In the divine system every individual keeps only what he needs!!

[Ismail]

Salaam.

The point is, when we are going to organize people to solve a certain problem, or to achieve something, like governing a province, how can we ensure that the members of our organization are God-fearing or not?

No doubt, the tag of being Muslims will already be there, howsoever. What is the litmus test to know that a group of Muslims are not like their usual disorganized lot, with all the outward signs of an organized entity?

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

[optimist]

Salaam.

The point is, when we are going to organize people to solve a certain problem, or to achieve something, like governing a province, how can we ensure that the members of our organization are God-fearing or not?

The answer is simple...The instruction to organize and collectively solve the problems is directed to only God fearing people....

[optimist]

The point is, when we are going to organize people to solve a certain problem, or to achieve something, like governing a province, how can we ensure that the members of our organization are God-fearing or not?

Just to make a comment differently (actually I feel clarity problem in your question), let me state that in order to solve a certain problem in an organized way, it is not necessary every member in the organisation to be God-fearing.  If we entrust the duty to people who are capable to carry out the task with sufficient authority, it is possible to solve the problem.

For instance, we have good example from prophet Yousuf when the King entrused prophet Yousuf to take care of the enonomy for the upcoming 7 difficult years.   Prophet Yousuf said: 'Appoint me over the treasures of the land, for I am a good keeper, and possessed of knowledge of these matters"(12:55).   This incident is also connected to the topic of the discussion because all lands and its resources were used collectively (without allowing people to monopolise the land and it resources).   

Regards,
Optimist

[Ismail]

Salaam.

You said regarding Nabi Yusuf (taking over the administration of the treasures of the country):

 "This incident is also connected to the topic of the discussion because all lands and its resources were used collectively (without allowing people to monopolize the land and it resources)."

After all, it was a state of grave emergency, when any government worth the name can legitimately suspend the citizen's rights and freedoms if the situation calls for it.

Even so, in the narrative of Sura Yusuf, there is no clear evidence that such suspension occurred, let alone abolition of land ownership rights for ever.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

[optimist]

Salaam.

You said regarding Nabi Yusuf (taking over the administration of the treasures of the country):

 "This incident is also connected to the topic of the discussion because all lands and its resources were used collectively (without allowing people to monopolize the land and it resources)."

After all, it was a state of grave emergency, when any government worth the name can legitimately suspend the citizen's rights and freedoms if the situation calls for it.

Even so, in the narrative of Sura Yusuf, there is no clear evidence that such suspension occurred, let alone abolition of land ownership rights for ever.

(Before talking about suspension occurred and temporary abolition of land ownership) firstly you may kindly prove that the land and its resources were owned by the people, instead of the state (the kingdom).

[Ismail]

Salaam.

After all, it was a state of grave emergency, when any government worth the name can legitimately suspend the citizen's rights and freedoms if the situation calls for it.

That means, if the situation calls for abolition of land ownership rights, then the government will take recourse to that.

It neither means that land and its resources were owned by their legitimate owners, nor that the government had nationalized it.

I mean that there is no proof that before, during, or after Nabi Yusuf took over, ownership of land or its resources was abolished. Nor even that just to tide over the grave situation, the  government took over all the land and it's resources temporarily.

This is in reply to your contention that all lands and its resources were used collectively (without allowing people to monopolise the land and it resources).

(Bold letters by Optimist, January 22, 01:02:08 PM.)

The moot question, throughout this thread has been, whether private ownership of unspecified amount of wealth or unspecified area of land is allowed in the Qur'an, any revolution or evolution notwithstanding. 

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

[optimist]

Dear Ismail,  Assalamu alaikum

I kindly request you to focus on your statements since I notice there is no consistency in your statements

After all, it was a state of grave emergency, when any government worth the name can legitimately suspend the citizen's rights and freedoms if the situation calls for it.

Citizen's rights were suspended is just your assumption.  For this you have to prove first all citizen's were holding the land and its resources in their individual capacity and suddenly because of grave emergency the rights were taken away.

That means, if the situation calls for abolition of land ownership rights, then the government will take recourse to that.

May I deduct from your above statement the following;

It shall be the decision of the government to decide whether land ownership should be given to individuals or to be taken out from them to bring it under overall administrative control of the state, based on different circumstances.   This stand is closer (closer only) to what I have been posting under this thread.  My case is that under any circumstances, an Islamic state will give ownership of lands to individuals.

It neither means that land and its resources were owned by their legitimate owners, nor that the government had nationalized it.

Not a logical statement.  If the land and the resources were not owned by the individuals (it is implied in your above statement there is no evidence for this), since there was a state (kingdom) in existence (this is a fact), by default, all lands and its resources were owned by the state (kingdom).  This is simple common sense.

I mean that there is no proof that before, during, or after Nabi Yusuf took over, ownership of land or its resources was abolished. Nor even that just to tide over the grave situation, the  government took over all the land and it's resources temporarily.

Again, before you to talk about abolition, you have to prove first the ownership was with individuals.   To tide over of the grave situation is just your justification and that is the reason why I mentioned the word "temporarily" (because based on your logic, naturally, once the grave situation is over, the state has no reason to keep it under its control.  The land and its resources should be reverted back to individuals).   

However, my contention is that land and its resources were never under individual control at any point of time during prophet Yousuf's time and therefore, there was no issue of suspending or abolishing any individual rights.   Prophet Yousuf was entrusted with the responsibility to tide over the issue, being a trustworthy person, expert, and as a person who was completely aware about all circumstances.

Regards
Optimist

[Ismail]

Salaam.

You said:

"My case is that under any circumstances, an Islamic state will give ownership of lands to individuals."

I said in my last post:

"The moot question, throughout this thread has been, whether private ownership of unspecified amount of wealth or unspecified area of land is allowed in the Qur'an, any revolution or evolution notwithstanding."

Please clarify, so that I may not stray.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.


   

[optimist]

Salaam.

You said:

"My case is that under any circumstances, an Islamic state will give ownership of lands to individuals."

I said in my last post:

"The moot question, throughout this thread has been, whether private ownership of unspecified amount of wealth or unspecified area of land is allowed in the Qur'an, any revolution or evolution notwithstanding."

Please clarify, so that I may not stray.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

Wassalam,

Your above comment make me think about someone who after reading Ramayana from beginning till end, still asked someone to clarify who is Sita to Raman.  You may kindly read just my initial post.   Also, I have explained repeatedly at several places about different stages through which an Islamic society moves forward, though the Quran has stipulated certain laws to cater to the needs of certain circumstances,  in the final stage,  when an Islamic state is fully established, every individual works to full capacity, but keeps only what he needs, whilst leaving the remainder of his earnings open for the benefit of society under the administration of the state and at this stage the administration takes up the responsibility of ensuring that sustenance reaches each and every member of society. My case has been all along that under Islamic state lands and its resources shall be under the collective administration of the state and there is no question of permitting people to hoard or to save wealth under individual capacity (except under collective administration by the state).

Anyhow, you said: "if the situation calls for abolition of land ownership rights, then the government will take recourse to that".   As you aware, in a country like India;

1. Majority of the people live in poverty and find it difficult to meet their needs
2. As under any capitalist system, the wealth is concentrated among few individuals
3. The land and it resources are getting accumulated by rich individuals (due to this reason the price increase is more than 10 to 15 times in the last 5 years alone at many places).  And it has now become impossible for majority of people to buy even 5 cents of land for building a house for themselves and their families.

This is a grave situation the people are going through.  The moot question: Will the state be justified if it abolishes private ownership on lands if it is established that this as an appropriate solution under the above circumstances?

Regards,
Optimist

[Ismail]

Salaam.

The fellow was not focusing on the moral aspects of the great epic. Like the following academic stuff:

"...Then of course there is the Jain Ramayana, which other than following the rough outline of Valmiki’s is an entirely independent work. The Thai Ramayana differs greatly from the Indonesian one, not just in what it says but in its story line, and both are very different from Valmiki’s. And when I say different, I mean really different. In one version Ravana is the hero, not Rama. In some versions Sita is Rama’s sister, not his wife. The Malay Ramayana, Hikayat Seri Rama, and the Lao version, Phra Lak Phra Lam, make Lakshmana the hero and Rama his sidekick." Quote from:

http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Ramayana

The bane of my country is the all pervading corruption, and not at all, ownership of lands, or saving of money in banks.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

 

[optimist]

Salaam.

The fellow was not focusing on the moral aspects of the great epic. Like the following academic stuff:

"...Then of course there is the Jain Ramayana, which other than following the rough outline of Valmiki’s is an entirely independent work. The Thai Ramayana differs greatly from the Indonesian one, not just in what it says but in its story line, and both are very different from Valmiki’s. And when I say different, I mean really different. In one version Ravana is the hero, not Rama. In some versions Sita is Rama’s sister, not his wife. The Malay Ramayana, Hikayat Seri Rama, and the Lao version, Phra Lak Phra Lam, make Lakshmana the hero and Rama his sidekick." Quote from:

http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Ramayana

It is not required to do deep investigation dear Ismail.  What I stated is generally used as a proverb.

The bane of my country is the all pervading corruption, and not at all, ownership of lands, or saving of money in banks.

Do you know if private ownership on lands is taken away and if people can not save or hoard money in banks, there will be no corruption (because it would be impossible for those involved in corruption to keep the money they illegally earn).   It is private ownership on lands and the permissibility to save and hoard money that facilitate people to do corruption.  If there rights are taken away, there will be no corruption in teh society.  I hope you still believe  "if the situation calls for abolition of land ownership rights, then the government will take recourse to that".

Regards,
Optimist

[Ismail]

Salaam.

A corrupt society produces corrupt administrators only.

A decent society brings up decent administrators.

A decent society needs no curbs on their God given freedom to earn and save. They will never be oblivious of their duties to their society.

The corruption-free government's only duty is to organize the delivery of only that portion of the general welfare, which is beyond the scope of individuals.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

[optimist]

The corruption-free government's only duty is to organize the delivery of only that portion of the general welfare, which is beyond the scope of individuals.

Salaam,

You are desperately trying to dilute the role of government.  I challenge you to list down to me examples which can be handled in an efficient manner (for the purpose of promoting general welfare) that are within the scope of individuals. Please also list down examples that are beyond the scope of individuals and has to be handled by a government.  I will wait for the two lists. OK 

Let me staste in brief the responsibilities of an Islamic government;

1. Provision of Basic Necessities of Life :-  It is primary duty of the Islamic state that it should provide the basic necessities of life like, food, clothing, shelter and education to every citizen living in the country.

2. Enforcement of Islamic Law :- It is the duty of the state it should enforce the laws of Shariah.

3. Ensuring social and economic justice, It is the duty of the Islamic State that it should provide equal chances of employment and economic development to all the people irrespective of colour and caste.

4. Social Security :-  Islamic state must provide, the security of life and property. There should be peace and property.  The state shall be responsible for maintaining law and order in the country.

5. Social Justice :- It is the duty of the state to make full utilization of economic resources for the economic welfare of the people. Social justice must be provided.

6. Full utilization of resources  & Stability in the Price Level :- The state is responsible to maintain stable prices in the country. In this regard a government can frame a fiscal and monetary policy to control inflation.

7.  Protection of the state from outside and inside enemies.

8.  Harmonious .relations with other countries.

Basic Human Rights an Islamic government shall be responsible for

1. Every human child is equally worthy of respect, thus on account of one's genesis there can be no discrimination; there is no difference between one man and the other: (17:70)

2. In the Islamic Social Order, criterion of determining status of its people shall be their personal deeds and merit: (46:19)

3. No human being can be subservient to another. Nobody can have the right to rule other people (3:78)

4. None shall seize the labour of another person by force, every worker shall get the full recompense of his labour; (39:70)

5. Everyone shall be treated justly: (16:90)

6. Not only justice, if someone lags behind in spite of his best efforts, his deficiency has to be made good by
others to restore the disturbed balance in society. That is called 'Ihsaan'. That is why it is said: (70:24-
25) "Those who are indigents or are incapacitated, have a recognised right in the wealth of society".

7. The right of sustenance: To provide means of sustenance to every individual is the responsibility of the system raised on Divine Injunctions: (6:152).

8. Security and safety of life.

9. Protection of Wealth.

10. Protection of dwellings.

11. Protection of chastity.

12. Protection of aesthetics. It means the right to satisfy one's taste for the beauties of this life remaining within
the limits of the law.

13. Right of the freedom of religion.

14. Right of redress of grievances to the oppressed.

15. The right of a person not to bear the burden of another.

Regards,
Optimist

[AbbsRay]

Salaam Optimist,

Can you clarify more about this, that it is the duty of the State to enforce of Islamic laws of the Sharia.  Are you talking from the Quran perspective on what Allah asks us to do or on what Islamic States should do?

[optimist]

Salaam Optimist,

Can you clarify more about this, that it is the duty of the State to enforce of Islamic laws of the Sharia.  Are you talking from the Quran perspective on what Allah asks us to do or on what Islamic States should do?

Wa'saalam

We all know any law which is not backed by force is no more than pious advice.  Law must be enforced if the social order is to be maintained.  For this, the power vested in the state/ authority should be used to maintain law and order and as a defense against those who threaten its independence.  The Quran says;

"Make ready for your opponents all you can of armed forces and of horses tethered, that thereby you may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others beside whom you know not". (8:60).

The Quran, therefore, is in favor of the state maintaining sufficient power to enforce its laws. The state should not use its power to oppress the weaker nations. It should use its power to create conditions in which the way of life ordained by Allah can be followed.

Surah Hadeed says in this context: that "Allah sent the prophets and sent the Holy Books with them" and then Allah goes on to state that He also sent IRON (the sword) too; It means that a society will be established in which Quranic laws will be implemented: this force has been symbolized by the sword (Iron): the force that is responsible for enforcing adl (justice) in this world and the force which could be used against the destructive forces of evil.   This is what a true Quranic system is: i.e. the code of permanent laws from God (the al-kitaab) and a system in order to establish this code. About IRON it is said: feehi baasun shadeeduw wa manafi-ul lin naas: 57:25 meaning its strength does away with the forces or elements which create chaos and disharmony in the society: and thus its strength is for benefit of man. 

Note: By stating The Quran and The sword together it does not mean that the Quran should be made acceptable on the basis of the sword.

Regards,
Optimist