I wouldnt describe it as a conspiracy. The Christians tolerate what they belive is truth, MUslims theirs, Jews theirs, Hindus there. WHat matters is what Allah tolerates and we can see quite clearly that he does not tolerate ( according to Islam), Christian versions of Jesus, Jewish obstinacy in accepting prophets, Hindu idols and etc. Tolerance has its limits. Full and unadulterated tolerance is impossible. There is truth and falsehood, noone will tolerate falsehood, all that remains is to find the truth one way or another.

By the way I disagree with the pillars of humankind that you gave there

RELIGION is the identity that destroys the barriers of race, family or nation. I say salaam to black Muslims in the Mosque and dont care about their race, family or nationality. It is not even brought up.

Religion >>>>> race, nationality, family, whatever the heck else there is

Wa'alaykum As-Salam akhi

I haven't watched the video but from what i studied in economics the banks can do that. The more reserved loan they have, the more money they can print out without the existence of equivalent value. I was trying to illustrate with a simplest example.

I do not know if people have ever thought of this before: since the paper money came into existence we have prospered and advanced in no time. All these nice looking facilities etc became possible for everyone (at least in West) in last few centuries. Off course, there is trade off in everything. What is the trade off in this case: only few people controlling the world's wealth and have turned everyone into slaves by creating fake money, loaning them out and then making the borrowers pay interest on a money which in reality does not exist. They can shut down the world anytime they want. The sudden food crisis and inflation in food prices do tell us something.

As-Salamu 'Alaykum

now, i'm no student of economics so i can be way off, BUT after watching the 1st video on the History of the Federal Reserve, which made absolute sense to me, and then watching the Debt as Money vid, my wife and i were astonished to watch lecture by Dr. Imran N. Hosien entitled The Prohibition of RIBA in the Qur'an & Sunnah; Dr Hosein's lecture include 80 to 90% of the rational of the 2 vids and we were amazed that just after grasping an [somewhat simplified] understanding of the situation that here was a Maulana warning us of the same thing!

May Allah Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala protect us all!

And what real value does gold have?

^gold coins/silver coins, which were in the old times, tells us how much wealth a country has because you cannot make more gold/silver coins unless there is more gold/silver. The wealth of a country is determined by its production. If a country produces more, their wealth will increase as more people will be spending (internally and externally-exports). In the case of paper money, about 50 years ago a country needed to show equivalent value of gold for the money which they wish to print out but now it is not needed. Now we call it is "fite" money (economics term). It means that we do not need to hold gold of equivalent value and we are sure that we can exchange it with someone else.

i don't think it has any value at all inherently - only if people decide to agree to view it as having value. it's all quite mystical.

There are a couple of problems with this.
Digging up more gold is the same as printing more money, this was a problem for early banks when Spain dumped a lot of gold onto the market, the gold that was there already was suddenly worth less than before.

Who decides how much the gold is worth, and what happens when people are not willing to trade it?
In many countries now there are food shortages. Imagine a farmer with a bucket of grain, just enough to feed his family. You can drive up to his door with 50 tonnes of gold, but is he likely to trade with you when food is in short supply?

A Saudi Cleric spoke recently on TV, explaining how Tolerance is an attack on Islam.

Muhammad Al-Munajid: "Some of these heretics say: 'Islam is not the private property of anyone.' So what do they want? They say: 'No sect has a monopoly on Islam.' So what do they want? They say: 'We want to issue rulings.' Someone who is ignorant, who does not know any Arabic, or who has no knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence wants to issue rulings?! They say: 'We reinterpret the texts.' There is a very dangerous conspiracy against the religion of Islam in newspapers and in what these people say. A journalist, or one of those lowlifes, wants to... These people are a mixture of Western, local, and imported ideologies, but they want to express their views with regard to religious rulings. This is the prerogative of religious scholars, not of ignorant people - the prerogative of knowledgeable people, not of fools or heretics.

[...]

"The problem is that they want to open a debate on whether Islam is true or not, and on whether Judaism and Christianity are false or not. In other words, they want to open up everything for debate. Now they want to open up all issues for debate. That's it.

"It begins with freedom of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with freedom of belief. So where's the conspiracy? They say: Let's have freedom of thought in Islam. Well, what do they want?

"They say: I think, therefore I want to express my thoughts. I want to express myself, I want to talk and say, for example, that there are loopholes in Islam, or that Christianity is the truth.

"Then they will talk about freedom of belief, and say that anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he wants... If you want to become an apostate - go ahead. You like Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem. That's what freedom of belief is all about. They want freedom of everything. What they want is very dangerous.

[...]

"Freedom of thought, within some constraints, is blessed. Islam calls for thinking, for interpretation, and for the use of the mind. But as for freedom of heresy, which allows anyone to criticize whatever he wants in Islam, saying, for example, that he does not like the punishment for apostasy, that he doesn't like the punishment for drinking alcohol, or that he does not like the punishment of stoning adulterers - this is barbarism.

"They ask: Why should a thief have his hand chopped off? Some of them say that this is 'too much.' Two-three much on you and your rotten mind. If you abolish this punishment, you will see the rise in thefts. On the other hand, people feel their property is secure because of this punishment."

^^^^^ Strong words. But ultimately true words. I agree with him. Allah knows best for us. Sooner or later people will find that out.

Do you want the right to criticise non-muslims for their ungodly depravity and misguided opinions, but restrict others in their rights to criticise you?

Why not?
I just realised My wife has been using that Concept for twenty years.

Best bit in the Clerics speech? IMO it's that he does not like the punishment of stoning adulterers - this is barbarism

^ lol

the wise know how far to take their tolerance

Edit:
Surely, by allowing that one would be tolerant, no? Not that I condone it or anything, just making a point about tolerance.

And that's the problem with tolerance: What is tolerance? How far can tolerance go? Is it subjective or objective? What are you allowed to tolerate and not tolerate? What are the advantages and disadvantages of a tolerant society? Is being tolerant a sign of a moral society or an apathetic one?

I think that there are some tolerances are complete bull and go against society (freedom to insult a religion or homosexuality [don't bother attempting a reply to the latter point - I'd crush it fairly quickly]) yet there are those that I believe are truly beneficial for society (anti-racism etc). Of course, you could easily call me up on two instances;
1) You agree with homosexuality and that is the norm of today so I must be abnormal and therefore incorrect.
2) bias since I am both a muslim and an ethnic minority i.e. my view of tolerance is completely subjective and shows clear bias. To which I'd agree --- which would eventually lead us in circles.

Dang, I miss my psychology days

Greetings,

I can't see how tolerance can be considered a conspiracy. It's normally considered a liberal virtue, but if that worries you, then I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. I wouldn't recommend using 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' to bolster your view, though.

This is the sort of thing Christian clerics used to say. For the most part, they've learned to tone it down more recently.

What a wonderful idea. Fear is the only thing that is holding this guy back from joining in the debate.

It's only "dangerous" because this person is terrified that if people were given the absolute moral liberty to examine their beliefs critically they'd be leaving Islam in droves.

I agree with barney - this is a classic line.

Peace

Well I wouldn't have argued either that way.
Whether you're abnormal or a minority depends entirely on whether you actually are a minority, but I would hope that your views would be consistent if you weren't in the minority.