You still seem ignorant of the muslim conquest of the middle east and africa. Islam is spread by violence even today, if I feel generous I will look p some links for you later.
Most of the time Muslim armies were invited in by the people they "invaded." This is what happened in Egypt and most of north Africa and Malaysia/Indonesia.
And even if your assertions are correct, that means Islam within the context of statism is statist. I'm certain the Quran doesn't preach statism but the opposite.
http://www.suhaibwebb.com/islam-studies/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword-abu-majeed/
I want more support for "pro-free market" Islam than gold dinare and thousand year old caliphats.
MrSchnapps: That doesn't even make sense. First, you don't define what 'extravagant' means, and secondly, libertarianism is not libertinism (not that wearing gold is outlandish, or anything). One can be a consistent libertarian and believe that it is morally wrong to wear gold, so long as the arm of the state is not involved in preventing such an act. Perhaps the Koran says the law ought to be involved in these matters, but your argument failed to demonstrate that.
That doesn't even make sense. First, you don't define what 'extravagant' means, and secondly, libertarianism is not libertinism (not that wearing gold is outlandish, or anything). One can be a consistent libertarian and believe that it is morally wrong to wear gold, so long as the arm of the state is not involved in preventing such an act. Perhaps the Koran says the law ought to be involved in these matters, but your argument failed to demonstrate that.
By extravagant it means people should flash their wealth by wearing Rolex watches and driving Porches. Although it doesn't explicity call for state or social intervention, it is implied that all Muslims should intervene, and God eventually will to maintain God's law.
'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking
''The Koran says that Sharia law must be the law, does it not?''
Sharia is not once mentioned in the Koran.
''Christianity was spread by word of mouth, islam was spread by military conquest, i.e. The state. The non-aggression principle is contained in the golden rule, i.e. "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" these kinds of ethics are essential to an anarchist society, whereas in practical terms muslims believe they can stick together and cheat unbelievers (this is a cultural observation, aka "stereotype"). There are plenty of secularized muslims who are not suicide bombers or supporters of terrorism, just like there are plenty of so-called Christians who drink and drive, or cheat on their wives. But Christianity doesnt foster military aggression or a police state like islam. The crusades, however flawed they may have been, were defensive wars.''
Ever hear of the 30 year war? The non-aggression principle is also contained in the Koran with the exact same quote you provided. The problem is that most people ignore this principle. Not long ago a Catholic girl, not far from where I am now, was tarred and feathered for dating a Protestant. Also, most of the religious states in Muslim countries are a direct result of Western, Christian, intervention.
OK, here is my original question again with little edit:
I want more proof for "pro-free market" Islam than gold dinare and thousand year old caliphats.
And here is another one - what kind of Islam are you talking about? You claim that sharia is not mentioned in Koran - this is true, it is formed by "right" interpretation of Koran, which is established by old tradition. Sharia is practiced in many Islamic countries in Middle-east, and in extreme cases it involves killing homosexuals. Islam today means following Koran and traditions, this is the form of Islam which is dominant today and which everyone thinks when they hear the word 'Islam'. Are you really claiming, that this form really is pro-free market? If so, why Middle-east isn't a free market paradise, and why did industrial revolution happen in the West? And if Islam really is free market religion, does the current mass immigration of muslims to the Europe mean that Europe is flooded with libertarians at the moment?
Chyd3nius: OK, here is my original question again with little edit: I want more proof for "pro-free market" Islam than gold dinare and thousand year old caliphats. And here is another one - what kind of Islam are you talking about? You claim that sharia is not mentioned in Koran - this is true, it is formed by "right" interpretation of Koran, which is established by old tradition. Sharia is practiced in many Islamic countries in Middle-east, and in extreme cases it involves killing homosexuals. Islam today means following Koran and traditions, this is the form of Islam which is dominant today and which everyone thinks when they hear the word 'Islam'. Are you really claiming, that this form really is pro-free market? If so, why Middle-east isn't a free market paradise, and why did industrial revolution happen in the West? And if Islam really is free market religion, does the current mass immigration of muslims to the Europe mean that Europe is flooded with libertarians at the moment?
First of all my point was that Islam is not free market. Secondly I am talking about Islam. Although there are many types of Islam - Sunni, Shia, Wahabi - alot of Muslims will only refer to themselves as Muslim, because they only follow the Koran and not events occurring many years after it was written. And Sharia is not formed by ''right'' interpretation of the Koran. Islam does not mean following traditions; it means following the word of god. I don't care what people think of when they hear the word Islam. What do people think when they hear the word anarchy? And although I don't believe that Islam is free market it did have a sort of industrial revolution called the Islamic golden age. And the industrial revolution occurred at a time when strict Christianity was practiced.
I think I have heard it said that many people think that Islamic idea of government is the best given the circumstances.
When I was in university, my Arabic professor was about to publish her book Islam a Religion, not a State. Which refutes the idea that Islam is a state system. I think some Muslims would agree, particularly since they assume many disagree on various matters. And are more concerned with opposing states that will disallow them religious freedoms or having any religious values in the state. I think Karen Armstrong, who has written about all of Abrahamic faiths, is also of this opinion. See her works Case for God and A History of God and her Islam: A Short History. Where she has dealt with this idea in each of the three religions. She has said that it is against Islam to argue about matters of theology which are not explicitly resolveable. And of course Edward Said had reminded people, which is also echoed in armstrong's work, that Islam is not monolithic but varied. So you cannot say it is authoritarian, but you also cannot say it is libertarian.
But as I said, this is a controversial idea. I don't know if I would promote this book to all Muslims. When I was in school, the Muslim Student Association tried to stop her from promoting the book on campus. I was a bit scared, actually. But she assured me that she was more qualified on the topic of the religion than any of these dumb kids.
There is an upside and a downside to not outlining political beliefs in a religion. On the one hand, one could more easily embrace anarchism. But on the other hand, you are subject all of the stupid theories out there from quasi-Marxism to Republicans to Democrats to fascism and all of the others in the wish to appeal to the times. This is why all prophets tend to say they are the seal of the prophets. It would probably be better if Jesus simply said do not support the state. But then again, in the case of Jesus or Muhammed, that was probably not as feasible as it is today. Jesus was under attack by Romans and Jews. Mohammed by various pagan tribes. It doesn't seem likely that they would have foreseen anarchism. Nor the succeeding generations. Even if perhaps someone has pulled anarchism out of their words in some way.
If I had to live in a state, I'd rather live under an Islamic one than a Christian one. At least the caliphate was decentralized and far more libertarian.
Which refutes the idea that Islam is a state system. I think some Muslims would agree, particularly since they assume many disagree on various matters. And are more concerned with opposing states that will disallow them religious freedoms or having any religious values in the state.
That's my whole point. How are there Muslim anarchists if anarchism is contradictory to Islam and vice-versa?
Unlike Christianity, Islam is a political religion. That is the root of what makes it so dangerous: Sharia law. The West learned long ago to separate church and state. In Islam, this will be largely impossible. Sharia gives muslims religious sanction to initiate coercion even unto murder, and that is its evil.
First of all my point was that Islam is not free market.
OK, i misundestood your point...
... But is seems that Freedom4Me73986 still has some questions to answer. Would you please answer those in my previous post? And I give you one extra - why aren't you already in Iran?
When I was in university, my Arabic professor was about to publish her book Islam a Religion, not a State. Which refutes the idea that Islam is a state system.
Wow, sounds cool.
But hey, wait a second...
I think some Muslims would agree... When I was in school, the Muslim Student Association tried to stop her from promoting the book on campus.
Maybe this answered to my question, which kind of Islam are you talking about. You are talking about Islam, which majority of muslims don't approve. But really, if only <1% of muslims are supporting free market/stateless society, is it honest to say that Islam is pro-free market?
AFAIK Muhhamed was a warrior and a legislator. Jesus was a pacifist and talked people out of stoning a woman to death on account of morality legislation.
"How are there Muslim anarchists if anarchism is contradictory to Islam and vice-versa?"
I'm not sure if any religion is absolutely contradictory to anarchism. And they are all partially subjective. But I would be surprised if there were 50 Muslim anarchists in the entire world; out of a billion in the religion. And even more surprised if there was 5 or 6 market anarchists.
Judaism probably has the strongest tradition of anarchism. Followed by Christianity. Probably there are tens of thousands of anarchist Jews. Maybe a few thousand anarchist Christians. And... perhaps a few dozen Muslim anarchists, if that. Israel is the only place in the middle-east with a large anarchist movement. It is even said that a lot of the people who moved into Israel in the second wave in the early twentieth century were anarchists from Russia.
There were zero self-identifying anarchists in any of these religions until there were anarchist writers in the 19th century. Mostly who hated religions, particularly Judaism, ironically. And promoted almost exclusively anarcho-socialism. As I said, no one advocated it. Because largely it was an accident what form of government one could choose in the past. Since much of governance was driven by circumstance. And 'decentralization' is only relative to either incompetence in government or lack of technology used today to control large populations.
Usually religions tend toward the egalitarian anarchism, only. Not individualistic anarchism. Whether it is Judaism or Christianity or any other. The only exception perhaps being Lao Tzu in China. Who was in none of these religions.
"1% of muslims are supporting free market/stateless society, is it honest to say that Islam is pro-free market?"
I don't mean they agree with anarchism. I think they merely agree that there is some room for democracy; but one which protects their Muslim privileges. Rather than having the government written in stone. A Religion, Not a State merely says that there is a theological justification for democracy or other forms of government and no obligation to have a Muslim government. It is not saying that Muslims should oppose statism. Most people in the world can't concieve of life without a state at all, and Muslims are no different. However, most can imagine various forms of the state. Which is what is meant here.
The West learned long ago to separate church and state
You sure about that?
Given that most Westerners are atheists (most people who identify themselves as "Christian" on a census do it either because of upbringing i.e. went to catholic (the decapitalization is deliberate) school or out of a desire to differentiate themselves culturally from religious minorities, like Muslims and Hindus), most Western politicians at the national and federal level are similarly nominal (there are exceptions, like Michelle Bachmann, but they tend to be laughing stocks among the media), most Western constitutions and ruling regimes are based on secular humanist, socially democratic and egalitarian ideologies and that highly religious Christians are very much acceptable targets for mockery and derision in modern media, I'd say so.
Though, in the same breath, the ideologies that govern most Western countries are themselves offshoots of Millenial Pietism, so in some ways they (and their groupies in the Dawkins/Hitchens crowd) are ultra-Protestant anti-Christians. Maybe my experience living in very secular New Zealand has colored my views, but Sean Gabb says similar of the UK, while Evangelicals rank second only to prostitutes as the most disliked group among secular Americans.
K let me go over this.
1) Islam NEVER explicitly calls for a state/government.
2) Sharia law is NOT in the Quran but in the Hadith which some Muslims believe are fabricated.
3) The Islamic World was much more libertarian, free market and overall in-line with austrian economic principles than the Christian world was at the same time.
4) Islam views fiat currency as immoral and calls for sound money like gold dinars which aren't subjected to inflation and which prevent keyensian consumerism all while keeping a free market.
K let me go over this. 1) Islam NEVER explicitly calls for a state/government. 2) Sharia law is NOT in the Quran but in the Hadith which some Muslims believe are fabricated. 3) The Islamic World was much more libertarian, free market and overall in-line with austrian economic principles than the Christian world was at the same time. 4) Islam views fiat currency as immoral and calls for sound money like gold dinars which aren't subjected to inflation and which prevent keyensian consumerism all while keeping a free market.
1. I don't recall Heathenry, Graeco-Roman paganism, Buddhism, and atheism calling for a [centralized] state/government either.
2. So we can choose and pick which form of Islam we'd practice to mold to our political desires?
3. We also can choose and pick which place in time which religion was more free-market? Religion X was more free-market than religion Y at the same period 1,500 years ago, but religion Z was more free-market than both of them 2,000 years ago, and now religion Z does not exist and religion Y is now more free-market than religion X. I choose to represent X during a period that none of us have lived.
4. If Allah says it, well hot damn it must be true. The Objectivist deity Ayn Rand proclaimed the same thing, who are we to believe? I can't use reason, I must find answers in a religion I'm completely ignorant of and do not practice, that's the logical way.
islam has way better values then the west and most of them are very compatible w/ free markets and libertarianism. Why not embrace it?
If Islam is so bad, how come for most of its history the Islamic world never had the problems the west had?
I'm not going to drop my religion and embrace another that I philosophically and spiritually either disagree with or have no interest in, nor a religion that historically I have no interest in or really care about just because one of their religious texts says something about gold.
Are you really this daft?
islam has way better values then the west and most of them are very compatible w/ free markets and libertarianism. If Islam is so bad, how come for most of its history the Islamic world never had the problems the west had?
"1) Islam NEVER explicitly calls for a state/government.
4) Islam views fiat currency as immoral and calls for sound money like gold dinars which aren't subjected to inflation and which prevent keyensian consumerism all while keeping a free market."
1) Yes, it does. As in Christianity and Judaism, there is express backing of government in the time of all of the prophets. Which includes Abraham, Moses, Kings Solomon and David, etc. It would be absurd to say these are not governments. Allah and Yahweh gave them these governments to those he chose. He didn't say they can do whatever they want.
2) It is in both of them. Hadith is not considered fabricated by anyone. Especially not in history.
3) This is not saying much. When Genghis Khan came to the Islamic world, he was considered more civilized than them and the Christian world. And perhaps he still is. India was more advanced than Europe for many centuries. Until Islamic conquest under the Mughals.
4) This is not true. And it is contradictory. If a law stated you must use a 'gold dinar', it is still fiat. Especially if there is a precise definition of such a coin. Since fiat is defined by its being given as a law or regulation. Instead of based on competition and the market.
Seems to be a lot of unsupported claims on both sides of the issue; I don't know enough about the topic to make an authoritative statement but thought I'd share some links to an Islamic Libertarian institute and few interviews of their founder on antiwar.com. Hopefully they're of some use:
Minaret of Freedom Institute
http://dissentradio.com/radio/08_05_12_ahmad.mp3 http://awr.dissentradio.com/09_01_24_ahmad.mp3 http://dissentradio.com/radio/10_06_03_ahmad.mp3 http://dissentradio.com/radio/11_05_16_ahmad.mp3 http://dissentradio.com/radio/11_09_15_ahmad.mp3
I see the anarchist mindset (especially a more liberal anarchist view) as the mindset of a staunch atheist, materialist and nominalist. It is something that recognizes no ideals, or higher up values - it recognizes no Culture, Justice, Truth, Wealth, Science, Govt, or whatever as these mystic "things to aspire to in themselves" but merely a consequence of actions that transpire due to our self interested and inherently social actions.
It's the minute someone turns anarchism from a mindset of figuring out the practicle working of things to some political ideal does it become as hokey , insane, irrelevant, in a losing position, and ineffecient as every other mystic thing that is bound to fade away in the own obscurity it spells out for itself like Conservativism, Traditionalism, Mysticism, Nationalism, Pacifism, Idealism, etc, etc.
And even if someone comes to anarchist views for whatever silly reason (ex: pacifism) - assuming the person makes any sense at all, I will bet a nickle that once the idea and reasons are deconstructed and psychologized they will fall in line with a materiialistic nominalism ( be it technocratic cosmopolitanism or stone age primitivism), in spite of their language.
*Note: I am not saying anarchism has a monopoly on materialistic nominalism (ex Hobbes, Machiavelli, etc, etc) nor am I saying one HAS to be a staunch materialist to be an anarchist - I am saying that if one makes any coherent sense about "anarchism" that my bet is the mechinism for reasoning will be a type of materialistic nominalism.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
What is anarchism if not idealism? Doesn't it require ideals to support a radical theory of organization? If you had none, why should you care how society is organized?
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
It requires no more ideals to "support anarchism" than it does to favor your favorite king to the throne, communist dicator, right wing fascist dictator, presidential canidate, etc etc. Your just talking about a comparative advantage for yourself to thrive be it by psychic profit or material profit.
why do you put quotation marks around 'support anarchism'? I'm genuinely curious because I always see your signature and wonder what you mean.
Freedom4Me73986: K let me go over this. 1) Islam NEVER explicitly calls for a state/government.
The term "explicitly" serves in this sentence as a "weasel word", and equivocation, that allows you to twist the truth on the matter. Using 'never' makes the claim seem strong, but the weasel word sucks all the power out of your statement. The simple fact is that hardcores muslims have been setting up theocracies and Sharia-based legal codes all over the world, including in newly liberated Egypt.
Freedom4Me73986:2) Sharia law is NOT in the Quran but in the Hadith which some Muslims believe are fabricated.
"Some" is another vague weasel word here. Some could be two or three muslims. This is not a majority opinion in muslim society, not even close. Rather, the hadith has split into multiple schools of thought, some more radical than others. The Taliban and Al Queda generally come from the ultra-conservative wing, the Hanbali school of Hadith thought, based in Saudi Arabia. Places governed under this tradition often post Islam as the state religion and punish conversion away from Islam with death.
Freedom4Me73986: 3) The Islamic World was much more libertarian, free market and overall in-line with austrian economic principles than the Christian world was at the same time.
Simply because the modern organs of government control hadn't been invented back then. This isn't much of an argument.
Freedom4Me73986: 4) Islam views fiat currency as immoral and calls for sound money like gold dinars which aren't subjected to inflation and which prevent keyensian consumerism all while keeping a free market.
Iran just banned a videogame. That's not a free market. And a stop clock is right twice a day.
Freedom4Me73986:islam has way better values then the west and most of them are very compatible w/ free markets and libertarianism. Why not embrace it?
For people who believe in non-aggression, Islam is one of the most evil schools of philosophy in the world because it uses religious rationales to justify acts of aggression up to and including mass murder. Islam was spread by the sword from its founding day. Many muslim countries still give the death penalty to those who convert to other religions. Muslims issue death threats and carry them out aginst people who draw pictures of Mohammed. Etc., etc. List could go on forever.
The quotations are used because I was using it as an empty set, and giving it to whom ever to define - as in the term has no specific meaning for me or my purposes- but could mean what ever you want in the broadest to narrowest of ways. So to say "support anarchism" I would accept that definition and go from there.
For people who believe in non-aggression, Islam is one of the most evil schools of philosophy in the world because it uses religious rationales to justify acts of aggression up to and including mass murder
To me Islam is to follow Quran alone- and Quran never advocates to begin aggression but only for self defense. This is repeated more than once in Quran- I easily consider most "Muslim" countries today to be abominations. I consider it the same way people falsely equate the United States as an example of a free-market.
I don't issue death threats to anyone and I don't know any Muslims that do. The list of people who don't agree with any of that can go on forever. (especially since theres no Quranic decree to kill anyone that draws pictures or insults Islam)
How did Islam make it to China after its founding? Was it an army that came in and built mosques?
Anyway don't be so boring and paint everyone that calls themselves Muslim with a broad brush. Its just childish and shows you have a really strong emotional ties to popular news stories that were never your own personal experience.
On the contrary many Hadith are considered fabricated by quite a lot of people.
Yes. You prove my point.
auctionguy10, do you think islam generally preaches a libertarian view?
Praxeologically, we know that Islam couldn't have been that libertarian becuase a look at its history shows that it never valued libertarianism and that its society began unlibertarian and continued unlibertarian. It had merchants, it imported watermelons from india, it rebuilt the iraqi aqueducts, etc. but it simply didn't value liberty very highly if it embarked on several rather vast conquests of byzantine/french/chinese/indian territory, burned down the library of alexandria, and repeatedly attacked italy, austria, and constanstinople. Religious tolerance was always a rather equivocal thing in every civilization and no less in islam where I recall that it was considered evil for muslim doctors to treat christians and where al-ghazali's school stiffled natural theologians working in the traditions of avicenna or averroes. It was even considered a rather borderline sacrilege for a muslim to paint portraits of the sultan, so that Suleiman had to hire italian artists to paint his likeness.
Now from some other POV islam might be libertarian but I'm just saying that islam has never made anyone (except for a minority) value liberty more. Perhaps the doctrine itself is libertarian but the way it was incorporated into the value scales of others perverted it. In any case it seems that you should just post quotes of the Quran if you think that the doctrine is per se libertarian.
Vladimir Ulyanov: 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.
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.
V = victory. This is correct.
This is reason why economics progressed only when religious shackles were thrown off and anthropomorphism and special causation became insults (e.g., Spencer, Jevons, and Mises used these in such way).
It started no less with author of Theodicy: Leibniz wrote in his published physics papers that God is not explanation for anything which can be explained by dynamical equations (which is everything except origin of universe) and in his legal works that rationality means goal choosing given beliefs of how to achieve goals = no such thing as altruism.
Newton thought this was heresy and hence followed their famous debate (Leibniz vs. Newton's followers) of letters, which published his ideas in english (as opposed to latin and french).
Condillac came and said that soul = brain, brain = soul, and that experience and conditioned reflexes determine much of our perception. Then he introduced opportunity cost.
Thus began foundations of economics, when Cantillon, Locke, North wrote more on the economics side, followed by Condillac's second book.
Notice, all this was based around dynamical laws, independent of state sanction or supernatural intervention. It was done by Christains who were basically considered heretics to large extent!
(Leibniz => considered heretical and kicked out of royal society, Locke => thought to be too atheistic, even by Hume, who was his follower, Condillac => adored by French revolutionaries after his death...)
Contemporary Roman sources say that the Library of Alexandria was accidentally burned down by troops of Julius Caesar in 48BC. The story that it was a Caliph was propagated by Saladin in the 13th Century to make his own destruction of (Islamic) religious texts he disagreed with seem less egregious by precedent.
The argument could be made that secular powers take advantage of religion to further their own agendas.
To me Islam is to follow Quran alone- and Quran never advocates to begin aggression but only for self defense. This is repeated more than once in Quran- I easily consider most "Muslim" countries today to be abominations. I consider it the same way people falsely equate the United States as an example of a free-market. Yes. You prove my point. So basicly you are saying that 95 % of muslims are not following islam? -- --- English I not so well sorry I will. I'm not native speaker. | Post Points: 20
To me Islam is to follow Quran alone- and Quran never advocates to begin aggression but only for self defense. This is repeated more than once in Quran- I easily consider most "Muslim" countries today to be abominations. I consider it the same way people falsely equate the United States as an example of a free-market. Yes. You prove my point.
So basicly you are saying that 95 % of muslims are not following islam?
To me Islam is to follow Quran alone- and Quran never advocates to begin aggression but only for self defense. This is repeated more than once in Quran- I easily consider most "Muslim" countries today to be abominations. I consider it the same way people falsely equate the United States as an example of a free-market. Yes. You prove my point. So basicly you are saying that 95 % of muslims are not following islam?
Most of the world's Muslims live in states which have manipulated Islam to make it statist. Most of those regimes were propped up by western governments not Muslims themselves. Islam advocates anarchy.
A quick googling of 'anarchism and islam' will bring up all sorts of results which prove my point.