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.