Shortfall of ethics Perciles...let me see...The “highest regulatory bodies” mentioned in the sharia finance forum I attended in Melbourne were the Fiq Academy of the OIC and Bahrain based Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI).

Both these bodies have renowned sharia scholar Mufti Taqi Usmani in common. Usmani is a permanent member of the Fiq Academy and International Chairman of the AAOIFI. According to the National Review, Investors Business Daily, the Washington Times and numerous online articles, Usmani has issued fatwahs (ie legal decrees) demanding that Muslims living in the West conduct or support violent jihad against infidels at every opportunity.In Usmani’s book "Islam and Modernism" the Pakistani cleric wrote “Killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay jizyah (subjugation tax) after they are humbled or overpowered”. This was translated from his native Urdu into English in 2006.

Usmani is an advocate for spreading sharia law in America and the West and the aim of Muslims, he wrote, is to “take out people from the rule of people and put them under the rule of Allah.” Submission to sharia compliance certainly achieves that.

According to the Washington-based Center for Security Policy Usmani has run a Pakistani madrassa, which has trained thousands of Taliban. Due to such allegations, Dow Jones no longer employs Usmani. However, it seems he is still the chairman of the regulatory board Dr Elgari referred to as the “highest regulatory board” – the one offered as an umbrella organization guiding investment in Australia - AAOIFI.
In Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld's report regarding the American International Group (AIG) sharia advisory board she notes the AIG case study where investment in western weapons and defence is forbidden whereas investment in Muslim weapons and defence is not. (A tad discriminatory perhaps?)
Re the LFOA - surely implementing workbook recommendations may be considered adopting the curriculum recommendations - to say otherwise is ignoring it's recognition by those in the follow up document provided.

By the way, SPQR, we are talking about sharia law here, not the ongoing battles between Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyya, Sufi, Wahhabi etc.

>>Go ask the Egyptian Copts if they think they get an equal go
Go ask the Pakistani Christians if they are treated fairly
Go ask the Kenyans who heard the terroist gunman say
"Muslims can go free" the rest we intend to kill!<<

We know, of course, that there are a number of terrorist groups who rejoice in killing "others" - including, of course, Christians - but you cannot lay the blame for this at the feet of sharia. Sharia financing, as we know, does not permit investment in armaments, so it cannot itself be held responsible for the support of terrorism.

I guess it is a bit like Northern Ireland. Do you blame the recent half-century of Troubles on Christianity, or on the schism that exists within Christianity between Protestants and Catholics? Was Christianity itself responsible for the burning at the stake of 300 Protestants by Mary I of England, or the execution under Elizabeth I of Jesuits at Tyburn?

I would also bet that the mechanism by which money was transferred from the piggy-banks of Bostonians into the bank accounts of the various IRAs was totally legal. One of these vehicles was NORAID, which openly supported the IRA, while pretending that donations to it were for "humanitarian aid". I'm reasonably certain that a "charity" of this kind would have been under intense scrutiny back then, and would most definitely have made sure it conformed to all banking laws. In the same way, money might be channeled through Islamic banks to terrorists, but the system itself cannot be blamed.

You personally might not like some broader aspects of sharia law, in the same way that you might not approve of many aspects of Australian law - say, on abortion, gambling, pornography etc. But you don't actually have to comply with sharia, do you. Just Australian law.

But please, do keep frothing away. It is both instructive and entertaining.

Great, Vickie, that looks like one more thing we can agree upon.

>>Shortfall of ethics Perciles...let me see...The “highest regulatory bodies” mentioned in the sharia finance forum I attended in Melbourne were the Fiq Academy of the OIC and Bahrain based Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI)Both these bodies have renowned sharia scholar Mufti Taqi Usmani in common. Usmani is a permanent member of the Fiq Academy and International Chairman of the AAOIFI. According to the National Review, Investors Business Daily, the Washington Times and numerous online articles, Usmani has issued fatwahs (ie legal decrees) demanding that Muslims living in the West conduct or support violent jihad against infidels at every opportunity...<< etc. etc. ad naus.

Clearly, from your decision to talk about the actions of individuals, rather than the system itself, we can agree that there is nothing unethical in sharia finance whatsoever. So all that waffle about "Sharia finance involves a theological proposition" bears absolutely no scrutiny - it's just a lot of hot air.

You just don't like Islam, do you.

Which is your right, of course, we don't all have to like the same things. But if you are going to be critical in a public forum, it is kinda important that you actually present your case logically and factually. Referring us to the pronouncements of people, rather than focussing on the reality of the financial transactions relevant to your case against sharia banking, simply confirms that you have picked the wrong target.

Have another look at the mechanics of sharia finance, and tell us, specifically, where it lacks ethics.

Please Pericles - a sharia advisory board that can appoint a radical like Usmani as its chair to direct sharia compliant investments - this clearly shows the nature of sharia itself. This is apparently the highest regulatory board so imagine with these ethics what will be considered ethical investments...(I've already given you the example of investment in weapons being ok as long as they weren't non-Muslim weapons)
It's sharia I clearly 'don't like' - and this is because it is inherently discriminately. Sharia finance lacks ethics because its basic premise is that anything other than Islamic finance is 'contaminated'. (And that's straight from the sharia educators presentation to practitioners in Melbourne.)

You still seem to confuse principles with implementation, Vickie.

>>...a sharia advisory board that can appoint a radical like Usmani as its chair to direct sharia compliant investments - this clearly shows the nature of sharia itself<<

It would appear that it is not sharia finance itself that you object to, but Mr Usmani's direction of it. In the same way that many object, say, to the influence wielded by a Greenspan or a Bernanke over our system.

You make it even clearer with this:

>>I've already given you the example of investment in weapons being ok as long as they weren't non-Muslim weapons<<

A close parallel, don't you think, would be the USA's preference for supplying weapons to one particular side of a foreign conflict. Discriminatory, yes. But not the fault of the banking system.

>>Sharia finance lacks ethics because its basic premise is that anything other than Islamic finance is 'contaminated'<<

I guess you don't accept that a banking system which supports the supply of drugs to our children is also "contaminated", in its own way?

Pericles,

<<By the way, SPQR, we are talking about sharia law here, not the ongoing battles between Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyya, Sufi, Wahhabi etc.>>
Indeed, so where did I mention Sharia in relation to the above --care to point it out?

My issue was more with Sharia’s impact on Muslim women generally (in the UK & US) and non-Muslims in Muslim majority states--It's actually quite telling that you found our evidence of such discrimination quote: "entertaining"!

<<We know, of course, that there are a number of terrorist groups who rejoice in killing "others"…- but you cannot lay the blame for this at the feet of sharia. Sharia financing…>>
Ah but we can--& should. To a large extend we can blame Sharia, because as pointed out by Vickie (numerous times now!) Sharia financial institutions have been used to fund such groups --they have been caught doing so.

I surmise your unwillingness to grasp this point stems from your belief that Islam is little different to any other “modern” belief system. You thinking going something like this:
--There are good and bad in all...yada yada
--The badness in Islam is all about a few bad guys get it wrong...yada yada
--Most Muslim live peacefully --that proves it ...yada yada

But if this is so, how is it that bad guys from Nigeria, Somalia, Iran, Indonesia and beyond all CONSISTENTLY come up with the same idea: that to kill and subjugating non-Muslims was a sure fire way to heaven?

You suggest --just coincidence.
I suggest-- it's built into Islam's DNA.

Islam requires its adherents to fund and support holy war. Just the other day the ABC was quoting Yemeni tribesmen as saying they needed to side with Al-Quada because it was waging a holy war.

Continued -->