If Allah is the only Sovereign, why do Muslims accept many sovereigns?
-
Peace all
It is only through putting value on land that you can truly enslave man kind take the value away and you have one less tool to enslave .The question is rajja correct who advocates putting value on land or abdun who advocates against putting value on land ?
Peace
live long and prosper
Salim
-
Salam,
@Abdun Nur
your analogy ignores the lawful model I presented of surety, with a Rex, who holds no authority to legislate only functions as the facilitator of the lawful court. No democratic or representational structure is needed, we do not require complex legal systems, just two laws with the guidance of the Qur'an applied, as I explained within the second model of Islam the Common Law.
Your analogy did something similar. You implied that a democratic system could legalise criminal acts, with enough votes. This is true, but not relevant to the discussion regarding what the Qur'an teaches. In a shariah system, the Qur'an would be the constitution. It would be impossible for any legislation to contradict the Qur'an, because this would be deemed unconstitutional. It is also true that in a highly populated community, a Rex could be undermined with enough propaganda. Your example focusses on small groups of people who enter into such agreements. But the world today is made up of billions, with millions living in cities in close quarters. Enough people who do not want to be under the influence of a Rex could rebel and expose the Rex as impotent. What checks are in place to prevent this from happening? Your example speaks of 'exclusion' as a strong deterrent for those who consider breaking common law. Are you seriously implying that exclusions would effect people who live amongst millions in a city like London? How big would a Rex have to be? How many people would fall under its influence? Bring us some practical examples of how a Rex would work in a modern society.
Men served a Rex voluntarily. A Rex had to offer battle gear, food, and plunder to get others to follow him into battle, more importantly, they volunteered to champion the cause of the weak -- for a fee.
Hang on... If I have to pay a Rex to provide justice, how is this any different to paying taxes to a government who provides me with police and courts? What is the practical difference between the two? If justice is provided by ability to pay, you put justice in the hands of the rich.
@DK
Only Allah is our provider. Not governments, not presidents, not politicians, not corporations, not monarchs, not kings, not churchs, not priests.
Allah owns the the entire universe and everything in it. Allah owns the earth and everything in it.This is all very nice, but you ignore the verse
O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.
459So how do you explain this command? Authority requires structure and hierarchy.
Some people believe that a human beings can not live without a government. They are brainwashed, and believe that a society can not exist and can not prosper without a government. This belief is false. When people unplug themselves from the matrix, they will realize that in an ideal society, a government is not needed.
Then let's see your model and allow it to be scrutinised. Explain how civil institutions that you see today would come about in a flat organisational society. If you can't provide a practical model then it is not your opponents who are brainwashed. Could you show me an example where anarchy has worked? Don't get me wrong, anarchy is the ultimate dream for everyone, but is it practical?
-
Salaam Mushu,
you have failed to understand the model, a rex can be any person you as the victim ask to serve and execute the wite, or writ as it is termed in the modern age, you as the victim do not pay a thing, only the guilty would pay the rex, after the court has finished the case the wite cost of the rex is added to the bill of the guilty party, if they turn up to the court without the need to be brought there is no charge for a rex, as the service is not used.
The Rex has no political function, it is just a service.
The victim applies at the court for a wite, this states the details of the accused and the injustice, and the details of the accuser and the remedy they wish to receive, the court is a function of the community, this is a model that functioned for thousands of years with Britain before the Roman Catholic invasion of 1066.
As for Sharia, you must apply it as I suggest, you can not allow the insane religious fanatics to create any legislation, legislation is not required, if you read the examples I state, they are held within common law, also known as natural law.
-
Abdun nur
Thousands of years Before Roman catholic invasion of Britain this model was functioning? and it is from Quran? &Yes, it may have been existing thousand years before Prophet Muhammed came. Because islam is timeless. And islam did not start with Muhammed, it started with Abraham. And the creed of Abraham existed thousand of years before christianity. Many of the laws in the Quran has existed before the quran came. These laws have existed in earlier scriptures before they were corrupted.
-
David_k
Yes, it may havebeen existing thousand years before Prophet Muhammed came. Because islam is timeless. And islam did not start with Muhammed, it started with Abraham. And the creed of Abraham existed thousand of years before christianity. The system of Allah never changes.
You seem so impressed with the Guy! But before defending him read first he said "From Quran", Islam is timeless but Quran is 1400 years old.
Now please dont tell me that Quran was from the time of Adam written in Heaven on a tablet and Britons had Chat with Allah. -
Salaam Raaajah,
these systems occur naturally, they spring up as the basic models, the problem is people are greedy and stupid and if they allow the usurious to gain slight control, soon they steal all control.
If you wish to read the history of Great Britain, which I doubt as you didn't read the two model essays in detail, I have written an essay on the subject, heres the link
http//servantofthelight.com/content/view/91/123/
These four models functioned in many locations, without connection to the Arabs or middle east, not all four together usually, but in Great Britain all four models did function from around 757 onwards until 1066 when the death cult of Christianity invaded and placed legal fictions upon these systems. I found them because I saw the models within the Qur'an, something you can not see, and I also saw the benefits people enjoyed within these models, how stable and enduring, how fair and culturally developing they are.
-
David_k
You seem so impressed with the Guy! But before defending him read first he said "From Quran", Islam is timeless but Quran is 1400 years old.
Now please dont tell me that Quran was from the time of Adam written in Heaven on a tablet and Britons had Chat with Allah.Raaajah,
I am not important when it comes to this discussion. Do not focus on me or anyone else. Focus on the message instead of the man. I believe the quran brought us some good news (new things), and also laws which have been given to human beings in the past. For example, some of the laws in Quran are similar to laws in other scriptures.
-
Abdun Nur
These four models functioned in many locations, without connection to the Arabs or middle east, not all four together usually, but in Great Britain all four models did function from around 757 onwards until 1066 when the death cult of Christianity invaded and placed legal fictions upon these systems. I found them because I saw the models within the Qur'an, something you can not see, and I also saw the benefits people enjoyed within these models, how stable and enduring, how fair and culturally developing they are.
Please stop decieving youngsters and yourself.
If you wish to read the history of Great Britain, which I doubt as you didn't read the two model essays in detail, I have written an essay on the subject, heres the link
I have no need to study your article regarding Great Britain?s history in detail, as I have read much better books much earlier before your advice. (This statement is after glancing at your article).
Abdunnur
The law system of Mercia under Rex Offa, was completely free of any influence of Roman law, it was based on the original laws of the ancient tribes that settled Britain, those that migrated over from the Continent, already possessing an elaborate and developed legal system.
This is a complete lie, he was under the influence of Romans!
Who gave Offa the title of REX?
Offa was greatly respected by Pope Adrian I, who formally addressed him asRex Anglorum' (king of England). Charlemagne, the Emperor of France, dealt with him as an equal and almost married his eldest son to one of Offa's daughters. Their friendship is evidenced by the fact that Charlemagne sent some of the booty from one of his victories to Offa with his greetings in 780. The Pope?s official representatives were received warmly by Offa and were present at the Council of Chelsea (787), often calledthe contentious synod', where it was proposed that the Archbishopric of Canterbury be restricted in order to make way for Offa's new archbishop. It was vehemently opposed, but Offa and the papal representatives defeated Archbishop Jaenbert, installing Higbert as the new Archbishop of Lichfield. Pope Adrian sent Higbert his ceremonial garment, obviously denoting his support for this move. In gratitude, Offa promised to send an annual shipment of gold to the pope for alms and supplying the lights in St. Peter's church in Rome.
How can be he not influenced by Roman Laws?You seem to be impressed by the propaganda, that Offa became a Muslim and got this system/model from Spain as some muslim commentators say, specially after the discovery of that famous gold coin.
But my brother in fact Muslims had never implemented this system you are talking about in Spain, Arab or any other country. The only Model/System that was best was Prophet Muhammad?s system in MADINA. -
Salaam Raajah,
you seem to investigate history with the same care as you do the Qur'an, the Angles invaded the southern counties of Great Britain, he did indeed hold them to account as a Rex under the legal structure, even executing one of the Christian kings for serving as a corrupt Rex, so he did function as a Rex over the English immigrant, who were German.
A rex is not a Christian King and never was, the Roman Catholics have made a great effort to corrupt the evidence of history, but I am wasting my time in explaining anything to such a closed and confused mind as yours, you judge without even considering what is under discussion, you demonstrate no logic, reason or honesty within your comments, they seem ill consider and argumentative.
If you have nothing of value to say, say nothing is my advice to you.
-
Salaam Mushu,
Wsalam Abun Nur
you have failed to understand the model, a rex can be any person you as the victim ask to serve and execute the wite, or writ as it is termed in the modern age, you as the victim do not pay a thing, only the guilty would pay the rex, after the court has finished the case the wite cost of the rex is added to the bill of the guilty party, if they turn up to the court without the need to be brought there is no charge for a rex, as the service is not used.
For the Rex to have any potency it requires all parties to submit to its authority and judgement. My question to you is what happens in a city of millions when a significant number reject the service of a Rex? What checks are in place to allow the Rex to enforce justice on an uncooperative entity of the society? Your essay above hints that 'exclusion' is a big enough deterrent to anyone who wants to undermine the system of justice. This might have worked in England 1066 where nomads would have died without the sustainment and protection of their community, but how would that be of any use to a metropolitan rebel in a major city today? If my community said to me, 'you will be excluded unless you accept the justice system we've all agreed to' I would simply respond with 'sure, that's cool.' There would be little or no incentive for me to submit to the system if I know I could carry on living as I want (which I could because I don't need my community to look after me, I can do it myself, hence to flawed comparison between today's situation to that of ancient England).
As for Sharia, you must apply it as I suggest, you can not allow the insane religious fanatics to create any legislation, legislation is not required, if you read the examples I state, they are held within common law, also known as natural law.
This is equivocation. Is everything in Qur'an common law? Is there anything in the Qur'an which is legislative?
You've failed to respond to the numerous questions I've asked you throughout my posts. But if you wish to not answer them, at least provide some concise examples of how your system would work in the modern world. Pick any particular modern social reality and apply your theories to it so we can see what it looks like on the other side. So far, it's all theory (flawed, in my opinion) and a few vague examples of ancient England. Something more relevant would help to see how effective your system would actually be.
-
Salaam Mushu,
you have not included two of the four models, this will become clear, I have nearly finished the third model essay, Human Energy Economic System, the final model the polycentric community, is the final one.
A rex has no power to judge, I did make the concept clear in my last post to you, the judgment is of 12 unconnected community members within a court structure.
-
Peace all
I want to share with you some interesting and thoughtprovoking quotes about democracy. We should reflect upon these quotes. And I think these quotes are relevant to this thread. Here are the quotes
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
- Thomas Jefferson
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
- Benjamin Franklin
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
- Winston Churchill
Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.
- George Bernard Shaw
Democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. -H.L. Mencken
Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage.
- H.L. Mencken
Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear.
- Alan Coren
The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny.
- Edmund Burke
-
Salaam Mushu,
Wsalam Abun Nur
A rex has no power to judge, I did make the concept clear in my last post to you, the judgment is of 12 unconnected community members within a court structure.
You're refusing to answer my question by being pedantic. What guarantees the potency of the Rex and the ruling of 12 unconnected community members within a court structure? What happens in a city of millions when a significant number refuse to submit to such mechanisms?
I appreciate you are in the middle of writing the other essays. But if this is just going to be a copy and paste job, then you should admit this and not lead people into thinking you actually want to have a discussion. Because you're yet to engage with me about many of the issues I've raised. Can you not provide any examples to further this discussion?
Peace all
I want to share with you some interesting and thoughtprovoking quotes about democracy. We should reflect upon these quotes. And I think these quotes are relevant to this thread. Here are the quotes
Uha. So what's the alternative? What do you suggest is the model for humans to organise themselves?
-
Uha. So what's the alternative? What do you suggest is the model for humans to organise themselves?
There are 2 alternatives
- An alternative, sustainable, natural system (this system already exists in some places in the world).
- A Quranic system (This system does not exist anywhere in the world).
-
The Third model
Human Energy economic system.
?people know the prices of everything and the value of nothing.?(Oscar Wild 1891)
So you might be thinking, the only model of finance I know is that of usury, so how does the Islamic financial model, entirely free of usury work?
As far as I can see there are three avenues open, the first is to re-establish the basic monetary system that existed for thousands of years before the Jesuit and Jewish money lenders perverted and corrupted it, based on physical coins, containing an established purity of valuable metals. This being a store of labour.
Secondly, a money free system, based on the foundation of wealth, which is labour, without a representative paper currency, organised through a register. This is a register of labour.
Finally the best option, you could combine the two to form a extremely strong foundation, and so a more stable financial system.
?The opposite of consumption isn't thrift. It's generosity.?
The reason the world is fuelled through ever escalating consumption, is the need of the usury banking system to double the amount of debt injected into the world every decade, through a need to repay interest on the loans issued in the past, as a result of the 100% debt currency model.
War is the best method the banking system has of transforming society and enslaving the population to debt, and ever descending restrictions. If you support the usury banking system you are an advocate of war, poverty, exploitation, famine, ignorance and confusion, as these are the fruits of banking.
To aid consumption, the corporate monopolies created through the engineered boom and bust cycles of the bankers, manufacture products that are engineered to have short life use, retard technologies, build in high product maintenance and so fuel the consumption, and so the burden upon the individual.
The old coinage system.
Any individual can mint coins, under the prerequisites, universally agreed, of a set thickness, shape and purity, in silver, gold, platinum, whatever metal they like, being established as of value, the reason this conformity is required is to allow everyone a simple way to test the purity of coins, as only a pure metal will weigh an exact amount if made of an exact size, contamination will change the weight, so a simple set of accurate scales and a holder to test the size, are all that is required; other than that they could be of any design. No monopolies of money production by individuals or organisations can be tolerated; the universality of all things is freedom, while monopolies are a road to slavery once more.
There are electronic devices that can check metal purities also, that are not that expensive, based on the resistance of metals.
Based upon the polycentric community model, the hub central repository of each cell group, or community can lend future labour, at absolutely no interest, to people the repository find to have the intention to repay the loan, when supported by their surety group, or others within the community, (the ability to administrate certificates is only sanctioned for the central repository of each cell, no individual or separate organisation can do this, however any individual or organisation could lend coins at absolutely no interest if they so wished). Only a living human being can borrow future labour, no abstract business entity can be created to borrow, it is only through combined efforts large loans can be achieved, when many people join together to form a strong purpose, such as the twelve members of a surety group combining their resources and labour to establish a business resource.
The communities repository administrator creates the required number of certificates to cover the loan, the individual that has borrowed the money spends his certificate, representing silver coins, and at any point people in possession of certificates can collect the silver coins that these certificates represent, from the central repository.
The individual that has taken out the loan, over time repays the loan with coins, or certificates that he acquires, returning either the certificates or the coins that have been loaned by the repository, back to the central repository, in so doing, no inflation, no interest, no shortage of funds will exist, as the balance will be restored. Historically it is demonstrated that on average only 5% of physical reserves are in circulation, so this system would function without a great danger of difficulty.
The money will simply circulate through the community, no hardship or usury.
This system is based on 100% intrinsic value, therefore if an individual refuses, is unable or dies and the loan is unpaid, it must still be honoured, no loan can be written off by the repository without exoneration, as it must balance the books. This would fall to the surety group who supported the issue of the loan, to dispose of assets belonging to the defaulter, or funding the loss.
The surety group or community members who sanctioned the loan that defaulted must stand the cost of the loss, three methods are open to acquire a loan, it must be backed by personal assets, it must be guaranteed by an individual (a guarantor) with sufficient assets to cover the loan, the surety group of the borrower, or community members at large must personally sanction the loan, and therefore carry the burden of the risk, accept the risk, by signing on the loan, if they wish to allow its sanction.
If the paper certificates are stolen they will be registered as void and new certificated issued to the individual that was robbed, a system of certificate number verification would be practised and be readily available to all, to eliminate fraud, a simple digital system could easily be constructed.
If the community at large wished to borrow money, for public works for example, they would perform the same service for themselves, under close scrutiny, and with the consent of sanctioning community members.
The community would cancel out these certificates as they paid for central council services, or when they gave the council monetary gifts to fund social or community projects.
The true gift within an Islamic community would be the labour of the individuals within it, to build and enrich the environment all develop within.
As ultimately these certificates would return to be destroyed, this mandatory destruction is the key to the system; this would place no burden upon the community, no inflation, no interest, no taxation.
If individual cells wished to dispute the validity of another hubs repository certificates, being other than the one they themselves used, they would be returned and exchanged to the hub repository that issued them, for either a certificate from the hub as a certificate exchange, or for coins.
Another alternative would be universal agreement of certificate structure and value, as to make them interchangeable throughout the system, invariably and ultimately being returned specifically to the place of issue to be destroyed, of course this could be done remotely by other repositories through serial numbers and exchange of certificates having one cancelling out another.
Of course if an abundance of coins existed within the hub repository, they would be used first, having no need of certificates, as long as a minimum store was retained for daily demands.
Internationally a 100% silver/gold coinage model would have absolutely no problem trading with societies based in other models, as metals always retain a strong value, even under the manipulations of the bankers, there value is still recognised. And fiat currencies would be converted into metal before exchange.
The Islamic system cannot exist in tandem with a usury system, they are mutually exclusive, if a community establishes this Islamic system they must refuse to participate in the outside usury system within the community, but unfortunately people will through greed and self interest corrupt the Islamic system quickly, contaminating it with usury if they are unchecked, the establishing and witnessed signing of the social contract is a prerequisite of the Islamic community.
Under the most stringent and exacting oversight, a system of debit, built within a repository system, based on an intrinsic positive balance, without exception, always under comprehensively enforced regulation; then a digitised system could be established, although I advise strongly against this concept without deeply established and enforced parameters, as it is too open to widespread abuse, and could easily but the root of deception and fraud.
A money free system.
Within a community that has no physical metal wealth, a coin free system can be established, evolving into a coinage/labour register system, as wealth is generated through the industry and efforts of the community, not through the printing of paper notes.
All money is fundamentally a physical representation for labour, the bankers trick the population into thinking labour is worthless and paper money is wealth, so they print money (steal our labour) for the cost of printing.
Human labour is wealth, you can not be destitute if your labour is wealth, you can not starving when your labour is wealth, only through the trick of the bankers are you fooled into valuing there money and not valuing labour.
So the concept of a coinage system could be devolved; instead of using gold or silver we could simply accumulate labour accomplished within a written register, the register would function more universally if labour was gauged through a physical silver coinage system. Not all labour is equal, one man's labour is not always the same as another, a bus driver is not equal to a medical doctor for example.
It would in some respects work the opposite to money, it represents physical value in pure product, you cannot tax this system without dominating its administration and this is a system that would continue absolutely independent of any outside financial model, having no need of any physical money, either paper or metals. It would work directly opposite to all other monetary systems in respect to hoarding wealth, with paper or metal it restricts the circulation of wealth, with this system it benefit?s the community, as it?s the accumulation of physical labour within the community itself, the more you hoard the more you accomplish.
The purchase of goods would function simply within a representative register, allowing community members to purchase goods through register debits, and none members to use silver coins, through this structure wealth would expand and prosperity be common place.
Wages of a slave or full portion of labour.
The concept of paying wages has a limited value, it has a master slave structure, it now serves as the predominant structure within the modern usury model. The structure is a fractal of a corporation, the workers feeding the owners.
Shared risk, shared rewards.
A portion of the profits within a group endeavour would function within the Islamic concepts, this share would reflect the value of the input of the individual.
If an individual wished to join an existing business endeavour, and there was an opening of another individual who wished to exit the endeavour, then they could buy themselves into the business, at a price they and the individual leaving, considered its worth. As with every business assets accrue, through the labours of the individuals who invest their labour within the business, this has a value of labour, this labour could be accounted for through a new member of the group replacing another.
Expansion If an individual wished to join an established business and the members within it wished them to be part of it, they would mutually establish the parameters of the collaboration, based on mutual agreement, they need no legislation, as exploitation is not an element of the model. An individual adds their own labour, and so earns there own rewards, it has little impact on the other members, however as a business expands, it would require more individuals to invest their time labouring within it to fulfil obligations.
As within common law no corporation can exist, the predominant corporate structure is directly against common law.
Islamic Insurance.
Insurance is a valuable protection from unforeseen hardships, the present system based on chance is not an acceptable model, it functions on obscene profits for taking little chance.
I will give you an example of the Islamic model
If I demanded 10% of your crop in exchange for insuring it against loss, so I gambled you would have a good harvest, when the odds maybe only 1% of the time a crop is lost. This is a form of usury.
The Islamic model, protecting yourself from the hardship of a crop failure is simple. A group of farmers would join together, each committing (only theoretically, as only upon demand of the share would it be supplied) a share of their crop into the collective pot, proportionate to the size of their holdings, only if a farm failed would any burden be extracted from the collective, otherwise the insurance would cost nothing. This loss burden sharing insurance could be linked across large group collectives of farmers, so reducing the burden through scale of any potential losses.
Another example
Car insurance should be organised within the same structure, a group of car owners join together, investing an amount proportionate to the value of their car, at the end of the year, after all the claims have been paid, the remainder would be redistributed according to the proportion originally invested. Or the car owner could simple make up the short fall to continue their insurance for another year.
Usury Markets.
Stock market, pensions, futures market, derivative market, commodities market, currency market, everyone of them are absolutely usurious, and against the Islamic model.
Many pervert the simple concept of Usury or Riba, to justify to themselves they are still a Muslim, and what they do is fine. They confuse others and will be loud and vocal in their defence of these corrupt and worthless markets.
To understand usury lets examine an example
If I lent you a watermelon, and expect you to repay me two watermelons in return, I have laboured in the creation of the one watermelon, but I expect a second watermelon in return for no labour, I have extorted the fruits of your labour from you, because to create the second watermelon I must labour twice as much as you laboured in the creation of just one watermelon, and surrender that labour to you in reward for no effort on your part, this is usury.
To sell a crop of watermelons at a discounted price before you have planted the seeds, and harvested, jumping straight to market, as is now commonly practised through the futures market, is selling something you do not have, and may never have, you may only sell what you posses, to sell a potential is a form of usury, you are selling nothing now for the fruits of someone?s labour, for a price that if you deliver in the future would be for less than you have earned.
You shall give full measure when you trade, and weigh equitably. This is better and more righteous. (Surah 1735)
You shall give full measure when you trade; do not cheat. (Surah 26181)
You shall weigh with an equitable scale. (Surah 26182)
These principles can be applied to any area of commerce, for example if you sign a contract to pay a set fee for a service, irrelevant to whether that service is used or not, say a gym membership contract, but never go, yet you can not escape the contract period, this is a futures contract and a form of usury, any contract based on potential future use of service, as opposed to actual use is again not full measure for the fruits of your labour, so usury.
Copyright.
Is copyright theft?
It is a wonderful tool to control and monopolise supply of goods, maintain inflated prices, hold technology back, hold competition back, reduce diversity and get paid again and again for the same work.
Doesn't sound very Islamic.
Firstly they say it is theft to break a rule they have established in the purchase of the copyrighted product, but what have you stolen?
They say you have stolen their sale of that product, or you have made money from an aspect of their copyrighted product, without giving them a share.
Theft To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See {Larceny}, and the Note under {Robbery}.
But as you can see under the concept of theft nothing has been stolen when you copy an original, so they redefine it as piracy.
-
The act or crime of a pirate.
-
(Common Law) Robbery on the high seas; the taking of
property from others on the open sea by open violence;
without lawful authority, and with intent to steal; -- a
crime answering to robbery on land.
So they redefine theft and piracy, as nothing has been stolen but the thought that they have not received payment for the copy of the original.
They make obscene profits, but restrict and control the products they generate to make certain they maintain the obscene profits. They use clever marketing to convince people that they need obscene profits to function, but copyright is a legal construct in opposition to common law.
So they redefine theft to mean controlling what others do with their own property, on the premise that it deprives the "originator" of future income.
Intellectual property is the next line of defence, the logical conclusion of "intellectual property" is that it dictates what someone can and cannot do with their own real property; in other words these two types of "properties" are mutually inconsistent. Moreover, why not take "IP" to its logical conclusions the man (and his descendants) who first decided to build his home out of wood should be receiving royalty payments from everyone else. Of course, "IP" advocates will never agree to this, since in order to keep their state granted criminal monopoly privileges they must "draw the line" at some arbitrary point. Finally, the reality of "IP" is definitely usurious, since it is equivalent to selling your shares in a company, but demanding to be paid the dividend, or selling your property but still demanding to receive rents from it. Selling anything is transferring ownership, once the buyer believes he owns the product in question, he is paying for a future stream of income (in the case of assets) or utility in general. The alternative is known as renting, and "IP" advocates purposely confuse these two ideas in order to reap the gains of selling their products, while demanding to have final say over its use. Well you cannot have it both ways, if you want to rent out the use of your products then do so, and you will receive a lower price for it. Don't hide behind implied legalisms and small print. (Quote Wootah on Freeminds)
Labour is wealth.
You could donate your time as Zakath to the communal charity, you could donate your time to charity outside of the communal effort, a direct interaction, unlike paper money, which is donated without connection, so in isolation and detachment.
If you ran this system in unison with the silver and gold coin system it would then remain up to the people to decide how they wanted to be paid, but a labour based system would value labour not the certificates of debt, and so free the community from the existing monopoly which generates immense misery and is nothing more than a restrictive and expensive money exploitation.
-
-
Dear Mushu
He will never answer you and will just keep on copy pasting. You have raised some real good questions. The main one is where and how can we implement the system in the Moderen world? This was the same qusetion I asked him in my earlier posts?
Abdun nur
Dear I will take your advice seriously, but You are ONE character who wants to take us back to the Peiod of NOMADS and BArbarians, to the period when OFFa and his likes used to send ships loaded with Gold to the Roman popes, looted from the hard toil of people.
It was the time when the according to the Domesday Book, (compiled in 1086), not more than 90% of the English population of about two million lived in the countryside.
That was the total population Scattered all over, and now you have Cities with population of more than 13 Millions.
To you is yours path and to me mine the PAth of Muhammad peace is upon him and the Quran's. -
David-k
what is your point in listing the above quotes,Democracy is the only form of System after Islamic where a peasent can become President of a whole Nation.
A Black Minority Can be Ruling White Majority.
It is Contra to the System of Kings, which your friend wants to implement on us.