Islamocapitalism

I was looking at this article. http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2006/06/islamocapitalism.html

I think some muslims (I, for one) would disagree with a few contentions.

1. The article claims that zakat (a central tenet of islamic faith) is a voluntary act of charity. But there is strong and widespread opinion prevalent in muslim world to the contrary. They claim that the phrase in the quran "should be taken" implies organized collection by the state, rather then it be left on individual philanthropic disposition.

The crucial difference from modern taxation, however, is that it is a "static wealth" tax, rather than an income tax. The idea is to promote business and trading activity, by taxing that portion of your wealth which is just "lying there" doing nothing. On money invested in business, as well as on ur income, there is no zakat.

2. The article also claims that While Islamic banking allows capitalism without interest, some Muslims go further and ask whether riba really includes reasonable interest. This statement, though technically true, is quite misleading. The view that "reasonable interest" is permitted is really a very minority view, and the over all thrust of islamic banking is not towards accomodating such "reasonable" interest, but only developing alternate mechanisms which completely eliminate interest.

Infact, there is also a large number of people (commoners as well as scholars) who are skeptical of the whole islamic banking thing, consider it an oxymoron, like a circular square. Islamic banking, in their view (as well as mine) is merely a facade completely forgoing the fundamental objective of zakat prohibition: Prevent capital from financing itself and increasing its own self, but to actually go back to what it was supposed to do: Generate business and "hard" profits through real economic activity. When capital is no longer able to increase itself by paper transactions (interest), then it will flow to financing real world projects that make a difference and produce goods and services.

3. Based on this different view of blanket prohibition of interest, (also a primary motivation behind the gold dinar movement), lots of western financial institutions and their activities come in clash with islamic principles, in this limited respect, it can be safely said that islamic is anti-capitalism (the kind of capitalism prevalent in the west).

4. However I fully agree with the conclusion that islam is pro-free market, and pro-trade, and considers and it is actually its obsession with production and commerical activity that it seeks to prohibit interest so it can make capital flow to the former channel for seeking its appreciation.

Asif Shiraz
www.goldmoneyshop.com
 
In many ways I agree with that Islamic rule, in fact it's a Christian rule as well.

But for practical (and moral) issues I would be content with the banning of interest on debt based currencies. This is the REAL problem. When a nation is enslaved by having its Govt instituted monopoly medium of exchange (money) lent to it to be paid back PLUS interest- this is the real problem- and it must be abolished with a clear understanding as to WHY.

I have no problem with a private entity lending it's capital to be paid back plus interest to private individuals/companies when both parties are willingly entering an agreement.

The systematic debt enslavment of nations through paper/fiat/debt based currencies as princicpal plus interest- I have a serious problem with.

Oh and thank you Asif, good post.
 
Last edited:
Islam and Libertarianism are incompatible as Islam opposes freedom of speech, religious freedom, academic freedom, and democracy; examine Islamic nations for proof of these statements. We might as well discuss if National Socialism is compatible with the free market system.

Muslims will flirt with liberalism (friendly to minorities), conservatism (shares religious values), and libertarianism (friendly to weirdos) with their swing vote, but the Islamic end goal is an Islamic theocracy where all other ideologies are banned. But I reckon there will be a relatively free market. :rolleyes:
 
Free trade with all and entangling alliances with none...

Islam and Libertarianism are incompatible as Islam opposes freedom of speech, religious freedom, academic freedom, and democracy; examine Islamic nations for proof of these statements. We might as well discuss if National Socialism is compatible with the free market system.

Muslims will flirt with liberalism (friendly to minorities), conservatism (shares religious values), and libertarianism (friendly to weirdos) with their swing vote, but the Islamic end goal is an Islamic theocracy where all other ideologies are banned. But I reckon there will be a relatively free market.
:rolleyes:

Free Trade With All, Entangling Alliances With None

by Dr. Ron Paul


Two weeks ago, both the administration and the Fed announced with straight faces that the recession was over and the signs of economic recovery were clear. Then last week, the president made a stunning decision that signals the administration’s determination to repeat the mistakes of the Great Depression. Much like the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs that set off a global trade war and effectively doomed us to ten more years of economic misery, Obama’s decision to enact steep tariffs on Chinese imported tires could spark a trade war with the single most important trading partner we have. Not only does China manufacture a whole host of products that end up on American store shelves, they are also still buying our Treasury debt.

One has to wonder why this course of action is being undertaken if the administration really believes its own statements about economic recovery. Why are they still trying to fix something they have supposedly already fixed? The most troubling thing is the rhetoric about free trade given to justify this. The administration claims it is merely enforcing trade policies and that this is necessary for free trade. This sort of double speak demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of free trade, economics and world history. Yet these are the same people the country trusts to solve our problems. This sort of thing should remove all doubt about the credibility of the decision makers in Washington.

The truth is this will hurt American consumers by driving up prices of tires and cars. This will also complicate matters for our already crippled manufacturing and agricultural industries, if and when China retaliates against US made products. Whatever jobs might be saved in the tire and steel industries here as a result of this protectionist measure will likely be lost in other American industries. It is even doubtful that those jobs will be saved, as cheap tires can be obtained from other places like Mexico instead. It is difficult to see any real winners among all the losers where trade wars are concerned. If Unions think this is beneficial to them, they are being penny-wise and pound foolish.

Free trade with all and entangling alliances with none has always been the best policy in dealing with other countries on the world stage. This is the policy of friendship, freedom and non-interventionism and yet people wrongly attack this philosophy as isolationist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Isolationism is putting up protectionist trade barriers, starting trade wars imposing provocative sanctions and one day finding out we have no one left to buy our products. Isolationism is arming both sides of a conflict, only to discover that you’ve made two enemies instead of keeping two friends. Isolationism is trying to police the world but creating more resentment than gratitude. Isolationism is not understanding economics, or other cultures, but clumsily intervening anyway and creating major disasters out of minor problems.

The government should not be in the business of giving out favors to special interests or picking winners and losers in the market, yet this has been most of what has consumed politicians’ attention in Washington. It has reached a fevered pitch lately and it needs to end if we are ever to regain a functional and prosperous economy.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-22/free-trade-with-all-entangling-alliances-with-none/
 
islam and libertarianism are incompatible as islam opposes freedom of speech, religious freedom, academic freedom, and democracy; examine islamic nations for proof of these statements. We might as well discuss if national socialism is compatible with the free market system.

Muslims will flirt with liberalism (friendly to minorities), conservatism (shares religious values), and libertarianism (friendly to weirdos) with their swing vote, but the islamic end goal is an islamic theocracy where all other ideologies are banned. But i reckon there will be a relatively free market. :rolleyes:

Nonsense!!!!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top