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.
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.
‘‘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:
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.
I think I have heard it said that many people think that Islamic idea of government is the best given the circumstances.
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.
… 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?
Wow, sounds cool.
But hey, wait a second…
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.
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.
Islam NEVER explicitly calls for a state/government.
Sharia law is NOT in the Quran but in the Hadith which some Muslims believe are fabricated.
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.
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.
Islam NEVER explicitly calls for a state/government.
Sharia law is NOT in the Quran but in the Hadith which some Muslims believe are fabricated.
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.
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.
I don’t recall Heathenry, Graeco-Roman paganism, Buddhism, and atheism calling for a [centralized] state/government either.
So we can choose and pick which form of Islam we’d practice to mold to our political desires?
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.
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.
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.