Note: We’ve been having on/off problems with the blog recently.  Wordpress has been a little unfriendly. Anyone know if Movable Type is more stable? This post is 2 days late. Please read this post by Craig Murrey for good Q&A on the conflict.

Beginnings of a new cold war? How about talk of a World War III? Most people I’ve talked to about the current conflict in the Caucasus seem nonplussed about it all, vainly hoping that the dust has settled on the matter, thus allowing them to leave their brains at home, maybe in a jar….resting beside their body on a comfy sofa, watching in an amused stupor the end festivities of the Olympics.

Shame really. Though politics can be complex, and political thinking itself is highly demanding, it should be the hallmark of an elevated Ummah. And I mean Ummah here, not just individuals. Special individuals will always exist in the Ummah. But the realm of political thinking should be shared not just by individuals, but also by groups, and indeed the state itself.

Remember that the Ottoman Caliphate was not destroyed by military actions, but primarily though political means. The Europeans did not fire a single shot, before they had already fractured the political sanctity of the state via the establishment of the Young Turks and various other entities built on dividing the state along nationalistic lines. The political naivety of the Ottomans also lead them to supporting the Germans in WWI, which ended in disaster for the Muslims. How else would the French General Henri Gouroud even have the gall to kick the great Salahuddin Ayubi’s grave and leave us with this acrimonious statement “The Crusades have ended now! Awake Saladin, we have returned! My presence here consecrates the victory of the Cross over the Crescent.”?

Where politics is the looking after the affairs of the people, and political thinking is the adjudication of events that affects the affairs of the people, then in my personal view, we should be seriously bothered about the events in the Caucasus. In the context of the Muslim Ummah, let me try to elaborate with some simple viewpoints.

Gaining the Political High Ground

Public opinion isn’t a done deal. Governments and media are constantly assuaging the masses with a constant concoction of lies and weak facts. Pax Americana has been playing the world like a giant monopoly board, but then along came the Russians, who like to play the game of chess. In return, the US have lost out on the political high ground.

Constant talk by US and European politicians of protecting ‘Georgia’s territorial integrety’ and Russia acting like its in the 19th century have rung hollow with the Russians. The Russians have succeeded because the West built the political basis for invading other nations. It tooks years of engendering an international opinion that ‘pre-emptive strikes’ and the ‘war on terror’ are needed. The West then set the stage with the disentegration of the Balkans, and the outright destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Russians have handily now decided to follow the same script.

I’m not saying that the Russians have done a total coup de grâce on the West. Astute observers would recognise that the independence given to Abkhazia and South Ossetia hasn’t been afforded to Chechnya or Dagastan. In fact Europe, the US and Russia are no better than each other. However, in the least, recent events illustrate that it is easy to break the political dominance of one set of ideas over the other. In saying this, I would hope that alarm bells would be ringing the minds of the Muslim masses, that its time for them to start shaping the politics of the world. Political thinking about this crisis would go along way in healing the political sclerosis that has set in with the Ummah.

Ceasing to be Minor States

Implicit in the news that we have been hearing is that this isn’t a conflict between Russia and the Georgians, but between Russia and the US. Commentators are all the rage about the new Russia: flush with petro-roubles and vexed about NATO encirclement. Nor is there any shortage of play with the words ‘Russian bear’. Some commentators are even excitedly discussing a new Monroe Doctrine for the US, like it wasn’t obvious that the US now views the whole world as its ’sphere of influence’.

Isn’t it sad though to note what the Georgians are feeling like right now? That their country is just a big target board for Russian and NATO artillery. That the West only really loves them because of the nice oil and gas pipelines that travel through their idyllic hinterland. That they have a ruler who is admired by the US for clearly being its stooge.

If you feel sad for the Georgians, then you recognise the definition of being a minor state. Minor because you can only hold a semblance of sovereignty before a major state trumps its sovereignty over you. Hold your thoughts now, and start drawing parallels with the 50+ Muslims states that litter the global map. Is is it hard not to be cognizant of the similarities in our own minor states?

A single ruler that is unifying his lands once more, reinvigorating religion, battling corruption, using the vast resources at his disposal to the benefit of his people, strengthening his armies and making clear that his nation will not tolerate any bullying. Ahh, so you thought I was talking about a Khaleefah. No, thats just Putin. I have no love for Putin, and he is no example for us, may Allah azza wa jal curse him. But surely there is a lesson in it for us?

Allah knows best.

This title must look funny on this website, as we all know that gender equality is a cry only monopolised by the capitalist states, who are the stalwart advocates for it. Though looking a bit of an oxymoron on this Islamic website there are a few tales about this idiom I would like to explore and more importantly to highlight the progress the capitalist nations have made in etching this concept as one of the “Universal truths”, assuming such a term exists in their vocabulary!

Not to bore you with the past, but before the West had its so-called enlightenment, women were considered inferior to men. There are some poignant accounts narrated from the annals of history regarding the status of women and how limited their lives used to be. Just to remind you all that only in the last few centuries women had to move heaven and earth to get their simple right to vote (Suffrage Movement). There is still after all these years gender inequality, where reports and statistics show men earning more than women in the same job, women suffering sexual harassment, bullying, sacking due to wanting to start a family etc., and the list of reasons go on.

So what has come of these revolutionary rights in Western Countries? These are some of my observations:

- Women have become more sexualised and objectified in the 21st century. The media machinery has used countless women to sell products and services, whether it is a sports car, chocolates, properties, even women themselves i.e. dating lines. The pornography industry in the US and Europe is actually a significant contributor to GDP!

- Women having to be torn between when to start a family and how much time to give to their career. Women who choose to be a wife and a mother are looked down upon due to their lack of commercial productivity for society and thus are seen as a burden on society. Society on the other hand does not allow you to survive unless both parents are working therefore affecting the raising of their children.

- Women have been increasingly sexually harassed on the streets, raped, had violence committed against them and take the burden of making the decision to have abortions due to unfaithful or incompetent male partners.
There has been an massive increase in the incidence of single mothers, where they have to rely on their own meagre income or on state benefits to support their family. Yes, I can see there being a lack of role model for children especially if they potentially have three dads!

- Being dictated to by male fashion designers about how to look good and successful.  Stilettos, skirts and a low cut top always raises a few eyebrows as well as the potential to earn more money.  The myth propagated about what beauty truly is in this society has lead to an exponential rise in eating disorders and cosmetic surgery amongst women.

So is the call for gender equality really achieving its goal? Cambridge University, the prestigious institution for learning and research conducted a survey showing that support for gender equality appears to be declining across Britain and America amid concern that women who play a full role in the workforce do so at the expense of family life.

Well folks, this was inevitable. If we simply look at man and woman, they have different strengths and weaknesses.  Their abilities and nature are different.  Even based on their physical characteristics, one obvious example is that women can give birth to next generation of human beings.  I believe that it is no accident that in many cultures, women are the carers whereas men are the family breadwinner.

I ask the question: Why is there an emphasis on a woman needing to simultaneously work and raise children?  Why does the woman have to dress in a certain style and walk awkwardly and most likely uncomfortably to be recognised as a successful and a professional person?  Why does a woman have to resort to carrying out an abortion because of a perceived mistake committed by her or partner(s)?  Why does the woman have to bare the responsibility of being the “do it all” woman as opposed to “have it all”?

The answer is that the capitalist way of life fails to give guidelines for the duty of men and women in society or in fact at home.  That is why you have a mirage of roles, rights, responsibilities and commitment and not a clear definitive instruction, except for a few stray comments by politicians who nobody believes.  The fundamental cause of gender inequality in society is the idea that the pursuit of wealth is the primary purpose of a human being, and that the purpose of society is to free humans to this end. Predictably, you will see a decline in the population due to the inherent instability in the personal lives of individuals and couples.  Now do you wonder why Eastern Europeans are coming to this country?

In Islam we are not subjected to terms such as “gender equality” or “women’s rights”, “Mother’s Day”, “Father’s Day” or other such notions.  Our duties as men and women, husband and wife, father and mother, employer and employee, ruler and citizen are defined and held together by our belief in God. Islamic duties can be considered as objectives to be achieved for the tranquility, balance and productivity of society, whereas capitalist society often propagates the false dichotomy of either “Gender Equality” or “Gender Roles”.  Thus, if a society was built on the Islamic basis you would see the so-called “ideals” of gender equality and the secular notion of “Women’s Rights” discarded into the dustbins of history.

Men and women in Islam evaluate themselves on the basis of their taqwa (obedience to Allah), for this is the standard by which our Creator evaluates the human being and the basis upon which He (swt) elevates one individual over another.

“For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for truthful men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in God’s praise, for them has God prepared forgiveness and a great reward.” [TMQ Al-Ahzab: 35]

I know many of us have been caught flatfooted regarding the latest events in Georgia. For one thing, I’ve always had trouble spelling ‘Caucasus’ and Abkhazia sounds like it was a name made up for the next installment of Call of Duty. Whilst I am also sure there are many around who had originally thought that the Russians actually attacked an American State.

Though as irrelevant as it may all sound, the drum roll for a new cold war has begun.

My advice is to not look at the events in isolation, but as a study of how nations fulfill their interests. Where US interests dictate that the world is their giant Monopoly board. So they buy up all the land, cram in the hotels and military bases; punitively punishing  everyone or leaving them languishing in jail, with no spare cards left to resist.

This is the US that took advantage of the paralysed Bear, dotting its back yard with various colour-coded revolutions. It has pushed for missile interceptors to be place in the Czech Republic and Poland, and imaginatively wanted us to believe that Iran had its eyes on Eastern Europe. All the while the Russians have looked askance. Then came the independence of Kosovo, which to many was the straw that branded the Russian’s back.

The Russians meanwhile have always played Chess, and they are damn good at it. Without a war to name for it, they played head to head with the British in the 19th century fight for Central Asia and India in the ‘Great Game’. Neither can the 20th century be ignored for the great upheavals seen between Capitalism and Communism. The 21st century likewise displays a new Russia. It may have lost the ideological drive that Communism once made it strive for, but it still remains a power that is determined to protect its sphere of influence.

Noting the idea of ’sphere of influence’ is paramount to understanding Russia. Ever since Tamerlane and his Golden Horde decimated what was then Russia, the Russians have been paranoid about protecting their boundaries and what goes on around their boundaries. Georgia is no minor state in this context. Georgia is the birth place for Joseph Stalin whose father was Ossetian. In Soviet times, Georgia was the top holiday destination for high ranking apparatchik. Georgia IS a part of Russia’s territorial integrity.

This is all I can say about the matter for the time being. I have several views withstanding:

• The whole issue may have been engineered by the US to test the Russians for what is an inevitable clash.
• The US have quite plainly blundered.
• The Russians have begun plans for something greater (Iran and the Middle East).
• There is a plan to weaken Europe by distracting it’s foreign policy efforts to the Caucasus.

Allah knows best.

For too long, we have had an Islam which has its roots in a book that was written 1,400 years ago in a hot, violent place in the middle of nowhere with too many camels.  Seriously, most of us haven’t been there, don’t know anyone from there, and feel more at home in a “two piece chicken and chips” take-away restaurant than we would in the Middle East.

We might have been forced to read their alphabet as young children, but the vast majority of us don’t know more than a few words in Arabic.  We just throw in a little “Al-Hamdulillah” in conversation amongst other Muslims so that we can “be Islamic”.

Isn’t it about time to change?  We aren’t Arabs, and the people we live with don’t like our choice of clothing, our convoluted names or our insistence on only eating animals that have been bled to death by some hairy bloke with a big knife.

This “problem” couldn’t have been better expressed than by the City Circle, who have today held an event launching “The Muslim Marriage Contract”, which gives new rights to married couples.  As reported by the Telegraph:

The husband has to agree not to:

• abuse his wife/child(ren) verbally, emotionally, physically, or sexually
• be absent from the marital home for more than 60 days unless by agreement
• withhold money towards his wife/family
• transmit disease
• interfere with the wife’s property

The husband must provide accommodation outside his existing family home, and he “must delegate the power of divorce to his new bride”. She also doesn’t need her parents (wali) involvement in the marriage, and the witnesses to the marriage need not be Muslims - anyone will do.

Aww, so sweet! Not only have the authors of this contact inherently decided that Muslim men cannot be trusted, they’ve also decided that Islam isn’t good enough for them.  The “default” marriage contract - the nikah - seemingly needs additional provisos and conditions added to it; those provided by Islam aren’t enough.

Amusingly, this is being described as “equality”, but even with these new changes, the woman isn’t expected to provide financial support to her family; that’s the man’s problem.

The usual slew of MPs and feminists have crawled out to say how they support these wonderful revisions to Islam.  However, the best part is that this contract wasn’t the product of a drunken night, but took four years to compile.  After four years, they have produced something that tarnishes the Muslim man, and doesn’t for even one second address the underlying problems in some marriages.  I mean, seriously, who is going to be “nice” just because some contract says so? Does that work for non-Muslims?!  All that stuff about “loving, honouring, richer, poorer” still leads to a lot of battered women and broken homes.  This doesn’t solve anything, it just makes us look pathetic.

We do have good and bad marriages amongst Muslims, but basing a marriage on Islam, i.e. actually practicing what was proclaimed by the prophet Muhammad (saw) is the ONLY solution for a successful productive Muslim marriage.

So there it is: these people have decided that our Islam has been too Qur’anic, and our methodology based too much upon the sunnah of the prophet Muhammad (saw).  They want to add in a little of their own spices to make it taste better.  Yummy.

Since I’m waiting for some of the other contributors of this blog to add something serious, I thought I might write about something lighter hearted. Anyways its darned hot now in London, and I can’t get to sleep.

So what did I just do? I went to the local 24hr Tesco’s to do some late night shopping. Without boring you about my bachelor pad grocery list, let me skip right to the end of my trip - to the bit where I walk out of the supermarket looking at my receipt. And, What!! No Way!!! Wait, did I just spend half the bill only on toiletries???

And  this comes all the way to a few months back, when someone commented about me being a Muslim Metrosexual. I really didn’t know what it meant, so I was about to give the brother some good naseeha pounding. But the brother having telepathic abilities pre-empted me by saying “Nah, nah bro. I’m not calling you gay. Alhamdulillah you’re far from it. Just saying thats what they say for guys who like to look after themselves.”

Naturally, I did the Google job, and found this.

On the balance of it, I don’t believe I fit the definition of being metrosexual. I’m not self-obsessed about the way I look, I don’t suffer from sequential bouts of vanity crises, nor am I narcissistic. I make dua that Allah azza wa jal protects me from such flaws. Also, I’m not a fashionista, I hate Russell Brand (well, who doesn’t) and above all, I don’t own a full length mirror.

On the other hand. I do have some peculiar issues (not according to me though). I buy stuff from Jo Malone (top stuff, but I keep this secret from brothers). As well as Molton Brown and Lush creams. I go to stylists not barbers. I also go to men’s aftershave websites, to get them to send me free samples.

So who am I? Well I’m single. But no, I didn’t hang around Islam Expo wearing a tight fitting t-shirt trying to eye up the sisters (well, in fact I don’t even go to such places because of the segregation issues). I’m actually a pretty quiet and sombre person. I prefer to spend a lot of time alone just reading my books. And if you really knew me, you would probably call me an extremist (only because we live in times where Islam is strange).

I guess I’ll put it down to the crushing psyche of the western beauty myth that prevails around us. Mix in clever marketing material, and I’m a sucker. I live in London to make it worse. BUT, I still have a barrier up. I look to what I should do from the commands of our Lord. Personal hygiene and good grooming is also the sunnah of our beloved Prophet salAllahu ‘alayhim wa-salaam. I ask of the brothers who know me, not to make remarks about the contents of my bathroom cabinet, but to keep a close watch on my behaviour.

Narrated by Abu Dawud, on the authority of Abu Hurayrah:

“A man who was beautiful came to the Prophet (saws). He said: Apostle of Allah, I am a man who likes beauty, and I have been given some of it, as you see. And I do not like that anyone excels me (in respect of beauty). Perhaps he said: “even to the extent of thong of my sandal (shirak na’li)”, or he said: “to the extent of strap of my sandal (shis’i na’li)”. Is it pride? He replied: No, pride is disdaining what is true and despising people.”

Part 1 can be found here

In this post Insha’Allah, I’ll be having a brief look at the concept of currencies, and the history of money. This is still just a preliminary glimpse into the whole subject field.

****

Earlier this week Zimbabwe announced their latest note, which has a face value of 100 Billion dollars. One could be forgiven for thinking that the Zimbabweans must be revelling in ultra luxury which such high value dosh. How many football clubs would you like to buy for a 100 Billion dollars? A couple of Chloe handbags maybe? Possibly be your very own Bruce Wayne? Nah, in Zimbabwean currency, 100 Billion dollars is not even enough to buy three eggs!

Officially inflation in Zimbabwe is supposed to be running at 2.2 million per cent, realistically though this number is grossly underestimated, a more accurate number pitches inflation at 15 million per cent. Money is devaluing so fast, that the printing presses can’t keep up. In January, a 10 million dollar note was issued, then a 50 million dollar note in April. In May, notes for 100 million and 250 million dollars were issued, swiftly followed by those for 5 billion, 25 billion and 50 billion.

The apoplectic nightmare that Zimbabwe is facing is a singularly effective demonstration in today’s age of what a fiat currency represents. In a fiat money system, money is not backed up by any form of commodities, instead it’s relative scarcity is through the faith that people entrust in it. It only exists because the government declares it exists. Fiat money truly is Monopoly money made valuable through the political will of the government. Whereas the US dollar may be backed up the the full faith and credit of the mighty US government, the Zimbabweans fare a little worse off, especially with Mugabe at the helm.

But if you won’t trust a dictator with a free printing pass, is there really any government that you can trust? Ron Paul answers this pretty succinctly:

“History has shown that fiat money, or “faith-based currency”, always fails. Because when governments claim this power, they always behave irresponsibly.

Government now has the ability to create and spend all the money it wants. So priorities shift, and the concept of budgeting – as most people know it – loses all meaning. Hand a teenager a credit card, and tell him there is no limit and no accountability for what he spends, and the effect would be the same.

This problem is not unique to our government. It is a predictable outcome based on human nature, and we’ve seen variations of what we are experiencing now happen time and again throughout history. I didn’t have a crystal ball or a fortune teller when I predicted this three, seven or even thirty years ago. Actions have logical consequences. The government becomes the reckless teenager with the credit card, and in the end, the taxpaying citizens get the bill. What happens after that is never pretty.”

A bit like Peaches Geldof with her rich daddy’s credit card…

So was this always the situation with money? Have governments for millennia always been printing money? Are the cycles of increased inflation, stagflation and hyper-inflation a monetary phenomenon witnessed by all past and present human societies?

Fortunately not. To explain though, let us look at the roots of how money originally came about.

True wealth is determined by the goods that we own i.e. our houses, cars, furniture, clothes etc. In early societies the same held true. A carpenter would produce goods, so would the farmer, builder, fisherman etc. They would trade their goods with each other according to their needs. But often the direct bartering of goods would be cumbersome and inefficient. The farmer pays the carpenter in sacks of potatoes, but he can only do so at the time of harvest. He can’t store potatoes for long, so with what does he pay the carpenter for the rest of the year?

Eventually, a resolution to the problem forms as money - a medium for exchange - is developed. Early records of money show that objects such as cowrie shells, slabs of salt, pebbles and horseshoes were used as simple forms of currency. More recent examples can be found in school playgrounds. Children not having much form of real cash (well not in my area anyway), begin to transpose the primitive forms of functioning societies, when using collecting cards as money. I noted this with my little sister and her friends, who could use Pokeman cards to buy sweets and games. The Pokeman card was only a valid form of currency in the playground, since the schoolyard society acknowledged, accepted, and assigned it as a form of currency. Outside of school, try as she might, I could not be convinced of accepting some Bulbasaur Pokeman cards in lieu payment for a brand new DS Lite.

The development of money, or indirect exchange, was a quantum leap for human societies. It enhanced our ability to generate capital, engage in specialization and trade, form contracts of joint ownership or obligation, particularly with strangers. But early forms of money still had their issues. Particulary, the easy forms of manipulation and debasement. If horseshoes were used as money, then the skilled ironsmith could in essence create money, become rich, but consequently devalue the use of the currency. The same would apply to the use of Pokeman cards as currency, the event of an externality, i.e. a generous older brother providing a huge gift of cards to his little sister, would particularly affect the balance of money supply in the playground - children would quickly realise that the cards have lost the value of scarcity, and then switch to alternative forms of money……like Yu-Gi-Oh cards (I don’t have a clue what kids use these days).

It was through this slow, but organic process, whereby humans began to discover more incorruptible forms of money. Thus gold came into use.  Gold is a particularly useless metal, too soft to be used in metalworks. However, its relative scarcity, high density, ability to be cut easily into smaller weights, resistance to corrosion and natural attractiveness subsequently made it the de-facto standard for money around the world. The same, though to a lesser extent, also applies to silver.

The great Ibn Khaldun expounds on this in his Al-Muqaddimah:

And Allah created the precious metals, gold and silver, to serve as the measure of value of all commodities. They are also generally used by men as a store or treasure.  For although other goods are sometimes stored it is only with the intention of acquiring gold or silver. For other goods are subject to the fluctuations of the market, from which they [gold and silver] are immune.

As such, the use of gold and silver as money was the case from the era of the Romans and Greeks, the illustrious period of Islamic rule, all the way until the middle part of the 20th Century. Governments were kept in check, strictly limiting their revenues to that which they could raise from the country’s wealth.

The case of Zimbabwe is just a forerunner to all nations that adopt the fiat standard, as opposed to the true benchmarks for money - gold and silver.