Olivia
Online
Muhammad
@Muhamma55910196
Palestinian.
Joined April 2023
114 Following
441 Followers
3.3K Posts
Pinned Tweet
المحبة في سير الدلجة
Do markets fail? If measured against a state of perfect decentralisation, where all of the relevant knowledge is given, all of the capital goods are employed in their best use, all economic profit is zero because entry has captured the relevant opportunities of arbitrage, and all expectations of firms correspond with households, then markets always fail, and there is no reason to support laissez-faire. But if viewed as a process of intertemporal coordination, where plans built on incorrect expectations are dissolved, new opportunities not revealed ex ante are acted upon, where a capital structure is not maintained permanently and is consistently restructured, then so-called "failure" is vital and in fact, a boon.
“Why care about the Austrian school? It is long dead, irrelevant in the orthodoxy, and unrealistic”. I contest that all three statements here are false. For the school has evolved since the death of Hayek and Mises, certain Austrian ideas were incorporated in the mainstream (think: Haberler’s PPC!) and, more importantly, it is the very real view of uncertainty, imperfect knowledge, time in production, and dynamics that characterizes the Austrian theory. Here is an “Austrian” view, then, on entrepreneurship.
Shaykh ʿAbd al-Salām al-Shuwayʿir - May Allāh preserve his ʾĪmān - on the abolition of slavery.
This is pretty much established all over. Hitler was clearly a socialist
They are getting pathetically desperate.
Imām Mālik ibn Anas said: “Indeed, Allah is in the heaven, and His knowledge is in every place.”
He went on to say:
“Whoever believes that Allah is within the interior of the heaven, confined and encompassed by it; or that He is in need of the Throne, or any other created thing; or that His istiwāʾ over His Throne is like the istiwāʾ of a created being upon his chair—then he is a misguided innovator and an ignorant person.
And whoever believes that there is no deity above the heavens to be worshipped, nor a Lord upon the Throne to whom prayer and prostration are offered; and that Muḥammad was not made to ascend to his Lord, nor did the Qurʾān descend from Him—then he is a Pharaoh-like muʿaṭṭil, misguided and an innovator.”
He also said, after some preceding discussion:
“As for the person who said, ‘Whoever does not believe that Allah is in the heaven is misguided’: if by this he means one who does not believe that Allah is inside the heaven in such a manner that the heaven confines and encompasses Him, then he has erred.
But if by it he means one who does not believe what has come in the Book and the Sunnah, and upon which the Salaf of the ummah and its Imams agreed—that Allah is above His heavens, upon His Throne, separate and distinct from His creation—then he is correct.
For whoever does not believe that is thereby denying the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and following a path other than that of the believers. Indeed, in reality, he is a muʿaṭṭil of his Lord, denying Him; thus, in reality, he has no deity whom he worships, nor a Lord whom he asks and to whom he turns.
This is the position of the Jahmiyyah and those like them among the followers of the Pharaoh who denied Allah’s attributes.
Allah has naturally disposed His servants—both Arabs and non-Arabs—such that when they supplicate to Allah, their hearts turn toward the direction of elevation, and they do not intend Him to be beneath their feet.
For this reason, one of the people of spiritual knowledge said: ‘No person of spiritual knowledge ever says, “Yā Allāh!” except that, before his tongue even moves, he finds in his heart a meaning seeking elevation; he does not turn to the right or the left.’”
An actual qualified scholar sitting in front of a camera for a TV program for a restricted time giving out quick answers that may not be digestible by the average layman household has proved to be a bad strategy.
Although it is an actual scholar that is qualified, the scholar rarely has time clarifying the framework from which he derived such rulings and why his principles matter. The articulation is sometimes rather repulsive even.
This is why many families don’t relate or aren’t even capable of digesting TV programs hosting some known scholars who give quick answers that only someone familiar would understand to the intended extent.
This may be one factor that explains why some families started listening to the likes of Adnan ibrahim, Al keyali and even Muhammad shahroor. They are much more relatable and understandable.
There must be some significant change in how Islamic tradition reaches laymen households. Many households don’t even know what Islamic tradition and sciences exactly are. They don’t know if it even exists beyond these quick answers.
I do believe technological progression gives us a good chance to achieve this change. We must learn to adapt to technological progress and be an actual civilization or else we will be left behind in our old ways until we learn what we should have done the hard way.
I am not claiming there won’t be some negative effects and uses, but I do see that it is an overall greater good. I am not claiming either that such technologies replace scholarly work, rather that it should compliment scholarly work and allow for greater access.
Muslim society is perfectly capable of adapting and creating social mechanisms to accommodate for such innovations.
Preventing Muslim society from the possibility of even adapting weakens the society ironically. We need to rid ourselves from the rationale that led to the banning of the printing press
Muslim society is perfectly capable of adapting and creating social mechanisms to accommodate for such innovations.
Preventing Muslim society from the possibility of even adapting weakens the society ironically. We need to rid ourselves from the rationale that led to the banning of the printing press
Coming soon, insha’Allah.
Isnads of a famous narration in which Ja'far al-Sadiq narrates from his father that Ali (ra) wished he had the good deeds of Omar (ra).
Narrations through the students of Ja'far (left).
Narrations through the students of al-Baqir bypassing Ja'far (right).
Ilm al-hadith solves so many problems...
Not only is it the way to ascertain what was said by the Prophet (peace be upon him), but it shapes your mind, making you a critical thinker and it changes how you approach information.
@Farid_0v Not the first time Mohammad hijab makes these vague statements that are then used to attack random figures not guilty of anything.
He has done this with scholars too. At what point should we start blaming his articulations that have been used against Sunnis.
@YeOldeAmel It is in fact historical. https://t.co/s7wUhuX3Vi
A few things to note before we go any further into such a discussion:
1) When people usually refer to different economic traditions: Capitalism, socialism and more, with all their strands (Keynesian economics, Chicagoan economics, MMT, Marxism, Austrian economics.... Such referrals are usually referring to each respective school articulating an entire comprehensive framework and a descriptive attempt to describe the nature of capital, prices, money, economic calculation, business cycle theories, and more. With this in context, it cannot be said in the same breath that Islam has its own system. Rather, Islam does not in and of itself leave us with a comprehensive economic framework such that there is a comprehensive economic field called Islamic economics that offers a descriptive articulation of the economy in the say way that modern economic schools do. To be very clear because later in another point I will articulate something that may seem contradictory to this point:
Islam does not offer a formal economic science of its own.
Rather, what can be said is that the overwhelming majority of Islamic input on matters related to the economy is that it is normative, and NOT descriptive. This is important because given such, it is true that Islam can be maintained normatively whilst hypothetically adopting different strands of economic theory.
2) The second point is a derivative of the first point if not the same. Many of the fallacies that have emerged recently are Islamic authors titling their books with the title "Islamic Economics" but then appropriating the imagined field into an integrated theory that is derived from Keynesian economics for example. Such attempts can only be described as anachronistic super-impositions.
3) While it is true that Islam does not offer a comprehensive framework on the subject, this cannot be taken to mean that Islam can now be compatible with every economic system. Rather it can be inferred that the author of the Quran would not approve or agree with Keynesian, MMT, or Marxist attempts in the field. This can be inferred in multiple ways, such as the reliance of Keynesian/MMT theorists on the fiat standard and manipulating the interest rate such that it works as a doorknob to control the economy. The same is true with Marxism, except that the reason is how property is destroyed, including private property in their articulation, property which generates wealth/capital. Any person who is familiar with Islamic tradition and scholarship historically knows that our books are rich with commentary deeming such as not only permissible, but their right.
4) Whilst Islam does not, again, offer a comprehensive descriptive economic framework, Islamic scholarship across the centuries expanded and discussed descriptive economic concepts, and that can entail many things. They can be seen as their mere opinions, or they can be seen as positions that are derived from the epistemology of Islamic tradition as well as the normative positions Islamic texts posit. Commentary by Ibn Khaldun, Al Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Al qayyim and most impressively in my opinion, Al Qaffal (Yes, the student of Ibn Khuzaymah and Al Tabari. He spoke about how inequality in society is a necessity and how economic exchanges generate localized information, very similar to Hayekian insight if taken to its logical conclusion)
Conclusion: This is a very complex and difficult subject to address and give justice to in a tweet, and I have many more things to say but perhaps I may think to write more later. Regardless, Islam does not provide a formal comprehensive scientific economic theory that can be treated like modern economic traditions are. Rather it established a normative framework that can be directly derived that constrains and shapes the economy, and allows for, in theory at least, the adoption of several descriptive economic schools. It is my opinion that what seems to be most compatible are economic traditions that cater around concepts like decentralized coordination, property rights, voluntary exchange with limited, specified and fixed welfare policies. Attempts to articulate though, an entire field called "Islamic Economics" is a methodologically flawed pursuit that must be called out.
Islam is not a third option. Calling Islam a third option insinuates that Islamic primary sources contain descriptive economic theories. It clearly does not.
What can be said though is that Islam is best compatible with a free market based economy. This can be called capitalism as capitalism is a very broad term that encompasses many schools of thought, some of which legislate regulation and state interference more than Islam ever could, that disagree with each other fundamentally. Acting like capitalism is this narrow term that entails things that Islam would prohibit is arbitrary. The shared theme between all capitalistic traditions is that it is a free market that has private property.
Although there may be some restrictions and regulations, the Islamic legislation in this regards does not propose something as drastic as the articulation below is insinuating. Zakat should not be seen as a tool that shrinks the accumulation of wealth. I use accumulation instead of hoarding because the term hoarding is a very useful word to demonstrate a negative connotation to it. The accumulation of wealth is the driver of economic growth as it shifts the structure of the market to invest and free resources for the higher order stages in the stages of production.
A 2.5 percent zakat on all wealth is nothing drastic compared to what other free market models would propose. Even the likes of Fredrich Hayek had no problem proposing such a policy
Islam is a solid third option to the Western socialist-capitalist scale. It rejects both.
Islam protects private property, inheritance, and trade, but abolishes usury and penalises unused wealth hoarding.
It balances individual property rights with mandatory protection for the poor, needy, and vulnerable.
It also bans sinful trade such as predatory market manipulation (short-selling, price fixing), exploitation, gambling, and sinful sectors and commodities such as pornography and intoxicants.
Capitalism relies on taxing liquid income and realised sales. This targets the workers and leaves the rich to hoard their wealth with 'deferred taxation' in stock portfolios and offshore accounts.
The 2.5% Zakat continuously targets and shrinks hoarded unused wealth which includes stocks (current market value/share of company's liquid assets). Giving it directly to those who need it most.
The rich are therefore incentivised to actively invest their wealth into productive ventures putting it straight back into public circulation which: generates jobs, stimulates economic activity, and increases the supply of goods and services.
This is the Shariah they don't want you to know.
Then there is this, I won’t even reply to this.
I’ll just leave it here in case someone wants to laugh.
I do apologize for the harshness but It’s necessary to make you realize how foolish this is.
When I read “this is not an arbitrary distinction”, I was atleast expecting some form of reasoning that provides us with some fundamental distinction in the mechanisms of the free market prior to the supposed emergence of capitalism. Instead, it’s just a re-assertion of what is already being discussed. Yes, I am supposed to take this seriously apparently.
This is not mentioning how ridiculous it is to make a semantic assertion and then add the word “objective” next to it as if you just made some intellectual insight.
So my response to this is just refer back to previous replies.
The second part of this is increasingly idiotic. Citing America as a case study to prove monopolies are inherent to capitalism is hilariously absurd. No mention of the fiat standard possibly playing a part, no mention of massive government interventions, no mention of regulatory policies, no mention of price controls, minimum wage and other distortions of prices. That all is surely irrelevant, it is sufficient to just blame capitalism.
We obviously need not a theoretical framework to make such conclusions. We don’t even need to cite studies that may attempt to isolate factors to achieve some causal relationship between two factors or more. It is enough to make this lazy assertion.
I hereby award you the Thinking Award.
@Muhamma55910196 @Cebes_ This is not an arbitrary distinction, Capitalism objectively did not exist before the 16th century Industrial Revolution, free markets have existed for thousands of years.
As for monopolies, the USA is a perfect example of how free markets always lead to monopolies.
I’m less interested in discussing the term and engaging in semantics. Scholars after all disagree vand more interested in mechanistic explanations that persist in markets regardless of arbitrary distinctions made between both periods.
As for capitalism always trending to monopolies, there is no evidence this is inherent to capitalism and there are factors that explain the formation of monopolies much better than just blaming capitalism.
After all, academics and scholars define capitalism very differently. I’ll repeat, defining capitalism in such a narrow manner is arbitrary
It must be made very clear that Islam is not its own economic model. Islam doesn’t preach an exact model beyond normative instructions. Refer to:
A few things to note before we go any further into such a discussion:
1) When people usually refer to different economic traditions: Capitalism, socialism and more, with all their strands (Keynesian economics, Chicagoan economics, MMT, Marxism, Austrian economics.... Such referrals are usually referring to each respective school articulating an entire comprehensive framework and a descriptive attempt to describe the nature of capital, prices, money, economic calculation, business cycle theories, and more. With this in context, it cannot be said in the same breath that Islam has its own system. Rather, Islam does not in and of itself leave us with a comprehensive economic framework such that there is a comprehensive economic field called Islamic economics that offers a descriptive articulation of the economy in the say way that modern economic schools do. To be very clear because later in another point I will articulate something that may seem contradictory to this point:
Islam does not offer a formal economic science of its own.
Rather, what can be said is that the overwhelming majority of Islamic input on matters related to the economy is that it is normative, and NOT descriptive. This is important because given such, it is true that Islam can be maintained normatively whilst hypothetically adopting different strands of economic theory.
2) The second point is a derivative of the first point if not the same. Many of the fallacies that have emerged recently are Islamic authors titling their books with the title "Islamic Economics" but then appropriating the imagined field into an integrated theory that is derived from Keynesian economics for example. Such attempts can only be described as anachronistic super-impositions.
3) While it is true that Islam does not offer a comprehensive framework on the subject, this cannot be taken to mean that Islam can now be compatible with every economic system. Rather it can be inferred that the author of the Quran would not approve or agree with Keynesian, MMT, or Marxist attempts in the field. This can be inferred in multiple ways, such as the reliance of Keynesian/MMT theorists on the fiat standard and manipulating the interest rate such that it works as a doorknob to control the economy. The same is true with Marxism, except that the reason is how property is destroyed, including private property in their articulation, property which generates wealth/capital. Any person who is familiar with Islamic tradition and scholarship historically knows that our books are rich with commentary deeming such as not only permissible, but their right.
4) Whilst Islam does not, again, offer a comprehensive descriptive economic framework, Islamic scholarship across the centuries expanded and discussed descriptive economic concepts, and that can entail many things. They can be seen as their mere opinions, or they can be seen as positions that are derived from the epistemology of Islamic tradition as well as the normative positions Islamic texts posit. Commentary by Ibn Khaldun, Al Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Al qayyim and most impressively in my opinion, Al Qaffal (Yes, the student of Ibn Khuzaymah and Al Tabari. He spoke about how inequality in society is a necessity and how economic exchanges generate localized information, very similar to Hayekian insight if taken to its logical conclusion)
Conclusion: This is a very complex and difficult subject to address and give justice to in a tweet, and I have many more things to say but perhaps I may think to write more later. Regardless, Islam does not provide a formal comprehensive scientific economic theory that can be treated like modern economic traditions are. Rather it established a normative framework that can be directly derived that constrains and shapes the economy, and allows for, in theory at least, the adoption of several descriptive economic schools. It is my opinion that what seems to be most compatible are economic traditions that cater around concepts like decentralized coordination, property rights, voluntary exchange with limited, specified and fixed welfare policies. Attempts to articulate though, an entire field called "Islamic Economics" is a methodologically flawed pursuit that must be called out.
I’ll use this tweet to just remind people that many individuals on here do present themselves as these intellectual individuals that engage in methodological investigations into issues but are actually incompetent and not well versed in the relevant literature beyond catch phrases and scattered points you would know of by reading the first 30 pages of a 1000 page book.
And this is present in all sides
I’ve been studying the issue of Music for about three years now. I haven’t arrived at a final opinion I follow but these are some of the conclusions I’ve reached on:
1) There is NO consensus on music and the evidence against it is not decisive. The khilaf is legit.
@LordDiososceles @naaaziiim @Farid_0v You can say it’s unjustified, that’s fine.
You cannot claim it is inconsistent as you initially claimed though. Hope that is clear
A Christian could make the same claim, and I can establish the truth of Islam.
This though is irrelevant to the fact that it isn’t an inconsistency.
Even if I fail to prove Islam, the underlying reason for why I treated both sources with different standards is not inconsistent
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
241.2M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.1M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
112.8M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.3M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.3M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.5M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
89M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
82.9M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
74.4M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
71.9M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.4M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
64.8M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64.6M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
62.1M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers