Once again, Vickie, you are confusing the rules with the implementation.

>>No I wouldn't accept a banking system that constitutionally allowed for the supply of drugs to children.<<

But you do.

There is nothing in the rules about our banking system that prevented money for terrorists leaving Boston and reaching the IRA. In fact, you could say that the system actively encourages it, simply through its impersonal, mechanistic nature. In the same way that our system allowed funding the IRA to happen – legally, constitutionally – it can be, and is being, used for criminal ends.

Similarly, if you were to set up a Christian Bank, one that actively controlled the movement of money, and refused, for example, to allow money to reach bank accounts of which you disapprove, there is nothing to stop you. You could say that such activity is “constitutionally allowed”, and defend it with your own brand of ethics. Just as there are investment funds who refuse to accept deposits from tobacco companies, or coal mines.

Using a financial system – any financial system – as a vehicle for investment in weapons, or drugs, or an abortion clinic – is not at all the same as “taking sides” regarding weapons, drugs or abortion. The system itself is entirely neutral. The reality is that some people use it to build houses, while some use exactly the same system to blow them up.

And you need to pick better examples:

>>You are also overlooking completely the mis-represntation of 'no interest' <<

You entirely misunderstand the “no-interest” concept.

Many of the current rash of “pay-day loan” operations – Cash Train is a good example, but by no means the only one - operate on the same no-apparent-interest basis. You borrow an amount, for a particular length of time, and the repayment figure is offered. If you look at the fine print, you will see the Cash Train Comparison rate, but you won't be able to simply ask for, say, $1,000 at 5%.

It doesn't work that way. Nor does sharia lending work that way. Each is entirely “constitutional”.

Get real Pericles - you say "There is nothing in the rules about our banking system that prevented money for terrorists leaving Boston and reaching the IRA"...
Funding terrorism is a both morally wrong and a crime. Full stop. Yet funding 'jihad' is theologically speaking - from a sharia compliance perspective - a legitimate use of 'charity'. (zakat) While it may still be a crime from our perspective, this is where the ethics differ. No one is suggesting that non-Muslims are better people Pericles - we are talking about legal systems that differ greatly in how they define activities, and human rights. All people will be better off without imposing sharia compliance.
Perhaps using the word 'constitutional' has confused you. According to sharia law norms, discriminating against non-Muslims is fundamentally ok. Racial and religious discrimination is not normally accepted by most Australians as ethical. My Muslim friend doesn't want us endorsing it - she doesn't want to share her husband with another wife which is from a sharia law perspective, quite ok. Can't you see what this is promoting? It is simply sanctioning a parallel legal system and minorities within minorities (women) will inevitably suffer for our 'tolerance' of this.

>>All people will be better off without imposing sharia compliance.<<

I'd certainly have a hell of a time of it - financial stuff makes my head spin. What chance would I have if I had to learn a whole new system? Thankfully the first suggestion I've ever seen of sharia compliance being imposed is in your sentence which I've just quoted. Nobody is going to impose sharia compliance on the Australian financial sector so you can breathe easy: you'll still be able to pay interest to the bank of your choice.

>>My Muslim friend<<

You don't have to lie Vickie.

>>doesn't want us endorsing it - she doesn't want to share her husband with another wife which is from a sharia law perspective, quite ok.<<

Which has what do with sharia finance? Which, after all, was the topic of your article. This would appear to be an argument against sharia marriage law - there's nothing wrong with opposing sharia marriage law but it's not a sound argument against sharia finance.

Cheers,

Tony

@Tony,

<<I'd certainly have a hell of a time of it - financial stuff makes my head spin. What chance would I have if I had to learn a whole new system?>>

You don't have to worry Tony. They wouldn't be interested in employing old infidels like you

Tony - you said "Nobody is going to impose sharia compliance on the Australian financial sector so you can breathe easy: you'll still be able to pay interest to the bank of your choice".
True, I'll still be able to do that - but there will be pressure on the Muslim community to only support Islamic finance and they will be deceived that they are not paying interest and the idea that infidels are unclean will be reinforced by the rejection of things 'un-Islamic'; not real good for social harmony.

'My Muslim friend' - hard for you to comprehend perhaps but she is actually one of my closest friends. A Malay Muslim, well acquainted with sharia laws and also the injustice it affords non-Muslims; something she has seen a lot of. She is an educated woman with a law degree who was employed both with the UN and in the political realm. Women fighting for a fair go - I mentioned earlier that recognition of sharia laws in Malaysia don't allow Muslim womens rights groups to have any success lobbying against child marriage...or the right to marry people of their choice like non-Muslims - sharia makes marriage to a non-muslim man illegal for Malay women - but lets just keep pretending sharia is OK.
What has all this to do with finance you ask? Sharia finance is the financial arm of sharia law from which its ethics (the main feature in the marketing of this finance) is derived.

I have tried to explain it using terms you might understand, Vickie, but I clearly have failed. Mea Culpa.

>>Get real Pericles - you say "There is nothing in the rules about our banking system that prevented money for terrorists leaving Boston and reaching the IRA"<<

I did say that. And I stand by what I said. The banking system that we use every day, is also used - every day - by people performing illegal activities.

Your rebuttal?

>>Funding terrorism is a both morally wrong and a crime. Full stop.<<

It is certainly morally wrong.

But there was nothing intrinsically criminal in remitting money from Boston to Belfast, from one legitimate bank account to another legitimate bank account. Only when it turns out that the money was used to supply the bullets that took off sundry kneecaps, or to buy explosives from Libya so that a handful of soldiers' children could go without a father, does the money suddenly become "funding terrorism".

Here's another point where you part company with logic:

>>...we are talking about legal systems that differ greatly in how they define activities<<

The legal system under which finance is carried out in this country is Australian law. As such, any ethics that you choose to adopt are outside this framework, as I have tried to illustrate in a number of different ways. Consumer rights are protected, and no-one is imposing anything on anyone who is not willing to accept that imposition. Green Investments, for example, are a case study in discrimination, one that "boycotts legitimate Australian industries", to use one of your phrases.

Sharia finance, per se, is a stand-alone system of borrowing and lending. One that has its roots in a different culture, and therefore has different baseline assumptions about both the lender and the borrower. It is, as a result, highly unlikely to take root in our environment.

Social coercion, to which you keep returning, is an entirely separate issue. If that is what you intended to talk about, I'm afraid you used the wrong example when you picked on finance.