Report

[amended 19 August 2023 to include references to the Irish potato famine and two Bengal famines]
 


 
Images taken at the Egyptian Museum, Tahrir Sq, Cairo. June 2024
Surah Yusuf
Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام) advised Pharoah to hoard grains during the years of plenty. I think this episode is a noteworthy one because it shows how a State can intervene in the marketplace in order to improve the welfare of the wider population.
But as we shall see below, the government intervention that Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام) instigated favoured some sections of the population over others - it was not neutral in terms of how it spread gains and losses across the population.
https://www.al-islam.org/sites/default/files/singles/633-yusuf.pdf
While there is other material in the Qur'an that deals with transactions within the marketplace between individual participants - this story stands out in terms of its focus on state intervention. 
I'll be coming back to this issue later - but I think it informs the discussions we have about Islam and contemporary socio-economic theories. In particular, I think it illustrates that Islam does see the State as an active market participant and that in an Islamic state, the role of government is not one that is hands-off or laissez-faire.
 
What policy options did Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام) have?
We should not take the story as presented 'for granted'. In reality, the Prophet (عليه السلام). had a range of choices open to him, and thinking those through helps us better understand the reasons for the policy he undertook and the reason why. 
No government interference
Let's start with the simplest and easiest option that Pharoah's government could have pursued once they knew that there would be seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine (as predicted by the Pharoah's dream which was interpreted by Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام).) .
Pharoah could have left the entire issue to the 'market'. During the years of plenty, the price of food would have fallen and people would have enjoyed a higher standard of living. For example, the lower grain prices could have led to people rearing more cattle and their diets would have improved with more meat.
However, during the years of famine, grain prices would have risen and those people who had accumulated assets in the years of plenty would be able to pay the higher prices in the famine years. Those who had not had such assets would have starved.
This assumes a fairly high level of self-discipline on the part of the population, but as Milton Friedman would say, the people would have been 'free to choose'. This is not a hypothetical option. The British lack of action to the Irish potato famine has been attributed to the British government's ideological adherence to a laissez-faire approach to macro-economics:
https://kenanfellows.org/kfp-cp-sites/cp01/cp01/sites/kfp-cp-sites.localhost.com.cp01/files/LP3_BBC Irish Famine Article for Lab.pdf
 
The Bengal famine is another one where government policy was different to the one Prophet Yusuf ((عليه السلام).) prescribed to Pharoah. In this instance, it was lack of government restriction over the action of privateers:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study
 
Going back still further, the Great Bengal Famine of 1770 has been directly attributed to British government laissez-faire economic policy.
https://worldfinancialreview.com/the-political-economy-of-famines-during-the-british-rule-in-india-a-critical-analysis/
 
Light interference - provision of information
A common policy option nowadays, where people do not want direct government intervention is to recommend improving the provision of information to the population who will then be better able to make the correct decisions for themselves. The government could have mounted an information campaign during the years of plenty and told people to hoard food themselves, hoarding when there is no shortage is allowed in Islam.
However such attempts to influence awareness about the famine to come and changing peoples' attitudes so that they saved more than they were used to, would likely have run against increased social pressures on people to do the opposite. For example typically in societies as wealth increases there is social pressure to spend more, in this case, for example, have more lavish weddings.
Also providing information would have been a practical benefit for the better off e.g. those with storage capacity, but not so good for the poor (who would not have room to store grain, for example).
The government (using a bit more intervention) could have given tax breaks to people who owned granaries, to help the poor who needed such facilities. Again this solution would be to focus on market-based interventions and simply alter the working of the market using incentives. Current economic theory holds that people discount future risks very heavily i.e. they don't perceive them as much of a threat as they should. So, for example, just telling people they should save for a pension does not work. 
So we can likely predict that the solutions described above would not have worked had they tried them.
Heavy interference
This is what they actually did.
In times of plenty, Pharoah's government did not let prices fall as would have happened under free market conditions. They kept prices higher than they otherwise would have been because the government intervened and took excess stocks of grain out of circulation.
All people (rich and poor alike) had no option but to pay the usual higher prices - effectively, the government was taxing everyone, but this was not seen as a loss by anyone because the prices were no higher than usual.
The government stored the grain centrally and then they decided to release the grain according to their own policies.
Assumptions made by Prophet Yusuf's government
If you leave people to their own devices they may not make the best decisions (whether they are rich or poor), this could be due to: People do not have the resources to cater for future shocks (mainly the poor) People do not have the discipline to address future shocks (applies to both the rich and the poor) The government can make better decisions than individuals acting in their own self-interest because: The government can have access to more and better information than individuals do The government may not be as susceptible to a lack of self-discipline  
Conclusion
Of all the policy options open to Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام) he advised Pharoah to pursue the most interventionist one. Some people may be tempted to call this socialist or communist, but I think those terms carry a lot of excess baggage, so I won't bring them into the discussion.
What I think can be safely inferred from his choice of policy is a fundamental principle that could inform economic policy in any Islamic state.
Facing an external shock to the Egyptian economy, he went for the option that would cause the least pain to the worst off in society. Other policy options would have caused more pain for the poorest but somewhat less for the better off.
 
 

Final part of my book, narrated by my dear friend, Mrs. Solmaz Rezayi
Music: Below the Horizon by Guy Sweens
Images created by ai bing image generator

Gains and losses
It's tempting to think of human experiences, in terms of gains or losses, especially those which involve dealing with other people and groups. Some exchanges lend themselves to this calculus e.g. trade or war. However, a focus on the material element of the equation can often ignore the intangible aspects of the encounter or the trade. The latter can often have longer-term and more profound consequences.
For believers faced with what can seem to be a loss in the material world, it's worth reflecting on what has been gained in the spiritual world. At the moment, in the Middle East there is a dynamic movement of politics and people being played out. Certain groups are gaining power, others are losing. Some people are dying and others are killing them. It's easy to construct the balance sheet in terms of human casualties, square kilometres of land and who holds power.
But this ignores the bigger picture.
Spiritual vs. material
What is also happening is the surfacing of opinions, standpoints and, most importantly, behaviours. In a world at equilibrium, peoples' discourse can often hide their true beliefs and they can avoid engaging in behaviours which make explicit where they stand. 
However, standing as we are in a world where there is disequilibrium, where the stakes are high for a reconfiguration of the Middle East as the tectonic plates shift, so people become more willing to disclose who they really are. 
This is a win for the believers. Tempted by the greed for gain, this is where Satan's mask drops, and reality becomes evident. People motivated primarily by gains in this world no longer hide where they really stand - they believe they can achieve far more by grabbing as much as they can possibly have.
The speed with which events take place makes it impossible for aggressors to hide their tracks. More importantly they believe that they no longer need to do so because the victory is so overwhelming that they will never be brought to account.
Understanding reality
Knowing the objective reality of this world can often be quite difficult; it's usually shrouded by our limitations and weaknesses. Often, believers are tempted to ask God for 'signs' to substantiate their belief. We think how easy it must have been for the ancients who lived in a world of miracles to have belief.
But the miracles are all around us.
As Satan's mask drops, we can see the people who would typically protest about human rights as part of their overall 'belief system' but are utterly silent about genocide. We can see that people who were horrified by the death of a single Iranian woman are now completely silent about the deaths of thousands.
And indeed, it's not just silence - there's active subterfuge on their part to protect the aggressor. We see evidence of social media algorithms being changed. We see evidence of the identify of the aggressor being hidden where typically it would not be. Journalists who held themselves to be paragons of integrity have been seen to be weak and supine. Newspapers that used to criticise other countries for censorship have been found to be self-censoring with abandon.
It's now been left to ordinary people often those with no interest in that part of the world taking note of journalists who have been summarily removed simply for asking Israeli representatives the wrong questions. And just as technology has enabled aggressors to have superior weapons so we are able to better measure and compare the published narrative and have no doubt about what is happening.
And that's just the media.
As for political leaders, we can see the people who claim leadership of Muslims but who show none when world events demand it. We can see the leaders who not only fail to protect the oppressed but who take an active part in the oppression. Their followers are left having to make excuses or alternatively make up new ideologies to replace those found to be wanting.
Crumbling in front of us is the whole edifice of human rights, feminism, democracy, freedom of the press, international system of crime and justice and all those other things that have been used to beat up Muslims for decades. Of course, there is nothing wrong with them per se - but it's now obvious that there was never any principle underpinning their use. They were only a weaponised tool whose promoters were kept on a tight leash and allowed to attack some countries while we now see them willingly held back from applying the same rules to others.
Claims of a 'superior civilisation' (whose superiority above Islam we were told we should accept) are now an embarrassment except to those with no reason or shame. Its promoters have traded them for gains in this world and have given up whatever echoes they wished to leave for eternity. And even those gains will prove to be short lived. The moral high ground needs legitimacy which has now disappeared.
Implications for us
It's at times like this that we might be saddened by the loss of people and places. But at the same time, our faith should be reinvigorated by the knowledge that what others believe is false, whose hypocrisy is made manifest and most importantly, whose ethical and moral position is so weak that it requires extreme violence to uphold.
Shias more than anyone know that gains and losses on the battlefield are not the end of the story.

In the quiet suburban town of Ashton Vale, a vibrant community of immigrants and indigenous families coexisted, yet often walked parallel paths. Among them was Rajiv, a software engineer from Bangalore, who had relocated with his wife, Priya, and their two children for a coveted job in the local tech hub. Excited by the promise of a better future, Rajiv had imagined Ashton Vale’s schools to be bastions of innovation and rigor. But after six months, his vision was dimming.
His daughter, Anya, a spirited 10-year-old, struggled to find challenge in her schoolwork. Despite being a straight-A student, she often returned home frustrated, complaining of repetitive lessons. The lack of focus on science and mathematics—subjects Rajiv deeply valued—gnawed at him. Rajiv began attending PTA meetings, determined to understand the system better.
At the first meeting, he met Sarah, a lifelong Ashton Vale resident and mother of three. Sarah’s eldest son, Jake, was Anya’s classmate. While Sarah empathized with Rajiv’s concerns, she held a contrasting perspective. “The school focuses on holistic development,” she explained. “Not everything has to be about academics. Kids need time to grow emotionally, too.”
Rajiv listened politely but couldn’t shake the feeling that the school was failing to meet its potential. He proposed additional enrichment classes for math and science, but the suggestion was met with mixed reactions. “We can barely fund extracurriculars as it is,” the principal retorted, his tone more defensive than accommodating.
Meanwhile, Priya struck up a friendship with Maria, a recent immigrant from Colombia, who shared her discontent. Maria’s son, Diego, was a bright student, but like Anya, he seemed to be stagnating. The two mothers decided to take matters into their own hands. They began organizing weekend workshops, teaching advanced concepts in math and physics to a small group of children from immigrant families. Word of their initiative spread quickly, sparking curiosity—and resentment.
At a community town hall, tensions bubbled over. “Why are you segregating your kids?” Sarah asked Priya, her voice laced with frustration. “Aren’t we all in this together?”
Priya hesitated, searching for the right words. “It’s not about separating them,” she said finally. “It’s about giving them opportunities that the school doesn’t provide. We want them to thrive.”
Sarah shook her head. “But what message does that send? That our schools aren’t good enough? That the rest of our kids aren’t worth interacting with?”
Rajiv, who had been silent until now, spoke up. “We’re not trying to undermine the system. But surely you can understand that when you come from a place where education is the only ladder to success, you see things differently.”
Another parent, James, interjected. “Maybe instead of going off and doing your own thing, you should join forces with the PTA to improve what we already have.”
Priya’s face softened. “We’d love to collaborate, but we need to feel like we’re being heard, not dismissed.”
Over the next few months, the workshops became a point of contention in Ashton Vale. Some parents embraced them, seeing them as an opportunity for their children to benefit from a different perspective. Others remained wary, perceiving them as divisive. Slowly, however, a bridge began to form. Rajiv and Priya started inviting teachers to their sessions, fostering dialogue about integrating enrichment into the broader curriculum. Sarah, initially skeptical, joined one workshop and was surprised by the creativity and passion Priya and Maria brought to teaching.
By the end of the school year, the PTA proposed a pilot program for advanced learners, drawing inspiration from the weekend workshops. It was a small step, but one that signaled the community’s willingness to evolve together. For Rajiv, Priya, Sarah, and the rest of Ashton Vale, it was proof that even the most challenging divides could be crossed with empathy, dialogue, and determination.

My prompt: Could it be proposed that for a theist an alien encounter can't possibly lead to a wipeout of the human race (unless the aliens themselves were theists). Whereas for an atheist this is a possibility?

 
GPT Answer: This proposition could be framed as a hypothesis grounded in the fundamental differences between theistic and atheistic worldviews. Let's unpack this:
 
---
 
 Theistic Perspective:
1. Belief in Divine Providence:
   - For many theists, the idea of humanity being wiped out by an alien encounter conflicts with their belief in divine oversight or purpose. In monotheistic traditions, God is often seen as a protector of humanity or as having a plan for human existence. For example:
     - In Christianity, the notion of humanity as the "crown of creation" implies that humans hold a special place in the universe.
     - In Islam, humans are referred to as khalifa (stewards) of the Earth, suggesting divine purpose and responsibility.
 
2. Aliens as Part of Creation:
   - A theist might argue that if aliens exist, they are part of God's creation and, thus, subject to the same divine laws and moral framework. If the aliens are intelligent, theists might believe they are bound by a moral order that prohibits the unjust destruction of humanity.
 
3. Theistic Alien Possibility:
   - If the aliens themselves are theists or operate within a framework of moral understanding (e.g., recognizing a creator or higher order), this might align with the theist's worldview. In this scenario, the likelihood of the aliens obliterating humanity diminishes, as such action might conflict with divine principles of justice or mercy.
 
4. Eschatology and Divine Endings:
   - In many theistic traditions, the end of humanity is often seen as part of a divine eschatological plan (e.g., the Apocalypse in Christianity, the Day of Judgment in Islam). Therefore, the idea of humanity being wiped out arbitrarily by aliens would contradict the divine script, unless it aligns with God's will.
 
---
 
 Atheistic Perspective:
1. Absence of Divine Oversight:
   - Without belief in divine intervention or purpose, atheists are more likely to accept the possibility of humanity's extinction as a random or natural event. This could include scenarios such as:
     - An alien civilization vastly superior in technology choosing to eradicate humanity for resources, territorial expansion, or indifference to human existence.
     - Humanity's inherent vulnerability in a universe without a guiding or protective force.
 
2. Naturalistic Assumptions:
   - Atheists tend to approach existence from a naturalistic or evolutionary perspective, where survival depends on human ingenuity, adaptability, and luck rather than divine protection. In this framework, the arrival of a technologically advanced alien race could pose an existential threat, akin to how colonial encounters on Earth have led to the decimation of less technologically advanced societies.
 
3. Moral Relativity:
   - Unlike theists, who might assume a universal moral order governing alien behavior, atheists may see morality as a construct unique to human societies. This opens the possibility that aliens might not share human ethical frameworks, making the potential for destructive encounters more plausible.
 
---
 
 Key Implications:
1. Worldview-Driven Responses:
   - A theist might view an alien encounter as part of God's plan, possibly even a test of faith, and would be more inclined to seek meaning or morality in the aliens' actions. 
   - An atheist, by contrast, might approach the encounter pragmatically, preparing for the possibility that the aliens have no moral obligation to humanity.
 
2. Survival Scenarios:
   - For a theist, humanity’s destruction by aliens is only conceivable if it aligns with divine will. Otherwise, divine protection would prevail. The existence of the aliens themselves might even be interpreted as a sign of God’s creativity or the vastness of divine creation.
   - For an atheist, the survival of humanity would depend entirely on human effort, strategy, and the contingencies of the encounter.
 
---
 
 Counterarguments and Nuances:
1. Theistic Flexibility:
   - Some theists might argue that even if humanity were wiped out, it wouldn't contradict their beliefs because God's plans are ultimately unknowable or transcend human understanding.
   - Similarly, not all atheists would assume aliens would necessarily be hostile, depending on assumptions about the aliens' evolutionary and cultural development.
 
2. Common Ground:
   - Both worldviews might agree that the outcome of an alien encounter would largely depend on the nature of the aliens themselves—their level of aggression, resource needs, or capacity for empathy.
 
---
 
 Conclusion:
The proposition holds as a conceptual framework: theists may find it difficult to reconcile the extinction of humanity by aliens with their theological beliefs unless the aliens themselves act within a divine framework. For atheists, the lack of divine oversight allows for a broader range of possibilities, including humanity’s potential destruction by aliens. This distinction highlights the contrasting existential assumptions underlying theistic and atheistic perspectives.

I came across the following about the British poet Basil Bunting:
 
https://academic.oup.com/res/article/74/315/389/7103434?login=false
 
I pasted that into Chatgpt and asked, "Are there other people who simultaneously interacted with middle eastern culture while at the same time aiding Britain's colonial enterprise?"
 
It came back with the following:

Yes, several notable individuals interacted with Middle Eastern cultures while contributing to Britain's colonial enterprise. These figures often straddled roles as diplomats, intelligence officers, and scholars, blending cultural engagement with imperial objectives. Here are some key examples:
 
 1. T.E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia")
   - Role: British archaeologist, army officer, diplomat, and writer.
   - Activities: Lawrence became famous for his role in the Arab Revolt (1916–1918) during World War I, where he supported Arab nationalist aspirations against Ottoman rule while advancing British strategic interests.
   - Cultural Interaction: He immersed himself in Arab culture, spoke Arabic fluently, and documented his experiences in Seven Pillars of Wisdom. However, his activities also reflected Britain's geopolitical ambitions in the Middle East.
 
 2. Gertrude Bell
   - Role: British writer, archaeologist, and political officer.
   - Activities: Bell played a critical role in the establishment of modern Iraq, advising British colonial authorities and helping to draw its borders after World War I.
   - Cultural Interaction: She was deeply involved in Arab culture, learned Arabic and Persian, and became an expert on Middle Eastern history and politics. Despite her cultural respect, her work was integral to British colonial administration.
 
 3. Harry St. John Philby
   - Role: British intelligence officer, Arabist, and explorer.
   - Activities: Philby worked in British intelligence and later became a political advisor to Ibn Saud, the founder of Saudi Arabia. He was instrumental in British relations with the Arabian Peninsula.
   - Cultural Interaction: Philby converted to Islam and adopted many aspects of Arab culture. However, his role also involved facilitating British interests in the region, particularly concerning oil.
 
 4. Charles Montagu Doughty
   - Role: British explorer and writer.
   - Activities: Although not an intelligence officer, Doughty traveled extensively in Arabia and wrote Travels in Arabia Deserta, a detailed ethnographic account that informed British perspectives on the region.
   - Cultural Interaction: He engaged deeply with Arab culture but his works also contributed to the British understanding and strategic engagement with the region.
 
 5. Wilfred Thesiger
   - Role: British explorer, writer, and military officer.
   - Activities: Thesiger served in the Sudan Political Service and during World War II in the Middle East. He later traveled extensively through the Arabian Peninsula.
   - Cultural Interaction: He celebrated Bedouin culture in his writings, notably Arabian Sands, but his presence often aligned with British imperial objectives.
 
 Analysis of Dual Roles
These figures often operated in liminal spaces where cultural appreciation coexisted with imperial agendas. They frequently acted as intermediaries, using their cultural knowledge to advance Britain's geopolitical strategies while documenting and sometimes romanticizing the cultures they encountered.
 
Would you like further detail on any of these individuals or their contributions to Britain's colonial enterprise?
 

Background
In the following blog post, I argued that minorities can economically outperform majorities in a society and that this may require actions to protect the interests of the majority. Overall this discussion picks up issues around Islamic regulations around the rights and obligations of minority communities in an Islamic society, where minorities are referred to as 'dhimmis'.
In contemporary Western society where there is an overarching interest in 'equality' these regulations may be perceived as discriminatory and wrong. What I did in the post below was to argue that they help protect the interests of the majority which may otherwise be compromised and ultimately lead to conflict.
 
 
In this post what I want to do is look at the same issues from another perspective. I wanted to see whether an AI LLM when given specific starting economic and social conditions within a society would come to the same endpoint as I had done in my post above.
I gave gpt4 the following prompt:
Imagine you are a social network theory expert. Assume that there is a society composed of individuals with a range of different types of ties. All individuals in that society are equal in terms of economic welfare. Within that society there is a cluster of people with a shared culture who have denser ties with each other than with others in the society. Please map out over time what the implications of those social network characteristics will be in terms of e.g. economic welfare.
The instruction should be readily understandable to the layperson, except for one term, gpt4 gives the following explanation of social network density:
In the context of this conversation, when we refer to a cluster of people with denser ties, we mean that within this group, a larger proportion of all possible connections between individuals actually exist. This implies that individuals in this cluster are more interconnected and have more relationships with each other than with people outside the cluster.
Having explained that term we can move onto what GPT4 sees as the trajectory for that society. Note that for my part the effort has been to give GPT4 a prompt that was as neutral as possible to avoid it coming up with a scenario that arose because of a bias in the prompt.
GPT4's longitudinal analysis - the following text is from GPT4
In the context of social network theory, the structure and nature of social ties can significantly impact various outcomes, including economic welfare. Here are some potential implications over time:
Information and Knowledge Dissemination: In a closely-knit cluster where social ties are denser, information and knowledge are likely to disseminate faster among members. This can lead to quicker adoption of beneficial practices, faster problem-solving, and greater innovation. Over time, this may result in economic advantages for the cluster. Resource Mobilization: Dense social networks can facilitate more effective resource mobilization. This could take the form of group savings, joint investments, and collective bargaining power in the marketplace. Over time, this could enhance the economic welfare of the group. Social Capital: The dense ties within the cluster can form a significant amount of social capital, which can be leveraged for economic gain. For example, trust and reciprocity within the group can reduce transaction costs and facilitate economic activities that might be more difficult or costly in a less cohesive network. Inequality: While these dense ties can lead to economic advantages for the cluster, they may also exacerbate inequality between the cluster and the rest of society. The benefits from information dissemination, resource mobilization, and social capital may not flow as easily to individuals outside the cluster. Over time, this could lead to growing economic disparities within the society, even if all individuals started at the same level of economic welfare. Fragmentation and Polarization: Over time, the strong in-group ties and weak out-group ties might lead to fragmentation and polarization within the society. This could result in a society where the closely-knit cluster becomes economically dominant, while the rest of the society is left behind. This could lead to social tensions and conflict. Resilience and Vulnerability: While the dense network within the cluster might provide resilience in the face of external shocks (due to the ability to mobilize resources and support each other), it might also lead to increased vulnerability. If the cluster is hit by a negative event (such as a financial crisis or a disease outbreak), the dense ties could facilitate the rapid spread of the negative effects. It's important to note that these are potential implications and the actual outcomes can be influenced by a variety of factors, including the nature of the ties (whether they are positive or negative, strong or weak), the specific cultural characteristics of the cluster, the wider socio-economic and political context, and the ways in which individuals within the network and the society as a whole adapt and respond to changes over time.
Conclusion
I think this elaborates and to a large extent validates the points I was making in the earlier blog post.
To reiterate the overall issue. When we discuss majorities and minorities in the context of particular groups of people in specific societies the underlying social, anthropological and economic arguments are subsumed within accusations of being prejudiced against one group or another. So my initial post does not mention any groups, countries or societies, we are simply discussing the relationships between various social variables and how they evolve over time.
Based on the above thought experiment with gpt4, I am still inclined to think that Islam is 'onto something' when it addresses the dhimmi issue.