Your first article... and its about bashing Muslims.

So predictable by a 'Christian' group.

How about writing about the, at times, disgraceful hedonism of us westerners?!!

Thanks for the comment Savvas. It's not about Muslim bashing. There are lots of Muslims who do not support the promotion of Sharia Finance:
In his book ‘Islamic Banking – A $300 Billion Deception’ Muhammad Saleem not only dismisses the founding premise of Sharia and Islamic banking, but says, “Islamic banks do not practice what they preach: they all charge interest, but disguised in Islamic garb. Thus they engage in deceptive and dishonest banking practices.”Islamic economics, finance and management chairman of Rice University Mahmoud el-Gamal agrees.
I agree with many Muslims about the problems with Islamic finance - how is that 'Muslim bashing?'
I also agree with you about many of the social ills here in Australia - the question is - do we need any more issues to divide us?

>>they all charge interest, but disguised in Islamic garb. Thus they engage in deceptive and dishonest banking practices.<<

If their deceptive and dishonest practices breach Australian consumer law then they should be dealt with accordingly. But lots of companies engage in ethically dubious conduct while still operating within the bounds of the law - if Islamic banks can manage this then I can't see any reason to disallow them. Singling them out for special treatment just because they're Islamic is not very Christian.

Cheers,

Tony

It's not just because this finance is 'Islamic' - but because it claims to be inclusive yet actually promotes exclusivity and segregation. At a sharia finance practitioners conference in Melbourne this year non-Muslim banking was referred to as a 'contaminated river' that should never meet the pure streams of Islamic finance. It is fostering these attitudes toward others and suggesting that non-Muslims are 'unclean' - food, clothing and even their money - and that money must be 'laundered' by giving to Muslim only charity - I think these attitudes are not conducive to real integration and social harmony. I believe the philosophy and theology supporting this promotes further segregation and negative attitudes towards non-Muslims - also limiting options for Muslims who may feel pressured to only support Islamic banks. The more sharia compliant individuals and nations become, the less freedom there is. I have literally heard in lectures in Melbourne over the years leaders of the Muslim community telling them not to use 'infidel finance'. Why is it problematic to oppose this so that Muslims are freer to integrate?

Gee, Vickie. We are so lucky to have a banking system that is free of the charges that you lay at the door of Sharia.

"The claim to being a means of ethical investment begs the question 'whose ethics?'".

"Our" ethics of course include the lending of money to people who are not only unable to keep up the repayments, but are known not to be able to do so. And, by the way, in so doing, this ethical practice led directly to a collapse of confidence in the system that we have yet to recover from.

"The values undergirding sharia ethics itself are not consistent with the UN Declaration of Human Rights".

Ok, let's have a look at that a little more closely. Please point to a Western banking system that pays the slightest regard to the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Oh, that's right. They don't, do they.

"The prohibitions against investment in the pork and hospitality industries merely boycott legitimate Australian industries".

I suppose you are unaware, Vickie, that we have in our own banking system myriad selective investment strategies that involve discrimination of one kind or another. I am certain that among the various "Green Banks" and "Ethical Banks" you will find strategies that "boycott legitimate Australian industries".

Might I suggest that you take a closer look at your motives for this article, and are just the teensiest bit more honest with us about them?

Just a thought.

I believe many Christians would also refuse to wear a loan shark's jumper? Good on the bloke for having the courage of his philosophical convictions!
Sharia finance does not include interest payments, but makes its pre agreed and known returns, as a co investor?
If this is not always the case is not the fault of the philosophy, but those, who all too often, hide their evil intentions behind it!
If we would argue ethics in finance, then surely in a Christian based society, there ought to be a legislated upper ceiling on interest charges, to in effect, limit those charges!
[Did not the Christian Master take to the money changers with a whip, on the only reported occasion he completely lost his temper?]
Perhaps limited, via bipartisan support, to not more than 11% PA in actual total; which by the way, is top commercial rates and punitive for any business house!?
How could any inherently decent and ethical person, regardless of religious convictions or none, argue against that?
As for some SO_CALLED Islamic charities operating as a funding conduit for terrorist organizations, this news is as old as 9/11!
Rhrosty.

Hi Pericles

Thanks for your comment. I'm talking about the ethics of sharia law that openly discriminates against non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries...not just banking ethic per se - I agree, where there are people there will be corruption - no doubt.

But the worldview that sees others and legislates others as second class citizens is not something I believe our government should promote, which they are by the promotion of this product. The worldwide revival of sharia compliance around the world has been accompanied by a rise in persecution of non-Muslim minorities and Muslims who are viewed as 'not Muslim enough' by sharia standards. Why we would promote this?

Yes, there are many ethical investment options - but if we promote the idea that people themselves are 'unclean' through this type of activity - I think we can legitimately question the claim to ethics. Many Muslim scholars oppose this finance as an unnecessary burden on the Muslim community. And the idea that 'increase' is inherently evil - shouldn't that be up for discussion? Why would anyone invest with no expectation of a return? Isn't that keeping people in poverty? There are lots of legitimate issues around this that go to the question of promoting better integration.

Thanks Rhosty - yes I do believe people should be free to not wear insignia that offends their conscience. My point was that the chap in question didn't extend his objection to receiving a huge salary from an interest bearing account. I was suggesting this is a little hypocrtitcal. I've heard people demanding sharia finance as a necessity - yet they will receive Centrelink payments from interest bearing accounts - suggesting that taking money is ok but investing in non-Muslim banks or charities is not? Something to think about when claiming to be 'ethical'.
I'm not an economist to discuss limits on interest however I certainly support interest free loans for the very poor in order that they can startup a viable business to support themselves. There is some great work here in the Third world by Muslim and Non-Muslim alike.
Some terror organisations fronting as Islamic charities is just simply fact and there are convictions for this very thing - no conspiracy necessary.
Thanks again for the feedback.

No you are not, Vickie.

>>I'm talking about the ethics of sharia law that openly discriminates against non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries.<<

You're talking about Australia.

"...with promises of no interest and the concept of ethical investment being hailed as the greatest selling feature of Islamic sharia finance in Australia, perhaps it is worth considering both those claims."

If you were actually talking about "Muslim majority countries", you would be seen to propose that no country should be allowed to establish its own laws. The corollary of which is, of course, that they should all abide by Vickie's rules.

And ethics. Significantly, you did not choose to challenge my points about the ethics of our own banking systems.

And you are clearly inventing this stuff as you go along...

"But the worldview that sees others and legislates others as second class citizens is not something I believe our government should promote, which they are by the promotion of this product."

Where is our government promoting this product?

Pure fiction.

Even your opening example is poorly chosen.

"Such a strong stand by Cisse may seem a little ironic given his willingness to wear the previous shirts sponsored by Virgin Money".

If you cannot see the difference between Virgin Money and Wonga, then you clearly haven't done your homework. Even using their own example, Wonga's interest rate is astronomic.

http://www.wonga.com/money/is-this-apr-expensive/#

Did you see that number? 5853% APR. Would you wear the shirt that promotes usury at that level?

One more thing.

>>Why would anyone invest with no expectation of a return?<<

If this is the sum total of your understanding of Sharia finance, then you need to do some more research. Seriously.

Otherwise, you might just come across as an ignorant anti-Islamic bigot.

And you wouldn't want that, would you?

"...by the promotion of this product." Sorry, not sure what product this is?

But I trust in your honesty, Vickie, to report the breaches of finance regulations you've uncovered to the appropriate authorities.

Any and all Australian businesses and corporations in breach of our laws should be held to account. As should all Australian politicians as well as political and religious entities.

Much as this is a desirable ideal it's unlikely to happen more often in the future than in the past... more's the pity. So we are left with eternal vigilance to ensure that religion does not interfere with the laws of the land.

Inherent advantage or disadvantage based on wealth, class, creed or religion and enshrined in law should be abjured in a modern secular democracy. (Though many exclude Monarchy for some reason.)

I've no doubt you wouldn't 'cave to pressure or political correctness, or spin'. That is the position of your party? And less 'spin' in public discourse is to be applauded if we see it...

I'm not going to add further to the comments other than to say well done Vickie for responding to comments to your article.

This article is utter drivel.

The principles underpinning sharia financing are not some Trojan horse insinuating a universal caliphate into an unsuspecting western world. They is simply based on the idea that usury is wrong. For centuries, Christians believed much the same thing, and churches prohibited lending at interest.

Whatever delusions the Muslim Brotherhood may hold about “financial jihad”, they are not going to bring down western capitalism by refusing to lend us money.

It also deliberately confuses two separate issues – do the financiers of international terrorism use Islamic financial institutions (I image they would – I bet the IRA’s backers in the USA used western banks to transfer money, too) and are were Islamic financial institutions established to propagate terrorism, which of course is nonsense.

So let’s see…

Vickie opens with:
<<[it’s] a little ironic given [Papiss Cisse’s] willingness to wear the previous shirts sponsored by Virgin Money>>

And in response cops this from Pericles:
<< Wonga [charges] 5853% APR>>.
<<If you cannot see the difference…yada yada yada >>

It has obviously escaped Pericles notice that PC’s issue is not the rate of interest but its very existence--As Vickie tells us here:
<<His refusal to wear the payday loan firm's insignia is based on his belief that sharia does not allow Muslims to benefit from lending money>>
So no, Pericles, PC is not taking umbrage with rate gouging (Sharia is all for gouging!)..but his opposition is to the very existence of interest charges.

And it is as Vickie notes out of character. Now of course England is not a Sharia governed state , so one can still change or adopt religion at any time –so perhaps PC has suddenly found God, not an usual occurrence.

Another point Vickie has copped a beating on was the statement:
<<I'm talking about the ethics of sharia law that openly discriminates against non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries>>

Pericles claims:
<<You're talking about Australia>>
But given this:
<<Sharia ... transcends national boundaries and commercial law>>
It might well apply to Oz.
And given this:
<<Sharia compliant finance …[requires local partners/users to comply with its] body of religious law>>
It is not so outlandish to that it might seen to discriminate against non-Muslims.

And then there’s Rhian. She who accuses Vickei of <<confus[ing] two separate issues>>

Rhian immediately throws in the old IRA red herring.

<< I bet the IRA’s backers in the USA used western banks to transfer money, too>>

Yeh, well I --counter-bet-- it ain't legal either!

And then she gives us this assurance:

<<and Islamic financial institutions established to propagate terrorism, which of course is nonsense.>>
Which if I read it correctly –given it is a little hard to decipher -- is a iron-clad guarantee it does not occur.But of course she’d know –wouldn’t she?

A nice piece of obfuscation, SPQR. You haven't lost the knack, that's for sure.

The whole Cisse thing was a confection anyway. Vickie would have known all along that he decided back in July to wear the Wonga logo.

But you chose a tough assignment, defending Vickie on this one. She most specifically claimed:

<<I'm talking about the ethics of sharia law that openly discriminates against non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries>>

At which you manned the barricades with this waffle:

>>Pericles claims: "You're talking about Australia"
But given this:
"Sharia ... transcends national boundaries and commercial law".
It might well apply to Oz.<<

I leave it to sanity to demonstrate that Vickie on the one hand stated categorically that she was talking about "non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries", then contradicted that by highlighting "Islamic sharia finance in Australia". Couldn't be more obvious.

But the part you have managed to get so completely ass-about-face is the bit about "might well apply to Oz".

You are of course being totally delusional if you believe "Sharia ... transcends national boundaries and commercial law". It may well be active in different countries, sure. But in each of those countries - including Australia - it is beholden to the law of the land.

And this is typical of your confusion:

>>And given this: "Sharia compliant finance …[requires local partners/users to comply with its] body of religious law"
It is not so outlandish to that it might seen to discriminate against non-Muslims.<<

Whatever its religious foundations might be, Sharia finance does not contravene our laws. To take out a Sharia loan does not involve conversion to Islam. And - given that we have the free will to accept or reject the product - how can it possibly discriminate against non-Muslims? Where's the discrimination?

Quite simply, you are not making sense.

Hi Pericles

The truth is, at the time of writing the article, Cisse had not yet decided to wear the shirt - this article has being re-published since the time of writing - so at the time - no-one knew he would finally agree to wear it.

We must not confuse sharia law with sharia finance, but nevertheless, they are not unrelated. Sharia finance is the financial arm of sharia law which without doubt does discriminate against non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries. And here in Australia where we have begun to see sharia compliance in a number of areas - 'Muslim only swimming' (Coburg & Dandenong area for example) - we also openly see discrimination against non-Muslims. Why can't non-Muslim women join their fellow citizens in the water?

The truth is Pericles, according to research published by Australian legal academics Ann Black & Kerri Sadiq (2011 from memory) “ a system of legal pluralism based on sharia law abounds in Australia – endorsing polygamous and underage marriages outlawed under the marriage act". So it does indeed appear to be transcending national boundaries and Australian laws.

Where is the discrimination? My point was when a financial product is to be marketed as a new 'ethical investment' - and it's ethics are the primary selling feature - it is fair to question the ethics of the system from which it originates. It originates from Islamic religious scholars of sharia law - and sharia law is inherently discriminatory, challenging many people in the area of human rights. Women's rights activists were lobbying the Malaysian government earlier this year to address the child bride phenomenon in Malaysia. Unfortunately the government minister advised them there was nothing that could be done about it by the government because the issue related to sharia law.

This being the case - do we want to promote sharia anything? - this is my point.

"'Muslim only swimming' (Coburg & Dandenong area for example) - we also openly see discrimination against non-Muslims. Why can't non-Muslim women join their fellow citizens in the water?"

Unless you have something more recent than I could easily find, it seems that they can...

As reported by Australasian Leisure Management website from 25 July 2012:

"The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has allowed the City of Casey to continue women-only swimming sessions at its Casey Recreation and Aquatic Centre (C-RACE) in Narre Warren.

VCAT has allowed the Council a new exemption from anti-discrimination laws to continue the sessions at its YMCA-managed facility after the original exemption, obtained in 2008, expired.

In a recent VCAT hearing, the Council said that due to religious and cultural beliefs, Muslim women faced inequalities in terms of access to the pool during normal hours, stating "with the granting of the 2008 exemption, the women-only swimming program provided an opportunity to rectify that inequality."

The News.com website reported that the Council told VCAT that the program helped Muslim women integrate into Australian culture because there were cross-cultural exchanges with non-Muslims who also attended the sessions."

and ended:

"However, in a story 'Muslim women thrive with pool man ban', news.com reported conservative lobby group the Endeavour Forum as criticising the practice. News.com quoted Convenor Babette Francis as having said Muslims were promoting the subjugation of women by demanding separate swimming sessions."

Which seems odd because women only swimming sessions sounds more like subjugation of men to me.

more///

The Dandenong Leader reported this on 16 September 2010:

" DANDENONG’S mayor has called on residents to embrace a Muslim event at which people will be forced to cover up.

The event, to be held after hours at the public Dandenong Oasis pool on August 21, 2011, will require all participants older than 10 to follow a dress code of knee-length shorts and T-shirts.

Women and men attending the event, aimed at diverse backgrounds, will be required to cover their torsos, extending to the upper arms and from waist to knee.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal granted an exemption from the Equal Opportunity Act after an application was lodged by Victorian YMCA on behalf of itself and the City of Greater Dandenong.

A women’s only swim session has operated at Dandenong Oasis from 6.15pm to 8.15pm on Sundays for the past two years.

Greater Dandenong Mayor Jim Memeti said the women’s-only program had requested the council’s support to hold a “one-off community event for two hours to celebrate Ramadan ... in a culturally respectful manner”.

The cover-up order has drawn public ire as well as scorn from Islamic leaders.

But Cr Memeti said the one-off pool event was not focused on religion, but more so on families and friends getting together.

He said the group had asked for the dress code to make it easier on its members from countries with strict rules about male and female interaction.

“It’s fantastic to see these women opening their doors to anyone in the community,” he told Leader.

“The event is a good way for families, mainly partners and husbands to share two hours of fun at the pool.

“This is a one-off event for two hours.

“It’s a private group that uses the facility and thought it might be a good idea to have the event.”"

Sounds innocuous enough that even Catholic nuns could have attended, as long as they didn't wear bikinis.

even more///

Not everyone was happy though...

"Islamic women’s leaders also panned the order.

Islamic Women’s Welfare Council chairwoman Tasneem Chopra said she understood the intention to make the event inclusive, but stressed women should have the right to choose what they wore.

“We don’t, as women, appreciate being told what to wear,” she said.

“We do have concerns about setting a standard of dress code for the broader public when it comes to a public event.”

Islamic Council Victoria vice-president Sherene Hassan said her council also did not support the dress restrictions."

I know you addressed this comment to Pericles...

"So it does indeed appear to be transcending national boundaries and Australian laws."

but I thought you might be interested in this take on the issues raised:

"In their article, associate professor Sadiq and Ms Black note that research on Islamic marriage found in 2008 that 90 per cent of Muslims did not want to change Australian law.

They write that many Muslims support the protection of human rights and had come to Australia because of practices such as genital mutilation and honour killings in countries ruled by unreformed versions of sharia.

However, they suggest there should be "tweaking" of family law to take account of sharia.

They suggest that the Family Law Act could be changed to ensure that when courts make parenting orders Muslim children are given similar rights to those enjoyed by indigenous children.

This would require courts to consider they have a right to enjoy their own culture and the culture of people who share their culture.

Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland said if there was ever any inconsistency between cultural values and the rule of law "then Australian law wins out"."

- More at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sharia-law-at-work-in-australia/story-fn59niix-1226097889992#sthash.i6KZiLB0.dpuf

Are we promoting 'sharia anything' if it happens to be consistent with Australian law? I don't foresee Parliament House becoming an alcohol-banned zone anytime soon - even if that might be a good thing.

Thanks WM Trevor - the fact that groups seek Muslim only swimming was the issue - not female only. Lots of women have issues with showing their body publicly to the general male population. I was just giving an example of requests for Muslim only public space as an example of sharia compliance in another form. When I asked my Malay friend about this she confirmed she's never heard of it in Malaysia so the need for this religious segregation among women was rather odd and most Muslims wouldn't support it. So while I believe there still is Muslim only swimming in Coburg (am I'm happy to be corrected on that if this is not the case now) it is only those who are pushing for a more sharia compliant society that would push for this at all.
But as was highlighted by legal academics Anne Black and Kerri Sadiq - a system of legal pluralism abounds in Australia; their findings, not mine.
While we haven't moved to alcohol free parliament we do have pork free councils and public schools in Australia - in the name of diversity and inclusivity it's sharia compliant halal food for everyone.That's another issue - no bacon bits for kids with halal tuckshops. You're right - it's not against the law - it's just that freedom of choice for others is removed and this is to conform to sharia standards. No bacon bits is not quite as worrisome as the child marriage the poor Muslim women's groups in Malaysia are battling but nevertheless - it's all from the same body of law. That's why we're discussing the ethics; is sharia compliance really ethical according to Australian norms? Food for thought.

Interesting new twist, Vickie.

>>...at the time of writing the article, Cisse had not yet decided to wear the shirt - this article has being re-published since the time of writing<<

Did it not occur to you to update it before republication? I presume you were aware that it was to be republished, so the only conclusion is that you deliberately allowed it to go ahead, knowing that the first paragraphs - the entire lead-in - were fallacious?

And you need to expand on this, since you are repeating it here:

>>Sharia finance is the financial arm of sharia law which without doubt does discriminate against non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries<<

What form does this discrimination take? What are non-Muslims being deprived of? Wonga?

>>Why can't non-Muslim women join their fellow citizens in the water?<<

Apart from the fact that they can, you mean?

Elsewhere, we in Australia tolerate genuine discrimination:

"Fernwood Women's Health Clubs is a dominant player in the women’s-only fitness in Australia"

http://www.fernwoodfitness.com.au/franchising/

Can't get much more discriminatory than that.

Incidentally, I'd be interested in the source you sort-of refer to here:

>>...according to research published by Australian legal academics Ann Black & Kerri Sadiq (2011 from memory) “ a system of legal pluralism based on sharia law abounds in Australia<<

The only Black/Sadiq paper I could find for that year was this one:

http://sydney.edu.au/law/slr/slr_34/slr34_1/SLRv34no1SadiqandBlack.pdf

...which, interestingly, talks about Sharia finance.

"Islamic finance often uffers from the same misconceptions, particularly the mistaken belief that ‘Islamic finance is used to spread terrorism, that it is a vehicle to promote world domination of Islam over other faiths, or that it is designed to replace conventional financing.’"

Perhaps you would have written a more informed article, had you read this beforehand.

Hi Pericles
It's not as sinister as you imagine. I sent my sample article in - explained it was previously published - and it was republished. While details may be updated - the premiss has not changed. The Cisse example was just an example not the substance of the article.

Re swimming - no issue with female only swimming as I said - however we have a school curriculum available in all Australian schools that recommends we allow for 'Muslim only swimming' and this is something that has been promoted & introduced. Here's an excerpt from the school curriculum 'Learning from One Another;Bringing Muslim Perspectives into Australian Schools'. Page 51...
Swimming
Most Muslims recognise that swimming is an important life skill for all Australians, but some Muslim women in this country will not swim unless they can find an all female (and preferably all Muslim) pool. For schools, this poses a problem as swimming is often part of the PE curriculum.

As you can see - 'preferably all Muslim' is promoting exclusion and does indeed discriminate against non-Muslim girls/women. One would think that Muslim and non-Muslim women swimming together would be more preferable for social cohesion.

You can chase up the Black/Sadiq research mentioned yourself if you like - but it is mentioned in this article here:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sharia-law-at-work-in-australia/story-fn59niix-1226097889992

There is plenty of information out there for anyone who has researched the topic on Islamic charity and its connection to terrorism. But just to quote from the 2011 Australian Government AIC report "Money laundering and terrorism financing risks to Australian non-profit organisations' - which states: 'It has been suggested that the obligatory charitable donations of zakat represent the largest single source of (charitable) revenue diverted to terrorist groups (Rudner 2006)'
Some 27 Islamic charities have been designated as terror sponsors by the US Treasury Department - so it's not a random suggestion Pericles.

A good response Vickei but I'll wager it'll be like water off "a large duck like birds back".

And at the risk of being accused of being ob...ob...obobfussscatory ...once more into the breech.

As Vickie has stated:<< sharia law ... openly discriminates against non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries>>

And whether she intended it or not it might well be expanded to: [sharia law ... openly discriminates against anyone outside the Muslim ruling caste]

And since Trevor has kindly opened the thread up to Sharia generally I have dug up a couple of contras to Pericles contention that if it is agin our law it just ain't going to happen.

Here's a little article about the operation of Sharia courts in the UK :http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3682/uk-sharia-courts
It's finding is that there is "systematic discrimination...{against] women"

last I heard sex discrimination was illegal in the UK!

And here's one from the USA:http://shariahinamericancourts.com/
It finds that "Muslim American families [under Sharia courts are not getting] ... equal protection [and] the principles on which America was founded [are being betrayed].

Note in each of these it's at odds with domestic law.

And just to get back to Islamic finance -- 'cause I am sure that Pericles is going to wiggle that he was only talking about finance. Here's a little insight as to how Islamic finance might --in a underhanded sought of way --be discriminatory(according to our laws!)

It appears that Sharia financing is now moving into resort funding
http://www.shariahfinancewatch.org/blog/2009/05/04/whats-next-shariah-compliant-hotels-complete-with-zakat-payments-to-islamic-charities-and-eeoc-violations/
But there are a few conditions:
1)“Majority of staff [must be] of Muslim faith.”
2) Hotel staff must be segregated
3) and in house entertainment must be halal
And I wont even mention the piece about fund for holly wars--that would be un-prime-ministerial of me.

continued ->

Oh yes, just as a footnote--for all those who are still of the opinion that in the eyes of Sharia we are all one big happy family:

"In the April 9, 2002 issue, The Wall Street Journal published the concept of blood money in Saudi Arabia . If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation, as follow.

100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
50,000 riyals if a Christian man
25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman

According to this hierarchy, a Muslim man's life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman. This hierarchy is based on the Islamic definition of human rights and is rooted in the Quran and Sharia (Islamic law).
http://www.islam-watch.org/Taleb/Value-of-Human-Life-in-Islam.htm

Cheers

Correction:
"And I wont even mention the piece about fund for holly wars--that would be un-prime-ministerial of me."

Should read:
And I wont even mention the piece about fundING for holy wars--that would be un-prime-ministerial of me.

(and apologies for the other half dozen I missed)

If I didn't nit-pick & correct that it would be very un-Periclean of me!

"So while I believe there still is Muslim only swimming in Coburg (am I'm happy to be corrected on that if this is not the case now) it is only those who are pushing for a more sharia compliant society that would push for this at all."

All I can find from the City of Moreland (where Coburg is) that relates to this is:

"Fawkner Leisure Centre offers sessions to accommodate men and women who seek more private swimming and fitness.

Men’s only swimming
5.15 pm – 7 pm Saturdays
Men’s only swimming is available to male patrons of all ages. This includes use of the pools, spa, sauna and swimming lessons at an extra cost.

Women’s only swimming
3 pm – 5 pm Sundays
Women’s only swimming is available to all female patrons of the community (and boys 5 years and under). In this session there is no dress code, however it is expected that you wear appropriate swim attire. During these sessions, you’re able to come in and use the indoor pool, spa and sauna, without social pressures.

5 pm – 7 pm Sundays
This session is a private pool booking for our more modest women. It is run by the Fawkner Multi Cultural Group. During this session we enforce a strict dress code in our aquatic areas. This includes wearing the appropriate swimming attire and swimming headscarves."

Vickie, I have no idea if the last is open to any appropriately attired women... if it isn't, then it doesn't seem very 'multi cultural' of the group. So there is an opportunity for you to do your own research.

I find it more disturbing that even in the 'Men's only' session we are still expected to cope with social pressures.

So the real question might be re-directed to whether there should be private bookings... like schools do on Swimming Sports days.

Post-rationalization, of the weakest kind, Vickie.

>>The Cisse example was just an example not the substance of the article.<<

But it wasn't actually an example, was it. Well done. I'm sure your book is filled with equally compelling non-examples that are "not the substance" of the book.

And please, this is the worst kind of misrepresentation...

>>Here's an excerpt from the school curriculum 'Learning from One Another;Bringing Muslim Perspectives into Australian Schools'.<<

That report, as you well know (having issued your own response to it) is not "a school curriculum available in all Australian schools". It is purely a workshop document. It is not the curriculum of any school anywhere, nor the policy of any government or government agency.

>>You can chase up the Black/Sadiq research mentioned yourself if you like<<

You "quoted" from it. It is therefore up to you to find out whether it exists anywhere except in the Murdoch press.

I'll not bother to comment on your accusation that sharia finance is necessary to support terrorists. There are plenty of non-sharia means by which money can be laundered.

And rest assured, SPQR, I wouldn't dream of picking on your spelling. It is your logic that lets you down most.

As Vickie has stated:<< sharia law ... openly discriminates against non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries>>

But neither you nor Vickie can show how this manifests itself.

>>Here's a little article about the operation of Sharia courts in the UK<<

You missed this somewhat germane point that the article included:

"Sharia rulings are not legally binding"

Which undermines your fear-mongering just a tad, doesn't it.

>>It appears that Sharia financing is now moving into resort funding<<

But significantly, not in a non-Muslim country

And let's face it, hotels operating along those lines would not be particularly well patronized. Unless they took a wholly pragmatic view of sharia, as these folks have done:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/acehs-love-hotel-gives-sharia-the-cold-shoulder-20120408-1wj9k.html

>>just as a footnote--for all those who are still of the opinion that in the eyes of Sharia we are all one big happy family<<

Nice try to change the subject away from sharia finance. Fail.

HI Pericles

The Cisse example was an example actually; he did actually refuse to wear the shirt and consequently decided that his principles didn't extend to risking his place in the team and
losing his gi-normous salary. The fact that he agreed in the end does not negate his initial opposition on sharia grounds.

Yes, the Learning From One Another (LFOA) doc I quoted is a workshop document for the 'Muslim Perspectives Curriculum Project'...(note - curriculum project) which is available to all schools. If you want to read about the ones who have opted to include it you may read the follow up document 'Building Interfaith and Intercultural Understanding'..

http://www.acsa.edu.au/pages/images/Building_interfaith_and_intercultural_understandings_in_Aust.pdf

Thanks for highlighting the Black/Sadiq quote which may indeed be a misrepresentation by the press. I was quoting the paper's 'quote' in good faith. On reviewing the particular document I see this is mentioned in footnote 87 as an example of politicians 'one law for all mantras but please note the 'shadow legal system' reference below was an academic report rather than a media article:
Footnote 87 actually says Recent examples: Harry Callaghan, ‘Australian Muslim Women Choose to Live by Own Code’, The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 23 July 2011; Chris Merritt, ‘British Experiment a Warning on Sharia’ Law’, The Australian, (Sydney), 26 August 2011; Gary Rumain, ‘How Sharia is Really Working in Australia as a Shadow Legal System — Academic Report’, Courier Mail, (Brisbane),...

So apologies if I have misrepresented this - but nevertheless with Today Tonight and/or A Current Affair in recent months visiting sharia 'courts' in Sydney and the prevalence of polygamy and other unlawful practices alive and well in Australia - I don't believe the premise is wrong at all...post to be continued

Continued....
Discrimination from sharia determinations manifests in many ways - too many to even argue really. Sharia law is responsible for the deaths of many religious minorities in Pakistan accused - often falsely - of blasphemy. Consider this statement from the Sunday Age May this year re Pakistan's elections:
The million followers of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam - declared non-Muslims by the Pakistan government - were forced to sign a special declaration renouncing their beliefs in order to vote.
To quote Dr Qanta Ahmed on the Blasphemy law, this is 'legal abuse' ... to 'first silence, then punish any speech deemed blasphemous'....noting 'Islamist lawfare which imposes intolerant elements of sharia law on the framework of a westernised legal system'.

Some Muslims are fighting sharia law Pericles and some of us would like to see them freer to do that rather than validate laws that sanction human rights abuses. Sharia law does indeed discriminate against non-Muslims - who are not able to set foot in the 'Most Holy' city of Mecca at all just because they are not Muslims. Discrimiantion is at the core of teh segregation. Any one studying sharia law can attest to the discrimination - there are members of the British parliament trying to dismantle sharia courts in the Uk because they sanction discrimination against women and children in particular.

Sharia law not being legally binding in Australia - how can you suggest this undermines the argument? The threat of sharia hangs over many Muslim Australian citizens because we inadvertently sanction it under the guise of being culturally tolerant. Girls are shipped off from schools to be married - some have the threat of FGM to contend with (we have federal and state funding to educate about FGM so it's obviously a real issue). And others have to deal with polygamy because it religiously sanctioned while Australian law is ignored. Ignoring this because 'it's not legally binding' is turning a blind eye to abuse

At least we now are completely clear, Vickie, that this discussion is not about sharia finance at all, despite the sub-heading:

"Islamic Banks…are the life-line of Wahhabi insurgency... without them terror-donations could not reach the end users scattered around the world".

Which is garbage. We know that money can be laundered into terrorist bank accounts a thousand ways, without ever touching an Islamic Bank.

Your lead-in example was pure showmanship.

>>The fact that he agreed in the end does not negate his initial opposition on sharia grounds.<<

Of course it does.

Meanwhile, this is not even vaguely relevant:

>>If you want to read about the ones who have opted to include it you may read the follow up document<<

Not one of the schools mentioned has adopted the curriculum itself. Nor has any of them included plans for "Muslim only swimming", which you earlier declared "is something that has been promoted & introduced"

You just keep on inventing stuff, don't you.

>>Thanks for highlighting the Black/Sadiq quote which may indeed be a misrepresentation by the press.<<

And thanks for confirming that your primary sources are the Murdoch press...

>>The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 23 July 2011... The Australian, (Sydney), 26 August 2011... Courier Mail, (Brisbane)<<

...and those paragons of probity and accuracy...

>>...with Today Tonight and/or A Current Affair in recent months visiting sharia 'courts' in Sydney<<

This is the nub, I reckon.

>>Sharia law not being legally binding in Australia - how can you suggest this undermines the argument?<<

All religions have rules that have force only within the ranks of their faithful. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to allow their children blood transfusions, even when their lives are at stake. Many Christian sects refuse to allow legal abortions, even when the pregnancy is the result of rape, or threatens the woman's life. So you need to be honest with yourself, and admit that your personal stand against Islam is based wholly and solely upon your own religious proclivities.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. It's only an issue when you try to pretend otherwise.

Thanks Pericles. I think anyone reading the article should have come to the conclusion that it was not about finance per se, but about ethics. As I have repeatedly said, the claim of those introducing this product (sharia finance) is that it is 'ethical finance'. I was testing those claims by pointing out that sharia compliance does not actually meet most Australians standards of ethics - yet is being promoted by both state and federal government ministers as ethical finance. (And yes, I was at the conference where ministers endorsed sharia finance). Sharia finance claims that there is no interest. Apart from raising the question of why interest is 'unethical' anyway, it is clear that the cost of banking appears to be renamed as interest or fees and is exactly the same, if not greater, than the going interest rates.
Then there's the ethics of promoting sharia compliance at all - ie compliance to another legal system that is inherently discriminately. You seem happy to overlook all these things.The fact that 'money can be laundered other ways' does not make this way anymore 'ethical'.
Re your suggestion that no schools have adopted the curriculum: Quote from the link I gave you: 'This resource has emerged from the Learning from One Another project, which has, to date, delivered teacher professional learning workshops and an accompanying resource to over 500 teachers nationally...With a large number of teachers now having participated in the Learning from One Another workshops, this publication has been developed to supplement and broaden the program. The case studies enable us to assess how the program objectives have been implemented in various schools and also provide a rich sharing opportunity for educators'...(usually 'implemented' means 'adopted'). And usually when a training manual says 'preferably' Muslim only swimming - this could be considered as promoting Muslim only swimming; that's what a preference is. To be continued...

Continued...I wouldn't say my primary sources are the Murdoch Press Pericles - though I wouldn't expect something presented as a quote in the paper to not be a quote at all. My primary source on this subject has been the lectures I have attended - general lectures on 'sharia in the region' by those who co-authored the curriculum project (NCEIS) and specific lectures dealing with the subject - most recently addressing sharia finance practitioners. Interesting that little facts like filmed sharia courts in Sydney are not worthy of your consideration either.
You are right - we should stand against those who refuse children blood transfusions, we should do all we can to assist every life and we should therefore not sit silently while ideas that foster segregation and discrimination are disseminated in Australia. You are also right that my worldview influences how I understand these issues - just as yours does Pericles. That's why we are having this discussion.

Word count and 4 post limits, Vickie, prevented me from tacking this on earlier...

"That's why we're discussing the ethics; is sharia compliance really ethical according to Australian norms?"

As long as we have S.116 in the Constitution it is, Vickie... as is your, or any adult's, ethical right to non-compliance with it.

With that, though, comes the over-riding requirement of compliance with Australian law.

@Pericles & co,

So it seems we have made some progress. We have established that there is discrimination by Sharia institution’s, namely the Sharia courts in the UK & the US.

And as a result Pericles & co have fallen back to their second line of obfuscation --YES BUT. Their position is now: it happens YES, BUT it is not legally binding.

But before I start to attack this –let me respond to the comment: <<You missed this somewhat germane point that the article included: "Sharia rulings are not legally binding">>

Well no, I didn’t actually, I saw it and I even prepared a comment but later thought: shucks let Pericles pick-up on it first - anyway here is that reasoned response:

What does “not legally binding” mean in this context?
It means that the wronged party is permitted to ignore the Sharia courts ruling, and walk away.

But we need to ask: what would be the consequences ?

If you are self supporting and a secularist like Pericles not the slightest bother. But imagine the consequences for a Muslim woman coming from a close knit community when trying on this caper?

She could only walk away from it if she wants to be disowned by her family.She could only walk away if she wants to be cast off by her community. And let us not forget what issues are at stake –it ain’t access to some esoteric priesthood –it ain’t membership of some sports club. It involves core life issues like access to children and family assets.

She not be put in such a position she should have confidence that the Sharia courts decision will be FAIR.

And once more, to say she should just walk away runs counter to both the letter & spirit of all the antidiscrimation legistation, in much of the Western world.

Continued ->

So that is discrimination within NON-MUSLIM MAJORITY states.
But what of discrimination within MUSLIM MAJORITY states?

I cannot believe you are still asking:<<As Vickie has stated: sharia law ... openly discriminates against non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries But neither you nor Vickie can show how this manifests itself.>>

Tell me you're joshing?
Go ask the Egyptian Copts if they think they get an equal go
Go ask the Pakistani Christians if they are treated fairly
Go ask the Kenyans who heard the terroist gunman say
"Muslims can go free" the rest we intend to kill!

Well written article. Couldn't agree more ...

The non muslim 'apologists' mostly have no idea about the contempt in which they are held as foul 'unbelievers' and 'infidel'

This seems to be going around in circles a little,so maybe I can summarize a little.

We agree that the discussion is not about sharia banking, despite the title and the lead-in.

>>...anyone reading the article should have come to the conclusion that it was not about finance per se, but about ethics<<

But Vickie, you used the banking system to highlight the lack of ethics, did you not.

>>I was testing those claims by pointing out that sharia compliance does not actually meet most Australians standards of ethics<<

So let's take a look at this bugbear of yours.

"A discussion paper by the Board of Taxation refers to five main features of Islamic economics, as set out by market intelligence organisation Standard & Poor’s: interest must not be charged; uncertainty in contractual terms is forbidden; financing of industries deemed unlawful by sharia – such as weapons, pork or gambling – is prohibited; parties to a financial transaction must share in the risks and rewards; and each transaction must be based on a tangible, identifiable asset."

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2010/december/1294083136/sally-neighbour/way-watering-hole

Where is the shortfall of ethics here? Instead of interest payments, there is an agreed position on profit/loss-sharing, while "forbidden" investment areas are also present in our own society in various "Green Banks" and "Ethical Banks".

But while we disagree on the ethics of finance, we do agree that using random "quotes" from dubious sources is a pretty poor show:

>>Thanks for highlighting the Black/Sadiq quote which may indeed be a misrepresentation by the press.<<

We also agree that the examples of Islamic curricula in schools is a figment of your imagination.

>>"The case studies enable us to assess how the program objectives have been implemented in various schools "<<

This is a fig-leaf for the fact that there are absolutely no examples of the curriculum being adopted, only that "[t]he Learning from One Another project... has, to date, delivered teacher professional learning workshops and an accompanying resource to over 500 teachers nationally"

So 500 attended the workshops. And none has implemented the curriculum. Sounds like a pure beat-up to me.

Shortfall of ethics Perciles...let me see...The “highest regulatory bodies” mentioned in the sharia finance forum I attended in Melbourne were the Fiq Academy of the OIC and Bahrain based Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI).

Both these bodies have renowned sharia scholar Mufti Taqi Usmani in common. Usmani is a permanent member of the Fiq Academy and International Chairman of the AAOIFI. According to the National Review, Investors Business Daily, the Washington Times and numerous online articles, Usmani has issued fatwahs (ie legal decrees) demanding that Muslims living in the West conduct or support violent jihad against infidels at every opportunity.In Usmani’s book "Islam and Modernism" the Pakistani cleric wrote “Killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay jizyah (subjugation tax) after they are humbled or overpowered”. This was translated from his native Urdu into English in 2006.

Usmani is an advocate for spreading sharia law in America and the West and the aim of Muslims, he wrote, is to “take out people from the rule of people and put them under the rule of Allah.” Submission to sharia compliance certainly achieves that.

According to the Washington-based Center for Security Policy Usmani has run a Pakistani madrassa, which has trained thousands of Taliban. Due to such allegations, Dow Jones no longer employs Usmani. However, it seems he is still the chairman of the regulatory board Dr Elgari referred to as the “highest regulatory board” – the one offered as an umbrella organization guiding investment in Australia - AAOIFI.
In Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld's report regarding the American International Group (AIG) sharia advisory board she notes the AIG case study where investment in western weapons and defence is forbidden whereas investment in Muslim weapons and defence is not. (A tad discriminatory perhaps?)
Re the LFOA - surely implementing workbook recommendations may be considered adopting the curriculum recommendations - to say otherwise is ignoring it's recognition by those in the follow up document provided.

By the way, SPQR, we are talking about sharia law here, not the ongoing battles between Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyya, Sufi, Wahhabi etc.

>>Go ask the Egyptian Copts if they think they get an equal go
Go ask the Pakistani Christians if they are treated fairly
Go ask the Kenyans who heard the terroist gunman say
"Muslims can go free" the rest we intend to kill!<<

We know, of course, that there are a number of terrorist groups who rejoice in killing "others" - including, of course, Christians - but you cannot lay the blame for this at the feet of sharia. Sharia financing, as we know, does not permit investment in armaments, so it cannot itself be held responsible for the support of terrorism.

I guess it is a bit like Northern Ireland. Do you blame the recent half-century of Troubles on Christianity, or on the schism that exists within Christianity between Protestants and Catholics? Was Christianity itself responsible for the burning at the stake of 300 Protestants by Mary I of England, or the execution under Elizabeth I of Jesuits at Tyburn?

I would also bet that the mechanism by which money was transferred from the piggy-banks of Bostonians into the bank accounts of the various IRAs was totally legal. One of these vehicles was NORAID, which openly supported the IRA, while pretending that donations to it were for "humanitarian aid". I'm reasonably certain that a "charity" of this kind would have been under intense scrutiny back then, and would most definitely have made sure it conformed to all banking laws. In the same way, money might be channeled through Islamic banks to terrorists, but the system itself cannot be blamed.

You personally might not like some broader aspects of sharia law, in the same way that you might not approve of many aspects of Australian law - say, on abortion, gambling, pornography etc. But you don't actually have to comply with sharia, do you. Just Australian law.

But please, do keep frothing away. It is both instructive and entertaining.

Great, Vickie, that looks like one more thing we can agree upon.

>>Shortfall of ethics Perciles...let me see...The “highest regulatory bodies” mentioned in the sharia finance forum I attended in Melbourne were the Fiq Academy of the OIC and Bahrain based Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI)Both these bodies have renowned sharia scholar Mufti Taqi Usmani in common. Usmani is a permanent member of the Fiq Academy and International Chairman of the AAOIFI. According to the National Review, Investors Business Daily, the Washington Times and numerous online articles, Usmani has issued fatwahs (ie legal decrees) demanding that Muslims living in the West conduct or support violent jihad against infidels at every opportunity...<< etc. etc. ad naus.

Clearly, from your decision to talk about the actions of individuals, rather than the system itself, we can agree that there is nothing unethical in sharia finance whatsoever. So all that waffle about "Sharia finance involves a theological proposition" bears absolutely no scrutiny - it's just a lot of hot air.

You just don't like Islam, do you.

Which is your right, of course, we don't all have to like the same things. But if you are going to be critical in a public forum, it is kinda important that you actually present your case logically and factually. Referring us to the pronouncements of people, rather than focussing on the reality of the financial transactions relevant to your case against sharia banking, simply confirms that you have picked the wrong target.

Have another look at the mechanics of sharia finance, and tell us, specifically, where it lacks ethics.

Please Pericles - a sharia advisory board that can appoint a radical like Usmani as its chair to direct sharia compliant investments - this clearly shows the nature of sharia itself. This is apparently the highest regulatory board so imagine with these ethics what will be considered ethical investments...(I've already given you the example of investment in weapons being ok as long as they weren't non-Muslim weapons)
It's sharia I clearly 'don't like' - and this is because it is inherently discriminately. Sharia finance lacks ethics because its basic premise is that anything other than Islamic finance is 'contaminated'. (And that's straight from the sharia educators presentation to practitioners in Melbourne.)

You still seem to confuse principles with implementation, Vickie.

>>...a sharia advisory board that can appoint a radical like Usmani as its chair to direct sharia compliant investments - this clearly shows the nature of sharia itself<<

It would appear that it is not sharia finance itself that you object to, but Mr Usmani's direction of it. In the same way that many object, say, to the influence wielded by a Greenspan or a Bernanke over our system.

You make it even clearer with this:

>>I've already given you the example of investment in weapons being ok as long as they weren't non-Muslim weapons<<

A close parallel, don't you think, would be the USA's preference for supplying weapons to one particular side of a foreign conflict. Discriminatory, yes. But not the fault of the banking system.

>>Sharia finance lacks ethics because its basic premise is that anything other than Islamic finance is 'contaminated'<<

I guess you don't accept that a banking system which supports the supply of drugs to our children is also "contaminated", in its own way?

Pericles,

<<By the way, SPQR, we are talking about sharia law here, not the ongoing battles between Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyya, Sufi, Wahhabi etc.>>
Indeed, so where did I mention Sharia in relation to the above --care to point it out?

My issue was more with Sharia’s impact on Muslim women generally (in the UK & US) and non-Muslims in Muslim majority states--It's actually quite telling that you found our evidence of such discrimination quote: "entertaining"!

<<We know, of course, that there are a number of terrorist groups who rejoice in killing "others"…- but you cannot lay the blame for this at the feet of sharia. Sharia financing…>>
Ah but we can--& should. To a large extend we can blame Sharia, because as pointed out by Vickie (numerous times now!) Sharia financial institutions have been used to fund such groups --they have been caught doing so.

I surmise your unwillingness to grasp this point stems from your belief that Islam is little different to any other “modern” belief system. You thinking going something like this:
--There are good and bad in all...yada yada
--The badness in Islam is all about a few bad guys get it wrong...yada yada
--Most Muslim live peacefully --that proves it ...yada yada

But if this is so, how is it that bad guys from Nigeria, Somalia, Iran, Indonesia and beyond all CONSISTENTLY come up with the same idea: that to kill and subjugating non-Muslims was a sure fire way to heaven?

You suggest --just coincidence.
I suggest-- it's built into Islam's DNA.

Islam requires its adherents to fund and support holy war. Just the other day the ABC was quoting Yemeni tribesmen as saying they needed to side with Al-Quada because it was waging a holy war.

Continued -->

Now no doubt, at this point you’ll start harking on about voilence being not unique to Islam. Your already used your favourite red herring the IRA, and no doubt with a little prompting you'll cherry pick a few abortion clinic bombings in the US and perhaps even stoop to citing GW Bush's having had God tell him to go to war.But you –IF YOU ARE FAIRDINKUM-- you will not find in any other modern religion which inspires/condones such daily acts of violence as we see in/from Islam. Not just a few isolated bad acts, by few people professing to be Muslims--but systemic fault.

But, heck, I don't blame you entirely --I blame Dr Pavlov --its his fault that everytime you hear the word Islam mentioned in criticsm you start to growl & salivate.

Now you're getting it Pericles...slowly. No I wouldn't accept a banking system that constitutionally allowed for the supply of drugs to children. The thing is - while it may happen it actually isn't sanctioned as ethical by our banks. And we call our banks to account for corruption, mis-represntation and laundering etc. Can you not see the difference?
Lots of heads are rolling off shoulders around the world in all sorts of conflicts - but sharia law actually sanctions this as a legal punishment - the head of a woman removed within the past 12 months in Saudi for the alleged crime of 'witchcraft'. If there are other legal systems that sanction this also - I would also oppose them.
Siding with one side of a conflict is not the same argument at all Pericles. The ethical premise behind not investing in non-Muslim weapons and defence is that they are all the presumed infidel enemy. That's not even weighing up a conflict but a predetermined ethical premise about the status of non-Muslims.
You are also overlooking completely the mis-represntation of 'no interest' when this is veiled as fees, rental or profit - the same cost of banking (if not more as some argue) is not making this financial product 'more ethical'. It's simply a sham.

>>No I wouldn't accept a banking system that constitutionally allowed for the supply of drugs to children. The thing is - while it may happen it actually isn't sanctioned as ethical by our banks.<<

Except for all those strong psychoactive drugs that Big Pharmaceutical supply to young children. Some people think that Big Pharmaceutical's business is quite unethical and might consider Western finance 'contaminated' by association.

I think Big Pharmaceutical do far more good than harm and I don't consider it an unethical investment. But how many Western financial institutions finance Big Tobacco? They're all contaminated.

>>And we call our banks to account for corruption, mis-represntation and laundering etc.<

Do you really think that APRA and ASIC are just going to turn a blind eye to Islamic banks getting up to mischief? Australian financial institutions are bound by Australian corporate and financial law. If they breach those laws they are liable for prosecution regardless of which code of ethics guides their investment policies.

>>the head of a woman removed within the past 12 months in Saudi for the alleged crime of 'witchcraft'. If there are other legal systems that sanction this also - I would also oppose them.<<

Is execution by beheading really any more barbaric than execution by other methods? Is it OK for the state to kill criminals by lethal injection but not by beheading? Which methods of execution are morally acceptable and why? Which are not and why?

>>You are also overlooking completely the mis-represntation of 'no interest' when this is veiled as fees, rental or profit - the same cost of banking (if not more as some argue) is not making this financial product 'more ethical'.<<

If there is full disclosure of all fees costs, fees, charges etc. (whether they're called 'interest' or not) I can't really see any problem. If there are hidden costs then it might be a 'sham' requiring the attention of the courts but it's more likely to just be the same sort of virtuous practice that our ethical Western financial institutes get up to: burying all the costs in print so fine you need an electron microscope to read it. Completely legal but still slightly dodgy.

The devil is in the details.

Cheers,

Tony

@Tony,

<<Is execution by beheading really any more barbaric than execution by other methods...>

Good ol' one-eyed Tony. He can always be relied on to miss the point.
Did you have a geeza at what she was charged with, Tony?

If you have not got the message by now, you never will.
Islam is not about joining with us it is about establishing a parallel
society, increasing its size until they reach the point where they can
give the same ultimatum to us that they have given to many others;

Become Moslem, migrate or die !

Once again, Vickie, you are confusing the rules with the implementation.

>>No I wouldn't accept a banking system that constitutionally allowed for the supply of drugs to children.<<

But you do.

There is nothing in the rules about our banking system that prevented money for terrorists leaving Boston and reaching the IRA. In fact, you could say that the system actively encourages it, simply through its impersonal, mechanistic nature. In the same way that our system allowed funding the IRA to happen – legally, constitutionally – it can be, and is being, used for criminal ends.

Similarly, if you were to set up a Christian Bank, one that actively controlled the movement of money, and refused, for example, to allow money to reach bank accounts of which you disapprove, there is nothing to stop you. You could say that such activity is “constitutionally allowed”, and defend it with your own brand of ethics. Just as there are investment funds who refuse to accept deposits from tobacco companies, or coal mines.

Using a financial system – any financial system – as a vehicle for investment in weapons, or drugs, or an abortion clinic – is not at all the same as “taking sides” regarding weapons, drugs or abortion. The system itself is entirely neutral. The reality is that some people use it to build houses, while some use exactly the same system to blow them up.

And you need to pick better examples:

>>You are also overlooking completely the mis-represntation of 'no interest' <<

You entirely misunderstand the “no-interest” concept.

Many of the current rash of “pay-day loan” operations – Cash Train is a good example, but by no means the only one - operate on the same no-apparent-interest basis. You borrow an amount, for a particular length of time, and the repayment figure is offered. If you look at the fine print, you will see the Cash Train Comparison rate, but you won't be able to simply ask for, say, $1,000 at 5%.

It doesn't work that way. Nor does sharia lending work that way. Each is entirely “constitutional”.

Get real Pericles - you say "There is nothing in the rules about our banking system that prevented money for terrorists leaving Boston and reaching the IRA"...
Funding terrorism is a both morally wrong and a crime. Full stop. Yet funding 'jihad' is theologically speaking - from a sharia compliance perspective - a legitimate use of 'charity'. (zakat) While it may still be a crime from our perspective, this is where the ethics differ. No one is suggesting that non-Muslims are better people Pericles - we are talking about legal systems that differ greatly in how they define activities, and human rights. All people will be better off without imposing sharia compliance.
Perhaps using the word 'constitutional' has confused you. According to sharia law norms, discriminating against non-Muslims is fundamentally ok. Racial and religious discrimination is not normally accepted by most Australians as ethical. My Muslim friend doesn't want us endorsing it - she doesn't want to share her husband with another wife which is from a sharia law perspective, quite ok. Can't you see what this is promoting? It is simply sanctioning a parallel legal system and minorities within minorities (women) will inevitably suffer for our 'tolerance' of this.

>>All people will be better off without imposing sharia compliance.<<

I'd certainly have a hell of a time of it - financial stuff makes my head spin. What chance would I have if I had to learn a whole new system? Thankfully the first suggestion I've ever seen of sharia compliance being imposed is in your sentence which I've just quoted. Nobody is going to impose sharia compliance on the Australian financial sector so you can breathe easy: you'll still be able to pay interest to the bank of your choice.

>>My Muslim friend<<

You don't have to lie Vickie.

>>doesn't want us endorsing it - she doesn't want to share her husband with another wife which is from a sharia law perspective, quite ok.<<

Which has what do with sharia finance? Which, after all, was the topic of your article. This would appear to be an argument against sharia marriage law - there's nothing wrong with opposing sharia marriage law but it's not a sound argument against sharia finance.

Cheers,

Tony

@Tony,

<<I'd certainly have a hell of a time of it - financial stuff makes my head spin. What chance would I have if I had to learn a whole new system?>>

You don't have to worry Tony. They wouldn't be interested in employing old infidels like you

Tony - you said "Nobody is going to impose sharia compliance on the Australian financial sector so you can breathe easy: you'll still be able to pay interest to the bank of your choice".
True, I'll still be able to do that - but there will be pressure on the Muslim community to only support Islamic finance and they will be deceived that they are not paying interest and the idea that infidels are unclean will be reinforced by the rejection of things 'un-Islamic'; not real good for social harmony.

'My Muslim friend' - hard for you to comprehend perhaps but she is actually one of my closest friends. A Malay Muslim, well acquainted with sharia laws and also the injustice it affords non-Muslims; something she has seen a lot of. She is an educated woman with a law degree who was employed both with the UN and in the political realm. Women fighting for a fair go - I mentioned earlier that recognition of sharia laws in Malaysia don't allow Muslim womens rights groups to have any success lobbying against child marriage...or the right to marry people of their choice like non-Muslims - sharia makes marriage to a non-muslim man illegal for Malay women - but lets just keep pretending sharia is OK.
What has all this to do with finance you ask? Sharia finance is the financial arm of sharia law from which its ethics (the main feature in the marketing of this finance) is derived.

I have tried to explain it using terms you might understand, Vickie, but I clearly have failed. Mea Culpa.

>>Get real Pericles - you say "There is nothing in the rules about our banking system that prevented money for terrorists leaving Boston and reaching the IRA"<<

I did say that. And I stand by what I said. The banking system that we use every day, is also used - every day - by people performing illegal activities.

Your rebuttal?

>>Funding terrorism is a both morally wrong and a crime. Full stop.<<

It is certainly morally wrong.

But there was nothing intrinsically criminal in remitting money from Boston to Belfast, from one legitimate bank account to another legitimate bank account. Only when it turns out that the money was used to supply the bullets that took off sundry kneecaps, or to buy explosives from Libya so that a handful of soldiers' children could go without a father, does the money suddenly become "funding terrorism".

Here's another point where you part company with logic:

>>...we are talking about legal systems that differ greatly in how they define activities<<

The legal system under which finance is carried out in this country is Australian law. As such, any ethics that you choose to adopt are outside this framework, as I have tried to illustrate in a number of different ways. Consumer rights are protected, and no-one is imposing anything on anyone who is not willing to accept that imposition. Green Investments, for example, are a case study in discrimination, one that "boycotts legitimate Australian industries", to use one of your phrases.

Sharia finance, per se, is a stand-alone system of borrowing and lending. One that has its roots in a different culture, and therefore has different baseline assumptions about both the lender and the borrower. It is, as a result, highly unlikely to take root in our environment.

Social coercion, to which you keep returning, is an entirely separate issue. If that is what you intended to talk about, I'm afraid you used the wrong example when you picked on finance.

Pericles,

This brief question and answer/ FAQ approach might help you get your head around things.
(in the good tradition of follow the money –follow the Zakat)

Why are special Muslim financial institutions needed ?
Because Sharia commands it .

What other things does Sharia command?
A good Muslim must pay a Zakat/tax.

What is the Zakat used for?
There are eight permissible uses for such funds
1.the poor
2.the needy,
3.collectors of Zakah,
4.reconciliation of hearts,
5.freeing captives / slaves(fee al-Riqab),
6.debtors
7.in the Way of Allah / Islamic causes (fee sabeel illah)
8.the traveler.

What does point 7 : “in the way of Allah” mean?

(We went to an online Muslim charity for the answer: http://muttaqun.com/zakat.html)

“ In the Cause of Allaah: This refers to Jihaad in the Cause of Allaah. So those who fight in Jihaad should be given a portion of the Zakaat that will suffice them for their Jihaad and enable them to buy the necessary tools for Jihaad in the Cause of Allaah.

You mightn’t like it – and it mightn’t sync with you Mary Poppins view of the world –but it’s the reality .

Cheers

Thanks SPQR - it really is that straight forward. This is what I meant about sharia finance fundamentally endorsing this activity - whereas other banks that may be used for this purpose do not fundamentally endorse this.
You can't sell a product based on it being an 'ethical' investment and expect to avoid addressing what the ethics are all about. Fundamentally, they are about not contaminating the Islamic with the un-Islamic. Is this really something that our government should be committing to invest in? These sharia advisory boards directing ethical investments are religious scholars making decisions based on sharia religious ethics - not just financial law Pericles. They're committed to move funds from main stream banks to Islamic banks purifying it through 'zakat' on the way. We've just seen what that includes.

"Thanks SPQR - it really is that straight forward. " "We've just seen what that includes."

Just think this through, Vickie.

If it really is that straight forward, must we conclude that you are closest friends with "A Malay Muslim, well acquainted with sharia laws..." who is a sponsor of terrorism through Zakat?

Maybe she could inform readers here by considering an article on the issues faced by someone of the same faith as the official state religion? A situation not confronted by us in Australia.

Whilst we are waiting for Islam to continuing sinking under the weight of its internal contradictions do you care to detail exactly what it is our government is doing?

"Is this really something that our government should be committing to invest in?"

You appear to have great difficulty understanding the simplest concepts, Vickie. How on earth you can set yourself up as some kind of authority on Islam-in-Australia is a mystery.

>>This is what I meant about sharia finance fundamentally endorsing this activity - whereas other banks that may be used for this purpose do not fundamentally endorse this<<

You are confusing two situations, as I have tried to explain to you a number of times, without success.

In your logic, our banking system "fundamentally endorses" the passage of money from Boston charities to IRA bank accounts. The fact that it does not go out of its way to say "here, this is how you help terrorists buy weapons" does not negate the simple fact that it does, in fact, do exactly this. If you see this as unethical, why are you not protesting equally vehemently about it?

Oh, right. Because our system of supporting terrorists is more ethical than theirs, is that right?

You should try to ignore the diversions that SPQR uses to draw your attention away from these simple-to-understand, basic facts.

>>What other things does Sharia command?<<

He is only doing this because he has run out of arguments against sharia finance. A true sign of desperation. If you can't win, move the goalposts.

If you are determined to see evil wherever you look in Islam, that's fine. It leaves you in danger, though, of losing all perspective on every issue, which is not at all a good look. As a possible antidote, you might at some point - just as an exercise, you understand - apply the same level of one-eyed, look-only-for-bad-stuff scrutiny to our own banking systems.

"spiralling speculation in food markets is driving up the cost of food out of reach of the world’s impoverished"

http://www.szdaily.com/content/2012-01/09/content_6375944.htm

"As banks... use other people's money... a decline of 26 percent in housing values can easily eliminate both the homeowner's equity and the bank/financial institution's own capital."

http://worldhunger.org/articles/09/editorials/vanderslice.htm

Arjay's a pretty good example of this nabob-of-negativity approach, if you need some guidance.

WM Trevor - Our government has committed to invest in and facilitate sharia finance. A speech by Bernie Ripoll (Parliamentary Sec to the Treasurer) espoused all the benefits of sharia finance including this statement:
"To further develop Islamic finance in Australia, we are committed to reviewing some of the systems we have in place, and working to ensure that there are no barriers for new entrants to the market." (ie lets make our taxation laws more sharia compliant because we don't want any barriers to sharia finance)...It is this premise that some are disputing.

You're right Pericles - I am not an expert on Islam - just a person democratically voicing opinions shared by many Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Nevertheless, I have been asked to address a number of groups and write for a number of publications. (eg Free the Copts have included a short chapter I authored).

All laws can be used and misused - but sharia law calls 'unlawful' what we call 'lawful' (freedom of religion, freedom of speech replaced with apostasy & blasphemy laws) and 'lawful' things we call 'unlawful' (child marriage, polygamy etc). Therefore this muddies the ethics we're talking about and inadvertently promotes what many consider human rights abuses. Are you are ok with children being married off because of sharia laws that won't protect them in Malaysia and inadvertently undermining Australian law by sanctioning any sharia as 'ok' here? People who promote sharia law do not always have regard for Australian law unless it happens to line up with sharia. Australian law is important and sharia finance fosters allegiance to another law, another system; a foreign and religious law. It is finance veiled in another legal system.
Have we corruption and greed in our banking system? Yes - where there are humans there is corruption. But the AIG example cited earlier denied Americans the option of investing in American weapons and defence but not Muslim weapons, not charities that include 'jihad'. National unity is important or else we will create the same 'two state solution' we see arising wherever calls for sharia are heard.

Thanks, Vickie... you mean the speech to Amanie Australia Islamic Finance Forum on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 that included these paragraphs?

"Australians take great pride in the rich diversity of our cultural heritage. We are proud of the fact that our nation protects freedom of religion under our highest law. Because of this - provided that they comply with other laws - banks and other financial institutions are free to implement measures designed to appeal to specific market segments.

Of course, Islamic financial institutions - just like conventional financial institutions - are bound by our strict laws and regulations.

As I'm sure you are all aware, Australian financial institutions are among the best-regulated in the world, and Islamic financial institutions operating in Australia are no exception."

And on taxation:

"The terms of reference for the review required the Board to make recommendations and findings to ensure that, wherever possible, Islamic financial products have parity of tax treatment with conventional products based on their economic substance.

In essence, this is about a 'fair and level playing field' and not about special treatment."

The concepts of parity and no special treatment seem straightforward and without spin... which doesn't necessarily help us much since there is a new government.

What is their position with respect to your crusade?

Yes that was the speech - I attended the conference so had the benefit of the other speakers after the Minister left - immediately after his speech of course. So he missed hearing about contamination etc.
The Liberal government has not shown any less inclination toward Sharia finance...this idea has been floating for a while now.
We are offering a 'fair and level playing field' while sharia law itself does not. Suggesting that sharia offers 'equality' - this is the issue

>>there will be pressure on the Muslim community to only support Islamic finance<<

Pressure isn't the same as force, Vickie. You should study some physics.

I hope you give your kids a more positive message about drugs. When I was in school all the drug education was about saying no to peer-pressure; about the power of the individual to prevail in the face of societal pressures. Do you presume Muslims to lack this individual strength of character?

Is it coz they is brown?

>>they will be deceived that they are not paying interest<<

I really doubt that. I confidently predict that they will be told up front, in big bold block letters, that this is an INTEREST FREE LOAN*. And the big bold block letters will be absolutely true and non-deceptive - and the nanoscopic fine print after the * at the bottom of the page will be equally forthright but will require a finance/law degree and 80/80 vision to properly decipher. Pretty much what other banks do.

>>"To further develop Islamic finance in Australia, we are committed to reviewing some of the systems we have in place, and working to ensure that there are no barriers for new entrants to the market."<<

Oh dear... you seem to be confusing a politician's promises for policy, Vickie. Always a trap for young players.

>>Nevertheless, I have been asked to address a number of groups and write for a number of publications.<<

Pro bono publico I hope. If not a number of groups and publications have not been getting their money's worth.

>>Are you are ok with children being married off because of sharia laws that won't protect them in Malaysia<<

No. But I'm not a Malaysian citizen and I don't have a say in their laws.

>>People who promote sharia law do not always have regard for Australian law unless it happens to line up with sharia.<<

So? It is said proverbially that the law is an ass: I don't know if I fully agree with that but there are certainly aspects of the law which are asinine. But it's fair to say that I do not always have regard for the Australian law unless it happens to line up with my ethical principles.

I'm still bound by it. I may disagree vehemently and wholeheartedly with the prohibition of marijuana and the restrictions on 'dangerous' breeds of dog, but if the fuzz catches me walking my pitbull with a quarter ounce secreted in its rectum then they have me bang to rights. The law doesn't care about the strength of your ethical argument: it cares about the strength of your lawyer's legal argument.

>>National unity is important<<

Oh dear...

A quick quiz, Vickie: which do you support the most:
a) Equal love, respect, tolerance and dignity for all of mankind regardless of their race, colour or previous condition of servitude
b) More lebensraum for decent God-fearing Christian folk
c) Lord Voldemort's campaign to segregate people on the basis of their inherited characteristics

Cheers,

Tony

Not nice Tony. It's not about Muslims lacking 'individual strength of character' - I met a traumatised Muslim Australian who would not speak out about her hubby's polygamy (in Australia) and her treatment simply because she believed she would be cut off from her community for doing so. It didn't make any difference that his behaviour was unlawful in Australia - she said her community would not go against it because 'the prophet said polygamy was ok'. Real people Tony - you may not care about them in Malaysia but yet have the gall to suggest I have a problem with 'brown people' because I care whether it's here or there. Goodness - they're family.
Yes - they will be told 'No Interest' - but that is a lie Tony. It's interest redefined as fees etc.
Your other comments don't warrant a response.

>>Not nice Tony.<<

Pot kettle black.

>>Goodness - they're family.<<

Seriously Vickie, you don't have to lie: honest discussion is the best way forward to understanding. The great thing about OLO is that nobody judges you by anything but your opinions: here you can be frank and open and admit that you just don't like Muslims very much. Not only will we still respect you in the morning: we'll admire you more for your honesty and you might even make some new friends.

'runner' doesn't like Muslims very much but he sure loves Jesus. Maybe you could try and establish a meaningful dialogue with 'runner'.

>>Yes - they will be told 'No Interest' - but that is a lie<<

Unless it's true.

>>It's interest redefined as fees etc.<<

Sorry, but I must have slept through ALL of my ethics lectures to have missed the bit about redefining concepts being considered unethical. Who's idea was it? Kant? Locke? Mill? Janson?

Where can I find criticisms?

>>Your other comments don't warrant a response.<<

The last refuge of a scoundrel.

Cheers,

Tony

My impression in reading Viki's article is that she is not speaking as a Christian, but as a defender of "Western interests" and the western banking system. For this reason she is upset that Papiss Cisse is not prepared to promote interest-based lending and in particular payday loans.

Furthermore she is against the shariah because it is a "religious law that transcends national boundaries and commercial law" which of course also includes Christian scriptures. She is defending "western markets and economies" and the "Australian national interest". She is opposed to the aspirations of people who want "to abolish this slavery (to the West)".

A Christian, at least from my understanding, would be concerned with the serving the interests of God, and God would oppose terrorism whether its source were Wahhabiism or Western capitalism. Serving God is a matter of principle that transends parochial interest and political and ideological boundaries and i find it hard to believe that a true follower of Jesus would be defending the banking sector (even before the GFC) not to mention advocating the promotion payday loans (against all the advice of ASIC!).

cont....

cont...

As for her quotation of Prof. Mahmoud el-Gamal, Rice University, I've read his book Islamic Finance: Law, Economics and Practice, as well as his articles, and he is critical of the approach that attempts to replicate conventional banking forms and ignore the "substantive content of various legal and religious provisions"(p24)

He writes "Islamic finance may continue to be an inefficient replication of conventional finance always one step behind developments in the imitated sector. Eventually, sophisticated clients of industry may lose hope that it can ever provide a bona fide alternative to conventional finance -- the primary reason they tolerate its form-above-content approach. At that stage, Islamic finance would lose large portions of its constituency and become a mere footnote in financial history"

What is his agenda? "The alternative, to which this book is dedicated, is to try to understand and apply the substantive spirit of Islamic law. This can be accomplished by understanding the economic functions served by classical legal provisions and the general principles that prompted classical jurists to pursue those functions within their economic and legal environment. This in turn, can pave the road for developing financial products that may be marketed more effectively to Muslims and non-Muslims alike, without need for Arabic names of nominate contracts, and without hiding behind the "Islamic" brand name." p24-5

I could not find the quote you provided of el Gamal (and i subscribe to the FT) but did find a report with comments essentially reiterating the above: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/775efe7c-e2be-11de-b028-00144feab49a.html#axzz2fuwyaCSL

Vikkie, like all fundamentalist (Christian, Wahhabi Jewish, Buhddist, Hindus, not to mention those among the Atheists) is so fixated in pursuing the "Other" that she has lost sight of the values she claims to adhere to.

And what a dumb title : "Sharia finance uncovered" !!

salaams

Tony,

<<Seriously Vickie, you don't have to lie...just don't like Muslims>>

Pot kettle!

Seriously Tony, why don't just own up to not liking OZ. When you are not acting as an apologist for Islam you are spruiking open borders!

<<Sorry, but I must have slept through ALL of my ethics lectures to have missed the bit about redefining concepts being considered unethical. Who's idea was it?>>

Here's a short list for starters:

Start with the laws that outlaw terrorist funding --but foster it by giving into Sharai financial institutions.

Or the laws against discrimination that preach equality but turn a blind eye to the doings of the Sharia courts.

Or the laws that are big on the rights of the child but have been slow to act on underage/forced marriages.

Maybe you didn't sleep through all those ethic lectures but it certainly appears you slept through the last twenty years-since you haven't got clue about the exploits of the great religion of peace over that period.

<<Pot kettle black>>
Maybe in your case it was just POT!

__________________________________

Grateful

A few questions for you:

What was the creed that inspired the latest massacre in Kenya?
How about the earlier one in Mumbai?
How about the weekly attacks in Nigeria?
or Southern Thailand?

Salaams!

SPQR
I already mentioned Wahhabiism whose adherents have been denounced for violating the Sharia, killing innocents, including Muslims. My understanding, which is limited, is that they adhere to a anthropomorphic view of God stemming from a literalist interpretation of the Qur'an. They are certainly reformers of traditional Islam and destroyers of Islamic culture and heritage.

Well, that's cleared the air a little. Thank you SPQR.

>>A few questions for you:
What was the creed that inspired the latest massacre in Kenya?
How about the earlier one in Mumbai?
How about the weekly attacks in Nigeria?
or Southern Thailand?<<

Now we have put that finance red herring behind us, the usual suspects can get on with their personal crusade against Islam.

After all, to do otherwise is un-Austrayan:

>>Seriously Tony, why don't just own up to not liking OZ. When you are not acting as an apologist for Islam...<<

Enjoy

@Grateful/Pericles,

Grateful: <<I already mentioned Wahhabiism whose adherents have...>>
Perciles: <<Well, that's cleared the air a little...>>

LOL I'm glad you think so Pericles --but it aint so.
(shows the depth of your knowledge, and Gratefuls too)

Grateful, if your outing of << Wahhabiism [and its] adherents >>
is enough to get you off the hook(exempt the rest of Islam)it would imply that ALL -- repeat ALL-- Islamic terroism eminates from the Wahhabis?


Now if you know as much about Islam as you'd like us to think you do, then you would know that that just isn't so.

(Sunni) Wahhabiism is not the only expression of Islam involved in terrorism.

What of those expressions of Islam affliated with Shia: the Iran Mullahs (remember those who sent kids across minefields protected by a copy of the Koran strapped to their chests) and their allies Hezbolla(the ones who supply the Nigerian terrorists).

And lets not forget the history of Islamic conquest of the subcontinent. Hindu sources put the cost of implanting Islam in the subcontinent at 60,000,000 Hindus lives.

As for Perciles little jide: <<Their personal crusade against Islam=>>

Hmmm both you and Trevor have now used that slur.
More a case of puzzlement, that so few are willing to speak-up about injustices if they are in any way associated with Islam.

Don't use my name when you have a phantasm, SPQR...

"Hmmm both you and Trevor have now used that slur."

To her credit, Vickie has continued to explain her thoughts and opinions when questioned on facts.

If a slur was intended I'd have written, "What is their position with respect to your jihad?"

SPQR said;
And lets not forget the history of Islamic conquest of the subcontinent.

and lets not forget the Islamic invasion of Europe which was only
stopped at the gates of Vienna.
They left a ticking bomb behind them called Kosovo.
Now they are invading by means of their women's wombs.

They have been trouble to everyone wherever they have gone.

If ever there was a sect that justified banning it is Islam.

SPQR
I repeat:
I already mentioned Wahhabiism whose adherents have been denounced for violating the Sharia, killing innocents, including Muslims. My understanding, which is limited, is that they adhere to a anthropomorphic view of God stemming from a literalist interpretation of the Qur'an. They are certainly reformers of traditional Islam and destroyers of Islamic culture and heritage.

However, let me add:
In regard to Kenya, the fatwa reported below was released about a week or so before the recent attacks.

"Some 160 Somali religious scholars have issued a fatwa (judgment or learned interpretation in the Islamic faith) against the al Shabab, saying the group “has no place in Islam”. It is the first time Somali religious leaders have come up with a fatwa against the group, which controls vast rural areas. The announcement comes as residents of Bula Burte, in central Somalia, denounced that the al Shabab Islamists executed a young man and performed a double amputation in front of a crowd of dozens of people.

The fatwa establishes that al Shabab “is not an Islamic movement” but an extremist group with “an erroneous ideology” that comes together “to kill Somalis without any legitimate reason or justification”. The mufti and scholars, who came from all regions of the nation and the numerous Somali communities abroad, gathered in the past days in Mogadishu for a conference on the phenomenon of extremism in the Horn of Africa nation." http://muslimvillage.com/2013/09/16/43848/somalia-scholars-issue-fatwa-against-al-shabab/

Notice that this was not reported on in a recent profile by the SMH "A new source of terror: who are al-Shabab?": http://www.smh.com.au/world/a-new-source-of-terror-who-are-alshabab-20130923-2u933.html
Surely this fatwa (and what must have been a growing sense of isolation preceding the fatwa) can not be ignored in understanding the motives of the organisation.

cont..

An update: In support of my quote from the Herald Sun earlier stating the Black & Sadiq report noting 'a system of legal pluralism abounds in Australia':
This is from the report - 'Good and Bad Sharia: Australia's Mixed Response to Islamic Law' - you will find the quote in the conclusion. So it appears to be genuine after all!

Glad we cleared that up, Vickie.

>>In support of my quote from the Herald Sun earlier stating the Black & Sadiq report noting 'a system of legal pluralism abounds in Australia' This is from the report - 'Good and Bad Sharia: Australia's Mixed Response to Islamic Law' - you will find the quote in the conclusion. So it appears to be genuine after all!<<

I'm happy that it it "genuine". But as I'm not prepared at this point to pay $33 to get the report from the UNSW Law Journal, I need to use your resources to uncover how this conclusion relates to sharia finance.

Is their position that sharia finance is already part of that "pluralism", and is exempt from our existing laws? Or does it refer to something else entirely?

Context is everything, after all. You wouldn't want to rely upon a single unqualified sentence for the validity of your stance, would you.

One interesting follow-on question, "is pluralism necessarily a bad thing" can, I suggest, be left for a more general discussion. In the meantime I think we have now put to bed all the possible arguments against, specifically, sharia banking.

Vickie,
Here is 35 minute presentation "The future of Islamic Finance in Australia" by Talal Yassin, CEO of Crescent Finance, to ANU's Crawford Foundation of Public Policy:

He begins with "Five Pillars of Islamic finance"

1. Ban on Riba:
2. Ban on uncertainty & speculation
3. Ban on investing in certain sectors
4. Profit and Loss sharing principle:
5. Asset-backing principle

Item 1: the traditional ban on usurious lending that is common in the 3 Abrahamic religions. In essence it is a prohibition on exchange $1 for more than $1, now or in the future. It results in the prohibition of interest and monopolistic pricing

Item 2: Clarity of contract prevents exploitation of those with less knowledge and skills being exploited by those with more knowledge.

Item 3: Some of the sectors banned includes armaments, alcohol, tobacco and gambling.

Item 4: The profit & Loss sharing principles says that return should be commensurate with exposure to risk in the underlying project

cont....

...cont
Item 5: Asset-backing principle would mean that if a client were unable to make the payments on an original financing contract, there could not be a recourse condition allowing bank full possession of the property being finance despite the fact that the client would have amortised at least part of the original loan (as in a mortgage). Instead, the client would gradually take ownership shared while paying rent, so that if payments could not be sustained the asset would be sold and the client and bank would share in the proceeds according to their ownership shares at that point in time. It would be equivalent to saying that if a home-loan client were to default on payments after amortisation of 40% of the original loan, the home would be sold and the client would receive 40% of the sales proceeds and the bank would receive 60%

Shariah-compliance is eminently fair and sensible.

Any issue of debt would be against an asset. for example the bank would first purchase the house/raw materials and then resell it to the household/business. No more paper being created without a commercial purpose. No more repayment of debt with debt. Late payment penalties can be charged on debtors, but the proceeds must be allocated to charity: the creditor cannot benefit. Bye-to-Bye to teaser loans that would force the householder to refinance and pay a prepayment penalty before the inevitable foreclosure.

In short, a GFC would be impossible...Christians should be supporting this! Instead, people like Vikkie are siding with the big banks and loan sharks.

Sorry, a correction to Item 5 :-)

Item 5: Asset-backing principle would mean that if a client were unable to make the payments on an original financing contract, banks could not take full possession of the property, despite the fact that the client would have amortised at least part of the original loan (as in a mortgage).

Instead, the client would gradually taking an increasing ownership stake in the asset. The Islamic version would be equivalent to saying that if a home-loan client were to default on payments after amortisation of 40% of the original loan, the home would be sold and the client would receive 40% of the sales proceeds and the bank would receive 60%

Thanks Grateful.
Ban of Riba
1. There is no universal ban on interest in the Judeo-Christian tradition which is why societies with that faith heritage have interest bearing accounts and aim for growing economies. The ban in the Jewish scriptures is generally understood to refer to excessive interest, and charging interest when lending to the poor among them; ie their own people. This is not generally understood as including commercial transactions but in context is about giving charity to our own poor - we should lend without interest in those circumstances to our family members. My aunt did that for me to get my first car and this is quite common in families but not a useful commercial arrangement. There was no trading restriction on Israel in this way. And Jesus used the analogy of a man burying what he'd been given and not gaining interest on it as an example of a ‘bad servant’. (Mathew 25: 14-30) We expect a return on investment – growth is an expression of life.
2. When sharia compliance redefines interest as fees, rental or profit – it’s just been rebadged. The cost of banking remains the same and this appears to be deceptive.
To be continued:

Ban on Uncertainty?
In his 2010 submission to the Board of Taxation, sharia finance practitioner David Clark noted, “Accordingly, any review of the economic substance of Islamic finance transactions must take into account there being no difference in the financier’s risk profile, the characteristics and movement of interest or the bank’s rights to accelerate and enforce.”

Clark commenting on two of the sharia financial structures, Mudarabah and Wakalah, said they are defined “without regard to market reality”.

Adding… “Whilst Islamic banks may have had limited exposure to collateralized debt obligations, they did not survive the financial crisis relatively better off and any such claim … is wrong. Given their relative lack of options regarding risk-hedging and asset diversification, Islamic banks found themselves over-exposed and over-concentrated in particular asset classes, particularly property.” This is something the Austrade publication ‘Islamic Finance’ also affirms.
To be continued,,,

Ban on certain sectors:
In her report regarding the American International Group (AIG) sharia advisory board Dr Ehrenfeld notes the board is “unlikely to invest in Jewish, Israeli or Christian businesses, which are considered haram (forbidden) according to sharia law”. Dr Ehrenfeld notes the AIG case study where investment in western weapons and defence is forbidden whereas investment in Muslim weapons and defence is not.
To be continued...

Profit & Loss and Risk sharing...

In a landmark decision in December 2005 by the High Court of Malaya, Justice Datuk Abdul Wahab Patail “actually made the whole concept of Arabic banking unlawful” based not on terror funding but on unethical banking practices. He ruled that it was unlawful for an Arabic bank to insist that a defaulting borrower pay up all the monthly installments for the full tenure of a 18 year housing loan when the borrower had defaulted on the loan after a period of only two and a half years; referring to this as “bloodsucking usury”. (Doesn’t seem like equitable sharing to me)

So these are some of the concerns Grateful. Kind regards Vickie (PS - unable to respond for a day or two if you want to continue)

Vickie, with the greatest respect, you should broaden your horizons a little.

>>Jesus used the analogy of a man burying what he'd been given and not gaining interest on it as an example of a ‘bad servant’. (Mathew 25: 14-30) We expect a return on investment – growth is an expression of life.<<

There are many other forms of growth other than interest growth. If you borrow money to build a business, for example, the success of the business itself is far more relevant to "growth... an expression of life" than the means by which you acquired the capital.

>>When sharia compliance redefines interest as fees, rental or profit – it’s just been rebadged. The cost of banking remains the same and this appears to be deceptive.<<

Non-sharia banks also have a range of fees and charges that are not interest-related. These are not, on their own, deceptive. They are part of the cost of finance. Nor is extracting the concept of "interest" from the equation in itself deceptive.

>>Islamic banks found themselves over-exposed and over-concentrated in particular asset classes, particularly property<<

Along with every non-sharia bank, of course. No-one is suggesting that sharia finance is inherently more secure. All lending involves risk.

>>In a landmark decision in December 2005 by the High Court of Malaya, Justice Datuk Abdul Wahab Patail “actually made the whole concept of Arabic banking unlawful”<<

Are you suggesting that this opinion holds, and that sharia banking is not practised in Malaysia?

Try this for size:

http://zulkiflihasan.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/the-effectiveness-of-legal-framework.pdf

In it, you will find some interesting facts.

"In Malaysia, separate Islamic legislation and banking regulations exists side-by-side with those of the conventional banking system"

"The Islamic banking sector has become a major contributor to the overall economic growth"

The reality is that even in a Muslim country such as Malaysia, banking remains a commercial operation, with citizens and businesses free to choose the financial instrument most appropriate to them.

As the above briefing document points out:

"Moreover, non-Muslims also were attracted to the package of Islamic products offered in the market. ".

"So these are some of the concerns Grateful. Kind regards Vickie (PS - unable to respond for a day or two if you want to continue)"

Yes i would mind carrying on the discussion. However, I will be away for a week so it will not be until about wed that i'll be able to rejoin the discussion.

But quickly, as for the "rebadging" charge that is a criticism that is made within the Islamic Finance community (i quoted Al-Gamal) and is part of a robust debate over how to implement the Shariah with regard to finance. As you have pointed out there are a lot of challenges...but there are also a lot of smart people working to meet those challenges. The outcome will be of benefit to everyone, not just Muslims.

Hi Vikkie,

I'll be heading off somewhere for a week, by when i return i'd like to examine more closely what you said in relation to the Bible and the taking of interest.

Being ignorant of the subject i looked up wikipedia topic "Loans and interest in Judaism". It seems from this reading that the Bible does prohibit interest, although the Jews would permit lending with interest to Gentiles (1st reading below). This exception was convenient for Christians in medieval times seeking a way around the usury laws since the Church did not apply the ban to non-Christians (2nd reading below).

From an outsiders perspective it appears like Jews and Christians are not observing their own scriptures
cont..

cont..

1st Reading on Jewish scripture
"The Torah expresses regulations against the charging of interest in the Exodus 22:25–27, Leviticus 25:36–37 and Deuteronomy 23:20–21. In Leviticus loans themselves are encouraged, whether of money or food, emphasizing that they enable the poor to regain their independence, , like the other two places in the Bible, forbids the charging of interest on the loan.[5] All three places state that the charging of interest is exploitative. In Exodus and Deuteronomy it is clear that it would be acceptable to charge interest on any loan to a non-Jew.[5]"

In regard to Christian practice:

"The early Christian Church, for reasons connected to the New Testament, declared that any usury was against divine law, preventing pious and outwardly pious Christians from using capital for mercantile purposes;[1] in 1179, Pope Alexander III excommunicated usurers, which was seen as an extremely harsh punishment.[1] However, Canon law was not regarded by medieval society as having any authority over Jews, and thus Christian monarchs looked to the Jews to supply capital to them;[1] in many European countries, medieval civil law also allowed the monarchs to inherit all remaining income and property that had been acquired by usury upon the death of the Jewish usurer involved.[1] Medieval European monarchs thus supported the Jews and suppressed any attempts to convert them to Christianity since it would deprive the monarch of potential income;[1] in England and France, the monarchs demanded compensation from the church for every Jew who was converted, and, until 1281, the English monarch had the legal right to claim half the property of any Jew that converted to Christianity.[1]"

Hi Grateful
re Exodus 22:25-27: This reads clearly that it's lending money to the needy among your own people. I gave the example of my aunt lending to me for my first car. The instruction was to do this 'not like a moneylender' - so don't charge your own relatives interest. We agree on this but its about charity not a commercial transaction. Lev 25:35-37 is again about lending to the poor among you...and Deut 23:20-21 is clear you can indeed charge a foreigner interest as in these ancient times 'businessman would come into Israel for financial advantage and so would be subject to paying interest.' (This is from the commentary in my NIV study bible for this verse). Commercial law is different from how we treat our own relatives. A business investment should grow - it is not charity.
The Church quote you cite reflects a time in history where the church and state were conflated and corrupted. It is clear from the example given earlier where Jesus uses a parable that condemns a follower for burying his talent and not even investing it and gaining interest, that interest itself was not a problem for him. Jesus taught to worship in 'spirit and in truth'. (John 4:24) The spirit of the law that it is, rather than the letter (which Paul said 'kills' - 2 Corinthians 3:6). The spirit of the law is to lend without interest to our own - (1 Timothy 5:8 says if we don't provide for our own relatives we are worse than unbelievers). But to keep this to the letter as you suggest 'kills' growth and opportunity. The separation of church and state has a lot to do with this - they are different realms. This is one of the issues with sharia law which tends to unite these things not making any distinction. All relationships are not the same and our personal dealings and commercial dealings (while not advocating for 'excessive' interest) are indeed different.

The last few posts show quite clearly that religious beliefs provide absolutely no consistent guidance when it comes to financial matters.

Which should not be particularly surprising. Any biblical/Torah/Qur'an extracts were written well before any of the modern banking schemes were even considered. While they may be a relatively accurate representation of societies that existed fifteen hundred/two thousand/twentysix hundred years ago, they can hardly be relevant as a guide to modern business practices.

If you extract from them their moral message - which is, I submit, their primary role - their intent is clearly to reinforce the socially-responsible message of "do not exploit".

Trying to forcibly pack these teachings into a commercial framework is always going to be unsatisfactory, and leave a load of straggly bits left over, that inevitably respond to different interpretations.

And Vickie, you are taking the narrowest possible view of the situation by linking this assertion with the concept of interest:

>>A business investment should grow - it is not charity<<

All bankers - Jewish, Christian, Islamic - are in complete agreement with you on this statement of yours. But by confining your attention to the concept of interest, you are ignoring the fact that all parties in a financial transaction have a say in its constitution. If interest suits, fine. If sharing cap[ital growth suits, then that should be fine too.

Somewhat oddly, you show that you do actually understand this:

>>All relationships are not the same and our personal dealings and commercial dealings (while not advocating for 'excessive' interest) are indeed different.<<

If this is your understanding, why do you advocate that there be only one permissible form for financial transactions?

Perciles - we agree on something... that faith based investments are essentially those that 'do not exploit'.
The whole discussion here has been about how, in what specific way, can sharia finance be considered more ethical - as it claims. Is this a true or false claim. I am suggesting that this is a false claim. That actually sharia finance may be exploiting the good will of people, veiling interest by simply redefining it, and investing in things that support discriminatory positions against others. (eg the Dr Ehrenfeld case study previously mentioned that found sharia boards unwilling to invest in what may be considered 'Jewish or Christian'...ie things needing to be Islamically cleansed - not a good example of a product being 'inclusive' as it claims - it is these attitudes that taken to the extreme are resulting in untold deaths around the world of minorities in Muslim majority nations and promote a theology of segregation here). So the question of ethics - and whose ethics - is what we are talking about. According to the Judge previously cited, there are people who fall on hard times and have defaulted on their sharia loan and in the (Muslim) judges opinion - have been exploited by sharia norms. So is this more ethical than conventional finance as claimed? It is the false claim that concerns many and the sanctioning of sharia 'anything' in general because sharia compliance supports many radical agendas.

I'm not sure I actually agreed that, Vickie...

>>Perciles - we agree on something... that faith based investments are essentially those that 'do not exploit'<<

What I said was that the religious messages boil down to "do not exploit", not that the investments themselves have this characteristic. In fact, I went out of my way to explain that this leaves an awful lot open to the interpretation of the individual.

"Trying to forcibly pack these teachings into a commercial framework is always going to be unsatisfactory, and leave a load of straggly bits left over, that inevitably respond to different interpretations."

Which is why you find in a supposedly Christian society that payday lenders can get away with interest rates far north of 1000%.

>>I am suggesting that this is a false claim. That actually sharia finance may be exploiting the good will of people<<

Maybe so, but you haven't given any examples of where this has occurred, or where it differs from, as you call it, conventional lending.

>>...there are people who fall on hard times and have defaulted on their sharia loan and in the (Muslim) judges opinion - have been exploited by sharia norms. So is this more ethical than conventional finance as claimed? <<

And what is your own judgment on the "conventional" sub-prime mortgage industry? Or payday lending, come to that?

And here you go again:

>>It is the false claim that concerns many and the sanctioning of sharia 'anything' in general because sharia compliance supports many radical agendas.<<

And radical agendas, in your view, are only supported by sharia finance? I thought we'd put that furphy to bed ages ago. The IRA, remember? Fine Catholics, the lot of them.

Perciles - really - the judgment offered by Justice Datuk Abdul Wahab Patail in the High Court of Malaya I quoted earlier and referred to in my last post should suffice as an example of 'exploiting good will'. It appears to me that you support the idea that two wrongs somehow make a right - and if we have some corruption and radical stuff happening in one system we should accommodate a bit more in another. I would rather see honesty across the board and not promote the idea of clean and unclean money based on religion. We don't need to muddy the waters any further.

Vickie, perhaps you might do me the favour of identifying the source of this statement of yours:

>>In a landmark decision in December 2005 by the High Court of Malaya, Justice Datuk Abdul Wahab Patail “actually made the whole concept of Arabic banking unlawful”<<

I have been unable to track it down myself. The only case that came close was this one:

http://shariah-finance.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/bba-abdul-wahab-and-court-of-appeal.html

It involves the same judge, but nowhere can I find the quote you attributed to him.

This might also be relevant, although it seems to fully accept the validity of the system, while examining its detail.

http://www.skrine.com/are-bba-agreements-valid

This is even more detailed, similarly going into the minutiae of the system.

http://198.101.238.229/itreasury/html/download/MLJ%20Article.pdf

Nowhere can I find anything that resembles your quote.

Can you help me out?

Pericles, you may wish to add Dr Zulkifli Hasan's (University of Durham) observations of 17 September 2008 to your list.

http://zulkiflihasan.wordpress.com/2008/09/

You too, of course, Vickie.

Happy to give you that source Pericles: The well known Malaysian author is Syed Akbar Ali in his book 'Malaysia & the Club of Doom, page 204.
I note the first link you provided confirms:'The validity of BBA as a mode of finance is doubted by some scholars, especially those from the Middle East, who believe that this is merely a “hilah” (trickery) to facilitate riba (usury) that is prohibited in Islam.' - and there is mention of 'fictiious purchase agreement'. So my claims are shared by many Muslims and Islamic scholars. Many are concerned that this is just another way of binding up the community in more law and restricting them from participating in conventional products. No doubt you will say they have a 'choice' - but in reality - the theological mandate is understood by many that where there is a sharia compliant option the Muslim must choose that - thus actually removing other options. To quote Elizabeth Kendal from Religious Liberty Monitoring (RLM) ...According to Islam - (theologically) if there is no Sharia - then the Muslim is obliged to (1) obey the law of the land, (2) strive for Sharia. When there IS Sharia - then Muslims are obliged to obey the Sharia. This is not what all Muslims want.

Canadian (Muslim) MP Fatima Houda-Pepin told members of the Assembly that Sharia Law discriminates against women. She
alleged that Muslim women in Canada want to integrate and the drive to introduce Sharia Law in Canada "is part of a strategy to isolate the Muslim community, so it will submit to an archaic vision of Islam. These demands," she continues, "are being pushed by groups in the minority that are using the Charter of Rights to attack the foundation of our democratic institutions. It's a political agenda in the name of Islam."
(RLM 2 June 05)

That would explain it, Vickie.

>>Happy to give you that source Pericles: The well known Malaysian author is Syed Akbar Ali in his book 'Malaysia & the Club of Doom, page 204<<

What you have done is to quote the opinion of Syed Akbar Ali, not the landmark decision by the judge. Which reads a little differently to your original assertion:

>>In a landmark decision in December 2005 by the High Court of Malaya, Justice Datuk Abdul Wahab Patail “actually made the whole concept of Arabic banking unlawful”<<

The interesting part is, of course, that the topic is not sharia banking per se, but a banking product - the "BBA", developed by a Malaysian Bank, that was found to fall foul of the Islamic Banking Act 1983.

So it would appear that the "landmark decision" actually ruled some of the supposedly sharia aspects of the loan product illegal. A bit like someone taking CashTrain to court, and getting the judge to rule that interest rates of over 1000% were illegal.

Which, by the way, I wish they would.

But not quite the impact you were looking for, I suspect.

I wouldn't discount Ali's comments Pericles as he was a former banker himself so his opinion is probably more valid than mine or yours. The quote in his book (about sharia finance) says that the Judge ruled 'it was unlawful for an Arabic Bank to insist that a defaulting borrower pay up all the monthly instalments (ie as per the sharia compliant agreement) for the full tenure of an 18 year housing loan when the borrower has defaulted on the loan after a period of only 2 and1/2 years - referring to this as bloodsucking usury'. end of quote. So that's what Justice Patail said.
I'm not looking for impact Pericles - just honesty.

Wouldn't dream of it, Vickie.

>>I wouldn't discount Ali's comments Pericles<<

But I'm not convinced that you actually understand what prompted the judgment.

If you were to examine the case more closely, you would find that the product in question was apparently designed in the early days of the Islamic Banking Act. As one of the commentators on the judgment observed...

"...the BBA was created in 1983 based on the conventional loan platform to enable Islamic finance to break into the market while operating on the existing platforms. It was true 26 years ago when awareness on Islamic finance was low and such products were necessary to avoid 'cultural shocks'. But as knowledge on Islamic finance grew, such Inah based products are not necessary anymore; the market has more understanding of the Islamic financial system and is ready to accept the structural differences."

The problem with the loan structure - what caused the judge to make his comment that it was "blood-sucking usury" - was that it did not conform to sharia norms, as the understanding of how those norms applied to housing loans grew over time. In essence, it turned out to be "insufficiently sharia".

I have a suspicion that your example demonstrateses precisely the opposite of what you had intended.

Mind you, another outcome was that the Appeal Court made the point that “civil courts should not decide whether a matter is in accordance with the religion of Islam”.

Which means that the courts confirmed that when creating such products, Banks need to conform to banking laws. In the case of Malaysia, these include, you might be happy to know:

• The Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989
• The Takaful Act 1984
• The Companies Act 1965
• The Securities Commission Act
• The Stamp Duty Act 1949
• The National Land Code
• The Contracts Act 1950
• The Real Property Gains Tax Act 1967
• The Hire Purchase Act 1967
• The Sale of Goods Act 1957
• The Development Financial Institutions Act 2002

Surely, this alone should put your mind at rest?

You are right Pericles - I don't understand what caused the judge to make that particular judgment but I trust that an Islamic judge plus the ex-banker/ Islamic academic reporting it have a better grip on that than me. I think it is perfectly valid to assume their expertise has some grounding.
There is no mention of BBA in the quote I shared. You presented links connected to Justice Patail 2008 - the quote I used related to a 'landmark judgment' December 30, 2005. The paper quoting the judge said 'the consequences of defaulting on an Islamic loan were far more burdensome on the borrower than a conventional loan'. (New Strait Times)
It was this point that I was making. Why burden people with more red tape and the same (if not greater) risk and sell it as more ethical and safer?
The idea that 'sharia' is more ethical - this has been what I am disputing because this is the claim being made

But that is exactly what you have been unable to show, Vickie.

>>The idea that 'sharia' is more ethical - this has been what I am disputing because this is the claim being made<<

I have given you many examples of how "our" system is equally (or more, or less; it's just a matter of opinion) ethical/unethical as sharia. These you have dismissed on the basis that:

>>It appears to me that you support the idea that two wrongs somehow make a right - and if we have some corruption and radical stuff happening in one system we should accommodate a bit more in another.<<

Which is mere sophistry. You are making the "one is more corrupt and radical" than the other, not me. I am not defending either. Just pointing out to you that you have put together a story that simply does not hold water, at any level.

Think about it.

Sorry Pericles - but you are missing the fact that the Sharia Finance Forum I attended in Melbourne reiterated that the main selling feature of this product was it's ethics. (Therefore something to consider and discuss). Among other things, it's not safer as it claims and not more transparent, has its ideological origins in the Muslim Brotherhood who promote it as a financial jihad against the west and is connected to Islamic boards that support jihadist ideals (eg AAOIFI - the highest sharia regulatory board with Taqi Usmani as its Chairman - a man known for his public radical statements about jihad against infidels - I wonder what he'll invest in?) I fail to see that it meets its own claims of being more ethical than conventional finance and I believe as it promotes religious segregation (Muslim/non-Muslim) it is unnecessarily divisive. Other points have already been made. You are not recognising any of these facts which are verified by Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Up to you Pericles - but I see sharia norms destroying lives all around the world and so think it is quite valid to think about that! Is the financial arm of a legal system that upholds capital punishment and discrimination against women and religious minorities really able to claim the ethical high ground?

I'm sorry too, Vickie, that I haven't been able to make even the slightest dent in your professed understanding of sharia finance. You don't appear to be able to separate it from your preconceptions and prejudices against everything Muslim, which is a shame.

>>I see sharia norms destroying lives all around the world and so think it is quite valid to think about that! Is the financial arm of a legal system that upholds capital punishment and discrimination against women and religious minorities really able to claim the ethical high ground<<

If you are interested to see where this attitude might lead you, here is one of the possibilities.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/bachmann-obama-supporting-al-qaeda-proving-we-are-end-times

It doesn't specifically mention sharia finance, I'm afraid. But as we have already seen, sharia lending is not the main thrust of your concerns anyway.

Have a nice life.

Hi Vikkie,
Returning to the topic after a bit of a break. I came across the following sayings that are attributed to Jesus

Luke 6:34-35 ESV

"And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil."
http://www.openbible.info/topics/lending_money

Gospel of st Thomas V95, states
(95) Jesus said, "If you have money, do not lend it at interest, but give it to one from whom you will not get it back." http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html

So isn't it fair to say that your views on interest are inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus. For instance, in light of his teachings, do you think Jesus would support your endorsement of payday loans?

salaams

Hi Grateful

Re Luke 6:34 which says - And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you. Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners' expecting to be repaid in full. This is the NIV translation which is very similar to the ASV - which is considered one of the most literal translations.

Both are suggesting that you should give expecting nothing in return. But this is about assisting others and giving charitably - not conducting a business transaction. As I said earlier - Jesus used the example of not gaining interest on an investment as an example of a bad stewardship. (Mathew 25:26) Personal relationships and business dealings are quite different situations.

No I don't think my teachings are inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus who spoke of a Kingdom that never ends and ever increasing glory - that's just the nature of God's Kingdom. But I have already covered that not lending with interest to our own family is important and not charging excessive interest. God never desires people to be over-burdened.

The Gospel of Thomas is not accepted by any recognised Christian scholar and is not included in the apocrypha. It is considered a heretical writing. Serious consideration can only be given to the accepted BIblical account. (If it wasn't accepted 300AD why should it be now?

Fascinating argument, Vickie.

>>If it wasn't accepted 300AD why should it be now?<<

Back in 300AD, the prevailing view was that the earth was the centre of the universe. Supporting "data" for this position came predominantly from such reliable sources as Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, 1Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5 etc. etc.

Are you prepared to refute heliocentrism, simply because "it wasn't accepted 300AD why should it be now?"

If not, why not?

Perciles - we are talking about the authenticity of ancient writing and most archeologists agree that the closer to the actual event the more authentic is the opinion. If it wasn't in the canon then you can hardly slip it in now. You don't have to bother with my views - check with Christian scholars - the Book of Thomas is not considered authentic. Sorry to bore you with facts.

You miss the point with unfailing consistency, Vickie.

>>Perciles - we are talking about the authenticity of ancient writing<<

You may have been. I was referring however to your assertion that because something was unacceptable to contemporary thought in 300AD, it must by definition be unacceptable today.

And surely no-one seriously doubts the authenticity of the document itself, i.e that it was written sometime in the late second century. What has been under discussion for more than seventeen hundred years, pretty much since Eusebius, I guess, is the positioning of the material within Christian thinking. An entirely separate issue, I'm sure you agree.

It is just an opinion, as you pointed out...

>>...most archeologists agree that the closer to the actual event the more authentic is the opinion<<

...even though the selection of "authentic" as a modifier of "opinion" in this context is not particularly appropriate. An opinion does not need to be contemporaneous with the events in question. You, for example, clearly have an opinion on the earth's position in relationship to the sun that differs from the opinion commonly held in 300AD. Despite the fact that they were "closer to the actual event", I suspect that you would not agree that their opinion is more authentic than yours.

Or would you?

Oh, by the way:

>>Sorry to bore you with facts.<<

I am never bored by facts. I am hardly ever bored by opinions either. But I do recognize that there is a considerable difference between the two. You will find life a great deal more interesting and fruitful if, or when, you come to the same realization.

Thanks for your reply Vikkie,

However, i am still skeptical about your interpretation of the Bible, mainly because it seems to be based on your own personal interpretation and secondly your interpretation is in conflict with what you have said earlier.

You say:

"No I don't think my teachings are inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus who spoke of a Kingdom that never ends and ever increasing glory - that's just the nature of God's Kingdom. But I have already covered that not lending with interest to our own family is important and not charging excessive interest. God never desires people to be over-burdened."

As i have stated before, I'm ignorant of the scriptures but my impression was that the Torah draws a distinction between lending to Jews and Gentiles and not Family and others. Unless you can provide a scholarly authority to support your interpretation I'll have to remain skeptical.

Furthermore, you say:

"Both are suggesting that you should give expecting nothing in return. But this is about assisting others and giving charitably - not conducting a business transaction. As I said earlier - Jesus used the example of not gaining interest on an investment as an example of a bad stewardship. (Mathew 25:26) Personal relationships and business dealings are quite different situations."

Could we also find an authoritative commentary on Mathew 25:26 which supports your interpretation?

Finally, you say that Jesus permitted interest as long as it was not "excessive". What about 724.36% p.a.? This is what is being charged for payday loans* which you endorsed in your original article. So even accepting your own interpretation your "teachings" (as you put it) are indeed inconsistent with the message of Jesus.

*http://www.cashtrain.com.au/?BID=SAB2665528&gclid=CIOt7NCwmLoCFYQhpQodF1gAxg

Thanks Grateful

Most Bible College lecturers tend to teach their students that the Bible interprets itself. This is certainly what I was taught.

Deuteronomy 15:7“If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother,...

Here the 'brothers' refers to fellow Israelites - ie extended family which is what Israel was - the combined families of 12 brothers; the sons of Jacob. Deut 17:15 Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite...so the term 'brother' extended to the household of Israel as a family. Deut 18:15 prophesies of the prophet like Moses who will be from 'among your own brothers' - clearly with consistent interpretation this refers to a fellow Israelite. So 'brother' is a broad term. to be continued:
I

In the same way that Islam refers to the Umma as an extended family - Israel is a family and we are told to do good to all but 'first to the household of God'. (Galatians 6:10) That's the Biblical principle so we can define it as Jews and Gentiles or family and others but we are not really disagreeing - these are labels for the same thing.
Yet when we look at the texts about not charging interest the context is in lending to the poor among us. I'm afraid I haven't the time to go fishing for scholarly opinion - as I said - the scholars that I've read affirm the Bible interprets itself. I accept I am not a Biblical scholar but I don't think anything I've said contradicts common sense and the ordinary understanding of the text. As a Christian we take principles from the Torah - not laws as such because Jesus brought what he referred to as the 'New Covenant' - a way to understand the spirit of the law. And he came to remove the wall of hostility between Jews and Gentiles by destroying (divisive) commands and regulations.(Ephesians 2:14-15) So you may consider these things or remain skeptical. Please feel free to google commentaries on Math 25:26 - you may decide for yourself. I'm sorry if it was understood i endorsed payday loans - that was not my intent. It was the reason he wouldn't wear it. If he receives money from interest bearing accounts and supported Virgin money- it wasn't no interest sharia standards he is supporting at all - just lower interest - something everyone would support. Why play the sharia card?

Vikkie, thank you for your response
In relation to the Islamic injunctions agains interest (or more broadly riba), this is a prohibition on any Muslim giving, receiving or facilitating any such transaction. It makes no difference whether another party is Muslim or not: a Mulsim cannot borrow from, or lend to or facilitate an interest-bearing loan between anyone whether they be Muslim or non-Muslim.

The qur’an instructs us to engage in trade and riba is not trade. An interest-based loan exchanges one dollar for more than one dollar. Trade exchanges goods or services for money and then money for goods and services.

The Islamic transaction that most people cite as being merely a replication of a conventional loan is called a Murabaha. A Murabaha involves one party buying an item and reselling it and disclosing the profit to the buyer. When payment is delayed then you effectively have a trade credit. If i wanted to buy a car then a financial institution would first buy the car for say $100,000 and sell it to me for $110,000 in one years time (with all sort of payment schedules) and the bank would be obliged to disclose the $10,000 profit.

Those who claim this operates just like a loan fail to see some fundamental differences:

Firstly, under a conventional loan the borrower can take out a $100,000 saying that they intend to buy a car for their business, but instead spend it on a holiday in Bali (moral hazard). This is not possible under a Murabah.

Secondly, if payments are late under a conventional loan, there will be a penalty interest rate applied. Under a Murabah no such penalties are possible (because they effective amount to Riba). Yet a penalty can be charge which is called a charity clause. The debtor can be charged a late penalty with all proceeds going to charity (and not the creditor).

cont..

cont...
Third, a loan cannot be repaid with another loan. Remember, a further debt can only be contracted against acquisition of asset. So the original car purchaser cannot repay the original debt by contracting a new loan.

The result:individuals may get in over their heads by making a purchase which they cannot repay, but their indebtedness cannot accumulate as would be the case under a conventional loans. In particular, the subprime lending scams that triggered the GFC would be inconceivable.

Vikkie,i'd like to ask whethere there anything here that you would object to?

Thanks Gratfeul.

You say there is an Islamic injunction against giving, receiving or facilitating interest. As Islamic banks are a fairly new phenomena - what happened in the past 1300 years? In Australia I'm sure Muslims are receiving wages, Centrelink payments and running profitable accounts and businesses - are these all forbidden simply because they can no longer give, receive or facilitate interest? Isn't this a recipe for poverty? (something pretty evident in many Muslim majority nations once oil is removed from the equation).

Conventional loans generally do go straight to the car company, bank financing your home etc - so not sure why you think they are more open to corruption. Why is a holiday in Bali a 'moral hazard?' I suppose a criminal mind or very dishonest person will always find a way around the system but essentially the system is based on reasonable trust, as are all successful relationships.

I don't understand why the sharia 'penalty clause' is more ethical than a conventional penalty paid to the creditor; the creditor is left holding the shortfall and yet instead of receiving compensation for a breach of contract a third party charity benefits. (Many of these charities already having been identified as fronts for Islamist causes).

You say a loan cannot repay another loan. Are you saying sharia banks are all cashed up and have not loaned the finance put up for sharia financed homes? Many financial advisors recommend consolidating loans into one - that is paying a loan with a loan - a very effective way of managing and eventually eradicating debt.

The bottom line is that we disagree about 'interest' necessarily being unethical. And I certainly disagree that sharia law itself can offer equitable moral outcomes when sharia discriminates against non-Muslims in law.

Hi Vickie,

"Conventional loans generally do go straight to the car company, bank financing your home etc - so not sure why you think they are more open to corruption. Why is a holiday in Bali a 'moral hazard?' I suppose a criminal mind or very dishonest person will always find a way around the system but essentially the system is based on reasonable trust, as are all successful relationships."

In this case, obviously if the money is spent on anything other than its intended purpose, then its a result of moral hazard.

And of course we are talking of the relationships that are not so successful ...for example the Greek debt crisis which arose from loans being used to feed graft (http://www.greekcrisis.net/2010/08/tragic-flaw-graft-feeds-greek-crisis.html). Look at the suffering this has inflicted on Greeks, savers and taxpayers in other European countries. This scenario would have been practically impossible under shariah-compliant financial arrangements.

"Many of these charities already having been identified as fronts for Islamist causes".

What's an "Islamist cause"?

A charity is an Islamic cause, indeed one of the five pillars. Nor does it discriminate against non-Muslims:

"And do good, for Allah loves those who do good." [Qur'an, 2.195]

And see the following fatwa: http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=4717&CATE=43

cont..

"And I certainly disagree that sharia law itself can offer equitable moral outcomes when sharia discriminates against non-Muslims in law."

Lol! You are so seriously ignorant of Islam. Consider the example of The Holy Prophet Muhammad 's Letter to the Monks of St. Catherine in Mt. Sinai:

"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.

Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.

No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet.

Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them.

If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.

Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.

No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."

“Muhammad's promise to Christians” By Muqtedar Khan (Director of Islamic Studies at the University of Delaware) : http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=27112&lan=en&sp=0

So Vickie, you clearly need to do a bit more research and take care in what you say...not to mention your sources.

And on the topic of sources, what are your sources? Are you prepared to disclose your sources, the basis of your opinions, so that we are in a better position to assess whether your views are well founded or not?

salaams

Sadly, that is a very fair summary of Vickie's position, grateful.

>>You are so seriously ignorant of Islam<<

The reality is (and of course this is not by any means confined to religious themes) that ignorance of a particular topic is no impediment whatsoever to presenting a noisy opinion on these pages.

Nor should it be, of course. However, the value of an opinion does depend rather heavily on clear and unbiased thinking. In this case, Vickie's lack of understanding of finance as well as Islam does not really help establish her credentials.

Which is a shame. But these threads do allow more dispassionate observers to add in a few facts here and there, which might help some folk understand the substance behind those opinions.

Hi Grateful

The Greek crisis being due to corruption we can agree on - but this is human nature and no matter how great a system is devised, there will always be individuals who will find a way around it. As I quoted earlier from Syed Ali's book - many have highlighted the predisposition to corruption within the sharia finance system. It is noted in the 2011 Australian Government AIC report 'Money laundering & Terrorism financing risks to Australian non-Profit organisations' - that 'the obligatory charitable donations of zakat represent the largest single source of (charitable) revenue diverted to terrorist groups'. (Rudner 2006).
An Islamist cause - some would say this is tied to violence however theologically there are violent and non-violent means to the same end - ie the Islamisation of society through dawah or jihad. According to the Islamic scholars, theologically - both of these (dawah & jihad) may be funded by 'zakat'. I find it extraordinary that you provide a fatwa to show me 'it is ok to give charity to non-Muslims' - fancy having to be told something so basic to human decency that charity is not discriminatory! Yet sadly - there are Islamic scholars who would disagree and not permit giving charity to non-Muslims and not permit investment in Christian or Jewish enterprises. I don't feel I need to supply evidence of that when it is so readily obtainable through online searches. Most of what I have learnt has come from attending Islamic lectures and private research...to be continued

Re the letter to St Catherine: There is some question as to the authenticity of this letter and quite a lot of sharia law that opposes this. The last words of Muhammad according to Sahih Al-Bukhari were to expel non-Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula and the prohibition on non-Muslims entering Mecca etc still exists in the sharia today because of this. (And the Quranic quote about them being najasun or unclean). In March 2012 the Grand Mufti of Saudi declared the sharia position on churches in the region saying it was necessary to destroy them (the discussion was centred on Kuwait). So sharia has some difficulties with providing equality.

Oh, Vickie.

>>It is noted in the 2011 Australian Government AIC report 'Money laundering & Terrorism financing risks to Australian non-Profit organisations' - that 'the obligatory charitable donations of zakat represent the largest single source of (charitable) revenue diverted to terrorist groups'<<

You missed out five important words.

The full sentence on page 11 starts "It has been suggested that the obligatory charitable donations... etc.", which makes a not-very-subtle difference to the meaning.

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/7/3/9/%7B73997C4D-79B3-46B1-8D09-4AFC93E675F5%7Drpp114.pdf

Didn't mention who suggested it.

Could have been you, for all we know.

The same report also noted that:

"The IRA too has had a long history of funding its paramilitary activities with charitable support, sourced from private donations and funds collected in local pubs and clubs and contributions raised overseas by so-called ‘support’ groups such as the Irish-American NORAID (the Northern Aid Committee) and FOSF (Friends of Sinn Fein)."

How come this small fact didn't get a mention? Or this...

"The Qur’an notes (9:60) that eight categories of people are entitled to receive zakat including the poor, the needy and the wayfarer".

And to quote fully:

"Zakat is for the poor, and the needy and those who are employed to administer and collect it, and the new converts, and for those who are in bondage, and in debt and service of the cause of God, and for the wayfarers, a duty ordained by God, and God is the All-Knowing, the Wise"

Hmmmm. Doesn't mention terrorism, does it.

So it isn't zakat itself that is the problem, it is people who ignore its requirements and appropriate the funds for non-acceptable purposes.

I believe that Hillsong operates a similar tithing system. Any thoughts about that? While I'm fairly certain their funds go to good causes, if it didn't, and you found that some of it had been funneled out to buy arms for the Copts in Egypt, would you blame the system, or the people who diverted the money?

You are extremely selective in what you permit your arguments to rely on, you know.

Not a good look.

No I don't mention the IRA Pericles because we are talking about sharia finance and its claim to being more ethical. You keep diverting from that to corruption everywhere else and my apparent lack of intelligence. Lets stay on topic.
According to numerous scholars - zakat must be paid exclusively to Muslims only. Faraz Rabbani, selected in 2012 among the 500 Most Influential Muslims' is among them espousing the view zakat (charity) should not be paid to a 'Zimmi' (ie unbeliever)
27 Islamic charities were designated as terror sponsors by the US Treasury Department and also noted in the 2008 document 'Terrorism, charities and diasporas' (eds -Biersteker & Eckert) is this: 'Al Qaeda has infiltrated one-fifth of all Islamic charities...limiting this to England & Wales, and the Netherlands...(this represents) the rough order of 10,000 Islamic charities in these two jurisdictions'.
To respond to your quote 'not mentioning terrorism' in the uses of zakat...'in the cause of Allah' is understood as jihad and dawah... you can google the meaning of 'in the cause of Allah' as well as I and see that it includes jihad and dawah (war and inviting others to Islam - or proselytising) - these are all legitimate uses of 'charity' and I have heard this taught in Islamic lectures in Melbourne. (Just repeating what is taught Pericles so if you think that's stupid chat to those scholars who teach it)
You give the example of tithe money being 'funnelled out to support illegitimate causes' - the difference is Pericles that this is an illegitimate use and using zakat for jihad and dawah are seen as 'legitimate' uses. Can't you see the difference? - especially given the claim this is more ethical.

Once again you are tap-dancing, Vickie.

>>I don't mention the IRA Pericles because we are talking about sharia finance and its claim to being more ethical<<

To my way of thinking, the IRA's use of our banking system is "equally ethical".

Or unethical, depending on your view on the funding of terrorism.

Which raises the point, can one be "a little ethical", or "a lot ethical". Where does "more ethical" get measured? In the number of terrorist actions? Does kneecapping count as only-slightly-a-bit-unethical on your moral tariff?

>>You keep diverting from that to corruption everywhere else and my apparent lack of intelligence. Lets stay on topic.<<

It isn't your intelligence under scrutiny, Vickie, it is your use and misuse of facts and figures, which appear heavily freighted by your dislike of Islam.

Remember that highly selective cropping of the quote, for example, that you tendered in your last post? You obviously don't think that is in any way deceptive, or you would have apologized.

And there's all this:

- you refer to the "UN Declaration of Human Rights", which is silent on the subject of sharia ethics

- you refer to prohibited investments, while not achowledging that this happens everywhere, not just with sharia finance

- you talk about our government "promoting" sharia finance, which they don't

- you consider astronomic interest on payday loans is somehow more virtuous than an agreed proportion of the investment's value

- you believe that discriminating against men at a Fernwood gym is ok, but arranging an hour for Muslim women to swim is not ok

- you tell us that a workshop document on education is actual curriculum policy

- you have offered a number of opinions from people who think sharia finance lacks ethics, but no evidence that it does

- you have no problem accepting that our system finances arms dealers and drug smugglers, but only sharia is unethical

- you have a problem understanding that banking in this country answers to Australian law

There's heaps more, of course, if you care to go back and look.

Vikkie, why resort to misrepresentation if what you are saying is the truth, if what you are seeking is the truth?

Why selectively quote the 2011 Australian Government AIC report 'Money laundering & Terrorism financing risks to Australian non-Profit organisations' in such a manner that leaves the impression that the report is supporting your "teachings" (your words not mine) when in fact it is not?

If the only way you can illicit the support of an authorative source is by distorting its findings haven't you effectively admitted you are wrong?

This is not the only example of misrepresentation or, in other words, blatantly dishonest scholarship. Vikkie, in your article you quote Italian economist Lorretta Napoleoni as follows

"It should not be surprising that Italian economist Loretta Napoleoni states 'Islamic Banks…are the life-line of Wahhabi insurgency, they are the feeder of Islamist armed groups, without them terror-donations could not reach the end users scattered around the world'."

What should not be surprising? Have you read Napoleoni's other book 'Rogue Economics'? Surely, at least, are you aware of her views regarding Sharia finance?

salaams

oops sorry. i meant "elicit" or "enlist"

For the record - this is the full quote on page 11 headed - The susceptibility of Islamic charities:
When the cultural and religious drivers of zakat and other funding mechanisms and the ideology behind many of the terrorist attacks of the last two decades are factored in, the targeting of Islamic charities
was perhaps inevitable, even if not always justified. Indeed, it seemed such an obvious conduit that to suggest that such might not be the case could be construed by some as counterintuitive. It has been suggested that the obligatory charitable donations of zakat represent the largest single source of [charitable] revenue diverted to terrorist groups (Rudner 2006).

Are you suggesting that omitting the words...'it has been suggested...' in any way changes the intent of the paragraph? If I need to apologise it is for trying to minimise words and cut to the chase - which in this case is clearly about the 'targeting of Islamic charities being justified'. Not my words - a government report. You have ignored the 27 charities designated as terror sponsors - quite convenient.

Of course the UN Declaration of Human Rights is silent on sharia - it has nothing to do with sharia and as I have already stated it is only mentioned because UNDHR is not supported by OIC nations who opt instead for the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights subject to sharia: clearly a different standard.
Prohibited investments - this is a reclassification of values where non-Muslim food, finance, clothing, space, even people are 'unclean'. (the word in the Quran is 'najasun' - it is unclean. because people are najasun they are forbidden entry to the 'Most Holy City Mecca'. I'm sorry - I find promoting this concept divisive in a non-Muslim country.
continued...

That's exactly why I provided the full document, Vickie. So people can make up their own mind, without the quite overpowering bias you apply to everything.

>>Are you suggesting that omitting the words...'it has been suggested...' in any way changes the intent of the paragraph?<<

I'm actually quite astounded that you ask. It is absolutely essential to the sense of the paragraph.

They also pointed out that "it seemed such an obvious conduit that to suggest that such might not be the case could be construed by some as counterintuitive".

They may have had you in mind when they wrote that. You have spent the entire thread proving that you hold any contrary view to be counterintuitive.

The paragraph immediately before this one includes the quote:

"There is much evidence that these philanthropic and charitable structures perform not only an economically integral function in Muslim civil societies, but that they also are socially, culturally, and politically institutionalized".

What did you read into this, may I ask? Perhaps you believe the entire structure has been established in order to procure armaments for terrorists, and that its ostensible philanthropy is just a front?

I wouldn't put it past you. Seriously.

>>Of course the UN Declaration of Human Rights is silent on sharia<<

Ummm, that's what I said. On the other hand, what you said earlier was:

>>The values undergirding sharia ethics itself are not consistent with the UN Declaration of Human Rights<<

But when challenged, you couldn't point to any aspect of the Charter that sharia offended.

>>Prohibited investments - this is a reclassification of values where non-Muslim food, finance, clothing, space, even people are 'unclean'<<

But Vickie, sharia loans are made to non-Muslims - I thought we cleared that up when examining the situation in Malaysia. Remember?

"Moreover, non-Muslims also were attracted to the package of Islamic products offered in the market."

http://zulkiflihasan.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/the-effectiveness-of-legal-framework.pdf

And I provided the source information too, so you could check that I wasn't a) making it up or b) quoting out of context.

So your concept of "unclean" cannot apply to real-world sharia banking, can it?

Continuation from post yesterday - a few points:

The government IS promoting sharia finance Perciles - Austrade (Aust Govt) published the booklet Islamic Finance January 2010 and has publicly supported the concept at the state and federal level - the Parliamentary Secretary to the Federal treasurer committing to it at the Amanie sharia finance forum I attended in Melbourne April 2013.
I never suggested astronomical interest was virtuous - that's an error on your part. Nor do I consider gender based gyms and swimming discriminatory. I do say 'Muslim only' (not female only) is akin to religious apartheid. This was recommended in the Muslim Perspectives curriculum project - Muslim Only/not 'Female only'. Wouldn't Muslim/non-Muslim swimming be unifying for women?
But it’s not curriculum eh Pericles? The workshop document is referred to as 'a curriculum project' and has influenced curriculum as evidenced in the follow up document. Quote from page 2 of Learning From One Another: "Part A focuses on introducing Islam and Muslim related content into the classroom in each curriculum area". That’s the intent.
Yes I did say the values undergirding sharia are not consistent with UNDHR
values; values like religious freedom and equality. These are often denied citizens (including Muslims Pericles) in places like Pakistan that value sharia blasphemy and apostasy laws. Those that attempt to reform these laws may be assassinated…(Governor Punjab) sharia apostasy laws see multitudes killed for the assumed crime of leaving the faith and religious minorities face constant legal discrimination.

(Muslim) author Dr. Qanta Ahmed refers to
‘Blasphemy’ as an official state-sponsored, legislated blood sport leading to massacres in Pakistan’. He says it has ‘fueled extraordinary sectarianism inspired by unopposed lawfare on its own citizens. He notes this lawfare on citizens has been going on for decades without incurring significant domestic or any international opposition…perhaps if we weren’t so keen to validate sharia some lives might be saved.
More to come…

You say: So your concept of "unclean" cannot apply to real-world sharia banking, can it?
In the real world we can all invest in the ‘clean’ Islamic products – but the Islamic products do not invest in the religiously ‘unclean’. Your link refers to the sharia and conventional banks running side by side. CEO ACA Amanie Malaysia painted the picture in Melbourne for us 2013; He said ‘there are physical barriers between the two systems’ and presented the illustration of two rivers running side by side, quite separate, to ‘avoid contamination’. No guesses for what is contaminated.

PS I didn't say that arms dealers and drug smugglers are ethical - that's obviously wrong and not legal. We're talking about legally endorsing finance that is required to support zakat; something many sharia scholars affirm includes jihad and dawah; that's a different standard. Pericles – I believe you wrongly assume that opposition to sharia is based on hatred when anyone who loves freedom, democracy and human rights may be convicted to oppose sharia in favour of those loves. Many Muslims do. (including the friend I mentioned who you assume to be fictitious because she’s a Muslim). I also have homosexual friends who oppose same-sex marriage – so best not to make assumptions

Vickie, unlike you I don't have an agenda here. Except that I dislike the blatant misuse of facts.

>>Many Muslims do. (including the friend I mentioned who you assume to be fictitious because she’s a Muslim). I also have homosexual friends who oppose same-sex marriage – so best not to make assumptions<<

Now you have the chutzpah to tell me that I am the one making assumptions!

You began this thread as follows:

"Islamic Banks…are the life-line of Wahhabi insurgency, they are the feeder of Islamist armed groups, without them terror-donations could not reach the end users scattered around the world'"

Nothing you have argued provides any substance to that statement. You brush aside the fact that any finance system can be used to support terrorism, despite the fact that the following statement is as accurate as your headline: "the UK banking system was the lifeline of IRA terrorism, without it the donations to "charities" in the US could not reach the Belfast kneecappers or the London bombers".

What exactly is the difference?

And of course the two banking systems operate side by side. The operating principles are so totally different that they could not possibly merge.

>>Austrade (Aust Govt) published the booklet Islamic Finance January 2010 and has publicly supported the concept at the state and federal level<<

"Supporting" is not the same thing as promoting. Surely you can tell the difference between, say, supporting the right of the individual to enjoy a beer, and promoting the drinking of alcohol?

Since there's nothing illegal in the process, and it meets a community need, of course they "supported" it.

>>I never suggested astronomical interest was virtuous<<

Ok. But do tell, do you consider it more, or less, virtuous than sharia lending?

>>I do say 'Muslim only' (not female only) is akin to religious apartheid<<

So you did. What you failed to do was to explain that this is not happening in Australia.

>>The workshop document is referred to as 'a curriculum project'<<

Quite. But a "curriculum project" is not policy.

Try taking a closer look at your motives, Vickie.

My beginning…well that’s a quote from an Italian economist noted later in the text that the editor has pulled to use to head the article… so this economist and people like Dr Ehrenfeld from the American Centre for Democracy - & there are lots of others – who have researched this subject come to this conclusion. I’m quoting others Pericles. Syed Ali - he thinks it’s a sham – as does the Australian sharia practitioner David Clark in his 2010 submission to the Board of taxation. Are they all wrong?

Any financial system can be used to support terrorism – too true, I agree – but sharia is not just a financial system but a parallel system of law that undermines the rule of law, democracy and human rights. Sharia finance is, as the name implies, the financial arm of sharia law that at its core supports segregation (consider Mecca) and sharia does not support the human rights the free world embrace; things like freedom of speech, belief, association and freedom to change your mind about religion. What it does support is harsh punishments. They are just facts. You cannot severe sharia finance from sharia itself.

You argue over the words ‘promoting’ or ‘supporting’ - no problem – our government use both. Quote page 6 (Austrade – Islamic Finance) “Australian Federal & state governments recognize that growth of Islamic finance in Australia requires supportive government policies. It is important that there is: strong promotion & facilitation through government investment attraction & export promotion agencies.” Yes I can see the difference in ‘supporting’ and ‘promoting’ … both words are used in presenting SF.

You miss the point – ripping people off (excessive interest or whatever) is plainly wrong. Sharia finance is validating sharia – not a legal system to bring any human rights benefits; just the opposite it undermines many hard won freedoms.
continued...

continued...Muslim only swimming - be a skeptic however a) it was recommended in the curriculum project and b) (which I accept you will disregard) local non-Muslim Arabic women were complaining about it in our northern suburbs because they understood the implication – sorry I don’t frequent the pools to check it out. But this extract of an article gives you an idea about where these thoughts are leading:

An issue also emerged about whether single-sex sessions would fully satisfy Islamic requirements for modesty. Sheikh Fehmi Naji el-Imam of Preston mosque was quoted as saying that a conscientious Muslim woman should not be seen in the company of women who did not observe the dress teaching. In other words, non-Muslim women turning up in skimpy bathers would pose a problem.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/under-the-coverup-20101008-16c1v.html#ixzz2iRsMFUGC

The article concludes asking what this means for young Muslim girls wishing to be as free as their fellow citizens and how this is going to be facilitated while such ideas are promoted.

About my motives Perciles – it seems you have made up your mind

I most certainly have, Vickie.

>>About my motives Perciles – it seems you have made up your mind<<

Which is why I think it best if I simply let you get on with it.

Clearly, nothing will convince you that you are looking at the topic with one eye tightly closed, along with your mind.

Have a nice life.

It has been an interesting conversation to observe... thanks.

Yet, despite all that has been said Vickie, I find myself still unclear as to what you want done about sharia in Australia?

Hi Vickie,
Perhaps you missed this in my previous post, so I'll repeat it here:

Vikkie, in your article you quote Italian economist Lorretta Napoleoni as follows

"It should not be surprising that Italian economist Loretta Napoleoni states 'Islamic Banks…are the life-line of Wahhabi insurgency, they are the feeder of Islamist armed groups, without them terror-donations could not reach the end users scattered around the world'."

What should not be surprising? Have you read Napoleoni's other book 'Rogue Economics'? Are you aware of her views regarding Sharia finance?

Happy googling :-)

salaams

Yes I was aware of her views Grateful and despite them she still said Islamic banks are the lifeline of Wahhabi insurgency...I quoted her because she says this despite her support of the concept of sharia finance...

I am not going to be able to comment for more than a week now as will be away but seems the conversation has come to an end anyway. Many thanks for your respectful communication Grateful. Kind regards Vickie

But we come back to the point of misrepresentation. Consider the transcript of Napoleoni's interview with ABC's The World Today.

Let's begin with her analysis of the financial system that you are defending as ethical:

"ELEANOR HALL: The subprime crisis then is a direct consequence of rogue economics?

LORETTA NAPOLEONI: Yes it is. If you look at how the crisis came about, it came about through the transformation of a growing debt into an asset and that was made possible by the usage of derivatives. Basically applying this derivatives to mortgages was possible to transform this debt into an asset and sell the debt as an asset across the world.

There was no regulation in place to prevent something like this to happen.

ELEANOR HALL: I want to mention now one of the startling links that you draw. You say that there is a link between democracy and slavery. What is this link?

LORETTA NAPOLEONI: Well, basically we see that as democratic countries multiply, why this process happen, slavery start rising. By the end of the 1990s we had 27 million people who were actually slaves in those countries which had undergone the process of democratisation.

ELEANOR HALL: And you are not talking about wage slavery. You are talking about slavery like the sort of slavery trade we saw a couple of centuries ago, aren't you?

LORETTA NAPOLEONI: Yeah, I'm talking about real slavery people who are deprived of their freedom. People who are trading as merchandise. Now the first sign of this resurgence came actually right after the fall of the Berlin Wall when women from the former Soviet bloc were started to be traded as sex slaves and prostitutes in the west.

ELEANOR HALL: Who was doing the trading?

LORETTA NAPOLEONI: Well predominantly it was the Mafia. Initially, but then other organisations got involved so to a certain extent it is poor people enslaving other poor people and with the food crisis now hitting really hard, we will, for sure see another surge in the number of slaves."

cont...

cont...
Now let's see what she has to say about Sharia-compliant finance and the future of the global financial system:

"ELEANOR HALL: Now Islamic finance. Interestingly you say that it is the sole global economic force that can challenge rogue economics. Why?
LORETTA NAPOLEONI: Because it has a built-in code of ethics which we do not have anymore in western finance and this code of ethics comes from the Sharia law. Now when we say Sharia law people tend to associate it with something negative now we've got to explain that the Sharia law is nothing to do with the manipulation which has been done of this law by people like Osama bin Laden and the fundamentalists of Islamic.

Sharia law code of ethics which is very similar to the code of ethics of the classic British economist Adam Smith, David Ricardo. For example, money should not produce money. Money should be invested in the real economy and through the growth of the real economy, produce money.

So that is a fundamentally important concept which we have lost to a certain extent. The subprime crisis, it is created by an instrument which is based upon lending money that creates money.

ELEANOR HALL: So instead of a clash of civilisations, we essentially have a clash between rogue economics and Sharia economics?

LORETTA NAPOLEONI: Yes, that is a very good point. We do have a clash between rogue economics and Sharia economics whereby Sharia economics is the only force today that will be able to control rogue economics and bringing back within the rules providing, of course, Islamic finance does not fall into the hands of radical groups as you know al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden."
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2250284.htm

Not only is she saying sharia finance has an ethical foundation that is absent from the Western system, but that it is the only hope for what she describes in her book as a "New Social Contract"

cont..

cont..
In the last chapter of her book, Napoleoni predicts

"The gold dinar will become the benchmark of monetary stability and receive a global endorsement....The fiduciary nature of money will require the involvement of the state to guarantee that paper money maintains its value in gold. People will willingly delelgate such responsibility to the politicians, and in return, they will have stable exchange rates.
Politicians will refrain from intervening directly in commerce and economics. Islamic finance, with its encoded value system, will reduce and eventually crush the power of outlaws. The rogue nature of the economy will be trimmed by sharia economics. The outlaws will be shuuned through a code of ethics that prohibits such businesses as gambling, prostitution, pornography, and trade in illegal drugs. Hedge funds and private equities will be regulated by a financial system that rejects the concept that money can create money." p266, Rogue Economics

In her terms, you are a supporter of a rogue economics which has "created victims of millions of ordinary people whose lives have become trapped inside a fantasy world of consumerism", where "unscrupulous entrepreneurs trade without restriction".

Vickie, Napoleoni's of Sharia financial could not be any more different from your view, and yet you have used her in support of your argument or, as you like put it, your "teachings" on Sharia finance.

Clearly, we need to explore this divergence...the conversation is far from being at an end.

Until next week then,

Salaams
Glenn

Perhaps you need to share that with the sharia scholars in Pakistan who still endorse capital punishment for 'blasphemy' and Afghanistan who even discuss in contemporary government reintroducing capital punishment for apostasy - or Saudi that beheads people for witchcraft and forbids non-Muslims entry to Mecca and the authority on sharia, the Grand Mufti who recommends ridding the peninsula of churches. All these are sharia judgments too. Which sharia Grateful - that is the problem. These are all legitimate sharia norms too. That's the problem. As one visiting Sheik replied when asked in Melbourne if suicide bombing was lawful... he said 'well there are two schools of thought and both are valid'...that is the issue we have. There are different schools of sharia thought and both are valid. Why not just be ethical and use conventional finance ethically - sharia offers other options that have theological legitimacy but are not ethical at all. This is not to demonise Muslims but to recognise the inherent problems with sharia.

I’m not sure how a Napoleoni’s endorsement of Sharia economics would help address the problems you’ve identified. I’d be more inclined to send them the follow short videos of a Scholar, Habib Ali Al-Jifri, addressing similar issues, such as these two links:

Love of the Prophet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io7DZll2rIQ

Habib Ali responds to the plea of a woman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZG6ibK8mwo

The Mosque, Women & Prophetic Advice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSrkt8AglLE

…and then suggest that they engage with some of the scholars at www.Qibla.com. You may also learn something about traditional Islam, and not the Wahhabi revisionism that you have probably been mainly exposed to, by enrolling in one of their courses. The last video is also instructional in terms of how to criticise in a manner that is sincere in intention and therefore constructive.

Getting back to the main issue. You ask “Why not just be ethical and use conventional finance ethically”. According to people like Napoleoni you cann’t. Conventional finance is wide open to abuse. There will be people who will step in and do the wrong thing. Shariah financial products can help close these loopholes. I gave the example of the Greek debt crisis with its roots in political graft. Greek politicians and officials would not have been able to divert loans to fund their houses and boats under Sharia compliant finance. There would never have been a sub-prime crises if the financial products were Shariah compliant.

If I were to ask you how my argument or Napoleoni’s argument is affected by what you describe as the “inherent problems of the sharia” would you be capable of answering? Do you understand sharia-compliant financial products such as Murabaha, Mudaraba, Ijara, Sukuk, Musharaka, Istisna or Salam? At least one Australian bank will soon be offering some of these products. How would these so called "inherent problems" impact on these banks or society?

Agreed - Napolean's endorsement does not help address the problems many people see.
Sharia finance practitioner David Clark explained how sharia finance prohibits excessive uncertainty resulting in the claim of being “more stable”. Clark notes in his submission to the Board of Taxation the most common structure of a sharia home loan is the ijara structure. Here “certainty” is achieved by entering into a new lease each month to allow variable rental. The borrower undertakes to constantly renew the lease until the principal is repaid. Hence there is “monthly certainty”. ie The same monthly certainty conventional finance offers. I am not a finance practitioner but have been advised by Clark that Mudarabah and Wakalah structures are defined “without regard to market reality”. But this is quite secondary to concerns about religious scholars like Taqi Usmani heading the so-called 'highest regulatory board' directing these sharia investments. He is an extremist whose ethics in no way align with most people. ie Jihad against infidels are included in his recommendations. The idea that sharia finance isn't just as open to abuse as any other finance is ridiculous given people like Usmani direct investments. I trust I've made it clear my main concern is validating and promoting sharia compliance in any way. As long as we have news like this - it just seems crazy to promote sharia at all - it just acts to support those who are extreme: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2471776/Sultan-Brunei-introduce-new-sharia-laws.html

Hi Vickie,

Having skimmed through David Clark's submission to the BoT Review and his other article "The Shariah-Compliant Finance Myth", and what appears to be your one-on-one discussions with David, it would be fair to say David is your primary source. Its probably also fair to say that you know next to nothing about Islamic financial products, so you are heavily reliant on this one source. Although David claims to be a "sharia finance practitioner" involved in "consulting Sharia scholars and structuring Islamic finance products", without any further detail I remain skeptical particularly in light of his inflammatory language.

Putting that issue to one side, David has level some common criticisms about the the structure of some Islamic financial products and in particular to what extent are they just replications of conventional financial products. These issues I'd be happy to discuss, although I'd admit that I'm a novice and certainly not an authority, so I would only be speaking as an arm-chair academic. In any case, I like a challenge and David's criticisms of some Islamic financial contracts is a challenge worth engaging in because it would allow us to gain greater insight into what is meant, and what is not meant, by sharia compliant finance.

cont..

cont..

As for David's remarks about Mufti Taqi Usmani, this is what David has to say in his submission to the BoT Review of IF:

"AAOIFI chairman, Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani who sits on many westen and Islamic bank shariah boards says that offensive, aggressive military jihad must be waged by Muslims “to establish the supremacy of Islam world” and “Killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay jizyah (subjugation tax) after they are humbled or overpowered.” He also advises Muslims to only live peacefully in the west until they gained enough power to carry out jihad”

And this is what YOU have to say about the Mufti: "an extremist whose ethics in no way align with most people. ie Jihad against infidels are included in his recommendations."

And this is what Mufti Taqi Usmani had to say about the attribution of these statements to him:

“Surprisingly, many of these websites claim that I have issued a fatwa that “Muslims living in the West conduct violent jihad against the infidels at every opportunity.” But I never made any such statement either in writing or verbally nor issued any so-called fatwa. Nor is there any sentence to that effect in any of my writings, including “Islam and Modernism”. If this statement is attributed to me in Mr. Norfolk’s interview with me, it is not but a blatant lie, because I never said this during the interview.”(*Ref below)

This is a part of full and complete refutation of the sort of accusations you and David have leveled against this scholar. I would ask anyone else reading this post to give the Mufti the opportunity to defend himself by reading his words in full. These words were written in 2009, before David was writing and of course well before Vickie

Vickie, I challenge you to read the Mufti’s statement in full and explain how it can in any way support the allegations you have leveled against the Mufti. You should apologise for defaming the Mufti and admit you have got it wrong (yet again!)

*Source: http://seekersguidance.org/blog/2009/12/mufti-muhammad-taqi-usmani-clarifies-his-stance-on-jihad-2/

Hi Grateful

1. I agree - I am not any sort of financial expert and that has not been my argument - I am concerned about the promotion of sharia compliance at all for very sound reasons - it goes hand in hand with restriction of freedoms, undermining of the rule of law and human rights abuses. This segregates communities further - food, finance, etc - based on a premise that un-Islamic = unholy.
2. I have met David Clark but it is wrong to assert I rely solely on his submission - I have quoted many people - Muslim and non-Muslim - throughout this blog.

3. Here's a quote from American Thinker January 2013: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/dont_askdont_tell_anything_abo_1.html

"Whatever dim views one may hold on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the U.S. Military, the policy pales in comparison to the outright calls to violence enunciated by some of the Islamic world's most prestigious and powerful Shariah advisors.

Case in point: Meet Sheikh Muhammed Taqi Usmani, former appellate court judge in Pakistan, a Deobandi (one of the most extreme Pakistani schools of Islam, associated with the Pakistani Taliban)-trained jurist and chief Shariah advisor to the HSBC Amanah Bank, one of the world's largest and richest banks and one of the sponsors of Harvard's Islamic Finance Project. Among other delightful quotes from Sheikh Usmani:

For a non-Muslim state to have more pomp and glory than a Muslim state itself is an obstacle, therefore to shatter this grandeur is among the greater objectives of jihad (from Islam and Modernism)

Also from Usmani's book: "Killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay jizyah (subjugation tax) after they are humbled or overpowered."

(That quote is on page 86 of his book - yes - please read the context)

To be continued with reference to your link:

The link you gave me has Mr Usmani stating this...
I took the second view and explained that jihad is not meant only when an Islamic state is actually attacked by an alien force, but it is meant also as a preemptive action when the honor and freedom of Muslims is in danger from any alien force. And this is what is meant by “iqdami jihad” which is wrongly translated as “aggressive” or “offensive” jihad.

Attacking because 'honor and freedom of Muslims is in danger'... (hmmm - freedom to impose sharia? )...he continues..'Thus the main substance of my answer was that merely allowing Islamic missionaries entering into a non-Muslim country does not mean that it has no hostile designs against Islam and Muslims. It is possible that despite allowing Islamic missionaries working on its soil, a non-Muslim government is a political danger to the freedom and honor of an Islamic state, in which case jihad is not forbidden.'
(I see, we have to be open to missionary activity and politically open to the rise of the Islamic state - something many wish to democratically oppose - but this opposition may legitimately result in violent jihad because opposition is a reason for this?)
Now Usmani also says this in the link you sent me. '..whatever I have mentioned in my letter on jihad is relevant to a formal/regular Islamic state. It has no relation to the individuals living in a non-Muslim country.' However you can read above the reference to non-Muslim lands and I have that letter in front of me. The context is to (quote) 'break the grandeur' of a non-Muslim state - (over Muslims). I'll leave those thoughts with you - I'll be away for a couple of weeks from Monday Grateful. Take care. Vickie

Thanks Vickie,

In the previous post, I challenged you “to read the Mufti’s statement in full and explain how it can in any way support the allegations you have leveled against the Mufti.”

You earlier described the Mufti as "an extremist whose ethics in no way align with most people. ie Jihad against infidels are included in his recommendations.”

Now you are saying that he endorses violent jihad against democratic opposition to ‘missionary activity and an Islamic state.

However, ALL the references you have made to support these accusations are from the book “Islam and Modernism”, are they not? This includes the letter you refer to which appears in the last chapter.

But you are fully aware that the Mufti states categorically that “Islam and Modernism” " is not a book written by me" because "It is an English translation of some of my Urdu articles, and was published without my review."

You have failed to support your accusation with anything that the Mufti has written and in another effective admission of this failure have resorted to words that were NOT authored by the Mufti. You have slandered the Mufti based on this book and have done so repeatedly fully aware that he denies authorship of this book.

You should be apologising for maligning the Mufti’s character with these vile and unconscionable accusations. It is your ‘ethics’ that is out of synch with most people.

Until next week, when we can discuss what David Clark has to say about specific Islamic financial contracts,

salaams

Grateful- it is an English translation of his articles in Urdu. Agreed, he didn't review the translation (which you automatically assume to be fraudulent) but the link you gave me says he is only denying he advocates for 'violent jihad against infidels at every opportunity'. His 'correction' confirms he does support violent jihad...Quote from the 'correction':
'Thus the main substance of my answer was that merely allowing Islamic missionaries entering into a non-Muslim country does not mean that it has no hostile designs against Islam and Muslims. It is possible that despite allowing Islamic missionaries working on its soil, a non-Muslim government is a political danger to the freedom and honor of an Islamic state, in which case jihad is not forbidden.'

On the face of it he is saying being open to Islamic missionary activity is not enough and he doesn't forbid jihad against a non-Muslim government who have 'hostile designs' against Muslims. What would that look like Grateful? Is it considered 'hostile' if a society bans the burqa or denies a mosque application? How is this hostility measured? Usmani is known to have connections to radicals and Taliban - yet you defend him as a great man. Surah 5:32 was quoted to me today ' if anyone kills a person its as if he has killed all mankind' - sounds noble but of course, as usual, the whole translation is omitted. The bit that says 'except in retaliation of murder or committing mischief in the land' is omitted. I'm not sure what 'mischief' is but we wouldn't want to be guilty of it for the next verse says those guilty of mischief should be 'killed, crucified, their hands & feet cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled'. All in the word play Grateful and you seem happy to play with Usmani.

Vickie you have just admitted that the book “Islam and Modernism”, which you originally based you and David Clark originally based your defamatory comments about the Mufti, can no longer be tendered as evidence. Does this mean you will apologise for these remarks. No of course not. The calumny does not stop here. Now you are arguing that an article I supplied you provides the support you need. And if that is not enough: “Usmani is known to have connections to radicals and Taliban - yet you defend him as a great man.”

Let’s examine the Taliban statement first. You do not state what sort of connections nor do you provide an evidence in support of your this accusation. Well i can provide evidence in the form of a recent communique released by the Mufti and other scholars condemning the actions of the Taliban in attacking a church and killing 83 Christians, saying “Attacks like these are in total violation of the teachings of Quran and Sunnah,” and that “Islam advocates protection to the life and property of all the citizens without any discrimination based on dialect, faith or any other aspect.” http://www.pakistantribune.com.pk/5229/ulema-deoband-denounce-suicide-attacks.html#sthash.4ghrjzWe.dpuf

Clearly, the Mufti's statement does NOT support your accusation that he is "an extremist whose ethics in no way align with most people. ie Jihad against infidels are included in his recommendations.”

I will return to the second point tomorrow, because i have probably reached the post limit

cont...

cont..

Returning to your other point. You agree that the “extremist” tag cannot be supported by your original evidence (the book that he did NOT write). However, you assert, based on the Mufti’s ‘correction’ (the link i supplied), that the Mufti "is saying being open to Islamic missionary activity is not enough and he doesn't forbid jihad against a non-Muslim government who have 'hostile designs' against Muslims.”

The first point that can be made is that the Mufti considers violent jihad to be justified when “it is fought to save the country from physical attack of an enemy” and “as a pre-emptive measure though a Muslim state is not physically attacked, yet its freedom and honor is endangered by an alien force.” So the hostility of the non-Muslim government to which the Mufti is referring is hostility by a non-Muslim government towards a “Muslim state”, no “Muslims” per se.

Therefore, when you ask “Is it considered 'hostile' if a society bans the burqa or denies a mosque application? “, clearly these are not examples of the ‘hostility’ that would justify violent jihad against a non-Muslim country. The hostility needs to be directed towards a Muslim state.

Is that clear enough? If there are any more objections please feel free to post them. However, like i said you have no grounds for applying the "extremists" tag to Mufti Taqi Usmani and you should acknowledge this by apologising.

salaams