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.
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.
The west is more libertarian than any large area on earth.
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.”
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?”
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.
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.
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.
“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.