Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Islamic Economics: An Oxymoron

As the term economy is understood to be a system of trade – a barter system, or laissez-faire, or a mixed economy with the freedom to trade and produce hampered, saddled and skewed by government controls and regulations – on the other hand, the notion of an Islamic economy or of “Islamic economics,” is rife with fallacies.

An Islamic economy is a contradiction in terms. Why?

Islam is a looter’s system of wealth seizure and expropriation. It produces nothing, it does not encourage the production of values to trade, and it is essentially anti-capitalist and anti-life. Overall, it is a system for the maintenance by force of a class of parasites. Islamic “economics” prescribes, as its essential and inherent goals, the sustained activity of wealth, social, and – need we remind anyone – sexual plunder. Its Economics in One Lesson is the Koran. Instead of a genuine economist such as Henry Hazlitt, Islam has as its primary “economist” the delusional, “voice-hearing” cave-dweller Mohammad.

Islam has been a looters’ system from the very beginning of the Islamic calendar, when Mohammad left Medina in 630 A.D. with his 10,000 converts/warriors and marched on Mecca, which he had fled eight years before because his “peaceful” proselytizing for his own moon-worshipping religion netted him few converts but many enemies. Or so the legend goes. Robert Spencer casts serious and well documented doubts on whether or not the Prophet of Plunder even existed in his excellent, eye-opening book, Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins.

Islam has practiced its “economics” since the seventh century up to the present without interruption or surcease. Whether it was pillaging villages and tribes of their wealth and women, or imposing on conquered non-Muslim peoples the jizya tax, Islamic captors, conquerors, occupiers, and invaders have consistently followed a policy of theft and expropriation. Islam practices its extortion even in the way of the oil brought from the ground of Saudi Arabia, oil the country could never have discovered and exploited on its own, the oil beneath the sands that were watered with the blood of 1,400 years of imposing Islam on the Peninsula.

Islamic “economics” also includes the institution of slavery. Sexual slavery. Physical slavery. Jizya slavery.

Standard definitions of economy are various but stress the frugal management of resources and wealth. The Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1956) definition of economy can stand for most other definitions.

1.  The management or regulation of domestic or household affairs with special regard for costs; hence, management of the affairs of a community, estate, or establishment, and especially concerned with its maintenance or productiveness. 2.  Thrifty administration; often, retrenchment in expenditure; 3.  An economizing act, move, or means; also, the disposition to economize….5.  An economic stage in man’s development or history; also, the economic system characterizing such a stage; as a slave economy; a barter economy.

It should go without saying that twentieth and twenty-first century Western governments have not been characterized by thrifty administration or a disposition to economize; on the contrary, they are notorious for expanding statist powers, which cost money to enforce, and for profligacy in expenditures for grand projects and welfare state institutions.

Now, why are hundreds of thousands – perhaps millions – of Muslims and other Third World “migrants” and “refugees” invading Europe like The Walking Deads hordes of zombies attracted by sound? Their aim is not much different from the cinematic ones: to eat Europeans alive.

Europeans, they assume, will work and provide the migrants a welfare existence. The overwhelming majority of them are not going to Europe to develop productive careers. That is hardly their ulterior motive. They’re not going there to study and develop new surgical techniques, or to improve the efficiency of Wankel engines, or to write new symphonies. They are going there – together with their wives and progeny and relatives, whom they will have the right to bring with them or later bring them into Germany, Sweden, France, and other European welfare states that welcome them – to become career parasites, freeloaders-by-right, perpetual charges on the state, and economic burdens on the productive non-Muslims, whom they scorn and expect to defer to Islamic ways and to Muslims.

Pamela Geller observed in her February 2013 Atlas Shrugs column, “UK Islamic Preacher Urges Muslims to go on Welfare (Jizya) and Plot Jihad”:

Qur’an 9:29 – "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that
forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge
the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they
pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

This is consistent with the jizya — non-Muslims forced to pay for jihad. Is it any wonder that there is no work ethic in the Muslim world?

Robert Spencer elaborates here, "Islamic law actually instills no work ethic and teaches Muslims to live off the dhimmis — hence the need for jihad conquest. When jihad conquests and dhimmi wealth are not in the offing or the dhimmis have been bled dry, Sharia states stagnate economically. This creates an everlasting conundrum for Muslims like Sallah. Sayyid Qutb, the great 20th-century jihad theorist, also taught that adherence to Sharia would bring prosperity — yet the evidence of his eyes was everywhere disconfirming, so he had to find a scapegoat. Sharia adherents know their countries are poor, and they think Sharia will bring wealth. When it doesn't, they inevitably turn to conspiracy theories: their continuing lack of prosperity must be the work of the Jews.

So Imam Choudary's exhortations to go on welfare benefits and plot holy war is consistent with Islamic teachings.  See "Claim Jihad Seeker’s Allowance"    The Sun.

Geller continues:

SCROUNGING hate preacher Anjem Choudary has told fanatics to copy him by going on benefits — urging: “Claim your Jihad Seeker’s Allowance.”  He cruelly ridiculed non-Muslims who held down 9-to-5 jobs all their lives and said sponging off them made plotting holy war easier.

The Sun secretly filmed him over three meetings also saying leaders such as David Cameron and Barack Obama should be KILLED, grinning as he branded the Queen “ugly” and predicting a “tsunami” of Islamic immigrants would sweep Europe.

Father-of-four Choudary, who has praised terrorist outrages, pockets more than
£25,000 a year in benefits — £8,000 more than the take-home pay of some soldiers fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

This is true. Islam’s premises are of such a nature that Islam cannot instill anything resembling a moral code for the production of wealth.  It can only instill the pathological “psychology” of the raider, of the thief, of the parasite who can turn violent when his “needs” are not satisfied. Does he “need” medical care? Others must provide it, at no cost to him, and it had better be first class care, else he will scream “racism” or “Islamophobia.” Does he need a clean apartment to live in? The state is willing to provide him with one, even going to the trouble of evicting non-Muslim indigenous residents from their homes, apartments, or summer cottages to make room for him.  And these accommodations had better be of the first order; otherwise he will cry “discrimination.”

Does he need sex? There are plenty of good-looking European women available, some of whom will willingly bend to his vaunted Muslim charms and superiority, but most of whom will not. In which case, he will just take it.  Regardless of her age.  In a dhimmi Western court, he can plead ignorance of the notion that rape is a crime, or he can even cite his religion which permits it. And walk free. Because rape is permissible in Islam, and a dhimmi judge will not risk questioning the morality of the perpetrator’s “religion.”

Does he “need” something but not enough of his welfare benefits has been granted yet that would allow him to buy it? He can shoplift in local stores for food and clothing and perhaps even a new cell phone or a computer, and, more likely than not, if he is caught, he will be let go because he is just a poor, ignorant immigrant who didn’t know any better and is only seeking a “better life.”

His criminal actions will become a mere blip in the in the increase of lawlessness and crime that has skyrocketed since the “asylum seekers” came to town, lost in the already high crime rates of “native-born,” second and third generation Muslims.

It is quite disturbing to read that these creatures have, once they are in Europe, rioted because they did not like the food or the shelters or the living accommodations they were provided by foolish Western governments or the time it took to “register” them as “asylum seekers” or “refugees.”  Islam is a system built on taking, not trading.  And often, once they have reached Sweden or France or Finland, they wish to return to the Western nation that has better and more generous benefits, such as Germany or Britain.

The looters’ “economy” cannot sustain itself. If it achieves any kind of longevity, it is only by default, thanks to the willingness of producers to submit to and sanction the extortion and thievery. A looters’ economy – such as Islam’s – contains the seeds of its guaranteed demise. It drains in exponential degrees the capacity of the productive sector of a nation to provide anything. This includes welfare state benefits. There comes a time when the benefits may be generous, but the “providers” of those benefits – be they cell phones or computers or medical care – have diminished in number or have even vanished.

But this connection will not occur to the Muslim claimant. What the West must learn is that what the Muslim “asylum seeker” or “refugee” is seeking asylum or refuge from is the reality of the poverty of his religion, a religion that teaches him from day one that the world is his oyster and that he needn’t do anything to earn it.  He has been taught that he is intrinsically superior to everything, and that man-made laws are an anathema to Allah and Islam.

An economy presupposes things to produce and trade. Islam is not about producing or trading, but rather about taking.

And that is why Islamic “economics” is such an oxymoron.


Edward Cline said...

I neglected to note that slavery, while it can be cited as an economic system, is essentially uneconomical. Slaveholders and slavers may "make" money from the labor of their slaves, as Southern slaveholders did, but only if there is a market for the things produced by slaves and individuals or corporate entities willing to purchase the products of slave labor. Slaves require more upkeep and maintenance than do machines, regardless if they are paid a pittance or nothing at all. They also required the expense of paying for guarantees that slaves will not run away. It is ironic that while Britain abolished slavery within its realm and waged an effective naval campaign against the slave trade in the`19th century, was one of the biggest purchases of Southern cotton before the Civil War, chiefly to keep its textile industries supplied with the material. As with totalitarian regimes, an economy based mostly on slavery could exist only if freer economies existed.

Richard said...

Another great condemnation of Islam. It might be worth providing direct quotations of Islamic economic policy from the Quran, & other Islamic texts. There is also a Muslim 'Constitution' for Australia...

P.S. Please correct the first word of the Geller quote to "SCROUNGING"

Richard said...

Another great condemnation of Islam. It might be worth providing direct quotations of Islamic economic policy from the Quran, & other Islamic texts. There is also a Muslim 'Constitution' for Australia...

P.S. Please correct the first word of the Geller quote to "SCROUNGING"