Is Communism Really THAT Bad?

[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.