THE NEW ISLAMIC DINAR, SHAYKH ABDALQADIR and his MURABITUN SUFI ORDER
Here are two articles I don't know what to think of. It sounds good on the surface but is there
something rotten in the state of Denmark here?
I know Vadillo is connected to a shady Sufi order
called the Murabitun, who's shaykh <a href="http://www.shaykhabdalqadir.com/content/index.html"> Abdalqadir as-Sufi</a> is a shady Scotsman and a former actor a.k.a. Ian Dallas. he's got some seriously suspicious connections. They've been accused of Nazi sympathies (because of them pointing out the Jewish connection in NWO affairs,(http://murabitun.cyberummah.org/) amongst other things but then again; who hasn't these days?!
Ahmad, I know you don't like Sufis in general but I would be interested in your opinion since you have a more "inside" understanding of Islamic issues. The Murabitun seem to be totally against the NWO but somehow I'm not convinced...
Also check out the Silvio Gesell book on <a href="http://www.clubconspiracy.com/modules/booklists/viewcat.php?cid=18" >The Natural Economic Order</a> in the library section if you're interested...
THE NEW ISLAMIC DINAR
Muslims world-wide are being encouraged to convert their paper currencies into a new one hundred percent gold Islamic Dinar. In an internet article about the new coin, Jay Taylor writes: "Pakistan, a Muslim country, recently exploded an atomic bomb. Frightening as the atomic bomb is, another kind of bomb, namely the Islamic Dinar could pose an even greater threat to our existing financial system. Almost nobody has yet caught on to this very recent development.
Taylor reports that the Islamic Dinar is now being privately used in more than 22 countries and is currently being minted in four countries, including South Africa. The State Government of Kelanton, the Northeast Sultanate of Malaysia has officially adopted the Islamic Dinar, so the new gold coin can be expected to circulate "through the hands of hundreds of thousands of people there."
Apart from its savings worth and perhaps growing trade worth, the gold dinar meets a religious need in Islam called Zakat, which dictates that Muslims must give at least 20 percent of their income to the poor; giving tangible merchandise or "honest money of actual substance", therefore not paper money.
The new Islamic Dinar represents a renewal of a centuries old coin. Its weight (4.3 grams) and its role are set by the Sharia---i.e. the Islamic Law . There is also a silver Islamic Dirham coin of 3.0 grams. Seven dinars can be traded for ten dirhams. Taylor reports that an Islamic Agency has been set up in the tax haven city of Dinai.
The goal is to open 10,000 accounts within the first year of operation in Dubai. The scope for growth out of modest beginnings is tremendous. There are 1,100 million Muslims in the 51 member countries covered by the Islamic Development Bank. "If even a small percentage of Muslims begin to demand Islamic Dinars as their medium of exchange instead of paper, it could have a dramatic effect on the price of gold," writes Taylor.
According to Taylor the organisation may soon be trading Islamic Dinars on the Internet through an organisation located at www.e- gold.com; although I saw no sign of that when I visited this site. You can read the full text of Jay Taylor's article at http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_98/taylor112598.html.
Since reading Taylor, I have searched through for information on the Islamic Dinar; to discover that the people of faith behind this new venture have been doing a lot of thinking and research, and they have come up with a vision for "a world of Islamic trading" that we would do well to take note of.
There is a book by a radical Muslim, Umar Ibrahim Vadillo, called The Return of the Gold Dinar, at http://users.netmatters.co.uk/ murabitun/Return/Noframes. The first few sentences read quite impressively: "According to Islamic Law, when you buy this book it belongs to you. You can quote, reproduce, store in a retrieval system, or transmit this book, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of anybody. You can lend, re-sell, hire-out, or otherwise circulate this book, without anybody's prior consent, in the new form that you want. Anything else is the creation of usurious monopoly, but you are not allowed, nevertheless, to falsify the authorship of the book."
In a foreword to the book Shaykh Abdalqadir As-Sufi, of Achnagairn, Scotland, writes, "The end to the enslavement of the Muslim masses does not require a jihad in the traditional sense but a struggle to obey Allah, restore Zakat, the fallen pillar of Islam--- an empowered tax collection not a charity gift---and abolish usury. It is this author's achievement to indicate the necessary method for such a programme."
Clearly the primary goal of Vadillo and company is not to mint gold coins for cash but to, in Vadillo's words, "establish a successful network of trading throughout the world, on the basis of traditional Islamic practice, which does not involve any form of interest-debt, control of products by speculative future and stock markets, or the mediation of any bank."
The Islamic model being promoted is linked to a group called Murabitun. The model aims for "a free-market-without-usury". It "returns life to impoverished workers by rooting out the parasite of the banks, which live off the workers' work." Rather grandly, "The Murabitun have raised the flag of Islam over the disaster of the usurious world."
I will go on to describe the alternative trading model being promoted, but first let me share something of Vadillo's critique of the prevailing Islamic banking system.
ISLAMIC BANKS ARE DISMISSED AS QUASI-ISLAMIC INSTITUTIONS
Since Vadillo is obviously the main thinker behind the new 100 percent gold Islamic Dinar, what he has to say about Islamic banking is going to be significant as well as interesting. In a 3 000 word essay Vadillo dismisses the Islamic banking system as usurious---in fact, nothing more than "a typically degenerate and belated product of the so-called 'Islamic states'". So-called because the system is part of the "western constitutional model", which is "profoundly contrary to Islam".
The western model, which Vadillo says has arisen out of the French Revolution, is unacceptable to Islam because it is based on "the establishment of artificial and unnatural boundaries, the creation of a repressive ministerial bureaucracy, the exacting of taxes, the imposition of artificially legalised money and the legalisation of usury through the banking system".
Yet the state functionaries and bureaucrats who represent 'Islamic modernism' remain fascinated by their years of education in the West enough to support the western model. Even though "the foundations of economics are now shattered as a science and in practice in the very Europe which saw it come into existence", the 'neo- bureaucrats' still place their trust in the 'Islamic economics' that has emerged from the American and European universities to justify the Islamic banking system.
Three reasons are given why the Islamic bank is "a totally crypto-usurious institution", which "must be rejected and fought".
1. The use of credit to artificially expand the monetary resources is emphatically forbidden in the Sharia (Islamic Law). The Sharia also prohibits the commercialisation or multiplication of a debt without the means to guarantee it, as in fractional reserve banking. "Thus, the banking business as such cannot exist in Islam; the only function it could have would be to restrict itself to being an institution for transferring money, but without the capacity to expand the amount of credit," writes Vadillo.
2. The Islamic principle of co-ownership, enshrined in the Sharia, is usurped. In the Islamic model, all members in an enterprise are co-owners and enjoy the same status (the fulfilment of the contract which they have agreed to) even though they participate to different degrees (by which the profits are distributed proportionally). In the Islamic banks this principle cannot be strictly adhered to. "The structure of the Islamic banks is based not on the strictness and exactness of the Sharia, but rather on the model of the corporation in the West in which the exercise of property is not carried out by those who---nominally---are the owners but is carried out by means of a system of usurpation which we can call "by the majorities", writes Vadillo.
3. In terms of the Islamic Law forbidding usury, a loan cannot be made of a commodity whose value is changeable, yet in banking everywhere fluctuation in value is generated and this effects the individual transactions the bank makes. "Every time the bank borrows paper money for a time, it gains the devaluation suffered by this money during the time of the loan," writes Vadillo. "It is like the typical usurious trick which consisted of the loaning of wheat when it has limited value (during harvest) and stipulating that it be given back when wheat has attained a better price on the market (several months after the harvest)."
Umar Ibrahim Vadillo concludes: "The 'Islamic bank' is a Trojan horse which has been infiltrated into Dar al-Islam" Usury has corrupted the market, transforming it into a usurious system. There is no way of establishing an EQUITABLE market without going outside of the modem monetary and financial systems. All attempts to recuperate an EQUITABLE Islamic market with EQUITABLE Islamic business and transactions must be based on the Qur'anic principle of EQUITY (al- 'Adl) Qur'an 2, 282} which is also defined in the Sharia."
THE RENEWED ISLAMIC TRADING MODEL
Alongside the new gold and silver Islamic dinar and dirham, Murabitun promises the re-emergence of the once flourishing world of Islamic trading. This involves "the restoration of two of its most representative but lost institutions: the marketplace, which will replace supermarkets, and the caravans, which will replace monopolistic distribution." There will also be a return to the guilds of "independent, intelligent work teams, in which the relationship master/apprentice will replace employer/employee."
According to tradition, the Islamic Market was once placed alongside the Mosque as a "space freely accessible to everybody, with no divisions (such as shops) and where no taxes, levies or rents could be paid". And, as in a Mosque, whoever got to a market place first had a right to it until he got up and went back to his house or finished selling.
The same flexibility/fluidity, for a free flow of trade, is associated with caravans. "The caravan brought more than merchandise from one market to another, they brought the whole city that they represented. The caravan represented by its volume and the quality of their produces the reputation of the town of origin as well as their honesty and good behaviour." Towns naturally competed with each other to receive the caravans.
In his book 'The Return of the Gold Dinar', Umar Ibrahim Vadillo contrasts the open distribution system with our situation in which "all these things happen in the darkness of big warehouses where merchandise is accumulated out of the sight of the people and then is distributed to exclusive and selected places of sale" There are no traders any more. They have been replaced by exclusive selling agents. In addition the futures market allows them to hold sufficient volume to manipulate the prices even beyond their physical grip. The result is that millions of producers and millions of consumers are manipulated by the sophisticated control of monopolistic distribution networks.
The market collapsed when it became the privilege of an elite. "The fact that we are now full of supermarkets is the most clear indication that Islamic markets will come and will flourish again. It is the natural cycle. It is similar with the guilds. In the middle of a hostile environment the guilds emerge out of a strong spirit of brotherhood and they flourish. Then privileges are introduced which replace partnership, and soon apprentices are transformed into employees and unemployment becomes inevitable. We are now in that situation which is hostile to the individual. The individual is not necessary because it is possible to make more money out of money than out of genuine work."
Project Leader, Monetary Studies Programme
Paper Money: A Legal Judgment
by Umar Ibrahim Vadillo
The first aspect of arriving at a judgment is to understand the subject matter, in this case what paper money is. After that we can look at the Qur'an and the fiqh.
Paper money has evolved in nature through history. What we know today as paper money is not what it used to be. This evolution has passed through basically three stages:
1] A promissory note backed by gold or silver.
2] A process of unilateral devaluation leading to a complete revocation of the contractual agreement.
3] A piece of paper not backed by any specie, whose legal value is determined by the compulsion of the State Law.
Let us examine these three stages one by one.
1. Firstly, paper money was issued by banks and it represented a certain amount of gold or silver, known as the ‘specie’. Even though it never was 100% backed by the specie, the issuing bank was obliged to pay the amount on demand. In this sense it represented a kind of debt.
When paper money was a debt, was it acceptable? What issues concerning Islamic Law are relevant?
At this stage a certain amount of gold was held by typically a banking institution and it issued a paper certificate giving the owner the right to withdraw the specie on demand. (We will ignore the fact that this was a banking institution and it would have been dealing with Riba. We will pretend that they did not deal with interest in order to concentrate on the issue of paper money itself.)
A) The first issue that arises is the one of amana (trust): Your gold is in trust with a treasurer. What does Islamic Law have to say on this issue? Allah ta’ala says in the Qur'an in Surat al 'Imran (3, 74):
Among the People of the Book there are some who,
if you trust them with a pile of gold,
will return it to you.
But there are others among them who,
if you trust them with a single dinar,
will not return it to you,
unless you stay standing over them.
That is because they say,
“We are under no obligation
where the gentiles are concerned.”
They tell a lie against Allah and they know it.
The hukum (legal judgment or command) of this ayat, according to Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi in his ‘Ahkamul Qur'an’, is as follows:
“It is forbidden for Muslims to have amana with the kuffar outside Dar al-Islam,”
that is, “without standing over them” under the power of a Muslim authority. And the explanation for this is found in the ayat itself: “That is because they say ‘we are under no obligation,’ that is to say, because they can/will repudiate the agreement. Since this has been proven to be historically the case, we may conclude that this is of vital importance.
What this means is that it is not acceptable for Muslims to have money deposited with kuffar anywhere since we do not have a Dar al-Islam in which to exercise ‘standing over them’. A lighter interpretation would suggest that it would be acceptable to have amana with a kafir if the deposits are under the power of a Muslim authority. We accept the latter version. But what it categorically denies is the possibility of having amana with the kuffar when the wealth is stored under kafir authority.
We can conclude that when paper currencies—dollars, pounds, francs, etc.—were a debt, because the specie they represented was stored in trust away from our control, they could not be accepted by us, since we would fear that they would repudiate the agreement—as in fact later happened.
B) Now, assuming that the amana is under a Muslim authority, the second issue that arises is whether the promissory note can in itself be treated as money. In other words, whether the note can be used as a medium of exchange according to Islamic Law.
In this case the law of ‘transfer of debts’ becomes relevant. According to the School of the Amal of Madinah we find the following judgment and explanation in the Muwatta of Imam Malik:
Malik said, “One should not buy a debt owned by a man whether present or absent, without the confirmation of the one who owes the debt, nor should one buy a debt owed by a dead person even if one knows what the deceased man has left. That is because to buy it is an uncertain transaction and one does not know whether the transaction will be completed or not.”
He also said, “The explanation of what is disapproved of in buying a debt owed by someone absent or dead is that it is not known which unknown debtors may have claims on the dead person. If the dead person is liable for another debt, the price which the buyer gives on strength of the debt may become worthless.”
Malik said, “There is another fault in that as well. He is buying something which is not guaranteed for him, and so if the deal is not completed, what he has paid becomes worthless. This is an uncertain transaction and it is not good.”
The general idea is that in order to transfer a debt the original issuer of the debt (the person who has the obligation) must guarantee the value of the debt to the transferee (the person receiving the note). Thus, the first contract is liquidated and a new private contract is created. Debt is always kept as a private contract between the parties. It does not circulate without the creation of a new private guarantee (a new contract). The reason is that the person who has issued the debt may have more obligations than he can fulfil.
How would this injunction have applied when paper money was issued by the banks as a debt? Since every bank—and this is the whole idea of credit money—issued more obligations than the amount that they held in specie, it would not be acceptable to use any of its notes for trading. The reason is, that the person would be accepting a debt that is not guaranteed for him, especially when it is known that it cannot be guaranteed for him since the issuer (the bank) has more obligations than what it can fulfil. If every depositor in the bank were to demand the value of their notes, as is the case in a ‘run on the bank’, the bank would be unable to fulfill its obligations.
Conclusion. When money was a debt, in Islamic Law you would not have been allowed to use it. You would not be allowed to use a dollar, or a pound, or any note, whether it came from a kafir bank or a Muslim-owned bank, whether the specie was stored in a kafir country or in a Muslim country. Banking notes are not permitted to circulate.
But if the note is issued not by a bank, but instead by a person, and that person is present and can privately guarantee the physical possession of the goods, can in this case the note be transferred, sold or circulate in general? What aspects of the Law are relevant to the analysis of this case?
Again we have to go to the transfer of debts. What is relevant here is: what is the specie that is held as guarantee for the obligation? In other words, what is the specie of the note? If the obligation is in gold (money) then another set of restrictions come into place. If it is food then, again, another set of restrictions come into place. This is because gold, silver and food have a particular significance to trading—they are commonly used as a medium of exchange. The case is the following:
In the chapter called Money-Changing of the Muwatta of Imam Malik we read:
“Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Malik ibn Aws ibn al‑Hadathan an-Nasri that he once asked to exchange 100 dinars. He said, ‘Talha ibn ‘Ubaydullah called me over and we made a mutual agreement that he would make the exchange with me. He took the gold and turned it about in his hand and then said, “I cannot do it until my treasurer brings the money to me from al-Ghaba.” ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab was listening and ‘Umar said, “By Allah! Do not leave him until you have taken it from him!” Then he said, “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘Gold for silver is usury except hand to hand. Wheat for wheat is usury except hand to hand. Dates for dates is usury except hand to hand. Barley for barley is usury except hand to hand.’””
The first restriction is that you cannot use the gold or food in an exchange (sarf) unless the specie is physically present there. You cannot use the claim of gold or food stored with a treasurer. The items exchanged have to be present.
This matter rules out any possibility of using paper notes representing gold or silver to buy physical gold or silver. In addition, the exchange of paper notes with other paper notes is prohibited because it is Debt-for-Debt.
This prohibition of using promissory notes in an exchange is further reinforced by the following words:
Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that al-Qasim ibn Muhammad said, “‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said, ‘A dinar for a dinar, and a dirham for a dirham, and a sa' for a sa'. Something to be collected later is not to be sold for something at hand.’”
Yahya related to me from Malik that Abu'z-Zinad heard Sa'id al Musayyab say, “There is usury only in gold or silver or what is weighed and measured of what is eaten and drunk.”
All this clearly indicates that not only gold and silver but also any food that could be used as payment is included in the prohibition, that is to say, the prohibition extends to any form of ‘common money’. Any note that represents any form of ‘common money’ cannot be used in an exchange. With that restriction in mind, it means that a banking note cannot really be used as money, but only as a private contract—which is the basis of our argument.
But what about a note held by a Muslim treasurer and guaranteed: can it be used in a transaction other than an exchange? Can it be used, for example, to buy other goods in the market?
“Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that receipts (sukukun) were given to people in the time of Marwan ibn al-Hakam for the produce of the market of al-Jar. People bought and sold the receipts among themselves before they took delivery of the goods. Zayd ibn Thabit and one of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went to Marwan ibn Hakam and said, “Marwan! Do you make usury halal?” He said, “I seek refuge with Allah! What is that?” He said, “These receipts which people buy and sell before they take delivery of the goods.” Marwan therefore sent guards to follow them and take them from people’s hands and return them to their owners.”
This means that you cannot use a promissory note and use it for trading as if it were money. The purpose of the promissory note is not to be money, but to be a private contract that must remain private and not public.
So, what is the use of the promissory note? What is the halal usage of it? It is halal to have a contract or a debt, and it is also halal to transfer that debt, provided that the person who issued it is accessible and can guarantee the payment of the debt by signing a new contract (promissory note) with the new recipient. If the guarantor is not a Muslim, then in addition to what we have said, he also has to have his amana within Muslim territory and under the overall supervision of an enforcing Muslim authority.
2. The second stage refers to the process of those years in which paper money was constantly devalued from its initial obligation (they paid less than they had promised), up until the debt was finally completely revoked (they withdrew their obligation). This final elimination of the obligation took place with the dollar in 1973, when Nixon unilaterally revoked the obligation of paying one ounce of gold for every 35 dollars.
What is the Islamic position regarding a promissory note when one of the parties unilaterally revokes its obligation, whether it is complete or partial? That is to say, what is the Islamic ruling when a debt is unilaterally revoked or devalued?
It is not acceptable. It is a violation of the contract. If this is done with premeditation and no responsibility is accepted, it amounts to pure theft. Theft is punishable in Islam.
To use the note to transfer it to other people, falls under all the restrictions that we have expressed before, with an added element. You are dealing with the promissory note of a known thief who does not admit his guilt or past obligations.
3. Finally we arrive at the money which we have today. There is no promise of payment in specie of any kind. It only has a legal value based on the obligation of the citizens of the country to accept the national currency as a means to redeem debts. This is the ‘Law of Legal Tender’. It gives the State the unique ability to confiscate anyone’s wealth within the nation and to pay for it in compensation with its own legal note.
Is this an acceptable means of payment in Islam?
Imam Malik said money is “any merchandise commonly accepted as a medium of exchange.” This implies two things:
A) Money has to be a merchandise. Therefore it could be paper. But paper only for the value of the paper itself, not for what is written on it. Money must be something tangible (‘ayn). Money cannot be a liability of any kind.
B) Money must be commonly accepted. Therefore it cannot be imposed. No-one can say it is obligatory on you. No-one can even make the Gold Dinar obligatory on the people. The Gold Dinar and the Silver Dirham become a currency out of free choice, not as the result of decree. Paper money is imposed on people. This obligation is not accepted in Islam for two further reasons:
—The fraudulent nature of the offer: they oblige you to accept something above its value (its real value is zero).
—The obligation of the offer: you are obliged to accept it whether you like it or not.
This unlawful behaviour is further reinforced by the application of State laws that restrict the use of any other merchandise as a means of payment, thus enforcing the State monopoly on the currency, particularly in regard to gold and silver. Gold and silver are either taxed, or their use is regulated and sometimes disallowed. In some extreme cases we have seen gold confiscated by law from the private citizens, as has been the case in the USA.
Paper money is not valid money in Islamic Law, whether in its present form or in any of the forms in which it has existed in the past. The Shari‘ah money is the Gold Dinar and the Silver Dirham. Any merchandise commonly accepted as a medium of exchange is also accepted as a valid money in Islam.
Umar Ibrahim Vadillo
Three things are sacred to me: first Truth, and then, in its tracks, primordial prayer; Then virtue–nobility of soul which, in God walks on the path of beauty. Frithjof Schuon