Sharia Finance: Jihad With Money
There's a takeover in progress on Wall Street, but all the greedy fools are smiling big because they don't understand or care what they're helping lay the foundation for:
Alyssa A. Lappen, a senior fellow at the American Center for Democracy, sums up the problems with Sharia Finance:
Among the perils of shari'a finance, according to a January analysis by Moody's Investors Service are: A central role in investment decisions for shari'a scholars who are actually Islamic clerics; investors being forced to accept weak positions; short track records of major investors; multiple complex asset types; risky interest rates and new ventures; plus a lack of transparency combined with corporate management and risk control in the hosting Third World countries.Like other financial rating agencies, Moody's currently profits from assessing Islamic financial instruments.
But it missed the biggest risk of all---the ideological risks of shari'a, or Islamic law. Even Islamic banking promotions admit that the industry's documentation is not standardized, its inter-creditor agreements can be complex and it frequently employs off-balance sheet financing.
Moreover, shari'a regulations override commercial decisions. Citibank, for example, launched Saudi American Bank (SAB) in Jeddah and its Riyadh branch in 1955 and 1966 respectively, apparently without considering business risks under shari'a. The Saudis abruptly seized SAB in 1980, denied Citi all future profits, and ordered the bank to train Saudi staffers. Why? Because under shari'a, the bank was judged insufficiently Muslim.
Secular laws alone don't govern shari'a finance. Although a 20th century Muslim Brotherhood (MB) invention, it cannot be severed from the body of Islamic statutes that Mohammed initiated and caliphs, scholars and jurists developed over 1,400 years.
Alex Alexiev, vice president for research at the Center for Security Policy, explains the problems with Sharia law and Sharia finance in greater detail in a FrontPage interview with Jamie Glazov.
Oh yeah, when they talk about Islamic "charities," they may not mean what you think they mean. Rachel Ehrenfeld's follows the donations:
To be sure, there is no shortage in oil billionaires in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. According to Forbes Magazine 2006 list of the World's Richest People, Saudi and Gulf billionaires are worth at least $134 billion. Muslim billionaires in Egypt, Turkey and Lebanon are worth additional $29.4 billion. This is not taking into account Muslim billionaires and millionaires in Asia and elsewhere. Moreover, the oil boom in the Middle East generated at least 300,000, new wealthy millionaires in the region.According to the Department of Energy, Saudi Arabia is estimated to gain $154 billion in oil revenues in 2006, alone, and has at least $110 billion in foreign assets.
Yet, despite all this wealth, Muslim charities do not focus on alleviating the suffering of millions of poor Muslims and provide for their economic development the way the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) does. Instead, Muslim charities, led by the Saudis, continue to pour billions into madrassas to spread Wahhabism and hatred of the West around the globe - and not only in the Muslim world.
Testifying before the House International Relations Committee on June 29, 2006, Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Frazer stated, "Saudi Arabia has become a leading financier of the Islamic takeover of Somalia." And in the Middle East, Saudi and Gulf cash, smuggled into Gaza under the watchful eyes of the Egyptians, helped Hamas pay the salaries of at least 130, 000 employees of the Palestinian Authority, according to Middle Eastern sources. And more money is coming. On July 5, The Arab League announced in Cairo the transfer of $50 million to the West Bank and Gaza, and $15 million to pay for (something a wee bit screwed up in their text here) o Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and to employees and diplomats in Palestinian embassies and Palestinian representative. In addition, the U.S. "good ally," Saudi Arabia, "also provided $50 million." This is at the time that President George W. Bush, declared: "In order for there to be peace, Hamas must be dismantled."
...Last month, CAIR announced that it was "launching a massive $50 million media campaign involving television, radio, and newspapers as part of its five-year program to create a better understanding of Islam and Muslims in the U.S." Following their Saudi paymaster's lead, CAIR now orchestrates a media offensive demanding that President Bush come to Hamas's rescue and condemn Israel.
Clearly, the idea that the $50 million CAIR spends to promote Hamas' culture of death can instead help millions of Muslims to live better, just did not cross Awad's mind.
Frank Gaffney bats cleanup:
Earlier this year, David Yerushalmi, a litigator specializing in securities law and an expert on Shariah, produced a riveting legal memorandum (soon to appear in the University of Utah Law Review) examining the civil and criminal exposure inherent in Shariah-Compliant Finance (http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/Modules/NewsManager/Center%20publication%20PDFs/Shairias%20Black%20Box%20(D%20Yerushalmi).pdf). His conclusion: banks and investment houses offering SCF products may be enabling or engaging in the following: racketeering, antitrust activity, securities fraud, consumer fraud and/or material support for terror.What makes Shariah-Compliant Finance even more dangerous than subprime is that, in its effort to legitimize and institutionalize Shariah in America, it is advancing a criminal conspiracy whose purpose is the violent overthrow of the United States Constitution and government in favor of Islamic rule. That would make it sedition.
For these reasons, we should be especially wary of the purported silver lining to the current Wall Street crisis: the infusion of vast quantities of petrodollars, primarily from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' Saudi Arabia and other Islamist nations in the Persian Gulf. It is bad enough that these putative rescuers of our subprime-fueled liquidity debacle are buying up engines of our capital markets for pennies on the dollar. Worse yet, they are, in the process, putting themselves in a position to promote Shariah-Compliant Finance and the seditious theo-political agenda it serves.
Download Yerushalmi's paper here (free).
ACT video via JihadWatch
Amy -
Did you know that the latest bailout of AIG last night was Sharia Compliant with Sharia Finance?
Also, the 2009 Defense Authorization ACT that was signed into law on Oct 14, 2008 recommends that we find a single insurer to provide Defense Base Act workers compensation insurance for all DOD contractors (which includes benefits for “foreign nationals”). They get to charge the Govt one rate and they have no competition for other markets.
AIG is on a VERY short list of insureds who will be bidding for the privilage of this monopoly.
THIS IS HOW SHARIAH GETS INVOLVED IN OUR DEMOCRATIC MAINSTREAM.
UN BELIEVABLE
(thanks for posting this article)
Feebie at November 10, 2008 9:30 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/10/shariah_finace.html#comment-1604135">comment from FeebieThanks for what you posted above. I had no idea. I'm not that informed on this yet, although I plan to get more informed. If people know of good links to information about this, please post them, although one to a comment so you won't go to my spam folder.
Amy Alkon
at November 10, 2008 9:46 AM
Thanks for the post. If AIG is just the beginning of the insurance "bang" it is all over. I have been very curious as to why we have not heard anything from any of the other "big boys" suchas ING, MetLife, John Hankcock, ad nausum. I gues time will tell.
debt relief at November 10, 2008 9:48 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh-RmkD1g84
Hasan at November 10, 2008 10:22 AM
Have you looked at the Shari Compliant financial product?
http://tiny.cc/FIYnN
It exactly the same as the stuff we have now. Instead of interest it's now called rent, or cost plus profit. The conceptual approach is different but the end result is the same. The banks aren't doing it cause the have to they are doing it because it's profitable. The banks open up new markets by changing a few words around. You sound like this is going to make funding terrorists easier, no it's really not. Unless you can point out terrorist groups that refuse to make money with non-shari investments it won't change anything. Has not having these funds hindered Osama in his campaign, no. Has it hindered the collection of money for these groups, no.
Also international banks are not track able to the US. That's why a good way to dodge taxes, support payments etc. is to move your money offshore. Also if the funding is done with banks, they have ledgers that can be hacked or stolen. Might actually make tracking these assholes easier. It's much easier then tracking random camel caravans in the dessert.
vlad at November 10, 2008 10:24 AM
Wait, why the hell is the US treasury pushing this? Why the hell are they even getting involved? I though this was just a choice of the banks, SEC and Treasury is something else. That puts a whole new slant on it.
Oh btw the UTUBE women mentions several moderate Muslim groups who oppose this.
vlad at November 10, 2008 10:43 AM
Sharia financing is a scam. I actually think it hurts Muslims more than anyone else. I haven't seen the numbers, but I'm willing to bet the amount of fees they have to pay to avoid paying interest is higher than the interest payments themselves.
Then again, I don't think we should be encouraging anything relating to Sharia. Ordinary people need to make a stink of this. Wall Street and banks will not participate if public pressure ends up hurting their image. Then again, in today's PC world, the public will probably not raise a stink.
Charles at November 10, 2008 10:48 AM
Oh here's more fun news from our friends in England
http://tiny.cc/T3evt
vlad at November 10, 2008 11:18 AM
Considering our current financial meltdown brought upon us by the captains of industry and commerce, a system where usury is not permitted actually sounds quite attractive.
LanceThruster at November 10, 2008 3:52 PM
Hi Amy Alkon!
I thought of you, who said this:
> We don't leave whether blacks
> and whites can marry up to the
> voters. This shouldn't be left
> up to the voters either.
...today, when I read this, from PJ O'Rourke:
| We [conservatives] consider
| people--with a few obvious
| exceptions--to be assets.
| Liberals consider people to be
| nuisances.
(Now would be a good time for you to make fun of people who believe in God, those who constitute, by nature, such a vastly larger percentage of the population than do those who believe in marrying a member of the same sex.)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at November 10, 2008 5:18 PM
Found this site when we were studying the Eva Burgess post in my internet law class (law school).
This post will live on in infamy.
Tom at November 10, 2008 5:55 PM
Amy -
I sent some links about DBA and Shariah Finance and AIG to your email.
Thanks.
feebie at November 10, 2008 7:13 PM
@Amy...
Sorry for intruding.
Bet you thought Muslim women were utterly submissive. Here's one who isn't! Or is? Although she may be soon availed of as much discipline(one can hope) as she wishes.
Silliness aside this will be interesting. In Aus we never punish these offenders. I wonder if her religion will work for or against her.
gwallan at November 11, 2008 3:25 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/10/shariah_finace.html#comment-1604323">comment from gwallanWhat do you mean that you "never punish these offenders"? Are cases of girls who are molested by a male teacher treated differently than boys who are molested by a female one?
Amy Alkon
at November 11, 2008 5:47 AM
Yes.
We've never actually punished a female offender unless they abused a girl.
gwallan at November 11, 2008 2:50 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/11/10/shariah_finace.html#comment-1604451">comment from gwallanDo people not see the injustice in not punishing women who sexually abuse boys?
Amy Alkon
at November 11, 2008 3:13 PM
Leave a comment