Pacific Views

The Islamic Development Fund only supports "social progress" if it conforms to Sharia laws...one can imagine how progressive they are in regards to women's and children's rights...

Interesting that their views should mesh with those of U.S. paleoconservatives (and other lunatics who advocate a return to the gold standard.

Good points. But I have a feeling this isn't going to go away. And if it doesn't, those right wing nutjobs aren't going to look so crazy.

I posted about this topic in March of last year.

Interestingly the response was the same as we see here, anybody who advocates for a gold standard is either a nutjob or a reactionary, and suggestions that it's typical of Muslims to be both. Cute.

To clarify: The people in the US who do publicly advocate a return to the gold standard do tend to be reactionary lunatics. (I've not to date heard any US Muslims advocating that this country reverts to one, afaik, this is a public conversation they've stayed out of.) But what I meant to imply, and I can only speak for myself, is that maybe on this one point they aren't so wrong.

I personally have no objection whatever to other countries choosing different monetary standards. In fact, I think there are financial rewards to be gained from accomodating Islamic finance, as interest free real estate funds in Europe discovered when Middle Eastern investors started looking to move their money out of the US out of a (not unjustifiable) concern that their investments might be confiscated. And while I do share concerns about the commitment to womens' and childrens' rights of any organization whose patrons are Saudi and Pakistani, I hope it would be clear that I don't think this reflects badly on the Muslim religion.

Thank you for sharing more information about the topic. This posting wasn't intended to be in any way dismissive, in fact I applaud the idea that developing nations in Asia and Africa are laying a groundwork for charting their own economic future.

Natasha, thanks for your comment. My own words were more directed at some of the other commentors than at yourself.

I provided the link to my own blog because my entry there provides a brief explanation of the reason that Muslim supporters of the gold standard give for their support as well as links to resources that explore the topic in greater depth. It should be clear from these materials that Muslim advocates for the gold standard have two reasons they generally give for their position. First, they believe that an unbacked currency results in too much speculation and uncertainty. They believe that the degree of speculation and uncertainty is great enough that it may violate Islamic financial rules. Second, they believe that by adopting a gold standard their countries may be able to attain greater economic stability and independence.

Whether or not either of these views is correct is something that I am too ignorant of economics to judge. In fact, I rather suspect that unless any of us here are trained economists, we are too ignorant to judge. However, I think it should be clear that a desire to have a more stable and independent currency is neither reactionary nor lunatic.

The other thing that bothered me was the automatic assumption that the Shari'a is necessarily reactionary in regard to women. Have the people who say this taken the time to learn about the range of views of Muslim scholars about women's rights in Islam? Have they taken the time to discover whether the sorry condition of women in many parts of the Muslim world is caused by Islam, or whether it has a lot in common with the sorry condition of women in many parts of the developing world? Somehow I doubt that they have. It's a lot easier just to repeat the conventional wisdom that Islam=bad.

BTW, here is what my Econ 101 textbook says about gold:

The critical factor in preserving the value of any kind of money is limited availability plus confidence that the supply will continue to be limited. Nature has made gold relatively rare. It's up to the Fed to keep Federal Reserve notes and checkable deposits relatively rare. But many people have far more confidence in the reliability of nature than in the reliability of central banks and governments. That's why some people would like to see us return to a genuine gold standards, under which currency could be exchanged for gold at some fixed ratio. It's not becuase they think that money must have backing, but because they distrust government money managers...

...As a matter of fact, governments are often tempted, especially in wartime, to create additional money as a way of financing expenditures without the painful necessity of openly levying taxes... (The Economic Way of Thinking, by Paul Heyne, Peter Boettke, and David Paychith, p. 382)

This might still be a paranoid idea in the United States, but given the track record of governments in many developing nations, I'm not at all sure that it's paranoid there.

No need to defend posting additional information, it's always welcome. I can't recall that you've ever posted a gratuitous link, and you're welcome here anytime.

I, too, am not an economist. But I have no inherent objection to implementing a gold standard. But here's the thing. In our media culture, views can become inseparable from the people who hold them. If I were a trained economist who believed that the gold standard could be a godsend to the US economy, I'd be sure to take careful steps not to get tarred with the same brush as Lyndon LaRouche, and might hesitate to get very public about it.

Unfortunately, that's how things work around here, and it's a fact that media saavy conservatives have exploited to perfection. Sharing any belief, no matter how superficially similar to the beliefs of someone labeled paranoid, can get you publicly known as a member of the tinfoil hat brigade.

Also, I understand your reaction to the comments about Shari'a, and I can see your point. But I think a lot of people in the US, especially those of us on the liberal side, have a deep aversion to mixing church and state. It's different for other cultures, but in fairness, you have to admit that 'theocrat' is an accusation hurled with no love whatever towards the allegedly Christian Bush administration and their 700 Club allies.

It isn't so much the religion that's the target, I have nothing against Christianity. It's the combination of religion and power seeking. Power has most commonly been maintained by dividing people against minorities or the less powerful, and though it may not have been intended, all the world's major religions are frequently used to that end. I explicitly include Christianity and Hinduism in this, with the note that virtually every religion or method of state power has been used in this fashion.

Another problem is that a religious judgement can be in its context less arguable, with the tendency for such to be accepted as straight from the mouth of God. I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian faith that exercised irrational amounts of just such influence over its members. Once the consensus of the group settles, any disagreement is wiewed as arguing with God. I personally distrust any such arrangement because I've seen that inherently decent people when clothed in a divine mandate can all too frequently engage in malign behavior that no one feels empowered to question.

Now Islam does have more of a civil code feel to it, having been designed in part as a means to govern a state. And it's eminently possible that in a rational and enlightened society, it might work out great. But in desperately poor nations with longstanding cultural traditions of gender inequality, it seems to me that it's likelihood of being implemented well is slim. Many Muslim scholars, as you've regularly noted, have admirable views on women's rights. But my question is, what's the likelihood that those particular scholars have much currency in Bangladesh, Nigeria, Afghanistan, or Sudan?

What's wrong with encouraging the virtues of personal faith?