I hadn’t planned to write about this done-deal regarding the vote in the Senate. It's deeply depressing for those of us who love our country. However, since the ad has gone up, it has served to remind me that it is important to bear witness: we shall at least go on the record to state our belief that Kagan is not going to serve our country any better than Obama has.
The Center for Security Policy says:
As Dean of Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan banned military recruiters from campus because US law said they couldn’t enlist homosexuals. Well, she invited the Saudi’s “recruiters” to promote their legal code--Shariah-- which calls for homosexuals to be murdered and women to be treated like animals.
If Kagan tolerates promoting the injustice of Shariah law on the campus of Harvard, what kind of injustice will she tolerate in America during a lifetime on the Supreme Court?
My fear is that this woman is a merely the foot in the door of the Supreme Court for the tenets of sharia.
- - - - - - - - -
It will take the determined will of the American people to fight her and her kind as they attempt to erode and erase our heritage.
Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center, mentions Andrew McCarthy’s warnings about Obama’s nominee [except for one reference below, see the rest of McCarthy’s links at his site]:
During her a stint at the Clinton White House, we now know, Ms. Kagan struck the pose of a champion of women’s rights - at least if you weren’t an unborn girl. So fierce was her devotion to the cause of “reproductive freedom” that she subverted science in the service of abortion on demand - specifically, to preserve the partial-birth abortion procedure, which exceeds even stoning in its ghastliness. She then went on to Harvard Law School where, as dean, she became the champion of sharia.
To hear progressives tell it, we can do nice, clean, friendly sharia, just like we do nice, clean, friendly Islam. “Lapidations,” they will tell you, are no different from jihadist suicide bombings: outmoded vestiges of a long-forgotten time. Except they’re not. They are undeniably rooted in Islamic scripture, and they are happening today, with frequency, wherever sharia reigns. That is because the “moderate Islam” progressives like to banter about is a mirage in search of a cogent set of principles. There is no moderate Islam that can compete with the mainstream, sharia Islam. Thus the crimes and punishments, in all their ghoulishness, endure.
The progressives aren't listening, Mr. McCarthy. Their political views have left them blind and deaf to any ideas that might threaten their deep, abiding faith in diversity. Kumbiyah, and hand me a stone...if others -- and they don't know these people anyway, so who cares? -- have to suffer, too bad. Just don't get interfere with us on our way down the yellow brick road of Good Intentions.
Real courage at Harvard would have called for condemning the university’s profoundly immoral, gluttonous promotion of sharia. While Kagan was at the law school, her patron, Harvard’s president Larry Summers, accepted a stunning $20 million donation for the creation of a program of studies to lionize Islam’s history and jurisprudence.
Rudy Giuliani had the courage Summers lacks. The mayor turned down the Saudi prince, who had offered New York City his millions for the Twin Tower destruction and slaughter. All New York had to do was blame American foreign policy for the barbarian atrocities.
McCarthy rightly calls Summers the anti-Giuliani. Summers took the money and ran with it. All he had to do was create another Harvard program…for the promotion of Sharia finance.
And why not? By then, as Ben Shapiro reported, Harvard’s law school already had three Saudi-funded institutions devoted to the study of sharia.
Ah, yes, Mecca-by-the-Charles. Is there nothing Summers or Harvard won’t do for money? So far we haven’t seen his or Kagan’s limits, but we can see the potential for the damage that will follow in their wake.
McCarthy says:
…no, the Kagans tell us, they’re not endorsing all of sharia. Of course they don’t mean to abet the sundry cruelties and the systematic abuse of women, homosexuals, apostates, and non-Muslims. They simply want believing Muslims to be able to participate in our markets without transgressing what they see as sharia’s worthy prohibition against the payment of interest in financial transactions.
Sharia-compliant finance (SCF): get used to it. If the Senate confirms Kagan, partial birth abortion will remain our American shame and SCF will be just another way to undermine our sovereignty. McCarthy teases out its modern day origins, going back to its founding “brainchild”:
I am indebted to the scholar Andrew Bostom for this assessment of SCF from the architect himself, an excerpt from [Abu-Ala] Mawdudi’s paper, “The Economic Problem of Man and its Islamic Solution”:
If anyone thinks it feasible that this economic system can be successfully implemented even if divorced from the complete ideological, moral, and cultural system of Islam, I will humbly request him to get rid of this misunderstanding. This economic system has a deep relationship with the political, judicial, legal, cultural and social system of Islam. And all these are fundamentally based on the moral system of Islam. . . . If you do not accept this creed, this moral system and the whole of this code of life, completely as it is, the economic system of Islam, divorced from its source, cannot be maintained or administered in its purity for even a single day, nor will any appreciable advantage accrue from it if you take it out of its wider context and then seek to apply [it] to your life.
That’s the whole point: sharia is indivisible. You can pull it apart for the sake of analysis, but it is lived from the inside. It is the antithesis of Western thought, jurisprudence, or in this case, finance law. Anyone naïve enough to dismiss this as one more diversity project has utterly failed to get the point:
To pull off the SCF chicanery, financial institutions hire as advisers Islamic clerics who are expert in Muslim jurisprudence - there being, again, no separation between divine edicts and the secular law in Islam. It is those clerics, many of them Islamists, who decide what transactions are permissible. And very often, to purge the taint, prohibited interest payments are diverted to Islamic “charities.” It all sounds wonderful . . . except for what they don’t tell you: The major schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that support for violent jihad is a legitimate form of charitable giving.
That’s a real problem for a Muslim wanting to fulfill his obligations of zakat. Do you ever wonder where the Muslim hospitals are, where the charitable foundations exist which feed the hungry and clothe the poor? You won’t find them because zakat is based on funding jihad, not in bettering mankind, or relieving suffering. The point of jihad is to inflict suffering. And when they’ve finished with us, including Ms. Kagan and the rest of the tools of Islam, they’ll start on one another.
Obama nominated this woman to serve on our highest court. Given the conduct of our legislative branch to date, I’m not holding out any hope for valorous, exceptional advice and withholding of consent by our politicians. Sharia? What Sharia? Sounds like a girl’s name to them.
Sadly, this will be a rubber-stamp operation by a me,too legislative body. Let us hope that at least the Republicans will have enough spine to go on the record as being against this travesty.
23 comments:
She is one of those people who never suffers from cognitive dissonance even as she holds two opposed points of view. A Leftist.
The curious ability to tolerate cognitive dissonance is a trait shared by Muslims and Liberals. It is no coincidence that these two groups should have this in common as they both require a significant amount of Magical Thinking™ in order to accomodate the conflicting tenets of their respective socio-political mindsets.
The pathological element of this condition manifests in the way that Liberals somehow manage to accept Muslim beliefs even when those Islamic value structures are in direct opposition their own philosophical system.
Quite curiously, Muslims have absolutely no problem accepting this behavior on the part of Liberals. To the contrary, they milk it like the last cow on the farm.
It obliges one to ponder just what it is exactly that Liberals are getting in return from Muslims. And here is where things start to get very ugly.
Muslims stand for so much that is in total contradition to the Liberal mindset that the only possible answer lies in the fact that Islam is a central force acting to destroy White Judeo-Christian Culture (WJCC). The unabiding emnity of Liberals for WJ-CC is so deep seated that there is no hypocrisy too profound or risk too great if it can bring about the destruction of The System™.
That pro-feminist and pro-gay rights Liberals − like Yuri Bezmenenov's quickest-to-be-executed "true believers" − will be among the first led to the chopping block manages to somehow elude these Leftists in their zeal to deconstruct Western civilization.
Unfortunately, it will not just be the death of them but, quite possibly, the death of us all.
For that reason, such cognitive dissonance may end up needing to be classified as a form of insanity or serve as justification for the confinement of those who attempt to inflict it upon others, especially in the political or legal arena.
I couldn't agree more. Kagan has made her intentions clear, just as former Clinton nominee Lani Guinier did. Kagan is open to adoption of some shari'a tenets in the name of diversity, while Guinier was promoting racial weighting in voting.
Kagan must know how backward and oppressive Islam really is; because if she is not aware, and is still fighting the old 1960's war against traditional American values, then she is not fit to serve as a Justice.
I’m just curious as to whether there are any paragraphs in the US constitution that prohibits the introduction of sharia based finance in the US? Regardless of what people might think about this form of finance it is however not the barbaric form of sharia law that is being practiced in Saudi Arabia that we’re talking about here.
Anyway a Supreme Court judge job is first and foremost to uphold the constitution and not to base her decisions on personal opinions. And I don’t think that an American Supreme Court judge would ever dream of suggesting introducing sharia law in the US.
From the Wikipedia article on Sharia-compliant finance:
Islamic banking has the same purpose as conventional banking except that it operates in accordance with the rules of Shariah, known as Fiqh al-Muamalat (Islamic rules on transactions). The basic principle of Islamic banking is the sharing of profit and loss and the prohibition of riba (usury). Common terms used in Islamic banking include profit sharing (Mudharabah), safekeeping (Wadiah), joint venture (Musharakah), cost plus (Murabahah), and leasing (Ijarah).
In an Islamic mortgage transaction, instead of loaning 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 Murabaha. 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).
An innovative approach applied by some banks for home loans, called Musharaka al-Mutanaqisa, allows for a floating rate in the form of rental. The bank and borrower form a partnership entity, both providing capital at an agreed percentage to purchase the property. The partnership entity then rents out the property to the borrower and charges rent. The bank and the borrower will then share the proceeds from this rent based on the current equity share of the partnership. At the same time, the borrower in the partnership entity also buys the bank's share of the property at agreed installments until the full equity is transferred to the borrower and the partnership is ended. If default occurs, both the bank and the borrower receive a proportion of the proceeds from the sale of the property based on each party's current equity. This method allows for floating rates according to the current market rate such as the BLR (base lending rate), especially in a dual-banking system like in Malaysia.
There are several other approaches used in business transactions. Islamic banks lend their money to companies by issuing floating rate interest loans. The floating rate of interest is pegged to the company's individual rate of return. Thus the bank's profit on the loan is equal to a certain percentage of the company's profits. Once the principal amount of the loan is repaid, the profit-sharing arrangement is concluded. This practice is called Musharaka. Further, Mudaraba is venture capital funding of an entrepreneur who provides labor while financing is provided by the bank so that both profit and risk are shared. Such participatory arrangements between capital and labor reflect the Islamic view that the borrower must not bear all the risk/cost of a failure, resulting in a balanced distribution of income and not allowing lender to monopolize the economy.
I see no problem with commercially-minded individuals structuring their financial transactions in any way they freely choose. An Islamic customer and a Christian banker choosing to structure their transaction in a manner requested by the Islamic customer, or an Islamic banker and a Jewish customer choosing to structure their transaction in a manner chosen by the Islamic banker, is light years away from enforcement of a barbaric Sharia criminal code.
Are you going to seriously claim that Western finance has not developed financial instruments that make Sharia-compliant finance look like a model of clarity and plain-dealing?
That’s the whole point: sharia is indivisible … It is the antithesis of Western thought, jurisprudence, or in this case, finance law. Anyone naïve enough to dismiss this as one more diversity project has utterly failed to get the point … [emphasis added]
Anyone who is "naïve enough to dismiss this" has not just "failed to get the point", they are a danger to civilized society.
That’s a real problem for a Muslim wanting to fulfill his obligations of zakat. Do you ever wonder where the Muslim hospitals are, where the charitable foundations exist which feed the hungry and clothe the poor? You won’t find them because zakat is based on funding jihad, not in bettering mankind, or relieving suffering. The point of jihad is to inflict suffering. And when they’ve finished with us, including Ms. Kagan and the rest of the tools of Islam, they’ll start on one another. [emphasis added]
As always, any meaningful discussion of zakat needs a link to Henrik Ræder Clausen's superb monograph on this subject: Generosity is Good, Zakat is Bad. A reading of that authoritative work will show how the Qur'an, ergo shari'a law, literally demands that zakat finance jihad.
kritisk_borger: I’m just curious as to whether there are any paragraphs in the US constitution that prohibits the introduction of sharia based finance in the US? Regardless of what people might think about this form of finance it is however not the barbaric form of sharia law that is being practiced in Saudi Arabia that we’re talking about here.
What makes you say such a mistaken and misguided thing? The zakat that mandatorily must be gathered from all Shari'a Compliant Finance (SCF) transactions will most certainly wend its way into the hands of jihadists, the majority of whom admire Sunni Islam’s barbarity.
We are most certainly talking about "the barbaric form of sharia law that is being practiced in Saudi Arabia". It is only you and Nodrog that seem able to dispense with the moral clarity to understand this.
Nodrog: I see no problem with commercially-minded individuals structuring their financial transactions in any way they freely choose.
Even when they deliberately and intentionally seek to financially support global terrorism?
Are you going to seriously claim that Western finance has not developed financial instruments that make Sharia-compliant finance look like a model of clarity and plain-dealing?
Nice attempt at your usual moral relativism, Nodrog. Maybe you missed Dymphna’s point about how, "It [SCF] is the antithesis of Western thought, jurisprudence, or in this case, finance law." For the nonce we'll set aside how Wikipedia's reliability as an information source is utterly tainted by a deep pro-Islamic slant that sees many opposing viewpoints conveniently edited out from its hallowed cyber-tomes.
While the sub-prime scandal has all the earmarks of a massive criminal enterprise (which it is) − and even despite the severe hardship and suffering its deprivations will thrust upon many people around the globe − there is little valid comparison between this financial meltdown's clawing at Middle Class values and the barbarous throwback mentality of Islam.
Need I trot out the cocktail napkin calculations that show how shortly after imposition of Islam's global caliphate we will likely see over ONE BILLION people dead?
SCF is just one more tentacle of Islam's brutal and unjust shari'a law snaking its way into our lives where it has all the welcome of the bubonic plague.
If you are one of those insane ultra-environmentalists that lust after the decimation of mankind as a solution to pollution-related issues, then SCF and its entire panoply of Islamic savagery are right up your alley.
Zenster: if the profits of SCF are being used to fund jihad, then you have a point.
But, if more likely, they are being used as they are used by every other banking establishment in the world, I fail to see how, as Dymphna put it, "[SCF] is the antithesis of Western thought, jurisprudence, or in this case, finance law." And having read what I assume is Dymphna's source material, Andrew Bostum, he does not do much more than make conclusory and, frankly, hysterical preachments about SCF.
There's a lot to worry about with Islam, including aspects of Sharia law such as its criminal and family codes. SCF is not among the worrying aspects.
Zenster said ..
“What makes you say such a mistaken and misguided thing? The zakat that mandatorily must be gathered from all Shari'a Compliant Finance (SCF) transactions will most certainly wend its way into the hands of jihadists, the majority of whom admire Sunni Islam’s barbarity.
We are most certainly talking about "the barbaric form of sharia law that is being practiced in Saudi Arabia". It is only you and Nodrog that seem able to dispense with the moral clarity to understand this.”
I don’t believe that American banks that are considering introducing SCF will funnel some of the proceeds from this scheme into the hands of Jihadist in the west or in the Far East. The bankers who’re willing to introduce SCF will only do so because they know that they can make a lot of money on it and keep the proceeds for themselves. Muslims who have a desire to finance terror and Jihad are already doing so through other channels and they will continue to do so in the future, and this something that western authorities should really crack down on.
Oddly enough though the biggest financial supporters of terror regimes and jihadis are consumers in the western world, who rely heavily on the importation of Saudi and Iranian oil. It’s no secret that these two regimes funnel some of the proceeds through this trade into the hands of violent jihadists.
The best way to stop the financial support of Saudi Arabia and Iran is to realize that there are other alternative fuel sources around and start using those. Ethanol comes to mind in that regard.
And yes it can be done. Just look at Brazil, the majority of the car fleet in that country runs on domestically produced Ethanol.
Quote: "The bankers who’re willing to introduce SCF will only do so because they know that they can make a lot of money on it and keep the proceeds for themselves. "
Or . . .perhaps upon careful reflection . . .the banks will retreat:
Big banks go cold on Islamic products As Lloyds cancels its flagship Sharia mortgage, what happened to the big ambitions to woo the Muslim community? By Julian Knight
Sunday, 18 July 2010 via UK Independent
AUSTRALIAN THANKS
Comments from Melbourne in Australia - great work from all of you.
My life changed after reading Brigitt Gabriel's books three years ago, and now I see she is President for American Congress of Truth http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/
I believe that individuals' rights and liberties are best protected by the western legal framework which is based on the Judeo-Christian tradition, the foundation of which is the 10 Commandments. The framework is worth defending. People who enter a country and gain citizenship and then do not respect this framework should be stripped of citizenship, when sufficient evidence exists (eg convicted terrorists)and deported to their original countries. The frequent silence from Islamists is the most telling and damning feature of their faith. I will be wearing the Gates of Vienna shirts proudly.
Nodrog: But, if more likely, they are being used as they are used by every other banking establishment in the world, I fail to see how, as Dymphna put it, "[SCF] is the antithesis of Western thought, jurisprudence, or in this case, finance law." [emphasis added]
Please provide evidence which shows how it is "more likely" that SCF (Shari'a Compliant Finance) institutions will somehow manage to avoid having their MANDATORY zakat deductions fall into the hands of terrorists. Your assumptions that this is so are more than inadequate, they are DANGEROUS.
You will need to prove that these organizations are maintaining scrupulously clean donation paths instead of just turning over these not insubstantial monies to their resident Islamic scholars who will then do what the Qur'an tells them and then use those funds to ensure the further funding of jihad as is mandated by shari'a law.
Considering how many major governmental and non-governmental groups there are that continue to deluge known terrorist organizations with countless millions of dollars in aid that is routinely diverted to global jihad, your presumption of what is "more likely" reveals a disturbing degree of credulity.
It appears as though you are merely arguing from what YOU consider to be common sense when the SCF players and all of the Muslims engaging in this charade feel no such obligation.
Ergo, you are mapping your world view onto those who's own mindset is entirely alien to yours. This is a common mistake of moderates, be they Muslim or otherwise, and it is rapidly landing such people in the enemy camp as they continue to make excuses and turn a blind eye to how pervasive and insidious Islamic jihad has become.
Folks, please pay close attention here as we are seeing a very useful demonstration of how Muslim apologists engage in personal projection as a substitution for factual documentation.
kritisk_borger: I don’t believe that American banks that are considering introducing SCF will funnel some of the proceeds from this scheme into the hands of Jihadist in the west or in the Far East. [emphasis added]
How does what you believe or "don't believe" have any control over the outcome of this situation? Notice how Nodrog's proprietary probability forecasts have every bit as much weight in this equation as your nebulous beliefs? Namely, zero, nada, zip, bupkus, zilch.
What you "believe" means absolutely SQUAT to a bunch of SCF (Shari'a Compliant Finance) bank-hired Islamic scholars following well documented instructions clearly stated in the Qur'an that indicate their unequivocal obligation to use zakat for the purpose of funding jihad.
The bankers who’re willing to introduce SCF will only do so because they know that they can make a lot of money on it and keep the proceeds for themselves.
And in that rush to "make a lot of money on it and keep the proceeds for themselves" do you honestly think that the bankers who have already demonstrated such rapacity and startlingly incurious attitudes towards blatantly fraudulent sub-prime instruments are suddenly going to worry themselves sick over such niggling little details as who, what and where their MANDATORY zakat gets allocated to by whatever dubious and poorly vetted Islamic scholars they conveniently hire in order to meet minimum compliance with SCF "regulations"?
Are you really that gullible?
Muslims who have a desire to finance terror and Jihad are already doing so through other channels and they will continue to do so in the future, and this something that western authorities should really crack down on.
And this should somehow be taken to mean that Muslims will all of a sudden become diligent and procedurally transparent when confronted with the opportunity to divert even more untold MILLIONS OF DOLLARS into jihadist coffers?
Whatever you're having, please ask the bartender to pour me one too.
Oddly enough though the biggest financial supporters of terror regimes and jihadis are consumers in the western world, who rely heavily on the importation of Saudi and Iranian oil.
The usual moral relativism. As if the West's supremely ill-thought-out provision of oil revenues to terrorist regimes somehow assuages all culpability over assuming an expanded role in assisting the diversion of even MORE capital flow into jihadist coffers.
Where do you come up with this insanity?
The best way to stop the financial support of Saudi Arabia and Iran is to realize that there are other alternative fuel sources around and start using those.
Thank you for that BGO (Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious), even as you seek to shrug off the profound stupidity of legalizing yet one more channel whereby Western monies can be given over to the jihadists.
And yes it can be done.
So effing what?!? We're discussing SCF and not the admittedly large but nonetheless red herring of alternative fuels.
Are you or are you not skeptical that SCF institutions will act with all due diligence to prevent their mandatory zakat deductions from falling into terrorist hands?
Zenster said....
“Folks, please pay close attention here as we are seeing a very useful demonstration of how Muslim apologists engage in personal projection as a substitution for factual documentation.”
Well so are you. You’re basing your entire argumentation on what you personally think is going to happen if SCF is introduced in America. After reading this little rant of yours I’m also seriously starting to wonder whether you’re seeing jihadists and Muslim fanatics all around you, and if you do you should seriously consider seeing a shrink.
And yes, I don’t believe that any bank in America will be able to hand over millions of dollars to Muslim terrorist and Jihadists without ending up in the spotlights of the national security services in the US. They’re not just going to look the other way in this day and age. Maybe you can enlighten us and tell us how the banks will achieve this task without getting punished by the authorities, since you’re so adamant on getting ‘factual documentation’?
And when I mentioned alternative fuel sources and Saudi oil I was only stating the obvious, which is that it’s the oil consumer in the west that has made it possible for the Iranians and the Saudis to finance terrorist and jihadists. If western petrol dollars start to flow into the coffers of nations that produce ethanol instead of oil then the Arabic terrorist funds will soon run dry.
But even though this is bleeding obvious many conservative Americans still have strong reservations about switching to alternative fuel sources because they don’t want to be identified as ‘tree huggers’.
Go figure.
kritisk_borger: You’re basing your entire argumentation on what you personally think is going to happen if SCF is introduced in America.
Ummmmmm ... no. There's such a thing known as historical precedent and it is a legitimate tool to use in predicting future behavior.
You, on the other hand, have confined yourself to belief and as of yet haven't provided any concrete evidence to back up your assertions.
After reading this little rant of yours I’m also seriously starting to wonder whether you’re seeing jihadists and Muslim fanatics all around you, and if you do you should seriously consider seeing a shrink.
And just as suddenly, you are magically qualified to make determinations regarding a person's psychological state without having demonstrated the least qualification to do so. Are you familiar with the thoroughly discredited concept of ad hominem argumentive fallacy?
I don’t believe that any bank in America will be able to hand over millions of dollars to Muslim terrorist and Jihadists without ending up in the spotlights of the national security services in the US.
Who said they will? That is your own conjecture. Have you ever heard of hawala?
And when I mentioned alternative fuel sources and Saudi oil I was only stating the obvious, which is that it’s the oil consumer in the west that has made it possible for the Iranians and the Saudis to finance terrorist and jihadists.
Your statement might be taken to suggest that jihad has only come into existence subsequent to discovery of petroleum deposits in the MME (Muslim Middle East) instead of being a historical fact for over 1,000 years.
While oil money has only exacerbated global terrorism, it bears no responsibility for the fact that jihad has existed in parallel with Islam for its entire history.
But even though this is bleeding obvious many conservative Americans still have strong reservations about switching to alternative fuel sources because they don’t want to be identified as ‘tree huggers’.
Yet more unsubstantiated speculation. How about introducing some Harris polls to support that statement? Or is that too much to ask?
Zenster said...
“Ummmmmm ... no. There's such a thing known as historical precedent and it is a legitimate tool to use in predicting future behavior.
You, on the other hand, have confined yourself to belief and as of yet haven't provided any concrete evidence to back up your assertions.”
I’ve never claimed that I have the answers to what might happen if SCF is introduced in the US, I’ve merely stated that in my personal opinion the banks will not be able to hand over money to any terrorist organization due to a very vigilant intelligence services and government restrictions placed on the banks.
You however claim the opposite, but you don’t back it up with any plausible theories or arguments. How will these funds end up in the hands of terrorist and Jihadist? How will these banks circumvent the laws and manage to fly under the radar of NSA, CIA, and all the other secret service branches in the US? Please do tell us. Are you claiming that representatives from Hamas and Al Qaida will be able to skim the proceeds from SCF in the US with the help from US bankers?
And no contrary to what you claim there is no historical precedent in relation to SCF in America, because it’s never been offered to Muslim in the US before. And don’t try to equate the practices of Islamic banks in the third world to Western banks in a first world country such as the US. That’s like claiming that Eritrea is just as advanced a country as Germany.
“And just as suddenly, you are magically qualified to make determinations regarding a person's psychological state without having demonstrated the least qualification to do so. Are you familiar with the thoroughly discredited concept of ad hominem argumentive fallacy?”
It’s no worse than your previously smart remarks in this tread. But you’re obviously one of those who’re more than happy to dish it out but who start to cry when it’s directed at yourself? Are you a little boy or a grown man?
“Your statement might be taken to suggest that jihad has only come into existence subsequent to discovery of petroleum deposits in the MME (Muslim Middle East) instead of being a historical fact for over 1,000 years.”
No, I said that consumers in the west by buying oil from Iran and Saudi Arabia have enabled these regimes to fill up their coffers to the brim, and some of those revenues have been used to promote Islam, Jihad and terrorism. I did not claim that Jihad is a result of petrol dollars. How the hell did you managed to reach that conclusion??
“Yet more unsubstantiated speculation. How about introducing some Harris polls to support that statement? Or is that too much to ask?”
Well if these are as you say ‘unsubstantiated speculations’ then you should be perfectly able to prove that I’m wrong in making this claim, why don’t you do that?
Drill Baby, Drill, right??
kritisk_borger: You however claim the opposite, but you don’t back it up with any plausible theories or arguments.
What part of Shari'a Complaint Finance (SCF) funds terrorism do you not understand?
This explains why 27 Islamic charities have been designated at U.S. Terror organizations by the government; the most recent one being the Holy Land Foundation in Dallas, Texas which was closed down in Nov 2008 after fifteen years and two trials.
… The amount of the Zakat Tax or Fee is undisclosed. The Oasis Shariah Mutual Fund reported purification profits of approx 6% in 2006. Extrapolating this number to the size of the $1trillion dollars SCF market, could translate easily to over one Billiion “purification” dollars going to Shariah approved Charities.
Below are 27 Islamic Charity organizations that have been either indicted or designated by the Treasury under Executive Act 13224, as sponsors of terrorism. Note that under Shariah Law there are 8 approved classes of charitable giving, 4 of which can be interpreted to mean funding of holy war or “jihad”. [emphasis added]
Either you are willfully blind or immune to logic. Did you notice that part where the article notes how "under Shariah Law there are 8 approved classes of charitable giving, 4 of which can be interpreted to mean funding of holy war or 'jihad'."
Or is it just that you have somehow managed to ignore the thousands of references at GoV regarding the Islamic practice of taqiyya?
Falsehoods [taqiyya] told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned in the Qur'an and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a “religion of peace”. [emphasis added]
You presume that there is even one Islamic charity which can be trusted to commit blasphemy and not fund jihad with proceeds it derives from zakat from SCF. It is part of shari'a law that zakat must fund jihad, yet you maintain that there are Muslim charities who, in their devout service to Islam, will somehow contravene their ideology's own legal code and refrain from assisting other Muslims in assuring the ascendancy of their own beliefs.
No amount of legal scrutiny can overcome this and domestic banking institutions are knowingly committing TREASON in their rush to implement SCF when Islam, at its core, remains a seditious creed intent upon overthrowing America’s Constitution.
Well if these are as you say ‘unsubstantiated speculations’ then you should be perfectly able to prove that I’m wrong in making this claim [that "many conservative Americans still have strong reservations about switching to alternative fuel sources because they don’t want to be identified as ‘tree huggers’"], why don’t you do that?
It appears that you are asking me to prove a negative. You have made the assertion and it is incumbent upon yourself to prove that your statement is true. I am not responsible for debunking your statements. You are required to substantiate them or admit that they are solely based upon your own idle speculation.
I have demonstrated that significant reasons for concern exist due to a previous and well-documented pattern of SCF being used to fund jihad. You have yet to show any good reasons to believe that American banking institutions will be able to prevent zakat from funding more jihad.
Yet again you’ve shown your ignorance and failure to understand how SCF works.
For some strange reason you seem to believe that Zakat is a tax which Islamic banks directly deducts from the bank accounts of Muslim bank customers, but this is of course incorrect. There are independent Zakat organizations that collect Zakat from Muslims. The banks do not hand money over to these Zakat organizations.
Here’s an example of how Zakat is organized in the Muslim nation of Malaysia and do note that it’s not an obligatory but a voluntary tax;
“Style of Operation: The guiding philosophy in doing work at PPZ is to make the zakat payers feel that zakat payment is an ibadah or duty that is easy to perform; that helps to purify their wealth and soul; and can give them a great feeling of satisfaction and relief. PPZ focuses on reaching out to the Muslim community and reminding them of their religious duty. Talks, pamphlets, posters, explanations and reminders through the media or through direct mailing to prospects are some of the methods being used by PPZ. PPZ relies more on educating the Muslim public as opposed to using force or the law. Self awareness is more effective and more appealing to the educated public.
Payer's Preference: Most of the payers prefer to pay zakat in the month of Ramadhan so that they can pay both their zakat mal (zakat on wealth) and zakat fitr (zakat on self); and in the month of January, since a person could get their rebate from income tax payment for that particular year. These 2 months constitute 65% of yearly collections. Normally prayers prefer to come to the zakat counter to pay zakat because they like the act of akad (solemnisation) even though it is not a must. Other would pay through the mail, salary deduction, sending a representative to the zakat center and paying at selected bank counters where major banks in the country have been appointed as agents by the Islamic Council. “
Another thing to bear in mind is that the majority of the Islamic banks are owned by non-Muslims and that the Muslims employed by these banks have little input as to how the banks operate
“The majority of Islamic banking clients are found in the Gulf states and in developed countries. With 60% of Muslims living in poverty, Islamic banking is of little benefit to the general population. The majority of financial institutions that offer Islamic banking services are majority owned by Non-Muslims. With Muslims working within these organizations being employed in the marketing of these services and having little input into the actual day to day management, the veracity of these institutions and their services are viewed with suspicion. One Malaysian Bank offering Islamic based investment funds was found to have the majority of these funds invested in the gaming industry; the managers administering these funds were non Muslim.[37] These types of stories contribute to the general impression within the Muslim populace that Islamic banking is simply another means for banks to increase profits through growth of deposits and that only the rich derive benefits from implementation of Islamic Banking principles.”
Was that clear enough for you?
kritisk_borger: For some strange reason you seem to believe that Zakat is a tax which Islamic banks directly deducts from the bank accounts of Muslim bank customers …
Ummmm … no. You are presuming facts not in evidence. Where did I ever say such a thing?
Here’s an example of how Zakat is organized in the Muslim nation of Malaysia and do note that it’s not an obligatory but a voluntary tax;
What has Malaysia's method of operation got to do with how America will implement SCF? Do you think that American institutions will employ the methods developed by a Muslim majority nation?
Also, if you bothered to read the link I supplied to Henrik Ræder Clausen's most excellent article about this subject, then you would already know that I am aware of the supposedly voluntary aspect of zakat.
Finally, you have yet to provide any proof for your assertion that "many conservative Americans still have strong reservations about switching to alternative fuel sources because they don’t want to be identified as ‘tree huggers’".
Let us know when you finally get aroundto providing us with any proof for that. Emkay?
Zenster said....
“What has Malaysia's method of operation got to do with how America will implement SCF? Do you think that American institutions will employ the methods developed by a Muslim majority nation?”
Well Hallelujah!! Why don’t you enlighten us then? Tell us how US banks will organize SCF and facilitate the flow of funds to terrorists and Jihadis? If a majority Muslim country like Malaysia isn’t facilitating for the proceeds of banks and financial institutions to end up in the hands of terrorists, how do you then rationalize that a non-Muslim country like the US will do the exact opposite? You’re not making much sense at all.
“Finally, you have yet to provide any proof for your assertion that "many conservative Americans still have strong reservations about switching to alternative fuel sources because they don’t want to be identified as ‘tree huggers’".
Let us know when you finally get aroundto providing us with any proof for that. Emkay?”
Hehehe.... you’re desperately trying to steer the debate away from SCF and the ludicrous claims you made previously regarding the huge sums of money ending up in the hands of terrorists as a result of it.
I made a claim about the views of some conservatives Americans. If you disagree with that view and you think that I’m wrong in making such a claim then it’s up to you to prove me wrong, and that’s all I have to say on that issue.
kritisk_borger: Well Hallelujah!! Why don’t you enlighten us then?
Answering a question with a question is not a commonly accepted forensic practice.
For gits and shiggles, let's see what we might be able to extrapolate from patterns of behavior exhibited by existing SCF banking advisors, some of whom are already seated as advisors to American financial institutions:
12. Who are these “Shariah Authorities” who sit on bank boards directing where and how Middle East oil wealth is invested?
Here are four of the most sought-after “Shari’a Authorities” in the industry, all of whom are highly paid to sit on individual corporate bank Shariah Advisory Boards. Each also sits on the AAOIFI (Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions) Board, an international body that parallels western regulatory agencies. Incredibly, the SEC embraced the legitimacy and members of the AAOIFI.
13. Who is Sheik Yusuf [Beat Your Wife Lightly] Al-Qaradawi?
Boards: AAOIFI; Bank Al-Taqwa (shut down 2001 by U.S. TSY for terror funding)
Considered one of the most respected Shariah Authorities and Shariah Finance experts
Terrorist banned from US (1999) and UK (2008)
Supports suicide bombings, no rights for women, Islamic supremacy, and Jihad
De facto leader of the Muslim Brotherhood
Urged replacing western capitalism with Shariah Finance, Oct. 2008
Described Shariah Finance as "Jihad with Money," BBC, 2006
Referred to 6 times during a Feb. 26, '09 Fordham Law School Continued Education Credit Conference on Islamic Finance
Quotable Quotes: "Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have, and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do."
“The most important form of jihad today….is to rebuild Islamic society and state….in the political, cultural and economic domains. This is certainly most deserving of Zakat.”
14. Who is Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani?
Boards: Chairman of AAOIFI; HSBC, Dow Jones, Citigroup, Guidance Financial
The single most influential Shariah authority on Shariah finance in the world
Founder and Director of Jamia Uloom madrassa, 2nd largest in Pakistan, which "boasts close ties to the Taliban" according to International Crisis Human Rights Group
Deobandi Cleric to the Taliban, 2001
Calls for western Muslims to wage violent Jihad against non-Muslims, whether or not Western countries allow Islam to be freely practiced
Quotable Quote: Usmani writes “Killing is to continue until the unbelievers pay jiziah (a subjugation tax) after they are humbled or overpowered.” (Islam and Modernism, 2006)
15. Who is Imran Ashraf Usmani?
Boards: AAOIFI; AIG, HSBC, Citigroup
Educated at and currently teaches at Jamia Uloom Madrassa, a well-known Jihadist school, with this father, Muhammad Taqi Usmani
Banks are replacing Taqi Usmani with his son, Imran, as Dad's Jihadist background is publicized
16. Who is Yusef Talal De Lorenzo?
Boards: AAOIFI; IFSB, Barclays Capital, Shariah Capital, Dow Jones, Guidance International
American convert to Islam
Dropped out of Cornell and educated at Darul Uloom Madrassa in Pakistan, the same madrassa founded by Sheik Usmani
Advisor to Pakistan President Zia al-Haq 1981–1984 during creation of Taliban
Director of Education for the Islamic Saudi Academy, which is condemned for its hate curricula by the Congress-appointed U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom
Secretary of FCNA, where fellow Trustee and President of FCNA is in prison for funding al-Qaeda and/or co-conspirator in terrorism trial
Coined the term "ethical" as a better description than "Shari’a" for Western bankers to understand
Now, doesn't that just inspire heaps o' confidence? Especially when even you admit that
The bankers who’re willing to introduce SCF will only do so because they know that they can make a lot of money on it and keep the proceeds for themselves.
Of course, these hurried Lords of Finance™ can be counted upon to stop dead in their hasty little tracks so as to perform a scrupulous vetting of their Islamic advisors before rushing off to another executive board meeting. We all know that.
kritisk_borger: I made a claim about the views of some conservatives Americans. If you disagree with that view and you think that I’m wrong in making such a claim then it’s up to you to prove me wrong, and that’s all I have to say on that issue.
Maybe that's how things operate in your own private fantasy land but in the real world it is the person who makes a given claim that must back up what they assert. If any of this seems to be at all unclear, I suggest that you consider just how far your petulant attitude will get you in a court of law.
Of course, that's all you have to say on the issue because more than likely you are entirely unable to substantiate such an inflammatory statement and just as likely resent being called on it.
Too bad for you.
I have now shown that American financial instutions are relying upon self-admitted terrorist supporters and advocates of terrorism to advise them about SCF (Shari'a Compliant Finance). Feel free to demonstrate how we are supposed to deem it unlikely that those who are directed by these jihadists will somehow manage to keep their contributions towards zakat out of terrorist hands.
Sorry dude but you haven’t answered the questions I asked you. In this tread you’ve back flipped and admitted that you have no idea of how this is going to work in America. And then just as quickly you’ve bounced back again and claimed that SCF will most definitely lead to an increase in funding of terrorists, and to back up your claim you’ve pasted and copied a list of radical Muslims who at one stage have been involved in financial dealings in the US or abroad. But unfortunately for you that just doesn’t explain anything about your claims about SCF in America. In what way is this list proof that SCF in the US will lead to an increase in financial support to jihadist and terrorists?
I’ll repeat it one more time for you;
How will American banks go about financing terrorist and Jihadists if they introduce SCF in the US? And why on earth will the owners (most likely non-Muslims) give away their proceeds to terrorists and how will they fly under the radar of the dozen or so US intelligence agencies whose number one job is to fight terrorism? Islamic banks in Malaysia don’t give proceeds away to terrorists and Jihadists, so why should US banks do so?? And the act of paying Zakat is up to each individual Muslim, it’s not mandatory and it has got nothing to do with the banks who offer SCF to its customers. There are actually independent Zakat funds just for that purpose.
Please explain. Because all you’ve done here is displaying your own personal opinion and not facts.
kritisk_borger: In this tread [sic] you’ve back flipped and admitted that you have no idea of how this is going to work in America.
I never claimed to know how "this is going to work in America". That is your own projection, as usual.
What I continue to maintain is that SCF (Shari'a Compliant Finance) has an already well established pattern of and doctrinally-based reason for funding jihad that makes the probability of the same thing happening with American-based SCF an unreasonable risk.
Merely accommodating Islam in any way at all routinely gives rise to even more Muslim demands such that cooperating with it in something of this magnitude represents flat-out foolhardiness.
This is not opinion or idle speculation but well-established fact based upon historical observation.
You have openly disavowed the accepted rules of order for functional debate so this exchange is at an end.
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.