Tuesday, May 01, 2007

The Reality of Money and the Banking System

Before reading this, please read the article “Modern Economy: Progress or Destruction” on this website (I have added some video links and if you have time please watch them too, as they further illustrate the points made in the article).

I got this interesting article from the internet. It is a must read to understand the economic system we are living under today.

Please also watch the video “Money as Debt” (the link for the video is at the end of the article). I highly recommend it.

MONEY & BANKS ….

THE HIDDEN TRUTH BEHIND GLOBAL DEBT .

1) What is money... how is it created and who creates it?

2) Why is almost everyone up to their eyeballs in debt... individuals, businesses and whole nations?

3) Why can’t we provide for our daily needs - homes, furnishings cars etc. without borrowing?

4) How much could prices fall and wages increase if businesses did not have to pay huge sums in interest payments which have to be added to the cost of goods and services they supply...?

5) How much could taxes be reduced and spending on public services such as health and education be increased if governments created money themselves instead of borrowing it at interest from private banks…?

"If you want to be the slaves of banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the banks create money…" Josiah Stamp, Governor of the Bank of England 1920.

WHAT IS MONEY....?
It is simply the medium we use to exchange goods and services.

Without it, buying and selling would be impossible except by direct exchange.
Notes and coins are virtually worthless in their own right. They take on value as money because we all accept them when we buy and sell.
To keep trade and economic activity going, there has to be enough of this medium of exchange called money in existence to allow it all to take place.
When there is plenty, the economy booms. When there is a shortage, there is a slump.
In the Great Depression, people wanted to work, they wanted goods and services, all the raw materials for industry were available etc. yet national economies collapsed because there was far too little money in existence.
The only difference between boom and bust, growth and recession is money supply.
Someone has to be responsible for making sure that there is enough money in existence to cover all the buying and selling that people want to engage in.
Each nation has a Central Bank to do this - in Britain, it is the Bank of England, in the United States, the Federal Reserve.
Central Banks act as banker for commercial banks and the government - just as individuals and businesses in Britain keep accounts at commercial banks, so commercial banks and government keep accounts at the Bank of England.

TODAY’S "MONEY"... CREATED BY PRIVATE INTERESTS FOR PRIVATE PROFIT
"Let me issue and control a nation’s money, and I care not who writes its laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild (Banker) 1790

Central banks are controlled not by elected governments but largely by PRIVATE INTERESTS from the world of commercial banking.
In Britain today, notes and coins now account for only 3% of our total money supply, down from 50% in 1948.
The remaining 97% is supplied and regulated as credit - personal and business loans, mortgages, overdrafts etc. provided by commercial banks and financial institutions - on which INTEREST is payable. This pattern is repeated across the globe.
Banks are businesses out to make profits from the interest on the loans they make. Since they alone decide to whom they will lend, they effectively decide what is produced, where it is produced and who produces it, all on the basis of profitability to the bank, rather than what is beneficial to the community.
With bank created credit now at 97% of money supply, entire economies are run for the profit of financial institutions. This is the real power, rarely recognised or acknowledged, to which all of us including governments the world over are subject.
Our money, instead of being supplied interest free as a means of exchange, now comes as a debt owed to bankers providing them with vast profits, power and control, as the rest of us struggle with an increasing burden of debt....
By supplying credit to those of whom they approve and denying it to those of whom they disapprove international bankers can create boom or bust and support or undermine governments.
There is much less risk to making loans than investing in a business. Interest is payable regardless of the success of the venture. If it fails or cannot meet the interest payments, the bank seizes the borrower’s property.
Borrowing is extremely costly to borrowers who may end up paying back 2 or 3 times the sum lent.
The money loaned by banks is created by them out of nothing – the concept that all a bank does is to lend out money deposited by other people is very misleading.


MONEY CREATED AS A DEBT
We don’t distinguish between the £25 billion in circulation as notes and coins (issued by the government) and £680 billion in the form of loan accounts, overdrafts etc. (created by banks etc,).
£100 cash in your wallet is treated no differently from £100 in your current account, or an overdraft facility allowing you to spend £100. You can still buy goods with it.
In 1948 we had £1.1 billion of notes and coins and £1.2 billion of loans etc. created by banks – by 1963 it was £3 billion in cash and £14 billion bank created loans etc.
The government has simply issued more notes and coins over the years to cover inflation, but today’s £680 billion of bank created loans etc. represents an enormous increase, even allowing for inflation.
This new "money" in the form of loans etc, which ranks equally with notes and coins – how has it come into existence?
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled." Professor. J. K. Galbraith

This is how it’s done…. a simplified example...
Let’s take a small hypothetical bank. It has ten depositors/savers who have just deposited £500 each.
The bank owes them £5000 and it has £5000 to pay out what it owes. (It will keep that £5000 in an account at the Bank of England – what it has in this account are called its liquid assets).
Sid, an entrepreneur, now approaches the bank for a £5000 loan to help him to set up a business.
This is granted on the basis of repayment in 12 months - plus 10% interest – more on that later. A new account is opened in Sid’s name. It has nothing in it, nevertheless the bank allows Sid to withdraw and spend £5000.
The depositors are not consulted about the loan. They are not told that their money is no longer available to them– The amounts shown in their accounts are not reduced and transferred to Sid’s account.
In granting this loan, the bank has increased its obligations to £10,000. Sid is entitled to £5000, but the depositors can still claim their £5000.
If the bank now has obligations of £10,000, then isn’t it insolvent, because it only had £5000 of deposits in the first place? Not exactly…
The bank treats the loan to Sid as an ASSET, not a liability, on the basis that Sid now owes the bank £5000.
The bank’s balance sheet will show that it owes its depositors £5000, and it is now owed £5000 by Sid. It has created for itself a new asset of £5000 in the form of a debt owed by Sid where nothing existed before - this on top of any of the original deposits still in its account at the Bank of England. - it is solvent - at least for accounting purposes!
(At this stage the bank is gambling that as Sid is spending his loan, the depositors won’t all want to withdraw their deposits!)
The bank had a completely free hand in the creation of this £5000 loan which, as we shall see, represents new "money", where nothing existed before. It was done at the stroke of a pen or the pressing of a computer key.
The idea that banks create something out of nothing and then charge interest on it for private profit might seem pretty repellent. Anyone else doing it would be guilty of fraud or counterfeiting!

New "money" into the economy...
Sid’s loan effectively becomes new "money" as it is spent by him to pay for equipment, rent and wages etc. in connection with his new business.
This new "money" is thus distributed to other people, who will in turn use it to pay for goods and services - soon it will be circulating throughout the economy.
As it circulates, it inevitably ends up in other people’s bank accounts.
When it is paid into someone’s account which is not overdrawn, it is a further deposit - Sid pays his secretary £100 and she opens an account at our hypothetical bank – it now has £5100 of deposits.
If we assume for a moment that the remaining £4900 ends up in the accounts of the original depositors of our hypothetical bank, it now has another £4900 in deposits - £10000 in total if the depositors have not touched their original deposits. In practice much of it would end up in depositors accounts at other banks, but either way there is now £5000 of new "money" in circulation.
Thus in reality, all deposits with banks and elsewhere actually come from "money" originally created as loans – (except where the deposits are made in cash – more on cash very shortly).
If you have £500 in your bank account, the fact is someone else like Sid went into debt to provide it.

The key to the whole thing is the fact that :-
[1] Cash withdrawals account for only a tiny percentage of a bank’s business.
[2] Bank customers today make almost all payments between themselves by cheque, switch, direct debit or electronic transfer etc. Their individual accounts are adjusted accordingly by changing a few figures in computer databases – just book keeping entries. No actual money/cash changes hands. The whole thing is basically an accounting process that takes place within the banking system.

THE ROLE OF CASH
The state is responsible for the production of cash in the form of notes and coins.
These are then issued by the Bank of England to the high street banks - the banks buy them at face value from the government to meet their customers’ demands for cash.
The banks must pay for this cash and they do so out of what they have in the accounts which they hold at the Bank of England – their liquid assets. Their accounts are debited accordingly.
The state (through the Treasury) also keeps an account at the Bank of England which is credited with the face value of the notes and coins as they are paid for by the banks. (This is now money in the public purse available for spending on public services etc.)
This is how all banks acquire their stocks of notes and coins, but the cash a bank can buy is limited to the amount it holds in its account at the Bank of England – its liquid assets.
As this cash is withdrawn by banks’ customers, it enters circulation in the economy.
Unlike bank created loans etc, cash is interest free and can circulate indefinitely.

NON CASH PAYMENTS - Book keeping entries
With so little cash being withdrawn, and from experience knowing that large amounts of deposits remain untouched by depositors for reasonable periods of time, banks just hope that their liquid assets will be sufficient to enable them to buy up the cash necessary to meet the relatively very small amounts of cash that are normally withdrawn.
A bank has serious problems if demands for cash withdrawals by depositors, and indeed borrowers who want to draw some of their loans in cash, exceed what the bank holds in its account at the Bank of England.
In practice it would probably try to get a loan itself from the Bank of England or another bank, to tide itself over. Failing that it would have to call in some loans and seize the property of borrowers unable to pay.

DEPOSITORS’ CLAIMS AGAINST BANKS …
Once you have made a deposit at the bank (in cash or by cheque), all you then have is a claim against the bank for the amount in your account. You are simply an unsecured creditor. Your bank statement is a record of how much the bank owes you. (If you are overdrawn, it is a record of what you owe the bank). It will pay you what it owes you by allowing you to withdraw cash, provided it has sufficient cash to do so.
If customers are trying to withdraw too much cash, this is a run on the bank, which will soon refuse further withdrawals. So it’s first come first served!
Should you want to make a payment by cheque, this is less likely to be a problem – you are simply transferring part of your claim against the bank to someone else – the person to whom your cheque is payable - just a book keeping entry.
If the person to whom your cheque is payable has an account at the same bank as you do, the deposit stays with that bank – overall the bank is in exactly the same position as it was before.
I give you a cheque for £50 – we both have accounts in credit at Barclays – what Barclays owes me is reduced by £50, what Barclays owes you increases by £50 – but nothing has left Barclays – the total deposits or claims against Barclays remain the same…..

BANKS’ CLAIMS AGAINST EACH OTHER
….BUT if you keep your account at Lloyds, deposits at Barclays are reduced by £50, whilst deposits at Lloyds increase by £50.
Millions of transactions like this take place every day between customers of the various banks, using switch cards, direct debits, electronic transfers as well as cheques – deposits are therefore constantly moving between the banks.
All these cheques and electronic transfers pass through a central clearing house (which is why we refer to a cheque being "cleared").
The transactions are set off against one another, but at the end of each day, a relatively small balance will always be owed by one bank to another.
A bank must always be ready to settle such debts.
To do this, it makes a payment from its account at the Bank of England to the creditor bank’s account at the Bank of England.
Thus a bank faces claims from two sources (which it meets out of its liquid assets) – its customers wanting cash, and other banks when it has a clearing house debt to settle.

Unless all the banks are faced with big demands for cash at the same time, the banking system as a whole is safe, although an individual bank is vulnerable, should a large number of depositors for some reason withdraw their deposits in cash or transfer their deposits to other banks.

We now see how today the whole system is basically a book keeping exercise where millions of claims pass between the banks and their borrowers and depositors every day with relatively very little real money or cash changing hands – backed by tiny reserves of liquid assets.
The system is known as FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKNG and banks are sometimes accurately referred to as dealers in debts.
Barclays Bank’s 1999 accounts illustrate the whole thing very well - it had loans owing to it of £217 billion, it owed £191 billion to its depositors – backed by just £2.2 billion in liquid assets!
A bank’s level of lending is geared to the amount of cash it has or can buy up – its liquid assets - rather than the amount of its customers’ deposits.
But if a bank can attract customer deposits from other banks, it will add to its liquid assets, as other banks settle the resulting clearing house debts in its favour – hence there is tremendous competition between banks to attract deposits.

INTEREST…. Big Profits for the bank...
Let’s now return to Sid – he has to pay our bank 10% interest on his loan - £500. These interest payments are money coming into the bank, they are profits and they end up in its account at the Bank of England - additional liquid assets for the bank.
It now has an extra £500 to meet its depositors’ withdrawals. If Sid manages to repay the original loan as well, it will have an extra £5500.
Our bank created for itself out of nothing an asset of £5000 in the form of a loan to Sid. It is no longer owed anything by Sid, but in repaying his loan with interest, Sid turned a mere debt into £5500 of liquid assets for the bank – a tidy profit for the bank…. and the basis on which more loans can be made.
Banks today risk creating loans 100 times or more in excess of their liquid assets as Barclays Bank’s 1999 accounts show – (see above).
Thus our bank will soon be making many more loans. Thus, the deposits it receives back will increase and so will interest payments and therefore profits.
With more loans and more deposits, there will be a greater demand to withdraw cash – but increasing profits means more cash can bought by the bank. (This is how the amount of cash in circulation has been increasing to reach £25 billion by 1997.)
It is a myth to think that when you borrow money from a bank, you are borrowing money that other people have deposited – you are not – you are borrowing the bank’s money which it created and made available to you in the form of a loan.

MORE DEBT FOR THE REST OF US...
Sid’s interest payments and any repayment of the loan itself to the bank means, however, that this "money" is no longer circulating in the economy.
Any payment into an overdrawn account reduces that overdraft. It operates as a repayment to the bank and the "money" is lost to the economy.
More money must be lent out to keep the economy going. If people don’t borrow or banks don’t lend, there will be a fall in the amount of money circulating, resulting in a reduction in buying and selling - a recession, slump or total collapse will follow depending on how severe the shortage is.
The increase in bank created loans over the years is additional conclusive proof that banks do create "money" out of nothing - £1.2 billion in 1948 up to £14 billion by 1963 up to £680 billion by 1997.
Today’s supply of notes and coins after taking inflation into account, has similar buying power to the supply in 1948 (£1.1 billion) but since then, there has been a tenfold plus increase in real terms in money supply made up of credit created by banks.
This has enabled the economy to expand enormously, and as a result living standards for many people have improved substantially.... but it has been done on borrowed money! What is credit to the bank is debt to the rest of us.
The banks are acquiring an ever increasing stake in our land, housing and other assets through the indebtedness of individuals, industry, agriculture, services and government - to the extent that Britain and the world are today effectively owned by them.

THE REPERCUSSIONS OF OUR DEBT BASED MONEY SYSTEM...
1) Goods and services are much more expensive...
The cost of borrowing by producers, manufacturers, transporters, retailers etc. all has to be added to the price of the final product.
2) Consumers’ have much less money to spend...
They are burdened by the cost of mortgages, overdrafts, credit cards, personal loans etc. As a result of 1) and 2) there is...
3) A surplus of goods and services...
...because the population overall can’t afford to buy up all the goods and services being produced. This in turn creates.....
4) Cut throat competition...
Businesses try to cut prices and costs to grab a share of this limited purchasing power in the economy, as illustrated by:
(i) Wages being held down as much as possible.
(ii) Shedding of jobs.
(These both reduce people’s spending power even more.)
(iii) Retailers importing cheap products from abroad where wages are much lower.
(iv) Production of cheaper goods that don’t last as long.
(v) Protection of the environment a low priority.
(vi) Mergers and takeovers - corporations get bigger and bigger, driven to search out new markets.
(vii) Big companies shifting production to poorer countries which have cheap non-unionised labour and the least stringent safety and environmental laws or....
(viii) Demanding large government subsidies and tax free incentives as the price for setting up new production or not relocating abroad.
5) Ever increasing indebtedness...
When a bank creates money by making a loan, it does not create the money needed to pay the interest on that loan.
The bank lent Sid £5000, but it demands £5500 back. Sid has to go out into the business world and compete and sell to get that extra £500 from his customers. It can only come from money already circulating in the economy - made up of loans other people have taken out – so soon someone will be left short of money and have to borrow more.
Thus the only way for interest payments to be kept up is for more loans to be taken out. Although a few individuals and businesses may pay off their debts or get by without additional borrowing, OVERALL people and industry must keep borrowing MORE AND MORE to provide the money in the economy needed to keep up interest payments on the overall volume of debt.
The present level of debt at £680 billion means we are borrowing about £60 billion of new "money" into existence each year to pay the interest on it.
But people and industry can’t go on borrowing indefinitely - they will no longer be able to afford to, and will gradually stop borrowing more money into existence. When this happens, the economy will go into decline. The system thus contains the seeds of its own destruction.
When loan repayments and interest payments are made to banks, this is money taken out of circulation. If it went on indefinitely, in an economy where the money supply is largely made up of loans etc. created by banks, there would eventually be almost no "money" left in circulation and with it no economy.
Under the present system, if the economy is to be kept going, money must be constantly lent out again. It would be possible simply re-circulate the existing money supply without creating new money were it not for the fact that extra money is needed to cover interest payments and also to enable the economy to grow.
6) Inflation....
is guaranteed because producers constantly have to borrow more, and must add the cost of that increased borrowing to the price of the goods produced.
Why is it that when the moneylenders hike their prices (i.e. put up interest rates) this is supposed to reduce inflation?
It doesn’t....
It’s just that there is a delay in industry putting up prices.
Initially industry is forced to hold or even reduce its prices with profits down, or even sustaining losses in a desperate bid to sell its products in an economy where money available for spending is reduced because of higher interest payments being made to the banks.
Inflation may be held in check or even reduced temporarily, but eventually industry must put its prices up in order to recover these higher costs.
This most readily happens when interest rates come down, more people borrow, and money supply and consumer spending increases. Inflation then races ahead.
The fact that levels of borrowing/money creation have to keep on rising as already explained, adding to the overall burden of interest payments, guarantees that inflation will be present as long as we have an economy based on an increasing burden of debt.

EFFECTS ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Surplus goods in the national economy have to be disposed of somehow. The obvious way to do this is to try to export them!
The absurdity is that every nation is trying to do this, because of the same fundamental problem at home.
This creates frenzied competition in world markets and masses of near identical goods madly criss-crossing the globe in search of an outlet.
Instead of international trade being based on reciprocal mutually beneficial arrangements where nations supply each others’ genuine needs and wants, the whole thing becomes a cut-throat competition to grab market share in order to stay solvent in a debt based economy.
Big corporations demand unrestricted access to every nation’s market – so called "free" trade.
The European Union "single market", the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organisation are the best examples of the drive to open up all national markets.

Exporting is good for a nation’s economy...
Because when exported goods are paid for, this brings money into the exporting nation’s economy free of debt.
The money to pay for them was borrowed from banks in the importing nation.
That money is lost to the importing nation’s economy, but the debt that created that money still has to be repaid by the importer out of the remaining money in the importing nation’s economy.
If a nation can become a big net exporter, for a time it’s economy will boom with all the interest free money coming in - a trade surplus will exist.

Importing is not so good for a nation’s economy...
If some nations are building up trade surpluses in this way, others must be net importers and building up trade deficits.
Ultimately, those with big deficits can no longer afford to import, since so much money is sucked out of their economies leaving a proportionally increasing burden of debt behind.

THIRD WORLD DEBT AND THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (IMF)
The IMF was set up to provide an international reserve of money supposedly to help nations with big deficits.
In practice it makes matters worse.
A nation with a big deficit has to seek a bail out from the IMF.
BUT this comes in the form of a loan, repayable with interest.
Like loans from a commercial bank, IMF loans are money created out of nothing, based on a cash reserve pool, which is provided by western nations who go into debt to provide it (see National Debt).
The nation with the deficit goes even more heavily into debt.
It will however be able to carry on trading and importing goods from the wealthier nations.
As a result, much of this borrowed IMF loan money flows into the economies of wealthier western nations.
However, the repayment obligation including the interest payments remains with the debtor nation.
This is the true horror of third world debt - the poorest nations borrow money to bolster the money supply of the richer nations.
In order to secure income to pay the interest, and redress the trade balance, these poorest nations must export whatever they can produce. Thus they exploit every possible resource - stripping forests for timber, mining, giving over their best agricultural land to providing luxury foodstuffs for the west, rather than providing for local needs.
Today, for nations in Africa, Central and South America and elsewhere, the revenue from their exports does not even meet the interest payments on these IMF loans (and other loans from western banks).
The sums paid in interest over the years far exceed the amounts of the original loans themselves.
The result is a desperate shortage of money in their economies - resulting in cutbacks in basic health and education programmes etc.
Grinding poverty exists in nations with great wealth in terms of natural resources.
Structural Adjustment Programmes - these are now attached to IMF loans and include conditions that recipient countries will reduce or remove tariff barriers and "open up their markets to foreign competition" - in other words take surplus goods off another country that can’t be sold at home.

NATIONAL DEBT
British national debt now stands at £400 billion - the annual interest on that debt is around £25 -30 billion. The government can only pay it by taxing the population as a whole, so we pay! National debt is up from £26 billion in 1960 and £90 billion in 1980.
Successive governments have borrowed this money into existence over the years.
Instead of creating it themselves and spending it into the economy on public services and projects boosting the economy and providing jobs, they get banks to create it for them and then borrow it at interest.
It all started in 1694 when King William needed money to fight a war against France.
He borrowed £1.2 million from a group of London bankers and goldsmiths.
In return for the loan, they were incorporated by royal charter as the Bank of England which became the government’s banker.
Interest at 8% was payable on the loan and immediately taxes were imposed on a whole range of goods to pay the interest.
This marked the birth of national debt.
Ever since then the world over, governments have borrowed money from private banking interests and taxed the population as a whole to pay the interest.

How the Government Borrows Money
When governments borrow money, in return they issue to the lender, exchequer or treasury bonds - otherwise known as government stocks or securities.
These are basically IOU’s - promises by government to repay the loan by a particular date, and to pay interest in the meantime.
They are taken up chiefly by banks, but also by individuals with money to spare including very wealthy ones in the banking fraternity and, in more recent years, pension and other investment funds.
When government securities are taken up by banks, this is money creation at the stroke of a pen by the banks out of nothing.
Banks are creating money as loans out of nothing by lending it into existence to the government in very much the same way as they do to individuals and companies.
The government now has new money in the form of loans to spend on public services etc.
If this money was not borrowed into existence in this way, there would be that much less economic activity as a result.
Under this system NATIONAL DEBT IS CREDIT ISSUED TO THE GOVERNMENT AND AS SUCH HAS BECOME A VITAL PART OF THE TOTAL MONEY SUPPLY OF ANY MODERN NATION.
The government constantly tells us that there isn’t enough money for this that and the other, because it knows that the cost of borrowing any money it needs has to be passed on to the taxpayer.
Instead, it sells off state assets and now gets the private sector to fund public services instead.

War…...
enormous increases in national debt...
enormous profits for the banks...
Massive government borrowing and money creation by banks is required to fund a war effort.
The same international bankers have covertly funded both sides in both world wars and many other conflicts before and since.
Having profited from war leaving nations with massive debts and more beholden than ever to them, the banks then fund reconstruction.
Bankers have even helped bring wars about. The calling in of loans to the German Weimar republic largely created the conditions for the rise of Hitler.
The pattern was well established by the mid 19th. century - by then international banker and speculator Nathan Rothschild could boast a personal fortune of £50 million.

The Constant Increase in National Debt
In the same way that under the present system, industry and individuals must keep borrowing more and more to enable interest payments to be kept up on their existing loans, so government must constantly borrow more and more to keep up interest payments on its existing loans.
Furthermore, when a particular government stock is due for repayment, the government simply borrows more by issuing new government stocks.

Phasing out of National Debt...
"If the government can issue a dollar bond, it can just as easily issue a dollar bill." Thomas Edison.

Government could stop borrowing money at interest, and start creating it itself by spending it into the economy on public projects and services, at the same time creating jobs and stimulating the economy. It already does this to a very limited extent – the amount it receives from the banks when it sells cash to them is added to the public purse and is available for spending on public services and projects.


Please watch this informative video to gain further insight into the modern banking system: Money as Debt http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=5352106773770802849&hl=en

In addition, for history of the banking system and analyses of our modern economy please watch The Money Masters Part 1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1583154561904832383 and The Money Masters Part 2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7336845760512239683

I would also recommend that you read the book "The Final Crash" by Hugo Bouleau http://www.finalcrash.com/. In addition, please read "The Web of Debt" By Ellen Hodgson Brown" (http://www.webofdebt.com/)

The Future is Islam

Allah Says in the Holy Quran:

"They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it. It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religions, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it." [Al-Quran 9:32-33]

A New York Times article, "Islam Attracts Converts by the Thousands," contains interviews with converts, analyses Islam's rapid rise in America, and states:

With some 6 million adherents in the United States, Islam is said to be the nation's fastest-growing religion, fueled by immigration, high birth rates and widespread conversion. One expert estimates that 25,000 people a year become Muslims in this country; some clerics say they have seen conversion rates quadruple since Sept. 11.

Between July 2004 and June 2005, some 4,000 Germans converted to Islam, four times more cases than in the year before, German news magazine Der Spiegel said in its latest issue, citing a study on Islamic life in Germany financed by the Interior Ministry.

Islam is the future. If present trends do not change dramatically, Islam will bypass Christianity for the title of the world’s largest religion very shortly. In fact, according to most statistics, this may take place in less than twenty years. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, growing at a rate four times faster than Christianity. Presently those who practice Islam make up approximately one fifth of the world’s population. One seasoned Bible teacher from England after reviewing the statistics recently commented that, “if present trends continue, half of all global births will be in Muslim families by the year 2055”. [Pawson, The Challenge of Islam to Christians (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 2003)]

Not only is Islam the fastest growing religion in the world, but also in the United States, Canada and Europe [Bruce a. Mcdowell and Anees Zaka, Muslims and Christians at The Table (Phillipsburg, P& R Publishing, 1999)] The annual growth rate of Islam in the US is approximately 4%, but there are also strong reasons to believe that it may have risen to as high as 8% over the past few years. Every year, tens of thousands of Americans convert to Islam. Prior to 2001 most reports seem to have the number roughly around 25,000 American converts per year. This may not sound like that much, but this yearly figure according to some Muslim American clerics has quadrupled since 9-11. Since 9-11 the numbers of American converts to Islam has skyrocketed. As early as one month after the World Trade Center attacks, the reports were flowing in from Mosques all over America. Ala Bayumi, the Director of Arab affairs at the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) on November 11, 2001, in the London daily newspaper, Al-Hayat said this:

Non-Muslim Americans are now interested in getting to know Islam. There are a number of signs... Libraries have run out of books on Islam... English translations of the Koran head the American best-seller list... The Americans are showing increasing willingness to convert to Islam since September 11... Thousands of non-Muslim Americans have responded to invitations to visit mosques, resembling the waves of the sea crashing on the shore one after another...[ Al-Hayat Newspaper (London), November 12, 2001, as quoted in Middle East Media & Research Institute, November 16, 2001, Muslim American Leaders: A Wave of Conversion to Islam in the U.S. Following September 11]

After testifying to the dramatic strides that Islam had taken as a result of the 9-11 attacks, Bayumi goes on to say that:

Proselytizing in the name of Allah has not been undermined, and has not been set back 50 years, as we thought in the first days after September 11. On the contrary, the 11 days that have passed are like 11 years in the history of proselytizing in the name of Allah.

In an article from the British newspaper, The Times of London, January 7, 2002 just four months after 9-11 we read:

There is compelling anecdotal evidence of a surge in conversions to Islam since September 11, not just in Britain, but across Europe and America. One Dutch Islamic centre claims a tenfold increase, while the New Muslims Project, based in Leicester, [England] and run by a former Irish Roman Catholic housewife, reports a “steady stream” of new converts. [The Times, (UK) January 7 2002, Giles Whittell, Allah Came Knocking At My Heart]

Shortly after 9-11, National Public Radio did a special on Islam and those who had converted after 9-11:

One of the most important topics [in an NPR broadcast] was an interview with several young women at American universities who recently converted to Islam through the Islamic Society of Boston. They hold advanced degrees from universities in Boston, such as Harvard, and they spoke of the power and the greatness of Islam, of the elevated status of women in Islam, and of why they converted to Islam. The program was broadcasted several times across the entire U.S...[Middle East Media & Research Institute, November 16, 2001, Muslim American Leaders: A Wave of Conversion to Islam in the U.S. Following September 11]

From an article in The New York Times, October 22, 2001, we read a portion of Jim Hacking’s story:

Nine years ago, Jim Hacking was in training to be a Jesuit priest. Now, he is an admiralty lawyer in St. Louis who has spent much of the last month explaining Islam at interfaith gatherings… He made the Shahadah [Muslim Conversion ceremony] on June 6, 1998. "The thing I've always latched to is that there's one God, he doesn't have equals, he doesn't need a son to come do his work,"

A typical testimony of a former Christian convert reads:
As a child, Jennifer Harrell attended church and Sunday school. In high school, she was on the drill team and dated a football player. After college, she became a Methodist youth minister. At age 23, she became a single parent. At age 26, she became a Muslim. "I grew up in Plano doing all the things I thought I was supposed to do," said Ms. Harrell, 29, of Dallas. "I went to church. I went to parties. But I wasn't concerned about heaven or hell. I took it all for granted." Eventually, she took a job in sales, where she was introduced to Islam by Muslim co-workers. One of them loved to debate religion, which stirred Ms. Harrell to rethink her Christian faith. She studied the Bible, but also Islam in order to do a better job of defending her faith. Instead, she became intrigued that Muslims prayed five times a day, fasted and gave alms as a way of life. "I wasn't the type of Christian who prayed every morning," she said. She said Muslim beliefs about Jesus made more sense to her because they revere him as a prophet and not God's son. "When I was a Christian, I never understood why Jesus had to die for my sins," Ms. Harrell said. "I mean, they're my sins." Before becoming a Muslim, she visited a Christian minister. She said she asked why Christians ate pork, why women didn't cover their heads in church, and why Christians dated. "I wanted him to defend the Bible," she said. "I gave him everything that I had found wrong with Christian interpretation." His answers didn't satisfy her [The Dallas Morning News – November 3, 2001, Susan Hogan]

Please also watch these videos of Non-Muslims coming into the fold of Islam:

Funny Aussie Revert http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23063

Ladies Converting to Islam Live http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=6081773249800257847&q=women+to+islam+live&total=219&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Reverts from around the world http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10823

Turning Muslim in Texas - People reverting to Islam in Texas. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9184353144432289069

European SCIENTIST Converts To ISLAM http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-5789309721856178863

Turning Muslim in Australia!?! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiXYlO4Fbzk

135 Enter Islam http://www.watchislam.com/videos/index.php?catid=18

Science student finds peace and Logic in Islam http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9130

For a whole lot more videos of new Muslims please go to http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=6

Did Prophet (peace be upon him) Massacred the Jews?

The information for this article has been taken from Dr. Jamal Badawi’s lecture.

One of the criticism of Prophet (peace be upon him) mentioned by the orientalists is that he persecuted the Jews of Medina because they refused to accept his message. This article will discuss Prophet’s (peace be upon him) treatment of the Non-Muslims. After you have read the article in its entirety (if Allah wills) you will realise how unjust the above mentioned criticism is. Even though the Scholars of Islam have answered this and many other similar objections in great detail, these objections keep on getting recycled for the last few centuries in the polemic literature and now on the internet.

First of all, we have to distinguish between two periods, the Makkan period (13 years of his mission) when Muslims were persecuted and the Medinan period (the remaining 10 years of his mission).

In Makkah, he encountered at least two groups: idolatrous Arabs and the Christians. As far as the encounter with idolatrous Arabs go, we find that it is subdivided into two types: positive and negative. By positive, I mean his encounter with those who rejected Islam, but did not seek to hurt or undermine Islam or the Prophet (peace be upon him), and how he dealt with them.

The best example for this is his uncle Abu Talib. Abu Talib did not accept Islam, but he never put obstacles before the Prophet (peace be upon him), he even defended the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his right to preach what he believed in or claimed to have received as revelation. For that type of relationship, Prophet (peace be upon him) more than reciprocated that courtesy. He loved his uncle, in spite of his idolatrous beliefs; he respected him and treated him with all kindness that is owed to a peaceful Non-Muslim.

But we have also the encounters with those who showed aggressiveness; they not only hurt the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Muslims, but also tortured them. There are many examples, let me give you two.

The first is of one of his uncle Abu Jahal. It is reported that one time Abu Jahal passed Prophet (peace be upon him) and he started abusing him verbally in a very ugly way. There was a young lady who was overhearing this conversation, she kept watching and after Abu Jahal had said his vile words the Prophet (peace be upon him) simply looked at him and did not respond. A few minutes later one of his uncle Hamza (may Allah be pleased with him) came from his hunting trip. He did not accept Islam or follow Prophet (peace be upon him) at that time. When he passed by that young lady and she told him that do you realise what happened to your nephew Muhammad (peace be upon him)? He said what? She replied that Abu Jahal abused him in a bad manner. He asked what did Muhammad (peace be upon him) do? She replied that he did not reciprocate with words; he just left him (moved away from him). It was that nobility of Prophet (peace be upon him) in the face of abuse (which is one of his characteristics) that softened the heart of Hamza (may Allah be pleased with him) and that was the turning point in his life. Hamza (may Allah be pleased with him) by nature was strong, aggressive and husky person. He walked right up to the Kaaba where Abu Jahal was sitting with the chiefs of Quraish, and he hit him with his bow on his head. He then said that you abused Muhammad (peace be upon him); I say what he says and I follow his religion. The point here is the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) kind behaviour towards those who were evil.

The second example was when Prophet (peace be upon him) was being persecuted and rejected in Makkah, he sought to find some followers and secure a base to preach the word of God as he received it and believed in it. So he goes to the nearby township known as Taif. He goes there to talk to people and invite them to Islam. But he was mocked, first by adults (e.g. one of them said “ha, you are telling me that you are a prophet, it is either you are a liar or truthful. If you are a liar I do not want to listen to a liar, and if you are truthful and indeed if you are a prophet then you are too big for me to listen too”); it did not stop at that and they sent their children who pelted Prophet (peace be upon him) with stones. He started to bleed, as a result, and blood seeped into his sandals. Then he took refuge in a garden which belonged to a couple of Christians. He sits there making earnest prayer to Allah that if You are not angry with me O Allah, then I do not care (meaning I do not care for this suffering). In the middle of all of that pain and psychological trauma an angel of God came to him and said that for those arrogant people, if it is okay with you, God has permitted me to crush them between these two mountains. Most humans perhaps would be thinking of vengeance but the Prophet (peace be upon him) answered that angel and said no, because I hope to Allah that out of the descendents these people there will be people who will worship Allah (that was very prophetic and that is what happened later, and as we know Muhammad bin Qasim was one of those descendents). [Similar statement has been recorded about Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) which shows they were not copying each other but receiving the same message and inspiration from God]. Prophet (peace be upon him) said to Allah to forgive my people for they know not what they are doing.

The second encounter is with the Christians. Even before migration to Medina, Prophet (peace be upon him) told his companions to migrate to Abyssinia and he stated that there is a king in whose realm people are not wronged. Now one observation; that good relationship and courtesy continued not only when Muslims were persecuted, but when Muslims became powerful and had their own state and base in Medina, we never hear about Prophet (peace be upon him) ordering the invasion of Abyssinia. That fly in the face of mistaken interpretation that some Muslims may have as well, that it is the duty of Muslims to fight all people in the world until they accept Islam or come under the rule of Islam. If this were the true, the first implementation of that would have been done by the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself. There is no record whatsoever that shows when Islam allowed fighting either for self defense or against oppression, it was not meant for people who are not Muslims but coexisting peacefully with the Muslims. This is clear lesson from the life of Prophet (peace be upon him).

Now we go to his encounters in Medina. Here we find multiple encounters with Non-Muslims (Jews, Christians and idolatrous Arabs). With Jews one of the major act of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in Medina (beside the buddy system between the migrants and the settlers and building of a mosque as a centre for Muslims) was known as the As-Saheefah (which can be described as perhaps the first multicultural, multi religious and pluralistic Constitution in the world that guaranteed equal rights to everybody irrespective of their faith). In this Saheefah or Constitution, of which everybody was a signatory to, it was agreed that Muslims irrespective of their tribes, irrespective whether they are migrants or settlers in Medina, are to be regarded as one community united by faith. The same equal treatment would be given to various Jewish tribes as well, and all Jews in Medina irrespective of their tribes are to be regarded as one community of faith united by Judaism. Secondly, the constitution guaranteed full rights and autonomy and freedom of worship and belief to Jews, Muslims and everyone else for that matter. Thirdly, it was agreed that Jews and Muslims should be co-defenders of Medina. Should any enemy attack Medina, both are obligated as two communities to stand together against aggression and never to help any enemy attacking Medina. Fourthly, no side should give refuge to someone who committed a crime. That was an amazing liberal treatment, approach and reaching out to what the Quran called the people of the book (applying to Jews and Christians). Also, all parties (including the Jews) agreed that the head of the whole community would be the Prophet (peace be upon him).

Now what happened later, unfortunately, was that three tribes (one tribe after the other) broke this agreement of peaceful co-existence and mutual respect and engaged in hostilities towards Muslims to some degree or the other. The Prophet (peace be upon him) in his position and responsibility as the enforcer of the law of constitution of Medina (to which everybody signed) had the power to enforce fair and proportionate punishment for a crime committed by the offending party. However, there are a number of observations in approach and fairness of Prophet (peace be upon him) in dealing with the offending people. Firstly, it is impossible to think against any punitive action against those who broke the law as anti Semitism, as Prophet (peace be upon him) himself is a pure Semite as he was the descendant of Prophet Ishmael (peace be upon him). Secondly, it is impossible to think that this punitive action against the offenses was anti Jewish, as the Quran mentions the name of Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) more times than Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself. The Quran describes the original Torah given to Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) as light and guidance. Thirdly, it is impossible to think of these punishments as revenge because they rejected him as a prophet. Why? Because the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions are prohibited by the text of the Quran in many verses (e.g. the verse 2:256 says “There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion”). The freedom of worship is guaranteed in several places in the Quran.

With this background let’s see what was the proper approach to the enforcement of the law. Firstly, the Prophet (peace be upon him) never stereotyped and lumped all the Jews together when it came to punishments. Only the offending tribe was punished not the others. This is significant because if you are anti Jewish you would lump them all together, as Hitler did, and this was not the case at all. Secondly, the punishment was ALWAYS proportionate to the offense that was committed. For example, in the case of Banu Kainuka it was a major offense but in the case of Banu Nazir in the next instance the offense was much greater (including the conspiracy to kill the Prophet peace be upon him) and in the case of Banu Quraizah it was what we call today, in modern Legal language, as high treason at the time of war.

As mentioned earlier, one of the clause in the constitution was that both Jews and Muslims will defend Medina against the invaders, and none should cooperate with the enemy against their fellow Medinites. And we know historically, and you can read this in the most authentic reference (in Seerah of Ibn Ishaaq) that the Arabs when they lost hope of really trying to destroy the Prophet (peace be upon him) they tried to gather a huge army, a coalition of various tribes (and not limited to the Makkan people); they surrounded Medina with the intention of wiping out the Muslims from the face of the earth. Now Muslims and Jews were living side by side in Medina. Yet information was relayed to Prophet (peace be upon him) that there have been contacts between the invading army and the chief of the tribe of Banu Quraizah in order to get rid of Muhammad as a problem for the pagan arabs and as well for the Jews. In fairness, Ibn Ishaaq says that in the beginning when that offer was made to the chief of the tribe of Banu Quraizah, he hesitated; and look at his words and acknowledgement (even when another fellow Jew of another tribe said that this is your opportunity, as Muslims do not stand any chance and they would be finished, so you better join) he said no, we have never seen from Muhammad except faithfulness (meaning respect of his agreement). But apparently he was tempted and you know in these tribes it was not only the decision of the chief, they were quiet democratic and the people of fighting age would discuss the issue, and in the end the consensus was that yes Prophet (peace be upon him) never broke the treaty but he does not stand a chance so let us finish the Muslims once in for all and join hands. The Prophet (peace be upon him) wanted to make sure not to jump to conclusions and he sent an emissary to the Jews and when they were asked that is it true about the treaty and the reply was what treaty? So it was coming from the horse’s mouth that treaty was not acknowledged by that tribe.

But then the critics say that it was the Prophet (peace be upon him) who ordered the execution of the fighting men. In fact, this is great falsification of history. Even if the Prophet (peace be upon him) did that it would have been perfectly his authority being the head of the state. And here we have a case of high treason at the time of war when the life of everybody was in danger and you get a stab in the back from within. What would any head of the state do in a case like this? But the fact is that he did not even use that authority. He was beseeched by the head of the hypocrites, Ibn Salun, that the offending tribe should choose its own arbitrator and whatever decision he comes up with is binding.

In the legal profession when you talk about arbitration as opposed to conciliation or mediation, it means that you are accepted mutually by both parties. Yet the Prophet (peace be upon him) was so generous and so lenient that he said to Banu Quraizah that you choose your own arbitrator; and they did. And you know who they choose? They choose a man by the name of Saad Ibn Muaz; and why they choose him? Because he was their ally before Islam came to Medina. He was very close to them. He was familiar with their Torah and their system even though he was not a Jew himself, still they choose him. Saad then addresses both the Muslims and Jews of the tribe of Banu Quraizah and said that if I come up with a decision will everybody abide by it? By the way, he need not asked that question as anyone in industrial relations or law would know that arbitration is final and binding. There could be no challenge for the arbitrator’s decision even in modern legal systems, unless there is a proof of bribery or violation of law like refusing to hear evidence, for example.

So Saad said to the tribe of Banu Quraizah I am going to rule in accordance of your own Torah (which of course provided for capital punishment for fighting men; women and children were spared). Yet the critics keep on repeating the Prophet’s Massacre. It is true that Prophet (peace be upon him) agreed with Saad’s judgement but he did not have a choice as it was an arbitration decision that everyone agreed to accept. So I hope this clarifies some of the distortions we hear on the media and some other writings of those who have enmity in their hearts against Islam.

Please also watch the video "Muhammad A to Z" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhzSxf9iugE