It is challenging for someone who grew up surrounded by our current financial system to be able to feel what is fundamentally wrong with it. To illustrate, let me ask a question: Why is it that you can never own a house or open a business without borrowing money? And if you think that is the way things should be, it is not! Nor was it ever before in human history.

Borrowing money is not how humanity built its great historical monuments. The Pyramids and the Sistine Chapel were not paid for over years and years to come with interest. Yet in today’s world, if you avoid borrowing, you can barely add a wall to your house without going nearly bankrupt. Everyone, from individuals to large corporations and even governments are under some obligation to pay a debt that is often more than their net worth. How did we get here?

Now imagine this: Instead of your bank lending you money at interest to buy a house or open a business, your bank reviews your project, then makes a decision to become a partner with you in that project. If your project succeeds and thrives, both you and your bank make profits that represent strictly each of your capital contributions to the project. And if your project fails, both you and your bank bear losses according to each party’s capital contribution. Imagine how many more people would be willing to invest and open businesses with the fear of debt taken out of the equation.

But of course most banks are very unlikely to take such a risk. The prevalent view in today’s economics is that lending money is a favor banks extend for which they deserve compensation. This is the mentality behind interest on loans and it is the mentality that is putting entire countries in peril.

In Islam, however, money should never in and of itself be a way of making more money. Lending money is an act of charity for which the lender is given back exactly the amount borrowed in the designated time. Wealthy individuals or banks can make profits by investing their capital and taking the risk with the entrepreneurs, not lending money at interest.

Interest on loans came to exist precisely because rich people wanted to make more money without taking a risk.  Perhaps that’s why the word usury sounds so much like “use,” or using the poor. Islam recognized the dangers of this practice very early in history and made it a particularly grave sin to take interest on loans, in order to avoid something like the situation on Wall Street today.

To demonstrate how interest and the economy are not exactly friends, consider how the Feds act whenever they want to drive the economy forward: They lower the interest rate. In Islam there is no such thing as “usurious loans” because all interest on loans is usurious.

The solution, which is unlikely to happen in the West, is an interest rate of zero on loans. This is not against capitalism in any way. It only calls for using earned capital instead of lent capital. It discourages lending and encourages true investing.

An explanation of the problem

I could not come up with a better explanation for the problem with interest than Tarek Al Diwany’s from Islamic-finance.com:

“If a money lender from the time of Christ had loaned an ounce of gold at 5% annual compound interest, it would today require an amount of bullion weighing several planet Earths in repayment.” Early bankers, El Diwany says, understood this fact: a system of loaning out at interest was unsustainable in the long term.

With paper money, banks and governments can just keep printing more. But eventually the consequences will be apparent.

Says El Diwany: “In the real world things experience compound *decrement*, which is to say they rot and become useless. Meanwhile, interest allows money to grow at compound *increment* towards infinity. Herein lies the fundamental conflict between interest-based finance and the environment. Money loaned at interest does not obey the same laws as the physical assets that money buys.”

That is: Money is allowed to increase toward infinity, while the stuff of this world obviously cannot.

Avoiding interest on loans is not the only thing Islam has to offer today’s markets. Gambling with options, securities and derivatives is also prohibited, which would have saved serious moolah for investors. Today the Islamic finance sector is the fastest growing globally, at a rate of 15 to 20 percent annually. Islamic assets under management are estimated by The Economist to be worth $US700 billion worldwide and expected to reach the $1 trillion mark by 2010.

And even though Western systems are not likely to adopt an interest-free scheme, whatever regulations the Feds place in response to this crisis will inevitably be ones that bring us closer to the Islamic model, not farther from it. You can learn more about the details and specifics of Islamic finance by visiting your local mosque or searching online.

• Credit crisis gives Islamic finance a chance to shine: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/18/business/invest19.php
• Paris to rival London as centre for Islamic finance:http://islamicfinancenews.wordpress.com/category/islamic-finance/around-the-world/france/

By Elias Karmi, Engage Minnesota

For some religions/denominations, notably Evangelical Christians, the subject of the End Times constitutes a formidable chunk of faith. Many of Pastor John Hagee’s books, from the fictional “Left Behind” series to “Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World,” attempt to predict the future according to interpretations of the Bible and have enjoyed tremendous popularity among Evangelical Christians. “Left Behind” was even made into a movie.

The issue of the End Times is even believed to be a driving force behind some US foreign policies, especially toward Israel and the Middle East. Many Christians believe that a key event in the End Times is the formation, and later persecution, of the state of Israel. According to them, Jesus Christ will then make his second coming to defeat Israel’s enemies. Former House majority leader Tom DeLay said in an interview with The Nation’s Max Blumenthal: “we have to be connected to Israel to enjoy the second coming.” President George W. Bush maintains close ties with religious figures who firmly believe that Israel is necessary for the second coming, such as Hagee, the Apostolic Congress (see endnote), and Pat Robertson.

Islamic texts are rich with prophecies, from the sun rising from the west to, interestingly, the second coming of Jesus Christ. But I, as a Sunni Muslim, wanted to understand what to do with this information. Should I act upon them in any way? And if so, how? For a reliable source, I turned to Dr. Waleed Al Meneese, Imam of Dar Al Farooq mosque in Dinky Town. Dr. Al Meneese is widely known and respected among Minnesota Muslims. He obtained his degrees in Arabic language and Islamic studies from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. I sat down with Sheikh Waleed and asked for his input on this increasingly important issue.

Muslims believe that the End of Days is a literal term: life will be taking place, business as usual, with good and evil people dwelling on earth, when suddenly something described as an angel’s “blow in the horn” will wipe out all life on earth. Later, all people will be resurrected and judged, with God sending people either to Paradise or Hell, according to the Qu’ran.

Some of the events preceding “the Hour,” –- or Judgement Day, were revealed to Muslims either in Qur’anic verses or in statements by the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Sheikh Waleed and I discussed how to understand such revelations as follows:

 1) There is absolute insistence that God and only God knows when the Final Day is. Several instances were reported in which people would ask Prophet Muhammad, PBUH, when the Last Day is, and his answer consistently declared his lack of knowledge. He was also ordered by God to say so in the Qur’an. [7:187], [33:63], [79:42,43,44].

 2) These Signs are not to be taken as means of prediction, but mainly as faith-reinforcing events; the signs are meant to make Muslims glad to see that their prophecies are coming true according to their teachings. “Even the word ‘waiting’ as in ‘waiting for the signs’ is not suitable here”, says Sheikh Waleed, “because it implies some sort of planning. Muslims are only supposed to watch the signs happen.” In other words, Muslims are not to consider such prophecies in planning their lives or making decisions for the future.

Muslims believe that time is a relative thing. A day by God’s standards is described in the Qur’an as a thousand human years. Thus when texts say that some particular sign is “near”, according to SCheikh Waleed, Muslims should understand that there is no way to predict when it will happen or even give an estimate.

 3) The Signs described in the Qu’ran are only a few of the events that will precede the Final Day. Accordingly, events appearing similar to certain Signs should not be judged too early as being these reported Signs until they completely unravel. “When the Mongols invaded much of the Muslim world during the Mamluki era, many people thought they were the prophesied Gog and Magog (a vast army of a nation that is prophesied to spread much destruction and carnage chaotically)”, said sheikh Waleed, “which turned out to be false because they were eventually defeated”. By that logic, even if there were a Muslim prophecy that the state of Israel will usher the second coming of Christ, which there is not, there is no way of knowing that it is this state of Israel in this time. Having prophecies does not entail anyone to say “now watch this happen” or “I told you so”. It is only after the prophecy is fulfilled that Muslims look back and confirm it.

 4) Based on the guidelines above, to assume that anyone has the ability to “assist” in bringing about the fulfillment of a prophecy goes beyond the absurd into being arrogant and lacking in manners for any person of faith. Many Muslims I have spoken to in the Middle East find it hard to believe that the United States has a religious agenda behind its staunch support of the state of Israel, because in the Muslim mindset a prophecy is bound to happen and thinking that one can help make sure it does is unnecessary and unacceptable.

Muslim scholars throughout the centuries have repeatedly discouraged Muslims from being too preoccupied with Signs of the Hour. A friend of mine affectionately uses the term Messianic Apocalyptic Dementia (MAD). Sheikh Waleed remarked: “Our focus should be to use our limited time on Earth to do good works and stay away from sin. Trying to foretell the future falls into neither.”.

———————–

Note:

In recent years, much has been said in the media about Islam and countries with Muslim majorities. At first, many reports were made with conspicuous bias due to the public outrage at the events of 9/11. Slowly, more reports are being made with an extra effort at being objective.

Still, certain aspects of the Muslim world are either being misrepresented or simply left to the audience to guess.

One example of these aspects that are ambiguous or distorted is the depiction of the experience of Christian minorities living in Muslim countries. Most Americans perceive Muslim countries as either devoid of Christians or perhaps having some Christians who hide their religious identities for fear of persecution.

A clear view of history — from the early beginnings of Islam to the present day — will help correct the above misconceptions. Muslims know that in the seventh century, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) allowed a group of visiting Christians to pray in his mosque in Medina, and the caliph Omar, the second Muslim caliph after the death of the Prophet, granted the Christians of Jerusalem full rights to live and worship and even helped repair their churches, which were damaged due to neglect under Byzantine rule. Note that the actions of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and for most Muslims the first four caliphs after him, are viewed in Islam as sources of jurisprudence (Islamic law, or Shari’ah). Coercively converting a Christian was out of the question since it was explicitly forbidden in the Qur’an (2:256).

Historians agree that Christians have always been allowed to worship and build their churches on Muslim lands from Muhammad’s time to this day*. In precolonial times, they were also allowed to live by their own laws within their communities. If they wished not to use Shari’ah, they were not compelled: That was a step ahead of the contemporary American version of tolerance that maintains the Law of the Land over minority communities. Knowing all of this makes Muslims view the West’s repetitive descriptions — of Christians living in Muslim countries as being persecuted and oppressed because of their religion — as quite strange and unfounded.

In Islamic history, famous Christian figures in high levels in the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates included poets and scientists. One of them was Al Akhtal, a famous poet whose verses are taught to this day in Arabic language curricula in schools in the Arab world. Al Akhtal boasted his religion openly and expressed his contempt at Islam in his poetry, right in front of caliphs, who would respond by giving him money for the excellent linguistic quality of his poetry. This shows that not only were Christians allowed to live and worship in Muslim countries, but they were given quite a bit of freedom of speech, as well.

In the 20th century, Arab Christians were instrumental in literature, science, and politics. The writings of Jubran Khalil Jubran, Mikhail Nu’aima, and Mai Ziyadah — are highly respected and are also taught in Arabic language classes. Their books are easily found in most Muslim households in Arab countries. Notable contemporary Christian political figures include former Iraqi prime minister Tariq Aziz, former Jordanian prime minister Kamel Abu Jaber, and former Egyptian foreign minister Boutrus Boutros-Ghali.

After the Armenian massacre at the hands of the Turkish army, Armenians fled to countries with Muslim majorities such as Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Iraq and were welcomed as neighbors and even given a part of Old Jerusalem, the third most holy Islamic ground.

Muslims seem to never have had a problem with Christianity itself, not when they are told in the Qur’an that “You will find the nearest in love to [you] to be those who say, ‘We are Christians’” (Qur’an, 5:82). We need to see more historians and academics in the media who counteract the well-propagandized premise that Islam is against tolerance when Islam is actually the first system in human history to include religious tolerance as part of the law. In times like these, Westerners need to learn the historical relationship between Islam and Christianity from a nonpartisan point of view.

–Elias Karmi, Burnsville, Minn.

*Note: Some countries with Muslim majorities have some restrictions on religious freedoms, particularly the freedom to proselytize. See the U.S. State Department’s 2007 report on religious freedom around the world.

Tuning in to radio talk shows and TV political discussions is climbing up my list of stress-causing activities. Here is why: It is one thing to disagree with the other side of the spectrum, but it is quite another to devote an entire show, or sometimes a station, for non-stop vilification, mockery, and public charging against the opposing party.

In a quest for higher ratings, the media are playfully harping the strings of cultural differences within the United States. You have Air America Radio, for example, which never fails at scaring people about a looming conservative agenda that seeks to deprive everyone of their civil liberties — obviously pushing the correct buttons for people with liberal tendencies. On the other side, you also have Bill O’Reilly, already declaring war and naming himself a “culture warrior.” If there is ever a conclusion to this “war” of his, I wonder who could be the loser except America itself.

The other day I was attending a lecture at Dar al Farooq mosque in Dinkytown. The imam (preacher) was discussing how to deal with people of different creeds and ideologies. The conclusion was that we should stand up for what we believe and educate people about it, but it is neither required nor acceptable to condemn another sect by labeling them “disbelievers” or “evil” so long as they carry the same basic tenets. I thought: “This is a principle that America needs to be reminded of.” The right/left dialogue has been reduced to baseless accusations and speculations of ill intention.

Let me propose this for thought: Left-wing pundits fear that conservative rule would, as one of its dreaded goals, eventually eliminate health care for the poor. But when did you hear a single mainstream conservative say that the poor do not deserve to be taken care of? Conservatives and liberals differ on the methodology, but the intention is the same. Looking at the other side, right-wing pundits fear that liberal rule would eventually destroy family values. When did you hear a mainstream liberal person speak out against family values? In reality, many of the fears held by both sides are based on lots of speculation and very little proof.

Fortunately so far, the extreme polarity seems to be limited to the media and we see very little of it in our daily lives, which is only natural because people as intense as Glenn Beck or Al Franken are a minority. It is worth fearing, however, that media stations may slowly undermine public peace with their demagoguery. In a race for better ratings, broadcasters have abandoned the principles of polite disagreement and common etiquette for the sake of wider audiences, more ads, and thereby higher profits. The more vile and disagreeable the programming is, the more it sounds like the good idea in broadcasting company boardrooms.

People praise those who “say it like it is,” but being polite does not necessarily entail being deceitful. A reporter or host can easily be provocative and probing while being appropriate in his or her manners. Nowadays, however, being “courageous” or “strong” is measured by how loud the host yells, how smartly he mocks, or how utterly immune he is to any remote possibility of changing his opinion.

Anything else is viewed as boring, and boring means lower ratings. Lower ratings are dangerous to the life of a media station; so much so that Jim Lehrer of PBS said, describing his work: “It takes a lot of courage to be boring five nights a week.”

What I hope for is that more of the public would get tired of this phenomenon and consciously tune in to more even-tempered discussions, enough to drop the ratings of the pundits to where they would need to change their tone. Because although this phenomenon is relatively new in American history, its damaging effects may eventually become palpable.

–Elias Karmi, Burnsville MN

By Elias Karmi

Myth: The “Ancient Feud”

Unfortunately, a few academics have fallen for this one. The myth is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rooted in an ancient feud between Ismael, the perceived ancestor of the Arabs, and Isaac, the ancestor of the Children of Israel, both of whom are the sons of Abraham from different mothers.

From the point of view of Muslims, this is particularly absurd. Muslims highly revere both Ismael and Isaac – peace be upon them – as holy prophets whose brotherhood transcends sharing one father. Prophets are the highest humans in good manners and their presumed falling into feuds would be quite substandard.

Moreover, not all Arabs are related to Ismael. In fact, the majority of them are not, just like the majority of current-day Jews are not actually related to Isaac.

Myth: Palestinians resist Israel because it is Jewish

It so happens that the majority of Israelis are Jewish and the majority of Palestinians are
Muslim. However, Palestinians did not resist the Israelis simply because they are Jewish or even because they had a different religion. They resisted because the Israelis are foreign people from Europe who practiced land and home confiscation and expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, of whom my parents are two, in order to establish their state. The Palestinians’ response would have been the same regardless of the offenders’ religion.

Myth: “They hate us for our freedom”

The mythical nature of the above statement is several fold. On September 20, 2001, President Bush, referring to Al Qa’eda, addressed the members of Congress by saying:
“They hate what we see right here in this chamber — a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms — our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”

But many right-wing demagogues propagated it using the pronoun “they” to refer to most Muslims living abroad, and I will dissect it as such, although it would retain its inaccuracy either way.

First, the assertion that plain envy of a social value can lead to war is not only lacking in reason, but unprecedented in history. No two entities fought because one envied a certain law or a social pattern that the other had. That kind of envy naturally leads to competition, not hate, and certainly not war.

Second, people in countries with Muslim majorities do envy the United States for some things, but “social freedom,” if we may use the term, is certainly something they have no envy of. Just like most Americans think of Middle-Easterners as camel jockeys who lock up their women at home and shoot you if you are an “infidel,” many Muslims living abroad think of Americans as the audience and participants of any Jerry Springer episode: morally corrupt, socially irresponsible, drug-addicted, sex-driven, drunk, and fat.

Of course, both views are terribly biased, but the point is that many of the Muslims living abroad do not envy most of the “freedoms” people enjoy here in the U.S. If they had to choose, most of them would probably prefer a safer social environment that is strict over having to worry about their teenage daughters getting pregnant, for example. To them, from their point of view, the fact that a jewelry store owner in Mecca can leave his store unattended and go to pray in complete safety makes the harsh punishment of thieves worthwhile.

One freedom Muslims abroad do envy is the freedom of speech, because they are ruled mostly by dictators who will lock you in prison if they hear you make a joke about the ruler or his party.

Another thing that Americans are envied for by people living under dictatorships is the relative lack of corruption and the rule of law, which trickles down into a general sense of orderliness and organization. That is why the West attracts large numbers of Third World intellectuals: Things here happen in a predictable manner for people who work hard. If you study well, you will get a good grade. If you get a bad grade, it is not because you did not have the right connections and it is not because your father is not wealthy enough. Intellectuals have their minds as their biggest assets, and they feel comfortable in a place where that is all they need to succeed.

But the envy that Muslims have for freedom of speech and the rule of law cannot possibly lead to hatred. Instead, people in Third World countries are striving to change their conditions and fix their systems. Unfortunately, the force used by dictators is thus far the winner.

Perhaps President Bush was subconsciously trying to say: “They hate us because we support most of their dictatorships that deprive them from their freedoms.” Food for thought, although even then the supposed “hatred” would be directed at the U.S. government, not the American people.

–Elias Karmi, Burnsville, Minn.

According to a survey published recently by the Washington Post and ABC, 60 percent of all Americans strongly want the country to change direction. This comes naturally due to public perception of the evident challenges we are going through as being unnecessary, avoidable, or poorly executed – most notably the war in Iraq.

Of those 60 percent, however, I wonder how many would truly like a change in direction.

Americans wanted changes in direction many times before, hence the switch between Republican and Democratic presidents. But did America’s attitude towards the world ever change dramatically since World War II? How about a change that lets each people have their full freedom – freedom from U.S.-appointed and -maintained governments that continue to oppress their own peoples ruthlessly?

How about a change that allows the people of Egypt, for example, to freely elect a new president after 26 years of Hosni Mubarak’s consecutive presidencies?

Notice that in those 26 years, the U.S. was ruled by both Republican and Democratic majorities, both of which supported and turned a blind eye to Mubarak’s methods.

How about a change in which foreign governments finally put the well-being of their own constituents above U.S. interests? Is that really all that radical?

Many U.S.-friendly governments abroad have been torturing their citizens since before the 1960s. Consecutive U.S. presidents’ administrations turned a blind eye to that while continuing to provide economic aid to those countries. That is considered support for such torture. Third World-dwellers have an ever-present fear in the backs of their minds of being tortured in their governments’ dungeons. Can we have a government that works to stop that instead of pretending not to know about it? It has been happening over many presidencies now and sometimes it is supported directly by the CIA.

How about a change in self-righteousness? Are we really fit to tell other countries how they are supposed to live their lives when we are failing at taking care of our own sick? Perhaps we can learn from others for once instead of constantly preaching.

What about us, the American people? How about a change where we have the power, not the lobbies. How about a democracy where the wealth of individuals and corporations is rendered powerless and irrelevant in politics? As long as money and politics are linked together, a malignant form of moral corruption will loom over all.

So are we yearning for some real change? Or are we only about to change parties again?

–Elias Karmi
Burnsville, Minn.

Usually it brings a certain pleasure to be able to accurately predict what will happen next. When the prescience relates to the open-air prison known as the Gaza Strip, however, that pleasure is lacking.

First, the prediction in this case is quite tragic: Tens, possibly hundreds of Gazans are likely to be killed by Israeli artillery after Israel identified Gaza as an “enemy entity” on September 19th. Ground operations are already underway, and on September 28th, 13 civilians were killed. The world is doing little or nothing to stop or even condemn it, and most painfully, the United States government will support and condone it wholeheartedly.

Second, there is very little to “forecast” – no brains involved. The pattern is as predictable as the seasons. After all, it was little more than a year ago that Israeli artillery pounded villages and cities in Lebanon to dust and killed hundreds of civilians. Again, the world did nothing. The U.S. government supported it.

A few tears while yawning.

And this has been the case since 1948. Israeli atrocities remain largely unconfronted except by some historians and academics who have little political influence. Massacres from Deir Yassin to Sabra and Shatila to Jenin and many others in between, in addition to land and home confiscations and illegal settlements, all continuing to happen and all fueling more terrorist attacks and rendering the chances of peace dimmer and dimmer.

Here is how people in the Middle East see the story: The Palestinians practiced their right to elect their government democratically. Their choice was frowned upon by Israel, the United States, the European Union, and several Arab states — in other words, everyone that counts. Fighting ensued between Fatah and Hamas; the U.S. and the E.U. sided with Fatah even though they democratically lost the elections. Hamas fought back and got Fatah out of Gaza. Now Hamas is isolated, and my guts are telling me that Gaza is about to be attacked with the permission of the U.S. government and the Fatah government in the West Bank. Several Israeli attacks have been launched in recent weeks. The losers in the end are none other than Gazan civilians and their elected government.

Will Senator Norm Coleman take a decent stand? Not likely, given his uncritical, unquestioning attitude toward Israel. Hopefully Minneapolis Congressman Keith Ellison will say something, but I would not be too surprised if he does not; he specifically labeled Hamas as “the greatest obstacle to peace” on his campaign website while he ran for Congress in 2006. Nevertheless, it will be worthwhile to observe which representative says what on this matter. For now I will settle with my grim prediction. Future generations will be very disappointed.

–Elias Karmi
Burnsville, Minn.

The month of Ramadan is when Muslims worldwide are required to fast, meaning to refrain completely from eating and drinking from dawn to sunset. It is also a month when Muslims perform more worship than they would during the rest of the year: praying more at night, reading more Qur’an, giving more in charity, etc.

A question that I hear frequently from my Minnesotan colleagues is: “Why do you do that?” – meaning, why do we fast. To Muslims, God’s order to fast is more than enough reason to do it, regardless of its health benefits that have been revealed over the years. But the question carries an interesting subtlety. The way the question is verbalized and the body language used suggest my colleagues are really asking: “Why do you have to make yourself suffer so much?” or “Why do you have to put yourself through this for a whole month?”

Looking deeper into the question, it is not the act of fasting itself that fascinates Americans; the principle of fasting is well established in several religions. Rather, it is the humility it takes for someone to submit, to the degree that fasting for a month per year becomes normal. To someone looking from the outside, it would appear as if Muslims are subjecting themselves to something they should refuse.

This appears to be stemming from the unfortunate fact that American culture has somehow acquired many widely accepted notions that are, in fact, opposite to humility. These notions and behaviors actually create a line of division between Muslim and American cultures.

Muslims view many things in America as displays of arrogance. Motorcyclists showing off, people dressing indecently, men talking too loudly in casual conversations, people blasting music in their cars, people walking proudly facing up and staring other people in the eyes, or simply “acting tough” at all times for no reason. All seem to be results of the “I do what I want when I want” attitude and all of which are things that Muslims see as contradictory to humility. And humility in the way we walk, talk, and otherwise act is very highly recommended in Islam – it is almost mandatory. Indeed, if you have Muslim friends who really like you, it is very likely that you show little or no arrogance at all.

So Ramadan comes as an annual reminder for us to adhere to humility in how we feel about ourselves. Arrogance with others implies an attempt to turn someone else into, figuratively, a slave even for a short time. Arrogance within ourselves implies denial of what we really are. We are all literally owned by God no matter how wealthy or influential we become. One of the basic tenets of Muslim faith is Uboudiya, or “enslavement” to God: the complete and unconditional obedience to our Owner.

Now that is a whole lot of humility! But many Americans who are humble by nature can readily understand this. The attitude that accompanies the acknowledgment of our enslavement to God makes the act of fasting not restrictive, but merely consequential.

–Elias Karmi
Burnsville, Minn.