American or Muslim: What is my Identity?

American or Muslim: What is my Identity?

The Muslim identity is unique

The Shield

Vol. 1, No. 4


Muslims, especially our young ones,
find themselves forced into a dilemma as to
what is their identity? Although, the issue is
clear according to Islaam, for political and
assimilation reasons it has become somewhat
blurred and troublesome for some.
While many Muslims celebrate a
Muslim being elected into congress in
Minnesota, putting aside the issue of ruling
with other than what Allah has revealed,
bullets and bombs continue to fall on many
parts of the Muslim world while at the same
time our Deen is ideologically attacked.
Being an American goes well beyond
simply being born in America or carrying its
citizenship. America has a cultural heritage
as a nation based primarily on British and
European culture.
This culture separated itself from God
(separation of church and state), and based
its creed on the ideals of freedom,
individuality and man made reasoning,
hence the ideology of democracy and
capitalism. To be an American, means to
accept these values and visions to a degree,
even if you did not choose to do so.
The value of individuality and freedom
leads to selfishness, greed, family and
community abandonment which at it
extremes can lead to depression and even
suicide and a host of other problems. In fact,
according to sociologist Eric Klinenberg,
many elderly people died in their homes
during Chicago’s 1995 heat wave because
they did not want to burden family members
and others to care for them.
It is not just the elderly that take on this
American creed, but many sons and
daughters neglected their mothers and fathers
as well. In other words, it was reciprocal. It
must be made clear here that it is the
American ideology of democracy and
capitalism that breeds social problems and
destroys families and communities, and
allows some to prosper while others suffer.
This ultimately leads to the hell fire by going
against what Allah has ordered one to do.
Being a Muslim or embracing the
Islaamic creed contradicts the American
ideology of freedom/democracy/capitalism.
There is no separation in our belief in Allah
and our daily lives while we live here in
America or elsewhere. Prophet Muhammad
(saw) said:

“Whoever goes to sleep, and
wakes up, without being concerned
for the affairs of the Ummah, then
he is not one of us”

The identity of a Muslim is a serious matter.
This identity will save our skins on the Day
of Judgment. Our creed, and thus values and
sentiments, are unique. We do something
that is good, not because America sponsors
it, or because it is trendy, we do things as
Muslims because Allah demands and wants
us to with the view of either the Nar (hellfire)
or Jennah (bliss) in mind once this life as
ended. Because our creed is unique, there
is no need to preface or mix our identity with
that which takes away from its purity.
Simply put, we are Muslims.
Some of us were born and even
converted in America, but once we embrace
the Islaamic creed, then our identity as
Muslims supersedes all other identities, and
this is what is appealing to the potential
convert. We should reflect values and
sentiments that pull people out of jahiliyyah
(Ignorance) into Islaam. The Muslim
identity makes us witnesses for justice, and
moves us beyond racial identity, patriotism,
sexism, individuality, democracy, and
capitalism.

The push to assimilate young Muslims
into the American society has a political
and dangerous motive. A Muslim must not
take on values and sentiments which are
responsible for the many social problems
we find here in the West. How can we call
others to Islaam, if we are no better than
them? Do we want our children to grow up
and become thugs, pimps, whores, or lost
in the American values of individuality to
the point where they no longer respect or
care for us? No, of course we do not. Our
identity is with Islaam and what Allah wants
for us.

‘‘Who is better in speech than
one Who calls (men) to Allah,
works righteousness, and says, “I
am of those Who bow in islam”?
Qur’an 41:33

Are Muslims Safe In America?

Are Muslims Safe In America?


The Shield
In the Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Most Merciful
Vol. 1, No. 1



Everywhere in the world to day,
Muslims are under fire. If we are
not being physically fought against,
we are being fought ideologically. All it
takes for the average Muslim to realize
this is to read the local newspaper or
read the news on the internet or watch
the the news on TV, and you get the
feeling internationally that Islam (Deen/
Way of Life) and Muslims are under attack.
Every day we hear or read that
Muslims in Iraq are being killed, but this
is not the only place. Muslims are being
killed in the Philippines, China, India,
Chechnya, Sudan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many
other places under the justification that
these are the “terrorist” or “militants”
that want to harm the so-called free
world which in reality is ran by the
Western powers. Calling people terrorist
who are fighting their oppressors or
demanding their right to live as human
beings is ludicrous.

If non-Muslims (kuffar) and the
so-called Muslims rulers who are the
real enemies of Islam are not physically
killing or bombing Muslims,
they are tormenting and torturing
them. For example, in Uzbekistan,
Iraq, Egypt, Turkey, and many other
parts of the Muslim world, Muslims
are put in prisons by unjust tyrants
who inflict pain, rape, burn, beat and
use other forms of torture.
If this is not enough for the Muslims
in America and the West to feel
that Muslims are under attack then they
need to look at their own condition and
the way they are being treated under
Western rule. If you don’t think this is
the case, try taking a trip on the airlines,
or getting an unrestricted passport.
Muslims are being fired from their jobs,
or not being hired, and even locked up
just because they are Muslims.
If a Muslim or anyone for that matter
who donates money to help improve
the conditions of Muslims or find it
reprehensible for the unjustified attacks
by the Israelis on Palestinians, they are
arrested or their tenure in America revoked
or placed on a “watch” list and
harassed if they speak out against the
wrong done to Muslims. Donated funds
are seized illegally by the government,
and in some cases the one in charge of
such funds become suspect of aiding
terrorist or of being a terrorist.

Muslims in the West have another
battle to fight, which is ideological in
nature. We have to confront attempts
to secularize our Deen (Way of Life)
in an effort to make it a weak religion
which they want us to ritualize with no
relevance as being a complete way of
life.
They do not want Muslims to
become aware that Islam is a complete
system with a political, economic, educational,
and social system that does not
exclude worship of the Creator as in a
secularize system such as the so-called
democratic system as practiced in the
Western world.

Although this attack is ideological,
it nonetheless is a battle that Muslims
must endure. We endure the pain of
knowing in our hearts that Islam is a solution
for the Western societies while at
the same time we listen to the rhetoric of
their politicians, religious leaders, educators
and others who espouse secularization
as a superior way of life.
The news media has contributed to
demonizing Islam and Muslims so that
Muslims are the prime suspects for terrorism.
Even when Muslims have come out
and said that they are “peaceful people”
who mean no harm to Americans, they
are still targeted, stopped and denied
the right to fly or receive funding. As
one military official said, “the gloves have
come off” in their treatment of Muslims.
Al-Hamdulillah, this has only pushed us
to reconsider our realities all around the
world, causing us turn more towards Allah
as our only Protector.

Today we see the real terrorist
and enemy to our Ummah, and this is
a good thing. If someone breaks into a
man’s home and attempts to harm his
family, his natural reaction is to fight
to his death. After this he takes actions
which will provide security for himself
and his family, Insha-Allah. He may buy
a gun, install a security system, or move
to a different neighborhood. But he certainly
would not wait for the same thing
to happen again. He would not allow
anyone to tell him that he should just
pray or ask the criminals of the world
not to do it again.
The question that we should ask
ourselves as Muslims is: “What kind
of an Ummah or Muslims waits to be
slaughtered or taken from their homes
in the middle of the night to be tortured,
imprisoned or killed?
What kind of a nation would not
take steps to secure its children and
women from the shock, horror, or grief
potentially waiting for it?” These are
the kind of questions the Ummah has itself,
because this is the stark reality of
our position in the West as well as in
other parts of the Muslim world.
We have no security or peace
of mind because we have no State to
protect us. We have no Muslim army
to fight those who attack us with far
more sophisticated weaponry. We have
no State to take care of our affairs, and
that is why a righteous Imam is such
an important aspect of our security, for
Prophet Muhammad (saaw) said:

“He who obeys me, obeys Allah,
and he who disobeys me, disobeys
Allah. He who obeys the chief, obeys
me, and he who disobeys the chief,
disobeys me. The Imam is like a
shield for whose safety the Muslims
should fight and where they should
seek protection. If the Imam orders
people with righteousness and rules
justly, then he will be rewarded for
that, and if he does the opposite, he
will be responsible for that.”
Narrated by Abu Huraira.

As Muslims, will we not take actions
that any sensible Ummah should
take to protect itself and its ideology
from the wolves who sometimes appear
in sheep’s’ clothing to tell us that voting
in a democratic society is the solution.
Will we not put all of our efforts and
resources into the cause and call for the
Islamic State which is the only solution
for our security, protection and problems.
What kind of an Ummah or Muslims waits to be
slaughtered or taken from their homes in the middle
of the night to be tortured, imprisoned or killed?
What kind of a nation would not
take steps to secure its children and
women from the shock, horror, or grief
potentially waiting for it?” These are
the kind of questions the Ummah has itself,
because this is the stark reality of
our position in the West as well as in
other parts of the Muslim world.
We have no security or peace
of mind because we have no State to
protect us. We have no Muslim army
to fight those who attack us with far
more sophisticated weaponry. We have
no State to take care of our affairs, and
that is why a righteous Imam is such
an important aspect of our security, for
Prophet Muhammad (saaw) said:

“He who obeys me, obeys Allah,
and he who disobeys me, disobeys
Allah. He who obeys the chief, obeys
me, and he who disobeys the chief,
disobeys me. The Imam is like a
shield for whose safety the Muslims
should fight and where they should
seek protection. If the Imam orders
people with righteousness and rules
justly, then he will be rewarded for
that, and if he does the opposite, he
will be responsible for that.”Narrated by Abu Huraira.

As Muslims, will we not take actions
that any sensible Ummah should
take to protect itself and its ideology
from the wolves who sometimes appear
in sheep’s’ clothing to tell us that voting
in a democratic society is the solution.
Will we not put all of our efforts and
resources into the cause and call for the
Islamic State which is the only solution
for our security, protection and problems.

Churches Tackle Worshipers' Money Management

More congregations make financial counseling their mission

By Liz Wolgemuth


Updated on 5/14/08

When Justin Moore and his wife, Bonnie, cut up their credit cards in a show of financial freedom earlier this year, they did it in front of a group of supporters—at church.Moore, 25, works as an information technology coordinator for a staffing agency in Shelby, N.C., but for 13 weeks this spring, he served as group coordinator for a course from Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University. It met weekly at his church and covered getting out of debt, living on a budget, and establishing better money-management skills. Ramsey, an author and radio-show host, created the popular program. It's basically the nuts and bolts of personal finance with a notable twist: The course shores up its advice with Scripture.

As more and more churches face their members' financial struggles, Christian believers like Moore are finding money advice where they worship. Some churches have well-established ministries that separately treat those in financial crisis and those who need to be acquainted with budget basics. Others just play host to courses taught with outside materials. Moore's church was offering the class for the first time. "We're really starting to see a change in people's lifestyles," he says. "They have this financial stress relieved. They're able to come closer to God. It just improves every other aspect of your life."

God and money. The expanding universe of church-based financial help comes as churches recognize the connection between people's relationship with money and their relationship with God, says Dave Briggs, director of the pioneering Good Sense ministry at Willow Creek Community Church, a megachurch in suburban Chicago. "A growing number of pastors are beginning to see that the spiritual growth of their congregations will be and has been hindered because of a wrong relationship with money," Briggs says. "Which can mean hoarding it, spending way too much time caring about it, or it can be mismanaging it so much that their lives are in bondage to debt, and that becomes a spiritual depressor of growth."

Good Sense was established at the church in the early 1980s and has spread through its network of affiliated churches. Now Willow Creek is getting ready to roll out a personal finance presentation that's just for 20-somethings. Briggs says young people need the same message in a different package—something other than the standard line about budgets, mortgage payments, and retirement plans.

"Debt doesn't scare 20-somethings anymore, which is really a shame," Briggs says. "So you're really dealing with a different mind-set." He points to the experience his own 29-year-old son, J. R. Briggs, had when buying a condo. The younger Briggs, a pastor in Souderton, Pa., carefully calculated exactly how much condo he could afford, and then the bank approved him for twice as much. (He went with his own math.) "Society no longer has the fences around 20-somethings to help them avoid making bad financial decisions," the elder Briggs says.

Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Mich., treats money management as a theological issue. The nine-year-old church is already well known for the innovations of its pastor, Rob Bell. Each week, 10,000 worshipers head for services in a former mall, which bears no sign. "Our belief is that there are a lot of different oppressions in our society," says Todd Monroe, Mars Hill's director of pastoral care. "But none is greater than debt and financial oppression when it comes to the lower middle class. Maybe even the middle class."

To combat the problem, Mars Hill offers Dave Ramsey's course, along with a financial mentoring program and help for people in financial crisis. The church is also launching a consultation program with financial professionals answering questions about some of the more tricky ways to get out of debt, such as declaring bankruptcy or taking out debt consolidation loans.

This sort of broad-based offering of financial help seems rooted in the missionary mentality, and it suits the Christian church, Monroe says: "I think, looking back in history, this would not be very abnormal at all."

To be clear, this money-management movement is different from the "prosperity gospel," a label used for the popular message taught by some well-known Christian ministers—perhaps the best-known is Joel Osteen—that God rewards the faithful with financial prosperity. Some have argued that the prosperity message has spread at such an astounding rate because it was born in a vacuum—churches have usually been pretty silent on the topic of personal finance, except for the occasional sermon on tithing, the practice of giving a tenth of one's income to the church. Tithing is certainly encouraged in most of these financial workshops, and that message has been criticized sometimes as self-serving, since it directly benefits churches offering the programs.

Barometer. Personal finances matter because the way people handle their money serves as a kind of barometer for how they relate to God, says Grace McGibbon. She has been leading a group of women from National Community Church in the Washington, D.C., area, through a biblically based course from Crown Financial Ministries. Most people seem surprised by how often the Bible addresses the topic of money, McGibbon says. Crown Financial says more than 2,350 verses discuss it.

Even college students, particularly those nearing graduation, are heeding biblical teaching on financial decisions. Matt Bell, a personal-finance speaker and writer who runs the website Moneypurposejoy.com, has addressed all kinds of groups and finds college students to be an especially enthusiastic crowd. "They just seem very interested in learning how to get it right with money," Bell says.

Bell went through what he describes as a "financial train wreck" when he was a couple of years out of college. He had inherited $60,000 and used it to start a business. In about two years, he'd run through his inheritance, racked up an additional $20,000 in debt, and was forced to move in with his parents. "That was a very humbling time that made me think about some of the bigger questions of life," he says. As he describes it, the experience helped draw him to faith. Today's churches may be hoping the same is true for others.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/your-money/2008/04/11/churches-tackle-worshipers-money-management.html

Warring as Lying Throughout American History

Warring as Lying Throughout American History

Tuesday, 06 May 2008
Freedom Daily

by James Bovard

Americans are taught to expect their elected leaders to be relatively honest. But it wasn’t always like that. In the mid 1800s, people joked about political candidates who claimed to have been born in a log cabin that they built with their own hands. This jibe was spurred by William Henry Harrison’s false claim of a log-cabin birth in the 1840 presidential campaign.

Americans were less naive about dishonest politicians in the first century after this nation’s founding. But that still did not deter presidents from conjuring up wars. Presidential deceits on foreign policy have filled cemeteries across the land. George W. Bush’s deceits on the road to war with Iraq fit a long pattern of brazen charades.

In 1846, James K. Polk took Americans to war after falsely proclaiming that the Mexican army had crossed the U.S. border and attacked a U.S. army outpost — “shedding the blood of our citizens on our own soil.” Though Polk refused to provide any details of where the attack occurred, the accusation swayed enough members of Congress to declare war against Mexico. Congressman Abraham Lincoln vigorously attacked Polk for his deceits. But Lincoln may have studied Polk’s methods, since they helped him whip up war fever 15 years later.

In 1917, Woodrow Wilson took the nation to war in a speech to Congress that contained one howler after another. He proclaimed that “self-governed nations do not fill their neighbor states with spies” — despite the role of the British secret service and propaganda operations in the prior years to breed war fever in the United States. Wilson hailed Russia as a nation that had always been “democratic at heart” — less than a month after the fall of the tsar and not long before the Bolshevik Revolution. He proclaimed that the government would show its friendship and affection for German-Americans at home — but his administration was soon spearheading loyalty drives that spread terror in many communities across the land.

In 1940, in one of his final speeches of the presidential campaign, Franklin Roosevelt assured voters, “Your president says this country is not going to war.” At the time, he was violating the Neutrality Act by providing massive military assistance to Britain and was searching high and low for a way to take the United States into war against Hitler.

In his 1944 State of the Union address, Roosevelt denounced those Americans with “such suspicious souls — who feared that I have made ‘commitments’ for the future which might pledge this Nation to secret treaties” at the summit of Allied leaders in Tehran the previous month. In early 1945, Roosevelt told Congress that the Yalta Agreement “spells the end of the system of unilateral action and exclusive alliance and spheres of influence.” In reality, he signed off on Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and the crushing of any hopes for democracy in Poland.

In August 1945, Harry Truman announced to the world that “the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians.” Hiroshima was actually a major city with more than a third of a million people prior to its incineration. But Truman’s lie helped soften the initial impact on the American public of the first use of the atomic bomb. (The U.S. government also vigorously censored photographs of Hiroshima and its maimed survivors.)


Vietnam falsehoods

Presidential and other government lies on foreign policy are often discounted because they are presumed to be motivated by national security. But as Hannah Arendt noted in an essay on the Pentagon Papers, during the Vietnam War,

The policy of lying was hardly ever aimed at the enemy but chiefly if not exclusively destined for domestic consumption, for propaganda at home and especially for the purpose of deceiving Congress.
CIA analysts did excellent work in the early period of the Vietnam conflict. But “in the contest between public statements, always over-optimistic, and the truthful reports of the intelligence community, persistently bleak and ominous, the public statements were likely to win simply because they were public,” Arendt commented. The truth never had a chance when it did not serve Lyndon Johnson’s political calculations.

Vietnam destroyed the credibility of both Lyndon Johnson and the American military. Yet the memory of the pervasive lies of the military establishment did not curb the gullibility of many people for fresh government-created falsehoods a decade or so later. During the 1980s, the U.S. State Department ran a propaganda campaign that placed numerous articles in the U.S. media praising the Nicaraguan Contras and attacking the Sandinista regime. As the Christian Science Monitor noted in 2002, the State Department “fed the Miami Herald a make-believe story that the Soviet Union had given chemical weapons to the Sandinistas. Another tale, which happened to emerge the night of President Ronald Reagan’s reelection victory, held that Soviet MiG fighters were on their way to Nicaragua.” The General Accounting Office investigated and concluded that the State Department operation was illegal, consisting of “prohibited, covert propaganda activities.” There was no backlash against the government when the frauds were disclosed. Instead, it was on to the next scam.


Reagan, Bush, and Clinton

Reagan paved the way for subsequent presidents in immersing anti-terrorist policy in swamps of falsehoods. In October 1983, a month after he authorized U.S. Marine commanders to call in air strikes against Muslims to help the Christian forces in Lebanon’s civil war, a Muslim suicide bomber devastated a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 242 Americans. In a televised speech a few days later, Reagan portrayed the attack as unstoppable, falsely claiming that the truck “crashed through a series of barriers, including a chain-link fence and barbed-wire entanglements. The guards opened fire, but it was too late.” In reality, the guards did not fire because they were prohibited from having loaded weapons — one of many pathetic failures of defense that the Reagan administration sought to sweep under the carpet.

In 1984, after the second successful devastating attack in 18 months against a poorly defended U.S. embassy in Lebanon, Reagan blamed the debacle on his predecessor and falsely asserted that the Carter administration had “to a large extent” gotten “rid of our intelligence agents.” A few days later, while campaigning for reelection, Reagan announced that the second embassy bombing was no longer an issue: “We’ve had an investigation. There was no evidence of any carelessness or anyone not performing their duty.” However, the Reagan administration had not yet begun a formal investigation.

On May 4, 1986, Reagan bragged, “The United States gives terrorists no rewards and no guarantees. We make no concessions; we make no deals.” But the Iranian arms-for-hostage deal that leaked out later that year blew such claims to smithereens. On November 13, 1986, Reagan denied initial reports of the scandal, proclaiming that the “‘no concessions’ [to terrorists] policy remains in force, in spite of the wildly speculative and false stories about arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments. We did not — repeat — did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages nor will we.” But Americans later learned that the United States had sold 2,000 anti-tank weapons to the Iranian government “in return for promises to release the American hostages there. Money from the sale of those weapons went to support the Contras’ war in Nicaragua,” as Mother Jones magazine noted in 1998.

Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in the summer of 1990 provided a challenge for the first Bush administration to get Americans mobilized. In September 1990, the Pentagon announced that up to a quarter million Iraqi troops were near the border of Saudi Arabia, threatening to give Saddam Hussein a stranglehold on one of the world’s most important oil sources. The Pentagon based its claim on satellite images that it refused to disclose. One American paper, the St. Petersburg Times, purchased two Soviet satellite “images taken of that same area at the same time that revealed that there were no Iraqi troops ‘near the Saudi border — just empty desert.’” Jean Heller, the journalist who broke the story, commented, “That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn’t exist.” Even a decade after the first Gulf war, the Pentagon refused to disclose the secret photos that justified sending half a million American troops into harm’s way.

Support for the war was also whipped up by the congressional testimony of a Kuwaiti teenager who claimed she had seen Iraqi soldiers removing hundreds of babies from incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals and leaving them on the floor to die. George H.W. Bush often invoked the incubator tale to justify the war, proclaiming that the “ghastly atrocities” were akin to “Hitler revisited.” After the United States commenced bombing Iraq, it transpired that the woman who testified was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador and that her story was a complete fabrication, concocted in part by a U.S. public relations firm. Dead babies were a more effective selling point than one of the initial justifications Bush announced for U.S. intervention — restoring Kuwait’s “rightful leaders to their place” — as if any Americans seriously cared about putting Arab oligarchs back on their throne. (A few months before Saddam’s invasion, Amnesty International condemned the Kuwaiti government for torturing detainees.)

Bill Clinton’s unprovoked war against Serbia was sold to Americans with preposterous tales of the Kosovo Liberation Army’s being freedom fighters, with absurd claims that a civil war in one corner of southeastern Europe threatened to engulf the entire continent in conflict, with wild and unsubstantiated claims of an ongoing genocide, and with a deluge of lies that the U.S. military was not targeting Serb civilians.

Lying and warring appear to be two sides of the same coin. Unfortunately, many Americans continue to be gullible when presidents claim a need to commence killing foreigners. It remains to be seen whether the citizenry is corrigible on this life-and-death issue.

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy [2006] as well as The Bush Betrayal [2004], Lost Rights [1994] and Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil (Palgrave-Macmillan, September 2003) and serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.

This article originally appeared in the February 2008 edition of Freedom Daily. Subscribe to the print or email version of Freedom Daily.

Confusing God and Government - April 13, 2003

If you were to ask the average Christian, "did Jesus cry?", almost every Christian would quote for you that John 11:35 verse, which most Bible students call the shortest verse in the Bible: "Jesus wept". It is the verse, you will remember, that is found in the middle of the story about the death of Lazarus, the Lord Jesus' friend. Jesus loved Lazarus, his friend; Lazarus had died. Jesus was outside the village of Bethany - he had not yet reached the city limits - Martha had met him, and he and Martha had talked. Martha was mad, and she let the Lord know that she was mad. Jesus had reassured her with words she did not understand, "I am the resurrection and the life: whosoever believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live again: and whosoever liveth and believeth shall never die." He had reassured her - she didn't understand those words, but at least he had calmed her down for just a little bit. She left Jesus there, went back to the house and called her sister Mary and told her privately, "Jesus is here and he is calling for you." And when Mary heard those words she got up quickly and went to where Jesus was just outside of Bethany. When those who were grieving with her saw her get up quickly and go out, they ran along with her - you find that story in John 11. They thought she was going to her brother's grave site to grieve. When Jesus saw her crying, and Jesus saw those who were trying to console her crying, he started weeping. The text says "he was greatly disturbed in spirit and he was deeply moved." He asked Mary and Martha, "where have you laid him?" and they said "Lord, come and see" and he cried: "Jesus wept." You know, death will make you weep. When you lose someone that you love, you will weep. When you lose somebody that was close to you, the tears will come; I ain't telling you about nothing that I read in a book somewhere, I’m telling you what I know from personal experience. I'm not telling you what I studied in pastoral counselling, I’m telling you what I have lived – for when the pain of death hits and the pain is deep, when the pain of death hits and the pain is personal, when the finality of death comes crashing in on you, and those words “never again” move from the region of possibility to the heart-wrenching realm of reality, that smile that made your day, never again will you see it. That laughter that lit up your world, never again will you hear it. That wisdom that anchored your soul, never again will you experience it in this life. When that happens to you, my beloved, you will weep. You will cry. Jesus wept; Jesus cried. And most Christians learn very early in their walk of faith that John 11:35 verse – what does it say?

Congregation: Jesus wept.

You know that’s the first Bible verse you memorise. You usually go around the table and have to say a Bible verse at dinner; “What’s your verse?” “Jesus wept.” But guess what? Guess what? Tonight’s text teaches us that that is not the only time that Jesus wept. On this day that we call Palm Sunday, when the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God and joyfully – as we just read - for all the deeds of powers that they had seen – on the Sunday that we call Palm Sunday, as Jesus rode on the colt – on the Sunday before Maundy Thursday, the Sunday before Good Friday, while some of the Pharisees in the crowd tried to stop the praise of the profession that was taking place – on the Sunday before he was put to death on a cross, stretched between two thieves, the Sunday that he said if these who are praising me hold their peace, then the rocks will cry out – on the Sunday before he sealed our salvation as he came near the city, the text we just read said, in the midst of the praise, Luke tells us that he wept over the city; he cried for his people who did not know the things that make for peace. He cried for his people because they were blinded by their culture, they were blinded by their condition, they were blinded by their circumstance, they were blinded by their oppression, they were blinding by being in a spot where they desired – deeply desired – revenge, and they could not see the things that make for peace. We keep forgetting, we keep forgetting, and we need to remember; Jerome Ross wrote about it like he reminded you of it, write it down so you don’t forget it. These people had, in Luke 19, an occupying army living in their country. Jesus in verse 43 calls them their enemies – say enemies; their enemies had all the political power. Remember, they had to send Jesus to a court presided over by the enemy; a provisional governor appointed by their enemies ran the civic and the political affairs of the capital. He had backing him up an occupying army with superior soldiers – they were commandos trained in urban combat and trained to kill on command. Remember, it was soldiers of the Third Marine regiment of Rome who had fun with Jesus, who was mistreated as a prisoner of war, an enemy of the occupying army stationed in Jerusalem to ensure the mopping up action of Operation It’s Really Freedom; these people were blinded by the culture of war. Do you know what it’s like to live under military rule 24/7, 365? These people were blinded by their circumstance of oppression; their enemies not only had all of the political power, with Governor Pontius Pilate – y’all call him “Pontus Pilot” – he’s Italian, Pontius Pilate – Pontus Pilot was running the provisional government; their enemies also had the military power. They not only had political power, they had the military power. It was Roman soldiers who kept Jesus up all night. It was the Italian army who led Jesus out to Calvary on Friday morning. It was the occupying military brigade who forced Simon of Cyrene to carry the cross for Jesus. These people were tired of their oppression, they wanted the enemy up out of their land (some of them did, some of them didn’t; not the businessmen, not those in bed with the enemy, let’s be clear, let’s be clear) but the average citizen wanted them out, but they also wanted revenge. They wanted their King to get this military monkey off their back – they wanted a “regime change”, if you will. And look what they called Jesus, look at it in verse 38, they called Jesus the “King”. Look at it, look at it, look at verse 38. They call him the King. “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord.” They wanted their King – see, their King – they saw God the Lord getting ready to do something about this situation. Blinded by the pain of their situation, they could not see the things that made for peace, y’all. So Jesus cried.

Let me help you with something. Let me help you, let me help you. The military does not make for peace. The military only keeps the lid on for a little while. The military doesn’t make for peace, and the absence of armed resistance doesn’t mean the presence of genuine peace. Somebody needs to hear me tonight, you’re not hearing me. War does not make for peace. We said at the eleven o’clock service “Fighting for peace is like raping for Virginity”. War does not make for peace, war only makes for escalating violence, and a mindset to pay the enemy back by any means necessary. When your wife or your children have been crushed by the enemy, when your mother or your father have been mowed down by the military, peace is not on your mind. Payback is the only game in town. You just bide your time and you wait for your opportunity, but somebody is going to pay dearly for the permanent damage that has come into your life and wrecked your world as it rocked your world. Military might does not make for peace, war does not make for peace. Occupying somebody else’s country doesn’t make for peace. Killing those that fought to protect their own homes does not make for peace. Press conferences claiming victory do not make for peace. Regime change, substituting one tyrant for another tyrant with the biggest tyrant pulling the puppet strings of all the tyrants, that does not make for peace! Colonising a country does not make for peace! If you don’t believe me, look at Haiti, look at Puerto Rico, look at Angola, look at Zimbabwe, look at Kenya, look at Astra Boys in South Africa. Colonisation does not make for peace. Occupation does not make for peace, and subjugation only makes for temporary silence. It does not make for peace.

These people who wanted a new King were blinded by their circumstances, and it made Jesus cry because they missed the meaning of his ministry. Turn to your neighbour and say “missed the meaning of his ministry.” When Jesus says, when Jesus says “you did not recognise the time of your visitation from God” down in verse 44, Jesus is saying you did not recognise the time of my ministry. You did not see the meaning of my ministry. You are missing the real things that make for peace. You are – you are, you are confusing external appearances with external power. You are looking at the man and you are not looking at the one the man represents. You are looking at the miracle – that’s verse 37, when the deeds of power they are praising, that’s the miracle: sight to the blind - deeds of power; hearing to the deaf – deeds of power; speech to the mute – deeds of power; cleansing of the lepers – deeds of power; wholeness to the broken – deeds of – you are looking at the miracles and missing the meaning behind the miracles. A miracle is just a sign. A sign only points to something, or points the way to something. Don’t get fixated on the sign and miss completely what the sign is pointing to. The deeds of power point to a God who is greater than any physical limitation and a God who can overcome any limiting situation. The things that make for peace, only God can give. Y’all looking to the government for that which only God can give. No wonder he wept. He had good cause to cry. The people under oppression were confusing God and Government.

Say “confusing God and Government”. Now if you don’t mind, if you don’t mind, I’m going to hang out here, homilificate for just a little while, and then I’m going to let you go home. I’ve got to pause here, however, as a pastor because a lot of people still confuse, 2000 years later, they still confuse God with their Government. Now we can see clearly the confusion in the mind of a few Muslims – and please notice I did not say all Muslims, I said a few Muslims – who see a law a condoning killing, and killing any and all who do not believe what they believe. They call if “jihad”. We can see clearly the confusion in their minds, but we cannot see clearly what it is that we do: we call it “Crusade”, when we turn right around and say our God condones the killing of innocent civilians as a necessary means to an end. That we say God understands collateral damage, we say that God knows how to forgive friendly fire, we say that God will bless the Shock and Awe as we take over unilaterally another country – calling it a coalition because we’ve got three guys from Australia. Going against the United Nations, going against the majority of Christians, Muslims and Jews throughout the world, making a pre-emptive strike in the name of God. We cannot see how what we are doing is the same Al-Qaida is doing under a different colour flag, calling on the name of a different God to sanction and approve our murder and our mayhem!

Let me tell you something, let me tell you something, Jesus said something about that too. Oh yes he did. Jesus said “how can you see the speck in your brother’s eye and can’t see the log in your own eye?” Well, I submit to you we can’t see it first of all ‘cause we don’t see nobody who don’t look like us, dress like us, talk like us, worship like us as brother – and Jesus calls them brother. We demonise them and that makes it all right to kill them because our God is against demons. Then we can’t see the speck most of all because we equate our Government with our God. We confuse Government and God. Let me tell you something; we believe in this country, and we teach our children that God sent us to this “Promised Land”. He sent us to take this country from the Arrowak, the Susquehanna, the Apache, the Comanche, the Cherokee, the Seminole, the Choctaw, the Hopi and the Arapaho. We confuse Government and God. We believe God sanctioned the rape and robbery of an entire continent. We believe God ordained African slavery. We believe God makes Europeans superior to Africans and superior to everybody else too. We confuse God and Government. We said in our founding document as a Government, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” – created, that means God – “and endowed with a certain inalienable right” – that means given by God, and then we define Africans in those same documents as three-fifths of a person. We believe God approved of African slavery. We believe God approved segregation. We believe God approved Apartheid, and a document says “all men are created more equal than other men” – and we’re talking about White men. We confuse God and Government. We believe that God approves of 6% of the people on the face of this Earth controlling all of the resources on the face of this Earth while the other 94% live in poverty and squalor, while we give trillions of dollars of tax breaks to the White rich. We believe God was a founding member of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Look at the lily-whiteness of the G-7 nations the next time you see a picture and you tell me if you see anything wrong with that picture. When you hold it up against a picture of the colour of the world’s population. We confuse God and Government. We believe God is on the side of the wealthy. We believe it is all right to send our military to fight – and if necessary, to die – in Iraq and anywhere else we decide is part of the “Axis of Evil” while George W. cuts the military benefits so when those boys and girls come back home, they can be as bad off as some of the Iraqis that we just “liberated.” We confuse God and Government.

We do. We believe, we believe, we believe we have a right to Iraqi oil. We believe we have a right Venezuelan oil. We believe we got a right to all the oil on the face of the Earth, and we’ve got the military to take it if necessary; or as George W. piously says, “as God so leads” him. We confuse God and Government. We believe it is all right to decimate the Afro-Colombian community by arming the paramilitary with United States tax dollars – our dollars – by hiring military whose real job is to protect the oil line owned by United States companies tied to the Presidency which was stolen by the oil interests. We’re confusing God and Government, and it gets worse – it gets worse. We got a paranoid group of patriots in power that now, in the interests of Homeland Stupidity – I mean Homeland Security, ‘scuse me – they are taking away the Constitutional right of Free Speech because it’s “harmful to the interests of national security” – and those interests equate God with Government. Our money says In God we Trust, and our military says we will kill under the orders of our Commander-in-Chief if you dare to believe otherwise. We are still confusing God and Government in the year 2003, just like confused Luke 19. Well, in case you are in that great number, and I understand from the polls that the number has gone up, still confused; if you are in that number of confused folk 2000 years after Christ, let me share three quick things with you just to help clear up your confusion. Turn to your neighbour and say, and listen you got to say it right, say it with attitude and with Ebonics, say “He fitting to help somebody tonight.” Turn to the other side and say “fitting to”.

Governments – number one – Governments lie.

This Government lied about their belief that all men were created equal. The truth was they believe all White men were created equal. The truth is they did not believe that even White women were created equal, in creation nor in civilisation. The Government had to pass an amendment to the Constitution to get White women the vote. Then the Government had to pass an “Equal Rights” amendment to get equal protection under the law for women. The Government still thinks a woman has no rights over her own body, and between Uncle Clarence – who sexually harassed Anita Hill – and the closeted clam court that is a throwback to the 19th century, hand-picked by Daddy Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, hung between Clarence and that stacked court they’re about to undo Roe v. Wade, just like they’re about to undo affirmative action. The Government lied in its founding documents and the Government is still lying today. Governments lie. Turn to your neighbour and say “Governments lie”. The Government lied about Pearl Harbour. They knew the Japanese were going to attack. Governments lie! The Government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin – they wanted that resolution to get us into the Vietnam War. Governments lie! The Government lied about Nelson Mandela, and our CIA helped put him in prison and keep him there for 27 years. The South African Government lied on Nelson Mandela. Governments lie! Turn back to your neighbour and say again “Governments lie.” The Government lied about the Tuskegee experiment; they purposely infected African-American men with syphilis. Governments lie! The Government lied about bombing Cambodia, and Richard Nixon stood in front of the camera, “Let me make myself perfectly clear, we are not –“ Governments lie! The Government lied about the drugs for arms Contras scheme, orchestrated by Oliver North and then they pardoned – the Government pardoned – all of the perpetrators so they could get better jobs in the Government. Governments lie! The Government lied about inventing the HIV-virus as a means of genocide against people of colour. Governments lie! The Government lied about a connection between Al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein, and a connection between 9/1-1/01 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Governments lie! The Government lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq being a threat to the United States’ peace. And guess what else? If they don’t find them some Weapons of Mass Destruction, they’re going to do just like that LAPD and plant them some Weapons of Mass Destruction. Governments lie!

But I’m fitting to help you. I’m fitting to – turn to your neighbour, say “He fitting to help us.”

Where Governments lie, God does not lie. Read Numbers 23:19; it says “God is not Man that he should lie.” That’s the Kings James translation. The New Revised Translation says – repeat it after me so that you won’t forget it – “God is not a human being that he should lie.” Say it again. “God is not a human being that he should lie.” Let’s say it together. “God is not a human being that he should lie.” Where Governments lie, God does not lie. That’s number one.

Number two: Governments change.

Long before there was a Red White and Blue colonisation, the Egyptian government was doing colonisation. They colonised half the continent of Africa, they colonised parts of the Mediterranean. All colonisers ain’t White. Turn to your neighbour and say “oppressors come in all colours.” Hello, hello, hello. But while the Government of Egypt and Pharaoh ran it, they don’t run a thing today, and why? Because Governments change. When the Babylonians carried away the people of promise into exile, the Babylonian Government was the baddest government around. But when King Nebuchadnezzar when crazy, his government was replaced by the government of King Belshazzar. King Belshazzar held a great big feast, big banquet, defiled the sacred vessels stolen from the temple in Jerusalem and a hand appeared out of nowhere and started writing on the wall, “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin”. And Daniel translated the writing for the king, and told him “here’s what it means, king” – you can find this in Daniel 5 – “Mene: God has numbered the days of your government and brought it to an end.” Governments change. “Tekel: you have been weighed on the scales of justice and you’re too light to balance the scales.” “Parsin: that’s from the verb Peres; your kingdom, your government is divided and given now to the Medes and to the Persians.” And the Bible says that night, that same night, King Belshazzar was killed and Darius the Mede took over the government. Governments change, y’all. Darius was replaced later on by another government, and then another 70 years later King Cyrus said to the people of promise, y’all can go back home. All I’m trying to get you to see is that Governments change.

Prior to Abraham Lincoln, the Government in this country said it was legal to hold Africans in slavery in perpetuity. Perpetuity’s one of those University of Chicago words, it means forever. From now on. When Lincoln got in office, the government changed. Prior to the passing of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution, the government defined Africans as slaves, as property – property! – people with no rights to be respected by any Whites anywhere. The Supreme Court of the government – same court, granddaddy court of the one which stole the 2000 election – Supreme Court said in its Dredd Scott decision in the 1850s: no African anywhere in this country has any rights that any White person has to respect at anyplace, anytime. That was the government’s official position, backed up by the Supreme Court – that’s the judiciary – backed up by the Executive branch – that’s the President – backed up by the Legislative branch and enforced by the military of the government, but I stopped by to tell you tonight that Governments change! Prior to Harry Truman’s government, the military in this country was segregated. But Governments change. Prior to the Civil Rights and Equal Accommodations laws of the government in this country, there was Black segregation by the country, legal discrimination by the government, prohibited Blacks from voting by the government, you had to eat in separate places by the government, you had to sit in different places from White folk because the government says so, and you had to be buried in a separate cemetery. It was Apartheid American-style from the cradle to the grave, all because the government backed it up. But guess what? Governments change!

Under Bill Clinton, we got messed up Welfare-to-Work bill, but under Clinton Blacks had an intelligent friend in the Oval Office. Oh, but Governments change.

The election was stolen. We went from an intelligent friend to a dumb Dixiecrat, a rich Republican who has never held a job in his life – is against affirmative action, against education, against health care, against benefits for his own military, and gives tax breaks to he wealthiest contributors to his campaign. Governments change – sometimes for the good, and sometimes for the bad. But I’m fitting to help you again; turn back and say “He’s fitting to help us again.”

Where governments change – write this down, Malachiah 3:6 – “thus sayeth the Lord:” – repeat after me – “for I am the Lord, and I change not.” That’s the Kings James version. The New Revised says, “For I the Lord do not change.” In other words, where Governments change, God does not change. God is the same yesterday, today and forevermore. That’s what is name, “I am”, means you know. He does not change. There is no shadow of turning in God; one songwriter puts it this way: “As thou hast been, thou forever will be. Thou changes not. Thy compassions, they fail not. Great is thy faithfulness Lord unto me.” God does not change! God was against slavery on yesterday, and God who does not change is still against slavery today. God was a God of love yesterday, and God who does not change is still a God of love today. God was a God of justice on yesterday, and God who does not change is still a God of justice today. Turn to your neighbour and say, “God does not change.”

Where Governments lie, God does not lie. Where Governments change, God does not change. And I’m through now. But let me leave you with one more thing.

Governments fail. The government in this text comprised of Caesar, Cornelius, Pontus Pilot – Pontius Pilate – the Roman government failed. The British government used to rule from east to west. The British government had a Union Jack. She colonised Kenya, Guana, Nigeria, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Hong Kong. Her navies ruled the seven seas all the way down to the tip of Argentina in the Falklands, but the British failed. The Russian government failed. The Japanese government failed. The German government failed. And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian decent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese decent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating her citizens of African decent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them in slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton fields, put them in inferior schools, put them in substandard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education and locked them into position of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing “God Bless America.” No, no, no. Not “God Bless America”; God Damn America! That’s in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God Damn America for treating her citizen as less than human. God Damn America as long as she keeps trying to act like she is God and she is supreme!

The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African decent. Think about this, think about this. For every 1 Oprah, a billionaire, you got five million Blacks who are out of work. For every 1 Colin Powell, a millionaire, you got ten million Blacks who cannot read. For every 1 “Condeskeeza” Rice, you got one million in prison. For every 1 Tiger Woods, who needs to get beat at the Masters with his cat-blazing hips, playing on a course that discriminates against women; God has this way of bringing you short when you get too big for your cat-blazing britches. For every 1 Tiger Woods, we got ten thousand Black kids who will never see a golf course. The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African decent. But I’m fitting to help you one last time – turn to your neighbour and say “he’s fitting to help us one last time.” Turn back and say “Forgive him for the ‘God Damn’, that’s in the Bible Lord.” Blessings and cursing is in the Bible, it’s in the Bible. But I’m fitting to help you one last time. Let me tell you something.

Where governments fail, God never fails.

When God says it, it’s done. God never fails. When God wills it, you better get out the way. ‘Cause God never fails. When God fixes it, oh believe me, it’s fixed. God never fails. Somebody right now, you think you can’t make it, but I want you to know you are more than a conqueror, through Christ you can do all things, through Christ who strengthens you. To the world, it looked like God has failed in God’s plan of salvation when the saviour that was sent by God was put to death on a Friday afternoon. It looked like God failed. But hallelujah, on Sunday morning the angels in Heaven were singing, “God never fails.” You can’t put down what God raises up. God never fails. You can’t keep down what God wants up. God never fails. If God can get a three-day Jesus up out of a grave, what’s going on in your life that in anyway can’t match what God has already done? He’ll abides with you, he’ll reside in you, and he’ll preside over your problems if you take them to Him and leave them with Him. Don’t take them back – turn to your neighbour and say “stop taking your problems back.” Should we always bring our problems to the altar and then do we just them right on back to our seats? Turn and say “Stop taking them back!” God never fails. Turn and tell them “God never fails!” God never fails!

God never fails.

US Presidential candidates show how democracy is corrupted by money

Tuesday, 25 March 2008


The US election season is once again in full swing as America begins its search for it's next President. In the coming months America together with the rest of the world will witness either John McCain the Republican candidate, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, the still yet undecided Democratic candidates, succeed the incumbent President George W. Bush in the White House.

The American establishment has long glorified and held out the apparent merits of it's political system to the rest of the world as part of the 'American dream'; that ordinary Americans can choose with complete freedom their next leader, with power transferring in a orderly and peaceful manner. Any American citizen, they proudly say, can stand for election as President.

The reality is that the American political dream is nothing more than a myth; witness the huge amounts of money being spent by just a few elite candidates shows this is completely untrue; millions of dollars are being spent on sophisticated election campaigns. The reality is that in America, just as elsewhere, Democracy has never fulfilled it's promise; the influence of money has ensured that Democracy remains a flawed system of rule in favour of the rich and privileges.

In the US Presidential election campaign of 2004, George Bush received a staggering $292.6 million dollars in private donations, whilst his then Democrat opponent John Kerry received $253.9 million dollars. The third independent candidate, Ralph Nader, had just over $4.5 million dollars to spend. The total cost of the US Presidential and Congressional election campaigns in 2004 reached $3.9 billion dollars. In the 2008 election Barack Obama has raised $193 million dollars, Hillary Clinton $169 million dollars and John McCain $64 million dollars thus far. In theory the criteria to be a Presidential candidate are very simple: The candidate must be a natural born US citizen, must have been resident for 14 years in the US and be at least 35 years of age. Yet given the huge obscene amounts of money being raised and spent on television advertisements, radio campaigns and other forms of election marketing, the chance of an ordinary person being able to stand as a realistic candidate are nil. Money represents a natural 'market barrier' to entry.

This obvious but powerful conclusion explains why voters in the American political system are losing faith in their entire system. Voter turnout in America has been declining in past years and has one of the lowest turnouts in the western world. Effectively a minority of the eligible electorate has chosen it's incumbent legislators and Presidents.

The masses within the West are beginning to understand that their vote is irrelevant and meaningless as things stand in the American political system. This feeling has been compounded by the fact that in recent years the Democratic and Republican parties have very little real policy differences'. Both have practiced a belligerent foreign policy and have had an agenda that has profited big business at the expense of domestic social spending. The reason why the American democratic system has lead to such a situation is again down to the influence of money and key interest groups. American corporations and lobby groups do not donate money to American politicians' because they see themselves as philanthropists'; they give money because they expect favours back as a return. In return corporate business can expect politicians to craft new policies and laws that are favourable to them upon gaining power and public office.

This shows that Democracy is fundamentally flawed; the ability to manufacture man made temporal laws and policies by the executive leaves the fate of the people vulnerable to those who manage to gain the most influence in a Democratic government. President Eisenhower famously warned of such corrupting influences in American politics by issuing the following statement in his farewell speech in January 1961, saying,

"...three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defence establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.

We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Today, America's defence related spending is estimated to be an astonishing $1 trillion dollars a year; to put this into context America's total budget passed by Congress in March 2008 was $3 trillion dollars. Social and Health spending in contrast has declined in recent years, with essential services facing cuts. With America spending more and more of its wealth on its military and foreign wars of occupation, the influence of American military contractors has never been stronger. The distribution of new military projects in the states of influential US congressman, more commonly known as 'pork barrel' politics, demonstrates how intertwined money and politics have become. Yet it is not just the defence industry; the rest of corporate America has also sought to gain a foothold by donating money and engaging lobbyists'; Hillary Clinton recently offered a passionate defence of lobbyists' as investment banks and other financial institutions have become one of the leading donators in this election campaign to Presidential candidates from both parties.

Democracy is not just susceptible to such influence and corruption in America; wherever Democracy is being used as a ruling system the results have shown that the rich and powerful succeed in gaining undue and illegitimate influence right around the world. A recent US study showed that corporations that donated money to politicians always had higher profits per year on average than the rest of their peers. It is not surprising then that many jobs have been relocated from America to other parts of the Third world as corporations have aggressively 'outsourced' many jobs under the noses of America's legislators so that they can increase corporate profits.

Democracy is in reality a sophisticated means of control used by the American corporate and political elite to carefully select its leaders from a small pool that will toe its line. As Americans once more go through the motions to choose their leader, the subsequent outcome is all but predictable. Irrespective of whoever wins, campaign promises made to the general public now will definitely be broken, as new policies and legislation will be made to repay the favours' bestowed on the yet unknown new President. The only thing that is certain is that those American corporations, lobbyists' and special interests groups who have donated money in this Presidential campaign will yet again emerge as the real benefactors from a political system that rewards the rich whilst failing millions of ordinary people.

Economic Justice In Islam

1. Introduction

Two major economic systems have dominated the world arena in the last 100 years,namely Capitalism and Socialism. Socialism collapsed before the end of the 20th century with a complete failure, and hence will not be a subject in this discussion.Capitalism continues to dominate the entire globe, with different flavors and varieties implemented in different parts of the world. The dissatisfaction of people under socialism, and the accompanying pain and suffering have ended, but been replaced by yet another type of pain and sufferings.

After the collapse of Socialism, Capitalism entered an era of global economy,Globalization, thus impacting most of the people in the world. Therefore, this discussion explores the impact of capitalism on the world and the plight of people in poor and rich countries. On the other hand, it introduces an economic system that the world is yet to explore, understand, and implement. This system is based on Islam.

1.2 The Economic System

Economic system is a set of rules and regulations, which define how to distribute the wealth, how to possess it, and how to spend or dispose of it. This system (set of rules) is based upon a particular viewpoint in life, or ideology. Therefore, the economic system of Islam is different from that of Socialism/Communism and that of Capitalism, since each of these systems follows its own ideological viewpoint. For example, the rules of possession and ownership under Capitalism differ from the rules of possession under Socialism, and from those under Islam.

Economic science deals with the production, its improvement, invention and improvement of its means. Economic science, as is the case with other sciences, is universal to all nations and is not associated with a particular ideology. For example,the improvement of production is a technical issue, which is purely scientific, and does not depend on a particular ideological viewpoint.
In addition to the essential understanding of the difference between the economic system and economic science, it is critical to understand the factors of success for any system. The success or failure of an economic system is measured by the direct impact on the humans who live under it. Measures of such impact are the level of security provided and satisfaction of needs. Security and satisfaction of needs are

further measured in terms of:
1
? Food security
? Health security
? Educational security
? Conviction and trust in the economic foundation

In the next section we will address Capitalism as the dominating economic system today, its truth, reality, applicability and consequences.

2.0 The Capitalist Economic System

2.1 Theoretical Foundation

Capitalism addresses the materialistic side of life; it addresses the human needs and the means of satisfying those needs. It is established on three principles:
1. Relative scarcity of goods in relation to needs.
2. The economic value of a product
3. Pricing role in production, cons consumption, and distribution.

Relative Scarcity:

Man has needs that require satisfaction. Capitalism views the human needs as purely materialistic, such as the need for food, clothing, medicine, education, and security. As for the moral needs such as pride and honor, or spiritual needs such as the sanctification of God?s will, they are not recognized economically, and are therefore disregarded and have no place in economic studies within the capitalist system.

The capitalist looks at the means of satisfaction, that is, the commodities and services, from the viewpoint that they satisfy a need, without taking any other factor into consideration. This system considers, for example, wine as an economically beneficial product because it satisfies the need of some, and perceives the wine maker as service provider. Because wine and wine providers satisfy a need it is considered as having an economic value. Since the need in the capitalist view means a desire, then anything desired, whether it is essential or not essential, beneficial or harmful, it is considered economically beneficial. Products may be considered beneficial from an economic viewpoint even if the public opinion considers them of no benefit, or even harmful. Thus wine, tobacco, drugs, guns, and apples are beneficial things since there are people who desire them. Stocks, interest based loans are also beneficial as long as there is someone who would benefit from their use.


As such, capitalism does not concern itself with the societal values other than materialistic ones. Therefore, the capitalist economic system primary function is to supply goods - commodities and services- that is, to provide the means of satisfying man?s needs, irrespective of any other consideration.Capitalism recognizes that man has basic needs, which must be satisfied, and wants which increase in number as man proceeds to a higher level of urbanization.


Relative scarcity foresees the economic problem as the relative shortages of commodities and services towards the unlimited and constantly growing human needs (wants). This basic principal of capitalist economic philosophy provides the basis for the definition of the economic problem under capitalism. In particular, the problem that capitalism attempts to resolve is the satisfaction of an ever growing human needs using insufficient resources and means of satisfaction. This is the essence of relative scarcity of products. An economic dilemma that cannot be resolved no matter how much commodities and services are produced, thus setting unrealistic goal to be achieved.


The inevitable consequence of relative scarcity is that the focal point of a capitalistic society is the increase production of products and services. However, the distribution of the products over the needs is fully dependents upon the individual ability to obtain it. It should be noted that in a capitalistic society the problem is to make the resources available so as to satisfy the needs in a society, but not necessarily the needs of every individual. It is not surprising therefore, that the main focus of the economy under capitalism is the increase in the national production emphasized by the Gross Domestic Products (GDP) and Gross National Products (GNP). Capitalism views economic growth, the increase in GDP and GNP, as the mean of solving the problem of poverty.
There are serious flaws in these principals:


1. Correlation between the needs and the means of satisfaction

Under Capitalism, production and distribution are considered to be one major subject. Capitalism holds one view towards the economic science and the economic system without differentiating between them. However, there is a major difference between the economic system and economic science as previously defined. The integration between production of the economic material and the manner of its distribution, is a fundamental fault in the capitalist system which is bound to cause failure in the economy.

2. The human needs are not materialistic only

The reference to the needs, which require satisfaction as being purely materialistic, is wrong, and contradicts the natural reality of human needs. Human beings have moral, spiritual, and ethical needs that require satisfaction, which in turn require commodities or services for their satisfaction.


3. Commodities and services relation to the society

Man is viewed by capitalists as a purely materialistic creature, with no relevance to his spiritual needs, ethical thoughts, and moral objectives. Thus, Capitalism does not give weight to Societal values, except to the materialistic value of the product and its profitability. Cheating in the economic sense is valuable as long as it leads to profitability (Enron and Arthur Anderson). Monopoly is feasible economically, while it can be maintained and supported (Microsoft). Under Capitalism, feeding a poor (wealth distribution) may be done only if it brings a material benefit, such as tax break (non profit organizations). The Capitalist economy focuses on the satisfaction of needs and wants irrespective to the societal values and needs. Societal values and needs are protected as much as it does not limit the individual pursuit of satisfaction.

The exchange of resources and efforts among people creates relationships according to which the structure of the society is formed. Thus, viewing the economic commodity as a mean of fulfilling a need, without caring for the societal values, violates a fundamental rule of society structure. The effect on society should be perceived when considering the economic commodity. Therefore, it is incorrect to consider a thing as beneficial just because there is somebody who wants it, whether it affects the relationships among people or not, and whether it is prohibited or permitted in the belief of the people. Rather things should be considered beneficial if they are really beneficial in respect to what the society should be.

Therefore, it is incorrect to consider alcohol, cannabis, opium, explosives, guns,tobacco and the like as beneficial commodities and to consider them economic commodities just because there is somebody who wants them. Instead, the effect of these economic commodities on the relationships between people in society must be considered when considering the benefit of things i.e. when considering the goods as an economic commodity or not. It is a system fault to look at a product merely as it is, regardless of what the society should be.

4. Poverty of individuals is the main economic problem

Capitalism concentrates on production of wealth more than distribution of wealth. The importance of distribution of wealth to satisfy the needs has become a secondary issue. Therefore, the capitalist economic system main aim is to increase the country?s wealth as a whole, and it strives to achieve the highest possible level of production. The achievement of the highest possible level of satisfaction for the members of society is viewed as a result of increasing the national income, the gross national product. In the capitalist view this can be achieved by raising the level of production in the country, and by enabling individuals to acquire the wealth as they are left free to work and produce.

So the economy does not attempt to satisfy the needs of the individuals and to facilitate the satisfaction of every individual in the community, rather it is focused on raising the level of production and increasing the national income. Only then the distribution of wealth among the members of society occurs, by means of freedom of possession and freedom of work. So it is left to the individuals to acquire what they can of the wealth.Everyone strives to get his/her share of the wealth using whatever means, skills, or tools he/she can afford. Whether the individual is or is not able to satisfy his/her needs is not of concern to the economy, as long as the production of goods continues to grow, and the wealth continues to grow.


This is the major principal of the capitalist economy. It is inherently faulty, and contradicts reality and does not lead to an improvement in the level of livelihood for all individuals, and does not fulfill the basic needs of every individual. It does not resolve the issue of poverty for the individuals, despite the massive increase in the production of goods and services.

The hard fact in this reality is that the needs, which require satisfaction, are individual needs. They are needs of particular people such as George, Maria, Hessian,Mohammad, and the like. The fact that the needs of George, for example, are satisfied does not make Maria any better, unless her needs are also taken care of. So these are needs of individuals and not needs for a group of human beings, a group of nations, or a group of people. Therefore, the economic problem must focus on distributing the means of satisfaction for all the individuals of a society. In other words, the distribution of the funds and benefits must reach every member of the nation or people. It is not sufficient to increase the wealth of the group, irrespective of the plight of every individual.

Consequently, the study of the factors that affect the size of national production differs from the study for satisfying all the basic needs of all individuals personally and completely. The subject of study must be the basic human needs of man, as a human being, and the study of distributing the wealth to the members of society to guarantee the satisfaction of all their basic needs while allowing them to pursue the satisfaction of their wants ? luxury needs. This should be the subject of study, and should be undertaken in the first place. Moreover, resolving the poverty of a country does not resolve the problem of poverty for individuals. On the contrary, resolving the poverty of the individuals, and the fair distribution of the wealth of the country, motivates all the people of the country to work towards increasing the national income and resolving poverty of the country. Yet, the study of factors that affect the size of production and the increase of the national income should be discussed within the framework of economic science, rather than in the discussion of the economic system.

5. Scarcity of resources is not the problem and human needs are limited

Capitalism views the economic problem, which faces any society to be the scarcity of commodities and services. It claims that the human needs are steadily increasing, and the products continue to be too scarce to satisfy the growing needs of the people. This view is erroneous and in fact contradicts with reality. This is because the needs, which must be met, are the basic needs of the individual as a human (food, shelter,education, health and clothing), and not the luxuries, although they too are sought. The basic needs of humans are limited, and the resources and products, which they call the commodities and services, are certainly sufficient to satisfy the basic human needs. It is possible to satisfy all of the basic needs of mankind completely.
The economic problem is, in reality, the distribution of these resources and services enabling every individual to satisfy all basic needs completely, and after that helping them to strive for attaining their luxuries. The basic needs of man as a human do not increase. Only the luxurious needs that may increase and vary due to higher urbanization.

2.1 Practical Implementation

The discussion of the capitalist economic system leads to the conclusion that the implementation of this system over a period of time should lead to a profound poverty and severe dissatisfaction for any society. In this section, we will examine actual data from the contemporary world that lives under the domination of capitalist economic systems. The data shows without any doubt that the theoretical errors of the major economic principals have led to serious failures that cause huge catastrophic effects on a very large number of the population in the world.

2.1.2 Hunger under capitalism

Growing out of a Harvard School of Public Health conference on hunger, The Physician Task Force on Hunger in America was established in early 1984. The major findings and
conclusions of the Task Force include:
? Hunger is a problem of epidemic proportions across the nation
? Hunger in America is getting worse, not better
? Malnutrition and ill-health are associated with hunger
? is the result of federal government policies
? Present policies are not alleviating hunger in America
Conclusion : Resolution of hunger and poverty require fundamental change at the level of the economic system. Capitalism is designed to produce poverty not to resolve it.

2.1.3 Globalization

is the newer form of global capitalism. It is capitalism across nations.
Capital flows between nations without serious constraints. Products move from the
producing origins to consuming destinations without the feel of borders or national
barriers. Again, the production of resources and wealth increase and multiply. But the
impact of the tremendous growth of wealth does not find its way to satisfy the needs of
the people. Consider this report on globalization:

"The Scorecard on Globalization 1980-2000: Twenty Years of Diminished Progress"
By Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker, Egor Kraev and Judy Chen
For economic growth and almost all of the other indicators, the last 20 years have shown a very clear decline in progress as compared with the previous two decades. Among the findings:
? Growth:

The fall in economic growth rates was most pronounced and across the board for all groups or countries. The poorest group went from a per capita GDP growth rate of 1.9 percent annually in 1960-80, to a decline of 0.5 percent per year (1980-2000). For the middle group (which includes mostly poor countries), there was a sharp decline from an annual per capita growth rate of 3.6 percent to just less than 1 percent. Over a 20 year period, this represents the difference between doubling income per person,versus increasing it by just 21 percent. The other groups also showed substantial declines in growth rates.

?Life Expectancy: Progress in life expectancy was also reduced
for 4 out of the 5 groups of countries, with the exception of the highest group (life expectancy 69-76 years). The sharpest slowdown was in the second to worst group (life expectancy between 44-53 ears)..
? Infant and Child Mortality:

Progress in reducing infant mortality was also considerably slower during the period of globalization (1980-1998) than over the previous two decades. The biggest declines in progress were for the middle to worst performing groups. Progress in reducing child mortality (under 5) was also slower for the middle to worst performing groups of countries.

? Education and literacy:

Progress in education also slowed during the period of globalization. The rate of growth of primary, secondary, and tertiary (post-secondary) school enrollment was slower for most groups of countries.

Globalization and Inequality Among Nations


According to this "old fashioned ? three worlds partition" partition, 76 percent of world population lives in poor countries, 8 lives in middle income countries (defined as countries with per capita income levels between Brazil and Italy), and 16 percent lives in rich countries. Now, if we keep the same income thresholds as implied in the previous division, and look at "true" distribution of people according to their income (regardless of where they live), we find a very similar result: 78 percent of the world population is poor, 11 percent belongs to the middle class, and 11 percent are rich.

2.1.5. Economic health or illness?

The most important index of economic well being under capitalism is the index that monitors the growth of the nation?s health as a whole. DOW Jones, NASDAQ,NIKO, NYSE and other indexes monitor the status of the nation?s most powerful companies. A steady increase of these indexes does not record, reflect or impact the status of the poor in the nation. In fact, the overwhelming data shows that poverty and hunger persist despite the steady increase of economic indexes over the years. The daily report of the economic indexes prove one more time that capitalism is inherently concerned about the growth of products, rather than the satisfaction of the needs of people.

2.1.6. Virtual Wealth

The obsession of product and wealth growth under capitalism has resulted in the removal of the boundaries between the products and services and money. The monetary system existed in the first place to represent the values of products and services in a mobile transferable format. For centuries, gold and silver provided a solid base for measuring the exchange value of products and services. Under the pressure of growing economic product growth, the US capitalist economists canceled Briton Woods treaty which establishes a fixed exchange rate for gold, thus making gold one more commodity.The devastating result of this action is the creation of a new environment where wealth has become virtual wealth. By virtual wealth, I mean the growth of money independent of the growth of products and services. The two major factors that lead to the unlimited growth of money are the interest (usury) and stock investments. Interest allows money to grow without the involvement of product and services. The values of stocks increase or decrease quite often based on circumstances, politics, stability, and other factors not directed to the products and services provided by the stock holding company. The phenomenon of DOT.COM in the 1990?s is a clear example.

3.0 Islamic Economic System

Before nudging in the discussion of the economic systems and their impacts on us as
people, I would like to lay down a foundation regarding Islam.

3.1 Islamic Sources

Islam is a religion in the sense that it is based on a belief in God (the creator) and in the accountability to God on the Day of Judgment. Islam is also an ideology in the sense that it comprises an ideological foundation and a system of laws for the individual and the society. The Islamic systems cover the political, economic, and social systems. Islam is founded upon the fundamental principal that man, life, and universe are all the creations of the eternal, one and only one God whose main name in Islam is Allah. Allah possesses many attributes, all of which are considered to be eternal and unbounded.

The belief in the existence of God, the Eternal Creator, is a rational process in Islam and an obligation upon the reasoning facility of the human. The belief in God under Islam requires also the belief in all His attributes and functions. Belief in God, as such, requires the belief that there needs to be a channel through which God communicates to the people the means and ways to worship. This channel is what is known as Prophethood and/or the Messenger. Worshipping Allah, under Islam, is the process of following the guidance revealed by God through His Messengers and/or Prophets. Islam considers the belief in the Prophethood an essential principal of Islam. The Prophets include Adam, Ibraheem, Isaac, Moses, Jesus, Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Them All) and many others. Islam, as a religion and ideology, is based entirely on what is revealed to Mohammad (PBUH). The revelation to Mohammad has two forms. One form is the Quran, which is the actual word of Allah the creator. The wording and the meanings of the verses are written into the Quran exactly as revealed to Mohammad. The Quran was compiled and completely written during the life of the Messenger Mohammad (PBUH). The other format of the revelation is what is known in Arabic as the "Sunnah" of Mohammad (PBUH). The Sunnah comprises statements, actions, and endorsement of Mohammad (PBUH). The Sunnah is also a revelation from God to Mohammad, except that the wording of the Sunnah is left to Mohammad (PBUH). The Sunnah was compiled and authenticated after the death of the Prophet based on written statements and verbal narrations.

For a view to be considered an Islamic one, it has to be validated through the Quran and the Sunnah. In this lecture, I will trace the Islamic economic system through the verses of the Quran and the statements of the Sunnah.

3.2 The View of Islam towards the Economy

3.2.1 Allah created all resources in the world

In the Quran, Allah states that all the resources in the world are created by Him, and made usable to the humans:

"It is He who created for you all that exists on earth." [Al-Baqarah: 29]

"Allah is He Who put at your disposal the sea so that the ships may sail by His command, and so as you may seek His bounty." [Al-Jathiyah: 12]

"He put at your disposal that which is in the heavens and that which is in the earth, all from Him." [Al-Jathiyah: 13]

"And We sent down iron, in which is great might, as well as many benefits for mankind." [Al-Hadid: 25]

"Let man consider his food. How We pour water in showers. Then split the earth in fragments. And cause the grains to grow therein. And grapes and fresh vegetation. And olives and dates, and enclosed gardens, dense with lofty trees. And fruits and grazes. Provision for you and your cattle." [?Abasa: 24-32]

These examples indicate that technical means of production is left to the people. It is apparent that Islam focuses on the economic system (distribution of wealth) and not economic science (technical production).

3.2.2 Economic Policy in Islam


The economic policy is the objective of the laws, which deal with the management of human basic needs (food, shelter, education, health, security). The Islamic economic
policy could be understood from the statement of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh):
"Whom who wakes up secure at home with healthy body and food for his day as if he acquired the whole life". The prophet (pbuh) also states: "Allah breaks covenant with any group of people living in a close vicinity, whereby one of them goes to bed while hungry".

The economic policy in Islam aims at securing the complete satisfaction of all basic needs for every individual, and to enable each individual to purse the satisfaction of their luxuries. Islam looks at every individual as a human being whose basic needs to be satisfied completely, then it looks to him in his capacity as a particular individual, to enable him to satisfy his luxuries as much as possible.
On the other hand, Islam views the individual as part of a whole society that lives according to certain rules and regulations that have to be taken into consideration.Therefore, the purpose of the economic policy in Islam does not address how to raise the standard of living in the country without securing the rights for every individual. Nor is it just to provide the means of satisfaction in the society without setting wealth distribution processes.

The Islamic economic objective is achieved through multiple laws and regulations:

First, defining property ownership as being of three kinds:

1. Individual ownership
2. Public ownership
3. State ownership

The individual can own anything except that of what is public property or prohibited materials such as alcohol or pigs. The public owns all minerals of the earth that are not limited by nature such as gold and silver mines, oil fields, natural gas fields, etc. or all things that are publicly shared such as seas, rivers, roads etc. The state owns certain revenues including land taxation called (Kharaj). Such laws allow for fair distribution of wealth and allow the state to provide public services, security, healthcare, education and others.

Second, Islam prohibits any kind of Usury and interest based loans, on the other hand it encourages partnership in different ways(but not Joint Stock Companies) and interest free loans. Also, Islam prohibits monopoly allowing for true competition and opportunity. Third, Islam obliges each capable person to work, so as to achieve the basic needs for himself and his dependants.

Forth, through the unique Islamic social structure based around protecting the family,Islam obliges adult males to support their parents once the father is not able to work or passed away. If there are no one in the family who can support then the State Treasury (Bait ul-Mal) has to step in. As such, Islam requires that the individual secure for himself and his dependants the satisfaction of the basic needs i.e. adequate food, clothing,education, medication and housing. Islam then encourages the individual to secure the luxuries of life as much as he can.

Fifth, Islam prevents the government from the imposition of taxes, except in cases of public disasters such as famine, and where the state funds are unable to cover expenses. Tax then is imposed for a limited time and taken only from the wealthy.
Through the combination of spiritual, social and economic drives, the Islamic economic system achieves the right of livelihood for everyone individually, and facilitates the securing of the luxuries.

To achieve the societal values within which the individual lives, Islam sets certain rules and regulation within which the individual is to behave while striving to secure his/her needs. For example, Islam prohibits the production and consumption of wine by Muslims, and it does not consider it an economic material. Islam prohibits the taking of riba (usury, interest, etc.) and its usage in transactions for everyone who holds Islamic citizenship. It does not consider riba as an economic commodity, whether for Muslims or non-Muslims. Islam considers what the society ought to be when utilizing any property.

Islam did not detach the individual from being human, nor the human being from being a particular individual. Furthermore, Islam does not consider what the society ought to be separate from the issue of securing the satisfaction of the basic needs for every individual, and enabling him/her to satisfy the luxuries. Rather, Islam makes the satisfaction of the needs and what the society ought to be, as two inseparable issues.For the sake of satisfying all the basic needs completely, and to enable satisfaction of the luxuries, the economic commodity should be available to people, and it will not be available to them unless they strive to earn it. Provided that there is a system that protects the basic integrity of the human being. Therefore,

Islam urges people to earn,seek the provision and strive without the fear of not finding food to eat or secured home to return back to at the end of the day. Islam made striving to earn the provision compulsory upon Muslims thus creating a productive society.

Allah said:
"So walk in the paths of the earth and eat of His sustenance which He provides."[Al-Mulk: 15]

Many Ahadith came to encourage the earning of property. In one Hadith, the Prophet Mohammad _ shook the hand of Sa?ad ibn Muadh (ra) and found his hands to be rough. Sa?ad said: "I dig with the shovel to maintain my family." The Prophet _ kissed Sa?ad?s hands and said: "(They are) two hands which Allah loves."The Prophet (pbuh) said: "Nobody would ever eat food that is better than to eat of his own hand?s work."

It was narrated that Omar Ibn Al-Khattab (RA) passed by some people who were consistently in the Mosque reading the Qur?an (meaning not working). He asked who they were. He was told: "They are those who depend upon Allah (Al-Mutawwakiloon)." Omar replied: "No, they are the eaters who eat the people?s properties. Do you want me to describe those who really depend upon Allah (Al-Mutawwakiloon)? He is the person who throws the seeds in the earth and then depends on his Lord The Almighty,
The Exalted (?Azza wa jall)."

Thus we find that the verses and the Ahadith encourage striving to seek provision, and working to earn property, just as they encourage the enjoyment of the property and eating of the good things.
Allah said:

"Say: who has forbidden the beautiful gifts of Allah, which He has provided for His servants, and the things, clean and pure, (that He has provided)?"[Al-A?raf: 32]

"O you who believe! Spend of the good things which you have earned, and of that which We bring forth from the earth for you." [Al-Baqarah: 267]

"O you who believe! Do not prohibit the good things which Allah made halal for you." [Al-Ma?idah: 87]

These verses, and the like, denote clearly that the divine rules (AhkamShari?ah) related to the economy, aim at acquiring property and enjoying good things. So, Islam obliged individuals to earn, and ordered them to enjoy wealth that they earned, so as to achieve economic growth in the country, to satisfy the basic needs of every person, and to enable the satisfaction of his luxuries.
However, the economic progress through motivating every capable individual to work, assigning properties to the State and the investing of public property, all are means to satisfy the needs in the best possible manner. The Messenger of Allah said:"Whosoever sought the life (matters) legitimately (halal) and decently he will meet Allah with his face as a full moon; and whosoever sought it arrogantly and excessively will meet Allah while He is angry at him."

The Prophet also said:"Do you have, son of Adam, of your property except that which you ate and consumed, that which you wore and exhausted, and that which you donated and preserved (for yourself in the hearafter)?"
Allah the Supreme said:

"Don?t commit Israaf (spending or going beyond the limits imposed by Islam); surely He (Allah) does not like those who condone Israaf." [Al-A?raf: 31]

Islam made the aim of owning properties a mean towards satisfying the needs and not for the purpose of boasting. It required managing the economy according to Allah?s orders and made it obligatory. It ordered the Muslims to seek the Hereafter and the pleasure of the creator through what they earn and spend by their own well, without ignoring the goods of this worldly life.

Allah said:

"But seek the abode of the Hereafter in that which Allah has given you, and do not neglect your portion of worldly life, and be kind as Allah has been kind to you, and seek not corruption in the earth." [Al-Qasas: 77]

Islam secured the observance of the rules in two ways complementing each other. First,Islam motivated the Muslims to adhere to this economic policy through the fear of Allah (Taqwa). Second, Islam legislated laws which the State implements upon the people.
Allah said:

"O you who believe! observe your duty to Allah and give up what remains (due to you) from riba, if you are (in truth) believers." [Al-Baqarah: 278]

Analysis of the divine rules related to the economy, shows that Islam addresses the
issue of enabling people to utilize wealth. Islam addresses the initial acquisition of wealth, its disposal and its distribution amongst the public. The rules that deal with the economy are thus based on three principles:

1. Initial ownership,
2. Disposal of the ownership, and
3. Distribution of wealth amongst the people.

With regard to the issue of ownership, it belongs to Allah, since He is the Owner of all the Dominion (Malik al-Mulk). Allah stated in the texts that property (Maal) belongs to Him.

Allah said: "And give them from the property of Allah, which He gave to you."[An-Nur: 33]

Property, therefore, belongs to Allah alone. However, He has put mankind in charge of property, provided them with it, and has given them the right of owning it.
Allah, the Exalted said:

"And spend from what He put you in charge of." [Al-Hadid: 7]

"O you who believe! observe your duty to Allah and give up what remains (due to)"
"And He has provided you with properties and offspring." [Nuh: 12]


Islam also defined three types of ownership (as mentioned earlier):

1. Individual ownership
2. State ownership
3. Public ownership

Through the management of these types of ownership, the economy of both the society and the individuals are completely satisfied.

3.2.2. Zakat and poverty

Islam has waged a war on poverty by all means. It is the poverty of the individual people that Islam is concerned with, in addition to the poverty of the nation as a whole. Islam has instituted the charity, called in Islam the "Zakat" in a manner that eliminates the poverty altogether. "Zakat" in Islam is a mean of worship. It is one of the pillars of Islam as much as the prayer is. The Islamic system aims at eliminating poverty from the society, rather than managing the poor. One of the companions of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and also one of the Guided Successors of

Him, Ali Bin Abi Talib stated:

"If poverty were a man, I would certainly kill him".

Practically, after few years of implementing Islam in the Islamic society, the notion of poverty was gone altogether. It is narrated in the history1 that during the era of the Khalifah Omar Bin Adel Aziz, there was no single poor person within the Islamic

State who would accept the charity of the "Zakat".

In a statement by Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), he says:

"Allah breaks covenant with any group of people living in a close vicinity, whereby one of them goes to bed while hungry".

The Islamic economic system defines the main problem to be solved by the system as the poverty of the individuals. The economic index, thus in the Islamic State, would be the percentage of people who live below poverty line. The economic strength and growth will be measured by the actual well-being of the individuals rather than by the well-being of NASDAQ or DOW JONES. What good would it do to the stomach of a poor person, if the NASDAQ gains or loses points? The Islamic Economic Index is based on the food that is available to each and every human soul in the society.

The Islamic economic system reserves the vital resources of the state for the well-being of the people. One or more companies under Islam for example, will not own the oil fields.The fact that a certain company was able to drill and exploit oil fields in Texas does not give it the right for the oil. The oil exists in fields that go beneath the houses and lands of millions of people. In Islam, the oil belongs to all the people in the state. This is not to be mistaking with socialism that dictates that all means of productions belong to the people. Thus, the Islamic system ensures that the vital resources that belong to the people be actually returned to the people. As such, poverty will never exist in any society that has vital resources.

3.2.3. Usury ? Interest ? Riba


Islam categorically prohibited the use of money to grow money, i.e., usury. Loans in Islam are given to others and considered a mean of worship. Allah (SWT) declares that whoever gives a loan (no interest) to another person is indeed giving a loan to Allah. In return, Allah multiplies the reward for the loan giver.

Allah stated:
"Whoever gives a good loan to Allah; and Allah will multiply it to him many folds"

4.0 Islamic Economy: Reality

The harsh reality is that Islam as described in the Quran and Sunnah has been removed from the real life of the people (Muslims and non Muslims alike) for almost a century. The Islamic State has been the responsible entity for implementing the Islamic systems during and after the death of the Messenger Mohammad (PBUH). The Islamic State continued to function (with ups and downs) until 1924, when Mustapha Kamal of Turkey with the help of western European capitalists managed to abolish the Islamic state (Khilafah). Since then, the Muslims and non-Muslims in the entire world have been living under various secular systems, implementing capitalism in the economic life.

Muslims continued to believe in Islam and practice those parts of Islam that pertain to the individual. However, for Islam to produce the results and objectives set forth in the Quran and the Sunnah, the full implementation of Islam is necessary. Without full implementation of Islam, the results could be counter productive. As a result of the absence of Islam, the Muslims resorted to national bonds, ethnic traditions and values.Quite often and after decades of intentional misguiding, the Muslims mix their national values, national aspirations, and methods with those of Islam. The truth of the matter though is that Islam was revealed as a set of laws, regulations and systems to guide and manage the behavior of the society as well as the individuals.

The history of the life of Mohammad (PBUH) shows that the objectives of Islam, the resolutions of Islam, and the values of Islam started to materialize only after the establishment of the Islamic State in Medinah, 13 years after the beginning of Islam. In fact, most of the laws, regulations, and systems were not revealed to Mohammad except after his migration to Medinah where the state was established. The laws of

the Zakat (that I discussed earlier), riba (usury), ownership, and wealth distribution were revealed after the state was created.

6.0 Conclusions

Islam as a religion and ideology needs to be revisited by both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It is a religion that should be looked at as a continuation of previous religions and inheritor of them as well. As an ideology, Islam should be viewed as one that provides economic, political, and social systems that do not belong to the ideologies of materialism (both capitalism and socialism). After the fall and collapse of socialism, the people of the world resorted to capitalism as their only alternative. The collapse of capitalism is eminent as a natural consequence to its inability to address the human needs in a satisfactory manner. It is the responsibility and the duty of the people of the world to examine Islam with serious and sincere scrutiny, in order to consider it as the only viable alternative to capitalism.