Muadh_Khan, Naqshband66, Taalibah, Jinn, samah, the fake shaykh, abu mohammed, Acacia, dr76, my176, Abdullah bin Mubarak, BHAI1, Maria al-Qibtiyya, Abu Salma, Umm Khadeejah, abuzayd2k, Abdur Rahman ibn Awf, ALIF, sipraomer, hmdsalahuddin, saa10245, bint e aisha, a2z, tanveerzakee 6 guests appreciate this topic.
Opinion | May 30, 2015
How the Islamic State could win
By: John McLaughlin
Share on email Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on linkedin Share on google_plusone_share Share on stumbleupon Share on reddit Share on print
Let’s think the unthinkable: Could the Islamic State win?
I say “unthinkable” because, discouraged as everyone has become, most commentary stops short of imagining what an Islamic State victory in the Middle East would look like. The common conviction is that the group is so evil it simply must be defeated — it will just take time.
But let’s test that proposition and think for a minute about what it would take for the group to win. What would success look like for the Islamic State? Essentially, it would amount to the group holding, for the foreseeable future, the core of what it has conquered — roughly half of Iraq and Syria — and exercising a rudimentary sort of governance there, in what it calls its “caliphate.”
What is the foreseeable future? The group is almost certain to survive the Obama presidency. If two years into the next presidency, the Islamic State is still fitfully governing that area, it would be hard, in my view, to not call that a win.
What would have to happen for this to become an almost inevitable outcome? At least four things, none of which lies in the realm of fantasy.
● First, the Islamic State’s opponents would have to fail to marshal a sufficient ground force to take it on. Bombing alone will not be enough. As of now, the Iraqi army is not up to the task, and there is understandably little support in the United States for sending the requisite number of troops, probably somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000. The Arab states have talked about creating a force but have no serious experience with such a project and too little unity to carry it out.
To be sure, we have not given up on training Iraqi soldiers and have also begun schooling 5,000 or so fighters to stand against the Islamic State in Syria. But one thing I took from Vietnam and the conflicts of the past dozen years is that there is a huge difference between training a force and getting it to fight. Good training is necessary but not sufficient.
People don’t fight because they’ve been trained; they fight because they believe in something. At present, the biggest believers in the region are with the Islamic State.
● Second, the Islamic State would have to get into Baghdad. Its dominance of Anbar province puts this step, which would take it a long way toward consolidating its position, within reach.
Many argue that the Sunni-dominated Islamic State cannot “take” Baghdad, a predominantly Shiite city that would be fiercely defended by Shiite militias. But it doesn’t have to take the city to demoralize its opponents, just as the Viet Cong did not need to take Saigon during the 1968 Tet Offensive. It and the North Vietnamese were soundly defeated militarily but still managed to break the south’s fighting spirit and convince many in the United States that the war was unwinnable. The Islamic State only has to show it can breach the city’s defenses by filtering in fighters and weapons and causing chaos.
● Third, Iraq would have to continue to unravel. This would leave the Islamic State’s opponents with a less secure fighting base and the country’s Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds even more adrift. The minority Sunnis remain irreconcilably distrustful of the Shiite-dominated government of Haider al-Abadi. The Kurds’ independence drive appears to be on hold, but if they become the chief fighting force against the Islamic State — the default option if Iraq’s army keeps foundering — their incentive to leave will grow.
● Fourth, Iran would have to shrink from taking on a larger responsibility for defeating the Islamic State. Iranian-trained militias are now assisting Iraqi forces but not to decisive effect. If no other force appears, Iran might be tempted to play the cavalry, throwing in larger numbers of its own soldiers and Hezbollah militia members. But no one wants this, least of all Saudi Arabia, which would then have Iranian forces smack up against its border. And the United States could never acquiesce to this level of Iranian involvement without gutting its regional allies’ faith in its leadership.
These are the harsh realities. The bad options available are such as to induce policy paralysis here and in the Middle East. But the one clear lesson from the past several years is that making no decision is still a decision — and one that can yield even-worse choices.
It seems unavoidable that if the above four conditions come about, the Islamic State will have won, plain and simple, and from that point the challenges will get no easier. The demands of governing might force some compromises on the Islamic State, but — as terrorist states always do — it would eventually look toward external targets such as the United States while posing a continuous threat to its neighbors and clinging to some form of harsh sharia law.
Among the things that could head this off, two are essential. First, we must render hollow the Islamic State’s claim to a “caliphate” by taking back substantial territory. Second, a way must be found to achieve what has so far proved most elusive: an end to the alienation of Sunni populations in Iraq and Syria, the most powerful engine of attraction for Islamic State recruits. This latter goal would require a combination of military pressure, suasion and diplomacy of heroic scale.
NEW DELHI: Narendra Modi will be travelling to Israel, the first by an Indian Prime Minister to the Jewish country with which bilateral defence cooperation is on an upswing.
No dates have been finalized for Modi's visit which will take place on mutually convenient dates, external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj said.
Swaraj said she will be travelling to Israel this year, besides Palestine and Jordan........
Akhi Artazafar I hope the moderators do the cleaning up of these last three posts including this one.
For the record I do not have the controls on these.
If you stare at the Islamic State areas of Iraq and Syria long enough — a bit like Nietzsche’s staring into the abyss — it will not exactly stare back at you, but it will start to look a lot like Vietnam. The United States can either learn from that experience or get out now. President Obama, as is his custom, looks like he wants to do both.
Assalamo alaikum Sir,
Its your student. I am feeling very much sorry that,before leaving aligarh I couldn't meet you, who had been one of the most important persons in my whole whole aligarh life . I went to your chamber several times. One day I waited long but I came to know that you didn't come to your chamber that day. And on the last day, I called you, and the network was disturbing and you told me that you are out of aligarh ! And on that same day, I had my flight for CERN.
Now I am writing to you from Geneva using my CERN's email account. Really my eyes got dazzled to see such a wonderful place on earth ! where innumerable physicists from almost all the universities of the world are walking around, discussing physics all the time among themselves. In every step of life, in the roads, in the cafeterias, in the the fields there is the environment of only physics and physics ! And the funny thing is that, thousands of genius people are trying very hard together to find out answers to some very simple basic questions... regarding our origin, existence and fate !!!
Wandering aimlessly among them, what I realized is perhaps all these people including this place belong to a different universe, where the world which I saw earlier was a completely different one, not only in pace of life, but also in term of motivations, attitude and professionalism. I am really feeling blessed to see this place by myself alhamdulillah!
I wanted to meet you severely, because I had many important issues to discuss with you. But the irony is, I couldn't. Perhaps I will be writing you mails regarding them. And after spending two months at CERN, I will be heading towards Oklahoma State Univ. via my home, without coming to aligarh.
And among all those important issues, one of the most important thing which I wanted to tell you in our meeting is that : Five years ago, when I started my journey at aligarh, you were the teacher of my first class at AMU ! And in that class, you told all the students to do a peculiar task! You told all of us to tear a piece of paper from the copy and to write the "exact emotions" which we had while leaving home for AMU...... and on that first class of mine, I just wrote a single line. That was : " I had some dreams in my eyes"....! And after five years of beautiful experience, when I was about to leave AMU, I just remembered that line and I was just thinking, Maripat Sir didn't tell us to tear a page from the copy again to write a line before leaving AMU after 5 years. If he would ask, perhaps, I would write the same line again.....
I will keep disturbing you by by asking you suggestions frequently. Thanking you for being a very good mentor, guide and inspiration all the time.
Whether we like it or not we got to have a stand on the Islamic State declared by Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi.
We keep complaining about atrocities being committed against Islam or Ummah of Islam and this brings responsibility on our heads.
So should Muslims support western action against the Islamic State or oppose it?
We got to have a stand on it.
If we support a western action, the existing one or a future one, then we succumb to the old story where the west is the doer of things in our domain.
If we oppose western action then we got to do something ourselves.
We can not remain silent spectator.
Responsible societies are not silent spectators to significant happenings.
According to the latest reports the Islamic State has cage drowned, RPG blasted and body bombed spies.
The western press is terming these, with some justification I must add, continuation of Islamic State depravity.
Of course our words, sitting on our respective keyboards, amount little more than intellectual cud-chewing.
but as concerned Muslims we can not abdicate even that responsibility.
In the month of Ramadan if we look at our routine from Asr prayers upto Fajr prayers then we realize that Allah (SWT) has demanded a very tightly packed drill from us.
I suppose it will be a legitimate conclusion if say that in other months our Lord Most High will demand similar effeorts in managing our worldly affairs. Spirituality for one month and holiday for eleven months does not sound like a valid proposition. Allah (SWT) created us for His Worship and He (SWT) has all the right to make most exacting demands on our schedule.
If we ponder over Surah Nasr we realize that when Prophetic mission is over beloved Prophet (PBUH) is promptly instructed to say Lord's praise and ask for His forgiveness. This is a rapid shut down of the Prophetic work. Of course the task stands transferred to the Muslim Ummah but the unmistakable conclusion is that the demands made on a believer are rather exacting.
Finally even if the demands are rather lax and relaxed for us as compared to beloved Prophet (SAW) then one observation can not be ignored. Those members of ummah who have their eyes and ears open will see that the amount of work for us that we see in the world today is enormous.
The moment we say No god but God then in one interpretation we have ensured the best results for us in the hereafter but in case we miss the current opportunity to contribute to the life of Ummah today we shall have big regrets in the hereafter. Even after we end up in Jannah.
A Hadith of beloved Prophet (SAW) has the following in it that the people of Jannah will have no regrets except for the time spent in being oblivous to the remembrance of Allah.
If we do not assert physically in the utmost capacity then we will by like that son who does not do his duty but does take full advantage of his parents generosity.
Beloved prophet (SAW) said : What have I to do with your world? My example is of a traveller who takes a shelter for a while under a shadowy tree and then proceeds on his journey.
The believer who wants peace in the hereafter will heed these words very sincerely.
Shining cars, if possessed, will be momentary pleasure for him.
So will be the jumbo jets.
And the big hotels.
Most expansive cruises.
Best food, clothes, house and everything in this world.
Including the jobs, posts, companies or the ruling opportunities.
Or worldly power.
Money.
Love.
None of the worldly things will overwhelm him.
He will overcome each one of them.
We have done that in the past.
We can do that today.
By doing that today we shall leave a very good example for our coming generations.
Remember the attractions of worldly luxuries is a greater danger for our purpose of life than the worldly opposition.
When worldly blessings will cease to overwhelm us then physical, military, monetary, intellectual and political enemies will not be effective on us. Indeed we shall overwhelm them. Lord Most High willing.
And no ascetism here. The world is made for you. Every Juma Khutbah has it.
1)Early Loans And Interest Were Based On Agricultural Produce
From about 30,000 BC human existence became more refined until social and economic forms of agriculture appeared around 10,000 to 7,500 BC. This took the form of hoe gardening done mainly by women and led to matriarchal based societies.
From around 6,000 BC the horse was tamed and sheep, goats and cattle were domesticated so that by 5,000 there existed a mixed culture based on animal breeding and hoe gardening. The great plough revolution starting about 4,500 was complete by 4,000 BC. enabling the first city civilizations to arise, and the introduction of writing shortly after, led to a developing “social technology.”
Loans in the pre-urban societies were made in seed grains, animals and tools to farmers. Since one grain of seed could generate a plant with over 100 new grain seeds, after the harvest farmers could easily repay the grain with “interest” in grain. (Suggested graphics here showing 1 wheat seed, next to a sheaf of wheat with the large number of new seeds which could be generated by that 1 seed) Also since just so much seed grain could possibly be used, there were natural limits to this lending activity.
When animals were loaned interest was paid by sharing in any new animals born. (graphics – a male and female cow/sheep/goat, and the offspring) The Sumerians used the same word – mas – for both calves and interest. A similar Egyptian word meant to “give birth.” What was loaned had the power of generation, and interest was a sharing of the result. Interest on tool loans would be paid in the produce which the tools had helped to create.
2)The Oriental Usury Error On Lending Metals
The social organization taken by the developing urban communities in Egypt, Assyria, and Sumeria is known as the Ancient Oriental System. It embraced the idea of a living King as the divine representative and savior, able to organize the welfare of mankind through a powerful Royal household exercising centralized control over the economy. Compulsory labor was required for public works and Pharaohs instructed what and how much to plant and how much of the harvest would be stored. Agricultural and metallic commodities (mainly barley and silver) by weight served as the primitive money system in these societies.
The ancient orient made a momentous innovation, allowing usury to be charged on loans of metals, with the interest to be paid in more metal. This was particularly a problem with agricultural, as opposed to loans for commercial or trading purposes. The conceptual error treated inorganic materials as if they were living organisms with the means of reproduction. But metals are “barren” – they have no powers of generation and any interest paid in them must originate from some other source or process.
This structural flaw was tempered by central authority. The Royal household, the largest lender and charger of interest, took action to minimize resulting problems by setting official prices for valuing several commodities, in effect monetizing them. Thus farmers depending on their harvest to repay loans, wouldn’t be harmed by seasonal market supply changes where bringing in the harvest would normally lower the prices.
This interpretation suggests that ancient price tables, like Hammurabi’s, have been misinterpreted as price maximums and are really official exchange rates of commodities when used as money. In addition, the Royal power would periodically institute “clean slates” where agrarian (not commercial) debts were forgiven and lands returned to their traditional owners. In one culture the term “Amargi” referred to such emancipations from old debt obligations (see Heichelheim below).
3)The Oriental Usury Error Required Solon’s Reform
In the Greek city states where the prices of agricultural commodities were not monetized by central authority but valued by more individually determined markets, charging usury on loans of coinage to farmers quickly led to severe social problems. By about 600 BC the class of free small farmers was vanishing, with land becoming concentrated into the hands of the Oligarchy:
“Before the introduction of coined money the peasant farmer borrowed commodities and repaid the loan in kind, and … was probably able to meet the obligation without great difficulty; but after the introduction of coined money the situation became decidedly more difficult…he must take a loan of money to purchase his necessary supplies at a time when money was cheap and commodities dear. When a year of plenty came and he undertook to repay the loan, commodities were cheap and money was dear”, wrote Professor Calhoun.
Unable to get out of debt, eventually bad weather or a poor harvest would bring foreclosure on their land and even bind them into slavery. This enslavement grew to crisis proportions, when Solon came to Athens rescue with his “Seisachtheia” or “shaking off” of burdens. Personal slavery was no longer allowed as security for debts. He canceled such existing debt contracts; and gave back land which had been seized. Farmers who had been sold into slavery abroad by those to whom they owed money were “bought” back and returned to Athens.
Solon also declared a minimum monetary value for each agricultural product setting floor prices for them (see Heichelheim). He switched from the “Aeginatic” to the lighter weight “Attic” monetary standard reducing coinage weights and increased the amount of coinage in circulation.
Solon had been a merchant in his youth and understood commerce. Yet he blamed Athen’s problems mainly on the rich Oligarchy. He became known as one of the seven great wise men, presenting the Oracle of Delphi with the “wisdom gift” which became inscribed on the temple entrance there: “Know thyself” and “Nothing too much”.
(Fritz Heichelheim’s 1938 work – AN ANCIENT ECONOMIC HISTORY, is recommended for further reading on sections 1 to 3. Also see URBANIZATION AND LAND OWNERSHIP IN The ANCIENT NEAR EAST; edited by Michael Hudson and Baruch A. Levine; published by Harvard’s Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology)
4)Aristotle (384-322 BC) Formulated The Classical View Against Usury
Aristotle understood that money is sterile; it doesn’t beget more money the way cows beget more cows. He knew that “Money exists not by nature but by law”:
“The most hated sort (of wealth getting) and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange but not to increase at interest. And this term interest (tokos), which means the birth of money from money is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth, this is the most unnatural.” (1258b, POLITICS)
And he really disliked usurers:
“…those who ply sordid trades, pimps and all such people, and those who lend small sums at high rates. For all these take more than they ought, and from the wrong sources. What is common to them is evidently a sordid love of gain…” (1122a, ETHICS)
5)The Scholastics Differentiated Between Usury And Interest
The Scholastics (1100 -1500 AD), the Church scholars familiar with the available writings in existence, echoed Aristotle. Acquinas argued that money is a measure, and usury “diversifys the measure” placing extra demands on the money mechanism which harmed its function as a measure. Henry of Ghent wrote: “Money is medium in exchange, and not terminus.” Alexander Lombard noted: “Money should not be able to be bought and sold for it is not extremum in selling or buying, but medium.”
The Scholastics made the first attempt at a science of economics and their main concern was usury; but this was not the same as just charging interest. It was generally not forbidden to earn interest if the lender was actually taking some risk, without a guaranteed gain. Interest could also be charged when the lender suffered some loss or passed up some opportunity by extending the loan. Venice used advanced financial forms for centuries without violating the Scholastic usury bans.
Two types of loans were always exempt from bans on interest: the “Societas”, where the lender assumed some portion of the risk of the enterprise. Also exempt was the “Census” – an obligation to pay an annual return based on some “fruitful” property. At first it was paid in real produce, later in money. The Census was normally capitalized at 8 times the annual return, but the risk of the “fruitful” base was on the lender not the borrower, for if the crop were destroyed by weather, the borrower had no obligation that year. Later cities issued “census” obligations based an tax revenues, which came to be called “rents”.
Usury was much more than charging interest – it was taking unfair advantage; it was an anti-social misuse of the money mechanism.
6) The Church’s Condemnation of Usury:
Observation of its bad effects-
Pope Innocent IV (1250-1261) noted that if usury were permitted rich people would prefer to put their money in a usurious loan rather than invest in agriculture. Only the poor would do the farming and they didn’t have the animals and tools to do it. Famine would result. Burudian (d.1358), a professor at the University of Paris wrote that: “Usury is evil …because the usurer seeks avariciously what has no finite limits”. This places its results outside of nature – often outside of the possible. St. Bernardine of Siena (1380-1444) observed that usury concentrates the money of the community into the hands of the few.
Divine and human law-
All mankind’s moral/legal codes censured usury, normally with mild limits on interest rates. But the Old Testament strictly forbade Jews from taking usury from their “brothers” (other Jews), and discouraged taking it from strangers. The Scholastics looked on all mankind as brothers. Other codes restricted usury:
*Code Of Hammurabi (2130-2088 BC) limited usury to 33%;
*Hindoo Law – Damdupat – limited interest to the full amount of the loan;
*Roman Law limited interest; Justinian’s 6th century Code reduced the 12½% limit of Constantine the Great, to 4-8%, and accumulated interest could not exceed principal.
*The Koran totally forbids usury, from the 7th century;
*Charlemagne’s laws flatly forbade usury in 806 AD.
*The Magna Carta placed limits on usury in 1215 AD.
*Most States of the United States enforced usury limits until 1981.
Action Against Usurers-
Pope Leo the Great (440-461) laid the cornerstone for later usury laws when he forbade clerics from taking usury and condemned laymen for it. In 850 the Synod of Paris excommunicated all usurers. The 2nd Lateran Council (1139) declared that unrepentant usurers were condemned by both the Old and New Testaments. Pope Urban III (1185-87) cited Christ’s words “lend freely, hoping nothing thereby” (Luke 6:35).
Judicial action was taken against those openly practicing usury and the Church never condoned Jewish usury activity. Christian usurers who used semantic tricks in making loans were worried about excommunication and being denied the sacraments, especially burial in sacred ground. They used every word trick to avoid the usury label. Goods were sold on credit at a higher price which factored interest in. “Dry Exchange” bills in foreign currency were not sent for collection but resold to the borrower for a higher amount, reflecting interest.
Usurers were required to make monetary restitution to their “victims”, and if they couldn’t be found, to the poor through the Church. Vast amounts of such moneys were involved in death bequests. The heirs of usurers were also required to make restitution.
Fall Of The Usury Prohibition-
Conrad Summenhart, of Thubingen University put aside Aristotle’s view, declaring it was OK to use something in a way that wasn’t intended. The Fuggers of Augsburg, vying with Florence to financially dominate Europe, financed Summenhart’s student John Eck to argue the permissibility of certain loans for five hours before the full assembled University of Bologna in 1515. Eck assured them that the method of charging interest had been in use for 40 years with no-one being excommunicated.
As economies became more dynamic, with real growth possibilities, it became clear that charging interest on business loans where the borrowing merchant prospered, couldn’t be condemned as greed or lack of charity and by 1516 the idea of a lending institution charging interest for its services had been overwhelming accepted.
Calvin’s Reformation-
John Calvin finished off the usury ban in 1536. But his arguments were shallow compared to the Scholastics: “When I buy a field does not money breed money?”, he asked rhetorically. For centuries the Scholastics had demonstrated the correct answer is no – it is the field not the money which grows products.
Calvin wasn’t enthusiastic about usury: “Calvin deals with usurie as the apothecaire doth with poison” wrote Roger Fenton. He considered usury sinful only if it hurt ones neighbor and that it was generally legitimate in business loans.
(Additional recommended reading for sections 4 to 6 are THE ARISTOTELIAN ANALYSIS OF USURY by Odd Langholm; and The Scholastic Analysis of Usury by John Noonan)
7) How Capitalism Viewed Interest
The justification for charging interest evolved historically in works promoting capitalism. One recurring theme was to attack Aristotle. Francis Bacon’s WORKS (1610) thrashed the Scholastics for: “almost having incorporated the contentious philosophy of Aristotle into the body of Christian religion…Aristotle…full of ostentation…so confident and dogmatical…barren of the production of works for the benefit of the life of man.” Yet Bacon’s rationale fell flat:
“Usury is a thing allowed by reason of the hardness of men’s hearts. For since there must be borrowing and lending, and men are so hard of heart as they will not lend freely, usury must be permitted…” and Bacon was aware of usury’s problems:
“… It makes fewer merchants… (and) makes poor merchants. It bringeth the treasure of a realm or state into few hands.”
In William Petty’s 1682 QUANTULUMCUNQUE CONCERNING MONEY usury is redefined as: “A reward for forbearing the use of your own money for a term of time agreed upon, whatsoever need your self may have of it in the meanwhile.”
This ascetic rewarding of self denial, with religious overtones, is still used by some in the 20th century, but Adam Smith’s 1776 WEALTH OF NATIONS, capitalism’s “bible,” put aside these earlier rationales, and justified usury in economic terms:
“The interest or the use of money…is the compensation which the borrower pays to the lender, for the profit which he has an opportunity of making by the use of the money. Part of that profit naturally belongs to the borrower who runs the risk and takes the trouble of employing it; and part to the lender, who affords him the opportunity of making this profit.”
This is how interest is popularly viewed today. But Smith overlooked that the lender gets his profit even when the enterprise loses; he ignored the successful business structures used by Venice for centuries, where the lender’s return was based on actual profits. Smith’s endorsement did not remove the stigma against usury; and the debate continued.
Jeremy Bentham’s IN DEFENCE OF USURY (1787) created the present mis-definition of usury as: “The taking of a greater interest than the law allows… (or) the taking of greater interest than is usual.”
He dismissed the harmful effects of usury on the common man: “Simple people will be robbed more in buying goods than in borrowing money.” An then he really bared his teeth: (translator: he became even more vicious)
“If our ancestors have been all along under a mistake… how came the dominion of authority over our minds?” Is he going to cite the strong Old Testament admonitions against usury? No – he ignores them and attacks Aristotle:
“Aristotle: that celebrated heathen, who … had established a despotic empire over the Christian world. …with all his industry and all his penetration, notwithstanding the great number of pieces of money that had passed through his hands … had never been able to discover in any one piece of money any organs for generating any other such piece. Emboldened by so strong a body of negative proof he ventured at last to usher into the world the results of his observation in the form of an universal proposition, that all money is in nature barren. …he didn’t consider … (from) a Daric which a man borrowed he might get a ram or an ewe … and that the ewes would probably not be barren.”
Its the same argument Calvin used. But the Scholastics had shown it was the “ewes” not the coins that create more ewes. Humanity would have been better served if these fellows had only been able (and willing) to understand Aristotle.
Despite continuous pressure and support from the financial community, the various justifications for usury proved inadequate in 1836 when John Whipple, an American lawyer wrote THE IMPORTANCE OF USURY LAWS – AN ANSWER TO JEREMY BENTHAM. Whipple proved the impossibility of sustaining long term metallic usury:
“If 5 English pennies … had been … at 5 per cent compound interest from the beginning of the Christian era until the present time, it would amount in gold of standard fineness to 32,366,648,157 spheres of gold each eight thousand miles in diameter, or as large as the earth.”
Whipple knew that answering the usury question required an accurate view of the nature of money, and he echoed Aristotle:
“(the purpose of money is to facilitate exchange) It was never intended as an article of trade, as an article possessing an inherent value in itself, (but) as a representative or test of the value of all other articles. It undoubtedly admits of private ownership but of an ownership that is not absolute, like the product of individual industry, but qualified and limited by the special use for which it was designed….”
One can imagine how advanced the world of finance would be today if someone like Whipple were present at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Had his viewpoint been distilled into law many unnecessary hardships (and wars?) could have been avoided. Instead the delegates operated under a primitive commodity concept of money, similar to that of the ancient oriental system and ignored the crucial monetary questions.
8) 20th Century economists have re-opened the usury question
Modern research is re-examining the Scholastic’s work and conclusions. John Noonan writes that they “had an intuitive insight into the problem only now becoming apparent.” Noonan agreed with Pope Innocent’s arguments (see sect. 5) that usury would lead to the abandonment of industry: “Innocent’s argument…may seem naive or exaggerated at first, but the experiences of agricultural communities, such as ancient Greece, or China throughout most of its history offer considerable corroboration.”
Historian Henri Pirenne noted in MEDIEVAL CITIES that: “The scourge of debts which in Greek and Roman antiquity so sorely afflicted the people, was spared the social order of the middle ages and it may be that the Church contributed to that happy result.”
Despite the omnipresence of charging interest in our lives today, this question is not really settled. Furthermore, the modern world is now getting a taste of real usury. Up to 1981, interest limits (usually under 10%) were in effect in most of the USA. Today credit card debt is very high and growing, along with personal bankruptcy rates. Most people are paying 21 – 25% “interest” on their credit cards each year. Money they really can’t afford to pay.
Some economists actually favor letting the market charge whatever interest rates people can be forced to pay. But this should not continue – it will do so much harm to society that all the free market economists in the world chanting in unison won’t be able to hide the damage.
Money’s nature must be examined
Approaching the usury question intelligently requires a better understanding of the nature of money. The Scholastics maintained that there was a distinction between money, and productive capital. Calvin’s Reformation argued against this. But the Scholastic view has been re-affirmed, for example by Knut Wicksell, the father of modern day interest rate theory who wrote in INTEREST AND PRICES: “It is not true that money is only one form of capital; that the lending of money constitutes the lending of real capital in the form of money. Money does not enter into the process of production, it is in itself as Aristotle showed, quite sterile.”
Re-examining these questions will also require more candor (translator: honesty) from the English speaking economics profession. For example in the English translation of Wicksell’s book, that last sentence on Aristotle is significantly left out! Thus the English speaking members of the Austrian School of Economics (who view Wicksell as one of their own) are denied the full benefit of his work and thought.
Now that The Lost Science of Money by Stephen Zarlenga is finally published in English, it should become much easier for concerned citizens and scholars to examine these questions meaningfully. This book is highly recomended for those interested in usury, from both a moral and a monetary viewpoint.
We hope this brief essay makes clear that history really affects you in the present day, and that an historical understanding of monetary matters is truly essential. Start by reading our recommended works, and if you have questions, don’t hesitate to ask the American Monetary Institute.
The continued rise of violent, anti-Western, Islamic fundamentalism is one of the defining challenges of our time.
There is no lack of emotive words and stirring phrases from politicians around the world - it is questionable if they have a coherent strategy to counter it.
The horror in Tunisia came a few days before the 10th anniversary of the London bombings, which killed 52 people and injured about 700.
This year, there have also been shootings at the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris and a cafe in Denmark.
But most of the victims of Islamist attacks are Muslims, in the Middle East.
Last week, 27 died in the bombing of a mosque in Kuwait, and about 140 civilians were murdered in the Kurdish Syrian town of Kobane.
Every year, the threat gets more serious, more brutal and, to some, more attractive.
In a short span he enumerated a dozen complains.
None of them addressed Muslim concerns.
In spite of his assertion that most of the Islamic State victims have been Muslims.
True the Islamic State has created serious problems for Muslims but they are not responsible for most of our problems.
So many of our problems are due to the west.
When will they address them?
Do we Muslims have any agency that can tell the west that we have problems because of them?
Will the west be kind enough to allow such an agency to exist?
Will the west withdraw from our social, cultural, economic, political and geographical space that they have encroached upon?
Muslim intelligentsia should wake up to this reality and make our case effectively.
Source : The Hindu Over the last year, agitations by radical Tamil Muslim groups have effectively influenced the Tamil Nadu government’s policies. In September 2012, the Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) and Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath (TNTJ) protested against the film, The Innocence of Muslims, and laid siege to the U.S. Consulate in Chennai. In early 2013, in the face of similar protests, Kamal Haasan’s Vishwaroopam was first taken off the screens and exhibited only after cuts were made. Last week, a scheduled lecture by the Islamic scholar, Prof. Amina Wadud, at the University of Madras was cancelled in the face of threats to disrupt the meeting. The award-winning Tamil writer, commentator and observer of Muslim politics and culture Kalanthai Peer Mohamed tells historian A.R. Venkatachalapathy that it is worrying that Tamil Nadu’s Muslim community does not have representatives who can articulate the moderate viewpoint. Excerpts:
It is evident that political formations such as the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and Indian National League (INL), which formed alliances with mainstream parties such as the Congress, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), and politically represented Muslims in Tamil Nadu, have lost their influence. In their stead, we see the rise of the TMMK and TNTJ. Can you place this in perspective?
The partition of India had its inevitable impact on Tamil Muslims. As the Muslim League vanished in North India, it was left to Muslims in South India to reorganise politically under the IUML banner in 1948. The venerable Quaid-E-Millath Muhammed Ismail gave cohesion and leadership to the IUML. Despite hailing from Tamil Nadu, he could comfortably win a parliamentary seat in Malappuram constituency in Kerala.
Tamil Muslims played an important role in the anti-Hindi agitation (1937–39) led by Periyar E.V. Ramasamy. How did the relationship between the Dravidian movement and IUML evolve in the post-1947 period?
After C.N. Annadurai and the DMK split from Periyar, Tamil Muslims maintained a cordial relationship with both the Dravidar Kazhagam (led by Periyar) and DMK. Periyar and Anna often appeared on Muslim platforms, usually on the occasion of Meelad-un-Nabi, and extolled the egalitarian ideas enshrined in Islam. The avowed atheism of the Dravidian movement did cause some friction but Tamil Muslims were largely comfortable with a Tamil identity that encompassed Muslims and other religious minorities.
What were the political benefits reaped by the IUML as a result of this alliance?
The IUML was an integral part of electoral alliances with the DMK, and regularly won seats in the Legislative Assembly. It was part of the winning combination in 1967 that routed the Congress. Quaid-E-Millath Ismail’s death in 1972 proved to be a major setback. In the same year, the DMK split. In the post-Quaid-E-Millath period, the IUML was largely content with representing the interests of Muslim businessmen. The IUML was hardly involved in political mobilisation or organising mass agitations. In the pursuit of vote bank politics, the IUML was wooed by both the DMK and AIADMK, finally leading to the split in the IUML. While Abdus Samad retained the leadership of IUML, the Indian National League (INL) was led by Abdul Latheef, considered close to M. Karunanidhi. There was a regional divide as well. Muslims, especially in north Tamil Nadu, who had gained from the DMK’s populist policies, for instance, in the public housing sector, backed the DMK. MGR won popular support from Muslims in the south.
A comment on the economic background of Muslims in Tamil Nadu may be appropriate here.
The better-off Muslims are involved in the leather industry, and run small textile shops, fancy stores and restaurants. Except for the leather industry, these establishments demand little capital and long hours of work. Large numbers are artisans and workers in the unorganised sector. The Muslim middle class is insubstantial. The businesses of the rich Muslims relied largely on Sri Lanka, Singapore and Malaysia.
During the Gulf oil boom of the 1970s and early 1980s, Tamil Muslims, mostly youth, migrated from South-East Asia to the Middle East. The South-East Asian countries were multi-religious societies, in contrast to the Gulf monarchies. The dominant, purist Wahhabi tradition in the Middle East attracted these youth who began to disdain Tamil syncretic Muslim practices. Islamic reform organisations were formed. Dargah worship, the adulation of saints and their tombs, seen as un-Islamic, came in for sustained condemnation. Social practices such as dowry were derided. The Gulf boom, the decline of the moderate IUML/INL and the rise of Wahhabi Islam proved to be a potent cocktail.
This period coincided with the rise of Hindutva politics in India — the Ram janmabhoomi controversy was singularly influential in Tamil Muslim politics. The Shah Bano verdict was seen as interference in the Shariat.
Muslim puritan groups capitalised on the weakness of the IUML/INL. What started as an anti-Dargah campaign soon entered the town, street and home, and vertically split the community. Jamaat, namaz, Id celebrations — everything became two. Youth who returned from the Gulf brought new practices. The gaiety, amity and togetherness that characterised earlier social religious occasions were now lost. The groups championing Thowheed (the Oneness of Allah) argued against the Shafi, Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence and in effect became a fifth school.
What forces emerged from this chaos?
In 1995, the TMMK was formed. The Babri Masjid destruction was the prime trigger for its launch by M.H. Jawahirullah, P. Jainul Abideen, S.M. Bakkar and others. The violence following the Babri Masjid demolition — the anti-Muslim riots and bomb blasts — and the action and inaction of the police, intelligence agencies and courts pushed Muslim youth into the hands of radical groups such as the TMMK.
What other incidents, both national and global, affect this politics?
Paradoxically, the attacks on a non-puritanical, even secular, regime like Saddam Hussein had an alienating effect on Tamil Muslim youth. But a particularly localised event had the greatest fallout. In November 1997, a traffic constable named Selvaraj was murdered by Muslim youth in Coimbatore. The insensitive handling by the police influenced by Hindutva propaganda, eventually culminated in the gruesome Coimbatore serial blasts on February 14, 1998 leaving 58 people dead and over 200 injured. This tragic event coloured subsequent politics. It became an indelible blemish on Tamil Muslim identity. A largely secular state came under the influence of communal politics.
What was the fallout of this for radical groups such as the TMMK?
It cut both ways. If youth flocked to radical groups, the community also began to wonder if the rise of such outfits was not at the root of such violence. Some even began to long for the good old days of moderate IUML politics. Muslims also became wary of the fact that no political party was exempt from playing ball with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for electoral considerations. The alliance forged between the DMK and BJP in 1999 was perhaps akin to crossing the Rubicon.
Within the TMMK itself, a radical wing emerged led by the charismatic P. Jainul Abideen who formed the TNTJ. The TMMK remained committed to its founding Wahhabi ideals, but expanded its scope to address other social issues concerning the community including reservation. The Manithaneya Makkal Katchi (MMK), the Humanist People’s Party, formed in early 2009, is an outcome of this goal. An important aspect of its coming of age was its alliance with the AIADMK in the 2011 Assembly elections and the capturing of two seats. The TNTJ, largely a one-man show, eschews electoral politics, and confines itself to its communal ideals. It blindly backs acts of omission and commission committed by the Arab world under the garb of Islam. When the whole world found revolting the beheading of the Sri Lankan Tamil Muslim girl, Rizwana, Jainul Abideen vociferously justified it. It’s worrying that the community in Tamil Nadu does not have representatives who can articulate their voice in a reasonable manner within a broad humanistic and universalistic framework.
How do you respond to the silencing of Dr. Amina Wadud?
It is a pity that we have been deprived of an opportunity to listen to the views of a renowned scholar. People who disagree with Dr. Wadud should articulate their views and refute them. Historically, Islam has been enriched by debate and varied interpretations.
This cannot be undone and I am sure it will be greatly appreciated.
We apologise but you have been denied access to report posts in this thread. This could be due to excessively reporting posts and not understanding our forum rules. For assistance or information, please use the forum help thread to request more information. Jazakallah
