Rational-choice theory, a free market in religion, and Islamic law

[Northwest]

According to neoclassical economics, efficiency is directly related or proportional to the degree of competition, so a free market in exchange is deemed preferable to a monopoly. Based on this, neoclassical economics employs rational-choice theory. According to rational-choice theory, individuals and communities evaluate costs and benefits on the basis of available information. Neoclassical economics applies rational-choice theory to the laws of exchange in the context of a market-based economy. Applied broadly, rational-choice theory posits the existence of man as a rational and fundamentally economic actor.

Some sociologists have since applied neoclassical economic theory to religion. For example, Rodney Stark argues that free competition among religions and religious sects leads to a more “virtuous” society than would be the case under a monopolistic, state-backed faith that prohibits proselytisation by or conversion to rival faiths. Based on this, a free market in religion and religious choice is said to encourage critical thinking and promote meritocracy, a corollary of which would be the success of the faith that best delivers on its promises, in terms of creating a functional, productive, and virtuous society.

Historically, however, institutional religions have sought to create state-backed monopolies within their territorial jurisdictions. On the level of the state, Islamic law, for instance, enshrines this principle by prohibiting the propagation of non-Islamic faiths, as well as by imposing capital punishment or hudud on (public) apostasy. However, promoters of neoclassical economics in the sphere of religion use rational-choice theory to argue that religious pluralism in the context of a free market would promote virtue better than a religious monopoly. Institutional religion is thus more “aristocratic” than “mercantile.”

Rational-choice theory would thus deprive the state of a coercive religious monopoly and instead delegate religious authority, as well as freedom to choose among religion(s) and sect(s), to individuals as well as their respective local communities. Proponents of this approach highlight the inefficiencies of a monopoly in the sphere of economics, besides the abuses that monopolistic central authorities have often resorted to, as justification for their view that the central state, as opposed to individuals and local communities, should not exercise authority in matters of dictating and/or imposing religion.

Furthermore, proponents argue that a religious monopoly tends to lower the overall volume of worshippers, both in quantity and quality, while an open market that allows one to freely choose among faiths and sects yields a more observant population, as in the early Dutch Republic, the United States, and other states that a) lacked a central religious monopoly and/or b) tolerated or encouraged a free market in religion, that is, religious pluralism. Even today the United States is at least somewhat more religious than many European countries, most of which historically or presently have featured a state-linked church.

In light of all this, why do religious authorities, including those of Islam, generally trust men to make their own decisions in the realm of economics, but not in terms of choosing religion? Why do they apply rational-choice theory to economics but not to religion? After all, if men cannot be trusted to freely choose among religions, but must be subject to a statist monopoly, then why would they be permitted to exercise greater latitude in their economic decisions? Is a statist monopoly in the sphere of religion, as in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or once-Christian Europe, more or less conducive to the cultivation of a virtuous society?

[ShiaMan14]

Rational-Choice Theory in Religion = [Quran 2:256] There is no compulsion in religion;

What do you think?

 

[Northwest]

7 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Rational-Choice Theory in Religion = [Quran 2:256] There is no compulsion in religion;

What do you think?

@ShiaMan14

But in, say, Iran and Saudi Arabia only the state-backed religion is allowed to proselytise and (public) conversion to another faith is prohibited.

I was referring to a situation in which the state does not establish a religious monopoly and allows individuals and communities to freely proselytise as well as regulate their own affairs.

[ShiaMan14]

2 hours ago, Northwest said:

@ShiaMan14

But in, say, Iran and Saudi Arabia only the state-backed religion is allowed to proselytise and (public) conversion to another faith is prohibited.

I was referring to a situation in which the state does not establish a religious monopoly and allows individuals and communities to freely proselytise as well as regulate their own affairs.

So, I am not in favor of a state-run theocracy unless of course it was being run the Imam of our time.

"Freely proselytize" has a major drawback in that those with more resources tend to spend more and then convert more. I use the examples of the missionary work that is done in the name of Jesus but with the expectation to convert to Christianity. 

The conversions are not done on pure theology but economics is used as a 'tool' to influence decisions. I am simplifying but something like:

"here is food, praise Jesus/Allah";
"here is shelter, praise Jesus/Allah"
"here is moeny, praise Jesus/Allah"

Eventually the person or people receiving the aid start praising Jesus/Allah.

So "freely proselytise" very quickly becomes proselytizing from the rich.

BTW, great topic

[Haji 2003]

On 8/15/2022 at 2:47 PM, Northwest said:

According to rational-choice theory, individuals and communities evaluate costs and benefits on the basis of available information.

This is where the whole edifice falls down. Rational choice theory assumes that individuals are able to collect and analyse all the necessary information.

They're not.

A lot of modern society is based on this fallacy from the regulation of industries such as advertising and gambling and fast foods to the way that democracy works in many western countries.

The reason the fallacy persists is because there's a lot of money to be made from stupid people who think they're smart.

You might think I am exaggerating here. Look at the text below, it's from the website of a firm offering spread betting services. The same text appears on their advertising.

They tell potential clients that 76% of their existing clients LOSE money. 

But there are enough people who ignore the warning and set up accounts anyway to make the advertising worthwhile and this business profitable.

Those people setting up accounts think they are smarter than those who lose money. But 76% of them will likely lose money. 

Now you might be wondering why a firm would tell prospective customers that there is a high likelihood they will lose money using its services. Well it's because the government regulator believes in rational choice theory. The regulator believes that provided people are given clear information they will make decisions that are in their best interests.

The spread betting firm, like the online gambling firms and the alcohol industry and the tobacco industry, say, "yeah ok, we'll put up the warnings", because they know full well that rational choice theory is nonsense.

[kadhim]

I think it’s an enlightening lens to use to think about religion and society and gives a quirky new take on the “marketplace of ideas” and the benefits of pluralism. It can provide some useful insights, so long as you use it as a tool for reasoning, and like any one theory in economics and social science, you don’t take it too dogmatically. 
As Haji points out, there are compelling challenges to the assumption of classical/neo-classical economics. Look up behavioural economics to learn more about the important impacts of the irrationalities of humans on their decisions as economic actors. 

[khizarr]

This definitely stimulated a consideration.

The 'virtue' aspect was interesting to me. We note that once Shari'a was established in Madinah as opposed to the minority position that Muslims held in Makkah, and Islam became a state-backed institutionalized religion, there was a rise in people becoming averse to the state and developing a dual identity (the verses in the Qur'an about hypocrisy were revealed under the Madinian era, not the Makkan era). It's almost like the small number of Muslims who were living under the thumb of the mushrikeen in Makkah had more virtue than the ones who enjoyed the status of being free Muslims under Shari'a. 

[Northwest]

On 8/15/2022 at 7:30 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

"Freely proselytize" has a major drawback in that those with more resources tend to spend more and then convert more. I use the examples of the missionary work that is done in the name of Jesus but with the expectation to convert to Christianity. 

The conversions are not done on pure theology but economics is used as a 'tool' to influence decisions. I am simplifying but something like:

"here is food, praise Jesus/Allah";
"here is shelter, praise Jesus/Allah"
"here is money, praise Jesus/Allah"

Eventually the person or people receiving the aid start praising Jesus/Allah.

So "freely proselytise" very quickly becomes proselytizing from the rich.

BTW, great topic

@ShiaMan14

This is absolutely true. Profit is definitely used as a motive to entice prospective converts. In a modern capitalist economy private interests have more resources than the public state and are better placed to engage in bribery-as-“proselytisation.” So institutional religion in, say, Iran is less able to compete with the myriad private interests that promote conversion to rival faiths. But this ultimately goes back to the point that I raised in my initial post: that the modern capitalist economy is based on rational-choice theory, and that if society, in an all-encompassing manner, continues to operate on the basis of this economy, then the seemingly logical corollary would be the privatisation of religion as well, at least if one were to be consistent.

In that case the Iranian state would “outsource” religious functions to private Shia interests and would no longer discourage or prohibit conversion to non-Shia faith(s). I also mentioned that statistics suggest that a state-backed religious monopoly generates less religiosity than an order in which communities and private interests rather than the state decide one‘s religious orientation. Basically, the state would no longer be able to enforce the punishment for apostasy, which would instead be “outsourced” to local communities and private organisations. Voluntary self-government, localism, and/or market-based choice would instead prevail in the realm of religion, rather than centralised, monopolistic coercion and/or restraint.

I therefore suggest a kind of modern reversion to the feudal city-state or canton, as in autonomous Switzerland, the early Dutch Republic, antebellum America, or the medieval Islamic empire(s), instead of the bureaucratic central authority. What do you think about this proposal?

On 8/15/2022 at 9:44 PM, Haji 2003 said:

This is where the whole edifice falls down. Rational choice theory assumes that individuals are able to collect and analyse all the necessary information.

They're not.

A lot of modern society is based on this fallacy from the regulation of industries such as advertising and gambling and fast foods to the way that democracy works in many western countries.

The reason the fallacy persists is because there's a lot of money to be made from stupid people who think they're smart.

@Haji 2003 @Hasani Samnani

I think that as much hazard lies in the “elitist” approach as in others. The elitist outlook assumes that the popular, sovereign masses, as represented in local, organic bodies, are incapable of making wise decisions and instead must be dictated to, by a central, bureaucratic authority. A contradiction lies in the fact that the modern capitalist state, like capitalism itself, is based on rational-choice theory, yet tries to “shepherd” the masses by establishing monopolistic guidelines on, say, drugs, taxes, licences, and so on. This schizophrenic approach abets inefficiency and lack of representation.

Also, this inconsistency becomes problematic in other areas. For instance, a government that is sufficiently centralised as to prohibit consumption of intoxicants such as alcoholic beverages is also encouraged to extend its reach into all spheres of private life, by establishing a standing army, salaried bureaucracy, central bank, and so on. The regime can then force people to be vaccinated, be drafted to serve in illegal wars, be taxed beyond reason, and so on, as well as infringe on the rights of not just local communities, but also rival nation-states. Profit rules over principle.

The corporate state, as a form of capitalist corporation, abolishes the sovereignty of individuals and organic communities, leading to the emergence of unchecked power. Certainly, the state can use its power to impose order in the name of religion by banning tobacco or vodka, but by nature is inherently bound to expand well beyond limited decrees. This is because the state derives its power not from living humans, but from dead matter, that is, profit. Eventually profit takes precedence over everything else, and even money itself is debased, from gold to paper and digital currency.

I think the lessons of history are being ignored by people who seem eager to impose “Islam” without reforming/changing the very nature of the modern state itself.

[Northwest]

To follow up:

I think that both history and the current state of the world prove that an effective religious ideology must change the material or productive relations that govern the structure of society and its institutions. Otherwise the Deen itself, as a holistic way of life rather than Religion Incorporated, becomes corrupted and merely serves the wealthy supranational elites who create/control the modern capitalist state. The problem is that religion, like all else, has adapted itself to the corporate capitalist model rather than vice versa. In this sense even Shiism has turned into its antithesis, opposing the revolutionary vision of the Prophet, Imams, and Imam Khomeini, along with that of their counterparts in other religious traditions.

Modern capitalism pits the hierarchical, anti-popular/-populist, statist (state-sovereign) vs. the egalitarian, popular, communal (individual-sovereign) approach. Modern capitalism is thus arrayed vs. feudalism (=anarchism, communalism, religious socialism/communism). It opposes organic communities, familial bonds, and nations, favouring the consolidation of a one-world regime, based on parasitical, dead entities such as profit-making corporations, among them the state, and bourgeois “legality.” The capitalist state has moved from its “national(-ist)” to supranational stage via globalism. Everything becomes commodified and reduced to a brand rather than a lived life. But profit (=parasitism) vs. labour (=productivity).

The central question concerns: why the central state, as opposed to decentralised communities, should regulate drugs and firearms, impose taxes, raise standing armies/police, monopolise the supply of money, force people to be vaccinated, establish a state religion (=monopoly, cronyism), and so on. Under capitalism the state, based on a pharaonic, pyramidal, Masonic scheme, only exists for profit and therefore exploits its subjects. It negates the existence of natural law, which governs even unbelievers, and turns to specialisation (=bourgeois mystification) as a weapon vs. the masses, corrupting the essentially universalist and popular appeal of pure monotheism. Even Iran has succumbed to this world-system.

Be wary of any “system” that says the masses are too “stupid” to take care of themselves without the coercion/supervision of the central state. Modern “sharia” is largely based on the capitalist state, vexatious and usurious as it is, and therefore has not transformed existing relations of production, and hence power, but succumbed to them. By no means should post-Khomeini Iran be equated with the vision of Shiism, or with any religious vision, which by nature is revolutionary in its essential core. Structurally Iran stopped being revolutionary after the death of Imam Khomeini and reverted to pragmatism vs. idealism. Islam and profit (surplus value) do not mix, because profit is power, and power always corrupts absolutely.

This may seem radical a notion, but the modern capitalist state is based on profit, and profit alone. A state that is based on profit arguably cannot be entrusted even with the capacity to regulate and/or ban intoxicants on a national level. We have seen how states have used and abused their powers in the “war on drugs,” the “war on terrorism,” and the “war on SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19.” Yet people somehow assert that the capitalist state, once converted to the service of “Islam,” can be trusted to handle judiciously matters such as banning tobacco, alcohol, and so on, without opening the door to untrammelled exercise of power. Power never accepts limitations, but always pushes at its confines.

[Haji 2003]

3 hours ago, Northwest said:

I think that as much hazard lies in the “elitist” approach as in others. The elitist outlook assumes that the popular, sovereign masses, as represented in local, organic bodies, are incapable of making wise decisions and instead must be dictated to, by a central, bureaucratic authority. A contradiction lies in the fact that the modern capitalist state, like capitalism itself, is based on rational-choice theory, yet tries to “shepherd” the masses by establishing monopolistic guidelines on, say, drugs, taxes, licences, and so on. This schizophrenic approach abets inefficiency and lack of representation.

1.  The theory to which I am referring is based on experiments on individuals and posits that we're all irrational, both elites and masses.
2.  You make an interesting point about representation and here I agree with you. If government is made up of people who do not represent the wider society then government itself becomes a vehicle for some groups to exploit others. However I believe that Islamic strictures put in place mechanisms to ensure that government is representative and that minority ethnic and religious groups do not exploit the majority.

Notwithstanding the weaknesses of government a documentary such as the one below, shows how people can be made worse off when a government moves from e.g. a tightly regulation pensions system to one where people are allowed to make more of the decisions themselves:

 

[ShiaMan14]

5 hours ago, Northwest said:

I therefore suggest a kind of modern reversion to the feudal city-state or canton, as in autonomous Switzerland, the early Dutch Republic, antebellum America, or the medieval Islamic empire(s), instead of the bureaucratic central authority. What do you think about this proposal?

I am in agreement that the less state-controlled religion is, the better. However you have to keep in mind that there are communal laws and personal laws. All communal laws have to have some sort of a basis so why not an Islamic basis. For example, apply Islamic taxes on all citizens or provide interest free financing. At the same time, dont regulate hijab or beard, etc. So I am not sure if there is a clear-cut answer to this fantastic discussion

Other than what I already mentioned, the other problem with Rational theory is that 100% availability of ALL information is required in order for humans to make rational decisions. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

21 hours ago, Northwest said:

In that case the Iranian state would “outsource” religious functions to private Shia interests and would no longer discourage or prohibit conversion to non-Shia faith(s). I also mentioned that statistics suggest that a state-backed religious monopoly generates less religiosity than an order in which communities and private interests rather than the state decide one‘s religious orientation. Basically, the state would no longer be able to enforce the punishment for apostasy, which would instead be “outsourced” to local communities and private organisations.

Hi religion is not business for having financial outcome from it which in Shia Islam people who make money through religious means has been decribed as religion seller which they have been introduced as worth type of people which if Iran has wanted to follow your advise so then doing revolution against tyrant regime of Pahlavi & Shah has not been necessary because Shah & Pahlavi regime have been following your advice so therefore Iranians have rised  against him & his procedure of outsourcing of religion & making it a private matter instead of social matter in similar fahin which has been happened in your favorite systems which at the end it has lead to corruption of people & society so therfore these systems have been perished which there will be no revive for such lunatic & corrupt systems which only an ill mind person advices it to others.

[Northwest]

33 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi religion is not business for having financial outcome from it which in Shia Islam people who make money through religious means has been decribed as religion seller which they have been introduced as worth type of people which if Iran has wanted to follow your advise so then doing revolution against tyrant regime of Pahlavi & Shah has not been necessary because Shah & Pahlavi regime have been following your advice so therefore Iranians have rised  against him & his procedure of outsourcing of religion & making it a private matter instead of social matter in similar fahin which has been happened in your favorite systems which at the end it has lead to corruption of people & society so therfore these systems have been perished which there will be no revive for such lunatic & corrupt systems which only an ill mind person advices it to others.

@Ashvazdanghe

You misunderstood me. I am not calling for an atheistic, centralised state, but a pluralistic, decentralised one. Under this order the central government would not be able to control proselytisation, but rather local communities. As far as profit is concerned: the very concept of the jizya, when applied to the modern bourgeois state, turns Islam into a profit-making enterprise. A tax is just another form of profit. It may be done in the name of a religious cause, but it is still a means of profit for the central state. The state certainly derives profit from taxation.

As far as the Pahlavi regime is concerned: to my knowledge, the Shah did not “outsource” or privatise religion, but sought to ban it. The Shah confiscated clerical endowments such as landholdings and sought to promote a secularist bourgeoisie at the expense of the old feudal landlords. So the Shah discriminated against private Shia communities rather than leave them alone. The Shah, meanwhile, did not abolish the howzah outright, but made it and the clergy dependent on the secular state, controlling funding, appointment, curriculum, and so on.

My “solution” is the opposite of both the Shah’s and the current government’s approaches. I am not calling for an atheistic state that co-opts or prohibits religion, but instead allows local authorities and communities to govern themselves, by exercising full authority in religious matters, without the interference of the central state. Only the communities themselves would be able to exercise coercive power, if at all, as far as religion is concerned, but not the state. The state would simply be aloof. The Shah’s regime was certainly not aloof, but intrusive.

[Northwest]

^ To illustrate the above in concrete terms:

• For instance, a town, village, commune, private settlement, etc. would enforce prohibitions on apostasy rather than the central state
• Local communities and private organisations based on voluntary commitment would adhere to respective faiths or none at all
• The communities and organisations would uphold religious laws and provide for security without the central state’s interference

This seems like a win-win for all concerned. What do you think?

[Northwest]

On 8/22/2022 at 4:26 PM, Haji 2003 said:

1.  The theory to which I am referring is based on experiments on individuals and posits that we're all irrational, both elites and masses.

@Haji 2003

This is true, to an extent. However, irrationality and poor judgment are often conflated, and in many cases people lack sufficient information. I think the main problem is that humans have always thrived in small, close-knit communities, often tribal or familial. In these cases everyone knows each other and little is “hidden,” so people are better placed to make informed decisions. The problem is that in a large, complex society, distant, centralised, bureaucratic structures rely on specialisation and lack the means to implement informed policy, much less do so effectively and efficiently, without leading to waste and abuse. Decentralisation rather than more central enforcement would resolve these and related issues, while also facilitating trust within and between local, organic bodies.

[Ashvazdanghe]

17 hours ago, Northwest said:

@Ashvazdanghe

You misunderstood me. I am not calling for an atheistic, centralised state, but a pluralistic, decentralised one. Under this order the central government would not be able to control proselytisation, but rather local communities. As far as profit is concerned: the very concept of the jizya, when applied to the modern bourgeois state, turns Islam into a profit-making enterprise. A tax is just another form of profit. It may be done in the name of a religious cause, but it is still a means of profit for the central state. The state certainly derives profit from taxation.

As far as the Pahlavi regime is concerned: to my knowledge, the Shah did not “outsource” or privatise religion, but sought to ban it. The Shah confiscated clerical endowments such as landholdings and sought to promote a secularist bourgeoisie at the expense of the old feudal landlords. So the Shah discriminated against private Shia communities rather than leave them alone. The Shah, meanwhile, did not abolish the howzah outright, but made it and the clergy dependent on the secular state, controlling funding, appointment, curriculum, and so on.

My “solution” is the opposite of both the Shah’s and the current government’s approaches. I am not calling for an atheistic state that co-opts or prohibits religion, but instead allows local authorities and communities to govern themselves, by exercising full authority in religious matters, without the interference of the central state. Only the communities themselves would be able to exercise coercive power, if at all, as far as religion is concerned, but not the state. The state would simply be aloof. The Shah’s regime was certainly not aloof, but intrusive.

Hi it's duty of both of goverments & local communities even one by one  in an Islamic community which duty a prson & community is giving advice & trying to convince others to not become apostate but on the other hand only Islamic government can apply orders sometimes it can br harsh likewise judging & execution of apostate .

You have wrong understanding from Jizya because it's a non profit matter which is something that is taken from property of non muslims in return of their contract for their protection in an Islamic country nevertheless it has been corrupted by cursed Ummayads & Abbasids by turning it  into a source of income for tyrants which later other non shia goverments & dynasties have followed this corruption .

Pahlavi regime & Shah have been pretending that they are religious which even Shah himself called himself something likewise a source of emulation (Marja)  which his  procedure has been creating a new definition of religion which any corruption that Shah has done is new adendum to religion which he has no objetion that people pray in mosques or their homes or mourn in Muharram as a personal matter but onthe other hand he has tried to made people indifferent about social issues also in similar fashion he has tried to make Hawzah dependant to government in order to that Hawza & it;s Marjas justify his corruption by giving a religious taste to his corruption in religion & social affairs .

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

^ To illustrate the above in concrete terms:

• For instance, a town, village, commune, private settlement, etc. would enforce prohibitions on apostasy rather than the central state
• Local communities and private organisations based on voluntary commitment would adhere to respective faiths or none at all
• The communities and organisations would uphold religious laws and provide for security without the central state’s interference

This seems like a win-win for all concerned. What do you think?

The best example for your suggestion is Vatican & it's policy  & position which it's a private town inside town of rome with all of it's private sectors  for religious & financial matters which it's a best example for total failure of your suggestion.

[Northwest]

3 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

You have wrong understanding from Jizya because it's a non profit matter which is something that is taken from property of non muslims in return of their contract for their protection in an Islamic country nevertheless it has been corrupted by cursed Ummayads & Abbasids by turning it  into a source of income for tyrants which later other non shia goverments & dynasties have followed this corruption .

@Ashvazdanghe

Jizya involves yearly taxation, so it is not a onetime payment. Taxation is a form of profit. You seem to be claiming that if taxation is employed by righteous Muslims, then it is not profit, but the same method, if employed by non-Muslims, is profit. This is bad logic. It is like claiming that forcible conversion of pagans is bad/oppressive if done by Jews or Christians but good/merciful if done by Muslims. Regarding taxation as profit: a basic definition does not change according to the virtue or belief of the actor(s). Claiming otherwise is Janus-faced “logic” and deceptive in that it peddles different “realities” before various audiences.

3 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

The best example for your suggestion is Vatican & it's policy  & position which it's a private town inside town of rome with all of it's private sectors  for religious & financial matters which it's a best example for total failure of your suggestion.

No, it is not a failure. The problem is that the Vatican is losing adherents due to its irrational doctrines, e.g., Marian idolatry (concealed feminism), the Trinity, clerical celibacy, and so on. Catholics are either founding their own sects or migrating toward other faiths. The religious marketplace is still at work.

According to Lawrence A. Young’s Rational Choice Theory and Religion (New York: Routledge, 1997, pp. 18–9), pluralistic religious societies that allow free proselytisation and movement among competing faiths tend to be more vibrant and observant than societies in which a central government, by monopolising religious practice, restricts or bans the activities of rival faiths. For example, in the United States people can freely proselytise and choose their faith, so overall religiosity is higher than in, say, Europe, which has traditionally been tied to a statist monopoly on religious practice via established churches.

Today in Iran, as in Saudi Arabia, the central government prohibits apostasy, yet religiosity is decreasing every year, as more Iranians are clandestinely seeking out other faiths. By contrast, according to Young (p. 40), countries with greater levels of religious pluralism (decentralisation) exhibit significantly higher rates of observance. Deregulation of religion actually results in greater levels of religious commitment.