"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.