CONDITIONS OF THE COMING WORLD
TURNING POINT.
Batna, Algeria.
-29
March 2002-
published Apr 2002 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bewleyupdates/files/
Introduction:
The theme of the present
article was originally written in 1986 in the context of a doctoral thesis
deposited by the author at the University of Durham UK. The article, originally
"PREDICTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF A QURANIC THEORY OF SOCIAL CHANGE",
delineates the theory of social change as interpreted from the primary Islamic
source; that is the Quran, and makes predictions on the light of world events
as interpreted by the above theory.
Assuming that knowledge
of a theory or a law permits prediction since, in line with Newtonian physics,
we can predict that water exposed to a source of heat will boil if its
temperature reaches one hundred degrees centigrade. In the same way, it is perfectly possible to make predictions
of world social changes in the light of any one theory of social change one
thinks appropriate. Among the alternative theories, or let us say hypotheses,
the Quranic one is the author's best choice.
The article's present
edition is meant as a material for reflection since a reasonable lapse of time
was allowed to test the selected theory, which we really consider
as mere hypothesis. We mean by testing, looking for refuting instances in the
light of chronological world events. The hypothesis still holds.
It is widely known in the West that the
Islamic theory of Social change is cyclical, and thus, deterministic
in nature. This assumption tended, however, to be linked with people like the
renowned historian and sociologist Ibn Khaldun rather than with the primary
Islamic source book that is the Quran as understood by the author of any proposal.
We have some reservations about the inductive method of inquiry, typical to historical research. Social change, as a phenomenon, as object of inquiry can be approached trough a different method of inquiry. It can be approached through a deductive method. The implications of each method are different. Induction is by necessity a search for a general statement that depicts reality as induced from a set of particular "observed" events. It implies a state of mind that may be described as confirming, circumscribing what appears to be the reality. It reveals, basically, the state of mind of the one who looks for confirmation. The danger, however, lies in the fact that this confirmation, this understanding, this tasting, this relative knowledge, can through a seeming legitimacy be imposed upon others. Such is not the case with deduction as a method of inquiry. The deductivist looks for refutation, rather than confirmation. He starts with a confirmation, an understanding, a relative knowledge but looks for what may refute that tasting, in the light of presently unfolding observed events. The inductivist knows. The deductivist does not know. The inductivist closes the door of knowledge, the deductivist opens it. Paradoxically, he who knows does not know, and he who does not know, knows.
Ibn Khaldun is an interpreter of
certain historical events on the light of what he assumes to be human nature,
Urban and rural social characteristics and the implications of those
"facts" according to what he interprets as a divine law. However, the
Quranic theory of social change, as we understand it, is, contrary to what Ibn
Khaldun assumes as a historian non-deterministic. Society will not necessarily
fall after a rise. It will, however, do so if people transgress certain divine
principles. In this eventuality, the Quran warns:
"Have
they not walked the earth and considered what happened to those before them?
Those
were more numerous, stronger, they had power over their environment but that
which they earned did not save them.
When
their messengers came to them with clear guidance, they dismissed them and were
happy with the little knowledge they had.
That
pride turned against them.
When
they sensed a Divine punishment they said we believe in God alone and we reject
that which we were associating with Him. (Subjectivism and pride)
That
did not save them. (After the spread of corruption)
This
is the habit of God in dealing with people.
The
unbelievers were losers.[1]
Ibn Khaldun, as a historian of his
time, saw this rise and decline in the short history of Islam itself, with the
rise and fall of numerous empires. His thesis is based on the assumption that
men become powerful and corrupt in the city whereas the humble simple Bedouins
retain their moral standards and will one day take over the city until they
become corrupt themselves, to be overthrown in turn.
This interpretation of history is
deterministic in the sense that it depicts social change as a phenomenon as
being unconditionally cyclical. But, to be critically alert, one must bear in
mind that Historicism and the typically inductive method of inquiry of
historians are not, from a certain epistemological position, without serious
shortcomings. (Cf. The arguments of philosophers such as Hume and K. Popper).
Another approach to understanding and
explaining social change can be based on a hypothetico-deductive method of
inquiry. The social scientist can start from a general statement, an initial
standpoint, a theory, an assumption, a hypothesis rather than from the
collection of linear "events". This initial standpoint is then
exposed to refutation processes, were they rational, empirical, or both, by
making those ideas public in order to be refuted by human reason, or by
comparing the implied predictions with current unfolding events, or
both.
If we accept that there is a choice to
be made between induction and deduction as methods of inquiry, and confirm that
there is a kind of poverty of historicism that may lead one to adopt and
confirm a theory of social change that might lead to social unrest and
political instability, and that a wiser option would be a deductive approach
aiming at refutation instead of confirmation, dialogue instead of dictating.
And if we accept that the Quran is a revealed book by the reality itself, by The Truth, (Other people might not
accept this assumption, but the important is that it our my assumption and it
helps the reader determine whether our deductions are logically acceptable or
not. Formal logic is the way of mathematics and it is a precise science.). And
if we accept that our interpretation of the selected verses are correct, and
that current world events accord with the verses we refer to,… then we can warn people and advise
them to prepare for a coming world turning point that, as we predict, would be
disastrous, and that it would be difficult for us, in view of the current state
of affairs to imagine another scenario. If after exposing our arguments, the
thesis turns to be convincing, then people should act in order to prevent the
predicted events, or otherwise, prepare for its happening so as to avoid the
worse.
Indeed, knowledge of a law legitimizes
predictions and hence implementation, but if we consider the concept of "law" as a hypothesis not as yet
refuted, as mere contextual interpretation, and thus as a relative
understanding, we would be cautious as to make final projections, start action,
implement long term planning policies while these policies are based on mere
hypotheses. It would be wiser to select one of the competing theories and look
for refuting instances in the light of unfolding present events in view of
correcting our original standpoint. It would finally be even wiser to expose
the selected theory to refutation before implementation, by making it public
with the intention of knowing the degree of support it can gain, compared to
other competing theories. The realm of implementation is highly moral and
subject to questioning. Wisdom lies in sharing the responsibility of social
adoption and implementation. "The hand of God is with the
majority"(Hadith).
In social context, Individuals
legitimately practice freedom of thought not freedom of action. Our freedom
stops when the freedom of others begins. We can be wrong in our knowledge, act
accordingly, and get an unpleasant feedback and there is justice in that. We
would blame no one but ourselves. But if we confirm we are right while we might
be wrong, and act so as to transform our intellectual position into
legislation, and dictate to others the proper way of conduct, the probable
unpleasant feedback would be felt by us and by everyone who was forced to
comply with what we considered right action, and there is no moral nor justice
in that. Truly, the hand of Allah (success and justice) is with the majority. Shura, asking for council by allowing
freedom of thought, which is really, allowing everyone to enter the realm of amr bil ma'rouf wa nahy 'an al munkar
(one might say problem identification and policy proposals) is not a political
ruse to implement our preconceived policy. Shura
is the method by which we can determine the general tendency. We can thus
say, that Shura goes hand in hand
with Ijma', and Shura and Ijma'
together, mean democracy, direct democracy, not representative democracy.
The ideal society as described in the
Quran is that in which people believe in Allah, not in themselves, or their
knowledge, or any other idol. It is also a society in which people, both, the
common and the elite, practice in total freedom of thought Amr bil ma'rouf wa nahy 'an al mounkar In such a context, no one
can legitimately claim knowledge of the right position to follow except the
majority of those who are interested in the matter under discussion, for
interest (Himma, Ihtimam) in any
matter is already a degree of knowledge. Determining how much knowledge one has
is not a matter of official certification; it is a matter of popular
confirmation. A saint is not a saint by official certification but by popular
confirmation. The chosen one, our guide, Peace be upon him was unlettered.
We assume then, and we shall justify it
later, that in intellectual and political matters such Ijtihad, Shura and Ijma' there must be for an ideal
society no official elitism. The only criterion to enter these intellectual and
political realms is Himma, interest,
motivation. And as it is said in a Hadith, "if the Himma of man is stuck
to the sun, he will reach it."
Society as we understand it from the
Quran will not necessarily fall after a rise. Social change is therefore not
necessarily a cyclical fluctuation as referred to by Ibn Khaldun. A developed
society does not necessarily imply a bound-to-be-declining society. A developed
society where justice prevails will not fall. Such a society is depicted in the
Quran, in the following terms:
"…Allah will certainly give success to
those who aid his cause, for Allah is Strong, Mighty. Those who while given
power on earth, perform the prayer, give the Zakat (the Islamic Tax), counsel
each other for doing good and avoid what is not good.[2]
If we accept that Islam is based on the
Quran an Sunna, (primary and secondary sources) and if we believe that in the
primary source that is the Quran itself there are certain verses that are
precise in meaning while others are understood differently by different people
and that no one is in the position to claim knowledge of their true meaning
except Allah, while we must believe in the whole book and act accordingly, we
can understand that Ijma' is one of the basic principles in Islamic governance.
We can say that trough Shura one can identify the different tendencies and only
trough the consensus process of Ijma', a pattern of social transactions can be
contextually legitimized for implementation. Implementing unilaterally, one's
own interpretation would lead to social turmoil, to Fitna. The hand of Allah, (which symbolizes right action and
success) is with the Jama'at, the larger group under the one banner. It implies
direct, decentralized democracy. We have one such experiment in Libya.
In the light of what has been said, we
can say that an ideal society which will not fall after a rise is, politically
a democracy, morally based on inner and outer criteria of justice, since being
in constant contact with the Divine Who has delineated an explicit or
Implicit-to-be-deduced code of conduct which guides individuals in their social
transactions and through which justice must be done. The criterion of justice
is not equality, it is to put things in their right place in a system, in a Shariat. Economically, such a society
is based on the velocity of real wealth made possible by Zakat.
If what we observe in the world today does
not comply with the above quick schema of an ideal society, we can predict
unpleasant feedbacks. In effect, in view of the wide spread practice of usury
which is according to Quran, unjust and forbidden, and the problematic issuing
of paper money as local and hard currency, upon which the whole world economy
is based on, a world economic crisis with disastrous consequences will happen,
and we can imagine possible outcomes as devastating civil wars if international
trade came to be paralyzed by what we can already describe as a monetary
chaos.[3] This possibility is in fact a very serious one as will be
demonstrated in the following pages.
Traditionally, people used to exchange
commodities or services through barter deals or through the medium of gold and
silver. People used to exchange, say potatoes with cloth, cloth with sugar and
so on. The price of these goods and services was and still is determined by the
equation of supply and demand. Similarly, gold and silver are produce of the
earth and the balance of supply and demand determined their value. Thus, gold
and silver played the role of what is now known as currency.
Exchange was based on the intrinsic
value of commodities direct, without any third party in between. There was no
banking system, so to speak. There was no agency, or state that had the power
to create currency. With the rise of
the modern Nation-State, gold has lost its monetary function. It is often said
to be too rigid in a context of high rate economic transactions in the modern
world.
The study of money, as one of the
leading modern economists remark, above all other fields in economics, is the
one in which complexity is used to disguise truth, not to reveal it (J.K
Galbraith, Money whence it came, where it went, 1975).
In effect, if one tries to compare
world events with the fluctuations in the prices of gold which remember is the
traditional ecological currency, he would understand what Galbraith is pointing
at. Following the Iranian revolution in 1979 (note the links between the
Islamic injunction against usury, the Iranian paper money in the Western banks,
the conditions of legitimate promissory notes that may be used as currency and
the traditional function of gold as currency), a sharp increase in the price of
gold (839 dollars per ounce, which is an all time high, when its price was only
100 dollars the ounce in 1976) came like a shock when gold was no longer
performing any monetary function. This was invariably a sign that something is
drastically wrong with the monetary system of the world.
It is important to note that without
the practices of interest a banking system, as known in capitalist societies
today, could not be serviced. It would be in deficit if it did not charge
interest on loan. On the other hand, if it did not pay interest to depositors,
the majority of these would prefer to keep their money at home in the
traditional way. If such is the case, then cash availability would become
scarcer and therefore business conducted by the banks would stagnate. In
Socialist societies, however, the state and the central banks perform all the
functions of the commercial banks in Capitalist societies. Thus, business in
the Socialist societies is planned and boosted by the state whereas in the
Capitalist societies, it is on the initiative of the bankers and those who have
economic projects to be realized. The practice of usury in such a context is
essential if any commercial bank is to survive.
In socialist societies a central bank
can survive without the practice of usury. This is possible since the state has
the power to print or create money to boost the economy, pay the workers and
while legitimizing price control on the ground that private ownership is the
source of all injustice, but it is not always easy to toggle inflation. State
subsidies for foreign goods cannot go for ever.
At this point we must clarify the
difference between a central bank and a commercial one…Schematically we can say that a central
bank is where paper money is issued, created in order to be made available to
commercial banks, to which it is lent at a certain interest rate. At the level
of central banks, this interest rate, plays the role of lever adjuster to
control inflation. The commercial banks, in their turn lend this money to
individuals and groups at a higher interest rate so as to make profit since it
has only a commercial status not a political one, as is the case with the
central banks. A central bank is basically a symbol of sovereignty. If the
sovereign issues these notes, it is as if he promises to pay in the holder of
those notes. It is then logical that species species (real money such as gold and sylver for instance, not symbolic one) must
be precisely defiened and measured. Inflation makes this condition Impossible
to meet.
Paper money is theoretical money. The
state prints money according to the level of transaction in the country. If the
effort of an individual is worth something, the state ensures he gets a token
by which he can engage in economic transactions. Even Benjamin Franklin became
ironical about paper money when he stated "This currency, as we manage it
is a wonderful machine. It performs its office when we issue it; it pays and it
clothes troops and provides victuals and ammunition, and when we are obliged to
issue a quantity excessive, it pays itself off by depreciation." (22 April
1779).
In view of what has been said, one may
argue that the banking system is the sine qua non of the modern bureaucratic
state. It is the main institution that has contributed to the fast rate of
change and obsolescence of the modern world. It is antithetical to Fitra, to ecology. It has facilitated economic transactions in society,
which has in turn, increased the rate of change in social values and
institutions…It has
finally made a whole in the ozone, a furnace from the sky and inflation on
earth.
In the language of economics, one may
say that exchange increases the utility of things. The more exchanges in a
society, the greater the wealth of that society. However, when the volume of
money in a market is higher than necessary by the volume of transaction, the
country will suffer inflation. On the other hand, when the volume of money is
lower than necessary, the country will suffer deflation. The scarcity of money
then will increase the value of money and bring about a business crisis such as
high interest, credit difficulties, lower sales profits, unemployment, fewer
transactions and economic stagnation.[4]
Inflation will lead to depressions and
unemployment. Deflation are the painful cost which one must pay for states of
inflation unless wars, destruction and epidemics do not perform this tragic
offsetting task for them.[5] This is exactly what is happening in the world. In
the developed North it is unemployment that prevails, and in the developing
south, indebtedness, poverty epidemics and starvation. Hyatt[6] argues that
society will be in a state of prosperity or in one of depression depending on
the management[7] of money by the agencies and individuals that are in charge
of the affairs of that society.
However, such management is never easy,
as countries cannot be economically self-sufficient. People move around, and
goods move around as well. Countries transact with the outside world. To do so
they need a currency; gold, silver or other goods. However, the contemporary
world depends on paper money for such transaction. So in addition to having an
internal value, money has an exterior value but unlike the internal value, the
exterior value of a currency is hard to control.
The exterior value of money tends to
fluctuate according to the level of goods each country can sell and the price
set for such goods by other sovereign states. Because the prices set from
outside cannot be controlled by those in charge for the management of money in
each country, the task of these managers to control the supply of their
currency is rendered extremely difficult. They must measure the quantity of
money available in the market. They must take these figures and project them
into the future. They must ask themselves constantly: how will trade be three
months, six months from now? What will be the price level? What will be the
volume of funds available? How much income which the consumers have? What will
be the level of productivity? What will be the credit situation, and many other
questions along this line.[8]
Failure to provide the right answers
means an oversupply of money (inflation) or the opposite, which will make money
dearer and therefore less conducive to transactions and development
(stagnation). The fluctuations in the value of money in the international
market, makes foreign business very difficult. In any such transaction, between
the moment when an order is received and the moment when the final consignee
receives the goods he bought, the currency used changes value. The result is
that one of the contracting parties will suffer a loss, while the other will
reap a gain without any fault of the former or any merit of the latter.[9]
The result is that there is absolute
chaos today in the international monetary market. There are approximately 150
independent and sovereign nations in the world and each nation issues its own
currency. It does not have to ask permission from a recognized international
body to become a currency-issuing nation. It assumes that its autonomy, that
which is also known as "sovereign rights" is sufficient to give the
right and power to issue its own national and unique currency.[10]
The solution to this international
monetary chaos, according to Hyatt[11] is the creation of one single
international monetary unit to take the place of all these individual
currencies, which are in circulation today. He argues that what is wrong with
these currencies is that governments use them and abuse them to stimulate the
export of their goods, to purchase cheaply abroad when they are confronted with
an emergency[12] and for other strictly egotistical purposes.
The problem with the proposed solution
is that a national currency, not only cannot, at the same time, act as a
domestic currency and as an international currency because of the probleme of
sovereignty, but that an international currency, as promisse of payment to
which probably illegitimate witnesses are reported by the scribe cannot be
accepted by all people.
The proposal of Hyatt has started to
take shape already, as a first stage, within the confines of the nations of the
European Common Market, which, in the early eighties, considered the idea of
agreeing a common currency under the supervision of a European monetary
authority. This was considered as a matter of European survival. Now it is
being implemented i.e. The Euro. Hyatt,[13] goes further and concludes that the
world must either move in the direction of a single international monetary unit
or plunge, eventually, into a New World conflagration.
It sounds like a threat and it may be a
plot. It is perfectly possible that the European Common currency is a first
stage to realizing a one world currency in order to effectively control the
world from a certain magical central point, especially if we consider the
Dollar's pyramid with a godhead's eye looming over it as a constant symbolic
reminder to those who understand it. That the aim is a global state, whose
elite they know. In the world of symbols everything is relative, the issuers of
the dollar must have an idea. As for us, it symbolizes faraon, who according to
the Quran, posits himself as the highest lord of people.
Even if the governments of the Muslim
world join this system, the common people, and there must be celebration of
awareness for this effect, will resist it because the issuer and the witnesses
are not, according to the criterion of the Shariat, legitimate, or are they? (…)
One may argue that the tendency would
be to go back to the gold standard, and it will be based on the trust that
governments will not manipulate their currencies to boost their economies.[14]
Economic development would go only in accordance with real wealth as measured
in terms of produce of the earth and goods processed by man, not in terms of a
theoretical equation.[15] Because of the element of trust and witnesses, in
international transactions, even the gold standard would not be accepted and
there must be a return to the traditional currency of gold and silver, or do
business through barter deals. The issue of trust and witnesses is clarified
bellow.
This proposal would be easily accepted
by Ecology Parties such as the Green party of West Germany etc... Too much
development, they feel has turned against them in the form of acid rain and other
pollution of the environment.
One might argue that if governments do
manipulate their currencies, they create a situation of natural imbalance. The
higher they 'develop' in this fashion, the harder they fall; by the inexorable
law of opposites. A natural economy is a balanced economy; it is harmonious, as
the change of seasons is harmonious. Thus a country would spend only according
to what it can afford, not according to its ingenuity in manipulating its
currency.
In the educational sector proper, the
capacity of governments to keep students on young-age pension is apparently
limited, and the holiday cannot go on forever. But in Western economies, a
paradox persists: While economists started to question the assumption that
education is directly linked to economic growth, they still view educational
spending as a useful regulator for the economy.[16] The educational system
became a major part of the economy. It is called the mass-service industry
which had in-built, magical qualities -particularly because of the fact that,
unlike productive industry, it could make failure and be excused and further
expended. It may also be because it provides jobs for a vast number of people
who get a secured salary in a theoretical currency, namely paper money, and whose
job is by necessity, to contribute to socializing the rising generations[17]
into accepting the status quo concerning a manipulated, as compared to a
natural, economy. If an economy based on real resources is allowed to develop
the majority of people working in the services sector of society may well lose
their job, for currency availability will be reduced since it cannot be
created. They can, however, return to the land instead of flocking in
megacities of the incredible size of Mexico-city for instance. A sudden turning
point would be desastrous for many many people. It is wiser to reduce
progressively the services sector before it becomes too late.
All states, based on the Western model,
are essentially inflationary. The attempt to satisfy some of their promises (of
development) means, fundamentally, an increment in the bureaucracy of the
state, that is, in the services sector of the economy. New offices, new
agencies, new posts, new authorities will be created. It is the inclination of
all these to increase their power with the passing of time that implies the
hiring of more people, the arrogating of more functions, more responsibilities,
more power. A bureaucracy, any bureaucracy, means more bureaucracy.[18] The
outcome of an economy based on an artificially managed currency was two
devastating world wars; at present it is the preparation for the third one.
In the light of these considerations,
and the eventuality of a major international banking crisis,[19] It seems wise
to adhere to the idea that a realistic financial policy would be to plan for a
gradual return to a natural economy, which means, by necessity a bankrupt of
commercial banks, for they do not function if the principle of currency
availability by creation in the central banks, was to be abolished. If a
natural financial policy was to be implemented, there would be no legitimizing
of usury, in the Muslim world, whatsoever.
But this would mean that states should
have a centrally planned economy, which implies huge bureaucracies, another
predicament. What is then the solution?
It is clear that, among the alternative
policy solutions, the ecological (Fitra) one is most relevant. There must be
careful planning for the restoration of the function of gold and silver as
currencies, and this would liberate man from capitalist exploitation, and
liberate society from the socialist paralyzing effect of
over-bureaucratization.
The Libyan experiment of giving power
to the people is very relevant because it reduces the government administration
and allows an informal people's administration, diffuse in all aspects of
society, which means reducing spending, and thus, any legitimizing of issuing
more theoretical money. (Modern communication technology can solve many
bureaucratic problems)
The impact of such policies would be
that more and more people return to the land because the city would not offer
them many jobs (if the services sector of society is reduced to the minimum).
This means that the state would spend less on urbanization, salaries for the
many people required for manning an otherwise emasculated state bureaucracy,
more agricultural self-sufficiency than the one nowadays prevailing, and other
beneficial consequences.
In industry, self-management and
decentralization implies that this sector would become less paralyzed by
bureaucratic bottle-necks than the one now prevailing, increased productivity,
overall societal development. Reducing the state bureaucracy also means that.
In the eventuality of a banking crisis and the collapse of the international
monetary system the countries concerned would be more self sufficient in
foodstuff and the individuals more autonomous and less dependent on the state,
until society reaches a new state of equilibrium. But this state of equilibrium
should not be based on usury for it Implies exploitation of the needy and
injustice. A bureaucracy is always unjust because rigid and inhuman. Truly,
Islam is a guidance to mankind.
Chapter II verses 275-284 of the Quran
are the backbone upon which the present theory of social change is based. The
verses 275-283 represent a condemnation of the contemporary widespread banking
practice of interest or usury as unlawful since different from trade, and is
but an exploitation of the needy. The long verses (283-284) are a reminder that
dealing in promissory notes i.e. paper money is not as unproblematic as one
wishes it to be. The following verses speak for themselves.
First the unlawfulness of the practice
of interest:
"Those
who spend their wealth by night and day, secretly and openly, have their
rewards with their Lord; on them shall come no fear, nor shall they grieve.
Those
who devour interest do not rise except as one who satan has smitten with
insanity. That is because the say: 'trade is also like interest' whereas Allah
has made trade lawful and made interest unlawful. So he, who an admonition
comes from his Lord and he desists, then will that which he received in the
past be his; and his affair is with Allah.
Allah
will ruin interest and will cause charity to increase. And Allah loves not
every disbeliever, arch-sinner.
Surely,
those who believe and do good deeds, observe prayer and pay the zakat shall
have their reward from their Lord. No fear shall come on them, nor shall they
grieve.
O
you who believe! Fear Allah and leave what remains of interest, if you are
believers.
But
if you persist in the practice of usury, then beware of War from Allah and His
Messenger[20]; and if you repent, then you shall have your original sums. Thus,
you shall not wrong, nor shall you be wronged.
If
a debtor were in straitened circumstances, then grant him respite till a time
of ease. And to remit it as charity shall be better for you, if only you knew.
And
fear the day when you shall be made to return to Allah; then shall every soul
be repaid in full what it has earned. They shall not be wronged.
The following verse deals
with the conditions of legal usage of paper money so as to avoid many evils,
among which is inflation as legalized theft.
"O
you who believe! When you borrow one from another, for a fixed period, then
write it down and let a scribe write it in your presence faithfully. No scribe
should refuse to write and let him who incurs the liability (the borrower)
dictate. And he should not diminish anything therefrom. But if the borrower is
of low understanding, or weak, or unable to dictate, then let someone who can
watch his interest for him dictate with justice. And call two witnesses from
among your men. If two men are not available, then a man and two women, of such
as you like of witnesses, so that if either of the two women should err, then
one may remind the other. And the witnesses should not refuse when they are
called. Do not weary of writing it dawn, whether it be small or large, along
with its appointed time of payment.
This
is more equitable in the sight of Allah; it makes testimony surer and is more
likely to keep you away from doubts.
Therefor
omit not to write, except that it be ready merchandise which you give or take
from hand (barter), in which case there would be no blame on
you that you write it not
Be
witnesses when you sell one to another. No harm shall be done to a scribe or a
witness. But if you do harm them, then certainly it is crookedness from your
part.
Fear
Allah.
Allah
grants you knowledge; He has knowledge of everything.
If
you are on a journey, and you do not find a scribe [problem
of international trade?] then let there be a
pledge with possession
If
one of you entrusts another with something then let him who is entrusted fulfil
his trust and let him fear Allah, his Lord.
Do
not conceal testimony for whoever conceals it, has a sinful heart.
Allah
is well aware of what you do.
The problem of inflation makes it
impossible to write down every detail. A promissory note, in time of inflation
is no more than a broken promise. The financial experts in a country are the
witnesses that the state has borrowed from the Community wealth which should
have been written down in great detail but the condition was not met. The
issuers of money should be brought to court
The state borrows the labor of a
laborer and gives him a note promising him a conventional amount of goods or
services when he returns the note back to the state or a citizen belonging to
that state. If there is inflation, the "witnesses" or financial
experts should denounce it. If not, the people should ask for their right. One
way or the other, inflation and by that token, unconditional paper issuing is
not acceptable. The more people develop in this way, the harder, they may fall.
In a socialist society where the
economy is centrally planned, and the prices of goods and services are
controlled by the State, it should be easy to control inflation, but this is
not always the case. In 1986, the rate of inflation of a socialist country like
Yugoslavia was one of the highest in Europe. A government cannot go on
subsidizing foodstuff and other imported products, which prices they cannot
control, if their exports do not match their imports. The whole equation is
further complicated by the value of national currencies abroad.
Paper money facilitates exchange, but
its issuing is bound to certain conditions referred to in the above verse.
Paper money in international trade is problematic, there is a problem related
to legitimate witnesses. The problem needs Ijtihad,
Shura and Ijma'. It needs discussion and making public
those discussions in order to reach a consensus about the matter so as to unite
action and the hand of Allah is with the larger group.
So really, if there is work to be done
at present, it is celebration of awareness so as to bring the issue to
political memoranda. But this is not
enough to prevent a gloomy day. Local political action and legislation are
limited by international long term contracts and ventures, going into high gear
with the current trend towards what is now known as globalization, with the
dollar as a unit of measurement.
In the light of what has been said, one
can say that modern economics is the science of the modern magicians of faraon,
and the illusion with which they deceive people is paper money while saying
that development implies more state schools, more bureaucracies, more pyramids,
more loans, more arms to achieve security and political stability...more knots
on the ropes.
Burning Paper, the culprit of
inflation, can be extinguished with a flood of petrol after temporarily closing
the tap until it is sold in gold and silver. Between inflation and flood, there is
a choise to be made, baring in mind that Faraon died in a flood
.
الحمد لله رب العالمين
---------------------------------------------------------------
[1]The Quran, Chapt.40,
Verses 81-84
[2] The Quran, Chapt.22,
Verses 40-41
[3] In the context of a
hypothetico-deductive method of inquiry,
this theory remains a
hypothesis that requires to be refuted. The more such theory is discussed the
more it is exposed to refutation. If however, the future proves it right, the
hypothesis would have been tested. Even if proved right, the theory cannot be
universalized.
People make mistakes.
They may discover that and change their ways and Allah is Merciful
Compassionate. However, the time of punishment may come suddenly when it is too
late to change. So really, any prediction made by man, according to the Quranic
vision, remains a hypothesis based on unalterable principles. These principles,
must be placed in context in time and space
[4] Hyatt, T., "The
Internationalization of Money" Albuquerque, The institute for Economic and
Political World Strategic Studies, 1980's, p.16
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., p.13.
[7] Regulation of the
supply of money according to the level of transaction in the country.
[8] Day, T. T., "The
International Monetary Chaos and the Advancing Necessary Revolution in the
World Financial Order" Albuquerque, The Institute for Economic and
Financial Research, p.15.
[9] Hyatt, T., Op. cit.
p.19.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Hyatt, T., op. cit.
p.24.
[12] The United States
did that when the oil prices increased. She was not prepared to keep currency
tied to the gold standard, but printed as many dollar notes as was needed in
order to purchase the necessary oil for industry. If the dollar remained tied
to gold it would become scarcer in the country, therefore dearer and less
conducive to economic expansion, or huge spending on arms and space programs.
Thus, it is not wrong to say that the USA bought its oil with paper. The
outcome was inflation on a world scale.
[13] Ibid., p.25.
[14] The principle that
there is no morals in economics does not apply in the Muslim world.
[15] The equation of
exchange is based on the assumption that both parties in the transaction gain.
That gain is represented by an increment in the utility of things. This gain or
increment represents the new wealth created by the one who gives more promissory
notes than what he possesses of real wealth. The justification for this action
is that he is helping every one proceed with their businesses, and since he
takes interest, he increases his own wealth (from no wealth) as well. Money, it
is said, is a device created by the inventiveness power of mankind for the
purpose of facilitating and stimulating the equation of exchange.
[16] Lister, I., in an
introductionary note the Illich's "After Deschooling What?" London,
Writers and Readers, 1981, p.14
[17] Day, op. cit. p.20.
[18] Day, op. cit., p.21.
[19] Because of the
crisis in the Middle East and the biased policies of the United States in the
Area, the Arab nations quadrupled the price of their oil; a decision which was
promptly followed by all other third world producing countries. This has caused
a grave financial crisis, and more important was its impact on the dollar,
which traditionally played and still does, the role of international currency.
Because the United States is a major importer of oil, the rise in oil prices
has destabilized the dollar. Having lost its stability, it is no longer
qualifiable to act as an international currency. If the Oil-exporting countries
should lose confidence in the dollar because of the huge United States
deficits, the dollar will collapse and such a collapse would mean a new world
depression by far worse than the one of the early thirties.
[20] Cf. Bible chapter
about the "beast" whose number is 666 and the rider on the white
horse in Revelation (The end of the bible) for a possible turn of events that
may explain the underlined portion of the present verse.
---------------