Why is it that most Muslim majority countries generally lag the economies of other nations in the world?
This is not true for oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE but is generally true elsewhere.
Consider this map that shows those countries in green that are majority Muslim countries.
 |
| Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/v7bo6l/world_muslim_population/ |
It includes countries with large populations such as Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Egypt where the population is overwhelmingly Muslim.
These are the most recent numbers for GDP per capita for these countries.
 |
GDP per Capita, 2024
Source: Our World in Data |
These are the GDP per capita numbers for the oil rich countries I mentioned above.
 |
GDP per Capita, 2024
Source: Our World in Data |
For context, the United States had GDP per capita of $75,490 in 2024.
Germany's per capita GDP was $62.8k. France $54.5k, Sweden $63.3k, the UK $52.5k and Italy $53.1k.
You also have countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia that have smaller populations but are almost totally Muslim.
GDP per capita for these countries.
 |
GDP per Capita, 2024
Source: Our World in Data |
When you see the comparisons of GDP per capita in these Muslim countries to the wealth of the Western countries is it any wonder that Europe and North American (Christian countries) are magnets for migrants?
Why the massive difference in wealth?
This is a particularly interesting question in that many of the Muslim countries today (prior to Islam) were at the center of early civilization and were known for being world leaders in innovation and invention in that era.
The standard response is that a great many of these countries thrived in earlier centuries because of their close proximity to the Mediterranean Sea which was the center of trade in the world at that time.
The discovery of the Americas moved that center of trade to the Atlantic Ocean and left those countries behind.
Another school of thought is that the Muslim religion itself has been a hindrance.
Is it just a coincidence that Christian majority nations have prospered to a much greater extent than Muslim countries?
Orthodox interpretations of Islamic law (Sharia) and cultural practices in some Muslim-majority countries can hinder modern business development, economic growth, and innovation.
Here are a few tenets of Islam that Grok identifies as potentially having potential negative effects on business development.
The reliance on Sharia law which can override secular commercial law can also act as a hindrance in Muslim countries due to its legal unpredictability.
Another theory that I have seen recently as to the depressed economies of Muslim nations is the large incidence of inbred people in their populations.
Science has long established that there are significant genetic risks to a population that has a high level of inbreeding.
This is particularly the case with unions of first and second cousins.
Risks of birth defects are greatly increased with these unions and prolonged inbreeding has been shown to cause a degradation of intelligence over time.
Where in the world are the largest number of consanguineous marriages (unions between first or second cousins)?
They are all in majority Muslim countries.
There is nothing in Islam that requires this practice but the Quran does not prohibit it and the Prophet Muhammad married his daughter to her cousin Ali.
Many religious scholars cite this example as a recommended practice for Muslims although not obligatory.
These are Muslim countries with high percentage of consanguineous marriages.
In Pakistan almost 2/3 of marriages involve first or second cousins.
This map shows that the practice is almost exclusively seen in Muslim countries.
 |
| Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/inbreeding-by-country |
One study I have seen found that there was an 0.82 correlation between national IQ and per capita GDP.
In other words, low national IQ stores are a fairly good predictor of lower economic national wealth.
Is there anything to the relationship between the percent of inbreeding in the population and IQ scores?
Let's look at
estimated IQ scores for some of those Muslim countries with high levels of inbreeding.
For context, the national IQ for the United States was 98 in the study.
Singapore had the highest national IQ at 109. Japan was 106, South Korea 104 and China 100.
Here are the national IQ averages for some of the Muslim countries where consanguineous marriages are most prevalent.
Pakistan 71
Afghanistan 76
Saudi Arabia 81
Kuwait 84
Iraq 82
Qatar 84
Yemen 67
Sudan 76
South Sudan 66
Compare Palestine (32% consanguineous unions) and Israel (10%).
Palestine's average IQ is 81 compared to Israel at 94.
Somalia is not listed in the group of countries above regarding inbreeding due to the lack of recent surveys but it has traditionally had consanguineous unions of well over 50%
Somalia's national IQ is 68.
An IQ score of 68 borders on the level of which someone is considered to have an intellectual disability and needs support to achieve daily living goals.
 |
| Source: Google AI |
There are clearly other factors involved in IQ scores including childhood nutrition, other cultural influences and the like.
For example, Turkey is about as Muslim (99%) as you can find and it has an average IQ of 90.
That is only four points lower than Israel.
However, it should also be noted that consanguineous unions are not as prevalent in Turkey as other Muslim countries.
Turkey has also traditionally been the most secular of the Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East and has been more affected by European culture than other Muslim countries.
As a result, only about 20% of its marriages are consanguineous unions.
Marriages between first and second cousins are almost nonexistent in the East Asian countries that have the highest IQ scores..
In the United States marriages between first and second cousins are less than 0.1%.
In the final analysis, the reasons for the economic underperformance of Muslim countries is undoubtedly complex and multi-faceted just as the question of what factors affect IQ scores in a population.
There is not one single overriding factor.
However, what is true is that the economic underperformance in these countries is the primary reason that so many people from these areas want to migrate to wealthier countries in Europe and North America.
While they want to take advantage of the economic advantages of their new country many do not seem interested in assimilating to their new country or leaving their culture behind.
This then leads to the cataclysmic clash of cultures we see playing out in increasing areas of Europe not to mention in many parts of the United States including the Minneapolis-St. Paul area which has seen an influx of 100,000 Somalian migrants in recent years.
Yes, that migration has added to the diversity of that area.
There is little doubt it has also solidified the votes for Democrats in the area.
It has also undoubtedly diversified the range of IQ scores in the population looking at the data above.
However, I am struggling to see how this in any way is a net positive to Minneapolis, Minnesota or the United States at large by bringing masses of people in from Somalia with average IQ's below 70.
This view is supported by a comprehensive study that was published in The Netherlands last year in which the researchers looked at the lifetime fiscal contributions and benefits of immigration to the country.
The study looked at the fiscal impact of the entire population (including native born citizens) so as to then be able to calculate the net contributions of immigrants to Dutch society.
 |
| Source: https://docs.iza.org/dp17569.pdf |
Below is the key table summarizing the results of that study.
Native-born Dutch citizens were set at the baseline of 100%.
Numbers above 100% for an immigrant group indicates that they added long-term fiscal value to The Netherlands.
Numbers below 100% indicate that immigrants from that area of the world were a long-term drag on the nation.
 |
| Source: https://docs.iza.org/dp17569.pdf |
Immigrants from North America added the most relative value according to the study.
North Americans added an additional 44% in value to The Netherlands compared to native-born Dutch.
The UK, Ireland, Japan, Denmark, Sweden and Finland were also large net contributors.
Immigrants from the Horn of Africa (which includes Somalia) and Sudan were the biggest fiscal drags. These immigrants provided only 24% of the long term fiscal benefit to the nation as did natives of The Netherlands.
Other Muslim countries were also the home of most of the other immigrants who added long-term fiscal costs rather than long-term value to the nation.
Immigrants from the Caribbean also were large net losers on this metric.
Interestingly, immigrants from Southern Africa (as opposed to Northern Africa) had a positive effect on the Dutch economy.
 |
| Source: https://www.studentsofhistory.com/southern-african-countries-geography |
What is different about Southern Africa?
Muslims typically make up less than 2% of the population in this region compared to the 90%+ numbers in Northern Africa.
It seems popular for many Muslims to blame Israel, Jews, Zionists, the United States or anyone else for their problems.
Is it possible that their biggest problem might be much closer to home?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete