Announcement

Collapse

Islam Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to Islam. This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.



Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Charis & Sadaqa, the roads meet

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • elam
    replied
    Originally posted by siam View Post
    In South America there was a social justice movement called liberation theology---does the RCC accept it or reject it? if you don't know its fine---just curious.
    Officially the RCC neither rejected nor approved of the movement. This idea prevailed when I was a youth, and from memory, I'd say there was but I would say there was quite acceptance of the neccessity for the movement (often with RCC clergy in the leadership).

    At the time South America was in political turmoil and fascists governments persecuted the RCC and tried to stamp the Church out Mexico, Argentina & Brazil come to mind). So, on one hand there was sympathy for the defenders of the faith, but in another respect, there was sympathy for the militarists (governments) whose aim was to eliminate the excesses inherited from Spanish colonialism. A third component was the segregation policy of the USA, the USA's anti-RCC stance and the USA's support of the RCC persecutions. So that tended to push the sympathy dial dramatically towards the defenders of the faith.

    Things got complicated throughout South America in the 1950s, 60s & beyond. The USA's Monroe doctrine (these days called the "Bush doctrine") caused huge problems!

    To the USA, the policy gave them carte blanche to assassinate anyone they didn't like (whether democratically elected or not) and install their own puppets. Many of these governments were suppressive, murderous and exploitative (Pinochet in Chile particularly comes to mind).

    I must state at this point, that internationally there was sympathy & prayer but no (or very little) tangible action. So I guess we can evaluate the situation as the RCC accepted the persecution on the chin, and left circumstances to the will of God, and the people on the ground.

    There is an excellent novel by a convert to the RCC (Graham Greene) called the "Power & the Glory" that is well worth a read (back in the distant past, at my RCC school, it was a set text for English class). Synopsis: Set in Mexico in the 1930s, a less that admirable priest is fleeing persecution. He is pursued by a police lieutenant who detests the RCC...Here is Wiki's take on the book...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_and_the_Glory

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    What is the Church's position on economic issues?
    That's a broad subject. Could you narrow it down a bit...

    The RCC holds observer status at the UN. It only attempts to interfere in the policies of national governments when it perceives injustice as occurring either economically, socially or politically. At a congregational it encourages the people to obey the government in all things (except where it compromises the faith), pay taxes, be honest with dealing in anything, live a moral life etc.

    Basically the RCC butts out of peoples lives as much as possible (all must be governed by conscience). Judgement is the right of God alone. Meanwhile the Church can provide guidance towards gaining a prosperous and happy life.

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    ---What is your opinion on Distributism (?) pros/cons
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
    I'm not familiar with the tag, but reading through the wiki article I do recall the concepts. I vaguely recall the idea was prevalent in the days of liberation theology, but the very real failures of land redistribution, particularly in Africa, seem to have put the ideal at the back of a very dark cupboard (at least here in Oz).

    The other ideas presented by Wiki are out-moded. Pros: next to none in a technologically advanced societies. Cons: tons. Many of which are reflected in the failures of attempted implementation during the 20th century.

    Oz might be unique (I doubt it), some of the ideas put forward in the Wiki article were old-hat by 1891 when the Pope issued his encyclical. In Oz home ownership has always been held to be a God given right! In my day that equated to a quarter block in the suburbs. Until very recently that has always been attainable to the average worker in the Capital & Regional cities. Elsewhere in Oz, you'd be talking large scale acreage. These days: in most of the Capitals we have run out of land, so property consolidation and highrise are becoming the norm for the metros (those that refuse to travel longer than 30 mins to get to work, and want all services at their front door).
    In 1891 Pope Leo XIII promulgated Rerum novarum...Affirmed in the encyclical was the right of all men to own property, the necessity of a system that allowed "as many as possible of the people to become owners", the duty of employers to provide safe working conditions and sufficient wages, and the right of workers to unionise.

    Guess the Pope hadn't heard about the British sovereign colonies in New Holland (now known as Australia) where these things were already in place.

    A month or so ago, I came across a report from the 1920s written by an Oz union leader about his meetings with Lenin during a soviet conference in Russia. Apparently, couldn't understand how Oz had achieved most of the aspirations of the worker without a shot being fired. Guess that is why Communism never got a foothold here... And despite all this, we workers in Oz still whinge about our working conditions... We just keep upping the ante & the bosses eventually pay...

    To me, unionism is an interesting subject. When I started full-time employment, I was positioned in a management training programme and the union wouldn't let me join because by their rule book I was management (actually a very low paid clerk). However, my employer required me to become an affiliate of a particular professional body (a guild). After finishing my studies I automatically became an Associate. Could have rises to Fellow status but didn't see the point. The whole concept of guilds (closed shop) is a joke on the modern world!
    (in the encyclical]...Common and government property ownership was expressly dismissed as a means of helping the poor.
    Just proves how fallible people can be. Come the after effects of WW1 & WW2, throughout the world government alone could finance the reconstruction. Inflation was rampant...with all its consequences. Public housing is a necessity to smooth demand and balance proprty prices.

    The argument in Wiki's section on "Private Property" is a bit of a furphy. The majority of modern day enterprises don't need "land" but "abodes". In the world we are already seeing the construction of highrise farms and food grown hydroponically. Imo, we have to re-educate people like me with an essentiality of "land" mentality. What we need to focus on is "property" and "skill sharing".

    For instance: imo collectivism is natural to 3rd world agrarianism. The community (often an extended family) owns the property. Tilling, sowing, weeding & harvest are shared tasks.

    As history well shows, private property ownership is a multi-edged sword. When the owner dies the property has to be divided amoungst those assigned an inheritance. Ultimately, allotments become too small to be economically viable. Fields are overworked, become infertile and harvests decrease. Salinity increase and desertification sets in...People are forced to become nomadic looking for new lands, meet up with a "private property owner" and conflict ensues...The scenario has regularly been repeated throughout history...
    Banks

    Distributism favors the dissolution of the current private bank system, or more specifically its profit-making basis in charging interest. Dorothy Day, for example, suggested[according to whom?] abolishing legal enforcement of interest-rate contracts (usury). It would not entail nationalization but could involve government involvement of some sort. Distributists look favorably on credit unions as a preferable alternative to banks.

    To me this is silliness. Banks, Building Societies & Credit Unions are the same thing functionally. The major difference is each has a different economy of scale. All are reliant on collective savings, and direct capital investment.

    Until the issue of direct capital investment is resolved we are stuck with profit (=interest) scenario which drives up the cost of property acquirement. Currently, Islamic (halal) banking has no solution to the "profit" problem.

    My solution is simple: 1. Force the wealthy to make funds available at no cost whatsoever but with a guarantee of the return of their capital. Of course, if I had the capability to do such, I'd be quickly captured and hung from the nearest telgraph poll.


    Originally posted by siam View Post
    My position is that there should not be a single (monoculture) system---but that there should be multiple systems of economics, each governed with their own principles and rules/laws. Therefore---those that prefer to practice the present interest-based capitalist system can do so...and those who want to opt out and find alternatives...can do so as well....(but this will have tax implications---governments will not be able to bail out the "too-big-to-fail" institutions if people are not using such institutions....)
    Wecome to Australia! Land of multiculterism & opportunity.

    Victoria has resolved the issue of double stamp duty on halal loans. The other states are slow to follow because they have been arguing about abolishing stamp duty and replacing it with a property tax (At the moment the primary residence (home) is exempt from all federal & state taxes, except for stamp duty & local govt service charges. Property tax is only payable if you own more than one property with the one state).

    The only other issue for Muslims, is to obey the local laws, and in contracts, demonstrate you aren't attempting to avoid income or capital gains tax or avoid your duty of care, which is easy (legislation not required. Its simply a back office function of the Tax commissioner or the Consumer Ombudsman etc).

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    Born Muslim/muslim---Islam does not have "original sin" therefore human nature (Fitra) is considered inherently good.
    The RCC is similiar, though we talk of a blemish on the soul that prevents God from walking with us as he did with Adam. We hold that only God can remove that blemish, we have no control over his decisions.

    Thus the RCC does retain the teaching of inherited "original sin" but we we don't subscribe to the protestant idea that human nature is inherently depraved because of Adam's preference for Eve over God (cp. Genesis 3:6,17 with 2:16-17)

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    A human being is born with a nature that "submits to God" which means that babies display their inherent goodness as God created. In this context, all human beings are born "muslim" (in submission to God). Once human individuals have the ability to be responsible for their choices---they then choose to be a Muslim, Christian, Jew or other...(at least from the Islamic perspective of Fitra)
    Now this raises an issue that might be a sore point for some Muslims. Imu, Mohammad in the Quran says that becoming a Muslim is a free choice of the individual, and cannot be coerced. You indicate that Islamic society respects the personal decision of an individual but regularly we encounter reports in the news of honour deaths and bashings when a person raised Muslim decides to be baptised as a Christian (?) Possibly such events are an Arab thing (?) I'm unsure how widespread the problem is, hopefully small. I did have a Muslim neighbour who expressed dismay that one of her sons was marrying a Christian girl, but went about organising a Muslim wedding - her insistence!

    The status of babies has had diverse debate over the centuries but as a general rule it is determined that infants are under the care (eye) of God. On judgement day, he will do as he wills with them.

    Logically a baby can't be born a Muslim or a RCC for that matter, but is born into a religious household, and learns submission through associatio.

    According to psychologists children under five are totally introspective = nothing is external to their needs. Though they do have an inherent sense of empathy from birth. After 5yo (later for boys), children begin to develop a social (communal) identity. Interestingly, it is said that the average male doesn't achieve psychological maturity until about 25yo. Putting my legalist hat on: this raises the issue of when can a person be held rationally responsibly? Until after the Vietnam War in many countries you had to be 21yo to sign a legal contract for it to be enforceable. Now it is 18yo in Oz.

    In the RCC we ritualise maturity "First Holy Communion" occurs when students are about 8yo, after this, there is a period of Catechism wherein the student is taught the precepts of the religions, by Year 6 of schooling "Confirmation" = conscious committment occurs. Prayer etc is learned by hands on experience from birth. The Eatern traditions (EOC, ROC & OOC) do things differently, which is probably closer to your paradigm.

    Funny story: when I made my "First Holy Communion", I thought I had been filled with the Holy Spirit and felt special, but it turned out I had a food alergy...

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    In this context I was "born muslim"---that is, before I fully understood Islam (its rules, rituals etc) I knew there was one God. "muslim" is just one of many concept words in the Quran....another is "mutaqueen" one who has "taqwa" (love/awe of God). The other is "munafiqun" (hypocrite). If we are to live ethical lives---we need to develop integrity---and to achieve this we could begin by striving (jihad) to stay true to the path that we have chosen...?....this has to be so in all of our dealings and interactions--it should not be turned on/off on a whim.....but this is what Secular "Modernity" requires---that we leave our convictions "at home" when we engage in the public sphere....
    I hadn't thought about that before? I'm one of those people that wears my heart on my sleeve, but I admit to biting my lip in certain situations so as not to provoke conflict - "discretion is the better part of valour" is the catch phrase from my British heritage...

    Leave a comment:


  • elam
    replied
    I'm going to have to reply to you over a couple of posts...

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    ---Charis is an interesting concept...can you elaborate?
    Loosely it translates in English as "charity" but that doesn't bring out A.Paul's meaning in the original Greek. In many English translations of the NT the archaic English word "grace" is traditional and maintained. A few translations expand with phrases such as "undeserved loving kindness" or "loving kindness" which are closer to the meaning as used often by A.Paul, but still doesn't bring out all the nuances the term includes.

    Imu, the idea has a long history in middle eastern culture (the seat of Christianity). There are examples from secular history such as king granting pardon to a bunch of rebels whose cause was justifiable. Charis includes the concept of justice. One of Jesus' parables comes to mind (Matthew 18:21-35).

    I vaguely remember that when Mohammad has raising his army he as a matter of policy granted pardon to his opponents if they joined him - this would not be considered Charis at any level. Charis must be unconditional, and of no benefit to the giver of it.

    Imu, Charis must be freely given (self-motivated = no regulatory or religious compulsion = a pure act of love), unconditional (no strings attached), just (must be given with no respect to the status of a person), practical (must benefit the recipriant in the long term) & given with no expectation of reward (spiritual, material or prideful). My educators taught me that to perform Charis, you must empty yourself of self (its a bit hard to explain. I think of it as becoming a conduit for God, without being aware that God is working through you). This definition is probably incomplete, but I assume it provides the gist of what I believe differentiates "Charis" from the ordinary concept of "Charity".

    The RCC has often been criticised as being "rice missionaries" but what people neglect is that in most cases there was no direct compulsion for people to attend religious services (Spanish missions, sponsored by their monarch, not the RCC, were an exception).

    Medicine, food & education were freely given without regard to the social status of a person. For the Church, this was an a collective act of Charis (an idea going back to the earliest days of Christianity). For the missionary, it was a personal act of Charis = sacrifice for the benefit of others without expectation of reward, but a hope!

    I haven't experienced "zakat" in the RCC, I don't think there is an "offical" equivalent (though elsewhere in the world there might be an administrative equivalent).

    Imu, in the RCC, the guiding principal comes from Jesus = "Give to Caesar the things required by Caesar, and unto God give the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21). The ancient norm was the rulers provided for their people, in return the people paid taxes to cover the rulers overheads (imo, not much has changed in over 2000 years).

    I do see the benefits in the concept of "zakat" but given the "petty cash" fixed rate contribution by the wealthy, I question its lack of equity.

    Consider The overkill of the Saudi kings current visit to Indonesia. The cost must be astronomical, but heh, he controls the collection of zakat in his nation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by elam View Post
    I identity myself as nominally RCC.
    Therefore, I now consider myself a Nicene Christian by conviction, rather than by birth!


    I proudly proclaim that as a convinced Christian I am a Muslim (one who has submitted themselves to the will of Allah) and thus a follower of the Islamic pathway (submission to Allah) proclaimed by Jesus, who by the will of Allah was miraculously conceived in Mary his mother.
    say what?

    OK explain how you can be Catholic and Muslim?

    What exactly is your belief/faith? You say "nominally" catholic. That usually means non-practicing, in name only. A "social" Catholic. And this is not the first time you have alluded to being Muslim, confusing the heck out of me and others. You can't be both. The very concept of Allah vs the God of Christianity is totally different. Allah is unity. The Christian God is a Trinity. How can you submit to the God of Islam, claim that you are muslim, and still say you are a Christian? You can't. Please clarify or change your faith designation to something else.

    Leave a comment:


  • siam
    replied
    In China there is a revival of Neo-confucian philosophy and one of the philosophers is Tu Wei Ming. I find some of his ideas, in particular, concerns about Modernism and thoughts on the future and globalism interesting.
    As a Muslim...I have areas of disagreement...but many of his opinions overlap with mine....The main philosophical concepts of Confucianism is Tian Li (heavenly order/balance) (Li = harmony/parts fitting the whole) and Ren =Benevolence/Human excellence


    (sorry about the Korean text---it might be annoying)

    Leave a comment:


  • siam
    replied
    ---Charis is an interesting concept...can you elaborate?
    ---In South America there was a social justice movement called liberation theology---does the RCC accept it or reject it? if you don't know its fine---just curious
    ---What is the Church's position on economic issues?
    ---What is your opinion on Distributism (?) pros/cons
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

    My position is that there should not be a single (monoculture) system---but that there should be multiple systems of economics, each governed with their own principles and rules/laws. Therefore---those that prefer to practice the present interest-based capitalist system can do so...and those who want to opt out and find alternatives...can do so as well....(but this will have tax implications---governments will not be able to bail out the "too-big-to-fail" institutions if people are not using such institutions....)

    Born Muslim/muslim---Islam does not have "original sin" therefore human nature (Fitra) is considered inherently good. A human being is born with a nature that "submits to God" which means that babies display their inherent goodness as God created. In this context, all human beings are born "muslim" (in submission to God). Once human individuals have the ability to be responsible for their choices---they then choose to be a Muslim, Christian, Jew or other...(at least from the Islamic perspective of Fitra)

    In this context I was "born muslim"---that is, before I fully understood Islam (its rules, rituals etc) I knew there was one God. "muslim" is just one of many concept words in the Quran....another is "mutaqueen" one who has "taqwa" (love/awe of God). The other is "munafiqun" (hypocrite). If we are to live ethical lives---we need to develop integrity---and to achieve this we could begin by striving (jihad) to stay true to the path that we have chosen...?....this has to be so in all of our dealings and interactions--it should not be turned on/off on a whim.....but this is what Secular "Modernity" requires---that we leave our convictions "at home" when we engage in the public sphere....

    There has to be a way in which people can stay true to their values and convictions without imposing them on others---but allowing others to also live with their own values and convictions--fully, in all aspects of their lives....

    Caliphate---I reject the Modern concept of Caliphate that seems to be going around these days. The pre-modern concept simply referred to a leader whose "office" was a trustee of the people---regardless of whether the "office" was chosen/elected or dynastic. (Islam does NOT approve of the concept of the "Divine right of kings"---as all humanity is created equal). It seems to me the "Caliphate" as it seems to be envisioned today, is a "Nation-State" concept but with an exotic label.... The concept I prefer is that of an "Ummah" (global community).

    Identity---Group-identity is important for human beings (for some reason) and national identity is one type of group identity. I don't have any problems with the multiple group identities any individual may have. But excessive exclusivity based on the idea that "you cannot belong because you are not good enough" (superiority/inferiority) can lead to toxic consequences. We need to accept that we are all brothers in humanity (Bani Adam) and humanity is also "our" group and "our" identity. Also---I have a problem with the idea of a property/land belonging exclusively to one group of people---such a concept seems to forget that the whole earth belongs to God---NOT MAN. We need to work out the tensions between our God-given rights, with our God-given obligations. The right to property cannot be at the expense of someone else's right to life......

    Kohen (hereditary priesthood)---I agree but don't really have a problem with it as long as people have a choice. But choice requires an obligation---individuals must think for themselves and make choices rather than think-by-proxy. (Shia concept of "Imam").


    "How is it that nationalists proclaim to be Muslim when it is obvious they submit themselves to human personalities rather than submitting themselves to the will of Allah?"----
    Not sure what this is in reference to---but will try to give my opinion.....
    What is God's will?----God's will = Right belief that promotes right intentions that lead to right actions for the benefit of all of God's creations (Khalifa/Trusteeship). Human beings interact as individuals but also as groups. We are social in our nature and prone to organizing in groups. The first "group" we encounter in life is that of the family. For groups to function smoothly, 2 things are required, leadership and rules/laws. That is why a Muslim (or any other human being) "submits" to the rules/laws of the social group they belong to (Such as that of the nation-state). Humanity are Trustees of God, not just as individuals but also as a group. Both aspects must be balanced in order to create harmony.

    Leave a comment:


  • elam
    started a topic Charis & Sadaqa, the roads meet

    Charis & Sadaqa, the roads meet

    Hi guys,

    Siam & I have been discussing "Conscionable Banking" = "Halal Finance" elsewhere and he suggested as I have an interest in the subject I pop over to the Islam campus so we could freely discuss the ethics of zakat & sadaqa.
    http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/insight...20000330a.html

    This is a subject area I perceive as having commonality with the RCC's concept of "charis" = "the undeserved graciousness of God bestowed upon us", which we are obligated to emulate towards all mankind (imo, to a certain extent, paticularly evidenced in my country = Australia = Oz).

    To clear the clouds...

    I identity myself as nominally RCC. I was born into my religion, and my evolution in accepting it as truth took decades of jihad = personal conflict. Therefore, I now consider myself a Nicene Christian by conviction, rather than by birth! After much study (prayer is a given for guidance) I am committed to the synodal decisions of the disputes resolved in 325CE, 381CE, 431CE & 451CE. A tumultuous period in Christian theology....

    In that regard feel free to ask me anything you like... I will attempt to give you a direct and comprehensive answer...

    I have no intention to convert you to my way of thinking, and I doubt you can now convince me towards yours...

    I proudly proclaim that as a convinced Christian I am a Muslim (one who has submitted themselves to the will of Allah) and thus a follower of the Islamic pathway (submission to Allah) proclaimed by Jesus, who by the will of Allah was miraculously conceived in Mary his mother.

    I totally reject any concept that a person can be born a Muslim! Likewise I reject all concepts of a Caliphate (or for the same matter any concept of a Kohen).

    OK! I've outlined my prejudices and have landscaped the playing field...lets discuss...but first...

    The forum...

    How is it that nationalists proclaim to be Muslim when it is obvious they submit themselves to human personalities rather than submitting themselves to the will of Allah?
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X