Why Islam and libertarianism are incompatible
Some libertarians may disagree with this. And no I’m not necessarily advocating banning ALL Muslims from the country like what Donald Trump suggested (though I do think there should a moratorium on Muslim immigration from certain countries). Islam for the past 1,400 years it’s existed has been all about conquering and waging war. And despite what Barack Obama and the left say about the crusades, it was in fact a response Islam’s conquest of Europe. They had pretty much controlled Spain and southern Europe in the 1oth and 11th centuries if I’m correct (I’ll make sure to amend this if I’m not). So the Catholic Church in response commenced the crusades to push the Islamists back.
Now after that the point, Islam was dormant for six or seven centuries up until the 20th century. Why they were dormant for so long is probably for variety of reasons from the dominance the West in colonialism via the British Empire (and the US to lesser extent) and lack of proper funding and modern technology. In fact, Islamism would’ve died out were it not for us funding Saudi Arabia oil in the 50s. And of course we set the stage for a Mullah controlled Iran by helping the British maintain control by installing the Shah as opposed to letting Democratic elections take hold.
Then came the 70s and 80s when the Soviets started invading Afghanistan and we started funding some rebels led by an individual named Osama bin Laden. That group would later become Al Qaeda and served up a role in the 9/11 attacks which subsequently led right to the passing of the Patriot Act, NSA mass surveillance and War on Terror in Afghanistan just a month later and Iraq a year and half after that. Let’s not also forget that the Taliban took over Afghanistan right after we helped them kick out the Soviets.
Every Muslim-majority in the last 50 years has been a hellhole for women, gays and religious (or nonreligious) minorities such as Christians, Jews and atheists. Now I’ve always wondered why the left has such sympathy or least gives leeway to Islamism which is completely contrary to their philosophy and ideas. Or is it? In pure unadulterated Islam that’s called for in the Koran, it tells how you should be living life. From when and how much you pray, to what you can eat or drink, how long your beard should be etc etc etc.
The goal of progressives and collectivists is to get a government so large and powerful, it can tell you what you can or can’t do in your daily life. Hell it already dictates many things that it has no authority to dictate such as how much of your property via your income you can keep for yourself. It viciously regulates what kind of items such as guns you can buy. Or what you can put in your body whether that’s drugs, tobacco, soda, fatty foods or other things.
Yes there’s many moderate Muslims that are peaceful and friendly people. But moderate or loosely interpreted Islam isn’t so different from moderate socialism where the tenants can pave the way towards total tyranny seen in the Soviet Union or Iran. I think we as libertarians should be recognizing this harsh reality that Islam is collectivist philosophy that should be treated the same as Communism.
If you agree or disagree, let me know the comments section below. Have a great day.
Join The Discussion
24 CommentsThoughts? Comments?
Please login or register to post a comment.
Rick Rule December 8, 2015 , 8:30 pm
Jonathan
You would be well advised to travel in Muslim countries, and come to know some Muslim people. I suspect your beliefs are unblemished by experience.
I have traveled in, and done business in ” Muslim” dominated countries for decades. My only risk was being welcomed to enthusiastically, fed too many dates and Shawarma, and offered too much tea.
Once, in Dubai, when I made inquiry into the possibility of establishing contacts with Iranian business people who might be interested in meeting an American investor in anticipation of gradual improvement in bilateral relations, I was told that there was no building in the Emirates that could hold that many people.
I count MANY Muslims among my friends, and many more as clients.
I have practiced Zakat, ( the Koranic practice of charity), and consider the Aga Khan, the Imam of the Ismaeli sect of Shia Islam, to be the most responsible and reasonable religious leader on the planet.
I’ve already wasted to many of the last twenty four hours venting about my feelings toward the Imam of hate, Osama Bin Trump
Jonathan Gillispie December 8, 2015 , 8:44 pm Vote0
Yes there are many legitimately peaceful and friendly Muslim. I never denied and I never said I supported Trump’s proposed policy of just banning all Muslims coming in the country even they’re American citizens as that’s unconstitutional (though there’s nothing unconstitutional about restricting immigration from certain countries). But numerous studies and polls have shown that Muslims all over the world share very radical beliefs from favoring honor killings to incredible intolerance of homosexuality. The Koran is basically war and conquer manual that advocates violence. Muhammad himself was a blood thirsty mongreal. It’s up to pro-western peaceful Muslims to reform and bring Islam into the 21st century.
Jonathan Gillispie December 8, 2015 , 8:47 pm Vote0
@rrule https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZiJehMXBpQ
Don Stacy December 8, 2015 , 9:25 pm Vote3
I disagree. Strongly. The existence of anarcholibertarian Muslims proves the absurdity of this thesis.
Martin Brock December 8, 2015 , 9:44 pm Vote2
Thanks for informing a billion people that they needn’t waste their time with libertarianism.
Kevin Victor December 8, 2015 , 9:45 pm
Collectivist ideologies in general are incompatible with libertarianism. Proposing some form of policy by a coercive collective(the State), based on an incomplete knowledge of a collective group(Muslims) or any for that matter seems incompatible as well.
The problem with social reform/policy is that generalizing individuals into collective groupings takes for granted the uncertainty involved in categorizing them in the first place. These labels are based on subjective understandings of what it actually means to be considered part of the “group”. My idea of what it means to be a “muslim” or a “liberal” may be different than yours. Is muslims the correct word for who these people are after? Perhaps what Trump and other proselytizers are talking about are just your typical violent criminals influenced by a certain doctrine which happens to be related toislam. But saying they are all muslims is much simpler and opportunistic.
Rick Rule December 8, 2015 , 9:48 pm
@rebellibertarian
Jonathon, your reference to ” numerous studies” causes me to reiterate my advice that you travel. AS for the regional beliefs of some Muslims, none of whom I’ve met, we might be reminded that the KKK styled itself as Christian.
As to the Koran, you might peruse the old testament, before commenting negatively on the Koran
As a lender, I have some problem with Jesus treatment of my kind in years past.
Brian Farmer December 9, 2015 , 4:48 am Vote0
@rrule
Would you care to iterate your problems with how Jesus treated lenders?
Did he have a problem with lenders, or did he have a problem with the corruption of lenders?
Jonathan Gillispie December 8, 2015 , 10:11 pm
@donstacy I’m not saying Muslims aren’t welcome to liberty philosophy, rather that Islam as literally interpreted is incompatible with libertarianism. It needs desperate reformation that needs to be done by reformed Muslims. We can’t as libertarians stick our heads in the sand and pretend everything is awesome.
Rick Rule December 8, 2015 , 10:24 pm
@rebellibertarian
On your last point Jonathan, I agree, “we can’t stick our heads in the sand, and pretend that everything is awesome”‘ we need to spread the word about the warmongering old testament, and the threat to life and liberty the fundamentalist Christians pose to our lives and property.
Brian Farmer December 9, 2015 , 4:56 am Vote0
@rrule
Is it fundamentalist Christians who pose a threat to your life and liberty? As I recall, Jesus of Nazareth and his friends were a bunch of drifting, long-haired hippies who went around trying to do kind deeds for other people. Personally, I don’t feel threatened by such fundamentalist Christians.
I live in an area with a lot of Amish and Mennonites, which tend to be cultish fundamentalist Christians, and I don’t feel threatened by them either.
Mahatma Gandhi — ‘I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.’
Do not confuse “Christians who are unlike Christ” with being fundamentalist Christians.
Signed,
An anarcho-capitalist libertarian fundamentalist follower of Jesus of Nazareth.
(I am always hesitant to label myself a Christian, as I do not want to be confused with someone who is so unlike Christ.)
Rick Rule December 9, 2015 , 3:16 pm Vote1
point well taken. Aside from assaulting the money lenders at the temple, he seems like a mellow sort. The Falwells, Wallaces, Robertson’s etc., who purport to follow in those footsteps bother me, mostly because they are closer to me than the Muslim extremists.
I’m OK with the peaceful followers in both camps to deny the violent extremists legitimacy, and brand them blasphemers.
Marko I. December 8, 2015 , 11:56 pm Vote2
Jonathan I agree to some extent. West is going away from the culture of reason. Religion is “violent” because religious people are violent to themselves first (self-sacrifice is common for all religions but emphasized in Islam) . The nature of all religions throughout the past were that the followers were gradually adapting to the culture of reason. Unfortunately, Islam got stuck heavily, so it could take some years before they adapt to some basic Western values. Our part of the world is moving so fast so skepticism is understandable. However, I don’t think that skepticism to them should be emphasized as there are really a minority when it comes to population on the West.
I know some Muslims who are doing drugs and heavily drinking for an example (and may not even believe in god in my opinion) but their parents are into it so they mark themselves only for the sake of parents. Hence, we actually joked about it. 🙂
But if you are pointing out the ethics I don’t see that libertarianism ever gave a response to that. According to CATO, it’s perfectly fine to form socialist communities or similar in a libertarian society. Following that collectivist epistemology religious communities can arise freely in libertarian society.
So my stance is that we should find a way to point out what’s awesome about the West and attack phobia with friendliness. Phobia is the worst. It creates irrational classifications in our minds.
Brian Farmer December 9, 2015 , 5:04 am Vote0
What about People of the Book?
Under Sharia law in Muslim countries, People of the Book are given the right to practice their own faith and receive state protection like any other Muslim.
Muslims believe kosher food (under Jewish law) meets the standards of halal food (under Islam law) because Jews are People of the Book…
Account deleted December 9, 2015 , 5:26 am
Following the Quran to the letter is incompatible with libertarianism, but this is true for every other religion’s holy book as well.
Martin Brock December 9, 2015 , 1:30 pm Vote2
Good point. Socrates was not a libertarian either. Many traditions incorporate some libertarian ideals, but no ancient tradition makes individual liberty the foundation of social organization.
Brian Farmer December 9, 2015 , 5:40 am Vote0
@reece
Following libertarianism to the letter is incompatible too, since almost everyone is really a communist. (There are a few deeply disturbed folks who are not communists, and they are reviled by everyone else.)
Murray Swearengen December 9, 2015 , 12:40 pm Vote1
Great comments, Rick. The border and passport hugging libertarians have likely never left their great protector state’s border to spend any time in a Muslim populated country. “But I saw it on Youtube!” can be used to justify any position.
Account deleted December 9, 2015 , 1:03 pm Vote2
@bfarmer That makes no sense.
Brian Farmer December 9, 2015 , 1:41 pm
@reece Which comment were you responding to? I assume you refer to my comment about almost everyone being communists.
From everyone according to their ability, and to everyone according to their needs.
The social system everyone has the most experience with is the family structure.
All family members are fed, clothed, housed, receive medical care, etc. regardless of their contribution. You typically don’t have one class of members who eat filet mignon and caviar while the others eat cabbage soup. We typically don’t see one member wearing fancy clothes, while others wear rags. One member who works doesn’t keep their paycheck to themselves, but everyone gets to benefit from the purchases.
Everyone pools their efforts, labor, and capital resources so that everyone is taken care of. This is communism at its finest.
The secret is moral leadership. (And when you have a lack of moral leadership in a family, such as a parent spending all the money on themselves, while others starve and are in rags. Society reviles such conduct.)
The reason that communism works at home, but doesn’t work on a larger scale is because we don’t have moral leadership on a larger scale. People have their own self interests, and place the needs of those close to them over the needs of people further from them.
When you don’t have moral leadership, (even at the family level) you have people who could be productive living on charity and welfare, rather than doing what they are capable of first, and then being supported by others if a need truly existed. Welfare recipients and children are both subsidized, but we make children do chores and clean the house and take out the trash.
No one enjoys seeing poverty and suffering. A communist structure that treated everyone like family would be an ideal, but it is not realistic because we lack moral leadership. Until we have moral leadership, I believe anarcho-capitalism is the second best societal structure.
It should be noted that Christianity teaches that Jesus of Nazareth will return to earth and rule over everyone for 1000 years. This is an example of the kind of moral leadership that would be necessary for communism to work.
Martin Brock December 9, 2015 , 3:10 pm Vote0
@bfarmer Many historical “communists” (including “anarcho-communists”) oppose “private property” in capital (means of production) and advocate the “ability, needs” criteria for production and consumption, but these terms are ambiguous, and political terms generally resist a precise usage.
Historical socialists and communists (not to mention some Christians and others) imagine a social organization like the family or a larger clan or tribe, but I wouldn’t call this ideal “communism at its finest”. It’s more like communism at its most imaginary.
“Moral leadership on a larger scale” smacks of a paternalistic state. I can imagine a literal father squandering a family’s resources regardless of the needs of his children, and I would call this father an example of failed moral leadership; however, the notion does not scale. A paternalistic ruler on a larger scale cannot govern his metaphorical “children” well by this standard, no matter how moral he is, because the Hayekian knowledge problem rules out this possibility.
Neither a well intentioned Einstein nor any hierarchical organization of Einsteins can rule millions of people as we imagine a good parent ruling a family, because an Einstein is not omniscient, and no hierarchical organization can mimic omniscience. I don’t expect a state’s constituents to behave like parents either, but their morality or lack thereof is not why I expect a paternalistic state to fail to realize this ideal.
I don’t expect Jesus to solve this problem either, and I don’t agree that anarcho-capitalism, as usually formulated, is a second best or even a more practical solution. I don’t accept the “anarcho-communist” or “libertarian-communist” labels, because “communism” has too much political baggage and doesn’t communicate my preferences well; however, I do agree with historical communists that individuals properly govern capital only with the consent of others employing the capital.
“Private property” is not equivalent to “individual property” and does not rule out “collective property”. In a free community, members of the community consent to the standards of propriety whereby individuals govern particular resources. This rule by consensus is not the family model in fact, and it’s not the anarcho-capitalist model either, and it doesn’t imply production based only ability or consumption based only on need.
Members of a free community freely choose to respect the community’s formulation of individual property rights (if any), and these rules apply only to the community’s property (the resources subject to the community’s standards). In this sense, even if the community enacts strictly individualistic, Rothbardian standards, the property is nonetheless owned collectively, because individual members exclude other members from particular resources only with the consent of all members.
A free community is like a homeowners association or a cohousing community. It may permit individual members exclusively to govern land and other productive means, to whatever extent the members freely accept, and this individual ownership is consistent with individual liberty as long as members remain free to leave the community and find or found another community ruled otherwise.
Rick Rule December 9, 2015 , 3:11 pm Vote2
@bfarmer
In fact the Koran instructs Muslim political leaders to welcome, shelter and protect other peoples of the book, if they are non hostile to Islam. I guess a few leaders forgot toead that passage.
Jonathan Gillispie December 9, 2015 , 8:20 pm
@reece I should note that a devout Christian isn’t the same thing as a devout Muslim. Yes there are some violent texts in the Old Testament, but the New Testament takes a more live and let live approach and emphasizes forgiveness. I don’t see that with Islam.
Jonathan Gillispie December 9, 2015 , 8:23 pm Vote0
@bfarmer No argument there.