Editorial
The Morality of Gold
The Telegraph's Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is out with a notable article predicting the return of a gold standard "as the world order unravels." We notice he's careful not to write "new world order," though it's likely the Anglosphere power elites aim at creating one. It was featured at Drudge, LewRockwell.com and elsewhere.
Since 2008, we've been suggesting that the dollar reserve system is probably finished and in this article, Evans-Pritchard not only predicts its doom but also suggests that the new monetary order will include gold. We've been predicting this for years. We think that what the elites want to set up is a currency basket that includes gold and that will be utilized worldwide, a global currency in other words.
This global currency will accompany what the Anglosphere powers-that-be are building in terms of a global regulatory infrastructure – one world government – or as it has also been called, a new world order. Not that I'm in favor of that. What we've suggested is free banking, the availability of competitive currencies and the ability for people to make up their own minds about what currencies they want to use. Let the best money win.
It's good to see that libertarian-conservative Congressman Ron Paul has suggested the same strategy (competing currencies/money). He's taken the lead on these all-important issues. In fact, Ron Paul was in the news just the other day for questioning Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke about fiat money and why the Fed's various stimuli hadn't worked. Here's some of what he said:
You know, we hear that in the future, we are going to have a better economy and everybody hopes so. But it is hard for me to believe because I look back on the past three years and what Congress has done and what the Fed has done, we have literally injected about $5.3 trillion and I don't think we got very much for it. The national debt went up $5.1 trillion. Real GDP grew less than 1%. So I don't think we've gotten a whole lot.
Ron Paul also asked Bernanke about whether gold was money and Bernanke replied that it was not; though it was an asset. Why do people value gold? Tradition, he averred. Not so, Ben Bernanke! Actually, money metals are valuable because they are seen as fungible, rare, transportable and attractive among other characteristics.
Any hard-money economist knows. Baby Austrians know this. As Murray Rothbard wrote famously, gold (and silver) won the money-competition long ago. After thousands of years, salt, beads, rocks and copper wheels gave way to gold.
It's not tradition that makes gold valuable. It's history and a recognition of the inherent value in its discovering, mining, refining, etc. (And yes, value is NOT intrinsic but is merely what humans assign to goods and services at any given time, but history shows us that humans usually value gold as they do not value lesser stores of value.)
Ben Bernanke may not believe this, but his answer gave the impression that he did NOT KNOW IT. Once again, free-market economics clashes with Keynesian sophistry thanks to Ron Paul. It's the reason the mainstream media carefully keeps Austrian economists off the airwaves. Whenever they get on, they destroy the opposition. Truth, like a knife, cuts to the point and reveals the darkness beneath.
Bernanke will surely not live this down (among so many other things). He sounded foolish. This is nothing new. For several years, Fed officials have been sounding – and acting – foolishly. We even wrote an article about it two years ago entitled Beginning of the End – Fed Cannot Account for $9 Trillion.
The article was sparked by a confrontation between Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Orlando) and Fed Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman at a hearing having to do with some very basic questions about trillions of dollars on the Fed's expanded balance sheet; Coleman simply didn't know. She couldn't answer his questions. She writhed, grimaced, stumbled and several times asked Grayson to repeat what he'd asked. It was must have been horrible for the Fed's handlers to watch. We wrote the following then:
Just as the removal of Dan Rather was a watershed moment for the rising power of the Internet from a media standpoint, the confrontation between Grayson and Coleman will come to be seen (in our humble opinion) as a watershed moment ... By putting Coleman up in front of Congress in such an unprepared manner, the behind-the-scenes leaders of the Federal Reserve have provided an unimpeachable metaphor. Coleman's testimony punctured the veil of secrecy and her lack of preparedness lance whatever aura of competence Ben Bernanke and others have been able to conjure. Metaphors can NEVER be undone.
You can see the video here: Is Anyone Minding the Store at the Federal Reserve?.
Things have only grown worse for the Fed and Bernanke. Here's an even more important question that Ron Paul asked Bernanke the other day: Why the so-called stimulus money that went to banks around the world (trillions and trillions), when the crisis hit in 2008, could not have been offered to private individuals as well.
This is a crux point. Though it has not been made much of, this issue looms even larger than the incompetence the Fed has been exhibiting when grilled about fundamental free-market economics, or its own balance sheet. The issue is that this is the first crisis that has unfolded under the scrutiny of the Internet Reformation crowd.
In the 21st century Bernanke is no longer afforded the warm comfort of mainstream media protection, given that there are so many other sources of information. Thus, what has gotten through to many is that the Fed, unaccountably, lent perhaps tens of trillions to domestic and overseas financial institutions while Americans lose their homes, businesses and pensions.
This was the subtext of Ron Paul's question. It's one that has been rattling around deep in the nation's psyche for at least two years now, even before Congressman Paul voiced it. Bernanke, predictably, had no answer. He ducked the query by explaining that the Fed hadn't given the money away; it had loaned it out and received a good return on its lending.
That's not the point, as we suggested in an August 2009 article entitled, Have the Immoral Actions of Central Bankers Precipitated the Decline of the West? The story was sparked by an email from one Stewart Dougherty who writes for Market Oracle. We believed he grasped the heart of the matter then, most brilliantly.
The Fed, he wrote to us, and perhaps central banking in general, had seemingly signed its own death certificate when it allowed common knowledge of its disbursement of trillions around the world. Fed bankers have put a brave face on it, saying the money was necessary and that central banking had saved the day, but the damage was done. Here's how Dougherty analyzed it:
The Metastasis of Moral Hazard and its Effect on Gold ... There is accumulating evidence that the Washington – Wall Street moral hazard experiment has gone disastrously wrong, and that just like any other accidental discharge of a deadly virus, the moral hazard virus is now loose and swiftly propagating throughout society. By so blatantly colluding with Wall Street, Washington has lost all moral authority, and the people now have only one place to turn: themselves.
An ethic of, "If they can do it, so can I," is spreading, as people realize that fabric of American society has been shredded and replaced by a free-for-all mentality whereby everyone must fend for oneself in order to survive ... Homeowners evicted by foreclosure trash their homes in rage on the way out the door, with an estimated 50% of such dwellings damaged. Looters and squatters destroy many of the rest, stealing copper pipes, wiring, granite counter tops and anything else of value.
Here's how we responded once he had our attention:
Even though we have often commented on the faux spirituality that seems to surround central banking, we likely never hit on the point of raw IMMORALITY. (Didn't we? How could we have missed it?) The spectacle of central bankers reaching into their back pockets and pulling out trillions would surely fragment the world as we knew it – yes, we pointed out that plenty of times – but we likely never came out and presented the argument that these actions would inevitably destroy the MORAL fiber of society.
Oh, it likely seemed an obvious point, and somehow, somewhere we must have stated it in our own way, but Dougherty has hit the point hard. It is an intense intellectual endeavor. It is an award winning observation. Gold star to Dougherty and all that. (It is the highest endeavor in fact, in our humble opinion, this sort of commentary.)
You know, way back after the bad, old USSR fell, there were archly fashionable observations about the end of history. But Dougherty has written a REAL article of REAL observations about the end of Western civilization. Sheesh, we do this all day (and night) for a living and here comes Dougherty and he's written Spengler's Decline of the West in three darn pages.
Bernanke is no Alan Greenspan when it comes to playing the omniscient wise man. His voice tends to tremble when he is asked a hard question and, despite his beard, he comes off as kind of abashed. Greenspan was all angles and obfuscation; Bernanke is the not the right public face for the Fed at this juncture. (Thus we have decided not to offer him the part of Squealer in our upcoming adaptation of George Orwell's Animal Farm.)
But, perhaps there is nothing the Fed can do. Ron Paul expressed it well. More than the Fed's various inabilities to account for the TRILLIONS it prints and lends (or gives away), more than the lack of audits and reasonable book-keeping, more than the questions about how much gold there is or isn't in Fort Knox, the question that Ron Paul asked is the one that yet resonates in the public ear.
It's one Dougherty understood and that we comprehended when he drew our attention to it.
"When do I get mine?"
The Fabian-socialist economist John Maynard Keynes famously said not one man in a million could comprehend the workings of the central bank – so large is the lie that the money system is based upon. But Keynes's statement was pre-Internet.
The giveaway of the Fed's trillions and trillions has played out under the merciless spotlight of digital coverage. Thousands of bloggers and perhaps millions of articles have commented on these impossible figures. And gradually, around the world – and certainly in America – it has occurred to the jobless, homeless and hopeless that SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT. This is the question that Ben Bernanke could not answer.
Two years ago Dougherty understood this. What he didn't quite grasp (maybe he did) was that that the Internet itself was the ultimate complicating factor. Without the exposure of the 'Net, the professional obfuscators would have gone to work once again and Bernanke and the rest would have been lauded – not grilled.
But this is the era of the Internet Reformation. Bankers are being nailed to the wall like Martin Luther's theses. The great, grasping mechanism of mercantilist central banking has been exposed for all to see. The bottom line issue is one of fairness. Comity and civil society are at risk when people feel they are being taken advantage of at a fundamental level.
Societies that use some form of gold-as-money are apt to be fairer and healthier than fiat-money societies. The Chinese who have experienced eight ruinous bouts with fiat currency call it "flying money." Gold doesn't fly. In this sense, it has a morality as well as a utility. It is the antidote to Dougherty's moral hazard.
Editor's note: If you enjoyed the perspectives presented in this article, and are not yet receiving the Daily Bell newswire in your inbox each morning, take a moment and sign up to receive it. We are an advertising-free publication that is funded by the Foundation for the Advancement of Free-Market Thinking (FAFMT), among other sources. As such, our commitment is to bring you the most concise free-market analysis each day on events that are shaping the world around us – without anyone pulling our strings. Our email list is used ONLY for the purposes of sending you the Daily Bell. And we spent a lot of money ensuring the security of our servers – located in Switzerland – so that your information is protected. Get your FREE subscription started now – Subscribe to the Daily Bell.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by Peter Brock on 07/20/11 11:07 AM
I hesitate to get in the middle of this but I think the question you should ask to the comment "out of chaos order" is please elaborate on what the chaos will be and describe the order that will replace it and how the "elites" will specifically benefit.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Ha, this is fairly ambitious. We have trouble walking in a straight line.
 |
Posted by Summer on 07/19/11 05:41 PM
Thanks, DB!
Reply from The Daily Bell
You're welcome.
 |
Posted by Leonardo Pisano on 07/18/11 01:38 PM
"Seed for a new story?"
Thanks for your creative idea. I will add it to the list... Oh, had I more time! UNdemocracy is the first to do, I think. When I have twenty (five to go) I will make them available as a kindle eBook for a few cents.
|
Posted by OF on 07/18/11 05:42 AM
Ah, ok, granted, the comment is a bit incoherent. My question was - I try to follow and observe your theory of a well organized elite with clear agendas which are well planned and executed.
This is were I get confused.
Are these agendas supposed to be intelligent, workable manipulations? Because to me it seems they are not.
To me, the behavior of these elites seems to be all too human, riddled with selfishness, incompetence, confusion and self-destructive effects. Example CDSs on the solvency of countries.
And again, just yesterday, a Allianz boss talks about introducing an insurance against the default of countries.
And to me this sounds really stupid.
Right now, to my understanding, the whole delCredere of every tax-payer in the EU is basically assumed to be behind the Euro and it does not seem to help.
How can an elite insurer boss make such a suggestion? How is an insurance going to survive defaults of nations if the whole euro-zone can't handle it?
You say, out of chaos, new world order. How are these elites assuming that they will survive the kind of chaos they generated now, with the imminent danger of financial centers melting down?
How can they be sure to survive such a chaos?
Like, if all banks and insurances etc blow up and melt down, who are the real elites then?
No dissent about there being elites and that most of them have some agenda, but is it supposed to be an intelligent, viciously successful coherent agenda?
To me it looks like any stupid herd, making stupid collective mistakes and paying the price some day...
including the loss of the elite status and life as in Russia 1917...
Reply from The Daily Bell
Well, not to add too much to your confusion, OF, but we have speculated that the real purpose of what seems to you to be blind stupidity actually follows an agenda intended to sink the EU and ravage the world. Out of chaos ... order.
|
Posted by OF on 07/18/11 02:25 AM
What do you mean, What? Please tell me if you disagree or have a problem with the comment. What? is not very helpful...
Reply from The Daily Bell
"What?"
As in what are you talking about?
Explain your post in a few sentences and we shall respond.
 |
Posted by clark on 07/18/11 01:22 AM
@DB, Thanks for the reply.
|
Posted by Bluebird on 07/18/11 12:29 AM
You are too kind, elves. Bless your hearts. I was being snarky. I apologize. It comes from having 4 older sisters who have always acted like my opinion did not count. :-) I really have nothing valuable to add to this wonderful site, I just enjoy it.
I apologize, Summer. I was concerned for you. I feel your input is valuable and hope it can bridge some wrong thinking concerning Muslims. But I was concerned because any religion gets attacked whenever it is posted on these comment sites and people are not too favorable for Islam right now. I was trying to relay in the kindest way possible that many might skip the posts altogether if it felt like "preaching". And then it felt like you told me to butt out because it was a private conversation. We all butt in. :-)
|
Posted by Bluebird on 07/17/11 10:15 PM
That's cool. Unfortunately when you post on a public website, especailly 3 pages long, you invite other comments beside your intended convert, which appeared to be Mr. Wile. My mistake.
Reply from The Daily Bell
You both have valuable perspectives. And anyone is welcome to comment ...
|
Posted by Summer on 07/17/11 08:55 PM
@Bluebird, me and John, in my view, had an interesting conversation dealing with morality and societal structures that implemented them, whilst breaking the lies of Anglo-Islamic themes - highly relevant to the article and discussion today, in my view. Sorry to hear you didn't think so.
I read your posts on different topics with much interest and look forward to more :)
|
Posted by Summer on 07/17/11 08:42 PM
John,
Thanks for your considered response. I learn lessons from you too!
JD: 'Morality isn't defined, history gets written by the victor and then twisted into pretzels anyway, and religions are beyond my understanding'
I would respond to this by quoting a wise comment and agree with it wholeheartedly:
'The main point is that the truth is out there for those so inclined to learn it, no longer must they lose half a lifetime casting about for the truth. This is worth rejoicing. With some unity, some community of those who are inclined to learn the truth, the charlatans who live by stampeding the masses might sense that their lies might be eventually subject to ridicule by the Masses, and this would mean that the game is all but over for their ruse. That is the only thing they ever need fear.'
JD: 'and most of them claim a monopoly on morality.'
Probably true. Not with Islam as you know (I have elaborated on this), different paths of morality are valid.
JD: 'There are many ways of seeing the same thing from different perspectives, and there are many meandering paths of thought that can lead to the same conclusion.'
True many paths lead to enlightenment but the journey begins with acknowledging the importance of morality for ending the suffering of mankind. Amongst all the analysis and identification of contemporary 'problems', we now need to consider viable 'solutions'...
JD: 'As long as the end result is "Live And Let Live", it's fine by me.'
Agreed ;) Now, how best to live...
JD: "I always enjoy seeing your enlightened viewpoint."
Ditto :)
|
Posted by OF on 07/17/11 04:37 PM
Hello,
the "morality" aspect and the great moral hazard aspect in this article are excellent, I think.
I wonder, when we will start to hear about hold-ups in bullion stores....
Alluding to Reinhart and Rogoff, in terms of gold and silver, this time will be different.
This is why Greenspan bought up shares in gold mines privately. And he did not buy paper listed stocks anonymously, but became an actual partner of selected mines.
"Jews" are buying gold and silver way in excess of 5%-10% of portfolio (this is not supposed to be racist, but I think this is one of the surest signs of were we're heading, not because they are jewish, but because they are "talented" bankers)
I strongly believe that Soros sold only his paper gold to get bullion unnoticed - I dare bet.
I bet he made a big deal of his sales, so he could get bullion cheaper - didn't really work, because this time the whole world keeps buying bullion at any little pullback.
I believe gold and silver stocks are not catching up, because many mines will be confiscated, if fiat crashes.
Even by "nice" governments...
I think gold and silver may themselves become the great black fiat swan, if they move toward permanent backwardation.
Insider tipping or rumor was that JPM could get into real trouble as soon as silver reaches 50$. And lo and behold, at 50$ silver has a sudden correction. With a lot of help by changing the rules of the game midway.
A 50.000.- $ Persian carpet will buy only a cantaloupe.
Do not get irritated by people insinuating fear that gold and silver have no intrinsic value.
Nothing has intrinsic value, but a piece of bread. To buy dough, the baker will need money.
He will not begin to trade in Persian carpets, if there's gold and silver or a new paper money backed by gold and silver.
Gold and silver are hedges against deflation AND inflation. How come?
Because it is real money, in the best sense of the word.
This time, if any government tries to confiscate privately held gold and silver there will be instant revolution, I hope.
Because this time, people are in the know.
There need not be any further discussions, whether a currency ought to be backed by gold or not.
The global market is in the very midst of installing gold and silver as monies - again.
How can we tell? Because it has become futile to compare currency pairings to know value. You already have to check commodities to know where a currency stands.
Paper money is debt. Is obligation and liability. We are in a debt and solvency crisis.
I know things are complicated, but people who still try to talk down gold and silver begin sounding like people claiming boats will not help on water.
I think the big shakeout in gold and silver, like it could be seen 79ish already happened in 2008.
I fear we will not have another such opportunity to load up. It's become too obvious.
Will gold and silver crash after a grand fiat crash? I don't think so. I think distrust in anything paper will be so deep this time, there will have to be very firm legislation binding paper to gold and silver and even then it will take time for trust to return.
I come from the productive side of the economy. I study economics since 2007.
If we would construct and build things with an underlying "logic" like that of todays financial markets, no car would drive, no bridge would hold, no building would stand.
In my hole life, I have never heard so many dumb and irrational things, than what I keep hearing from so called economists and bankers of this world.
Take a CDS against a country, for instance. How can a banker seriously believe he will get the money, if everyone runs to the door at the same time? A default of a country is a 100% singular event.
Anyone issuing a CDS against Germany, for instance, would have to hold more than a trillion in reserves to be able to cover.
How can anyone feel safe with such an instrument?
It's very surprising to hear that "they" were supposedly surprised by the default of AIG. How come they were surprised?
I thought "they" were supposed to be really well organized and vicious.
To me, this sounds like "they" are dumb - unless "they" are not human and have a different agenda.
Maybe I'm wrong, but a CDS to me sounds like a life boat which blows up when needed.
The financial centers of the world are in danger of melting down. How is this helpful to the supposedly homogenous organized elite?
Won't their cut off heads decorate the city limits?
That's a real question for DB I have...
Greetings!
Reply from The Daily Bell
What?
|
Posted by John Danforth on 07/17/11 03:54 PM
Perhaps it could have been better phrased as 'several millions were aware that the the dollar reserve system was finished after 2007-8'.
A few people heard the warnings leaking out.
|
Posted by John Danforth on 07/17/11 03:49 PM
I think if we did as you suggested, we would have to have an Ounce Index, where you could look up and find out what the value of an Ounce is every day. That way you could get an exchange rate for Ounces to Grams, both of which are falling in value, but there could be a carry trade in it for speculators. Seed for a new story? Heh.
|
Posted by John Danforth on 07/17/11 03:46 PM
Summer,
Thanks for the history lesson. I deliberately pulled those phrases out of context to illustrate the difficulty of trying to persuade people to accept a morality mixed with history and religion. Morality isn't defined, history gets written by the victor and then twisted into pretzels anyway, and religions are beyond my understanding except for the observation that there are a lot of them and most of them claim a monopoly on morality.
There are many ways of seeing the same thing from different perspectives, and there are many meandering paths of thought that can lead to the same conclusion. As long as the end result is "Live And Let Live", it's fine by me.
I always enjoy seeing your enlightened viewpoint.
I'm glad you picked up on my little pun about the free world!
|
Posted by clark on 07/17/11 02:20 PM
The spot where there is a link, it should read, free markets don't exist. They never have. They never will.
|
Posted by clark on 07/17/11 02:17 PM
Sometimes I argue with a merchanitilist/protectionist.
I am getting tired of arguing with him/trying to reason with him, it often seems pointless, but his words and the words of People like him influence others and so it seems like they should be confronted, or at least countered,... perhaps?
Here is a sample of an outburst from a Wolf State supporter, the odd thing is, he's a big fan of gold, any advice on how to respond the next time this comes up?:
"Click to view linkee markets don't exist. They never have. They never will. They were a hypothetical idea in a man's mind (like marxism) that has never translated into reality as conceived because they do not account for the actions and character of individuals and nations; particularly in 21st century, post industrial America.
Free trade was a figment of Mises's imagination and that banner has been co-opted by the Globalists to become a mantra planted in the mind of the sheeple to make them believe... that somehow a free market is a freedom. It is not. It is a euphanism for the financial rape of America by the international gangster banksters.
All markets in society today are managed. All markets are managed. Formal trading between sovereign nations require agreements. These agreements are managed.
'Free Markets' haven't existed since the Dutch got the best of the Indians in a barter. It wasn't really a 'marketplace'. It was an individual trade."
Reply from The Daily Bell
It is a logical fallacy to suggest that because free markets do not entirely exist they never have. As for their utility: The US became a great power because of free markets; in the current Age of Regulatory Democracy is has lapsed into despair and corruption. Free markets work. They lift all boats. The freer the better. Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.
|
Posted by Bluebird on 07/17/11 01:08 PM
@ Summer,
Most people who care already know that Islam is being used as a target by the PE to stir people up and make them think we are being attacked by them. Those who will never be convinced otherwise will only see the things John pointed out. As for myself, I would be more influenced by seeing your sweet spirit to know you are not my enemy than reading long posts of Islam history which featured conquests. As with Christianity, you cannot force it upon an unwilling listener. You can use your religion to point out certain aspects such as saying that "evil is running amuck because people have moved away from religion" without too much objections. Or saying "this is happening because..." to give people something to think about. I usually enjoy your posts and enjoy hearing small comments about your different religious views and lifestyles mixed in with your comments about the articles. I would not be commenting if I did not care about you. Stay with us, okay? :-)
 |
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 07/17/11 12:48 PM
@DB
"Several millions have suggested the dollar reserve system was finished after 2007-8?"
Well, not right away :) It took a few years. You guys probably said it first.
|
Posted by onebornfreeatyahoo on 07/17/11 12:03 PM
Two points:
[1] DB said: "Since 2008, we've been suggesting that the dollar reserve system is probably finished "
Financial Safety Rule #1 says: "despite many claims to the contrary, no one, not even your favorite economist or investment advisor, can reliably, and consistently, predict future economic events."
See: Click to view link
[2] DB said: "The Morality of Gold" .
Speaking for myself, ascribing a morality to an inanimate object [a precious metal] would seem a tad unhealthy , psychologically speaking.
Not to worry Anthony, FREE help is at hand!: Click to view link
Regards, onebornfree.
|
Posted by Summer on 07/17/11 10:04 AM
Hi John, thanks for the 'selective' summary! Well, I'm glad you brought this up. Unfortunately many facts about Islam and how it spread are distorted - purposefully. The whole convert or die, spread by the sword stuff. The opportunity to address this is important.
What I was proposing was to look at a spiritual and societal framework built upon justice and morality, under Islam's 'rightly guided' period - the Holy Prophet's era continuing to the Rashidin Caliphate - The attractive nature of the plural legal systems that operated, freedom of conscience, economic equity and moral aspiration for the people (the majority of Muslims- Sunni believe this to be the era where Islam was properly implemented). Many 'facts' about this period have been distorted by Western Orientalists - they too, as other empires, feared what the truth of Islam would reveal - an alternative to mass exploitation and their warped conception of 'civilisation'.
I would endorse this mainstream, BBC documentary - beginnings of Islam - not through conquest! I found it excellent and true to history! Click to view link
Islam does not advocate Islamic rule for 'non- Muslim' countries. Or even for Muslim countries where the religion is not truly practiced/ or wanted as 'rule' - to a great extent. In my view, Islamic principles hold wisdom and a framework that could operate in a truly secular environment/plural legal system as it did in Islamic periods. What I propose is a movement to the return of morality, which is the stepping stone to whatever 'code' of morality people wish to accept - a step away from corruption.
Conquests!
Actually, Muslims were weak, persecuted and repeatedly attacked. During, Holy Prophet's era and the 'rightly guided' period, wars were only ever defensive. Islam was seen as a threat by surrounding peoples who repeatedly attacked. Astonishingly, weak, ill-armed Muslims won these battles. Obviously, they consequently won territory, but that was a result of defending themselves - ceding territory to those who would make war upon you would not be practicable or wise. 'Ruling' was, in fact, an imposition and a burden upon Muslim defenders, which they did not seek but discharged admirably. On one occasion, the Muslim forces could not hold a territory so they returned all tax/Jizya to non-Muslim inhabitants. Amazingly, there was never any policy that forced non-Muslims to convert, nor did they receive unjust treatment. In fact, people were grateful for being under the equity of Muslim rule; being impressed - many voluntarily accepted Islam, as a better way of life.
Islam up until the 'rightly guided' period sought to invite people to an honourable existence, not to win territory. However, the two super-powers of the time - The Eastern Roman Empire and the Persian Empire, were threatened by Islam, not wanting their own power and influence to diminish. Thus Muslims were attacked and remarkably, against all the odds, they won.
JD: 'the allowance should be graded according to one's merit with reference to Islam
placing some above others
compile a list of persons in nearness to Muhammad (who get more loot)'
The reasons for this are quite straightforward. The most brave and most loyal Muslims fought and made unbelievable sacrifices at the time when Muslims were extremely weak. As it was Islamic rule, obviously, the prosperity and benefits of the way of life were rightly felt to be as a result of the sacrifices, of those closest to the Holy Prophet; who gave up so much for the sake of their faith and an equitable way of life. Islam means peace, the implication being peace among those who may not agree. Respecting all, whilst PROMOTING morality - live and let live.
JD: 'There. Shortened it for ya. Not sure how well it will sell in the free world. Who should we conquer first?'
As I have stated it was never about conquest up until the end of 'rightly guided' period. After this, although the Islamic Empire was, by far, much more 'just' than others, there was a deviation away from those Islamic principles of the 'rightly guided' period. Conquest set in - they were political wars. Did Isabella and Ferdinand represent Christianity? No. Please apply the same rational to Islam.
There is obviously an agenda against Islam. Why, is the question?
By the way, what is 'the free world'?
Islam spread by the sword after the 'rightly guided' period?
Click to view link
Is Islam responsible for war in the name of Islam?
Click to view link
An Islamic perspective on morality, politics and Thomas Jefferson:
Click to view link
Women
Islam, over 1400 years ago, gave women the right to divorce, the right to own property (seen in the West only recently), the right to a duty owed by a husband to 'provide', Islam declared: 'heaven lies beneath the feet of your mother' - this was radical, as women were treated like animals before Islam. Women had dignity and honour, they dressed modestly - they were protected from opportunistic men. Islam declared 'the best among you is he who treats his wife best'.
Wealth
The Holy Prophet married a wealthy widow, Khadija - she loved him and gave him all her wealth, what did he do with it? He gave it ALL away to feed the poor, while often he starved.
Justice
Once in a defensive battle against the non-believers a Muslim was about to overcome his attacker when the attacker suddenly declared La ilah ilallah (there is no God but Allah) - that he was now a Muslim; he was killed anyway, as it was thought this was a tactical ploy. When the Holy Prophet found out, he was so upset by this that he told the Muslim, could you see into his heart? He repeated this several times, the Muslim said he had never seen the Holy Prophet so upset, and that he felt so terrible that he wished he had not accepted Islam until after that day.
If someone leaves Islam it's their choice: 'there is no compulsion in religion'.
Humanity
To value all human beings: 'every man is a universe'.
That Ahle-Kitaab (People of the Book - Jews and Christians) are believers in the same God - this was unity! Is this a religion about conquest or morality?!
Anyone who diverges from this cannot diminish the true original.
If anyone is interested in a study (a book) of the truth of Islamic history not from Western Orientalists, please read here:
Click to view link
|
|
