im just asking because ive seen a LOT of muslim stuff about gold dinars and how theyre mandated by divine law or w/e

Hib ut-Tahrir favors a gold standard for the same reason Alex Jones does, to end the global dominance of the US dollar. I would argue "why the hell not?", especially in the case of oil.

A gold standard isn't mandated, but it does help enforce riba. Currency fluctuations are a form of usury.

Edited by mustang19 (May 18, 2013 00:23:46)

sounds like it's time for another trip to Wikipedia for more material!

I should probably stop doing that. As a matter of fact I should probably vary my speech, I'm just repeating recombinations of the same idioms and phrases. But there is a tradeoff between quantity and quality of posting, and as the Soviets said, quantity has a quality all its own.

i am actually just repeating the received information that some form of jurisprudential divergence occurred in medieval islam. i don't know that these qualify as truly polycentric systems, since the divergent dominant systems were nevertheless interpretations of islamic law, while non-islamic legal systems were limited in scope and status. i also don't know anything about mises.org. is that a capitalist thing?

Yes, and you don't want to go there. Mises.org has very jumbled ideas about what constitutes a polycentric legal system, apparently the competing systems must all be versions of natural law or else a "kill all liberals" crusade must be launched to eliminate the socialists. I think that's a bad way to get where they're trying to go.

Under an Islamic legal system there are certain principles which cannot be polycentric or community-based at all. For example, all apostates must be stoned and Jews and Christians must pay jizya tax. This is probably the end conclusion of multiculturalism because Islam will outcompete all other cultural systems due to its pronatalist awesomeness, but a true Khalifah would disturb racist liberals nonetheless.

Note to self: Sex-selective abortion would be a good topic for next week's thread.

Edited by mustang19 (May 18, 2013 01:08:20)

gyrofry posted:

mustang19 is deafbypills

is he really? cause he's actually cia then and is going to remain in ifap forever. so say yes if you want him to go away

babyhueypnewton posted:

getfiscal thank you so much for letting sendintheblackman,

still l.o.l.ing that you actually believed this

mustang19 posted:

roseweird posted:

mustang19 the problem with your troll is that i have argued with actual islamists and scholars of islam and i know that they cite their arguments with islamic legal scholars as well as an eclectic mix of arab and global political radicals, and they are human beings with actual motivations and desires who do not just repeat sean hannity's favorite talking points, what the fuck are you doing buddy?

The liberal scholars you're talking about have reinterpreted the Koran to the point of meaninglessness. For example, earlier someone brought up an argument that the Koran doesn't really permit wife beating because of some linguistic technicality. But there are many hadith they ignore in which Mohammed permits or encourages wifebeating.

Additionally, if there's a widespread cultural practice at a time, and the Koran doesn't specifically condemn it, then that probably means Allah is okay with it. In that case, saying "the Koran never has a position on X, therefore X must be illegal" is like saying "the Koran never permits people to breathe air, therefore it must be illegal". Even if these scholars were correct and the Koran didn't have a position on wife beating/nine year olds getting married/etc, that's because there was no need to state it.

i like nasheeds. they sond good, and inspiringg too

mustang why are you trying to argue islam with non-muslims? for all i know muhammad did have a child bride. what the fuck do i care? there are lots of ahaadith out there. go argue with islamists if you are so interested in this. you keep trying to present this information in a provocative way, as though muslims were all blind fundamentalists and not people of faith struggling with a confusing religion.

It's not confusing, just uncomfortable for liberals.

most people have never read these hadiths, also many muslims reject the authority of all hadith literature. most muslims in the world can't read arabic, much less quranic arabic. you are trying to provoke some kind of "liberal" reaction but i can't figure out what it is.

You're too kind. Liberals ban what they can't understand, which is the reaction I expected.

if islamic radicalism is actually interesting to you, i suggest you grow up and learn about it, as well as the deeper history of religion predating judaism, christianity, and islam

How far back does it go? Creationists say the Earth is 4,000 years old because the reliable historical record only goes back so far.

so there are islamic radicals whats your point? juist get to your point already youve been trying to set it up the whole thread.

My point is that 1) Mormon caliphate is inevitable and 2) Rhizzone is full of racist cultural-imperialists who only accept Westernized, liberal forms of Islam.

mustang19 posted:

so there are islamic radicals whats your point? juist get to your point already youve been trying to set it up the whole thread.

My point is that 1) Mormon caliphate is inevitable and 2) Rhizzone is full of racist cultural-imperialists who only accept Westernized, liberal forms of Islam.

thats some big words. they just like islam because their fans of George Galloway and the fascists are on the other side