Capitalisms Cop-Out!

Since the advent of free markets, way back in the days of Adam Smith, his wealth of nation’s treatise introduced the concept of the ‘market’ being the best model for the economy. The market has malfunctioned on so many occasions, causing much embarrassment to free market ideologues, for this reason a suitable justification was needed to justify how the market was the best method to create and circulate wealth around an economy.

The depression of the late 19th century, the South sea bubble, the great depression of the 1930’s, the recession of the 1970’s, 1990, the dot.com bubble and now the financial crisis are said to be anomalies, just a glitch on the otherwise whiter than white clean track record of the free market. The fact that there has been a crash, bust, downturn, depression or slump every decade since the release of the wealth of nations in 1790 each were considered once in a life time events which in no way tarnishes the markets apparent track record of unparalleled economic success.

The justification free market ideologues settled upon was the cyclical business cycle. In 1860, French economist Clement Juglar identified the presence of economic cycles 8 to 11 years long. Later, Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter argued that a Juglar cycle has four stages: (1) expansion (increase in production and prices, low interests rates); (2) crisis (stock exchanges crash and multiple bankruptcies of firms occur); (3) recession (drops in prices and in output, high interests rates); (4) recovery (stocks recover because of the fall in prices and incomes).

In 1946, economists Arthur F. Burns and Wesley C. Mitchell provided the now standard definition of business cycles in their book Measuring Business Cycles: “Business cycles are a type of fluctuation found in the aggregate economic activity of nations that organize their work mainly in business enterprises: a cycle consists of expansions occurring at about the same time in many economic activities, followed by similarly general recessions, contractions, and revivals which merge into the expansion phase of the next cycle; in duration, business cycles vary from more than one year to ten or twelve years; they are not divisible into shorter cycles of similar characteristics with amplitudes approximating their own.”

Hence free market ideologues claimed that due to time and nature all economies go through seasons where wealth is created leading to a boom with much wealth being generated. They considered it an inevitable matter that not all would benefit from a boom in an equal manner and once profits reached a particular level there would inherently be a slow down in economic activity, which was considered necessary by some economists as these would lead to the redistribution of wealth. So from this perspective a crash was necessary when during the ascent of the cycle wealth would not be distributed in equal manner.

Thus after every crash, downturn, slump and recession free market ideologues blame nature for creating the business cycle. In this way the financial crisis currently is separated from the ‘market’ and should be salvaged because there is no alternative.

A cursory glance at the mechanics of Capitalist economies shows the current crisis is part and parcel of the free market and in fact this is a normal process of Capitalism i.e. the financial crisis is the market in operation.

The reason why such crises occur is due to the aims Capitalism attempts to achieve with the economy. The aim of any market economy is to ensure the economy grows every year, perpetual economic growth is the equivalent of the five daily prayers in Islam. The growth of economies is measured by Gross Domestic product (GDP) which is the monetary value of the production of all goods and services in an economy.

For the economy to be practically achieving what Capitalism has laid as its ideal the sectors that contribute most towards the economy must always be growing, as any fall in production in such sector’s that dominates the economy will have the effect of forcing the whole economy to shrink.

In the current crisis the UK economy has a service sector which represents 80% of the economy, the service sector is dominated by the financial industry, to such an extent the financial industry contributes £350 billion to Britain’s £1.3 trillion economy.

Hence in Britain like most Western economies one sector or a handful of sectors drive the economy which in effect are bubbles waiting to burst. This is because when the economy is on the ascent it will always be driven by a one sector which is used to stimulate the remainder of the economy. Once this artificial growth runs out of steam, it causes the inevitable bust. A bubble is aided in its expansion because the ability to print money at will, the want for consumers to spend beyond their means and the availability of debt all contribute towards expanding the bubble.

Economic growth requires the economy to continually grow, which in turn needs consumers to continually spend, the availability of debt allows this on a massive scale. Once consumers have spent beyond their means to such an extent that they realize they probably cannot repay the debt borrowed, a cut in spending will have the effect of cutting off re-fuelling during a flight.

Perpetual economic growth is not sustainable and is what causes the regular crash, in no way is there an act of nature that causes a downturn, this in fact is a cop out by free market ideologues when the free market fails.

What is needed is an alternative system that does not place economic growth at all costs as the aim but rather places the needs of people as its aim.

Source

The Flawed Narrative of CONTEST 2

Editor's Note: The United Kingdom's Home Office has recently launched a new strategy for countering international terrorism, Contest 2, that aims at "reducing the risk to the UK and its interests overseas of international terrorism." As a platform for British Muslims' voices, IslamOnline.net (IOL)'s European Muslims Page publishes an opinion piece on Contest 2 by Dr. Nazreen Nawaz, women’s media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain.

The UK government’s latest anti-terror strategy —Contest 2, was launched this March It detailed various initiatives to be undertaken across the UK that reflect an emphasis of not simply preventing "Violent Extremism" and "Terrorism" but challenging the so called "Extremism" within the Muslim community. The strategy, entitled "Taking a New Approach to Counter Terrorism", reads, "As part of this strategy we will take action against those who defend terrorism and violent extremism. We will also continue to challenge views which fall short of supporting violence and are within the law but reject and undermine our shared values and jeopardize community cohesion. Some of these views can create a climate in which people may be pulled into violent activity."

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary defined these "shared values" as tolerance and belief in democracy, human rights, and freedom of speech. A draft of the strategy leaked to the Guardian newspaper and BBC Panorama program in February highlighted the government’s view of "extremist beliefs" that undermine these "shared values", apparently jeopardize community cohesion and that may act as stepping stones to violence.

According to the draft, Muslims would be considered extreme if they advocate a Caliphate, the Islamic system of governance; if they promote Shari`ah law; if they believe in Jihad or armed resistance anywhere in the world ─ including armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military; if they argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah; and if they fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan. The vast majority of Muslims in the UK and across the globe recognize such views as "core Islamic beliefs.”

Unfortunately Not!

One would think that this extensive 176-page document, boasted by Jacqui Smith to be the most comprehensive anti-terror strategy in the world and that deals with a subject as serious as the security of people’s lives, would not be riddled with assumptions, superficial judgments, and irrational conclusions. Unfortunately not so!

The strategy suggests that the rejection of democracy and the embracing of specific Islamic political and social views that are at odds with western secular liberalism are threats to community's cohesion and can be a precursor to violence. This claim is as absurd as suggesting that a staunch belief in atheism and zealously rejecting religion can act as a precursor to individuals blowing up their nearest mosque, church or synagogue.

Respect and Dialogue

Furthermore, the idea that good community relations can only be achieved if all citizens hold the same political and social views, reads like the manual of communist and fascist governance ─a reflection of how secular liberal states cannot claim immunity from totalitarian trends. Good relations between communities does not depend upon holding the same political and social ideas but rather on understanding how to treat one another with respect, a mentality of care and concern for those around us, and engagement and dialogue between one another rather than isolation ─all of which are woven into the fabric of Islamic culture.

Contest 2 alludes to the fact that Muslims who do not have allegiance to Britain and its forces or who have loyalty to another entity (such as a global Ummah), pose a threat to the state. Are we then to believe that British expatriates in the Muslim world who continue to have allegiance to Queen and country despite being residents or citizens of those countries are a threat to their neighboring Muslims? In truth, the "loyalty card" is a convenient one to play to silence opposition to unjust government foreign policy. Therefore, should loyalty to the British government and its army take precedence over truth and justice?

Risking Community Cohesion

The strategy claims that rejecting British secular liberal values and promoting specific Islamic beliefs such as the need for a Caliphate or the Shari`ah can "create a climate in which people may be pushed into violent activity." Is it then true that current discussions regarding the failings of capitalism and the advocation of an alternative form of economics and governance are responsible for the violence committed by some people in the name of anti-globalization? Should not non-violent ideas be separated from violent means adopted by a few to achieve their goals?

It is overtly clear that stigmatizing the values of a community and forcing them through state pressures to accept views that contradict with their deeply held religious convictions only serve to create resentment and alienation within the society. It is this that "jeopardizes community cohesion".

Religion: Not a Barrier

It is not differences of religious values and beliefs that create barriers between people but ignorance, prejudice and assumptions regarding different cultures alongside the hysteria and fear-mongering regarding "difference" being peddled by certain politicians and the right-wing media. It is quite ironic that under the Caliphate and according to the Shari`ah laws – "extreme" ideas according to the government - non-Muslims are not expected to embrace the Islamic values to be considered good citizens but simply to abide by the laws of the state.

Moreover, only a defeated mind believes in changing ideas through coercion and labeling rather than the power of argument. Therefore, Contest 2 is an obvious evidence that the government has failed to convince the Muslim community intellectually of the superiority of secular liberal values. What exactly are the "shared values" that the UK government wishes the Muslim community to embrace and tolerate? Is it the liberty, ‘follow your cultural desires’ that has led to massive rates of adultery, single mothers, broken families and teenage pregnancies - the same freedom that led 13 year old Alfie Patten to father the child of his 15 year old girl friend?

Perhaps it is the same liberty, ‘do as you please culture’ that has led to soaring levels of anti-social behavior, drug addiction, binge-drinking, and knife and gun crimes among the youth – the same freedom that has led to the horrific “teen” murders of Jimmy Mizen, Rhys Jones and Damiola Taylor. Or maybe it is the same freedom, ‘lack of responsibility culture’ that allows people to neglect elderly parents and relatives, leaving the old to die alone in their homes while individuals pursue their own self –interests.

Scare-Tactics

Does the "tolerance" or acceptance of these liberal secular values really make for a Muslim to be a good British citizen as opposed to the sublime values of Islam defined by the Shari`ah - values such as respect for people’s lives, property, honor and beliefs; values such as justice in the treatment of those of other faiths; values such as strong marriages and family units, of care and concern for our parents, relatives, neighbors, elders and for the community in which we live; values that take individuals away from a self-gratifying culture of drugs and binge-drinking to a sense of accountability and responsibility for one’s actions and care for the society in which we live. Is it really the case that adoption of these Islamic values and the rejection of the self-gratifying behavior driven by secular liberalism make Muslims a threat to British society?

The flawed narrative of Contest 2 indicates a government more concerned about stemming the rejection of Western secular liberal values by Muslims globally, including those in the West and quelling the tide of support for Islamic governance and implementation of the Shari`ah in the Muslim world, rather than earnestly tackling issues such as terrorism and community cohesion.

As Muslims in Britain, we must resist pressures that bully us into leaving our Islamic values and turning our backs on the sufferings and injustices faced by Muslims globally. We must not through labels of “countering extremism" and government scare-tactics be silenced in supporting Islamic governance for the Muslim world.

---

Dr. Nazreen Nawaz is the women’s media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain. She has engaged in various Islamic discussions on a number of radio and television news channels, including BBC News 24, BBC World, Al-Jazeera, Sky News, and a South African Islamic Radio station. Nawaz entered Kings College School of Medicine and Dentistry in London in 1991 and qualified in 1997 having also acquired a BSc with First Class Honors in Biomedical Sciences

http://www.islamonline.net/

From Hinduism to Islam

Once upon a time, in a land far away, I was a Hindu.

Among the bonuses of being a revert to Islam (inshaAllah going to Heaven is a bit handy) is the conversation starter. Even the least practicing Muslims seem to smile when someone takes their shahada.

I had always considered myself to be a fairly religious Hindu. Many of my ancestors were Hindu priests, I was a strict vegetarian, never drank alcohol, was known to pray and sit up with my mum until the early hours of the morning discussing my favourite chapter of the Gita. I was not looking for another religion.

For a few months, and by some accounts for many years, a story had been developing in France. The wearing of "religious symbols" was being banned in French schools, with the primary focus being the Muslim hijab. It wasn't until February 2004 that I first took notice of it while walking through University. Some students had organised an event discussing the ramifications of the ban, and I decided to attend.

The audience were a mixture of Muslims, non-Muslims, and some students from France, all unified on wanting to learn more about the political situation. We all listened to the young speaker eloquently describe the Islamic position. I had already assumed that Muslims would want the ban stopped, but I had never heard anyone describe it in quite this way: so far, on TV and newspapers, Muslims had always been describing it as their choice to wear the hijab. It was their right to choose, and they freely chose. However, we were now being told by this speaker that it was in fact not their choice. Indeed, he said, Islam makes it an obligation for Muslim women to wear the hijab. He then stated that ideas like freedom of choice were un-Islamic.

I was shocked!

I had heard people argue from various points of view - Conservative, Labour, Democrat, Republican, Socialist - but never had I heard anyone claim that they didn't believe in freedom.

Time was up... the lecture room had to be cleared for the next session. I could not believe what I had heard. Surely he was mistaken. What sane person doesn't believe in liberty? As I left I spoke to the speaker and he arranged for me to meet with his colleague the next week. Little did I know that I was going to meet someone who would literally change my life.

I arrived in the canteen the next week, a little lost, not really remembering what the person I was going to meet looked like. I took a chance and walked over to a group of guys, a few of whom had beards. They were very friendly and it wasn't long before I had spoken to just about everyone, but still hadn't heard an answer to my question about freedom. It wasn't until a couple of weeks later that I happened to bump into one of the people I had met in the canteen.

India vs. Pakistan

I have never been a huge cricket fan, but with all the commotion, I went along with some of the people from my class to the Student Union to watch the match. The room was clearly divided into two groups, with flags flying and people cheering or jeering as the match progressed. I was just about to walk in and try to find a seat when I saw the brother from the canteen. He asked if I was going in, and I admitted that I really wasn't so interested in the game. So he and I grabbed some food and took a walk, ending up at the nearby park. We sat there on the grass, eating and chatting about the reason that he wasn't watching the match. He said it was because the people watching were bonded by nationalism. Now, ordinarily, I would have argued with him, perhaps even just for the purpose of an argument, but he went on to explain the Islamic point of view, and it was hard to disagree.

We continued to meet after that day and then the day came when I came home and said to my mum:

"Guess what! Someone at Uni just proved to me that God exists." "Proof! Really?", she replied, clearly surprised. "To be honest, I can't remember specifically what he said, but I'm gonna ask him again."

Within a few months, I was ready to declare my faith in Islam. He had proved to me that the Creator exists, the same way that you know that you exist, and that the screen in front of you exists. Definite proof. He went on to prove that the Qur'an is the literal word of this creator, and it was a proof like nothing I had ever experienced. It wasn't emotional, it wasn't based on "blind faith", it wasn't even because the Qur'an contained proven predictions or amazing scientific facts. It was definite, proven fact.

What's more, alhamdulillah, I could prove it too!
With a small gathering of brothers, I slowly said the words:

"ash hadu allaa ilaha illallahu wa ash hadu anna Muhammadan 'abduhu wa rasuluh"

followed by a chorus of takbir, hugs and handshakes. As one brother aptly pointed out, these people, who I'd only known for a matter of months, were willing to give their lives up to save mine. I had become a part of the Ummah of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم.

That declaration was only the first step in what I have since realised is a journey towards seeking the pleasure of my Creator, inshaAllah. It has affected the way that I make every decision, and has immeasurably changed my life and my akhirah for the better inshaAllah.