The Reality of Jizyah

Most of the material for this article has been taken from the lectures of Mufti Muhammad Saeed Khan. If there is a point, in your opinion, that does not carry weight, it is due to the shortcomings of my translation skills, and not because of the material in the Lectures of Mufti Saeed.

One of the objections raised by some Non-Muslims on Islam is that whenever Muslims got power to rule over Non-Muslims they imposed a discriminatory tax on them, i.e. Jizyah.

Basically, the propaganda against Islam is that if an Islamic state is formed somewhere in the world, the Muslims would impose Jizyah on Non-Muslims just because they have not converted to Islam. So this tax is forced upon on people of different faiths because of their religion, and thus discrimination takes place, and freedom of religion is taken away. The only choice remains is that either one converts to Islam or pays this unjust tax.

In Sha Allah (God Willing) after reading this article the misconceptions raised against Islam on the aspect of Jizyah will be removed.

What is the reality of Jizyah? Islam teaches us that everyone has a right to defend himself; and there is protection of life and wealth for all human beings irrespective of their race, colour, religion or gender. For example, if a robber attacks someone, and that person while defending his life and wealth kills that robber, even then no one has the right to file criminal charges against him. So, the relatives of that robber cannot take the defender to court. The same principle when taken on a larger scale gives Muslims the right to defend the entire state.

It is the obligation of an Islamic Government to provide certain things free of charge to the public. For example, medical and education should be free for everyone under Islamic rule. Similarly the Islamic Government should provide jobs for the unemployed; otherwise the state is obliged to take care of the people in need financially. This was the case during the rule of the rightly guided caliphs.

Therefore, unemployment benefits, medical and education are free for everyone regardless of their religion. In addition, free residence and transport is also to be provided for the government employees.

On the other hand, if an Islamic State is being attacked by a foreign nation then it should be the duty of every citizen, regardless of their religion to defend their land, since the state provided so many facilities to them free of charge.

Usually a Muslim State is attacked by Non-Muslims. What Islam says is that it is not correct for a person to fight against his own brothers in religion: i.e. a Christian should not fight a Christian or a Hindu should not fight a Hindu (in case India attacks Pakistan, for instance). The logic behind this is that there is a chance that treason will take place. The reason being that a soldier may not be happy fighting against people of his own faith (there were instances of this in the Iraq war). Islam does not force Non-Muslims killing the people of their own faith in the battlefield.

So an Islamic Government provides the above mentioned facilities and gives its citizens protection; in addition, the life of a Non-Muslim is more precious as compared to a life of a Muslim in an Islamic state (as Prophet peace be upon him said that if under Muslim rule a Non-Muslim dies and justice is not done in that instance then I will argue for that person on the day of Judgement). The Islamic Government for the protection provided imposes a tax on Non-Muslims. It is a trade off: i.e. they will not be drafted to fight, and the government will collect a tax and use it for their security.

The other thing to note is that if this tax was just imposed because a person is not a Muslim, then every Non-Muslim would have had to pay Jizyah. On the contrary, there is no Jizyah on women, children, retired elderly, disabled, umemployed, poor and religious leaders who pray and meditate in their places of worship.

The Muslims were very careful and honest in all regards and especially when it came to the affairs of the Non-Muslims. Abu Yusuf gives the following report:

After getting on peaceful terms with the people of Syria and collecting the dues of the Jizyah, news reached Abu ‘Ubeida that the Emperor Heraclius has raised an enormous army to attack. The Muslims had to concentrate all their energies on the impending encounter. The effect of this was great on Abu ‘Ubeida and the Muslims. He sent messages to the governors of cities with whose citizens he had made peace, asking them to return to their subjects the paid dues of the Jizyah with an instruction to tell them: ‘We hereby return to you the money you have paid us, because of the news of the enemy troops amassed to attack us. The agreement between us was that we should protect you, and as this is not now in our power, we return you that all we took. But if we are victorious we shall consider ourselves bound to you by the old terms of the agreement.’ When this was delivered to the Non-Muslims and their money returned to them, they told the Muslims: ‘May God bring you back to us and grant you victory over the Romans had it been they, they would not have given us back anything, but would have taken all that remained with us.’ [Kitab Al-Kharaj]

In short, Non-Muslims (males who are employed and are financially stable) are required to pay Jizyah to the Islamic State. In return, the State promises to protect them. It is unfortunate that certain individuals try to portray Jizyah as an unjust tax; they only paint one aspect of the picture and ignore the rest.

Female Circumcision in Islam

It is important to clarify the position of Islam on female circumcision, especially after Pauline Hanson's recent comments: "Maybe we should look at the female genital mutilation that happens to young girls in this country ... if people want to live by these ways then go back to the Muslim countries."

Circumcision is prescribed for both males and females. The correct view is that circumcision is obligatory for males and that it is one of the symbols of Islam, and that circumcision for women is mustahab (desirable) but not obligatory.

While the exact origin of female circumcision is not known, "it preceded Christianity and Islam." The most radical form of female circumcision (infibulation) is known as the Pharaonic Procedure. This may signify that it may have been practiced long before the rise of Islam, Christianity and possibly Judaism. It is not clear, however, whether this practice originated in Egypt or in some other African countries then spread to Egypt.

It is common knowledge that in some countries like Egypt, female circumcision has been practiced by both Muslims and Christians. In the meantime, this practice is not known in most Muslim countries including Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc.

No mention of female circumcision is to be found in the Qur'an either directly or indirectly. There is no known Hadith which makes female circumcision compulsory. Some argued, however, that one Hadith, while not requiring female circumcision, appears to accept it: "Circumcision is a commendable act for men and is an honourable thing for women."

There are two observations on this Hadith:

a) A distinction is made between male circumcision which is described in a stronger religious term or commendable while another weaker description is given to female circumcision which implies no religious obligation.

b) This Hadith is of weak authenticity (dha'eef) according to Hadith scholars.

There is, however, a more authentic Hadith in which Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have passed by a woman performing circumcision on a young girl. He instructed the woman by saying: "Cut off only the foreskin (outer fold of skin over the clitoris; the prepuce) but do not cut off deeply (i.e. the clitoris itself), for this is brighter for the face (of the girl) and more favourable with the husband."

While the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not explicitly ban this practice, his words project a great deal of sensitivity to the instinctive needs of females and their matrimonial happiness and legitimate enjoyment. References to the brightness of the face and to better relationship with the husband are clear indications of his sensitivity and compassion. They also stand in contrast to the arguments that female circumcision "controls" the woman's sexual appetite and hence contributes to sexual morality and virtue in society. It is true that Islam requires adherents of both genders to be chaste. Yet, there is no text in the Qur'an or Sunnah which requires selective curtailment or control of the sexual desire of one specific gender. Furthermore, chastity and virtue are not contingent on "cutting off" part of any sensitive and crucial human organ. Rather, they are contingent on spiritual and moral values of the person and the supporting virtuous environments.

Shariah (Islamic law) broadly divides actions into five categories: mandatory, commendable, permissible, detestable and strictly forbidden. Female circumcision falls within the category of the permissible (some scholars are of the opinion that it is commendable). It was probably on this basis that some scholars opposed a sweeping ban of this practice. Before discussing this view, it is important to distinguish between different types of procedures that were and still are called circumcision.

a) Removal of the hood (or prepuce) of the clitoris. This procedure is, to some degree, analogous to male circumcision since in both cases, no part of the sexual organ is cut off. In both cases also, it is only the foreskin, or outer fold of the skin, which is cut off. Properly done, it is not likely to cause any "matrimonial" problem.

b) Removal of the entire clitoris (clitorectomy) along with part of the labia minora, which is sutured together leaving an opening. This is a form of mutilation.

c) Removal of the entire clitoris, labia minora and medial part of the labia majora, with both sides of the female organ stitched together leaving a small opening. This procedure requires tying together the child's legs of nearly three weeks. It is called the Pharaonic procedure but may as well be called "mutilation".

It is obvious that the second and third procedures were never mandated, encouraged or even consented to by the Prophet (peace be upon him). They even violate a known rule in Shariah prohibiting the cutting off of any part of the human body except for unavoidable reasons (e.g. medical treatment, trimming nails or hair, or for an explicitly specified reason such as male circumcision). Such necessity or need does not exist in female circumcision. Nothing justifies genital mutilation. In fact, no mutilation is allowed by Islam even in the battlefield. Not only are these two procedures unjustifiable, they are brutal, inhumane and in violation of Islam. Therefore, only the first procedure is allowed and even that is no mandatory.

Apart from this, female circumcision has not been prescribed without any reason, rather there is wisdom behind it and it brings many benefits.

Mentioning some of these benefits, Dr. Haamid al-Ghawaabi says:

The secretions of the labia minora accumulate in uncircumcised women and turn rancid, so they develop an unpleasant odour which may lead to infections of the vagina or urethra. I have seen many cases of sickness caused by the lack of circumcision.

Circumcision reduces excessive sensitivity of the clitoris which may cause it to increase in size to 3 centimeters when aroused, which is very annoying to the husband, especially at the time of intercourse.

Another benefit of circumcision is that it prevents stimulation of the clitoris which makes it grow large in such a manner that it causes pain.

Circumcision prevents spasms of the clitoris which are a kind of inflammation.

Circumcision reduces excessive sexual desire.

Then Dr al-Ghawaabi refutes those who claim that female circumcision leads to frigidity by noting:

Frigidity has many causes, and this claim is not based on any sound statistics comparing circumcised women with uncircumcised women, except in the case of Pharaonic circumcision which is where the clitoris is excised completely. This does in fact lead to frigidity but it is contrary to the kind of circumcision enjoined by the Prophet of mercy (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) when he said: “Do not destroy” i.e., do not uproot or excise. This alone is evidence that speaks for itself, because medicine at that time knew very little about this sensitive organ (the clitoris) and its nerves.

The female gynaecologist Sitt al-Banaat Khaalid mentioned in an article entitled Khitaan al-Banaat Ru’yah Sihhiyyah (Female circumcision from a health point of view) some of the health benefits of female circumcision and said:

It takes away excessive libido from women.

It prevents unpleasant odours which result from foul secretions beneath the prepuce.

It reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections.

It reduces the incidence of infections of the reproductive system.

In addition, in the book on Traditions that affect the health of women and children, which was published by the World Health Organization in 1979 says:

With regard to the type of female circumcision which involves removal of the prepuce of the clitoris, which is similar to male circumcision, no harmful health effects have been noted.

From Liwa’ al-Islam magazine, issue 8 and 10; article entitled Khitaan al-Banaat (circumcision of girls).

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

Modern Economy: Progress or Destruction

Most of the material in this article has been taken from a lecture delivered by a Scholar in Australia a few years ago. Before reading this article please read the article “Interest and the Modern Banking System” in November 2006 archives on this website to get the full value out of this article.

Allah says in the glorious Quran “O you who have believed, fear Allah and give up what remains [due to you] of Riba (interest), if you should be believers. And if you do not, then be informed of a war [against you] from Allah and His Messenger. But if you repent, you may have your principal – [thus] you do no wrong, nor are you wronged” [Al Quran, 2: 278-279].

Narrated by Abu Hurayrah The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “A time is certainly coming to mankind when only the receiver of Riba will remain, and if he does not receive it, some of its vapour will reach him”. Ibn Isa said: “Some of its dust will reach him.” (Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 3325)

Riba is generally translated as Interest. But the fact is that Riba is a broad term (and there is no single word in the English language to describe it correctly hence it is translated as Interest) and the consensus prevailing among Muslims throughout history has been, and continues to be, that Riba among other things, includes interest. In this article, I will only concentrate on two aspects of Riba: Interest due to time and Riba due to deception.

If Allah and his Messenger are at war and we are sleeping then something is wrong. It is obligatory for an Islamic state to eradicate Riba (interest) from the society, otherwise they will be at war with Allah and his Messenger; and that is exactly what is happening today.

Why Allah has given such a stern warning. The answer is in the fact that Allah has told us that herein lies the greatest danger of all: if you allow this door to be opened (i.e. the door of interest) the poison of Riba (whoever will be injected with it) will paralyse you. The enemy will be able to take control of you. Do not let this door to be opened.

To understand one of the aspect of Riba let’s take an example: I pass on $200 to you and you are obliged to return $400 to me in five years; time is what is responsible for the increase. Today this is known as lending money on interest. In other words, the money lender argues that time equals money.

What the modern day banker does is that he reaps what others plant. He is like a pimp who lives of the sweat of others. This is oppression that some people sit down very comfortably in their beachfront homes and drive Mercedes Benz while the rest of humanity work like jackasses in order to allow them to live the affluent life.

When interest enters into a society, the bloodsucking predatory (a predator lives of the flesh of other animals) elite will now take control of the market and they will suck the blood of the masses. So when an economy is based on Riba, the rich will keep on getting richer while the masses will keep on growing poorer and poorer.

The banker might argue that he is running a business but as Allah Says in the glorious Quran “But Allah has permitted trade and has forbidden interest” [Al Quran, 2:275]. What is the difference between business and Riba? The brief answer to this question is that it is in the essence of a business transaction that you must accept the possibility of either a profit or a loss, but if this possibility is not there then it is not business; and so risk free investments are not business transactions. It is in the essence of the Riba (Interest) transaction that the possibility of loss is eliminated. The money lender is immunised from loss. He can only make a profit, he cannot suffer a loss. That is why Riba does not qualify as business.

An economy in which the rich will permanently remain rich (barring exceptions) and the wealth does not justly circulate means that poor will remain poor. If the rich is permanently rich and the poor is permanently poor, that is slavery; it is economic oppression. That is why Islamic economics is designed in such a way that wealth circulates in the economy in which this type of economic oppression (in the world we are living today) is eliminated.

What happens when money is lent on interest? It’s not only the case where the elite live of the sweat of the masses, it is more than that. When the money lender is immunised from loss, the implication would be that wealth will no longer circulate justly through the economy. Around the world today for those who have eyes to see, and who do not spend their days and nights eating Halwa, watching movies and partying, the modern economy is precisely this economy. And they call it the best model of economy ever experienced by humanity. This is the best model? Have you no shame? Do you think we have the brains of a Jackass? An economy in which wealth no longer circulates, an economy in which rich are permanently rich and the poor are permanently imprisoned in poverty, and you call that progress! This is not progress; it is new economic slavery which has descended upon mankind.

Another aspect of Riba is which is based on deception as narrated by Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet, peace be on him, said: "Deceiving a mustarsal [an unknowing entrant into the market] is Riba (Suyuti, al-Jami al-Saghir, under the word ghabn; Kanz al Ummal, Kitab al-Buyu, al-Bab al-thani, al-fasl al-thani, on the authority of Sunan al-Bayhaqi)

The biggest ripoff is what is taking place in our times.

The currency used at the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) time was mainly gold and silver. The well known hadith states "Gold is to be paid for by gold, silver by silver, wheat by wheat, barley by barley, dates by dates, and salt by salt - like for like, equal for equal, payment being made on the spot. If the species differ, sell as you wish provided that payment is made on the spot". (Muslim)

So if it is not like for like it is Riba (as explained in the hadith of Bilal [may Allah be pleased with him] bringing dates to the Prophet peace be upon him). What is common to all the six things mentioned in this hadith? They were all used for some time or the other for money. The second thing which is common among all of them is that the value of the money is in the money i.e. they all have intrinsic value.

One day Europe was attacked from the inside and the Europe which was Christian lost its Christianity. The Christian Europe fought a ferocious battle against interest. When French Revolution occurred, the back of the Christian Church was broken in Western Europe, while the Back of Christian Church in Eastern Europe was broken after Bolshevik Revolution. When Church lost its stronghold the Jews were delighted. Because the Christians were waging war for centuries against the Jews: they were not allowing the Jews to lend money on Interest. The Jews always wanted to lend money on Interest; because they had changed the Torah (in which Riba was prohibited) and the Torah now says (in context): “do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess.[Deuteronomy 23:18-21].

Now with the French Revolution, economy based on Riba emerges in Europe for the first time. And of course after Bolshevik Revolution this possibility was also open in Eastern Europe. The banks not only started to lend money on interest, they started to issue paper as money. When the governments saw banks were getting richer by issuing paper as money, the governments took over the paper. Then gradually Europe started to conquer rest of the world at the point of the sword. So a white world order emerged at the point of a sword in which Europe now ruled the world. When they took over most of the world, one of the most important things they wanted to do was to dismantle the system of real money (e.g. gold and silver) and replace it with paper money. They achieved this eventually. Europe would not decolonise and handover, for example, Pakistan to Muhammad Ali Jinnah or Indonesia to Sukarno unless Europe was insured that the new financial system was in place in which real money was replaced with paper money.

At the beginning when paper money was introduced it was redeemable for Gold. In USA until 1920’s you could take $20.67 in notes to the bank and ask for one ounce of gold in return and you would get it. When the banks and the governments issued paper money, they gave their word that this is the value of the paper and they even printed on Dollar bills “In God We Trust” (in other words when we give our word to you that $20.67 is equivalent to one ounce of gold, our word is as good and as solid as the word of God). But in 1933 something strange happened: Uncle Sam (i.e. US Government) was broke. So guess what Uncle Sam did? In April 1933 Uncle Sam enacted legislation prohibiting all Americans from keeping gold. Americans had to return any gold they had (not jewellary but coins and bullion) to Uncle Sam and he will give you paper in return, and you have to trust in Uncle Sam that his word is as good as the word of God. So Americans gave their gold to Uncle Sam. If they caught you with gold after a certain date then you could be fined $10,000 and could spend a maximum of 10 years as a guest of Uncle Sam in one of his prisons. So Americans took their gold and got back paper in return. After Uncle Sam had collected the gold, he changed his word (these are values of those who economically rule the world today). Uncle Sam changed the price of gold from $20.67 to $35 an ounce of gold (the catch was that only foreigners could sell their gold at the new higher price). American people woke up that morning realising that their own government had ripped them off of nearly half their wealth.

This is a transaction based on deception which Prophet (peace be upon him) described as Riba. Why did all this happen? It is because the value of the real money is in the money. The definition of the paper money is that value of the money in the paper money is not in the money, therefore, the value can be CHANGED. Every time the value of the money is changed the value of the money goes down. What happens when the value of money goes down? The first thing is that there is a massive transfer of wealth from the masses to the predatory elite (which in the above mentioned case was the US Government). What is the second thing that happens? The answer is this: I worked for the whole month I got my salary in gold I could buy a camel; after ten years I could still buy a camel with that salary, after fifty years I could still buy a camel, but when I get my salary in paper I could buy a camel, few years later with my salary I can’t buy a camel with that money anymore (it will only buy a jackass now), so now I am beginning to feel like a jackass because someone has ripped me off. Where did my money go? If you can answer this question (i.e. who took my money and where did it go and how did they take it?) you would understand the game that they are playing. A few years later I cannot even buy a jackass anymore, I can only buy a goat; a few years later I cannot even buy a goat, I can only buy a chicken with that money.

How is this taking place? They started with paper being redeemable for gold and then came 1933 where they ripped people off of almost half their wealth. In 1944 after the end of World War II they consolidated the system with the creation of international monetary system. The new international monetary system now emerges from upstate New York in the form of Bretton Woods agreement. At Bretton Woods they decided that no longer paper will be redeemable for gold; only one paper will be chosen to be redeemable for gold. The one paper which was chosen was the US Dollar. So this was a major blow to the integrity of money. The second thing they did was that the only people who can come to Uncle Sam to redeem money for gold would be governments (through Central Banks). So now the entire system lost 99% of its integrity (because the masses cannot redeem paper for gold). Nobody from 1944 to 1971 redeemed their paper for gold. The Vietnam War took place in the late sixties and Uncle Sam printed a lot of paper to finance the war, and Uncle Sam did not have gold to back the paper. At Bretton Woods they had fixed the price of gold at $35 an ounce. So in September 1971 the British Government came with 3 Billion US Dollars and asked for gold. Uncle Sam knew that the game was up. Because in the coming months other governments would start coming in and demanding gold for the US Dollars they had in their Central Banks. So Richard Nixon addressed the American nation and said (in context), we gave our word but we do not have to keep our word, and we will no longer honour our obligation under Bretton Woods to redeem paper for gold from Central Banks. Therefore, since September 1971 there is no legal link between paper and gold.

Now all they have to do (those who want to rule the world) is to take control of money. Anyone who can take control of the money can control the world. The elites can attack paper so it goes down and down and down. When paper goes down and down, there is a massive transfer of wealth to that bloodsucking predatory elite, the second thing that happens is that wages lose their value because prices go up and up. As wages lose their value, the masses are now imprisoned in something called slave wages. When masses are imprisoned in slave wages you can now control them, you can now rule them.

The rip off has taken place. The thieves have looted our money. The rich have now grown filthy rich and the masses are now in miserable poverty from which there is no way out.

Do you know what happened to Indonesian Rupiah? IMF had issued Indonesia a clean bill of health (an economy which is strong). Indonesia is a major oil producing country. It has land which is very fertile. It has a big and energetic population. It has abundance of mineral resources. There is no reason why Indonesia should be poor. The IMF concurred that Indonesia has a healthy economy. Suddenly the Indonesian Rupiah was attacked by the bloodsucking predatory elite and the banking centres around the world. As a result, the Rupiah falls. Before the crisis, the exchange rate between the rupiah and the dollar was roughly 2000 Rupiah to 1 USD. The rate had plunged to over 18000 Rupiah to 1 USD at times during the crisis. Indonesia lost 13.5% of its GDP that year. In the process of bringing down the Indonesian money, they robbed the Indonesian people of probably more than half of their wealth. Half of Indonesia is instantaneously reduced to below the poverty line. Guess what is the poverty line: $29 a month. All this is happening because we accepted paper as money.

This economic system is driving some of our sisters to sell their bodies for a few dollars. They have no choice in order to get bread to feed their children. It is driving many to live a life of crime. Others are dying every day of hunger (please check out the statistics in the article “Interest and the Modern Banking System"). What will Allah do on the day of Judgement to those who are still eating Halwa and living a carefree life, while the predatory elite have gone filthy rich?

Now that Riba has engulfed the entire world what is going to happen? There is no certain answer to this question, but economists are coming up with certain predictions:

[1] The paper money (fiat currency) system will eventually collapse. First of all the US Dollar will collapse and this disease will slowly spread throughout the world. This would mean that Governments will not be able to print paper anymore.
[2] The likely scenario is that future money will be electronic money. And who creates electronic money? The banks; this would mean that whoever controls the banking system will control the world.
[3] Because governments will lose power, and commodity prices will soar after the collapse of the US dollar, there is a chance that centrally planned systems (in which bureaucrats decide everything) will come into existence. This could in turn result in wars breaking out to take control over the resources.

To get further insight into how this debt based economic system works, I would recommend the following books (they can be purchased from the internet):

The Problem with Interest by Tarek El Diwany
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins
Empire of Debt by Bill Bonner and Addison Wiggin
The Coming Collapse of the Dollar and How to Profit from it by James Turk and John Rubino
The Final Crash by Hugo Bouleau http://www.finalcrash.com/
The Web of Debt by Ellen Hodgson Brown (http://www.webofdebt.com/)

I would also recommend that you read the article “The Other Kind of Terrorism” http://www.islamic-finance.com/item115_f.htm

Please also watch the documentaries by John Pilger "War by Other Means" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-5399796928596929639 "The New Rulers of the World" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-7932485454526581006 and "Apartheid Did Not Die" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-6343784518626528037

In addition, watch these interesting analyses by Ron Paul: "The End of Dollar Hegemony" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-8327695139643041382 ; "Federal Reserve, Banking and Economy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8

All this has happened because the humanity, with its limited intelligence, opened the door of Riba. The revelation had told us long before not to open this door, but now after hundreds of years later we are realising what a big mistake this was!

Homosexuality and the Logic behind its Prohibition

I would request that (along with this article) you also read the article “Sexually Transmitted Diseases” on this website, because both these articles are interlinked. Thanks.

Born Gay?
The majority of homosexuals believe that they were born "gay." This belief often supplies them with comfort, relieving them of any responsibility to change. However, there is no solid scientific evidence that people are born homosexuals. The overwhelming majority of gay people are completely normal genetically. They are fully male or female. The thing to note is that it is only a theory (and not a scientific fact such as moon reflects light or heart pumps blood), so unless someone can prove it is a scientific fact it will remain in question. Theories and researches have a history of taking u-turns. For example, a report published almost eight years ago in Science magazine refuted earlier claims by scientists to have discovered the so-called "gay gene." Those who argue that there is genetic predisposition to homosexuality fail to read the evidence which demonstrate the contrary. The point is that if someone says I am a born gay or I developed into a homosexual due to my genetic makeup, is basing his argument on theories and researches (and he does not realise that there is evidence contrary to his claims as well).

Learned Behaviour
Homosexuality is learned behaviour which is influenced by a number of factors: a disrupted family life in early years, a lack of unconditional love on the part of either parent, a failure to identify with the same-sex parent. Later, these problems can result in a search for love and acceptance, envy of the same or the opposite sex, a life controlled by various fears and feelings of isolation. (Please note that someone might object that what is the fault of that person if say, for example, his father was unloving and that drove him to homosexuality; I would like to remind him or her that if someone murders or steals and then a psychological analysis reveals that this criminal behaviour was a result of an unloving parent, will they still consider that criminal innocent). One thing that does seem clear is that homosexuality is brought about by a multitude of root causes. It is simplistic thinking to lay the blame on any single area. Fears of the opposite sex, incest, molestation, dominant mothers and weak fathers, demonic oppression: all of these may play a part in causing homosexuality, but no individual factor alone can cause it. Along with outside factors in a person's life (e.g. influence of the media), his own personal choices have played a key role in forming and shaping his homosexual identity, though few will admit this.

The Four Components of Homosexuality
Homosexuality involves much more than simply a sexual act. Those caught up in this usually have entered the homosexual lifestyle to some degree. To better understand the circumstances of the homosexual person seeking help, homosexuality can be divided into four components: behaviour, psychic response, identity and lifestyle.

Behaviour
Often, it is assumed that all homosexual people engage in homosexual acts, but this is not always the case. Because of fears or strong religious convictions, some may refrain from sexual behaviour, yet experience an intense battle with homosexual attractions. Another wrong assumption is that all people who engage in homosexual acts are homosexuals. There are a huge number of heterosexual men who engage in homosexual acts for a variety of reasons, such as being in prison or anywhere where heterosexual sex is unavailable (such as an all male hostel where children have just entered puberty and sexual desires are abundant).

Also, a child who is involved in homosexual acts early in his life will not necessarily become a homosexual unless these acts fulfill needs that are not being met in other ways, such as needs for love, acceptance, security and significance. In these cases, the child's involvement in the act is viewed as a "trade-off" for the non-sexual needs he is obtaining. It is possible that the act and the fulfilled needs could become synonymous, which could lead to the development of a homosexual orientation. However, statistics have shown most children who experience homosexual acts leave them behind, growing up to lead a normal heterosexual life.

Psychic Response
A brief definition of this term is, "sexual excitation (stimulation) caused by visual perception or fantasy speculation." Psychic response is also what people refer to as a "homosexual orientation." Though many people claim that they have experienced visual or sexual attraction for the same sex "as long as they can remember," there is a progression in a person's life that leads to a homosexual psychic response. A child may start out with a need to compare himself with others to see if he measures up to societal standards. When he feels he doesn't compare favourably with others, he develops admiration for those traits and physical characteristics he feels he does not possess. Admiration, which is normal, may turn to envy. Envy leads to the desire to possess others and finally, to consume others. This strong desire becomes eroticised somewhere along the way, eventually leading to homosexual psychic response. As psychic response begins to grip someone's life, a certain amount of scheming takes place; sexual situations are pictured in the mind. When the first sexual encounter takes place, it may be the result of several years of planning and fantasy. However, homosexual behaviour can precede psychic response, which may develop as a conditioned response to pleasant encounters with those of the same sex.

Identity
Some people enter into homosexuality through "identity". These are people who may not have experienced sexual attraction for the same sex or have had any homosexual encounters. However, from an early age, they have felt they were "different" from other people. They feel abnormal, like they do not fit into the heterosexual world. They reason, "If I'm not heterosexual, then I must be gay" and they accept the homosexual label onto their lives. Of course, this is a misinterpretation. A person troubled with shyness, fear of the opposite sex, lack of athletic or social skills need not accept the label "homosexual." However, people do grow into labels. Once a label is accepted, the implied characteristics of that label begin to develop in a person's life. What we believe about ourselves is of extreme importance.

Lifestyle
A homosexual may insist that he bears no responsibility for his identity, his psychic response or even his first sexual encounter, which may have been forced upon him. However, every homosexual person must bear the responsibility for his or her choice to enter the homosexual lifestyle. People enter this lifestyle to varying degrees. Some live in the heterosexual world for the most part, seeking out only sporadic, impersonal sexual encounters. Others immerse themselves in the total "gay subculture," a setting in which the person works, lives and socialises in a totally gay environment. There are all the varying degrees in between these two extremes, but the gay lifestyle, for many people, is the first place where they have experienced any form of acceptance on a below-the-surface level. In spite of the acceptance that is available, however, the homosexual lifestyle often proves to be a painful and unrewarding way of life, particularly for older gays who are no longer desirable sexually.

As you can see from looking at these four components, homosexuality is a complex problem with many definitions and variations. If someone tells you, "I am a homosexual," he has really told you very little about himself. It takes a deeper look into his life to determine the degree to which homosexuality has become a part of his identity. This also illustrates why homosexuality can be a difficult problem to overcome.

In fact, the common belief that one is ‘either a heterosexual or a homosexual’ and that physical or other clear reasons for this difference usually exist is not supported by research. The empirical research evidence indicates that for most people the sexual drive exists in a diffused state in the early stages, solidifying only much later. Sexual development occurs primarily between the second year of life and the onset of puberty. During the first few years it is rather undefined and can develop through learning so that it can be stimulated, or at least influenced, by a wide variety of objects, although at first the primary stimulus is tactile stimulation of the genital area.

Thus children’s sexual development is highly influenced by early experiences in a process similar to imprinting. This system enables a person to become sexually attracted to their own race, national group or culture. Thus, Chinese men generally find Chinese women most erotic. Black men relate to black women in the same way, etc. This is not to say that people cannot find those in other groups attractive, but that the general preference tends to be towards one’s own national and cultural group. Because the original sexual drive is diffused, it can thus be conditioned in many different directions.

For this reason, a variety of experiences, many of which have little to do with the person himself, can cause one to become a homosexual, depending on the degree that one’s early diffuse sex drive is conditioned toward persons of the same sex and away from persons of the opposite sex. Holmes noted that “In many women, particularly, sexual attraction tends to follow on the heels of strong emotional attachments with partners of either sex.”

Furthermore, Masters’ and Johnson’s scientific studies of those labelled homosexuals and lesbians have found that both groups consistently listed heterosexual encounters as highly erotic, actually at the top of a list of their erotic fantasies. In one study both male and female homosexuals listed a ‘heterosexual encounter’ as their third most common sexual fantasy! This finding also supports the conclusion that most of those persons labelled gay are, at best, in varying degrees bisexual—especially in view of the fact that many also have heterosexual relations, and many were once married and had families (but a pure heterosexual will feel disgusted even at the thought of a homosexual encounter).

The level of the population that is exclusively homosexual has traditionally been placed at 10%, partly as a result of the 1940s Kinsey studies. Numerous new empirical studies in the United States, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Britain and other countries reveal the rate is less than 3% and as little as below 1%.That the number varies from 0.9% of males in Norway to 2.8% found by the national opinion research centre at the University of Chicago for the United States of America, indicates that cultural factors are likely very influential. Further, according to a Minnesota adolescent health survey, only 0.6% of the boys and 0.2% of the girls surveyed identified themselves as ‘most of 100% homosexual’, 0.7% males and 0.8% females as bisexual, and 10.1% of the males and 11.3% of the females were ‘unsure’. This indicates that many individuals do not have a firm sexual orientation as an adolescent, and reveals the importance of social and sexual experiences in development.

Although many factors are involved, a person is not a prisoner to his or her sexuality and to a large degree chooses a homosexual lifestyle. The unfortunate factor in this debate is that it is very difficult to reason about this topic with those who advocate that a ‘sexual orientation’ called ‘homosexual’ exists. They simply reject, ignore or distort the enormous amount of empirical data against their position. A clear need exists to understand the reasons why people adopt this lifestyle, and the difficulties of doing so in our, or any, society.

The claim is often made that those who involve themselves in homosexual behaviour cannot help the way that they are, and are biologically attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex. Despite claims, no gene causing homosexuality has yet been shown to unambiguously exist, nor has any clear evidence of a biological basis yet been located. This argument that homosexuality is biological also provides other perverts (e.g. pedophiles) a justification for their behaviour. You sometimes hear from drug addicts, alcoholics etc, that they have no control over what they do (in other words it is biological): which is an untrue and lame justification for their acts.

Further, it is not only homosexual behaviour that is objectionable, but also much of the sexual behaviour that is common among homosexuals. Bell et al. found that 43% of white male homosexuals reported having sex with more than 500 partners and a whopping 28% with over 1,000 partners. Also, the sexual practices that homosexuals engage in (a major one is labelled sodomy, from the scriptural example of Sodom and Gomorrah) are generally regarded as unacceptable in Christian or Muslim societies even for heterosexuals (i.e. anal sex is not allowed between married couples).

Logic behind Prohibition of Homosexuality

A major problem relative to homosexuality is that many venereal and other diseases are far more a problem with homosexual behaviour than heterosexual. For non-promiscuous couples who take proper cleanliness measures, the transmission of disease among heterosexuals is extremely rare, and then usually almost always due to lack of hygiene. During homosexual behaviour, sperm can penetrate the partner’s colon wall. When inside the body, the sperm adversely affects the immune system, resulting in the person being more vulnerable to disease. This is especially a problem, in that homosexual practices commonly transmit many diseases which are uncommon among heterosexuals. For example, homosexuals as a group are far more apt to have rare bowel diseases, which are generally lumped together under the designation ‘gay bowel syndrome’. One study indicated that one half of homosexuals eventually contract the colon disease parasitic amebiasis, while rectal gonorrhea and infectious hepatitis A are far higher among the homosexual population. Fox, in response to this concern, noted: ‘First, the colon and rectum are made for the elimination of fecal matter and not for sexual experience. Fecal matter is eliminated because it is indigestible and contains disease-causing materials. With sexual penetration, the rectal muscles are often torn or over-expanded, and the fragile lining of the colon is almost always torn. The tearing of the colon allows fecal matter to penetrate into the body, bringing with it infectious disease.’

Many homosexuals frequent medical doctors who specialise in treating homosexuals in order to best deal with their special health concerns. While these doctors may not advertise themselves as such in the telephone book, the homosexual social network as well as the homosexual press is a common source patients use to contact these specialised physicians. Estimates of the infectious disease rate among homosexuals is about ten times higher than that of the general population—not only venereal diseases, but also hepatitis B and others. Other common diseases include AIDS, urethritis, viral herpes, pediculosis infestation and others. Of course, it is not only the type of behaviour that they indulge in which puts them at a much higher risk, but also their high level of promiscuity—one survey indicated that homosexual males have an average of over 50 sexual partners in their lifetime. Another study found that 28% had more than 1,000 partners, 15% had 500 to 1,000, 32% from 100 to 500, and only 25% had less than 100 partners in their lifetime. While surveys in this area vary, depending upon the sampling population, sample size and specific questions asked, all reveal that an enormous amount of promiscuity is a normal part of the gay lifestyle.

From a medical standpoint, they are fraught with health dangers, including infections, bleeding and disease transmission problems. While promiscuity among heterosexuals also carries many dangers, they are generally far less than sodomy, and infections from sexual relations are actually relatively rare in monogamous couples who practice appropriate hygiene. A major reason why this is true is that numerous genital secretions produce high levels of germicides which minimise enormously the chances of infection from heterosexual relations. On the other hand, no such secretions are produced for sodomy relations, which would be expected if heterosexual behaviour were designed and sodomy were not (meaning it is biologically wrong and God did not create us that way). Consequently, studies reveal that homosexual behaviour produces a rate of venereal disease 22 times higher than the national average. The major anatomical problems with sodomy (for example, tearing of mucosa) are generally not a problem in heterosexual relationships.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that all gays start to go into monogamous relationships (which is highly unlikely as statistics have shown) after their rights are recognised and they have the right to marry and get divorced. A number of problems will arise in a society due to this scenario in the years to come. Firstly, it is estimated that gays outnumber Lesbians in the ratio of four to one: i.e. for every four gays there is one lesbian. This means that millions of women all over the world will never find a partner for themselves. Secondly, in many societies the population growth will start to slow down and go into negative (which west is facing now because people are not willing to marry because of unfair divorce laws or have more than two children as more and more women are going into the workforce, and therefore, they are unable to take care of a lot of children, and hence many countries like Australia and Canada have relaxed their immigration laws so that their population can grow steadily and the skill shortages are minimised. Note that there are many other reasons why majority of western women are not having more than two children or why more and more couples are not marrying which is beyond the scope of this article). This will also result in an increase in ageing population (which is already the case in the west, but with the introduction of homosexual marriage laws this problem will get worse). Why is increasing ageing population a problem? To get a general idea please visit http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/study/ageing/docs/finalreport I do not want to discuss this here as this topic requires an article of its own.

Finally, gay argument is illogical and self destructive: if everyone becomes homosexual, then the human race will cease to exist in 150 years. If you argue that people can artificially inseminate and produce babies to keep the population going, then you have to realise that the population growth will be negative which will result in all sorts of problems (such as lack of skill shortages in many fields).

All in All, God did not design human beings to be homosexuals. It is a lifestyle which many adopt because of external factors. This confirms that revelation guides people in the right path and if humans turn away from it, they eventually learn it through their intelligence (but this learning comes at a much higher cost).