MSE News: Government gives Sharia-compliant student finance the go-ahead

chattychappy

waqasahmed wrote: »

Also, there's no difference between halal and non halal meat, except that there's a prayer over it, and it HAS to be free range,

I do not accept that food labelled as halal necessarily meats regulated free range standards. If it does, is makes it even more unreasonable that a state hospital feels the need to support islamic beliefs by offering "halal" labelled meals, but not support alternative ethical beliefs by offereing "free range" labelled food.

Personally I find it annoying that increasingly supermarkets are selling halal food without telling consumers. I specifically don't want prayers said over the animals killed for meat that I eat.

Religious-based ethics are trumping non-religious ethics.

anon_ymous

chattychappy wrote: »

I do not accept that food labelled as halal necessarily meats regulated free range standards. If it does, is makes it even more unreasonable that a state hospital feels the need to support islamic beliefs by offering "halal" labelled meals, but not support alternative ethical beliefs by offereing "free range" labelled food.

Personally I find it annoying that increasingly supermarkets are selling halal food without telling consumers. I specifically don't want prayers said over the animals killed for meat that I eat.

Religious-based ethics are trumping non-religious ethics.

it's been that way for like... centuries

At the end of the day, "halal" and "kosher" meat are meant to cause the least suffering to an animal, so they're meant to be free range as default

Also, think outside of your daily mail bubble for just one minute. IF supermarkets were telling customers that they were selling halal food, without telling consumers, what'd be the point? They're not going to get any Muslim consumers, because they wouldnt know that the food is halal, so Muslims would naturally not consume those products, so I say that the whole thing is a load of !!!!!!!! from the very start - I mean if you think about it logically, what would be the point exactly?

I could understand why you wouldn't wnat "ritually prepared meat" say if you were Sikh, but I'm at a complete loss why someone other than Sikh people care if the meat has a prayer over it - when every single other part of the process is almost exactly the same (Except of course that halal meat has a requirement that the animal have the least pain, and that the animal isn't allowed to see another animal die - That is not possible really in battery farming)

Besides, this is about Islamic banking, not halal meat

You could say "Oh we're not a Muslim nation" or w/ever, but if you think about it, Islamic banking could very easily be re-branded as "Christian banking" It just so happens that Western European Christians of the middle ages didn't really care for the bit in the bible, which says they can't charge interest, so Western Europe adopted the same banking system that you'd call the "Jewish banking system" at the time.

Today, we don't really see it as a "Jewish banking system" because the people who dont understand history would think you're being anti-semitic (ie: implying that Jews control the banks) and because we've became so accustomed to this, that this is the way we've banked for centuries

Personally, I can not see how on Earth you can oppose Islamic banking? Sure people oppose halal meat, on the misconception that it's different (when the only difference is a prayer, and that it has to be free range), and there are certainly certain parts of sharia that would never ever be compatible with the UK ie: the hand choppiness, and the flogging etc...

If any thing Islamic banking is pretty close to the way Germany banks atm - making safer investments. There is a reason why wealthy non Muslim clients make up the majority of Islamic banking clients, in the West.

patanne

So will there be any guarantee that ten years down the line that these loans won't be sold off to a DCA like they have just done?

redpete

waqasahmed wrote: »

You could say "Oh we're not a Muslim nation" or w/ever, but if you think about it, Islamic banking could very easily be re-branded as "Christian banking" It just so happens that Western European Christians of the middle ages didn't really care for the bit in the bible, which says they can't charge interest, so Western Europe adopted the same banking system that you'd call the "Jewish banking system" at the time.

Today, we don't really see it as a "Jewish banking system" because the people who dont understand history would think you're being anti-semitic (ie: implying that Jews control the banks) and because we've became so accustomed to this, that this is the way we've banked for centuries.

I don't understand your distinction between Christian and Jewish banking. The scriptures prohibiting charging interest are from the Old Testament (ie Jewish scripture) and refer to Jews lending money to other Jews. There is no equivalent in the New Testament although the OT prohibition could be taken to apply to Christians as well.

I would be interested in how these loans are considered shariah compliant when the same amount is paid back with the same conditions but using a different name for the bit over and above the capital.

silvercar

patanne wrote: »

So will there be any guarantee that ten years down the line that these loans won't be sold off to a DCA like they have just done?

Presumably there would be a moral argument that these loans couldn't be sold to anyone that would charge interest without formulating it in a sharia compliant way. Making these loans a possibly more attractive offering.

I would be interested to know how many potential students have been put off from going to university because there hasn't been a sharia student loan available up to now.

anon_ymous

redpete wrote: »

I don't understand your distinction between Christian and Jewish banking. The scriptures prohibiting charging interest are from the Old Testament (ie Jewish scripture) and refer to Jews lending money to other Jews. There is no equivalent in the New Testament although the OT prohibition could be taken to apply to Christians as well.

I would be interested in how these loans are considered shariah compliant when the same amount is paid back with the same conditions but using a different name for the bit over and above the capital.

Again, I gues it depends on how strict you are in your religion ie: some Christains do take in to consideration the old testament, or "pick and choose", and some take in to consideration the new testaement only

This is certainly interesting:

http://scottishchristian.com/church-of-scotland-inspired-current-islamic-banking/

Im not so sure how "ISlamic loans" work either tbh. I can see how Islamic banking as a whole works (As a non banker ie: in relatively simple terms) and I can see how Islamic mortgages work, but I dont understand how Islamic loans would work

puk999

waqasahmed wrote: »

it's been that way for like... centuries

Arguing that things that have been done for a long time are good is a logical fallacy, specifically an appeal to tradition.

At the end of the day, "halal" and "kosher" meat are meant to cause the least suffering to an animal, so they're meant to be free range as default

Wrong and wrong. To deal with your second claim first, what distinguishes Halal meat is the method of slaughter only. Free range doesn't come into it.

Halal slaughtering practices cause unnecessary suffering to the animal. Islamic law states the animal must be alive, the throat cut, then the blood drained out of the body.

I'd rather the method of slaughter with least pain was based upon knowledge gained via evidence. Using evidence (rather than being dogmatic and looking at an ancient book) has proved useful again and again over the ages as an way of understanding the world/universe around us. So it is with animal suffering.

I could understand why you wouldn't wnat "ritually prepared meat" say if you were Sikh, but I'm at a complete loss why someone other than Sikh people care if the meat has a prayer over it - when every single other part of the process is almost exactly the same

Again, it's not just the prayer, but the unnecessary suffering the animal is caused. I can think of two other reasons I'd want to dodge Halal meat. First, only muslims can work in the slaughterhouses. I don't want to be purchasing meat from shops and unknowingly be promoting an industry which excludes workers of other religions (and those with no religion). Secondly, there is an inefficiency introduced by the animal having to face Mecca and the time taken for the prayers to be said. This increases the cost of production which I as the consumer will ultimately bear.

anon_ymous

puk999 wrote: »

Arguing that things that have been done for a long time are good is a logical fallacy, specifically an appeal to tradition.

The hell has this got to do with stuff being free range?

puk999 wrote: »

Wrong and wrong. To deal with your second claim first, what distinguishes Halal meat is the method of slaughter only. Free range doesn't come into it.[/quote

Then you dont understand halal meat. The slaughter is the same. They are stunned. The only difference is that theres a prayer over it (for the majority of halal meat in the UK)

Halal/kosher meat is meant to alleviate pain/stress, so they're free range by default. Theres a lot more to it, than just the slaughtering process

puk999 wrote: »

Halal slaughtering practices cause unnecessary suffering to the animal. Islamic law states the animal must be alive, the throat cut, then the blood drained out of the body.

I'd rather the method of slaughter with least pain was based upon knowledge gained via evidence. Using evidence (rather than being dogmatic and looking at an ancient book) has proved useful again and again over the ages as an way of understanding the world/universe around us. So it is with animal suffering.



Again, it's not just the prayer, but the unnecessary suffering the animal is caused. I can think of two other reasons I'd want to dodge Halal meat. First, only muslims can work in the slaughterhouses. I don't want to be purchasing meat from shops and unknowingly be promoting an industry which excludes workers of other religions (and those with no religion). Secondly, there is an inefficiency introduced by the animal having to face Mecca and the time taken for the prayers to be said. This increases the cost of production which I as the consumer will ultimately bear.

Again talking out of your !!!!. And you are not bearing the costs "as a consumer" How many things have gone up in price, because of halal chickens? Also think about it logically. IF there were halal chickens on the market at Asda, and they werent labelled, they'd be missing out a huge chunk of the market, so I call !!!!!!!! on the daily mail stories

Granted this isn't 100%, but the vast majority are killed exactly the same as non halal meat - I read on the beeb, that companies like Subways/KFC etc... are contractually meant to stun ALL their meat regardless of if it is "halal" or not halal meat as well

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rspca.org.uk%2FImageLocator%2FLocateAsset%3Fasset%3Ddocument%26assetId%3D1232719611043%26mode%3Dprd&ei=hxkgVP6yG-i07QaprICwCw&usg=AFQjCNFGujUVPChEnTWHULqA3o3nAxFJFw&sig2=7zf-mOxegsBRHFfskVcHJg&bvm=bv.75775273,d.ZGU&cad=rja

Besides, what in hell does this have to do with Islamic banking?

margaretclare

chattychappy wrote: »

I didn't say it isn't ethical. Personally I think charging interest is ethical. Ethics don't come in to it. It is the extent to which the state bends to the requirements of religious belief.

My mother cares about animal welfare. Her ethics are that she will only eat free range meat. She is in hospital. She is offered halal food, but cannot demand free range.

Whilst the state ignores people's individual ethical views, I think it should do the same with their religious views whether or not they might have any ethical basis.

That was me when in hospital, same as your mother. I opted for vegetarian food instead.

We mostly buy our meat from local butchers or farm shops, usually where they can tell you exactly where the meat came from.

Since we're not only discussing Islamic banking....

'Things having been done from time immemorial'. I thought of this at the weekend. We were at a commemoration of a battle and there were a lot of re-enactors there in costume to fight the battle all over again. All the adult women had their heads covered and it made me think, women have covered their heads since time immemorial. Adult women that is, the maidens (young girls) had long free-flowing hair until their marriage. This was at the time of the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066. Even in my youth, a woman didn't go out without a hat or scarf on her head. I have no problem with a woman covering her head. Covering the face - ah well, that's an entirely different matter.

Neillgb

What a disgraceful waste of taxpayers money on utter twaddle.

If people didn't want a standard loan then they should have gone without.