Colonical Exploitation and Industrial Revolution

Capitalism is commonly understood to have emerged naturally from the decline of feudalism,  alongside the expansion of global trade, the rise of private property, and the spread of liberal ideas.  As Max Weber observed, capitalism “is not the product of a conscious human design but the result  of a long historical process involving changes in culture, religion, and social organization.”  Building on these foundations, the Industrial Revolution acted as a powerful catalyst, accelerating  capitalism’s growth by expanding opportunities for capital accumulation, factory production, and  global market reach, ultimately transforming it into its modern industrial form. 

The Industrial Revolution is widely regarded as a direct outgrowth of the Enlightenment, the  intellectual and cultural movement that shaped European thought from the late 17th to the early  19th century (circa 1680s to 1820s). The Enlightenment was characterized by an emphasis on  reason, logic, and critical thinking, which gave rise to foundational concepts such as individual  liberties and fundamental rights. It also involved a systematic challenge to traditional authorities— monarchy, church, and aristocracy—paving the way for secularism and the separation of religion  from state affairs. Furthermore, it promoted scientific inquiry as a means to advance society.  

The Industrial Revolution, in turn, fundamentally transformed the global economic structure and  acted as a catalyst for the rise and institutionalization of capitalism as the dominant economic  model. Understanding the extent to which the Industrial Revolution was shaped by Enlightenment  ideals is essential, as this connection directly influences how capitalism was developed, justified,  and implemented in the modern world. 

However, while this narrative of Enlightenment-driven industrial progress is widely accepted, it  deserves closer scrutiny. A critical examination reveals that the early stages of the Industrial  Revolution were not the product of scientific advancement in the Enlightenment sense, but rather  of empirical trial, mechanical ingenuity, and colonial exploitation. Moreover, the supposed  alignment between Enlightenment values and industrial capitalism quickly unraveled, as the  realities of exploitation, slavery, and imperial domination contradicted the very ideals of liberty,  equality, and rational progress.  

However, it is important to examine to what extent the traditional connection between  Enlightenment and industrial modernity — from the perspective of technology and philosophy — is grounded in reality. 

The origins of the Industrial Revolution are often portrayed as a triumph of science and the rational  fruits of the Enlightenment. However, a closer and more impartial examination reveals that the  true driving force behind this revolutionary era was not formal scientific discoveries. Rather, the  revolution was primarily the result of inventions born out of the efforts of artisans, mechanics, and  pragmatic experimentation. These innovations were not motivated by pure theoretical curiosity,  but by immediate practical needs—such as increasing production, developing more efficient  sources of energy, and processing large quantities of raw materials.

For example, the steam engine—often regarded as a symbol of industrial science—was actually  an invention born out of practical challenges. Its earliest form, the atmospheric engine, was  developed by Thomas Newcomen in 1712 in response to the problem of pumping water out of coal  mines. It was not based on any scientific theory, but rather a direct engineering solution to an  urgent need. Later, between 1765 and 1776, James Watt significantly improved the engine, but  even these enhancements were grounded in empirical observations of heat, pressure, and motion— not in any established scientific framework. Surprisingly, the very science we now associate with  the steam engine—thermodynamics—did not even exist at the time. This scientific discipline was  developed in the 19th century by figures like Sadi Carnot and Rudolf Clausius, in order to better  understand and improve the efficiency of engines after the fact. 

By the same principle, many of the revolutionary inventions in the textile industry were also the  result of artisan skill rather than scientific knowledge. James Hargreaves’ Spinning Jenny (1764),  John Kay’s Flying Shuttle (1733), Richard Arkwright’s Water Frame (1769), and Edmund  Cartwright’s Power Loom (1787) were all innovations that dramatically increased production  speed and efficiency. However, these inventions were based purely on mechanical observations,  local experimentation, and commercial pressures. They marked a shift from domestic modes of  production to the factory system—but their driving force was not scientific theory or principle,  rather the goal of improving performance and maximizing profit. 

These inventions were also deeply rooted in the colonial economy. Their purpose was to process  cotton grown through the labor of enslaved people in American and Caribbean colonies. Eli  Whitney’s invention of the Cotton Gin (1793) made cotton cleaning significantly easier, which in  turn increased the demand for slavery, as more cotton could now be processed at a faster rate. This  raw material continuously fueled the textile mills of Britain. The colonies were not only supplying  the raw materials for production but also serving as captive markets—forced consumer bases— where these industrial products were sold. 

Around the same time, Abraham Darby’s 1709 invention—the use of coke to smelt iron—also  revolutionized the industrial infrastructure. This technique produced cheaper and stronger iron,  which became essential for building factories, railways, and machines. However, this advancement  too was the result of practical, experimental skill rather than a scientific understanding of the  chemical interactions between iron and carbon. At that time, the scientific foundations of  metallurgy had not yet been established. 

All these examples make it clear that technology was often ahead of science—that is, scientific  theories emerged later to explain and refine these inventions, rather than giving rise to them in the  first place. This fact further strengthens the argument that the Industrial Revolution was not merely  a manifestation of Enlightenment-era scientific progress, but rather the outcome of a more  complex, practical, and colonial evolution. 

This integration of scientific knowledge with industrial innovation only began after 1850, during  the second phase of industrialization, when scientific institutions, technical universities, and  corporate R&D laboratories started to emerge. This historical reality challenges the widespread  belief that reason and formal science directly gave birth to industrial modernity. As historian Joel 

Mokyr notes in his book The Gifts of Athena (2002), although the intellectual legacy of the  Enlightenment eventually began to influence industries, the initial wave of industrialization was  largely non-scientific—driven instead by artisanal ingenuity, economic necessity, and imperial  interests. 

The true driving force behind these inventions was, in fact, colonial necessities — such as laying  down vast railway networks to extract resources, which spurred innovations in engine technology;  transporting cotton looted from the Indian subcontinent and the American South through slave  labor to Europe; and developing textile machinery (as previously discussed) to rapidly process that  cotton. Notably, many Enlightenment intellectual centers — like France and Germany — were  academically advanced but lagged behind industrially, while Britain, though comparatively less  engaged in philosophical activity, surged ahead in industrial development due to its abundance of  coal, colonies, and capital. 

Just as the scientific foundations of the Industrial Revolution were not as strong as the common  narrative suggests, similarly the philosophical principles of the Enlightenment — on which the  moral claims of modern Western civilization are built — faced severe contradictions in practical  reality. Although the values of the Enlightenment era, such as human rights, individual freedom,  and secularism, seemingly promoted the principles of liberty, equality, and reason, their practical  implementation during the Industrial Revolution often contradicted these very principles. Thinkers  like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau presented the idea of fundamental rights, including  the rights to life, liberty, and property. Particularly, Locke’s view that every individual naturally  has the right to freedom became the foundation of modern human rights discourse. However, these  ideas stood in stark contrast to the ground realities of the time. During the Enlightenment and  Industrial Revolution, slavery was not only maintained but was a central pillar of colonial  economies. Millions of people, including African slaves, laborers from the Indian subcontinent,  and colonial subjects, suffered from slavery, coercion, and economic exploitation during this so called age of “freedom.” This contradiction reveals that when the moral principles of the  Enlightenment clash with practical realities, their true nature and limitations become apparent. 

Similarly, individual liberty — which thinkers like Voltaire, Montesquieu, and John Locke  regarded as a fundamental pillar of human dignity and liberation from tyrannical rule — was  vigorously promoted during the Enlightenment era. Yet, during the same period, European powers  such as Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal were expanding their colonial empires worldwide.  The indigenous peoples of Africa, Asia, and the Americas were not only deprived of political  sovereignty but their land, labor, and resources were systematically exploited under a colonial  regime — all at the hands of the very European nations that loudly proclaimed the slogan of  individual liberty. 

Secularism, a key intellectual foundation of the Enlightenment, aimed to separate the state from  the church and to place reason and logic at the center of political and social institutions. However,  the reality is that during the same period, the colonial system repeatedly used religion as a tool of  imperialism. Christian missionary activities were often presented as a moral justification for the  expansion of European empires, where oppression, violence, and exploitation were disguised  under beautiful slogans of salvation, civilization, and the will of God. The famous missionary 

David Livingstone called Africa the “Land of Darkness” and declared: “I am going back to Africa  to open the way for commerce and Christianity.” Such statements testify that rationalism and  religious mission were not only merged but transformed into a colonial strategy — to dominate  non-Christian peoples under the guise of Enlightenment ethics. 

Another example of this contradiction can be seen in the philosophy of utilitarianism, which  ostensibly advocated happiness and reforms but also became an ideological support for colonial  rule. As industrial capitalism advanced, utilitarianism emerged as a moral philosophy aligned with  the era’s emphasis on productivity, reforms, and social efficiency. Jeremy Bentham’s principle of  “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” provided a secular ethical foundation compatible  with industrial and liberal democratic progress, guiding reforms in public health, education, and  governance. Although Bentham personally opposed slavery, his utilitarian logic was later used to  justify imperial rule. British officials and intellectuals often claimed that the colonial system  worked for the “collective good” by promoting development and improvement among “backward”  nations. John Stuart Mill, a prominent utilitarian thinker and long-time employee of the British  East India Company, wrote in his famous book On Liberty (1859):  

“Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians,  provided the end be their improvement.” 

Such ideas provided an ideological cover for authoritarian rule in colonial regions like India, where  British officials justified their governance as a temporary but necessary phase essential for the  moral development of the subjugated peoples. The echoes of this paternalistic logic are also  evident in Thomas Macaulay’s famous “Minute on Indian Education” (1835), where he claimed:  

“A single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature  of India and Arabia.” 

Here, Western knowledge and culture were naturally deemed superior, and the imposition of  European values was portrayed as a “benevolent” act. In reality, these ideological frameworks  concealed the material and cultural aggression of imperialism — such as resource plundering,  political domination, and the erasure of local identities — while presenting imperialism as a  philosophical and moral duty. 

Thus, although the values of Enlightenment and Utilitarianism advocated for freedom, justice, and  rational progress, these very principles were repeatedly used to justify colonial domination—under  the guise of lofty slogans of human advancement. 

Now that it is clear that the Industrial Revolution was neither primarily the result of scientific  discoveries nor philosophical principles, it becomes essential to consider how European powers  exploited colonialism to fuel this rapid industrial growth. Narratives like the “free market” and  “natural progress” were, in fact, little more than myths. The true driving force behind the Industrial  Revolution was a ruthless and systematic colonial exploitation. 

Europe plundered raw materials like cotton, rubber, sugar, gold, and others from the colonies;  deliberately destroyed local industries; and forced the colonized peoples to depend on imperial 

products. This systematic plunder enriched the European elite, empowered factories, ports, and  financial institutions, and continually deepened global inequality. 

Thus, the stark reality emerges that the rise of industrial capitalism was built neither on the ethics  of the Enlightenment nor on the invisible forces of free trade—but was founded on colonial crimes  such as violence, oppression, and plunder. 

This exploitation was particularly pronounced in the global cotton economy. By the 1830s, 70%  of the cotton used in British textile mills came from South America, where it was cultivated by  African slaves. By 1850, Britain was importing 588 million pounds of raw cotton, most of which  was sourced from the slave plantations in America (Beckert, Empire of Cotton). British colonial  policies deepened this exploitative system in India as well, where peasants were forcibly  compelled to grow cash crops like indigo and cotton, which adversely affected staple food crops.  Famines in Bengal worsened drastically from the 1770s due to this coercive system (Mukerjee,  Churchill’s Secret War). In 1750, India accounted for about 24.5% of global industrial production,  which declined to only 1.7% by 1900, while Britain’s share rose to 18.5% — all reflecting the  exploitative role of the British colonial economy (Maddison, The World Economy). It is important  to remember that it was this very looted cotton on which Britain’s textile industry was built — the  same industry that was central to the beginning and expansion of the Industrial Revolution. 

Similarly, the sugar plantations of the Caribbean became a major source of colonial wealth that  fueled industrial development. By the eighteenth century, islands like Jamaica, Barbados, and  Saint-Domingue (present-day Haiti) were producing large quantities of sugar for European  markets. By 1790, Saint-Domingue alone supplied nearly 40% of Europe’s sugar and accounted  for about two-thirds of France’s overseas trade, making it France’s most valuable colony (Eric  Williams, Capitalism and Slavery). The immense profits generated from this trade were invested  in British banking and financial institutions—such as Barclays, Baring Brothers & Co., and Lloyds  Bank—which channeled the capital into industry, transportation, and infrastructure, providing the  financial foundation for the Industrial Revolution. The production of sugar and the demand for its  market not only structured the colonial economy but also fundamentally transformed public  consumption in Europe, the diet of the working class, and production systems. As the  anthropologist Sidney Mintz wrote in his famous book Sweetness and Power: 

“The story of sugar is one of those few threads that tie together the history of  industry, imperialism, slavery, and mass consumption.” 

This excerpt clearly demonstrates that sugar was not merely an agricultural commodity but a key  structural element of colonial capitalism, without which neither industrial production would have  expanded nor would Europe’s economy have gained the energy that propelled it toward global  dominance. 

After cotton and sugar, rubber emerged as an indispensable commodity during the second phase  of the Industrial Revolution (from the late nineteenth century to the early twentieth century). The  growing demand for rubber made possible the production of machinery belts, telegraph insulation,  bicycle and automobile tires, and waterproof goods. This rising demand gave birth to one of the  most brutal colonial systems in history: the Congo Free State, which was directly ruled by King 

Leopold II of Belgium. During Leopold’s reign, the Congolese people were forcibly compelled to  collect wild rubber, families were taken hostage, and those who failed to meet quotas had their  body parts severed. According to Adam Hochschild’s book King Leopold’s Ghost, this brutal  regime resulted in the deaths of nearly ten million Congolese due to forced labor, starvation,  disease, and terror. 

In 1890, rubber exports from the Congo were approximately 580 tons, which increased to over  3,500 tons by 1904. Leopold earned a profit of 220 million francs (equivalent to about 1.1 billion  US dollars today) from this brutal trade, which was spent on building royal palaces and museums  in Belgium. 

European concessionary companies such as the Anglo-Belgian India Rubber Company (ABIR)  also earned profits of nearly 700% from this brutal system, while the price of rubber increased  tenfold between 1890 and 1905. Industrial giants like Michelin, Dunlop, and Continental heavily  relied on Congo’s rubber for the growth of their industries, clearly showing that Europe’s industrial  development was not only based on colonial exploitation but was directly supported by these brutal  systems. Thus, the rubber trade not only enriched Leopold II’s regime and European capitalists  but also provided a fundamental fuel for the entire industrial capitalist system. 

Alongside rubber, cotton, and sugar, precious metals like gold and silver also played a fundamental  role as fuel for industrial capitalism within the colonial economy. Since the 16th century, Spanish  and Portuguese colonies extracted enormous quantities of silver and gold from mines in regions  such as Potosí (Peru) and Zacatecas (Mexico). The mines of Potosí alone supplied over 60% of  the world’s silver during the 17th century. According to Eduardo Galeano, between 1500 and 1800,  more than 45,000 tons of silver were transferred to Europe. These metals supported European  empires’ wars, expansion, and financial systems, laying the foundation for international trading  banks such as Baring Brothers and Rothschild & Co., which later became crucial for global trade,  sovereign debts, and ultimately the financial backbone of industrial capitalism. 

The famous British “Guinea” coin, named after the gold obtained from Africa’s “Gold Coast” (now  Ghana), symbolizes how deeply colonial resources were integrated into the European financial  system. The discovery of gold in 1886 at Witwatersrand in South Africa made the region the  world’s largest gold producer. The deposits around Johannesburg gave rise to large-scale mining  operations, which dominated the global gold market until the early 20th century. Companies such  as De Beers Consolidated Mines and Consolidated Gold Fields monopolized gold mining and  exports. The wealth extracted from these mines vastly expanded the British financial empire, and  London banks began spreading gold-based investments worldwide. 

This very colonial wealth—particularly the capital derived from precious metals—later became  the foundation of modern capitalism, where financial markets, international debts, and global  investment structures grew out of these initial imperial reserves. Systems like the Gold Standard  were essentially built upon colonial-era wealth, stabilizing the capitalist economy at the  international level. Thus, colonial metals were not merely fuel for industries but laid the financial  foundations of the modern global capitalist system—a system that to this day has not fully freed  itself from its colonial legacy.

Europe’s industrial development was not based solely on acquiring raw materials, but was also  fundamentally reliant on forced labor and slavery, which were indispensable for supplying these  resources and meeting industrial demands. According to Eric Williams, British merchants earned  immense profits from the “Triangular Trade,” which were reinvested into banking, shipping,  infrastructure, and early industrial ventures. This trade system spanned from the 16th to the 19th  century across Europe, Africa, and America, forming the backbone of the Atlantic slave economy.  European ships carried manufactured goods such as cloth, guns, alcohol, and metals from Europe  to Africa, where these were exchanged for African slaves. These slaves were transported via the  “Middle Passage” to the Americas, where they were sold under brutal conditions. From there,  slave-produced goods like sugar, tobacco, cotton, and rum were shipped back to Europe. 

Approximately 12 million Africans were forcibly transported to America, with Britain controlling  the largest share during the 18th century (Thomas, The Slave Trade). Between 1700 and 1807,  British ships transported about 3.5 million slaves from Africa to America, and 40 percent of the  European slave trade was carried out through the port of Liverpool alone. Although Britain  declared the slave trade illegal in 1807, industrial capitalism continued to rely on cotton produced  by American slavery, even up to the American Civil War (1861–65). 

By 1800, the Atlantic slave trade had brought an estimated benefit of £60 million to the British  economy, which translates to hundreds of billions of pounds in today’s terms (Inikori, Africans  and the Industrial Revolution in England; Blackburn, The Overthrow of Colonial Slavery). The  rise of the port of Liverpool was also largely based on the slave trade and colonial exports. 

These profits fueled not only British ports but also the entire industrial and financial infrastructure.  Cities like London, Bristol, and Glasgow became centers for banking institutions, insurance  companies, and manufacturing factories built on wealth derived from the slave economy.  Insurance firms such as Lloyd’s of London provided coverage for slave ships, while banks like  Barclays and Baring Brothers became financial hubs for traders and investors involved in the slave  trade. Thus, many pillars of industrial capitalism were directly supported by wealth obtained from  slave markets, continuously strengthening the structure of modern capitalism. 

Thus, the rise of the Industrial Revolution and capitalism was not merely the spontaneous result  of scientific discoveries, technology, or rational progress, as is often portrayed in mainstream  narratives. Rather, its foundation was deeply rooted in colonial exploitation, slavery, forced labor,  and systematic plunder of resources. European powers obtained human capital from Africa, raw 

materials from Asia, and precious metals from Latin America through extremely brutal means.  The wealth derived from these was used to build industrial infrastructure, banking, trade, and state  power. The slave trade, forced cultivation of cash crops, and colonial despotism provided Europe  with the economic bases on which the edifice of modern capitalism was constructed. As a result,  Europe not only maintained its industrial dominance but also economically subordinated and  underdeveloped the rest of the world, the effects of which are still evident in the global economic  system today. 

Whereas it is falsely claimed that the Industrial Revolution was merely the logical outcome of  scientific research and Enlightenment ideas, the concept of a “natural” and “free” global market  within the framework of capitalism is also an ideological deception that does not align with 

historical evidence. In reality, colonial powers did not acquire the resources and markets needed  for industrial capitalism by chance, but through deliberate and systematic coercion. The attractive  veil of the “free market” was actually part of a political and military strategy to maintain this  exploitative structure. A clear example of this is the Opium Wars (1839–1842, 1856–1860)  between Britain and China. When Britain faced deep reluctance in the Chinese market for its goods  compared to the growing demand for Chinese tea, it began illegally exporting opium to China to  correct the trade imbalance. When the Chinese government took action against this devastating  addiction, Britain imposed war and forced unequal treaties like the Treaty of Nanking in 1842,  under which China ceded Hong Kong to Britain, opened ports, paid heavy reparations, and  legalized opium imports. These measures not only crippled China’s economy and weakened its  sovereignty but also provided Western powers with a new lucrative market. Thus, the global  expansion of the capitalist system, often called “free trade,” was in reality colonial domination  enforced through military power, economic coercion, and political pressure. 

Similarly, the colonial-era infrastructure appeared to be a sign of development, but its true nature  was based on imperial exploitation rather than the welfare of the local population or industrial self sufficiency. By 1900, over 56,000 kilometers of railway lines had been laid in British India — making it one of the largest railway networks in the world — but their primary purpose was to  transport raw materials such as cotton, coal, and jute from the interior to port cities like Mumbai,  Kolkata, and Karachi, from where they could be exported to European markets. Even during times  of famine, the railway transportation of food was minimal; only 8 percent of freight consisted of  food items, which proves that the railways’ main objective was not local needs but export interests.  According to researcher Daniel Thorner, this railway network was built not to develop Indian  industry but to serve British commercial interests (Thorner, The Pattern of Indian Agriculture,  1950). 

Another prominent example of this strategy was the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, which  reduced the sea distance from London to Bombay by nearly 5,000 nautical miles and cut travel  time by about 40 percent. Within just two decades, Anglo-Indian trade tripled through this canal,  enabling the rapid transport of Indian cotton, Egyptian grain, and Southeast Asian rubber to  European factories. By the 1880s, Britain controlled about 80 percent of the canal’s total traffic,  clearly demonstrating that colonial infrastructure not only connected local economies to European  economic interests but also served as a practical tool to maintain imperial domination (Davis, Late  Victorian Holocausts, 2001). 

Ultimately, the Industrial Revolution was neither merely the result of scientific discoveries nor a  natural extension of the intellectual principles of the Enlightenment. The reality is that the  development of industrial capitalism was primarily made possible through exploitation, forced  labor, and colonial plunder. The vast wealth of this era, which provided the extensive capital  necessary for industrial growth, was not the outcome of philosophical or moral ideas but was  acquired through systemic oppression, coerced labor, and the organized looting of natural  resources across the world. This wealth was not a coincidence or a natural flow; rather, it was a  complex colonial system deliberately designed to serve imperial and capitalist interests. Another  manifestation of this system is seen in colonial infrastructure projects such as the railway network  in British India and the construction of the Suez Canal. On the surface, these infrastructures  appeared as symbols of progress, but their primary purpose was neither the welfare of the local 

population nor industrial self-sufficiency. Instead, they aimed to accelerate the transport of raw  materials and safeguard the commercial interests of colonial powers. Ninety-two percent of freight  traffic on India’s railway network was dedicated to raw materials and exports, while food transport  was minimal—highlighting the system’s skewed priorities. Similarly, the Suez Canal enabled  faster movement of goods from Europe to India but ensnared local economies within exploitative  circuits and brought extraordinary financial gains to European capitalist powers. Furthermore, the  notion of a “natural” or “free” global market was promoted to stabilize industrial capitalism, yet  this idea was essentially an illusion. In reality, colonial powers deliberately used economic  coercion and forced treaties to establish dominance over specific markets and secure resources for  industrial growth. This is evident in Britain’s Opium Wars against China, where military force was  used to impose trade restrictions and forcibly open Chinese markets to British goods, undermining  China’s sovereignty and expanding the profitable markets of global capitalism. All these facts  challenge the traditional historical narrative that portrays the Industrial Revolution solely as a  product of scientific progress and Enlightenment ideals. In truth, the economic and political  foundations of modern industrial capitalism were built upon colonial oppression, forced labor, and  systematic exploitation—shaped more by global power strategies and commercial interests than  by inventions or intellectual theories. 

An important aspect that demands attention is that capitalism is fundamentally based on the  doctrine of the separation of religion and worldly affairs—i.e., secularism. According to this  ideology, human life is organized solely on the basis of human reason and interest, without any  divine guidance. However, the truth is that Allah Almighty is the Creator of humans, life, and the  universe, and He created humans with a purpose—to follow His commands in their individual,  collective, political, economic, and cultural lives. From the perspective of the secular capitalist  system, material profit is the central focus of all human activities. This very mindset naturally leads  capitalism toward colonial exploitation because when profit is considered the absolute good, the  exploitation of other people and nations becomes justifiable—provided it is “beneficial” according  to the measure of interest. As mentioned earlier, capitalism has tried to morally justify the colonial  system by employing concepts such as utilitarianism—that if an action results in overall benefit  (for example, the progress of Europe), then means such as oppression and exploitation are  acceptable. Furthermore, capitalism has failed to regulate human instincts—such as survival  instinct—within a moral and divine framework. Consequently, this system only progresses when  it unleashes these instincts without restraint, and this lack of control forces it to continuously rely  on methods like colonialism, monopolies, and economic slavery. History bears witness that  Western powers, in order to ensure their survival and meet economic needs, not only ruthlessly  exploited other nations but also transformed their resources, labor, and autonomy into their own  industrial and military power. Therefore, capitalism’s secular, profit-driven, and ethics-deficient  ideology necessarily produces exploitation. Unless this ideological foundation is challenged, it is  impossible to separate capitalism from oppression and colonialism. 

We must remain vigilant and not be deceived by the alluring slogans of “freedom,” “human rights,”  “secularism,” the “Enlightenment era,” and the “Industrial Revolution.” These concepts may  appear to represent human progress, but in reality, they are narratives crafted by colonial powers  with the aim of global domination, resource plunder, and binding nations of the world into  intellectual slavery. These narratives were fabricated to morally justify colonial atrocities.  Therefore, it is essential to expose these deceptive claims. The colonial system and its ideology 

are fundamentally at odds with Islam, because Islam neither permits exploitation of others nor  accepts a system based on selfish material interests. Islam is the only system revealed by Allah. It  is in harmony with human nature, founded on justice, and guarantees both spiritual and material  well-being. Only Islam provides true salvation for humanity.