From an article, or rather, a book-review and summary by Daniel Pipes of Professor Timur Kuran's indispensable study, "Islam and Mammon":
[…] Now teaching at Duke University, Kuran finds that Islamic economics does not go back to Muhammad but is an "invented tradition" that emerged in the 1940s in India. The notion of an economics discipline "that is distinctly and self-consciously Islamic is very new." Even the most learned Muslims a century ago would have been dumbfounded by the "Islamic economics."The idea was primarily the brainchild of an Islamist intellectual, Abul-Ala Mawdudi (1903-79), for whom Islamic economics served as a mechanism to achieve many goals: to minimize relations with non-Muslims, strengthen the collective sense of Muslim identity, extend Islam into a new area of human activity, and modernize without Westernizing. […]
Kuran dismisses the whole concept of Islamic economics. "[T]here is no distinctly Islamic way to build a ship, or defend a territory, or cure an epidemic, or forecast the weather," so why money? He concludes that the significance of Islamic economics lies not in the economy but in identity and religion. The scheme "has promoted the spread of antimodern currents of thought all across the Islamic world. It has also fostered an environment conducive to Islamist militancy."
Indeed, Islamic economics possibly contributes to global economic instability by "hindering institutional social reforms necessary for healthy economic development." In particular, were Muslims truly forbidden not to pay or charge interest, they would be relegated "to the fringes of the international economy."
In short, Islamic economics has trivial economic import but poses a substantial and malign political danger."
Nota Bene the antepenultimate paragraph:
"[T]here is no distinctly Islamic way to build a ship, or defend a territory, or cure an epidemic, or forecast the weather," so why money? He concludes that the significance of Islamic economics lies not in the economy but in identity and religion. The scheme "has promoted the spread of antimodern currents of thought all across the Islamic world. It has also fostered an environment conducive to Islamist militancy."
If one wants some guide to what Islam means for the economy, simply imagine Saudi Arabia, or the U.A.E., or Kuwait, or Qatar, or Libya, or Iran, as they were before Western economies had a need for oil and gas, and discovered it, among other places, in the Middle East and North Africa, and developed those fields, and organized the transportation by ship or pipeline of that oil and gas.
Just take Saudi Arabia. Without oil, it would look like...Somalia.
That should not surprise. Islam teaches the habit of mental submission. Do not question, for you as an individual do not count, but only as part of a collective, the Umma, and you may ask what is Prohibited, and what is Commanded, but you may never exercise your own judgment or reason, for Allah Knows Best.
And Islam also encourages, as we see in the phrases that are so common, a kind of constant reinforcing of the message of Inshallah-fatalism -- that is, the notion that Allah can whimsically distribute or remove his favors from you, without so much as a by your leave. These two attitudes, inshallah-fatalism and mental submission, combined with the habit of mental submission, leads to an absence of both hard work (why bother, with that fatalism?) and entrepreneurial flair (that requires a view of the individual's significance, and the value of what is new -- compare the Muslim ban of "bida").
There is no Muslim state or society, no polity or people, who have developed on their own, without relying -- as was done for many centuries -- on the wealth to be extracted from local non-Muslims under Muslim rule, that is, by means of the Jizyah. Nowadays, Muslim states have two ways of getting wealth: from oil and gas, that is, from a mere accident of geology, or from the aid they manage to keep extracting from Infidels, though not ever from their rich fellows in the Umma. And Muslims in the welfare states of Western Europe have also managed to exploit to the hilt, and then some, the generous benefits set up by, and paid for by, Infidel taxpayers. Muslims in France, Great Britain and elsewhere have free education and health care at levels never attained in any Muslim state, and free or low-cost subsidized housing, and even family allowances. The transfer of wealth in the countries of Western Europe from Infidel taxpayers to Muslim recipients of such aid is staggering. Not as staggering, however, as the amounts spent on the transfer of wealth from Infidel oil-consuming nations to the Muslim oil-producers. Since 1973 alone, that amounts to about eleven trillion dollars.
And what have the Arabs and Muslims done with it? Some skyscrapers and thousands of private palaces. Not a single factory or farm that is competitive with anything in the outside world. And economies still completely dependent on foreign wage-slaves.
That's the economic development made possible by Islam.
In short, Islam is a parasite in all things human. And often a very harmful parasite at that.
The lesson would seem clear: Just as enforced Marxist economics led to enforced Marxist societies, enforced Islamic economics are intended to preserve and extend Islamic societies.
Rejection of Marxism and shariah-compliant economics should not it any way be confused with satisfaction for the kleptonomics masquerading as "free market" economics.
antepenultimate - is that a word?
Islam is a political entity. Just like Nazism or Communism, it will do anything to survive. With out the trillions of dollars of oil money, it would fade away like the other totalitarian dinosaurs that have preceded it.
Greetings:
I have recently read Philip Carl Salzman's "Culture and Conflict in the Middle East" in which the author attributes a lot of the difficulties in that area to the nomadic tribal culture from which Islam evolved.
How would you evaluate the current economic conundrum of the
Arab/Islamic areas in regard to that aspect.
If the goal is "to minimize relations with non-Muslims" then let's go all the way and recreate something that was lost at the end of the Cold War: separate trading blocs. No trade with Muslim nations other than to buy their raw materials. No investment in Muslim nations. Let them get the stuff out of the ground and we'll buy it. No immigration from Muslim nations, except the non-Muslim communities. Their economic system is incompatible with ours. All purchases from the West will be in cold hard cash. No credit allowed - it's unislamic.
"antepenultimate -- is that a word?"
-- from an inquiring mind above, whose nimble fingers have apparently not yet been employed to find the word in an on-line dictionary
You betcha.
I am reading a biography of the great innovative comic artist, Will Eisner (the Eisner award is named after him--Bosch Fawstin [Pigman] is an Eisner award nominee).
Besides his work on the Spirit and pioneering graphic novels, Eisner worked with the US military on--of all things--a magazine for preventative maintenance of equipment. It became so popular that he traveled around the world, creating versions for West Germany, Japan, South Korea and many other places where US troops or their allies were stationed.
In 1964, he went to Turkey. From the book:
The United States was in the process of giving surplus World War II trucks to Turkey "and they were ruining them," Eisner said. "They knew nothing about maintenance."
He grimaced at the memory of watching Turkish army officers in Ankara grind--and strip--gears as they demonstrated their alleged proficiency. The officer he dealt with was at first dubious of the need for a training and preventative maintenance guide. "We have a good training system," the officer said. "What I need from America is more money!"
....
Well, Eisner did finally get the publication off the ground. More:
"Called "Askars"--Turkish for "GI Joe"--the short-lived magazine had its own version of Pvt. Joe Dope [the "everyman" character from the American version]. "Nasrettin Hoca" rode a donkey backwards because he wanted to see where he had been, but "where he was going was in the hands of Allah," Eisner said.
....
Now Eisner, even though he was Jewish, knew next to nothing about Islam--yet, you can still see so many themes that come up all the time when dealing with adherents of that religion. The lack of interest in building and maintaining anything on their own, the ingratitude, coupled with demands for more money, the all pervading "inshallah fatalism".
Many of the military publications Eisner started are still going strong in some form. The Turkish version, however, was indeed short-lived--and this was in the most modern and secular of Muslim countries.
Fitzgerald: The economic development made possible by Islam
...
Not a single factory or farm that is competitive with anything in the outside world.
Yes, it's the four step plan: War, Enslavement, Starvation, Death.
gravenimage
that account of Eisner is fascinating - and nicely proves Hugh's point.
Islam produces people who wreck what they steal or buy, and have no real incentive to make or fix anything.
Thought for the day: if 'modernised' Turkish MINOs were treating retired US army trucks like that, and this is typical not just of Turkish Muslims but of the Islamosphere in general (and other stories and personal observations people who've been inside the Islamosphere have posted on this site suggest that a similar attitude prevails pretty much everywhere, not only toward machinery, but towards animals and people...all those Filipino and South Asian and African slaves-by-any-other-name who are used and abused even unto the point of death), *what* is the likelihood that exceedingly complex things like nuclear power stations and - worse- nuclear missiles are being 1. constructed properly to specifications and 2. maintained in working order? Such things don't just look after themselves.
I really don't want to think about what might be happening in and around Pakistan's nuclear missile silos...
antepenultimate - is that a word?
Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi
"antepenultimate -- is that a word?"
-- from an inquiring mind above, whose nimble fingers have apparently not yet been employed to find the word in an on-line dictionary
You betcha.
Posted by: Hugh
Well my dictionary is on the shelf in front of me - and I reached for it.
antepenultimate: third last, third from the end, anything third from the end. (Webster's New World Dictionary, 2nd ed.)
Eisner, even though he was Jewish, knew next to nothing about Islam.
"Even though?" In my experience Jews are willfully ignorant when it comes to Islam. It's understandable, given what a painful and demoralizing history it is, but remarkable, given that we're the most educated group of people in the world and how much of history one has to ignore to not at least be curious, let alone the fact that, as Jews, we should know what's propaganda and what's fact, given the way Israel is portrayed in the media and academia.
Here's what Bill Warner says about Jewish ignorance regarding Islam:
A large portion of Jews are in a state of denial. When Islam comes up, their first instinct is to move from Islam to their irritations with Christianity. The vast majority of Jews don’t know Sira from syrup and think that Hadith is a Scottish dish. So they prove their “tolerance” by making apologies for Islam.
The true nature of Jews and dhimmitude is given in detail by Andy Bostom’s book, The Islamic Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism (to be published in May, 2008). I am sure there is a rabbi somewhere who knows what a dhimmi is, but I have never met him.
Jews are the oldest and supreme dhimmis. They actually write propaganda for Islam. Bernard Lewis and Ruven Firestone are dhimmi sycophants of the highest order. They transform dhimmitude into an elitist Islamic Golden Age. And, of course, since Muslims are a minority in America, Jews would not want to be caught dead being bigots by opposing political Islam. So, the dhimmi Minnesota Jews helped vote in the first Muslim US Congressman whose supporters yelled “Allahu akbar” over and over again at his victory celebration.
There is no way to save Israel without understanding the jihadic nature of the Palestinians. But Jews must be willing to study political Islam to save Israel.
I am harsh in criticizing Christians and Jews because we cannot win without them. It is time to reverse a 1400-year history of deliberate ignorance and face the truth about the doctrine and history of political Islam. In the war to defend ourselves against political Islam, the Christians are like the regular army. The Jews are like the Marines. We need the intellectual power and influence of the Jews.
He's right. Even with regard to the stalking/harassment stuff at IU it was my Jewish friends who urged me not to make waves. They were also the only ones who weren't surprised that it happened and about how IU handled it. Not only is that the height of dhimmitude, but it demonstrates how little they understand about Islam. If they knew anything about Islam they would know that letting stuff like that go only emboldens them, but being dhimmis they're willfully ignorant. I can't even get my mother and sister to see the light. They just don't want to hear about it and think that my hatred of Islam and attempts to enlighten them are the result of the stalking stuff and confined to a personal matter, regardless of how logically false that is. My dad, on the other hand, busts out a question every now and again, like 'why do they hate us so much?' and 'why are all their governments totalitarian?' because he knows that I have the answers or can at least refer him to where he can find them.
I just thought it was an odd statement. Sorry if I made too much of it, but it's true what Bill Warner says.
'Islamic economics does not go back to Muhammad but is an "invented tradition" that emerged in the 1940s.'
From the article.
Uh, oh. Isn't that bidd'ha (innovation)? Sounds like it might be worthy of a fatwa to me.
Dumbledore's Army wrote:
I really don't want to think about what might be happening in and around Pakistan's nuclear missile silos...
..............
I've considered this, also. Obviously, the main threat is from deliberate Muslim aggression.
When you consider the awful case of the Chernoble reactor disaster, which was caused by neglect and poor maintenance, though, it's hard not to be concerned. As poor as Soviet maintenance was, though, it looked positively rigorous compared to Islamic maintenance.
Generally, equipment and machinery in Islamic countries are best maintained when such work is performed by despised (if well-paid) Kaffirs, in places like Saudi Arabia, Dubai and Kuwait.
Jdamn wrote:
Eisner, even though he was Jewish, knew next to nothing about Islam.
"Even though?" In my experience Jews are willfully ignorant when it comes to Islam.
....................
OK--this wasn't meant to be a blanket statement about Jewish knowledge of Islam's long, ugly history regarding the Jews. I just meant that, since Eisner was spending time in Turkey--a nation that had rendered itself virtually completely "Juderein" in the decades before his visit, that it was quite possible that he ran into some anti-semitic attitudes there.
Or maybe not. Maybe he was just considered part of the American "team", there to bring them gifts of money and equipment--I'm not sure.
I do agree, though--that with the brave exceptions of a few such as Bat Ye'or, that many Jewish people have taken a position of willfull ignorance regarding Islam. Perhaps it can be understood in terms of Jews being the ultimate minority--at least until the founding of Israel.
In any case, it is self-defeating--almost suicidally so, at this point.
I do agree, though--that with the brave exceptions of a few such as Bat Ye'or, that many Jewish people have taken a position of willfull ignorance regarding Islam.
Posted by: gravenimage
...And of course Pamela Geller!
I've read Mr. Fitzgerald's article on this subject and it boils down to the following:
I. Muslim nations are poor if you don't count oil
II. Islam is fatalistic and opposes creative/individualistic thinking.
III. Therefore a belief in Islam results in economic poverty
IV. Therefore, anything with the term "Islamic" in front of it should be viewed with a deep sense of malignant fear.
V. Therefore, we should fear Sharia finance.
I. I conceed your premise
II. Islam is a religion/political-social system/civilization that has existed across several continents for a Millenia and a half. I don't think these kind
of overly-generalized analyses are either accurate or helpful. My understanding is that there is a spectrum of belief within Islam when it comes to fatalism VS human free will.
III. The poverty in the Middle-East is the result of the failure to achieve the open societies that are a result of the Renessaince, Enlightenment, French and American Revolutions and etc.. None of this has anything to do with the specific difference between 'Western' and 'Islamic' finance. We do well because we are an open, tolerant, rational society not because we make loans at a set rate of interest.
IV. There are some serious problems within the Islamic world. Some of the doctrine, practices and culture of Islam is directly antithetical to the idea of an open, democratic society. The solution is to accurately define where these collisions occur (and where they do not) and oppose those particular beliefs and practices. The solution is not to become xenophobic and brand everything associated with Islam as being a threat to us.
How about a threat to human-ness?
Think women, children, suppression of intellect and curiosity. Islam is a gulag of the mind. The human suffering of 1,400 years is inestimable.
Looks like Monte's got it all figured out.
A thread to human-ness? Are you implying that Muslims are not human or sub-human. Surely only disaster awaits us at the end of such a path.
"Think women, children, suppression of intellect and curiosity. Islam is a gulag of the mind. The human suffering of 1,400 years is inestimable."
-- Poster #1
"A thread to human-ness? Are you implying that Muslims are not human or sub-human. Surely only disaster awaits us at the end of such a path."
-- Poster #2, commenting on Poster #1
No, clearly the first posting does not imply that Muslims "are not human or [are] sub-human." In fact, the first posting ends on a note of pity, pityfor all those who over a very long period have had to endure the mind-forged manacles of Islam, pity for those who could not , over the past 1350 years, sculpt or paint or compose or play music, or listen to music (save of the most banal, rudimentary sort), pity for those who could not develop their minds and engage in the enterprise of science, or philosophy or thought (outside of what the Qur'an offered), or use other talents, for they were all part of a civilization of those trained up in the habit of mental submission, mute, inglorious "slaves of Allah."
For the second poster to have jumped to such a false conclusion tells us a good deal about the second poster, but nothing about the first.
Hugh, thank you for your post. It is an elaboration of what I wrote, and is spot on. I believe Islam, practiced as described by Ayaan Hiris Ali, Nonie Darwish and others who have first hand experience is abusive to the human spirit, adds little to our collective experience on this earth and distracts us from innovation, science and the arts by our ever present need to defend ourselves (that is all kafirs since the 7th century).
Perhaps I misunderstood Civilus's point. My study of history has taught me the dangers of a situation where one segment of society is consistently described in dehumanizing terms. While it is quite possible that Civilus did not intend to do so, his post did ring a single, small warning bell in my mind. Your post however, Hugh, has got my brain going on full-blown red alert.
"they were all part of a civilization of those trained up in the habit of mental submission, mute, inglorious "slaves of Allah."
Listen to yourself man! This is the dehumanizing rhetoric of genocide. I realize your intentions may be good but your are fostering an atmosphere of intolerance and hatred.
It is Islam that is consitently dehumanizing humans, Monte. Read more from apostates.
"This is the dehumanizing rhetoric of genocide. I realize your intentions may be good but your are fostering an atmosphere of intolerance and hatred."
-- from a posting above
Don't be absurd. If you want to hear the "dehumanizing rhetoric of genocide," just read over some back issues of Der Stuermer, or listen to the very similar sermons of various imams, other notables in the world of Islam, which you can see at www.memri.org. Or just google at this site "Aytaollah Khomeini" to find that learned Shi'a theologian's famous speech about what Islam means. It is not genocidal to point out that in Islam, a collectivist faith, the individual worshipper is unimportant, and he is not to question Allah's will or whim, for as every Muslim knows, and frequently is told, Allah Knows Best. The spirit of sober analysis should not be confused by the hysterical as "fostering an atmosphere of intolerance and hatred."
You don't really know what the "dehumanizing rhetoric of genocide" is. You'd better start studying the history of the last, most unappetizing century, and then with it, the 1350-year history of Islamic conquest. You might pay special attention to what Maimonides wrote in his "Epistle to the Yemen" about what the Jews suffered under Islam (and the ignorant always adduce Maimonides as an example of someone who basked in the tolerance of Islam, just because having fled the Muslims of Spain and of Morocco, he finally ended up in the court of Saladin in Cairo, as his physician). Or, farther afield, why don't you read what Indian historians, beginning with K. S. Lal, have to say about the genocide of 60 or 70 or some say even 80 million Hindus, at the hands of Muslim overlords?
No, you don't want to do that. You just want to engage in false charges, and moral preening.
One last, literary note. Part of what you call my "dehumanizing rhetoric" comes famously -- but apparently not famously enough -- from Thomas Gray’s “Elegy Written In A Country Churchyard.” To wit: Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest,,/Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood.
Brush up your history. And your literature. And please refrain from flinging my way any charges of creating a “genocidal atmosphere” and similar hysterics, which you consistently deliver to the wrong address.
"...your are fostering an atmosphere of intolerance and hatred."
Posted by: Monte Gardner
Your intentions may also be good, Monte, but you must realize the stance taken on this site is not one of aggressive dehumanization destined to lead to some kind of Hitleresque treatment of Muslims. Rather, it is based on a dispassionate reading of history that finds some truly barbaric practices promulgated by that religion into the modern world. Whatever intolerance or hatred you think you may detect in the writings here, it is not directed toward Muslims as individuals, but rather toward a philosophy masquerading as a religion that has not progressed one iota in its treatment of humans in 1350 years, and which further has as its stated aim to continue its unbroken quest to see the global triumph of Islam. Other religions may also preach about spreading the Gospel etc. throughout the world, but none of them today are involved in actively and aggressively forcing themselves onto subject populations (e.g., Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria), and none undertake the suppression of other religions as forcibly as does Islam.
In an earlier post I see where you clearly parse out the reasons why Islam got stuck in a rut compared to the West. Most posters here, me included, would agree with your analysis, but most appear to have spent enough time studying the same matters to reach the additional conclusion that Islam, in its present form, is irredeemably incompatible with Enlightenment values. Most of the discussion here is about matters in today's world stemming from this incompatibility. So, it's not Muslims as individuals that are at the heart of the problem, it's their culture as it is expressed every day in countless acts of intolerance toward other religions, and barbaric practices such as FGM, honor killings, killing of homosexuals and apostates, etc. in those parts of the world where conservative Islam rules. We are also concerned when we see these same practices being imported to the West, and a host society so befuddled by political correctness run amok that it cannot bring itself to condemn such barbarities. Sorry if this all sounds so terribly un-PC and un-multicultural and all that, but there it is.
If you spend some time on this site, you will note that, for the most part (a few individuals notwithstanding who somehow escape otherwise strict moderation), there are no calls by responsible posters for genocidal actions you seem to imply are being called for. Rather, posters here tend to be educated, thoughtful people who share a passion for Western culture and are concerned that it is in danger from an ancient foe that historically has tried to destroy it.
And the vast majority of regulars here are passionate supporters of Hugh Fitzgerald.
From what I understand, the Koran makes this very clear: Muslims cannot charge interest on loans.
This is a fundamental pricipal that modern economics are based upon. Many ways around this have been devised, although I am not certain as to how effective these alternatives are.
I do find it interesting that a new idea is to allow an exception for first time home buyers.
11B40 wrote:
Greetings:
I have recently read Philip Carl Salzman's "Culture and Conflict in the Middle East" in which the author attributes a lot of the difficulties in that area to the nomadic tribal culture from which Islam evolved.
How would you evaluate the current economic conundrum of the Arab/Islamic areas in regard to that aspect.
...............
This is an interesting point--definitely, many aspects of Islam do spring from its development in a nomadic tribal culture.
But this doesn't explain everything. Jews, early on, were a tribal, nomadic, pastoral people--but modern Jewish life is mostly prosperous, hard working, well-educated, and settled. Modern Jewish life is not marked by vicious tribal infighting, polygamy, and animal sacrifice--even if their distant ancestors' were.
You can take other groups--a thousand years ago, many Scandinavians were brutal Viking raiders, terrorizing the coasts of Europe. Today, they are some of the most civilized people in the world. A hundred years ago, the Japanese were tearing up railroad tracks (during the war with Russia) in a violent protest against alien Western technology. Today, Japan is one of the most technologically innovative and advanced countries the world has ever seen.
Certainly, a people's history is very important in explaining their outlook--but how that history is interpreted even more so.
Many Muslim populations around the world who never experienced a nomadic desert past--in Indonesia, or Thailand, or Western Europe, or in the U.S. and Canada--are displaying the same aspects of Jihad as their Arab bretheren--because of their embrace of Islam.
I think the terrible economic situations in most Muslim nations is more the result of "inshallah fatalism" and a denigration of hard work as something fit only for slaves, as well as a consideration of even the most reasonable interest rates as "usury", and--above all--embracing the terrible example of Mohammed, who considered raiding caravans to be a more noble enterprise than farming, craftsmanship, or trading.
Most instructive is the stark difference of Israel--with no oil and no more resources than those of Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, or the "Palestinian territories"--which is vibrant, democratic, innovative and prosperous--unlike her neighbors, which are poverty-stricken, backward and violently chaotic.
History is important, but philosophy--one's view of the world--is more so.
11B40 wrote:
Greetings:
I have recently read Philip Carl Salzman's "Culture and Conflict in the Middle East" in which the author attributes a lot of the difficulties in that area to the nomadic tribal culture from which Islam evolved.
How would you evaluate the current economic conundrum of the Arab/Islamic areas in regard to that aspect.
...............
This is an interesting point--definitely, many aspects of Islam do spring from its development in a nomadic tribal culture.
But this doesn't explain everything. Jews, early on, were a tribal, nomadic, pastoral people--but modern Jewish life is mostly prosperous, hard working, well-educated, and settled. Modern Jewish life is not marked by vicious tribal infighting, polygamy, and animal sacrifice--even if their distant ancestors' were.
You can take other groups--a thousand years ago, many Scandinavians were brutal Viking raiders, terrorizing the coasts of Europe. Today, they are some of the most civilized people in the world. A hundred years ago, the Japanese were tearing up railroad tracks (during the war with Russia) in a violent protest against alien Western technology. Today, Japan is one of the most technologically innovative and advanced countries the world has ever seen.
Certainly, a people's history is very important in explaining their outlook--but how that history is interpreted even more so.
Many Muslim populations around the world who never experienced a nomadic desert past--in Indonesia, or Thailand, or Western Europe, or in the U.S. and Canada--are displaying the same aspects of Jihad as their Arab bretheren--because of their embrace of Islam.
I think the terrible economic situations in most Muslim nations is more the result of "inshallah fatalism" and a denigration of hard work as something fit only for slaves, as well as a consideration of even the most reasonable interest rates as "usury", and--above all--embracing the terrible example of Mohammed, who considered raiding caravans to be a more noble enterprise than farming, craftsmanship, or trading.
Most instructive is the stark difference of Israel--with no oil and no more resources than those of Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, or the "Palestinian territories"--which is vibrant, democratic, innovative and prosperous--unlike her neighbors, which are poverty-stricken, backward and violently chaotic.
History is important, but philosophy--one's view of the world--is more so.
Sorry for the double post.
Monte, you said "We do well because we are an open, tolerant, rational society not because we make loans at a set rate of interest"
So wrong, we do well BECAUSE we charge interest on loans. We are Capitalists and that is why we have done so well. Yes, we are open, tolerant and rational. Capitalism always does better the more people that are included in the deal. Everyone wins. Take away the Capitalism and this country would do no better than any other third world nation.
Excellent article, really points out how cultural beliefs affect people's lives, and why some cultures succeed and others fail.