Perhaps.
I actually quoted the point from which this sub-discussion took off, where Perciful claimed that we were ignoring the Constitution simply by permitting Sharia banks.
Anne Neville asked where in the Constitution the specific manner in which banks had to operate was recorded. Since the Sharia banks are being permitted to function, they are clearly not in violation of either the regulations or the Constitution.
The question still stands, what does Perciful think she is talking about?
This thread is related to the US and financial banking is regulated. There are no religious exemptions to my knowledge so any loans outside of regulated institutions fall under the usury laws of each state.
Yes, I know. However, even perhaps Americans can be enlightened by examples from other countries. Or not.
???
What the bloody fuck does religious exemptions have to do with anything?
The bloody Islamic financing occurs via bloody banks for fuck’s sake, jaysus…
The only bloody difference is whether there is a posted interest rate or explicit interest charges. Fuck, bloody HSBC offers this stuff.
There is not a single fucking legal problem mate, what the fuck are you on about?
Magiver, from the little bit I’ve read, we’re talking about accredited financial institutions that follow Islamic rules on lending and investing. We’re not talking about an alternative system of banking.
Sure, but AFAICT, no legal exemptions are being made, need to be made, or have been proposed in order for Muslims to practice Shari`a-compliant banking in the US.
Similarly, AFAICT, no legal exemptions are being made, need to be made, or have been proposed to FDA or USDA food safety regulations in order for Jews or Muslims to practice kosher or halal (respectively) food preparation practices in the US.
In both cases, a certain group of people is obeying the relevant legal regulations put in place by the secular government, and also conforming to a stricter set of requirements imposed by its own religious doctrine. Nothing about the religious requirements imposed on the religious group in question poses any sort of threat to the existence or content of the more broadly applied secular legislation.
So ISTM that Anne Neville’s analogy between Shari`a banking and kashrut food regulation was spot-on, and I’m not seeing why you thought it was “silly”.
Here a bit of education: HSBC’s “Islamic branch” UK and the FSA’s Islamic Banking profile. I think the whole thing is a load of bollocks, but if my grocer Iqbal wants to pay extra for it, what the hell, no skin off my nose. People running on about “Sharia banking” and the like clearly haven’t a clue.
The practice of sharia banking and a sharia bank are conceptually 2 different things. One is a practice governing usury and the other is an institution that is governed by banking regulations.
Individuals are free to engage in usury (within state guidelines) but institutions must adhere to regulated standards.
No they are not. You’re playing an absurd little word game to avoid admitting you’re completely ignorant and have sounded off in ignorance.
Individual have nothing fucking to do with it, and I am unaware that American banking regulations “require” interest rates. Quit with the sophistry.
You can pound salt if you don’t like my comments.
All I’ve pointed out is that sharia law does not trump our banking system. Muslims are free to bank within our guidelines right down to the individual level.
I don’t know what is so fucking hard to understand about that.
That’s the point I was making. I wish I could cite the PBS program that talked about sharia banking practices in the Mid East. They made it sound like a system within a system with an underground element. The program involved the funneling of money.
… point taken.
[quote=“Magiver, post:149, topic:539432”]
You can pound salt if you don’t like my comments.
[quote]
Gladly if you’d stop putting forth utter tripe.
What is fucking hard to understand is how you managed to think you were correcting the person who said there was no constitutional law issue in the US about Sharia banking. Which is what everyone here has been saying, but now I see here:
No wonder you’ve been running on as you have in ignorance.
They were not talking about Sharia banking, they were talking about that whacky informal system of money transfers, informal Western Union, Hawalah, that the Indo-Paks use. Got FUCK ALL to do with Sharia banking, for God’s sake. You bloody confused the two. I suppose natural, both involve people with beards and funny hats.
Jaysus. A fucking googling session would have prevented some of this tripe.
[quote=“wmfellows, post:151, topic:539432”]
:rolleyes: God you like to twist people’s words.
my original statement: Banking regulations are well established and regulated by law stands. Any religious banking desires have to fit within those laws. Saying there is no constitutional law regarding Sharia is a nebulous statement as it relates to existing banking regulations. If sharia laws fall within the confines of those regulations then they are legal, if they don’t, they’re not.
A dozen people have explained that they do, and yet you’re still making an issue out of it for some reason.
I’m not making it an issue, Wm of britland is making me an issue. My statement was clear and easy to understand.
It really wasn’t.
[quote=“tomndebb, post:137, topic:539432”]
Cite? No.
Relevance? That is surely needed. Perciful made a wild claim that linked Islamic banking practices to ignoring the Constitution. Unless you have evidence that the banking practices are in violation of the Constitution, her wild claim and your odd defense are both silly.QUOTE]
Cite- Click on the interview with Joy Brightman. It is below the picture of Einstein.
There’s a neutral source…
That Joy Brighton lecture doesn’t show any evidence that Shari`a-compliant finance is intrinsically unconstitutional in any way.
Primarily, it simply criticizes specific applications of Shari`a-compliant finance that Brighton thinks are too radical or too closely linked to potentially extremist or oppressive Islamic organizations.
Brighton also complains that Shari`a financing of charitable investments doesn’t fund things like the construction of Christian churches or the production of Christian Bibles. So what? Charitable investments through Christian charities don’t fund mosque construction or the production of Qur’ans, either.
The rest of the lecture is just a bunch of blather about how US culture is accommodating Muslim practices like having footbaths in the Minneapolis airport and letting Muslim workers choose between taking off Labor Day versus taking off a Muslim holiday. Red meat for the Islamophobes, but not otherwise worthy of notice.
If you don’t like the particular investment policies or affiliations of some instance of Sharia-compliant finance, then don't participate in it. If you're concerned about specific Muslim organizations involved in Sharia-compliant finance because you’re worried that they’re too repressive or constitute a security threat, then by all means go public with your concerns about those specific organizations.
But don’t try to pretend that Shari`a-compliant finance practices in general are somehow intrinsically in violation of the Constitution just because some bigoted old twat from Lehman Brothers doesn’t like them.
Now I have to soak my eyes and ears in bleach. She mixes fact and fiction and hatred so thoroughly that it is not really possible to take apart her “presentation.” Suffice it to say that even the stuff she gets correct she mixes up with stuff that is nothing more than distorted hatred.
On the most basic point, she is clearly wrong. She describes “Shariah” as some enormous monolith that is wielded by a cabal intending world domination. Since that is a false claim, (as I have noted, it is a series of philosophcal approaches to law that is no more monolithic than Christianity), I see no reason to give much credence to the rest of her nonsense. Yes, indeed, there are people connected with the Taliban, al Qaida, and other groups who would like to wield their particular version of Sharia to their own ends, (pretty much the way the Family Research Council would like to promote U.S. laws to shape a “Christian” nation), but that is not the totality of Sharia and to pretend that it is the totality is to be utterly ignorant or utterly dishonest–not to rule out the possibility that it is both.
Beyond that, of course, she spends a lot of time trying to claim that specific examples of specific aspects of Sharia banking, (typically in Middle Eastern countries), are actually representative of all Sharia banking, even when the examples, (when they are not simply wrong), have nothing to do with banking as it is practiced in Europe and North America.
= = =
Now, can you actually describe what you claim is evil in U.S. banks practicing Sharia banking? Can you provide citations to support your claims? Or are you simply one more adherent of Conspiracy Theory who does not even understand what you believe well enough to explain and defend your position? Pointing to tedious hour-long lectures does not make your point.
In fact not only were your statements not clear and easy to understand, they were fairly clearly driven by your confusion of Hawala, which is just an informal Western Union kind of thing, and Sharia Banking, to whit
Emphasis added.
The bolded part is not Sharia Banking, it’s informal money transfer, that is popular among the IndoPak community.
Which of course makes your comments like this at once more understandable (although also illustrates you were going on about something completely different):
Because the original comment was about Sharia Banking not having any constitutional issues, and you run on about adherence to legal constraints. the only way any of that makes sense is you did not understand that Sharia Banking (lending or financing of investments without charging a fixed interest rate) is inside of regulated institutions and IS NOT HAWALA which is something completely different.
You’ve got no one but yourself to blame for rambling on incoherently about something that is not Sharia Banking but not understanding that.