Messages

peace Andya,

Don't want to sound pessimistic but from what I learned, altruistic systems can be easily disrupted by selfish cheats.  Does this system offer protection from that?

What you are probably talking about is that a vanguard movement, like the Bolshevik party in Russia. often disrupts the more radical elements of a revolution in order to take power for themselves, many working class unions that attempted to take power for the workers in Russia were suppressed once the Bolsheviks came into power, they formed a totalitarian communist state where the party was in control and obviously rewarded itself most graciously, so as long as a country continues to be run by a party of elites than there can be no altruistic system in place, original marxist theory describes communism as "classless and stateless", much like how the quran/reading is disrupted by Sunnis

peace shamsul,

good post, basically its advocating some what of a democratic/liberterian socialism or anarcho-communism as opposed to totalitarian communism, I believe this alternative theory is very close to "quranic economics" as well, its called parecon for participatory economics http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm all i know is we must replace the very evil systems of capitalism and its extreme cousin neoliberalism, i believe we should go to the quran/reading rather than looking at these theories but its interesting how some of these economic theories get so close to the system of the quran/reading

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=9402

White Phosphorous
The U.S. Used It; The U.S. Says It's Illegal

by David Swanson

The U.S. military used white phosphorous as a weapon in Fallujah, and the U.S. military says such use is illegal.  That's one heck of a fog fact (Larry Beinhart's term for a fact that is neither secret nor known).  This fact has appeared in an article in the Guardian (UK) and been circulated on the internet, but has just not interested the corporate media in the United States.

It interests Congressman John Conyers, however.  Last week, Conyers released a 273-page report titled "The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War."  This 273-page report covers many war-related crimes, including the use of white phosphorous.  http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5769

On page 165, following discussion of other crimes against humanity, the report states: "Finally, there is evidence that the U.S. Military used an incendiary weapon in combat known as White Phosphorus, even though the U.S. Battle Book states, 't is against the Law of Land Warfare to employ WP against personnel targets,' and which would be in contravention of the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the War Crimes Act."

That's an impressive criminal feat, violating multiple U.S. laws and international laws at one shot.  But it may be a greater feat of hypocrisy and irony.  After all, this war was supposedly launched in order to prevent the use of so-called weapons of mass destruction.  While that lie has been exposed, we now know that WMDs have been wantonly employed in the course of this war by the so-called liberators.  That fact is not yet widely known within the United States.

The Battle Book is published by the U.S. Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and does indeed contain this sentence: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."  http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-3/c5/5sect3.htm

As George Monbiot makes clear in the Guardian, a chemical weapon is illegal, according to the Chemical Weapons Convention, regardless of whether the people targeted with it are civilians.  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1647998,00.html

"The Pentagon argues that white phosphorus burns people," Monbiot wrote, "rather than poisoning them, and is therefore covered only by the protocol on incendiary weapons, which the U.S. has not signed. But white phosphorus is both incendiary and toxic. The gas it produces attacks the mucous membranes, the eyes and the lungs. As Peter Kaiser of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons told the BBC, 'If ... the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because ... any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons.'"

Blogger Gabriele Zamparini found a declassified document from the U.S. Department of Defense, dated April 1991, and titled "Possible use of phosphorous chemical," which makes clear that the U.S. military understands white phosphorous to be a chemical weapon.  "During the brutal crackdown that followed the Kurdish uprising," it alleges, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam (Hussein) may have possibly used white phosphorous (WP) chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil ... and Dohuk provinces, Iraq. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships. ... These reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly ... hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas."  http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html

Conyers' report, on page 102, cites evidence that the United States used white phosphorous in Fallujah:

"Recent reports coming out of Iraq verify the use of a weapon called white phosphorus (WP) in combat.  An Italian state broadcaster, RAI, recently reported that American forces used WP in Fallujah last year against insurgents.  According to a former American soldier who fought in Fallujah, 'I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah.  In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete. . . . Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone . . . I saw the burned bodies of women and children.  Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud.  Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for.'"

The RAI story reached British readers and perusers of the internet via a November 8th article in the Independent by Peter Popham titled "US Forces Used Chemical Weapons During Assault on City of Fallujah."  

It remains unclear when that information will reach consumers of U.S. television news.

peace phoenix,

peace

i hate socialism

why?

peace pm,

Is this supported by Quran or is it ur opinion? That all of mankind should have equal amount of material wealth.
Can u please quote the verse from Quran that supports this?

And The God has preferred some of you over others in provision. Those who have been preferred will not relinquish their provision to those who are still dependant, so they may become equal in it. Are they denying the favour of The God? (16:71)

Exposition by Parwez that I agree with:
Different individuals possess different capacities for work. Every programme or project requires the co-operation of all for its accomplishment (43/32). The Divine Niz?am-e-Rabubiyyat requires that the produce should be distributed amongst all according to their needs. Those who possess greater capability (or power) generally do not adhere to this Niz?am thinking that according to this arrangement all will be equal and they, therefore, take more than the others (30/28). They thus, assert that the means of production and the capacity to earn are not endowed by Allah (16/53, 24/33, 28/78, 39/49).

peace stillearning,

Capitalism-System in which trade and industry are controlled by private owners.

Capitalist-Person who has money invested in business.

Definitions which you seem desperate to know-let me know what you consider is against an Islamic economic system according to the Quran.

Incidentally

You've told me these, I know, I want theoretical backing based on an accepted book for capitalism as Marx's works are for Communism

-I see no description of a CEO/worker relationship in the quran/reading but individual trading is encouraged, the concept of the capitalist class owning the land, factories, machines, etc. is inherently unquranic as it depends on the labor of the working class to make their profit, it is wage-slavery-where people are forced to sell themselves to be used for production and private profit, nobody should "own" the means of production (land, resources, tools, factories, etc) whether private or public ownership as God owns them but a particular group of people should be in charge of distribution and utilization for the best of humanity  and that is the righteous, im not gonna lie, this part im still uncertain on, whether it should be the righteous or the people as a whole but regardless neither can be classified as capitalists

-Ok, the concept of investment, it doesnt even make sense, if i put 20 dollars down on a business and the workers increase production my investment value will increase while the wages of the workers stay the same, i did absolutely nothing besides gamble in the stock market and gained money, while those that did the work gained nothing, if you gain money from investment by doing no work, then somebody is working and gaining no money, this falls under the category of riba

-So far I've been arguing how capitalism is different from the quran/reading, pretty soon ill get into how capitalism is the exact opposite of God's system

Agreed-
so no difference between capitalism and Islam then.

Ive been saying that the whole time, the problem with saying there no difference between capitalism and Islam on this is that the excess is to be distributed among the poor and weak of societies while distribution into the economy for goods or investment is no different than "hoarding" as it is still hoarding your money if you use the excess for yourself rather than charity, you seem to think that "hoarding" and being "stingy" is just keeping the money but its also only using it for yourself, excess is allowed in socialism and communism as well but must be given up for the good of humanity

So should evreyone have equal amount of material wealth?

Yes

I misunderstood you again.

k

I never met (until recently) anyone wo did not claim that hadith ewere words of God.

lol far from the same, as many "quran alone muslims" still inherently believe in capitalism without recognizing it, but I guess this all doesn't matter, lets just argue theoretics

No one needs to be poor-but that is different issue and nothing to do with Quran being anti-quranic.

I wish capitalists thought more like you, but im not sure what ur talking about the "to do with Quran being anti-quranic", here are some quotes from capitalist theorists

Defoe argued, in his pamphlet entitled Giving alms no charity and employing charily and employing the poor a grievance to the nation, that:

If the poor were relieved they would remain idle, or alternatively that if they set to work in public institutions, the private manufacturer was equally deprived of his source of labour, the conclusion?expressed in modern term?being that they should be thrown on the market and allowed to starve if they failed to find a place there.

Mandeville pointed the conclusion in his Fable of Bees that:

The poor have nothing to stir them up to be serviceable but their wants, which it is prudence to relieve but folly to cure. To make society happy it is necessary that great numbers should be wretched as well as poor.

In more clear terms, William Townsend declared in his Dissertation on the Poor Laws that:

Hunger will tame the fiercest animals, it will teach decency and civility, obedience and subjugation, to the most perverse. In general, it is only hunger can spur and goad them (the poor) on to labour.

really! I have no idea what you mean.

By the inherent qualities of the righteous/salih described in the reading/quran, the capitalist can never be considered righteous as they do not fit into all the inherent qualities, as simple as that, in fact they are considered kafir because they withhold the blessings of God from humanity-one of the definitions of kafir, plus they fit into descriptions of the kafir in the quran/reading, the righteous willingly distribute their excess to create equality in society while capitalists disrupt the balance through hoarding and greediness creating poverty and inequality, they oppress the people, subjugate the weaker nations, and do all sorts of evil for individual profit, capitalism teaches that the drive for profit and greater profit should have no moral sanctions

Before we go round in circles.
You ave the power to set up an economic system according to Quran.
Tell me what difference you will have from te capitalist system

-No capital allowed to be attained without labor (therefore cutting the CEO/worker relationship, investment for profit, stock market, financial interest, etc.)
-how much one earns should not be determined by the form of job but by how hard one works
-no unequal distribution of wealth or poverty
-no deprivation of basic needs
-no capitalist ownership of the means of production
-etc.

other things based off individual observations-no manipulative advertising, no imperialism, different incentive for work, etc.

Oh by the way(between you and me ) My sympathies are more with socialism-but then that is not what we are discussing here

cool, same here but i tend to go all the way with communism if i could choose man made systems, but as none of them recognize God they are all inherently flawed and will not work in the long run

peace stillearning,

salaam Idris

Quote:
50% of the excess , in my opinion (25:67). neither too much , nor too less . 50% would be perfect moderation .  

Apologies this was not your quote.My mistake.

k its fine

[definition]

peace stillearning,

I am glad to know that you know what I am donig as all these years I am still trying to work thhis out-obviousouly your wisdom is way beyond me.

If someone knows they are wrong and dont admit it-it can be called lying, which is very rude way to conduct ant discussion now let us see I think you started off by:

Statting that in Islamic system does not allow excess profit(I cannot reacall exact words-but this was your point).

It allows excess, otherwise how could it be given away if not attained in the first place 2:219

It is bit difficult to discuss this point without knowing what constitutes excess and I was not the only one to question this point and your reply was:

50% of the excess , in my opinion (25:67). neither too much , nor too less . 50% would be perfect moderation .  

You are entitled to your opinion( good or bad is irrelevent) if you are trying to justify it from Islamic prespective then back it up with some evidence. Thy verses you have quoted do not mention 50%.
Even taking your opinion to its logical conclusion-you make a billion and give up 50% and I make 10 rupees and give up 50% and I think you can work out what each of will be left with.

Saladin said this, not me lol

The reason I have asked you to define certain things is that people of ten discuss in slogans such as
I want to do good
I am against exploitation
So called Muslims often say I want Gods system.
The problem with all these is that they are nothing more than slogans until you are specific it does not mean very much.

The problem is you claim to follow the quran/reading but are not making an attempt to define them yourself, plus many of the "slogans" I assumed were self-defined based on our shared following of God's book but I guess not

I will define my position for you again:

The origin of this thread was that Islamic economic system was against the capitalism and my arguement was simply that it is not true the reasons being:
Capitalism is for free trade-so is Islam
Capitalism does not restrict the quantity of profit-neither does Islam.
You have written lengthy posts but have not addressed fundemental point. The only quantifying stateement you have made is 50% and I have already dealt with it.

Define free trade, define profit, the 50% statement was not mine as I have said above

Ok I misunderstood your original point.
However I think your point is bit pointless-yes people are born with different level of abilities and that is why some in this world achieve more than others be it sport, science etc and business is no different in this regards.  

Sure, but does one who has lesser abilities/intelligence than another deserve to be poor or poorer than someone with greater abilities/intelligence just for his inherent qualities?

Again you have written another slogan without really understanding. I have no idea who you consider righteous, but why cant a cpitalist be righteous. As I have already stated business and making profit are not against Islam-if you consider Isalm a righteous religion.

When I state righteous, excess, or any other "slogan", it is the "quranic" definition for the terms I expected you to generally know, but then again I wouldn't expect someone who tries conforming a man-made economy to God's socio-economic system to know much about the quran/reading, capitalists can't be righteous because of the system they adhere to and their position in it

It is indeed otherwise you have no idea what you are talking about. I will simplify it for you:

When you talk about equality in a society are you talking about:
(a) Every one having exactly equal amount of material wealth
(b) Every one having equal opportunities i.e all attend same level of school, do not their parents influence effect children
or are you talking about everone being equal in eyes of the law or the lord.
All very different equalities and if you cannot understand te difference then I am afraid there is not much point in both of us continuing this discussion as it then will really become pointless.

I know, but the verse I showed clearly showed equality in material wealth and I stated as such, did you ignore it or not see it? obviously I know the different forms of equality as I have stated both kinds in my post, equality has one definition that can refer to different conditions as many adjectives do

Good for mquran and anyone else for that matter who claims to know-but you made the central point of your anti capitalistic point and you now, I think, are not sure what it means.
Please stop trying to justify things in the name of Islam when you are not even clear yourself.

I am sure what it means, regardless thats not my central point but you brought it up as the central point of the post so I decided to argue it, what I meant is mquran knows the exact word for word meaning of the arabic term but i posted a good thing showing it, did you see it or ignore it? You are not clear about capitalism nor have you brought one centrally accepted book on capitalistic theory or one verse from the quran/reading, who is the unclear

If we are enagaged in this discussion to prove what clever chaps we are then we should bow out now. If the desire is to genuinely understand, and it requires certain degree of self honesty, Islam then I am happy to continue.

Honestly I'm just in this convo cause I never found any other person who claimed that capitalism and the quran/reading are the same, from impartial observers (non "muslimeen") I have heard them say the quran/reading follows a form of socialism or keynesian economics but I never heard capitalism, plus this is sharpening my skills on debating and knowledge of the reading/quran, so its all good

peace stillearning

Before you read this, I want to let you know that I know what you are doing, rather than face the facts you are questioning the definition of this and that so as not to admit that you were wrong, I have refrained from doing so in my responses as to avoid pointless debate but Im prolly gonna start takin it there just so we can both agree to skip past this part of the debate, for example in response to this you may ask, "what exactly do you mean by "know", "define for me pointless", etc.

Yet you have yet to give a theoretically sound, coherent definition of "capitalism" as I have asked which is actually the meat of the debate

Is the capitalist, whoeverhe/she may be, rsponsible for. inequality in ability or intelligence. I know capitalism is blamed for many things but this is a new one to me.

wow, just wow, did I blame capitalism for unequal ability and intelligence? If you don't understand I meant people were born inherently on an uneven level.

As opposed to those who will give up their personal wealth such as..............?

The righteous

Equality

Wow, is equality even something worth defining?

Main Entry: 1equal
Pronunciation: 'E-kw&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin aequalis, from aequus level, equal
1 a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : EQUIVALENT b : like in quality, nature, or status c : like for each member of a group, class, or society <provide equal employment opportunities>
2 : regarding or affecting all objects in the same way : IMPARTIAL
3 : free from extremes: as a : tranquil in mind or mood b : not showing variation in appearance, structure, or proportion
4 a : capable of meeting the requirements of a situation or a task b : SUITABLE <bored with work not equal to his abilities>
synonym see SAME  

but actually whether we define it or not, the verse says

And The God has preferred some of you over others in provision. Those who have been preferred will not relinquish their provision to those who are still dependant, so they may become equal in it. Are they denying the favour of The God? (16:71)

It means equality in wealth

Excess

I believe mquran knows the absolute literal definition of the term used which can help give a better idea of the "quranic definition", we can discuss this rather than just letting me do all the defining, heres a good definition from the dictionary

Main Entry: 1ex?cess  
Pronunciation: ik-'ses, 'ek-"
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French exces, from Late Latin excessus, from Latin, departure, projection, from excedere to exceed
1 a : the state or an instance of surpassing usual, proper, or specified limits : SUPERFLUITY b : the amount or degree by which one thing or quantity exceeds another <an excess of 10 bushels>
2 : undue or immoderate indulgence : INTEMPERANCE; also : an act or instance of intemperance <prevent excesses and abuses by newly created local powers -- Albert Shanker>
- in excess of : to an amount or degree beyond : OVER

heres a good article I found on it

http://www.quranicteachings.co.uk/surplus.htm

Whatever is redundant and abundant (i.e. more than one's needs) must be left open to be expended in the cause of Allah (for the welfare of humanity). Please see the following verse:

يَسْأَلُونَكَ مَاذَا يُنْفِقُونَ قُلِ الْعَفْوَ

...they ask you (o Messenger), what should they spend (in the way of Allah); Say, "(Spend) what is beyond your needs"...[2:219]

For more details about 'Infaaq', please click Here.

Allah tells the Messenger (a.s.) to take from the Believers what is beyond their needs (to be expended in the way/cause of Allah). See the following:

خُذِ الْعَفْوَ

Take what is redundant and abundant...[7:199]

الْعَفْوَ  has the following meanings:

that which is redundant and abundant or superfluous

that which is beyond one's needs

the surplus

The Quran suggests an economic system in which the surplus or superfluous shall be taken from those who do not need it to be expended on those who need it.

[/quote]

[Trade is like riba.? While The God has made trade lawful, and He has forbidden riba.]

peace stillearning,

If you look at your own quote you have actually answered your own objection.
I am not aware Quran restricting any business to any size. You might not like big sized business but that does not make it ant-Quranic.

I think you have not really understood capitalism properly: It is not there to make every rule for any given society and if a society does not like any particular effect of any business it can legislate against it-as you have pointed out in your quote.

Capitalism is laizze faire, absolute free market, anything that goes against this is against capitalism regardless of the fact that the society claims to be capitalistic or not, even America is not absolutely capitalist as is proven by corporate welfare while the workers are left to "compete in the free market" and sell their labor to survive, anyways I never said it made every rule for any given society and have not suggested that but of course it does for the economy if left to itself but often capitalist governments step in to protect the private property owners

Why should the domestic economies not be able to compete?
I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you against competition.
How do you think many big businesses originally started?
I dont know. was Bill Gates always a billionare?

Competition is left for righteousness (2:148), cooperation is for economy, competition in the economy may lead to efficiency but thats hardly an argument for moral credibility, murder, theft, lying, etc. can be efficient as well, competition in economics is cold hearted and doesnt think of those it hurts in its path, I guess it depends whether you look at economics through a human perspective or not

Btw based on your statement you have no knowledge of the subject I'm speaking of, domestic economies of developing nations are very weak

Why it does it have to be in the hands of few. Capitalism does not restrict any one from being involved in production.

Where did I say anything about being INVOLVED in production? The only way capitalists are INVOLVED in production is that they own the means of production. You obviously have no idea about any of this. It does restrict who can own the means of production and who can't. Workers cannot own the means of production.

Btw you really know little about capitalism so you can't really say capitalism does this and this. You are arguing an economic theory with no basis actually.

Are you seriously suggesting hiring workers is anti-Quranic otherwise I dont really understnad your point.

The CEO-worker relationship is against God's system but I haven't even gotten to that really, sorry to even question such an ingrained belief but many have a problem letting this go

I am afraid you have shown no such thing. You have just written a slogan.

They obtained profit off the labor of others which they would not have otherwise attained due to the fact they did not contribute productive labor, I have already shown this but had it ignored

Are you suggesting it is wrong to make a profit?

No, profit can be made without an employer, for example, if the complete money made from total worker productivity is divided among the workers with compensation on the work of an individual, some or all individual workers may end up with surplus to their basic needs, a profit

If a shopkeeper buys an onion for 1 rupee and sells it for 2 is he wrong. Acoording to your logic, he is, otherwise how is that onion now worth the extra 1 rupee.

You say in trade, a shopkeeper takes from the purchaser more than he had spent, similarly in usury the one who uses his capital for loaning, receives more than his principal amount. This is a lame excuse. In trade a man spends his capital and in addition to it he puts in labour. Thus anything surplus that he takes is not a profit on the capital, rather it is a return for his labour, and this is exactly the right way. On the contrary in usury where no labour is put in, it is only a surplus gain on money loaned by him, this is unlawful. (Remember the principle in this respect, that it is only the return of labour that is right (53:39) but to gain profit on other people's labour simply by investing capital alone, is unlawful. This is what is called 'Riba' (or interest).

Those who consume riba, they do not rise except as the one who is being beaten by the rebellious out of direct touch. That is because they have said: ?Trade is like riba.? While The God has made trade lawful, and He has forbidden riba. Whoever has received understanding from His Lord and ceases, then he will be protecting for what was before this and his case will be with The God. But whoever returns, then they are the people of the Fire, in it they will abide eternally. (2:275)

Working for someone is not exploitation. I work for a very large instituion (yes I think I should be paid more-most people do even the self employed) but I dont consider my self exploited.

Ok, exploitation is not based on ones' perception, there were still Jews that went to the gas chamber not believing their government would do such a thing (extreme example but same basic principle)

I think you have to be clear what you mean by exploitation.
I understand the person to whom the Quran was revealed did work  for a businesswoman. Was he being exploited?

You and I have no real knowledge of this, but in history (hadith) Muhammed was a trader himself, but only in the corrupt Arab system, hardly an example for us all

Would be good if God took over the means of production.

Wow, God has to take over the land? As far as I know God created the land and owns it, not sure what you believe, not sure if you even know what the means of production are

So let me see in Gods system according to you:

There would be no big business. You now just need to define what you mean by big.

I never mentioned big business, you did, why do I need to define everything? Why can't you define it considering you brought it up?

But big to me would be a monopoly or a business so vast in its area that it shuts out competition or provides little room for competing businesses, nothing wrong with a "capitalist" society making this illegal, in an egalitarian society its unthinkable

No one will be allowed to employ anyone-as that consitutes exploitation.

If the employer is not contributing productive labor himself and making above what he has contributed it is (taking from the labor of others) but this is for my next post

No one be able to make any profit.

Wrong

No one is allowed to have any excess-we now need a define what excess is.

They can make an excess (profit), but must give it up, 2:219, I've already defined my view on excess, read back a couple replies

Quote:
55:8 So that you, too, never violate balance in your lives.
55:9 Therefore, establish Balance in the society in absolute justice. And never belittle the Scale of Justice in the community and in all your transactions with your own ?Self? and with others.
55:10 And (know that) the earth He has spread out for all His creatures. ('Anam' = All living beings).

41:10 And He it is Who placed therein firm mountains towering above it, and bestowed enduring Bliss upon it. And He measured therein its sustenance in Four Seasons, alike for all who (invariably) need it. (39:67, 56:63-73).

56:63 Have you thought of the crops that you cultivate?
56:64 Is it you who grow it or are We the Grower?
56:65 If We willed, We surely could turn it into chaff, then you would be left to exclaim,
56:66 ?Behold, we are now under debt.
56:67 Nay, but we are deprived!?
56:68 Have you thought of the water you drink?
56:69 Do you bring it down from the rain-cloud or do We?
56:70 If We willed, We surely could make it salty. Why, then, do you not show gratitude? (By devising an equitable system of provision for all).
56:71 Did you consider the fire you strike out?
56:72 Is it you who grow the tree as its fuel, or do We grow it? (41:10).
56:73 We, yes, We have made this (fire) a reminder, and a gift for all of you who surely need it. (The use of fire is one of the Divine gifts that distinguishes mankind from the Animal Kingdom).

7:73 The people of Thamud were successors to Aad. To them We sent their brother, Saleh. He said, ?O My people! Serve Allah. You have no other god but He. The Clear Truth has come to you from your Lord. This is the she-camel of Allah, a token for your obedience. So let her feed in Allah?s earth and do not harm her lest painful torment seize you.? (Their feudal lords controlled land, crop, oases and water resources, and the weak were suffering. Saleh assigned a she-camel as a symbol of their reformation).
7:74 Saleh said, ?Remember how He made you inherit the land after Aad and established you therein. You build castles in the valleys and carve out homes in the mountains. So, remember Allah?s bounties and do not spread corruption in the land.?
7:75 Their leaders said to the believers, "How do you know that Saleh is sent from his Lord?" They responded, "We believe in the Message he has brought.? (The bringer of such Sublime Message cannot be a liar).
7:76 (The arrogant leaders and the feudal lords could see their vested interests getting hit, so they decided to reject the Divine Message.) The arrogant ones said to the believers, ?We reject what you believe in.?
7:77 They killed the she-camel, rebelled against their Lord?s Command and challenged, ?O? Saleh! Bring the doom you threaten us with, if you are really a Messenger.?

11:64 (The feudal lords had been depriving the poor of using the land and its natural resources of water and vegetation.) Saleh said, ?O My people! This she-camel belonging to Allah shall be a token for you. So leave her alone to graze in the land belonging to Allah. Do her no harm, lest speedy punishment befall you (91:13).? (This verse along with 55:10 pronounces one of the most revolutionary concepts of the Qur?an. The land, the earth is owned by none but Allah and must be open for all His creation as a means of sustenance. Hence, all landlord-ship is contrary to the Divine Ordinance. In the Divine System, the Central Authority will see to it that any piece of land will be for those who toil in it and give Allah His Right, the poor-due 6:141).

? The earth and all its resources belong to Allah. It is such an obvious fact that no one can deny it (6:12, 10:31, 29:61 &63, 31:25, 34:24, 39:10 &38, 43:9).

? Allah is the inheritor of the earth (19:40).

? The earth has been created for the benefit of all (55:10).

? It has been created to provide nourishment for all (56:73).

? To Him belongs all that is in heavens and the earth, ?La hu ma fissamawati fil ardh? (2:116, 2:255, 4:171, 5:40, 14:2, 16:52, 20:6, 22:64).

? ?Lillahi ma fissamawati fil ardh? (2:284, 3:109, 3:129, 4:131,132, 5:40, 10:55, 10:67, 14:2, 16:52, 20:6, 21:19, 34:1, 42:4, 42:53, 53:21).

? ?Lillahi miraathus samaawaatti wal ardh? (3:180).  

I cannot see anything in the above verses that restricts business size, is against profit, against employing anyone.
There is nothing in the above verses which is against capitalism.
regards

Wow, all I have to say is, wow

First look at the top of the post to see what this whole post was about, look very hard at the definition of means of production, read the post over very carefully, read the definition of means of production again and what I have said about it, then look at the verses