by: The Washington Eye
Currency is one of the most significant inventions in human history, yet many of us overlook its importance in our daily lives. At first glance, money seems simple—coins in your pocket, bills in your wallet, or digital numbers in a bank app. But beneath its surface lies a complex system of trust, governance, and economic coordination. Currency works because people believe it works. It is not just a tool for buying and selling; it is a shared agreement among individuals and institutions that a certain object—whether paper, metal, or digital code—holds value and can be exchanged for goods and services.

Before currency came into existence, human societies relied on the barter system. In barter, people exchanged goods and services directly. This method, while natural in small communities, had major limitations. It required a double coincidence of wants: both parties had to want what the other had. If you had wheat and wanted shoes, but the shoemaker didn’t want wheat, you couldn’t trade. Currency solved this problem by serving as a universally accepted medium of exchange. Early currencies included commodities like salt, cattle, or gold—items considered valuable and difficult to fake. Eventually, these evolved into coinage and paper money, often backed by physical commodities such as gold and silver. In modern times, we use fiat money, which has no intrinsic value but is declared legal tender by governments and accepted because people trust the system behind it.

Today, central banks and financial institutions manage currency through complex tools like interest rates, inflation targeting, and money supply regulation. When handled well, these tools can stabilize the economy, foster investment, and generate employment. But mismanagement—such as excessive money printing—can lead to disastrous consequences, including hyperinflation. Historical examples like Zimbabwe or Venezuela demonstrate how quickly a currency can become worthless when public trust is lost. Without faith in currency, prices skyrocket, savings vanish, and economies collapse.

Now imagine a world without currency. Would we return to barter? Perhaps, but that would bring back the same inefficiencies that currency was invented to solve. More likely, alternative systems would emerge. These could include commodity money like gold or oil, decentralized digital currencies such as Bitcoin, or even systems of social credit or labor exchange. Each of these, however, has its flaws. Cryptocurrency, for example, promises decentralization but remains volatile and vulnerable to speculation. Commodity money might favor nations rich in resources and deepen inequality. Social credit systems, while potentially fair, could also become tools of control and surveillance.

A world without currency would likely cause global trade to collapse. Currency provides a common unit of account that allows us to price goods, calculate profits, and manage contracts. Without it, international transactions would become chaotic. Supply chains would stall, and financial markets would lose their foundations. Moreover, debt and long-term contracts rely on stable money. Without currency, these agreements lose meaning. Lending would slow down, investments would halt, and the global economy would become stagnant.

Some idealists imagine a future where money is no longer needed—where technology, automation, and abundance make everything freely accessible. In such a society, resources could be distributed based on need rather than ability to pay. This vision, promoted by movements like The Venus Project, presents a post-currency economy guided by logic and sustainability. But achieving this would require more than technological advancement. It would demand a radical transformation in human behavior, moving from competition to cooperation, and from ownership to shared access. Such a shift, while theoretically possible, is not likely in the near future.

Ultimately, the question is not whether we can eliminate currency, but how we can use it more equitably. As the world becomes increasingly digital, currencies will continue to evolve—through blockchain, central bank digital currencies, and global financial reforms. But the fundamental role of currency as a tool for coordination and trust will remain. Rather than dreaming of a currency-free utopia, our focus should be on building systems that make currency work for everyone, not just the privileged few. Currency is not just about money; it is about meaning, fairness, and the structure of our economic lives. Without it, society as we know it would unravel.

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow but strategically vital waterway situated between Oman and Iran, plays a crucial role in global energy security. It serves as the main passage for oil and gas exports from the Persian Gulf, making it one of the most important chokepoints in the world. About 20.5 million barrels of oil pass through the strait every day, representing roughly 30% of the world’s seaborne oil trade. Despite being only about 33 kilometers wide at its narrowest point, its economic and geopolitical importance far outweighs its size. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar all rely on this route to ship their oil and gas to international markets, especially in Asia and Europe.

The strait lies between Iran to the north and the Musandam Peninsula of Oman to the south. While both countries have coastlines along the strait, Iran exerts more influence over the waterway due to its military presence and strategic posturing. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) regularly patrols the area, and Tehran has repeatedly asserted that it has the capability to control or even block the strait if provoked. On the other side, Oman has traditionally maintained a neutral stance and played the role of mediator during times of tension. The United States and its allies, recognizing the strait’s global significance, maintain a strong naval presence in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, is tasked with ensuring maritime security and safe passage for commercial vessels, particularly oil tankers.

Tensions in the region have surged several times over the past decade, with Iran often threatening to shut down the strait in response to Western sanctions or military actions. In recent months, the situation has again become volatile. In June 2024, Iranian officials warned that they might consider blocking the strait if the country’s sovereignty or economic interests were threatened, particularly in response to renewed U.S. sanctions and Israeli military actions in Syria. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard conducted several naval exercises near the strait, and satellite images showed an increased number of Iranian patrol vessels in the area. The U.S. Navy also reported drone flyovers and near-encounters with Iranian vessels, further escalating tensions.

Although Iran has never fully closed the Strait of Hormuz, even the suggestion of such a move has serious consequences. Markets are highly sensitive to instability in this region. In June 2024, crude oil prices surged nearly 7% in a single day following Iran’s warning and military movements near the strait. A complete closure would likely result in oil prices skyrocketing to over $150 per barrel, causing inflation and potential recession in multiple countries. Asian economies like Japan, South Korea, China, and India — all heavily reliant on Gulf oil — would be especially affected. Although alternative routes exist, such as pipelines through Saudi Arabia and the UAE, their capacity is limited and cannot fully replace the shipping volume of the strait.

The global response to Iranian threats has been swift and firm. The United States has declared that any attempt to obstruct the Strait of Hormuz would provoke a strong military reaction. European allies, including the United Kingdom and France, have also deployed additional naval assets to the Gulf region. Insurance costs for tankers passing through the strait have spiked, and several shipping companies have started rerouting vessels or delaying shipments out of caution.

As of June 2025, diplomatic efforts to calm the situation remain stalled. Iran’s nuclear activities have intensified, and talks to revive the 2015 nuclear deal have made little progress. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has raised alarms about Iran’s uranium enrichment levels, while the U.S. has expanded sanctions targeting Iran’s energy and defense sectors. Oman, acting as a regional mediator, has called for restraint and offered to host negotiations, but no concrete steps have been taken. Meanwhile, international observers are closely monitoring the situation, aware that the strait remains a potential flashpoint that could spiral into a broader conflict.

The Strait of Hormuz is far more than just a narrow waterway — it is a strategic artery for the global economy. Any disruption to its functioning could trigger energy crises, economic instability, and even military conflict. The current tensions surrounding Iran and its control over this crucial passage serve as a stark reminder of how fragile global energy security can be in a region fraught with political instability and longstanding rivalries. As the world grapples with these uncertainties, maintaining open access to the strait remains a top priority for global peace and economic stability.

by: The Washington Eye
In the quiet town of Josephine, Texas, a proposed residential development called EPIC City has sparked a nationwide debate about religious freedom, urban planning, and political overreach. The project—backed by the East Plano Islamic Center (EPIC)—aims to build a Muslim-centric community spanning over 1,000 homes, schools, commercial areas, and a mosque. While the developers have maintained that the community would be inclusive and open to all, a wave of political scrutiny has cast a shadow over what might otherwise be considered a routine housing development.

At the center of this controversy lies the question: where do the boundaries between religious freedom and local governance begin and end?

The Vision Behind EPIC City

According to project leaders, EPIC City is intended to provide a safe and culturally welcoming space for Muslim families in Texas—a community designed to meet their social, spiritual, and educational needs. The concept is not without precedent. Similar ethnically or religiously oriented neighborhoods exist across the United States, from Orthodox Jewish enclaves in New York to Amish communities in Pennsylvania.

Developers argue that EPIC City is about lifestyle choice, not segregation. The design is based on creating a strong community support network while remaining compliant with zoning regulations and open to all residents, regardless of faith or background.

Despite this, some state leaders have sounded alarms.

Political and Legal Scrutiny

In recent months, Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton have launched investigations into the EPIC City initiative. Governor Abbott suggested that “no city in Texas should allow the establishment of a community governed by a different set of laws, including Sharia law.” Paxton, likewise, opened a civil investigation into the project, citing concerns over its religious nature.

At the federal level, Senator John Cornyn called for a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) probe into whether any federal housing laws may be violated by a religiously themed neighborhood development.

These actions have ignited concern among civil liberties groups and legal experts who warn that the state’s scrutiny could amount to religious profiling. There is no evidence that EPIC City seeks to replace U.S. or Texas law with Sharia law, and such suggestions, critics argue, perpetuate dangerous stereotypes about Muslims.

Religious Freedom and the Constitution

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. In the context of urban development, this means that religious organizations have the right to purchase land, build places of worship, and develop communities—so long as they comply with local regulations. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), enacted in 2000, further protects religious entities from discriminatory zoning laws.

Legal experts note that unless EPIC City violates specific zoning rules or environmental standards, targeting the project because of its religious affiliation could amount to a constitutional violation.

Omar Suleiman, a prominent Islamic scholar and civil rights advocate, said in a recent statement: “This is about the right of Muslims to live in peace and build communities, just like any other faith group in America.”

Community Reaction and Misinformation

Local responses to EPIC City have been mixed. While some residents have expressed concerns about infrastructure strain or the scale of the project, others have voiced outright hostility rooted in misinformation and Islamophobia. Social media posts and viral videos have falsely claimed that the city will be governed by Islamic law or that non-Muslims will be excluded—claims that EPIC leadership has categorically denied.

In an effort to combat false narratives, EPIC representatives have held town hall meetings, released public FAQs, and even hired high-profile legal counsel to ensure transparency and legal compliance.

Despite these efforts, the project remains under the microscope.

Urban Planning Through a Religious Lens

The controversy surrounding EPIC City raises a broader question: how should local governments and the public respond to religiously oriented urban developments?

The United States has a long tradition of religious communities carving out spaces that reflect their values—whether it’s Mennonite villages, Catholic parishes, or Buddhist retreat centers. In most cases, these communities coexist peacefully with their surroundings and contribute to the broader social fabric.

The key, urban planners argue, is inclusivity. Religious identity can be a foundation for community-building without becoming a mechanism for exclusion. If EPIC City follows zoning rules, complies with environmental regulations, and welcomes diverse residents, there should be no legal basis for opposition grounded purely in religious difference.

The Stakes Going Forward

If Texas authorities continue their probe based solely on EPIC’s religious affiliation, the case could escalate into a legal battle with national implications. At stake is not just the future of EPIC City, but the broader question of whether religious freedom can withstand the pressures of political rhetoric and cultural misunderstanding.

More than anything, the debate reflects the challenges of religious pluralism in 21st-century America. As Muslim communities grow in size and influence, their ability to shape local geographies—like any other group—will test the country’s commitment to the constitutional values it holds dear.

In the words of civil rights attorney Arif Panju, representing the developers, “This is a matter of principle. We are fighting to ensure that religious communities are treated equally under the law, without fear or prejudice.”

As the story of EPIC City unfolds, it may well become a defining case for religious liberty and urban development in modern America.