/edu/ - Education

>religion take on economic system
>islamic take on something

into the trash it goes. LeftyPol is a not a place for religous nuttery, get out, Adbullah.

>>25781
You understand that Arab people can be atheist too, right?

>>25785
>Doesn't belong on LeftyPol
>LeftyPol has a flag for Islamic Socialism

I don't really care about your personal insults, a lot of people are religious and a lot of Marxists historically were. It's a useful tool to get people on your side. Religious institutions are bad and should be abolished perhaps but until we are feasibly able to secularise people by increasing the quality of material conditions and education (As seen in the more wealthy countries) We can get people to accept socialism from a religious perspective which will ironically lead to it's undoing as their understanding increases and/or material conditions/education get better in the hypothetical socialism is instituted

The only thing that is guaranteed to help advance a cause is if a ton of people from different sides and ideologies are against the same thing even if for different reasons


>>25786
>Arabs can be atheist

Ofc. But I didn't say Arabs, I said Muslims, and Muslim communities. And Arabic, not Arab. The most effective way to secularise a religious society is to Increase it's material conditions/education and a religious person sympathetic to left wing ideals is introducing them to the ideas set by Marx. In fact a few I know did. This is pragmatism in approaching how to get people to understand socialism

>>25787
>The most effective way to secularise a religious society is to Increase it's material conditions/education
this is plainly debunked by the UAE

>>25781
>Usury is a sin under the the rule of "Riba" being Haram, literally meaning "infinite" or "excess" in Arabic, due to financial exploitation and taking advantage of the person.
I don't find this a theologically convincing argument, or at least its not deep enough. Its similar to ones that Islamists have made. For one thing, it doesn't actually tackle some of the key components of capitalist ideologies, apart from pointing out that it's exploitative. Well, Marxism is also, in a way, exploitative, so do you really want to go that way?

> "Infinite growth is impossible on a planet with finite resources"
This is also a flaw of Marxist thought and much of 20th century state socialism. They are growth orientated and believed socialism could ensure maximal growth. Marx and Engels famously dismissed Malthus by saying "no worries there's way more resources on Earth that we'll never run out of it."

>even ones I meet in the global south who are otherwise very conservative and even if I can't make them fully woke or whatever it's good to have people wake up to some injustice at least. Class interests come first
The problem is you are talking down to people instead of learning from them. You have this high minded approach that you know the answers and all you need to do is explain it to less intelligent people. '

>works on Socialism from an Islamic perspective using this same logic or at least pre-modern Islamic works
Well many modernist authors from al-Aghani onward were interested in socialism. There's the Deobandi scholar Ubaidullah Sindhi who actually traveled to the USSR, Sayyid Qutb made similar arguments against capitalism, there was Shariati and a bunch of other socialists in Iran who took a similar line. The Muslim Brotherhood's Syrian wing was explicitly socialist until a few decades ago, al-Sibai wrote a book on it.

In Muslim intelligentsia now there's little interest in socialism outside the progressive wing of American Islamic studies. The other wing (let's call them the post-post-colonials) have moved onto a generalized critique of modernity as theologically and ethically incompatible with Islam (Wael Hallaq is the leader of this trend) but that critique also implicates Marxism in modernity's ills even if it builds on his critique of capital. Modern, secular rationality transforms nature into resource and exploits it for short term human benefit leading to ecological destruction and totalitarianism. This line of thought applies to progressive and socialist ideology too.

As for the ulema tradition, you have to remember that most Muslim countries are secular dictatorships where the ulema are effectively muzzled or thrown into prison if they fail to tow the party line, so you won't see them talking about politics that much.

>>25787
>Religious institutions are bad and should be abolished perhaps but until we are feasibly able to secularise people by increasing the quality of material conditions and education (As seen in the more wealthy countries)
The idea that societies will become more secular has history moves on has been more or less debunked. The idea that secularism is somehow neutral, emancipatory, and the normal state of affairs has also come under fire. Western countries haven't become more secular because they are wealthy. They are secular because secularists triumphed ideologically over their rivals. This had practically nothing to do with economic conditions.

The idea that religious people need to be spoonfed a religious variant of socialism until they awaken to socialism is patronizing. Its also so insincere that people can sniff you out from a mile away. I've seen Maoist orgs do this in places like Bangladesh, dressing up some phoney Islamic socialism to pander to the masses. People can instantly tell they are trying to trick them.

>>25796
>>25798
There’s this common assumption that education makes people less religious and less racist.
It’s been repeated so much that people treat academia as the new religion

the key is to not simply be against usury, but also against profit, rent, and wages. Communism seeks to abolish the wages system. profit, interest, rent, and wages are all part of the system of exploitation.

>>25821
depends on the kind of education

>>25823
Education in general