Insh'Allah!

From the New Testament, James 4, 13-17:


¹³ Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:
¹⁴ Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
¹⁵ For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.
¹⁶ But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.
¹⁷ Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.


Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

The Pope On Capitalism

Pope Francis has released a “position paper,” a teaching document which is important but not infallible.  I am responding to the news stories abut the document, not the document, becuase I have not read the document, and the news storries may very well misrepresent what the document says.

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Francis called for renewal of the Roman Catholic Church and attacked unfettered capitalism as "a new tyranny", urging global leaders to fight poverty and growing inequality in the first major work he has authored alone as pontiff.

***Well, capitalism, unfettered or otherwise, is a problem, since it legally protects usury. ***

In it, Francis went further than previous comments criticizing the global economic system, attacking the "idolatry of money" and beseeching politicians to guarantee all citizens "dignified work, education and healthcare".

***Now this is odd.  How do politicians  guarantee all citizens dignified work, education and healthcare?  Only markets can provide this.  Capitalism is not markets, but neither is politics.  I must read the original to see how this is resolved.***

He also called on rich people to share their wealth. "Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills," Francis wrote in the document issued on Tuesday.

***The real wealth is human action, participation in life.  The best way to share wealth is investing in the businesses that create goods and services for fellow man.  Again, I look forward to reading his ideas for sharing the wealth.***

In it, economic inequality features as one of the issues Francis is most concerned about, and the 76-year-old pontiff calls for an overhaul of the financial system and warns that unequal distribution of wealth inevitably leads to violence.

***Yes, and that violence is most welcome by the abusers themselves.  Such a crisis gives them more power.***

"As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets 

***Absolutely correct...  markets need the governance of the players, the buyer and the seller in their natural roles...***

and financial speculation 

***Capitalism is based on financial speculation instead of gainful production.  It well understands gainful production, but only to better play the financial speculator.***

and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world's problems or, for that matter, to any problems," he wrote.

***Right... and the structural causes are all rooted in state interference in the markets.  For example, the outrageous Jim Crow laws were laws, only held in place by the force of the state.  So it is with the structuraly causes of inequality.***

Denying this was simple populism, he called for action "beyond a simple welfare mentality" 

***Excellent, welfare is a trap...***

and added: "I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor."

*** Screeeeeech... say what?  I need to read this in context.  Is this a throw-away line or the summary?  Assuming any were, what could they do?  Assuming all were, what makes anyone think they would agree on a solution?  Assuming  they all agreed, what could they do?  I bet he has better things to say than this.***

Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

My Hijab

Last weekend had some pretty grim stories out of the Middle East of the terror killing of many Christians, among others.  Add to that the Kenya Mall assault and it was an uncomfortable weekend to be Muslim in America.

I saw this flying in and out of LA in which families whose wives/mothers wearing the hijab appeared quite uncomfortable, what with avoiding eye contact and the nervous, awkward way they negotiated the tight spaces on the plane etc.  At LAX I saw three fellows in full mufti looking for something halal for lunch.  Conspicuous.

I regretted this collateral damage to terror activity, and a few days later I walked to my local market, wearing a hat I threw on that said simply Catholic.  Not Catholic U or Catholic High, just Catholic.  I forget where I got it, but I got strained looks and curious service.

I think people believe these fights are over religion, and when they erupt, blame all religion for not keeping the peace.  This is curious, and example of social conditioning.  The reason for these fights is real estate, not religion.  Always has been, always will be.

Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

The Prophets and The State

The prophets seem to tolerate the state, but certainly as a junior partner in the work of making the world pleasing to God.

Today the state with empty talk of "democracy" has the upper hand, and even religious teachings rather cede territory probably inadvertently.  For example, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, English translation says

1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond moredirectly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. ...

Well, this struck me as so very wrong, icky even, that I went to the original, in Latin:

1882 Quaedam societates, sicut familia et civitas, naturae hominis immediatius correspondent. Ei sunt necessariae.

Now, I am no Latin scholar, but I know Civitas is not "The State."  And I understand there are differences between Roman Latin and Church Latin. One might tendentiously, or sloppily make that translation, but "polity" might make a better translation, since the root of civitas is "people coming together" under one roof, with the implication of wider options, as opposed to our modern notion of the State.  Civitas is about the person, not the corporate entity. I don't think anyone reading the Latin would think of say USA when reading Civitas.

Also, civitas is often in the context of gravitas, pietas, dignitas, virtus, decidedly religious imperatives of the individual in society.

Everywhere else the Catechism is careful to be not too specific as to the nature and form of "authority."  But here the translators go for a word that is too far removed from the original.

Also, note that this assertion offers no citation of precedent of the Church ever having taught such a thing, in any language.  So it seems to be a rather specious note, badly translated.

There is at the same time wonderful secular essays on the state, here is a good short list or readings...

Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

Algeria Was Number One Wine Exporter In the World

In 1962.  There is a fascinating study to read on the growth and failure of the Algerian wine industry.  In essence, there was a sequence of Colonize Algeria, steal lands, give your soldiers the lands, promote wine production with usury, build export business on false economy, too much wine, economic downturn, terrorism, and poverty and instability to follow.  Today there is virtually no wine exported from Algeria.

As I believe violence makes the situation worse, I'd argue the troubles in Algeria today are based on the violence used to bring the current group into power, sort of socialist Moslems, which is beset by fundamentalist Muslims.  

We have a habit of taking a snapshot of a land, say Algeria, and decide that such is the natural state of Islam.  That would ignore about 750 years of history.  And ignore the fact that the Moslems were originally welcomed by the locals, anything to get out from under the horrors of heretical and apostasied Christian rulers.  Who can say why conditions are now what they are, but we cannot say it is for lack of ability or something inherent in the religion.

As usual, policy can make life very good for a few while denying the majority their hopes and dreams.  The Christian West derived invaluable insights from Islam coming out of the "dark ages" and perhaps the favor could be returned.  The Roman Church has put out a document that where it proposes solutions to matters of politics and economics, A devote Muslim can read to advantage.

I think it is a dangerous thing to cripple a country with policies and then criticize that country for being crippled.  What goes around comes around.   Better to say let's make this good and unilaterally offer free trade.  The Church recommends it.

Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

Asking Questions

I attended a lecture by a young scholar who is studying Jewish Youth Movements in Poland during the interwar years.  His starting point is how people lived whereas most historians dwell on how people in this era died.

He found the largest most prolific group was a right wing, pro-State Jewish youth group.  There was an interesting review of the facts on the ground from this time.  A sub-theme was Jewish vs Christian integration.  I am reading Hannah Arendt who covered the same era and her observations are instructive. One participant in this youth movement was Menachim Begin, whose hatred of Catholics was legendary.  It dawns on me that today proportionally Jewish antipathy for Catholics far outweighs Catholic antipathy toward Jews.

The lecture hall was packed, but that has never stopped me from asking questions of a lecturer during the Q&A.  For some reason, upon which I had to reflect, I could not bring myself to voice my questions in this overwhelmingly Jewish audience.  Why was that?

Two parables came to mind, first:

"Jesus went away from there, and withdrew into the district of Tyre and Sidon. And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, 'Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed.' But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, 'Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.' But He answered and said, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, 'Lord, help me!' And He answered and said, 'It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.' But she said, 'Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.' Then Jesus said to her, 'O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish.' And her daughter was healed at once." (Matthew 15:21-28; cf. Mark 7:24-30).

Note the woman is an outsider, not a Jew.  Her importuning is an impertinence.  Jesus's first and second reaction to her is culturally Jewish.  1. Ignore her. 2. Liken her status to a dog.  But note her persistence,  Jesus relents and gives this dog her wish.  Most Christians today are not Jewish.  When Jesus was likening the woman to a dog, He was speaking to most Christians today.  And in turn, most Christians today persist as the woman did.  Faith matters.

Second, a Jewish fellow approaches Jesus.

Mark 10:17-27

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Rich Young Ruler

17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments, ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.” 21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But at these words [a]he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.

23 And Jesus, looking around, *said to His disciples, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus *answered again and *said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 They were even more astonished and said to Him, “[b]Then who can be saved?” 27 Looking at them, Jesus *said, “With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.”

In both instances the person addressing Jesus bows before him. Now in this case Jesus immediately and directly offers his best/most to the Jewish lad, in contrast to his treatment of the Canaanite woman.  First Jesus confirms by allusion what the lad recognizes in Jesus and demonstrates by his bow.  The lad boasts he keeps the commandments, and Jesus is moved by love for the commandment keeper, so Jesus offered more: give up your power and riches, and follow me.

The apostles were astonished at the idea that a rich man may find difficulty entering heaven.  This does not address the common enough phenomena of people giving up all of their riches to benefit others.  That happens among the religious and atheist alike, so no big deal.  But among those who do not exercise the option of giving all away, there is little chance of them of getting into heaven?  Now there is a challenging idea.

Pope John Paul II addressed this parable and suggested it was the "follow me" that saddened the lad, not the "give up the riches."  To be exalted by giving everything away is one thing, but to give everything away to be a mere follower, that would be a waste of one's wealth.

Now my question had to do with why, if there are many Jews who see the holocaust as just another in a series of events well recorded in history in which Jews who reject God suffer terrible consequences, and other Jews well chronicle the facts on the ground,  why has no one integrated the two?

The lecturer opened with a cartoon of many disputing Jews banded together, an image of the reality of inter-war Poland.   A questioner in the audience inquired as to how religious Jews reconciled right wing policies with their religious observance.  Not a tough question, the answer is universal.  The movement was a great place to meet girls.  Who cares about the philosophy?

It seems there are those who write brilliantly on the facts on the ground.  And those who write brilliantly from a theological perspective.  But within Judaism culturally they talk past each other.

And culturally, an outsider who asks is going to get treated like the Jesus treated the Canaanite woman, sans the miracle.  Jews might ask, and will get well received, like Jesus treated the rich lad.

The question a Christian would ask in all earnestness of a Jew must sound impertinent to the Jew. I think that is why I hesitated to ask my question. Why when I ask such questions in earnest of Moslems or Chinese or any other culture alien to mine the question is taken as earnest?  I have no fear of giving offense to any of them.

I am painting with a very broad stroke, and I am sure in time I will come across a Jewish scholar who shares my inquiries and accepts my earnestness.  I would not doubt they have a harder time than I do, like the orthodox Jews walking down Pico on Friday, large families stretched behind the patriarch, who get verbally abused by passing liberals.

Perhaps the problem is Jesus.  He blessed the Canaanite woman and left the Jewish lad sad.  I am a Canaanite woman.

Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

Islamic Anarchist?

It seems to me that Islam is consistent with anarchy, since Islam presume religion is superior to man made organizations such as a state.  And naturally, since religion is necessary and sufficient to the needs of mankind, should man elect to have no state, this is neither here not there to Islam.  Just as it is to Christianity.  Therefore, a Moslem anarchist should not be remarkable.  Here is an article on one such person:

One of the women who spoke at the Women’s Assembly during the World Social Forum in Tunisia was not a political activist, but a cartoonist. Dooa Eladl is 34-year-old Egyptian woman who calls herself a Muslim anarchist. Her work appears in the prominent newspaper Al-Masry Al-Youm She has become one of Egypt’s best-known political cartoonists, in a field completely dominated by men. (One of her humorous drawings is a portrait of herself marching to work, her hair tied to the mustaches of four of her male colleagues.)

Islam should welcome such, and I am sure, as in the post below on Minister Farrakhan, he would be pleased.

Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

The Pope Serves Muslims

In a move that will outrage some Catholics, the Pope washed the feet of a Muslim woman prisoner...

Pope Francis continued his gleeful abandonment of tradition by washing the feet of a young Muslim woman prisoner in an unprecedented twist on the Holy Thursday tradition.

But it may scandalize some Muslims, inasmuch in some places it is forbidden for a man to touch a woman unrelated to him.

Yet within the Muslim community there are strong voices on the treatment of women in some Muslim communities.


This Pope has signalled he has no affinity for the left or the right, as he is putting forth for canonization victims of communists, nazis and the Spanish civil war.

Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

Zanzibar Islamic Renaissance

The Financial Times is alarmed by the extremism they see on the rise in Zanzibar, the SouthEast African paradise.

Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations draw their thinking from Wahhabism. “We’re not happy with other sects like [Sunni hardline] Wahhabi – people who go to countries like Saudi Arabia; when they come back they want to change everything,” he says.

Past attempts to introduce Wahhabism have not been successful, says Jussa Ismail, a parliamentarian. “But it’s very difficult for the traditional madrassas that are in really poor shape to rival the influence of those who are being funded by foreigners and Wahhabi-based institutions,” he says.

Wait.  So the Financial Times is worried that the Saudi form of Islam is making for extremism in Zanzibar?  But isn't Saudi Arabia best friend to the Western powers?  Never mind it was Saudi Arabians who carried out the 9-11 attacks, and that OBLaden was a Saudi, otherwise they are our allies.  So how come here they are extremists?

According to the article, the USA is building madrasses also, to counteract the Saudi influence.  Is this not madness?

If you review the stats on Zanzibar, outside influence is having a baleful effect.  Why do we hate the freedom of people who desire to run their affairs their way?  Why not let the locals decide their polity?

At the same time, the Vatican is arguing for France to reject the modernism that the Islamic folk are rejecting in Zanzibar.

Christianity is dying a quick death where the USA forces invade, which may be intended.  Who knows who is actually killing the Christians, since Christian suffering helps sell USA invasions to USA Christians.  Christians and Moslems agree on many fundamental points.    A great act of revolution would be for Moslems to protect local Christians where USA invades.  In fact, this has happened in places like Egypt.

Given the string of madmen USA has had as leaders, USA influence worldwide is falling fast.  In its wake we might see the peace and prosperity that comes from free trade and tolerance.   We can only pray for these good results.

Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

Economy, Russia & Demographics

Russia perceives a demographic problem, and answered it with a $9,000 bonus for each family having more than one child.  That payments have stopped, and the boom that went with it.

What kind of parents will produce for $9000?  What kind of kids do they raise?  It seems to me not the kind you want growing up and running the country.

Scientific racists are alarmed at the demographic victory being assured to those who work hard, support their families and care about their kids.  Catholic Mexicans and Moslems are the most fecund, and they will procreate their way to victory.  Their scripture assures them God is on their side.

Neither group needs a Government incentive to produce prodigious offspring.  It is simply love of family that urges them on.  Obtuse progressives believe it is ignorance and lack of a proper Government program that yields the demographic results.  Since progressives believe a lack of program leads to bad results, they equate no "plan" for these people with Malthusian results.

Where countries are blessed with growing populations, the prescription need not be a new plan, but an old plan, laissez faire, freedom, even anarchy.  Never mind developing a new plan, just give people freedom.  Protect property rights and tax minimally.  Let people arm to protect themselves, go Swiss in Government, or better yet, Hong Kong.  Reduce welfare progressively until it is gone.

Switzerland is a country of three natural enemies speaking a fourth language who've been free and prosperous for 800 years.  Hong Kong only has 200 some odd years, but in some ways has excelled Switzerland.

Here again the mass of Christians and Moslems have common cause:  freedom, peace and prosperity.

Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

An Eid Christmas Tree?

The Post Office desires to be inclusive at the Holidays, and offers a stamp for the Islamic Holiday Eid.  It is evolving.  It is looking more and more like a Christmas Tree.


What with the Moslem belief that it is Jesus who will appear at the end of times, and their reverence of Jesus and Mary, the iconographical nod to a Christmas tree seems appropriate.

Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

Jihad For Fun and Profit

The proper sense of "jihad" is self-improvement, and of course in line with the revelations in scripture. On this point both Christians and Moslems can agree.

Since Christianity has the same requirements as Islam when it comes to finance, bringing my personal affairs in compliance with revelation is my own personal "jihad."  As I reorder my affairs, so many opportunities open up.

I've gotten rid of my credit cards, and closed my IRA accounts.  I've zeroed out my savings accounts, just using the debit card.  Now, the very act of closing credit cards comes with the warning this will "hurt my credit report."  That is rather funny, because my credit is good with those that matter (business and personal associates), and what they really mean is it will hurt my ability to be entrapped in the debtor's prison of usury.  It is like warning me if I stop eating poison I might get healthy.

As I cut usury out of my finances, I find myself reordering things so that I might pay no interest.  I had a great frequent flier program associated with my credit card.  After getting rid of it, I realized there were nothing "free" associated with frequent flier miles, even with paying down the balance to zero there are fees, and there are tickets from "consolidators" that can be 70% off, but no FF miles.  And cash talks even better to these people.  The alternative lifestyle can be fun.

But it is the potential for peace and prosperity inherent in the system, that I am most concerned with.  As I develop "Islamic finance options" of course I am also studying this from the Christian perspective. So far I see no real differences.

Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

Islam Is Not Christianity

A year or so ago I took in a lecture on Islam by a fellow writing a book and he advanced some interesting theses, one being for Christians the Word was made Flesh, and for Moslems the Word was made Book.  The idea is not original to him, but the implications and the difference would be, of course, profound.

We met later and conversed, and I expected to someday see a book that advances the conversation on Islam and Christianity.  His book is out, at daunting prices, and he gave up the copyright, so I will not know what he wrote.  In an exchange of emails he offered talking points that sounded like something straight out of a Rick Santorum fund raiser.  Quite disappointing end result.

He offered several debatable points against Moslems, which are beneath reply, but he hit a very common point I hear expressed against Islam. This point I would like to address.

The argument is Islam, at the level of the Book, the Koran, has violence so blatantly integrated into the faith that only the most obtuse or delusional could possibly fail to see its premise of violence towards nonbelievers.  Let me paraphrase his expression:

For Moslems, the verses calling for violence are part of the divine word dictated by Allah, part and parcel of the Koran and one undifferentiated religion. The violence is a religious imperative.

Indeed, here is one website that lists all 109 calls to violence in the Koran.  We are supposed to tremble.

First let’s set aside few if any critics of Islam have ever read the Koran. Translations, yes, Koran, no. An article of faith in Islam is a translation of the Koran is not the Koran. The Koran is written in an archaic Arabic, and if you cannot read that, you have not read the Koran.   

This may seem a trifling point, but if you have studied any languages, you will understand that language structure also communicates information.  There are cultural and intellectual consequences of mastering a foreign language, and indeed such adepts profess that to speak a foreign language is to have a second life.  This phenomenon is a part of the studies we call linguistics.

So to critique the Koran based on an English translation, without the insights of the structure, grammar, and poetry of the orignal is rather presumptuous.  When I read a critique of Islam from someone who has mastered the Arabic of the Koran, I’ll listen.  Those who can read the original do not make the claims about Islam those who cannot read the Koran make about Islam.

But but but... fiery Islamic clerics who can read the original and do make the claim and use it to inflame suicide killers!  And this we know from confessions yielded from torture and what patsies the FBI can entrap?  If that is occurring, let the police arrest anyone who conspires to commit a crime.  We have Christian preachers who incite people to violence too, finding warrant in the Bible. Even moviemakers.  German soldiers advanced nazi goals with “God is With Us” emblazoned on their belt buckles. They are no more representative of Christianity than some neanderthal named Sheik Badhmood bin Kranki al Week calling for violence represents Islam.

And, as you will see in other posts on this blog, USA’s #1 Muslim cleric has specifically denounced any Moslem violence, and condemned the one act of “honor killing” that occurred in USA (and as if honor killings do not occur among Christians.)

But let’s for the sake of argument grant that Islam is inherently an aggressive, violent religion.  So what?  We are obliged to respond to the religion to which God calls us.  Faith is an act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God. The Islamic faith is for Moslems, not for Christians.  

Without getting into the “my God is bigger than your God” arguments, Christianity teaches both suffering has meaning and the gates of hell will never prevail against Christ’s church.  Putative Christians who scaremonger Islam do not seem to trust God, or His mysterious ways. So what if 1.3 billion people all are willing to die to destroy Christianity (or as my correspondent more liberally reckons, a mere 200 million).  As Jesus might say, “make my day.”  It ain’t gonna happen.

What is clear, regardless of religious imperative, the only place Islam today seems to prevail over Christians is when they are repelling invaders.  Like the Vietnamese.

And further, there is a disconnect where we have boots on the ground. Why is it that so few Islamic fighters with so little in resources can tie down the sole superpower which spends more on military than all other contrres combined?   Al Qaeda, when not financed by the Christian powers, has a few dozen adherents at any time.  Al Qaeda means “the center” as in the place where all activities are coordinated.  Taliban means students, these the young, highly motivated, highly intelligent adversary to the infidels.  With an army of 200 million to call on, these people willing to die certainly do not have much to show for their efforts.  The Koran has harsh things to say to those who fail to defend Islam, and it appears Islam has some 200 million AWOL soldiers, by Christian reckoning.

Or perhaps it pleases Allah to demonstrate it only takes a few thousand Moslem students and a like number of Al Qaeda operatives to tie down the world’s sole superpower.  As the Moslems say, Allahu Akbar!  Why call up the 200 million suicide squad reserves when God is with a few thousand students?

Or perhaps, more reasonably, Islam is a more nuanced experience than people who view Islam as “one undifferentiated religion” can imagine..  Iran and Saudi Arabia are both quite conservative and both quite opposed to each other.  The nuances among Moslems is diverse indeed, and probably the most effective nonviolent movement in the history of man was Moslem.  Malaysian Islam seems to me to be rather Buddhist.  So rich a culture!

Much is made of the Moslem penchant for suicide missions, as if this is some sort of special evil.  I am trying to remember a single war movie when I was growing up, or even into adulthood, that did not include the suicide mission.  hmmm... Saving Private Ryan?  Dirty Dozen?  Bridge Too Far?  Green Beret?  Shoot, I can’t think of one.

And not to put too fine a point on it, since we are experiencing more deaths of US soldiers in Afghanistan by suicide than by battle, Christians have their own challenges to face in this regard.

Critics of Islam excuse violence dished out by Christians on the premise there is nothing in Christianity that calls for violence.  But that ignores that there is nothing in the religion that prevents it either.  And if it is true that Islam promotes violence, then Moslems have an excuse for violence, whereas Christians have none for the blood-soaked centuries and current events.  If Islam was Christianity, then we would have the bloodshed that is historically endemic among Christians, without Islam.  Where would be the advantage of no Islam? Religious imperative or not, either way, man still choses to do violence. So much for the “clash of civilizations.”

(And, of course, “the clash of civilizations” is simply tarting up the struggle over who gets the oil and who gets to tax the Middle East. All religious wars are about real estate.)

The putative Christians who condemn Islam do so because Islam is not Christianity.  They have firmly grasped the obvious.  If the religions were the same, then they would not be different  Such is the level of intellectual rigor of those who fear Islam.

Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

Mozarabic Chant - Dum Pater Familias

This is music from a Christian rite that lived under Islam in Spain. It sounds Arab, doesn't it? But no, it predates Islam, and survived Islamic occupation. This ancient Christian music and the rite that supported it was suppressed when Roman Catholics reconquered Spain. The Church has since resurrected it.  I first heard it performed live as a call-and-response, bellissima! You can get a sense of that since the intro is a solo and the Chorus comes in...  I heard a better version.

Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

Urdu: تبلیغی جماعت; Arabic: جماعة التبليغ ;Tablighi Jamaat,

Wikipedia has a posting on a movement within Islam that I had never heard of before, Tablighi Jamaat

Tablighi Jamaat follows an informal organizational structure and keeps an introvert institutional profile. It keeps its distance from mass media and avoids publishing details about its activities and membership. The group also exercises complete abstinence from expressing opinions on political and controversial issues mainly to avoid the disputes which would accompany these endorsements.^[32][33] As an organization, Tabligh Jamaat does not seek donations and is not funded by anyone, in fact members have to bear their own expenditures. Since there is no formal registration process and no official membership count has ever been taken, the exact membership statistics remain unknown.^[34] The movement discourages interviews with its elders and has never officially released texts. Even though there are publications associated with the movement, particularly by Zakariya Kandahalwi, the emphasis has never been on book learning, but rather on first-hand personal communication.^[6][35] A collection of books, usually referred as Tablighi Nisaab(Tablighi Curriculum), is recommended by Tabligh Jamaat elders for general reading. This set includes four books namely (Hayatus Sahabah, Fazail-e-Amaal, Fazail-e-Sadqaat and Muntakhab Ahadith).^[36]

The organization's activities are coordinated through centers and headquarters called Markaz. Tablighi Jamaat maintains its international headquarters, called Nizamuddin Markaz, in the Nizamuddin West district of South Delhi, India, from where it originally started. It also has country headquarters in over 213 countries to coordinate its activities. These headquarters organize volunteer, self-funding people in groups (called jamaats), averaging ten to twelve people, for reminding Muslims to remain steadfast on path of God.^[25] These jamaats and preaching missions are self funded by their respective members.

Since it is a pacifistic group, no doubt it can form common cause with Christian pacifistic groups.  Mohatma Gandhi received tremendous, indeed critical help from Moslem pacifists in his effort to rid India of Brits.  The story can be found here:



Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

Thousands of Muslims Protest Google

Google headquarters in London is being picketed by thousands of Muslims who hope to make common cause with Catholics and others to protest a risible film that insults the Prophet and Muslims.

In a free market there is freedom of speech.  The problem is we do not have a free market.  We have a highly leveraged market, with companies like Google depending heavily on receiving and paying usury.  This distorts markets, and makes for venues that otherwise would not exist.  It is hardly a matter of "free speech" when someone with excess wealth finance a criminal to create and distribute a deeply offensive video which is then hosted on a highly subsidized and usury financed venue.  What has any of that to do with free speech?

Perhaps the Muslims, with their Catholic partners, ought to reflect on the pass usurers get in our respective societies, instead of fighting a battles we cannot win, a battle in which usury is ignored and we only object to the results of usury.

Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

Real Estate and Religious Wars

If you read historians with some probity, you begin to realize there has never been a religious war.  All wars are about real estate.  We can start with the Bible, and the fights are about land, the promised land, etc.

Check out these sources:



The land itself is of no real value unless it is worked.  And the war is over who gets to tax those who work the land.  This is the Roman empire, and the heart of the "religious wars" of the Reformation. This is precisely the reason the USA has invaded the Middle East so many times. For a thousand years dying people bequeathed their property to the Church, and Rome became the recipient of astonishing transfer payments.  Ultramontanes, the farther the more radical, rather resented their wealth flowing South, although in perfect conformity with prescriptive law.  The farther North the more Lutheran.

In Islam, unused property may be homesteaded after three years (or is it after three years of homesteading title transfers? I am not sure...).  In any event, this tracks the Western legal system of adverse possession.

I was attending lectures of the Byzantium scholar Dimitris Tsougarakis in which he noted at one point how Venetian Bishops were extracting rents from farmlands on Crete after the Venetians had taken the Island of from the Moslems who had taken it from the Byzantines.  This reminded me of how Sicily is poor and crime-ridden since the rents flow to Spain, 200 years after they last owned it.

And again, the story repeats itself.  Usury is introduced, wealth and power is concentrated in a few hands, life is miserable for the small farmer, the self-employed, and then the poeple welcome the conquering hordes and the hope of relief.  Why produce when it will all be stolen?

So again it starts with usury, and goes from there.

And tying in the thread of how the religions gain land from donations, and then they work it on a rental basis like anyone else.  Inheritance laws are prescriptive, and can be changed.  So, how about an ethic that if you cannot work the land yourself, then it is homesteadable.  If a Bishop in Venice cannot work farmland on Crete himself, then it is subject to adverse possession.

Property rights are absolute, but not inalienable.  No one can take what is yours, but if you cannot work it, it is not yours.

People ask me so what do you do when you demonstrate usury does damage, and you are nonviolent?  Do we make war on usurers?  As both Islam and Christianity demonstate, we need no state.  so assume that is gone. And religions are voluntary associations, and therefore nonviolent.  So the task at hand is to importune the religions leaders to change their prescriptive law on property which would state land, even religiously owned land, can be be homesteaded if not actively worked by the "owner" for three years.  The Islamic time frame sounds more just.

In this way religion might do good by more closely following the Will of God for peace, prosperity and justice.

Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

Usury Free Banking?

This from an excellent article contemplating usury-free banking:



Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

Usury Acceptance and the State Nexus

Usury is forbidden by all major religions, but in one way or another they tolerate it.   How that came to be is a long story, told by various writers, upon whom I'll be commenting over time.

As contemporary Muslims struggle with the question of usury, they study where the Catholic Church went wrong on this matter.  There too is a fascinating study.

What I read in both instances, it is not the religion or faithful who give usury its opportunity to play, it is the state.  In its secular roles, the functionaries of the state claim many emergencies in which many laws must be broken, for example, engaging in usury, and even requiring people engage in usurious conduct.

No this is curious because each tradition has its own view of the state.  Islam seems to tolerate the state as a necessary evil, whereas Christianity tends to embrace it.  Yet both clearly teach the state is inferior to religion.   Even inferior to the family or person. Just so.

But each religion with its hands-off approach allows usury to gain a foothold and grow, like a cancer.  Now this is not to say the religions should condemn the state, or somehow try to force the state functionaries to change their ways.  No, at most I would suggest the religions need to do a better job of teaching what they believe, so voters would reject such bad ideas as bonds to pay for public works.

There is one more alternative, and that is to explain more fully why we need no state at all.  I often refer to 1 Samuel 8 as evidence Christians need no state.  I can add 1 Samuel 12, in which immediately after inaugurating their first king there is faithlessness and God destroys Israel's crops in punishment.

¹⁶ “Now then, stand still and see this great thing the Lord is about to do before your eyes!¹⁷ Is it not wheat harvest now? I will call on the Lord to send thunder and rain. And you will realize what an evil thing you did in the eyes of the Lord when you asked for a king.”

God offers leaders, but He wants no king, no state.  For reasons He explained in 1 Samuel 8.  Why religions tolerate a state is curious to me, a matter for some reflection.

Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.

Usury and Power

- سورة البقرة Commentary on Sura 2:275

It is written:

Sahih International

Those who consume interest cannot stand [on the Day of Resurrection] except as one stands who is being beaten by Satan into insanity. That is because they say, "Trade is [just] like interest." But Allah has permitted trade and has forbidden interest. So whoever has received an admonition from his Lord and desists may have what is past, and his affair rests with Allah . But whoever returns to [dealing in interest or usury] - those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide eternally therein.

The Prophet (PBUH) tells us Allah forbids usury (commonly referred to as "interest") and clearly distinguishes profit and usury as distinct events.  This tracks old testament prophets and the Christian church as well.

Usury is not a sin because Allah says so, but because usury does damage.  What makes a sin is harm or damage.  Usury, commonly referred to as interest causes harm and damage, but the problem is it is not clear as to how this is so.  It is so obscure, that our Creator required prophets to clearly condemn it, and the People of the Book and Mohammed to remind us again and again, usury is forbidden because it does harm.

Just what harm does it cause, and how?  This is what goes unexplained.  Modern economics explains present value theory, opportunity cost and other rational bases for permitting interest.  Against this the best argumentcontra-usury is Aquinas:

Of the Sin of Usury, Which is Committed in Loans:

To take usury for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality which is contrary to justice....

Now money, according to the Philosopher (Ethics v, Polit. i) was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange: and consequently the proper and principal use of money is its consumption or alienation

whereby it is sunk in exchange. Hence it is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as usury: and just as man is bound to restore ill-gotten goods, so is he bound to restore the money which he has taken in usury....

A lender may without sin enter an agreement with the borrower for compensation for the loss he incurs of something he ought to have, for this is not to sell the use of money but to avoid a loss. It may also happen that the borrower avoids a greater loss than the lender incurs, wherefore the borrower may repay the lender with what he has gained. But the lender cannot enter an agreement for compensation, through the fact that he makes no profit out of his money: because he must not sell that which he has not yet and may be prevented in many ways from having....

It is lawful to borrow for usury from a man who is ready to do so and is a usurer by profession; provided the borrower have a good end in view, such as the relief of his own or another's need.

This is the same philosopher who teaches you cannot do evil to achieve good.  Perhaps he is considering th Salvation army taking out bonds to finance a reconstruction after a natural disaster. But when such efforts are fully funded with charity, why bother and pay interest?   In any event such arguments are hypothetical.

Here is the problem: by the miracle of compound interest, power is aggregated in relatively few hands.  This power is then used to distort markets by advancing or withdrawing economic support, through acts of malinvestment.

At the same time usurers are gaining purchasing power and market distortion potential, the borrowers on the reverse side of the magic of earning compound interest, those deluded souls who are borrowers experience the horror of owing debts that keep growing, and often find themselves trying to pay back debt with deflating currency or underwater on an asset for which they borrowed the principal.  It is a highly leveraged trap that superficially appears beneficial but in practice is a dark art that drives souls ahead of it to misery and destruction.  Farmers lose their land, small businesses lose their working capital,  the elderly cannot afford their homes.

All evil is constrained by finance, it must be supported in time and place by capital.  A truly free market doe not support the acquisition of exceptional wealth, and although it would permit usury, as a practical matter it would not obtain, because of two features of a free market - regulation and sanction.

In a free market there are no real regulations, simply counter-party actions.  If people lent money at usury it is only a matter of time they begin fractional reserve lending.  People observing these acts would short the bank stock, and do well when the inevitable bank-run occurred.  Usury would be nipped in the bud. There are no central banks in a free market to protect usurers and fractional reservists.

A more direct sanction is the borrower simply does not pay the usury on the loan. A usurer may lend a million dollars, but in a year when the borrower returns it,  he refuses to pay the usury fee.  Yes the borrower has broken his word.  This is where the sanction comes in.  In a free market sanctions are limited by freedom to associate, and freedom of press.  So when the borrower declines to pay the interest, the lender may raise a stink about the borrower.  In the degree anyone cares, the borrower will be sanctioned.  The borrower very well may find the sandwich shop owner will not serve him a sandwich.  Or more likely, far more likely, is nobody cares and the usurer finds his work unrewarding.

Should the usurer resort to force, then he may find in fact no one will serve him a ham sandwich, to continue the meme.  In the business world today, "law" enforcement is almost entirely reputation-related. It is necessary and sufficient to have such free market law enforcement, and as we see demonstrated daily in the headlines, the entire regime of "regulatory enforcement" is pointless featherbedding.

Wherein a Mother Teresa can do great good with no resources, a Hitler or a Capone cannot work without financing.  The money necesary to do evil is gathered by usury. This link is so obscure that it is not clear that usury does damage.  For this reason usury is forbidden by the prophets in an act of love by our Creator.

When an unwarranted cruise missile drops on a wedding in Afghanistan killing all except a few maimed little girls, it is essentially usury that makes that possible, with additional support from other financial crimes like fractional reserve, etc, which merely leverage usury with money substitutes.

Islamic scholars are struggling with the issue of usury right now on a global level.  The Church did so 400 years ago and got the answer right, but begged off any opinion on modern finance on the excuse of not understanding how it all works. As with so much of Western Culture, within Islam resides much that can illuminate current discussions.  Now to tap into that discussion, and urge freedom.

Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.