What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Some are building parts of the technology supply chain, but the available evidence does not show that Muslim-majority countries as a group have become technology producers. Saudi Arabia has set out a staged plan to develop and export data and AI capabilities; the UAE has promoted a crypto and Web3 investment ecosystem; and Indonesia is working to map local activity. These are different kinds of progress—not proof that each country is designing, owning and exporting competitive technology.
What does it mean for a country to be a technology producer?
Technology production is a spectrum, not a yes-or-no label. A country can adopt advanced tools without creating them, and it can host substantial technology investment without owning the products or expertise being sold.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
- Adoption: Government, businesses and individuals use AI, cloud services or crypto-related systems, often built elsewhere.
- Capability building: The country develops skilled workers, research institutions, data resources, computing capacity and rules for responsible use.
- Domestic development: Local organizations design systems, products or infrastructure and can maintain and improve them.
- Commercial production: Local companies turn those capabilities into products and services that customers use.
- Export: Those products, services or specialist skills compete in markets beyond the country.
A strategy, a data center, a high transaction total or a growing number of AI papers can be evidence of activity at one stage. None alone demonstrates the later stages. To assess production, readers need evidence about who owns and develops the technology, where its value is created, whether it has paying users, and whether it can compete internationally.
Are Muslim-majority countries building their own AI?
There is no single national approach shared across Muslim-majority countries, and the examples available here are not a complete regional comparison. Saudi Arabia offers the clearest documented national AI roadmap in this set. Gulf-wide research and infrastructure figures suggest growing activity, but do not by themselves establish a locally owned AI industry.
Saudi Arabia: an explicit ambition to move from enablement to exports
Saudi Arabia’s National Strategy for Data & AI, approved on July 17, 2020, says the Saudi Data and Artificial Intelligence Authority (SDAIA) was established to drive the national data and AI agenda. The strategy sets out three milestones: national enabler in 2021, specialist in 2025 and industry leader by 2030. Its stated ambition is to compete internationally as an economy that uses and exports data and AI.
These are strategy milestones and aspirations, not evidence that the country has reached each stage. In particular, the 2025 specialist milestone has passed, but the cited strategy does not verify its completion. The 2030 goal remains a target, not an achieved export outcome.
The strategy’s focus also shows why AI production is about more than a headline model or a major computing facility. It emphasizes the foundations needed to develop and commercialize AI: infrastructure, data, talent, research and innovation, governance, and adoption. SDAIA’s description of its 2024 State of AI in Saudi Arabia report organizes the subject across seven pillars: policies and regulations, investment, infrastructure, data, talent and human capabilities, research and innovation, and adoption. These areas provide a more useful way to judge progress than announcements alone.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Gulf Cooperation Council: research and infrastructure are signals, not a production score
An International Monetary Fund policy discussion published in 2025 describes GCC governments as pursuing national AI strategies and investing in infrastructure including supercomputers and data centers. It reports nearly 1,000 AI publications from GCC countries in 2023 and a 3 percent share of global AI publications in the first half of 2025.
Those numbers describe research output, not the number of locally owned AI products, their quality, or their commercial success. They are also measurements from different periods and should not be treated as directly interchangeable. The same IMF discussion cites an estimate that Saudi labor productivity could rise by about 5 percent more in the medium term under conservative assumptions about AI adoption. That is a conditional estimate of a possible productivity effect—not a measured gain and not a forecast of AI exports.
What are the UAE and Indonesia doing in crypto and adjacent technologies?
The UAE and Indonesia illustrate two different activities: attracting crypto-related economic activity and measuring a broader domestic technology ecosystem. Neither example, on its own, demonstrates that a country produces competitive crypto technology.
UAE: crypto transactions do not equal locally produced technology
A UAE Government Media Office announcement in 2024, describing a DMCC report called “Digital Decentralisation: Crypto, DeFi and the Metaverse,” said the UAE recorded USD 25 billion in crypto transactions in 2022 and was seeking to attract further investment through its regulatory stance. The figure refers to transaction value in 2022 as reported through that announcement. It is not a measure of investment, economic value added, locally developed products or export revenue.
Recommended Free Tools
A country may attract crypto transactions or investors without the underlying platforms, software or intellectual property being developed there. To assess production, the relevant next questions are whether local firms build and own usable products, whether those products have customers, and whether the companies can operate under clear and enforceable rules.
Indonesia: an effort to map activity, not a measure of its scale
Indonesia’s Ministry of Communication and Digital sought public input on a draft annual report intended to map activity in AI, blockchain and the Internet of Things. The proposed coverage includes business activity; technologies and infrastructure used or developed; adoption statistics; governance; data and datasets; and products or solutions.
Rank #4
- BACKUP YOUR CRYPTO SEED PHRASE - The CRYO crypto seed phrase storage notebook can easily store up to 40 recovery seed phrases (up to 24 words) for your crypto wallets and cold storage backup
- WATER & TEAR RESISTANT - The CRYO crypto password keeper is made from premium, durable stone paper designed to protect against water damage
- STORE YOUR PASSWORDS, LOGINS AND USERNAMES - Store up to 48 cryptocurrency website and app logins including url, email, username, and password
- POCKET SIZE, DURABLE & DISCREET - the seed phrase notebook easily fits into a pocket or purse. The front and back covers also contain additional pockets to store additional documents
- 2 RECOVERY PHRASE BACKUP BOOKS INCLUDED - Keep one handy and the other in a separate, safe location
That reporting effort could help clarify what exists across the ecosystem, but the consultation itself is evidence of an attempt to measure activity—not evidence of its scale, maturity or commercial reach. A useful inventory would distinguish systems developed locally from systems merely adopted, and would identify whether local firms own or export the resulting products.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What would prove that a country is producing technology?
Countries should be compared on the same dimensions rather than ranked by a single announcement or headline statistic. The available examples document some ambitions and activity, but do not supply comparable scores across countries.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →- Research and talent: Are local institutions training specialists and producing research, and do those capabilities feed into locally developed products?
- Compute, data centers and cloud: Is there infrastructure available to local builders, and who controls and operates it? Infrastructure investment matters, but does not establish that local firms are building the software that runs on it.
- Local firms and products: Can local companies be identified as developers and owners of systems, rather than resellers or users of imported products?
- Capital and procurement: Do investors and government buyers fund domestic development and provide customers for local products, or mainly purchase established systems from elsewhere?
- Commercial results and exports: Are products being used by paying customers, and is there evidence of sales or expertise exported beyond the home market?
- Governance and enforcement: Are rules clear and enforced in practice, including for cross-border activity and financial risks?
These tests apply to both AI and crypto, but the technologies call for different evidence. AI production can involve research, models, data, computing infrastructure and commercial software. Crypto activity can involve trading, financial services, blockchain infrastructure or software. A large volume of transactions says little about who built the technology facilitating them.
Why does crypto regulation matter to technology development?
Regulation affects whether crypto-related services can operate within a clear framework, how risks are supervised and whether firms can build for a market with predictable rules. The Financial Stability Board (FSB), in its October 22, 2024 status report, said nearly all FSB member jurisdictions had plans to develop or revise crypto-asset and stablecoin frameworks, or already had such frameworks.
The FSB also warned that uneven implementation can weaken the overall framework and encourage regulatory arbitrage. Offshore cross-border activity and non-compliance make supervision harder. Stablecoins need particular attention because a loss of confidence can trigger runs on issuers or reserve assets.
This is a global regulatory warning, not a region-specific scorecard of Muslim-majority countries. Having a framework on paper is not the same as implementing it effectively. For a country seeking durable crypto businesses, the industrial question and the regulatory question are linked: firms need both the capacity to develop products and rules that can be supervised across borders.
So, can Muslim-majority countries become technology producers?
Yes, but that possibility should not be confused with a demonstrated collective outcome. Saudi Arabia’s strategy sets an explicit path toward using and exporting data and AI; GCC research and infrastructure activity indicate investment and capability-building; the UAE example reflects crypto transactions and an effort to attract investment; and Indonesia’s proposed reporting work aims to map activity across emerging technologies. Each illustrates a different part of the spectrum.
The evidence here does not establish that Muslim-majority countries collectively have achieved competitive AI or crypto production. It also does not provide a consistent cross-country measure of locally owned products, exports, model quality, computing capacity or domestic value added. A stronger conclusion will require comparable evidence showing not only investment and adoption, but also who builds the technology, who owns it, who buys it and whether it succeeds beyond the home market.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
