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?"