Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses Grover Norquist and the compatibility of Islam and capitalism:
A poster at Jihad Watch recently noted that "[Grover] Norquist, a former Executive Director of the College Republicans and current head of Americans for Tax Reform is, along with his devoutly Muslim new wife, Samah Al-Rayyes, the founder of the Islamic Institute, which advocates the compatibility of Islam with free enterprise and capitalism."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. It has been noted before that in the Western world, those who first make money but then want something else -- fame, glory – ultimately enter politics. In the Muslim Middle East (and elsewhere as well) the only way to make money, real money, is to seize power, or be in the circle of those who have that power.
Mubarak's Friends-and-Family Plan distributes American Jizyah, taking a large cut for itself -- for the Godfather and company. In Jordan, long-suffering American taxpayers used to pay all sorts of bills for King Hussein, the "plucky little king' who drove around in his sports cars, flew around in his planes, and in the West, in the best hotels, had the most expensive call girls visit him, seriatim. American taxpayers pai, unknowingly, for all of it. In Qatar, there is the family that has taken to describing itself as the "royal" family -- as J. B. Kelly nas noted, these sheiklets of statelets were once called, by the British, simply sheikhs, or in some cases "The Ruler," as in "The Ruler of Bahrain," but now they keep giving themselves promotions so that they are almost all of them now "royalty." Very funny, but not so funny is the way that the Al-Thani family in Qatar, the Al-Sabah in Kuwait, the Maktoum (buying all that New York real estate, on enotes) of the United Arab Emirates, and all the others, including the late Sheikh Zayid and his descendants in Abu Dhabi, appropriate much of whatever statelet they pretend to be the head of through some presumed venerable dynasty.Of course the most egregious and comical example is that of a country named after a single family by that family: Saudi Arabia, named after the Al-Saud. How much is raked off the top, bottom, and sides (and please, trim the eyebrows as well), by the princes and princelings and princelettes, and all their numerous courtiers and consorts (Khashoggis, Bin Ladens, the lot of "contractors" and "defense consultants" who serve the all-important role of being conduits for bribes to assorted Al-Saud family members, who don't want everything to be official).
"Compatible" with "free enterprise"? Not so far.
And inshallah-fatalism does not exactly, as an attitude, encourage all that industry and enterprise that modern economies require.
But let's pretend. Let's pretend that Grover Norquist, almost certainly Muslim himself (for he cannot marry an observant Muslim woman and remain a non-Muslim) and friend of the Good and Great in Washington (that he is not looked upon with great suspicion, not shunned, is itself telling about official Washington, and its willful misunderstanding of Islam), is right. Let's pretend that "capitalism" and "Islam" go together.
So what?
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.
I just found a Song about the hijacking of Islam by radicals
http://www.patrickhenrysongs.com/HeyBinLaden-WindowsMedia-HiFi.wmv
History shows that muslims have been remarkably successful in bringing dar-ul-islam to other countries and cultures, and making islamic countries out of them. One only has to open a map of the world. saudi arabia, as it is now called, from where mohammad started his muslim conquests 1350 years back. The countries adjacant are : syria, iraq, iran, turkmenistan, uzbekistan, afghanistan, pakistan. We can see how many are rabid. Then we have egypt, libya, sudan. Beautiful areas all. Nice places to have one's head sawed off. If one were feeling like it. Point is, there is ample historical evidence that islam thinks it now has the critical mass to take over the rest of the world by force. In any country where there are muslims, there is trouble. I can say this first hand about India, where there is a 13% muslim population, muslims are THE source of headache in Kashmir and the North East, which they are infesting by crossing over illegally from bangladesh (another paradise under the sun for the suicidically inclined). Any residential area that is close to a mosque is prone to violence from muslims. They randomly run amok on Friday, (I think it must be the thought of a weekend that makes them do it.) and start attacking anything that is Hindu.
Rational humans have always depended on past behaviour of an object or a system to reasonably forecast about its future. We look at the past of an individial, assessing him upon his personal history, judging him to be fit for a managerial or secreterial position. We have always looked at the past record as a guide to the future. Why can't we look at islam's past record to judge it ?
Sorry, wrong link. This is the Song about the hijacking of Islam by radicals -
http://www.patrickhenrysongs.com/ItsInTheKoran-WindowsMedia-HiFi.wmv
The simple and obvious fact is that his wife will be raising his children Muslim. Who would think otherwise? There is no need for him to call himself Muslim. His children will. Plus Norquist is doing just fine as a facilitator-propagandist for Mo's cult
Only one sucess that involves Muslims and capitalism : Middle East oil.
How long before our intellectuals and leaders wake up. How many more acts of self preservation amongst elitist opinionists and championing social activists does a wounded, humiliated and yet somewhat ignorant populace have to endure, before they lead us all, willingly or unwillingly into this quagmire of ignorance and self-obliteration, aptly nameable as a "DODO SYNDROME".
But present matters first. Is Islam entrepreneurial?- Well it does manage to twist, manipulate and coerce free democratic societies for providing the facilities and amenities required for a civilized & sometimes ostentatious living. Then it manages to murder, vandalize and humiliate these very same samaritans, while pummelling concepts of imaginary guilt into them to make believe that they are responsible for violations upon themselves, and therefore should keep the jizy dams wide open.
The verdict entrepreneurial?-No, Canniving, scheming and manipulative-yes
Second-Capitalism
Lets see capitalism is usually associated with Laissez-Faire -free market.
Lets see what their dear beloved paedophile conducted his business transactions.
If I don't have, then loot, rape kidnap to get..no questions asked..free market-yep islamic style- on a one way road.
Even their fabled islamic banking is nothing but ordinary banking and venture financing renamed to put a hoodwink on the sharia. Their best economic idea is a deception for Allah, so that they can continue to benefit from time tested economic "time value of money" concepts
Truly free world Capitalistic-Again No. But Damn Lucky. Why-bicatgirl you got it OIL, and the ability to funnel it so that everyone dances to their tunes.
Conclusion-Economic prosperity can be placed along with dusty shelf items such as religion of peace and tolerance, equality of women, tolerance of other religions and other crap that proudly occupy shelf space on the "Taqiya of Islam Shelf"
Give us a break.Samah.will ya?
for a free world
thehindu
Never underestimate Grover - one of the chief gravediggers of the Republic. His good friend is none other than Karl Rove and he has direct access to the White House. It was Norquist who introduced the Bushies to prominent Muslim leaders, many of whom, like al-Arian have since been disgraced. Grover is probably one of the chief architects of the President's "religion of peace and mercy" outlook. The best take on Bush's mind is that he is intellectualy incurious and smooth characters like Norquist are able to capitalize on that.
In reference to Norquist, here are a couple of (older) articles from Frank Gaffney, and Daniel Pipes, which discuss Norquist's ties to Islam:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11209
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/451
I miss the days when Norquist used to be the anti-tax advocate. But these days, with the Bush tax cuts having gone far, the elimination of the estate tax around the corner, as well as the various tax proposals - Steve Forbes' Flat Tax and Neil Boortz' Fair Tax - on the table, who needs Norquest - at best a Dhimmi if he's still an infidel, and at worst, a closet jihadist, if he's reverted to Islam - to advocate any more tax reforms? This is one of the success stories of Bush (although I'd still prefer more take-home pay from my taxes).
No, the Contract with America has been a success (except for Term Limits), and what we now need is a Contract on America's Enemy - Islam. Too bad nobody recognizes this, but what is worse is Right Wing activists, who are otherwise wise people, shilling for Islam without even knowing it, or worse, in Norquest's case, knowing it.
Islam and Capitalism? Actually, if one substitutes the Caliphate for the Communist Party Politburo, Islam is more akin to Marxism. Everyone is equal, but those with the connections to the Caliph/Sultan/Emir/Malik/Sheikh/_____ get all the privileges that come with such associations. Much like the Politburo members with their Dachas, and other riches that the amassed. Only difference is that while in Communist Countries, there was a working class that slaved for their rulers and all the wealth that they accumulated, there is no equivalent Islamic working class here - just a bunch of losers living on eternal subsidies from the cash raised from the remains of dead dinosaurs in one case, or the jiziya aid in the others.
arjun sevak's comment is irrelevant to the subject of capitalism. It's only highlight the islamic imperialism.
Although there is proof of islam's geographic expansion, you can't deny that history also shows that islamic rulers are ruthless. They lived in luxury while their people beg outside their walls.
All muslims should return to the middle east as soon as possible.
Cities Of Refuge
It is said that there are three cities that the Dajjal may not enter; Mecca, Medina and Damascus. Muslims are encouraged to seek refuge from the Dajjal in one of these three cities:
The Prophet said, "Ad-Dajjal will come to Medina and find the angels guarding it. So Allah willing, neither Ad-Dajjal, nor plague will be able to come near it." 10
The coming of the Anti-Christ (Dajjal) must occur in the Last Days. This dreadful event is approaching, and in that time only three cities will be safe: Makka, Madina, and Sham (Damascus). If anyone wants safety in that time he will have to run to one of these three cities. 11
Apart from these three cities, it is said that the Dajjal will enter every single city, town and village in the world to test and possibly deceive every human alive.
I think his business card even says "George Soros, Antichrist.", but I'm not completely sure ...
Islam has a basic problem with capitalism in that interest is forbidden by the Koran. They've had to devise some method by which devout Muslims buy their houses on the never-never instesd of with a mortgage, and pay over the odds as a result.
Islamic societies at their inception were parasitic, since they were based on tribute from non-Muslims [dhimmis] after conquest of their countries. As the Muslim regimes became more firmly established, there were fewer dhimmis to exploit, so the jizya was supplemented by ordinary shakedowns using actual or threatened violence, and dhimmis are always under the threat of violence in Islamic society, for all sorts of reasons or pretexts. As time goes on, Muslim societies become more and more unproductive since the dhimmis, upon whom the early Muslim conquerors acted as parasites, became fewer. Today, the Arab countries in particular are essentially non-productive. They prosper from the oil which they did not create, but happened to be under their soil and was extracted by Western firms. Egypt does not feed itself and other Arab states too depend on imported food. To be sure, 200 years ago Algeria was still exporting wheat to France,
but I have no doubt that today they must import some of their wheat consumption.
It's curious that the so-called "Left" which used to idolize workers and loathe parasites, is so supportive of Islam and jihad, which represent social parasitism, taking tribute from the productive, etc.
Eliyahu
At the risk of mounting an ideological hobby-horse, I must say that the Left is parasitic. In the name of social egalitarianism, they essentially level the playing field by levelling the players. The end result is a ruling elite, albeit under the Communist/Socialist umbrella, living like pashas, while the so called "proletariat" slaves away. In the Soviet Union, workers couldn't even legally strike, since theoretically, they owned everything, and theoretically, it wouldn't make sense for them to strike against "themselves". And look at China - where you have the government horning in on the wages of its citizens. Companies that employ Chinese simply have to pay a fee to the government, and then get away with paying workers $0.54 an hour - something, which if practiced in the US, Israel or any capitalist country, would make the entire political class scream bloody murder.
Incidentally, how socialist is Israel? I've heard about the kibbutz and its analogies to communes, but how healthy are individual business and property rights in Israel?
Infidel Pride, your question is a good one. We had a labor union, called the Histadrut, that in fact owned much of the industry and businesses, even the Mashbir department stores. When workers struck a Histadrut company in what Americans call a "wildcat" fashion, the pro-Histadrut, pro-Labor party press would scream that they were "undemocratic" since the Histadrut leadership was elected every four years or so, and being elected they could do what they liked. Yes, and they were striking against the "working class" or the "workers," etc. The Histadrut also operated a health fund, that is, a system of clinics and funding for hospital treatment. There were several other health funds too. The system was fairly good, actually, compared to many other countries. However, the Histadrut used to take about 1/3 of the fees paid by workers and employers to their Health fund [kupat holim klalit], and transfer it to the Labor party for political purposes instead of health purposes. The Histadrut also used to own a whole array of newspapers, including the Jerusalem Post [up to about 1990 when it was sold to raise funds]. These papers were not only in Hebrew but in many languages spoken by people in Israel, including English [the Post] and Arabic [al-Yom?]. Whole books have to be written to describe and explain the system, so I cannot do it here "while standing on one foot" as we say. Suffice it to say, the Histadrut kept wages in Israel down for many years, because they prevented strikes against their businesses and the leadership pocketed the lion's share of profits, if any, etc.
Thanks Hugh for the excellent analysis. I'm happy to have inspired (or provoked?) it.
If I remember correctly, my comments were in a blurb about the Muslim sex slave trade. It appears that like the Mafia, Islam is only compatible with free enterprise when it comes to the slave trade, arms and drug trafficking, etc. By a literal definition of the term, your local drug dealer or prostitute is engaged in "free enterprise" i.e. the unregulated exchange of goods or services. However it is of the most... uh, unsavoury sort.
Perhaps we should consider Islam not only as a totalitarian ideology but re-classify the entire Umma as the world's largest organized crime cartel.
Eliyahu
Thanks for that explanation. I do sometimes read the Jerusalem Post online, and did follow the skirmishes between Bibi and Peretz, when the former was still finance minister. I may be wrong, but I had the impression that of all Israelis, Bibi was one of the few who could be counted on to implement de-regulatory and fiscal policies, although his apparently xenophobic stances on foreigners (Thai, Filipino, Eastern Europeans) working in Israel left one baffled about what he understood about labor supply & demand. Since I work in the hi-tech field, I did notice how some Israeli based hi-tech companies (M-Systems, Saifun) have been doing well. For what it's worth, I do think that with the right economic and regulatory policies, Israel could overshadow Europe as a destination for investment, and be less dependent on foreign aid.
Well, so much for a post where I'm all over the place.