Is Islamic finance the answer?

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Islamic finance was perfect for its time. People could lend money, but it was referred to as a friendly loan (i.e. a loan without interest to be paid back on a predetermined date).

That is not how it works out, machjo. You still end up paying interest (in the sense that you will pay back more than you borrowed), it is just that it will be in a different form. Islamic bank would not give interest free loans, if it did, it will go bankrupt. It has to generate its revenues somehow. You will pay interest (or something similar to interest), but in a different form.

I realise that. As I've mentioned above, the Muslim lending system has been running into troubles sinse the industrial revolution. As a result, Middle Eastern countries have tried all kinds of spin doctor tactics to charge interest while trying to convince themselve that they aren't. That goes flatly against Muslim principles even if they call it 'Muslim' banking.

Essentially, though this system was perfect for its time, it is not for our time. Honestly, it's time for Muslims to move on. However, that is not owing to any defect in Islam per se, but rather owing simply to its outdatedness. But ecen some Mulims have criticized the "Muslim" banking system saying that it is in fact non-Muslum. Essentially, the Islamic world is currently going through growing pains in the realization that a system that was perfect prior to the industrial revolution is now showing cracks. But again, 'Islamic' banking as we now see it in the Middle East is not Islamic except in name.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
The Qur'an does not grant women equality with men, true.

On this we agree, machjo.

But it certainly does not equate women with animals as you seem to be implying.

Perhaps not. But it does treat a woman as little more than an animal, perhaps one step removed from animals.

Though it does validate a male witness to two female witnesses in certain specific judicial contexts, it says nothing about men being worth two women across the board.

It doesn’t have to. In some instances (witness in Sharia court, when it comes to inheritance etc.) Islam specifically says that one man equals two women. This statement isn’t contradicted anywhere in Koran, nowhere it says in Koran that men and women are equal, except for the specific cases mentioned (witness in court, inheritance etc.). So by implication Islam is saying that one man equals two women.

After all what do you expect, should Koran say in every other sentence that one man equals two women, only then you will believe it? It does say that one man equals two women in some places and it does not contradict that in any other place. That is good enough for me, Islam treats one man equal to two women.

Nor does it say anything about men having to sign for women for loans.

That is the law in many Islamic countries machjo. I assume some Islamic countries (like Taliban) wouldn’t even give loans to women. Those that do, they do require written permission of a man before they will give a loan to a woman.

It by no means treats women the way you're portraying it.

In many Islamic countries women are treated just as I describe.

As far as the way some or perhaps many Arab men treat their women is concerned, that is a purely cultural issue having nada to do with their religion. Sure some Mullahs make silly fatwa’s, but that’s but their interpretation, often politically motivated, and has nothing to do with Islam per se.

Sorry machjo, but that argument won’t wash. Whenever any philosophy (Communism, Christianity, Islam etc.) is discredited in practice, the adherents always yell ‘But they are not really practicing the philosophy, look at what the Holy Book says.’

Well, I don’t’ care what the Holy Book of Communism, Christianity or Islam says. I see how Islam works in practice and judge Islam from that. If ever this Utopian society, which is based on Islam as you describe is formed, we will talk about it.

However, I judge Communism by how it is practiced in USSR, North Korea etc., I judge Christianity from Crusades, Inquisition etc, and I judge Islam by how it is practiced in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Taliban, Somalia etc.

I've known many Muslims in my life.

So have I.

And I've met some wonderful Muslims who love their sons, daughters, wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, and friends,

So have I. So what is your point? Individually many Muslims are good people, precisely because they are ‘bad’ Muslims, they don’t take Koran literally. But that does not mean that Islam is a champion of equal rights, civil rights etc. Islam is a very nasty religion. The fact that there are many decent Muslims around takes away from its nastiness, not at all.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
So in other words, SJP, you have made it a point on insisting to interpret the Qur'an in the worse possible light wherever there may be a more favourable interpretation. You even go so far as to insist on judging the religion based on the actions of its followers. You choose to judge the Christian faith based on the Crusades. You do realise that long before the Crusades, the Christian Faith had contributed to ethnic peace in the empire, don't you? It seems that once you've decided that you don't like something, you'll interpret it in the worse possible light, even judging it based on things outside its purview. Well, you're mind is obviously made up. Good work, You win the debate through attrition.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Tell me, machjo. Do you judge Communism based upon how it is practiced in China, USSR, Cambodia (Pol Pot) and North Korea, or do you give Communism a pass by saying that these countries did not really practice Communism (because they really didn’t)?

Would you say that Communism is quite a reasonable system, it has many good tenets, it is just that it has never been practiced properly? Would you say that when everywhere it has been practiced, the results have been mass killings, torture, mayhem and general misery?

Well, perhaps you would, but I wouldn’t. To me, atrocities of Stalin in USSR, atrocities of Mao in China, atrocities of Pol Pot in Cambodia condemn Communism, regardless of what Das Kapital says.

Similarly, the way Islam is practiced in Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Iran, Taliban, the way it is practiced by Osama Ben Laden condemns Islam regardless of what Koran says (and Koran does say some pretty nasty things about women and non Muslims).
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Tell me, machjo. Do you judge Communism based upon how it is practiced in China, USSR, Cambodia (Pol Pot) and North Korea, or do you give Communism a pass by saying that these countries did not really practice Communism (because they really didn’t)?

Would you say that Communism is quite a reasonable system, it has many good tenets, it is just that it has never been practiced properly? Would you say that when everywhere it has been practiced, the results have been mass killings, torture, mayhem and general misery?

I don't accept communism myself and do see many flaws in it. But no, no country has ever truly practiced communism as described by Marx. To try to do so would collapse the system. Communism is just too flawed. But no I wouldn't say that the USSR or China were communist, or at least not in the purest sense of the word. Essentially, they were just One-Party states, and China still is. Same with North Korea.

By the way I've lived in China, and can tell you that it is in no way communist. It definitely has a class system, even more so than Canada.

Well, perhaps you would, but I wouldn’t. To me, atrocities of Stalin in USSR, atrocities of Mao in China, atrocities of Pol Pot in Cambodia condemn Communism, regardless of what Das Kapital says.

Well, obviously you're wrong about me.

Similarly, the way Islam is practiced in Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Iran, Taliban, the way it is practiced by Osama Ben Laden condemns Islam regardless of what Koran says (and Koran does say some pretty nasty things about women and non Muslims).

Yes, the Qur'an talks about the wrath of God falling on the non-believers, etc. As for women, though I'd say its teaching are unfair by modern standards, what exactly do you mean by 'nasty'? The Qur'an does guarantee women considerable rights. It seems to me that your prejudice is coming through. You conclude that because the Qur'an is flawed within a modern context that it necessarily teaches men to skin their wives alive and skewer them on the bbq. Not everything is so black and white.
 

Stretch

House Member
Feb 16, 2003
3,924
19
38
Australia
“The Money Myth Exploded” was one of the first articles of Louis Even, and remains one of the most popular to explain how money is created as a debt by private banks. It is available in the form of an 8-page leaflet (tabloid format) that you can order from the “Michael” office, in several languages: English, French, Spanish, Italian, German, Polish, Portuguese.
The Money Myth Exploded
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Yes, the Qur'an talks about the wrath of God falling on the non-believers, etc.

As for women, though I'd say its teaching are unfair by modern standards,

Machjo, at least we agree on something, let us leave it at that.

what exactly do you mean by 'nasty'?

Nasty is in the eye of the beholder.

The Qur'an does guarantee women considerable rights.

Sure it does, and I have said that before. When women did not have any rights, to say that they should be given half the rights of a man was probably a very progressive position. But such a position is totally inappropriate in today’s society.

You conclude that because the Qur'an is flawed within a modern context that it necessarily teaches men to skin their wives alive and skewer them on the bbq.

Maybe it doesn’t, but it does teach them to stone them to death (for adultery).
 

Toro

Senate Member
May 24, 2005
5,468
109
63
Florida, Hurricane Central
Of course money exists. Its pretty silly to say that it doesn't.

Islamic finance is a scam, or at least it is in terms of the Quran. Its actually a pretty interesting way of complying with the teachings, though in reality, the only difference between an Islamic loan and a normal loan is in form. An Islamic loan is a repurchase agreement with a cost of interest built into the agreement.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
the quote below is response to my post which had the word "bloody" in it (post #6):

"Swearing, Yukon? Tsk, tsk, as they say. Does your priest know?" (post #8)

Typical liberal. Typical liberal childish. Typical childish, unsubstantiated nonsense.

In other words, typical SirJosephPorter.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
the quote below is response to my post which had the word "bloody" in it (post #6):

"Swearing, Yukon? Tsk, tsk, as they say. Does your priest know?" (post #8)

Typical liberal. Typical liberal childish. Typical childish, unsubstantiated nonsense.

In other words, typical SirJosephPorter.


Unsubstantiated, Yukon Jack? I already explained it to you in Canada.com forum, ‘bloody’ is very much a swear word. When you say ‘bloody’ you are breaking the third (third?) Commandment, you are taking God’s name in vain.

Now, I have no problem with you swearing, braking Commandments (I don’t believe in Commandments anyway). But evidently to you it is a big deal.

If you have forgotten what I told you, I will be happy to explain it again (I am always happy to display my knowledge one more time).
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Kreskin, Islamic bank may not charge interest, but it has to charge something. It is not a charity, it is a bank. So it will charge the customer in some other form (thy may call it a fee, a service charge or whatever).

So Islamic bank doesn’t mean that you get an interest free loan (there is no free lunch), you simply pay in some other form.

That is why I don’t think Islamic bank is a bad idea, it gives people more choice. More choice is always good.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Actually they charge a competitive percentage but call it something other than interest and have a complicated convoluted means of calculating it.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Calculate this , at a certain level of National debt we pay 42B in interest/year. At that level it is quite possible to take 200 years to pay it off.
This is not the kind of interest a person signs papers on but every dime of interest is paid, it is the first thing that is paid. 100,000 borrowed and the deposited can be turned into about 8x that, ever last dollar of that is making interest for the banks. You like that system?

A house bought for 100,000 costs 100,000 no matter if you pay it off in 1 year or 10 years.


Result:Monthly payment: 1 Years Interest rate: 5.750%Loan amount:$ 100,000.00
$ 8,595.16 a month
Total 103,141.92

Result:Monthly payment: 50 Years Interest rate: 5.750%Loan amount:$ 100,000.00
$ 508.02 a month
Total 304,812
That is 204,000 that would be in your pocket and not the banks, couple that with paying on other's debts and in 50 years that is not the only interest you pay for that has a zero return. You like that system do you?

That 204,000 the bank got was loaned out for even more 'earnings' for the bank.

Christians would also have to follow the same program in general, no interest to the smallest borrowers, individual people, the rich (slightly different definition than todays) and businesses that borrow pay the interest. That Christians don't demand that says something about how they have been programed for the worse. Money has more slaves than all religions combined.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Who was it that said render unto Caesar what is Caesars without questioning why it is Caesars? The problem with authority is that it needs to prop up other authority, just or no, to keep itself credible.

Our monetary system is a direct result of religion and the Shepherd/flock/authority model it provides (foisted on us).
 

Toro

Senate Member
May 24, 2005
5,468
109
63
Florida, Hurricane Central
Islamic finance works like this. The bank agrees to buy your house for $100,000 and you agree to buy it back for $110,000. That's a repurchase agreement with 10% interest no matter which way you cut it even if it is not called interest.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
So why is it portrayed to be so different than fractional reserve banking? I was wondering why the Rothschild & Associates were letting them be in business. Now I know, they operate the same way.

Jewish bankers can and do make true-interest free loans to other Jews. Any actual costs are passed onto to Gentiles. How far that goes isn't widely published. It is quite apparent that Gentiles are making somebody richer minute by minute till the end of time. That seems to favor one group over all others. More messed up once you consider that all the money exists because of Gentiles. Bankers do not apply for loans. It should be Nations never apply for loans, banks do and they pay interest because they are hired by companies to keep money safely stored. That wage gives them their personal incomes. Today it could be strictly a software issue, real cash is used less and less. Baring the total loss of electricity cash will never be in fad again.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
Respone to the nonsense in post #31.

You claim that you lived in England. If that is true, you must know that every second word of any self-respecting Englishman is none other than - ready? -- BLOODY! No better and no worse than saying "freaking" "frigging'" or "blooming".

You are once again making a fool of yourself as you did with your asinine claim for the invention of the expression "verbal diarrhea".

Don't you ever learn from your repeated mistakes?
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Respone to the nonsense in post #31.

You claim that you lived in England. If that is true, you must know that every second word of any self-respecting Englishman is none other than - ready? -- BLOODY! No better and no worse than saying "freaking" "frigging'" or "blooming".

You are once again making a fool of yourself as you did with your asinine claim for the invention of the expression "verbal diarrhea".

Don't you ever learn from your repeated mistakes?

You have been having another senior moment, Yukon. I explained to you the origin of the word ‘bloody’ but evidently you have forgotten. Never mind, age does that to you (and yes, I think you borrowed 'verbal diarrhea' from me, no matter what you say).

Rather than repeat what I told you, I think it may be better to reproduce the post from canada.com here. Anyway, did you ask your priest where the word ‘bloody’ comes from, like I told you to?

Stephen Harper - A Do Nothing Approach to Politics & Kyoto - Share It
Anyway, there is the post in full.



Like I said, I am not your bloody secretary


Yukon Jack, ‘bloody’ is not a swear word in USA, it is in UK. In Canada it is sometimes used as a swear word, but I think the usage to Canada came from UK.

The first thought may be that ‘bloody’ come from blood, but that is not the case. ‘Bloody secretary’ does not make any kind of sense (and the word bloody can be used as a swear word with almost anything, ‘I am not doing any bloody overtime’ etc.).).

Bloody is short for ‘By Our Lady’. Our Lady, of course refers to Virgin Mary. Protestants do not revere Mary, especially for Fundamentalists, she is just a woman and so not all that important. So perhaps a Protestant may say that bloody is not a swear word, since for him it is not.

However, Catholics revere Virgin Mary. They wouldn’t take her name in vain any more than they would take Jesus’ name in vain. So for a Catholic, it definitely falls in the category of taking Lord’s name in vain.

Incidentally, that is also the origin of the name of the drink ‘bloody Mary’. The only reason to put ‘Mary’ after ‘bloody’ is that ‘bloody’ refers to ‘Mary’ (otherwise why not call it 'bloody Susan', or 'bloody Linda'?). The fact that bloody Mary looks like blood is an added bonus.

Bloody is a swear word similar to ‘by God’. So saying ‘I am not your bloody secretary’ is same as saying ‘By God, I am not your secretary.’

Incidentally, talk to your priest about it. I can hazard a safe guess that you have never heard your priest use the word bloody. I assume almost any priest would know the origin of the word.

So next time you use the word ‘bloody’, be aware exactly what you are saying. Now I have no problem anybody taking God’s name in vain, but you might.