Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Timur Kuran on Islam and Economics



The political consequences of Islam’s economic legacy 

Timur Kuran 
Philosophy & Social Criticism, 
May 2013, Pages 395-405 

Abstract: Several of the Middle East’s traditional economic institutions hampered its political development by limiting checks on executive power, preventing the formation of organized and durable opposition movements, and keeping civil society weak. They include Islam’s original tax system, which failed to protect property rights; the waqf, whose rigidity hampered the development of civil society; and private commercial enterprises, whose small scales and short lives blocked the development of private coalitions able to bargain with the state. These institutions contributed to features that sustain autocracies and keep democracies unstable: high corruption, low trust, widespread nepotism and high tolerance for law-breaking.

Monday, August 15, 2011

Dutch Resistance

Dutch Boy sends this article from the NYT.

Interesting, but grim, reading.

Dutch Boy, deep down inside, is very nearly a bed-wetting leftie. He believes in extreme stuff like actual rights for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. He believes in reproductive rights, and thinks capital punishment is barbaric. He would likely treat immigrants more like humans than cattle.

But living in Holland also made him a realist about Muslim immigration in Europe. To be fair, the problem is not so much the immigrants themselves as the bizarre Dutch reaction to it. Also the Danish/Swedish/Norse/French/German/etc. reaction.

From the NYT article: Dutch politicians were promoting economic integration — language training, job training. “They didn’t understand the importance of religious identity among the immigrants,” he said. They dismissed it as backward even as they failed to understand the anger a growing immigrant population was creating.

The problem has two parts:
1. A deep shame the Dutch feel about Western institutions. They are not remotely willing to defend markets, political liberties, or anything. Perversely, since by their birthright as Dutchmen they are entitled to these things, they feel no need whatsoever to protect them. Let someone else do it. I'm tired.
2. A weakness of the spirit, a disease of the soul, so pervasive that they cannot imagine that anyone could really be serious about believing in that primitive religious crap. To be fair, they doubt across the board, from Christian to Jew to Muslim. They just wallow in weltschmerz, and justify their national spiritual laziness as a sign of sophistication.

So, it comes down to this: Christopher Caldwell, REFLECTIONS ON THE REVOLUTION IN EUROPE. I had not read this book until two years ago, when Dutch Boy sent it to me. But if you have not read it, you should. This is not a partisan issue, it's just the facts.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Veiled Fury

France bans veils. Walking around nekkid is still allowed, however. (Nod to the Blonde, though she doesn't really advocate the walking around nekkid part; I added that.)

Here is the US First Amendment, including the five freedoms from majority tyranny:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(Written September 25, 1789)

Here is the French version of the same freedoms of religion (from the Declaration of the Rights of Man):

10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.
(These two written August 26, 1789).

The American version was Sept 25, 1789; the French was August 26, 1789. Yet banning the wearing of headscarves in the U.S. is literally inconceivable.

The difference is that the U.S. version says "Congress shall make no law..." That's a protection against the government.

The French version basically says you aren't supposed to break the law, but there is no restriction on the law itself. The law can say whatever some bunch of meddlers want it to say. That's an establishment of state power over religion. Quite a difference.

Vive le difference!

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Congrats to Timur Kuran

Nice article in The Economist about Timur Kuran's new book.

Timur may be the single nicest economist* I have ever met. Duke is lucky to have him.

(*Yes, nicer than Angus. Sure, that's hard to believe, but I'm just sayin'...)

Monday, October 18, 2010

Makin' Bacon

It is hard to know how to react to this.

First of all, it's a waste of perfectly good bacon.

Second, it is, as my Duke colleague D. Schanzer notes, "intolerance." (He also says that intolerance is in "plentiful abundance," which must be different from regular abundance, I guess...)

I can see that someone might think it was funny (in a not very funny, drunk redneck yelling "FREE BIRD!!!!" kind of way). But I can also see, and moreso, how an already beleaguered minority would perceive this as a threat. If you want to have ham on Easter, to show you are not Muslim (or Jewish), then go for it. But why do you have to go defile someone else's church?

The KKK does not represent mainstream Christianity. Al Qaeda does not represent mainstream Islam. Lay off other peoples' churches.

(Nod to Angry Alex)