| FORUM | LIBRARY | ARCHIVE | E-BOOKS |                     | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Islamic Banking vs. Conventional Banking
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Islamic Banking vs. Conventional Banking

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
cahaya View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
The Auror

Joined: 05 Oct 2005
Location: SE Asia
Status: Offline
Points: 1810
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cahaya Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Islamic Banking vs. Conventional Banking
    Posted: 21 Jun 2009 at 17:05
Modern Islamic banking was introduced in Egypt by Ahmad Elnaggar in year 1963.
Since that, many countries with high Muslim population adapted the concept with
various Islamic banking products from deposit, mortgages/loans, insurance to credit cards.

In fact, the Islamic banking products are well accepted by the non-muslims too. The response from
the consumers have given an impact to the conventional banking services. Where well-known international  bank such as HSBC has came up with their own Islamic Banking product (HSBC Amanah).

The questions here, isn't conventional banking threatened by products and services by Islamic banking? Nonetheless, in general, Islamic Banking is following the Shariah laws for any business deals but when we look closely it is almost similar to what conventional banking offered in term of interest charge and service charge where in Islam the consumers should not be burden with high charges impose by the bank.

refer:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Banking
http://www.islamicbanking.nl/



Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2009 at 22:06
Yes, i read something like that about a year ago about some Islamic banks here in the States. Surprisingly, it was reported that where other banks were losing profits, they were able too still make a profit. Sadly, there was little follow through in reporting and i haven't heard anything since.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Location: Look behind You
Status: Offline
Points: 1042
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2009 at 00:08
Hi Cahaya.
 
Muslim banking isn't that original it resembles western banking 30-40 years ago.
 
For example if you had got a mortgage in the west 30-40 years ago the house deeds would have stayed in the bank's name until you had fully repaid the mortgage. If you defaulted on the lone they could simply evict you and all the money you paid before you defaulted lost.
 
Nowadays the house deeds are in your name so if you default the bank has to take you to mortgage court (designed to be sympathetic to the defaulter) and at worst the house is sold with the defaulter recovering a large percentage of their money and the bank losing out.
 
A muslim morgage is simply a return to the old western system before legislation forced the banks to provide a decent service protecting the buyer.
 
Basically muslim banking apart form being terrible for the customer is a hoax. You make a loan the thing you buy is in your name, it's your property, you have leverage and rights. (Muslim Banking) you make a loan, what you buy stays in the bank's name, you have few rights,,,, oh yeah it's not considered a lone so it OK because its in the banks name, a minor technically that makes it ok????
 
 


Edited by Paul - 22 Jun 2009 at 00:13
Back to Top
zilox View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 19 Jun 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote zilox Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2009 at 00:14
I am interested in this subject as well. As far as i understand, unlike conventional banking "debt" is not the center of this sort of banking and the customer is more valued. My knowledge is limited on this subject, however, and i am still researching. Thanks for posting this up tho.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Location: Look behind You
Status: Offline
Points: 1042
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2009 at 00:38
Banking.
 
You ask the bank for 10,000 to buy a car. The car is in your name. You pay the bank the 10,000 back plus interest................ it is called a loan.
 
You open a savings account, the bank pays you a dividend........... it is called interest.
 
 
 
Islamic Banking.
 
You ask the bank for 10,000 to buy a car. The car is in the banks name (until fully repaid). You pay the bank the 10,000 back plus interest (the interest is called a 'gift' even though its mandatory)................ it is not called a loan.
 
You open a savings account, the bank pays you a dividend (though its not obliged to)........... it is called a gift.
 
 
 
 
 
The only difference is naming rhetoric and that Islamic banking is stacked in the bank's favour. If recent events haven't proven to you all banks are crooks you're beyond hope. If you have to deal with a bank, deal with the one the financial authorities have the most tightly reined in.
 


Edited by Paul - 22 Jun 2009 at 00:46
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7757
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2009 at 03:32
Not strictly true Paul, there are western banks (as far as I know everyone in Aus) that keep the house deed in the banks name. If you default, your on your arse, and there are Islamic banks (as far as I know, most or many in Malaysia) where the deed is in both names, if you default you get the share you own of the sale price.

Furthermore there are strong restrictions on what sort of investments can be made. One of the reasons Islamic banks have avoided the downturn is that they didn't have the dodgy investments, too much debt is unethical.

However having said that, I am somewhat skeptical about the difference between Islamic Banking and Conventional Banking. I don't really understand the finance system, but it appears to me that Islamic banks hide very similar concepts behind Arabic words, running on the theory that putting it into Arabic makes it sound religious. Still, its worth an investigation before I get a home loan.


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 22 Jun 2009 at 03:33
Back to Top
cahaya View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
The Auror

Joined: 05 Oct 2005
Location: SE Asia
Status: Offline
Points: 1810
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cahaya Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2009 at 04:51
Originally posted by Omar Omar wrote:


Not strictly true Paul, there are western banks (as far as I know everyone in Aus) that keep the house deed in the banks name. If you default, your on your arse, and there are Islamic banks (as far as I know, most or many in Malaysia) where the deed is in both names, if you default you get the share you own of the sale price.

Furthermore there are strong restrictions on what sort of investments can be made. One of the reasons Islamic banks have avoided the downturn is that they didn't have the dodgy investments, too much debt is unethical.

However having said that, I am somewhat skeptical about the difference between Islamic Banking and Conventional Banking. I don't really understand the finance system, but it appears to me that Islamic banks hide very similar concepts behind Arabic words, running on the theory that putting it into Arabic makes it sound religious. Still, its worth an investigation before I get a home loan.


In Malaysia most of the banks do offer various Islamic Banking Prods. It has become a trend regardless local or International banks, they just need to ensure each of them have their share.

I am agree with Omar. The basic rule in Islam is very simple. Debt is not good to be practiced. Even when a muslim passed away, whatever debt that he/she had must be settled. No exception.

Unfortunately, what I can see here, the bank uses Islamic Banking system to attract consumers by represent religion in their prods when they are not really truly adapting and understand the Islamic Banking. For deposit account, I'm sure there's no issue.

Commercial/Conventional Bank Dep acc have a flat rate for the dividend in a year. Either bank gained or loss.
Islamic Banking, as earlier, consumer is informed that the money will be used for 'halal' investment and the profit will be shared between bank and the consumer. The percentage is fluctuated. Sometimes, the depositor in Islamic Dep acc will gain more than Commercial Acc depositor.

Nonetheless, the concept of loan/mortgage in Islamic Banking, I am really not sure whether It's really adapting the concept in real. As Omar said.. it's very unconvincing. 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13258
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2009 at 10:37
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

Hi Cahaya.
 
Muslim banking isn't that original it resembles western banking 30-40 years ago.
 
For example if you had got a mortgage in the west 30-40 years ago the house deeds would have stayed in the bank's name until you had fully repaid the mortgage. If you defaulted on the lone they could simply evict you and all the money you paid before you defaulted lost.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'the west' but that is quite definitely wrong for the UK. I myself took out a mortgage 46 years ago, and the deeds were in my name, not the mortgagors. It was also very rare indeed to get a mortgage from a bank (I'm not even sure it ever happened: it may even have been forbidden by banking regulations).
 
I also believe my parents' mortgage and other earlier ones were on the same basis.
 
What may possibly be confusing you is that the deeds were physically held by the lender (effectively to prevent fraudulent remortgaging to someone else), but they were not in the lender's name: for instance the borrower could always sell the property as long as he then paid off the loan from the proceeds. If the lender foreclosed, he could only take out of the proceeds the balance of his outstanding loan.
 
Historically it wasn't always like that, and I'm not sure when the modern system first evolved in the UK (or anywhere else) but it was definitely more than 40 years ago.
 
Anyway there is much more to the difference between Islamic and other banking, insurance and so on than mortgages, the main difference beinig the ban on fixed interest.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13258
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2009 at 11:02
I know more about Islamic life assurance than I do about Islamic banking, my company having been consultants to an Islamic insurance company for a while (helping design a computerised administration system in the early eighties).
 
The major distinctions on the client side there is a provision that all clients must be treated equally - for instance charged the same premium, and benefits could not be fixed, but dependent on profits made from investment (rather like western assurance 'with bonuses' except all you have are the bonuses, or like unit-linked assurance).   On the investment side, fixed interest investments were banned though equity investments permissible - in some ways the exact reverse of what non-Islamic insurance regulators allow.
 
What one ended up with was a scheme not unlike a mutual fund was originally supposed to be: everyone in the scheme contributes the same amount to a pool of money which is invested by the organisers in equity or other non-fixed interest investments. The scheme lasts for a fixed period, at then end of which the funds are redistibuted to the 'policyholders' still living: the heirs of those who die during the term of the scheme are given the appropriate share of the fund at that point.
 
At least that was how it was worked out by the company we worked with. All of this had to be acceptable to the university at Cairo.
 
As I understand it, non-life insurance works in a similar way, with claims for damages being met out of the general fund, and any profits at the end of the day returned to the co-operating policyholders who are also the capital providers.
 
Apart from the restrictions on investments, this is actually pretty reminiscent of the original system of mutual insurance companies in the UK.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Location: Look behind You
Status: Offline
Points: 1042
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2009 at 17:05
The Mortgage I was thinking of is Mortgage from Demise.
 
It was the main one they used in the UK in the past, it went out of fashion a long time ago and it's illegal in the UK now, except under special circumstance as an Islamic Mortgage.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2009 at 19:08

Hello to you all

Well the notion of Islamic banking is absurd and against Islam in the first place.

Loans are social contracts not financial, this is why interest was forbidden because loans are considered good deed that muslims should do out of compassion and mercy and to help struggling people.

Any loan that brings any kind of personal gain is forbidden because interest ins't just a percent over the permium, it is any gain even if it was minute.

To get money banks resorted to all kinds of gimmick and mortgage is only one of them. There is Murabahah, tawarruq and other kinds of products that only differ from loans in that they have a risk factor (you can lose money) because these are investments.

 
The orthodox (and correct I might add) view is that all these are also forbidden since they have little difference between them and other banking products.
 
The only thing differing "Islamic" banking (and actually made it secure from the crisis) is that products like futures and derivatives are forbidden and since they didn't invest in them they didn't lose.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 2655
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jun 2009 at 09:27
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Loans are social contracts not financial, this is why interest was forbidden because loans are considered good deed that muslims should do out of compassion and mercy and to help struggling people.


Yes, but in most cases the people who take up loans today aren't struggling or in need of "compassion and mercy" - they have all the essentials, they just need some extra money for f.ex. investments, building a nicer house, getting a better car, a luxury cruise etc. There shouldn't be any moral ambiguity in charging interest from these people.
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jun 2009 at 10:07

Well we have seen what luxury borrowing has brought on the world, financial ruin.

If you want a new car or a cruise fine, there are other alternatives than borrowing and in my experience, better. You can actually save money. You can go to an agency and set up a payment plan (which believe it or not will cost you less than borrowing, at least from my experience). Or you find a fool to lend you money.

If you want to invest, bring a partner. There is a class of people called venture capitalists who will throw money at you if your investment is good enough and after a while you can buy their share and everybody wins. It is actually good for business. Or you can actually save money. Or find another fool who will lend you money.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
cahaya View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
The Auror

Joined: 05 Oct 2005
Location: SE Asia
Status: Offline
Points: 1810
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cahaya Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jun 2009 at 15:46
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:



Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:



Loans are social contracts not financial, this is why interest was forbidden because loans are considered good deed that Muslims should do out of compassion and mercy and to help struggling people.


Yes, but in most cases the people who take up loans today aren't struggling or in need of "compassion and mercy" - they have all the essentials, they just need some extra money for f.ex. investments, building a nicer house, getting a better car, a luxury cruise etc. There shouldn't be any moral ambiguity in charging interest from these people.


Loans in Islamic banking perspective are supposed to be a method to help/assist Muslims who are unable to afford in monetary term for certain expenses with 'interest-free'. That's the main concept as what Al-Jassas explained earlier. The services which are offered can not be considered for commercial purpose in obtaining profit/interest from the loans as it will be classified as ‘Riba’.

The common concept uses for leasing in Islamic Banking is 'Ijarah'. Where the consumer is considered as buying the benefits, service, use for a fixed price or wage (in certain duration) as per agreed between the service provider (bank) and customer.

No doubt, there are some people who are using Islamic Banking services are not people who are in the need for help financially. In fact, for loan applications, the banks have set specific requirements or certain banking landing criteria need to be fulfilled. It means applicants must have good credit ratings and meeting the criteria. It is applicable either for commercial or Islamic banking perspective. In directly, the services are more suitable for those who can afford but need extra money for their expenses. Not for the poor, because for the poor to pay back the loans will be almost impossible and any banks would not want high NPL(Non-Performing Loan) in their debts collection. For them, Baitul-Mal is the best option.

In banking, the main principle is to get profit. It is either for Islamic banking or commercial banking. The different concepts and terms are used to distinguish between these two but it comes up to be almost the same. There are no interest or finance charges for Islamic Banking lessee but they have to bear the service charges. There's no such thing till now that banks operate by lending some money just to collect the same amount back because banks are not charity institutions.

Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Location: Look behind You
Status: Offline
Points: 1042
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jun 2009 at 16:25
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:



Yes, but in most cases the people who take up loans today aren't struggling or in need of "compassion and mercy" - they have all the essentials, they just need some extra money for f.ex. investments, building a nicer house, getting a better car, a luxury cruise etc. There shouldn't be any moral ambiguity in charging interest from these people.
I'm going to have to disagree with that and say the opposite. The majority of people who take out loans are the poor, people who can't afford to pay it back. And when they come under pressure to pay back money they can't afford it's then they seek to loan even more money to play other one set of creditors against another.
 
This is the way the whole subprime industry worked. Each loan makes the seller commision, so if it was a bad loan all the better as they could then get more commision as they continued to loan to the unfortuanate victim.
 


Edited by Paul - 23 Jun 2009 at 16:26
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 5204
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2009 at 13:17
Well most "Islamic Banking" is a gimmick anyway, they just rename the offending terms and continue. The cynic in me says that it exists so that conservative and devout working class housewives can happily particpate in banking and not feel guilty. "Ma'am, 6% interest, NO NO NO!, its haaram.........ok how about 6% markup then........oh ok".
Back to Top
cahaya View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
The Auror

Joined: 05 Oct 2005
Location: SE Asia
Status: Offline
Points: 1810
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cahaya Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2009 at 15:53
Well exactly, Sparten.
There's another issue to think by muslims when it is related to banking. This is for those who are working in a bank (like me.. Geek). For us to make donation (sedeqah), waqaf or anything related to money for religious purpose, it only can be done by using the earning which is paid for the job that we've done. It's not from bonuses, incentives or gifts cos it's from the profit which is riba and haram. so.. does it mean.. a muslim should not work in a bank?
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Location: Look behind You
Status: Offline
Points: 1042
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2009 at 17:15
A muslim working in a bank or using a bank is turning a blind eye to some of their religion, so I aplaud them.
 
Now when another group of muslims turns a blind eye to a different part of the religion, such as gay muslims, muslims working in a bank can be the first to support them.
 
 
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 2655
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2009 at 19:09
Witty but naive, Paul. As you well know most people treat religion like a banquet; they pick what they like and ignore the rest. Wink
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey
Back to Top
cahaya View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
The Auror

Joined: 05 Oct 2005
Location: SE Asia
Status: Offline
Points: 1810
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cahaya Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2009 at 19:17
Oh well... How can u make such comparison Paul? It's totally different. To be a gay in Islam.. it's an absolute sin. No need to discuss much on that. It's clear. But to work in a bank.. there is no fatwa (yet) to say it's a sin. 
Back to Top
David Greenwich View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Location: London UK
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote David Greenwich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Aug 2012 at 01:22
Originally posted by cahaya cahaya wrote:

Modern Islamic banking was introduced in Egypt by Ahmad Elnaggar in year 1963.
Since that, many countries with high Muslim population adapted the concept with
various Islamic banking products from deposit, mortgages/loans, insurance to credit cards.

In fact, the Islamic banking products are well accepted by the non-muslims too. The response from
the consumers have given an impact to the conventional banking services. Where well-known international  bank such as HSBC has came up with their own Islamic Banking product (HSBC Amanah).

The questions here, isn't conventional banking threatened by products and services by Islamic banking? Nonetheless, in general, Islamic Banking is following the Shariah laws for any business deals but when we look closely it is almost similar to what conventional banking offered in term of interest charge and service charge where in Islam the consumers should not be burden with high charges impose by the bank.

refer:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Banking
http://www.islamicbanking.nl/



Islam has always confused money with wealth.  Wealth is based on productive labour - money is simply the equivalent of a ticket or voucher entitling you to a certain amount of that wealth.
 
Islamic banking doesn't stop unjust exploitation of productive labour. Historically Islam has always considered slavery entirely lawful - the ultimate exploitation.
 
Generally Islamic societies are very unproductive, with the sole exception of oil.  The last time they might have been considered economically progressive was probably back in the 900s.
 
 
What is past is not necessarily settled.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Aug 2012 at 02:17
Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

Islam has always confused money with wealth.  Wealth is based on productive labour - money is simply the equivalent of a ticket or voucher entitling you to a certain amount of that wealth.
 
 
Would you care to explain more because I am confused by this strange statement.
 
Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

Islamic banking doesn't stop unjust exploitation of productive labour. Historically Islam has always considered slavery entirely lawful - the ultimate exploitation.
 
My opinion on "Islamic Banking" is already up there, it is a farce and cannot exist. Howerver this is the first time that I read that "Islamic banking" is there to stop labour exploitation. This type of banking is to revolve around the strict usuary rulings period.
 
 
Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

Generally Islamic societies are very unproductive, with the sole exception of oil.  The last time they might have been considered economically progressive was probably back in the 900s.
 
 
 
Out of 56 Islamic majority countries only 10 have enough oil and gas to make them rich. The rest are as productive as any country in the world in their peculiar set of conditions. So you should read before you judge.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
David Greenwich View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Location: London UK
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote David Greenwich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Aug 2012 at 03:01
Al-Jassas,
 
Islam as you will know if you have studied its foundational literature was based on a confiscatory system - war booty. The focus of Jihad was always on treasure - gold, jewels and so on.  That's why for instance when the Muslim armies launched themselves on what is now Southern France their attacks were focussed on religious institutions like monasteries where there was much gold etc  (as in the religious iconography) that could be removed. The Koran (the word of God, transmitted through the Archangel Gabriel to the Prophet Mohammed) sets out in (remarkable) detail what percentage of the booty Mohammed/the movement should receive.
 
This is why I say Islam did not understand wealth. You won't find an equivalent passage in the Koran that lauds the nursing of productive labour to produce wealth. The only parts where it touches on economics are to do with war booty and slaves.  
 
The productive element of Islam - the Pax Mohammeda (Latin??) one might call it - was very much incidental although important. 
 
HOwever, I would say Islam never really recovered from the Mongol invasions.  Even the Turkish Ottoman Empire was a slave society - never good news if you want to maximise productive labour as you can still see today in the Southern USA.
 
I think propagandists for Islamic banking do claim that unlike usury it does not exploit productive labour.
 
I did not claim that the majority of Islamic countries were rich as a result of hydrocarbon resources. However,  I would claim that those Islamic socieities without significant oil and gas do have weak economies, with the exception possibly of Turkey which seems to be doing well.  How much of Turkey's success is down to Islam or Attaturk is debatable.
 
 
 
What is past is not necessarily settled.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13258
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Aug 2012 at 13:28
Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

Islam has always confused money with wealth.
If true, it would hardly be alone in that
However I have no idea what you are referring to as Islam. 

'Islamic' banking as al Jassas indicates is a bit of a contradiction in terms, in that banking, in conventional terms, is forbidden in Islam, as indeed at one time in Christianity. The system of making and receiving loans/investments usually referred to as 'Islamic' is just commercial practice within the bounds of Islamic precepts. 

As indeed is 'Islamic life assurance' or 'Islamic butchery'.

Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

 
Islam as you will know if you have studied its foundational literature was based on a confiscatory system - war booty. The focus of Jihad was always on treasure - gold, jewels and so on.  
The first sentence is ridiculous - or you have a funny definition of Islam. The second sentence is self-contradictory - if that were the aim it wouldn't be jihad. As in similar circumstances, the Crusades would not have been crusades. 

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
ralfy View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 23 Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 32
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ralfy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Aug 2012 at 19:21
About any anti-Islamic views, I'm sometimes reminded of this funny article from Cracked:

"5 Ridiculous Things You Probably Believe About Islam"

http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam.html

Back to Top
David Greenwich View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Location: London UK
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote David Greenwich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Aug 2012 at 20:07
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

Islam has always confused money with wealth.
If true, it would hardly be alone in that
However I have no idea what you are referring to as Islam. 

'Islamic' banking as al Jassas indicates is a bit of a contradiction in terms, in that banking, in conventional terms, is forbidden in Islam, as indeed at one time in Christianity. The system of making and receiving loans/investments usually referred to as 'Islamic' is just commercial practice within the bounds of Islamic precepts. 

As indeed is 'Islamic life assurance' or 'Islamic butchery'.

Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

 
Islam as you will know if you have studied its foundational literature was based on a confiscatory system - war booty. The focus of Jihad was always on treasure - gold, jewels and so on.  
The first sentence is ridiculous - or you have a funny definition of Islam. The second sentence is self-contradictory - if that were the aim it wouldn't be jihad. As in similar circumstances, the Crusades would not have been crusades. 

Either you generalise and say something about a religion or you say nothing.
 
Neither Christianity nor Buddhism began with systematic invasion of the territories of non-believers and division of war booty. Go figure as they say in New York. 
 
 
 
What is past is not necessarily settled.
Back to Top
David Greenwich View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Location: London UK
Status: Offline
Points: 120
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote David Greenwich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Aug 2012 at 20:16
Originally posted by ralfy ralfy wrote:

About any anti-Islamic views, I'm sometimes reminded of this funny article from Cracked:

"5 Ridiculous Things You Probably Believe About Islam"

http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam.html

 
That article you referred me to says:
 
"After all, we all know that Islam hates women -- the fact that Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that actually prohibits women from driving, or that only predominantly Muslim countries still use death by stoning as a punishment for adultery, proves it, right?"
 
as though it is going to disprove the factuality of the  prohibition on females driving or the death by stoning punishment. But it doesn't - because it can't. It goes on about the Burka, which as any person who knows anything about Islam will know is not something prescribed by Islam specifically.
 
It doesn't refer to the injunction to husbands to beat their wives found in the Koran or the fact that under Sharia law a woman's evidence is worth half that of a man.
 
What is past is not necessarily settled.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13258
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Aug 2012 at 20:25
Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

Either you generalise and say something about a religion or you say nothing.
?
Quote  
Neither Christianity nor Buddhism began with systematic invasion of the territories of non-believers and division of war booty. 
So? Did I say otherwise?
Your point was different. You suggested Islam was founded on the concept of war booty.
Quote
Go figure as they say in New York. 
And they mean what?


Edited by gcle2003 - 01 Aug 2012 at 20:27
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Aug 2012 at 21:14
Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

Al-Jassas,
 
Islam as you will know if you have studied its foundational literature was based on a confiscatory system - war booty. The focus of Jihad was always on treasure - gold, jewels and so on.  That's why for instance when the Muslim armies launched themselves on what is now Southern France their attacks were focussed on religious institutions like monasteries where there was much gold etc  (as in the religious iconography) that could be removed. The Koran (the word of God, transmitted through the Archangel Gabriel to the Prophet Mohammed) sets out in (remarkable) detail what percentage of the booty Mohammed/the movement should receive.
 
Well having just finished reading part of that "foundational literature" in its original Arabic (it's Ramadhan you know) I think I know more about the religion than you do.
 
Now, to the crap you just wrote above. If you read the Quran as you claim you might have read something about ghaloul, the unlawful confiscation of property during war. That is a capital crime. And in any case taking booty from the dead enemy is legal under every international law.
 
Personal property of non-combatants is not booty, nor religious institution that have declared neutrality or were not part of combat. The French monastaries that were taken were used as forts and thus they were treated just as the allies treated Monte Cassino back in 1944. Which is why the the largest concentration of ancient monasteries in the world is still the middle east not europe and certainly not England (Henry VIII anyone?).
 
Finally we have several revinue lists from the first 100 years of Islam and in all of them it was land tax that made the overwhelming majority of revinue for the Islamic state (averaging well above 80%). Even during the conquest.
 
Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

  
This is why I say Islam did not understand wealth. You won't find an equivalent passage in the Koran that lauds the nursing of productive labour to produce wealth. The only parts where it touches on economics are to do with war booty and slaves.  
 
 
Now I know you have never read a passage of the Quran. The longest passage in the Quran is entirely about debt and trade.
 
As for slaves, almost all the passages mentioning slaves encourage their freedom not their use.
 
Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

  
The productive element of Islam - the Pax Mohammeda (Latin??) one might call it - was very much incidental although important. 
 
HOwever, I would say Islam never really recovered from the Mongol invasions.  Even the Turkish Ottoman Empire was a slave society - never good news if you want to maximise productive labour as you can still see today in the Southern USA.
 
 
The first sentence is a puzzle so would you care to clarify?
 
The second one, your proof? Other than Southern Iraq (where there was a quasi-plantation system) the agricultural model across the Arab world was small freeholders/sharecroppers system. The only urban slaves were domestic servants and these were extremely limited (I will try to give slave stats when I dig them up, the Ottomans calculated them). So where did you get the idea that the Ottomans were a slave economy?
 
Since slavery was only abolished in europe in the 19th century and there were slaves in Britain and elsewhere I can claim the same thing.
 
 
 
Originally posted by David Greenwich David Greenwich wrote:

  
I think propagandists for Islamic banking do claim that unlike usury it does not exploit productive labour.
 
I did not claim that the majority of Islamic countries were rich as a result of hydrocarbon resources. However,  I would claim that those Islamic socieities without significant oil and gas do have weak economies, with the exception possibly of Turkey which seems to be doing well.  How much of Turkey's success is down to Islam or Attaturk is debatable.
 
 
The ban of usuary has nothing to do with labour nor have I ever read a proponent of Islamic banking who claimed as such. These are people who want to make a buck from pious people by tricking them into thinking that their "banking" activities are free of usuary. Usuary isn't just interest on payment, it is any service that can be seen as interest on loans.
 
As for the 2nd part, yes you did, read your own post. As for countries doing well or not that down to socio-economic conditions pure and simple, not culture nor religion. Turkey went on a path that used its potential, large land mass, large well educated population and strategic location, well and implimented sensible economic policies not the free market idiologues. Any country that follows this path will succeed.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
farzad didehvar h View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 09 Jun 2013
Location: Tehran
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote farzad didehvar h Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jun 2013 at 07:35
Hi everybody,
As a newcomer I have some questions:

1. What about percentage?
2.Is it possible to omit the other types of banks and to have
this type only, in a country?
Do we need to change every thing drastically, or by some modifications
everything will be OK in this regard?
3.What about the relations and connections  between these different types of banks?
Is reality hidden?
Words change world.
Change, before being changed.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.344 seconds.