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…