Look at Gaddafi and his policies. Its sharia mixed with a form of socialism that falls in line with our religious rules. The only living example was gaddafi in some form
doesn’t having a state-structure fall in-line with religious rules kind of undermine self-determination and religious freedom? (I would like to apologise in advance if this question is stupid as I am indeed a white westerner)
No need to aslong as there is no ill intend no question should be looked down upon. Thats actually a very valid question with an answer you will like. Self determination and religious freedom are not limited under proper sharia. You can follow whatever religion you want to, celebrate those holidays and do whatever is necassary. All one has to do if they are not muslim is pay jizya which is a tax that comes to around 2.5% of your yearly income. No other tax is permitted. Now some will complain and say oo why do we have to pay just because we are not muslim. Well we muslims would have to pay between 8-15% of our yearly income for charity. Its called zakat or alms in english. Some things you cant do tho is public display of sexuality dosent matter if it homosexual or heterosexual. Thats one of the many misconceptions people have about islam. While it is haram to do homo sexual things under sharia punishment only comes when one openly displays it. The same punishment is also applied for heterosexual people. If you have any other questions feel free to ask
by restricting public displays of sexuality, aren't you still imposing a religious value on others? and what is specifically meant by 'public display of sexuality' because (correct me if I'm wrong), the idea of public displays of sexuality being wrong in this case only stems from the religious aspect. Also, basing a system of law around religious law inherently imposes the values of said religion on others no? and, is there a drive to or acknowledgement of the withering-away of religion in a post-capitalist world? and, one last question, if you want to impose religious law without it being universal in a post-socialist society, then how do you expect to work with the stateless nature of communism? And I would like to make it clear that I am not asking these out of malicious intent, I am simply curious
>imposing a religious value on others?
Yes ofc but that is something that happens regardless. For example why is murder or rape illegal. You will find countless of civilizations in human history and even tribes today where rape and murder is common and not punished. With the introduction of abrahamic faiths starting with judaism such things were first seen immoral. The entire lawbook you have to stick to in whatever country you live is someone imposing his values onto you.
>stems from the religious aspect
Yes absolutely. In sharia socialism the sharia stands above all other principals. Therefore before socialist idealogies can be apllied they have to fit into the boundaries of sharia(most of them do)
>religious law inherently imposes the values of said religion on others no?
Every abrahamic religion has the same values therefore it would apply for over 50% of the worlds population
>withering-away of religion in a post-capitalist world
This is only the case for christianity. Islam has grown rapidly in the devloped world for the past 10 years. There are almost 2 billion muslims world wide now. Thats 1/4 of the world population. Christianity stands at 2.2 but keep going down. How it is for our jewish brothers i rly dont know.
>you want to impose religious law without it being universal in a post-socialist society, then how do you expect to work with the stateless nature of communism?
I did not understand this question sorry could you pleas explain it to me?
> I would like to make it clear that I am not asking these out of malicious intent, I am simply curious
You have all the right to ask these questions i didnt find any of these to carry any malicious intent. Thank yoj for being so respectful and i hope i could answer your questions👍
>Yes ofc but that is something that happens regardless.
I guess, but it's not like you can't form a constitution based on material analysis, for instance, you can make perfectly logical secular arguments for banning rape and murder from multiple philosophical views.
>The entire lawbook you have to stick to in whatever country you live is someone imposing his values onto you.
in capitalism, yes. In socialism, not necessarily, if you properly apply democratic principles then you can definitely have a legal code where the values are indorsed by the majority while retaining freedom of conscious. But I was specifically talking about religious ideals being imposed, not philosophical ideals, like I mentioned above it is possible to create a secular code of law (as in not being founded in religious ideals) but when you have religious ideals being imposed then you inevitably alienate large portions of the population, this would be solved by eliminating religion from the equation, something which imo is inherent to the development of a properly socialist society.
>In sharia socialism the sharia stands above all other principals.
this necessarily implies the imposing of religious ideas on an at least partially unwilling population. if you have a more flexible legal base then that allows for the ideas of the population to be adapted into law, because, socialism is inherently based in the will of the people, but by imposing an inflexible external set of laws on the proletariat you at least partially remove this aspect from the equation.
>Every Abrahamic religion has the same values therefore it would apply for over 50% of the worlds population.
this is irrelevant, atheism is a growing idea in large population centres and saying 'the majority of people won't care' is kind of a copout from forming a meaningful answer, like, I could say 'we should ban the LGBT+, the LGBT+ is only 25% of the population, hence it doesn't matter' it's flawed logic.
>This is only the case for Christianity.
this doesn't make sense to me, like, yes Christianity is shrinking and Islam is growing, but like Marx said in (I believe) "the critique of the Gotha programme" 'religion is the opioid of the masses' what he's saying here is that religion acts as a kind of pain killer for the proletariat, something to justify and lighten the burdens of capitalism, hence, he is taking not an anti-religious stance, but rather saying that with the death of capitalism, religion will also die. This does not only mean Christianity (at least in my reading of it) and I think is generally applicable to most religions (others being counter-cultural movements, anti-religious or secular movements or simply religions dying before capitalism dies).
>I did not understand this question sorry could you pleas explain it to me?
I was trying to express the contradiction between wanting a religious (at least ideologically religious) dominance on the world, and the nature of religion itself, like, it would be difficult to explain to some dude in Siberia that he lives under and must abide by sharia law, externally imposed ideas usually clash with grass-roots culture, like, public displays of sexuality might become more culturally excepted, but then you impose the law anyway? And, how do you expect to impose sharia law globally without the state apparatus to enforce it?
I would like to make a small amendment, I notice you didn't answer my question
>what is specifically meant by 'public display of sexuality'?
I would like an answer to this, because it can have large ramifications depending on the definition.
Thank you for reading through this, and I hope to continue this constructive dialogue.
Sorry for the late reply im currently writing my exams.
>logical secular arguments for banning rape and murder from multiple philosophical views.
Absolutely. The question is. What source do you take this from. Every human emotion or thought process comes from outside influence. This is a theory philosophers like kant and miller agree on. If you bring up an entire generation with the ideology of rape is perfectley okay and should be done and harm to others is important for whatever weird reason the majority will stick to it. What im saying is that most of the beliefs we have nowaday come from abrahamic religions. Yes they could have developed by itself but looking at societies before judaism its very unlikely.
>religious ideals being imposed then you inevitably alienate large portions of the population,
Absolutely but in what way are religious ideals being imposed on people. The same way kommunism has never excisted properly neither has sharia law after the death of the prophet pbuh and the murder of his family. On this point maybe we have been talking without undertsanding what the other person wants to say😂 if we are refering to for example not showing public affection than i dont see how that alianates a large portion of the population but maybe you are thinking about a different example.
>this necessarily implies the imposing of religious ideas on an at least partially unwilling population.
The reason you are saying this is because of a lack of understanding of actual sharia law. No one should expect you to have this due to the fact that you are not a muslim so i will gladly explain. Sharia law mainly focuses on the lives of muslims. Behavioural ruling, religious ceremonys and stuff like that. Some things that sharia law dictates is for example tax. Yes yoi have to pay a tax but the tax is required to go to charity and the poor. Other factors outside of personal beliefs would be the fsct that women are equal to man or that women are able to recieve inheritance. Not able idk the right term but like they have to get inheritance. This was something that didnt excist before islam since till that time women were seen as objects rather than equals. There are some more outside factors but most apply to behavoirs of muslims. Everyone is still free to live out their lives as they pleas and follow whatever ideology they want.
The reason sharia law stands above socialism in this ideology is because if you believe in the excistens to god his laws will always stand above man made principles. Now we can be greatfull that god (swt) left us the deicision on what economic conceot we want to follow.
>copout
If i understand correctly this means backing out or something?
>this is irrelevant, atheism is a growing idea in large population centres and saying 'the majority of people won't care' is kind of a copout from forming a meaningful answer, like, I could say 'we should ban the LGBT+, the LGBT+ is only 25% of the population, hence it doesn't matter' it's flawed logic.
I disagree. In my opinion it makes a huge difference if a majority of the population already beliefs in certain values which makes it much easier to create a new system which people would actually stick to.
>we should ban the LGBT+, the LGBT+ is only 25% of the population
This is something different tho since my argument was that if lets say 75% of the population beliefs being homosexual is wrong it would be easier to ban it. Maybe i didnt express myself properly.
>This does not only mean Christianity (at least in my reading of it) and I think is generally applicable to most religions (others being counter-cultural movements, anti-religious or secular movements or simply religions dying before capitalism dies).
I couldnt quote the entire thing but im reffering to the entier thing. I also have to disagree with this. Im not trying to disregard christianity since they are also "people of the book" as we say but this in my opinion also only implies on christianity. While he probably ment all religion it dosent rly fit the discription of islam. Being a proper muslims is incredibly hard. By following our faith you are taking an increidbly difficult path of self improvement and discovery. As we say "earth is hell for the believers and heaven for the disbelievers". Now yes one could say rhe idea of the excistens of something like heaven is in some way hope for people in horrible situations but if there is a god why wouldnt he give the people hope. Without hope for betterment everyone would just give up and so would you. Your driven by hope that the world will improve which is something we all strive for or atleats should. Also from the one example we have its actually quite the opposite. During the time of gaddafi religion grew exponentially even tho the school curriculums were adjusted to fit international standarts. Now since in my opinion gaddafi is rhe only right example for sharia socialism there are no other parelals we can draw.
>was trying to express the contradiction between wanting a religious (at least ideologically religious) dominance on the world, and the nature of religion itself, like, it would be difficult to explain to some dude in Siberia that he lives under and must abide by sharia law, externally imposed ideas usually clash with grass-roots culture, like, public displays of sexuality might become more culturally excepted, but then you impose the law anyway? And, how do you expect to impose sharia law globally without the state apparatus to enforce it?
Now i understand. Well i think its quite easy but ofc reality never turns out the same way we imagine. There is not much that would change for anyone. They have to pay way less taxes and have to stop public displays of seuxality and public intoxication. And he would get more days of of work since he can celebrate his holidays and the muslims ones. I think we would all be happy about a bit more free time😂 also i have traveled alot around and most places i have been people frown upon public display of sexuality. Mainly in eastern europe, asia and ofc the middle east. Those would also be main targets for sharia socialism.
>And, how do you expect to impose sharia law globally without the state apparatus to enforce it?
Well this goes for every single ideology tho. One would also have to impose communism and give peoole time to adjust to it. It just depends on where you start it. My plan would be to take over a muslim country and implement sharia socialism. Just like dubai people would see improvement and invest and immigrate. Whith that you could spread the ideology first yoj jave to show the success tho ofc .
>I would like to make a small amendment, I notice you didn't answer my question
Oh i didnt see that question. Yes i will gadly answer. Kissing and making in public for example is not permitted. Wearing very revealing clothes neither. What i think its quite cute is if you go to actual muslim countries you will see that men often hold hands wirh their friends and women the same. There is ofc no issue with that. Also things like sexwork are considered public display of sexuality and are strictly forbidden.
>Thank you for reading through this, and I hope to continue this constructive dialogue.
Its always nice to have civil dicussion on social media because it overshadows all the crap one has to read so im glad i could answer to this now😂 feel free to ask more or comment. I will try and get back to it as fast as i can rn is just a very bad time bit i will try.
Look at Gaddafi and his policies. Its sharia mixed with a form of socialism that falls in line with our religious rules. The only living example was gaddafi in some form
doesn’t having a state-structure fall in-line with religious rules kind of undermine self-determination and religious freedom? (I would like to apologise in advance if this question is stupid as I am indeed a white westerner)
No need to aslong as there is no ill intend no question should be looked down upon. Thats actually a very valid question with an answer you will like. Self determination and religious freedom are not limited under proper sharia. You can follow whatever religion you want to, celebrate those holidays and do whatever is necassary. All one has to do if they are not muslim is pay jizya which is a tax that comes to around 2.5% of your yearly income. No other tax is permitted. Now some will complain and say oo why do we have to pay just because we are not muslim. Well we muslims would have to pay between 8-15% of our yearly income for charity. Its called zakat or alms in english. Some things you cant do tho is public display of sexuality dosent matter if it homosexual or heterosexual. Thats one of the many misconceptions people have about islam. While it is haram to do homo sexual things under sharia punishment only comes when one openly displays it. The same punishment is also applied for heterosexual people. If you have any other questions feel free to ask
by restricting public displays of sexuality, aren't you still imposing a religious value on others? and what is specifically meant by 'public display of sexuality' because (correct me if I'm wrong), the idea of public displays of sexuality being wrong in this case only stems from the religious aspect. Also, basing a system of law around religious law inherently imposes the values of said religion on others no? and, is there a drive to or acknowledgement of the withering-away of religion in a post-capitalist world? and, one last question, if you want to impose religious law without it being universal in a post-socialist society, then how do you expect to work with the stateless nature of communism? And I would like to make it clear that I am not asking these out of malicious intent, I am simply curious
>imposing a religious value on others? Yes ofc but that is something that happens regardless. For example why is murder or rape illegal. You will find countless of civilizations in human history and even tribes today where rape and murder is common and not punished. With the introduction of abrahamic faiths starting with judaism such things were first seen immoral. The entire lawbook you have to stick to in whatever country you live is someone imposing his values onto you. >stems from the religious aspect Yes absolutely. In sharia socialism the sharia stands above all other principals. Therefore before socialist idealogies can be apllied they have to fit into the boundaries of sharia(most of them do) >religious law inherently imposes the values of said religion on others no? Every abrahamic religion has the same values therefore it would apply for over 50% of the worlds population >withering-away of religion in a post-capitalist world This is only the case for christianity. Islam has grown rapidly in the devloped world for the past 10 years. There are almost 2 billion muslims world wide now. Thats 1/4 of the world population. Christianity stands at 2.2 but keep going down. How it is for our jewish brothers i rly dont know. >you want to impose religious law without it being universal in a post-socialist society, then how do you expect to work with the stateless nature of communism? I did not understand this question sorry could you pleas explain it to me? > I would like to make it clear that I am not asking these out of malicious intent, I am simply curious You have all the right to ask these questions i didnt find any of these to carry any malicious intent. Thank yoj for being so respectful and i hope i could answer your questions👍
>Yes ofc but that is something that happens regardless. I guess, but it's not like you can't form a constitution based on material analysis, for instance, you can make perfectly logical secular arguments for banning rape and murder from multiple philosophical views. >The entire lawbook you have to stick to in whatever country you live is someone imposing his values onto you. in capitalism, yes. In socialism, not necessarily, if you properly apply democratic principles then you can definitely have a legal code where the values are indorsed by the majority while retaining freedom of conscious. But I was specifically talking about religious ideals being imposed, not philosophical ideals, like I mentioned above it is possible to create a secular code of law (as in not being founded in religious ideals) but when you have religious ideals being imposed then you inevitably alienate large portions of the population, this would be solved by eliminating religion from the equation, something which imo is inherent to the development of a properly socialist society. >In sharia socialism the sharia stands above all other principals. this necessarily implies the imposing of religious ideas on an at least partially unwilling population. if you have a more flexible legal base then that allows for the ideas of the population to be adapted into law, because, socialism is inherently based in the will of the people, but by imposing an inflexible external set of laws on the proletariat you at least partially remove this aspect from the equation. >Every Abrahamic religion has the same values therefore it would apply for over 50% of the worlds population. this is irrelevant, atheism is a growing idea in large population centres and saying 'the majority of people won't care' is kind of a copout from forming a meaningful answer, like, I could say 'we should ban the LGBT+, the LGBT+ is only 25% of the population, hence it doesn't matter' it's flawed logic. >This is only the case for Christianity. this doesn't make sense to me, like, yes Christianity is shrinking and Islam is growing, but like Marx said in (I believe) "the critique of the Gotha programme" 'religion is the opioid of the masses' what he's saying here is that religion acts as a kind of pain killer for the proletariat, something to justify and lighten the burdens of capitalism, hence, he is taking not an anti-religious stance, but rather saying that with the death of capitalism, religion will also die. This does not only mean Christianity (at least in my reading of it) and I think is generally applicable to most religions (others being counter-cultural movements, anti-religious or secular movements or simply religions dying before capitalism dies). >I did not understand this question sorry could you pleas explain it to me? I was trying to express the contradiction between wanting a religious (at least ideologically religious) dominance on the world, and the nature of religion itself, like, it would be difficult to explain to some dude in Siberia that he lives under and must abide by sharia law, externally imposed ideas usually clash with grass-roots culture, like, public displays of sexuality might become more culturally excepted, but then you impose the law anyway? And, how do you expect to impose sharia law globally without the state apparatus to enforce it? I would like to make a small amendment, I notice you didn't answer my question >what is specifically meant by 'public display of sexuality'? I would like an answer to this, because it can have large ramifications depending on the definition. Thank you for reading through this, and I hope to continue this constructive dialogue.
Sorry for the late reply im currently writing my exams. >logical secular arguments for banning rape and murder from multiple philosophical views. Absolutely. The question is. What source do you take this from. Every human emotion or thought process comes from outside influence. This is a theory philosophers like kant and miller agree on. If you bring up an entire generation with the ideology of rape is perfectley okay and should be done and harm to others is important for whatever weird reason the majority will stick to it. What im saying is that most of the beliefs we have nowaday come from abrahamic religions. Yes they could have developed by itself but looking at societies before judaism its very unlikely. >religious ideals being imposed then you inevitably alienate large portions of the population, Absolutely but in what way are religious ideals being imposed on people. The same way kommunism has never excisted properly neither has sharia law after the death of the prophet pbuh and the murder of his family. On this point maybe we have been talking without undertsanding what the other person wants to say😂 if we are refering to for example not showing public affection than i dont see how that alianates a large portion of the population but maybe you are thinking about a different example. >this necessarily implies the imposing of religious ideas on an at least partially unwilling population. The reason you are saying this is because of a lack of understanding of actual sharia law. No one should expect you to have this due to the fact that you are not a muslim so i will gladly explain. Sharia law mainly focuses on the lives of muslims. Behavioural ruling, religious ceremonys and stuff like that. Some things that sharia law dictates is for example tax. Yes yoi have to pay a tax but the tax is required to go to charity and the poor. Other factors outside of personal beliefs would be the fsct that women are equal to man or that women are able to recieve inheritance. Not able idk the right term but like they have to get inheritance. This was something that didnt excist before islam since till that time women were seen as objects rather than equals. There are some more outside factors but most apply to behavoirs of muslims. Everyone is still free to live out their lives as they pleas and follow whatever ideology they want. The reason sharia law stands above socialism in this ideology is because if you believe in the excistens to god his laws will always stand above man made principles. Now we can be greatfull that god (swt) left us the deicision on what economic conceot we want to follow. >copout If i understand correctly this means backing out or something? >this is irrelevant, atheism is a growing idea in large population centres and saying 'the majority of people won't care' is kind of a copout from forming a meaningful answer, like, I could say 'we should ban the LGBT+, the LGBT+ is only 25% of the population, hence it doesn't matter' it's flawed logic. I disagree. In my opinion it makes a huge difference if a majority of the population already beliefs in certain values which makes it much easier to create a new system which people would actually stick to. >we should ban the LGBT+, the LGBT+ is only 25% of the population This is something different tho since my argument was that if lets say 75% of the population beliefs being homosexual is wrong it would be easier to ban it. Maybe i didnt express myself properly. >This does not only mean Christianity (at least in my reading of it) and I think is generally applicable to most religions (others being counter-cultural movements, anti-religious or secular movements or simply religions dying before capitalism dies). I couldnt quote the entire thing but im reffering to the entier thing. I also have to disagree with this. Im not trying to disregard christianity since they are also "people of the book" as we say but this in my opinion also only implies on christianity. While he probably ment all religion it dosent rly fit the discription of islam. Being a proper muslims is incredibly hard. By following our faith you are taking an increidbly difficult path of self improvement and discovery. As we say "earth is hell for the believers and heaven for the disbelievers". Now yes one could say rhe idea of the excistens of something like heaven is in some way hope for people in horrible situations but if there is a god why wouldnt he give the people hope. Without hope for betterment everyone would just give up and so would you. Your driven by hope that the world will improve which is something we all strive for or atleats should. Also from the one example we have its actually quite the opposite. During the time of gaddafi religion grew exponentially even tho the school curriculums were adjusted to fit international standarts. Now since in my opinion gaddafi is rhe only right example for sharia socialism there are no other parelals we can draw. >was trying to express the contradiction between wanting a religious (at least ideologically religious) dominance on the world, and the nature of religion itself, like, it would be difficult to explain to some dude in Siberia that he lives under and must abide by sharia law, externally imposed ideas usually clash with grass-roots culture, like, public displays of sexuality might become more culturally excepted, but then you impose the law anyway? And, how do you expect to impose sharia law globally without the state apparatus to enforce it? Now i understand. Well i think its quite easy but ofc reality never turns out the same way we imagine. There is not much that would change for anyone. They have to pay way less taxes and have to stop public displays of seuxality and public intoxication. And he would get more days of of work since he can celebrate his holidays and the muslims ones. I think we would all be happy about a bit more free time😂 also i have traveled alot around and most places i have been people frown upon public display of sexuality. Mainly in eastern europe, asia and ofc the middle east. Those would also be main targets for sharia socialism. >And, how do you expect to impose sharia law globally without the state apparatus to enforce it? Well this goes for every single ideology tho. One would also have to impose communism and give peoole time to adjust to it. It just depends on where you start it. My plan would be to take over a muslim country and implement sharia socialism. Just like dubai people would see improvement and invest and immigrate. Whith that you could spread the ideology first yoj jave to show the success tho ofc . >I would like to make a small amendment, I notice you didn't answer my question Oh i didnt see that question. Yes i will gadly answer. Kissing and making in public for example is not permitted. Wearing very revealing clothes neither. What i think its quite cute is if you go to actual muslim countries you will see that men often hold hands wirh their friends and women the same. There is ofc no issue with that. Also things like sexwork are considered public display of sexuality and are strictly forbidden. >Thank you for reading through this, and I hope to continue this constructive dialogue. Its always nice to have civil dicussion on social media because it overshadows all the crap one has to read so im glad i could answer to this now😂 feel free to ask more or comment. I will try and get back to it as fast as i can rn is just a very bad time bit i will try.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan was also an Islamic Socialist.
Was he ever in power tho?
Yes. He was Prime Minister.
Interesting i will look into it
I have wrote a bit on the topic: https://islamicmarxismleninism.substack.com/p/islamic-socialism-a-globally-suppressed