U.S. Interest in Shariah Finance

U.S. Interest in Shariah Finance Opens Dangerous Doors, Critics Say

Thursday, November 13, 2008


Shariah-compliant banking, sometimes called Islamic banking, is growing in popularity in the Western and Islamic worlds. But critics say American interest in the system at a time of economic crisis is opening the door to increased Islamic influence in the American banking system. Worse yet, some fear the banks may be helping to finance international terrorism.

In Shariah-compliant banking, lenders may not charge interest and investors cannot make money from forbidden industries like gambling, alcohol, pork and pornography. Selling debt, devising derivatives and short selling are also prohibited, and investments must be closely tied to actual assets.

In the U.S., the Dow Jones Islamic Index tracks Shariah-compliant companies and funds, and funds have sprung up like the Amana Mutual Funds Trust and the Azzad Asset Management.

American investment funds, like those offered by TD Ameritrade and Charles Schwab, can invest in Shariah-compliant companies, and those companies can offer investments in American companies. Top holdings in the Azzad Ethical Midcap Fund, for example, include Western Digital Corp., Southwest Electric Co. and Apple Computer, Inc.

But allowing Shariah-compliant finance in the U.S. is green-lighting a seditious system that supports jihad, said Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C.

"If you understand what Shariah is, you understand that it is a pretty awful system. Not something that you'd want insinuated in your society and becoming a major feature of your economic system," Gaffney said.

"Shariah (Islamic law as dictated by the Koran) governs all aspects of life, from the personal practice of the faith to how you relate to your family to how you relate to your business partners, to your community ... all the way up to how the world is run, and it is all one seamless program. You can't say 'I'll take the personal pietistic practice ... and skip the beheading and the flogging and the stoning and the global theocracy,'" he said.

Punishments for some crimes under Shariah law include amputation and stoning to death. On Tuesday it was revealed that a 53-year-old Egyptian doctor had been sentenced under Shariah law in Saudi Arabia to 15 years in prison and 1,500 lashes for allegedly getting a Saudi princess in his care addicted to drugs.

But despite Islamic banking's association with Shariah's harsh practices, the U.S. government is taking an interest in it.

On Oct. 25, while on an official visit to Saudi Arabia, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Robert M. Kimmitt told reporters that the U.S. was interested in learning more about Islamic finance, and the Treasury Department held an "Islamic Finance 101" course in Washington on Nov. 6 to educate government officials on its ins and outs.

Islamic banking and investment products sprang up beginning in the 1970s when the Middle East experienced its first oil boom, and have been growing in popularity as oil prices soared in the past few years.

Yet it's unclear who is investing in Shariah-compliant mutual funds and other investments, Gaffney said. "An awful lot of them seem to be petrodollar-rich potentates and companies and royal families."

Nicholas Kaiser, fund manager at Amana Mutual Funds Trust in Bellingham, Wash., said that his company's Shariah-compliant mutual fund products are no different from any other religious funds and that the company carefully screens its investors.

"Our shareholders are American. We don't take money from non-Americans because of money-laundering laws. We have to know our shareholders and be sure they aren't engaged in nefarious activities. We screen and check and verify every shareholder," Kaiser said.

He disagrees with Gaffney's assertion that Islamic funds are a threat to the American way of life.

"We simply take people's money, invest it and give it back to them when they want it. We don't try and convert the country. We don't have any religious position. We aren't evangelical. We aren't zealots. We're money managers," Kaiser said. "I happen to be Episcopalian."

Azzad Asset Management declined to be interviewed for this story.

Estimates put the Islamic banking industry in the hundreds of billions of dollars. And while it's a small portion of the global finance industry, the Islamic sector is growing — by more than 30 percent in 2007.

A board of Shariah scholars determines which investments are compliant.

As Shariah law forbids charging interest, Shariah-compliant mortgages, like those offered by Devon Bank in Chicago and Guidance Residential, which operates in 23 states, are attracting pious Muslim buyers.

In one type of Shariah-compliant mortgage the bank buys a home and then either leases or re-sells it to the purchaser in monthly installments — interest-free, but at a higher price.

The bank's profit and the buyer's payments wind up being similiar to what they would be if the bank charged interest, said Ibrahim Warde, adjunct professor of international business at Tufts University.

"In the Koran there's a verse saying that making money from trade is good and making money from money lending is not, so basically whenever transactions are structured, they are sales transactions," he said.

Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy, said that whether they're sound investments or not, conforming to Shariah shouldn't be American policy.

"We should not allow Islamic banking to continue and definitely not to flourish in this country," Ehrenfeld said.

"Muslims in the United States who want to conduct their business according to Islamic banks can do it with mortgages ... but to allow Islamic banking as a rule to operate — it's our money and we shouldn't be abiding by Islamic laws. Period. I don’t want to have any kind of association with any laws that dictate wife-beating in Saudi Arabia," she said.

Ehrenfeld said that the practice of "zakat" — giving alms to the poor — while innocent on the surface can in fact be used to promote terrorism and the spread of radical Islam.

She said that that the money the Shariah banks give to charities goes to build madrassas and mosques and spread radical Islam and anti-American sentiment.

"They also send money to Hamas. They also send money to Al Qaeda," she said. "This is a huge Pandora's box. We don't know what the hell is going on with their charities ... even if nobody will say openly that they're giving money to terrorism."

In June, the Kuwait-based charity Revivial of Islamic Heritage Society was designated by the U.S. Treasury for providing money and material support to Al Qaeda, its affilitates and to acts of terrorism.

"It is illegal for anyone in the United States to provide funds to charities that have been designated by the Treasury Department as supporters of terrorism under Executive Order 13224. If the Treasury Department has information that anyone in the United States were engaged in such activity, we would take appropriate action," said Treasury spokesman Andrew DeSouza.

Warde, however, said that there is no reason to think that all Islamic financial institutions have terrorist ties.

"There are some people who equate all things Islamic to terrorism," he said. "Some people look at the world that way. We've seen that during the presidential campaign with the insinuations that Obama was a Muslim, therefore a terrorist. I don't think we should give much credence to that."

He said critics are not being fair to the system.

"People who don't like Islam and who are afraid of Islam would obviously not like the notion of Islamic finance. I'm not sure that those who hold this view necessarily know much about it, but it's some kind of visceral view that some people hold," Warde said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,451416,00.html


""If you understand what Shariah is, you understand that it is a pretty awful system. Not something that you'd want insinuated in your society and becoming a major feature of your economic system," Gaffney said.

"Shariah (Islamic law as dictated by the Koran) governs all aspects of life, from the personal practice of the faith to how you relate to your family to how you relate to your business partners, to your community ... all the way up to how the world is run, and it is all one seamless program. You can't say 'I'll take the personal pietistic practice ... and skip the beheading and the flogging and the stoning and the global theocracy,'" he said.

Punishments for some crimes under Shariah law include amputation and stoning to death. On Tuesday it was revealed that a 53-year-old Egyptian doctor had been sentenced under Shariah law in Saudi Arabia to 15 years in prison and 1,500 lashes for allegedly getting a Saudi princess in his care addicted to drugs.

But despite Islamic banking's association with Shariah's harsh practices, the U.S. government is taking an interest in it."


"People who don't like Islam and who are afraid of Islam would obviously not like the notion of Islamic finance. I'm not sure that those who hold this view necessarily know much about it, but it's some kind of visceral view that some people hold," Warde said."


People who are just money hungry greedy sons of bitches will just always find ways to condone this shit and look past the despicable atrocities that they allow to be camouflaged by their greed.

Fuck Shariah Finance!



As a matter of fact......FUCK ISLAM ALSO.

.

YEAAAAAH!!!! Let's here it for HEX GROSSTESQUEMAN and The SHITCAGO emBEARassment!!!!

What a piece of shit - bullshit excuse of a game!

When the HELL is Lovie gonna do the RIGHT GOD DAM THING!!!!?????


FIRE THIS SON OF A BITCH (Rex) ALREADY!!!!! This guy is sooooooooooooooo FUCKING WORTHLESS!!!!!


And WHAT THE FUCK is with this POOR EXCUSE for a DEFENSE!?????


SO FUCKIN' WHAT! ...."THEY CAN STOP "THE RUN"!" - WHIPTY-FKIN'-DO!!!! They can't do ANYTHING FUCKIN' ELSE!!!!


GOD DAAAaaauuuUUUM I'M SO FUCKIN' PISSED OFF!!!!!.....WHAT A WASTE OF A GOD DAM DAY!


THIS SO-CALLED "TEAM" FLAT OUT SUCKS!


.

Al-Qaeda urge Obama to adopt neutrality

05:55 AEST Sat Nov 8 2008

Al-Qaeda in Iraq has urged US president-elect Barack Obama to adopt a policy of neutrality in the war-torn country and to withdraw US troops from there and other Muslim countries.

"On behalf of my brothers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Chechnya, I offer you what is better for you and us: you return to your previous era of neutrality, you withdraw your forces, and you return to your homes," said an audiotape attributed to Omar al-Baghdadi, head of the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq.

The tape, whose authenticity could not be verified, was addressed to the "New Rulers of the White House and All Their Allies, Presidents of Christian Countries".

It was made available by SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors Islamist websites. Because it does not mention Obama by name, SITE said it assumed the recording was made prior to Tuesday's US elections.

The message also said the "unjust" wars launched in Muslim countries were the "principal cause of the collapse of the economic giant".

Earlier this week, the Islamic Army in Iraq, an ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim insurgent group, said Obama would not do anything beneficial for Iraq.

A message posted on the IAI website and dated Tuesday said: "We should not forget that no president is able to cross the line against American interests; rather, they all have to race to achieve them.

"Therefore, the new president will not intend to offer what is beneficial to our countries," said the message, also published by SITE.

"Whatever the results may be, the world today desperately needs to change the unjust American foreign policy that threatens stability and world peace. It harms the peoples of the world, and damages America and its reputation in the globe.

"It is in the interest of the new American administration to move away from the game of creating disasters and blaming them on an invisible enemy ... and has fictitious titles and banners such as war on terror - and supporting them for the goal of plundering wealth and striking Islam."

The IAI first appeared in 2004 and became notorious for the grisly beheading of foreign hostages. It had been allied with al-Qaeda in Iraq, but split with that group last year.

The IAI, which has suffered from internal divisions, has not been a key player in the insurgency since then.

http://optuszoo.news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=662419



Kinda cool it's already Saturday in Australia.

They're just getting over their hangovers and I haven't even started mine....



.

Ellen DeGeneres laments gay marriage ban in Calif.

LOS ANGELES — Ellen DeGeneres says she is "saddened beyond belief" by the passage of a constitutional amendment in California banning gay marriage.


In this Sept. 28, 2008 file photo, comedian Ellen DeGeneres and actress Portia de Rossi pose on the press line at the "Yes! On Prop 2" benefit gala in Los Angeles.

The talk show host said in a statement Wednesday to The Associated Press that she, "like millions of Americans, felt like we had taken a giant step toward equality" by electing Barack Obama as president.

DeGeneres says that with the passage of California's Proposition 8, "we took a giant step away."

DeGeneres wed actress Portia (POR'-shuh) de Rossi in August, following a May Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in California.

She contributed $100,000 to fight the amendment on Tuesday's ballot.

DeGeneres asserts she will "continue to speak out for equality for all of us."

http://www.comcast.net/articles/tv/2008110...llen.DeGeneres/



Everybody all together now:


AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW........


WHO GIVES A SHIT!



......



.

Will Obama be able to deliver on his promises?

By Julian E. Zelizer
Special to CNN
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

Editor's Note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He is the co-editor of "Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s" and is completing a book on the history of national-security politics since World War II, to be published by Basic Books.

PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- Many Americans are expecting big things from President Barack Obama.

The president-elect ran as the candidate of change, promising to transform the status quo in Washington and to empower citizens to take back their government.

During his speeches in the final week of the campaign, Obama said to his supporters that together, "we will change this country. We will change the world."

Those are some pretty big promises. Unfortunately for Obama, most presidents since WWII have suffered from the freshmen blues in their first year in the White House.

Expectations are usually high and the ability of a president to deliver much of what he promised on the campaign trail is rather low. Without a national crisis like 9/11, presidents have struggled in their first year with a general decline in approval ratings.

The reasons are not difficult to understand. International and domestic crises force the White House to focus on unexpected issues, many of which are not in their best political interest. The bitter partisan and intra-party tensions that had caused gridlock for the previous administration remain. Budgetary limits constrain how much tax-cutting or spending increases can take place.

When a president takes office with expectations as high as those for Obama, the chances for avoiding a post-election letdown are virtually nil.


Under these conditions, the challenge for the new president is to somehow keep the factions of his winning coalition in the tent even as he can't accomplish much of what he promised to do.

While some presidents, such as Harry Truman or Jimmy Carter, never really recovered from the post-election letdown and watched as their coalitions crumbled, other presidents have figured out ways to retain the loyalty of their supporters.

John F. Kennedy was one of the exceptional presidents whose approval ratings were strong throughout his first year in office. Kennedy was successful despite a horrible fiasco with the Bay of Pigs and his inability to move key domestic initiatives, such as medical care for the aged, through a legislative system dominated by conservative southern Democrats and Republicans.

He began his presidency with a stunning inaugural address, in which he took a tough stand against communism and called on Americans to sacrifice for the good of the nation. The speech launched the president's term in the right fashion, as polls showed overwhelming support for what he said.

Kennedy retained the support of northern liberals by pushing for civil rights progress outside of the legislative process. He relied on court action and executive power to begin desegregating southern universities, enough to demonstrate a genuine commitment to racial equality.

Kennedy also made sure to please the hawkish base of the Democratic Party by proposing significant increases in defense spending on conventional weapons and by taking a tough stand against the Soviets.

Finally, Kennedy proposed a few high-profile, yet targeted, initiatives like a space program to put a man on the moon and national service through the Peace Corps that excited the younger generation of Americans who had voted for him. Kennedy's strategy was to build enough strength gradually so that he could accomplish tougher challenges as his term progressed and after he was reelected.

Richard Nixon also avoided the freshman blues, enjoying a successful first term that is often forgotten as a result of Watergate. Following his narrow victory in 1968 against Hubert Humphrey, Nixon was always careful to placate the conservative base of his party. In his first term, he played to the right by railing against hippie college students and draft-dodgers.

Reminding Republicans of his hawkish credentials, Nixon authorized aggressive bombing operations against the North Vietnamese. Yet Nixon also realized that he needed to take some political risks as he pushed for policies that undercut the political power of the left and broadened his governing coalition in preparation for 1972.

Nixon announced the policy of Vietnamization, whereby the U.S. would gradually withdraw troops from Vietnam, and said he promised to eliminate the draft. Nixon initiated negotiations with the Soviet Union over arms control. The policy of détente was appealing to middle class Americans worn down by the warfare they saw in Vietnam.

Ronald Reagan's approval ratings declined during his first year, notwithstanding a temporary boost after the assassination attempt on March, but he was able to keep the conservative coalition together. How did he do it? Reagan was very good at sticking to the big picture.

In his public addresses, he continued to outline the two major themes -- anti-communism and cutting government -- that united the factions of the conservative movement.

While Reagan displayed flexibility when backing down from certain proposals that caused too much political trouble, such as reducing Social Security benefits, he was steadfast when it came to making strong statements about the dangers of communism and the need to privilege private markets over government.

He spent much of his political capital to obtain the tax cut of 1981 which reduced overall rates and symbolized his determination to diminish the role of government in public life.

Next year will certainly be rough for President Obama and he can't count on events working in his favor. His candidacy was based on the promise of change in Washington.

As a result of the fifty-state strategy, he will face a Democratic Party that includes African-Americans urban residents, suburban homeowners living in the coastal states, Hispanic immigrants, younger voters active for the first time, as well as western and southern conservatives from states and districts that were previously Republican. He faces a complex economic crisis and the continued challenge of Iraq.

The history of presidential freshmen years though offers Obama some guidance for success: taking risks on policies that will broaden his electoral coalition, finding and sticking to key themes that will hold his coalition together, and carefully selecting a handful of issues that are dramatic enough to solidify his support without triggering a destructive backlash. If he puts these pieces together, he can start moving toward a second term.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Julian E. Zelizer.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/zel...dent/index.html



I think this will take time.
I know that there are a few nut cases that have regarded him as a "messiah". But, of course, he is not.
He is just another man.
And he will need some serious TIME to straighten out this mess that Bush has left us in.

I'm not expecting miracles in just 12 months.

But, I think between his second and third year he should be well on his way to securing a favorable trust that he can accomplish some of the things he initially "promised".
If not by then, then he will look like nothing more then spewing off empty promises. And the entire Republican voting class from this election will begin saying "I told you so".

I really don't want to see that happen. I didn't vote for him - by I certainly wish him great success.



Hell - ......"Barack's our Quarterback....."




.