Assalamualaikum
. How are you all? I hope you are doing well. By looking at the title, you have probably already understood what today's topic is about. Yes, you are right. Today we will learn about the dollar and how its journey began. So, let's get into the discussion.
First, let's talk about when the dollar started its journey. Do you remember World War II? The story of the dollar really began after the end of that war. The main reason was an agreement called the Bretton Woods Agreement.
Do you know why this agreement was made? During and before World War II, countries often changed the value of their currencies. During the war, many countries lowered the value of their own currencies and caused economic and trade problems for other countries. This happened because countries depend on one another.
As a result, trust between countries became weaker. To bring stability and stop countries from harming each other through currency policies, America and the Zionists and imperialists behind it introduced their own currency through an agreement. That agreement was called the Bretton Woods Agreement.
Now let's look at the goals of this agreement.
The Bretton Woods Agreement (1944) included:
1.Increasing cooperation in international money matters.
2.Supporting balanced growth and development in international trade.
3.Keeping exchange rates stable and preventing countries from lowering their currency values to compete with others.
4.Creating a payment system for international transactions among member countries.
5.Giving temporary financial help to countries facing economic problems.
6.Reducing imbalances in foreign transactions and lowering their impact and duration.
Because of this agreement, 1 ounce of gold was fixed at 35 US dollars. From that time, gold became connected to currency notes (here, you may have meant that gold became the backup of currency, but the sentence is kept as it is for translation purposes).
The currencies of many countries were also tied to the US dollar at fixed rates. As a result, the US dollar became the main currency of the world.
Now, you have seen what happened because of the agreement, but that is not the whole story. You may be surprised to know that this agreement was later broken according to a planned strategy.
Let me explain with an example.
You probably know about a mousetrap. A piece of bread, banana, meat, or some other food is placed inside the trap. The mouse smells the food and comes closer. As soon as it touches the bait, it gets trapped.
In this example, haven't you put a cap of pride on the mouse? A smart mouse would not risk its life for a small amount of food because it would understand that it is a trap. But mice are usually foolish, so they fall into it.
Here, we are the mouse. The trap is the dollar. The food is the Bretton Woods Agreement. And those who set the trap are the imperialists and Zionists.
Still not clear? Let me explain.
Look carefully at agreements 1, 2, 3, and 5. The main idea behind them was that international financial help, international cooperation, and support for countries in need would be provided through the dollar. International trade and payments would also depend on the dollar.
Later, the agreement was ended through the Nixon Shock.
Now think about what happened. Through international financial cooperation, financial support, stable exchange rates, and international payments, the dollar became connected to almost every part of the global economy. International trade also became dependent on dollar-based transactions. In this way, the dollar became dominant.
Agreement number 6 also tied many currencies to the dollar. As a result, most currencies became connected to it.
Then the Nixon Shock ended the agreement. The original goals were no longer there, but the dollar's influence remained across the world.
Later, the Petrodollar Agreement of 1974 with many Middle Eastern countries strengthened this influence even more.
Today, according to this view, they can reduce the value of the dollar when they want and increase interest rates. They can also reduce its value and create shocks in international stock markets. Sometimes they stop printing dollars for a period and pull dollars out of the market. Later they increase the supply again.
As a result, when people invest, market conditions can change, and small investors may suffer losses while large amounts of money move elsewhere.
According to this argument, by changing the value of the dollar and interest rates, they can also bring Third World and Second World countries under their influence through financial assistance and loans.
Now you can understand why I compared us to mice. First, they bring people into the dollar system through agreements. Later, those same agreements are ended. In this way, according to this view, people are made to fall into the trap.
Now we will learn how these processes work.
As I said before, they rule over other countries by increasing interest rates. You may ask how this happens.
I already mentioned that they reduce the value of the dollar. But how is the value of the dollar reduced?
To reduce the value of something, its supply needs to increase. In simple words, when supply becomes greater than demand, the value goes down.
According to this view, America or the imperialists increase the supply by printing more dollars. When more dollars enter the market, the value of the dollar falls.
No country in the world can survive completely on its own, especially in economic matters. This is even more difficult for Third World countries.
When these countries take loans or financial help, it is argued that high interest is placed on them through the World Bank.
When interest rates go up, taking loans becomes more difficult. Anyone who takes a loan has to pay more interest. People and countries that already have loans must also pay more.
According to this argument, when the value of the dollar falls, the cost of buying real assets increases. An asset that once cost 100 dollars may later cost 150 dollars.
As a result, some large institutions and companies move their wealth from dollars into Bitcoin, digital gold, or physical gold.
This reduces demand for dollars even more.
Because of this, countries taking new loans may face much higher interest rates than before. Countries with existing loans may also have to pay more interest.
You may think this gives America or the imperialists huge profits. However, according to this view, there are also losses.
When they increase interest rates and pull printed dollars back under their control, they eventually have to release those dollars into the market again. As a result, the value rises for a short time and later falls again.
Why do they release it again?
One reason given is money deflation.
When dollars are removed from the market, a shortage appears. At the same time, population and business activities continue to grow. Businesses need money to operate.
If dollars become unavailable, people may start using other currencies instead. This is seen as a threat because alternative currencies could reduce the influence of the dollar.
For this reason, they quickly buy real assets and increase the supply of dollars again. As a result, the value falls once more.
But this creates another problem. If the value keeps falling over time, investors may continue looking for alternatives to the dollar. This could weaken their influence.
So far, we have discussed how increasing interest rates can bring both benefits and losses.
To reduce those losses, they use another strategy. They take loans themselves and temporarily stop printing dollars or print fewer dollars.
Because supply becomes smaller and demand increases, the value of the dollar rises.
In this way, dollars are pulled out of the market again.
A simple example is a water tank and a water meter. The meter can both release water and pull water back. When needed, it sends water out. When needed, it pulls water back in.
In the same way, according to this argument, dollars can be released into the market or pulled out of it depending on the situation.
This is exactly how dollars are constantly being released and absorbed. But there is another problem here.
Whenever they increase the demand for dollars through loans, the value of the dollar naturally goes up. At that time, the people who had moved their wealth out of dollars and converted it into real assets when the dollar was weak start moving back into dollars again. As a result, they deposit those dollars in banks and earn high amounts of interest.
But when this happens, America or the imperialist groups have to lower interest rates again because they become trapped by their own system and rules. According to the rules, whenever interest rates increase, anyone who has taken loans must pay higher interest. This causes America to lose control of the dollars that had been stored away.
As a result, trade and business based on dollars may slow down. To prevent that from happening, they lower interest rates again. Then countries around the world rush to take loans because the interest is low. Since loans are cheaper, they borrow even more.
In this way, according to this view, the value of the dollar and other fiat currencies keeps falling over the long term.
The countries that take these loans do not keep the dollars stored away. They borrow them to spend. But before they can finish repaying those loans at lower interest rates, the imperialists raise interest rates again. This is how, according to this argument, the value of fiat currencies keeps falling over time.
Now you may ask, where is their main profit in all of this? And if there is something called Zakat in Islamic law, why do they not use that system instead of raising interest rates?
This is where the real game begins.
First, we need to understand what Zakat is.
In Islam, there is a detailed explanation of it. But in simple words, Zakat is a penalty on idle wealth.
As we have already seen, when imperialists or Zionists increase interest rates and pull dollars out of the market, they later spend that money or use it to buy real assets because of money deflation. Then they release it back into the market.
According to this argument, Zakat is the moral version of that process.
Zakat is a penalty on wealth that is kept idle.
Imagine there are only 100 units of money in the world. If one person keeps 90 of those units stored away, what will everyone else do? They will not have enough money to buy real assets or meet their needs.
As a result, the economy would become slow and inequality would increase.
To prevent this type of money deflation in a limited-asset system, Islam supports Zakat.
In other words, if you keep those 90 units of money stored, then you must give 2.5% of that wealth to poor people or others. This prevents wealth from remaining idle and keeps money moving through society.
The main purpose of Zakat is to create balance and fairness.
But according to this argument, the imperialists do not want that. They want inequality. That is why they follow the path of interest.
Another point is that Zakat is mainly connected to limited assets such as Bitcoin or physical gold. Fiat currency, on the other hand, is unlimited.
As a result, new money can be printed while Zakat is also being paid. This increases the supply of money and assets in the market. This can create excessive money flow, and when supply rises too much, value falls.
According to this view, imperialists will never move toward limited assets because their main source of power is the interest-based system itself.
Even if they operated both interest and Zakat together in the same system, it would not solve the problem because the main philosophy of Zakat would be lost.
For example, if a person earns 10 lakh taka through interest and then pays the required 2.5% as Zakat, perhaps 2 to 3 lakh taka, he would still keep the remaining 7 to 8 lakh taka.
According to this argument, that remaining money would still come from wealth taken from ordinary people through interest.
So inequality would remain.
If the system were based on limited assets, then wealth would be naturally restricted and those extra profits from interest would not exist. As a result, the original goal of Zakat—reducing inequality—would remain effective.
There is also the possibility that the economy could become stagnant because money would be concentrated in the hands of a few people while many others would face money deflation. According to this argument, something similar is happening today.
Even when Zakat is paid within a fiat currency system, this view argues that it loses its original purpose.
However, we will discuss later why Islamic law gives importance to Zakat and what other mechanisms exist within that system.
According to this argument, their first goal is to keep everyone under their control.
The biggest advantage they gain from interest is the ability to spread their ideology.
When interest rates rise, they know that many Third World countries cannot afford such high payments. As a result, they can force those countries to accept their ideas and conditions.
In other words, if a country cannot pay its interest, it may be forced to do what these powerful groups demand.
There is also another major benefit that is often described as hidden: gaining real assets.
When they increase interest rates and collect large amounts of dollars from the market, they do so by exchanging those dollars for real assets.
You probably remember the Petrodollar Agreement.
According to that agreement, oil, gas, gold, and many major reserve assets were to be bought and sold using dollars.
Following that system, they can create new dollars through their financial system and use them to buy real assets.
According to this argument, they achieve two goals at the same time. They gain real assets while also strengthening the interest-based system.
Since Third World countries must often convert their own money into dollars to make interest payments, they need to create or supply even more of their local currency.
This happens because their currencies do not have the same value as the dollar.
For example, if 1 dollar equals 100 units of a local currency and later 1 dollar equals 80 units, then huge amounts of local currency may be needed to pay interest on thousands of dollars.
As a result, those countries may increase interest rates, taxes, tariffs, and other charges on their own people in order to protect the value of their currencies.
According to this argument, the dollar system harms not only others but also affects many economies connected to it.
However, this system may not last forever.
According to the author, current events suggest that changes may be coming.
Yes, I am talking about the Iran-Israel-America conflict.
If we look at today's world, one thing we can clearly see is that more and more countries and people are speaking out against America and the imperialist powers. At the same time, many people are losing trust in the dollar and paper currencies because of inflation.
The Iran-Israel-America conflict is often presented as a real example of this.
According to this view, when America and the imperialist powers failed to spread their Western-style ideology in Iran, they imposed dollar-based sanctions on the country. As a result, the value of the Iranian Rial fell. This made trade and business more difficult. Iran's national income also dropped, and inflation increased significantly.
However, Iran did not give up.
They developed advanced missiles and modern ballistic missile systems such as Sejjil and Khorramshahr. They also developed new military technologies, including water-based drones. According to this argument, these technologies have been used to challenge the advanced weapons of America and Israel.
Now you may ask: how was Iran able to build such advanced weapons during a period of severe inflation?
Building these systems requires equipment, materials, and resources, which should be very difficult during times of economic hardship.
According to this argument, this is where the real story begins.
Iran placed its trust in something decentralized.
Yes, that thing is Bitcoin.
No single person, group, country, or giant organization can completely destroy or control it. This is because Bitcoin was created through mathematical rules and computer code.
Bitcoin is supported by thousands of nodes, miners, and millions of users around the world who trust and use the network.
For this reason, no single group or government can fully control it.
According to this view, even if only one person in the world continues to run the original Bitcoin code, thousands of groups working together would still be unable to destroy or take control of Bitcoin itself.
At most, they could create a separate fork or chain and launch another coin. But they would not be able to change the original Bitcoin chain.
In the long run, people would continue to use the original Bitcoin network because it is seen as the safer and more trusted system.
(If you want to learn more about this topic, you can read my other article, "The Creation of Bitcoin and Blockchain.")
As I was saying, because Bitcoin is decentralized and shares many characteristics with physical gold, Iran is using it as a shield.
Not only that, according to this argument, Iran has shown the world through this conflict that paper currency does not truly make people financially free.
Instead, it is presented as a trap created by imperialist powers.
Bitcoin, according to this view, is one of the main ways to escape that trap and build a safer economic system.
(It should be noted that Iran is not using physical gold in this conflict because, although physical gold cannot easily be controlled, its movement and transactions can be blocked.)
Around 60% of the world's oil trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz, which lies within Iran's geographical area.
According to this argument, Iran has started accepting Bitcoin as a form of payment or toll in this important route as part of its strategy.
Under what is described as the Strait of Hormuz 2026 policy, ships are expected to pay an amount equal to millions of dollars in Bitcoin or Chinese Yuan.
According to supporters of this idea, this marks the beginning of a new era for the Bitcoin economy around the world.
Some analysts describe this concept as "Petro-Bitcoin."
According to this view, it is a major signal of the decline of the dollar system.
This conflict has also led many countries to believe that depending completely on the dollar means remaining under the influence of imperialist powers.
As a result, countries such as China, Iran, Russia, India, and others are looking for alternatives to the dollar and discussing new economic partnerships.
According to this argument, this could reduce the dollar's dominant position in the future.
Supporters of this view believe that the currencies of different countries could become more balanced and that economic inequality between nations could decrease.
However, large international transactions involving oil, gas, minerals, and other major reserves would likely be carried out using a decentralized currency.
According to this view, that currency is Digital Gold—Bitcoin.
And supporters of this idea argue that Iran has already started moving in that direction.
As I mentioned before, Iran is both accepting Bitcoin as a toll payment and is also a member of the BRICS alliance.
You may ask, if Iran believes in Bitcoin, then why does it need to join a bloc that uses other currencies? Why not use Bitcoin for everything?
This is where Iran's strategy comes in.
As we know, under its toll policy, Iran has said that payments can be made in either Bitcoin or Chinese Yuan. However, it appears to place special importance on Bitcoin.
You may have heard about El Salvador. The country has been building large Bitcoin reserves. Their position is simple: whether the price of Bitcoin goes up or down, they will continue buying it.
According to this argument, Iran is doing something similar.
Iran believes that no matter which paper currency becomes dominant in the future, once countries gain more equal economic power, many of them may try to expand their own influence. Any country could reduce the value of its currency and attempt to build a new empire, just as America is accused of doing today.
To avoid such a future, countries may look for something that is decentralized and cannot be controlled by a single state.
According to this view, that asset is Bitcoin.
In other words, everyday trade can be done with national currencies, but large reserve transactions are safer when carried out through Bitcoin.
This is why Iran is trying to position itself on both sides.
While other countries are using Bitcoin to trade outside the dollar system, Iran is collecting Bitcoin through toll payments and building its reserves. At the same time, through BRICS and other currencies, it is reducing its dependence on the dollar.
According to this argument, the most powerful countries in the future will be those that hold the largest Bitcoin reserves.
And those who continue chasing paper currencies today may not find real economic freedom in the future.
The reason, according to this view, is something called:
The name itself may sound disappointing.
Because Bitcoin is often described as digital gold, many people believe that powerful financial groups are now turning their attention toward it.
According to this argument, they can see that public trust in fiat and paper currencies is slowly declining. If that continues, their influence could weaken.
For that reason, they are trying to use the same strategy as before. Instead of controlling physical gold, they are now trying to bring digital gold under their control.
Since Bitcoin is a limited asset with a maximum supply of only 21 million coins, supporters argue that it is even rarer than physical gold.
Unlike paper money, more Bitcoin cannot simply be printed.
According to this view, Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) are one of the tools being used to collect and store Bitcoin.
Yes, I am referring to Bitcoin ETFs.
The argument is that when people buy Bitcoin through these systems, they do not always hold the Bitcoin directly themselves. Instead, the Bitcoin is stored elsewhere, while investors receive ownership through financial contracts and documents.
Because Bitcoin is limited, some people argue that if a very large percentage of it ends up under the control of major institutions, it could become difficult for ordinary people to access.
According to this theory, new forms of digital or paper-based currencies could then be introduced for the general public, similar to what happened under the original Bretton Woods system.
Supporters of this view compare this to the period after World War II, when gold moved into large reserves and paper currencies became the main tool used throughout the world.
There is still time.
According to this view, the majority of Bitcoin has not yet been brought under the control of large institutions.
For that reason, supporters of Bitcoin believe that people should begin building their own Bitcoin holdings now, just as countries like Iran and El Salvador are doing.
They argue that this may help people protect themselves from future economic control by powerful institutions and governments.
Assalamu Alaikum.
