America for Sale

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen
Human Events | April 1, 2008

As the U.S. and Western markets plummet and the U.S. dollar continues its free fall, sovereign wealth funds (SWF) gobble up prime financial institutions, industries and real estate in the U.S. and the West. Given concerns regarding the political influence of such wealth, the U.S. Treasury, together with Abu Dhabi and Singapore, on March 20 signed an “Agreement on Principles for Sovereign Wealth Fund Investment.”

“SWF investment decisions should be based solely on commercial grounds, rather than to advance, directly or indirectly, the geopolitical goals of the controlling government,” according to the joint statement and accompanying policy principles. Feebly attempting to enforce this standard, it declared: “SWFs should make this statement formally as part of their basic investment management policies.”

Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Board of Directors on March 21 endorsed an SWF work agenda to develop—in coordination with them and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)—“a set of voluntary best practices.”

The pretense surrounding most international agreements matches the deceitful promotion of Middle Eastern SWF investments and Islamic banking as “ethical and socially responsible.”

In fact, “Islamic banking defies the separation between economics and religion,” according to USC King Faisal professor of Islamic Thought Timur Kuran.

Globally, SWFs now hold some $2 to $3 trillion and are expected to reach $6 to $10 trillion “within five years.” Incredibly, IMF Monetary and Capital Markets director Jaime Caruana expects the planned “best practices” to “cover issues of public governance, transparency, and accountability principles” and “help ease concerns about SWFs in recipient countries and contribute to an open global monetary and financial system.”

High oil prices are responsible for the enormous growth of most SWFs, including those in the Middle East. According to a new the Asian Banker research group, “the world’s 100 largest Islamic banks have outpaced conventional banks with an annual asset growth rate of 26.7 per cent—nearly $350 billion—in assets.”

In addition to huge political and economic influence such wealth carries, and in contrast with IMF wishful thinking, Middle Eastern SWFs also seek to impose the strangulating governance and eventual bondage of Islamic laws—not “ethics” or “social responsibility” as they advertise.

Middle East sovereign funds include bans on trade with Israel, despite U.S. laws prohibiting such boycotts and World Trade Organization (WTO) regulations requiring all member nations to allow free trade with each other. Yet, Middle East wealth so dazzles Western governments, including the U.S, that they readily ignore the Islamic nations’ illegal boycott. While these funds for now only target Israeli products, ultimately Western industries and economies will also endure dire effects.

The U.K. Trade and Investment (UKTI) website openly notes, “Saudi Arabia imposes no foreign exchange controls and no other restrictions on the repatriation of profits or capital by foreign investors,” except a strict ban “against transactions with Israel.”

The UKTI website also warns British businessmen of similar prohibitions in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman, among others, against goods “manufactured in Israel.”

The growing U.S. and European financial crisis gives Islamic banking and shari’a finance proponents increasing leverage over Western markets and economics. In reality, their acquisitions of ever-larger stakes in U.S. and Western strategic financial and other assets, amounts to economic warfare against the West.

They lure U.S. and Western investors into high-rate sukuk or al-ijara Islamic bonds, which they claim are “alternative” Islamic finance instruments that supposedly avoid usury, but use Western structured finance tools— “some of the most complex ever created.”

Shari’a instruments transform liquid, traceable cash flows from interest-bearing debt into illiquid assets. They resemble “portfolio insurance” that caused the 1987 crash, and the mortgage-backed bonds behind the 1994 bond-market bust that eviscerated $1 trillion in value—then some 10% of the U.S. bond market. Those collapses damaged many huge pension funds, municipalities and institutional investors, and killed off several hedge funds.

Shari’a economics’ dubious ethical and financial values nevertheless continue attracting Western bankers and academics. In a March 5, 2008 missive to international business leaders, for example, Caux Round Table (CRT) global executive director Stephen B. Young even suggests that Islam Hadhari (“civilizational Islam” based on shari’a law, as promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood) can resolve America’s conflicts with the “Muslim ummah” (nation).

Young believes “Islamic Banking would … bring modern forms of private sector led economic development into Muslims societies,” ushering them into the “industrial and post-industrial revolutions,” by constructively blending “rational economic considerations with Qur’anic piety.” Yet he relies on a 2006 script by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi.

But “Islamic economics is an invented tradition,” writes USC’s Timur Kuran. “Neither classical nor medieval Islamic civilization featured modern style, much less Islamic banks.”

Far from developing Islamic and economies, shari’a law has overall retarded them. “To one degree or another, most of today’s 56 predominantly Muslim countries are economically underdeveloped,” Kuran writes.

Islamic finance deliberately promotes fundamentalism and anti-Western behavior throughout the Muslim world, rather than suppressing it, he argues. Neither have shari’a finance proponents in the West considered its economic effects—promotion of gender discrimination, replacement of secular law and schools with Islamic law and schools, and its institutional suppression of scientific investigation.

In December 2007, Bourse Dubai, the world’s first and largest Islamic equity exchange, bought 20% of NASDAQ, the biggest U.S. electronic stock market, and “rebrandedâ€ it as part of Dubai’s company. The Bourse also got NASDAQ’s 28% of the London Stock Exchange (LSE). In addition, Qatar acquired a 24% LSE stake, giving the two Gulf nations control over nearly 52% of the London exchange. On March 15, Iran, which now dominates the leading 100 Islamic banks — followed by Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and the UAE –announced plans to list $90 billion energy holding company on Dubai International Financial Exchange, (DIFX), which is wholly owned by Bourse Dubai.

To counter the Shari’a financing takeover of America, the FTSE CSAG Terror-Free Index Series and Conflict Securities Advisory Group, yesterday launched a new index that screens out some 600 companies doing business with Iran, Sudan, Syria and North Korea. The U.S. government designates these states as sponsors of terrorism. However, the major Shari’a finance institutions are in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Gulf states—all funders of radical Islamist and terrorist groups worldwide, and none designated by the U.S. or screened by the new index.

The one who pays the piper calls the tune, goes the saying. Considering the strategic purchases of Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds and the traps built into shari’a financing, the U.S. and the West may soon be dancing to an unfamiliar—and strategically damaging—Islamic tune.

All Articles, Poems & Commentaries Copyright © 1971-2021 Alyssa A. Lappen
All Rights Reserved.
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage (For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

More lies (and fool’s gold) revealed

By Alyssa A. Lappen

Family Security Matters | Feb. 11, 2008

In “The Lies of the Nixon Center” (Nov. 15, 2007), I unraveled some tall tales of its former senior fellow Alexis Debat, a purported Muslim Brotherhood “expert.” Agence France Presse had reported in September 2002 that Debat had never been employed in any capacity by the French Defense Ministry (as he claimed)—which terror expert Jean Charles Brisard further corroborated. He had never earned a Sorbonne Ph.D. (as he also claimed), either.

It’s worth noting now that my October 23, 2006 American Thinker piece, “Islam’s Useful Idiots,” also evidently caught New York University Law School’s Center for Law and Security and purported Muslim Brotherhood “expert” Nick Fielding with their pants down.

Debat—then a consultant to ABC News and the U.S. Defense Department (DOD)—appeared at the Center’s October 19, 2006 Muslim Brotherhood seminar, claiming to be an “expert” on the subject. He made many ludicrous remarks. And in September 2007, Debat fled the U.S. to avoid a lawsuit and accusations of fraud in France–for fabricating interviews with several U.S. and global political leaders.

The October 2006 seminar also featured former Sunday Times reporter Nick Fielding as an “expert” on the MB, however; he made equally inane remarks. Center Director Karen J. Greenberg sang the MB’s praises. On visiting with “moderate” Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) founder Kamal Helbawy in London, Greenberg reported finding him a very kindly, grandfatherly type–and she decried U.S. State Department refusal to admit Helbawy to the country for the NYU conference.

Obviously Greenberg didn’t know. But in 2005, after then-U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair denounced suicide bombings—even in Israel—Helbawy replied, “Well he is wrong…. He is not a Mufti.” In a Jamestown Foundation interview, Helbawy blamed “events in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine” as “a factor” behind the July 7, 2005 London bombings–along with U.K. participation in Iraq and its “policy toward the issue of Palestine.”

And in December 1992, Helbawy was taped telling the Muslim Arab Youth Association, the Islamic war on Israel isn’t “a conflict of borders and land only. It is not even a conflict over human ideology and not over peace…. [I]t is an absolute clash of civilizations, between truth and falsehood. Between two conducts–one satanic, headed by Jews and their co-conspirators–and the other … religious, carried by Hamas, and the Islamic movement in particular and the Islamic people….” Muslims should never befriend “Jews and Christians,” he warned, who are only “allies to each other….”

Some grandfather.

Fielding denied the MB’s threat to the West and praised Helbawy as “a wonderful human being.” The 2005 election of 22 Muslim Brothers to Egypt’s parliament, Fielding said—and the January 2006 Hamas victory in the Palestinian Authority vote—were cause for celebration. He turned his ire only on “the silence of the U.S. State Department in the face of [alleged] Egyptian government abuse” of Muslim Brothers—and the U.S. and international boycott of the Hamas-controlled PA. Fielding dubbed the MB “reformist,” and offering “the best possibility in the Middle East of leaders who can make deals and stick to them.”

My expose prompted Fielding to falsely accuse me of misrepresenting his remarks. The same day, a sanitized version of his comments miraculously appeared on Ikhwanweb.

Debat had boasted that before the year was out, “NYU will publish the video of my remarks…” and thereby absolve them. Alas, the Center published no video or audio in December 2006—or in 2007.

When Center archives were finally published in early 2008 (surprise, surprise), the promised tape of the Oct. 19, 2006 event was notably missing from the roster.

I’d first noted on Oct. 26, 2006 that no tape could vindicate Fielding or Debat,

unless it is complete and unedited. But that may not be in the cards. Asked if the Center would post the entire session, including the question and answer period, a spokesman stated, “We are considering editing the content,” a process that could easily also exclude many controversial remarks that I quoted from the respective experts. The excuse is time limitation, although streaming digital MP3 downloads are not limited by time. Who is dishonest now?

In November 2007, I recalled Debat’s false complaint of “misquotes and distortions”—easily refuted—and observed that NYU had not published a recording “which would have been too embarrassing.”

NYU was between a rock and a hard place. Issuing an edited tape of the Oct. 19 2006 event would verify that NYU, indeed, has something to hide. Releasing an unedited tape of the Debat and Fielding remarks and Q&A, on the other hand, would recall the Debat scandal—and confirm the accuracy of my original quotations. If it isn’t already, the Center would be a laughing stock for inviting either of them.

But I’m not laughing.

It’s tragic that a Law School claiming to study law and security gave a platform to the hokum pokum of two Muslim Brotherhood apologists, or false notions of a “moderate” MB. As the known parent of every Islamic terror group now operating, the Muslim Brotherhood is today also an unindicted terror funding co-conspirator.

Still more tragic is the apparent acceptance by mainstream media—and U.S. leaders and presidential candidates—of Nixon Center fellow Robert Leiken’s lethal notion that the MB is moderate and reformist—not least, since Leiken’s training is in Latin American politics. Patrick Poole elaborately detailed Leiken’s falsehoods in a 4-part April 2007 series.

The MB unconditionally states, in Arabic and English, its plans to Islamize the globe and impose shari’a (Islamic law) worldwide–largely through “flexibility” (muruna in Arabic). Muslim Brotherhood General Guide Mohammad Mahdi Akef calls on all MB “member organizations to serve” the global agenda to defeat the West, and on “individual members” worldwide to join the “resistance” to the U.S.—both financially and “through active participation.” Even some Arab Muslims describe the MB as one of the world’s most malevolent forces.

The present danger stems mostly from the massive Islamic assault on Western economies and markets, however—both through the global push to institutionalize so-called shari’a finance, and a barrage of Middle Eastern securities markets, corporate, strategic infrastructure, bank and other acquisitions.

Skeptics should simply compare current economic events to an MB strategic plan—“Towards a worldwide strategy for Islamic policy”—written in 1977 and 1982 and discovered in the late 2001 Swiss raid on the home of MB financier Yousef Nada. Written by MB spiritual leader Yousef Qaradawi and known as The Project, the plan instructs members to “establish the Islamic state and gradual, parallel work to control local power centers….” It also requires “special Islamic economic, social and other institutions,” and “the necessary economic institutions to provide financial support” to spread Islam.

Documents unearthed also prove the MB has long operated as a central terror funding command, wiring funds for terror attacks through banks like the now-shuttered Al Taqwa, Saudi Arabia’s Dallah Al-Baraka Group, al-Rajhi Banking & Investment Corporation and Kuwait Finance House–as well as the Islamic Development Bank, a.k.a. the Intifada Bank for funding families of suicide bombers and Bank Meli of Iran.

Now, sovereign Saudi and Dubai interests are buying up Wall Street, too. And their structured Islamic finance is not nearly as benign as they’d like the world to believe.

The Securities Bazaar: Destabilizing the U.S. Markets?

by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen
Human Events | Jan. 23, 2008

All presidential candidates promise to fix our economy, but no one discusses the need to better safeguard our financial markets. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), approved Bourse Dubai’s purchase of 20% of the America’s largest electronic exchange, New York-based Nasdaq, on Dec. 31, 2007.

This may soon give Dubai access to the troubled Boston Stock Exchange (BSE), through Nasdaq’s proposed BSE acquisition, which is now pending before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

“Foreign ownership of our capital markets may make it more difficult for shareholders to obtain information about the inner workings of the stock market,” notes Brent Baker, a former SEC Special Counsel. Nasdaq, like most U.S. exchanges, 5,100 brokerage houses and registered securities representatives, is regulated by the Washington, D.C.-based Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). The Philadelphia Stock Exchange (PHLX), however, and the problematic BSE with its rather murky track record of non-compliance, retained their independent self-regulatory organization (SRO) status. Now, Nasdaq plans to purchase both.

“What do the regulators currently do to monitor the BSE, which up until now had been sanctioned several times for failure to regulate itself?” Baker wonders. Indeed, the SEC sanctioned the BSE in 1999 and 2007 for illegal practices. The September 5, 2007 sanction was for the BSE failure to enforce its own rules or comply with a 1999 SEC directive, and for illegal trading activities – including forward trading, from 1999 through 2004. On the same day, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ordered former BSE President James Crofwell, to pay a $75,000 penalty “for aiding and abetting the Exchange’s failure to enforce its rules.”

The BSE history raises especially thorny questions about market manipulation and the possibility that unsupervised foreigner investors and securities firms may borrow or manipulate U.S. company stocks, adversely affecting domestic markets and further eroding investor confidence.

Since Bourse Dubai promotes its status as the world’s first and leading Islamic securities exchange, its influence could affect the listings on Nasdaq. Dubai might leverage the “sovereign immunity” of both the BSE and PHLX to list and delist companies on Nasdaq. SEC rules in that case could be irrelevant, and the effects on the U.S. capital markets and economy could be enormous. For example, pharmaceutical companies producing Viagra and contraceptives could be delisted, as could companies based in or doing business with Israel.

“This is a slippery slope,” says Baker, “if the SEC approves the Nasdaq’s purchase of the BSE and PHLX, and they both keep their SRO licenses.”

American regulators “believe in honest and complete disclosure and people invest with the understanding that they will make or loose money depending on their judgment, the markets and the economy,” says John W. Moscow, former Assistant District Attorney and Deputy Chief of Investigations under New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau.

“In England,” where Dubai will shortly acquire Nasdaq’s 28% stake in the London Stock Exchange, he says, “the governing philosophy is that if God did not want [investors] shorn, he would not have made them sheep.”

The integrity of regulations in Dubai is a more important problem. To attract business, “they are willing to omit the costs of regulation and compliance that exist elsewhere.” Dubai traders deal in arms, women, drugs, and money laundering. “As long as [traders] deliver the money, and so long as the market does what it is supposed to do, it is sufficient,” says Moscow.

The U.S. markets are already in big trouble, says Moscow, given the high trading volume between U.S. and foreign exchanges through shadow accounts to the Federal Reserve Board’s Depository Trust Corporation (DTC), Euroclear and other clearing systems. Nasdaq’s acquisition of the BSE only worsens the problem.

The same owner, through many different foreign corporate entities, can buy majority stakes in many companies and manipulate the market. With no regulation of these trades, no one would be the wiser. “The bad guys are going to eat us alive,” Moscow says.

Indeed, SEC chairman Christopher Cox has now proposed allowing foreign exchanges to sell directly to U.S. investors through U.S.-based brokerage firms. Exchanges with “comparable” regulatory oversight would no longer need to register with the SEC, under the new proposal. But of course, having comparable regulations alone in no way ensures that foreign exchanges enforce their regulations with the same rigor as the SEC.

The U.S. markets remain the most highly and efficiently regulated in the world, according to Moscow. Clearly, that is still not good enough.

— Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil, is director of the American Center of Democracy, and a member of the board of the Committee for the Present Danger. Alyssa A. Lappen, a senior fellow at ACD, is a former editor of Institutional Investor, Working Woman , Corporate Finance and Forbes.

Beware Fool’s Gold — and Shari’a Finance

By Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPageMagazine | Jan 21, 2008

The very expectations of glittering shari’a finance (Islamic banking) profits hypnotize financial institutions, securities exchanges, and banks–and there are few regulatory or monitoring protections against abuses. So why did United Arab Emirates (UAE) government IP address 92.97.131.110 send some 30,000 to 40,0000 spam messages on December 8, 2007, soliciting Islamic finance clients among U.S. citizens and small businesses?

“Need assistance,” the spam asks, soliciting inquiries to , registered to Emirates Telecommunications Corporation at UAE’s federal domain authority.

Maybe gorging on U.S. strategic assets increases UAE appetite–even though, the lower stocks go, the more prime U.S. investment companies Middle East investors scoop up. Maybe UAE spammers may want to lasso U.S. credit crunch victims desperate for cheaper home or small business loans.

Let’s hope U.S. consumers and U.S. presidential candidates–unlike those U.S. financiers falling like flies before UAE sheiks–will carefully scrutinize the entire Islamic banking scam.

The UAE email solicitation purports that Islamic finance provides four “attractions:”

* Good alternative source of funds

* Risk perceptions of Islamic financiers

* Off-balance sheet financing

* Preferred mode of financing for certain corporate (sic) and individuals

Many grave secular risks accompany shari’a‘s growing foothold in Western markets.

With wife-beating, stoning women, dismembering thieves, hanging homosexuals, supremacist ideology and an annual head tax (jizya) on non-Muslim subjects–shari’a also orders Muslims to fund jihad (financial jihad—al Jihad bi-al-Mal). As in Qur’an 61:10-11, “strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives.” and Qur’an 49:15. “Financial Jihad [is]…more important…than self-sacrificing,” says Saudi cleric and Muslim Brother Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi.

Consider the four purported advantages.

First, the Saudi-favored shari’a finance “alternative,” as noted in FrontPageMagazine earlier, is a 20th century construct without basis in Islamic history–and often funds destruction. It’s an “invented tradition” empowering Islamic radicals, writes USC King Faisal Professor of Islamic Thought, Timur Kuran, in Islam and Mammon: “Neither classical nor medieval Islamic civilization featured banks in the modern sense, let alone ‘Islamic banks’.”

Muslims expect “humanitarian” Islamic finance to buy their “reward in the Hereafter.”

Conversely, Americans expect alternative “ethical” and “socially responsible” investing to build human rights in southern Sudan, common shareholder rights, and good corporate governance and transparency–terms not in the shari’a finance lexicon.

Then take “risk perceptions of Islamic financiers.”

Evidently bankers have forgotten to whom the advantage of this second bogus UAE-invoked “attraction” accrues: Citibank’s Islamic financiers in 1955 launched its Saudi American Bank subsidiary in Jeddah and in 1966 opened a Riyadh branch–without presenting due diligence on the risks of operating under shari’a law, which include sudden confiscation. So Citibank discovered in 1980, when the Saudis seized SAB by royal decree, denied Citi any future profits, and ordered the bank to train Saudis staffers.

Likewise, the “risk perceptions of Islamic financiers” apparently aided criminals at the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), which was founded as an Islamic bank. BCCI perpetrated the largest fraud in banking history, costing depositors and investors at least $21 billion before U.S. prosecutors closed it in 1991. BCCI was also established “to help the world of Islam, and [as] the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists,” as Rachel Ehrenfeld noted in Evil Money (Harper Collins, 1992, pp. 160, 164-5, 169-70). Thus under UAE president Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahayan’s late, terror-financier father, BCCI funded such “alternative” organizations, states and projects as Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Syria, Iran and Pakistan’s nuclear bomb manufacturing.

And Islamic banking’s third “advantage”–its off-balance sheet financing–most readily explains its fourth: the domain’s preference by “certain corporate (sic) and individuals.”

But even the Finance and Accounting Standards Board (FASB), which sets standards for the self-regulated accounting industry, would agree with a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released in December 2007, calling for more and better market and banking oversight–not less.

And that includes leashing the downside risks in off-the-books financing. Hundreds of billions of dollars in subprime mortgages caused the current global credit crisis, which is ravaging global equities and bond markets, and could slice $6 trillion from U.S. home values and take years to resolve.

In the 30 years since Bank of America technology and an 8.5% BOA mortgage-backed “pass-through” spawned a landmark market innovation–securitization–underwriters transformed trillions of dollars in claimed cash flows on illiquid assets into increasingly liquid, traceable securities. Collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) made mortgage-backed and other complex lending securities so liquid that in the 1980s, U.S. brokerage firms practically sold them on street corners.

During that 1980s securitization boom, the Muslim Brotherhood heavily used the new Western financial technology to develop MB founder Hassan al-Banna’s shari’a banking invention. Today, Islamic financial institutions also manufacture “special purpose entities” (SPEs)–the same kind that coincidentally helped destroy Enron. Naturally, Islamic financial engineers renamed the prickly SPEs “special-purpose vehicles (SPVs)”–legal devices to “restructure interest-bearing debt, collecting interest [as] rent or [a] price mark-up.”

So-called sukuk al-ijara (shari’a bond) issuers sell real estate or assets to SPVs, which capitalize their investment by selling share certificates. In turn, the SPVs then lease back the assets they purchased to the sukuk issuers, collecting principal plus interest, which they pass on to sukuk investors as “rent.” When the sukuk matures, the SPVs sell or return the property to the sukuk issuers.

In short, the supposed “alternative” Islamic finance instruments, which claim to avoid usury, use Western structured finance tools–“some of the most complex ever created.” You got it. Shari’a bankers transform liquid, traceable cash flows from interest-bearing debt into illiquid assets.

How is that more secure for the financial markets?

Actually, financial innovation has sometimes caused market dislocations. Often, the bigger the innovation, the greater the unforeseen consequences–and market declines. Take the role of “portfolio insurance” in the 1987 crash. Or the 1994 bust of mortgage-backed bonds, which wiped out $1 trillion in value–then roughly 10% of the U.S. bond market. That free-fall took down (by several notches) many huge pension funds, municipalities and institutional investors–and also beached a few hedge funds like dead whales.

So how does the complex purported shari’a finance alternative create more security for Western financial markets?

It doesn’t. Under “complexities,” the December UAE solicitation for Islamic finance clients admitted, “Shari’a regulations can override commercial decisions.”

The email also noted two other major shari’a finance problems:

* Documentation is not standardized

* Inter-creditor agreements can be complex (emphasis added)

Taking monumental risks does not even eliminate usury. All “Islamic finance today is interest based,” complains Rice University Islamic economics, finance and management chairman, Mahmoud el-Gamal, in the Financial Times. Disparaging Islamic banking as “shari’a arbitrage,” el-Gamal calls it “first and foremost about religious identity.” And the “forefathers” of so-called “political Islam” intended precisely that in their conception of this 20th century financial concoction.

In reality, “innovative” Islamic financial securities involve enormous risks, which may be an intended prong of the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic financial jihad.

Sukuk issues entice investors with yields much higher than Western bonds. While central Western banks orchestrate historic, simultaneous rate reductions to contain losses feared to equal those of the 1986 to 1995 savings and loan crisis, a sukuk index with a mere 3.8 year duration sported 6.2% “coupon” on Nov. 30, 2007. Meanwhile, in mid January, yields were only 2.89% on intermediate Treasuries–and just 5.25% on the Lehman Brothers intermediate U.S. corporate bond index. Only long term U.S. corporate debt yielded more than 6.5%. No wonder sukuk issues have been fully subscribed.

But two key determinants of bond quality remain–the surety of payments for the scheduled life of the loan, and the certainty that, on maturity, investors will recover 100% of their principal.

Simply believing Islamic sukuk to be inherently safer than Western bonds doesn’t improve their quality of their higher interest rates–oops–“rent.” Islamic or not, buying a sukuk makes its purchaser a creditor. And for the same reasons “junk” is synonymous with high-yield bonds, larger returns carry greater risks.

Which says nothing of the dubious underlying “profit and loss sharing” Islamic finance philosophy. Investors should look doubly hard at whether to expect profit or loss when a sukuk matures–that is, whether recouping the loan’s entire “face value” is even in the cards. That might depend on the values of underlying properties or assets at maturity. But then, “Shari’a regulations can override commercial decisions,” and so on.

In 1983, my esteemed colleague, former Forbes senior editor Howard Rudnitsky, warned in a booming real estate tax-shelter market, “heavy leverage involves risks, and if the market turns bad, the top-heavy financing could wipe out the equity. The creditors would get the property back, the syndicator would keep his fees and the investor would get the shaft.” Not to mention the back taxes, interest and penalties if the Internal Revenue Service ruled the enterprise “uneconomic.”

The same principles apply here. With or without spam, better, safer and fairer for government and IRS regulators, banks, markets–and investors–to take all finance, unIslamic.

Alyssa A. Lappen, a senior fellow at the American Center for Democracy, is a former senior editor of Institutional Investor, Working Woman and Corporate Finance and a former associate editor of Forbes.

Shari’a Finance: Cordless Bungee Jumping

by Alyssa A. Lappen
Pajamas Media | Dec. 18, 2007

Despite flashy headlines extolling Shari’a finance (Islamic banking) and Wall Street bankers jumping into the market, don’t follow. It’s like bungee jumping without a cord—or following lemmings over a cliff.

[12/18/2007 update: The banking industry has a short memory. In 1955, Citibank established the Saudi American Bank in Jeddah and added a Riyadh branch in 1966. But on February 12, 1980, Saudi Arabia confiscated Citibank’s business by royal decree, changed its name to Samba, and forced America’s premier bank to accept a subservient role, staffing its old bank–with a promise not to take any profits. That was shari’a law in action.]

Shari’a is “the path of Allah,” Nizam Yaquby told October conference-goers. But the purportedly “ethical” and “socially responsible” investing supports neither environmentalism nor “renewable” growth.

A 20th century construct, without basis in Islamic history, it often funds destruction. This “invented tradition” empowers Islamic radicals, writes USC King Faisal Professor of Islamic Thought, Timur Kuran, in Islam and Mammon: “Neither classical nor medieval Islamic civilization featured banks in the modern sense, let alone ‘Islamic’ banks’.”

Consider its downside risks.

With 19.99% of Nasdaq in hand, Bourse Dubai, the Dubai International Financial Exchange (DIFX) parent—certified for Islamic “purity”—by Bahrain’s Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAIOFI)—now plans to “rebrand” America’s international over-the-counter market as Nasdaq-DIFX.

What does this mean for presumably “unIslamic” Nasdaq companies (like Israeli generic drug giant, Teva)? Supposedly, Bourse Dubai will be “restricted to 5 percent voting rights” in Nasdaq. But in anticipation of Nasdaq-DIFX’s “rebranding,” DIFX named four new board members.

Boards of directors generally call the shots.

Meanwhile, Citigroup is receiving a second-generation, $7.5 billion Islamic-cash-bailout from the ultra-conservative United Arab Emirates (UAE) sheikdom, Abu Dhabi.

Its initial, 1991 Islamic-rescue followed billions in bad loans, single-quarter losses of $855 million, and U.S. Federal Reserve Board concerns about Citibank’s potential failure.

Suddenly, Citi’s then-Middle East business chief, Shaukat Aziz—fresh from seven years in Riyadh hobnobbing with Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal—convinced the latter to trade $600 million for shareholder-rights, Bangladesh’s Depardes reported in June 2004. He now has 3.6%. Aziz later headed Citicorp Islamic Bank, and maybe initiated Citi’s supposedly prospering Shari’a finance business.

But who controls whom? Today, doubling as Pakistan’s Finance and Prime Ministers, Aziz supports “Shariah compliant banking,” which the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) in 2005 strategically planned to promote “as a parallel system.” He’s discussed its potential with Bahraini Bank Alsalam CEO, Yousif Taqi.

Likewise, bin Talal wants to dominate U.S. businesses. Rather than boycott, “Arabs …stand more to benefit from maintaining trade ties with the US because the trade balance … is in our favor,” he told Saudi Arabia’s Arab News daily on May 1, 2002.

Both men’s ideas fit the 1928 cloth of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, whose disciples tailor-made it into shari’a finance—specifically to supersede Western banks, markets and democracies through “parallel economic” and financial institutions. It rests on shari’a—the 7th Century Qur’anic legal code developed by Mohammed’s followers—which clerics consider one, indivisible package, by definition seeking global Islamic supremacy and law.

With wife-beating, stoning women, dismembering thieves, hanging homosexuals, supremacist ideology and an annual head tax (jizya) on non-Muslim subjects—shari’a also commands Muslims to fund jihad (financial jihad—al Jihad bi-al-Mal). As in Qur’an 61:10-11, “strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives….” and Qur’an 49:15. “Financial Jihad [is]…more important…than self-sacrificing,” says Saudi cleric and Muslim Brother Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi.

The 1982 Muslim Brotherhood document, “Towards a Worldwide Strategy for Islamic Policy”—discovered by Swiss police in November 2001 and known as the Project—maps al-Banna’s plan. His successors, and author MB spiritual leader Yusuf Qaradawi, Swiss authorities say, order Muslims to engage “economic institutions adequate to support the cause financially” in directives covering roughly 14 pages, headlined “departure points.”

Elsewhere, Qaradawi decrees, “‘holy war’ is an Islamic duty… [F]ighting…is the Way of Allah for which zakat must be spent.” His 1999 “Fiqh az-Zakat” describes the “‘most deserving’ zakat and jihad, to rebuild Islamic society and state and to implement the Islamic way of life in the political, cultural and economic domains.”

Itself now partly owned by bin Talal, the Wall Street Journal in November 2007 ironically noted the tragedy that bad management and “blundering U.S. monetary policy” had again left Citigroup prey to Arab sheiks. Citi got its cash transfusion by granting “only” a 4.9% “minority stake—and no board seats—magically for 0.1% under the 5% necessitating U.S. Federal Reserve Board approval.

The Fed should intervene anyway—given the avid and ongoing, apparent UAE observance of zakat and jihad directives from Muslim Brotherhood leaders like Qaradawi:

The UAE banks wired most of the funds for the 9/11 attacks.

In 2006, UAE donated $100 million to house Palestinian Authority prisoners and suicide bombers’ families, named for the late father of the current UAE president, who over 30 years donated millions to PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror.

Hamas in July 2005, thanked Al-Nahayan’s “sisterly UAE” for its “limitless [financial] support,” and “aid for our Mujahid,” in other words, Hamas jihadist “charitable societies.”

The Palestinian Authority in May 2005 itemized millions of additional UAE U.S.-dollar aid, including $3 million paid directly to the Al Aqsa Intifada Fund.

UAE president Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahayan’s late, terror-financier father also “owned the infamous [global] Bank of Commerce and Credit International” (BCCI)—which bilked depositors of billions before being shuttered in 1991; funded terrorist groups, states and projects like Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Syria, Iran and Pakistani nuclear bomb manufacturing; and was created “to help the world of Islam, and [as] the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists,” as noted by Rachel Ehrenfeld in Evil Money (Harper Collins, 1992, pp. 160, 164-5, 169-70).

In October 2007, Dubai violated World Trade Organization (WTO) rules—banning the Israelis from the Federation of International Freight Forwarders and Customs Clearing Agents world congress. Dubai Ports World and its government holding company prohibit trade with Israel.

In 2003, the UAE established a federal agency specifically to collect zakat on government tax revenues from “companies listed on the Dubai Financial Market and Abu Dhabi Securities Market… oil-producing companies and branches of foreign banks,” obviously including U.S. oil companies and banks. This year alone, the UAE zakat tax agency collected an estimated $13.5 billion.

In what dark corner are U.S. legislators, Fed and securities market regulators asleep?
__________
Alyssa A. Lappen, a Senior Fellow at the American Center for Democracy, is a former Senior Editor of Institutional Investor, Working Woman and Corporate Finance, and a former Associate Editor of Forbes.

Shari’a finance

by Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPage Magazine | Nov. 14, 2007

In October, Abu Dhabi Prince Nahayan Mabarak al-Nahayan advertised his ultra-conservative sheikdom’s openness “in this age of globalization,” and having had world trade “from ancient times” by welcoming 100 world-class Jewish intellectuals to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) second biennial “Festival of Thinkers.” The UAE higher education minister controls 90%-plus of UAE crude and natural gas reserves–and wants good press for planned UAE cultural, science, technology and education institutions.

Also in October, shari’a finance gurus lobbied U.S. bankers at two Islamic finance conferences “to access more Islamic investment opportunities” and create more shari’a compliant products and new Islamic banks. Shari’a is “the path of Allah” explained “scholar” Nizam Yaquby obliquely at first, the Oct. 24 and 25 “Islamic Finance in North America” meeting, thus convincing many U.S. bankers that Islamic economics dates to Muhammad.

However, accepting “shari’a finance” is like swallowing double-edged swords. U.S. politicians, businessmen and regulators should scrutinize–and disclose–the diplomatic and economic weapons that costly oil bestows on erstwhile allies. Muslim clerics consider shari’a–the 7th century Qur’an-based legal code developed by Muslim jurists after Muhammad–one indivisible package, including wife-beating, stoning women, hanging homosexuals, dismembering thieves, supremacist ideology–and funding terror. And shari’a clashes with secular, Constitution-based U.S. laws.

Moreover, Islamic finance is an “invented tradition” empowering Islamic radicals, writes University of Southern California King Faisal Professor of Islamic Thought, Timur Kuran, in Islam and Mammon: “Neither classical nor medieval Islamic civilization featured banks in the modern sense, let alone ‘Islamic banks’.” Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna concocted the idea in the 1920s to unite Muslims in one global Islamic nation (umma).

Finally, Federal Reserve Board officials admit to not understanding shari’a finance. For example, “[W]e are certainly in no position to take a stance on issues of shari’a interpretation,” said New York Federal Reserve executive vice president William Rutledge on April 19, 2005 to the Arab Bankers Association of North America (ABANA).

The Muslim Brotherhood designed dogma and Islamic finance to spread shari’a–seeking ultimate global supremacy over daily life, individual, political and religious freedom. Shari’a mandates that Muslims fund jihad (financial jihad–al Jihad bi-al-Mal). Qur’an 61:10-11, “strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives….” And Qur’an 49:15, “(true) believers are only those who…strive with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah.”

“Financial Jihad [is]…more important…than self-sacrificing,” says Saudi Islamic cleric and Muslim Brother Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi. Muslim Brotherhood spiritual chief Yusuf Qaradawi decrees, “Declaring holy war…is an Islamic duty… [F]ighting…is the Way of Allah for which zakat [charity] must be spent.”

In 2006, UAE donated $100 million to house Palestinian Authority prisoners and families of suicide bombers–and honor UAE president Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahayan, whose late father, over 30 years contributed millions for PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror. On July 27, 2005, Hamas thanked Al-Nahayan’s “sisterly UAE… for its ‘limitless [financial] support’,” and “aid for our Mujahid,” in other words, Hamas jihadist “charitable societies.”

UAE’s Bourse Dubai stock exchange recently requested approval to buy control of NASDAQ, 52% of London’s Stock Exchange (LSE) and 47.6% of OMX (Nordic exchange)–ten months after Bahrain’s Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAIOFI) certified its “Islamic ‘purity’,” designating it the world’s first “shari’a compliant” market.

AAOIFI’s members and shari’a board include Saudi Arabia’s Dallah Al-Baraka Group, al-Rajhi Banking & Investment Corporation and Kuwait Finance House–all implicated in al Qaeda and other terror funding, according to former national counter-terror coordinator Richard Clarke. Other board members are the Islamic Development Bank, also known as the Bank of the Intifada for funding families of suicide bombers, whose principal owners are Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lybia and Egypt, and not one, but two U.S.-sanctioned terror states, Sudan and Iran. Islamic finance experts consider AAOIFI fatwas standards to which all shari’a banks and products, even in the U.S., must adhere. But UAE’s showcase Bourse on Oct. 22, 2007 denied its Islamic “purity” to the Partnership for New York City.

Dubai banned Israel’s delegation from the October Federation of International Freight Forwarders and Customs Clearing Agents world congress. Dubai Ports World and its government holding company prohibit trade with Israel. UAE banks wired most funding for the 9/11 attacks. Saudi Arabia boycotts Israel, despite promising in 2005 to stop, before joining the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Shari’a designates lying “one of the ugliest and most disgusting of sins.” Alas, lying is “permissible”–even encouraged–in innumerable circumstances. Sufi Imam Abu Hamid Mohammed ibn Mohammed al-Ghazzali (1058-1111) instructed followers, if one could achieve a praiseworthy “aim by lying but not by telling the truth, … [it is] obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory,” according to Nuh Ha Mim Keller’s Reliance of the Traveller.

Imposing shari’a–by proselytizing (da’wa) or jihad war–is obligatory.

U.S. banking and investment laws guarantee individual property rights, require full disclosure, and prohibit criminal or terrorist activities. Western bankers and businessmen, however, oblivious to shari’a and financial jihad history, clamor for Muslim petrodollars (supposed surpluses from overextended Middle Eastern exchanges) pouring into U.S. markets.

Former Goldman Sachs trader and Birthright Israel supporter Daniel Och, for example, plans to sell 9.9% of Och-Ziff Capital Management to Dubai International Capital, which on Nov. 6 also acquired Europe’s biggest diagnostic imaging company from Britain’s Bridgepoint private equity fund.

But DIC chief executive Sameer alAnsari sits on the board of Palestine Children Relief Fund, a U.S.-based Palestinian “charity” reportedly tired to the shuttered Holy Land Foundation, Global Relief Foundation, and the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO)–which have all been federally investigated for funding Muslim Brotherhood terror groups al Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

Buyers and sellers, beware.

Alyssa A. Lappen, a former senior editor of Institutional Investor, Working Woman and Corporate Finance, is a senior fellow at the American Center for Democracy. Her website is https://www.alyssaalappen.org.