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

silvercar

Neillgb wrote: »

What a disgraceful waste of taxpayers money on utter twaddle.

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

That is the point. Presumably some people have been missing out (otherwise what was the point of introducing the sharia loans) on advancing to higher education because they had no access to funding.

If you believe that student loans should be available to all, that access to university should be based on the ability to study and a willingness to learn, then you should be accepting of the provision of these loans.

If on the other hand, you think that they should be restricted or higher education only available to the rich then you won't see the point.

Before this you had to be able to afford to spend 3 years at university or prepared to take a loan with interest terms. This disadvantaged a sufficient number of people that some action was needed and now that has been addressed. As it is not going to cost the taxpayer more than a standard student loan, I don't see why anyone should have an issue with it.

Grimbottom

NO NO NO NO NO
This is ENGLAND ... Sharia Law has NO part in English law, If these people refuse to accept English law then respectfully I say that they should go elsewhere.
Religion has no place in law, once you start to make exceptions where does it end.
NO!!

Fluffy2

As both have come up and having read comments to date on both of above:
First food, Halal meat production is cruel. Animals are not stunned before having their throats slit and hung up to die, they are aware form the throat cutting till the time they die of vascular shock, of pain and suffering.Waiting animals hear and see the slaughter and will be distressed. Animals are not dumb. I keep chickens myself and they respond to calling, will go back in their house on instruction, 'purr' when happy in their mud holes, and listen when I talk to them ( by this I mean you can see a response rather than just ignoring you). We are being sold two things, a romantic view of a prayer being said and that it is better in some way, or, no different to traditional slaughter. In fact it is likely to be worse for you as the animal will respond to the stress by releasing massive amounts of stress hormones, just prior to and during throat slitting. This will be in the meat you consume. The Quran actually says that Muslims are not allowed to eat dead meat i.e an animal that was deceased by injury for example knocked down, disease or killed by a wild animal. The Quran when referring to eating animals says a prayer should be said before eating, not at time of slaughter. It talks about sacrificial animals having a prayer, when they were killed as a sacrifice, but NOT for everyday meat consumption. So the interpretation is incorrect and becomes another rule that is imposed on european society. I wont eat at subway any more, and if I am aware do not eat halal meat knowingly. The RSPCA and vetinary society have objected to halal production but have been ignored by Government. Free range as other comments, have said is completely separate and not related to halal meat.
The loans is a creeping in of sharia law, that is most concerning. Their is actually an enormous amount of wealth in muslim communities. Promotion of this loan system supports muslim only overseeing committies and then going back further into banking and other affliations. You cannot account for where this massive financial stream is eventually ending up. Sharia law is outdated vicious and inhumane. Sharia courts already exisit in Britain where they impose suffering on women especially. Sharia law allows for the killing of those who convert away from islam and those who are not muslim. So, with respect , the continuing creep of sharia law should be of concern as once it is in place with one part of it, then there is enough lobbying and pressure to introduce further elements with a majority of the population not knowing what that would mean
Also,

orginally by silvercar, 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.

Again an assumption (see martins original document) is put forward as fact that puts muslim students as being disadvantaged, which would be incorrect, but is passed on, as figures do not exist, and takes the view that most students all object to the current system. Yet they will have siblings already at university, and if there was no choice it would not stop them. So they are being informed at their places of worship not to accept this. No other religion or ethnic group is so high profile as islam and its followers.

anon_ymous

Grimbottom wrote: »

NO NO NO NO NO
This is ENGLAND ... Sharia Law has NO part in English law, If these people refuse to accept English law then respectfully I say that they should go elsewhere.
Religion has no place in law, once you start to make exceptions where does it end.
NO!!

Ths reeks I'd "E E EDL" No one is rejecting English law at all

The shariah compliant laws were made because those who were strict in their religion didn't go to university because of the interest chargedcharged

BLME and IBB's clients in the UK are made up of a majority non Muslim customer base (BLME is for people who have at least £25,000 to save and IBB is probably the best known Islamic bank in the UK)

Ie: there was no rejecting of the law. The law just made it difficult for those who are strict in religion to go to uni

Shariah finance is also not the law. It's an alternative financial system - where the majority of clients at

SlimmingSusan

I thought free range is about how the animal lives during it's life, not how it is slaughtered?

I feel in a minority at my uni, many, many muslims, just saying.

anon_ymous

SlimmingSusan wrote: »

I thought free range is about how the animal lives during it's life, not how it is slaughtered?

I feel in a minority at my uni, many, many muslims, just saying.

It is, but the halal method is meant to cause the least amount of suffering (Which can only be achieved with free range meat)

puk999

waqasahmed wrote: »

It is, but the halal method is meant to cause the least amount of suffering (Which can only be achieved with free range meat)

Wrong. You've claimed this before on this thread but you are incorrect. I'll repeat my response:

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.

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.

Also note Fluffy2's response:

Fluffy2 wrote: »

First food, Halal meat production is cruel. Animals are not stunned before having their throats slit and hung up to die, they are aware form the throat cutting till the time they die of vascular shock, of pain and suffering.Waiting animals hear and see the slaughter and will be distressed.

Sharia law is concerned only with the slaughter, so we can disregard the free range aspect. Being free range is nothing to do with being halal. The claim that the halal method is supposed to cause the least amount of paid is absurd! Sharia law is not at all concerned with minimisation of pain.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter.html#.VC0x_GddUl8

Your quote "the halal method is meant to cause the least amount of suffering" is false as shown. The reason for the halal method is that blood is forbidden according to the Qur'an (Surah 005.003). It's because it's in a book written centuries ago. Same reason pork is prohibited. It's because it's written in a book and has nothing to do with the welfare of that particular animal.

So both aspects of your claim (low suffering and free range) are incorrect I'm afraid.

And may I kindly ask you to stop sending me rude private messages claiming that a) I'm talking out of my !!!!, b) I'm Islamaphobic, and c) I'm a racist. Talk to me on this thread and try to be civil please.

anon_ymous

puk999 wrote: »

Wrong. You've claimed this before on this thread but you are incorrect. I'll repeat my response:



Also note Fluffy2's response:



Sharia law is concerned only with the slaughter, so we can disregard the free range aspect. Being free range is nothing to do with being halal. The claim that the halal method is supposed to cause the least amount of paid is absurd! Sharia law is not at all concerned with minimisation of pain.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter.html#.VC0x_GddUl8

Your quote "the halal method is meant to cause the least amount of suffering" is false as shown. The reason for the halal method is that blood is forbidden according to the Qur'an (Surah 005.003). It's because it's in a book written centuries ago. Same reason pork is prohibited. It's because it's written in a book and has nothing to do with the welfare of that particular animal.

So both aspects of your claim (low suffering and free range) are incorrect I'm afraid.

And may I kindly ask you to stop sending me rude private messages claiming that a) I'm talking out of my !!!!, b) I'm Islamaphobic, and c) I'm a racist. Talk to me on this thread and try to be civil please.

A)

I think you should go re-read what the RSPCA said. Or look here even for a brief overview

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/animals_1.shtml

Muslims are simply not allowed to "factory farm" and without factory farming, you get free range..

b) The PM I sent you was because it explained something I could definitely never, ever post publicly (for my own safety)

c) On the main forums, I've told you that you're talking out of your !!!! as well

And tbh, I guess I may have been a little rude, so I apologise for that, but that's because of your racism...

I also sent a PM to a lovely old lady. Ask her if I sent her an insulting PM???

Again, feel free to report that PM as well. I moderate a vbulletin forum, so I know how these things work

puk999

silvercar

This was a thread about the introduction of sharia compliant loans, not anything to do with halal meat. It would have been better if people had stuck to that rather than distracting the conversation.