Muslims are not socialist. They are more capitalist than western nations or Christians in general. There is this myth about Arabs being womanizers, but that is just western propaganda. After all, we are the ones that have a culture where some of the television shows are based on adultery, and they stone people to death for it in some of those middle eastern nations.
The etymology of the word “harem” was originally the group of women a man was responsible for, including his mother and sisters. The 4 wives deal is actually quite rare and very hard to pull off within the conditions of Islam. You are obligated to treat ALL of your wives equally, and cannot favour one over the other. You have to provide for them equally, spend time with them equally, and try to love all of them equally (in your heart, not just sex, but that too). As a matter of convention, you might need the permission of your existing wives in order to add another one.
The 4:1 rule was put in because so many married men and fathers, as well as men of marriagable age were being lost to violence, and rather than leave the women without a protector and bread winner, and the children without a father, polygamy was allowed.
The anarchist protestors at the G20 conference in London a couple ago were anarcho-commies and anarcho-socialists. They wanted to do away with the state, but also eliminate private property. In Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, there a tons of quotes from the socialists where they state that their goal is to remove the “capitalist” and have the “workers” “own” the factories. This implies that they disregard private property rights; actually, they openly even mock property rights in there speeches.
I’m guessing none of them actually talked about how they would ration goods in a scarce market. To intermix some words from Sir Alexander Gray, it is assumed, and always is assumed that there will be a great abundence during the reign of Socialism. As if bringing about Socialism will somehow magically produce more drinkable water then 1%
What are you talking about? The workers will produce what “workers want”, instead of being at the whim of the “capitalist”. The workers will tell the manager when to work, how to work, how long to work.
There was some overlap however between the above and countries like Romania, France and Italy, however most of the “Western” nations are generally more capitalistic than the Arab Nations.
So all the talk about them beating their wives, the oppression, legalized rape, and so on (all spoken of by their top priests and done commonly in their societies) and all the Sharia Law is all a lie, correct?
Can you provide some evidence of this, if that’s what you mean?
I don’t know what the standard is, but if you know anything about Islamic banking then it is very hard to say western nations are more capitalist.
People in the west beat their wives, priests diddle young boys, women get raped in college and so on. When I read about a man hiring a stranger off Craigslist to rape his wife at knife point while he watched, and the kids were sleeping, I’m not feeling the US or the west as being morally superior people.
Are there exceptions? There probably are. But I don’t believe that’s not an issue with Islam. Those are issues culturally or with the state.
Read the Koran.
Go to a mosque and introduce yourself to the Imam and ask him questions.
Seems to me the best way to find out about something is to go to primary sources.
I mean that one can’t carve out premises in morality or ethics (such as rights to own property) without having it founded in arbitrary reasoning. I can say that I think that every individual has the right to own property but I can’t prove it in a deductive chain of reasoning unless I start out with a totally subjective premise.
And just as I said; the reason I, personally, came to the conclusion of the individual’s right to own property is purely on a pragmatic ground. The same as your argument above “It cannot work in reality and therefore it is not something to virtue”. Question is if there’s an inherent fault or wrong with the stance against private property.
Much like that a State that can accurately calculate every human action in detail in a society probably is a utopia but if we ever would have the technology to do so, the pragmatic argument against the state would be gone.
Considering it’s theocracy in those countries, the point still stands.
To be fair, a bit of it has to do with the US’s shitty foreign policy. If we stopped supporting either side in dispute, selling them weapons via our government, and stopped with the aid, they’d have more incentive to improve into more effective capitalist free market system with a respect of human rights.
Right, and I think that the capacity for private property rights is what freedom is about, not lower tax rates.
In western countries, it is acceptable to torture and carpet bomb civilians. To starve children to death with sanctions. Please, you don’t want to go there.
The issue is not the religion, or the race, it is the state. It is always statism and the statist mentality that bring these things.
I’m telling you to read the Koran, not to read selected internet translations of verses which taken out of context of the entire book, can be made to mean anything.
Again, there are over 1 billion muslims in the world. They are doing far less killing and stealing than the secular scientific west.
The “theocracy” you speak of, is not Islam. It is statism.
Where is it a theocracy? Where do the priests run things?
Islam was giving rights to women when the Christian west would not allow them to own property or vote, and burned them at the stake as witches.
The Islamic countries were not hit hard by the credit crisis, why? Because they have a concept of sound banking, and reject the western ponzi schemes that the Heritage Institute likes to think makes us wealthy and free. Real wealth is property ownership.
So what separates their banking from ours? Do they use a full reserve system?
If so, does anyone know how I can (legally) get my money into one of their banks? And of the different countries, which ones are the best run; such that the money isn’t stolen from me (it never hurts to be safe…)
I stopped reading as soon as I read the first bit above. Anyone with even a redimentary knowledge of biology can (or at least should) tell you that Captialism is the exact OPPOSITE of social darwinism. Socialism in more like social darwinism because the two are a top down process, as opposed to the bottom up design/function of both evolution by natural selection and the free market. Both systems, despite their imperfections, create amazing results that no single human designer (or central economic planner) could concieve.
Granted, I looked at their definition of “Anarchy” and it seemed to be pretty spot on.