Can Muslims be Free Marketeers?

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Can Muslims be Free Marketeers?

HD Video Download

"The biggest fear in the Muslim world is the association in their minds of free markets with imperialism," says Dr. Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, president of the Minaret of Freedom Institute. "But those of us familiar with the history of libertarian thought know that true devotees of the free market have always been opposed to imperialism."

There is nothing inherent in Islam or the Koran, claims Ahmad, that prohibits Muslim-majority countries from joining the world economy. The Minaret of Freedom Institute seeks to educate Muslims and non-Muslims on the libertarian values within the Islam religion. Ahmad sat down with Reason TV's Nick Gillespie to discuss how libertarian and Islamic values actually complement one another.  

About 15 minutes.

Produced by Amanda Winkler. Camera by Winkler and Joshua Swain. 

Scroll down for downloadable versions of this video and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.

Comments

[BakedPenguin]

Can Muslims be Free Marketeers?

Singapore, Mauritius, Bahrain, UAE, and Qatar all think so.

[croaker]

Between fellow Muslims, yes. With Christians and Jews, not so much. And forget about people who are not of The Book.

[Free Society]

Can Muslims be Free Marketeers?

The inconsistent, cherry-picking Muslims could be more free marketeers and/or more libertarian, sure. Islam as inconsistently described by some desert dwelling slavers, is incompatible with liberty. Just like Christianity.

[OldMexican]

Re: Free Society,

Just like Christianity [is incompatible with liberty].

I would like to know your rationale to reach that conclusion. Historically and as a matter of doctrine, you as an individual either accept Jesus as "lord and savior" or you do not, whereas you cannot simply choose to be or not a Muslim. If you become a Muslim or are born a Muslim, you are considered an apostate if you stop being a Muslim which brings the risk of shunning, banishment and even death. Islam is thus a collectivist religion. Christianity is not.

[Zeb]

There are plenty of Christian sects who shun or banish apostates (and killed them historically) too, though it is not an essential part of Christianity. I don't know that it is an essential part of Islam either, but I know a lot less about Islam than Christianity. I'd say that for most of its history at least, the Catholic Church has been at least as collectivist as Islam.

[Free Society]

I would like to know your rationale to reach that conclusion.

The Bible, you know that book you cherry-pick from.

Historically and as a matter of doctrine, you as an individual either accept Jesus as "lord and savior" or you do not, whereas you cannot simply choose to be or not a Muslim.

Indoctrinating children with superstition is not offering a choice. What do you mean "cannot choose to be or not be a Muslim"? People choose all the time. Just like people choose to believe in all sorts of superstitions.

If you become a Muslim or are born a Muslim, you are considered an apostate if you stop being a Muslim which brings the risk of shunning, banishment and even death. Islam is thus a collectivist religion. Christianity is not.

You should know, how utterly familiar with your own book of myths you seem to be. Your bible contains very explicit instructions on what to do with non-believers and apostates, and it's not to shower them with love.

The bible is littered with contradictions, and most notable among them are commandments to to kill non-believers while simultaneously to refrain from killing. It's logically impossible to consistently apply an inconsistent set of principles but that's not even the worst part of Christianity. The worst part is the god-commanded genocides and infanticides, mass rapes and every other atrocity purportedly supported by your barbaric man in the sky.

[Mickey Rat]

"Indoctrinating children with superstition is not offering a choice."

Great, you are one of those types.

[Free Society]

False morality is the root of evil. Teaching children things which are not only false, but immoral is well...evil.

Me saying that teaching superstition "is not offering choice" is an understatement. Your supposed god supposedly ordered atrocities that would make Nazi look like charity workers. Even if this god were real, he doesn't deserve worship, he would deserve scorn. So yeah, I'm "one of those types" which is a step in the right direction if it means I'm not in whichever superstitious gaggle of murderers you stand among.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

I wish Dr. Ahmad the best of luck in convincing his coreligionists towards his side of the argument, but this: "There is nothing inherent in Islam or the Koran, claims Ahmad, that prohibits Muslim-majority countries from joining the world economy"

Is simply untrue. The court system of Islamic countries is an enormous impediment to contractual-based property rights, which is one of many reasons why the Western powers trading in the Ottoman empire demanded their own courts for commercial transactions, and why under the millet system religious minorities who operated their own court systems tended to do better economically than the rest of the population. Incorporation in particular proved to be a problem in Islamic law, and is one reason why corporations never developed in Muslim countries as they did in the Western world. The Long Divergence (a book by a Turkish economist) has a very interesting treatment on this subject, and IMO the religious court system fostered by Islam is the biggest impediment to operating a robust free market in the region.

[Free Society]

Not to mention the divinely commanded obligation to kill non-believers, apostates and others is sort of an impediment to claiming the belief systems are compatible.

But I don't think you should use corporations, a holdover from the age of mercantilism and an invention of the state, as an indicator for free markets. Corporations by virtue of their statutory charter, are not free market.

[Cytotoxic]

corporations, a holdover from the age of mercantilism and an invention of the state, as an indicator for free markets. Corporations by virtue of their statutory charter, are not free market.

Oh no not this bullshit.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

I'm not going to get into this too deeply, but corporations are enormously useful for a number of reasons and were an organic development and codification of some creative ways that people in Northern Europe used their property rights to create long-lasting financial associations.

[Free Society]

Oh no not this bullshit.

What part is bullshit? Are corporations not an innovation of statutory law? Things that come from statutes, are by definition not products of the free market.

I'm not going to get into this too deeply, but corporations are enormously useful for a number of reasons and were an organic development and codification of some creative ways that people in Northern Europe used their property rights to create long-lasting financial associations.

The word 'corporation' describes a relationship between government parties and/or a private party. A corporation is a corporation by virtue of it's status as an incorporated entity. Do you think one procures a corporate charter on the open market, or from a government? So as useful as such entities may or may not be in commerce, it's about as organic as any arbitrary government edict. It's simply wrong to posit that it's an 'organic development' of free markets.

[PM]

Absent the state making it into an easily-available pre-fabricated legal structure, the exact equivalent of a "corporation" would exist in a perfectly free market. The only meaningful differentiation between a corporation and a large partnernship is limited liability, which could be built into a partnership agreement and customer contracts. It's very similar in that regard to the legal construct of marriage.

[Free Society]

Absent the state making it into an easily-available pre-fabricated legal structure, the exact equivalent of a "corporation" would exist in a perfectly free market. The only meaningful differentiation between a corporation and a large partnernship is limited liability, which could be built into a partnership agreement and customer contracts. It's very similar in that regard to the legal construct of marriage.

Common-law marriages existed independent of government for a long time, and marriage itself existed long before the invention of marriage licensing. Not true of corporations which are a direct creation of statutory law. Sure you can organize a joint-stock company, but the organization structure itself is not what makes a corporation a corporation. It's the grant of rights and privileges it receives from the ultimate monopoly, the state. Those rights and privileges are applicable in the monopoly judicial system. Those rights and privileges would be unenforceable without government fiat. So could an corporation exist outside of the state monopoly? Not in their present form, it wouldn't logically follow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter

[Wat Tyler]

Yes, it's BS.
Suppose in the total absence of government, you and I get together to produce some service or product. We need more capital, so we sell stock. We vote to establish a board of directors. We have a CEO, CFO, and all the rest. There is no government involved. What the heck do you call that association, other than a corporation?

[Free Society]

A company.

[UCrawford]

You're arguing over a semantic difference. *Some* corporations are government entities or proxies (e.g. East India Company), most are not. Just because you prefer to only slap the label "corporation" on the types of corporations you dislike doesn't change the actual definition of the word.

[Free Society]

No. Corporation is a word that describes a relationship wherein at least one party is a government and one entity receives a grant of rights and privileges, called a charter. Chief among the privileges are certain immunities to civil and criminal liabilities that creates a moral hazard. Moral hazards are incentive distorting effect on markets.

I have no vendetta against private companies or joint-stock companies in theory or deed. I have a problem with the statutory interference with markets that is overlooked by libertarians at best or considered a problem that leftists consider to be derived from the free market at worst.

The state has perverted the very conception of the free market you hold.

[GILMORE]

(haven't watched any of the video yet)

About 12 years ago I did a project that required learning about "Islamic Finance"/Islamic Banking outside of the actual arab/SEA nations, as practiced in international trade and in investment between Islamic and non-Islamic organizations.

it was not simple.

The (very) short of it is, there is nearly a trillion$ tied up in this system, and depending on the parties involved, significant structural obstacles exist toward integration of all this capital into a wider 'free market' system. The problem is the more standardized structure of credit markets which they do not align well with. There are some simple 'gimmicks' they use to squirrel around and still participate in traditional capital markets without technically violating their usury rules... but even these gimmicks do present barriers to liquidity and transparency.

That's the big picture part. The smaller, more individual part is that there are millions of muslims around the world who eschew traditional investment/retirement savings programs and load their wealth into things like real estate as a store of wealth because it is more culturally accepted. As such, I know about a dozen not-particularly-devout muslims who have invested the large bulk of their wealth in property instead of capital markets.

Just an observation. My experience suggests there do exist some barriers to "free market islam" in both the big and small picture.

[Swiss Servator, alles klar?]

I saw a lot of the same as you describe in Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iraq - although, it seemed to me the Iraqis might have a puncher's chance of becoming more in tune with the rest of the entrepreneurial world.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

That is another good point I didn't mention -- credit and financial markets are hugely underdeveloped in the Middle East, largely due to religion.

Underdeveloped financial markets are a big reason that Latin America is as poor as it is -- but whereas Latin America has its own recent and turbulent political history to blame for this, the Middle East's problems lay in its historical religio-political system.

[Adam]

To add to you and Gilmore mentioned, this guy has done some interesting work on this topic.

The question he tackles isn't as much as "could" Muslims be Free Marketeers? but why aren't they? And, big surprise here, it boils down to....wait for it....institutions!!!!!

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Yes, that's the guy who wrote the Long Divergence.

I'll second the recommend.

[Bretzky]

This is true, but much like the Arab treatment of women, these are really cultural deviations from what Islam actually teaches or doesn't even express itself about. Islam itself takes no stance on what is a proper investment beyond certain limitations.

[AnCapNow!]

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/.....5&cid=1103

http://themuslimissue.wordpres.....our-heads/

It's not the Arab culture, it's the religion, and it seems you are a taqiyya artist.

[OldMexican]

Can Muslims be Free Marketeers?

No. Next question?

"Huh, could you be more specific?"

Ok. Hell, no!

Next question?

[Free Society]

But your own mystical tribe is beyond reproach, I'm sure.

[Juice]

I generally like Muslim Banking.

Also there is a guy called The Muslim Agorist who wrote a book called "Voluntary Islam." I've never read it because I'm not interested in religion enough to read something like that.

http://muslimagorist.com/

[Wat Tyler]

I have great respect for Gillespie's intelligence, but I think he got suckered on this. Dr. Ahmad may be sincere, speaking for himself, but I don't think he speaks for very many moslems. If word gets around about him, the more militant moslems just might put out a fatwah on him.

[AnCapNow!]

Can NAZI's join the world economy?
Sure, after they kill all the jews, retards and gays.
Can Muslims join the world economy?
Sure, after they kill, convert or oppress with jizhya all the infidels.
Dhimmitude is about as far from free market thinking as you can get.

[Free Society]

There really is not enough common-ground. Islam emphasizes the imposition of oneself upon others. I think it's fair to say that Islam is the antithesis of liberty.

[AnCapNow!]

From an Islamic website:
"Islam is derived from the Arabic root "Salema": peace, purity, submission and obedience. In the religious sense, Islam means submission to the will of God and obedience to His law."

http://www.barghouti.com/islam/meaning.html

So, in their own words Islam = submission.

Yep, the antithesis of liberty.

[Bretzky]

As a religion that was created largely by a merchant class, it should not be surprising to find that: 1) Islam, unlike other major religions, actually has quite a bit to say, relative to the rest of its dictates, about commerce, and 2) it is fairly permissive in what it allows. Essentially you aren't permitted to engage in any business practice that is considered haram, like making or selling alcohol, engaging in interest-based transactions, lying or cheating in the course of your business dealings, etc. And unlike in official Christian doctrine, making a profit, even a large one, is perfectly acceptable (and in some schools of Islamic law, encouraged), though social pressure might require you to pay more than just your base zakat.

[AnCapNow!]

http://paktribune.com/news/Ban.....67457.html

http://chersonandmolschky.com/.....y-tunisia/

That took me 30 seconds to find, and you say these are merchants.

[Free Society]

A merchant class of slavers maybe. A class of barbarian merchants dealing in barbarism maybe. But Islam as a free market belief system? That's certainly a tasteless joke.

[AnCapNow!]

Hear hear!

I fear Bretzky is a Taqiyya artist.

[RishJoMo]

Thjere is a dude that knwos what time it is.

http://www.Anon-VPN.com

[Eggs Benedict Cumberbund]

Well they can haggle in bizarres when selling things like dates and monkeys. So I assume they are capable handling free market concepts.

[AnCapNow!]

Yet go to one of these bazars and try to sell booze, or better yet, pictures of Mo.

[Eggs Benedict Cumberbund]

How about Mo buggering a swine?

[AnCapNow!]

Change "swine" for "goat", and maybe you'll get off with a nice, quick beheading, instead of a stoning.