Keynote Address by Tan Sri
Dato’ Seri Sanusi bin Junid in The Kuala Lumpur International Conference on
Gold in International Trade: Strategic Positioning in Global Monetary System at
Sheraton Imperial Hotel, Kuala Lumpur on 29th September, 2003
Assalaamu’alaikum
Warahmatullaahi Wabarakaatuh
Chairman of the seminar,
Deputy Governor of Bank Negara
Malaysia,
Secretary General of Ministry
of Foreign Affairs,
Rector of International
Islamic University Malaysia,
Honoured guests,
Fellow participants of the
seminar,
Ladies and gentlemen.
Failure of Bretton Woods
Between August 19th
and 20th, last year, at Putra World Trade Centre (PWTC), Kuala
Lumpur, an international conference was held on stable and just global monetary
system with the theme ‘Viability of the Islamic Dinar’ as a response to the
1997 East Asian economic and financial crisis by which Malaysia was ‘robbed’ of
its economic well-being by the international currency speculators.
The gold dinar, whether Islamic or
not, is propagated by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, the Honourable Dato’ Seri
Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad . It is simply a gold payment system. This propagation is a reintroduction of the
role played by gold, as money, before the United States President Richard Milhaus
Nixon removed gold backing from the US dollar as there was insufficient gold
belonging to the United States to back up the dollars needed to finance the Vietnam
war. It was either an admission of the failure of the Bretton Woods’ system to
support the us or just the arrogance of Nixon and his close advisors, in not
wanting to use the system.
East Asia Economic Congress
Between the 4th and
the 6th of August this year an international congress was held again
at the Putra World Trade Centre where delegates from East Asian countries
unanimously agree that there is a need for an East Asian fund to assist
countries which are in financial or economic problems or crisis. This implies a
prevailing distrust in the present economic system entrusted to the Bretton Woods
institutions.
Young Muslim Leaders Conference
After that, between the 14th
and 16th of September, representatives from sixty nations attended
an international conference of young Muslim leaders held at the Renaissance
Hotel, Kuala Lumpur where a resolution
was passed to create a world Muslim economic foundation. This again proved that
there is an overall discomfort, even among the young, on the economic plight of
Muslims all over the world.
The above three events were
all officiated by the Prime Minister of Malaysia.
Our seminar today would have
been graced by him too had he not been called to another unavoidable event
sandwiched between his busy schedule overseas and the launching of the Langkawi
International Maritime and Airshow
Gold in International Trade (GIT)
This seminar zeros into specifics.
It is a seminar on ‘Gold in International Trade’ or GIT. With this seminar and
previous seminars and conferences on related subject, our mind would have been
prepared for the Organisation of Islamic Conference Summit next month.
Today we are gathered again to
discuss the implementation of the gold payment system in international trade.
Historically, gold has held
its value stable compared to any fiat currency. It was Roy Jastram, in his book
“The Golden Constant” who showed that prices based on gold were relatively
constant for 400 years.
Although at other forums we
used the term ‘Islamic gold dinar’, we have excluded the words ‘Islamic’ and ‘dinar’
in the terminology for this forum, with the intention of removing the stigma
and prejudice against gold. There was of course the Iraqi dinar before the fall
of Saddam, although the Kuwaiti dinar is still in use. Hopefully the omission
of the two words will remove the prejudice on gold, due to Western propaganda
against Islam, thereby blurring their vision against a valuable commodity which
can solve or minimise the world economic problems.
It must however be remembered
that the word dinar is derived from the Latin word denarius which was the Roman Byzantine gold coin circulating among
the Arabs during the time of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. It is therefore of
western origin.
The dinar, equivalent to 4.25
grams of 22 carat gold (91.6 per cent gold alloy) remained the monetary unit
for Muslims until the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate in 1924.
Imam Ghazali on Dirhams and Dinars
In Ihya Al Uloom, printed in Cairo
(1939) Imam Ghazali stated:
The creation of dirhams and
dinars (money) is one of the blessings of Allah s.w.t. They are stones having
no intrinsic usufruct or utility, but all human beings need them, because
everybody needs a large number of commodities for his eating, wearing etc. and
often he does not have what he needs, and does have what he needs not. Therefore,
the transactions of exchange are inevitable. but there must be a measure on the
basis of which price can be determined, because the exchanged commodities are
neither of the same type, nor of the same measure which can determine how much
quantity one commodity is a just price for another. Therefore all these
commodities need a mediator to judge their exact value. Allah The Almighty has
created the dirhams and dinars (money) as judges and mediators between all
commodities so that all objects of wealth are measured through them and their
being the measure of the value of all commodities is based upon the fact that
they are not an object in themselves. had they been an object in themselves one
could have a specific purpose for keeping them which might have given them more
importance according to his intention, while the one who had no such purpose
would have not given them such importance, and thus the whole system would have
been disturbed. That is why Allah s.w.t has created them, so that they may be
circulated between hands and act as fair judge between different commodities
and work as a medium to acquire other things. So the one who owns them, is as
though he owns every thing, unlike the one who owns a cloth, because he owns
only a cloth. Therefore, if he needs food, the owner of food may
not be interested in exchanging his food for cloth, because he may need an
animal for example. Therefore, there
was needed a thing which in its appearance is nothing, but in its essence is
every thing. The thing which has no
particular form may have different forms in relation to other things, like a
mirror which has no colour, but it reflects every colour. The same is the case
of money. It is not an object in itself, but it is an instrument that leads to
all objectives. So the one who is using money in a manner contrary to its basic
purpose is, in fact, disregarding the blessings of Allah s.w.t. Consequently, whoever
hoards money is doing injustice to it and is defeating their actual purpose.
He is like the one who detains a ruler in a prison. And whoever effects the transactions of interest
on money is, in fact, discarding the blessings of Allah s.w.t. and is committing injustice, because money
is created for some other things, not for itself. So the one who has started
trading in money itself has made it an objective contrary to the wisdom behind
its creation, because it is injustice to use money for a purpose other
than it was created for. If it is allowed for him to trade in money itself,
money will become his ultimate goal,
and will remain detained with him like hoarded money. And imprisoning a ruler,
or restricting a postman from conveying messages is nothing but injustice. ‘
Fate of World Leaders
However, while propagating a
return to gold in international trade we should look at the fate of propagators
for anything different in monetary approaches.
Initially we should note that
many world leaders who meddled with the financial systems, from as far back as Abraham
Lincoln, have met with fatalities.
There are many reasons offered
for the rise and fall of leaders in history. For purposes of our conference let
us recognise those reasons involving interference in the global financial
system.
Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln was
assassinated on 14th April, 1865 by John Wilkes Booth. He printed
the US dollars in green ink, called the green-backs, and legalised the money
through the House of Representatives. he annoyed the bankers and the
financiers.
It is believed, even as late
as August 2002, at the Church of England that Abraham Lincoln’s monetary policy
from the year 1865, constitutes the perfect basis for any monetary system for
any “Modern Nation” (including Britain ) regardless of race, colour, creed,
timeframe or geography. Lincoln’s policy was based on Ricardo’s model of 1823,
for the National Bank of England. The policy eloquently sums up the whole
modern problem with its solution in only 536 words. The policy reads:
1.
Money is the creature of law and the creation of the
original issue of money should be
maintained as the exclusive monopoly of national government. Money possesses no
value to the state other than that given to it by circulation.
2.
Capital has its proper place and its entitled to every
protection. The wages of men should be
recognised in the structure of and in the social order as more important than
the wages of money. no duty is more imperative for the government than the duty
it owes the people to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency, and of
regulating the circulation of the medium of exchange so that labour will be protected
from a vicious currency, and commerce will be facilitated by cheap and safe exchanges.
3.
The available supply of
gold and silver being wholly inadequate to permit the issuance of coins of
intrinsic value or paper currency convertible into coin in the volume required
to serve the needs of the people, some other basis for the issue of currency
must be developed, and some means other than that of convertibility into coin
must be developed to prevent undue fluctuation in the value of paper currency
or any other substitute for money of intrinsic value that may come into use.
4.
The monetary needs of increasing numbers of people
advancing towards higher standards of living can and
should be met by the government. Such needs can be served by the issue of national currency and credit
through the operation of a national banking system.
The circulation of a medium of exchange issued and backed by the
government can be properly regulated and redundancy of issue avoided by withdrawing from circulation such amounts as may be necessary
by taxation, redeposit, and otherwise.
Government has the power to regulate the currency and credit of the nation.
5.
Government should stand
behind its currency and credit and the bank deposits of the nation. No individual
should suffer a loss of money through depreciation of inflated currency or bank
bankruptcy.
6.
Government possessing the
power to create and issue currency and credit as money and enjoying the right
to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by taxation and otherwise
need not and should not borrow capital at interest as a means of financing governmental work and public enterprise. The government should create, issue and
circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of
the government and the buying power of the consumers. The
privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative
of government, but it is the governments greatest creative opportunity.
7.
By the adoption of these
principles the long felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The
taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts, and exchanges. The
financing of all public enterprise, the maintenance of stable
government and ordered progress, and
the conduct of the treasury will become matters of practical administration. The
people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own
government. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy
will rise superior to the money power.”
Lincoln’s epitaph should read:
“For successfully driving the
money changes out of the temple and denying world finance its opportunity to
profit from the war it had created Abraham
Lincoln was shot three days later”.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
John Fitzgerald Kennedy was
assassinated on 22nd November, 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald. He did the
same feat as Abraham Lincoln. He printed billions of us dollars and legalised
them through the House of Representatives. He did not please the bankers. When
the wife of Lee Harvey Oswald was asked whether she would blame Angleton for
the assassination of the President, she replied that there was not enough money
with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to finance the assassination of a President
and that one should ask the bankers.
Richard Milhaus Nixon
On 22nd February,
1974 Samuel Byck went to the nearest air-port near Washington D.C., shot the air-port
security, went into an aeroplane, shot the air-hostess, shot the co-pilot, then
persuaded the other pilot to fly to the White House to kill Richard Nixon at
breakfast time. Samuel shot himself,
after having shot that other pilot who had earlier informed the FBI by wireless
on what was happening in the plane. The attempt to assassinate Nixon failed. The
assassination attempt was not publicised and was quite unknown and easily
forgotten. Monetarily, Nixon angered the bankers, because in 1971 he withdrew
gold backing from the US dollars.
Nixon was brought down by the Watergate
scandal, for lying, which was really a red herring.
Al Malik Faisal
On 25th March, 1975
The King of Saudi Arabia Al Malik Faisal, was shot by his nephew, Prince Faisal
Mas’ud, while attending the Kuwaiti national day reception. Prince Faisal
Mas’ud was acquitted on the first charge where he claimed that Al Malik Faisal was
responsible for the death of his brother
Prince Malik Mas’ud who was shot by the police while demonstrating at
the television station because he had opposed the introduction of television to
Saudi Arabia by King Faisal. The killing was done on the principle of an eye
for an eye. It was an accepted act of vengeance.
But Faisal Mas’ud’s head was
chopped off because he was guilty of the second charge which was not made known
to the public.
Petro Dollar
Al Malik Faisal is of course
known for his intention to introduce the petro-dollar, which would have been a
competitor to the US dollar, even before the Euro.
If the lady minister of Sweden,
who is not a Muslim, could be murdered in cold blood, while campaigning in favour
of introducing the Euro into Sweden which would eventually infect all the Scandinavian
countries, it is not difficult to imagine the opposition to the Petro dollar,
particularly when it was to be introduced in Islamic petroleum producing
countries.
The Petro-dollar itself is
enough as a burning confrontational product without adding fuel by labelling it
Islamic. The financiers and bankers must have been pleased with King Faisal’s death
or not unhappy with it even if they are not involved in its planning.
Albino Luciani – Pope John
Paul I
In the morning of 29th
September, 1978 Albino Luciani or Pope John Paul I was found dead after being a
Pope for 33 days. The Vatican claimed that he died of heart attack. But
Albino’s doctor refuted the claim as Albino was a regular mountain climber and
suffers from low blood pressure, a habit and a weakness which negates the
possibility of a heart attack. The Pope was in perfect health after he climbed
a mountain about three days before his untimely death.
The author David Yallop, in
his book entitled ‘In God’s Name’, claimed that two bankers, Roberto Calvi and Sindona
were manipulating the Vatican funds. The Pope wanted to distribute the Vatican’s
wealth to the poor of the world, particularly in Africa and Asia.
Had the Pope lived and implemented
his programme by withdrawing vast deposits in existing us banks, he would have
suffocated the United States banking system.
The Pope was poisoned, Roberto
Calvi was found hung under the Black-Friar Bridge in London, and Sindona who
was undergoing trial, for banking fraud, in Milan prison committed suicide by
drinking cyanide, which was brought to him in a bottle together with a letter,
which he read and found it necessary to end his life.
Any-Some-Body
If a Catholic, a Protestant, a Muslim,
a hereditary monarch, a democratically elected leader, an Arab, an Italian, an Irish
and an American can be killed for displeasing anybody or somebody, sane
citizens of the world must decide whether to co-operate, to submit, to manipulate
or to oppose the any-some-body who is responsible for the flow of innocent
blood. But before we could do anything for, against or with anybody or
somebody we must recognize their
existence.
The idea of narrating the
above tragedies is merely to highlight the challenges that will be faced by
leaders, organisations and nations, unilaterally or jointly, interfering in the
existing world financial network.
Having seen the woes against
the propagators of financial reform, we should be aware of the bigger picture
plaguing the world scene thereby hiding the true reasons behind the current
conflicts that cannot be understood in isolation.
I am referring to the
ideological back-up to the economic life of the people of the various religions
in the world.
Usury in the Religions of the Books
If one asks for only one word
which separates Islam, Christianity and Judaism on the one hand and Hinduism, Buddhism,
Confucianism, Taoism and zed Buddhism, on the other, the answer, in one word,
is: usury.
It is not that usury was never
condemned in Hinduism and Buddhism but that the condemnation was in the very
distant past.
As
far back as the year 2400 B.C. even without usury, debt itself was regarded as
unjust burden on mankind. At that time in the Sumerian city of Lagash the cuneiform
debt cancellation tablets was found which conclusively show that, unless debt
was cancelled every seventh year, people would not defend their country. Much
like the law of jubilee under the law of Moses, peace be upon him, which calls
for the cancellation of all debts in the 7th year regardless of when
the debt was incurred, a practice confirmed in the Quran which says: ‘Better to
forgive the debt, if you did but know
it …. ‘.
Between 2000 and 1400 B.C. the verdict texts of ancient India mentioned
the word ‘ kusidin ‘ which is usurer. The sutra texts of 700 to 100 B.C. and
the Budhist jatakas between 600 and 400 B.C. made detailed references to usury
payments. But contempt for usury was diminished by the 2nd century A.D.
After that there was a dilution in the Hindu
and Buddhist understanding of usury and it was no longer prohibited or
controlled in any significant way.
aAssuming that usury is the
common factor discussed and abhorred in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all
the religions of the books, it is a wonder why adherents of Christianity and Judaism,
find the people of the other religions more acceptable to them than the Muslims,
whose religion also abhorred usury.
Change in Attitute towards
Usury
It does appear that there is a
fundamental change in attitude towards usury by the Christians and the Jews,
which separates them from the Muslims.
Religions which prohibit usury
have ignored their religious injunctions for many reasons, mainly:
A)
A distinction being made between lending for basic
needs, when interest is considered as usury; and lending for commercial
purposes when interest charged is permissible and not considered as usury.
B)
A distinction is being made between usurious and non-usurious
interest rates which is subjective.
The Muslims seemed to be
sticking to the original concept, or fundamental, of usury. Is it for that
reason that we are all classified as fundamentalists?
But the concept of usury or riba itself has undergone many changes,
even for Muslims. The exploitative rates on loans charged by the Jews of old,
though still practised by others in developing countries, may still be
considered exploitative and not tolerated; but lower rates have been tolerated,
renamed or further explained for acceptability by Muslims.
Indeed many rich Muslims, felt
that they are modern or westernised by their acceptance of riba, by any name, leaving the level of exploitation in rates to
agreements between consenting borrowers and lenders.
With this attitude, and other
advantages and privileges provided, it is little wonder that Muslim funds are
being kept in non Muslims banks.
Islamic Banking
Non-Muslims were sceptical of
the idea of Islamic banking in the past. But today even Jewish bankers or
banks, which shares are owned by Jews, have opened Islamic banking counters to
receive or 7accept the much coveted deposits from Muslims. The only Islamic
part of the bank is probably at the counters. After all money is neutral,
neither racial nor religious.
In Islam the understanding and
discussion on benefits, interests or riba,
depending on rates, is quite elaborate, and when propagators of Islamic
statehood talk about the imposition of the syariah law, in any state, there is
always the image of cutting of hands in the fore-front and interest on deposits
and loans in the back-ground.
This is where we confuse the trees, in the diagnosis, from the
forest.
Islamic Statehood
Propagators of Islamic statehood
are labelled, by the West, as fundamentalists, those who know Islam would of
course object to the disapproving attitude towards Muslim fundamentalists, as Muslim
fundamentalists should be good humans as the fundamentals of Islam are good and
divine.
Recently, even terrorism is
attributed to Islamic fundamentalism.
Terrorism, Syariah and Democracy
Is it true than that the West is
against terrorism, against the syariah law which, among others, call for the
cutting of hands. Is the West genuinely for democracy?
Or what is it in Islam that
frightens the West?
Definitely the West is not against
terrorism because the west supports state terrorism by Israel. Even some of
those who condemned terrorism need only to look straight into the mirror to
recognise the real terrorists. The West have
also terrorised the common people of Afghanistan and Iraq, against the will of
even the undemocratic and western inspired United Nations.
The West cannot be for
democracy either, for they needed the undemocratic Muslim nations, to support
them in their effort to aggressively, and inhumanly implant democracy in Iraq.
Is the west against the
cutting of Muslim hands by Islamic states? i do not think they object to the
cutting of Muslim hands by Muslims. They know that Muslim states cannot cut
non-Muslim hands. It is against human rights and against the freedom of
religion. The Muslim states, however,
have the human right to freely cut Muslim hands. I think the West would
encourage the cutting of Muslim hands because, even guilty Muslims will use
their hands to handle weapons in their fight against the enemies of Islam.
The more Muslim hands are cut
the better it is for the enemies of Islam.
What the West Fears
That leaves only one factor that
the West fears of the fundamentals in Islam or of anybody with different
fundamentals.
Communism against Capitalism
The west was against China when it
was preaching communism; and against Russia and Eastern Europe when it was
under communism. Russia and China were with the Western allies in the Second
World War. The West was, of course, not against the technological achievements
of the communists. Obviously they were against communism because communism was
against capitalism.
Germany and Japan for
Capitalism
Although the West fought against Japan
and Germany during the Second World War but they were not against these two
countries after the war as Japan and Germany adopted the same capitalistic
economic system.
West not against Muslim Way of
Life
With the collapse of communism
there is only Islam which is feared by the West. The fear is not of the hudud,
of what we eat, what we do not drink, how we dress, whether we have a
moustache, a beard or not, whether we wish to have up to four wives or just one
wife.
These are red herring issues
being prioritised for Muslims to be lulled away and to become reasons for conflicts
among Muslims.
They do not object to our
prayers, our hajj, our fardhu ain.
The West Fear the Islamic Economic System
But they fear our alternative Islamic
monetary and economic system. For this system will off set, or just delay,
their plan for total economics and monetary domination in the new world order.
The Western Commission Fears
Monetary Reform
On 21st September,
1964, 39 years and 8 days ago, the sub-committee on domestic finance of the Committee
on Banking and Currency of the United States House of Representatives presented
to the 2nd session of the 88th Congress the ‘ Money Facts’
containing answers to 169 questions on money in a supplement to a primer on
money.
Among the questions asked:
1.
Who has the right to create money in the United States?
Under the constitution, it is the right and duty of Congress
to create money. It is left entirely to Congress.
2.
To whom has the Congress delegated this money-creating
right?
To the banking system, that is, to the Federal Reserve
System and to the commercial banks of the country.
3.
Why is the money creating power important?
By creating money, banks provide the exchange media
that the economy needs to prosper and grow. since the growth and proper
functioning of the United States economy require increasing amounts of money
over the years, those who control the amount of money exercise great power over
business activity, the incomes people earn, and our economic strength.
6.
Does Congress supervise Federal Reserve policy making?
No. in practice the Federal Reserve is independent in its policy
making. The Federal Reserve neither requires nor seeks the approval of any
branch of government for its policies. The system itself decides what ends its
policies are aimed at and then takes
whatever action it sees fit to reach those ends.
These
are only six of the answers to six questions asked among the 169 questions and answers
on money in the Money Facts.
An Example of the Power of the
Bankers
When Lord Balfour, the Foreign
Minister of Britain visited the United States in 1917, he promised the bankers
that Britain will recognise the Zionist movement if America assist Britain by
entering the fist world war.
The American public was at
that time against America going to war.
In the same year 1917 the American
bankers called a meeting of prominent media editors to persuade them to make
the American public support American entry into the war. More than 20 major
print and electronic media companies were then bought over by the bankers. Subsequently,
America entered the war, Zionism was recognised by Britain as promised,
resulting in the creation of Israel, which is now the centre and the cause of
the present problems of the world, including the September, 11th
attack on the World Trade Centre, which gives the opportunity to the bankers to
rebuild it, whatever be the hue and cry over the victims.
Whoever owns the banks in America,
the American public have no power over them. And they can do nothing to reduce,
control or rationalise that power. It is a big error in history.
As such, the use of the term ‘
West ‘ should be changed to ‘ Western Commission ‘ as not all western
governments are against Islam, and not all citizens of countries whose
governments are against Islam share the same sentiments towards Islam, just as
not all citizens in Islamic nations are not against Islam. There are
ambassadors and high commissioners of nations whose governments are against Islam
cannot reveal their true feeling towards Islam even if they do not share their
governments’ sentiment. Sometimes even in nations where the governments appear
to be anti Islam, only one or two in the leadership of that who are really
against Islam.
Seminar Looks for an Alternative Economic System
It is in this contexts that
this seminar is held to-day with a view to humbly offer the oppressed, or the
manipulated of the world to look into the alternative system, with discussion
on gold in international trade, as the starting point.
As the problem is great, the
journey is long, we must go about with our cool heads. After all the journey of
a thousand miles begin with but a single step.
If Muslims of the world enjoy Coca-Cola,
Kentucky Fried Chicken and Mc Donald, we probably can offer to pay in the more palatable
gold or even the ‘Islamic gold dinar’.
Let us hope that this
initiative, as the unfinished project of our beloved Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, will be a humble beginning to our economic salvation. With
its success Abraham Lincoln, john f. Kennedy, Pope Albino Luciani, and Al Malik
Faisal would not have died in vain.
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment