I always thought so. What say everyone else?
Any specific reason why so?
The west is more libertarian than any large area on earth.
Islam directly endorses a theocratic state. Muhammid was a warrior who conquered vast areas in the name of god. Jesus was a Jewish preacher from a small town who spoke up and developed a small following. He was killed when people manipulated the government to shut him up and his followers were opressed by the opressive government for decades. The Koran also endorses many more infractions onto civil liberty than the bible does.
No. It may have been in some at some time in history, but it isn't anymore libertarian. Christianity is way ahead of Islam.
Freedom4Me73986: I always thought so. What say everyone else?
Of course it is not. Christianity does not penetrate in so many spheres of life as Islam do. But I fail to see much difference between these two religions since both of them claim that their god is the only true one and their belief the only right one leaving the man no choice between being a good christian/islamist or burning in hell.
I think Islam is very anti-capitalistic. Usury (the charging of interest) is a major sin. The practioners of Islam do not believe in competition. They believe that businessmen must be on the same level and never "out do" one another. If you visit any Islamic city, whether it is Cairo, Damscus, or Istanbul, you will notice blocks of venders and stores selling the exact same thing for the exact same price. One section of the city may be nothing but shoe sellers, another section may be entirely lined with barber shops, and another selling nothing but luggage cases. That's why there is so little innovation and advancement in that part of the world.
Now it is. But during the days of the Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire the Muslim world was way more libertarian and free market then the west.
Islam directly endorses a theocratic state.
All versions of Islam?
The Koran also endorses many more infractions onto civil liberty than the bible does.
Name a few.
The practioners of Islam do not believe in competition. They believe that businessmen must be on the same level and never "out do" one another.
So is this part of Islam or just part of the culture?
Those days are over. You can't say "Islam is pro-market" if it has been but it isn't anymore.
The reason it isn't anymore is because America and Europe have tampered with that region and installed puppet dictators.
Mohammed and his successors swiftly spread his empire by the sword. Is that libertarian?
Here are just a couple quotes from the Koran. I can find more.
"And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."
"O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
I recommend turning to Ralph Raico's lecture series "History: the Struggle For Liberty" ( http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=65 ). Relavent to our discussion here is some stuff Raico goes into in the "European Miracle" bit. I remember two parts that cast doubt on this believe that the old Islamic empires were friendly to liberty.
One, how one of emperors of the Holy Roman Empire (for lack of a better term, much as it was not called that at the time period, to set it apart from Ancient Rome) who Raico calls sort of the first totalitarian dictator in history. He quotes the emperor as moaning about "Happy Asia, where subjects do not take up arms against their rulers" or something like that (basically, he's bitching about the tradition of liberty amongst Europe). Furthermore, he relates how outside Europe wealth was much more subject to the predation of states, which gave rise to the whole mythos about lairs of hidden treasure and such.
There's probably more, but I can't remember it all, to be completely honest. But Raico DOES go into great detail regarding how the Catholic Church, acting as a powerful rival of states (less out of any moral reasons than simply for their own gain) preserved the liberty of the people of Europe. So, while I do not think ANY religion qua religion is more or less libertarian than any other, the way Christianity was implemented and organized was more friendly to liberty than Islam.
"Now it is. But during the days of the Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire the Muslim world was way more libertarian and free market then the west."
The west has developed to be more of both. They were also approximately the same when we compare the Islamic Empires with the Roman Empire. Also by our day the old Islamic states were hoplessley reactionary and in our day
"All versions of Islam?"
All those which follow the Koran
"Name a few."
Direct endorsement of government, endorsement of burka, condemnation of interest.
Direct endorsement of government
So why are so many anarchists converting to Islam then?
The fact that anarchists are converting to Islam (if they even are; I haven't heard of any, really. Most anarchists I know tend to lean agnostic or atheist) hardly proves your point. In fact, it has nothing to do with it.
So if Islam is really statist and anti-free market then what reason would free market anarchists have to convert?
"So why are so many anarchists converting to Islam then?"
Christianity can be quite anti-statist, most often in the anarchist-pacifist strand.
"So why are so many anarchists converting to Islam then?" I'd talk to them about that. I'd also ask them why they are anarchists when their prophet himself was a warrior of the state and fought to expand its influence.
"So if Islam is really statist and anti-free market then what reason would free market anarchists have to convert?"
What makes you think they are? I have not seen much proof that anarchists are converting to Islam.
I think some libertarians might be sympathetic to that religion, since many are anti-war. And part of the anti-war package at the moment seems to be defending Muslims. However well-meaning, I think they don't much about the culture of the middle-east. It seems more likely, the middle east region is just a bit part in a wider narrative of anti-statism. taking their side might mean some shots at the state. Though, most Muslims would be bewildered by some of the people rooting for them. At the moment, Muslims might be more primed towards limited anti-statism because they are currently in revolution mode and resisting a high degree of violence by the state in various countries. Though, it could turn around for a net gain for the states in that region, whether it is socialism or Islamism.
The point of Christianity or Islam or any other religion is not so much opinions about liberty. There are some libertarians in both religions, probably (probably million times more in Christianity), but most religious people despise the idea of reducing all life to economics and politics. This means on the one hand they may resist the state, but on the other hand resisting the idea of no restrictions simply because of economic or other benefits. Or because something has been deemed 'natural'. Hence, I think both resist some types of collectivism, but reject individualism also. In fact, they reject both categories.
Many neocons are making the claim that Marxists are converting to Islam because 'enemy of my enemy is my friend'. But I don't see much substance to that either. However, I can see that many people who are very radical seem to go full circle and desperately seek for traditionalism. Hence, love new age or native american religions or they read the works of Alan Watts and the eastern mystics. Or certain branches of Christianity. Some pick Sufism as a particular branch of Islam. But I think this is once people getted tired of the usual political modes of thought. And need what they think is a foundationalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Islam
Freedom4Me's obsession with rooting Islam into capitalism (or vice versa) is just as odd as his survivalist mode dream. They are the same as they are not relevant to anything.
Freyr had a gold boar, Odin had a gold ring that would generate 9 more from itself every 9 days, Freyja wept tears of gold, Thor's wife Sif had hair made of gold - does this mean anything in relation to economics/politics? No.
If religion had anything to do with economic theory it would be economics, not religion. People look into religion for structure, enlightenment, an understanding of the non material and how life evolves and works, etc. One doesn't wonder "What would Jesus' views be on a protectionist econ policy?" or "Would Krishna have approved of dropping the interest rates below market value?" They are silly in the least.
No. Islam promotes the use of real money and a moral market economy w/o state intervention. They view fiat currency as immoral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_gold_dinar
So what's your reason for interest in Islam? To find a dogmatic way to view free-market economics outside of econ theory itself? Gold coins are discussed, so what. I find this to be a very very minor point in the religion on a whole. If I come across some piece of religious scripture that says value is subjective should I push this too as complementing capitalism?
Also, do you adhere to any Islamic religious path, or is it just some hypothetical idea like living in the woods?
One of things that need to be understood is how much Islam changed over the course of the centuries. Muslim traders and craftsmen made Baghdad the most opulent city in the world, rivaling Byzantium and the Chinese capitals in splendor while being a much more thriving wealth creation hub. But they did so under a brand of Islam that is as different from the present brand of Islam as Primitive Christianity is from present day Calvinism.
Islam has changed: the Crusades took away its original tolerance towards the "People of the Book" (Christians and Jews), very complex philosophical changes in the late XIX and early XX century modified its view on society and State and recently oil money made the intollerant, highly radicalized Wahabi School from Saudi Arabia a force to be reckoned with. An example is the approach to charity: traditionally it was a spiritual duty of the individual. Give alms to the poor and God will smile upon you. More recent interpretations seem to embrace the Western brand of "cohercitive charity": of course this is not universally accepted by scholars but is obviously a very appealling view for the masses.
Another thing about Islam is its view about leadership. Technically speaking a believer should only follow God and his Prophet, Mohammed. But after Mohammed's death the four Well-Guided Caliphs demanded absolute obedience, claiming to be direct heirs of the Prophet himself. Muslim leaders fought bitterly over who was to be the legitimate heir to Mohammed's legacy because it gave them moral superiority over their rivals. Most splits in Islam came not from theological differences but from succession issues. In the Quran there's nothing about this but it's a well-engrained tract of the primitive Arabian society that migrated into many brands of Islam: complete obedience to a secular leader claiming moral superiority is a duty of the follower.
As far as Christianity goes it will always bear the stigma of having being born a Chiliastic movement. Primitive Christianity had little respect for secular authority: after all God could return to Earth at any moment and what good would have been following erroneous human laws when a completely superior order was just around the corner? Sadly Chiliasm also influenced Christianity's attitude towards wealth-generation: why bother working hard and saving money when the Kingdom of God can arrive at any moment? Better spend your time preparing yourself. There may also have been influences from some Jewish orders that preached common ownership and condemnation of wealth production but as these facts are hotly debated to these days you'll be the judge. Primitive Christianity was a religion for the poors and the slaves because it gave them hope the present order would be reversed when the Time came. As a theologian wrote commenting the most recent historic revisions about persecutions "Roman Emperors just felt too powerful to be bothered by an obscure sect made up of rabble". But the Primitive Church didn't last long: as the Kingdom of God failed to materialize in the immediate the network of loosely-knit communities morphed into the most formidable bureaucratic machine religion ever saw. Everybody dissenting to this (for example the Marcionites, believers in a more Primitive form of Christianity) was branded as an heretic and cruely persecuted. Roman Emperors, struggling to keep together a rapidly disintegrating State, threw their support behind the organized Church. So much for the healthy disrespect for secular authority. But Christianity has always struggled to deal with wealth-production. Can a Christain get rich? Is wealth obtained through hard and honest labor morally acceptable? The most brilliant minds of Christianity have struggled for centuries with these answers. The Reformation changed all of that. Even the Catholic Church, threatened with losing Venice, a good chunk of France and all of Germany had to grudgingly make room for "morally acceptable wealth" after the Council of Trent.
But in the XIX century something happened that awoke the Church's loathing for wealth-production: that something was Socialism. The temptation to challenge what amounted to all effects to a secular religion was just too strong to be resisted. And the rest as they say is history.
Most of those people who came under the rule of islam did so VOLUNTARILY. Islam itself means "voluntary submission to God." I see nothing wrong with voluntary authority or a voluntary statism.
Most of those people were conquered by an Islamic state, then converted to Islam to escape punitive taxation and legal discrimination.
This happened in 20th century. Caliphats stopped being capitalistic in 12th century. If Islam still is and has been more free market than the West, why did industrial revolution happen in Christian West and not in Islamic East? About the convert 'anarchists', show me few.
Marko: Most of those people who came under the rule of islam did so VOLUNTARILY. Islam itself means "voluntary submission to God." I see nothing wrong with voluntary authority or a voluntary statism. Most of those people were conquered by an Islamic state, then converted to Islam to escape punitive taxation and legal discrimination. In the early days of Islam conversions were not encouraged, let alone forced. The reason is the Caliphs got the bulk of their revenues from "People of the Book" paying the protection tax. Also Islam served as a class badge for the conquering Arabs as much their attire and their language. This started to change after the Great Siege of Byzantium of 718, when whole units made up of Christians from Egypt and North Africa defected en masse to join Emperor Leo's forces and accelerated after Persia split away from the main branch of Islam (as part of the so-called Iranian Resurgence) and Byzantium managed to organize an effective resistance to the Arabian onslaught. In short Islam stopped being a conqueror's religion and the need for a "class badge" ceased. Together we go unsung... together we go down with our people | Post Points: 20
That is exactly right. Non-believers were cattle one could live off. There was not a plan to Islamize them, because then they could not be kept as an underclass.
This is an interesting question but one that is wrought with difficulty. While Islam does convey a more precise governmental attitude, Christianity is less specific. This has led to a wide array of political and economic philosophies in Christian circles.
Take, for instance, the Christians during the American Revolution who pushed for religious liberty. Culminating in an agreement between John Leland (Baptist Minister) and James Madison in Orange Virginia, the Baptists realized a political victory from an abnormally apolitical group. This victory caused Patrick Henry to state that America did not have freedom of religion despite Christianity but because of Christianity. Yet, even in the early days there were dramatic disagreements among Christian theologians on the American cause. Famous expositors of political theory dotted the early colonies and early activism by Christians almost eliminated slavery in the 1830's. Of course, other social activism in the 1800's sought to eliminate the problem of alcohol which also culminated in prohibition.
The most fascinating political theory that tends towards Austrian economics is the Princeton Stone Lectures by Abraham Kuyper.
As for economic principles, Christianity does not espouse a major overarching economic policy. However, there are principles and an historic tradition that can reject other economic theories. Several historic theologians, for instance, believe communism and socialism is anti-Christian for a number of reasons that I will not go into now. There is the view that debt is to be avoided, compassion individual, and society should have equal weights and measures (some apply to Austrian monetary policy.) However, the Biblical record does not advocate a precise economic principle.
I find it fascinating the number of Christians involved in the Ron Paul campaign. He seems to be a hit among homeschoolers and a variety of people in the Christian movement. Thus, it seems that Austrian economics is not contrary to the principles of Christianity and the focus on the individual, standard weights and measures, individual compassion and debt principles fit into Christianity.
Islam has changed: the Crusades took away its original tolerance towards the "People of the Book" (Christians and Jews),
Since you provided a wikipedia link, I shall provide another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_socialism
I really think that these argument are bullshit.
The fact is both Islam and Christianity are based on books which are full of contradictions. You can pick and choose excerts from both the Koran and Bible to make each religion sound very free market, and other pieces to make each religion sound extremely oppressive.
I also think from reading the comments, people don't seem to understand Islam. If anyone has ever read the Koran and the Bible they would realise that they are virtually the same book, bar a few alterations and additions.
But all you have to know is that both religions believe in the ten commandments. If you break one of these commandments you will burn in hell for all eternity. That means you will burn in hell for all eternity for swearing.
Neither religion can be followed word by word because you would run into too many contradictions. But overall both religions are horribly oppressive.
'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking
Vladimir,
You may not agree with Christianity or Islam, but your oversimplification of Christianity is not helpful for an intelligent dialog. What amazes me is that some wish to seek the Bible for contradictions, and they seem to find their "evidence." Others read the Bible and the offer thought out reconciliation of those "contradictions." Through my studies, I admit there are difficult passages but nothing apparently contradictory.
The purpose of this conversation is not to expend your hatred for religious organizations, but to explore the worldview as it relates to Austrian economics. Granted, some will use any opportunity to foam their hatred towards these groups, but it should be an opportunity to study these groups--an opportunity to learn and grow.
Nothing contradictory? God loves everyone yet he murders gentiles. Read the Old Testament, a book filled with hate, then read the News Testament, a book filled with love.
''The purpose of this conversation is not to expend your hatred for religious organizations, but to explore the worldview as it relates to Austrian economics''.
The Austrian School promotes individual liberty.
Lucifer asked God for a little more power sharing and he was sent to hell. God is a dictator. Mises proved in Human action that god as we know him cannot exist: It is impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. Christianity and Islam do not allow usery; this allowed the Jews to fill the gap and led to them being hated. Judaism created Zionism.
I find it really difficult not to hate religion and I find it really difficult to find how it is anything but antagonist to the Austrian School.
Strawmen and nonsense. You should know better.
How is that strawmen nonsense? That is but one example of the crap written in these books. That just shows how neither religion is libertarian both believe in restricting freedom of speech. You will also burn in hell for blaspheming according to each book.
Why strawmen and nonsense? Because you didn't even read the Ten Commandments, else you wouldn't have made that statement about swearing. Moreover, nobody would actually apply blasphemy laws today, at least from the Christian tradition, outside from some loons who exist in _every_ field. You don't at all understand the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament.
You probably just watched a Youtube documentary or read a single book and were magically convinced that it was _allllll_ just a load of bunk, anyway, so you don't really need to criticize it seriously--you'll just compile a random list out of context quotes and claim that this is what Christians believe. It's incredible; in three sentences, you've managed to reduce 4,000+ years of detailed argumentation about theology and textual criticism and interpretation to a couple of outlandish, generalized statements.
That's not intellectual honesty. That's not how to criticize something.