@ Johan B

This will be my last response to you on this matter.  While I can easily accept different opinions and mistakes from anyone, I draw the line on blatant dishonesty.  If you are putting text in quotation marks in your response to me, thereby implying that I wrote such a text, then the least you can do is to quote me accurately.  Putting forward FALSE quotations is dishonest.  I defy you to find anywhere where I wrote nonsense like "You may charge interest as much as you like, etc...".  I can see now what you mean by "seeing what you want to see".  To you that apparently seems to mean that one could write anything one wanted to write on a given subject, irrespective of whether it had, or not, any relation with any particular 'truth' or any particular text concerning that subject. 

Honest interpretation of a text, especially an ancient text which has gone through many translations and which exists in many versions, requires an HONEST ATTEMPT to understand the intent of the authors, or the spirit of the text.  It does not mean that you can read into it anything that you want to read in it.  It must relate to the actual text and to your rational (partial) understanding of how that particular text came about.  That allows for a massive amount of 'uncertainty'.

I have already clearly indicated that in my opinion the bible is concerned with individual morality, including "exploitation" of one person by another and with taking "unfair advantage" of circumstances between individuals.  How you can read into that "You may charge interest as much as you like etc..." beats me, but that is surely not an honest interpretation of what I wrote.  And you can certainly not develop any understanding of the 'spirit' of the bible by focusing on one short sentence concerning "interest". 

If you want to make fun of the "Christian God" or of the "not-so-sensible people he created", go ahead.  You are not the first, and won't be the last, to remain stuck in infantile notions about any possible God-idea.  And the fundamentalist thirst for 'certainty' afflicts unbelievers as much as believers.  But, I am afraid that you will have to learn to live with differing degrees of uncertainty.    

Your third and last paragraph was so silly that I cannot resist giving you one small piece of advice. Viewed from a philosophical perspective, blaming God (any God, be it a christian perception, or any other perception of God) for the stupidities (concerning "interest" or whatever) of mere mortals "over 15 centuries" is NOT a smart thing to do. 

@ Johan B

You surprise me. You claim (rightly) that "everyone who reads a bible text interprets it",  but then you do not seem to allow for any interpretation of the "ban on interest". 

I agree with you that "the sin is not in the interest but in the coercion".  Coercion may be a nonmarxist word, but it partially captures my meaning of exploitation, although I still think the latter word to be better, in the sense of being broader in scope.  I am pretty sure that the spirit of the bible is against exploitation and against taking unfair advantage, and I am not inclined to engage in a semantic discussion of the potential differences between "interest" and "usury".  I repeat that the bible, in modern parlance (marxist or otherwise), is more concerned with "market structures" than with "interest". 

I hope that you realise that there are many versions of "the bible", that translations from ancient languages over many centuries do present some real problems of "interpretation", and that the spirit of the bible is not favorable to farisees who can stick to words with amazing inflexibility.  If you want to respect the bible you will have to honor its spirit, as reflected in the many parables, and not cling to letters or individual words.

@ S Atkinson

I agree with you. 

Note that it was kappert - not me - who introduced the word "competition" here.   Please, re-read the discussion in its correct sequence and you will realise that you are addressing the wrong person.    

In fact, Moshin Kahn achieved quite a respectable reputation in the fields of monetary economics and international economics.  He is certainly not "sub-developed", and the only person who seems to allow for that possibility is Kappert by failing to read carefully or accurately what others write.  Such failing reflects a lack of diligence (and yes, moral fiber) on his part.

Also, the bible is concerned with personal or individual morality, and not with societal organisation.  By contrast, "competition" can be viewed as an instrument or principle for economic organisation of society.  It should, therefore, not surprise any sensible person that the word "competition" does not feature in the bible.  Others (i.e., not-so-sensible people), will see in the bible what they want to see in it.  

I see you are all top financial experts, for whom the IMF, world bank, manhattan and frankfurt desperately are looking for! Please, apply for a CEO job. The word 'competition' should be revealed by the Bible, please help me, as I do not find it!!! (Indicate the page)
Even our 'corrector' reminds himself of sub-developped economists working for the IMF, to show his case. The only true statement comes from our 'racist', "I don't know anything about sharia banking, except that it sounds like a joke, and that I wouldn't trust their sense of honesty", while Atlanticist wonders 'who's right'. Steiner reminds that "the Popes used to sanctify bordellos as well" and still do, (please see archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho), along with weapons and torture measures! which is adopted by marcfrans to shout 'FREELY!!!!!!!!', while I am looking at the olive trees in front of me.

@ Capo'

A 'genuflection' of guffaws  for the 'melding' of Marys.

Q. In all that is holy, why  aren't Harems Haram?

@Steiner

What could the Popes' have been thinking consorting with harlots, prostitutes and the like? Hey let's have some fun, pick up some stones and see if you can just hit the Catholics coming out the bordellos.

We are easy to spot, a horny lot, devils and demons every last one of us. Actually, the way you can tell a Catholic leaving a bordello is the happy faces on the women waving out the window goodbye, sometimes they even throw money at our feet.

You said you had a point about Islamic Banking?

"What is fine, is what is found."

- Pseudo-Kappert

@ Capo'

You really must stay in more. 

:)

 Note. That is NOT my monkey face.

Well guys,thanks for going at it without me. We all knew this was a car bomb of a post by Tiberge. I see 'the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim' sentiments are flying, while the calmer heads have kept theirs.

I can understand worrying about a radical Mosque, school, or an Islamic auto shop that specializes in installing extra large gas tanks setting up shop in one's neighborhood but an Islamic Bank? If I lived in a Muslim neighborhood I would want to live right next door to that place. If you think about it, it's a little reassuring, but that requires one to keep one's head. Not always easy around some of the muslim nutjobs who hang around the muslim neighborhoods, nor around the girlie, girls who shriek at the mere mention of a Burkha;)

Someday if the girlie girls calm down I'll tell you all about what the Muslim mother of the Muslim girl I almost married said when she realized her daughter planned on marrying me.

The story holds the clue on how to deal with Islam in Europe or anywhere. Clue: THE ANSWER to an effective Western response to the Islamic World is what many of the girlie girls are probably saying to me right now ... yes? F? .? .? .? 'em BUT in a good way:)

@Steiner's profession of faith that the Church is always right:

I'll be happy to be your sponsor. I knew anyone who embraces Isaiah and Blake is a papist in a Protestant body just waiting for his Catholicism to be reattached :)

The following link is NOT an open endorsement of the sharia banking system, but it does refute the notion that it is only open to Muslim clientele.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1070430/Non-Muslims-flock-safe-haven-Sharia-bank-protected-crunch-non-gambling-rule.html

@ 'Brit'ny'

So, Armor, it would appear that I was right, traveller was right (the Kapitein is right) and your "Fair" comment turned out to be nothing more than yet another "blonde moment".

Recognise this ?  ;-))  It's my monkey face.  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blonde+moment

marcfrans:

I wholeheartedly agree with you, with regard to competition, choice and regulation.  The prohibition of usury is not uniquely Muslim, which is why the Pope's recent condemnation of the global financial system, and now this, are not surprising..  Nor does "Sharia" banking equate with terrorism.  Unfortunately, I concur with traveller that Sharia-compliant financial institutions merely substitute fees and charges for interest.  Modern financial systems are driven by rent-seeking and leverage, which have clearly not been used in moderation.  Therefore, acceptance of Sharia banking is but an attempt to bring Middle Eastern assets under European administration.

Armor:

European banks are not competing for the deposits of Muslims in Europe; in fact, European Muslims must use European banks.  The prize is sitting offshore in the Gulf states.  Demographics is not at issue here.

Let's make a few easy observations.

- Armor has NOT explained what "islamic finance" is all about.  He has simply repeated an old and tired refrain, so Atlanticist's comment is on the mark.

- One may well ask or wonder whether the Vatican is well-informed on the subject matter, but I have no particular reason to doubt it.  The same applies to Tiberge.  Whatever the case may be, I do think that Tiberge is rightly justified in "worrying about the (ongoing) islamisation of Europe".  Presumably the Vatican worries about that too. 

- Many years ago, I recall having read two articles on the subject matter by a well-known then-IMF-affiliated Pakistani economist, Moshin Khan, who explained the pros and cons of "islamic finance" in terms that were understandable to rational 'western-educated' economists.  But my memory is poor, and this happened so long ago, that I can only recall that there can, indeed, be specific circumstances for certain people where islamic finance can compare favorably with other systems of finance.   

-  Traveller points to the ban on interest (riba?) in Islam and in earlier times of Christianity.  Clearly, from a narrow technical perspective, such a ban is in and of itself irrational, in as much as it amounts to a denial of the reality of scarcity of capital.  And the resulting past 'monopoly' of jews in finance helps to illustrate that.  Finance is not an example of a 'natural' monopoly, so that such (jewish) monopoly was surely bad from an economic perspective.

- I venture to say that the 'authors' of religious texts like the Koran and the Bible could not have been concerned with modern notions of "interest", but were rather concerned with the moral vice of 'exploitation' of one human by another.  Translated to a modern context that means that they were more concerned with market structures than with 'interest'.  Religion ought to be concerned with guidelines for INDIVIDUAL moral behavior (e.g. do not exploit another person or take unfair advantage of his or her misfortune and/or particular circumstances).  It should not concern itself with general prices (like 'interest') that FREE individuals FREELY pay on FREE markets to reflect the scarcity of what is being transacted. 

- None of this precludes that there might be certain particular financial practices and instruments that could be beneficially employed by certain people in certain circumstances.  The key question is whether these practices are FREELY undertaken.  And, on the face of it, there does not seem any justification for France (or any other country) to actually "favor islamic banking" over other types of finance as the article claims.  But, the French authorities  have a long history of "favoring" some over others in economic matters, i.e. of choosing winners and losers, and they are not known for market adoration.  I repeat, let the sun shine on islamic finance, or any other finance, and let free individuals decide in free markets what suits them best.  

Although Tiberge has written a fascinatingly explanatory story based on the Catholic Church's position vis a vis Islamic finance, there are other bigger fish to fry.

Whilst reading, and it didn't take too long, a picture of the lava fields of Hawaii's Kilauea volcano crept into my mind (as a volcano like this would do). Curiosity seekers images standing near the new molten lava masses, also crept into view, and their quixotic behaviors were a wonder to behold. This lava flow, moving so slowly, and seemingly not an immediate threat, lay somewhere in the recesses of the seekers mind's.

Let the volcano itself represent the violence of Islam, but more importantly, let the steady flow of lava portray itself as the inroads being made in the halls of western thought and hegemony. Just as the acres of new land emerge, changing the landscape forever, let us view this as not a creeping socialism, rather a "creeping Islamism" forging ahead on it's path to world domination.

And before one concludes that there is no real, urgent threat here, think of Hawaii's other more famous volcano, Mauna Kea, rising some 13,700 feet into the air above Hawaii. Doesn't compare to McKinley, or to Everest, or K2, or Kangkenjunga, the latter three being recorded at over 28,000 feet tall, does it?

Ah, but before we concede on that point, let us remember that though only 13,700 feet of Mauna Kea is visible to the eye, the bottom of this mountain rises from it's base some 42,000 feet below the Pacific, to it's peak, making it the tallest, and most formidable mountain in the world. It is what we DON"T see that obscures the grandeur; the mammoth nature of this behemoth of a mountain. The others pale in comparison, do they not?

It is in what we see, that we are deviously led to make mistakes. It is in what we do not see, that should give to us a sampling of the magnitude of current day socio/political problems.

The lava flows onward, across our horizons, but it does so slowly, consequently there is time, we tell ourselves. Time to right the ships of state. Time to correct past wrongs. But the sands, moving as Mauna Kea's lava does, disappear from the top of the bottle, and flow into the base. This occurs inexorably, and the quaint notions of "time" being on our side, are run over by this creeping , call it what you will, Fascism, Socialism, Tyranny etc.

When only the curiosity seekers become the problem solvers, will we, as unthinkable as it is, be able to stifle the flow of foreign intrusions into our western institutional fields. It is that important. It is that vital, for if we choose not to see the mountain whole, then we shall surely see the new scape of our environment changing before our very eyes.

@ Armor

However, either you are right, or I am right, and if you are right, that makes both myself AND traveller wrong. Time alone will tell.

Islamic banking is for Islamists.

But why should westerners worry?

Well, it has all to do with the nature of the beast: Islam.

The pattern in Islam is that in order to function in its society, you must become an islamist as well.

As Islamic finance gains strength, it will eliminate its competition (by using even the most horrible methods...should we be surprised?) and  begin to make new demands of those who ultimately will be forced to use it.

All in all, it will be another tool to force Islam on those who simply wish to survive financially.

Armor is right. It seems that our European dhimmi leadership is blinded by the money, and willing to do anything to get it...

The mouse trap has been set...and  how good the cheese  looks!

Even the Pope is about to sanctify it...well then it must be nothing but good...

"Open mind" is not the same thing as "Empty head"...

 Your "explanation of Islamic banking to marcfrans" post  has precious little to do with the subject matter at hand and everything to do with your differences with him on the totally unrelated question of immigration and how to deal with it. Please,just admit it.

Marcfrans: " Perhaps a simple exposition or explanation of the essential principles of islamic finance, could be attempted "

What for? If the islamics need islamic financing for their islamic community, they can get it in their islamic homelands. What is interesting is the zeal of European religious and civil authorities in encouraging islamic banking... in Europe.

" what should matter is the maintenance of free competition "

What matters is our peoples' existence.

" let the consumer benefit from competition "

The problem is that European consumers are being replaced by Arab consumers. It is absurd to care for the quality of services and not for one's own existence. From what you say, the thing that counts is the standard of living of the person living in your house, but it doesn't matter whether it is you or some Moroccan immigrant. In that case, you should try to realize that European populations have a much higher standard of living than Arabs (except in oil-rich countries). The fastest way to improve services in the West would be to expel immigrants. It would not be immoral to do so, since they have their own countries to go to. What is immoral and crazy is the idea that the existence of Europeans doesn't count.

The mere use of a label, like "islamic finance", is not sufficient justification for condemning something one does not know or understand.  Perhaps a simple exposition or explanation of the essential principles of islamic finance, could be attempted, before condemning it?  

From the perspective of Western authorities, and their publics as well, what should matter is (a) the maintenance of free competition among different financial practices, and (b) the protection of 'ignorant' or unsuspecting financial clients.

Let the sun shine on islamic (or any other) "finance", and let the consumer benefit from competition.