The difference is, for example, that they don't charge interest. They can't indulge in some particularly risky or speculative transactions. There's actually a whole long list of requirements, such as not selling debt, that are derived from these basic prohibitions against interest taking and against excessive risk. So because of those specific rulings, they have to design the transactions in slightly different ways.
For example, rather than borrowing money to buy some goods, they'll have the bank buy the goods and then resell the goods to the customer, so the bank becomes involved as an owner at one stage of the transaction. That makes it lawful, from the Islamic perspective. Whereas if the bank lent the money to the customer, that's an interest-bearing loan, and that's not allowed. So they use slightly different routes, typically involving ownership of goods at some point, to achieve finance."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/201...
Although this comes in many different flavors. And, of course, despite everything sounding nicer ("partnership"), it is in fact a much worse position for the buyer to be in.
An example of islamic finance "without interest": you want to buy a house, and repay your "non-loan" over 30 years. You put down a 10% downpayment.
The bank purchases the home, immediately increases the price by the full interest (let's simplify that calculation to 30yearly interest rate/2, so let's call it 50% for 30 years at 4%) then leases it back to you, and if you run out the lease they promise to transfer (for an additional fee) the ownership of the property to you. This is called a "partnership". This is illegal in most of the world, because it's exploitative. Why?
1) you are charged all interest on day 0
2) if you fail to pay, the property is in the hands of the "not-" bank that will kick you out, you will STILL owe them, generally more money than was to be repaid for you to get the property
3) if the *bank* gets into financial trouble you will lose your house
4) there are none of the normal protections (such as maximum interest rates, limits on administrative fees, ... and technically 2) is also an example of lack of protections)It is similar to a seller buying some cars for $10k each, and sell them on their dealership for $15k each. They can provide installment payment for the buyer and sell it for $20k each and they can pay it per month for $500. The difference between price is not loan/interest, its their profits.
Then I assume 2 would no longer be a risk? Bank owned the property, if you failed to pay bank will sold it to someone else who can pay, bank will then return your money if it sold higher than the set price.
Point is 3 is a weak contract issue, when you made the purchase, the contract should be clear that bank can not seize the house unless you failed to pay. If the contract says bank can cancel the transaction however they want or whenever they have issue, no one would want to do business with them. Imagine accepting a project but we put the terms, we can cancel the project and not return your money if we have issues with it.
Again 4 is also a contract issue, we have to draft the contract to make it feasible for both parties. It is basically an installment, you buy $100k house for $100/month. That’s it, the values are clear, the monthly payment will not go higher or lower, you can even pay the remaining directly with hard cash on the next month if you want.
A lot of states are working to outlaw these deals, because for these reasons and others they are considered abusive.
Best of luck!
Stay very, very far away from these types of loans is the best financial advice here.
And, come on man, really, is it that amazing that financial advice from 1500 years ago is a little bit out of date ? Yes, the Jewish and Roman empires experimented a lot with interest rules and had some very bad experiences doing that, especially in the provinces, so yes, they considered it evil at the time Islam was created. Great. They also considered straight lines evil for a thousand years (not joking about the straight lines) ... And while both pieces of advice have some validity to them, they should be reevaluated when practical.
It seems weird to pronounce that you detest it in general since it's not a monolithic thing and is more of a general concept encompassing a law tradition informed by a moral/religious framework.
https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-sharia/
https://ing.org/a-closer-look-at-sharia-in-the-united-states...
Not really, there are no punitive consequences for merely being attracted to the same sex, but there are for acting upon it publicly. Furthermore the law doesn't interfere with what's private nor is it allowed to breach the individual's privacy. Someone who doesn't wilfully disrupt the social order should have no problems in that regard.
I think reductionist views can be slightly misleading sometimes.
That's describes a "moderate" Sharia regime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt#Living_co...
And here's a more typical conservative regime. I guess I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether it's you or me who are being absurd.
FWIW, I have no problem w/ Muslims practicing their faith as private citizens. When the government of a country becomes dominated by a religion, though, I have a problem with that. And that goes for Christian theocracies too, although those are much less common these days.
You seem to have wilfully ignored that part, since neither you nor the article you linked addressed or opposed that part.
Interesting change of rhetoric after being called out, since you formulated the bizarre question "where sodomy is allowed when it occurs in private?", before having the epiphany that "Of course the law can never punish anyone for a crime that isn't detected"
> But by that definition murder and rape are "legal" everywhere in the world, as long as they occur "in private."
You are really going out on a limb to make nonsensical statements. The law has quite naturally limits, one of them being: the inability to judge events that it can't detect or reach. “Covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.” ― Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan Law needs to be enforced by humans, who can only do so if they can perceive that event.
>Under that notion of privacy there has never been a time in history where sodomy or any other sexual act was forbidden.
Same point, limits of law.
> IMO this is not a useful way of thinking about legality or oppression.
What some consider 'oppression' today was the norm globally. The problem is moral realism/anti-realism, since you can't prove your moral value judgments with science they will remain subjective and thus naturally be opposed.
Or it's illegal, and it will be punished if discovered.
If the claim is that sodomy in private is legal, there's a simple test: What happens if (government or private) surveillance catches evidence of it, a third-party steals and publishes private letters discussing it, ...?
Nonsense, so it's illegal then, full stop. It doesn't become legal just because it's private, when by discovering it is punished. The law just can't enforce the ruling when it can't detect it in the first place.
>If the claim is that sodomy in private is legal
You failed to read properly, no where did I or the other guy state that it is legal in private. The argument was about the limits of the law about events it can't perceive.
Please quote the part where anyone of us made that alleged claim.
> You failed to read properly, no where did I or the other guy state that it is legal in private. The argument was about the limits of the law about events it can't perceive.
They said: "Furthermore the law doesn't interfere with what's private". If that indeed was to mean "it's fine as long as you do not get caught", that's a pretty pointless argument when discussing laws - because that is indeed true of pretty much all laws. E.g. "Someone who doesn't wilfully disrupt the social order should have no problems in that regard." suggests that's not what's meant though, but rather that indeed as long as you don't do anything public (which might "disrupt social order") you are fine. Which AFAIK is the case in some places re religious practice: you can be of the "wrong" or no religion, practice it in private circles, but don't do anything public.
Wrong again, I stated several times that it's about the limits of law, yet you still keep ignoring the answer and asking if I meant X or Y. It's not 'pointless' because the hyperbolic statement about being punished just for 'existing' was made. At least try to be more charitable in your biased interpretation for the sake of civility.
>Someone who doesn't wilfully disrupt the social order should have no problems in that regard." suggests that's not what's meant though
I don't even see the how your inference makes any sense here. AGAIN it is about the LIMITS of the law, if you keep something private no one can punish you, but if you wilfully disrupt the social order it will have consequences in any place of the world.
> but there are for acting upon it publicly.
So a discussion of acting on it non-publicly (=in private) is IMHO very well relevant, but you clearly interpreted the gist of jediminds argument differently than asdfasgasdgasdg and me, but that doesn't make the nuance bizarre.
You are really confused, it was "LatteLazy" who made the hyperbolic statement, not jedimind.
>So a discussion of acting on it non-publicly (=in private) is IMHO very well relevant, but you clearly interpreted the gist of jediminds argument differently than asdfasgasdgasdg and me, but that doesn't make the nuance bizarre.
There is nothing bizarre about it, what's bizarre tho is jumping into a discussion without having studied the root issue & the development of the discussion and in consequence failing to understand simple arguments.
> In response to that "hyperbolic statement" jedimind
Note the lack of a "by" before "jedimind".
I disagree, much confusion. I can't see any hyperbole in the statement you quoted.
I'm afraid no amount of appeal to the evils of moral relativism are going to be enough to convince me that homosexuality is legal in most countries where the judgments of sharia courts are routinely enforced by the government.
That doesn't even make any sense. I am not trying to convince you of anything, all I did was educate you on the facts and I pointed out the inconsistencies in your arguments.
Actually there is in many countries, including many claiming to run sharia law systems.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia
There are similar articles for dozens of other countries.
Can you cite one from your linked article that fits your classification and contradicts his argument? I couldn't find one fitting in your classification.
The exchange between Bill Maher, Sam Harris, and Ben Affleck[0] is a great example of hamfisting Islamophobia into completely legitimate criticisms of Islam, Islamism, Sharia over secular society, etc. Not every criticism of Islam (and truthfully, the vast majority of criticisms of Islam) are not racist of Islamophobic.
A closer example might be the MPAA (US film rating group). It's a voluntary certification, but it's become a de facto requirement such that the small, opaque, non-government group shapes the level of violence (high) and nudity (low) in all TV and films.
Right or wrong I have always associated refusal to use traditional banking a more hard-line Muslim belief.
Edit:
For most Sharia fintech startups, MUI certificates are not only commercially advantageous but legally required by the Financial Services Authority of Indonesia (OJK), the state financial regulator. Other areas of the Sharia digital economy, like halal e-commerce and umrah sites, travel-booking platforms for Islamic pilgrimages, do not require this certificate.
So yes for fintech, maybe for ecommerce in general?
https://www.ojk.go.id/en/berita-dan-kegiatan/siaran-pers/Pag...
Participating in the Indonesian sharia finance economy would be more akin to something like organic certification on produce. Most farms are not organic but if you want to label your products as such then you have to undergo a certification process with an agency like the USDA. In this case to be certified Halal you have to gain the MUI certificate which is recognized by the OJK Financial Services Authority of Indonesian. However, an Indonesian person is likely better person to clarify this more precisely.
>>Well obviously. If you want to build a halal certified banking product it has to be implement syariah principles, thats the point.
Nowhere does it say that most fintech startups, let alone most finance, are are seeking that classification.
Absolutely not.
It specifically applies only to Muslims, while excluding others (known as dhimmi, which translates to something like "protected people"). Others have protected rights to live, have property, and freedom of religion, and in exchange they're expected to respect the authority of the State and are subjected to different taxes (jizya tax). Everything else depends on the implementation.
It's basically how you get a vibrant expat community in places like Dubai.
I'm not sure why he refuses to accept the fact that he might be wrong in this instance, though. I've seen him talk about other topics with Maher before and he's not nearly so bombastic or hard-headed.
I saw an interesting interview with Harris shortly after this where he said everyone was shocked that Affleck inserted himself into the conversation this way as well. I haven't seen many episodes of this show but apparently this segment is always a one-on-one between Maher and the guest in question, usually talking about whatever book or movie they're promoting, and given Ben's relative frequency on the show prior to this, he was aware of that.
Not surprising that their fanbases and communities loyal to them are going to jump on this far more than necessary. It doesn’t matter if Affleck didn’t do a horrible job in that scene, the reaction wasn’t going to be that much different from Harris’ fans.
I think there are some dusty luxury cars at Dubai airport that beg to differ
Sharia finance does use interest. They just call it something different. There is no difference between me buying a $100 product using a loan, and paying the bank $110 in total (Western banking), compared to the bank buying the product for $100, and charging me $110 for it (Sharia banking). The fact that it's different words doesn't mean it's not interest.
With loan, bank will use a court system to get back its money, and court can size your other property to return your debt, and by the power of small text your fines can unexpectedly outsize the price of the product by one or few orders of magnitude. With Sharia banking you will never pay more than these 110 dollars, and if you fail to pay them, the bank will size that product without using the court as it is legally a property of the bank unless you paid these 110 dollars.
(Warning: I am not a lawyer.)
reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv
The implementation of it is opened for the interpretation of the experts based on the basis of this particular distinction.
Fun fact, Muhammad was a very successful businessman and has been doing international trading to Sham (modern Syria) since he was a very young boy. He managed to retire from business before he is 40 years old and it is due to his business success not because that he is married to his first wife Khadijah. Basically he is a business startup founder with Khadijah as one of his main VC partners.
If I loan you $50, and ask for 10% interest, you must pay be $55. That $5 comes from somewhere. In a physical money economy, that literally means it comes out of someone's pocket in some way (starting a business etc.). You can imagine that if we have many many loans overlapping, over long periods, we might begin to have a money deficit.
To be honest, I don't have the proper expertise to explain it perfectly. But I hope that it gives an intuition.
No. the interest is just a claim on part of real production. Creditors would buy some products or services from debtors and that is where $5 came from.
https://www.cato.org/policy-report/julyaugust-2011/deficits-...
(I realise limiting the money in circulation to $52 is an absurd formulation, but using these crazy limits helps understand the larger system)
The difference between real growth and the amount of currency is the "metabolism" I referred to earlier.
First, central banks usually send any profit they make to their governments. (See eg https://www.google.com/search?q=fed+profits+to+treasury for lots of examples.) The governments then spend the money. There's no endless accumulation.
Second, there were long stretches of time in the past when inflation was zero or even negative. Have a look at the so called 'Long Depression', a period of rapid productivity growth in the latter part of the 19th century. Just look electronics usually fall in price these days, almost everything slowly fell in price back then over long periods of time.
But banks were just as 'evil' as they are now, and people paid interest.
Third, money doesn't have to be based on debt, either.
Historically money based on commodities was common. But in Japan their central bank recently bought stocks in return for newly 'printed' money. There's no obligation on anyone to ever buy the stocks back from the central bank.