Servant Of The Light.

"People know the prices of everything and the value of nothing.”(Oscar Wild 1891)

So you might be thinking, the only model of finance I know is that of usury, so how does the Islamic financial model, entirely free of usury work?

As far as I can see there are three avenues open, the first is to re-establish the basic monetary system that existed for thousands of years before the Jesuit and Jewish money lenders perverted and corrupted it, based on physical coins, containing an established purity of valuable metals. This being a store of labour.

Secondly, a money free system, based on the foundation of wealth, which is labour, without a representative paper currency, organised through a register. This is a register of labour.

Finally the best option, you could combine the two to form a extremely strong foundation, and so a more stable financial system.

“The opposite of consumption isn't thrift. It's generosity.”

The reason the world is fuelled through ever escalating consumption, is the need of the usury banking system to double the amount of debt injected into the world every decade, through a need to repay interest on the loans issued in the past, as a result of the 100% debt currency model.

War is the best method the banking system has of transforming society and enslaving the population to debt, and ever descending restrictions. If you support the usury banking system you are an advocate of war, poverty, exploitation, famine, ignorance and confusion, as these are the fruits of banking.

To aid consumption, the corporate monopolies create the engineered boom and bust cycles, excused through the bankers media whore and there army of financial experts. Through the monopolies generated through the boom and bust cycle manufacture products are engineered to have short life use, technologies are retarded, high product maintenance is designed in to products, all to fuel consumption, and so the burden builds endlessly upon the individual.

The old coinage system re-established.

Any individual can mint coins, under the prerequisites, universally agreed, of a set thickness, shape and purity, in silver, gold, platinum, whatever metal they like, being established as of value, the reason this conformity is required is to allow everyone a simple way to test the purity of coins, as only a pure metal will weigh an exact amount if made of an exact size, contamination will change the weight, so a simple set of accurate scales and a holder to test the size, are all that is required; other than that they could be of any design. No monopolies of money production by individuals or organisations can be tolerated; the universality of all things is freedom, while monopolies are a road to slavery once more.

Based upon the polycentric community model, the hub central repository of each cell group, or community can lend future labour, at absolutely no interest, to people the repository find to have the intention to repay the loan, when supported by their surety group, or others within the community, (the ability to administrate certificates is only sanctioned for the central repository of each cell, no individual or separate organisation can do this, however any individual or organisation could lend coins at absolutely no interest if they so wished). Only a living human being can borrow future labour, no abstract business entity can be created to borrow, it is only through combined efforts large loans can be achieved, when many people join together to form a strong purpose, such as the twelve members of a surety group combining their resources and labour to establish a business resource.

The communities repository administrator creates the required number of certificates to cover the loan, the individual that has borrowed the money spends his certificate, representing silver coins, and at any point people in possession of certificates can collect the silver coins that these certificates represent, from the central repository.

The individual that has taken out the loan, over time repays the loan with coins, or certificates that he acquires, returning either the certificates or the coins that have been loaned by the repository, back to the central repository, in so doing, no inflation, no interest, no shortage of funds will exist, as the balance will be restored. Historically it is demonstrated that on average only 5% of physical reserves are in circulation, so this system would function without a great danger of difficulty.

The money will simply circulate through the community, no hardship or usury.

This system is based on 100% intrinsic value, therefore if an individual refuses, is unable or dies and the loan is unpaid, it must still be honoured, no loan can be written off by the repository without exoneration, as it must balance the books. This would fall to the surety group who supported the issue of the loan, to dispose of assets belonging to the defaulter, or funding the loss.

The surety group or community members who sanctioned the loan that defaulted must stand the cost of the loss, three methods are open to acquire a loan, it must be backed by personal assets (not allodial property), it must be guaranteed by an individual (a guarantor) with sufficient assets (not allodial property) to cover the loan, the surety group of the borrower, or community members at large must personally sanction the loan, and therefore carry the burden of the risk, accept the risk, by signing on the loan, if they wish to allow its sanction.

If the paper certificates are stolen they will be registered as void and new certificated issued to the individual that was robbed, a system of certificate number verification would be practised and be readily available to all, to eliminate fraud, a simple digital system could easily be constructed. Alternatively a deposit system could be exstablished, funds could be transfered to individuals accounts as the work was completed, or the goods suppl[ed, directly and recorded on the register.

If the community at large wished to borrow money, for public works for example, they would perform the same service for themselves, under close scrutiny, and with the consent of sanctioning community members.

The community would cancel and destroy these certificates as they are paid into the accounts of the service providers, on individuals labour loans, or in payment for central council services, repayed through monetary gifts to fund social or community projects.

The true gift within an Islamic community would be the labour of the individuals within it, to build and enrich the environment all develop within.

As ultimately these certificates would return to be destroyed, this mandatory destruction is the key to the system; this would place no burden upon the community, no inflation, no interest, no taxation.

If individual cells wished to dispute the validity of another hubs repository certificates, being other than the one they themselves used, they would be returned and exchanged to the hub repository that issued them, for either a certificate from the hub as a certificate exchange, or for coins.

Another alternative would be universal agreement of certificate structure and value, as to make them interchangeable throughout the system, invariably and ultimately being returned specifically to the place of issue to be destroyed, of course this could be done remotely by other repositories through serial numbers and exchange of certificates having one cancelling out another.

Of course if an abundance of coins existed within the hub repository, they would be used first, having no need of certificates, as long as a minimum store was retained for daily demands.

Internationally a 100% silver/gold coinage model would have absolutely no problem trading with societies based in other models, as metals always retain a strong value, even under the manipulations of the bankers in the existing usury model, there value is still recognised. And if this system was introduced while usury systems existed, fiat currencies could be converted into metal before exchange, removing the usury advantage of the bankers.

The Islamic system cannot exist in tandem with a usury system, they are mutually exclusive, if a community establishes this Islamic system they must refuse to participate in the outside usury system within the community, but unfortunately people will through greed and self interest corrupt the Islamic system quickly, contaminating it with usury if they are unchecked, the establishing and witnessed signing of the social contract is a prerequisite of the Islamic community.

Under the most stringent and exacting oversight, a system of account direct debit, built within a repository system, based on an intrinsic positive balance, without exception, always under comprehensively enforced regulation; then a digitised system could be established, although I advise strongly against this concept without deeply established and enforced parameters, as it is too open to widespread abuse, and could easily but the root of deception and fraud.

A money free system.

Within a community that has no physical metal wealth, a coin free system can be established, evolving into a coinage/labour register system, as wealth is generated through the industry and efforts of the community, not through the printing of paper notes.

All money is fundamentally a physical representation for labour, the bankers trick the population into thinking labour is worthless and paper money is wealth, so they print money (steal our labour) for the cost of printing.

Human labour is wealth, you can not be destitute if your labour is wealth, you can not starving when your labour is wealth, only through the trick of the bankers are you fooled into valuing there money and not valuing labour.

So the concept of a coinage system could be devolved; instead of using gold or silver we could simply accumulate labour accomplished within a written register, the register would function more universally if labour was gauged through a physical silver coinage system. Not all labour is equal, one man's labour is not always the same as another, a bus driver is not equal to a medical doctor for example.

It would in some respects work the opposite to money, it represents physical value in pure product, you cannot tax this system without dominating its administration and this is a system that would continue absolutely independent of any outside financial model, having no need of any physical money, either paper or metals. It would work directly opposite to all other monetary systems in respect to hoarding wealth, with paper or metal it restricts the circulation of wealth, with this system it benefit’s the community, as it’s the accumulation of physical labour within the community itself, the more you hoard the more you accomplish.

The purchase of goods would function simply within a representative register, allowing community members to purchase goods through register debits, and none members to use silver coins, through this structure wealth would expand and prosperity be common place.

Wages of a slave or full portion of labour.

The concept of paying wages has a limited value, it has a master slave structure, it now serves as the predominant structure within the modern usury model. The structure is a fractal of a corporation, the workers feeding the owners.

Shared risk, shared rewards.

A portion of the profits within a group endeavour would function within the Islamic concepts, this share would reflect the value of the input of the individual.

If an individual wished to join an existing business endeavour, and there was an opening of another individual who wished to exit the endeavour, then they could buy themselves into the business, at a price they and the individual leaving, considered its worth. As with every business assets accrue, through the labours of the individuals who invest their labour within the business, this has a value of labour, this labour could be accounted for through a new member of the group replacing another.

Expansion: If an individual wished to join an established business and the members within it wished them to be part of it, they would mutually establish the parameters of the collaboration, based on mutual agreement, they need no legislation, as exploitation is not an element of the model. An individual adds their own labour, and so earns there own rewards, it has little impact on the other members, however as a business expands, it would require more individuals to invest their time labouring within it to fulfil obligations.

As within common law no corporation can exist, the predominant corporate structure is directly against common law.

Islamic Insurance.

Insurance is a valuable protection from unforeseen hardships, the present system based on chance is not an acceptable model, it functions on obscene profits for taking little chance.

I will give you an example of the Islamic model:

If I demanded 10% of your crop in exchange for insuring it against loss, so I gambled you would have a good harvest, when the odds maybe only 1% of the time a crop is lost. This is a form of usury.

The Islamic model, protecting yourself from the hardship of a crop failure is simple. A group of farmers would join together, each committing (only theoretically, as only upon demand of the share would it be supplied) a share of their crop into the collective pot, proportionate to the size of their holdings, only if a farm failed would any burden be extracted from the collective, otherwise the insurance would cost nothing. This loss burden sharing insurance could be linked across large group collectives of farmers, so reducing the burden through scale of any potential losses.

Another example:

Car insurance should be organised within the same structure, a group of car owners join together, investing an amount proportionate to the value of their car, at the end of the year, after all the claims have been paid, the remainder would be redistributed according to the proportion originally invested. Or the car owner could simple make up the short fall to continue their insurance for another year.

Usury Markets.

Stock market, pensions, futures market, derivative market, commodities market, currency market, everyone of them are absolutely usurious, and against the Islamic model.

Many pervert the simple concept of Usury or Riba, to justify to themselves they are still a Muslim, and what they do is fine. They confuse others and will be loud and vocal in their defence of these corrupt and worthless markets.

To understand usury lets examine an example:

If I lent you a watermelon, and expect you to repay me two watermelons in return, I have laboured in the creation of the one watermelon, but I expect a second watermelon in return for no labour, I have extorted the fruits of your labour from you, because to create the second watermelon I must labour twice as much as you laboured in the creation of just one watermelon, and surrender that labour to you in reward for no effort on your part, this is usury.

To sell a crop of watermelons at a discounted price before you have planted the seeds, and harvested, jumping straight to market, as is now commonly practised through the futures market, is selling something you do not have, and may never have, you may only sell what you posses, to sell a potential is a form of usury, you are selling nothing now for the fruits of someone’s labour, for a price that if you deliver in the future would be for less than you have earned.

You shall give full measure when you trade, and weigh equitably. This is better and more righteous. (Surah 17:35)

You shall give full measure when you trade; do not cheat. (Surah 26:181)

You shall weigh with an equitable scale. (Surah 26:182)

These principles can be applied to any area of commerce, for example if you sign a contract to pay a set fee for a service, irrelevant to whether that service is used or not, say a gym membership contract, but never go, yet you can not escape the contract period, this is a futures contract and a form of usury, any contract based on potential future use of service, as opposed to actual use is again not full measure for the fruits of your labour, so usury.

Copyright.

Is copyright theft?

It is a wonderful tool to control and monopolise supply of goods, maintain inflated prices, hold technology back, hold competition back, reduce diversity and get paid again and again for the same work.

Doesn't sound very Islamic.

Firstly they say it is theft to break a rule they have established in the purchase of the copyrighted product, but what have you stolen?

They say you have stolen their sale of that product, or you have made money from an aspect of their copyrighted product, without giving them a share.

Theft: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See {Larceny}, and the Note under {Robbery}.
         [1913 Webster]

But as you can see under the concept of theft nothing has been stolen when you copy an original, so they redefine it as piracy.

 1. The act or crime of a pirate.
      [1913 Webster]

   2. (Common Law) Robbery on the high seas; the taking of
      property from others on the open sea by open violence;
      without lawful authority, and with intent to steal; -- a
      crime answering to robbery on land.
      [1913 Webster]

So they redefine theft and piracy, as nothing has been stolen but the thought that they have not received payment for the copy of the original.

They make obscene profits, but restrict and control the products they generate to make certain they maintain the obscene profits. They use clever marketing to convince people that they need obscene profits to function, but copyright is a legal construct in opposition to common law.

So they redefine theft to mean controlling what others do with their own property, on the premise that it deprives the "originator" of future income.

Intellectual property is the next line of defence, the logical conclusion of "intellectual property" is that it dictates what someone can and cannot do with their own real property; in other words these two types of "properties" are mutually inconsistent. Moreover, why not take "IP" to its logical conclusions: the man (and his descendants) who first decided to build his home out of wood should be receiving royalty payments from everyone else. Of course, "IP" advocates will never agree to this, since in order to keep their state granted criminal monopoly privileges they must "draw the line" at some arbitrary point. Finally, the reality of "IP" is definitely usurious, since it is equivalent to: selling your shares in a company, but demanding to be paid the dividend, or selling your property but still demanding to receive rents from it. Selling anything is transferring ownership, once the buyer believes he owns the product in question, he is paying for a future stream of income (in the case of assets) or utility in general. The alternative is known as renting, and "IP" advocates purposely confuse these two ideas in order to reap the gains of selling their products, while demanding to have final say over its use. Well you cannot have it both ways, if you want to rent out the use of your products then do so, and you will receive a lower price for it. Don't hide behind implied legalisms and small print. (Quote: Wootah on Freeminds)

Labour is wealth.

You could donate your time as Zakath to the communal charity, you could donate your time to charity outside of the communal effort, a direct interaction, unlike paper money, which is donated without connection, so in isolation and detachment.

If you ran this system in unison with the silver and gold coin system it would then remain up to the people to decide how they wanted to be paid, but a labour based system would value labour not the certificates of debt, and so free the community from the existing monopoly which generates immense misery and is nothing more than a restrictive and expensive money exploitation.

Conclusion

The first step in the introduction of the human energy economic system could be the establishment of a local community repository; exclusively the contracted members of the community store their fiat paper money within the repository.

The repository then exchanges the fiat money as quickly as possible for pure silver, which transforms the certificate of debt into a true store of labour.

This store of labour then, is not open to the abuse of the usury system, allowing the introduction of loan services from the repository. The repository could additionally offer the service of minting silver coins from the stored silver bought by the depositor, which would cover running costs.

The loans would be given in pure silver coins interest free, (not fiat money which in itself is a form of usury), as granted against the non-allodial saleable assets held by the applying individual, or granted by the surety group the individual is contracted to, limited by the non-allodial saleable assets held within the group, or granted by the community at large who would stand guarantor against default.

While we suffer the fraud of the modern usury banking system, loans could be repaid in either fiat money or silver coins, even pure silver with the cost of coin minting added would be acceptable.

Loans given to community members required to pay individuals outside of the contracted community would require fiat money payment, in which case the repository would exchange the silver coins for fiat money on demand to service these payments from fiat deposits collected from community members, not through selling silver back to the usury system, so retaining the silver coins as far as possible.

A silver coin would hold its full fiat price in both loan and repayment, so if silver dropped in fiat value the repayment of the loan would reduce, while if the silver increased in value against fiat money the repayment in fiat money would increase. In real terms only the original amount of silver is ever repaid, but the fiat monetary cost would vary.

Historically within repositories only 5% of the silver stored ever leaves the repository from the daily requirements of the depositors. This is the original basis of the fractional reserve model, the fractional reserve is not the real problem with the usury banking system as if you are not creating interest baring paper notes from nothing the loan is repaid with no inflation, only as a consequence of the interest repayments is inflation generated.

Utilising the fractional reserve concept available loans would be obtainable extensively, never lending an amount beyond physical silver holdings of a minimum of 10% of total deposits, so servicing daily requirements of community members.

If you wished to create long standing loans contracts of labour collectively beyond the capacity of the silver held within the repository, notes of labour could be created valid within the contracted community only, to service such demands, as they would be a way to facilitate local needs. As a contracted loan is a way to use the labour of others, then to repay the labour over time without any added burden, as no interest is involved so it would carry no inflation. Contracts would be simplest if calculated as represented by silver coins, and so labour would be repaid simply using this store of labour.