Mr. Fulcher invited us, in the other thread, to understand the essence of his religion, that is economitism and its literature. But fortunately by mere mention of it, we understand that we have idea about it, because basically it formed the crux of intellectual discourses in the preceding century, which we all have been part.
What remains is for us to understand our literature here with Mr. Fulcher, our constitution, the future world constitution. This post seeks for nothing more than to introduce it to Mr. Fulcher.
Qur'an is a book by God which was revealed in the 7th Century. It consist of 114 chapters. Each chapter carries a title like, The Opening, which marks the beginning of the book and it is as follows:
In the Name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful
Praise be to Allah the Lord of all creation (1)
Most Gracious Most merciful(2)
Master of the day of Judgement(3)
You do we worship and to you we resign for help(4)
Guide us unto the straight path(5)
The path of those whom you are content with not those who incur your wrath(6)
This is The Opening, a chapter with only six verses. The expression, In the name of Allah the beneficent the merciful, marks the beginning of some 113 Chapters in the Qur'an.
The number of verses in every chapter varies, with six, like in The Opening, and four in The Unity. And some 286 in The Cow, which is the lengthiest of all the chapters.
Qur'an is recorded and read like a work of poetry. The rhyme, the meter and the elegance in its expression carry all the character in the work of poetry. Though it is not sang in its Arabic form, but when recited, it easily assumes a tune which the reciter is free to model in his own desires. Thus we here Prof. A.J. Arberry in his translation of the Qur'an saying: "That inimitable symphony which moves men to ecstacy and tears".
Qur'an is believed by the Muslims to be a guide in everything they do. All legal, Social, Political theories should trace their etymology to the Qur'an. It exhorts man to reason and study nature. It's major part speaks about the relationship between men and women, then economy, then rituals, then history, then hereafter, creation and how the past generations treated their prophets and how the word of God found meaning in their actions.
In Qur'an one cannot find the History of Mohammed or how he ran his ministry. In fact he was mentioned by name only 5 times.
Qur'an is purely the word of God always speaking in first person singular. Some time issuing a command to Muhammad to tell people or directly to the people with Muhammad as mouth piece.
Qur'an boasts of being without contradiction for it says : " Do they not ponder over this Qur'an, had it been it is from someone other than God, they would find therein many a discrepancies".
Concerning God it says in The Unity:
Say ( O Muhammad) Allah is one and only(1)
Allah the eternal absolute(2)
He does not beget, nor is He begotten(3)
And there is none like unto Him(4)
Concerning the origin of man it says:
"O Mankind, we have created you from pair of man and woman and made you into nations and tribes that you may recognise one another not that you may despise one another verily the most pious in the sight of Allah is he who reveres Him most"
Concerning women it says:
And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women. (2:226)
Who so does that which is right, and believes, whether male or female, him or her will We quicken to happy life. (16:97)
O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them - except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allah will bring about through it a great deal of good. (4:19)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O mankind! Reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, his mate, and from this pair scattered (like seeds) countless men and women. Reverence Allah, through Whom you demand your mutual (rights), and reverence the wombs (that bore you); for Allah ever watches over you. (4:1)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And among His signs is this, that He has created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquillity with them; and He has put love and mercy between you. Verily in that are signs for those who reflect. (30:21)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These and many other verses. doesn't it look like a 21st century Feminists Scripts?
Now Mr. Fulcher does this sound like an old book written sometime in the 7th century?
Professor Moore, Keith Moore one of the leading embryologist in the world took to reaserch on the Qur’an on verses which spoke about his field of endeavour and to his surprise all what he found did not contradict the scientific realities in that field. In the final analysis he concluded that his careful study into those verses only helped him discovered more astonishing truths.
This Is Qur'an for you. I believe if you would read on your own you would see more than what you hear about it in CNN. But nevertheless keep a date with us here.
Waziri
I thank you for providing these passages, Mr. Waziri. These are very beautiful phrases and it is clear that you provide them out of love for the Quran. This is a book I read years ago and I am glad to be reminded of its elegance and beauty.
You mention that my own religion is economics; I was trying to make a bad joke when I said this, but it is my profession and I do believe in its mathematical conclusions. For instance, I believe that we can all benefit from an increase in productivity and efficiency; and I believe that, using free markets, the world can work together to make everyone more comfortable and give everyone more choices in their lives. This is a relatively new idea, because before the 17th century people generally still thought that all of their important decisions about work, marriage, and production should be made by the church, their parents, and the king. Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” showed that these decisions can be made by individuals and the world will be better off. Using free markets and individual preferences, the society will be guided “as though by an invisible hand” to the most efficient mix of production and distribution. This sounds like religion, doesn’t it?
I know a little about Islamic economics. For instance, I understand that charging interest is not allowed. It’s not clear to me how this works. Is the time value of money not recognized? How can money be borrowed for investment?
While I would not concede that the passages you quote sound like modern feminist writings, they are beautiful and I would like to quote from one you provide: “live with them on a footing of kindness and equity.” I believe that all should be treated with kindness and equity. This was one of the reasons I began to post to this forum. It appeared that, under the Shariah laws, women are not treated with equity. It appears that I was not correct about the Shariah, and that the problem is with a particular interpretation of the Shariah. I make this point elsewhere in the “Death penalty in Islam” thread. Under Mr. Waziri’s and al-Hamza’s interpretation of Shariah law, women must have four witnesses to be able to bring the criminal to justice. This is not equity, since men do all the raping and almost all of the other violent crimes, and there is almost never four witnesses to these acts.
Now Mr. Waziri has provided us a beautiful passage from the Quran that indicates that equity between men and women is required. In other words, they should be treated equally in the justice system, in education, at home, and in the workplace. This would suggest to me that they should be able to receive an education, get a job, and drive to work. None of this was possible under the Taliban, for instance. Nor is it possible under other Islamic regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, or Yemen. Is equity possible under the interpretation of the Shariah laws in Northern Nigeria?
Before al-Hamza starts to yell “it’s none of your business! Leave us alone!” I will say that my “religion” of economics would argue that this is everyone’s business. Labor is the most important input in production, and women are a very valuable resource. If they are constrained to stay at home, or are constrained to only a few professions, that resource is being wasted. They can be employed throughout an economy, and they have contributed significantly in our own economy, as well as in those in Europe. Please do not squander this resource, as your production helps not only yourselves, they help your neighbors and those who trade with you.
Speaking of Europe, we have an Austrian weightlifter and actor for governor now. What an amazing development. California is a nutty place sometimes. Hasta la vista, baby!
Jack
You see Mr Fulcher, though I can easily agree with you that I provided to your examination these passages from Qur'an out of my love for the Book, yet I believe you can reason with me on the not-so-ancient nature of the message enshrined in them. You can also easily see through the reason why I should passionately love my Qur'an on every footing of rationality.
Mr. Fulcher, it appears like all your views of history stem in Europe, and all developments are only a product of the 17th century enlightment. No. Mr. Fulcher, the truth of the matter is before that 17th Century, a good number of the ideas you expressed about living , economics, social, and political are in place or even in practice in Muslim countries. In Islam nobody decides for you your marriage, or work . In Islam there is no theocracy. Clergies do not have control over production. There is always the state and the code of conduct which defines what is right and what is wrong and it is the Qur'an. Just like the constitution in USA today. I suggest you read some of your historians who dwelled a lot on the Islamic world before the seventeen century. They are ppl like Arnold Tonbee, Edward Gibbon, Bertrand Russel and many other objective critics.
In Islamic Economics, money has time value in trade investment only. But one cannot borrow out money and expect an aditional money when the return is made. It is recognized that partnership can be initiated but ones a word "borrow" is mention it is understood to be a sort of assistance that does not attract interest. In Islam possibility of risk is incorporated into Business relationships even if there is no assurance company to take care of that. A bank will not give you loan and expect you to pay back their money at all cost without accomodating the possibility of accidents.
Yes, the passages from Qur'an I provided demand for equity between the two different but equal gender. But yet that does not say a woman should make any claim and be attended to anyhow. Laws are not approached with emotions. As I have outlined in the other post, when we say a woman raped a man, what we are saying is she seduced him. Which is very common these days. Just as you observed that the tendency to rape is only in men. We can equally conclude that the tendency to sublimate sexual urge and avoid seduction is not in men. I think in this we can all work together and avoid the common scenario that brings about the frequent incidents of rape by seeing that women appear more modest in dress, speech and acts.
And I also think we can achieve some consolation if we try to reduce the inequality and exploitation of women's sexual organs of the porno industries. In this modern civilisation women are encouraged to see themselves not as humanbeings but sexual objects. This, by the way they are encouraged to dress and present themselves to the public and in the advertisements houses and upon all the porno industries. I think these are where the problem really lies not in saying she must produce four witnesses in a case like that of rape.
You see Jack in my community here in Zaria. We numbered up to 1949, the children, the youth and the old. Among this population is 128 studying in various tatiary institutions of learning across the country, of this 128, 57 are women.
And all the ladies you are seeing here on this board are a product of Islamic culture, even the recent Nobel Prize Winner on peace, the lady from Iran is a product of Islamic culture, where is this gender sensitivity you are talking about.
You see, I came from my lawyer this morning - because I am involved in some court case for over six months now - to type this, the lawyer is a woman. The judge who is handling the case is also is a woman. And my younger sister - 18 years old- is a second year student of law in our university here.
You see, when you speak about this gender sensitivity I begin to wonder whether you should try to get information from the native of these countries not only rely on the much you here from your media. There is a battle of Ideology that is going on and I think you should take that in to account in every conclusion you are making regarding us.
Arnold is your governor but what is it you are doing about his attitude towards women. I am afraid he may attempt to cajole some of his cohorts up there into making it a law in California. That one is free to harrass a woman ;D
jack fulcher. time value of money isnt recognised cos d lender doesnt take any risk. if u lend me money at 5% n i lose, u can still take me to court. in islamic economic theory there r things like mudarraba n shirkat-e-enan (they r basically equal share of risk n profit)i.e. if i make a 5% profit, we share it according to d proportion of ur contribution. so also if i lose.
about inputs n labor. well muslims believe that this world is a workplace for retirement either in heaven or hell. d quran n hadith r d workers' handbooks. there has been some debate about d interpretation of d quran. read up d debates b/w asharites n mutazilites. i recommend malise ruthven's "islam in d world."
this goes out to jack fulcher:
how comes that the so often cited free world with a free trade is still denying those rights to the poor countries? some nations led by african leaders claimed equal economic rights on the cancun meeting, but the wto denied it to them. african countries are still not freed from "protection taxes" that are put on their products when they want to import to the developped countries. those nations help the local farmers to produce loads of uneconomic exceeds with subventions, that make it impossible to sell acricultural products to those nations. african leaders did NOT ask for charity, all they demanded was the right to participate in a free trade.
its just too much nasty pretention going on. if economic is your "religion" (or at least the most important thing for you) than satan is your ruler. we all get what god almighty reserved for us, so there is no need to run for that money and be greedy. god is one
Thank you for your posts, Bashir and Maleek.
It looks, Bashir, like the only way to raise capital for your business, in an Islamic economy, is to take on partners (or to just sell stock in the company). I would guess that this would depress investments, since you are asking the lender to assume more risk than under a system that allows the issuance of bonds or notes. That is, under classical capitalism, if you have money saved you can loan it to a company in return for a certain stream of income. Or you can deposit it in a bank and they will pay you a certain interest rate and loan the money themselves, to companies or to people who want to purchase a house. These investments encourage growth in the economy.
However, if the only thing you can do with your money is go into partnership with another person or group of people, your risk is higher since you also assume the liabilities of the partnership. Given this alternative, many would just sit on the money and no one would get the benefit of its use.
I hope there is more to it than this. Investment and growth is greatly needed, especially in Africa.
I can't believe that Muslims do not care about their lives and productivity in this world. I can understand that you want to live in paradise after this world, but the comfort of your children, their education, their health and happiness here should concern us all.
Does the Quran mention Hell? I don't think the Christian Bible does. Our concept of it is very recent, pushed mainly by the Inferno by Dante. The Catholics talk about Hell as a place of punishment, but I don't think there is anything in the Bible that says there is such a place. (They talk about some of the old garbage pits on the outskirts of the villages, Sheol, but this wasn't some Hell overseen by Satan. It's part of our culture and folklore, but there's nothing in the Bible to support it.)
Makeek - If I understand what you are writing, I agree with you. I am very much against protectionist trade policies of any government, especially my own. The strongest lobby group in any country is usally the farmers, and that is true in the US as well. Farmers represent less than 1 percent of the workforce, but they get many subsidies passed by Congress every year. As an economist I am ashamed of our protectionism. African countries have similar protections for their own products, but that is no excuse for us to do the same. Tariffs and quotas hurt consumers in all countries. I think the WTO has missed a great opportunity to reach out to developing countries and help them grow their economies. This is another reason to form trade groups that agree to lower trade barriers such as tariffs. I know that eastern Africa has had such an organization for some time now. In North America we have NAFTA which includes Canada, Mexico and the US. These are tough to create, because many businesses and labor organizations fight them (nobody seems to want competition in their own market, even capitalists!). I am convinced, however, that NAFTA will help the economies of all three countries.
In any event, Maleek, I wish I had the answer to this problem, but it doesn't look like the farmers or union workers will let us lower barriers any time soon. Maybe you can work on your own regional trading agreements for now.
Jack
i wish i had paid more attention in skool, then i wd have come back with an elegant theoretical rejoinder. as it is, i have to resort to real world examples which unfortunately can be put thru subjective theoretical analysis backed by hindsight.
some 20 yrs ago, nigeria took a loan of $5bn. over d yrs, she has paid $18bn n yet she still has a $30bn debt. that is cos of interest.
about rates keeping investment up. dt is still theory. last year, lending rates in nigeria were at 32%. they r currently at 22%. our stock market is almost nonexistent. i grant that there is a bit of ignorance about it dt is y ppl dont invest, but even so, if rates push up investments, ppl shd have realized that there r easy pickings there. i know that interest causes inflation cos it needlessly increases d cost of production without adding value.
pure capitalism has got it wrong by emphasising production n d accumulation of wealth. what about human happiness n satisfaction? i understand that there is even a desirable level of unemployment. unemployment=no income=poverty=misery. how can that b good?
"islam is a complete way of life." u must have heard dis stmt so much that it sounds like a cliche. well, it is. am just going to modify it a bit. islam is theoretically a perfect way of life. i say theoretically cos it is only when living muslims have gotten d interpretation right that d crowing about how great d religion is shd start. islamic law n custom is mostly about justice-social justice. not d greatest good for d greatest number but d greatest good for everyone. that is y interest is condemned. that is y there is nothing like inheritance tax or gift tax or capital gains tax. that is y only income is taxed n capital isnt. if u r looking for d greatest equality for ppl, islam i think will provide u with sound guidelines on how to do so. about caring for our children n so on. i will give u d islamic viewpoint as i understand it. "nothing is worth spending eternity with a blowtorch up one's arse." eternity is literally eternity. n yeah, d quran n d prophet mentioned n described hell. it doesnt sound nice. d devil isnt in charge, he is also being punished.
to tell you how twisted the world bank system is: it should help to develop countries through credits, but the negative budget of the us in ONE year is higher than the depts of ALL africa together! it is no wonder that with the almost non existing investments in africa we cant build up our future. european companies start to settle in africa just now.
americans just used and abused the cheap labour in asia and mexico, europeans followed that example; africa was long time excluded from any kind of development.
the development you can see today in africa is archieved more through self-devolopment than through the aid of europe. since africans travel in masses overseas to hustle for their families you can notice a huge boost of local economies.
today we have to say that the real reason for poverty in africa is NOT corruption or wars, but the steady exclusion from the world economy.
I think Bashir is doing some good job about this economics thing here. The aim of the discourse is nothing less than making Jack Fulcher to understand some basic aspects of Islam and practicability of its ideas in this modern world. What is most appreciative is the truth that a book written some 14 centuries back provides a premise on which economic theory can be based that can match the other sister economic theories of the 21st century. It is amazing.
Here is an excerpt from Ado-Kurawa's paper that explains more about this economic theory. Bashir thank you for saving me alot of writing:
" There are several provisions in Islamic precepts that encourage economic development. It has also been demonstrated that even in the US, physical factors contribute just over half of all output growth and one scholar "calls the unexplained part the measure of our ignorance". The unexplained part is the moral factor. It has been shown that Muslims could "accelerate the role of economic growth by greater use of moral factors". Economic development could be reduced to "engendering internal change". This is because the desire to grow is deeply rooted in the human spirit hence Islam emphasizes spiritual training, which "should be the highest goal of every Muslim individual and society". The Muslim intellectual Malik Bennabi stressed this when he observed that the important economic issue in the Muslim world "is that of harnessing the social force- humanity, land, and time-in a project propelled by a cultural will undeterred by any difficulties". Tahawi has also shown that "invoking Islamic injunctions in the context of development efforts will release powerful forces from the masses". While Chapra believes "that Islam envisages an economic system that promotes human well-being and a good life (hayah tayyibah) by giving the utmost importance to brotherhood and socio-economic justice, and requiring a balanced satisfaction as regards humanity's material and spiritual needs". It has also been observed, "that within an Islamic framework of work ethics, economic accomplishment turns into spiritual achievement, for the bounty of God is earned by seeking His acceptance". From the forgoing there is enough evidence to show that Islam "provides a strong motivation of economic growth". It is therefore the responsibility of the Muslim elites "to encourage Muslims to regain their past glory, for when they become aware of this, they will make concerted efforts to achieve rapid economic growth"[81].
Divine injunctions in the Qur'an and Sunnah have provided the motivating factors for economic growth in a Muslim society. Islam as the final message that balances between the spiritual and profane "induces growth promoting tendencies by encouraging the human instincts of acquisition, provision, and enterprising behavior"[82]. According to Fetullah Gulen: “At least in this world, God treats people according to their attributes”. Thus your attributes are important. A believer is expected to have the finest attributes that will make him successful in this world and if he abandons them he has no one to blame. He also observed that: “If other believers spend all their time in the mosque but lack believers’ attributes and do not grasp the spirit of the matter, they cannot succeed in worldly affairs”[83]. Islam "discourages such growth-inhibiting tendencies as begging, sloth, the waste of time and resources, and extravagance by invoking tendencies favorable to economic growth". The injunction against begging is contained in this Hadith transmitted in Musnad of Imam Ahmad, which enjoined the believers thus: "Beg not anything from people". The injunction against extravagance is contained in the Qur'an (17: 26): "But squander not (your wealth) in the manner of a spendthrift" and in this Hadith transmitted by Imam Bukhari: “Verily Allah likes three things for you and dislikes three things for you. He is pleased with you that you worship Him and associate not anything with Him, that you hold fast to the rope of Allah and be not scattered; and [He disapproves for you irrelevant talk, persistent questioning and wasting of wealth]”[84].
Islam favors and encourages “growth-promoting tendencies” with injunctions in the Qur’an and Sunnah. For example in the Qur’an Allah enjoins the faithful: “And when the prayer is finished, then disperse in the land and seek Allah’s bounty”. And in the Sunnah it is reported that: “Allah desires that whenever anyone of you performs a job, he/she does it perfectly”; “To earn an honest livelihood is a duty (ranking) next to the chief duty (of offering prayers)”[85].
Muslims are encouraged to utilize natural resources for the benefit of their societies in ways “that are economically efficient and ecologically sound”[86]. These resources are available for the faithful and others as contained in this verse: “And He made in it (the earth) mountains above its surface, blessed it, and placed therein provisions in due proportion, in four days, alike for all seekers”. (34: 9). Muslims are especially enjoined to utilize these resources for improving their life as contained in Qur’an 7: 32. Economic growth is essential for acquiring “the material strength for the defense of Islam” as implied in this verse: “Make ready for them what thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered that thereby ye dismay the enemy of Allah” (8: 60)[87].
Islam encourages Muslims to trust each other and above all to have good opinion of their Creator. This is in the mutual interest of all Muslims, which is an important means of achieving social justice. Therefore “as a general rule, a transaction is forbidden if it means gain for one individual but loss for another”[88]. Some non-Muslims scholars have even asserted that the future belongs to those societies in which the people trust each other and their institutions. Business flourishes when partners trust each other.
The most important institution available to Muslims for mobilization for socio-economic justice is the Mosque. This is because among its many attributes the Mosque commands a position of high respect and love, for it signifies the house of God on earth. “All able bodied Muslims are expected to say their five daily prayers in the Mosque” within which “a divine atmosphere prevails” because “people are worshiping, reciting the Qur’an, remembering Allah, as well as learning, teaching and propagating Islam”. These breed the impetus for “change in the outlook, taste, and aspirations of Muslims and make them more God-conscious” which is the source of strength. If the Muslims are lucky to gain Taqwa or God-consciousness then they have succeeded because “it embodies the effects of many values, among them trust (tawakkul), patience (sabr) and thankfulness (shukr), all of which are important” for moral regeneration[89]. It was trust and patience that ensured the success of all previous Muslim generations of the Prophet (SAW), his rightly guided Caliphs and even our predecessors who established Sokoto Caliphate[90], the largest, most complexly organized[91] and most prosperous state in pre-colonial tropical Africa[92].
The Mosque as an institution especially in Kano where attendance is high even at places of work[93] also provides an excellent framework for achieving Islamic social cohesion in terms of brotherhood and cooperation. This is because in the Mosque every Muslim “is a humble servant of God and tries to respect all others”. In the Mosque the faithful “mix freely and enquire about each other’s welfare”. This “produces a feeling of love and cooperation, for the assembly is like a single family: “And the believers, men and women, are protecting friends of one another” (71: 9). The faithful will ripe the fruit of this moral investment and there will be social harmony and genuine affection for each other as in the time of the Prophet (SAW) as stated in the Qur’an: “And (moreover) He hath put affection between their hearts: not if thou hadst spent all that is on the earth, couldst thou have produced that affection, but Allah hath done it: For He is exalted in Might, Wise (8: 63)”[94].
From the foregoing it is clear that there are sufficient provisions for mobilizing Muslims to ensure socio-economic justice. Also the suggestion that bara (begging) has root in the culture must not be accepted uncritically[95]. Begging by Almajirai could be eradicated with improvement in economic conditions and without such improvements people will keep on emphasizing control as the only basis of security. It is true that poverty could lead to crime and insecurity but Muslims generally can survive on the very minimum without retort to crime this is because it is has been shown that there is less crime in poorer Muslim areas than in more prosperous non-Muslim areas in Nigeria as well as in other countries[96]. "
Hello again. What a wonderful vacation! The air in Hawaii is so warm and soft, so much different than northern California. I need a vacation like this twice a year. That seems to be how the Europeans live - several vacations each year. It seems like everywhere we go, we run into Germans. My wife is getting paranoid about it - "Look! Dieters!" she'll say to me. She thinks they're following her, but it's just that they go on so many vacations they're likely to be wherever you go.
Much has changed on this board, so I will have to try to catch up. The post by Bashir is very interesting, and I thank you for trying to explain some of the reasoning regarding the use of interest rates under Islam. I think that many developing countries have had problems with loans, partly because they fail to make adequate payments every year so that the interest payments become much larger than the principle, as in your example. This is true even in the US, where some people get a credit card, run up maybe $10,000 in debt buying all sorts of things they could live without, and then find that they cannot make the $500 per month payments. If they only pay what they can afford, say $250 per month, it is not long before their debt is way out of hand.
However, we have limits on the interest rates companies can charge. Usually it is 18% per year, although most cards charge between 12 and 14%. The rates you quote of 32% and, currently, 22% seem high. Rates charged for colateralized debt (where the company backs up the debt with its assets) run betweet 8% and 11% in the US. I suppose this is because the risk of investment is low here. If investors see Nigeria as relatively unstable, I would suppose they would charge a "risk premium" of an additional 5% to maybe 10%. If investors look at a country and see its leaders as unreliable or think that it is likely that the country will suffer a revolution or civil war, that will increase the risk premium. Imagine what interest rates investors are requiring before they will put any more money into Zimbabwe. If it is likely that their assets will be "nationalized" they will require a very large price for the use of their money, if they are willing to lend at all.
I disagree, Bashir, that interest causes inflation. Interest is simply the price you pay for the use of someone else's money, and its value to the production process is that it provides the capital necessary before any production can take place. How, under Islam, can you induce people with money to lend it to producers and entrepreneurs, if you do not pay them for the use of the money? Will they lend companies money just because they are good guys? That is absurd. Further, since they can lend the money to a country that pays interest, why should they lend it for no interest? Unless you plan to do this through government fiat, or some form of communism, your capital will flow out of your country. If you want communism, be up front about it and say so. That is OK with me, but I need to know what form of government you think you want to live under.
I agree that production and consumption is not the only thing, and maybe not the most important thing. I agree that family and happiness is most important. However, the day to day requirements of living include production of consumer goods, such as food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and all the little things we need daily to live our lives. These little things are produced by the economy, not by your family or your happiness. It is nice to think that your life can just revolve around family, but the practical realities of day to day living require some hard choices and a lot of hard work (except, apparently, for the Germans who are always on vacation. See above ;)).
Let me try to explain the "natural rate of unemployment" if I can. In order for there to be efficiency in the labor markets, workers must be allowed to move and seek employment that better suits their talents, or that rewards them better with higher wages. I for one have had four different jobs in my lifetime. It takes time for these workers to find newer and better jobs. We estimate that, at any one time, about 3 to 4% of workers are in such a transitions. This is part of the natural rate of unemployment. This is better than not allowing workers to find better jobs, or to tell them where to work (like in China). We have a system of unemployment insurance that workers may draw while in this transition.
Your point that Islam is mostly concerned about justice and social orgainization is interesting, but I think that Mr. Waziri points out later that there are some points made in the Quran that cover economic issues. What neoclassical microeconomics talks about is how to organize production, labor, and distribution to maximize the total wealth of the society. I agree that this should not be the end of the story, and maybe this is one good application of Islamic principles. John Rawls, an American philosopher, has proposed in A Theory of Justice that one way to measure the justice of a society is not how high total production is, but how well the poorest person is treated. He suggests that, once we have gone through the production process, we institute systems for distribution to ensure that even the poorest have access to food, clothing, shelter, education, and health care. This is not much different than the teaching of the Quran, or even the New Testamant of the Christian bible. What Rawls does is quantify and give systematic rigor to the argument, similar to the job done by Adam Smith regarding the emerging economies in the late 1700s. I think that our society has taken care of much of this, in that people always have access to food (through the food stamp program), clothing (through several large charities), and a large national education system. Shelter is available, but there are many homeless on the streets of some of our large cities, but many of these poor people have mental or emotional problems, bipolar disorder, or substance abuse problems. The next large issue for us is how to get these people help through the health care system. Big problem, and I don't think Bush is up to the task.
Gotta go. I'll try for more tomorrow. Jack
Hi all
Capitalism can only work if there is nine poor people to every one well-off one, or nine poor countries to every rich and powerful one. It's all very well for the leaders of rich capitalist countries to extoll the virtues of capitalism to those who are the well-off 10%. Their comfort has been achieved by the exploitation of less fortunate others.
If I may be allowed to put a question to Jack on this - does not the vast numbers of rural poor (both black and white) and the huge numbers of immigrant workers on starvation wages in USA not actually prove this point? They have to live in the same country as very many very well off people and very often its the labour of the poor that makes the rich rich.
USA accepts levels of poverty and impoverished social provision that would not be tolerated in most of Europe which is one of the reasons that much of the developed world finds America's complacent-self congratulation hard to accept.
I'm with Bashir and others on much of this. Huge loans from the West have been given to third world countries in
nthe full knowledge that they will never be able to pay them back. This has resulted in their economies being colonised and fashioned to suit the lenders. Its called exploitation.
However a very large part of the problem of Africa - and its a collection of very complicated problems - is the misappropriation of vast sums of the nations' wealth - whether earned or borrowed -by a corrupt leadership clique in many African countries. Nigeria with its vast oil revenues should NOT have ever needed a loan and until that problem is sorted its no use blaming others.
tnx jack fulcher about ur natural rate of employment xplanation. i didnt know that was how it worked. as i said, i was an unserious student.
it seems we will keep repeating ousrselves concerning d reward for capital. d islamic view of factors of production lumps entreprenuer n labor together. so d reward for capital is not interest but profit. to belabor d point of social justice, it seems unfair for u to lend me money at no risk to urself.
islam doent encourage ascetism or turning ones back on d world. john rawls was just echoing something that had been said a long time ago. islam was d first welfare state. read up d history of caliph umar n those that came after him.
there is something unrelated to this topic that i hav been wanting to ask an american. y do u ppl fear communism so much?
so to cut the story short, jack wants us to forget about what shariah says and accept the western/jewish worlds wish of loans with interests, hmm guys, since "jackey" isnt from a poor country so he doesnt understand what happens when we take the loans e.g africa today is facing much of its hardship due to the imf and world bank policies,
here we are talkin of nations, when you come down to people, immagine how the micro-economy would be affected.
JACK, YOU THINK THE WEST GIVES MORE RIGHTS TO WOMEN?
YOU THINK? YEAH RIGHT! RIGHTS TO SHOW OFF THIER BODY IN PUBLIC,
jack fulcher.
i reread ur last post n i am asking u politely to stop being patronizing. its insulting. u know u n al-hamza hav a lot in common. ur minds r closed. hav u read thomas paine's american crisis or common sense? there is a passage in d american crisis where he says that if a person whose family n property havent been ravaged by d english shdnt presume to counsel others on forgiveness n reconciliation. in common sense he speaks about d absurdity of having d colonies seat of govt thousands of miles away in britain. u sit in ur easy chair n spout ur highfaluting theories to us who have seen firsthand d horrors of western economic theories. what d muslim world n d rest of d world is saying is just for u ppl to leave them try something else. u want everyone to be an appendage. didnt japan kick all white men (except d portuguese) out a few hundred years ago? how did u ppl get back in? cpt perry's gun boat diplomacy. history is repeating itself all over d world, ppl dont want anything shoved down their throats. capitalism isnt d best system d world will ever see. if it was there wd have bn no opium wars.
for right now the western, especially u.s. economy works fine because they are living on the back of the development countries. if all industrial goods must be produced with "regular" labor, the economy would quickly fall into stagnation, and if we take the last step and think about resources being imported at a "regular" price, there would be no chance for the traditional capitalism any more.
lets remember that most of the everyday goods are produced in china, were labour is even cheaper than in africa, which most of the people believe to be the poorest place on earth. we all know the u.s. economy could not afford to have all those goods produced under the same costs as in the u.s.
same for the resources, especially here the u.s. plays the propaganda card of free trade very well --- the u.s. is not a free capitalism market like they want to make us believe, they put a high import tax on products like steel, so that the u.s. (expensive) steel can survive on the world market. same with agricultural products. that a main reason why africa still cant develop, because it is impossible to export those products; the us have their import taxes, as well as the european community.
so please, jack fulcher and others, stop being proud of a system that is described as "free, liberate, etc", but in reality still is exploiting poor countries. all i have to say is go take a look at mexico, i see those relations just like apartheid, only that it is kept undercover.
Hello all. I am so sorry I have neglected this forum for so long. Work is a madhouse in the final two months of the year, and the holidays have kept me distracted. There is much to respond to, and it is obvious that I cannot cover everything today.
I hope that you have all been well and that you have been enjoying the holidays as well. Much has happened in the last few months.
First I owe Dave a response to his questions about Capitalism. He makes several interesting points, and he made me do some research on this. He suggests that for a capitalist economy to work you need a lot of poverty, but this is not the case. Microeconomic theory does not even address the distribution of wealth in the society, only how the goods are produced and how the factors of production (i.e., labor and machinery) are rewarded for their use.
Beyond theory, however, he makes the point that capitalist production needs a lot of labor, and I assume that he thinks that the laborers are paid subsistence wages to keep everything working smoothly. He even provides us with a 9 to one ratio of poor to wealthy people or countries.
I agree that countries like the US are wealthy and that we are a "labor importing" and "capital exporting" country. We have built a strong infrastructure and use a lot of machinery in our production, and we need laborers to operate the machines and maintain the infrastructure. That is why we have several hundred thousand immigrants every year, not counting those who come into the country illegally. In California, most immigrants are from Mexico and Central America, and their presence is most noticeable in agriculture, restaurants, cleaning buildings and homes, and maintaining people's yards. They work hard and send maybe half their pay back home.
Does this create poverty? No. If anything, it helps to reduce it. When I was much younger (when the Earth was cooling), the big controversy was all that cheap labor in Japan stealing American jobs. Well, over the years they kept working hard, saving and building infrastructure, and now they're one of the most highly paid workforces in the world. We don't lose many jobs to Japan any more, but the Japanese are losing jobs to Taiwan and Indonesia. Japan is now a labor inporting and capital exporting country, just like the US.
This is just a natural economic process where people in low-wage areas sell their labor to high-wage areas. This increases the supply of labor in the high-wage areas, pushing the wage lower. It also decreases the supply of labor in the low-wage area, pushing the wage there higher. Labor goes to where it is needed most, and is rewarded well.
Is there great poverty in the US? This is the question that made me do some research at the US Bureau of the Census. I live in a big city, in a rich state, so I know that there are plenty of people who live in rural or remote areas who don't have what I have. According to the Census, however, only 18% of families have incomes less than (US)$20,000, which is defined here as the poverty level. It's been increasing a little over the past couple of years, as we have gone through a small downturn in production and average incomes. However, even this level of income allows for housing of about 1000 square feet, one car, about $50 per month each for clothing, and enough food to support a diet of 2500 calories per day. Nobody starves here unless they just don't know about the many government programs that ensure plenty of food. I don't know when the last case of actual starvation was reported here, and belive me, if it is reported, the newspapers will find out and publish it. Food is not an issue. In fact, the big issue here now is too much food - everyone is fat (including yours truly) and that is a health concern.
My point is that true poverty, like we see in some unfortunate countries, is just not a problem here. Here's an example. When we have had 7.0 magnitude earthquakes here over the past fifty years, we have lost maybe 100 to 200 people to structures falling on them. We had a freeway collapse in San Francisco in 1989. Compare this to what happens in South America or in Iran recently. Their earthquake was less than 7.0, yet they may have lost 30,000 people. This is true poverty, in a country that is swimming in oil wealth. How can this happen?
I agree that Europe has a policy of distributing the wealth a little more equally, and that its health coverage is much more progressive. I wish that we did more of this. However, Europe has other economic problems we don't have. For instance, class mobility is much better in the US. I came from a real working class family and yet am working in an office at a reasonably high level. Just try this in France. The Europeans also have a subsidized military. If the Americans weren't there, they would have to spend much more on their own defense. It's nice to have free money. I think the Europeans have made a Faustian bargain - they get "free" health care and long vacations in return for low growth rates and little or no entreprenurial development. I know that this last thing is an overstatement, but given their good schools they should be producing more new things for the world. They seem to want to depend on tourism for their standard of living.
As an aside, they apparently fired some French journalist for writing a book that criticized French newspapers for their coverage of the Iraq war, because they kept saying that the Americans could never win. Apparently the French are confused about how the war actually went. The French seemed to depend too much on the Iraquis for their oil, and so tried to prop up Saddam for as long as they could. I know that we propped Saddam up ourselves in the 1980s, but we were just pissed at the Iranians. Our State Deparment has been run by idiots for as long as I can remember.
I think that it's amazing that we essentially give millions to small countries and then are accused of exploiting them. According to Marx, exploitation is taking production value from a worker without returning at least equal value in the form of wages. Value is not the same as profit. Value is what the worker is willing to sell his labor for. If someone works for an an American firm in a factory in, say, Indonesia, for $1 an hour and their next best alternative is working somewhere else for $.75 an hour, it is not exploitation if they take the Nike job. If the government says that Nike has to pay them $2 an hour, and Nike closes the factory and goes to the Phillipines, is the Indonesian worker better off?
Good grief, I need to get back to work! HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE!!
Jack
Jack
Nice to see you back., You'll understand that I don't agree with much of your analysis. Uninhibited capitalism enriches a few and impoverishes the many. The gap between the rich and the poor is higher in US than in any other developed country and Bush's slashing of taxes will inevitably result in diminished social provision. Already all your states are virtually bankrupt which in a land of such plenty is utterly deplorable. US will run a long way on the good fortune it has as a big wide fertile country with able and industrious people but it presently is using up ONE THIRD OF THE WORLD'S NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY! It also refused to sign the Kyoto treaty to try to address the raping of the world's resources and the potential horrors of climate change and global warming being brought about the reckless pollution of our atmosphere and seas - with US again contributing about one third of this pollution. America under present and recent administrations is nobody's friend and an enemy in many ways to the rest of the world - which considering the huge contributions and sacrifices America made to the defeat of fascism and the defence of freedom in the 20th century is very sad indeed. Believe me, knowing the huge contribution Scots made to the formation of the US I am seriously distressed watching America sliding into fascism.
Here's a question I've been dying to put to you, Jack.
Let's imagine there is suspected to be a cell of Al Qaeda hiding up in Oakbank, California and perhaps Osama Bin Laden in the same vicinity. Would "Shock and Awe" be employed in these communities, would the innocent citizens in these areas be blown to bits by American bombs to flush out the hiding terrorists. And if not, why not? That was the treatment handed out to about 8,000 innocent Afghans. Why were they considered to be of any less worth than American citizens. (I am asking the same sort of questions of the British collusion with US in Afghan and Iraq).
QuoteHi all
Capitalism can only work if there is nine poor people to every one well-off one, or nine poor countries to every rich and powerful one. It's all very well for the leaders of rich capitalist countries to extoll the virtues of capitalism to those who are the well-off 10%. Their comfort has been achieved by the exploitation of less fortunate others.
You see, that is why I always suggest a review of the whole human history again. The scholars of the 18th century Europe made us believe that the clergies then were merciless and were choosing to their populace everything including wives and the mode of production in the society. That enlightment brought about freedom.
Now as you can see yourself. They have liberated Europe and USA from the tyranny of the clergies only to subject them to some thing worse than that: THE TYRANNY OF THE CAPITAL.
And above all, Mr. Fulcher was not able to dispel the mist by deconstructing our assertion inspite of his reseach and in-depth analysis. The worst thing bout it all, is the fact that he has only succeeded in affirming what we said.
One final thing is the fact that capitalism over the century reduced every index of development to material benefit, as such it robs ppl out of their souls thru' the "monetisation" of every human value.
When Maria the mother of the one time Broadway Star, Freddie Prinze, wrote the account of what made him commit suicide in 1977 she conclude thus:
"Freddie had come to the Hollywood with a dream he believed about to come true. But in Hollywood he stopped being a person and became as he put it - a piece of "merchandise". He was offered a fortune to endorse lunch boxes bearing his trademark quip... Freddie the product had replaced Freddie the person."
She finished by asking a rhetorical question:
.... was all this what killed Freddie?. Was it that the dollar was more important than the human being with feelings and emotions? Was the image more important than the real person? .... If this is the case, then we live in a society suffering from spiritual malnutrition."
Yes, capitalism tries to better the flesh and makes ill the spirit. It is unfortunate. ? ?
Hey Dave, Mr. Waziri, Forumites! I have a brief respite from work, so will make the most of it. First, Dave, I will tell you that I agree with you about the consumption of resources by the US. We consume a lot of stuff, energy and materials, and I would agree that much of it is waste. I drive to work on our freeways and am surrounded by thousands of new cars, mostly SUVs, and mostly with only one occupant. We have a train that we could take, and it is almost always packed with travelers during the day, but I can't help but think that most of these auto drivers could also be on that train. This includes me. The nature of Americans is that we like our freedom and don't want to depend on a train schedule.
We used to use trains much more than we do now. In fact, the train system in the US needs large subsidies just to survive, because not many use it for regular transportation. People just like the freedom of getting into their car and driving there whenever they feel like it. What is my point? The people in the US have different attitudes regarding their personal freedom than some others, even in other developed countries. Many in Europe, Asia, Africa, and apparently many on this board, would gladly give up some of their freedoms in exchange for government assistance in their lives. This is a philosophical difference that is not trivial. I, for instance, do not want the government to tell me where to live, where to work, which doctor I can see, what movies I can see, or what books I can read. Apparently other people, like in China, are not bothered by the fact that their government makes many of these choices for them.
All of this boils down to nothing less than what you think the goal of mankind is. Mr. Waziri makes a good point that materialism has taken hold of too many people's lives, and that the more spiritual aspects have been losing ground, especially in capitalist economies. Yet you cannot eat your faith. For centuries the primary preoccupation of humans has been to get up in the morning and start to work hard all day just to survive. Finally we have started to develop machines and systems to replace the physical and manual labor once needed just to feed our children. I believe that this is progress and a good thing. I do not want mankind to return to a time when most of us were farmers. In the US less than 1% of the workforce is on farms, yet we produce many times the agricultural products we did when we needed 20% on the farm. This is because machinery and chemicals now do the labor once done by people and animals. This is good (even though the children of farmers must leave if they want to get a good job - there's no future for them as farmers). Farm work is hideous drudgery, no matter how you look at it. We should develop the machines to replace this sort of work.
The difference between using capitalism to organize production and using a more centralized system, say communism, is that capitalism just makes more stuff for everyone. Using the market to get the owners of capital to produce stuff for the country works much better than, say, the Soviet system of the mid-1900s. They had too many decisions made by bureaucrats, such as production levels at factories. If you needed to produce 1000 tables, they would be small and cheap to meet the quota. If you instead said that they should produce 10 tons of tables, they would each be big and heavy. Incentives were not efficient and the people had to stand in long lines to get the most basic goods. Someone had the great idea of saying that the price of bread shouldn't rise, so it was illegal to sell bread for more than its price in the early 1950s. Since producers couldn't get a higher price for bread, they didn't produce much, so that the supply of bread had to be rationed by making people stand in long lines. This lead to large underground markets where prices were allowed to rise to meet the demands of the people. It is a great romantic notion that people shouldn't have to pay high prices, but when that notion becomes governmental policy, it distorts production and makes everyone poorer.
So I agree with the objective of everyone being more spiritual and living together in harmony, but I think most people want their material comforts to be addressed, and they want their families to be able to live in comfort and without disease. This is still a far off goal for many in the world, and the question for them is how are they going to address these problems. This is where a free market system comes in. It shouldn't replace your spiritual life, but you cannot use your good intentions to build your roads, schools, markets, and water systems. You need something that works, and I think that's what a market system provides.
I have to get back to work (a real bad time of year for my job - lots of stuff to write). I'll try again soon.
Jack
My wife is watching some hideous reality show, so I have a few minutes to continue my response to Dave.
I agree that the gap between rich and poor is great in the US, greater than in Europe. But this has nothing to do with capitalism, which is just the method we use to produce things. The distribution of the output is a public policy issue. One way to redistribute incomes is to use a progressive tax system, where those who make more pay a higher percentage of what they make. We have a progressive tax in the US, although its rate schedule was much more progressive 20 years ago. Congress has been changing it and making it less progressive. Another method is to have a high tax on inheritance. The most common way to become rich, in any country, it to choose your parents wisely. If you're born rich, like Donald Trump, it's much easier to stay rich or become richer. One way to mitigate this is to tax inheritance (starting at some reasonable level). I remember reading in this forum that Nigeria has no inheritance tax, and the writer was proud of that fact. I don't think that's anything to be proud of.
European countries have much more progressive tax rates than in the US. I don't know about their treatment of inheritance. I'd welcome a better rate structure here, but the political mood doesn't seem to be ready for it.
You suggest that our states are close to bankruptcy. This is not true. We've been having a recession the past two years, and many states have been running deficits, but that's one effect of a progressive rate structure. When there's a boom, we have a surplus (which we ran for most of the 1990s), but when there's a recession we have deficits. But overall production is still strong.
It's true that we use a lot of resources, but remember that we also produce a lot of goods for the world. As long as we're productive, using resources is a good thing. Remember that the world is still awash with natural gas, and there's a lot of unexploited oil resources in Siberia and Alaska. We're also developing renewable energy and, as oil supplies start to decline, we'll find it economic to switch more and more to renewables. (Where will Nigeria be then? Will they live off thier vast oil reserves until they're gone, or will they help develop these other technologies?)
I'm not a big fan of the Kyoto Accords. The religion of environmentalism in the US has pushed this issue, saying that these accords are necessary due to global warming, but I have yet to see an analysis of precisely what percentage recent warming trends are due to human action. That is, all people say is "it's getting warmer," which I agree with. But if greenhouse gasses produced by humans only cause, say, 30% of the warming, and if the Kyoto Accords can change half of this, this means that we would spend billions of dollars to get a change of only 15% of the trend. I'm just not convinced by the data I've seen that such action would be significantly productive.
As for your question regarding Afghanistan and Oakbank, California, I assume you mean Oakland. It was the home of the Black Panthers in the 1960s, so it has a very respectable history of being the home to political radicals. I saw Bobby Seale there a few years ago.
There's a significant difference between Oakland and Afghanistan. Oakland is in this country, so we have jurisdiction and political control of the city. The police or FBI can, using a warrant issued by a judge, search the house and find Osama if he's hiding there. No bombing would be required. Afghanistan, on the other hand, was being run by the Taliban and it was necessary to use weapons to drive them from power and find Osama (who slipped out the back door into Pakistan, maybe). We couldn't just send the cops there, because the Taliban supported Osama and supported his attack on New York and Washington.
I have to say that I have very little sympathy with the Afghanis. Remember that they let the Taliban run their country, running it into the ground, taking a beautiful Kabul and making it ugly. Where were the Afghanis when the Taliban was going around the country, destroying works of art that weren't "Islamic?" Where were other Muslims? The only people I have sympathy for are the children, but I have sympathy for them in any war. The Taliban had declared war on the US, and had killed more than 2000 people in those buildings. People in Afghanistan, as well as in other Islamic countries, fully supported these attacks and gave funding and other support to these terrorists, so I think the war was necessary. I know this makes me a minority on this board, but you should know that the reality is that similar actions will get a similar response in the future. The irony is that Americans knew almost nothing about Afghanistan before 2001, and the Taliban could still be in power, pushing people around and breaking statues all over the country, but they had to ruin everything.
Oops, the wife's program is over and it's time to feed the cats. Hope you have a nice Thursday, everyone.
Jack
Jack
Your reply deeply depresses and worries me. You probably don't even notice but it shows very clearly the dismissive attitude of America to third world people. The view you hold also seems to seriously lack any moral judgement and suggests that Afghans have no right of presumption of innocence and process of law. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan. Therefore all Afghans are guilty (of what?). America is entitled to blow up as many of them as it wants. Is this what you are saying?
I will lay aside for the moment the fact that America set up and funded the Taliban (to fight for US against the Russians).
I will lay aside the fact that the Taliban is back in power of many parts of Afghanistan again as it is the only force that can fight aganst the warlords who control the rest of it.
The American promises about rebuilding Afghanistan were bull shit. The UN and US Forces cannot leave their compounds over most of the country except in convoys and never after dark. The opium production has resumed and is at record levels. America never had any intention of providing the vast sums of money needed to prevent Afghanistan reverting to anarchy. All it wanted to do was bomb some poor brown people after 9/11. "Shock and Awe" played well on television,though you didn't get the details of the dismembered children, and made the American people (or the less civilised of them) feel much better. The American campaign in Afghanistan was an evil act of disgusting and diabolic vengeance. And that and Guantanamo Bay and hundreds of other acts of barbarism sanctioned or carried out by America in recent years is the biggest threat to world peace today. Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. It was all Saudis. Yet up to 8,000 innocent village people who were in no way responsible for the Taliban's rule or able to do anything about the presence of AlQaeda among them were blown to bits in what was supposed to be a search for Osama Bin Laden. Men, women and little children.
You mentioned the Black Panther movement. Did the American authorities blow up whole blocks of flats if they suspected a Black Panther activist was inside somewhere? Did the military blow up villages? Were Black Panthers executed without trial?
Were friends, family,acquaintances of Black Panther shot down. Of course not. Traditional police tactics were used against the Black Panthers. America is after all a civilised country. To Americans only, it seems. I heard a six year old on radio talking more sense. She said,apropos Bin Laden "Just because you want one bad man doesn't mean you're allowed to kill lots of other people to get him". Unless,of course, they're poor, brown Moslems in a country far away seems to be the American view of things. "As ye sew, so shall ye reap" the Bible says and America will reap a bloody harvest (as it is reaping daily in anarchy in Iraq and Afghanistan) as a result of its wicked folly (as will Britain probably because of its complicity in American wrongdoing). Where is Camelot and the America that was to lead the world?
Happy New Year
Well, Dave, I think you're right about one thing. I am dismissive of people who dance in the streets when a building full of civilians is blown up. Did you watch those films of Kabul on 9/11? Most Americans, including me, were not so upset when the Cole was attacked in Yemen, because these were soldiers who understood that their jobs were dangerous. But the office workers in New York did nothing to the Afghanis. There were many Muslims in the building at the time, in addition to the Jews and Christians there. Just what were the Afghanis celebrating? To cheer this sort of terrorism indicates to me that they are just not ready for civilization.
And Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11?? Where have you been hiding? Osama may have received most of his funding from his family and other Saudis, and most of the people on those planes were Saudis, but Osama was based in Afghanistan, he had his training camps there, he got a lot of support and protection from the Taliban, and the Taliban and other Afghanis refused to give him up after 9/11. To suggest that it was all just a Saudi operation is absurd.
I also think that you display a serious naivete when you suggest that the Taliban did not have the support of the majority of Afghanis. Where were the people when they were going around destroying ancient art works? Where were the people when the Taliban went from house to house, destroying television sets? These were not unpopular dictators: They had the support of the majority of Afghanis. You say yourself that the Taliban is regaining power in the country. This is because their supporters are everywhere. Why was it so easy for Osama to hide in the countryside? Because he is popular with the people and they won't give him up. Well, remember that it wasn't your country that was attacked, it was mine, and I have no sympathy for those who support the killing of civilians. I certainly have no sympathy for the Israelis who support the killing of Palestinians, so why should I have sympathy for the Afghanis? Once again, I do have sympathy for the children, but that is no reason to let Osama and his supporters go. If Pakistan tries to protect him, I'd be in favor of going into there with the military to get him.
Remember that the US support of the Mujahadeen (sp?) in Afghanistan in the 1980s was controversial here. One reason was that the Afghanis opposed the Russian requirement that girls be allowed to go to school. The Russians also required that women be allowed to work, drive, and go around without the Burqa. This angered the Afghanis, so they wanted the Russians out. Our support of the Mujahadeen was not fully supported here, for these reasons. This is another indication that the draconian rule of the Taliban was not imposed on an unwilling people, as you suggest.
And I tire of people saying things like "You supported Sadam, you supported the Mujahadeen, you support the Saudis, therefore you are hypocrites!" This is childish. Dave, the UK worked with Stalin in order to get rid of Hitler, even though the British knew that Stalin was a butcher. The Irish helped the Nazis spy on England because the Irish hated the English, not because they loved the Germans. We supported Sadam because he was fighting with Iran, who had taken over the US embassy in Teheran in 1979. All countries have to get in bed with unsavory and despicable leaders from time to time because the alternative looks so much worse. And I'll be the first to admit that our decisions in this area have often been wrong and done for the wrong reasons. However, don't be so naive as to suggest that no country has ever had to make distasteful choices in this area, and that your country has been pure as the driven snow. I know that you admit that Britain has bloody hands, but this is true of France, Nigeria, Denmark, Bolivia, or any country you'd like to mention. The reality of politics can drive you insane if you let it.
Now to some of your other points. If we just wanted to blow up brown people, as you say, we have Mexico or South America handy. We wouldn't have to go halfway around the world. Don't be silly.
If they have some Taliban fighters out in Guantanimo Bay, I say keep them there. They took up arms against my country, and you'd do the same if they did the same to you. I do agree that they deserve more due process than they're getting, but it's hard to convince me that I should spend a lot of money to buy them lawyers.
Opium production is back up? Are you suggesting that we let the Taliban impose their ruthless dictatorship again just so they can suppress opium production? If this is the only thing they can do to make a lot of money, I'm inclined to let them do it. They should learn to produce other crops, and I'd be in favor of spending money to give them farm equipment, but they need to want to do this. My understanding is that they'd rather grow the high priced opium.
As for the treatment of the Black Panthers, I've already explained that we can use police powers here because we already run this country. When another country does not give us access to a criminal, and has essentially declared war on us, we need to use the military. That shouldn't be hard to understand, even to the six year old you quote.
Got to fly. Have a good weekend all. Jack
Jack
They were cheering because they hate the US. As does too much of the world. Don't you wonder why?
I still don't understand your reasoning. The "government" of Afghanistan (who actually have no real control over much of the country)won't hand over a criminal you are looking for so its all right to bomb thousands of entirely innocent Afghans to bits in looking for him? Sorry Jack. That's barbarism and it has reduced the US to the same level as the terrorists.
Why exactly weren't ground searches mounted for Osama and his associates? It's unfortunate, no doubt, but civilised behaviour - such as adhering to rule of law - is sometimes awfully inconvenient. Just as well Britain didn't decide to bomb Ireland when the Irish courts refused to extradite IRA suspects to Britain. Are you trying to persuade us that if some European country refused to hand over terrorist suspects to the US the US would go in and bomb them? No chance.
I am encouraged to see that opposition to Bush's state sponsored terrorism and anti civil rights fascism is growing in America. I know that the core of America is built on solid civilised foundations. I don't know if enough Americans know how little they actually know of the truth and how badly they are served by their media.