False premises, invalid conclusions.

False premises, invalid conclusions.

I shall try to talk about Islam and its effect on economic growth. Why is the economic performance of Islamic countries so uneven? Bangladesh is among the poorest. The conditions in some Middle Eastern countries are not much better. They have arrived into the 21^st century later than non Muslim countries.

It is easy to accuse Islam as being anti development given the facts about Islamic countries. In fact while I am writing this article, there's a commentator who calls himself Dense who stated that Malaysia progresses slower because of Islam. I hope before he ejaculates prematurely, this essay will correct his views. But then who am I to argue with a person calling himself Dense?

We are not going to deny the facts. We'll make today, Dense's day. Take any measures of progress- GDP, Per Capita Income, GINI Coefficients literacy rate, educational levels and whatever other measures; One is likely to be disappointed with the performance of Islamic countries. They would reinforce the assumption that Islam is inimical to economic development. Islamic countries are a byword for economic stagnation.

Our disappointment I pray has not gone up to the level of having our faith shaken. I hope.

Using these measures can we justify our accusation that religion is responsible for Muslim progress? Wasn't Catholicism blamed for the poverty of many Christian nations at one point in time?

This is what we hope to debunk. The point is this. Faith seems to exercise its influence on growth in more devious ways. It has less to do with the doctrines and governing philosophies (the 4 Muslim schools of Jurisprudence for example). It has more to do with the actions of, hear this – priests, politicians, monarchs and bureaucrats exploiting religious doctrine to pursue baser temporal goals.

Let's digress a little. Many UMNO politicians insist the primum mobile (loosely translated to mean, prime mover) of UMNO is Malay Nationalism. Let's accept that. In its crudest form, it means Malay first over others.

If this has been practiced since UMNO's founding in 1946, why is it that Malays arrived at the 21^st century slower than non Malay Malaysians? To me the answer is simple. The doctrines of Malay Nationalism have been hijacked by priests, politicians, monarchs- etc, you know the drill- to pursue their own private interests. Just like Islam, Malay Nationalism impacted Malay progress in more devious ways.

Readers may be aware that discussions about the influence of religion on economic progress have a long history. Max Weber for example thought that Islamic religion was hostile to development. This thinking appears to persist and percolate through the ages. Within western and Caucasian societies, those sections which have rebelled and gone against the grain were the ones who went on to achieve success. These included adherents to the lower church of Calvinist Protestantism as opposed to the Catholics.

Calvinist thinking according to Weber helped create the supporting mindset that was conducive to capitalism and this according to Weber explained the success of countries like Protestant England and Netherlands.

We are not going into the details on the debates that followed Weber's thinking. But in the last few decades of the 20^th century, Weber's ideas were not all triumphant. For example, in the 1960's Weberian thinkers could point to the lack of progress in Catholic countries such as Ireland, Spain and Italy. Weber's theories were largely undermined when these countries registered high economic growth. In other words, Protestant economic superiority over Catholicism became increasingly difficult to defend.

Having lost the battleground on which to test the validity of Weber's theories because the divide between Catholic and Protestant economies is diminished, a new battleground to rescue the credibility of Weber's thinking needed to be found. The lack of economic progress in Muslim countries appears to provide respite for Weber's thinking.

And so when I heard the blonde newsreader on CNN suggesting that perhaps the Islamic ban on the charging of interest may have contributed to the financial mess in Dubai, I was telling myself- this is the risk when one allows an overrated newsreader with a 101 level in Weberian studies, offer thoughts on what's happening in the Islamic world. It becomes even more dangerous when such thinking is accepted without challenge.

It's easy to take a swing at Muslim countries.

People will quickly point out to the fact that the Quran bans usury whereas the charging of interest is an essential element of modern commerce. Thus by banning interests, it is suggested, Islam is anti commerce. But people forget that Islam is the only religion whose prophet did business.

It's also easy to take a swing at Muslim countries for the reasons we have given above. Islamic countries are a byword for economic stagnation. Are not most of the Islamic countries living off their oil reserves instead of actually producing something?

And it is also entertaining to take a swing at Muslim countries by pointing out to the Muslim's predilection with fate as opposed to striking out independently as being a reason holding back the Muslims.

So it seems that maybe Islam does indeed limit progress of Islamic countries. But as we shall see, just as Weber's thinking on the protestant and catholic divide becomes increasingly difficult to defend, so too his ideas, if people think can be rescued by pointing to the effect of the Islamic religion on the progress of Muslim countries will also be found wanting.

But that is a story in the next section of this essay.