Is Communism Really THAT Bad?

[Order]

–though we have the full right to hate every single American-

You can hate whoever you want.

Did anyone say you are not aware , or called you ignorant ?

It seems that you all talked as if there were only two economic systems in the world

Implying that we are not aware that the Islamic Ideology, government and philosophy exists.
We know. We don't care.

Well , I prefer you do hear of that
Why don't we be more intellectual in discussing how you call for pure evenness , you want a system where you have wealth and privileges while there are some starving in the streets !

Compare Estimated annual Deaths in your country to those of the US.
You may notice a signifigantly higher percentage of your people die from disease. That would be due to a higher percentage of people living in poverty.
Your system is no more fair than anyone else's.
And I have heard of taxing the wealthy to benefit the poor. Every first world country does it. I was being sarcastic, but I'm glad to hear Islamic countries are beginning to catch up.

Excuse me !
Who brought politics in here out of the blue ?

I see what you did there.

Darfur ! I wonder where did you get all this courage to mention these subjects , that is pretty much like what they say " he who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones "!

You wonder where I got the courage?
I question whether you could point out Darfur on a map, let alone discuss the genocide taking place there.

The Black that were driven to work like animals for your majesty, war in Vietnam , the European Colonization against the Arab/Islamic world ,the nuclear bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ,war on Iraq and Afghanistan , and so forth.
Obviously very gloomy shameful historical background
In fact, it's you who must be ashamed of defending such

I am not surprised to see another foreigner who knows basic American history. You probably know more about my country than you do about your own.
My glass house awaits the stones you may throw.
The US has the (seemingly) unique ability to learn from our mistakes.

We are not naive to not know that all the fuss that the world is making out of Darfur is for nothing but the extensive concern of OIL, tell me if your majesty would care about the third world if it weren't for the natural resources and oil you suck from them ?

Actually, there is little talk about Darfur.
The Genocide there is going mostly ignored, other than humanitarian aid provided by the UN.
If the US wanted free oil, we would simply take it and it wouldn't cost me $60 to fill my tank. The war for oil protest ended when we didn't steal any, when we bought all of our resources legitimately and prices kept rising.

when did America get the leadership of the world to safety ha??

World War 1.
And again during World War 2.
We also took on the responsability of leading the world in humanitarian aid, mediating between potentially hostile nations and containing commmunism.

did your country manage to maintain safety and peace in its own land before moving out to think of Darfur ?

The UN is in Darfur, not the United States.
Actually, I'm not even sure if the UN is still providing aid.

the rate of crime in that state during 2000- 2004 has approximately reached more than 600,000 cases according to the statistics of U.S department of justice !
So don't speak as if someone appointed you to guard the world when you couldn't guard your homeland !

Crime rate statistics in the United States include verbal assult (such as swearing at someone), harassment and traffic violations.
600,000 cases of Illigally parked Chevy Tahoes is not earth-shattering. Also, there is probably about 5 times as many people living in Texas. Wait, let me look that up...

The population of Texas is over 24 million

Approximately 6 million people live in Darfur

Oh, I was wrong.
It's only 4 times as many people living in texas.
So, about 40% of the population of Texas was caught pissing in an alley behind a bar in FOUR YEARS.

About 3977 of the civilian populations were killed within only one month under your lame lie "massive destruction weapon"!

That's not an accurate statistic. You may want to check your sources.
I have seen BS sites claiming 150,000 civilian deaths in the first few days.
It's simply an invented number.
The Guardian (which *is* a legitimate source) states about 5,000 civilians have been killed, total.
It doesn't say if those are all due to fighting the US, or if that is for the entire coalition, or if it is all deaths combined.

Do you think you have any right to accuse others of committing genocide

It's not an accusation.
The UN agreed.
What is happening there is genocide, as defined by the members of the United Nations.

while your country commits the cruelest ones on every land its soldiers step their feet on !

That's not true. We have bases in the Phillipines, they like us.


I'm going to close with my usual,
Stick to what you know. You know what you've been told because you haven't been to the places you talk about, you haven't met the people you shout at, you haven't witnessed tyranny and oppresion occur around you with your own eyes.

Edit:
I realize now that 600,000 is no where near 40% of 24,000,000. I how I managed to calculate that, but it's actually much lower.

[Diyala]

Compare Estimated annual Deaths in your country to those of the US.
You may notice a signifigantly higher percentage of your people die from disease. That would be due to a higher percentage of people living in poverty.
Your system is no more fair than anyone else's.

Diseases! Every wealthy rich man can catch diabetes or heart attacks mostly between ages around 50-70 and that is attributed to the unhealthy eating habits to which they are accustomed, but that doesn't mean that 6% of Arabs are not poor. Though there are many reasons for the increased rate of poverty, still war has played a great role in that and thanks to you, not that it did you any good when it has tremendously shaken your budget to have 16% of the Americans under the line of poverty !

The poverty you talk about has nothing to do with a system which aims for demolishing poverty, for your information most of the Arab/Islamic countries do not apply the Islamic economic system that is why they suffer from many economic problems. If every single Muslim gives the Zakat of his money regularly, there would be no single poor in the country ,but since most of these countries are secular and their governments are capitalist, they make no difference from you .

Zakat is not taxes , Zakat is not compulsory taken, it's something people give as a shape of their complete awareness of the importance of the social solidarity and that you cannot be a real Muslim when you can't feel your brothers in need . Also, giving the Zakat is considered an act of worship because it is a form of offering thanks to God for the means of material well-being one has acquired. So it is never the same as taxes.

And I have heard of taxing the wealthy to benefit the poor. Every first world country does it. I was being sarcastic, but I'm glad to hear Islamic countries are beginning to catch up.

You are so very contradictory, before a while my system wasn't fair than anyone else's and now the west has started to closely study and apply some aspects of it! how is that? you may know that their financial system after the failures _ on which you have to be sarcastic _ your country caused the world which are resulted in a collapsed global financial system, they started to consider other philosophies when theirs led them to no more successful consequences than they should . Even if they are not Muslims that is a good thing when let away prejudice and do things and think it rationally .

If the US wanted free oil, we would simply take it and it wouldn't cost me $60 to fill my tank

Another face of the American arrogance. So you totally and proudly admit that you freely take others' belongings which is literally theft ! No wonder your country has registered the highest percentage of crime in the world if that what one of its citizens thinks !

That's not an accurate statistic. You may want to check your sources.
I have seen BS sites claiming 150,000 civilian deaths in the first few days.
It's simply an invented number.
The Guardian (which *is* a legitimate source) states about 5,000 civilians have been killed, total.
It doesn't say if those are all due to fighting the US, or if that is for the entire coalition, or if it is all deaths combined.

I really wonder if they teach a subject titled as (Twisting Facts For Our Interest) in American schools.
It is always like that; when America is found guilty, it is always either an invented number or a fabricated story when you are the only ones who adopt the policy of inventing and fabricating. But when it comes to others, everything must be true even if it is not. You are really an AMERICAN.

I'm going to close with my usual,
Stick to what you know. You know what you've been told because you haven't been to the places you talk about, you haven't met the people you shout at, you haven't witnessed tyranny and oppresion occur around you with your own eyes.

Wow I see, where did this wisdom come from?
What about you? Have you gone to Drafur and seen Muslims committing genocide?!

If that is your philosophy, why did you rashly start attacking and criticizing just because someone has mentioned something about their religion when it was completely invited?

That is all I have to say and If I did mention anything that might bother anyone, my apologies I was just defending myself and my religion.


Peace.

[Order]

for your information most of the Arab/Islamic countries do not apply the Islamic economic system.

Oh, I didn't know that.

If every single Muslim gives the Zakat of his money regularly, there would be no single poor in the country

So, I guess that isn't happening.

Zakat is not taxes , Zakat is not compulsory taken, it's something people give as a shape of their complete awareness of the importance of the social solidarity and that you cannot be a real Muslim when you can't feel your brothers in need .

So it's like Tithe to a christian church, right?

Also, giving the Zakat is considered an act of worship because it is a form of offering thanks to God for the means of material well-being one has acquired. So it is never the same as taxes.

Oh, in that case I understand.
That's not a political system. You're right that charitable donations are not tax, but anyone who lives in a country with a centralized government has to pay taxes.
I don't think there is a single religious text which establishes traffic laws. That's where government is important and part of the reason why tax exists.

you may know that their financial system after the failures _ on which you have to be sarcastic _ your country caused the world which are resulted in a collapsed global financial system

The United States did not become the financial standard of the world accidentally.
The global financial system is not collapsing.
The countries who have adopted the Euro are collapsing. They are suffering because they became socialist by adopting the Euro.
Trust me, you will know when the global economy is falling apart when China becomes the financial capitol.

Even if they are not Muslims that is a good thing when let away prejudice and do things and think it rationally .

I agree that diversity and rationality are important to everyone and every form of government.
What I am saying is that Capitalism promotes those values. Communism, for example, does not.

Another face of the American arrogance. So you totally and proudly admit that you freely take others' belongings

I didn't say I or my country have taken anything unlawfully.
I said that we clearly have not.
I am proud.
Proud to state that I never have stolen anything from anyone and I would never support my country stealing, either.

Stating that I am capable of doing something is not the same as actually doing it.

No wonder your country has registered the highest percentage of crime in the world if that what one of its citizens thinks !

America has the highest *reported* crime rate.
That means that when there is a fight, someone calls the police.
When there is a traffic accident, someone calls the police.
This is not the case in any other country I've been to.
A man could be murdered in Hong Kong and chances are that nobody would report it.

when America is found guilty, it is always either an invented number or a fabricated story

I did not imply that civillians were not killed due to fighting in Iraq.
I know there were civillian deaths.
I also know that other countries of the coalition caused civillian deaths.
Iraqi insergents caused civillian deaths, probably more than anyone else because the equipment they were using was about 40 years old.
All of that is true,
The number you stated, however, is not at all real.

You are really an AMERICAN.

I don't need you to inform me of my citizenship.
I have a birth certificate and passport for that.
And, yes, I am a gun-carrying, beer-drinking, car-driving American.
(Not at the same time, though. That's dangerous.)

Wow I see, where did this wisdom come from?
What about you? Have you gone to Drafur and seen Muslims committing genocide?!

You know,
You're right.
I haven't been to Darfur and I haven't seen it with my own eyes.
I did meet a guy who was in the UN military (whatever they call it, I don't remember). I sat next to him on a 16 hour flight to the US and talked to him about it. Turned out he had been there, driving a truck to deliver food to various villages.

But, I'll admit, you got me with my own logic there.
We could discuss Malaysia, if you want.

If that is your philosophy, why did you rashly start attacking and criticizing just because someone has mentioned something about their religion when it was completely invited?

I jumped on your post because you stated that there are more than two governing philosophies.
Like I said, I'm sure most people are aware of that fact, but the discussion was about whether or not Communism is inherently evil.
Which it seems like it is.

The mention of your religious philosophy didn't bother me. It was the attempted 'takeover' of the thread that got me.

Also,
I'm surprised that you didn't devolve into name-calling, even when I provoked it.

[Diyala]

Oh, I didn't know that.


So, I guess that isn't happening.

The point isn't whether it's happening or not , you can't deny the value of something just because others don't dedicate themselves for it , the point rather is this thing existed , done and at some places is still being done, and had remarkable consequences for both sides , well at least there came a time in the Islamic society where they couldn't find the poor on which they would contribute Zakat !

So it's like Tithe to a christian church, right?

Not exactly , there are various differences among which is the amount paid . As far as I know Christians must pay 10% of their income to the church , Muslims on the other hand must pay 2,5% of their income on Zakat as minimum , as the maximum can't stop at a specific number. I really want to know more about Christianity in that field , in Islam the system that guarantees the demolition of poverty is Zakat that is paid by those who can financially afford it , and it isn't taken from people under the supervision of the government , it's just an individual responsibility.
What is the strategy to demolish poverty in your country and how can they decrease it ?

The United States did not become the financial standard of the world accidentally.
The global financial system is not collapsing

You cannot deny the adverse role capitalism played in leading the world to the global financial crisis in 2008 that people are still suffering its consequences every now and then. Every day we hear of the collapse of some great banks, some financial institutions, financial markets with their indicators up and down ; what they gain in the morning can be lost by the evening or at the best situations they remain stable without taking any action. Capitalism was and still is the system of everlasting financial crises and its history can tell facts and figures about its continuous and frequent crises .

Obviously it's like impossible to have it stands without such problems and the defect from which these problems stem lies in the disruption of the structure in capitalism itself and not necessarily in one of its aspects or the government and individual adopting it .
The contradiction between the greed and the desire to profit the individual - this is the most important features of capitalism - and the possibility of the stability of the capitalist system, is a contradiction that cannot be resolved within capitalism itself ;individuals will always be within the system seeking profits without the least consideration to the mutual interests .This imbalance between these two extremes will inevitably lead to crises ,and to maintain a balance is impossible because of the nature of the social order and the capitalistic political system that gives the individual the power to break this contradiction in his favor at the expense of society.

Despite the unfair methods used in stock markets which are gambling, speculation and usury, they usually manage to manipulate the financial system and only create finical crises, not to mention that they are never guaranteed.

So , we could simply elicit why the pioneers of the capitalist system themselves are the ones who are demanding the replacement of the capitalist system with more equitable system for all mankind.

I jumped on your post because you stated that there are more than two governing philosophies.
Like I said, I'm sure most people are aware of that fact, but the discussion was about whether or not Communism is inherently evil.
Which it seems like it is.

So is the alternative , and the proofs are enough I guess.

When you track two contradictory systems that have greatly proved their fatal inability through ages , still not wanting to hear,consider or get a deep look at the new one which has avoided all the gaps mentioned for the excuse it wasn't called for will just sound arbitrary !

Capitalism mainly based on exploitation , and the solution for all these problems lies in adopting mechanisms of ending exploitation ;the exploitation of man by man, the exploitation of the strong for the weak ,the exploitation and control of a class or elite for the capabilities of communities as a whole. The decreased resources and increasing population do not require a total monopoly of some people - that only represents 2 per cent of the world -in the capabilities of the whole world , they rather require just distribution of wealth between nations and individuals , and I assume any different solution than this will only be the base of another problem. But If the West refuses to adopt Islamic economic system for ideological reasons, then at least all Muslim countries have to apply its mechanisms which proved a notable success at the level of banks and Islamic transactions in all countries.

[Order]

As far as I know Christians must pay 10% of their income to the church

Christians are not required to give money to anyone for any reason.
It doesn't matter because making a charitable donation is not a financial system and it is not a form of government.

You cannot deny the adverse role capitalism played in leading the world to the global financial crisis in 2008

2008?
Oh, I remember that year. I was at sea for 297 days because some group of religious extremists were threatening Isreal and a country full of communists was threatening Japan. The condition of the world economy was not a big issue that year, international conflict was, at least for the countries who were being threatened.
That was the year that Japan quit protesting nuclear power, specifically the retirement of the USS kittyhawk and the arrival of a nuclear-powered carrier, the USS George Washington. They quit protesting because their problems were not ideological or financial, they were having ballistic missiles fired at them by North Korea.

So, no. I don't remember an ecomomic crisis in 2008. I remember helping to protect the citizens of a foreign country from having to go to war.

I do, however, recognize that most of the world is not as financially stable as the US. Is that the fault of capitalism?
That there are greedy people living within the system?
Nope, greed existed long before capitalism. It exists in every culture and within every financial system, even yours. It is not a contradiction of the philosophy of any system, it is an unfortunate quality of human society.
There will be greed and envy and hate.

Stop blaming your supposed problems on a foreign country's financial system.
Just because there are poor people does not mean that capitalism made them poor. Each country is entitled to their own financial system and governing philosophy, if America's system were so terrible, no other country would have invested in it.

It is because American capitalism works so well that foreign countries have adopted it's ideas and invested in our stockmarket.

So , we could simply elicit why the pioneers of the capitalist system themselves are the ones who are demanding the replacement of the capitalist system with more equitable system for all mankind.

What?
The United States, as a nation, will remain capitalist. Our system has worked for a while and it has worked better than any other idea.

I don't know if you realize this, but there have been people living in poverty since the beginning of time.
There is nothing inherently malicious in the capitalist system as it stands today. The rules have been refined and the methods modified to allow individuals to succeed or fail based on their own abilities without having to step on others or depend on handouts to get there.
Name one other system which works that way.
Seriously, one.

Capitalism mainly based on exploitation

Wrong.
Capitalism is based completely on providing a satisfactory product or service for a reasonable price.
Don't spout ignorant garbage as if it's truth, you arrogant ass.

the exploitation and control of a class or elite for the capabilities of communities as a whole.

That's called oppression.
What you're trying to state is that the united states is a tyrannical oppressor of the innocent masses.

You're a douchebag.
I don't even need to point out specific occasions or philosophies this country is based on to disprove that.
But I'm going to anyway.
The Gulf War,
World War 2,
My 10 months at sea in 2008.

The purpose of all these military actions was to protect the citizens from tyrannical dictators' spreading oppression into nearby nations.
If we were so invested in preventing the oppression of foreign citizens and defended them with american lives...
Why would it make sense that we are trying to take advantage of those same people we died to defend?

It's not about control, you moron. The point is that each individual should be allowed basic human rights to live without fear, to keep what they earn and to work toward their goals.

they rather require just distribution of wealth between nations and individuals

So now we hear the root of your arguement.
You want all nations and individuals to split the money evenly.

How is that noble?

You want to piggy-back of my sacrifices and hard work so you can have the same things I have?
I earned my pay a thousand times over and never once stepped on anyone else in order to do it.

But that's what it comes down to,
You don't think it's fair that I was afforded the oportunity to earn my pay, keep what I earned and use it to buy the things I want.

That is truely unfair.
You SHOULD have the oportunity to do as I did.
It is unfair that you do not feel like you have the option to serve your country and know that you are making a positive impact in the lives of foreign citizens as well as your own countrymen.
It is unfair that you feel as though you are unable to work at your highest potential and enjoy the reward for a job well done.
All of that is truely unfair.

But it is not the United States which put you in that position.
If it were possible for me to make it so, every individual on the planet would have the same oportunities we have in this country.
But I can't change your social structure or economic system.

Redistributing our wealth throughout the world would put a lot of money in other's pockets. That's true.
But Americans would continue manufacturing, engineering and inventing and foreign countries would continue importing, learning and buying.

The money would end up back in this country anyway because we build the technology and develop techniques.
Remember, the US is a very young country with a very young financial philosophy. We are not an important figure in the global scale by default. There is nothing we had 200 years ago that any other country couldn't have had.


Your problem is, you're waiting for everyone else to start being fair and to start doing the right thing.
Start being fair yourself. Start doing the right thing on your own.
That's how I did it.
That's how my family does it.
That's how it is supposed to be done.

There are plenty of excuses, but none of them make a difference.
Make a real difference, stop making excuses.

[Diyala]

Calm down little boy……
I'm really afraid that you will have a heart attack out of this anger!

You know you just look like a vampire who was exposed abruptly to sunlight ( forgive the image, I've been reading lots of vampire literature recently)
That is exactly the way someone in the wrong behaves when he is tragically refuted by right.

You could have expressed your opinion politely. I've noticed whenever I want to discuss this subject rationally, you just jump to politics and start bad mouthing me when none of this is actually needed. I can also interpret your pathetic reaction, simply you have nothing logical to say.
I am not saying anymore because you are not a match in an intellectual discussion, the brains of yours is only suitable for street fights.

Just Remember being strong never means being right or fair !


A piece of advice.. Please have mercy on your nerves.

[Order]

So, your point is proven because I used a couple of explitives as I punched holes through nearly every point you attempted to make.

You must be right, even though every statistic you cited is flat-out wrong.

You have proven that your faith is better than any form of government without having to offer a single accurate statement.
Not only that, but you've proven that the US financial system is the cause of everyone's problems without citing a single instance where this took place.

Thats pretty impressive.
You must be proud of proving big bad Order wrong with such little effort, research and logic.
Good job.

[Locke4God]

YES!!!

Ask Cubans if they like it as they cross hundreds of miles of water to escape it.

Jesus, who would ever ask if Communism is "that bad"? Ever hear of anybody from a capitalist nation rowing out of their country under cover of darkness?

[Hobaginator]

I agree with everything Sasquach and Order said. I disagree with everyone else. Especially the muslim chick, because according to Islam her only rights are to be a stay at home mom who keeps her mouth shut.

SOLUTION: Shoot the commies and jail the commie sympathizers.

You're welcome, Earth.

[Catalana]

For me : NO !
I don't want to explain because it would be too long and I don't know enough vocabulary to make a correct argumentation so sorry but in my opinion, no... seriously I don't think Communism is THAT bad xD

I understand that every person has his own opinion, his own family story and I'm okay with that but according to mine, I can't be right or extreme right ! Impossible ! ( I don't know your politic parties so if you don't understand the last sentence, doesn't matter I just said that I wasn't capitalist... that's all )

[Hobaginator]

For me : NO !
I can't be right or extreme right ! Impossible !

No, you were correct. The right hates commies, the left loves aids and black babies.

[Clint]

SOLUTION: Shoot the commies and jail the commie sympathizers.

What would be the purpose of doing that? Communism is a political party focused around socialism. It eliminates social classes, the need for money, and creates social order.

The problem isn't communism. It's a very good idea. The problem is that it's never been done right. When you view communism as something that imprisons a people, and restricts them in various forms, you aren't actually referring to communism, but rather, a dictatorship.

Nowhere is it written in the idea that a communistic society must be ruled by a dictator or a tyrant. Those circumstances merely came to be, most likely because of tyrants taking advantage of the common ownership of the means of production of their nation, under the ideology of communism.

There is nothing the matter with communism, but rather, the people in charge of communistic nations. Stating that you want to eliminate an entire political movement by means of death would mean the genocide of millions of innocent people. And to imprison anybody for sharing a different opinion then that of your own is simply tyrannical.

I truly hope that you do not consider yourself an American, because if you do, then you should be ashamed. No system of control is perfect, but just because one has been scorned upon because of the actions of bad men doesn't make it a bad system.

[Catalana]

What would be the purpose of doing that? Communism is a political party focused around socialism. It eliminates social classes, the need for money, and creates social order.

The problem isn't communism. It's a very good idea. The problem is that it's never been done right. When you view communism as something that imprisons a people, and restricts them in various forms, you aren't actually referring to communism, but rather, a dictatorship.

Nowhere is it written in the idea that a communistic society must be ruled by a dictator or a tyrant. Those circumstances merely came to be, most likely because of tyrants taking advantage of the common ownership of the means of production of their nation, under the ideology of communism.

There is nothing the matter with communism, but rather, the people in charge of communistic nations. Stating that you want to eliminate an entire political movement by means of death would mean the genocide of millions of innocent people. And to imprison anybody for sharing a different opinion then that of your own is simply tyrannical.

I truly hope that you do not consider yourself an American, because if you do, then you should be ashamed. No system of control is perfect, but just because one has been scorned upon because of the actions of bad men doesn't make it a bad system.

You're totally right !!!! Thank you to place words about what I think ! I'm sure I wouldn't have been able to write what you wrote ( lack of vocabulary ).
Gulags time is bygone !

[Hobaginator]

[QUOTE=The Goddamn Clint Eastwood;1334819]The problem isn't communism. It's a very good idea. The problem is that it's never been done right. Nowhere is it written in the idea that a communistic society must be ruled by a dictator or a tyrant. Those circumstances merely came to be, most likely because of tyrants taking advantage of the common ownership of the means of production of their nation, under the ideology of communism.

There is nothing the matter with communism, but rather, the people in charge of communistic nations.[QUOTE]

Good response... You are obviously very well informed as opposed to most people who have posted in this thread. I agree, the problem is dictatorship more than anything... the inherent problem lies in the fact that not everybody was created equally... there are retards and there are geniuses... hard workers and slackers. The problem with communism is that the needs of the many will be supported on the backs of the few; not to say that that isn't a huge problem in EVERY society, because it is. However, in a capitolist economy every human is afforded the opportunity to rise above the rest, seperate himself or herself from the average population and become something great. Success is impossible when you are chained to an idealogical system designed around equality. It's a eutopian ideal that can and will never work. Human beings are animals, we're just exceptionally smart and well adapted to life on Earth. My point is this: if everyone has equal shares of everything, who enforces the rules? Who is in charge of equal distribution? Who creates laws? Why should an electrical engineer have the same assets as a picket fence builder? What's the drive for a person to learn new and valuable skills? Who assigns roles?

Communism isn't freedom. That's why I don't support it. I don't do well with rules. I think that the majority of society's rules are put in place to protect the weak and limit the strong. Here's an example: I used to do mixed martial arts. When I first started out when I was 18, there was 5 rules. Last "show/fight" that I did we had to go over 3 pages of single-spaced 12 point font worth of rules. That really takes the fun and freedom out of it. What I'm trying to convey is the idea that rigid rules limit freedom, and there will always be a seperate group of individuals to enforce those rules upon the masses.

Communism is flawed. Capitolism isn't perfect, but it's better.

The only way to protect freedom is to limit the spread of flawed systems such as dictatorships and tyranny, otherwise future generations may not be able to do things as simple as walk outside and piss on an apple tree in their own back yard. It may seem brutal, because it ****ing is. Communism is slavery and my DNA will not grow up in chains.

"Heeeeeeeere commies commies commies!"

[Diyala]

I agree with everything Sasquach and Order said. I disagree with everyone else. Especially the muslim chick, because according to Islam her only rights are to be a stay at home mom who keeps her mouth shut.

SOLUTION: Shoot the commies and jail the commie sympathizers.

You're welcome, Earth.

I am not here to try to convince you to believe that capitalism is not as perfect as you claim, I'm rather here to tell you that not everything a muslim chick says is related to her staying at home and to warn you against your ignorance.

Maybe muslim women seem wronged to you, but things are not what they appear to be. Islam has appreciated women and respected their humanity and nature. It has asserted her rights and duties. Having a good education is a must for every single muslim including women . Islam has not actually forced women to stay at home, , they can work and earn their own living, have their own money, inherit their relatives, buy and sell and experience everything that does them no harm . Islam is the only religion that keeps a woman's family name after marriage which means it approves their single independent being. There is an entire chapter in Qura'an specified to women and women's rights.

And as for staying at home, actually what took me so long to reply is that I was traveling and shopping for the entire week. Plus, I'm single and I'm not forced to get married unless I like it.
Muslim women are requested to wear Hijab because this way they protect themselves against sexual harassment and rape .

[Hobaginator]

Maybe muslim women seem wronged to you, but things are not what they appear to be.

I don't know about that. I have a friend here in the states who's fiance left her muslim husband and divorced him. He beat her, insulted her, and pretty much out right disrespected her, and told her she should be publicly stoned to death. Maybe your area is different, I don't know. I don't know much about you or where you're from. But I do know that in some places, it's commonplace for muslim men to mutilate women publicly, beat them publicly, and they're treated as second class beings. Round here that don't fly. If I walked outside and saw a man smacking a woman, you better believe he'd be eating his teeth for dinner.

But let me not act like I'm better than people I've never met. All I'm saying is that there's a reason why, when U.S. soldiers walked through the streets of Fallujah, women and children flocked to them. Taliban is all about genocide.
I can't say the same about the various PMCs that rove around blowing up mosques, killing nuns and shit, because I know a little about that too.

My point is that you're supporting an out-dated religion that advocates such things as taking women as prisoners of war and raping them - says that a woman's testimony is worth half of a mans - says that a man should get double the inheritance of a woman - and says that men are a degree above women in class. Oh yeah and how about the whole thing comparing men's wives to fields to be plowed... "go into them any way you like"... So if you have a husband it's ok for him to just jam it right up the pooper against your will? Your religion says so.

I'm not blowing smoke... I've studied religions in college, read much of the religious texts, and formulated my own opinions based on what I've read.

Is the bible any better? Nope, and I'm not Christian.

So long as you support a religion that says you're a second class citizen, I'm going to keep throwing that in your face every time you use Islam to support your arguements.

[Heartless Angel]

What would be the purpose of doing that? Communism is a political party focused around socialism. It eliminates social classes, the need for money, and creates social order.

The problem isn't communism. It's a very good idea. The problem is that it's never been done right. When you view communism as something that imprisons a people, and restricts them in various forms, you aren't actually referring to communism, but rather, a dictatorship.

Nowhere is it written in the idea that a communistic society must be ruled by a dictator or a tyrant. Those circumstances merely came to be, most likely because of tyrants taking advantage of the common ownership of the means of production of their nation, under the ideology of communism.

There is nothing the matter with communism, but rather, the people in charge of communistic nations. Stating that you want to eliminate an entire political movement by means of death would mean the genocide of millions of innocent people. And to imprison anybody for sharing a different opinion then that of your own is simply tyrannical.

I truly hope that you do not consider yourself an American, because if you do, then you should be ashamed. No system of control is perfect, but just because one has been scorned upon because of the actions of bad men doesn't make it a bad system.

If there were enough things in the world for everyone to have as much as they wanted, perhaps communism would work that way. However this is not the case. Things have value because things are limited. Money is simply a tool to measure the scarcity of an object, because it's easier than trying to figure out the exchange rate between chickens and Ferraris. As there is a limit to things we want, either everyone is going to get too little to be satisfied, or not everyone is going to get something in the first place. Order is incompatible with either of these, because people will attempt to upset that order for their own good. This is why communism always requires a dictator in reality, because nobody with the ability to be above average would accept the system without somebody forcing it down their throats.

The only way communism could ever be 'done right' is if every single human being in the world were on board with it, truly cared more about the collective than themselves, and didn't mind living in terrible conditions just to make sure that no one person anywhere is living in slightly worse conditions than anyone else. This will never happen. Human nature is incompatible with the idea of true communism. Humans seek to live and grow as individuals, not a collective. One could just as easiy call capitalism a perfect system with no inherent flaws because it would work amazingly and everyone would be happy if the majority of the human race were satisfied with living in poverty so a few of us could thrive. Because that isn't the actual state of reality, none of that matters. Communism and capitalism are both flawed in reality. The problem isn't the systems. The problem is people.

[Diyala]

I don't know about that. I have a friend here in the states who's fiance left her muslim husband and divorced him. He beat her, insulted her, and pretty much out right disrespected her, and told her she should be publicly stoned to death. Maybe your area is different, I don't know. I don't know much about you or where you're from. But I do know that in some places, it's commonplace for muslim men to mutilate women publicly, beat them publicly, and they're treated as second class beings. Round here that don't fly. If I walked outside and saw a man smacking a woman, you better believe he'd be eating his teeth for dinner.

But let me not act like I'm better than people I've never met. All I'm saying is that there's a reason why, when U.S. soldiers walked through the streets of Fallujah, women and children flocked to them. Taliban is all about genocide.
I can't say the same about the various PMCs that rove around blowing up mosques, killing nuns and shit, because I know a little about that too.

No just human can accuse Islam of mistreating women ever , what is more likely to be the case is that some people who do not know much about Islam give unjust jumble between Islam as an ideology with its own teachings that guarantee the happiness of its followers when followed right , and between some bad behaviors of some Muslims who did nothing to their religion but a deformed picture.

My point is that you're supporting an out-dated religion that advocates such things as taking women as prisoners of war and raping them

Look who's talking ! you will get me talking about things that some of your friends do not like.


Islam is a religion that came to fight slavery and end it once and for all. During Judaism and Christianity, slavery was at its highest peak in the Middle East. People were enslaved and they and their children were inherited and passed down to generations forever.
It was not Islam that started slavery, but it was Islam that ultimately ended it .
There is no text in the Holy Quran or Sunna that says of slavery or allowing it . Slavery was a shape of life circumstances and a fact in all nations but Islam came to put decent rules and a lot of legislations to limit till abolish it . among these rules are :

1-A slave can buy himself from his master by making a contract through which he can collect the money he needs and free himself .

2- A Muslim can atone after doing wrong by doing a good deed like freeing a slave.

3- Islam encouraged Muslims to free slaves as a door of goodness the lord loves and a reason to save ones' life from Hell and get closer to Heaven.

4- Islam puts intense punishment for whomever mistreats his slave or beats him by making it a must to free that slave .

And one thing you need notice that Islam never allows slavery but under one condition which is WAR , and even in war not everything is allowed for winners to do against the defeated as we see these days against Muslims who weren't really in a fair war . There is no single text that says of slavery but there is a text that says after war there are options to do with prisoners : freeing them in exchange for money ,or in exchange for nothing . killing them (if they were a form of aggressive threat against the society ) , or having them as slaves were other alternatives by Muslim scholars .

As for raping women when they are prisoners ,actually Islam cares about the slightest rights of Man , do you think it will go with raping which is the most aggressive and cruel deed against someone's dignity and freedom! To marry women when they are prisoners of war is no difference than marrying women generally , unless you think marrying a free woman is a form of raping her . And there are some points you have to take into your account when talking about women in war :

1-A woman who is taken as a prisoner is not to please every man like a bitch, but for her master just as the wife is for her husband and he cannot force her to be with someone else.

2-If the woman is taken with her husband as prisoners , their master can't touch her and she is a wife for her slave husband.

3-When the slave woman is pregnant from her master , she can't be sold to others because that would separate her from her child , her children are free people and when her master dies she is freed and her children can inherit their father and live decently instead of the misery that she might would have if it was in any other creed if at all she was allowed to live.
So it is not raping and never was , it's just a property that must be dealt with with such morality and humanity .And when you remember that this prisoner was just about to kill you in war , you will find that Islam has put the most elegant legislation by keeping them alive and letting them have such position .

Look at America and its high civilization that allows imprisoning people and treating them worse than animals in Guantanamo who might or might not be behind the invisible threats you imagine or might yourself have created ! which one is more civilized ? prisoners in your prisons or prisoners in Islam that mustn't be called slaves or prisoners when they have the freedom to walk out and has to be treated greatly , mustn't be harmed , must be given food and clothes from their owner's money and a lot of such that proves the nobility of such divine source . Not to mention that no slavery is found these days and all people are equal.

The problem of those who stand against the slavery that was in Islam is that they think it is no difference than those of other nations , but the difference is so vast . The world thought they fought slavery and stopped it but there are other shapes of it like enslaving a people by starting wars against them , appointing traitor to form their governments in order to fulfill their purposes at the expense of people,taking advantage of their resources, forcing others to stay ignorant and under the control of their dominance, preventing them from standing on their own feet and stay disabled forever and so many pictures of slavery that are worse and uglier than the ones we read about in history , then you come to say Islam is raping , slavery bla bla ? come on! Get real !
I wish they even used some of what Islam offers about slavery.

- says that a woman's testimony is worth half of a mans -

Men and women are not equal in nature but their rights must be equally balanced . they need to be treated with justice and to assume that you can fulfill this justice in treating them as if they were One is the failure justice in its clearest shapes . they are physically and psychologically different and based on such a fact many Islamic teachings come .

The text which requires two female witnesses in place of one male witness, gives a clear reason for it i.e. "if one of them forgets, the other reminds her." Is this derogatory to the status of the women or is it a revealed secret about the nature of the women? Though much has been said about the difference between a man's brain and that of a women but I would rather like to quote the latest research made about this issue. According to a survey, as published in Los Angeles Times (U.S) , made involving fifty men and women for quite a considerable time, the out come was as follows:

Man's mind is uni-focal while the women's mind is multi-focal. In other words, a man would be fully occupied with the task he is involved with; he may not be distracted by anything else while being engaged in his activity. On the other hand, a woman may be busy in kitchen work and she will be easily alert to a phone buzzer or her infants cry from the cradle. In a way she is found to be more sensitive and active in her dealings. Thus she has got a very praise worthy character but that is not so good for a case of testimony which requires more attention and concentration.What is wrong then, if a second woman is needed, only to remind her if she fails to deliver her testimony completely. So it is a case of verification of the testimony, not that of degradation to the status of the women at all.

- says that a man should get double the inheritance of a woman

The inheritance system in Islam is an integrated system and should be seen in all its aspects. The cases in which women take half of the legacy that men take are only four , while there are more than thirty cases where the situation of women is as follows:

1- equal males.
2 - take more than males .
3 –Inherit some that their equivalent males do not .

Islamic inheritance system is highly associated with the family system as a whole. The man is primarily responsible for spending on his wife and children not the woman , thus for such great burden he takes more than her. And if you count it you will find they are really equal in this side . Lately , and for the just methods of this system , many Arab Christians are turning to it's ideology when quarrels between the heirs arise to solve them . Women have many greater positions in Islam than men among which is the great honor it highly gives her as a mother deserving more rights than a father though each must get a full respect, concern and love .

- and says that men are a degree above women in class.

This degree is related to their duty of guardianship and management that can be found in every establishment , and a family is a great establishment on which societies are based . Management doesn't imply a separate class or a better one more than a responsibility they must take care of , a responsibility that can be a form of unbearable burden when given to women and doesn't necessarily mean dominance or less class , it rather gives women what they deserve as being a precious class . This degree is a duty not a privilege you claim against as among men's commitment is to offer protection and expense to their families and go out to fight in wars not their women (though women can fight if they want to).Not to mention that this guardianship is mainly based on love ,understanding and consulting. Women in Islam are the other half of men , each completes one another and each is in need to be companions not classes and they're given their duties the way that goes with their own nature.

So long as you support a religion that says you're a second class citizen, I'm going to keep throwing that in your face every time you use Islam to support your arguements.

The fact is I'm not using Islam to support my argument (concerning financial system that you driven the argument away from ) but this argument is just a part of Islam as it covers every aspect of one's life and economy is a crucial one.

Again if you think you will find a good position for you in turning the topic into religious by resorting to things that got nothing to do with the topic then I advise you to stop specially when nothing you mentioned served your purpose and soon you will be finding yourself talking with no one.

[Hobaginator]

2- A Muslim can atone after doing wrong by doing a good deed like freeing a slave.

Oh it's good to know that a muslim can slit a christian child's throat but it's made okay as long as he frees a slave he took.

3- Islam encouraged Muslims to free slaves as a door of goodness the lord loves and a reason to save ones' life from Hell and get closer to Heaven.

Sweet, so taking slaves and then freeing them after 10 years of torture is holy and just.

And one thing you need notice that Islam never allows slavery but under one condition which is WAR , and even in war not everything is allowed for winners to do against the defeated as we see these days against Muslims who weren't really in a fair war .

Since when is war fair? Was it fair that muslim extremists flew planes into the world trade center resulting in the deaths of thousands of civillians, police and firefighters? Is it fair that the Taliban hides among the women and children they claim to protect? Is it fair that Taliban plants improvised explosive devices on roads for the indisciminant killing of "infidels" which includes press, red cross, and anybody else who the Taliban doesn't specifically warn? What the hell is fair about war?

There is no single text that says of slavery but there is a text that says after war there are options to do with prisoners : freeing them in exchange for money ,or in exchange for nothing . killing them (if they were a form of aggressive threat against the society ) , or having them as slaves were other alternatives by Muslim scholars.

Ok so guatanamo bay, where the U.S. send it's own military personnel who are court martialed, where we send our OWN guys, isn't good enough for your tangos who shoot RPGs at U.S. military from civillian housing? It's better that we turned them into slaves or killed them after they already surrendered? Taking slave is against U.N. law and U.S. foriegn policy, and killing p.o.w's after their surrender or detainment is also against our policy.

As for raping women when they are prisoners ,actually Islam cares about the slightest rights of Man , do you think it will go with raping which is the most aggressive and cruel deed against someone's dignity and freedom! To marry women when they are prisoners of war is no difference than marrying women generally , unless you think marrying a free woman is a form of raping her . And there are some points you have to take into your account when talking about women in war :

Good tactic. Take a woman as a slave, and tell her that the only way for her to gain her "freedom" is to marry you. That's not forcible at all.

1-A woman who is taken as a prisoner is not to please every man like a bitch, but for her master just as the wife is for her husband and he cannot force her to be with someone else.

Oh ok good, so if my american girlfriend over seas gets taken prisoner, she only has to get raped by her "master", not everybody. Good to know. That doesn't sound like the objectifying of women at all.

2-If the woman is taken with her husband as prisoners , their master can't touch her and she is a wife for her slave husband.

Oh ok, so only if the guy is there to kick his ass will he respect her human rights. If her husband is not taken as a prisoner at the same time as her than too bad, she's her new muslim master's own private sexual property. That sounds just about mulsim enough to me.

Look at America and its high civilization that allows imprisoning people and treating them worse than animals in Guantanamo who might or might not be behind the invisible threats you imagine or might yourself have created ! which one is more civilized ? prisoners in your prisons or prisoners in Islam that mustn't be called slaves or prisoners when they have the freedom to walk out and has to be treated greatly , mustn't be harmed , must be given food and clothes from their owner's money and a lot of such that proves the nobility of such divine source . Not to mention that no slavery is found these days and all people are equal.

Do you want me to show you some video of guantanamo bay? They bust rocks all day, they get three meals a day, get to sleep in a bed. Do you want me to link you some videos about how your people treat prisoners? We have lots of them. Videos of your people with prisoners of war, innocent christian missionaries, and non mulsim civillians -- beheading them with knives, ripping them apart with ropes and vehicles, burning them alive and beating them to death all in the name of Allah. That's better than guantanamo bay? Don't deny their existence, I've seen more of these videos than I'd care to remember.

Your people deserve every act inflicted upon them by the U.S. because they drew the wrath of the U.S. Our old testament God's wrath. Fire and brimstone wrath. Your people have been living in their own shit and they brought it to our country. Just like the japanese bombing pearl harbor, except this time we weren't even in a war with your people. You're just lucky we didn't flatten your continent out with one of our many, many, MANY weapons of mass destruction that we decided not to use... in this instance... yet.

Our goal is simple: to show the world not to **** with the States. Your nation did just that. It's not about who's god is right. It's about not letting crimes against humanity go unpunished. Your people must be pacified and taught that all life is sacred, not only muslim life. In order to pacify your nation, it means the discriminant killing of the extremists and their supporters which are imbedded into the civillian population so strongly that your "innocent civillians" will lure our warriors into traps or misguide them with malicious intent in order to protect their blood-spilling fathers, sons and brothers. Less of your civillians would die if the Taliban would buck up and fight like men instead of hiding behind women and children... but they won't, because our nation is more advanced, stronger, and WILL win this war even if we have to get our hands dirty to do it.

**** the Taliban.

[Alpha]

Feel free to keep discussing the Islamic economic system (vis à vis Western economic systems) as some kind of Third Way, but debating religion itself and religious violence strikes me as rather off topic. If you're not going to talk about Zakat (a 'tax' on all working Muslims for the benefit of the poor that is one of the Five Pillars of Islam) and all that interesting stuff, please refrain from posting in this thread.

Economic systems only. Take the rest to VMs or make a new thread and open it to the floor without detailing this any further. This is especially directed at Diyala and Hoaginator. I like when discussions evolve but it's getting too far from the origin.

[Hobaginator]

Feel free to keep discussing the Islamic economic system (vis à vis Western economic systems) as some kind of Third Way, but debating religion itself and religious violence strikes me as rather off topic. If you're not going to talk about Zakat (a 'tax' on all working Muslims for the benefit of the poor that is one of the Five Pillars of Islam) and all that interesting stuff, please refrain from posting in this thread.

Economic systems only. Take the rest to VMs or make a new thread and open it to the floor without detailing this any further. This is especially directed at Diyala and Hoaginator. I like when discussions evolve but it's getting too far from the origin.

Communism isn't an economic system only. It's also an idealogy. It's not just about money and how the citizens use it, it's also about the utopian ideals behind it. Communism is based off of the idea that all man was created equally, but equal distribution of money is impossible. If no matter what you do you will have the same amount of money as everybody else, that takes away the very definition of money. Money is a system of attributing value. If everyone is forced to maintain the same wealth, then there is no value to anything. If you obtain more than you should have, you either have to hide it, or it gets taken away from you by a higher authority. Communism isn't JUST an economic system. That's why I believe discussing idealogies in this thread is not off topic at all, nor discussing human currency, nor the handling of prisoners of war. In a true communist society, there would be no prisoners, no slaves, no leadership. Yet we see in countries like North Korea the average citizen is starving while the "president" is fat -- and this so called "president" is not voted on, his lineage continues reign. This resembles more of a monarchy. War is also not off topic on this thread, as war is a major "economic system" that drives international commerse and relations. It's not like we're discussing Ren and Stimpy, or if Twinkies are better than Ho-Hos. If we're going to discuss a topic as broad and powerful as communism itself, I don't think it's unfair to bring the discussion to encompass other economic systems and argue whether they're right and just or not. After all, it's a debate on whether the economic system of communism is "that bad". Comparing it to others or arguing their rightness or wrongness seems to be an entirely valid discussion for this topic. If you go back to the earlier posts, you'll see we are simply continuing and expanding on this comparison to communism and giving reasons for why it's right or wrong. Or is this a dictatorship where discussing our beliefs on the broad topic at hand will result in punishment at the hands of the figures of authority? Your choice. I'm just here to say what I think and to show people when and why their statements are incorrect (which is always on topic).

Dilaya's original point was something along the lines of the Islamic system works better than capitolism, particularly why America is wrong and therefore our views on communism are incorrect. I'm simply stating the facts on why the Islamic system is at least just as flawed as communism. By showing her where her prefferred idealogical and economic system is flawed, I'm reinforcing the moral standpoint of the nation that I stand for. Therefore, I am defending the Republican American viewpoint on the "badness" of communism through the fact that I claim to represent this demographic. On topic.

[Diyala]

The only way communism could ever be 'done right' is if every single human being in the world were on board with it, truly cared more about the collective than themselves, and didn't mind living in terrible conditions just to make sure that no one person anywhere is living in slightly worse conditions than anyone else. This will never happen. Human nature is incompatible with the idea of true communism. Humans seek to live and grow as individuals, not a collective. One could just as easiy call capitalism a perfect system with no inherent flaws because it would work amazingly and everyone would be happy if the majority of the human race were satisfied with living in poverty so a few of us could thrive. Because that isn't the actual state of reality, none of that matters. Communism and capitalism are both flawed in reality. The problem isn't the systems. The problem is people.

This can only work within a good loving small family that share the same blood and in a temporary hard time and Not with a society with such impossible perfect idealism ! People were not created to work for others or to make sure they are good just out of good intentions and the love of goodness , nay even within the religious frame ppl would quit the charity if it is on the expense of their own living because simply it is not fair to work with my own sweat and one will take it with nothing ! where is the motivation for me to work ? oppression or love of goodness ! well if you're not living your entire life with the first then you will find yourself running out of the second coz that is injustice not goodness which is by force ! goodness is something overwhelms you not forced on you. So why would anyone lie to himself in believing that this is fair to reduce poverty ! this is just like what the church was doing with ppl back in the medieval ages when its heads take money from ppl by the name of charity while it was all given to priests and mayors which means someone will go mad out of this and turn against it to demolish it

! Communism and capitalism are both flawed in reality. The problem isn't the systems. The problem is people.

How can we make Humans the problem when you say that these are incompatible with their nature ! when this is something related to humans structural system –that is never to change- then it has no room for us to blame or accuse people of misdoing a system that can bear changes and restructuring . Greed is something in ones innate and man is not wrong when wishes to gather more ! Loving ourselves that we refuse to work for others is no wrong for we are born with the innate freedom in us.

All things in the world are made and prudently created to make a suitable fitting life for Human beings and not to restrict them in a small suppressing frame of oppression . Things must be created to be compatible with our nature , we are not to twist our nature to fit things!

Humans are the most progressive creatures the Lord created but when living with a chaotic open freedom they will go down to animals class where no rules stop their innate nature of loving possession, loving their aggressive acts against those who are less than them in power and etc !

If we keep fighting over things and doing wrong by the excuse of our un optional innate and Instincts that can flip the world when not balanced , then we are totally the speaking animals!

What I'm trying to say is that our nature is something not optional to make it the guilt we are accused of But the limits on it is the gist here and when these limits are broken by people then they are the problem not the system ,whereas when followed right it can make things work out amazingly within the same system .

But the problem here is systems not people !

People can work and create miracles when they are led by a good system (you know better than me in that ), good people within a bad system will not go out with anything no matter how hard they try and ask me about that concerning the bad systems of education within which I taught.
Capitalism and communism are not compatible with Man because they are Manmade not Divine !

Capitalism is a big great intense reaction of communism and communism is so against it .It's all about how these streams are greatly extremes ,one in the east and the other in the far west and with all such unbalanced extremes we find nothing in the middle but people claiming against each system and how it is flawed.

That's when I say Islamic system is in the middle between two extremes and from which I go with its ideology that is mainly based on moderation and balance. I talked with brief earlier about it and If you want to know in details , then I'm not able to be better than this site in presenting its chapters :


Category: Economy - The Religion of Islam

I know neither me nor my beliefs are welcomed here , but people must stop their fear of others ' beliefs and the harsh way they refuse things for the fear of its takeover . This is logic , this is knowledge , this is not just a religious text you would simply reject and peace !

I think you people have no limitations in seeking knowledge yet you remind me of the 12th century's church when u refuse something good because it isn't compatible with your ideas.

Remember I do not force my beliefs on others , they are a different opinion based on logic and goes with the perspective that human beings are the slaves of the creator Who knows their nature better than them and offers them a system that perfectly goes with it . My ideas I believe in and I want to present ,that's all.

P.S : during the disasters capitalists try to deal with , Islamic banks are the only ones that are not affected and stayed stable .

This system just needs some advanced studies and researches to show the world its surpassing results that proves It is the one that is compatible with Human beings ; individuals and groups , rich and poor !

[Heartless Angel]

This can only work within a good loving small family that share the same blood and in a temporary hard time and Not with a society with such impossible perfect idealism ! People were not created to work for others or to make sure they are good just out of good intentions and the love of goodness , nay even within the religious frame ppl would quit the charity if it is on the expense of their own living because simply it is not fair to work with my own sweat and one will take it with nothing ! where is the motivation for me to work ? oppression or love of goodness ! well if you're not living your entire life with the first then you will find yourself running out of the second coz that is injustice not goodness which is by force ! goodness is something overwhelms you not forced on you. So why would anyone lie to himself in believing that this is fair to reduce poverty ! this is just like what the church was doing with ppl back in the medieval ages when its heads take money from ppl by the name of charity while it was all given to priests and mayors which means someone will go mad out of this and turn against it to demolish it

You seem to think I'm supporting communism, I'm not. I'm saying there's nothing inherently wrong with the system. It'd work fine on a group whose objective was to be equals. Humanity just isn't that group. It's only flawed as a solution for humanity, because humanity is not compatible with it. As a solution for humanity, communism is stupid. It's about as far from working as you can get, and it ends up being twisted and distorted into totalitarianism.

How can we make Humans the problem when you say that these are incompatible with their nature ! when this is something related to humans structural system –that is never to change- then it has no room for us to blame or accuse people of misdoing a system that can bear changes and restructuring . Greed is something in ones innate and man is not wrong when wishes to gather more ! Loving ourselves that we refuse to work for others is no wrong for we are born with the innate freedom in us.

I'm not at all a believer that everything humans do by natures is inherently good. In fact I'm not a believer that there is a such thing as 'good'. What I meant wasn't that human nature was inherently flawed, but that the problem with communism wasn't the design of the system, but the people it was meant to be applied to. It was more an attempt to clarify that it wasn't that any one thing was broken, just that two things weren't compatible with one another.

All things in the world are made and prudently created to make a suitable fitting life for Human beings and not to restrict them in a small suppressing frame of oppression . Things must be created to be compatible with our nature , we are not to twist our nature to fit things!

A view of your religion, and others. One I do not share. Humanity is but one insignificant variable in the near infinite complexity of the universe. It is as much to blame for its incompatibility with things as are the things they're incompatible with.

Humans are the most progressive creatures the Lord created but when living with a chaotic open freedom they will go down to animals class where no rules stop their innate nature of loving possession, loving their aggressive acts against those who are less than them in power and etc !

Again, your belief, not mine. Human nature is responsible for more human problems than anything else, yet we are not to twist it? Just force everyone into a system that is somehow non oppressive, but keeps us from acting in accordance with our nature? Your last several statements have been entirely contradictory.

If we keep fighting over things and doing wrong by the excuse of our un optional innate and Instincts that can flip the world when not balanced , then we are totally the speaking animals!

Biology 101, humans ARE animals. Intelligent animals who have evolved beyond the species we share our insignificant rock with, but animals all the same. We're driven by our instincts to survive and thrive just like any other animal.

What I'm trying to say is that our nature is something not optional to make it the guilt we are accused of But the limits on it is the gist here and when these limits are broken by people then they are the problem not the system ,whereas when followed right it can make things work out amazingly within the same system .

But the problem here is systems not people !

An idea by its nature can't be flawed. It can fail to produce desired results in reality, but the idea itself is fine. Calling the systems the problem is like saying Mac software is flawed because you own a PC. It has nothing to do with flaws, the error is in what you're trying to apply it to.

People can work and create miracles when they are led by a good system (you know better than me in that ), good people within a bad system will not go out with anything no matter how hard they try and ask me about that concerning the bad systems of education within which I taught.
Capitalism and communism are not compatible with Man because they are Manmade not Divine !

I don't believe anything is divine. If your entire argument is to be rooted in your religion, there's not much point in arguing with me, we won't get anywhere. Another fine example, this isn't because either of our ideologies are inherently flawed, they're just incompatible with each other.

Capitalism is a big great intense reaction of communism and communism is so against it .It's all about how these streams are greatly extremes ,one in the east and the other in the far west and with all such unbalanced extremes we find nothing in the middle but people claiming against each system and how it is flawed.

And this is why I dislike idealists. The world isn't perfect, it's never going to be perfect. Trying to force it to adapt to ideals is not going to accomplish anything. Humanity does not have a universal set of ideals, that is why it is incompatible with any universal system solution.

That's when I say Islamic system is in the middle between two extremes and from which I go with its ideology that is mainly based on moderation and balance. I talked with brief earlier about it and If you want to know in details , then I'm not able to be better than this site in presenting its chapters :


Category: Economy - The Religion of Islam

So what you're trying to get at here, is that other systems are broken even though they only fail because people aren't compatible with them, but that yours is inherently perfect, and only in its case are people at fault for being incompatible with it because it is 'divine'? You'll have to forgive me for not agreeing with you in the slightest. All people act differently, there is no one perfect system which can accommodate them all. The Islamic system is not an economic system. And to function, it requires those within it to believe in the ideals upon which it is built in the same way communism and capitalism do. It works for Muslims because they're on board with it. On a worldwide scale, this is not the case. It has the same 'flaws' as every other system. Once more, human are not compatible with a one-size-fits-all solution, because no one size fits all humanity.

I know neither me nor my beliefs are welcomed here , but people must stop their fear of others ' beliefs and the harsh way they refuse things for the fear of its takeover . This is logic , this is knowledge , this is not just a religious text you would simply reject and peace !

I think you people have no limitations in seeking knowledge yet you remind me of the 12th century's church when u refuse something good because it isn't compatible with your ideas.

I welcome all beliefs to be shared, that doesn't mean I have to agree with any of them. I fear no knowledge. The pursuit of truth is the one thing I could consider my self-defined purpose in this world. What you offer is not logical at all. It is not true knowledge, it is an unconfirmed belief which serves a retroactively pragmatic function. Pragmatics aren't truth. Your entire argument revolves around the unproven belief that humanity is an object of divine creation which the entire universe revolves around, strip this belief away, and your entire argument falls apart. To call something true knowledge, its logic must be formally valid, and it must stand on a premise which is certain, yours is not.

You may define "good" in any way you like, but it's all subjective. To declare your system, your beliefs, your ideals, flawless and inherently good, is extremely arrogant. More so when you accuse those who don't agree with your unsupported, arbitrary opinions of being closed-minded, when in fact if anything it is you who are closed minded, believing your opinion to be divine, unchallengeable, and inherently perfect, and finding at fault anyone who doesn't agree with YOUR ideas.

Just for the record, I hold no rigid beliefs about anything. My understanding of the universe is based purely upon logic. I am ultimately agnostic, because sufficient evidence to support any fundamental belief is lacking. I accept nothing as absolute and unchallengeable. All ideas are open to debate, and I accept none of them until they have been proven.

Remember I do not force my beliefs on others , they are a different opinion based on logic and goes with the perspective that human beings are the slaves of the creator Who knows their nature better than them and offers them a system that perfectly goes with it . My ideas I believe in and I want to present ,that's all.

Logical, perhaps But its logic is contingent on the unknown. You therefore cannot claim to be presenting "knowledge" logically, because you are not. You are defining your beliefs in terms of themselves.

P.S : during the disasters capitalists try to deal with , Islamic banks are the only ones that are not affected and stayed stable .

And that's all because of the religiously glorified charity. It totally doesn't have anything to do with your export values, your GDP, the fact that Islamic countries have most of the planet's easily accessible oil... nope. It's totally just your religion. Correlation does not equal causality. In fact, the very suggestion is a logical fallacy. Moreso when you willfully ignore the other contributing factors.

This system just needs some advanced studies and researches to show the world its surpassing results that proves It is the one that is compatible with Human beings ; individuals and groups , rich and poor !

Again, all you have evidence for is that it's the right system for a specific group who shares the ideals upon which it is built. Communism is the "right solution" for the Borg, because their values are compatible with it. Capitalism is the "right solution" for right wing people who intend to make something of themselves. Chasing the pink dragons that hand out 20 dollar bills is the "right solution" for schizophrenics... There's a "right solution" for each person, expecting them all to have the same one is ridiculous and unrealistic. And is consistently disproved by reality each and every day.

[Diyala]

Again, your belief, not mine. Human nature is responsible for more human problems than anything else, yet we are not to twist it? Just force everyone into a system that is somehow non oppressive, but keeps us from acting in accordance with our nature? Your last several statements have been entirely contradictory.

Balance ! Yes, the more people give themselves the freedom that makes them animals, the more they twist their nature. The very lot problems man causes was an outcome of the lack of a regulator for their acts .Freedom is not a contradictory with regulating your behaviors from expanding to the degree of harming others . We must all live in accordance with our nature that's the freedom ; but to use this accordance against someone else's innate freedom that is Not freedom ! It's tyranny . Say that you witnessed a theft in the street , will you smile and say ''wow what an accordance with his nature " Is this logical ? loving money is in our nature and that's not wrong, yet stopping thieves from stealing might not go with their nature of needing money , will you call this forbidding one from having accordance with his nature If I told the police ?

That's what I meant when I said we are free in a way that we should neither twist our nature nor forget its limits because we are advanced . and it is not contradictory , it's rather the accordance or say the balance that gives values to concepts .

And this is why I dislike idealists. The world isn't perfect, it's never going to be perfect. Trying to force it to adapt to ideals is not going to accomplish anything. Humanity does not have a universal set of ideals, that is why it is incompatible with any universal system solution

I don't go with idealists , too . Basically the reason why communism is not the perfect choice for humans is that its attempts in trying to be idealist in achieving equality between individuals , however equality is not justice !Nor is the limitless ambition adopted by Capitalism satisfactory and fair to all !you got me wrong , I am not calling for idealism , I am inherently against it !

So what you're trying to get at here, is that other systems are broken even though they only fail because people aren't compatible with them but that yours is inherently perfect, and only in its case are people at fault for being incompatible with it because it is 'divine'? You'll have to forgive me for not agreeing with you in the slightest.

From what I have seen you underestimated both systems being incompatible with humanity , isn't being incompatible with humanity definite evidence of failure ? Your last several statements are so contradictory I'm afraid !

The only real options are somewhere in the middle, where invariably there are still going to be some people who thrive and do well, and some who do not.

I think I have read this statement somewhere in the topic .Won't that somewhere in the middle be unknowingly referring to the Islamic economy ?

All people act differently, there is no one perfect system which can accommodate them all.

Why not ! All people differ in calling something good , but they all agree in running from the bad . if people can have a system that helps them avoid disasters in their finance and grow their own money according to an ideology, then everyone agrees on doing it . No matter how different people are, they love money and fear poverty. Islamic economic systems are flexible that non- Muslims borrow theories from it as solutions for capitalism flaws.

What you offer is not logical at all. It is not true knowledge, it is an unconfirmed belief which serves a retroactively pragmatic function. Pragmatics aren't truth. Your entire argument revolves around the unproven belief that humanity is an object of divine creation which the entire universe revolves around, strip this belief away, and your entire argument falls apart. To call something true knowledge, its logic must be formally valid, and it must stand on a premise which is certain, yours is not.

First of all, LOGIC differs from one person to another, it is rather a relative thing. Therefore, some people find religious legislations quite the logic. What did you see from mine to confidently say it's not logic ? I hope your logic didn't prevent you from seeing others' views because that is arrogance to accuse them of being invalid when you are barely familiar with them.

Moreover, I think something can be called logical when it works fine with others and has been proven successful with a minimum of losses and flaws. And my proof is :

1- The Editor in –Chief of "Challenger Magazine" wrote "I think that we are now more in need in this crisis to read the Quran more than the New testament in order to understand what is happening to us and to our banks for those in charge of our banks respected the teachings and rules of the Quran and applied them we would have averted the crises and disasters that are befalling us and we would not have reached this dismal condition, for money cannot beget money .


2. Rolan Laskin, Editor in Chief of "Journal de France " demanded "Application of the principles and rules of Islamic Shariah in the financial and economic fields " in order to put an end to this crisis which is shaking the entire world markets as a result of manipulating the rules of fictitious and illegitimate speculations. This came in an article for the writer entitled: "Has Wall Street Qualified to Embrace the Religion of Islam?

3- In a book published by the Italian researcher, Louritta Napolioni, she referred to the importance of Islamic financing and its role in rescuing the global economic condition. She considered the unusual condition of the global economy is the result of rampant corruption and speculations which control the market . She added that "Islamic Banks could become the suitable alternative to Western Banks". With the collapse of the stock markets and the mortgage credit crisis, the traditional banking system started to show cracks in the structure and needs drastic and deep solutions.


4- There are signs of a new trend in the world shifting into a new financial era in which real money and actual exchange have become an alternative to speculative financing , over draft sales and other financial risks.

5- A report issued by the Senators of French Parliament that ''The Islamic Banking System is suitable for all, Muslims and non-Muslims alike and it could be applied in all parts of the country ". This is in addition to the fact that Islamic economics meets universal desires. This is what was recommended by the Finance and Budget Control Committee in May 2008 after organizing two seminars on the Islamic banking System.


6- Two decades ago , the French economists and noble Laureate in Economics,Maurice Allei, proposed ( in the context of surmounting the crisis of indebtedness and unemployment and to return to the state of equilibrium) to modify interest rate to zero and to review tax rate to about 2%,which is completely in harmony with the abolition of riba (interest ) and the rate of Zakat payment on cash held according to Islamic Law.

So are all of these non Muslim economists and politics retroactively pragmatic people !

To declare your system, your beliefs, your ideals, flawless and inherently good, is extremely arrogant. More so when you accuse those who don't agree with your unsupported, arbitrary opinions of being closed-minded, when in fact if anything it is you who are closed minded, believing your opinion to be divine, unchallengeable, and inherently perfect, and finding at fault anyone who doesn't agree with YOUR ideas.

I don't consider what I do here is arrogance , everyone should speak his mind with what he thinks and that is not arrogance when you believe you are right and speak that out ! same as you did when you scorn me for saying my source is Divine while your situation as not believing in divinity regardless of the logic you think is right might be a pure insult to religious people ! then the statement against communists you begin with "the idea of communism disgusts me " might be considered arrogance and the whole comments that goes with it might be so !

Everyone doesn't speak until they realize they are right and wish to tell others about it . Are all of you arrogant for thinking so ? of course not , we are arguing not arrogant.

I believe in the freedom of speech in the limits of respect , I also believe in the freedom of choosing your own path without aggressively forcing it .

There's a "right solution" for each person, expecting them all to have the same on is ridiculous and unrealistic. And is consistently disproved by reality each and every day.

Basically, Humans have the same basic instincts , they eat , they drink ,they love money , they hate poverty , they worry when their money are gone , they become mad when they are totally collapsed .
I believe this is reality. When people have the same problem, they also have the same solution, diabetics are all recommended to take insulin, those who are diagnosed with high blood pressure are all warned against much salt, those with O+ blood type are better off dairy products and the list goes on …. You see … people are not that different ..

[Heartless Angel]

Balance ! Yes, the more people give themselves the freedom that makes them animals, the more they twist their nature. The very lot problems man causes was an outcome of the lack of a regulator for their acts .Freedom is not a contradictory with regulating your behaviors from expanding to the degree of harming others . We must all live in accordance with our nature that's the freedom ; but to use this accordance against someone else's innate freedom that is Not freedom ! It's tyranny

What you're talking about here is not pure freedom. It's freedom insofar as it does not infringe upon the implied rights of others. Pure, individual freedom has no inherent regard for others. true freedom and limits to freedom are necessarily incompatible.

Humans ARE animals. Ergo, our instincts are those of animals and our desires are those of animals. That is simple logic. All humans are animals, all animals have animalistic instincts, therefore all humans have animalistic instincts. The simple, irrefutable form of a valid categorical syllogism.

Say that you witnessed a theft in the street , will you smile and say ''wow what an accordance with his nature " Is this logical ? loving money is in our nature and that's not wrong, yet stopping thieves from stealing might not go with their nature of needing money , will you call this forbidding one from having accordance with his nature If I told the police ?

My reaction would vary by situation, but on average, no, I'd report it. I would however acknowledge that the man is acting within his nature, however his actions prevent his victim from acting within his, and me from acting within mine if I don't do anything about it. The thing about freedom, it doesn't always agree with everyone else's freedom. The thief was free to steal what he was able to steal, the victim and witnesses are free to report him, the law enforcers are free to arrest and imprison him. And all parties have acted in accordance with their nature. The thief in accordance with the basic survival needs he stole to pay for, the victim in accordance with his psychological need for security and fairness (as well as possible lower tier needs for survival depending on who the victim was and how much was stolen), the witnesses in accordance with the psychological needs of security and morality as a part of self actualization, and lastly the law enforcers in accordance with their psychological needs of security in a job, pride in accomplishment, and self actualization through morality. Because we each act in accordance with our nature does not mean we all agree that one act is right for all parties involved. Human nature is inherently egoistic.

That's what I meant when I said we are free in a way that we should neither twist our nature nor forget its limits because we are advanced . and it is not contradictory , it's rather the accordance or say the balance that gives values to concepts .

Freedom means you can do anything without limit. To place a limit of freedom of any kind means it is no longer true freedom. Freedom to act within what you or a government or an individual has allowed is no different than not having freedom at all. Freedom and limits are by definition contradictory. True freedom is an entirely binary concept, you either have it, or you do not.

I don't go with idealists , too . Basically the reason why communism is not the perfect choice for humans is that its attempts in trying to be idealist in achieving equality between individuals , however equality is not justice !Nor is the limitless ambition adopted by Capitalism satisfactory and fair to all !you got me wrong , I am not calling for idealism , I am inherently against it !

I'm not calling you an idealist. I was agreeing with you on that one.

From what I have seen you underestimated both systems being incompatible with humanity , isn't being incompatible with humanity definite evidence of failure ? Your last several statements are so contradictory I'm afraid !

I'm beginning to wonder if you understand the concept of logical contradiction. My statements thus far have been that humanity, its desires, and human needs are NOT the ultimate deciding factor on what is or is not good, and therefore NOT what defines something as a good idea or a bad one. My statements thus far have followed a single logical structure that has no contradictions within itself. My statements thus far have only been contradictory to YOUR beliefs. What I was accusing your argument of was being self-contradictory, meaning it negates itself by having elements that naturally conflict with one another. If you actually DO mean to call my statements self contradictory, you would first have to be working under the assumption that I agree with your beliefs on some fundamental level. As far as I can tell so far, I do not.

I think I have read this statement somewhere in the topic .Won't that somewhere in the middle be unknowingly referring to the Islamic economy ?

Many things fall into the middle. Pure capitalism and pure communism do not exist anywhere in our world. Western 'capitalism' is in the middle of the spectrum if you're looking at the entire thing, so is any form of communism that has ever been implemented. It's all in the middle. Your system isn't some magical unifying theory that ties everything together. It's just another point on the line that lies somewhere between the two extremes of pure communism and pure capitalism. If you're laboring under the delusion that every system except yours is an inherently flawed extreme, I'm afraid you're wrong. Here's a news flash for you, on a global scale, your Zakat wouldn't be anywhere near enough to raise the bottom percentages of the world's population to an acceptable level. The poorest people in Islamic countries are still quite a bit above the global average. I wasn't speaking in terms of one or two insignificant countries, I'm talking about the world.

Why not ! All people differ in calling something good , but they all agree in running from the bad .

Are you seriously telling me that you haven't derived from the first of these two statements that the subjective nature of 'good' means we also disagree on what IS bad and therefore 'run from' different things? Morality in its entirety is subjective, and if we don't all agree on what is 'right', we can't implement a global system that is 'right' for everyone. Again, this is simple formal logic.

if people can have a system that helps them avoid disasters in their finance and grow their own money according to an ideology, then everyone agrees on doing it . No matter how different people are, they love money and fear poverty.

Once again you ignore the painfully obvious incompatibility with humanity in your ideology. Note the operative words in your statement, I went ahead and bolded them. People want systems that benefit them as individuals, not the fairest system for everybody. The people who want the fairest system for everybody, are the ones in a position to benefit most from that sort of system. There is no system that is the best for everybody on an individual basis. Any global system you can devise is only going to change which portion of humanity is left unhappy.

Islamic economic systems are flexible that non- Muslims borrow theories from it as solutions for capitalism flaws.

Are you REALLY so arrogant as to believe that nobody has ever tried anything in between pure capitalism and pure communism without taking the idea from your system? Here's another news flash, we've been using systems in the middle since the concept of value was first devised. Your system is nothing new and groundbreaking. It's not a magical unifying theory. It's just a different point on the line that we've plotted every other point on.

First of all, LOGIC differs from one person to another, it is rather a relative thing.

No. No it isn't. If you believe this, I am forced to conclude that you are lacking in understanding of the basic properties of truth. Logic is a means of formally deriving the truth of one thing from the known or accepted truths of other things using simple properties. For example, the transitive property of formal logic. If A, then B, if B, then C. A is true. From this we can conclude that C is definitely true. This is not disputable. You can disagree on whether or not A actually leads to B, or B actually leads to C, or whether or not A is actually true, but the logical form is universally valid.

Math is a fine example of pure logic. Have you ever noticed that nobody ever asks you what your opinion on the answer to a math problem is in a math class after they've showed the process of reaching the correct answer? That's because nobody cares, because math follows logic; individual beliefs are not relevant. All logical constructs are this way. Logic is absolute. If you do not accept this, there is no point in your arguing anything, because you believe that everybody is playing by a different set of rules for the argument.

Trying to argue without accepting the absolute nature of logic is like putting a baseball team against a basketball team and telling them to compete with each other. If they're not playing the same game, there's no basis to judge the competition.

Therefore, some people find religious legislations quite the logic. What did you see from mine to confidently say it's not logic ?

That your argument is lacking in the basic structure of a valid form for inferring truth, and is loaded with logical fallacies, which I may as well point out, are also absolute.

I hope your logic didn't prevent you from seeing others' views because that is arrogance to accuse them of being invalid when you are barely familiar with them.

Familiarity has nothing whatsoever to do with logic. Nor does perspective. Calling an argument invalid when it does not follow logical form is not arrogance. It is a factual analysis based upon knowledge of formal logic. Believing your ideas are above logic and need not comply with its rules to establish truth, that is arrogance.

Moreover, I think something can be called logical when it works fine with others and has been proven successful with a minimum of losses and flaws.

Then you are (at least partially) wrong. What you're dealing with here is pragmatics, not truth. While both rely on concepts of logic, one seeks truth, while the other seeks what works for people. The two are not one in the same. Pragmatics are based upon normative claims, those which by their very nature can't be purely objective. Again you run into the same problem. You're dealing with the purely subjective and trying to force it into an objective mold. That is fallacious, erroneous, and illogical.

And my proof is :

What you're listing here are sources. Sources provide evidence for induction. Induction does not deal with proof. It deals with evidence. Evidence does not establish truth. It only suggests and supports it. To prove something, you must use formal deductive logic. Anything less than formal deduction ends up relying on faith instead of true knowledge to bridge the gap between the known and the unknown.

1- The Editor in –Chief of "Challenger Magazine wrote " I think that we are now more in need in this crisis to read the Quran more than the New testament in order to understand what is happening to us and to our banks for those in charge of our banks for those in charge of our banks respected the teachings and rules of the Quran and applied them we would have averted the crises and disasters that are befalling us and we would not have reached this dismal condition, for money cannot beget money .

What you have here is an opinion with a fancy title attached to it. This does not function as proof of any kind. This is an appeal to authority, one of the many defined formal logical fallacies. This is irrelevant.

2. Rolan Laskin, Editor in Chief of "Journal de France " demanded "Application of the principles and rules of Islamic Shariah in the financial and economic fields " in order to put an end to this crisis which is shaking the entire world markets as a result of manipulating the rules of fictitious and illegitimate speculations. This came in an article for the writer entitled: "Has Wall Street Qualified to Embrace the Religion of Islam?

Again what you have here is a person with a title offering an opinion. Or in this rather arrogant example, a 'demand' without any logical support attached to the opinion to make it worth anything. This 'proof' once again does not meet any of the criteria to be considered proof at all. This is an appeal to authority. Fallacious. Irrelevant. Worth absolutely nothing in a logical debate.

3- In a book published by the Italian researcher, Louritta Napolioni, she referred to the importance of Islamic financing and its role in rescuing the global economic condition. She considered the unusual condition of the global economy is the result of rampant corruption and speculations which control the market . She added that "Islamic Banks could become the suitable alternative to Western Banks". With the collapse of the stock markets and the mortgage credit crisis, the traditional banking system started to show cracks in the structure and needs drastic and deep solutions.

Again what you have here is lacking in any actual evidence. It's an opinion that has not been supported. The title attached to the name of the one offering it does not give it logical value. If you're going to waste the time and effort to cite sources, cite the parts that matter, the evidence, not the titles and qualifications. They're not relevant. The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. It is invalid by nature.

4- There are signs of a new trend in the world shifting into a new financial era in which real money and actual exchange have become an alternative to speculative financing , over draft sales and other financial risks.

What you've cited here isn't even in support of your position. Just an observation of something that is currently changing. This isn't relevant to anything. At all. Like, I don't even know why you bothered to copy and paste this. It says nothing that has anything whatsoever to do with this debate.

5- Two decades ago , the French economists and noble Laureate in Economics,Maurice Allei, proposed ( in the context of surmounting the crisis of indebtedness and unemployment and to return to the state of equilibrium) to modify interest rate to zero and to review tax rate to about 2%,which is completely in harmony with the abolition of riba (interest ) and the rate of Zakat payment on cash held according to Islamic Law.

Again what you have here is a title, a name, and an opinion. More so you have a stated goal of returning to an equilibrium. What you have here is not a solution to save the world, but a way to change things to fit what a specific group desires. Not the world and each individual in it. You're debating something that is purely subjective. There is nothing logical about this. The word "proof" can't even be accurately used in this context.

So are all of these non Muslim economists retroactively pragmatic people !

Yes. Pragmatism by definition is the theory of what 'works'. What they each have is a specific set of ideals, which your system serves the pragmatic purpose of enforcing upon reality after these ideals have been determined. Citing five examples of exactly what I'm saying is not the best way to go about trying to refute me. If your idea of an argument is throwing around names and titles and calling it proof, I strongly discourage ever entering a logical debate with me again.

I don't consider what I do here is arrogance , everyone should speak his mind with what he thinks and that is not arrogance when you believe you are right and speak that out !

To believe you are absolutely right without any logical basis to support your position may as well be the definition of arrogance.

same as you did when you scorn me for saying my source is Divine while your situation as not believing in divinity regardless of the logic you think is right might be a pure insult to religious people !

I could care less what religion you or anyone else follows, or whether or not their respective religions like me, my ideas, or how I express them. What I scorned was not in spite of logic, but rather the blatant lack of logic in your argument. When you can offer real logical support for a position, I will consider it valid, examine the premises, and judge the argument objectively. I may end up agreeing to disagree, but I will always acknowledge a valid argument as such. When you can't even establish a basic logical form to support your opinions, I will consider them for what they are. Unsupported opinions.

then the statement against communists you begin with "the idea of communism disgusts me " might be considered arrogance and the whole comments that goes with it might be so !

That statement was one of opinion. One which I did not attempt to objectify, because it was by nature not objective. I don't mistake my unsupported beliefs for knowledge. I acknowledge my opinions as opinions. If someone agrees with them. Great. If not, great. I don't really care one way or the other. I agree with you on the point that one should speak their mind. That is all I did. What I believe is arrogant however, is the unwarranted assumption that what is on one's mind is unequivocal truth. THAT is arrogance.

Everyone doesn't speak until they realize they are right and wish to tell others about it . Are all of you arrogant for thinking so ? of course not , We are arguing not arrogant.

Perhaps you do. Not everyone else is the same. I can say personally that I am nothing like you in this regard. I speak more of what I do not know than what I do. When I am speaking of something I do not know for certain, I acknowledge, and even point out the fact. Because unlike many people, I'm more concerned with finding the truth than winning the argument, convincing the audience, or confirming my ideals. That's because Im a logical person, not a pragmatist or someone trying to objectify their ideals. Truth is what matters to me. Not people, not ideals, not morals, not feelings, truth.

I believe in the freedom of speech in the limits of respect , I also believe in the freedom of choosing your own path without aggressively forcing it .

Freedom to live within boundaries you set is not freedom at all.

Two relevant definitions of freedom.

2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.

What you are proposing are regulations, restraints, and limits upon that which is by definition exempt from regulation, restraints, and limits. That is self-contradictory.

Basically, Humans have the same basic instincts , they eat , they drink ,they love money , they hate poverty , they worry when their money are gone , they become mad when they are totally collapsed !

Yes, we all do have the same basic desires and instincts. They are not however all fulfilled in the same way.

I believe this is reality. When people have the same problem, they also have the same solution, diabetics are all recommended to take insulin, those who are diagnosed with high blood pressure are all warned against much salt, those with O+ blood type are better off dairy products and the list goes on …. You see … people are not that different ..

Unfortunately unlike economic problems, medical conditions are caused by a single biological phenomena that exists in reality. And even in this objective world or biology, your analogy falls short. Two people suffering from the same disease are in fact plagued by the exact same life form. Therefore the same solution is applicable to both, at least according to your argument. Now comes the reality in which you don't have a thousand identical, cookie-cutter patents, Patient A with a potentially deadly infection is deathly allergic to Amoxicillin. Patient B infected with the same bacteria is deathly allergic to Penicillin. Would you give them both the same injection, because you know that in your ideal fantasy world of only people not allergic to amoxicillin, everyone can be given amoxicillin? Because if so, one of the two patients is not going to be very happy with you. If you tried to apply a procrustean solution like yours to medicine, you wouldn't have a license to practice it for very long. You know they actually have to make two different kinds of flu vaccine each year? Because one contains eggs, and some people are allergic to those. So you can't give that 'solution' to everybody. Because everybody is not the same in every way that matters.

Individual desires are not the same for each person. We don't all want the exact same thing. Each man's vision of perfection is different. You can't satisfy all of them with one image. Your analogy is fallacious. Health problems are objective (and even so not as binary as you seem to think economics are), beliefs or what the ideal end result of an economic system should be is subjective. Again, your argument is rooted entirely in the attempt to objectify the subjective. This is illogical.