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.

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.

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.

Tithing for Terrorists

Financing Jihad
by Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen
National Review Online | Oct. 12, 2007

“Governments have political considerations,” said senior N.Y. Senator Charles Schumer, upon learning in September that Bourse Dubai intends to buy 20 percent of NASDAQ. Republican Senator Bob Bennett of Utah countered, saying, “Dubai is making a purchase on the open market of an asset that’s for sale. What’s wrong with that?”

Senator Bennett is correct — buying portions or all of NASDAQ is perfectly legal. Moreover, no changes could be made to NASDAQ regulations without Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approval. But of concern is Bourse Dubai’s Islamic influence in the heart of the U.S. markets and economy. And the deliberate United Arab Emirates (UAE) devaluation of the dollar since December 2006 is vastly increasing their purchasing power.

Bourse Dubai began operating as the world’s first fully shar’ia-compliant stock exchange, in December 2006. Sharia compliance requires companies traded to also be sharia-compliant, and establishes a special tax on all the others to “purify” them.

The Islamic “purity” (Tazkiya) of Bourse Dubai was approved by the sharia board of the 1991-Bahrain-registered and based Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAIOFI). The AAIOFI laid the groundwork for the global Islamic financial network and regulates all Islamic financial organizations and products, including Bourse Dubai.

Like every Muslim country, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) collects mandatory Islamic charity (Zakat– the Third Pillar of Islam — an annual wealth tax), of about 2.5-percent from Muslim institutions and companies. Being non-Muslims, foreign banks and oil companies theoretically don’t pay Zakat. But foreign banks and oil companies in fact do pay 20 percent of their profits, but rather than Zakat, these mandatory payments are called “tax.”

Zakat we are told, is to help the needy. However, Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader, Yusuf Qaradawi decrees, “Declaring holy war…is an Islamic duty, and fighting ….is the Way of Allah for which Zakat must be spent.” In his 1999 publication, “Fiqh az-Zakat,” Qaradawi adds,

The most important form of jihad today is serious, purposefully organized work to rebuild Islamic society and state and to implement the Islamic way of life in the political, cultural and economic domains. This is certainly most deserving of Zakat.

And as previously demonstrated time and again, Muslim jihadist-terror organizations are indeed prominent Zakat recipients.

In 2003, the UAE established an independent federal agency collecting 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.” In 2007 these revenues were estimated at $13.5 billion.

Saudi Arabia, for example collects $18 billion a year in Zakat — which includes the 20-percent flat corporation tax from foreign companies. The Saudis claim that the money collected develops their infrastructure. However, two thirds of Saudi men are unemployed and the infrastructure is crumbling. Yet, since the 1970s, the Saudi government has spent more than $100 billion to build thousands of mosques, Islamic centers and Islamic studies programs in universities worldwide.

On April 30, 2007 the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) — which also initiated Muslim riots after the Danish Mohammed cartoon publications — established the clerical International Commission for Zakat. The ICZ replaces more than 20,000 organizations that previously collected the money. The Islamic clerics’ centralized “expert committee” in Malaysia now supervises and distributes Zakat funds globally. The new committee will shortly distribute roughly $2 billion collected over Ramadan this year to Muslim charities.

Historical Development
The origins of all Islamic economic and financial regulatory organizations, including the AAIOFI’s date back to the 1920s invention of Muslim Brotherhood (MB) founder Hassan Al-Banna, who designed political, economic, and financial infrastructures to enable Muslims to fulfill a key form of jihad mandated by the Koran (Al Jihad bi-al-Mal — financial jihad)—“you… should strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives….” 61:10-11.

He viewed finance as a critical weapon to undermine the infidels “and…work towards establishing an Islamic rule on earth.” To do that, he understood that Muslims must create an independent Islamic financial system to parallel and later supersede the Western economy.

Al-Banna’s contemporaries and successors (such as the late Sayed Qutb and current Yusuf Qaradawi) set his theories and practices into motion, developing sharia-based terminology and mechanisms to advance the financial jihad — “Islamic economics,” finance and banking.

Early 1930s MB attempts to establish Islamic banking in India failed. Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser shut down the second attempt, in 1964, after only one year, later arresting and expelling the Muslim Brothers for attempts to kill him. Saudi Arabia welcomed this new wave Egyptian dissidents, as did King Saud bin Abdul Aziz earlier waves in 1954 and 1961. Their ideas so appealed to him and his clerics that in 1961, Saud funded the MB’s establishment of the Islamic University in Medina to proselytize their fundamentalist Islamic ideology, especially to foreign students.

In 1962, the MB convinced the king to launch a global financial joint venture, which became the cornerstone and engine to spread Islam worldwide. This venture created charitable foundations, which the MB oversees.

The first were the Muslim World League (MWL) and Rabitta al-Alam al-Islami, uniting Islamic radicals from 22 nations and spinning a web of many other charities with hundreds of offices worldwide. In 1978, the kingdom backed another MB initiative, the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), which with all these “charities” are implicated for funding al Qaeda, the 9/11 attacks, Hamas and others.

These “charities” are used to advance the political agenda set forth by the MB. “I don’t like this word “donations,” Qaradawi told BBC Panorama on July 30, 2006.

“I like to call it jihad with money, because God has ordered us to fight enemies with our lives and our money.”

In 1969, the Saudis convened Arab and Muslim states to unify the “struggle for Islam,” and have, ever since, been the OIC’s major sponsor. The 56 OIC members include Iran, Sudan, and Syria. Based in Jeddah “pending the liberation of Jerusalem,” the OIC charter mandates and coordinates “support [of] the struggle of the Palestinian people…recovering their rights and liberating their occupied territories.”

The OIC charter includes all the MB principles. Its first international undertaking in 1973 was to establish the Islamic Development Bank “in accordance with the principles of the Shariah,” as prescribed by the MB, and launching the fast growing petrodollar-based Islamic financing market. The IDB, more a development than commercial bank, was established largely “to promote Islamic banking worldwide.”

“[A]n Islamic organization must serve God…and ultimately sustain ….the growth and advancement of the Islamic way of life,” writes Nasser M. Suleiman in Corporate Governance in “Islamic Banking.”

And so it has done — as noted in a 1991 U.S. Library of Congress report on Sudan’s Faisal Islamic Bank, established in 1977 under Sudan’s Faisal Islamic Bank Act, by Saudi prince Mohammed ibn Faisal Al Saud, and initiated and managed by local Muslim Brotherhood members and their party the National Islamic Front. Soon other political groups and parties formed their own Islamic banks. Together, Sudanese Islamic banks then acquired 20-percent of the country’s deposits — providing the financial basis to turn Sudan into an Islamic state in 1983, and promoting the Islamic governmental policies to date.

From 1975 to 2005, the IDB approved over $46 billion in funding to Muslim countries, ostensibly to develop their economic and educational infrastructures, but effected little regional economic impact. Their educational efforts, however, paid huge yields — via the rapid and significant spread of radical Islam worldwide.

Moreover, in 2001 alone, the IDB transferred $538 million raised publicly by Saudi and Gulf royal telethons to support the Palestinian Intifada and families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IDB has also channeled U.N. funds to Hamas, as documented by bank records discovered in the West Bank and Gaza. And yet the IDB received U.N. observer status in 2007.

The IDB and other Islamic financial successes encouraged MB leaders to formalize al-Banna’s vision. In 1977 and 1982, they convened in Lugano, Switzerland to chart a master plan to co-opt Western economic foundations — capitalism and democracy — in a treatise entitled “Towards a Worldwide Strategy for Islamic Policy,” also known as the Project. MB spiritual leader Qaradawi wrote the explicit document, dated Dec. 1, 1982.

The 12-point strategy includes diktats to “establish the Islamic state and gradual, parallel work to control local power centers…using institutional work as means to this end.” This requires “special Islamic economic, social and other institutions,” and “the necessary economic institutions to provide financial support” to spread fundamentalist Islam.

Consequently, the IDB founded the AAOIFI in 1990. AAOIFI members include the Saudi Dallah Al-Baraka Group, al-Rajhi Banking & Investment Corporation, and Kuwait Finance House; each of its members were implicated in funding al Qaeda and other MB offspring according to Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism chief . The 18 AAOIFI members also include Iran and Sudan, both on the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions list; Iran is an U.S. State Department-designated terror sponsoring state, too. UAE banks wired half of the funding for the 9/11 attacks

In addition, the “de facto Islamic Central Bank,” the Islamic Financial Services Board (IFSB), was established in 2002 in Kuala Lumpur “to absorb the 11 September shock and reinforce the stability of Islamic finance.” Chairing the organizers’ meeting, then Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamed Mahathir stated, “A universal Islamic banking system is a jihad worth pursuing to abolish this slavery [to the West].”

IFSB members include the central banks of Iran, Sudan, and Syria (all designated state sponsors of terrorism) and the Palestinian Monetary Authority (PMA), which is widely documented since its inception as a terror funder.

According to DAG and Islamic Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICCI) President Saleh Kamel, more than 400 Islamic financial institutions currently operate in 75 countries. They now hold more than $800 billion in assets — growing 15 percent annually. HSBC, UBS, J.P. Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Lloyds TSB and BNP Paribas, are but a few that offer Islamic banking and sharia-based products to their Western clients — and promote them as “ethical investments.”

Rapidly rising oil prices fill the coffers of Islamic banks, the expansion of sharia economics and financial jihad — threatening the U.S. and entire non-Muslim world, in real-time.

Indeed, shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden called on Muslims “…to concentrate on hitting the U.S. economy through all possible means,” going on to say …. Look for the key pillars of the U.S. economy. Strike the key pillars of the enemy again and again and they will….”

The pending NASDAQ acquisition, purchases of over 52 percent of the London Stock Exchange (LSE) and 47.6-percent of OMX (Nordic exchange), and the vigorous expansion of sharia finance, all steadily implement al Banna’s plan to spread and ultimately impose sharia worldwide.

Yet, still unaware of the implications of importing sharia finance, hoards of American bankers will later this month convene at New York’s Islamic Finance Summit at the Helmsley (Oct. 29-30, 2007) — which will focus on “Innovations in Sharia compliant Finance.”

In view of the facts, Senator Schumer has a valid point.

— 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 is a senior fellow at ACD.