The term Capitalism is a contested word. It was coined by anti-Capitalists as a pejorative term, some people think the western democracies are capitalist, others think that they are more socialist because the governments manage the economy. I subscribe to the view that Capitalism however it is defined as it exists in western democracies is evil, as is socialism. Only Islam is the solution and anyone who disagrees with this, and tries to say that Capitalism is Islamic or Socialism is Islamic is either very uninformed or out right lying.

[oemcheapdownload]

[QUOTE=Abu Zakir;789744]

The term Capitalism is a contested word. It was coined by anti-Capitalists as a pejorative term, some people think the western democracies are capitalist, others think that they are more socialist because the governments manage the economy. I subscribe to the view that Capitalism however it is defined as it exists in western democracies is evil, as is socialism. Only Islam is the solution and anyone who disagrees with this, and tries to say that Capitalism is Islamic or Socialism is Islamic is either very uninformed or out right lying.

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. You should perhaps reframe your statements and say capitalism as viewed by AbuZakir and anti-capitalists is an evil. Or capitalism in an unregulated and atheist materialistic context is haram. Turkey, malaysia, UAE and several ISlamic nations have capitalism. Private ownership of means of production, freedom to do business without indulgence in interest, wage labour, barter and exchange in a relatively free market and intention for profit and capital accumulation. Nothing wrong in all this. IF I pay zakat I can be as capitalistic as I want which you yourself propagate incessantly in all your posts. You sounded like the most capitalistic person on this forum arguing against government taking money from individuals and using it for welfare programs or communal projects and now turn around and say you dont have any capitalism in you. No one has ever argued that Islam is not a solution. We are not even comparing Islam versus capitalism. We are just saying capitalism can have Islamic aspects to it. So Abu Zakir please dont be judgemental about other peoples intention. Try to reason what we are saying. WE are not liars. WE might be uninformed but we can read and argue alittle here and there. As I said unless we are two Muslim economists who have studied these things in detail we probably shouldnt make black and white statements like fatwas that capitalism is evil and satanic. Lets stick and behave like lay people and say I probably think this, in my opinion, If i understood you correctly, By capitalism I mean certain aspects of it e.t.c. Lets not be black and white and say salafism is evil, capitalism is evil, socialism is evil, democracy is evil. RAtionalize things for us nicely. You have told us for e.g. riba is evil and we all know it. Perhaps you can explain to us how capitalism without riba ceases to be capitalism since you are an elitely informed muslim who has studied, analysed and mastered economic concepts.

[enactolaelant]

[inilbowly]

[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.