Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Social security in an islamic state

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Re: Social security in an islamic state

    Originally posted by aynina View Post
    Brother [MENTION=62710]Abu Kamel[/MENTION] i honestly think ur not making any sense

    You didnt give a solution how to take care of the people living under the state
    I think I offered some example, without just listing "social welfare" concepts in Islam.

    You asked for how Islam addresses social welfare programs, but you don't show you understand the origin and reason for these programs, nor do you show understanding of how Islam differs from Liberalism. So in a few words, I attempted to provide answers when in reality it should take hours to get one up to speed.

    It is an fundamentally different approach, not just a different set of policies.

    Do you know who Keynes and the Fabians are?
    Allahumma, aranee al haqqu haqqan wa arzuqnee itiba`ahu, wa aranee al baatilu baatilaan wa arzuqnee ijtinaabahu.Oh Allah! show us the truth as true, and inspire us to follow it. Show us falsehood as falsehood, and inspire us to abstain from it.
    " Do you know what destroys Islam? A mistake made by a scholar, the argument of a hypocrite in writing and the ruling of leaders who wish for people to stray

    Comment


      #62
      Re: Social security in an islamic state

      Originally posted by Abu Kamel View Post
      I think I offered some example, without just listing "social welfare" concepts in Islam.

      You asked for how Islam addresses social welfare programs, but you don't show you understand the origin and reason for these programs, nor do you show understanding of how Islam differs from Liberalism. So in a few words, I attempted to provide answers when in reality it should take hours to get one up to speed.

      It is an fundamentally different approach, not just a different set of policies.

      Do you know who Keynes and the Fabians are?
      Sorry i mean all i wondered is how a person that needs a new heart will come up with the money to pay for it, how a man that had an accident will probide for his family, how elderly is taken care off etc

      No i do not know them
      يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّاسُ ٱعْبُدُوا۟ رَبَّكُمُ ٱلَّذِى خَلَقَكُمْ وَٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَّقُونَ

      O mankind, worship your Lord, who created you and those before you, that you may become righteous

      Surah Al Baqarah ayah 21

      Comment


        #63
        Re: Social security in an islamic state

        You're missing out so many key points in your calculations by focusing on how much tax revenue can come from low to medium incomes. Consider the fact that the top 1% of wealthiest people own 50% of the world's wealth. 2.5% of their wealth would amount to trillions which is more than enough to cover the costs of providing welfare for those listed in the Quran as entitled (ie the poor, disabled, wayfarer etc). I know you'll say maybe many of that 1% wont live under shariah, but my point still stands that when a small percentage is taken from the wealthy echelons of society, it translates into a huge amount which would be sufficient to help keep a country's services going. Even if we look at a few people in the next wealthiest 5%, they must earn obscene amounts that we can't even imagine and a lot of that money didn't come from their sweat or hard work, it came from either being landlords collecting huge rents like feudal lords, or it came from the hard work of their employees who barely get a subsistence wage whilst these people cream off the real wealth.

        Compare that with the western world, where the wealthiest corporations aren't paying tax, or they pay less than half of what they are supposed to due to tax evasion schemes. Never mind Starbucks or Vodafone, even most of parliament consists of millionaires who are involved in Panama/Caymen style evasion schemes to hide their wealth, whilst your average Joe on a low wage gets crushed by quantative easing that reduces the value of the money he has, government refusals to increase the minimum wage, paying a greater proportion of his wealth in tax compared to wealthy corporations and using "austerity" as an excuse to deprive him of services even more.

        Aside from that are the other taxes. The jizya tax is taken from non Muslims, then there's the kharaj tax which is a land tax, so kharaj would only affect people who are wealthy enough to own and use their land- again, it means the greater onus is on taking a higher amount of money from the wealthy to ensure fairer wealth distribution. In fact, under Islamic rule, if people don't make good use of the land, it's confiscated from them so that others can have the opportunity to put it to good use, so the land doesn't remain in the hands of a few wealthy elites.

        As someone else pointed out in an earlier post, according to hadith evidences, people living under Islamic rule have the right to food, clothing shelter. They also have the right to free utilities such as water and fuel. So the state is already taking care of a significant chunk of expenses. Riba would be banned so people wouldn't be crushed by riba based student debt or mortgages and the only loans they would accept wouldn't permit interest. National resources would not come under corporate/private ownership, which means Islamic rule would not allow a Nigeria type situation, whereby the average people live in poverty whilst a big multinational corporation makes all the money out of it's natural oil wealth.

        As for the welfare/benefits:

        - Islamic rule would provide for the sick and disabled

        - that includes those who are disabled by work related accidents (I'm guessing if company negligence caused the accident then the company would be forced to pay but if it were an unavoidable accident then the state would take responsibility- but that's just a guess)

        - As for child benefit and retirement; in Islam generally it is the family's responsibility to look after their children and their elderly, not dump their babies into nurseries whilst the parents go back to work and leave their elders in an old people's home. Of course there are circumstances in which sending a relative to a home may be unavoidable (such as needing 24hour specialised medical care that the family aren't qualified to provide), but that should be the exception not the norm. The fact that women have a choice in whether to work or not (and are encouraged to stay home once they have children) makes it easier for children and elders to be taken care of by family. There is also a line in Quran which translates as "give the breastfeeding women their wage", meaning there's responsibility upon the husband to give his wife money whilst she's rearing young children (and therefore not in a position to work). I don't know if child benefits or pensions would exist under an Islamic system or not cos' a lot of the onus on taking care of children and elders is placed on the family rather than the state. The state would assist in other areas though such as medical care, or if an elder parent is blind, providing an assistant to be a guide and so on so that the family are not left to struggle with every responsibility on their own

        - yearly vacation: I don't know if there was such a thing as yearly vacations under Islamic rule. I know that the two Eids are considered national holidays and that Fridays are also taken as a day off every week. Beyond that I don't know if there were other provisions for vacation time

        - unemployment benefit: If a person under Islamic rule is poor and destitute under Islamic rule, then the state would provide to ensure that he doesn't become hungry or homeless. Having said that, if he has plenty of savings from his previous job that he doesn't need to be provided for by the state, then he can continue to live off his savings and sell his belongings until he finds another job and wouldn't necessarily automatically consider claiming benefit as his first option. There is a hadith in which a poor man complained that he had no money, so the Prophet (saw) advised him to sell his belongings and buy tools with which he could earn money. The man sold some utensils and bought an axe with which he chopped wood and sold it and was able to make a living. So whilst people would be provided for under Islamic rule, it's haram to beg and it's considered shameful for a young and healthy person to expect handouts rather than work to provide for himself. So the benefit would be considered a last resort after the person has exhausted other options of finding some other way to earn.

        Originally posted by aynina View Post
        With that 2.5% of someones savings? Imagine it would be €1200 a year one saved, €30 goes to the state, how is that enough to pay those individual people (of which many dont work and cant save but also some save more) a stipend, plus pay the khalif (and his assistents prolly)

        It makes little sense
        The Lyme Disease pandemic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5u73ME4sVU

        Comment


          #64
          Re: Social security in an islamic state

          venezuala has the most oil in the ground but thats like saying I have a million dollars in the bank and the bank is closed.

          having the most oil does not equate to having the most money,being able to get that oil out of the ground,refined and to market brings in the cash.
          Last edited by Samsandman; 30-10-17, 04:34 PM.

          Comment


            #65
            Re: Social security in an islamic state

            Originally posted by aynina View Post
            Brother [MENTION=62710]Abu Kamel[/MENTION] i honestly think ur not making any sense

            You didnt give a solution how to take care of the people living under the state
            Not every country operates the same way. Belgium is one example of a tiny country. Everyone country will operate (generate income) that is suitable for their environment. For example, China has lot of people so their main source of income is labor while Saudi has lot of oil so their main source of income is selling oil. Each countries have their own way of making money and the government creates money based on its people/source of income. So in China taxing people on income might be the best way for government to gain money. But in Saudi taxing people will not help because Oil is not linked to how many people work there, so taxing sell of oil or owning the oil facility will give government best income.

            remember not everything in a country, especially large country, is privet owned. government owns much of the land which can be used to generate income. Example, building rental apartment on government property can generate income that helps pay for roads. Owning natural resource of the country will help generate income. Taxing people on their salary is just one small way of generating income. Since there is no specific location we are talking about in this discussion it is hard to determine best way of generating money. Just know that everyone government tries to gain money and every nation has some source of generating income whether its government owned farmland or Swiss owned banks. Some countries are luckier than others but every country is surviving.

            As sister Neelu said, the welfare will be slightly different because under Islamic law people have rights to their basic needs which will be met in true Islamic nation but extra income for extravaganza life will not be supported. example unemployment benefit might be replaced with focus on finding that unemployed person a job instead of giving them money to survive.

            Comment


              #66
              Re: Social security in an islamic state

              Originally posted by Kya View Post
              Not every country operates the same way. Belgium is one example of a tiny country. Everyone country will operate (generate income) that is suitable for their environment. For example, China has lot of people so their main source of income is labor while Saudi has lot of oil so their main source of income is selling oil. Each countries have their own way of making money and the government creates money based on its people/source of income. So in China taxing people on income might be the best way for government to gain money. But in Saudi taxing people will not help because Oil is not linked to how many people work there, so taxing sell of oil or owning the oil facility will give government best income.

              remember not everything in a country, especially large country, is privet owned. government owns much of the land which can be used to generate income. Example, building rental apartment on government property can generate income that helps pay for roads. Owning natural resource of the country will help generate income. Taxing people on their salary is just one small way of generating income. Since there is no specific location we are talking about in this discussion it is hard to determine best way of generating money. Just know that everyone government tries to gain money and every nation has some source of generating income whether its government owned farmland or Swiss owned banks. Some countries are luckier than others but every country is surviving.

              As sister Neelu said, the welfare will be slightly different because under Islamic law people have rights to their basic needs which will be met in true Islamic nation but extra income for extravaganza life will not be supported. example unemployment benefit might be replaced with focus on finding that unemployed person a job instead of giving them money to survive.
              except this is an entirely false statement when you look at almost every khalifa after Muawiyah ra especially the ottomans. The "islamic" rulers had the most extravagant lifestyles that would make some modern billionaire playboys jealous.

              I've noticed that many people like to re-write islamic history in a perfect,glowing light. the rightly guided khalifat lasted less time than I've been alive after that corruption set in pretty quick and was mostly downhill till 1924 when the semblance of a khalifa officially ended, I say semblance as it can be argued that the rightful,legitimate khalifa ended centuries earlier but that's another discussion altogether.

              Comment


                #67
                Re: Social security in an islamic state

                Originally posted by neelu View Post
                You're missing out so many key points in your calculations by focusing on how much tax revenue can come from low to medium incomes. Consider the fact that the top 1% of wealthiest people own 50% of the world's wealth. 2.5% of their wealth would amount to trillions which is more than enough to cover the costs of providing welfare for those listed in the Quran as entitled (ie the poor, disabled, wayfarer etc). I know you'll say maybe many of that 1% wont live under shariah, but my point still stands that when a small percentage is taken from the wealthy echelons of society, it translates into a huge amount which would be sufficient to help keep a country's services going. Even if we look at a few people in the next wealthiest 5%, they must earn obscene amounts that we can't even imagine and a lot of that money didn't come from their sweat or hard work, it came from either being landlords collecting huge rents like feudal lords, or it came from the hard work of their employees who barely get a subsistence wage whilst these people cream off the real wealth.

                Compare that with the western world, where the wealthiest corporations aren't paying tax, or they pay less than half of what they are supposed to due to tax evasion schemes. Never mind Starbucks or Vodafone, even most of parliament consists of millionaires who are involved in Panama/Caymen style evasion schemes to hide their wealth, whilst your average Joe on a low wage gets crushed by quantative easing that reduces the value of the money he has, government refusals to increase the minimum wage, paying a greater proportion of his wealth in tax compared to wealthy corporations and using "austerity" as an excuse to deprive him of services even more.

                Aside from that are the other taxes. The jizya tax is taken from non Muslims, then there's the kharaj tax which is a land tax, so kharaj would only affect people who are wealthy enough to own and use their land- again, it means the greater onus is on taking a higher amount of money from the wealthy to ensure fairer wealth distribution. In fact, under Islamic rule, if people don't make good use of the land, it's confiscated from them so that others can have the opportunity to put it to good use, so the land doesn't remain in the hands of a few wealthy elites.

                As someone else pointed out in an earlier post, according to hadith evidences, people living under Islamic rule have the right to food, clothing shelter. They also have the right to free utilities such as water and fuel. So the state is already taking care of a significant chunk of expenses. Riba would be banned so people wouldn't be crushed by riba based student debt or mortgages and the only loans they would accept wouldn't permit interest. National resources would not come under corporate/private ownership, which means Islamic rule would not allow a Nigeria type situation, whereby the average people live in poverty whilst a big multinational corporation makes all the money out of it's natural oil wealth.

                As for the welfare/benefits:

                - Islamic rule would provide for the sick and disabled

                - that includes those who are disabled by work related accidents (I'm guessing if company negligence caused the accident then the company would be forced to pay but if it were an unavoidable accident then the state would take responsibility- but that's just a guess)

                - As for child benefit and retirement; in Islam generally it is the family's responsibility to look after their children and their elderly, not dump their babies into nurseries whilst the parents go back to work and leave their elders in an old people's home. Of course there are circumstances in which sending a relative to a home may be unavoidable (such as needing 24hour specialised medical care that the family aren't qualified to provide), but that should be the exception not the norm. The fact that women have a choice in whether to work or not (and are encouraged to stay home once they have children) makes it easier for children and elders to be taken care of by family. There is also a line in Quran which translates as "give the breastfeeding women their wage", meaning there's responsibility upon the husband to give his wife money whilst she's rearing young children (and therefore not in a position to work). I don't know if child benefits or pensions would exist under an Islamic system or not cos' a lot of the onus on taking care of children and elders is placed on the family rather than the state. The state would assist in other areas though such as medical care, or if an elder parent is blind, providing an assistant to be a guide and so on so that the family are not left to struggle with every responsibility on their own

                - yearly vacation: I don't know if there was such a thing as yearly vacations under Islamic rule. I know that the two Eids are considered national holidays and that Fridays are also taken as a day off every week. Beyond that I don't know if there were other provisions for vacation time

                - unemployment benefit: If a person under Islamic rule is poor and destitute under Islamic rule, then the state would provide to ensure that he doesn't become hungry or homeless. Having said that, if he has plenty of savings from his previous job that he doesn't need to be provided for by the state, then he can continue to live off his savings and sell his belongings until he finds another job and wouldn't necessarily automatically consider claiming benefit as his first option. There is a hadith in which a poor man complained that he had no money, so the Prophet (saw) advised him to sell his belongings and buy tools with which he could earn money. The man sold some utensils and bought an axe with which he chopped wood and sold it and was able to make a living. So whilst people would be provided for under Islamic rule, it's haram to beg and it's considered shameful for a young and healthy person to expect handouts rather than work to provide for himself. So the benefit would be considered a last resort after the person has exhausted other options of finding some other way to earn.
                Child benefit will exist
                Umar ra paid people when their kids stopped weaning
                Kharag also came from umar ra

                Comment


                  #68
                  Re: Social security in an islamic state

                  Originally posted by Abu julaybeeb View Post
                  Child benefit will exist
                  Umar ra paid people when their kids stopped weaning
                  Kharag also came from umar ra
                  Thanks for the clarification- I didn't know about that. Whilst Islamic rule puts certain taxes etc in place to ensure fairer distribution of wealth, Samsandman is right that several khulafa were leading extravagant lifestyles. Fairer distribution of wealth does not mean it turned into a communist style system and Islamic rule is not utopian (no form of rule in the dunya is utopian) cos' even with Islamic rule, we'd still be in the dunya, it wont become jannah. There were still very wealthy people around and there were still people around on lower incomes as well, but at least those on lower incomes had these safety nets to prevent them from becoming hungry and/or homeless and prevent them from the entrapment of riba based debt, prevents them from the traps of intoxicants as well (most of these things are cited as significant factors that cause people to turn to crime in the first place). Islam is not inherently against wealth anyway, so it would be wrong to point fingers at people for being wealthy- rather Islam is against people hoarding and amassing wealth whilst there are people in their society going hungry or unable to afford medical care etc or that sort of thing.

                  It would be incorrect to call the rulers "semblance of khilafah" as they were still khulafa and don't respond by giving a long list of their errors as "proof they're not really khulafa" because their bad decisions don't stop them from being Islamic rulers. They were still implementing shariah according to their own understanding, even if their understanding was flawed- though it would be fair to say that they do not fall under the category of "rightly guided" khulafa due to their mistakes and misunderstandings. If the symbolic "semblance of khalifa" as you call it were so insignificant to the global ummah, the kufaar would not have fought tooth and nail to destroy and dismantle the Islamic state and place every type of obstacle in terms of national borders, puppet rulers, prevent schemes, hijab bans and direct military invasions to prevent it's re-establishment. Ghar ki murghi daal barabar.
                  The Lyme Disease pandemic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5u73ME4sVU

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Re: Social security in an islamic state

                    Originally posted by neelu View Post
                    Thanks for the clarification- I didn't know about that. Whilst Islamic rule puts certain taxes etc in place to ensure fairer distribution of wealth, Samsandman is right that several khulafa were leading extravagant lifestyles. Fairer distribution of wealth does not mean it turned into a communist style system and Islamic rule is not utopian (no form of rule in the dunya is utopian) cos' even with Islamic rule, we'd still be in the dunya, it wont become jannah. There were still very wealthy people around and there were still people around on lower incomes as well, but at least those on lower incomes had these safety nets to prevent them from becoming hungry and/or homeless and prevent them from the entrapment of riba based debt, prevents them from the traps of intoxicants as well (most of these things are cited as significant factors that cause people to turn to crime in the first place). Islam is not inherently against wealth anyway, so it would be wrong to point fingers at people for being wealthy- rather Islam is against people hoarding and amassing wealth whilst there are people in their society going hungry or unable to afford medical care etc or that sort of thing.

                    It would be incorrect to call the rulers "semblance of khilafah" as they were still khulafa and don't respond by giving a long list of their errors as "proof they're not really khulafa" because their bad decisions don't stop them from being Islamic rulers. They were still implementing shariah according to their own understanding, even if their understanding was flawed- though it would be fair to say that they do not fall under the category of "rightly guided" khulafa due to their mistakes and misunderstandings. If the symbolic "semblance of khalifa" as you call it were so insignificant to the global ummah, the kufaar would not have fought tooth and nail to destroy and dismantle the Islamic state and place every type of obstacle in terms of national borders, puppet rulers, prevent schemes, hijab bans and direct military invasions to prevent it's re-establishment. Ghar ki murghi daal barabar.
                    You had the 4 khulafa rashideen who ruled by Islam with near perfection
                    Then the ummayad khilafa where kingship occured yes true some rulers abused their power but they still ruled by sharia it was still an islamic state
                    Umar ibn abdul aziz the great grandson of umar ra known as the 5th rightly guided khalifa also was in this time was a mujadid of islam and brought back true islam in the ummayad times
                    In abbaaasid khilafa same thing happened abuse of power
                    But still an islamic state under sharia fully
                    Its better to live in am islamic state under sharia for one day then to live in darul kufr for 100 years


                    Hadith of prophet :saw:
                    First there will be prophet hood then there will be rightly guided khilafa then there will be kingship then there will be dictatorship then there will be khilafa on the path of prophethood
                    (The wording may be alittle diff as i didnt write it word for word)

                    But we are on the last stage now

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X