Read “The Ascent of Money” if you want to learn why this is a sin.
Acid Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your definition of ‘ruling nations’ is unorthodox > and quite funny. > > By your definition those nations who rule the > world have atomic power. I would be surprised if > there is any relationship between a stable , > growing economy and possession of atomic bombs. > > By the way , the rest 2% of countries which > possess atomic weapons consists of ‘Islamic > Republic of Pakistan’’. pakistan owns ~0.4% of all nuclear arms. i’ll put it another way. judeo-christian, or non-affiliate (China) governments own 100% of all nuclear ICBMs. the only useful nuclear weapon in a nuclear war. and as for their economies, yes, i would say that the U.S., UK, Russia, France, China and India as a group, easily rule the world. of a global equity fund, they are maybe what, 80-90% allocation?
Is this thread for real or is it another islamophobia generating troll? You want to live under Sharia law? Thats f-ed up.
MLH strikes again…I’m pretty sure that in order to “rule the world” the nations mentioned above need to act in concert? Otherwise, they are influencing the world, not “ruling” it. Please insert conspiracy theory.
no, they don’t need to act in concert. all of the above, except india, could sit at home, watch the superbowl and single-handedly nuke every major city in the world. for an example of what happens when you’re nuked but have no nukes to react with, see Japan 1945. what are going to do? keep fighting a land war as the country you’re fighting for is turned to dust, city by city? of course not. if power is not nuclear weapons, what is it? i guess thats where our disagreement begins. my definition is military power, something that is almost 100% necessary to rule. to rule is authoritative and that is rarely done without submission. maybe in your mind, submission is granted through provisions such as… food? well all of the above countries have that and provide that to the rest of the world. fresh water? well all of the above countries have that and provide that to the rest of the world. health care? well all of the above countries have that and provide that to the rest of the world. education? well all of the above countries have that and provide that to the rest of the world. but back to the original subject, if you think that someone can work in finance and be a TRUE muslim, then you don’t understand finance or islam. a moderate muslim is not a muslim just as a “moderate” christian is not a christian. we all need to drop these fake titles lest we look ridiculous. random dude: “i’m christian because i was baptised christian, but i murder people in my spare time. i somehow justify my sin and continue to claim to be a christian. i pray though”
Carson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is the logic behind banning interest based > transactions? Why is that a sin? > > I don’t see the issue with it morally if both > parties enter into it of their own free will. In really simplified terms, what I understand is that the interest charged on a loan has the potential to cause an injustice to one of the parties (the borrower or the lender) because the interest rate (whether fixed or floating) is irrespective of what profits (or losses) the borrower makes using the loan. If the borrower makes a loss but still had to pay interest on the loan, the purpose of the loan is lost and the interest payment could be unfair from the borrower’s standpoint. If the borrower makes a profit but the interest payment is considerably smaller, then the interest payment could be unfair from the point of view of the lender. Since the outcome of the borrower’s enterprise (which uses the loan) cannot be predicted, charging a fixed interest rate can (and in most cases will) lead to an unfair transaction and many times intentional (for example - a lender would always like to get the best interest rate possible). Since its an intentional wrongdoing (motivated by greed), it is considered a sin. In essence, money should not create money without equally partaking in both profits and losses. Apparently Quran prohibits charging a fixed interest rate but allows investing in trade as a means of reducing exploitation in the economy. Anyone charging an interest rate or accepting one or witnessing one are all potentially aiding a deed which may lead to an unfair outcome and hence are all sinners.
brain_wash_your_face Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MLH strikes again…I’m pretty sure that in order > to “rule the world” the nations mentioned above > need to act in concert? Otherwise, they are > influencing the world, not “ruling” it. Please > insert conspiracy theory. Yeah, I’m still expecting Matt to say in a couple of posts: “… but if Hitler were still alive our lives would be way better because …”
The conversation in this thread has gone away from the topic to typical islamophobia in western minds. As I take my leave from this conversation with well wishes for you all , If anyone of you have anything else to add to my question , please let me know. Thanks.
i don’t see a rebuttal. you could offer a reason why you think islam and finance are compatible… calling my objective analysis islamophobia is exactly what ALL faith based religions do to freedom of thought and the progression of man and mind. we can’t even talk about religion objectively because we’ve been trained that its a no-no topic even between people with meaningful platonic relationships. its probably because someone must leave their objectivity behind when they become religious and vice versa. the topic of this thread was if islam and finance are compatible. the conclusion is no based on the evidence above, unless you have new information to bring to the table. and to hit at the ‘hitler’ comment, if being anti-religious makes you fascist, then i guess being religious makes you communist? kinda, sorta, but not really…
Now that we’re coming back from nukes and global domination, I agree, there is no room for traditional finance in Islam. If Acid, or people like him are worried about their religious integrity then I would probably suggest a degree in Islamic Finance rather than CFA. We all know about finance leases. The Islamic version of the transaction is equivalent to trade. A man wants to buy a car that costs $5000 but can’t pay all at once. So this other guy with the cash offers to sell him the car for $6000 on installments. That’s trade. Fine. But can somebody explain to me how he was able to calculate $6000 and not $7000 or $5500 without using the concept of opportunity cost a.k.a market interest rate? They call it Islamic banking, but it runs with the spine of traditional finance, hence, it’s emotional blackmail.
MattLikesAnalysis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i don’t see a rebuttal. you could offer a reason > why you think islam and finance are compatible… > > calling my objective analysis islamophobia is > exactly what ALL faith based religions do to > freedom of thought and the progression of man and > mind. we can’t even talk about religion > objectively because we’ve been trained that its a > no-no topic even between people with meaningful > platonic relationships. its probably because > someone must leave their objectivity behind when > they become religious and vice versa. > > the topic of this thread was if islam and finance > are compatible. the conclusion is no based on the > evidence above, unless you have new information to > bring to the table. > > and to hit at the ‘hitler’ comment, if being > anti-religious makes you fascist, then i guess > being religious makes you communist? kinda, sorta, > but not really… Good post. Interesting topic - I’ve enjoyed seeing the actual discussion points (since I know virtually nothing about Islamic finance). Thanks to the posters of the faith who explained some of the components regarding the issue here as well.
Dear Butt, More than the interest not being allowed, it more to do with the share of risk. In your example since the initial principal amount is increased and some Islamic finance institution would also charge management fee. All this means that they are very similar to conventional financing. But the devil is in the details ! A big mac in US is the same as bug mac in UAE. However one a muslim can eat another the muslim can’t. So in this type of islamic financing the main difference is in the scenario where you default on the loan. In a conventional finance any loss on the sale of asset is borne by the loan taking part, whereas in a true islamic finance scenario the loss/profit would be shared according to the ownership of the asset (depending on number of payments ) The other difference has to do prohibition of money making money which has been higlighted before (more details here: http://showmedmoney.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-is-difference-between-islamic.html) hope this helps