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.