Islamic societies have failed in the modern era for various reasons but the ultimate source is Islam itself. Islam is nomadic theft based religion and is not and should not be the basis of an economic system.
Why have Islamic societies failed in modern times ?
1 Political Stability India is a modern democracy with stable governance. Pakistan is most often run by warlords with attempts at democracy. China provides an example of a stable but non democratic government. Why should anyone risk investing resources in Syria or Lybia with erretic strongmen
2 Human Capital India values education and produces a skilled workforce. Pakistan exports its human capital and its educational system is noted for Madrassa type production of religious zealots. Most of the Pakistani Entrepenuers in America are Mohajairs who left India and then Pakistan to set up Businesses in America.
3 Coherent Law enforcement Muslim courts and law enforcement are notoriously corrupt.Potential investors have to deal with extortion and a series of never ending corruption.
India was not founded as a Hindu state and is ruled by civil law. It has many excellent institutions where students study real subjects. One could compare Israel and Egypt and reach the same point. Islam as the starting point of an economy is an
rx for disaster. The moral justifications of a caravan raider are not the basis for a coherent economy in the modern age.
Mr Beamish in 08, Ducky to the library and try to avoid the Marx section and 167 still seeking a labotomy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
i'm wondering if the latter isn't a set-up i.w. it stinks to high heaven. even pedophiles groom their victims for a period of time before pouncing so to speak. they say he jumped all over this within the first meeting. something doesn't wash. of course, if guilty he should pay the maximum price.
o.t. beak - are these some of your relatives? i have a bunch that have hatched out in the last few days:
http://www.cacklehatchery.com/aee0230.JPG
You are certainly asking all the right questions beak. Quaere.
As for anum...si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
-FJ
i think i may be wrong about doyle after seeing the rest of the news today - yikes, it doesn't look good for him. the headlines today read like a steamy, b-novella.
There are not clearly defined property rights in Islam.
It starts with the land rights:
Only those who cultivate the land have the right to it.
As a result land does not have any value in itself.
Only the produce is worth something and so each consecutive tenant tries to get out of it as much as he can in the shortest possible time.
Tomorrow there could be a new landlord appointed by a corrupt official etc.
On the farmer level, the traditional non-Muslim owners were either replaced with people who didn't have any idea about agriculture or the system took 50% of every penny they earned.
And so majority would convert to Islam to escape taxation.
Result:
Islam had never had a sustainable taxable income to sustain its own administration.
Public offices were given with land and the administrators looted it and gave place to others.
Territorial expansion was necessary every couple of years.
Result:
Prevailing deserts and land degradation within very short periods of time.
So I guess your saying that they are experiencing a Garrett Harding-esque "Tragedy of the Commons?
The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.
As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.
1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.
2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decisionmaking herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.
Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.
Interesting hypothesis, missing link. You could be right.
-FJ
Beak,
Personal message here...
Thanks for letting me know about that link. Hmmmm....
FJ,
The tragedy of the commons fits the situation like a glove (more or less as there were of course different scenarios in every part of the Muslim "empire").
Additionally, we also need to remember that the main bulk of the original Arabs, who migrated to the conquered territories were semi-nomadic Bedouins.
Their main herd animals were goats.
Goats do not just snip the foliage but pull out plants with their roots.
In these parts of the world where the top soil required constant care (little rain and prevailing winds)it was a ecological disaster.
The existing population mostly farmers had to compete against the newcomers who moved from one place to another as soon as all vegetation available was finished.
Just as a funny example: a friend of mine bought a couple of goats as his yard was big, uneven and therefore difficult to maintain.
He also thought about milking these creatures etc.
The whole paddock became a mini desert in about six months and he had to purchase food for the unfortunate goats.
With relatively scarce population herding goats was probably OK as the land could rejuvenate after the herd moved out into greener pastures.
Beak,
The moral justifications of a caravan raider are not the basis for a coherent economy in the modern age.
That is exceptionally well stated.
Table of Contents from The Calcutta Quran Petition
We have revolutionized the world. Without Islam you would still be living in the dark ages.
Need I comment? Apparantly, from the moslem perspective, blowing up schoolbuses of nonbelieving children is their idea of enlightenment.
We have revolutionized the world. Without Islam you would still be living in the dark ages.
Huh? Islamic invaders caused the Dark Ages.
Alexandria was the most literate city in the world, with the Library of Alexandria and the largest book-copying industry in the Western world when Muslims under Caliph Omar captured it, burned the Library to the ground (the third and final time it had been set on fire in its rich history). It is said that the books and scrolls of Alexandria were used as kindling by the Muslims to heat the waters of the bathhouses. This source of fuel lasted six months. (That's a lot of Western Civilization's heritage destroyed!!)
We have only scraps of the ancient records. Fortunately we can corroborate much of our lost past with the records of Spanish and Irish monks, as well as Hindu sources that Muslims were never successful at destroying.
Mr. Beamish is right.
Of course, it's not pc to say "Dark Ages" any more. Has anyone else noticed that?
Columbus sailed west because the marauding Moslems had closed the overland trade routes. I don't hear that mentioned very often any more; texts say "bandits" without the proper adjectival qualifier.
AOW,
Columbus sailed west because the marauding Moslems had closed the overland .....often any more; texts say "bandits" without the proper adjectival qualifier.
Watch it!
Don't give them any more ammo for claiming Americas.
Most historians date the Dark Ages between the fall of the Roman Empire (476 AD) and 1000 AD.
The actual destruction of Western cultural and literary artifacts that led 14th Century Italian humanists such as Petrarch and Dante to dub that span of history "The Dark Ages" began with the fall of Alexandria in 640 AD to Muslim conquerors under Caliph Omar, who delighted in burning everything that had nothing to do with the Koran.
When Columbus sailed west in 1492 (the same year Grenada fell and Muslims were driven out of Spain) seeking a sea route to India to avoid the routes blocked by the Ottoman Empire's grip on the Mediterranean, the "Rennaissance" period in Europe was already over 150 years old, and the last Crusade (the 9th) was 200 year old history.
And before any Muzzies get the idea that they discovered the Americas, the Scandinavian Vikings under Leif Erikson found North America, likely around Newfoundland in Canada, in 1000 AD. And St. Brendan of Ireland may have actually been the first European in North America, making his legendary journey west across the seas around 550 AD. The legends of St. Brendan inspired Christopher Columbus.
Post a Comment