The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Sharia finance uncovered > Comments

Sharia finance uncovered : Comments

By Vickie Janson, published 20/9/2013

'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'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 23
  10. 24
  11. 25
  12. All
So let’s see…

Vickie opens with:
<<[it’s] a little ironic given [Papiss Cisse’s] willingness to wear the previous shirts sponsored by Virgin Money>>

And in response cops this from Pericles:
<< Wonga [charges] 5853% APR>>.
<<If you cannot see the difference…yada yada yada >>

It has obviously escaped Pericles notice that PC’s issue is not the rate of interest but its very existence--As Vickie tells us here:
<<His refusal to wear the payday loan firm's insignia is based on his belief that sharia does not allow Muslims to benefit from lending money>>
So no, Pericles, PC is not taking umbrage with rate gouging (Sharia is all for gouging!)..but his opposition is to the very existence of interest charges.

And it is as Vickie notes out of character. Now of course England is not a Sharia governed state , so one can still change or adopt religion at any time –so perhaps PC has suddenly found God, not an usual occurrence.

Another point Vickie has copped a beating on was the statement:
<<I'm talking about the ethics of sharia law that openly discriminates against non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries>>

Pericles claims:
<<You're talking about Australia>>
But given this:
<<Sharia ... transcends national boundaries and commercial law>>
It might well apply to Oz.
And given this:
<<Sharia compliant finance …[requires local partners/users to comply with its] body of religious law>>
It is not so outlandish to that it might seen to discriminate against non-Muslims.

And then there’s Rhian. She who accuses Vickei of <<confus[ing] two separate issues>>

Rhian immediately throws in the old IRA red herring.

<< I bet the IRA’s backers in the USA used western banks to transfer money, too>>

Yeh, well I --counter-bet-- it ain't legal either!

And then she gives us this assurance:

<<and Islamic financial institutions established to propagate terrorism, which of course is nonsense.>>
Which if I read it correctly –given it is a little hard to decipher -- is a iron-clad guarantee it does not occur.But of course she’d know –wouldn’t she?
Posted by SPQR, Saturday, 21 September 2013 10:04:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A nice piece of obfuscation, SPQR. You haven't lost the knack, that's for sure.

The whole Cisse thing was a confection anyway. Vickie would have known all along that he decided back in July to wear the Wonga logo.

But you chose a tough assignment, defending Vickie on this one. She most specifically claimed:

<<I'm talking about the ethics of sharia law that openly discriminates against non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries>>

At which you manned the barricades with this waffle:

>>Pericles claims: "You're talking about Australia"
But given this:
"Sharia ... transcends national boundaries and commercial law".
It might well apply to Oz.<<

I leave it to sanity to demonstrate that Vickie on the one hand stated categorically that she was talking about "non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries", then contradicted that by highlighting "Islamic sharia finance in Australia". Couldn't be more obvious.

But the part you have managed to get so completely ass-about-face is the bit about "might well apply to Oz".

You are of course being totally delusional if you believe "Sharia ... transcends national boundaries and commercial law". It may well be active in different countries, sure. But in each of those countries - including Australia - it is beholden to the law of the land.

And this is typical of your confusion:

>>And given this: "Sharia compliant finance …[requires local partners/users to comply with its] body of religious law"
It is not so outlandish to that it might seen to discriminate against non-Muslims.<<

Whatever its religious foundations might be, Sharia finance does not contravene our laws. To take out a Sharia loan does not involve conversion to Islam. And - given that we have the free will to accept or reject the product - how can it possibly discriminate against non-Muslims? Where's the discrimination?

Quite simply, you are not making sense.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 21 September 2013 1:42:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Pericles

The truth is, at the time of writing the article, Cisse had not yet decided to wear the shirt - this article has being re-published since the time of writing - so at the time - no-one knew he would finally agree to wear it.

We must not confuse sharia law with sharia finance, but nevertheless, they are not unrelated. Sharia finance is the financial arm of sharia law which without doubt does discriminate against non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries. And here in Australia where we have begun to see sharia compliance in a number of areas - 'Muslim only swimming' (Coburg & Dandenong area for example) - we also openly see discrimination against non-Muslims. Why can't non-Muslim women join their fellow citizens in the water?

The truth is Pericles, according to research published by Australian legal academics Ann Black & Kerri Sadiq (2011 from memory) “ a system of legal pluralism based on sharia law abounds in Australia – endorsing polygamous and underage marriages outlawed under the marriage act". So it does indeed appear to be transcending national boundaries and Australian laws.

Where is the discrimination? My point was when a financial product is to be marketed as a new 'ethical investment' - and it's ethics are the primary selling feature - it is fair to question the ethics of the system from which it originates. It originates from Islamic religious scholars of sharia law - and sharia law is inherently discriminatory, challenging many people in the area of human rights. Women's rights activists were lobbying the Malaysian government earlier this year to address the child bride phenomenon in Malaysia. Unfortunately the government minister advised them there was nothing that could be done about it by the government because the issue related to sharia law.

This being the case - do we want to promote sharia anything? - this is my point.
Posted by Vickie, Saturday, 21 September 2013 2:05:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"'Muslim only swimming' (Coburg & Dandenong area for example) - we also openly see discrimination against non-Muslims. Why can't non-Muslim women join their fellow citizens in the water?"

Unless you have something more recent than I could easily find, it seems that they can...

As reported by Australasian Leisure Management website from 25 July 2012:

"The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has allowed the City of Casey to continue women-only swimming sessions at its Casey Recreation and Aquatic Centre (C-RACE) in Narre Warren.

VCAT has allowed the Council a new exemption from anti-discrimination laws to continue the sessions at its YMCA-managed facility after the original exemption, obtained in 2008, expired.

In a recent VCAT hearing, the Council said that due to religious and cultural beliefs, Muslim women faced inequalities in terms of access to the pool during normal hours, stating "with the granting of the 2008 exemption, the women-only swimming program provided an opportunity to rectify that inequality."

The News.com website reported that the Council told VCAT that the program helped Muslim women integrate into Australian culture because there were cross-cultural exchanges with non-Muslims who also attended the sessions."

and ended:

"However, in a story 'Muslim women thrive with pool man ban', news.com reported conservative lobby group the Endeavour Forum as criticising the practice. News.com quoted Convenor Babette Francis as having said Muslims were promoting the subjugation of women by demanding separate swimming sessions."

Which seems odd because women only swimming sessions sounds more like subjugation of men to me.

more///
Posted by WmTrevor, Saturday, 21 September 2013 4:44:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Dandenong Leader reported this on 16 September 2010:

" DANDENONG’S mayor has called on residents to embrace a Muslim event at which people will be forced to cover up.

The event, to be held after hours at the public Dandenong Oasis pool on August 21, 2011, will require all participants older than 10 to follow a dress code of knee-length shorts and T-shirts.

Women and men attending the event, aimed at diverse backgrounds, will be required to cover their torsos, extending to the upper arms and from waist to knee.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal granted an exemption from the Equal Opportunity Act after an application was lodged by Victorian YMCA on behalf of itself and the City of Greater Dandenong.

A women’s only swim session has operated at Dandenong Oasis from 6.15pm to 8.15pm on Sundays for the past two years.

Greater Dandenong Mayor Jim Memeti said the women’s-only program had requested the council’s support to hold a “one-off community event for two hours to celebrate Ramadan ... in a culturally respectful manner”.

The cover-up order has drawn public ire as well as scorn from Islamic leaders.

But Cr Memeti said the one-off pool event was not focused on religion, but more so on families and friends getting together.

He said the group had asked for the dress code to make it easier on its members from countries with strict rules about male and female interaction.

“It’s fantastic to see these women opening their doors to anyone in the community,” he told Leader.

“The event is a good way for families, mainly partners and husbands to share two hours of fun at the pool.

“This is a one-off event for two hours.

“It’s a private group that uses the facility and thought it might be a good idea to have the event.”"

Sounds innocuous enough that even Catholic nuns could have attended, as long as they didn't wear bikinis.

even more///
Posted by WmTrevor, Saturday, 21 September 2013 4:48:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not everyone was happy though...

"Islamic women’s leaders also panned the order.

Islamic Women’s Welfare Council chairwoman Tasneem Chopra said she understood the intention to make the event inclusive, but stressed women should have the right to choose what they wore.

“We don’t, as women, appreciate being told what to wear,” she said.

“We do have concerns about setting a standard of dress code for the broader public when it comes to a public event.”

Islamic Council Victoria vice-president Sherene Hassan said her council also did not support the dress restrictions."

I know you addressed this comment to Pericles...

"So it does indeed appear to be transcending national boundaries and Australian laws."

but I thought you might be interested in this take on the issues raised:

"In their article, associate professor Sadiq and Ms Black note that research on Islamic marriage found in 2008 that 90 per cent of Muslims did not want to change Australian law.

They write that many Muslims support the protection of human rights and had come to Australia because of practices such as genital mutilation and honour killings in countries ruled by unreformed versions of sharia.

However, they suggest there should be "tweaking" of family law to take account of sharia.

They suggest that the Family Law Act could be changed to ensure that when courts make parenting orders Muslim children are given similar rights to those enjoyed by indigenous children.

This would require courts to consider they have a right to enjoy their own culture and the culture of people who share their culture.

Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland said if there was ever any inconsistency between cultural values and the rule of law "then Australian law wins out"."

- More at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sharia-law-at-work-in-australia/story-fn59niix-1226097889992#sthash.i6KZiLB0.dpuf

Are we promoting 'sharia anything' if it happens to be consistent with Australian law? I don't foresee Parliament House becoming an alcohol-banned zone anytime soon - even if that might be a good thing.
Posted by WmTrevor, Saturday, 21 September 2013 4:52:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 23
  10. 24
  11. 25
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy