Catastrophe - Dick Morris [122]
Giving Muslim extremists massive leverage by linking sovereign wealth funds with Shariah-compliance boards is a frightening prospect indeed. Imagine the likes of Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Usmani deciding which companies should or should not get massive investments from the sovereign wealth funds of countries such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others.
As the global financial crisis deepens, the demand for capital—from anywhere—will become increasingly acute. If the powers controlling the sovereign wealth funds from Islamic countries demand the inclusion of Shariah-compliance provisions in any investments they make, it is hard to see our financial policy makers worrying too much about the impact of these funds on our freedom. As Gaffney puts it, “there will be a Katie-bar-the-door attitude toward funds from these sources,” and the danger of widespread proliferation of Shariah-compliant financing will be even greater.484
Just ponder for a moment what a catastrophe that would be. In order to attract the precious money controlled by these sovereign wealth funds, companies would have to pitch their activities to appease and please the extremist Shariah-compliance officers. It would put the power to control us into the hands of those who want to destroy us.
Not only could these advisers use this massive leverage to hurt the United States, the international Jewish community, and Israel, they also could use it to destabilize our entire capitalist system (or what is left of it when Obama gets through with it).
Consider the mayhem that a few mortgage lenders visited on the American economy when they went around issuing subprime mortgages—or the destabilization that occurred when savings and loan associations promoted crony investments in the 1980s. Our financial system is highly vulnerable to just these kinds of shenanigans, and Shariah-compliant financial advisers would be only too happy to figure out how to use that exposure to their advantage.
The airplanes of 9/11 smashed the towers of the World Trade Center. But Shariah-compliant financing has the potential to go further and smash our country’s fragile economic future.
ACTION AGENDA
Think there couldn’t possibly be much you can do about Shariah-compliant financing? Think again! With the U.S. government moving to buy shares of stock in all the nation’s major banks and financial institutions—and, likely, nationalizing many of the major banks—it is the government, our government, that must decide whether or not to allow Shariah-compliant funds to be established.
And, as Frank Gaffney points out, for a government-owned institution to have a Shariah-compliant fund is a clear violation of the First Amendment. It involves a state action (or an action by a bank either owned by the government or in which the government has an ownership stake of 40 percent or higher) to benefit an “establishment of religion,” which is, thank God (again, pardon the pun), prohibited by the First Amendment.
Gaffney is right when he argues that the federal government cannot permit financial institutions under its control to have Shariah-compliant funds or to put Shariah law experts on its advisory boards. The fees paid to these “experts” for explicitly religious advice clearly violate the separation of church and state.
A lawsuit is being brought to force AIG—the insurance giant that the federal government bailed out in 2008 and again this year—to drop its Shariah-compliant financing program. The suit alleges that, since AIG is now controlled by the government, its Shariah programs constitute a state action that is barred by the First Amendment. With Uncle Sam owning more than 80 percent of AIG, they’ve got a good case.
Yerushalmi points out that AIG had to give the government “preferred stock (preferred means it has special benefits over regular shareholders) which would allow the Treasury to receive 79.9 percent of any dividends paid and to vote with the common stockholders in an amount equal to that 79.9 percent.”485 Not unreasonably, he points out