You say: So your concept of "unclean" cannot apply to real-world sharia banking, can it?
In the real world we can all invest in the ‘clean’ Islamic products – but the Islamic products do not invest in the religiously ‘unclean’. Your link refers to the sharia and conventional banks running side by side. CEO ACA Amanie Malaysia painted the picture in Melbourne for us 2013; He said ‘there are physical barriers between the two systems’ and presented the illustration of two rivers running side by side, quite separate, to ‘avoid contamination’. No guesses for what is contaminated.

PS I didn't say that arms dealers and drug smugglers are ethical - that's obviously wrong and not legal. We're talking about legally endorsing finance that is required to support zakat; something many sharia scholars affirm includes jihad and dawah; that's a different standard. Pericles – I believe you wrongly assume that opposition to sharia is based on hatred when anyone who loves freedom, democracy and human rights may be convicted to oppose sharia in favour of those loves. Many Muslims do. (including the friend I mentioned who you assume to be fictitious because she’s a Muslim). I also have homosexual friends who oppose same-sex marriage – so best not to make assumptions

Vickie, unlike you I don't have an agenda here. Except that I dislike the blatant misuse of facts.

>>Many Muslims do. (including the friend I mentioned who you assume to be fictitious because she’s a Muslim). I also have homosexual friends who oppose same-sex marriage – so best not to make assumptions<<

Now you have the chutzpah to tell me that I am the one making assumptions!

You began this thread as follows:

"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'"

Nothing you have argued provides any substance to that statement. You brush aside the fact that any finance system can be used to support terrorism, despite the fact that the following statement is as accurate as your headline: "the UK banking system was the lifeline of IRA terrorism, without it the donations to "charities" in the US could not reach the Belfast kneecappers or the London bombers".

What exactly is the difference?

And of course the two banking systems operate side by side. The operating principles are so totally different that they could not possibly merge.

>>Austrade (Aust Govt) published the booklet Islamic Finance January 2010 and has publicly supported the concept at the state and federal level<<

"Supporting" is not the same thing as promoting. Surely you can tell the difference between, say, supporting the right of the individual to enjoy a beer, and promoting the drinking of alcohol?

Since there's nothing illegal in the process, and it meets a community need, of course they "supported" it.

>>I never suggested astronomical interest was virtuous<<

Ok. But do tell, do you consider it more, or less, virtuous than sharia lending?

>>I do say 'Muslim only' (not female only) is akin to religious apartheid<<

So you did. What you failed to do was to explain that this is not happening in Australia.

>>The workshop document is referred to as 'a curriculum project'<<

Quite. But a "curriculum project" is not policy.

Try taking a closer look at your motives, Vickie.

My beginning…well that’s a quote from an Italian economist noted later in the text that the editor has pulled to use to head the article… so this economist and people like Dr Ehrenfeld from the American Centre for Democracy - & there are lots of others – who have researched this subject come to this conclusion. I’m quoting others Pericles. Syed Ali - he thinks it’s a sham – as does the Australian sharia practitioner David Clark in his 2010 submission to the Board of taxation. Are they all wrong?

Any financial system can be used to support terrorism – too true, I agree – but sharia is not just a financial system but a parallel system of law that undermines the rule of law, democracy and human rights. Sharia finance is, as the name implies, the financial arm of sharia law that at its core supports segregation (consider Mecca) and sharia does not support the human rights the free world embrace; things like freedom of speech, belief, association and freedom to change your mind about religion. What it does support is harsh punishments. They are just facts. You cannot severe sharia finance from sharia itself.

You argue over the words ‘promoting’ or ‘supporting’ - no problem – our government use both. Quote page 6 (Austrade – Islamic Finance) “Australian Federal & state governments recognize that growth of Islamic finance in Australia requires supportive government policies. It is important that there is: strong promotion & facilitation through government investment attraction & export promotion agencies.” Yes I can see the difference in ‘supporting’ and ‘promoting’ … both words are used in presenting SF.

You miss the point – ripping people off (excessive interest or whatever) is plainly wrong. Sharia finance is validating sharia – not a legal system to bring any human rights benefits; just the opposite it undermines many hard won freedoms.
continued...

continued...Muslim only swimming - be a skeptic however a) it was recommended in the curriculum project and b) (which I accept you will disregard) local non-Muslim Arabic women were complaining about it in our northern suburbs because they understood the implication – sorry I don’t frequent the pools to check it out. But this extract of an article gives you an idea about where these thoughts are leading:

An issue also emerged about whether single-sex sessions would fully satisfy Islamic requirements for modesty. Sheikh Fehmi Naji el-Imam of Preston mosque was quoted as saying that a conscientious Muslim woman should not be seen in the company of women who did not observe the dress teaching. In other words, non-Muslim women turning up in skimpy bathers would pose a problem.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/under-the-coverup-20101008-16c1v.html#ixzz2iRsMFUGC

The article concludes asking what this means for young Muslim girls wishing to be as free as their fellow citizens and how this is going to be facilitated while such ideas are promoted.

About my motives Perciles – it seems you have made up your mind

I most certainly have, Vickie.

>>About my motives Perciles – it seems you have made up your mind<<

Which is why I think it best if I simply let you get on with it.

Clearly, nothing will convince you that you are looking at the topic with one eye tightly closed, along with your mind.

Have a nice life.

It has been an interesting conversation to observe... thanks.

Yet, despite all that has been said Vickie, I find myself still unclear as to what you want done about sharia in Australia?