David-H

The suggestion by the author in the opening section of 2.1 that moral needs "are not recognized economically" under Capitalism is fundamentally flawed. If people believe in pride & honor - then the individuals will allocate the capital they acquired to highlight it (i.e. tending to their home, paying for medals, etc.) If "spiritual needs" are deemed important, people may spend their time and money in building their "House of God" or maintaining it. The first flaw in Capitalism as described on page 2 is fundamentally flawed in it's definition.. The economic system understood in Capitalism is not started by how "to distribute the wealth" as defined in this document - but rather how to create the wealth. It seems this author does not really understand what "money" is under Capitalism. Money is merely a transportable representation of perceived work done. Economic Science is the study of Economic Systems - the study does not necessarily result in production, as the author has stated, but study is an end to itself. Indicating that integrating the study with the system on page 3 as a fault is unsubstantiated. A conclusion such as "is bound to cause failure" without evidence or substantiation is merely rhetoric and insufficient for academic consideration. The second flaw identified in Capitalism on page 3 is fundamentally flawed, for a reason already identified above. Suggesting that Capitalism suggests that "human needs" are "materialistic only" is a complete falsehood. Computer software is not material, yet has value under a capitalistic society. The "moral, spiritual, and ethical needs" are buttressed under Capitalism by allowing people as moral agents to create capital, build capital, and invest capital through voluntary organizations to express those "human needs" without coercion by the government. Any person can participate in those organizations without coercion by the government. People can freely build Temples, Churches, and Mosques in Capitalistic societies. It does not matter what family one was born into or what the parents believe, a child is free to grow and participate with freedom of his or her own journey. Contrast this with Islamic Societies, where the government (through coercion) keeps people born into certain families (Muslim parents) from participating voluntarily with other organizations of their free will (i.e. non-Muslim faiths) and investing their capital in those organizations to express their God given human needs - indeed, Islam is at fault for such suppression while Capitalism provides freedom for such needs. The third suggested flaw in capitalism as listed on page 3 seems confusing, at best, failing again with the basis where the author makes the mistake, yet again, that Capitalism does not tend to the "spiritual needs, ethical thoughts, and moral objectives" - while indeed, it does. Enron and Arthur Anderson are cited as successful examples of "cheating" where Capitalism failed. Actually, the "cheating" caused failure in the economic entity and Capitalism caused the downfall of the corporations cited! An example of "monopoly" ("Microsoft") is mentioned. Why this is "good" or "bad" is never mentioned. Suggesting that "Under capitalism, feeding a [sic] poor (wealth distribution) may be done only..." is a very silly statement. There is no mechanism in Capitalism that states when or if "feeding the poor" should or should not be done. Contrast this to nations where Islamic thought is persistent, they receive far more food, medical, educational, and financial aid provided by Capitalistic nations. Suggesting that "feeding the poor" "will not happen in response to... God" on page 3 in a Capitalistic economy is complete rubbish. The largest international aid organizations in North America, for example, are tied to people who follow an obligation by their God. The fourth suggested flaw in Capitalism has to deal with "the importance of distribution of wealth to satisfy the needs" - to discuss "distribution of wealth" is to completely misunderstand Capitalism! This is a central point, to what the author described early in his article as "Socialism collapsed... complete failure, and hence will not be the subject of this talk." Capitalism is about the freedom to create and accumulate wealth through the actions of individuals. This creation happens when someone grows a fig on their vine and sells it. A crippled person may sell his or her time to baby sit a neighbor child. An elderly person may teach history to many, so the many do not suffer the same mistakes of the elders peers. Every person has value and potentially greater value in a society and that value grows with societal interaction. As the value of an individual grows in a society, the gross domestic product of that society grows. The view that an economy is based upon limited wealth distribution is Socialism and creates poverty while the view that every individual has value and even greater potential value is

senseinu

Well, my friend what u explained is what I had in mind but detailed..Thanks for making my point clearer...Stay in Peace

psikostikus

A'skum my brother, In Islam economics system there's no such a view or part of the system that you can easily said that 'it's socialistic' or 'it's capitalistic'.Islam taking care such both idea and problem that arise within those.While Islam allowing people to gain wealth out of his economy activity with such a freedom, but in the same time forbidden them from such a cheating or doing riba' and manipulating the market for their own greed sake.In the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), there's a law that prevent the people in the market to gain profit unjusticely, that's mean a certain law (syari'ah) has been implies to control the market price from being manipulating by those greed 'capitalist'. Keep it in mind that a 'free market' system according to syari'ah is not the same in what most of the people or libertarians have in mind.The freedom in Islamic economics come with a great responsibility or 'amanah', whether it's a responsibility toward Allah's 'amanah' or a responsibility towards human kind.It is true that in the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) people in the market are allowed to set a price according to their supply and demand.But within a 'supply and demand' itself there's a law (syari'ah) that forbidden them from cheating and manipulating the deal between traders and buyers. Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab implied a 'fixed price' law at his ruling term because at his time he's dealing with a wider scope of economy activity as more and more traders and dealers came to Madinah as a result of the growth of Islam's reign. I might be wrong upon stating in this matter and perhaps if there's one, please correct me. W'salam

senseinu

Dude I guess Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) allowed buying and selling with the prices the seller want according to the supply and demand But Omar Ibn Al Khattab (One of the prophet close friends) inflicted at his ruling term fixed prices of the market according to the middle class affordability (To prevent the diminish of the middle class which is socialistic)