RIP Sweden

Yes, you did that three years ago, but if you did that all the time…
 
The best stuff is indexed for me by the moderators in my infraction history. All other stuff is maintained by FEMA Camp detainees.
 
EDITEDIT: Also, what a terrible post to be #11,000 but what can you do.

You'll never get to 12,000 worrying about post 11,000.
 
How does that work? I'm interested.

In an Islamic mortgage transaction, instead of lending the buyer money to purchase the item, a bank might buy the item itself from the seller, and re-sell it to the buyer at a profit, while allowing the buyer to pay the bank in installments. However, the bank's profit cannot be made explicit and therefore there are no additional penalties for late payment. In order to protect itself against default, the bank asks for strict collateral. The goods or land is registered to the name of the buyer from the start of the transaction. This arrangement is called Murabahah. Another approach is EIjara wa EIqtina, which is similar to real estate leasing. Islamic banks handle loans for vehicles in a similar way (selling the vehicle at a higher-than-market price to the debtor and then retaining ownership of the vehicle until the loan is paid).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking

In my opinion (worthless thing that it is), Sharia Banking involves a bank making a profit (how could it be otherwise) in only a slightly different form from more conventional banking. And, in effect, the differences are mostly a matter of terminology rather than principle.

That's not to say there aren't certain advantages to the system, of course.
 
Sounds like a leasing contract… but I guess that it'd be 'moral' because the bank is financing your purchase, instead of simply hiring out money. :dunno:
We should have more Muslims in this forum.
 
I honestly can't see any difference at all between an Islamic mortgage and a "normal" one.
 
My understanding is that the profit is justified as compensation for the opportunity cost of having money tied up in property they're getting no use from. This allows them to claim that they're not really making a profit from money-lending, and thus not committing usury, but simply being compensated for the money they would otherwise have made.
 
That makes sense. I'm not convinced they're not just money-lending like everyone else, though.
 
It's a bit of a stretch, I agree. They'd be safer with credit mutuals, which can be legitimately defended from accusations of usury on the grounds that nobody is actually profiting from it.
 
CH, friendly observation. I have noticed a correlation on subjects you have strong opinions on and your lack of knowledge on those subjects.
 
I daresay he's not unusual in that.

Certainly, the more I learn about anything the more uncertain I become about everything. Or maybe I shouldn't be so sure.
 
Eventually when Muslims get to a certain % of the population they will start demanding it. some are trying to do so here. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/our-laws-are-not-negotiable/story-e6frfhqf-1226590281341

from your link
IF YOU come to our country, you must abide by our laws.

It's as simple as that.

There must be only one law for all Australians.

could not agree more, but it is a bit late, white Christian Europeans arrive some 200 years ago and all Australian law has practically gone, apart from the occasional spearing we have lost it all...
 
My understanding is that the profit is justified as compensation for the opportunity cost of having money tied up in property they're getting no use from. This allows them to claim that they're not really making a profit from money-lending, and thus not committing usury, but simply being compensated for the money they would otherwise have made.
That makes sense. I'm not convinced they're not just money-lending like everyone else, though.
Yes, but it's not exactly the same as Western banks who'll simply hire out money as long as you have good credit.
 
So am I allowed to say that Quackers is literally a fascist yet, or is he still circling just close enough to the mainstream that this would be taken as a childish pejorative rather than a statement of fact?
Good question.
I dunno. Isn't fascism usually related with anti-Semite opinions?
Only in so that scapegoating is a significant aspect of fascism, but anti-Semitism is specific to the Natzi brand.

The best stuff is indexed for me by the moderators in my infraction history. All other stuff is maintained by FEMA Camp detainees.
lol
 
Back
Top Bottom