Islmaic Mortage for a non believer?

maow425

meher wrote:

Regarding Islamic mortagage - it's not particularly clever - it doesn't boost the countrys' economy. And to go for it, you have two choices - you either need a big fat capital or you'd enter into a lease with the lender.

I am a bit confused. How would a regular mortgage compared with a islamic mortgage boost a country's economy? I may be wrong, but I thought debt made the economy worse off? It certainly makes it look worse, and if an islamic mortgage is what I think it is, then you as the "mortgage payer" don't have the debt, it's the bank's debt.

I personally would love to have this kind of mortgage, as I am in rented accommodation now, and I feel I'm just throwing money out of the window. With a mortgage like this, my husband and I could actually afford to buy a house but still only pay rent. It would basically be the same as shared ownership, just worded differently in my opinion. The rent we're paying now, would more than cover the "mortgage payments" we'd be paying on an islamic mortgage, and it would be an option to be considered for all those people out there who with today's house prices, cannot afford to get a mortgage, or can't get one for other reasons.

LizEstelle

I_Claudius wrote:

imho thats small minded, bigoted and not remotely neccasarry in the context of this thread

Yes, that IS your humble opinion.

LizEstelle

jmarko wrote:

don't rise to it. LizEstelle's done this before. She posted something on whaling and then implied that my views didn't count because I had a foreign sounding name and another's didn't count because she was foreign (despite the fact that, on the core facts, we actually agreed with her!). Being generous, LizEstelle's a wind-up merchant.

jmarko

Don't rise to it. Jmarko's done this before. He posted irrelevancies on my whaling thread and then twisted my enquiry as to whether he might possibly be an inhabitant of Norway, Iceland etc (a very valid point if it were true) to mean that I hated foreigners (when I am not actually British myself). He/she did not agree at all on the core facts and was pretending otherwise to cloud the issue. Being generous, jmarko's an illogical, false argument peddler.

maow425

LizEstelle wrote:

Yes, that IS your humble opinion.

Off topic, but everyone's entitled to one. They just need to be careful how to word it.

LizEstelle wrote:

Don't rise to it. Jmarko's done this before. He posted irrelevancies on my whaling thread and then twisted my enquiry as to whether he might possibly be an inhabitant of Norway, Iceland etc (a very valid point if it were true) to mean that I hated foreigners (when I am not actually British myself). He/she did not agree at all on the core facts and was pretending otherwise to cloud the issue. Being generous, jmarko's an illogical, false argument peddler.

Again off topic, but for those who might like to make up their own opinion, here's the thread in question: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=288355

Can we now please get back to the subject of islamic or sharia compliant mortgages, as I for one would like to find out more about them, maybe even hear from someone who actually has one? Does anyone know if they work in the same-ish sort of way as shared ownership in say, a Housing Association?

cwcw

AFAIK these "Muslim mortgages" are the same as any mortgages but with a slight change in semantics to ease the conscience of particularly strict followers of Islam. Instead of calling it "interest", it's called "rent" (which, by the way, is likely to increase/ decrease in line with the base rate). In addition to this "rent", you can either buy the house back a bit at a time over 25 years by paying more "rent" (read; capital repayment mortgage) or you can pay less "rent" but owe the value of the house at the time the "rent" began, in 25 years time (read; interest only mortgage).

They seem like a gimmick to attract a particular market niche through use of semantics, and because the market is not competitive they are unlikely to compare favourably with mortgages worded without the euphemisms.

margaretclare

cwcw wrote:

AFAIK these "Muslim mortgages" are the same as any mortgages but with a slight change in semantics to ease the conscience of particularly strict followers of Islam. Instead of calling it "interest", it's called "rent" (which, by the way, is likely to increase/ decrease in line with the base rate). In addition to this "rent", you can either buy the house back a bit at a time over 25 years by paying more "rent" (read; capital repayment mortgage) or you can pay less "rent" but owe the value of the house at the time the "rent" began, in 25 years time (read; interest only mortgage).

They seem like a gimmick to attract a particular market niche through use of semantics, and because the market is not competitive they are unlikely to compare favourably with mortgages worded without the euphemisms.

Thanks for this explanation. This was the kind of thing I wanted to know.

So the use of a different word eases the conscience of particularly strict religious people who object to paying 'interest' (why?) and presumably also object to gaining interest on savings.

It may be of interest to note that the banking industry actually started with strictly-religious people e.g. Lloyd's started because the original Lloyd was such an upright, trustworthy and transparently-honest character that people trusted him with their money - he was a Quaker. The original building societies started among groups of Nonconformist Christians. Much of British industry was built by people with strong religious ethics e.g. Rowntree, Cadbury, the big chocolate manufacturers who disapproved of alcohol, there's a long list of them. As a Methodist I don't gamble therefore the lottery and premium bonds are out. But we do run a raffle whenever we have a fund-raising quiz evening or a church bazaar, and that's gambling too.

Margaret

I_Claudius

margaretclare wrote:

Thanks for this explanation. This was the kind of thing I wanted to know.

So the use of a different word eases the conscience of particularly strict religious people who object to paying 'interest' (why?) and presumably also object to gaining interest on savings.

It may be of interest to note that the banking industry actually started with strictly-religious people e.g. Lloyd's started because the original Lloyd was such an upright, trustworthy and transparently-honest character that people trusted him with their money - he was a Quaker. The original building societies started among groups of Nonconformist Christians. Much of British industry was built by people with strong religious ethics e.g. Rowntree, Cadbury, the big chocolate manufacturers who disapproved of alcohol, there's a long list of them. As a Methodist I don't gamble therefore the lottery and premium bonds are out. But we do run a raffle whenever we have a fund-raising quiz evening or a church bazaar, and that's gambling too.

Margaret

recieving (as well as paying) interest on savings is also contrary to islamic law. Their objection used to be shared by christians throughout Europe. Usury is prohibited in the bible and mentioned in a very negative way several times (more times than homosexuality!) and was banned throughout Europe via a papal edict in the middle ages.

One of the main christian and muslim objections to interest (amongst others) seem to be that it is akin to slavery:

"The poor are ruled by the rich, and those who borrow are slaves of the moneylenders." – Proverbs 22:7"

margaretclare wrote:

So the use of a different word eases the conscience of particularly strict religious people who object to paying 'interest' (why?) and presumably also object to gaining interest on savings.

Christians used a similar get out clause with the Contractum Trinius in the middles ages, in both cases to me it does seem a purely semantic difference but if it helps someone to feel better about going against the strict letter of their religious scripts then I have no objection to it (or indeed feel the need to belittle adherents because of it, unlike some people on this forum i.e. Lizestelle)

To get back to the OP, I think getting an islamic mortgage would be unlikely to benefit you in any circumstance; their uncompetitive nature and high deposit requirements (altho I now read double stamp duty on them has been abolished) make them seem unattractive for any reason other than spiritual.

margaretclare

I_Claudius wrote:

recieving (as well as paying) interest on savings is also contrary to islamic law. Their objection used to be shared by christians throughout Europe. Usury is prohibited in the bible and mentioned in a very negative way several times (more times than homosexuality!) and was banned throughout Europe via a papal edict in the middle ages.

One of the main christian and muslim objections to interest (amongst others) seem to be that it is akin to slavery:

"The poor are ruled by the rich, and those who borrow are slaves of the moneylenders." – Proverbs 22:7"

Christians used a similar get out clause with the Contractum Trinius in the middle ages, in both cases to me it does seem a purely semantic difference but if it helps someone to feel better about going against the strict letter of their religious scripts then I have no objection to it (or indeed feel the need to belittle adherents because of it, unlike some people on this forum i.e. Lizestelle)

Thanks for the explanation, and I have no intention of belittling anybody. I simply wanted to know.

Yes, I'm aware of the Scriptural strictures against 'usury', but I'd always understood that to mean 'excessive' interest charges rather than the normal ones we're all used to. These do go on nowadays in the 'sub-prime' market and other places, we could argue about them all day long, and I agree that these can be a form of slavery. I wouldn't see the point of saving at all unless one could look forward to some interest being paid, after all no one does anything for nothing, do they? And one could point to the Parable of the Talents, in which the man who was given 5 talents, lent it out and gained another 5, was highly-praised on his master's return. 'Well done, good and faithful servant' whereas the man who was given one talent but did nothing with it, gave it back as the same amount, was severely castigated.

Margaret

jamesd

Margaret, it simply is. That's how the writings are interpreted today.

Investing isn't prohibited. You can have a bank account where your savings are used to finance businesses through things like money invested to buy stock for the business and repaid with a share of the proceeds when the stock is sold. As with a mortgage, it's not strictly interest but the effect is very similar.

While you may not gamble, you might consider engaging in stock market or betting arbitrage, where there is no gamble because you make a profit regadless of the outcome of the event. Yet bets are still placed and which side (win/lose) of the arbitrage deal pays out depends on that result.

LizEstelle

I_Claudius wrote:

Christians used a similar get out clause with the Contractum Trinius in the middles ages, in both cases to me it does seem a purely semantic difference but if it helps someone to feel better about going against the strict letter of their religious scripts then I have no objection to it (or indeed feel the need to belittle adherents because of it, unlike some people on this forum i.e. Lizestelle)

Er, excuse me but since I have been criticised by name, I feel it necessary to respond.

It is entirely YOUR subjective take on the situation that in some bizarre way I 'feel the need to belittle adherents'.

I repeat that I merely pointed out the fact that so-called 'islamic' mortgages are but a thinly-disguised moneylending, interest-charging situation. One would have to be the kind of 'muslim' who goes in for deliberate self-deception on the grand scale to even consider them.

I pointed, quite justifiably, to the parallel between this and the similar wishful thinking which goes on in the kosher/halal business.

There is nothing surprising about any of this. The kind of self-deception involved is merely a reflection of the greater one which allows a person to give uncritical, irrational belief to the supernatural. Such people 'belittle' themselves, with no need of any help from me... and such is the absurdity of religion in almost all its forms.

Kindly think twice and apply at least SOME degree of objective logic before you next decide to pontificate upon what you think others 'feel'.