AIG, Sharia and Uncle Sam

Is not the "mark-up" on a product a form of interest? And said "mark-ups" are returned to investors as dividends. So Islamics do not accept dividends??

"But the case does raise some interesting questions about the application of Sharia law in western democracies and economies."

huh? interesting? there is no way western democracies should even give sharia a second thought. those ancient religious rules have no place in secular western societies.

"Under Sharia, making money from money, such as charging interest, is usury and therefore not permitted."

Well, it's a damn good thing that the historical oppression of Jews in Europe for centuries wasn't based on the very idea that that was 'unclean' but someone needed to do it...

In fact, it's also a damn good thing that Fundie Christian foundations didn't repeal the laws against *usury* even in the mildest terms, and that that didn't at *all* cause the near-total collapse of the financial system while making a lot of money for virtuous GOP supporters like the foundation that brought the lawsuit....

Cause, of course, as long as it's not 'islamic' even if the Bush Administration froze all assets involved in anything....

Eh, I can't even keep this pose up. Seriously?

Have these people even been *watching the *news?*

Read the damn 'Pariot Act' they were calling anyone who questioned 'traitors?;

Apart from that if you aren't trying to have a *holy war* ...a great way to find a mad bomber is to send them some money and see where it gets picked up.. I don't think the Right's got a leg to stand on as regards 'Usury.' They were busy telling you to look down my panties when they pulled that one.

Brass ones to tap everyone's financial records like six years ago, favor Christianist organizations like Blackwater, and then say 'It's Islamic!' if it's not 'usurious' enough,

Gods.

"Is not the "mark-up" on a product a form of interest?"

No, it's not, unless you maybe bundle it into futures and buy it from yourself....

"And said "mark-ups" are returned to investors as dividends. So Islamics do not accept dividends??"

Technically, no. Neither did Biblically-lieralist Christians through much of European history.

(Though they had the dodge of having others handle the money and scapegoating *them* for being 'dirty.' )

i LOVE how new posts appear at the bottom of this page. wish they were all that way.

The idea that providing alternatives to financial products that involve religiously-created screens leads to a lawsuit about the separation of church and state strikes me as silly. Providing Shari'ah-compliant alternatives to products like insurance is not promoting a particular religion; it is simply reconstructing products in a way that attracts customers based on their ethical beliefs.

The product at issue that AIG launched is takaful, Islamic insurance. In most ways it is identical to mutual insurance. Conventional insurance entails paying premiums to an insurance company with the contract specifying payment terms should a given event occur. For many Muslims, this is not halal (permissible) because it creates contractual uncertainty because it is conditioned upon an uncertain event.

The alternative, takaful, merely modifies the structure so that the premiums are collected together into a pool invested according to a set of ethical guidelines by the takaful provider with the pool remaining owned by the participants. In case a specified event occurs,particpants are paid out of the common pool. The takaful provider retains the same role of setting premiums so that the expected payouts are covered by premiums and earns fees from managing the common pool.

Nothing in how any Islamic finance product, takaful or other, works implies promotion of religion. The resistance against Islamic finance means that financial services are not fully being used by a group of Americans because of their ethical, faith-based beliefs.

My blog is Sharing Risk dot Org

Blakegoud wrote: "...Providing Shari'ah-compliant alternatives to products like insurance is not promoting a particular religion...."
--------------------
I'm not disputing any point you're making, Blakegoud, but I just want to point out that the 1st amendment does not say that government can't make laws respecting a particular religion over others - the 1st amendment says the government can't make laws respecting any religion at all.

Many many times I wrote and I am writing once more.

When the world was flat,when the Law(Jewish Religion)originated beliefs/cults founded by Son of Jewish Woman and Camel Driver,when the Pagans believed in 10000 years old Mother Goddess Cult,money was Golden and Silver Coins

Present day,World is round(worse,it is revolving) and money is *Piece of Paper*,not Golden coin.Therefore,nobody can compare Piece of Paper with Golden Coin Mentality.

Bank interest can not correlate with Sharia(Desert Rules).There was no Bank in the middle of desert in 7th century.
Besides,*Sukuk Paper*,so-called islamic bonds,is a comedy,not a serious contemporary financial instrument.

Are American companies to shoot themselves in the foot by foregoing a very lucrative business just because the private contracts involved rest on Islamic law? Look at who's behind the lawsuit--the same people who wanted to impose Catholic law on Terri Schiavo and the rest of America.

People are free to choose any set of laws they wish to govern private contracts. AIG was free to join in this. Now that the gov't owns AIG, it also owns these private contracts. Those who are running AIG have to know the business. Thus, Islamic Finance 101. Are the taxpayers to take a loss just to satisfy Islamophobes who seek to advance a far-right religious fanatic agenda? Not this one.

Were the US banks that structured loans with Communist countries to comply with Marxist-Leninist law thus guilty of engaging in communism? Of course not.

If we want to forbid banks from supporting terrorism, we'd ban them from doing business with Israel.

Hello Hallocel1, Magnificent Rostam,

One day, maybe, people will believe you when you say the world isn't flat. Anything is possible. :)

Farnaz

:"using tax dollars to promote Islamic Sharia law and charities that may be funneling money to terrorist organizations."

This is a most ignorant statement any one can say:Shariah is the anti-thesis of terrorism and violance. If Shariah is implemented anywhere,peace and proesperty will prevail.

Woa!!! AIG is filled with more scumbags and more scummy than we even imagined! Our Government pouring Billions into a company sponsering terrorism, sounds familiar, right??? How can we keep fighting the "enemy" when we have to finance them...not uncommon AT ALL in American History....

I seriously doubt that this conservative Christian organization would be raising a finger in this situation: The government bails out an airline and they serve kosher meals. You would never hear this organization raising issues about that. It's all about Islamaphobia. By raising the "possibility" (but not proof) of links to terrorism, this organization can get attention from the general public. Disgraceful.

Thomas More is patron saint of lawyers in the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

This is NOT a conservative Christian law center but a conservative CATHOLIC one.

CATHOLICISM IS NOT CHRISTIANITY.

WHEN WILL DAVID WATERS UNDERSTAND THAT?

DAvid, you are promoting stupidity and it's a shame that you even call yourself a Christian.

If Islamic Finance prohibits investments in certain areas such as gambling, alcohol, pornography, abortion, human cloning, and most forms of entertainment, evangelical Christianity is NOT opposed to that.

Muslims who read this article should understand that David Waters DOES NOT represent the TRUE CHRISTIAN VOICE.

He is a fake just like Satanism is all about. Satanism is fake godliness. And the Vatican is the Seat of Satan.

One fundamental misunderstanding about this entire issue seems to pervade: the issue of how Islamic law (Shari'ah) is involved. A few people have suggested that the takaful contracts are based on Islamic law. This is not the case. In the majority of Islamic finance contracts (e.g. in the Gulf), the governing law is English law (because it has a long history and ensures predictability in terms of outcome). The AIG contracts would most likely be written to be subject to U.S. law alone.

A case came before the courts in the UK regarding an Islamic finance loan (Beximo Pharmaceuticals v. Shamil Bank of Bahrain). In that case, the argument was made that the contract was not Shari'ah-compliant and therefore was void. The courts in the UK said that their could only be one law involved and because the contract specified English law (and there was no court to adjudicate under Shari'ah), that English law prevailed.

The Shari'ah-compliance factor relates only to an analysis of the contractual structure of the transaction. As long as this contractual structure is legal under U.S. law, there are no problems. The transaction could just as easily be relabeled as 'mutual guaranteed insurance' with the same structure and nothing would have changed in the actual contract but the argument that the US government is violating the establishment clause would seem ridiculous.

Sharing Risk dot Org

Paganplace,

We appreciate your comments about Muslims and dividends but said comments would have more credence if you had an advanced degree in economics/business.

Coffee can savings and loan, man. A .50 notepad, and a lock box will do wonders for your 'portfolio'. Wasn't 9/11 about the stock market, as much as it was anything else? What really goes on? Do we really want to know? Sounds like some sort of faith-based organized crime, to me.

There is no consensus on the limits of usury and interest in shariah and there is no current system of arriving at shariah. Old shariah is required to be made current by governments legislative proces which has not happened much. Few Muslim countries ( Pakistan ) have the legislative process in place but have not used it to make the shariah. It is a misunderstanding even among Muslims, thanks to the unholy priests, that the 7th century shariah in all aspects is valid now. Usury is regulated by many non-Muslim governments including the US. We just placed restrictions on credit card interest. Dividends are permitted as an investment return. The idea is to avoid abuse and gambling. Quran does not use the word interest but the equal of usury as being prohibited. Americans having recently suffered from the financial collapse through abuses of the like of Madoffs do not have the credentials to reject alternative investment doctrines. How this alternate investment strategy became a tool of the terrorists is our stretch of imagination.

"Christians:" poking at Muslims.

"Christians:" poking at gays.

"Christians:" poking at Pro-Choice

"Christians:" poking little boys

"Christians:" brandishing sharp sticks (or hard ones), as if this was the example Jesus taught them, crying when people poke back.

On the other hand, the basics of Christian morality have made the world a better place to live. It is very disturbing and very sad that some "Christians", other religious and atheists fail at the basics of acceptable human conduct to include protecting life in all its stages.

e.g.

Thou shalt Not Commit Adultery and Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife/Husband/Partner with the corollary of Thou Shalt Not Fornicate pertain not only to heterosexual couples but also homosexual couples. This probably is no concern to non-Christians or non-Jews but it should be a major concern to those religious types that believe in the teachings of the OT, NT, the Commandments and all of its corollaries.

So we have a Christian God (if it exists) who supposedly created all of us to include homosexuals. Said God is therefore responsible for the defective gene/mind-set that causes homosexuality? One might conclude from this that the Christian God would therefore approve same-sex marriages since that is the only sin-free state where any type of couple-sex can be performed.

Does anyone else find irony in AIPAC Jews at AIG "using tax dollars to promote Islamic Sharia law and charities that may be funneling money to terrorist organizations."

I guess money trumps religion every time.

"If a conflict arises between American law and religious laws, the Constitution prevails."

(uh, er, unless or course the religious law is that of Sarah Palin evangelicals, O'Reilly Catholics or gay-hating Mormons)

Spidey:

The author of this article is NOT from the St. Thomas More group filing the lawsuit. If you have a (reasonable) argument against the legal group...go yell at them.

To everyone:

Why in the world SHOULDN'T AIG create Sharia compliant law to assist customers who need specific practices (for WHATEVER reason) in order to become customers. It is called MARKETING!!!!

If AIG (even after its bailout, a private company) wants to market VA homeloans, they have to comply with VA Regs, and they discriminate...one has to be a Veteran or able to use the Vet's entitlement in order to buy. Why shouldn't they find a way to meet a growing potential customer base?

If marketing is illegal if it involves Muslims, then it must be illegal when it means Passover and Easter displays in every store in the country. Christmas cards (no matter if they have Santa or the Nativity on them...they are still called "Christmas cards" except by a few.)would also be illegal. Let's just call them "Holiday cards". Thanks, but I'd rather call them Christmas cards...even if the individual chooses for whatever reason to buy one with a doggie in a red and white hat on the front.

This is a huge mountain out of not very much. We've managed to accomodate all sorts of people, including all sorts of religious people (Jews, Christians "blue laws", including Amish, etc., etc.) Accomodating Muslims and others for whom Western ways are different is going to be the way we accomodate the already existing, and positive diversity in our country.

But the "oh horrors...it's coming...it's coming...the end of the world!!!!" people are going to find some way of panicing. For most US citizens in the US, we have more to worry about from the Patriot Act than that AIG is going to help Muslims buy houses via sharia complaint lending practices. My neighbor's house is vacant. I'd be happy to have it sold under sharia compliant financing to a Muslim family that will become part of the fabric of my neighborhood, and give my kids more practice in understanding the Golden Rule. Or should the neighbors be able to veto their loan? How about my VA loan? Or my other neighbor's Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac loans...'cause just maybe it's a "subprime loan"...horror of horrors. To anyone who lives in my neighborhood...just keep the lawn mowed and don't blast the stereo at 2 am and I'm happy.

Pr chris

I'm so glad Spidermean is the "true" pope...after all, the biggest claim of the papacy that drives most people crazy is the idea of infallibility. And Spidey has just done so on the issue of determining the religious fate of a billion or so Catholic Christians.

Tell me, when did these messages first start arriving?

Why don't you save your venom for something real? If YOU don't want to be a Catholic...that's YOUR choice. It is not YOUR choice to determine a billion people are lying (cause they all think they are Christians). Learning to distinguish what's in their realm of authority and what is not is part of growing up on the part of teens. Maybe you never learned it.

You're not going to convince anyone with your rants. You and CCNL ought to have a private dialogue. You two can keep each other going for several years, I'd think.

Pr Chris

Hurray for Calsailor!

A private chat room for CCNL and Canyon Shearer (oops - Spidermean)

coloradodog
Does anyone else find irony in AIPAC Jews at AIG "using tax dollars to promote Islamic Sharia law and charities that may be funneling money to terrorist organizations."

I guess money trumps religion every time.
____________________________________________

The Christians run AIG, and the rest of us-- Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc., have to bail said terrorist funding AIG out. Do I see irony in Christians funding terrorism?

From one perspective yes, but then, that is what they do. They trained and funded Osama Bin Laden and his troops, who, of course turned on said Christians as well as the rest of us who had nothing to do with him.

Of course, the Christians oil cartel made big bucks off their Iraq and Afghanistan adventures.
For that, the Christians kill their own children, have done so. Will continue.

Guess the money trumps morality every time, just like it always has. For the last two thousand years. That, and raping children, which doesn't cost them any thing.

Heil Bush. Heil Cheney. Bbbboooorrrrnnnn Aggggaaainn. In hell, one hopes.

This article misses the constitutional point entirely. Which is astonishing because the point is simple: (i) under the First Amendment, the Government cannot promote religion, economically or otherwise; (ii) the Government controls AIG; and (iii) AIG promotes Islam via its shariah division which pays for the services of Muslim religious leaders.

The Government’s intention – if government can be said to have a single intention – is entirely beside the point. Hence, Eugene Volkh’s comment that “The government no more cares about advancing Sharia through the AIG bailout than my local Ralphs supermarket cares about advancing kosher laws by selling products that are certified kosher” is irrelevant. Ralph’s supermarket is not owned by the government, and selling kosher products entails nothing more than selling products with a specific label desired by a certain consumer group, Orthodox Jews.

In contrast, the government owns AIG, and shariah-compliant finance involves payments to imams and ayatollahs, religious leaders, not simply selling insurance products with a halal label.

If the government owned a majority stake in Ralph's supermarkets, and Ralph’s supermarkets paid rabbis to inspect its kitchens and certify its products as kosher, that would violate the First Amendment’s entanglement clause, too.

To avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing, AIG could divest itself of those accounts.