An editorial fellow at the New York Times opinion section, Romaissaa Benzizoune, writes:
In a world where only the privileged have the freedom to organize their time, the celebration of a floating holiday becomes a mini-rebellion.
Religion means many different things to many different people, but for me, that view resonates with some bigger subversive — if not straight-up anticapitalist — ideas in Islam as a whole. Take the mandate to pay a percentage of your earnings every year to those in need. It's a great reminder that whoever dies with the most toys does not, in fact, win. Also, many Muslims believe that charging or receiving interest is haram, or forbidden.
I don't see how "pay a percentage of your earnings every year to those in need" is at odds with capitalism. The more you earn, the more you can give. In an anticapitalist or noncapitalist system, the government does so much of the redistribution that voluntary, religiously motivated efforts are crowded out. Voluntary or religiously mandated charity, at its best, is consistent with capitalism, not subversive of it.
On the interest point, there are plenty of elaborate workarounds, to the point where Saudi Arabia has a "sukuk and bonds" market. Saudi Aramco issues debt as does Saudi Arabia.
It's a common mistake to confuse capitalism, which is an economic system, with religion, which is a moral system. They certainly interact with each other, and religion can help prevent people from turning money into a false God. But the idea that charity is somehow inconsistent with capitalism just doesn't make much sense. A robust capitalist system enables charity by creating wealth that people can choose, if they want to, to voluntarily give away.