An Ottoman Piatsre (Sultan Selim III, 1789) and a Maria Theresa Thaler (later restrike of the 1780 coin). Photo: James Dawson
Show Hide image

When it comes to coins, Isis is clearly not as good as gold

A plan by the terrorist organisation to issue its own currency – in gold – reveals a further attempt to play on the history of the early Caliphs.

A cynic may say that what the leader of terrorist organisation Isis, Abu-Bakr Al-Baghdadi, and Winston Churchill have in common that they have attacked the Kurds but another thing may be the gold standard. It was recently reported that Isis plans to introduce its own currency, issued in gold, silver and copper. Though – unlike Churchill, who shortly will appear on the new £5 note and appears on the still legal tender 1965 five Shilling coin – Baghdadi won’t appear on his currency. The designs, in accordance with Islamic artistic traditions of not showing humans or animals, will apparently depict Arabic writing, mosques, palm trees, crescents and even a world map.

The plan seems to be a currency based on the bullion value of the metals in the coins, in contrast to all present world currencies which merely have a (widely accepted) token value. It is based on Isis’s interpretation of Sharia law and financial systems and deliberately emulates the currencies – the gold dinar and silver dirham – established by the early Caliphs.

The early Islamic Empire initially relied on Byzantine coins or copies of pre-Islamic Persian Sassanid coins. It was not until nearly 60 years after the death of Prophet Mohammed that they started to introduce their own coins. The Byzantines had pointedly placed the image of Christ on their latest issues and so the Umayyad Caliph of Damascus, Abd al-Malik, introduced a new standardised Islamic silver dirham in 691AD. The original coins, flouting any ban on human images, depicted the Caliph himself. It was not until 697AD that coins minted with only Arabic calligraphy were produced. These provided the pattern for most subsequent Islamic coinage. Though as the Islamic Empire fractured local rulers started producing their own money. Italian renaissance coins, issued to more exacting standards, started replacing local monetary systems in the late 1400s. Later silver dollars (Austrian thalers and Spanish pieces of eight) became widely circulated. The most popular Middle Eastern coin became the Maria Theresa thaler, the buxom image of the Holy Roman Empress being more popular with traders than Arabic calligraphy. The coin had a trusted weight set in 1754 at one-tenth of a Cologne Mark and continued to be produced following her death in 1780, its use for trade purposes being confirmed by the Vienna Currency Treaty 1857 (it is still minted today). The alternative coinage of the Turkish Ottoman emperors, who had assumed the title Caliphs of Islam could not keep up. It became debased, produced from billon, an alloy with less than 50 per cent silver. The Ottomans were also late in adopting Western scientific advances – they continued to produce imprecise hammered coins until 1844, only then introducing Western-style mechanically milled coins. Despite still ruling the Middle East, further decline led to the Ottoman Empire defaulting on its debt. In 1881 Ottoman finances were taken over by Western governments and corporations under the Ottoman Public Debt Administration.

Precious metals on the face of it sound like an ideal material for money, something durable that holds its value over time. But experience has proved this wrong, all world currencies now use base metal or paper. Bullion values are dictated by supply and demand, based on the usefulness or desirability of a commodity. Gold and silver do not have many practical uses, beyond jewellery or a perhaps tarnishable sets of cutlery. Their value is not intrinsic and is susceptible to great fluctuations. If the ratio between the value of gold and silver changes then bad money drives out the good as people spend the devalued coins but keep the increased value ones. The amount of coins in circulation is also just a fractional amount of money in an economy, the rest is in bank balances, debts owed or other commodities.

Problems with the gold standard include the finding the metal: greater availability leads to inflation; scarcity leads to deflation, which limits demand and cuts investment. The coins themselves are subject to clipping, people cutting small bits off the edges, and hoarding, as Germany experienced in the lead up to its hyper-inflation in the early-1920s. Harsh punishments will not help bolster the currency as people become wary of handling clipped coinage, avoid all but the most essential transactions or resort to barter. Sooner or later gold and silver currencies have to be debased.

Precious metal was commonly used in all pre-modern currencies but coins were relatively rare only circulating amongst the few. To have a wider cash-based economic system required a different approach. It was Sir Isaac Newton (scientist and habitué of the Bank of England’s last one pound note) who formally established the gold standard, whereby paper currency was backed by gold reserves, in 1717. Other European countries adopted the gold standard in the 1800s, the recently united Germany being one of the last to do so in 1872. However, countries left the gold standard in the First World War. Churchill, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, put Britain back on the gold standard in 1925. Criticised for the deflation that led to 1926’s General Strike and for the disastrous consequences of Britain’s inability to respond to the Wall Street Crash, the National Government took Britain off the gold standard for good in 1931. The Bretton Woods financial system established in 1946 left the American dollar as the only currency backed by gold, with all other major currencies pegged to the dollar. This persisted until the Nixon Shock 1971 when draws on US gold reserves, mainly from France, and the costs of the Vietnam War took America (and the world) off the gold standard.

British coins continued to contain silver for many years after leaving the gold standard. The original 0.925 quality silver in half-crowns, florins, shillings and sixpences was cut to 0.500 in 1920, just enough to still merit the name silver, and our coins stayed this way until the dollar became the world’s reserve currency in 1946. The First World War, Great Depression and Second World War had largely forced other countries to abandon silver earlier. Switzerland continued minting in silver until 1969, but if you visit today you won’t find any 5 Franc coins older than the first cupro-nickel coins issued in 1968. Gold and silver coins are generally only found in commemorative coins issued for collectors.

Coins, as well as a means of exchange, convey historic value. They are metal, mass-produced and therefore survive. The designs portray the issuer’s political and artistic views. If the Isis coinage is produced the best that could be hoped for is that it becomes, after sufficient passage of time to let its memories of its crimes fade, a numismatic foot note. Though it is to be hoped that, like the disgusting zinc coins that were all the Third Reich could afford to produce in the Second World War, they are viewed with as much disdain by collectors.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Angela Merkel's call for a burqa ban sets a disturbing precedent

The German chancellor's plan for a partial ban of the full-face veil is a clearly political move, which will do more to harm those women who wear it than protect them.

 

In these febrile times, women’s freedom and autonomy has become a bargaining chip in the poker game of public propaganda — and that goes double for brown, Muslim and migrant women. Angela Merkel should know as well as any other female politician how demeaning it is to be treated as if what you wear is more important than what you say and what you do. With the far-right on the rise across Europe, however, the German chancellor has become the latest lawmaker to call for a partial ban on the burqa and niqab.

We are told that this perennial political football is being kicked about in the name of liberating women. It can have nothing to do, of course, with the fact that popular opinion is lurching wildly to the right in western democracies, there’s an election in Germany next year, and Merkel is seen as being too soft on migration after her decision to allow a million Syrian refugees to enter the country last year. She is also somehow blamed for the mob attacks on women in Cologne, which have become a symbol of the threat that immigration poses to white women and, by extension, to white masculinity in Europe. Rape and abuse perpetrated by white Europeans, of course, is not considered a matter for urgent political intervention — nor could it be counted on to win back voters who have turned from Merkel's party to the far-right AFD, which wants to see a national debate on abortion rights and women restricted to their rightful role as mothers and homemakers.

If you’ll allow me to be cynical for a moment, imposing state restrictions on what women may and may not wear in public has not, historically, been a great foundation for feminist liberation. The move is symbolic, not practical. In Britain, where the ban is also being proposed by Ukip the services that actually protect women from domestic violence have been slashed over the past six years — the charity Refuge, the largest provider of domestic violence services in the UK, has seen a reduction in funding across 80% of its service contracts since 2011.

It’s worth noting that even in western countries with sizeable Muslim minorities, the number of women who wear full burqa is vanishingly small. If those women are victims of coercion or domestic violence, banning the burqa in public will not do a thing to make them safer — if anything, it will reduce their ability to leave their homes, isolating them further.

In the wake of the Brexit vote, racist and Islamophobic attacks spiked in the UK. Hate crimes nationally shot up by 42% in the two weeks following the vote on 23 June. Hate crimes against Muslim women increased by over 300%, with visibly Muslim women experiencing 46% of all hate incidents. Instances of headscarves being ripped off have become so common that self-defense videos are being shared online, showing women how to deflect the “hijab grab”. In this context, it is absurd to claim that politicians proposing a burqa ban care about protecting women: the move is transparently designed to placate the very people who are making Muslim women feel unsafe in their own communities.

When politicians talk about banning the burqa, the public hears an attack on all Islamic headscarves — not everyone knows the difference between the hijab, the niqab and the burqa, and not everyone cares. The important thing is that seeing women dressed that way makes some people feel uncomfortable, and desperate politicians are casting about for ways to validate that discomfort.

Women who actually wear the burqa are not invited to speak about their experiences or state their preferences in this debate. On this point, Islamic fundamentalists and panicked western conservatives are in absolute agreement: Muslim women are provocative and deserve to be treated as a threat to masculine pride. They should shut up and let other people decide what’s best for them.

I know Muslim women who regard even the simple hijab as an object of oppression and have sworn never to wear one again. I also know Muslim women who wear headscarves every day as a statement both of faith and of political defiance. There is no neutral fashion option for a woman of Islamic faith — either way, men in positions of power will feel entitled to judge, shame and threaten. Either choice risks provoking anger and violence from someone with an opinion about what your outfit means for them. The important thing is the autonomy that comes with still having a choice.

A law which treats women like children who cannot be trusted to make basic decisions about their bodies and clothing is a sexist law; a law that singles out religious minorities and women of colour as especially unworthy of autonomy is a racist, sexist law. Instituting racist, sexist laws is a good way to win back the votes of racist, sexist people, but, again, a dreadful way of protecting women. In practice, a burqa ban, even the partial version proposed by Merkel which will most likely be hard to enforce under German constitutional law, will directly impact only a few thousand people in the west. Those people are women of colour, many of them immigrants or foreigners, people whose actual lives are already of minimal importance to the state except on an abstract, symbolic level, as the embodiment of a notional threat to white Christian patriarchy. Many believe that France's longstanding burqa ban has increased racial tensions — encapsulated by the image earlier this year of French police surrounding a woman who was just trying to relax with her family on the beach in a burkini. There's definitely male violence at play here, but a different kind — a kind that cannot be mined for political capital, because it comes from the heart of the state.

This has been the case for centuries: long before the US government used the term“Operation Enduring Freedom” to describe the war in Afghanistan, western politicians used the symbolism of the veil to recast the repeated invasion of Middle Eastern nations as a project of feminist liberation. The same colonists who justified the British takeover of Islamic countries abroad were active in the fight to suppress women’s suffrage at home. This is not about freeing women, but about soothing and coddling men’s feelings about women.

The security argument is even more farcical: border guards are already able to strip people of their clothes, underwear and dignity if they get the urge. If a state truly believes that facial coverings are some sort of security threat, it should start by banning beards, but let's be serious, masculinity is fragile enough as it is. If it were less so, we wouldn't have politicians panicking over how to placate the millions of people who view the clothing choices of minority and migrant women as an active identity threat.

Many decent, tolerant people, including feminists, are torn on the issue of the burqa: of course we don't want the state to start policing what women can and can't wear, but isn't the burqa oppressive? Maybe so, but I was not aware of feminism as a movement that demands that all oppressive clothing be subject to police confiscation, unless the Met’s evidence lockers are full of stilettos, girdles and push-up bras. In case you're wondering, yes, I do feel uncomfortable on the rare occasions when I have seen people wearing the full face veil in public. I've spent enough time living with goths and hippies that I've a high tolerance for ersatz fashion choices — but do wonder what their home lives are like and whether they are happy and safe, and that makes me feel anxious. Banning the burqa might make me feel less anxious. It would not, however, improve the lives of the women who actually wear it. That is what matters. My personal feelings as a white woman about how Muslim women choose to dress are, in fact, staggeringly unimportant.

If you think the Burqa is oppressive and offensive, you are perfectly entitled never to wear one. You are not, however, entitled to make that decision for anyone else. Exactly the same principle applies in the interminable battle over women's basic reproductive choices: many people believe that abortion is wrong, sinful and damaging to women. That's okay. I suggest they never have an abortion. What's not okay is taking away that autonomy from others as a cheap ploy for good press coverage in the runup to an election.

This debate has been dragging on for decades, but there's a new urgency to it now, a new danger: we are now in a political climate where the elected leaders of major nations are talking about registries for Muslims and other minorities. Instituting a symbolic ban on religious dress, however extreme, sets a precedent. What comes next? Are we going to ban every form of Islamic headdress? What about the yarmulke, the tichel, the Sikh turban, the rainbow flag? If this is about community cohesion, what will it take to make white conservatives feel “comfortable”? Where does it stop? Whose freedoms are politicians prepared to sacrifice as a sop to a populace made bitter and unpredictable by 30 years of neoliberal incompetence? Where do we draw the line?

We draw it right here, between the state and the autonomy of women, particularly minority and migrant women who are already facing harassment in unprecedented numbers. Whatever you feel about the burqa, it is not the role of government to police what women wear, and doing it has nothing to do with protection. It is chauvinist, it is repressive, it is a deeply disturbing precedent, and it has no place in our public conversation.

 
 
 
 

Laurie Penny is a contributing editor to the New Statesman. She is the author of five books, most recently Unspeakable Things.