Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread

[Napkiraly]

So because slavery still exists, we should just be fine with it and even legalise a form of it?

Because imprisonment exists, and is a necessity, we should legalize this form of it. As pointed out above it isn't actually outlawed, either.

Penal labour =/= slavery. POW's and convicts, even if forced to perform labour, are not slaves.

[Mahdistan]

Wait a minute, that's what I've been advocating for this whole time! I think this might just be a case of miscommunication. His and my views on this are quite similar, the only notable difference, which I don't know his opinion on, is that I think that independent people may purchase their labor to profit from, at least as long as capitalism is around.

If you just support penal labour for convicts without making them property of either an individual or the state, that's a form of forced labour but not the same as slavery. Slavery really has a really, really bad reputation here in the West so honestly you shouldn't have been surprised when myself and a few others got noticeably pissed when you said you were advocating a reintroduction of slavery.

Because imprisonment exists, and is a necessity, we should legalize this form of it. As pointed out above it isn't actually outlawed, either.

Penal labour =/= slavery. POW's and convicts, even if forced to perform labour, are not slaves.

I call it slavery simply because that's what it's been called for centuries, but I had hoped my explanations would clear that up. Yes, that's all I want. I also say, why not let private owners get in on this, and employ them as house servants or work for their companies.

[Novus America]

So because slavery still exists, we should just be fine with it and even legalise a form of it?

Because imprisonment exists, and is a necessity, we should legalize this form of it. As pointed out above it isn't actually outlawed, either.

Prison labor is permitted but they are not slaves. Making them work is permitted. Making them property is not.

[Napkiraly]

If you just support penal labour for convicts without making them property of either an individual or the state, that's a form of forced labour but not the same as slavery. Slavery really has a really, really bad reputation here in the West so honestly you shouldn't have been surprised when myself and a few others got noticeably pissed when you said you were advocating a reintroduction of slavery.

I call it slavery simply because that's what it's been called for centuries, but I had hoped my explanations would clear that up. Yes, that's all I want. I also say, why not let private owners get in on this, and employ them as house servants or work for their companies.

Because that would encourage a far harsher legal system simply to utilize free labour which can seriously end up disrupting the economy for others, as historically that has occurred. Which would of course only benefit the rich.

Prisoners should be spending more time rehabilitating and learning trade skills rather than be butlers and servants for the rich. That's how we'll reduce crime recidivism and encourage them into legal employment. If suppose if a prisoner does desire to be a butler after their incarceration is over, the prison can offer a hospitality course and training program. But it should be an option for the prisoner and not a forced thing for all of them.

[Jochistan]

Because imprisonment exists, and is a necessity, we should legalize this form of it. As pointed out above it isn't actually outlawed, either.

Prison labor is permitted but they are not slaves. Making them work is permitted. Making them property is not.

Yeah but they aren't property of they have human rights that aren't to be overstepped.

If anyone calls that slavery...okay...guess prison labor is slavery then.

[Novus America]

Prison labor is permitted but they are not slaves. Making them work is permitted. Making them property is not.

Yeah but they aren't property of they have human rights that aren't to be overstepped.

If anyone calls that slavery...okay...guess prison labor is slavery then.

Well prison labor is not considered slavery. It is permitted by the US constitution and the Geneva conventions. Prisoners and especially POWs do have rights of course. But they can be required to work.

[Jochistan]

If you just support penal labour for convicts without making them property of either an individual or the state, that's a form of forced labour but not the same as slavery. Slavery really has a really, really bad reputation here in the West so honestly you shouldn't have been surprised when myself and a few others got noticeably pissed when you said you were advocating a reintroduction of slavery.

Penal labour =/= slavery. POW's and convicts, even if forced to perform labour, are not slaves.

I call it slavery simply because that's what it's been called for centuries, but I had hoped my explanations would clear that up. Yes, that's all I want. I also say, why not let private owners get in on this, and employ them as house servants or work for their companies.

That would probably just lead to corporate influence in the judicial system and exploitation of penal labor.

[Jochistan]

Yeah but they aren't property of they have human rights that aren't to be overstepped.

If anyone calls that slavery...okay...guess prison labor is slavery then.

Well prison labor is not considered slavery. It is permitted by the US constitution and the Geneva conventions. Prisoners and especially POWs do have rights of course. But they can be required to work.

Extremist!

That's a week in Liberal Value reeducation camp for you, mister!

[Napkiraly]

Prison labor is permitted but they are not slaves. Making them work is permitted. Making them property is not.

Yeah but they aren't property of they have human rights that aren't to be overstepped.

If anyone calls that slavery...okay...guess prison labor is slavery then.

Yes, they are not property and many rights remain for them other restricted and some given up for the duration of their incarceration with some countries unfortunately curtailing certain rights for life even after incarceration (such as voting) the latter of which is something that should be phased out as well.

[Novus America]

I call it slavery simply because that's what it's been called for centuries, but I had hoped my explanations would clear that up. Yes, that's all I want. I also say, why not let private owners get in on this, and employ them as house servants or work for their companies.

Because that would encourage a far harsher legal system simply to utilize free labour which can seriously end up disrupting the economy for others, as historically that has occurred. Which would of course only benefit the rich.

Prisoners should be spending more time rehabilitating and learning trade skills rather than be butlers and servants for the rich. That's how we'll reduce crime recidivism and encourage them into legal employment. If suppose if a prisoner does desire to be a butler after their incarceration is over, the prison can offer a hospitality course and training program. But it should be an option for the prisoner and not a forced thing for all of them.

Well they should have to work too to pay their upkeep. Rehabilitation does not take all their time, and labor itself can be rehabilitation. Now on leasing them out. That used to be common in the US, but because of lack of adequate supervision abuses resulted.

[Novus America]

I call it slavery simply because that's what it's been called for centuries, but I had hoped my explanations would clear that up. Yes, that's all I want. I also say, why not let private owners get in on this, and employ them as house servants or work for their companies.

That would probably just lead to corporate influence in the judicial system and exploitation of penal labor.

It did. We tried it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convict_lease

The idea has some potential to work, but it is hard to keep it from being abused.

[Napkiraly]

Because that would encourage a far harsher legal system simply to utilize free labour which can seriously end up disrupting the economy for others, as historically that has occurred. Which would of course only benefit the rich.

Prisoners should be spending more time rehabilitating and learning trade skills rather than be butlers and servants for the rich. That's how we'll reduce crime recidivism and encourage them into legal employment. If suppose if a prisoner does desire to be a butler after their incarceration is over, the prison can offer a hospitality course and training program. But it should be an option for the prisoner and not a forced thing for all of them.

Well they should have to work too to pay their upkeep. Rehabilitation does not take all their time, and labor itself can be rehabilitation. Now on leasing them out. That used to be common in the US, but because of lack of adequate supervision some abuses resulted.

They should at the very least be paid something and allowed some choice in what they work in, however.

[Novus America]

Well they should have to work too to pay their upkeep. Rehabilitation does not take all their time, and labor itself can be rehabilitation. Now on leasing them out. That used to be common in the US, but because of lack of adequate supervision some abuses resulted.

They should at the very least be paid something and allowed some choice in what they work in, however.

Sure. They usually are.

And such protections are included in the Geneva conventions.

[Jochistan]

Well they should have to work too to pay their upkeep. Rehabilitation does not take all their time, and labor itself can be rehabilitation. Now on leasing them out. That used to be common in the US, but because of lack of adequate supervision some abuses resulted.

They should at the very least be paid something and allowed some choice in what they work in, however.

For the last if it would be harmful for them, sure. As for the first, labor should be their way of repaying society.

No one owes them money. That's like a parent paying their kid for chores. Overly lenient coddling.

Food, clothes and sleeping quarters should be enough. Prison shouldn't be daycare.

[Mahdistan]

I call it slavery simply because that's what it's been called for centuries, but I had hoped my explanations would clear that up. Yes, that's all I want. I also say, why not let private owners get in on this, and employ them as house servants or work for their companies.

Because that would encourage a far harsher legal system simply to utilize free labour which can seriously end up disrupting the economy for others, as historically that has occurred. Which would of course only benefit the rich.

Prisoners should be spending more time rehabilitating and learning trade skills rather than be butlers and servants for the rich. That's how we'll reduce crime recidivism and encourage them into legal employment. If suppose if a prisoner does desire to be a butler after their incarceration is over, the prison can offer a hospitality course and training program. But it should be an option for the prisoner and not a forced thing for all of them.

Well, under capitalism, it might not be the best. But an Islamic economy would adapt for it, where poor would rely on the rich for production of goods and some of the distribution of wealth, while the poor keep the economy running for each other through welfare. This form of labor, thus, would benefit everyone under this system, as more goods would mean lower prices, and more availability of these goods to citizens. As well, the state could inspect buyers, and ideally, since only very large landowners would be able to afford slaves, there would be benefit to keeping police on site to ensure abuses don't happen. As well, the sentence may not be indefinite, but the buyer would have the legal right to release them by their own will, before the sentence is concluded. Therefore, dangerous criminals would probably not be included. On-site rehabilitation may also be available through councilors, but this system would ensure that the prisoner, the owner, and society at large all benefit.

[Jochistan]

Because imprisonment exists, and is a necessity, we should legalize this form of it. As pointed out above it isn't actually outlawed, either.

Penal labour =/= slavery. POW's and convicts, even if forced to perform labour, are not slaves.

Then one would be wrong in calling it slavery as much as one would be wrong in calling support of penal labor an extremist view.

[Novus America]

They should at the very least be paid something and allowed some choice in what they work in, however.

For the last if it would be harmful for them, sure. As for the first, labor should be their way of repaying society.

No one owes them money. That's like a parent paying their kid for chores. Overly lenient coddling.

Food, clothes and sleeping quarters should be enough. Prison isn't daycare.

Well POWs have to be paid. But they are not their to be punished.

Now ordinary prisoners do not have to be paid, but it is a good idea as it encourages them to work better. Now the pay is going to be very low of course, most of the value the produce goes to their upkeep and victims.

[Mahdistan]

I call it slavery simply because that's what it's been called for centuries, but I had hoped my explanations would clear that up. Yes, that's all I want. I also say, why not let private owners get in on this, and employ them as house servants or work for their companies.

That would probably just lead to corporate influence in the judicial system and exploitation of penal labor.

They would only be able to obtain the prisoners after they've been condemned, though, and ideally, the money made from selling these prisoners would go into public works, and therefore not be an incentive for the government to charge more people. And as I said above, careful measure could be taken to prevent abuse.

[Novus America]

That would probably just lead to corporate influence in the judicial system and exploitation of penal labor.

They would only be able to obtain the prisoners after they've been condemned, though, and ideally, the money made from selling these prisoners would go into public works, and therefore not be an incentive for the government to charge more people. And as I said above, careful measure could be taken to prevent abuse.

See you cannot sell the prisoners. You can sell their labor, but not the person. But it has been done, but abuse is a problem.

We used to do exactly this, but had trouble with abuse.

[The Nuclear Fist]

That would probably just lead to corporate influence in the judicial system and exploitation of penal labor.

They would only be able to obtain the prisoners after they've been condemned, though, and ideally, the money made from selling these prisoners would go into public works, and therefore not be an incentive for the government to charge more people. And as I said above, careful measure could be taken to prevent abuse.

That would absolutely be an incentive for the government to convict more people, because they could use free penal labor instead of paying real wages to free laborers for the work.

[Mahdistan]

They would only be able to obtain the prisoners after they've been condemned, though, and ideally, the money made from selling these prisoners would go into public works, and therefore not be an incentive for the government to charge more people. And as I said above, careful measure could be taken to prevent abuse.

See you cannot sell the prisoners. You can sell their labor, but not the person. But it has been done, but abuse is a problem.

We used to do exactly this, but had trouble with abuse.

Well, I guess you could describe it that way. Just, a person or organization paying the government to have a prisoner come work on-site for them. And with police on site to watch for abuses of the prisoners, what could go wrong?

[Jochistan]

They would only be able to obtain the prisoners after they've been condemned, though, and ideally, the money made from selling these prisoners would go into public works, and therefore not be an incentive for the government to charge more people. And as I said above, careful measure could be taken to prevent abuse.

See you cannot sell the prisoners. You can sell their labor, but not the person.

I don't see how the concept is for anything but that.

Shari'ah dictates that POW's put to work are not to be killed/abused if they weren't combatants. As what happened to the Meccans after the battle of Badr and the Banu Qurayza.

And, if Shari'ah is followed, to their modern day paralells in the middle east. Salafi Jihadists and their co-conspirators.

[Mahdistan]

They would only be able to obtain the prisoners after they've been condemned, though, and ideally, the money made from selling these prisoners would go into public works, and therefore not be an incentive for the government to charge more people. And as I said above, careful measure could be taken to prevent abuse.

That would absolutely be an incentive for the government to convict more people, because they could use free penal labor instead of paying real wages to free laborers for the work.

Not if that money was prevented from going to officials. It should be pooled for purely public works, which is why transparency is so important.

[Novus America]

See you cannot sell the prisoners. You can sell their labor, but not the person.

I don't see how the concept is for anything but that.

Shari'ah dictates that POW's put to work are not to be killed/abused if they weren't combatants.

The difference is once their sentence is up the are free. But to a point it is semantic.

Geneva III, not Shariah applies to POWs.
https://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm

Article 49 through 57 cover labor.

[The Nuclear Fist]

That would absolutely be an incentive for the government to convict more people, because they could use free penal labor instead of paying real wages to free laborers for the work.

Not if that money was prevented from going to officials. It should be pooled for purely public works, which is why transparency is so important.

I just said it would be free penal labor. Meaning that instead of having to contract out to a construction outfit, they could use penal labor to do the job without having to pay anyone or contribute to their pension or benefits. Given that elected officials are all about trying to cut costs wherever possible for popularity points, it only further encourages them.

But that's one of many criticisms about modern islamic practices. A secondary one being that islamic economics are essentially incoherent nonsense.