100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: All you need to know about Islamic Finance | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I confess I'm more than a little enamoured of the Islamic banking concept. From a secular perspective, I find it to be a more moral and ethical form of commercial banking. To contrast the financing approaches, I took this out of the following URL: Consider two persons, one of whom has capital but no special skills in business, while the other has managerial skills but possesses no capital. They can co-operate in either of two ways: Debt-financing (the western loan system). The businessman borrows the capital from the capital-owner and invests it in his trade. The capital-owner is to get back his principal and an additional amount on the basis of a fixed rate, called the interest rate, as his compensation for parting with liquidity for a fixed period. The claim of the lender for repayment of the principal plus the payment of the interest becomes viable only after the expiry of this period. This payment is due irrespective of whether the businessman has made a profit using the borrowed money. In the event of a loss, the borrower has to repay the principal amount of the loan, as well as the accrued interest, from his own resources, while the capital-owner loses nothing. Islam views this as an unjust transaction. Mudarabah (the Islamic way, or PLS). The two persons co-operate with each other on the basis of partnership, where the capital-owner provides the capital and the other party puts his management skills into the business. The capital-owner is not involved in the actual day-to-day operation of the business, but is free to stipulate certain conditions that he may deem necessary to ensure the best use of his funds. After the expiry of the period, which may be the termination of the contract or such time that returns are obtained from the business, the capital-owner gets back his principal amount together with a pre-agreed share of the profit. (As I see it, the Islamic banker functions as a venture capitalist in that the banker risks his capital, which is more in the nature of a silent partner in the enterprise than simply a creditor of it.) http://www.islamic-banking.com/islamic_banking_principle.aspx Only drawback in an agreement between the Muslam and Infidel is, the Muslime doesn't have to honor the agreement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I confess I'm more than a little enamoured of the Islamic banking concept. From a secular perspective, I find it to be a more moral and ethical form of commercial banking. To contrast the financing approaches, I took this out of the following URL: Consider two persons, one of whom has capital but no special skills in business, while the other has managerial skills but possesses no capital. They can co-operate in either of two ways: Debt-financing (the western loan system). The businessman borrows the capital from the capital-owner and invests it in his trade. The capital-owner is to get back his principal and an additional amount on the basis of a fixed rate, called the interest rate, as his compensation for parting with liquidity for a fixed period. The claim of the lender for repayment of the principal plus the payment of the interest becomes viable only after the expiry of this period. This payment is due irrespective of whether the businessman has made a profit using the borrowed money. In the event of a loss, the borrower has to repay the principal amount of the loan, as well as the accrued interest, from his own resources, while the capital-owner loses nothing. Islam views this as an unjust transaction. Mudarabah (the Islamic way, or PLS). The two persons co-operate with each other on the basis of partnership, where the capital-owner provides the capital and the other party puts his management skills into the business. The capital-owner is not involved in the actual day-to-day operation of the business, but is free to stipulate certain conditions that he may deem necessary to ensure the best use of his funds. After the expiry of the period, which may be the termination of the contract or such time that returns are obtained from the business, the capital-owner gets back his principal amount together with a pre-agreed share of the profit. (As I see it, the Islamic banker functions as a venture capitalist in that the banker risks his capital, which is more in the nature of a silent partner in the enterprise than simply a creditor of it.) http://www.islamic-banking.com/islamic_banking_principle.aspx Only drawback in an agreement between the Muslam and Infidel is, the Muslime doesn't have to honor the agreement. I think it says something like that in the Talmud, but where does it say it in the Q'uran? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Mon 04/29/13 04:46 PM
|
|
I confess I'm more than a little enamoured of the Islamic banking concept. From a secular perspective, I find it to be a more moral and ethical form of commercial banking. To contrast the financing approaches, I took this out of the following URL: Consider two persons, one of whom has capital but no special skills in business, while the other has managerial skills but possesses no capital. They can co-operate in either of two ways: Debt-financing (the western loan system). The businessman borrows the capital from the capital-owner and invests it in his trade. The capital-owner is to get back his principal and an additional amount on the basis of a fixed rate, called the interest rate, as his compensation for parting with liquidity for a fixed period. The claim of the lender for repayment of the principal plus the payment of the interest becomes viable only after the expiry of this period. This payment is due irrespective of whether the businessman has made a profit using the borrowed money. In the event of a loss, the borrower has to repay the principal amount of the loan, as well as the accrued interest, from his own resources, while the capital-owner loses nothing. Islam views this as an unjust transaction. Mudarabah (the Islamic way, or PLS). The two persons co-operate with each other on the basis of partnership, where the capital-owner provides the capital and the other party puts his management skills into the business. The capital-owner is not involved in the actual day-to-day operation of the business, but is free to stipulate certain conditions that he may deem necessary to ensure the best use of his funds. After the expiry of the period, which may be the termination of the contract or such time that returns are obtained from the business, the capital-owner gets back his principal amount together with a pre-agreed share of the profit. (As I see it, the Islamic banker functions as a venture capitalist in that the banker risks his capital, which is more in the nature of a silent partner in the enterprise than simply a creditor of it.) http://www.islamic-banking.com/islamic_banking_principle.aspx Only drawback in an agreement between the Muslam and Infidel is, the Muslime doesn't have to honor the agreement. I think it says something like that in the Talmud, but where does it say it in the Q'uran? They are, according to the quran, not allowed to enter into friendly relations with Non-Muslimes. If they enter into a business. financial deal, they are not obliged to honor the agreement because, the non-muslime is as a snake in the grass. To be stomped til dead. __________________________________________________________ "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. (The Noble Quran, 5:51)" "O ye who believe! Take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport - whether among those who received the Scripture (i.e., the Bible) before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have Faith (indeed). (The Noble Quran, 5:57)" "Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with God. (The Noble Quran, 4:139)" "O ye who believe! Turn not (for friendship) To people on whom Is the Wrath of Allah. Of the Hereafter they are Already in despair, just as The Unbelievers are In despair about those (Buried) in graves. (The Noble Quran, 60:13)" Adding, The Arabic word for "friends" is "Awliyaa", which has four literal meanings: (1) Allies; (2) Friends; and (3) Guardians. In Noble Verse 60:13, the Arabic word used was "tatawallu", which is derived from the root word "Awliyaa". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Mon 04/29/13 05:16 PM
|
|
I confess I'm more than a little enamoured of the Islamic banking concept. From a secular perspective, I find it to be a more moral and ethical form of commercial banking. To contrast the financing approaches, I took this out of the following URL: Consider two persons, one of whom has capital but no special skills in business, while the other has managerial skills but possesses no capital. They can co-operate in either of two ways: Debt-financing (the western loan system). The businessman borrows the capital from the capital-owner and invests it in his trade. The capital-owner is to get back his principal and an additional amount on the basis of a fixed rate, called the interest rate, as his compensation for parting with liquidity for a fixed period. The claim of the lender for repayment of the principal plus the payment of the interest becomes viable only after the expiry of this period. This payment is due irrespective of whether the businessman has made a profit using the borrowed money. In the event of a loss, the borrower has to repay the principal amount of the loan, as well as the accrued interest, from his own resources, while the capital-owner loses nothing. Islam views this as an unjust transaction. Mudarabah (the Islamic way, or PLS). The two persons co-operate with each other on the basis of partnership, where the capital-owner provides the capital and the other party puts his management skills into the business. The capital-owner is not involved in the actual day-to-day operation of the business, but is free to stipulate certain conditions that he may deem necessary to ensure the best use of his funds. After the expiry of the period, which may be the termination of the contract or such time that returns are obtained from the business, the capital-owner gets back his principal amount together with a pre-agreed share of the profit. (As I see it, the Islamic banker functions as a venture capitalist in that the banker risks his capital, which is more in the nature of a silent partner in the enterprise than simply a creditor of it.) http://www.islamic-banking.com/islamic_banking_principle.aspx Only drawback in an agreement between the Muslam and Infidel is, the Muslime doesn't have to honor the agreement. I think it says something like that in the Talmud, but where does it say it in the Q'uran? They are, according to the quran, not allowed to enter into friendly relations with Non-Muslimes. If they enter into a business. financial deal, they are not obliged to honor the agreement because, the non-muslime is as a snake in the grass. To be stomped til dead. __________________________________________________________ "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. (The Noble Quran, 5:51)" "O ye who believe! Take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport - whether among those who received the Scripture (i.e., the Bible) before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have Faith (indeed). (The Noble Quran, 5:57)" "Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with God. (The Noble Quran, 4:139)" "O ye who believe! Turn not (for friendship) To people on whom Is the Wrath of Allah. Of the Hereafter they are Already in despair, just as The Unbelievers are In despair about those (Buried) in graves. (The Noble Quran, 60:13)" The Q'uran citations are only that unbelievers are not to be "trusted" (and of course I don't trust anyone), so at worst the Q'ran neglects to mention that even muslim brothers are not to be trusted, but hey, I guess Mohammed wouldn't have gotten his religion off the ground with "Trust no one!", though he might have done OK with "Trust ONLY Allah!" At any rate, the cites, do not support your claim that muslims will not honour a deal struck with a non-muslim. I have made deals with people of all faiths, and so far, there have been people of all major faiths who have tried to renege...except the few muslims I've dealt with...I haven't known too many, but I've yet to meet one that wasn't as good as his word. I've only known one religious extremist in my life and he was a Christian...He flat out told me that if he knew someone was a witch, he would kill her, because a true Christian (or Jew) would not let a witch live (Exodus 22:16). I'm thankful the guy doesn't do drugs, because if he ever had a hallucination of me riding a broom, I'm sure I'd be dead meat. I don't know how it is in the US, but in Canada (and for as much as the government tries to vilify muslims), different faiths get along reasonably well here. I know Christians, Jews and Muslims who play golf together. The only difference their religion seems to make is which day they skip worship for golf. Being a non-practicing Unitarian Universalist, I sometimes make it a foursome to round things out. In Canada people are generally pretty civilized with respect to religious discussion. The only time things get violent is when they start arguing hockey. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muslim economists have argued for tempering the market mechanism with regulations designed to embody the public interest. According to them, in designing all policy, the primary consideration should be justice and equity rather than laissez faire market operations.
Muslim jurists have argued the case for limits on land ownership and strict application of inheritance laws to avoid concentration of wealth. Some radical Muslim jurists have also argued that land is a communal resource and ownership is confined to period of active use rather than perpetual. Again, mineral and other natural resources are regarded as communal property. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muslim economists have argued for tempering the market mechanism with regulations designed to embody the public interest. According to them, in designing all policy, the primary consideration should be justice and equity rather than laissez faire market operations. Muslim jurists have argued the case for limits on land ownership and strict application of inheritance laws to avoid concentration of wealth. Some radical Muslim jurists have also argued that land is a communal resource and ownership is confined to period of active use rather than perpetual. Again, mineral and other natural resources are regarded as communal property. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muslim economists have argued for tempering the market mechanism with regulations designed to embody the public interest. According to them, in designing all policy, the primary consideration should be justice and equity rather than laissez faire market operations. Muslim jurists have argued the case for limits on land ownership and strict application of inheritance laws to avoid concentration of wealth. Some radical Muslim jurists have also argued that land is a communal resource and ownership is confined to period of active use rather than perpetual. Again, mineral and other natural resources are regarded as communal property. Islamic socialism ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muslim economists have argued for tempering the market mechanism with regulations designed to embody the public interest. According to them, in designing all policy, the primary consideration should be justice and equity rather than laissez faire market operations. Muslim jurists have argued the case for limits on land ownership and strict application of inheritance laws to avoid concentration of wealth. Some radical Muslim jurists have also argued that land is a communal resource and ownership is confined to period of active use rather than perpetual. Again, mineral and other natural resources are regarded as communal property. Islamic socialism ? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muslim economists have argued for tempering the market mechanism with regulations designed to embody the public interest. According to them, in designing all policy, the primary consideration should be justice and equity rather than laissez faire market operations. Muslim jurists have argued the case for limits on land ownership and strict application of inheritance laws to avoid concentration of wealth. Some radical Muslim jurists have also argued that land is a communal resource and ownership is confined to period of active use rather than perpetual. Again, mineral and other natural resources are regarded as communal property. Islamic socialism ? Very hard to argue against justice and equity and all minerals and resources are natural, not man made, so we are all entitled to our share. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muslim economists have argued for tempering the market mechanism with regulations designed to embody the public interest. According to them, in designing all policy, the primary consideration should be justice and equity rather than laissez faire market operations. Muslim jurists have argued the case for limits on land ownership and strict application of inheritance laws to avoid concentration of wealth. Some radical Muslim jurists have also argued that land is a communal resource and ownership is confined to period of active use rather than perpetual. Again, mineral and other natural resources are regarded as communal property. Islamic socialism ? Very hard to argue against justice and equity and all minerals and resources are natural, not man made, so we are all entitled to our share.
But don't dig where I developed! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muslim economists have argued for tempering the market mechanism with regulations designed to embody the public interest. According to them, in designing all policy, the primary consideration should be justice and equity rather than laissez faire market operations. Muslim jurists have argued the case for limits on land ownership and strict application of inheritance laws to avoid concentration of wealth. Some radical Muslim jurists have also argued that land is a communal resource and ownership is confined to period of active use rather than perpetual. Again, mineral and other natural resources are regarded as communal property. Islamic socialism ? Very hard to argue against justice and equity and all minerals and resources are natural, not man made, so we are all entitled to our share.
But don't dig where I developed! You probably had insider information and a Gun. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muslim economists have argued for tempering the market mechanism with regulations designed to embody the public interest. According to them, in designing all policy, the primary consideration should be justice and equity rather than laissez faire market operations. Muslim jurists have argued the case for limits on land ownership and strict application of inheritance laws to avoid concentration of wealth. Some radical Muslim jurists have also argued that land is a communal resource and ownership is confined to period of active use rather than perpetual. Again, mineral and other natural resources are regarded as communal property. Islamic socialism ? Very hard to argue against justice and equity and all minerals and resources are natural, not man made, so we are all entitled to our share.
But don't dig where I developed! You probably had insider information and a Gun. You make the Collectivist Argument so clearly!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For investment purposes Islamic financial institutions employ criteria similar to those used by the ethical investment funds. The big difference comes in the way they structure lending transactions, both for personal finance and business purposes. In simple terms, lenders enter into risk-sharing contracts with borrowers; return is based on the outcome of the venture or investment, rather than a predetermined rate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a friendly reminder this is a open forum for debates and discussions as long as the Topic is keep on a debate style form it will remain.
With that said any post that is not within Topic may be deleted. Debates and discussions is how others learn about a Topic and they are free to discuss those Topics as long as they are not attacking other members... Site Mod Kristi |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muslim economists have argued for tempering the market mechanism with regulations designed to embody the public interest. According to them, in designing all policy, the primary consideration should be justice and equity rather than laissez faire market operations. Muslim jurists have argued the case for limits on land ownership and strict application of inheritance laws to avoid concentration of wealth. Some radical Muslim jurists have also argued that land is a communal resource and ownership is confined to period of active use rather than perpetual. Again, mineral and other natural resources are regarded as communal property. ...and also (almost) correctly in terms of natural law. Communal property is also known as the common and can be the property of no man or collection of men. It can only be held in trust and claimed for (sustainable) use. All that may be "owned" is a CLAIM to some portion of the common for use. In the theistic view, ALL property is the property of God. The Catholic Church once claimed the entire Earth as the rightful property of Christ, and made the office of the Pope "Christ's trustee"...Needless to say, this created a lot of (naturally unlawful) bull$hit to contend with, but it WAS an organizational system of some sort, and DOES explain why the head of the church claimed the exclusive right to crown kings...They were vassal kings, given their god's blessing to rule thru the authority of the office of the pope. In the secular view, there is no such thing as private property that you haven't vested some part of your body or its energy into, which kinda lets out things like land, water & air as heritable property. To preserve things like serfdom, "property" (which they could no longer lawfully hold) and the wealth in their vaults, the powers of the day set up a system of legal fiction analogues that basically conned everyone into remaining serfs to them, even though they knew what was now being traded, held and vested was not physical property, but fictional, claimed RIGHTS to its possession/disposal. "Privately owned land" continued to be called that thanks to a clever change in definitions. In general, however, the term "real estate" became the term used as the (deceptive) fictional replacement for the traditional idea of "land as property." This deception of legal fictions (which benefits only a few) continues to this day and is the source of most of the woes of humanity, since it allows for such an egregious "distribution of wealth", that people all over the world suffer, starve and/or live in a state of slavery/serfdom/oppression in even the wealthiest of "countries" (which are yet more legal fictions created to replace "kingdoms"...the modern "country" is nothing more than a business corporation). IMO, the collectivist tribes had it almost right...leastways a lot more right than the European neo-feudalist, fictional system most people live under today. The really sad thing is that people are the victims of their own ignorance in not knowing that it is their own assumptions (which they never question) that chain them to the 4 horses of the apocalypse for their convenient drawing and quartering. People still fall for the idea that what some clown a thousand miles away writes down on a piece of paper somewhere (legislation) is "the law", even if they don't consent to be bound by it...Whattya gonna do?...They're stuck in the serf mentality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Going back to the opening post and leaving out the religion, I agree that making money from money is what it is, usary, and is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Tue 04/30/13 12:31 PM
|
|
Muslim economists have argued for tempering the market mechanism with regulations designed to embody the public interest. According to them, in designing all policy, the primary consideration should be justice and equity rather than laissez faire market operations. Muslim jurists have argued the case for limits on land ownership and strict application of inheritance laws to avoid concentration of wealth. Some radical Muslim jurists have also argued that land is a communal resource and ownership is confined to period of active use rather than perpetual. Again, mineral and other natural resources are regarded as communal property. ...and also (almost) correctly in terms of natural law. Communal property is also known as the common and can be the property of no man or collection of men. It can only be held in trust and claimed for (sustainable) use. All that may be "owned" is a CLAIM to some portion of the common for use. In the theistic view, ALL property is the property of God. The Catholic Church once claimed the entire Earth as the rightful property of Christ, and made the office of the Pope "Christ's trustee"...Needless to say, this created a lot of (naturally unlawful) bull$hit to contend with, but it WAS an organizational system of some sort, and DOES explain why the head of the church claimed the exclusive right to crown kings...They were vassal kings, given their god's blessing to rule thru the authority of the office of the pope. In the secular view, there is no such thing as private property that you haven't vested some part of your body or its energy into, which kinda lets out things like land, water & air as heritable property. To preserve things like serfdom, "property" (which they could no longer lawfully hold) and the wealth in their vaults, the powers of the day set up a system of legal fiction analogues that basically conned everyone into remaining serfs to them, even though they knew what was now being traded, held and vested was not physical property, but fictional, claimed RIGHTS to its possession/disposal. "Privately owned land" continued to be called that thanks to a clever change in definitions. In general, however, the term "real estate" became the term used as the (deceptive) fictional replacement for the traditional idea of "land as property." This deception of legal fictions (which benefits only a few) continues to this day and is the source of most of the woes of humanity, since it allows for such an egregious "distribution of wealth", that people all over the world suffer, starve and/or live in a state of slavery/serfdom/oppression in even the wealthiest of "countries" (which are yet more legal fictions created to replace "kingdoms"...the modern "country" is nothing more than a business corporation). IMO, the collectivist tribes had it almost right...leastways a lot more right than the European neo-feudalist, fictional system most people live under today. The really sad thing is that people are the victims of their own ignorance in not knowing that it is their own assumptions (which they never question) that chain them to the 4 horses of the apocalypse for their convenient drawing and quartering. People still fall for the idea that what some clown a thousand miles away writes down on a piece of paper somewhere (legislation) is "the law", even if they don't consent to be bound by it...Whattya gonna do?...They're stuck in the serf mentality. Nothing to be proud of! Today they are known by a different name,Statist! Those who consistently rob the Individual of their Achievement and Reward! Your System hasn't worked anywhere in the world,because Human Beings do not bend that way! if Socialism is so great...why does it have to be mandated and forced on people? Some People feel they must live as Slaves of the Tribe! I don't! And Mister Schmidt-Rubin also says so! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two Words. Social Democracy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two Words. Social Democracy
|
|
|
|
|
