Does Islam support a Capitalist or a Socialist system?

[Abdun_Nur]

Salaam,

Natural Law is defined by Burlamaqui to be ?A rule which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that, without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved. These are called natural laws because knowledge of them may be attained merely by the light of reason, from the fact of their essential agreeableness with the constitution of human nature.?

A further definition

As the good is that at which all things aim, the good of a ship builder is to build ships, the good of a squirrel is to be an effective, successful and functioning squirrel, the ultimate good for man/woman is happiness. It is also our nature to think, the good for man/woman must then consist in their functioning in a way consistent with and guided by their rational element, their reason and wisdom. Therefore whatever helps the pursuit of truth is good, whatever hinders it is bad.

It is in our nature to be social creatures, as all life is connected and interdependent, which means the altruism of one has selfish benefit; the inherent ends of mans nature must not do what frustrates true fulfilment from indulging vices of perception encroaching externally, but through establishing true society and therefore social harmony allowing personal growth, spiritual evolution and a fertile and fruitful environment for all life.

Capitalism is a economic system that values capital as the generator of wealth, this is a fraud, capital generates nothing, if you have a ton of gold, it will do nothing, it will always remain a ton of gold, the true generator of wealth is human labour, and that is the economic system of Islam, where human labour is understood and organised independently of the invented need for capital.

[stillearning]

AOA Abdun Nur

I am sorry but your supposed system is nothing more than a waffle

I am afraiNatural Law is defined by Burlamaqui to be ?A rule which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that, without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved
.

What is the natural state of man? Presumption being that somehow every human has same natural state. Have you met anyone other than yourself! how many individuals have you come across whose natural state is the same

These are called natural laws because knowledge of them may be attained merely by the light of reason, from the fact of their essential agreeableness with the constitution of human nature.?

As the correspondance here shows light of reason varies from individual to individual.

the ultimate good for man/woman is happiness.

What makes one happy varies enormously. Some may find accumulating huge wealth an enormous source of happiness, others may consider charitable fulfilling some even may find inflicting pain on others a pleasureable experience. I hope this explains the vagueness of your statement.

It is in our nature to be social creatures, as all life is connected and interdependent, which means the altruism of one has selfish benefit; the inherent ends of mans nature must not do what frustrates true fulfilment from indulging vices of perception encroaching externally, but through establishing true society and therefore social harmony allowing personal growth, spiritual evolution and a fertile and fruitful environment for all life.

Nothing to disagree with but apart from stating the obvious cliches means very little in terms of a political system.

Capitalism is a economic system that values capital as the generator of wealth, this is a fraud, capital generates nothing, if you have a ton of gold, it will do nothing, it will always remain a ton of gold, .

That is your, perhaps some others, understanding of capitalism. Overwhelming number of capitalists/socialists see the human labour (whatever you define labour to be) as the generator of wealth.

the true generator of wealth is human labour, and that is the economic system of Islam, where human labour is understood and organised independently of the invented need for capital

I am not sure where you get this from. How is human labour understood any differently in Islam than say capitalism or socialism. Also how does Islam organise human labour independently from the need of capital. Does Islamic system advocate no payment (that is one form of capital) for a man/woman's labour.

Regards

AOA Lobster

I am also a staunch anti-socialist and pro-capitalist.

Ok y. ou aree entitled to your opinion, is this not what democracy is about

Capitalism is not a system. It is just the form freedom takes when there aren't arbitrary rules governing our lives.

Interesting. What are arbitary rules and what are non arbitary rule? Can a society of more than one function without rules.

When you have a free market, without unnecessary taxation, people have more to give. When the government isn't responsible for providing for people, the people themselves take up the responsibility and give to charity and help the poor.

You have admirable faith in the goodness of human race. You will find in practice the more individuals have the least they are likely to give to charity. Do you not think the less fortunate deserve little bit more predictable to rely on than the unpredictable nature of other individuals charity.
Unnecessary taxation depends on who is defining what is unnecessary.

What socialism does is, as others have pointed out, takes away the freedom of the people..

Interesting definition of socialism you have (but not surprising as most people living in the US come up with this cliche). Those that consider themselves socialist would argue to the contrary that socialism is the ultimate form of freedom as it enables the individuals to enjoy the fruits of their own labour and not be slaves to a master who is no more than a parasite living of their creation (not my definition).

And actually makes them MORE apathetic towards their fellow citizens because now whatever happens the government will take care of them

Every goveremnt will to some extent (varying degrees) take care of ther fellow citizens, is this not the reason why or supposedly societies exist. Pathetic individuals exist under every system and your statement is often used as cliche by those who either wish to deliberately mislead or have very little understanding of political systems.

There is a HUGE misconception that the US is a free market economy. We are NOT a free market economy. We do not have a capitalist system. I can't stress this enough.

What we have is corporatism. What we have is the government favoring certain powerful corporations and letting them get away with murder. It is this favoritism (through government subsidies) that caused the economic collapse.
It wasn't the collapse of capitalism. It was the sign that it is time to go back to capitalism - but the powers that be didn't let it happen.
Ignore God's signs at your peril!

& God's sign are?

And America's obesity problem? That is also the result of government subsidies for corn. The masses of illegal immigrants living in poor conditions in the US? That is also the result of subsidies.

Intersting!

Once the government gets out of our way and stops artifically shaping our lives based on the false assumption that it knows whats best for us, then we can finally have a system that is equal and promotes health and community.
We can see the benefits of capitalism in our fight against racism and inequality.

You mean anarchy.

I am not completely against socialism. I think it has some great ideas, and a socialist system can work. And maybe a true capitalist society isn't possible (because we haven't seen one yet).

At last you are almost beginning to talk sense.

Regards

[Tyler_Durden]

There was only one politician willing to talk about the REAL issues back in 2008, and he is at it again in 2012 - and that's Ron Paul.

It is amazing the support he is now garnering from college students and other young people. I think many of them are disillusioned Obama supporters like yourself.

Hope you agree Ron Paul's our man this coming election.

Hey there,

I'm not American, but I have been reading up a lot about Ron Paul and, in my opinion, if America does not vote him in as President, we will have another war on our hands. He is the only consistent candidate thats not in the pockets of the Wall Street corporations. A true libertarian (finally) - Milton Friedman would be proud. Insha'allah I hope he will be elected. I agree with you completely.

(the problem is, a lot of Americans don't have time for these ideas. Santorum? Romney? Gingrich (lol)? If they are elected, it will be more of the same + war with Iran)

Stilllearning

You will find in practice the more individuals have the least they are likely to give to charity.

Do you have facts for this? Because, as far as I can see, plenty of rich people to charity. Just look at bill gates, brad pitt angelina jolie etc etc. They give massive amounts of time and money to charity. I would need to see definitive statistics. If you were to do a search on google, you will find documentation that the "poor give a higher percentage of their wealth" than the rich. However, I don't think this is really enough to judge from.
I don't know about this though - you may be correct.

Those that consider themselves socialist would argue to the contrary that socialism is the ultimate form of freedom as it enables the individuals to enjoy the fruits of their own labour and not be slaves to a master who is no more than a parasite living of their creation (not my definition).

Yes, enjoy the fruits of your labour until the government steals 40% of your income to subsidise other industries, other individuals and their own wallets. Sounds very "free". Actually, the very simplest form of "enjoy the fruits of your labour" would be exactly the libertarian philosophy. The government takes as little as possible of your money, and you spend the wealth generated by your labour on whatever you want. You want to spend all that money on heroin? Great, go ahead. It's a stupid decision, but it's yours. You want to spend it on your child's welfare and personal matters. Great, good for you.

THAT is freedom, not the illusion that socialism offers.

Do you not think the less fortunate deserve little bit more predictable to rely on than the unpredictable nature of other individuals charity.

You don't think that if your income was not taxed by 40% (approx) that you would not give more to charity?

This is the robin hood myth. The idea that we can take from everyone in order to help the poor is, in my opinion, the most misguided economic idea. Government schools, government housing, the minimum wage - all of these are state initiatives funded by the taxpayer - and almost every one has been an abject failure in whatever context.

Government housing essentially further divides the community and concentrates the poor and unemployed, benefit-dependant people in one single place. This then encourages a sub-culture of crime. We see these examples all around us.

I am not questioning your intentions. Everyone - marx, keynes, hayek, friedman - all have good intentions. However, the implementation of these is, under a socialist ideology, hugely misguided.

[Tyler_Durden]

http//www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1339688/Why-dont-Britains-rich-charity-like-wealthy-Americans.html

An article (albeit from the DailyMail) highlighting this fact. The UK is far deeper entrenched in social democracy than America.

[phoenix1]

Stilllearning,

I think you are a bit too cynical when it comes to human nature.

People naturally give money away. Of course everyone will not (libertarians will argue that that is their individual right), but many will. Enough? I can't say.

And people are more inclined to help each other and work as a community when the government isn't there to help. The fact is, people find ways to survive, whether it is through the government or other means.

In third world countries, extended families live together and the members help each other out. If the government isn't there, the family takes care of you.

If there is no "free" health care, there are charity hospitals (run either by generous individuals or religious institutions) that take people in and help them.

Socialism takes away the freedom of people because it forces people to give. And it forces people to be part of a system that perhaps they don't want to be a part of.

But that is not necessarily a bad thing.

That is not really the problem I have with socialism. The problem I have with socialism is the trust we have to put in with the government. Which is, in my opinion, always corrupt and always inefficient. And it ends up doing more harm than good.

I just don't think giving the government that power is necessary because, as I explained, people are capable of taking care of themselves.

The fact is that every socialist country in the world does have some sort of capitalism entrenched in it. You can't do without it. And, in theory at least, they would be better off if they let capitalism reign freely and not compromise it with a socialist net.

People see capitalism as evil. But historically the evil has never come from capitalism. It has never come from one person trying to make a FAIR profit.

The evil has always come from the GOVERNMENT. The corrupt government which ignores its duties and tolerates fraud and the infringements of human rights.

And we can view our disagreement in terms of human rights.

You may agree with the Continental tradition of Human Rights. In this view the government is benevolent and has certain duties towards its citizens, such as providing them with health care etc.

I agree more with the Anglo-American tradition of Human Rights, which sees the state as a necessary evil, and the rights afforded to invidiuals are all negative rights, basically telling the state what it can't do to its people.

There was a really good analogy that sort of explained socialism. Here it is

Let's say there's a community of people living outside the city. They all work in the city and they all drive their in their individual cars. They like driving their cars because it is convenient and comfortable. But this results in slow traffic and the commute takes hours.

So they all get together and decide that they will NOT drive their cars, and instead take the bus. Giving up some comfort for a much faster commute.

Now they all take the bus, and the commute is much faster.

But what if just a few people didnt take the bus, and just drove their cars? That wouldn't clog the roads and the bus's commute wouldn't slow down. The people taking the bus wouldn't be affected by this.

Except it wouldn't be fair to everyone taking the bus.

And everyone would see that and decide to take their cars, thinking the rest would take the bus, and this would clog up the roads again, leading them back to square one.

And that is supposedly what would happen in a free society. So you would need a law saying no one can drive their own cars to work.

Also the point about arbitrary laws, I was thinking about the many awful, paradoxical laws that our country has that do nothing but make things worse. But as pointed out in the analogy, some laws do make sense, and giving up a bit of freedom can certainly mean a better life for everyone involved.

[Abdun_Nur]

Salaam (not) stillearning,

you have not read the systems that natural law demands, yet you condemn them out of hand, truly the act of a thoughtless man, remain clueless, follow whatever your masters demand of you, as all sheep must. It is pointless attempting to debate with religious Muslims I am beginning to see, they have no ability to apply reason, and I suppose this would be a prerequisite of religion.

I'll waste no more time, follow sovereigns, live in riba, worship inventions of your imagination, and remain stagnated and confused, Muslims have earned their reputation of being the most ignorant of all people, sad but as judged from their actions as a group accurate.

Salaam

[stillearning]

AOA abdun Nur

Salaam (not) stillearning,

Definitely not learned anything from you other than not to waste my time reading cliched rubbish.

you have not read the systems that natural law demands, yet you condemn them out of hand, truly the act of a thoughtless man, remain clueless, follow whatever your masters demand of you, as all sheep must. It is pointless attempting to debate with religious Muslims I am beginning to see, they have no ability to apply reason, and I suppose this would be a prerequisite of religion.

The fact that I replied to you point by point (whether my intellectual content was not up to your high standard is another issue) seems to have escaped you. How about you addressing the issues I raised or aree they beyond your understanding.

I'll waste no more time, follow sovereigns, live in riba, worship inventions of your imagination, and remain stagnated and confused, Muslims have earned their reputation of being the most ignorant of all people, sad but as judged from their actions as a group accurate.

I thnik you have wasted enough of your time writing cliches which have very little meaning. You are not the first individual who thinks they solved the worlds problem by stating it is natural or it is a natural law, without having the slightest clue about the word natural or nature in the context you are using. Thank you I will take your advice and not waste my time with you. Adios

[stillearning]

AOA Lobster & Tyler Durden

Unfortunately it is a huge topic. Hence generating significant number of points making a focused discussion very difficult.

I am neither a capitalist orsocialist but mixture of both (at least that is how Isee myself but then it depends on what your definition of each is).
No system is perfect and as humans we are in a constant state of evolution and that includes how we organise ourselves into a group known as a society. How we as group decide to run ourselves, for me at least, equates to a political system.
All relatively successful systems have been mixture of capitalist and socialist ideas (to a varying degree) & I must stress the word relative.
Hopefully my answer to the points you have raised may clarify this a little further.

Quote

You will find in practice the more individuals have the least they are likely to give to charity.

Do you have facts for this? Because, as far as I can see, plenty of rich people to charity. Just look at bill gates, brad pitt angelina jolie etc etc. They give massive amounts of time and money to charity. I would need to see definitive statistics. If you were to do a search on google, you will find documentation that the "poor give a higher percentage of their wealth" than the rich. However, I don't think this is really enough to judge from.
I don't know about this though - you may be correct.

I think you have answered your own question. I cannot give you precise statistics but my statement was based on personal experience of being involved in charriatable fund raising.

Quote

Those that consider themselves socialist would argue to the contrary that socialism is the ultimate form of freedom as it enables the individuals to enjoy the fruits of their own labour and not be slaves to a master who is no more than a parasite living of their creation (not my definition).

Yes, enjoy the fruits of your labour until the government steals 40% of your income to subsidise other industries, other individuals and their own wallets. Sounds very "free". Actually, the very simplest form of "enjoy the fruits of your labour" would be exactly the libertarian philosophy. The government takes as little as possible of your money, and you spend the wealth generated by your labour on whatever you want. You want to spend all that money on heroin? Great, go ahead. It's a stupid decision, but it's yours. You want to spend it on your child's welfare and personal matters. Great, good for you.

THAT is freedom, not the illusion that socialism offers.

Unfortunattely fruits of labour is much more complex than we usually imagine. Let us look at a vey basic example. Landowner (how he came to inherit the land is another issue) has huge quantity of land where thousands work to produce X amount of wealth but only recieve tiny fraction of the net wealth generated, for sake of discussion say 10%, and the landowner keeps 90%. Who here is enjoying the fruits of their labour? I think it is not always the goverments who take away the fruits of your labour.
I am not sure what you mean by a goverment. For me it is the simply the system we as group have decided to implement. In a representative democracy, excuse the cliche, THE OF GOVT OFTHE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE (or something like it).The fact that you or I may not agree with some or all of rules is neither here or there it has to be the will of the majority& history has taught us there is no better way.
If you have fantastic idea(s) and want to put them into practice then try to persuade your fellow members of the society to let you form the goverment . for that is what the goverment is.

Quote

Do you not think the less fortunate deserve little bit more predictable to rely on than the unpredictable nature of other individuals charity.

You don't think that if your income was not taxed by 40% (approx) that you would not give more to charity?

I have no idea & I don't think you know either.
My point is quite simple. Do you not think that those less fortunate members in a given society that you choose to live should have a more predictable safety net than rely on thhe npredictable nature of another personss charity.
40% is not the issue. it could be 1 or 99% that is for you as societyto collectively decide. If you accept that to live together in a given society taxation is necessary then exact percentage is for you to collectively agree upon. Even in a given systemit will vary acccording to the needs of the society. perhaps the below example may help
Over a century ago in Britain at a party of very wealthy individuals. A man sitting next to a very attractive woman, asked her would she sleep with for 1 milliound pounds, she replied yes. He then asked her if she would do the same for one pence. She replied "what do you take me for". His response "I have already established that I am merely establishing the price".
However if you think no form of taxation ie 0% then that is another discussion to be had.

This is the robin hood myth. The idea that we can take from everyone in order to help the poor is, in my opinion, the most misguided economic idea. Government schools, government housing, the minimum wage - all of these are state initiatives funded by the taxpayer - and almost every one has been an abject failure in whatever context.

Not at all. If you decide to live in a society then you are expecteed to make a contribution for the greater good & not to just to give to the poor.
Failure in what you have quoted is a realtive term. For example the Heath Service in the UK (despite many problems) and many other socially collective goverment initiatives in the Scandanavian countries have been a resounding suceess. But perhaps you would allow the poor and the weak to die due tto lack of medicine and keep all your earnings, would that be successful to you. US (one of the wealthiest nations) has private health system and poor rely on a very badly funbded state and chritable organisations (correct me if I am wrong). Yet the Neonatal mortality, % of death in the 1st year of life, (recognised barometer of any give n health system) for the poor in the US is worst than most of the third world countries. Perhaps you consider thios to be a success.

Government housing essentially further divides the community and concentrates the poor and unemployed, benefit-dependant people in one single place. This then encourages a sub-culture of crime. We see these examples all around us.

Perhaps you are correct. The alternative for many would be homelessnes & surely that is not going to be socially more cohesive.

I am not questioning your intentions. Everyone - marx, keynes, hayek, friedman - all have good intentions. However, the implementation of these is, under a socialist ideology, hugely misguided.

We will have to agree to disagree

Stilllearning,

I think you are a bit too cynical when it comes to human nature.

No being realistic. If it pains you so much to give a percentage to help the poor, as you call it. Why should giving it voulntarily make it more likely or likely.

People naturally give money away. Of course everyone will not (libertarians will argue that that is their individual right), but many will. Enough? I can't say.

Since you yourself are not even sure. You are quite happy for the less fortunate to be dependent upon it. Just a question!

And people are more inclined to help each other and work as a community when the government isn't there to help. The fact is, people find ways to survive, whether it is through the government or other means.

for me the Goverment is the community. If most of the community is too apathetic to choose who leads their community then they deserve the 'Goverment' they have.

In third world countries, extended families live together and the members help each other out. If the government isn't there, the family takes care of you.

As a given country are we not an extended family. Do the individuals not make contribution (often financial) in an extended family. how is this any different to contributing to what you describe as a goverment. & before you say not every member of tthe extended family agrees onhow the family collectively spends their wealth.

If there is no "free" health care, there are charity hospitals (run either by generous individuals or religious institutions) that take people in and help them.

You are welcome to it. I would prefer a more organised form heath care to look after me. I am happy to contribute to thhis kind of system whether I end up utising or not. Call it tax or any other name

Socialism takes away the freedom of people because it forces people to give. And it forces people to be part of a system that perhaps they don't want to be a part of.

Really. I think you need to study socialism or marxism in bit more detail

But that is not necessarily a bad thing
.

Are you trying to redeemyourself!

That is not really the problem I have with socialism. The problem I have with socialism is the trust we have to put in with the government. Which is, in my opinion, always corrupt and always inefficient. And it ends up doing more harm than good.

I just don't think giving the government that power is necessary because, as I explained, people are capable of taking care of themselves.

Goverment does it metmorph out of nowhere or is it group alien upon whom we have no control over?

The fact is that every socialist country in the world does have some sort of capitalism entrenched in it. You can't do without it. And, in theory at least, they would be better off if they let capitalism reign freely and not compromise it with a socialist net.

So really, according to this, there is no socialist or a capitalist country they are simply diffferrent mixtures.

The evil has always come from the GOVERNMENT. The corrupt government which ignores its duties and tolerates fraud and the infringements of human rights.

You mean the evil has come from those who have been allowed to form the Goverment. What is to stop you forming 'the Goverment'

There was a really good analogy that sort of explained socialism. Here it is

Let's say there's a community of people living outside the city. They all work in the city and they all drive their in their individual cars. They like driving their cars because it is convenient and comfortable. But this results in slow traffic and the commute takes hours.

So they all get together and decide that they will NOT drive their cars, and instead take the bus. Giving up some comfort for a much faster commute.

Now they all take the bus, and the commute is much faster.

But what if just a few people didnt take the bus, and just drove their cars? That wouldn't clog the roads and the bus's commute wouldn't slow down. The people taking the bus wouldn't be affected by this.

Except it wouldn't be fair to everyone taking the bus.

And everyone would see that and decide to take their cars, thinking the rest would take the bus, and this would clog up the roads again, leading them back to square one.

And that is supposedly what would happen in a free society. So you would need a law saying no one can drive their own cars to work.

I think you have answered your own point. What is freedom? If we decide to live in a community/society/nation then we all jointly accept certain restrictions on our freedomfor the greater good or perhaps you don't agree.

Also the point about arbitrary laws, I was thinking about the many awful, paradoxical laws that our country has that do nothing but make things worse. But as pointed out in the analogy, some laws do make sense, and giving up a bit of freedom can certainly mean a better life for everyone involved.

Sorry not understanding

You will have to excuse me I am very tired not written such length for a long time.

regards

[phoenix1]

Still learning,

How would you precisely define socialism?

Here's what I think.

A capitalistic base is a necessity to any society. In history the only societies that have made progress is which enabled capitalism and some sort of free market.

After that, if you decide to have the government regulate some things and provide a safety net for the less fortunate, thats fine too.

There are practical problems with that, because often governments are corrupt. And often, even though well intentioned, social programs do end up hurting the poor.
We need to look at them from a utilitarian perspective. A lot of times in a bid to provide for everyone we end up killing incentives and killing competition, which means fewer goods, fewer choices, and higher prices.

But I can understand that in some cases the government can intervene.

What I can support is localized socialism. For example the people of a town (or even a bunch of towns) coming together and voluntarily creating a system by which they share their wealth or do whatever.

On a small scale it works.

On a large scale, not so much.

In the end, I think capitalism should reign. And if the capitalism is need to be damped and regulated, then it needs to be done on a local scale.

[stillearning]

AOA Lobster

How would you precisely define socialism?

Gosh! Have you got few years to listen. I dont have a specific definition. To me it implies trying to form a fair, just society which takes care of its weak and vulnerable and ensures justice for all.
However like I said earlier we are in a constant state of evolution and that applies to the political system(s) too.

Here's what I think.

A capitalistic base is a necessity to any society. In history the only societies that have made progress is which enabled capitalism and some sort of free market.

After that, if you decide to have the government regulate some things and provide a safety net for the less fortunate, thats fine too.

No problems with that. I dont think we are million miles apart.
Also suggests, to me, that you are a capitalist/socialist

There are practical problems with that, because often governments are corrupt. And often, even though well intentioned, social programs do end up hurting the poor.

I am sorry but I dont really understand your points about the goverment. Are you against any form of goverment? If the answer is yes then exactly how do you suggest the country or the group of people you choose to live with (thousands or millions) should interact with each other. I mean who is going to define the rules and regulations & what is to stop the strong from oppressing the weak. If the answer is no, then the goverment will be decided by people like yourself. For me the goverment is simply the reflection of the society it represents. If the goverment is rotten and corrupt then I am afraid that is simply the reflection of that society. Where do you think the people who form the goverment come from (please try to reflect on this).

We need to look at them from a utilitarian perspective. A lot of times in a bid to provide for everyone we end up killing incentives and killing competition, which means fewer goods, fewer choices, and higher prices.

Who is this we who would provide for everyone. You are using an extreme example. What you have said cannot be true because it is contradictory statement. & I am not nit picking here. simply poniting the absurdity of the statement.
(1)If you consider everyone then there is no one left to be the 'we' the provider
(2) even in the complete non capitalist states (& I am not sure that is waht they were) like the old USSR. There were no few individuals providing for everyone. It was the opposite The vast majority providing for the very few, bit like capitalism. Vast majority creating wealth for a few individuals to enjoy.Extremes end up going in a circle and eventually meet at the same point.

But I can understand that in some cases the government can intervene.

Still don't understand what you mean by Goverment?

What I can support is localized socialism. For example the people of a town (or even a bunch of towns) coming together and voluntarily creating a system by which they share their wealth or do whatever.

On a small scale it works.

What is country. I thought it was a group of people coming together and creating a system which they consider it to be mutually beneficial. Is that not what the USA is?

On a large scale, not so much.

How big is large scale? and what would you have for this large scale NO GOVERMENT.

In the end, I think capitalism should reign. And if the capitalism is need to be damped and regulated, then it needs to be done on a local scale.

Going back to the original point, for me at least, Islam supportsa mixture of capitalism (business) and socialism (fairness & Justice). The best systems in the world are those that take the best of each system and constantly evolve to continue to try to improve.
Islam preaches moderation & that apllies to everything in life.
Extremes very rarely (if at all) work. You cannot live in a burning fire or a freezer for that matter.

Regards

[Roshan]

The Quran promotes a democratic socialist society!

Peace,
Edip

Peace

I think the above is impossible.

Prior to the Quran, there had been a long history of civilisations, with their ensuing state apparatus, stretching back to 3,000 BC in much the same geographical area.

Yet, the Quran never lists the state funded alms tax (mistakenly called zakat by sectarians), but talks about personal charity, never talks about taxation (with the exception of spoils of war, which is hardly an earned income), personal property rights, trading in real value etc.

I would argue, this is essentially right-wing type idealogy, with the onus on the moral values of the state to provide for the poor and the orphans.

But the onus of my point, is the LACK of detail in the Quran about a state apparatus (i.e. socialism), in an area where such things had been present for 3,000 years. Hence my point that no-one could come to your conclusion without pushing their own values onto the Quran.

Roshan

[Roshan]

AOA Lobster & Tyler Durden

Failure in what you have quoted is a realtive term. For example the Heath Service in the UK (despite many problems) and many other socially collective goverment initiatives in the Scandanavian countries have been a resounding suceess. But perhaps you would allow the poor and the weak to die due tto lack of medicine and keep all your earnings, would that be successful to you. US (one of the wealthiest nations) has private health system and poor rely on a very badly funbded state and chritable organisations (correct me if I am wrong). Yet the Neonatal mortality, % of death in the 1st year of life, (recognised barometer of any give n health system) for the poor in the US is worst than most of the third world countries.

You are wrong on neonatal mortality
http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Mort.svg

American rates have gone up, but this could be due to many reasons (e.g. diseases of excess affecting mother and baby).

The NHS has been an unmitigated failure, producing low cancer survival rates, low rates of expensive medical devices/treatments (i.e. what modern medicine is about). The creation of the NHS corrupted the natural evolution of healthcare in Britain and is currently bankrupt. It provides low quality, cheap care and exists for the workers.

US healthcare prices shot up after medicare, medicaid and the HMO act, which acted to bankrupt charity too. Their legislation also favour corporations over individuals meaning costs are high for direct purchasing (where prior they had been much lower).

Roshan

[stillearning]

AOA

You are wrong on neonatal mortality
http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Mort.svg

What you have quoted is the overall mortality rate for the US. Read my post carefully. For your benefit here is the relevant bit again

Yet the Neonatal mortality, % of death in the 1st year of life, (recognised barometer of any give n health system) for the poor in the US is worst than most of the third world countries.

I hope you now understand the point I was trying to make.

The NHS has been an unmitigated failure

Wow! Hang on there. Where on earth did you get that from. Poll after Poll has shown that that overwhelming majority of British (the one who actually use & pay for the NHS) absolutely adore it and any party that even suggests discontinuation and introducing private care (which you appear tom favour) will have written the longest suicide note in history.
Ask the people who use the NHS, proof of the pudding lies in eating.

producing low cancer survival rates, low rates of expensive medical devices/treatments (i.e. what modern medicine is about). The creation of the NHS corrupted the natural evolution of healthcare in Britain and is currently bankrupt. It provides low quality, cheap care and exists for the workers.

I don't know if you know anything about the NHS or Medicine. From the above, it would seem very little (however I am prepared to give you the benefit of doubt). I will deal with each of your points
(1) NHS is bankrupt- are you saying that the UK is Bankrupt. Because is state owned and will become bankrupt if the UK PLC is deemed economically unviable. It is recognised as the most efficent healthcare system in the developed world. Good sound bite but no factual basis. As for the evolution bit I am not sure what you mean. If you look at the medical advances and original research in medicine. You will find the UK (NHS)way ahead of any other country.

(2) It is cheap I will agree with you, that is because it is highly efficent. Exist for workers???? It exists for everyone....man, woman, child, rich, poor, black, white, yellow, gay, straight etc and free (paid for by everyone- whether ever use it or not).

(3) Cancer survival statistics. You have taken the headline without any real understanding. No other developed country collects statistic like the NHS. The cancer data is for whole of the UK. The other Euorpean countries only publish from few centre and hence limited and not representative of the whole nation. Virtually all aspects of medicine have better outcome in affluent population. Also stage for stage i.e the point at which the cancer is diagnosed thee UK is good as any country

(4) Low quality and cheap care...such as. Can you tell us which high quality care is not provided on the NHS

So which model are you proposing & please keep it in the context of the issue being discussed.

regards

[Roshan]

Peace

On the NHS

Here are a few facts the left can never refute on the NHS

1. Doubling of spending with no productivity increase
   http//www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/Health-systems/stewardship-and-governance/news/news/2011/03/doubling-expenditure-on-the-national-health-service-in-england-had-a-variable-impact-on-health-system-performance

Yet a huge increase in numbers in the payroll (about half of whom are non-clinical) http//www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/nhsstaff2007/Staff%20in%20the%20NHS%20leaflet.pdf
The above is a feature of the socialised nature of the NHS (and spare me the rubbish about US healthcare, they have been on the way to full socialisation since the Social Security Act and HMO acts )

2. Spending on healthcare that is above the OECD average
   http//www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/37/38979610.pdf

3)Horrendous cancer survival rates
http//www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=nhs+cancer+survival&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=SEsxT_aCEZKDhQf93pWWBQ#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&source=hp&q=nhs+cancer+survival+comparison+oecd&pbx=1&oq=nhs+cancer+survival+comparison+oecd&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=12498l13398l1l14006l5l5l0l0l0l1l978l2920l3-2.0.2.1l5l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=7f95481b408cbdf4&biw=1280&bih=664
(forget the spin on 'improvement', they have been horrendous since the CONCORD study in the 1990's, and no the journals do not say it is due to different accounting methods)

4. Low levels of high-end expensive medical facilities such as a)intensive care unit beds http//www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8050626/Britain-has-fewer-intensive-care-beds-doctor.html
   b) MRI scanners, CT scanners, radiation therapy equipment
   http//www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3746,en_2649_37407_2085200_1_1_1_37407,00.html

5. Emergency general surgery death rates 4 times higher than America

http//www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=uk+death+rATES+from+emergency+surgery+4+times+higher+than+america&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=N0wxT5DkFdCwhAeGpJzsBA

This is a direct consequence of the socialised nature of the NHS, one where it exists for the purpose of the staff, but not for the purpose of the patients. The low standards, expensive and non-sustainable care (i.e. the raison d'etre of Lansley's plan) , care rationing are all features of a socialised system.

The problem is that Lansley believes in this system when there is no rational reason to do so. He wants to plug the shortfall in what the NHS spends over what it receives (?5 billion/yr) through farming it out to the private sector. This may yield some efficiency savings, but it is really much the same system. Furthermore, as he is finding out, staff in socialised services are hysterically resentful of any change to their precious high pay, high pensions, low hours etc.

The black hole of the NHS should be capped, the elderly and children should be protected and the NHS should stop funding whole cohorts of treatments in conjunction with tax cuts and tax breaks for insurance. Let private medicine rise up again in conjunction with charities so we can all get better treatment and the poor can get genuinely free care from charities.

I urge you, if you are serious, to refute the specifics of what I have raised.

Roshan

[Roshan]

Peace

Right, the specifics of your original response

AOA

What you have quoted is the overall mortality rate for the US. Read my post carefully. For your benefit here is the relevant bit again

I hope you now understand the point I was trying to make.

From memory, your point was that the neonatal mortality of the American poor was worse than the 3rd world.

OK

http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Mort.svg - world neonatal mortality
http//www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2010/019.pdf - US neonatal mortality by ethnic group and location. NB, the highest figures (for blacks without an asterix (which represents an estimate) is 12.4 versus African figures of 25 or upwards.

And, in fact, if you read http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate, you'll find no third world countries within the 12.4 range, and you'll find countries like Qatar and UAE (some of the richest countries per capita) with rates about the same as the US poor.

Your assumption is that neonatal mortality is a correlator of healthcare quality, which is true to an extent. However, diseases of excess such as diabetes, hypertension, obesity do also contribute, which may explain the rising figures in the US.

Wow! Hang on there. Where on earth did you get that from. Poll after Poll has shown that that overwhelming majority of British (the one who actually use & pay for the NHS) absolutely adore it and any party that even suggests discontinuation and introducing private care (which you appear tom favour) will have written the longest suicide note in history.
Ask the people who use the NHS, proof of the pudding lies in eating.

See my previous posting.

On top, I would add that when you only have one monopoly provider of something as important as healthcare, a) how are people supposed to know what to compare it to? b) people obviously fear changing the system. However, if you ask people who have travelled abroad and experienced different healthcare delivery systems (which they have specifically paid for) in different countries, I don't think you would get the same answer.

(1) NHS is bankrupt- are you saying that the UK is Bankrupt. Because is state owned and will become bankrupt if the UK PLC is deemed economically unviable. It is recognised as the most efficent healthcare system in the developed world. Good sound bite but no factual basis. As for the evolution bit I am not sure what you mean. If you look at the medical advances and original research in medicine. You will find the UK (NHS)way ahead of any other country.

The NHS is a financial black hole due to it's socialised funding mechanism. It has had it's funding doubled since 1997, yet still needs ?5 billion more every year to match what it spends versus what it receives. DO YOU DISPUTE THIS FACT?

(2) It is cheap I will agree with you, that is because it is highly efficent. Exist for workers???? It exists for everyone....man, woman, child, rich, poor, black, white, yellow, gay, straight etc and free (paid for by everyone- whether ever use it or not).

No. The NHS spend is more than the OECD average. DO YOU DISPUTE THIS FACT?

(3) Cancer survival statistics. You have taken the headline without any real understanding. No other developed country collects statistic like the NHS. The cancer data is for whole of the UK. The other Euorpean countries only publish from few centre and hence limited and not representative of the whole nation. Virtually all aspects of medicine have better outcome in affluent population. Also stage for stage i.e the point at which the cancer is diagnosed thee UK is good as any country

On the contrary, Lancet Oncol 2008; 9 730?56 specifically refutes this point.
The comparability of cancer survival estimates between
countries is criticised far more often than the comparability
of cancer incidence data from the same registries. There is
no statistical basis for this distinction. National sensitivities
about cancer survival seem to be much greater than
sensitivities about cancer incidence. Cancer survival is a
measure of the overall eff ectiveness of cancer treatment
services,

(4) Low quality and cheap care...such as. Can you tell us which high quality care is not provided on the NHS
See previous answer.

Roshan

[Amouna]

Salam Amouna

What is the opposite of capitalism? You describe the opposite as where the government takes your money and distributes it evenly among the masses. How on earth can an economic system tax you?
You make it sound like capitalism equals freedom which is unbelievably not true. How can an economic system guarantee you freedom?

I agree with you that capitalism as an economic system is Quranic because we are to have free trade, but yet again I hear that capitalism= social freedom which is not right. Please give me one country where the social freedom is a result of the economic system of capitalism and I stand corrected.

An economic system can't tax you, the government that enforces that economic system on you does.

Today, there is no truly free country. Property rights are inherent, self evident rights and no country truly allows them to citizens. Government forcing you to pay income tax is one example of this.

[Emil]

An economic system can't tax you, the government that enforces that economic system on you does.

Today, there is no truly free country. Property rights are inherent, self evident rights and no country truly allows them to citizens. Government forcing you to pay income tax is one example of this.

Right, so capitalism is not politics while socialism is a political system, you could in theory live in a socialist country which promotes capitalism. Therefore they are not two sides of one coin,
I am sorry but the government forces you to pay tax? You see this as an infringement on your personal freedom? I understand your standpoint if you live under a government that does not use the taxes to build an infrastructure that benefits you. But then you should not blame tax, you should blame the people who are abusing the money. If the government takes my "excess" in tax and uses it to help the needy I see this as zakat, and that is the will of Allah. So what if zakat has been given the name tax in the west?
And there has never been a free country ever. True freedom means anarchy and society is not built that way. Not even Allah promotes this kind of co-existence.