http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Ohmyrus41103p2.htm

...For the Leftists, it is difficult to admit that capitalism, a system built on the greed and self interests of the individual actually produces greater wealth and freedoms than Communism does. Their ideal society, which requires the individual to subordinate his interests for the greater good of his society, cannot be put into practice because it is against human nature.

For the Islamists, it is difficult to admit that their vision of the perfect Islamic state ruled in accordance to God's laws does not work because that would be saying that their religion is false. Muslims are expected to follow closely the words and deeds of their Prophet who lived 1,400 years ago as recorded in the Koran and Hadith. It is of course blasphemous of them to ask if their Prophet's behavior is still relevant or practical today. Both Leftists and Islamists are following false ideologies sustained by their faith....

For both groups, the US is an example of a polity that competes with their vision of where the world should be headed. For the Leftists, it is the Socialist utopia. For the Islamists, it is the Islamic state and ultimately the world ruled by a Caliph in perfect obedience to God's laws. Thus the beliefs of both Leftists and Islamists in their respective false ideologies have given each of them a blind spot.

Both Islamists and Leftists even have the same excuse for their respective failures. After the failure of the Soviet Union , the Leftist say, "That is not true Socialism". After the failure of the Iranian, Saudi and Taliban Islamic states to provide a better life for their people, Islamists say, "That is not true Islam"...

Extremely good thoughts, Stealth.

I have no trouble admitting that communism produces and has produced less wealth and harbors less provision for personal liberty than capitalist/democratic/republican societies of the West. That's common knowledge.

However, by saying that capitalism is human nature is a stretch; the anthropology of economics varies by culture, and is tied to religion, social structure, etc. It is inherently bound up with all things that are expressions of social and political organization. Don't you think that a tribal society defined by kinship networks would be inherently anti-capitalist? What about a patriarchal theocracy? What about matrilineal pastoralism? Why are these societies any less manifestations of human nature? If anything, we can say that these traditional societies are pragmatic; they meet the needs of the people in a given place and time. In this sense, as evidenced by human history, what is human nature in terms of politics and economics is context-dependent on time and place.

You know - the world is larger than the West, Stealth, and just because the West dominates the world because of it's disproportionate power doesn't mean that it's better, or that it's underlying economic system is natural to human behavior. Capitalism as we know it is quite recent to human history - in fact, some would say that the "Keynesian Effect" of deficit spending is the true hallmark of the modern capitalist economy, an approach to capitalism which is mere decades old, which was made policy at the behest of Heller and Schlessinger during the Kennedy administration. What came before the old capitalist models, even before mercantilism, was not anything congruent with capitalism, nor were the social relations that made it work. In fact, most scholars, especially of American Revolutionary history, would say that capitalism was an agent of profound change at all levels of society (as it's advent is closely related to industrialization) - not something inherent in society.




Do you know what "Islamism" is? You might start with Salafism. One is the outgrowth of the other. Did you know that these particular movements (which you use, peculiarly, as blanket terms) are even more recent to human history than capitalism? According to my reading of the Qur'an, yes, Islamism is false and hollow... empty and depraved. But the author characterizes it here at the beginning of the paragraph as a religion, which it is not - it is a nexus of political movements in response to colonialism and imperialism. But then, the author of this paragraph then calls Islamism and/or Islam ideologies; which is it? Can you and the author you're arguing through stand under the weight of your own conceptual mess and have a rational debate? You're stepping into a bog; a thicket; a jungle. Can you trace political movements and understand their relation to religion? Can you place the emergence of local ideologies on the canvas of world history? And what the hell does that have to do with the contemporary American political left? Do you have any ability whatsoever to appreciate the complexity of human reality?

Furthermore, you forget other Islamic movements which are less juridcal, even within schools of Sunni law. Islamism is most related to Hanbalism, the smallest and most conservative of the Sunni schools of law. What about Sufism and its various branches? What about medieval rationalism? What about the Asharites? What about Islamic liberalism which has its own exegetical approach? What about feminist Islam? You unnaturally boil down a religious and cultural system of incredible diversity because it fits your rhetoric. That's a shame.



I think this is patently inaccurate - although your estimation of the Islamists view of American policy and their own conservative nature (e.g., to get back to a mythical yesteryear) may be true. Indeed, I think you confuse the left's opposition to the rightist, neo-conservative agenda with an opposition to America proper. That's just disingenuous. That's akin to Bush's dictum "if you're not for us, you're against us." This is anti-intellectualism at its most dangerous and arrogant.

And your equation of the left with supporters of a socialist utopia? I think that's just laughable. As a proud Democrat and liberal, I certainly don't think and feel that way.



Those are true statements, in my estimation... I'm not sure you're capable of proving otherwise.

And yet, you have your bible shoved into my face.

The idea is to strive to be better, not say "you know, it won't work so let's just not even try it"

If you're found bleeding in the street, wouldn't you want someone to help you, or shouldthey just keep on walking?

Another thing...if we quit doing something after failing once, or twice, or even three times...none of us would be walking or talking today. Let alone typing bs on the internet.

We're supposed to learn from our mistakes...hell, wars have failed since the beginning of time, but we haven't given up on them yet I see. Why is it only noble ventures get tossed aside after a few less than stellar showings...?

Yeah I know, human nature... revel in the low...even though it's nothin to be proud of..here you are, defending it...to each his own I guess.

Ohhhh what a bunch of horse shiit! Of course it is a religion. ISLAM! The original Islam. A return to the Islam practiced by Muhammad's generation and the two that followed. Much of it based upon the writings of Ahmed ibn Hanbal from back around 800 AD, brought back into popularity in the mis 1700s with the Wahhabi movement. MARK

Reading in National Review today......latest issue, that Islam borrows a tremendous amount of its talking points from socialism and from Nazi's regarding the West.

Poverty- stricken thought processes, you think?

Islamism is not a religion for the hundreth time... It's a religious movement and ideology as a direct response to colonialism and foreign interference in Islamic society and lands. Islamism as it is defined today by the right - e.g., the thought of "the terrorists" - didn't exist before 1960, anyway. Wahhabism generated the Salafi movement, and Islamism, respectively, grew out of that after being incubated by the establishment of Israel, the 1967 war, and less so by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But I do perceive your nice little attempt to make a false, bigoted chain from Muhammad, to Hanbal, to Wahhab, to Islamism. It's crass, and I'm sad to say, unoriginal and incorrect.

dixon - since your equation of Islamism and Islam is erroneous to begin with - then why would an even more complicated and over-simplfified equation be any more correct?

Hanbalism is not a monolithic, unchanging object than can be bead-strung to your liking. It has evolved and grown, even long after Hanbal's death. Indeed, he never knew that his fiqh would become the basis for a bona-fide school of Sunni law. His students did that - students over several generations after his death. There are scores and scores of teachers and students who've contributed to the establishment of Sunni law - Some of which broke off from Hanbali thought and formed their own schools (some more liberal, some more conservative - some more esoteric, some more exoteric) that eventually died out. In truth, Hanbali law was not solidified until well into the 11th century; it has changed shape over time along with history, and it's definition is inherently unstable. It's a very bad link in your chain, and it doesn't help your argument that Islam is easily simplified into Islamism, and that this can be seen in some contrived transition from Muhammad, to Hanbal, to Wahhab, to Islamism. You're making artificial connections and leaving so very much out.

As for Wahhab - he was addressing the enlightenment and Western geopolitical adventures; his impulse was to turn inward and turn toward an extremely conservative world-view, which was based on much more than Hanbali law... Law alone doesn't address theology, ritual, and exegesis - clearly important compenents in "Islam" proper.

.....

You know - it's so easy to see you coming, to cut down your responses to size, and to show your error... But it's so hard to convince of it...

Prior to the advent of US capitalism humanity had stagnated for thousands of years. The resourses and means were always present on this planet but were not exploited until a system of governance allowed individuals to profit from their personal endeavors. The US has been the leader and catalyst for the advancement of humanity.

You disagree?? Next time you you need a tooth repair or an appendectomy go see the witch doctor in one of these "tribal societies".

Nomad, a brilliant reposte. You summed it up tight and clearly!
Bean

Hey Nomad, why not stick to the topic at hand instead of trying to divert me or overwhelm me with more questions and arguments? You won't succeed anyway. Nevertheless, I'll bite. Keep in mind - I'm waiting patiently for your next brilliant response to my concerns that continue to go unaddressed.

Anyway, as far as the above post goes - I do in fact disagree. Those things would have never occurred to ancient man... it's not like he would sit around on a rock in his squalor-filled cave and moan and complain about how he wishes a doctor could fix his appendix and cavity-covered teeth. Life was a fragile thing for them. It was the way of nature... Ancient man's (and even early-modern man's) worldview and consciousness were quite different. Far more esoteric. Far less materialistic than ours. Why is this patently "worse" than ours? Simply because they were materially worse off? How little you seem to understand the human experience.

The betterment and cultural evolution of man is best understood not by the advent of capitalism, but by the evolution of language. A scholar named Walter Ong posits this, essentially, through the unconscious and slow cultivation of language, and he works especially with Arabic and Latin... He demonstrates that the human mind, its horizons, and its potential were tapped most powerfully through the use and improvement of language, writing, literature, and onward to philosophy and later expressions of religion... this was a long, slow, and protracted process, Nomad. Man didn't just leap into modernity with capitalism, though it definitely provided a good push. The truth is, man eased into modernity, and only recently did we totally rip the lid off of pandora's box with communication, transportation, and media. Truth be told, our future is less certain than ever for these developments. With a few tweaks, I buy into this general framework. The slow, linguistic and intellectual evolution of man's consciousness that led up to the solidification of economics and capitalism must have occurred first in order for that notion of capitalism to ever occur to man, so he could express abstractions such that are required for the capitalistic ethos. So many strands come to together with what you call the advent of capitalism... it's a complex and mysterious story... not the stuff of mere pro-conservative propaganda.

The idea of the capitalist ethos - indeed, false consciousness! - being better than what came before is just rhetoric, and a means by which we can legitimize paternalism toward those we think are less advanced or worthy than we. This is the impulse behind colonialism and imperialism - you can thank run-away capitalism for it. There have been many studies looking at this very thing - e.g., Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart, Edward Said's Orientalism, and Albert Memmi's The Colonizer and the Colonized; these are stories from their viewpoint, with the exception of Said, who is more of a theorist. Such an attitude of superiority, related to capitalism, has been used to dominate those who are not capitalistic, Christian, and white... strange that we Americans always end hating those who see the world differently... the Soviets... many Muslims... the Third World... we loathe that which we are not, and you, Nomad have stumbled upon why that is. Is it any wonder that much of the world hates us back? Why do we forget that the Revolution that created our Republic was about preserving the English Constitution, which symbolized justice in the face of tyranny? Yet we have become tyrants... A sad story indeed.

And, you can't deny, that capitalism is tied expressly to Protestant Christianity; e.g., the Protestant work ethic... it was pioneered in the Americas first by the Puritans. Perhaps this explains why conservative Americans are touchy as priests when it comes to their precious capitalist/Protestant ethic.

To conclude, I think there were forces working toward the improvment of the mind and condition of man long before even the most elementary forms of capitalism came about in the age of the discovery of the new world, that formed around the mercantilism of the first British Empire. To argue otherwise is basically to just buy into the polemic of the old English Protestant capitalists, or their Puritanical allies. That is the very type of argument that made the idea of Jonathan Edward's "City Upon a Hill" so attractive... But even then, the Puritains conceived of a "Model of Christian Charity"... so it seems you're even less moral or respectful to others than they... They had a golden rule... do you? You seem to want to thrash where they liked to pretentiously prostlytize in light of this ethos - which makes me wonder if you even understand it.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011792.php

…Islam is indeed compatible with "free enterprise" if by "free enterprise" one means the appropriation of economic power, and state money, by those who first inherit, or manage to acquire, political power….
The real question is: can Islam and non-Islam, can Believers and Infidels, "go together" or co-exist, in a spirit in which Muslims are not constantly striving to deny those Infidels their laws, their customs, their understandings, their ways of doing things, their pluralism? I don't mean the "pluralism" that Muslims exploit as long as they need to -- I mean "pluralism" everywhere, including the Muslim countries. Can Believers accept the Infidels in their relations between the sexes, their attention to the individual and abhorrence of the Muslim emphasis on the collective, their free speech, their freedom of conscience, their art, their music, their everything that makes them them?

Traditional Islam uncompromisingly divides the world between Believer and Infidel. The former are instructed "not to take" the latter as "friends" (Qur’an 5:51) but rather to show implacable hostility to them, and even to show murderous hostility to them. This is because, in the Muslim view, the world's land is also divided between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, the Lands of the Believers and the Lands of the Infidels (the "House, Domain, Abode of War"). Muslims have a duty to strive in whatever way they can, using whatever instruments of Jihad prove most effective and are available, to make as much of Dar al-Harb part of Dar al-Islam, until Islam covers the globe and dominates everywhere, and Muslims rule.
This is not a fantasy. This can be found in the texts. This is taught. The fact that not all Muslims act upon it should be no consolation. Some are too busy making a living. Some wish to pretend those texts and teachings do not exist, for as residents of the West, they have no way to explain them, and just hope that they can keep on distracting Infidels, avoiding the real questions, and keep on reproducing at a rate that will eventually make the answering of such questions, or the pretense of answering them, unnecessary.
That this is not understood is a failure at least as colossal as that of the Western world in its unwillingness to confront Adolf Hitler in the 1930s, or to aid the Whites against the Bolsheviks in the period of the Russian Civil War, when those Bolsheviks might have been stopped.

Surah 60:8-9


Don't we as Christians get a little or a lot aggravated when unbleivers take the Bible out of context? How many OT verses do unbelievers throw in our face to try and justify us as war-mongering, violent Christians? The same is happening with Islam. We westerners take a few verses that appear to glorify terrorism and use that as our "evidence". Many times these verses are taken out of context or do not actually mean what we think.

I've been studying (and am hoping to be involved in) a recent IO idea concerning this. Basically it has to do with the meaning of 'Jihad' and how Al Qaeda's interpretation is incorrect and is actually UNholy according to the Qur'an. It makes perfect sense, but the only problem with it right now is, will they accept an interpretation like this from Westeners? Probably not, but there are a few Muslim scholars who are, hopefully, going to be involved in getting the word out. We'd just need to protect them and empower them.

This is just an opinion: Wouldn't a reformed, modernized Islam be in our best interest? Demonizing and polarizing them would not serve our purpose and would actually discourage modern reformists. It only adds fuel to the fire, IMO.

Wow...

I don't know what to say. I essentially agree with all of your posts... Well done. You're absolutely right that capitalism and Islam are compatible... a scholar and mentor of mine thinks, though its still to be fully researched, is that the maritime trade of the Late Ummayad and Abbasid Caliphates from Southeast Arabia (the base of medieval Islamic maritime trade) to India, Persia, Indonesia - and even China - was very robust. The idea is that the late Medieval Muslims were among the very first capitalists. There's no question they were making oodles of money, which was richly taxed. The splendor of the Abbasid capital was funded largely on these revenues, even at a time when the outer borders of the Caliphate were crumbling, and the massive empire that the Abbasids inherited was disintegrating and fracturing. The Southeast Arabian seaboard was absolutely covered with ports and merchant outlets, archaeology has shown this to us... A book called "Old World Encounters" (whose author slips my mind right now) makes this thesis... Another really interesting article by John Voll called "Islam as a World-System" provides for the infrastructure to make this possible - which happened through trade and spiritual hubs called "tariqas," though they are more commonly known as Sufi sancutaries. These tariqas covered the Dar-al-Islam from Fez to Dhaka and beyond.

I think we can even look at the Qur'an itself to consider economics. The Qur'an likens the economy of the Islamic community as a body - and if one area is getting all the goods, then another will suffer. I think this provides the base for a very temperate form of capitalism - e.g., "with a heart," as a professor of mine once said. Hence, we have zakat - compulsory charity. Profit making is not haram. Interest on loans is quite another story - but I believe this tradition was expressly to limit the influence of Jews, Christians, and Persians would sought, often, to squeeze the Caliphates and Muslims through interest on economic development. It is a matter of debate as to whether the traditions consider interest proper to be haram, or interest with a certain intention. This was especially true during the conquests, when new lands came under the suzerainty of the Caliphates. Nevertheless - if we look at Dubai, Egypt, Pakistan, and even Morocco and the Southeast Asian Islamic countries - their economies are modernizing, and investment is increasing. They are integrating in the world economy.

And KenRI's post I also believe is correct. But in my estimation, the change needs to occur from within, and an entirely new approach to Islamic scripture needs to be taken up. A new impulse needs to rise from the bottom up in Islam - and they need to embrace the future and look outward with confidence, because I don't think there's any reason why they shouldn't. I think Fazlur Rahman, Amina Wadud, Fatima Mernissi, and Sayyed Nasr are pioneers in expressing the spirit of Islam in the modern world without compromising the Islamic identity. And on top of this - religious scholars like Fritjof Schuon, Huston Smith, and Karen Armstrong are keen at identifying the incredible diversity of the expression of Islam over time... This isn't the first crisis in Islam... and I hope peace and prosperity follow this time of trial.

Really, gentlemen, you're getting at the core of the apple, here with your posts. Islam is going through crisis, and contradictory, clashing interests are fighting tooth and nail for the whole of Islam; we have Islamists, Salafists, Liberals, Modernists, Feminists, and Moderate Orthodoxy in the fray... The smoke ain't settled yet, and I think it'll be awhile before it does...

But, at the risk of sounding pretentious, I think it's good you can see it it this way... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see an alteration of your previous, more close-minded position... maybe it was just the spirit of debate that made you not budge... but I think you've got something here. If you study these things as you say, I hope you'd continue to.

Mr..."satan hand" )moslem translation...
I just love it that you finally figured it out.

Our mafias= their hard core

They are all self-painted targets in my mind.

...Shoot first and let God sort them out.
Bean

Well, unfortunately, that's not going to happen (otherwise it would have by now) without our influence. If the Muslim reformation does actually occur, it will be because we are in Iraq spreading a democracy and freedom. (and protecting the lives of those who speak out against Al Qaeda)