Qālūn Musḥaf (Entire Holy Qur’an), Read by Shaykh Othman Al-Andary with the Rules of Tajwīd

The Entire Holy Qur’an With Color Coded Rules of Tajwīd in the Qālūn Reading Style (Qiraat of Qālūn an Naafi)

Click on the link below to download a copy of the muṣḥaf, then click on one of the links below the picture of the muṣḥaf to follow one of the well known readers of the Warsh Reading Style.

Link for Muṣḥaf:


Qālūn Extract Page

Click link below to follow Shaykh Othman Ibn Al-Tayeb Al-Andary of Tunisia

This is the Full Quran recited by Shaykh Al-Andary:


Published in: Uncategorized on July 12, 2015 at 11:32  Leave a Comment  

Khalaf Musḥaf (Entire Holy Qur’an), Read by Abdur Rashid Sufi with the Rules of Tajwīd

The Entire Holy Qur’an With Color Coded Rules of Tajwīd in the Khalaf Reading Style (Qiraat of Khalaf from Hamzah)

Click on the link below to download a copy of the muṣḥaf, then click on one of the links below the picture of the muṣḥaf to follow one of the well known readers of the Khalaf Reading Style.

Link for Muṣḥaf:


Click link below to follow Abdur Rashid Sufi in the Qiraat of Khalaf an Hamzah

This is the Full Quran recited by Abdur Rashid Sufi:


Published in: Uncategorized on July 11, 2015 at 20:34  Leave a Comment  

Warsh Musḥaf (Entire Holy Qur’an), Read by Famous Reciters with the Rules of Tajwīd

The Entire Holy Qur’an With Color Coded Rules of Tajwīd in the Warsh Reading Style (Qiraat of Warsh an Naafi)

Click on the link below to download a copy of the muṣḥaf, then click on one of the links below the picture of the muṣḥaf to follow one of the well known readers of the Warsh Reading Style.

Link for Muṣḥaf:


Click link below to follow Shaykh Khalil al-Hussary of Egypt:

This is the Full Quran recited by Shaykh al-Hussary:

المصحف المرتل برواية ورش عن نافع للقارئ الشيخ…

Click link below to follow AbdulBaset AbdulSamad of Egypt

This is the Full Quran recited by AbdulBaset:




Click link below to follow Qari Mustapha Qarbi of Morocco

This is the Full Quran recited by Qari Mustapha:


Published in: Uncategorized on July 11, 2015 at 11:19  Leave a Comment  

Yā Laṭīfu

Published in: Uncategorized on June 14, 2014 at 03:38  Leave a Comment  

Institutional Framework of Zakat: Dimension and Implications

Institutional Framework of Zakat: Dimension and Implications


The Emir of Kano

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi  

Being text of a lecture delivered at a symposium on “Essentials for Building an Islamic Ummah” held at Katuru Road Mosque, Ungwar Sarki, Kaduna on Saturday 2/12/2000.

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakath

I thank this centre for once more honouring me with the invitation to present a lecture in your annual Ramadhan series. I have been asked to speak on three areas:

1.                 Injunctions on zakat;

2.                 Need for collective system of zakat; and

3.                 Contemporary issues on zakat.

Permit me to do away with the first item on the list above since I have no doubt that all Muslims know, of necessity, that zakat, like the shahada, prayer, fasting and Hajj, is one of the five pillars of Islam and obligatory on every Muslim. I therefore crave your indulgence to proceed to the other two items which are more likely to add value to our collective understanding of the subject matter.


The collection of Zakat is a responsibility of the Islamic State, and this is established in the Quran, Sunnah, actions of the salaf as-salih and rational analysis.  Before I proceed to mention the sources corroborating this position, I would like to address a question which I am often asked.  In the absence of an “Islamic State” in Nigeria, who should take responsibility for Zakat collection and to whom should Muslims pay?

My view, and Allah knows best, is that all those persons who are recognized by the generality of people in their areas as the leaders of the Muslim community have responsibility for collection of zakat.  In this part of the country, for example, the Emirs who appoint the Imams of Jumu’at mosques and to whom the masses give allegiance as the de facto Imams, are in my opinion responsible for  this pillar of Islam and answerable before Allah on the Day of Judgement as to what they have or have not done to establish a collective system for zakat collection and administration. Where state governments have officially adopted “shariah”, this responsibility becomes theirs.  In what follows, we will assume when we say “state” we are referring to an Islamic Government, an Imam (in the sense of leader or emir) or an organisation which represents the collective interest of the Muslim people in a non-Muslim society (such as Muslim Unions and societies in the western world).

As mentioned above the collective nature of the zakat system in Islam is established by Qur’anic texts and Prophetic Hadiths.  Among the most explicit is the ayah “Take sadaqa from their wealth to purify and cleanse them” (9:103).  The word “take (khuz)” makes it clear that the addressee has both the authority and responsibility for collection. He is instructed to “take”.  By that one instruction, he is obliged to ‘take’ and those from whom it is to be taken are obliged to give.  The injunction was to the Messenger of Allah in his capacity as Head of State and therefore to his successors in that capacity.  This is why the Caliph Abu Bakr waged war against the Arab tribes who refused to pay zakat.  When ‘Umar questioned his judgement in fighting believers he replied “By Allah, I shall fight those who differentiate between salat and zakat.  Zakat is the right due on wealth.  By Allah, if they refused to give me one baby goat they used to give the messenger of Allah as zakat, I shall fight them for it.”

A second verse which makes clear this nature of zakat collection and administration is the verse which limits the beneficiaries of zakat to eight categories (9:60).  In this verse, specific mention is made of “those who collect (or work at) it” (al’-amilina ‘alaiha) and from this, it is clear that the collection is a process handled by an institution with employees who are actually paid for services rendered from the proceeds of zakat.  That these workers, known as su’at, are appointed by the state is established in many hadiths.  Both Bukhari and Muslim report from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet sent ‘Umar as a collector of zakat, and from Abu Humayd that the Prophet sent Ibn al-Lutabiya as a collector.  Indeed, there is a very large collection of hadiths recording the names of the su’at the prophet sent at different times to different tribes.  Among them ‘Uyayna Ibn Hisn to the Banu Tamim, Burayda Ibn Al-Hasib to Aslam and Ghifar, ‘Abbad Ibn Bishr al-Ashhali to Sulaym and Muzayna, Rafi’ ibn Makith to Juhayna,’Amr ibn al-‘As to Fazara, al-Dahhak ibn Sufyan al-Kilabi to Banu Kilab, Busr ibn Sufyan al Ka’bi to Banu Ka’b and several more as listed by Ibn Sa’d in his Tabaqat. What this tells us is that as an ummah, we have a responsibility for establishing an organised structure for zakat. The fact that those who are liable for zakat payment are not necessarily able to compute it properly and/or willing to pay it in full, if nothing else, makes it imperative. After all, governments have tax offices with assessors who are responsible for collecting taxes based on the same logic.

There will always be disagreements as to who should act for the Imam in this respect. A number of organisations have sprung up with efforts at establishing a zakat fund, or a system for collecting and administering zakat. Commendable and desirable as this is, I propose to raise a few points.

First, the Imamate is a political, as well as religious office. The Emirs and now the governors of the states which have adopted sharia formally have taken up the responsibility of administering zakat. The task, like the Imamate itself, is a fardh – kifayah, so, if these persons/governments set up a machinery for zakat collection, the responsibility falls off from the rest of the ummah. Our task will be one of assisting, advising and giving zakat.

There is a second point, however, which is often mentioned as a basis for not paying zakat to these institutions. It is the conviction often expressed that the funds are misapplied or that the promoters of the bodies are not ”good Muslims”. Apart from the serious implication of these allegations without evidence in law, the truth is that even if they were established, there would be no justification for not paying them. This point was covered extensively by al-Nawawi in his majmu’. Sahl ibn Abi Salih reports from his father: “I accumulated a zakatable amount of wealth. I asked Sa’id ibn Abi Waqqas, Ibn ‘Umar, Abu Hurayra and Abu Sa’id al – Khudri whether I should distribute zakat myself or give it to the government. They all said, “give it to the government”. In one version, he said, “don’t you see what this government does?” It was the time of the Umayyads. “Should I still give them my zakat?” They all answered, “Yes, you must.” A report by al-Bayhaqi from Ibn Umar has him as saying, “Give them your zakat even if they drink wine”. The same al-Bayhaqi reports that one of Mughira ibn Shu’ba’s slaves withheld some zakat from the Umayyad government and paid it himself because “they buy land and marry women with what we give them”. Mughira ordered him thus: “give it to the government, for the messenger of Allah (S.A.W.) ordered us to give it to them”. Ibn Umar also said, “Pay your sadaqa to whoever runs your affairs. If he does right, it is his soul that will be rewarded and if he does evil, it is on himself”.

It is therefore clear that the best option before us is to call on our leaders and assist and cooperate with them in the performance of this task. We now move to some contemporary issues in zakat.

Contemporary Issues of Zakat

I would like to separate this part of the paper into two sections. The first deals with old questions which have contemporary relevance. The second with the new questions that arise in our contemporary world.

A. Old questions, New times

As states in this part of the country adopt the Sharia legal code, it is likely that several will follow the example of Zamfara State in adopting Maliki law as the official code for their statutes. Maliki law as far as zakat is concerned has many strong points, especially if it is sourced from diverse sources within the mazhab, taking cognisance not only of the various commentaries on the Muwatta and Mudawwana, but the opinion of scholars like Qurtubi, Ibn Abd al-Barr, Ibn Rushd and Ibn ‘Arabi, along with the views of predecessors like Malik, Ibn al-Qasim, Ashhab, Asbagh and Suhnun, among others.

Of interest to me are two questions which I believe need consideration in these times, especially given the fact that that Agriculture is the mainstay of the Northern economy. These questions are old and from the time of the founders of the various Schools of Thought there has been disagreement on them. I propose here that when we consider  the issues and the arguments and the nature of contemporary society, we will find it appropriate to move from the traditional Maliki position that of other schools in these matters.

The first question deals with the range of agricultural products from which zakat (ushr) is obligatory.  Malik and Shafii limit this range to edible and preservable items only.  This excludes perishables, vegetables, fruits and cash crops.  Since “edible” crops are used in the sense of being primary food crops on which man can subsist like rice, corn and millet; the implication of this is that there is no zakat on cotton, tomatoes, potatoes, onions and all such crops which are cultivated in large quantities all over the North except in so far as the proceeds from their sale forms part of zakatable earnings or the inventory at year end forms part of “trading goods”.  In both cases, the zakat is 2.5% of value as opposed to 10% (or 5%) for produce. Not only that, it is 2.5% of residual value (what is available after expenses) as opposed to the zakat on produce which is a fraction of total harvest.

Ibn Hanbal prescribes zakat on a broader range of crops by leaving out the “edibility” condition.  According to him, any crop that is non-perishable, can be dried and can be measured in zakatable.

The strongest position however is that taken by Abu Hanifa that any crop whatsoever which is grown for profit is zakatable at the prescribed rate for produce on harvesting.  This is supported by the generality implied in Qur’anic texts such as “from what the earth produces for you” and “pay their due on the day of their harvest” after mention of a variety of trees and fruits.  It is also supported by the generality implied in the hadith “from that which is fed by the skies, one tenth is obligatory.  From that watered by irrigation one-twentieth” which did not separate food from other produce.

The view of Abu Hanifa is shared by Umar ibn Abdel-Aziz, Hammad, Daud az-Zahiri and Ibrahim an-Nakha’i.  It is considered strongest by al-Tabari.  Most important for our scholars, it was strongly supported and defended by the Maliki jurist Ibn al-Arabi both in his tafsir, Ahkam al-Qur’an and his commentary on the sunan of Tirmidhi.  It is therefore important when we speak of Malikiyya to recognize the plurality of views even within the mazhab.

The second question has to do with whether or not money can be paid as zakat instead of produce or livestock or trading goods owned by the farmer, rearer or trader, respectively.  There are at least seven different views on this, the strongest again being that of the Hanafis, supported by the actions of some companions, which is that this is permissible if the payer so prefers.  In addition to the sound arguments proffered, the sheer logistical advantage of this view commends it.  Just imagine the Government of Kano State herding cattle, goats, rams and camels from the countryside and moving bags of corn, millet etc. to the city for distribution.  Imagine the cost of this process which comes from the zakat fund.  Imagine also all those animals eating up the crops meant for the poor before distribution is complete.   Now compare this situation with one in which the payers give cash or cheques paid into an account for distribution, preserving the value of the fund completely and providing flexibility to the recipients.  The poor man can spend the money on what he needs, rather than what he is given.  This is the second area that our scholars need to look at, in my opinion, and adopt the Hanafi view.

B.  New Questions, New Times

This section deals with zakat on corporate assets. I commend to you all a small book, A-Z manual on zakat, published by Ahmed Zakari & Co and distributed free-of-charge some months ago. It covers business organisations in Islam and identifies zakatable corporate assets. In what follows, I will try to summarize their position on a few contemporary issues and also indicate areas I feel need a second look.

1.  For shares in quoted companies, these are treated as short-term investments in trading goods, since there is a ready market for them. Zakat is payable at the rate of trading goods (2.5%) based on the market value of the shares on zakat due date.

2.  For unquoted companies, zakat is paid on the payer’s share of the company’s Net Assets (i.e. Total Assets minus Total Liabilities). The assets are to be valued at their net realizable value, not cost or Net Book value (i.e. Cost minus Depreciation for Fixed Assets). The rate is 2.5% of the stockholder’s proportionate share of Net Assets.

When all shareholders in a company or partnership are muslims and none of them is worth less than the nisab for zakat, the company can pay zakat on their behalf in accordance with the ruling of the Maliki School of Thought.

3.  The writers also discussed Debtors (Receivables) as a component of Net Assets and concluded that no zakat is due on debtors until payment is received. On this they relied on the position of  Sa’id Ibn al-Musayyib and also that of Aisha and ‘Ikrimah. They preferred these positions to that taken by Uthman, Ibn-Umar and Jabir that debt is similar to deposits and zakat is payable whether or not it is received.

My own view is that the first case applies when there is doubt about collectibility of debt. High quality receivables however, are as good as cash or deposits and zakat should be paid on them. Where there is reasonable basis for not being certain, then, no zakat should be taken until collection.


It is my hope that I have sufficiently covered the ground I was expected to cover in this lecture although a lot has been left unsaid.

Let me acknowledge my great debt to two books of inestimable value as far as contemporary issues on zakat are concerned: Dr. Yusuf al- Qarddhawi’s book, Fiqh uz-zakat and the pamphlet, A-Z manual on zakat published by Ahmed Zakari & Co., a firm of Chartered Accountants based in Kano.

May Allah Guide to the straight path.

Ramadhan Kareem.

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakau.

Published in: Uncategorized on June 11, 2014 at 02:54  Leave a Comment  

The World is Illiterate by Abu Jafar al Hanbali

Published in: Uncategorized on April 5, 2014 at 15:03  Leave a Comment  

Shaykh Dr Abdalqadir As-Sufi – Moussem Discourse 2011

Published in: Uncategorized on April 3, 2014 at 16:11  Leave a Comment  

Understanding Shaikh Muḥammad Saʿīd Ramaḍān Al-Būṭī

Published in: Uncategorized on April 3, 2014 at 15:51  Leave a Comment  



by Hajj Abdalhaqq Bewley

It is well known to all of us that the there are five absolutely indispensable elements which make up Islam, all of which are absolutely essential to the practice of our deen. We find them clearly delineated in the authentic hadith reported by ‘Abdallah ibn ‘Umar,  and his father, in which he said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah Salla-l-laahsay: ‘Islam is built on five: witnessing that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establishment of the prayer, payment of Zakah, Hajj of the House, and the fast of Ramadan.’”

We know from this, and many other Qur’anic and Prophetic references, that Zakah is an absolutely indispensable element of Islam as a whole. Salah and Zakah are explicitly coupled together in the Qur’an at least twenty-nine times and many more times in an implicit way. The phrase “aqimu’s-Salah wa atu’z-Zakah” – “establish the Salah and pay the Zakah”– is a refrain which permeates Allah’s Book from beginning to end. This has been taken by some significant mufassirun to be evidence of the fact that Salah and Zakah are in effect interdependent. What they mean by this is evidence, in a legal sense, that a person’s prayer is not acceptable unless their Zakah has been properly discharged.

The first khalifah of the Muslims, Abu Bakr as-Siddiq Radia-l-laahu anhu confirmed this interpretation by saying that he would fight anyone who made a distinction between Salah and Zakah and, indeed he carried out his threat, since this was the basic cause of the Ridda Wars which took place during his caliphate. Yet, despite this, there is no doubt that the great majority of Muslims definitely consider Salah to be much more important than Zakah.There is no doubt that many of us fail to give Zakah the prime importance it is due as the third indispensable pillar of our deen.

Although it is not our aim on this occasion to go into to the fiqh of Zakah in a detailed way, it is nevertheless important to present a comprehensive overview of the key elements involved. This will help us to begin to recognise its main characteristics and see it clearly as the essential but neglected act of ibadah it is, whose purpose is to serve as a social safety net for the most needy people in every Muslim community.

Perhaps we should first of all briefly mention Zakat-al-Fitr, if only to make it clear that this is not to be confused with the pillar of Zakah that we are talking about here. Zakat-al-Fitr is a legal obligation connected to Sawm, the pillar of fasting in Ramadan. Zakat-al-Fitr is binding on every Muslim and has its own rules and conditions, which connect to the fiqh of fasting and to the Eid. However, discharging the obligation of Zakat-al-Fitr at the end of Ramadan, which every Muslim must do, has nothing whatsoever to do with the pillar of Zakah which we are talking about here.

The payment of Zakah proper, the Zakah which is the third pillar of Islam, becomes obligatory for every Muslim provided they fulfill certain conditions. The first is Islam itself: Zakah is not paid by non-Muslims. Freedom is another condition: Zakah is not paid by slaves. The third condition is possession of the nisab. The nisab is the minimum amount of wealth on which Zakah is due. If a Muslim has less than that no Zakah is owed. A further condition is actual ownership. Zakah is only paid by Muslims on property which actually belongs to them and moreover which is in their possession at the time. Finally there is hawl: a general rule that Zakah is only paid by Muslims on wealth which has been in their possession for a year or more.

Zakah is also subject to certain other factors. As with all our acts of worship, and indeed all our actions in general, a vital element in the payment of Zakah is the niyyah – the intention behind it – which must be made by the person who pays it. They must specifically intend to be fulfilling their obligation of paying Zakah to make it valid. The time of payment is another important factor. In the same way that there is a specific time for the prayer, the fast and the hajj, there is also a correct time for paying Zakah.

Another factor which was always integral to the correct payment of Zakah is its proper collection. Traditionally Zakah has always been collected by officially appointed collectors. The important point to grasp is that, legally speaking, Zakah is not the act of individual voluntary Sadaqah it has now universally become. Another vitally important aspect of Zakah which has largely been abandoned is the matter of its correct distribution, which we will look at in more detail later. There is no doubt, however, that Zakah should basically be distributed locally since its primary purpose is to look after the needs of poor Muslims in the area in which it is paid. Only in the event of there being no eligible Muslims in the local community should it be distributed further afield.

A final factor which it is vital to grasp, if the pillar of Zakah is to be restored to its rightful place at the heart of Islam, is that only the correct elements should be used to pay it. Zakah is only payable on three types of wealth – livestock, agricultural produce and monetary wealth including trade goods – and the precise means by which it may be paid, have been clearly defined from the time of the  Prophet Salla-l-laah onwards and have been confirmed by every generation of ‘ulama since. They are: animals of a precise type and age in the case of the Zakah on livestock; grain, fruit or oil of a precise quantity and quality in the case of agricultural Zakah; and, crucially, gold or silver of a precise weight in the case of the Zakah of monetary wealth and trade goods.

The proof that it was the metal itself – actual gold and silver – rather than any particular type of currency which was required in payment of Zakah on monetary wealth, is shown by the fact that the amount owed is calculated by the precise weight of gold or silver needed to pay it; it was never calculated in purely monetary terms. As we will see, despite the current situation, whereby monetary wealth is now measured in terms of paperand electronic currencies, this requirement to pay the Zakah of monetary wealth and trade goods in actual gold or silver has not changed.

We have already mentioned the importance of the correct distribution of Zakah and this has not been left to personal choice. The people who may receive Zakah are clearly delineated in the Qur’an in ayah 60 of Surat at- Tawba the meaning of which is as follows:

Sadaqah is for the poor,

the destitute,

reconciling people’s hearts,

freeing slaves,

those in debt,

spending in the way of Allah

and travellers.

It is a legal obligation from Allah, Allah is all-Knowing, All-Wise.

The word sadaqah, as used in this ayah, has always been understood by mufassirun and ‘ulama to refer specifically to Zakah. These categories of Zakah recipients which are listed in this ayah have been defined by the scholars of Islam throughout the centuries and are clearly explained in the classical commentary which the Tafsir Jalalayn gives on this ayah. It says:

The word, sadaqah, used here means Zakah so the meaning of the ayah is: Zakah is for and must be distributed to: the poor, – who are those who do not have enough to cover their normal needs; the destitute – they are those without anything at all; those who collect it – they are those whocollect the Zakah and distribute it, and the  scribes who record it; reconciling people’s hearts – this entails, amongst other things, the use of Zakah to encourage other people to become Muslim; freeing slaves – this is by giving them what they need to purchase their freedom; those in debt – that is people who ask for help to pay debts, provided those debts have not been incurred in disobedience to Allah; spending in the Way of Allah – Zakah can be used for helping those who do not have the means to undertake jihad; and travellers – those who are prevented by lack of means from completing their journey. It is a legal obligation from Allah. Allah is All-knowing of His creation, All-Wise in what He does. It is not permitted to give Zakah to people outside these categories or to deny it to any of them if the need exists. So the ruler should divide it among them but can give more to some categories if necessary…”

It can be seen from this that the use of Zakah is very specific and that it acts as a form of safety net for the most needy members of society in any Muslim community. Zakah may not be used in any other way. For instance, people often think that Zakah can be used, under the heading “spending in the way of Allah”, for projects such as building or purchasing a mosque or Islamic centre or school, when in fact, this is not a valid use of Zakah.

We made it clear earlier that officially authorised collection of Zakah was an integral factor in its correct implementation. This was the case from the time of the Prophet Salla-l-laah onwards. He is commanded in the Qur’an, in ayah 103 of Surat at-Tawbah to: “Take sadaqah from their wealth to purify and cleanse them.” As in the previously quoted ayah about the recipients of Zakah, the word “sadaqah” in this context is universally accepted as referring to Zakah. The important point to realise is the fact that this is a command from Allah. The leader of the Muslims is ordered to take  Zakah; it is not left to the choice of the individual donor. The Prophet Salla-l-laah confirmed this in his words of instruction to Mu’adh when sending him to Yemen. He said to him: “Allah has made it obligatory for Zakah to be taken from their property and given to their poor.” Again it is clear from this that Zakah is to be taken by the Muslim authorities; its payment is not to be left to the will of the individual concerned.

This obligation for the leader of the Muslims to actually take Zakah from the Muslims is further vividly illustrated by the words and actions of the first khalifah, Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, we referred to earlier. After affirming the inseparable connection between Salah and Zakah, he declared, “If they refuse me even a hobbling rope, which they used to pay to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, I will fight them for it.” And, as we know, he went on to risk the very existence of the fledgling Muslim community by carrying out his threat. This shows that he considered the collection of Zakah to be an absolute duty of the political leader of the Muslim community.

It is clear, therefore, that the collection and distribution of Zakah is an integral function of Muslim governance and history shows that all the schools of fiqh have upheld this organic connection between Zakah and political authority. It was something which was taken for granted throughout all the centuries of Muslim rule up until the present time. Centrally appointed collection and distribution of Zakah is assumed in all the traditional literature on the subject and is the clear position of the four madhabs of Islam. They are all in agreement about the integral connection of Zakah to Muslim governance. For instance, Imam as-Sarakhsi, the famous Hanafi scholar, says in his book al-Mabsut: “Zakah is a right of Allah and is to be collected and distributed by the leader of the Muslims or his appointees. If anyone pays his Zakah to anyone else it does not remove from him the obligation of Zakah.” Imam Malik says in the Muwatta:

“The distribution of Zakah is up to the individual judgment of the man in charge… There is no fixed share for the collector of Zakah except as the leader of the Muslims sees fit.” Imam ash-Shafi’i says in al-Umm about the Qur’anic category, “those who collect it,” that they are those appointed by the khalifah of the Muslims to collect and distribute Zakah.And Imam Ahmad is quoted in the book Ash-sharih ar-rabbani li musnad Ahmad as saying, “The khalifah alone has the authority and responsibility to collect and distribute Zakah whether by himself or through those he appoints and he has the authority and responsibility to fight those who refuse to pay it.”

These are merely four representative examples from literally thousands of other corroborating possibilities, so it is clear that right from the time of its original prescription, the collection and distribution of Zakah was an integral and inseparable function of Muslim governance. The fact that the collection and distribution of Zakah is no longer in the hands of the political leaders of the Muslim community, means in effect that the pillar of Zakah can no longer be said to exist in the way it was prescribed by Allah in His Book and subsequently implemented by His Messenger. The payment and distribution of Zakah by isolated individuals, which is what Zakah has at best been reduced to at the present time, does not in fact properly fulfill the legal obligation of Zakah, because, as we have seen, the active involvement of established Muslim political leadership is essential if it is to be implemented correctly. Lack of this organic connection between Zakah and Muslim leadership necessarily means that the nature of Zakah has been altered beyond any recognition from its original function and practice.

Plainly said: unless it is collected and distributed according to the Shari’ah by a recognized Muslim political authority, it is, properly speaking, not really Zakah. So a first priority for us, if we really desire to see the pillar of Zakah restored to its pivotal place at the heart of Islam, must be to ensure politically effective Muslim leadership, at least at the local level of every Muslim community. Without this it is impossible for the collection and distribution of Zakah to be correctly implemented according to the Shari’ah.

Another factor which has played a major role in undermining Zakah and which has gone hand in hand with the loss of political authority we have noted, has been the change in the nature of wealth and money over the last two centuries or so. Until the end of the eighteenth century the chief measures of wealth in human society were land, and the animals and agricultural produce produced on it, and mercantile wealth, which was exclusively measured in terms of gold and silver coinage. These natural components of human prosperity are highlighted by Allah ta’ala in the Qur’an in Sura Ali ʿImran when He mentions:

…heaped-up mounds of gold and silver, and horses with markings, and livestock and fertile farmland. 3:14.

And, as we have seen, these are the very things on which Zakah, as a tax on superfluous wealth, is levied: particular types of agricultural produce, livestock, and monetary wealth, when any of these reaches the level of the nisab, in other words a level which is over and above the legitimate immediate needs of the individual concerned.

The problem is that the urban existence of the vast majority of Muslims in the world today means that Zakah on livestock and agricultural produce has basically no relevance at all to their lives. It is also the case that gold and silver have long ceased to be used as currency and this has meant that Muslims no longer recognise the need to pay Zakah on their monetary wealth and trade goods in these two metals, in spite of the fact that, as we have seen, this is the way that the Shari’ah demands that it should be paid.

The rise of the banking industry, which brought paper money into general use and has made it, in most cases, the only legal medium of exchange, has made it very difficult to measure, or even establish the monetary wealth owned by a Muslim on which Zakah must be paid. What is at issue here, where Zakah is concerned, is the relationship between gold and silver – on which, and with which, Zakah must be paid – and the paper money, and now increasingly the  electronic currencies, which today make up most people’s monetary wealth.

Although many Muslims are not aware of it, this whole matter has been much discussed by the scholars of Islam. The use of paper money, which we now take for granted and which is the only money we know, is in many ways contrary to the Shari’ah and many ‘ulama fought a strong rearguard action against its introduction into Muslim lands. One reason for this was because of the difficulties it placed in the way of Zakah and the consequent threat it posed to Islam as a whole. Although some modernist Muslims have tried to adapt and compromise the Shari’ah to make it fit in with the present economic system, the truth is, as many ‘ulama have made indisputably plain, that the deen cannot be fudged in this way. The Shari’ah on this matter is clear: Zakah on monetary wealth and trade goods may only be paid in actual gold or silver.

A number of fatwahs about this matter have been issued by Islamic scholars, including the landmark fatwa of Shaykh ‘Illish, the great Shaykh of al- Azhar of the late 19th century. A translation of the full text of this fatwa can be found in the book Zakah – The Fallen Pillar of Islam. Paper money had just been introduced for the first time as currency within the Ottoman Empire and Shaykh ‘Illish was asked whether Zakah should be paid on it or not. In summary his answer was that Zakah should not be paid on it because, unlike gold and silver on which Zakah must be paid, the paper which was acting as currency had no intrinsic value. Zakah would only be owed on it if there was sufficient weight of it for its value as scrap paper to reach the amount of the nisab on which Zakah would be payable on it as merchandise.

This makes the principle involved extremely clear: Zakah can only be paid using those means, which are clearly defined in the Book and Sunnah, namely livestock, agricultural produce and actual gold and silver. Unlike paper money, these are all things which have value in themselves as commodities. If you deface a gold coin it is still worth its weight in gold, whereas if you deface a hundred Pula note it is worth virtually nothing at all.

 It might be said, going strictly by this understanding, that no Zakah is owed on wealth held in bank accounts and other modern forms of saving and investment because no actual gold or silver is involved. However, going by the fact that the original intention of paper money was to represent particular amounts of gold and silver, it has been argued that, for Zakah purposes, monetary wealth held in these forms should be valued in terms of the amount of gold or silver that can be bought with it. If this amount exceeds the nisab, Zakah is owed. Certainly, if Zakah is to be paid at all in the present circumstances, and this is something which must be done both to re-establish Allah’s deen in its entirety and to look after the needs of millions of Muslims who are legally entitled to it, then this is the position which needs to be adopted by Muslims everywhere. What must be emphasised, however, is that this in no way removes the obligation for Muslims to pay Zakah in the actual gold or silver categorically demanded by the Shari’ah.

Since the Zakah on monetary wealth has to be paid in gold or silver, it is essential to know exactly what amount of gold and silver constitutes the nisab, the minimum amount on which Zakah is owed. The nisab in the case of gold is 20 dinars by weight and in the case of silver it is 200 dirhams by weight, so we need to know the exact weight of both the dinar and the dirham to find out whether or not we owe Zakah and if we do, how much we have to pay.

Both dinars and dirhams are mentioned in the Qur’an and were in use during the lifetime of the Prophet Salla-l-laah. The exact weight and purity of those coins were carefully recorded at the time and have been passed down through the centuries. The dinar weighed 72 grains of pure gold whose equivalent in modern terms is 4.25 grams. The modern equivalent of the dirham is 3 grams of silver. On this basis, as far as Zakah is concerned, the nisab for gold is 4.25 x 20 which works out at 85 grams, and for silver 3 x 200 which comes to 600 grams. The exact value of these amounts of gold and silver in whatever currency is in use in the place where a person’s Zakah is being assessed, will, of course, depend on their market value at the time and will need to be calculated at the time and place that the Zakah is being assessed.

In the modern context gold dinars and silver dirhams, conforming exactly to the traditional dimensions, were minted in 1992 by Muslim communities in both Britain and Spain and since then have also been produced in considerable quantities in Indonesia, South Africa, Malaysia and Dubai. This has resulted in their availability for the payment of Zakah in various places throughout the world. However, because it is the actual weight of gold and silver which are the vital factor where Zakah is concerned, there is no reason why Krugerrands or gold sovereigns or indeed any other form of gold and silver should not also be used to pay Zakah, provided of course they are of the right weight and purity. The important points, which must again be stressed, are that firstly, according to the Shari’ah, the Zakah owed on monetary wealth may only be paid in actual gold and silver and secondly that there is in fact no difficulty in obtaining the gold and silver necessary to accomplish this.

In conclusion we have seen that a combination of factors – namely thefact that Zakah is no longer collected and distributed under Muslim political authority and the fact that there has been a total change in the nature of wealth in recent times – has meant that Zakah, the pivotal third pillar of the deen, has, to all intents and purposes, ceased to exist in anything like its original form and is certainly not being implemented in the way demanded by all sound Muslim legal authorities throughout Islamic history.At best it has now been left to individual choice and relegated to the realms of private sadaqah, which is very different from the pillar of Zakah commanded by Allah and instituted by His Messenger, and the rightly guided khalifahs who succeeded him,  ajma‘in.

This being the case it is clearly the duty of all Muslims to do everything within their power to put this right and restore the pillar of Zakah to its rightful place as one of the essential mainstays of Islam. As we have seen, to make this possible certain steps need to be taken, which can be summarised under four main headings.

POLITICAL LEADERSHIP: – As we have seen, recognised and active political leadership within each Muslim community is absolutely indispensable for the correct collection and distribution of Zakah. Therefore, we should either appoint new leaders from amongst ourselves who we then empower to organise the proper implementation of the pillar of Zakah, or we should approach and empower existing leadership to take it on.

ASSESSMENT & COLLECTION: – One of the first tasks of such leadership will be to appoint Zakah assessors and collectors. Not only will they have to be trustworthy and discrete, but they will also have to have the requisite knowledge of the fiqh of Zakah needed to calculate a person’s Zakah in the present situation and be able to deal with any special circumstances. So even if they are well versed in the traditional fiqh of Zakah they will also need to be clear on how to address the many new matters that the current financial system has thrown up.

GOLD AND SILVER COINAGE: – As we have seen access to gold and silvercoinage is essential for the correct payment of Zakah. Dinars and dirhams of the correct weight and purity of gold and silver are now available from a number of sources. As well as this other types of gold and silver coinage can also be easily obtained. It will be necessary to value cash and other assets in terms of the amount of gold or silver they can buy at that moment in that particular geographic location so that the exact weight of the metal concerned owed as Zakah can be correctly calculated. It must also be said that although Zakah must be collected and distributed in gold or silver, there is no harm in that gold or silver subsequently being exchanged for other forms of currency if that would make it easier for recipients. It is, however, hoped that within a reasonably short period of time the use of gold and silver coinage by traders and shopkeepers will become more and more commonplace so that such exchanges will cease to be necessary.

DISTRIBUTION: – The matter of the distribution of Zakah must be taken very seriously. Collected Zakah should be given as soon as possible to identified recipients within the Qur’anically defined eight categories. The leader of the community will have to liaise with the collectors and others, firstly to prioritise the categories of people entitled to receive Zakah in their particular location and secondly to decide how much each individual should be given.

I would like to finish by saying that what we have been talking about here is not just a theoretical possibility, some pie in the sky idea, some unrealisable dream about how things might be. This method of collecting and distributing Zakah in gold and silver, according to the original model first demonstrated for us by the Prophet Salla-l-laah and continued down through the centuries of Islam until comparatively recent times, has already been reactivated without difficulty in a number of Muslim communities throughout the world. It is in fact easy to do this and requires nothing more than the will to make it happen. And what greater incentive for us could there be than the words of our beloved Prophet Salla-l-laah himself, who told us: “Anyone who revives an aspect of my Sunnah that is forgotten after my death, will have a reward equivalent to that of all the people who follow him, without that diminishing their reward in any way.” (At-Tirmidhi) He also said, on the same lines: “Anyone who revives my Sunnah in the time of corruption will receive the reward of a hundred shuhada.” (al-Baihaqi) And in this case Fard and Sunnah combine together because we are talking about the re-establishment of Zakah, one of the fundamental obligations of our deen, and Allah ta’ala assures us on the tongue of His Messenger Salla-l-laah in a famous hadith qudsi: “My slave draws nearer to Me by nothing I love more than what I have made obligatory for him.” What more could we want; what greater reward could there be? Therefore we ask Allah, tabaraka wa ta’ala, to give us success in re-establishing the third pillar of His deen, Zakah, in the way He has prescribed it for us in His Book and the way it was implemented by His Messenger Salla-l-laah and those who have followed him down through the ages and that by doing that we may earn a great reward from Him and contribute significantly to the victory of Islam in our time.

Published in: Uncategorized on March 3, 2014 at 00:15  Leave a Comment  

Islam and the World Financial System

Islam and the World Financial System

By  Hajj Abdalhaqq Bewley

A few years ago when computer science was still in its infancy there was a term which was used in the more sophisticated word processing programmes which pretended to show on the screen what would appear in the final printout and that term was ‘WYSIWYG’ – “what you see is what you get”. In many ways that is a term which is certainly applicable to Islam. What you see is what you get. In Islam there is no hidden agenda; there is no spookiness: no mysterious rites, no sacramental ceremonies, no magical observances. Everything is straightforward, up front. What you see is what you get. The form of the prayer in Islam, for example, is entirely self explicit. You can see by looking at it exactly what is going on. It is clearly and unambiguously an act of worship. What you see is what you get. That does not indicate any lack of profundity; on the contrary, it means that the actions of Islam gain their inner meaning and depth not through external obfuscation but by means of true sincerity of intention and inward awareness of the Divine Presence which lies behind, and gives life to, all outward phenomena.

For this reason one of the most important human qualities, the need for which is emphasised in many places in the Qur’an, is something known in Arabic as sidq. Sidq is a comprehensive word which means sincerity, integrity, truthfulness, trueness; that something or someone is the same inside and out; that there is consistency right the way through. As is the case with all human virtues this quality of sidq was most perfectly exemplified by the Prophet MuhammadSalla-l-laah. If he felt anger or pleasure, they  were clearly visible in his face. People knew exactly where they stood with him. When he spoke to someone he would turn his whole body towards them. His absolute sincerity was tangible. He was always true to his word. And he hated the opposite qualities of deception and hypocrisy.

Once when he was walking through the market in Madinah he passed a grain merchant who was sitting beside a heap of grain which he was selling. The ProphetSalla-l-laah put his hand into it and felt some dampness with his fingers. He asked the man about that and he replied, “The rain caught it, Messenger of Allah.” The ProphetSalla-l-laah reprimanded the man saying, “Why did you not put it on top of the heap so that the people could see it! Anyone  who cheats us is not one of us.” So he was in effect saying that cheating and hypocrisy put a person outside the pale of Islam; that this quality of sidq is an essential component of a Muslim man or woman. In fact it is clear from the Qur’an and many other sayings of the ProphetSalla-l-laah that hypocrisy, which is to give the appearance of being something whereas in reality

being something quite different, is one of the worst characteristics that it is possible to possess, worse even than outright unbelief. Hypocrites have their place in the very lowest level of Hellfire.

Now what has all of this got to do with the subject of this talk: Islam an the world financial system. The answer is: a great deal. Because the fact is that the Pulas in your pocket are very definitely not what they appear to be. What they claim to be is a simple medium of exchange; you hand over some Pulas and get a bag of rice in return. Their reality, however, is something very different to this. What they really are is not so much a medium of exchange as a means of control. In order to understand this it is necessary to go back in history a bit and see how the pieces of paper we now call money came into existence.

Originally, and almost universally, money took the form of gold and silver coinage. However, people who had large quantities of gold and silver used frequently to hand it over for safekeeping to gold and silversmiths who, due to the nature of their trade in precious metals and bullion, usually had secure strong-rooms. In return the goldsmith would issue them with a receipt for what they had deposited. The goldsmith would make a charge for storage and for any services of this kind he performed. After a time some people started to use these receipts instead of the gold itself, transferring the receipt to someone else’s name when paying a large debt. In this way, privately-issued notes began to make their appearance as a medium of exchange, but they were still exactly equivalent to the gold in the goldsmith’s possession and their total volume was very small in comparison with the normal cash transactions in actual gold and silver that generally took place.

After a while, however, the goldsmiths realised that the deposits they held on behalf of other people tended to remain at a more or less constant level and so they started to issue extra receipts for the value of given amounts of gold, over and above those they had already given out, which people could come and cash in with them if they wanted. These  they used both to pay for things for themselves and increasingly, as circumstances permitted, to make loans which people would repay in gold coinage with interest, thus enabling the goldsmiths to increase their stocks of gold without paying out anything at all. The people who took the notes would also use them in place of the gold and silver they claimed to represent. This, properly speaking, constituted the origin of the paper notes that are today all the money we know. The important thing to realise is that a considerable number of these notes issued by the goldsmiths were in reality entirely fictitious; they were not backed-up by any gold at all. Money had, in effect, been conjured out of thin air. This transaction, which was then, and still is, quite frankly fraudulent, mirrors exactly the way that the Pulas in your pocket come into existence.

It soon became obvious that this activity of literally creating money out of nothing was an extremely profitable business and the goldsmiths involved soon gave up their honourable craft of turning gold into objects of beauty to devote themselves to it entirely. They added to the issuing of paper money two other complementary transactions – the processing of bills of exchange and the negotiation of loans – and invented the new and enormously powerful business of banking. This process did not happen overnight and evolved gradually between the mid 16th and mid 17th centuries, when it suddenly emerged as the force to be reckoned with. In England the Earl of Clarendon, a senior figure in the government of the time, wrote in the 1660’s: ‘Bankers were a tribe that had risen and grown up in Cromwell’s time and never even heard of before the late troubles, (referring to the English Civil War) till when the whole trade of money had passed through the hands of the scriveners (the people who wrote contracts and negotiated loans); these bankers were for the most part goldsmiths.’

There was, however, one recently introduced element on which the  whole edifice of banking was entirely dependent for its profitability. That element was usury – known to us by the Arabic term Riba. This appeared in its most prevalent form of charging interest on money loaned. Without this, banking would not have been possible. Nowadays the interest rate and its fluctuations and the open and hidden effects of that on us is so much part of our lives that it is difficult to imagine the world without it. We entirely forget that up until the 16th century the charging of interest was totally forbidden, not only in Islam but also in Christian Europe, and that this prohibition stemmed not only from categorical Divine ordinances both in the Bible and the Qur’an but also from its universal condemnation and rejection by the whole Greco-Roman philosophical corpus. On this matter religious and secular tradition spoke with one voice, knowing the potentially catastrophic effect of usury once it is introduced into human affairs.

However, putting themselves above this combined consensus of Divine injunction and inherited human wisdom, some leaders of the Christian Reformation, notable among them Calvin in Geneva – undoubtedly underpressure from powerful contemporary business interests – decided that they knew better and legitimised the charging of interest on loans. This opened the floodgates to a torrent which within a very short time had changed the whole political and economic landscape of Europe and which has now engulfed the entire globe.

This is not the time to trace the development of all the changes which took place but suffice it to say that the worst fears of our ancestors were realised and power became rapidly concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer financiers who controlled political affairs from behind the scenes, holding no social responsibility whatsoever for the millions of human beings who in ever greater numbers fell under their control. One of the great studies of this process was written by the English historian R.H. Tawney. Its title is Religion and the Rise of Capitalism and it is indispensable reading for anyone interested in this subject. He says in it, speaking of the new financial power brokers who had no political loyalties, and funded protestants and Catholics alike, frequently financing both sides in a single armed conflict, that they:

…represented in the economic sphere the morality typified in that of politics by Machiavelli’s Prince. Compared with these financial dynasties, the Habsburgs, Valois, and Tudors (in other words the great ruling houses of Europe) were puppets dancing on wires held by a money-power to which political struggles were irrelevant except as an opportunity for gain. And that was just the beginning of the story.

It is important at this point to remember that I have not gone off on some kind of abstruse historical excursion. By referring to these things I am still talking specifically about the money in your pocket: about what it represents and how it comes to be there. It was precisely their ability to conjure money out of nothing by issuing paper which was supposed to be backed by gold but was in fact mostly backed by nothing at all – just like your Pulas – that gave these people the power they held over others. One of the early bankers, Mayer Rothschild, was brutally explicit about it saying, “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.”

As long as there was at least a nominal connection with gold, the credit bubbles created by the financiers and their phoney money were at least tethered to the earth and when they eventually burst, leaving many thousands impoverished at different times and in different places, and it became clear that the paper was worth in reality no more than the ink it was printed with, the situation was soon able to restore itself to a more solid foundation. But when, in 1972, President Nixon severed the link between the dollar and gold, a new situation came into existence. There was now no restraint whatsoever on the creation of credit or “banker’s money”. It was the financier’s dream come true but has rapidly become a nightmare scenario for all but a tiny percentage of the world’s population, even if very few people were really aware of it until recent events made its frightening reality only too clear. Egged on by world-wide electronic communication and markets which have proliferated on an unprecedented scale the credit bubble has now expanded to what can only be described as insane dimensions.

The money which has now come into existence and which for the most part only exists as electronic signals winging their way through cyber space from one computer to another, can no longer even be counted. To give you some idea of the crazy stage which things have now reached, it has been calculated that the amount of money which changes hands daily on just the international currency exchange market, which is merely one among hundreds of other markets, is in the trillions of dollars and equivalent to the total annual turnover of world trade in real goods. The total value of the yearly sales of real goods everywhere in the world changes hands on the money markets every single day. There would not be enough paper to make so much money even if all the timber on the planet was used to do it and if the notes to make such a sum were placed one on top of the other the pile would reach beyond the moon! It would seem like some kind of mad joke were the effects not so desperately serious for individual human beings and nations and indeed the planet as a whole. There is no person on the earth who does not now live and die in debt, whether they know it or not, and an ever increasing number know it only too well as their personal debts to banks and credit agencies mount and mount, causing terrible anxiety and stress and not infrequently leading to crime  and sometimes suicide. The situation of national debt in nearly every country in the world is notorious. Even the lands which are wealthiest in terms of natural resources are now hopelessly in debt to supranational financial institutions and the total national income of many poorer countries does not even cover the interest payments on the  money they owe, much of which has been borrowed to finance vast mega-projectswhose incalculable environmental  damage to the earth’s increasingly fragile eco-structure is becoming more and more evident day by day. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of the detrimental effects of the world financial system. And it is all so that an infinitesimal percentage of the world’s population, who are virtually unknown but who themselves know how to manipulate the situation, can skim billions off the top of the money mountain, and wield wealth and power to an extent never conceived of before in the whole of human history.

Shaykh Abdalqadir As-Sufi graphically sums up the present situation in his book, Technique of the Coup de Banque:

We are tyrannised, enslaved, and endebted to an entirely unelected elite whose names we do not even know. With hereditary titles abolished and with hereditary wealth made impossible for the masses through powerful taxation, the case of this elite remains an anomaly. Their wealth and their lands spiral up into almost incalculable statistics, beyond the dreams of Alexander. They have no racial loyalty. They have no class loyalty. They certainly have no national loyalty. Upholding humanism, it could be said that they have no human loyalty. Insisting on their compassion they uphold the Rights of Man, sure in the certainty that the upholding of that empty rhetoric will distract you from ever attempting to refrain from their monetary system and live with out banking …

All the crimes of all the criminals in the world added together do not amount to the enormity of the crime that they daily commit through their continued application of the usury system. The pollution of the ocean is their achievement. The poisoning of the earth is the result of their programmes. The toxic air of the world’s megacities is the direct result of their existence. The millions of dead caused by the sporadic uprising across the globe of the poor driven from their land, who in abject misery turn on their neighbours, the world’s poor scavenging on rubbish tips are to them an unfortunate side-effect of their monetary policies.

The present so-called credit crunch is the direct result of the untrammeled greed of these criminal financiers and, because of the unprecedented freedom they have been given to conjure their billions out of nothing, the collapse now faced by the world financial system is also without any historical precedent and only very first phase of its terrible effects have so far been felt. Of one thing we can be sure, however; the financiers themselves are not going to be those who suffer. Their outrageous bonus culture has ensured that they have already siphoned off their billions. They have bought their large properties and invested in ways which will make sure they get through the coming bad times unscathed. No the sufferers will, as usual, be the poor of the world who will lose their jobs and find their lives made more and more difficult, as recession turns to depression and increasing unemployment leads to hunger and even destitution.

We cannot sit here and act as if this appalling situation has nothing to do with us. The Pulas in our pockets are not the medium of exchange they pretend to be; they are precisely the financial instrument which has enabled the present situation to come about and which allow it to continue to proliferate and cause such havoc in the world. Our willing participation in the process is what keeps it going. We are nothing but usury fodder, actively conniving in our own financial problems and, indeed, in the very destruction of the planet on which we live.

“But there’s nothing we can do about it,” I hear people say, “we have no other alternative.” That is no longer true. We do have a choice. There is something that we can do but that something can only be found within the parameters of a functioning Muslim community. Islam alone is now able to uphold the authority of divinely revealed law and provide the means for cutting through the magical deception of the usurer’s all enveloping web. The divinely revealed legal framework for a commercial environment totally free of the machinations of the usurers is still entirely in place and is just waiting to be re implemented; but our chief weapon is our money itself.

The gold dinar and the silver dirham of the Muslims, the money mentioned in the Qur’an and sanctioned by the use of the Messenger himself, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallim, are exactly what they say they are: nothing more nor less than 4.3 grammes of solid gold and 3 grammes of solid silver respectively; they truly are simply a legitimate, divinely sanctioned, medium of exchange. This and this alone can restore balance and justice to the day to day commercial transactions which are the life blood of any normally functioning human society and which play such an important and vital part in the life of every human being.

Many intelligent non-Muslims have become all too aware of the situation and a few exceptionally clear-sighted ones have even hit on the solution. For instance the French President Charles de Gaulle realised it all too clearly shortly before his death and he tried to change the situation. He put out a forthright statement on the subject saying:

The fact that many nations in principle accept dollars as being the same as gold when making up any differences, which exist to their credit in the balance of payments between themselves and America, has meant that the Americans are able to incur debts with foreign nations with complete impunity since such debts can be paid, at least in part, with dollars, which they can themselves issue at will.

Given the consequences that could well arise from such a state of affairs we think that a timely step to avoid them should be taken before they do. We consider it necessary that international exchanges should be established, as was the case before the great disasters which have befallen the world, on an indisputable monetary basis that bears the mark of no one particular country.

And what is that basis? The truth is that it is difficult to envisage that there could be in reality any other criterion or standard than gold itself.

And there have been a few others since who have unsuccessfully tried to reintroduce gold into the international financial arena. But the plain truth is that only we, the Muslims, are in a position to fill this vital role. We have a Divine mandate to return to gold and silver coinage and indeed must do it in order to properly uphold the third pillar of Islam, the payment of Zakah on monetary wealth, which all the traditional authorities agree can only be correctly discharged using actual gold and silver. The matter is clear and it is not difficult to achieve. It simply requires clear understanding and firm resolve on the part of a body of Muslims to turn it into a living reality. For instance, by taking this on the Muslims of Southern Africa alone could truly change the world.

Just as the staff of Musa Alayhi s Salaam1 cut through the sophisticated sorcery of the magicians of Pharaoh and showed it to be the baseless illusion it really was, so the dinar of MuhammadSalla-l-laah will cut through the equally magical deception of the usurer’s monetary system and show it up for what it really is: worthless scraps of paper and evanescent numbers in cyberspace with no real value whatsoever. The gold dinar will put economic power back into the hands of ordinary men and women where it belongs. This is Islam in practice. This is Divine guidance in action. What you see is what you get.

Published in: Uncategorized on February 23, 2014 at 23:35  Leave a Comment  
%d bloggers like this: