Adam Smith And The Toghute "Free Colonial Trade"; Critical Analysis of Historical Origin of Rising A Neglected Idea

Undrestanding and critisize of rival schools is one of the nasecities of production of Islamic Economics. Adam Smith is considered the father and his book The Wealth of Nations as well as the first work of Liberal Economics. A careful review of his life time not only clarifies the contexts for the emergence of economics knowledge, and thus helps to compensate for the weakness of historical studies in the field of economics, but also leads to a better understanding of the inner context of economic ideas. Ongoing research has yielded new insights into Smith's economic views and the Wealth of Nations book by looking at library sources and studying and then comparing documents. First, by turning events into a chronology, we give a grand account of the history of British colonialism and the colonial contexts of modern economy. Destruction of the last remnants of the Islamic government of Andalusia in 1492. And the sending of Columbus to the West and Vasco de Gamma to the East in the same year is the beginning of this movement, which continues with the colonization of the land called the United States, as well as India. Overseas looting, plantocracy and slavery are among the most important events and periods that lead to the formation of the "colonial trade" system. The wealth of nations is compiled in such a historical setting. In the second part, as an reasoning argument and not a testimony, by reviewing parts of the fourth volume of The Wealth of Nations, which has not been translated into Persian and in Iran and is therefore neglected, we review Smith's views on this colonial trade. The findings of this review show that he considered colonialism to be a British right and distinguished between "colonial trade" and "monopoly colonial trade" and described his problem as its monopoly. He believes that the monopoly of this business is not sustainable and is not as beneficial as its natural and free state. He argues that he offers "colonial free trade" as a solution rather than "Free Trade".