 Okay. Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem. Rahmat al-Duhu nasalli ala Rasulah al-Kareem. So, because I have a lot of material to cover, we will start right away. But I will go slowly and the whole thing is recorded anyway so people who come late can catch up. Okay, so I hope everybody can see the screen. I am sharing my screen. And I will try to start. How do I start this slideshow? Is it F9? Oh, here it is. Okay, so the original title which has been announced is Towards an Islamic Approach or Towards an Islamic Monetary System. But after preparing 60 slides on the current monetary system, I realized that this was not possible to do. So for the moment, I will just discuss this. How did the modern monetary system arise? And in particular, why gold was abandoned? Because this is essential to understand a lot of people, Muslims and non-Muslims, think that the solution to modern monetary problems, and there are a lot of monetary problems, the solution is going back to gold. But that's not true. Gold is not the solution. It's a separate question of whether an Islamic monetary system can work with gold or not. We will think about that also later. But for the moment, this lecture doesn't have much to do with Islam. We are going to just study how modern money system arose in Europe and how it spread around the world and why in particular gold was abandoned. So basically one of the key points of this talk is that modern economics, modern economies, capitalist economies cannot function with gold. So if we just go back to gold, that would cause a collapse of the economy. And so that's not a very good proposal. Many Muslims are thinking that that's the way to go and that's just not correct. We may be able to go back to gold if we radical, if we make radical changes in the economic system, but that's a separate matter. Now, I have put up a copy of these slides and maybe, Lisa, you can put this on the chat so that if people want to look at the slides, they can download them. But anyway, the video lecture and the slides will be made available on the course website after the recording is available. So we start with some basic ideas. Money has evolved and changed and we have seen it change in front of our eyes. So our goal is to understand why and how money has evolved and changed. Now modern economic theory is completely blind on this front because they don't study history at all. And so the modern theory of money has only one money. It doesn't describe different types of money and it describes a universal system. It assumes that money is always the same everywhere and this is just not true. Money has changed a lot. Even in the past 30 years, money has changed a lot. So we need to understand the history of money and understanding history is not enough. If you look at history, okay, this happened and then that happened. X, Y, Z, that doesn't give you understanding. It tells you what happened. But to understand why things happened, you have to look beneath the history. And these are the drivers of change which are hidden beneath the facts. And so we need a theory of money to be able to understand the history. And so it's quite a complex job to try to understand why things happened as they did. And because the whole subject is very complex, I will only give some sketch and many aspects will remain un-clarified. But I will try to get the core ideas so that you end up with a deep understanding of money. In fact, the understanding of money at the end of lectures that you will have is more than what I understood from my PhD and my PhD courses in Monetary Economics from World's Best Economists. And I recently looked just to confirm at the top journals in economics and I found that they're still pursuing false theories. So a good theory of money should be able to explain history. Why did the gold standard emerge? Why did the gold standard collapse in the World War I? Why was there an attempt to restore the gold standard? And how did this effort failed? And how this basically in World War II, the gold standard was abandoned and it was replaced by the dollar standard. And all of these are changes. Before World War I, you had gold standard between World War I and World War II. You had a mixed standard with partially gold and partially floating. And then after World War II, you had the dollar standard. And after 1971, when Nixon dropped gold backing for the dollars, then you had a system of floating currency. So modern money really emerges only after 1971. And then in 1999-2000, a lot of laws were passed in USA, which repealed old laws created after the Great Depression to regulate banking. And this led to a period of wild money with shadow banking and derivatives. And that led to a collapse in 2007. So it took only seven years of deregulated money to cause a financial crisis. So a good theory of money should allow us to understand why all of these things happened, why the Great Depression took place. Why did the global financial crisis take place? How has the central banking changed over time? Now, the interesting thing is that even if you get a PhD in economics, you will not be taught these things. And so this is actually what the reason that we hope that we will be able to create a course which will replace modern economics. Because modern economics is just meaningless false theories. And so if we provide the correct theories, the good ideas, the understanding, then it will automatically disappear. All right. So before we start with the lecture, I am going to discuss some methodology, which is very different from the methodology that you are taught in modern economics. If you have taken bachelors or masters or PhD in economics, you have been taught a methodology. And this methodology that you have been taught says that history doesn't matter. And to the opposite, I would say that history is the source of everything. History is, but the problem is that history is only a sequence of facts and you cannot understand history without a theory. So you have to understand what are the drivers of history? What makes things change in time? And Ibn Khaldun was the first one to actually look for systematic hidden driving forces. And his methodology has been abandoned in the social sciences. And so I am proposing that when we rebuild all of social sciences on the basis of an Islamic epistemology, we have to rename the subject because social science, the word science itself is wrong. So I have proposed that we should study Ulumul Umran as a replacement for social sciences. So the methodology that we have is that we have some idea in our mind about how changes happen in history. Then we study history and we find most often that our theory is wrong. The historical facts contradicted. So we modify the theory and so history modifies the theory. Then we study it more again and we learn, we acquire a deeper and more sophisticated theory. And then again maybe a semi-historical fact contradicts it. So basically there is an interplay between theories which help us understand history. And then there are some facts in history that our theory cannot explain. So we make a more complex theory. But these theories we use to build policies. So when we do policy that actually changes history. So our theories about economics change the history. They change the course of history and this has often happened. So for example today banks around the world raise interest rates to fight inflation. Even though this is simply baloney, you can't fight inflation by raising interest rates. But the fact that they do this based on a false theory affects history, changes history. It causes some changes. So our theories change history and history affects our theories. So this back and forth process between history and theory is central to the Ulumul Umran methodology. Alright so with this Newton methodology we won't discuss that more. We're just going to discuss the history of money. So the big background picture is that we're now going to study modern money is a European creation. And so we're going to study European history. And in particular there was a great transition in Europe in which they rejected Christianity. And they developed a new religion which is called secular modernity. And secular modernity is very different from all traditional societies. It is founded on individualism, everyone for himself and hedonism. The pursuit of pleasure is the goal of life. Now these ideas because Europe is currently dominant. These ideas have become spread across the world. And unfortunately today Muslims are trying to fit the Quran and the Sunnah into the European model. So because everybody accepts the idea that Europe is the most advanced civilization. So in order to show that Islam is also modern and advanced. We try to distort Islamic theories and present them as being compatible with Western ideas. And basically this makes it impossible to understand Islam. So the key to understand modern society is an insight from Polanyi. In traditional society markets are a part of society and they are subordinate to society. But in capitalism society is subordinate to the market. The market is the dominant structure and social structures are subordinated to it. What does this mean? Well it's very easy to understand. Suppose that you have a shop owner and he has a life saving drug. And somebody comes in and he is dying. So the question is should the shop owner give him this drug or should he keep it? Because the person doesn't have money to pay for it. So in capitalism the answer is obvious that he doesn't need to give the money. He doesn't need to give him the drug. He should withhold it because the market is the primary thing. So if the man doesn't have money to pay for food, he won't get food. Man doesn't have money to pay for medicine. Man doesn't have money to pay for education. He won't get an education. That's the capitalist system. Now in traditional society the answer is that he cannot withhold the drug. Because as a human being your relationship to the other person is primary. And if you can save somebody's life then this issue of money and property, these are secondary. These are less important. And the more important thing is that he is a human being and you are responsible. And if he is dying and you can save him then there's just no way that you have the permission not to do it. Social responsibility is primary. This is the difference between the traditional society and the capitalist society. So according to Polanyi there are three keys to secular modernity. And there are three artificial commodities that are created in order for capitalism to work. One of them is land. Now the land is not a commodity in the sense that we don't manufacture land. It's there, it's given to us. And in Islamic conception it is an amana. So we don't have the right to do with it whatever we want to do. But in capitalism private property is the primary value. So if we have land we can destroy it, we can exploit it, we can do whatever we want. But in Islam because it's an amana you can't misuse the land. You can't use it to cause harm to others. And you have to protect it and preserve it and pass it on to the next in a better condition from which you found it. You can't destroy it. So the concept of amana is very different from land is amana is very different from land is private property. Similarly the concept of labor in capitalism is very different from the concept of labor in Islam. But these are not our topics here so I won't go into that. But the critical topic is money. Money is an artificial commodity. It comes into being by social consensus. We all agree that money will be worth something. That makes money worthwhile. So it is a trust. It is kind of a, so it's not just a physical thing. That's very important because that's what differentiates money from gold. So Polanyi has given some consequences of what will happen if you make labor into a commodity. And he says basically when you commodify labor then you turn a man into, a man is embedded in his community in social relations where he has a history as an identity. All of these are taken away and man becomes just individual who has no history, no personality, no identity. And this is a very great damage done by capitalism. Similarly land becomes over-exploited. Instead of being treated in the land as our, as an amana, as something which is very precious and valuable and we have to protect it and preserve it, we just treat it as a commodity, as a throw away thing. We can pollute it, destroy it, do whatever we like with it. And similarly money as a commodity instead of money as a trust. You see if money is created by social consensus then it involves trust that we have to use it correctly to preserve social consensus. If we abuse this trust, this will cause social consensus on money to break down. Now the critical thing to understand is that the role and importance of money increased drastically in a market society. In a traditional society money is not all that important because markets are not all that important. The central needs of human beings are met by social responsibility, not by the market. Markets are secondary. So in this lecture we will focus on history of money in Western society. What we really need is history of money in the Islamic society and on that the existing work is very unsatisfactory. That's not, there is a word but it is not actually systematic and focused on how we can, how money actually functioned in Islamic societies and how we can recreate those ideas. But today our focus is on modern society and in particular on showing that gold is not a good money for modern society, for capitalist society and how gold was abandoned. So one of the things that is important is that the creation of money is almost always done as an act of oppression and exploitation. Somebody says money comes dripping with blood and today something that is not mentioned in any economics textbook. If anybody has a lot of money, a billion dollars or trillion dollars, it is obvious that there is no real halal way of earning that much money. I mean money should be compensation for value added and nobody can add that much value. So then large amounts of money are automatically product of zulm and so this is something that is not part, not discussed but it is obvious and when you, if you study it carefully, the insight of Karl Marx that capital comes dripping with blood is almost automatically seen to be true. So with that background, let me start with a study of money. So there are two theories of money and they continue to be in battle with each other. One is the exchange theory that money facilitates exchange. So basically in a barter economy, if people barter then you have to have the famous double coincidence of wants and money allows you to trade. So you buy something with money, you sell something you don't want for money and then you use the money to buy something that you want and you don't need to have one person who has both something that you want and he wants something that you have. So there is definitely some truth to this. Money does facilitate exchange a lot but there is an opposing view that money is created by the state and it is subject to the law and so the note that you have printed says that this money is legal tender for all exchanges and so that is the meaning of money. Money cannot exist without law. Actually both of these theories are simultaneously true and they are complementary and they are not in conflict with each other. So trying to argue for one against the other is just futile. Some terminology we need because there are some very closely related terms which are different. So a market economy is one in which market plays the central role. So society in Makka, there was a lot of traders. Basically the economy of Makka was built on trading so you could say that it is a market economy. In Medina, there was a lot more agriculture and so society of Medina may not have been a market economy. It may have been an agricultural economy. In a traditional society, markets exist but they are peripheral. You used to have some fairs every once in a while in which markets would come into existence but in normal life people would not use money. The social network arranges for everyone to have access to food and basic needs. So the social networks are the central things for survival. A tribe takes care of you regardless of whether there are no jobs in traditional societies, jobs like modern jobs. But people are assigned tasks and the group as a whole ensures that food is produced and distributed. And this is not done by buying and selling, it's done by social relationships. In market society, you cannot survive without buying and selling. And social networks exist but they are secondary. Capitalism is a system for production and distribution of goods and basically capitalism requires a market society to exist. So you can have market economy without capitalism but basically a market society and capitalism go together. So these are complicated terms and just want you to be aware that these are different. And now we come to one point which is that in a market economy, production of goods requires money. This is different from a social economy. So that's critical. In agriculture for example, suppose you are going to harvest produce some crops then you need to buy some seeds and land and you have to have land and water and labor. And in the market economy you have to pay for these things. You have to buy your seeds, you have to pay wages to your labor. You have to maybe pay for your water, maybe you have to rent the land and all of this money has to be paid in advance up front. After that harvest times come and again you pay the harvesters and then you have the product and then you can sell it. So money is essential for production of goods. This is something which is not recognized in modern economic theory. So without money in a market economy you cannot even produce goods. That is what makes money very important. Now if you don't have a market economy, a feudal economy is social economy is, then you can produce. What happens is that you use your family members or you hire people and you say okay when you come back and when the harvest is done then we will give you a share from the harvest. So that is not a market economy. In that case you are making promises to people and producing and so in a social economy you can produce things without money. But in a market economy you cannot produce things without money. So what is crucial is that in a market economy motivation for work comes from getting money. And so this is in fact one of the keys to a capitalist economy. That in a capitalist economy you work for money and so a capitalist economy increases the desire to acquire money. So money motivation becomes primary. This is not natural. This is very important to understand because we are all living and breathing inside capitalist economy. So we think that money is the most important goal of life. This is something which capitalism teaches but this is not true. This is not natural. Human beings are not naturally motivated by money but capitalism requires us to be in order to function. Now for example to show the difference and what is the Islamic motivation for work. So we work and we make money in an Islamic economy but the work is not motivated by money for its own sake. Actually we work and make money so that we don't have to ask, we don't have to beg from others. And so that we can support our family, take care of our social responsibilities, walk with contentment and stagna from others. And so the Islamic motivation for work is not the acquisition of money because the acquisition of money is always a secondary. Money is always a means to end. It is never an end in itself and it is prohibited to work with the sole intent of acquiring and hoarding money. That is not permitted and that is central in the capitalist economy that one in fact works solely to acquire money without thinking about the use of money. So in capitalism because capitalism functions with money, the goal became the acquisition of wealth. So Adam Smith wrote the wealth of nations and in general today our education is designed to produce human resources which can be brought and sold for money. And we look at the value of education in terms of how much money we can make with this education. And basically the goal of lives individually and collectively is to make as much money as possible. One very important thing economists say that people want to maximize utility. This is not true. Lots of counter evidence exists. So what is it that drives people? Well one nearly universal aspect of human behavior is that people seek to maximize social standing. How the society looks at them. They want to acquire status and respect. In a capitalist society the main market of status is money. So that is what makes people want money. People don't want money for itself but because if you have a lot of wealth people will value you. People will respect you. If you look at even this has changed a lot in capitalist society over the past two centuries. If you look at the Charles Dickens novel on something like some Christmas tale. There is somebody called Ebenezer Scrooge who is a real miser. He has a lot of money but he doesn't give this to other people. So in this novel he is portrayed as an evil person, a villain who eventually repents. So you can see that having a lot of money is not a marker of respect in a traditional society. But when Disney remade this story so we have the Scrooge McDuck. It's basically Charles Dickens but now Scrooge is very wealthy and he is also a hero. And the fact that he has a lot of money which he doesn't spend is just eccentricity. It's a lovable eccentricity. It's not that he is a terrible man unlike the original. So the attitude towards having money, holding money, accumulating money has changed a lot. Now Islam also has something to teach us about this. Islam is very strongly prohibitive of Rea that is doing things to acquire status and fame. So the idea that we will earn money so as to become famous is really very, very harmful. And this is prohibited in Islam. And one of the things that Islam asks of us is sincerity. That is to do everything for the sake of Allah alone and not for the sake of fame and publicity. And this would be a radical change in terms of how we behave and how Islamic society is constructed. So when production takes place in a traditional economy it is done cooperatively and there is sharing of output. And there is a story in the Quran about the man who had a garden and he was very proud of his garden and he did not share the output with others. He stolen secretly to avoid having to fulfill his social responsibility and Allah destroyed his garden. So this shows how critically people who have been given a lot have been given the responsibility to share this with others. This is very different from the private property concept of capitalism. One very important thing in technical terms here is how production is done. So in a social economy I hire a laborer and say okay sometimes you can write it down or sometimes it can be just understood that you are working. I have no money to give you now but when the harvest comes then I will give you some suitable amount from the harvest. So this means that the transaction at that time is not final. He has done something for me and now I will do something for him later. So it is half completed as opposed to a money payment when I give laborer works and I pay him money that finishes the transaction. No more I am free of any responsibility towards him and he is free of any responsibility towards me. Neither party owes anything to anybody. So there are two aspects. One is that when the payment is gold this is automatic and the person gets gold coin and now the gold coin is good according to its value. Because this is really barter when you use gold you don't have a monetary economy you have a barter economy. Now if he issues you a paper currency then the value of the paper must be created by some institutional structures in the economy. Paper is not itself of value. So this is very important that the money when it's not gold it is a token it is not valuable in itself. And so the transaction is final that is when I pay you money then that's finished. There is no further relationship between us. But this finishing doesn't have to do with the fact that the paper that you hold is valuable. It has to do with the law. It is the law that this money is legal tender. It means that the state is telling you that you have to accept this money in return for your labor and in return the state promises to ensure that this note will have value. So that's why the state is necessary even though the transaction is taking place between two people. When you have token money the value of the money is guaranteed by institutional structure by the legal framework. So there are different ways of organizing agriculture in Pakistan. We have something called the arty and basically they provide credit to the land to the farmers. They provide them with seeds and fertilizer and everything they need and then they get their return when the harvest comes around. So this is a monetary plus social because the arty could provide money also and he will take repayment in terms of the crop usually but it could also be money. So this is a social come monetary system. It's a mixed system. The Islamic form of this is by Islam and it is the advanced sale of product specified in quality and quantity and it has its own technical aspects which we won't discuss at this time. But all I want to point out here is that the monetary method of organizing production is different from the social method and there are many mixed methods. There are many different ways of organizing production but capitalist production depends essentially on money. That's critical to understand the costs are incurred today and then the harvest is sold tomorrow. So prices, what will the prices of the harvest be tomorrow? Nobody knows because it depends on whether total supply, what other people are doing, what is happening in the export sector, what the government policy is. So this economic theory that we use inputs to maximize profits, this just doesn't make any sense because the future is completely uncertain. I have to pay costs upfront and what I will earn is dependent on a lot of things which are completely outside my control. I cannot calculate my profits and if you can't calculate your profits you can't maximize them. So this is an essential aspect of monetary economy which is not in any economic textbooks. And the fact that you need money to produce goods is crucial to understanding money. Okay so Keynes actually had three critical ideas all of which have been discarded and rejected and are not found in modern economics. And although Keynes had a lot of wrong ideas too but these three are critical to building a good theory of economics. And so let me just go over them briefly that the macro is not some of the micro. The whole is different from the sum of the parts. What happens at the macro level is different from what is happening at the micro level. Today modern macro is built on the idea of the representative agent. Basically there's only one agent and he represents all of them. And so the micro is the same as the macro. And so this is exactly a false and rejection of Keynesian theory. The second idea is that there is radical uncertainty. What happens tomorrow nobody can tell. Again this is in direct opposition to the idea of profit maximization. And today macro is built on rational expectations which means that everybody knows what will happen tomorrow. So again this is a dramatic failure and that is why economists could not predict the global financial crisis because they thought everybody knows what's going to happen. And so their theories don't allow for such a crisis event which nobody could foresee. And the third idea of Keynes which is not part of modern economics is that money plays a central role in the economy. Even Keynes did not realize that money is part of the production function but at least he realized that money is very important. And modern economics says that money is not important. The value of money does not matter. So monetary economy. So these are the three ideas of Keynes which are not part of modern economics. And that is why let me just reiterate if we are able to create a good economics course it doesn't even have to have the Islamic label. It will be a dramatic improvement on what is currently being taught as economics. That's why when we build a course on Islamic Epistemological Foundation I have the hope that this will actually replace modern economics. Because in modern economics the courses as they are being taught just fill the minds of students with false theories and with completely wrong ideas about how economics works and what kind of policies we need to make in order to achieve improvements in the economy. So coming back to history if you look at what happened you can see easily that large amounts of money led to prosperity. And in particular if you look at European history wars require a lot of money. So you need a lot of money to make wars and wars were very essential Europeans were always fighting continuously with each other. There's very few periods over the past few centuries where Europeans were not at war with each other so they needed to make a lot of money in order to finance wars. If you don't have enough money then economy does not work and that's what we have said since money is part of production. So if there is not enough money then there's not enough production. And so your economy falls into recession and also you can't defend yourself so basically you tend to lose wars. So creation of money plays a central role in economic history. This is critical to understand and not part of conventional economics. You need to make more money in according to conventional economics money is unimportant money is a veil. You can see through it the real economy matters. This is not true emphatically this is not true. Money is a very very important part of the economy. And if there is insufficient money you will lose wars you will have recession. And money has actually played a very central role in the history of Europe. Now how can you organize a monetary economy. So there are many many many different ways to organize a monetary economy. And basically what we need is something on which we can agree to use as money. And so there are if you look at history you find many many different types of monetary systems. So even today you can see that modern cryptocurrency is backed by nothing at all. And we have these latest development these non fungible tokens which are crypto assets. There was something in a few centuries earlier which was called the tulip mania. So seeds of tulip seeds and tulip bulbs were very very important part of wealth. So anything can become money. Many different possible systems. Now the present system emerged from the process of learning by experience. Many things were tried many things failed some of them succeeded. When something succeeded then it was widely imitated. And when this was imitated then as the time went along people found defects in it and then they patched these defects. And so today the system we have is a product of centuries of historical experience. This is literally true. I mean they started with this Bank of England. It had a crisis so they made some fix. Then there was another crisis they made another fix. So today we have a system which has been held together by lots and lots of patches developed over history. Almost anything we say about money today is based on the historical experience of the past few centuries. So on the basis of this one would say that okay because modern system builds on experience of centuries. It must be a good system because there is a lot of learning which has been taking place. But that's not true. There are many superior alternatives to modern system. Merwin King who was the governor of the Bank of England. He said that of all the many ways of organizing banking the worst is the one we have today. So he gave many examples many reasons why modern banking is very bad. But one of them is that banks have an incentive to gamble with the deposit depositors money. They have all this money sitting and they can make high risk gambles. If they lose the gamble then the government steps in and pays off the depositors who have lost the money. If they win they pocket the gains. So this is a well known problem to which we don't have a solution at the moment. A second problem which is deeper and more complex is that the monetary system today is built in unstable. So this is the Minsky financial fragility hypothesis. If you have the banking system is running smoothly it will automatically self destruct. So there is a built in tendency for a good monetary system to self destruct. Because of the way modern monetary system is organized. So given these that the modern system is inherently unstable it leads to concentration of wealth because the bankers gamble and it is the worst of all possible systems according to Merriman. So why don't we change the system. There are many reasons the current system is bad for the general public but it is very good for the financial elites. There's one reason a second reason which is related is that the monetary theory that we are taught in economics departments all over the world. The PhDs this theory was developed for the pre world war one gold standard world. It doesn't apply to modern fiat currencies post 1971. So today in top journals you can find discussions of something called the sustainability of the debt the government has borrowed even just recently. There is a bill that was passed in the USA to raise the debt ceiling. There's an idea that the debt should not be too high. Why because we will have to pay it back and the future generations will be impoverished. This is just complete nonsense after 1971. This is very true in a gold money world because the gold debt is very different from a fiat debt. Today if the government owes one billion dollars to somebody to foreigners and they come in demand from USA. Okay give me one billion dollars. So in the olden times the government had to pay them gold and it may or may not have gold. If it had gold and if it paid it it would cause a monetary crisis within the state within the USA. So the concept of sustainability of debt how much debt you should have what is the maximum. This was very very correct and good and true economic theory. But today if somebody goes to the USA and says okay I have one billion dollars pay me back. So they can print you another billion dollars and give it to you and it won't cost them anything. So sustainability of debt is a meaningless concept today. But in modern economic journals you can find a lot of discussion theories. And even you know as I just said the government debt ceiling was raised in a very critical condition. Because the theory says that too much debt is bad and this theory is simply wrong. So today we have something called modern monetary theory which presents a correct analysis of how modern currencies work after 1971. But this is not at all widely accepted in fact the economists make fun of it and ridicule it and say it's wrong. But actually modern monetary theory is very compatible with Islamic ideas about how money should work. One of the technical concepts is so I'm thinking about why we are stuck with a very bad system. So one of them is that it is very costly to experiment with money. If you say okay I don't like the system let's change the system and we try something very different. This could lead to financial collapse misery for millions. The money is the today is the lifeblood of the economy and a failed experiment can be very very expensive. So people say let's just stick with what we know and let's not try any drastic experiments. There is something which is called hysteresis which means that what happens today depends on what happened yesterday. Basically the monetary system has evolved people took one step and then on the basis of that step they took the next step. If the first step had been different we would have ended up somewhere else. So to explain how this works and basically people experiment only when there is a crisis. If system is working smoothly then why would anyone want to change it? So once you have a crisis then you say okay let's try a different system. But people don't have the courage to make big changes. So the Chinese experience is very interesting to illustrate these ideas. In 118 BC they started token currencies leather currency no gold silver. And in 980 so a long time ago before anybody else experimented paper money. The emperor issued paper printed notes and much too surprised of everyone. These paper notes worked just fine. And so for a century from 900 to 800 paper currency was used in China and there were no problems. But what happened is that the state needed a lot of money so they said oh this thing is working so well let's print a lot more. And so they printed a lot more paper and when they printed a lot more paper this caused a collapse of the system. And it caused hyperinflation and from this the Chinese learned a lesson. What lesson did they learn? They learned that paper money is not good unless it is perfectly backed by gold. And so we might as well just use gold instead of paper. And so basically they abandoned the use of paper currency. So this was the wrong theory. What they needed to learn was that paper should not be printed in in excess. There's a reasonable margin you can print and sometimes you do need to print more than the gold that you have. But if you print too much then that will cause collapse. But this is not the lesson they learned. They learned the wrong lesson. And this guided Chinese policy for centuries. They did not have paper currency again until modern times. So this is the critical thing about money that people learned the wrong lesson. And then they apply this wrong lesson and history is shaped by this. So Chinese because of their because their fingers were burnt with current paper. They didn't use paper until a long long time later. So false theories about money are based on misinterpretation of of historical experience. And these false theories are plentiful today. If you go through theories of money, I have listed somewhere at least five or six different theories of money which are currently in operation. People have advocated this is how money works and they argue for them and they make policy and all of these are wrong theories. So how did this come about? Well basically as we discussed earlier in Europe they needed money to finance wars. They tried many different schemes to create money. Some of these failed, some of these succeeded. Then they developed theories to understand why this particular method succeeded and why this particular method failed. But many of these theories were wrong. And these wrong theories continue to guide monetary policy today. So for example, a leading wrong idea of modern money is that if there is inflation, you can fight it by raising the interest rate at the central bank. This has nothing to do with reality. But all over the world this is what central banks are doing. So one of the things that we need to do in order to understand money is to look at money and history together. Because the theories of money explained were emerged in context of historical experience. And these theories guided the history. These theories led to policies and then you look at what happened when these policies were undertaken. And from that we can understand whether the theory was good or not. So we have to study the co-evolution of history and economic theory. And without studying how history was affected by theories and how theories affected history, you cannot understand money. And this is not part of modern methodology and that's one of the keys to our Ullumul Imran. So as I've already said that circulation of money requires institutional framework. In the 1620s there was a severe money crunch. For a number of historical reasons in England. We are talking about England because England was the birthplace of modern money. Basically there were lots of poor people created by enclosures. And so people thought that we need to, how to absorb? Because in agriculture there were innovations going on which were labor saving. So a lot of people who were used to, who were working on farms and agriculture they were released. And privatization meant, enclosures meant that people didn't have access to land. So they couldn't grow their own food. They couldn't hunt in the rivers. They couldn't hunt in the forest. They couldn't fish. So they had to go to the cities. And so the huge numbers of poor people emerged. So economists thought that what we need to do is to expand commerce. And that will absorb these people. But because money is needed for production they realized that you need more money. Now the stock of money was fixed by the amount of gold that was present. There were a certain amount of gold coins and silver coins. So you can't expand the money. So there was a lot of discussion about shortage of money. And the need for more money in order to expand commerce so that people can find jobs. So there are many different things that were tried. One is the standard is debasement. You have a gold coin which is worth like one shilling. But instead of putting one shilling's worth of gold you put in half a shilling worth of gold. That's called debasement. But when people tried that this caused a lot of different problems and led to a monetary crisis. So there was a mint ratio. You see there was official mints that coined gold and silver coins. You could bring in your raw gold and they would produce coins. So now sometimes the coins acted as a unit of account. Okay this is one shilling and it can buy so much worth of goods. And these numbers they tried to change. But that also didn't help. So basically the so-called there was a school of thought that said that we need to get more gold. And the way to get more gold is by making a trade balance surplus. You must export more goods and import gold. But this is a very limited policy very hard to work because all countries other countries are also trying to do the same thing. Then the second policy was that the king of Spain at that time had a lot of gold and silver because he was getting them from Latin America. So you could sell English goods to Spain and then get gold and silver. Again this was not a very good option. And then the third option was to do piracy. Steel gold and silver from the Spanish ships. And this was actually successfully done by the English. But Spain ended up making a treaty with them. And in the treaty Spain agreed to give them some gold and England agreed to stop their piracy. But none of these measures I mean the amount of the trade was increasing by about five times. And the gold was increasing only the demand for gold increased by five factors. So you could increase the gold by maybe you can even double them by trading. But it was not sufficient to keep up with the demand. So what happened in England was that personal credit came into wide use. So you say that okay I pay you but I don't have money to pay you. So I'll write you a note that I owe you this much. If I get money then I will pay you. So this was actually widely used in England. But the problem is that you cannot circulate this promise. So I have money because my employer is going to pay me 100 pounds when he gets them 100 shillings. But I have this note but I can't use this note to buy anything. So this is not money. And this is basically Gaines said that effective demand. You see if I say if I go and start buying then people will start producing. Oh there are people who want this good and they have the money to pay for it. So let's set up a factory and build this good. But if you don't have effective demand then this will not stimulate production. So many people there was a commission set up to study the problem of shortage of gold and to explain what we should need to do. And they came up with many theories but none of them really hit the mark. They came up with random wrong theories. But the real problem was that you need to create more money and this led to eventually a reconceptualization of money. That note started to circulate which were backed by money but not fully backed by money. And so banks said that I promised to pay you gold. Actually it was goldsmiths at that time banks did not exist. And instead of but they did not have enough gold to cover what they circulated. So this but if somebody presented them with the note they would always they could always borrow from other goldsmiths and that's how it worked. So that's how the fractional money system started. Other people there were many other things which were also done. Rich people would just issue notes backed by their own assets that OK we have a fund of a thousand pounds we have collected. And now here is a note of ten pounds. And anybody who presents this to us we will reimburse from our own pockets. So this idea was also tried. And there were many many other different ways to create more money. So the critical thing is that many different kinds of money were circulating. So how to create trust in that. People thought of creating a gold bank. But this idea was rejected because the king was very powerful and if they and the king was always needy for money for his wars and he had he had all power. So if we created a large gold bank with lots of gold and then we issued money to support it by this goal. Then the king would come and seize our bank and there was nothing we could do about it. So this is actually the beginning of the problem of independence of central banks. If the central bank can make money should the government be allowed to use that power. Eventually basically these credit instruments started to circulate that I promised to pay on demand the holder. And but it was just the promise everybody recognized that there is no real gold behind it. But so what they said OK we need to make sure that everybody trusts this promise in order for this to be real gold. And so they said OK if anybody doesn't honor this promise we will put them to debt. That was the ultimate extent. And so many other. So this was thought that this is the only way to create a credit system to make sure that the system is strong enough that all claims would be honored. Here as a side remark note the high value of debt in Quran and Sunnah. The Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam himself refused to pray funeral prayers for those who had unpaid debt. So our debt is guaranteed by the legal framework of the Quran and the Sunnah. So we don't have to punish people by death. In any case there were enough bankruptcies to know that even though you take the best measures and you execute some people for not payment it is still possible that you might not pay. So at that point the probabilistic reasoning came into be came into being we act without having 100 percent certainty because that's how life is. So instead of saying that this money will be paid 100 percent we have to create trust in the institutions which which are set up for issuing money. And so this is instead of so basically the move was from personal trust. If you write me an IOU then I have to trust you as a person. But if there is a monetary system in place then it is not no no no one person I have a note in my hand and the credibility of this note depends on the monetary system. It doesn't depend on any individual doesn't depend on the banker. So this was the critical move how to generate systemic trust in promises. As we have seen gold was not sufficient for the economy. We need to circulate these promises but how to create trust. Well the movement was made from trusting in one person trusting in the system for production of money. And one critical thing that happened was that transferability of debt. So when I pay you by by a token this token money is not my debt to you. I don't write you an IOU that OK I will pay you later. It is a transfer of the debt of Bank of England. It is actually a debt from the Bank of England which you are which I am giving to you. So now when you if there is something wrong you have to go and get money from the Bank of England. And at that time actually you would you could go and demand gold from the Bank of England and the Bank of England would pay you gold. So that now that is prohibited in the Sharia. We cannot transfer debt but there is a way to get around this. There is an Islamic method for doing this which is to and this has this method was also tried in different places. But it just didn't catch on. And so if we have to so basically it means that I issue you my debt. I pay you I give you an IOU but this IOU is backed by the debt that the bank owes to me. So now the person who gets an IOU from me has it has my responsibility but it is also the responsibility of the bank. So this is actually a stronger money than currently exists. And that would be the Islamic system but that requires a lot of details which we don't discuss this time. So the crucial thing that took place in England was something which is called the monetization of debt. King of England had a lot of debt and he needed a lot of money. So he wrote a note to the Bank of England saying that I owe you one million pounds and I will pay this five years later with interest so much. And I will pay you regularly eight percent per annum for the privilege of for you giving me this loan in cash. So the Bank of England said that now I have an asset. You see previously the bank's asset was gold. He said we have gold and we issue this note and it is backed by gold. But now I issue a note. This is official currency of England and it is backed by a debt of the sovereign. The Kings has promised to pay us. So when he pays us we'll pay you back instead of saying that I have gold and I'll pay you back. So this is what monetization of debt is. This is the critical move which led to the creation of modern money. Modern money in England was backed by the debt of the King. So the issue is how to make this people trust this promise. So there were many theories about this and many wrong theories. Some right theories but one of the critical things was to create a culture of honesty. So many different because I'm running out of time. I'll go over this quickly. There were many schemes which were proposed for creating trust and many were tried and many of them failed. And many of them failed for accidental reasons. That is the scheme itself was sound and viable but for some due to a quirk the scheme failed. So people thought this one this scheme does not work. So among these many different varieties there are some schemes which are more Islamic than others. And these were abandoned because of accidental historical experience. But one big principle that I want to mention is that once you have a good scheme for the creation of money where you can print a note and everybody trusts you. And this trust becomes common. Then this creates a temptation. What is the temptation? You can print more. Basically you're getting money by printing. So you're basically exploiting the trust. So this systematically happens. Once you have a good quality money there is need for more money. You print more and you print more and you print more until you cause a crisis. This is called the quantity quality pendulum. Once you have a high quality money then you increase quantity until trust breaks down and then then you get a crisis. And then you have to work to restore the quality of money. Restore trust and then it starts all over again once you rebuild trust. This is actually the essence of the Minsky's financial fragility hypothesis. So in 1672 the king of England ran into a monetary crisis. And until that time there was no banks and money was issued by the king on the authority of the king. But because of a monetary crisis he said that okay I won't pay any more debt. So this caused massive damage to the trust in money issued by the king. And so this led to the creation of private banks. And basically the bank was protected from the demands of the king. Parliament was put in, laws were put in so there was a specific structural framework by which the king could borrow money from the bank. But there were limits and it had to be approved by the parliament so that the king could not produce as much money as he wanted. Because that would destroy the system. And today again the problems that we are seeing today, the independence of the central bank, this is all based on this exact same issue. If we give governments the authority to create money and if the governments abuse this authority they print a lot of money. They want to buy votes or they want to build foolish dams or invest billions of dollars or billions of rupees in wrong projects. This will cause a collapse of the monetary system and it will destroy the economy so it's best to keep it away from them. But then there are problems with giving the authority of money creation to the banks and that we are seeing. The private sector also abuses the system and their abuses also cause problems. So basically needs of the state created the system of money that we have today and then once the Bank of England was successful then it was imitated all over the world. So today all over the world the one successful model that emerged in England was imitated all over the world and today this same system dominates the world. So is this a good system? Well, if you look at the English experience the England launched the industrial revolution because they were able to create large amounts of money. They won a lot of wars because they were able to create a lot of money. So obviously from the English point of view it was a very positive experience. But if you look at the other side England were able to do a lot of Zulm all around the world. They were able to enslave millions of Africans, kill millions of people, destroy countries all over the world, destroy cultures. So for others it was not a positive experience. So if you look at gains to Europeans from creation of money that's very positive. But if you look at the net gain to humanity the net result is usually negative. So we can't say that the creation of credit money has been a blessing to mankind. But it has had some positive sides and has some negative sides. So the question is can we create money be linked from gold in a way that is positive and useful. And I think that the answer is yes but it requires a lot of work and effort and thought. So what do we learn from this history? So I'm coming to the end of the talk. First to note that this history of money has been given by many different authors from many different perspectives with many different angles. So what we learned from this history depends on a point of view. Many people have derived many different lessons from the same history. So my purpose is to understand the Quran and the laws of finance. And this gives me insights which are not available to Western authors. And so what are these insights? First is that we can design a vastly superior financial architecture for countries and for the globe on the basis of Islamic principles. This is very easy to prove. So another lesson is that with this summary you now know more than most PhD economists about money. I just meant to look at Journal of Monetary Economics, a top journal in the field to see if they have learned something since I last studied this many decades ago in graduate school. And I learned that they've learned nothing. They're still playing with toy models which are just meaningless. They don't get at money. They are dealing with concepts which just don't apply to the modern economy. They are dealing with economies which used to exist in the past and theories which were valid and relevant for ancient money but not for money today. So the summary that I have given you today already gives you more knowledge about money than PhD economists. Economic theory itself is just based on some imaginary ideas about money and it applies to past economies. And one of the governors of the federal bank said that we do not at present have a theory of inflation that works sufficiently well to be of use for real time monetary policy making. As I said, the idea that we have to raise interest to fight inflation is just wrong. But the point is that modern economics does not have a theory of inflation at all. The theory that they have which says that it's due to money is wrong. So there were some the gold back bank backed Bank of England succeeded. It was a historical accident which has led to it. Other the experiment could have been gone other ways. And we would have we could have had a very different economic system today if history had some different accidents. And you can see that from the crypto. The crypto money can be made to work. If we provide some institutional framework to make it work. So Bank of England is just an accident of history. There are many other possible systems but today's system is blundered. Liled on top of blundered the Bank of England was actually a blunder and then the blunder came up. Something wrong happened. So they passed it and then something another other wrong thing and they passed it and they keep on patching it today. So we have something called Basel 1 in 1988 which was to patch up the banking system and then Basel 2 in 2004 to make other patches and Basel 3 to make other patches. So they're continuously keep patching this bad system. And the financial fragility hypothesis says that the system is inherently flawed and not fixable. No matter how we fix it the financier will find a way to get around it. So the only solution suggested by Minsky is that the central banks has to be eternally vigilant. When they develop some new new problem then you go in and find out what it is and then you fix it. So this is how it should go. The idea that we can fundamentally and radically change it so that the system doesn't have this problem. This is not on the horizon anywhere. People are not thinking about radical changes. They're just thinking that okay this tire will burst then we put a patch then it will burst again then we'll put another patch. And that's the only thing that we have. The idea that we can make a system which is inherently stable this doesn't exist on the horizon. So Islamic monetary system is radically different and we have something to offer the world. Alright so I've given some links on how this can be done but we don't have time. We've already run way over time and so I will stop here and we can go to questions and we can go to. Let me stop the sharing of the screen. Okay I think we've gotten to somebody else stopped sharing for me. So alright so that is the end of the very long lecture and now Osama Waqeel seems to have a question he has raised. Thank you sir. Peace be upon you. Peace be upon you. I can ask you about the elaboration of MMT in the perspective of Islamic economics. First and the second thing Elon Musk described money as an allocation of resources within given space and time. What's your take on it and if productivity increases and we increase the money supply in an economy then no deflation or inflation can occur if they are increased at the same place. If they are disbalanced then either inflation can occur or deflation can occur and we cannot allocate resources proportionally. Let's do one question at a time so what was your first question again please. Sir modern monetary theory because Islamic perspective. That's like not one multiple lectures maybe a whole course on that so I don't think I can handle that but I have a number of lectures on modern monetary theory and also something on its relation to Islamic theories. So I don't have the links for that but if you ask me separately I will provide you with the links on that. And regarding the allocation of resources within given space and time what's your take on it. Allocation of resources in within given space and time so everybody can get its right share either by labor productivity growth or a supply of any goods and services. The double coincidence of once the problem will be resolved. I don't really understand what this question is. Let me go to the chat and so a lot of questions and be asked as anybody in for Lisa have you been following. Yes. There is one question from brother has and I think you mentioned in the slide that the gold standard emerged in 19th century. He mentioned that Muslim historically use gold for trade so it will be earlier or you have any explanation for this. Oh actually you see I haven't made this is very critical. There is any we need to understand how the monetary system functioned in Islamic history when Islam was dominant. And it is known that we had a system which was based on Hanafi Fika and it had international trade from it had a huge commerce. It was not small and it had trade for going from Morocco and Spain all the way to China based on Hanafi Fika. So we know that as a we know that it is possible to do this. It is possible to devise an Islamic monetary system which can look after the needs of international trade and look after the needs of the domestic economy. Islamic economies were very functional very fruitful very prolific. But we don't have I have not done the research I've looked at some books but there must be a lot more but I don't have the specialization of this. I don't have specialization in this and this is where a lot of work needs to be done research by Muslims on the Muslim history and the Muslim history of money. Maybe we can go to those who raise the hand here we have Muhammad. Muhammad Adil is the next one I see. Yes, thank you. Thank you everyone as I'm like Tom. So my question is that can we relate this complete financial crisis or the everything we have explained current financial system capitalist system. These about Fitna of Maal that this will get into. No, I don't think that those two are related it's not it's not about the Fitna of Maal is within our hearts the love of money in our hearts that has I think that is very different. Can that be the cause of all this. Yes, I think maybe that's true the root I mean capitalism the heart of capitalism is the love of wealth. And so yes, that is the fitna but financial crisis is not the financial crisis we look at the causes love of wealth was there before the crisis and after the crisis. So that's not really the issue. The issue that crisis was caused by over expansion of money beyond its correct levels and that was a systemic failure, a failure of the system and that was recognized and you know basal three was an attempt to fix it. But and to prevent this from happening but basal three did not recognize the real problems and therefore they could not fix it. Thank you. All right. Samina, Samin eight or seven. The next. As a mean. As a mean. Mineral resources and other information. The communication processors and power sources all that land. What you're talking about. Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Yes, natural resources all all of these are trust from God and that is actually a very important aspect of the Islamic economy that gifts of God the oil the fish the these are Amana from God they are gifts of God to all of humanity. So they can be put to private use but with the rules to ensure that there is no harm to the public and some sharing of benefits with the public. So that would lead to a very different way of thinking about natural resources and it would have a very dramatic effect on the climate crisis that we see currently. Yes, Yasir Hassan. Assalamu alaikum. For the presentation. So I wanted to ask you touched upon the idea that debt based currency could potentially work within an Islamic framework. I just wanted to. I thought maybe I misunderstood that because I thought you said that that it could potentially work on that confusion because I guess my point was Okay, that makes sense then yes. That was going to be my point that I thought I thought that that was fundamentally against. Fundamentally prohibited. Prohibited so we can't have debt based currency. Okay. Okay. Assalamu alaikum sir. I had a question about the western conception of land and commodity as a land and labor as artificial commodities. So I don't like how do they argue that these are artificial I didn't understand that. That's one of the deep ideas of Karl Polanyi great transformation. And I have written an article on that. And if you read that you will get a summary and then you can read the book if you want to get the full detail in depth. Thank you. Okay. Assalamu alaikum doctor. Thank you so much for your insights. I had a quick question. I don't know if it's quick but I have a basic question about the connection between interest rates and inflation and they claim that international economics, economics professors make the central banks use interest rates to control inflation. So my question is, has this historically been the case and Indian and Islamic economic system. What tool is used to control inflation. Well, before we use tools to control inflation. We have to understand what inflation is. And basically inflation is a reflection of class struggle. The laborers try to increase their wages and for the producers. It is much easier for them instead of saying that no, we won't raise your wages and that will lead to strikes. They say, okay, you want double wages, we give you double wages. And then what they do is they go and double their prices because their costs have increased. So the wages, the laborers end up having the same real wage. And the capitalists don't have to negotiate with the laborers on the nominal wages. And then, but what happens is the wages are doubled and prices are doubled. So you have inflation. So this is the source of inflation doesn't have much to do with money. So once you realize that inflation comes from class struggle, then the means to control inflation becomes completely different. It's not monetary policy. Somebody has asked that I have discarded monetary theory without giving a single reason. Well, I've given those reasons elsewhere. And in this, in this lecture, my goal was not to argue against money theory. I was going to, I was going to explain how modern monetary system works. And so my focus was not on explaining false monetary theories, but there is lots of any material, not just mine, but many other people have explained the flaws of conventional economics. In particular, if you go and read modern monetary theory, you will find they explain why current monetary theories being taught in economics are wrong. Okay, Adil, Ahmed. Yes, sir. My question is that you have talked about that land is as a manna. That means we cannot use it as an asset to earn more and more profits because nowadays it has become a trend that people usually invest their wholesome money. And using it as an asset. So any guidance regarding that? No, it's an amana, but it can be used as an asset. There is a difference between Western concept of private property, which gives you complete rights. You can do whatever you want. And there is an ayat in the Quran. Yashuaib has your religion teaches, does your religion teach you that we cannot do whatever we want with our own property. So that's true. When you have an amana, there are rules for using it, but you can use it as an asset and you can. Islam has its own concept of private property, but this is different from the capitalist concept of private property. So you can use it as an asset. You can make money from it. You can do many things with it, but you just can't do what the capitalism allows you to do. People keep asking about the haram and the halal of the crypto. So I think that currently crypto as it is being issued today is obviously haram and many muftis have ruled on this exactly. Many of these have already given this ruling. It is possible to create an institutional structure which would make it halal, but that is would be very different from anything that is on the table today. Yes, CBDC can work, but basically you see that again, these are issues that I will have to discuss when we talk about what an Islamic monetary system would look like. Currently, we're just trying to discuss what the modern monetary system is and what its flaws are and why we need to change it and replace it. And this is on two fronts. One is that the system is bad and the other is that the theory which is used to analyze the system is also bad. So we need to understand the correct theory of money and also we need to change the system to a correct system for the production of money. So there's a lot of work that needs to be done. Yasir has a question that land should not be used. Yes, I think this comes from the basic. I think that the people are given the land and they have to make it productive and useful and if they can do so that gives them the right to the land. But if they don't do anything with it, then as a property ownership can be taken away from them. Assalamu alaikum professor. Wa alaikum assalam. Professor Isman, I am Hamas Syair from Pakistan and first of all I will present the humble gratitude to yourself for this wonderful lecture and I have a question as well. Okay. Sir, I have a question that as you said that there are a lot of problems in the economic systems and specifically the monetary economic system and more focused on the evolution of money and still we are facing this problem. So is this possible that we can switch towards old monetary system like barter system and is this a solution in this modern era that we can adopt the barter system again rather than the paper money gold standards? Well, currently I think the problem exists at the international trade level that the international trading is dollar based and it might be preferable to switch from dollar based to barter for the international system. But within an economy barter is too complicated. There are too many goods being traded and so barter cannot work inside and domestic economy. Yes, so we are at 341 so we have only a few more minutes. I would like to finish on 45. But Mohammad Adil. Yes, sorry, I have a second question. So what are your thoughts on currently, do we have any work based financial institution based on modern Islamic economics foundations and what are your thoughts on Hamdath Foundation, 40 foundation and the way they are working in Pakistan? Yes, the WAF are a very central part of Islamic financial system. I don't know specifically the details of how these organizations are working, but I do know that there are a lot of good initiatives to relaunch the WAF. And there is a lot of realization that just you see the spirit of capitalism is to accumulate wealth, gather more and more for yourself. And the spirit of Islam is to spend wealth, even at the start we are supposed to spend. So basically Islam is about spending, not saving. And so the way to spend money on others is via a WAF and for the moment that is, so that is going to be central, just like the bank is central to capitalism. So the WAF is central to Islam. And there is a huge amount of research and experiments and institutions which are trying to revitalize the WAF. Alright, so anything else before we close Osama, Bakil, maybe this will be the last question. Yes, sir, I have one more question. How can we resolve the existing banking crisis hamlet in the US? As the same can be happened in Pakistan also if a bank run can occur and it didn't spare any Islamic bank whatsoever, how they are functioning and how they are structured as their libraries are short term in nature and their assets are in long term and whenever bank run occurs, it spares no one. Well, US and Pakistan situation is extremely different. The US crisis, there are lots of different analysis of and MMT is, Martin Martin III is a very good analysis, but Pakistan Martin Martin III is not the relevant framework right now. And in one of the 10 lectures, I have discussed the current crisis in Pakistan economic crisis and its solutions. People keep asking about cryptocurrency and trading and I have just said that cryptocurrency as it currently is haram, trading in it is haram and this is pretty clear. That doesn't mean that it's inherently haram. I think that it is possible to create a cryptocurrency system which would be halal, but that would require a lot of work which has not been done. Sir, can you recommend any MMT book, good book available? Unfortunately, there are books, textbooks available. I have a whole course on it also available with lots of 30 lectures. And in that course also there are links to download books and articles about MMT. Can I have a link of these? If you look for courses, if you look at the website for this course, I will put a link to the other courses somewhere in there also. I haven't put it there yet, but I will put it. Okay. Alright, I think I would like to close unless there is something else. Actually, there is one question. His big one is on history. And maybe you can write up money. Oh yes, yes, that's very good. Yes, there is a student of history. This is really a very, very vital area that is needed. I have a few books, but I'm not a historian and I don't know all of the material and I'm sure there's a lot of very important material. So I think that those who are in history should be encouraged to look at this. And what I recommend is that you get in touch with me, but I'm not the best source for this because I don't have the knowledge of the sources. But I can give you some initial guides and please get in touch with me separately. There are many different ways to get in touch with me and we can discuss about the history later, inshallah. Alright, so I think that how to get in touch, okay, Lisa give people instructions on how to get in touch. And on my website, there is contact information and information on how you can get in touch with me on the website for this course. Alright, so I think let's finish up here. As I said, I'm going for Hajj, inshallah. So I will make the offer all my students and I ask all of my students to forgive me for any shortcomings. It's a great responsibility of the teacher. If I've taught you anything wrong and made any mistakes, please forgive me for that. Because in Islam, the responsibility for conveying knowledge rise on the person who has the knowledge. It's not the other way around. It's not the student has to bring his money and then he can get higher the teacher. So make the offer Hajj maqbool and ma'broor and I think we'll stop here. Subhana rabbika rabbil uzzati amma yasafoon. As-salamu ala al-mursaleen wa al-hamdulillahi rabbil al-alameen. JazakAllah khair, professor. Okay, as-salamu alaikum. Thank you.