Opening a Canadian Bank account

[New2Canada]

I am not sure how Islamic Banking has to do with the death penalty? So just because they flee Sharia, you don't want them to have Islamic Banking. Because they flee say Nigeria, do you want them to stop being Nigerian too. Just because they flee an African country, should they bleach their skin too. Next thing, you are going to say Canada should ban mosques because they flee Sharia. After that you will say ban Synagogues for some other reason. You know what Martin Niemöller said, don't you?

This thread was about Islamic Banking, which has nothing to do with human rights violation. Just because Europeans did untold amount of HR violations on the native Americans do not make European culture bad. Canada and US's predominant culture is European derived despite the untold amount of misery melted out to the natives by the invaders. Similarly, Islamic banking has nothing to do with the death penalty.

If we go by your reasoning, Canada shouldn't encourage European based culture because this could lead to another genocide against the native americans or the jews or someone. Rupeesh, you can confirm me this, wasn't Apartheid South Africa based on Christian principles? Wasn't the church not only justifying but encouraging Apartheid. This doesn't make all teachings by Christianity bad. In fact, I will be the first to say most are good teachings.

Would PommeDeRoute be protesting Christian based teachings which is pervasive everywhere in North America (not that I am complaining about its prevalence).

Anyway, this thread is about providing banking and I am still not sure how providing Islamic banking is going to break down society as we know it. Especially when no one is asking you take up an Islamic Banking account. I opened an HSBC account last month, and my arms are still intact. I am shocked.

Not all Canadians are apparently tolerant.

 

[PommeDeRoute]

I am not sure how Islamic Banking has to do with the death penalty? So just because they flee Sharia, you don't want them to have Islamic Banking. Because they flee say Nigeria, do you want them to stop being Nigerian too. Just because they flee an African country, should they bleach their skin too. Next thing, you are going to say Canada should ban mosques because they flee Sharia. After that you will say ban Synagogues for some other reason. You know what Martin Niemöller said, don't you?

This thread was about Islamic Banking, which has nothing to do with human rights violation. Just because Europeans did untold amount of HR violations on the native Americans do not make European culture bad. Canada and US's predominant culture is European derived despite the untold amount of misery melted out to the natives by the invaders. Similarly, Islamic banking has nothing to do with the death penalty.

If we go by your reasoning, Canada shouldn't encourage European based culture because this could lead to another genocide against the native americans or the jews or someone. Rupeesh, you can confirm me this, wasn't Apartheid South Africa based on Christian principles? Wasn't the church not only justifying but encouraging Apartheid. This doesn't make all teachings by Christianity bad. In fact, I will be the first to say most are good teachings.

Would PommeDeRoute be protesting Christian based teachings which is pervasive everywhere in North America (not that I am complaining about its prevalence).

Anyway, this thread is about providing banking and I am still not sure how providing Islamic banking is going to break down society as we know it. Especially when no one is asking you take up an Islamic Banking account. I opened an HSBC account last month, and my arms are still intact. I am shocked.

Not all Canadians are apparently tolerant.

It is not banking that has to do with the death penalty, it is banking according to laws that promote hate, violence and intolerance.

Canada should not ban anything that allows all people of any religion to believe and worship how they see fit. Nor am I saying that anyone needs to give up their identities, religions or beliefs or culture. You don't get it, do you? It is not about beliefs here, it is about actions. It is about doctrines that preach hate and intolerance and the actions that those doctrines incite. It is also about the systems that support those doctrines. They have no place in Canadian society.

Tolerance does not mean that you accept every hair-brained idea that comes along and make it Canadian. It means that you examine it with an open mind, you discuss it, you debate it and you vote on it. Canadians have done that with Sharia and have rejected it. That is that is the process in a free and democratic society, unlike those that live under Sharia.

 

[toby]

Regardless of one's opinions of Sharia Law, I sgest that the issue should be, "is there something in Sharia law, as it applies to banking operations, that should give us concern?

If yes, then perhaps some might wish to boycott HSBC in Canada, for "Shariah banking atrocities" outside Canada.

If "no", then all the other talk about how horrid Shariah Law outside banking practices is irrelevant. One mark of tolerance in Canada is that we don't practise guilt by association, and we don't impose our morality on others offshore. If HSBC endorses inoffensive "Shariah banking law" in Islamic communities, but does not endorse the other atrocities cited by PommeDeRoute, then whare's the worry?

That is the analysis I would like to see, PommeDeRoute.

Let's strive to leave racial and religious dogma and feuds outside our borders if we can.

 

[PommeDeRoute]

I think what is required here is a little courage to say that a set of hateful, violent, intolerant laws have no place in Canada at all, in banking or elsewhere.

It would also be like saying, "Banking according to Nazi law in Canada is perfectly OK as long as there are no concentrations camps here." To say that all questions about Nazism beyond banking would, I think, be cowardly.

Should we make sure we remain nice, tolerant, polite Canadians and let the nice Germans keep their culture?

 

[toby]

If offering banking products according to Sharian Law in any way supports the atrocities you mentioned, then by all means boycott.
But you’ve not made that case.

I am at a loss to know what “Shariah-appropriate” products are, so I can’t give real examples. But I have read that one Shariah Law prohibits charging interest. Yet a bank must make money somehow. So, to fabricate an example, lets say that HSBC charges a commission instead of charging interest, and this allows Shariah adherents to bank at HSBC.

Further, let’s make a reasonable assumption that there are at least a few adherents who do not actually cut off arms and commit the other atrocities you cited. So, when a Shariah-adherent person walks into a Shariah-compliant branch at HSBC and pays a commission instead of interest on a mortgage, what do you want HSBC to do? Refuse to serve that person because of the possibility that that customer might commit a Shariah-motivated atrocity?

Using your example of Nazism, during WWII should banks have refused to serve any German who could not prove he or she was NOT a Nazi because of the possibility he might later persecute Jews?

Or in the American south, should all banks refuse service to anyone NOT able to show they or their relatives were never KKK members, or are pro-lifers, etc etc?

Where does this sort of ethical imperialism end? You may think your stance on Shariah Law perfectly reasonable, and I might agree with you (aided by more evidence from you, albeit), but once we must be very careful before we accept the principle of expecting business to cater to our particular ethical beliefs. There does not seem to be a reasonable limit once the momentum begins. We don’t want to become a nation of Rush Limbaughs, replacing others’ intolerances with our own.

And no, you don’t have ”courage “ exclusively on your side, just because you think you’re right and all others wrong.

 

[New2Canada]

Should the name Hussein automatically disqualify a person running for American presidency because many people were prosecuted by a man called Hussein?

I am glad MANY, if not most. Americans don't think so.

I heard there was a rush of American citizens running away from the US to Canada due to Barack Hussein Obama's presidency. Sad, but true. I wonder if any of us around here were one of those.

 

[PommeDeRoute]

Here is more evidence:

This guy, Yusef al-Qaradawi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi#Suicide_bombings, who states, regarding suicide bombings "I consider this type of martyrdom operation as an evidence of God's justice," leads the European Council for Fatwa and Research, which advises Islamic banks in Britain on Sharia compliance. According to this article http://www.thehollandtimes.nl/Economics.html?artikel=129, he is the brains behind the Muslim Brotherhood, a financer of terrorist organizations.

This is what Wikipedia has to say about the Muslim Brotherhood:

* The Brotherhood is widely believed to have had a `secret apparatus` responsible for terrorist attacks in Egypt including the assassination of Egypt's prime minister in 1948[42] and the president of Egypt in 1981[43]
* According to Rachel Aspden's article, 'The Rise of the Brotherhood,' The Muslim Brotherhood currently advocates suicide bombing attacks on civilians to fight Zionism, and its Palestinian wing Hamas[44] targets both civilians and the military in Israel.
* Newsweek journalists Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff report connections between al-Qaeda and Brotherhood figures Mamoun Darkazanli and Youssef Nada.[45]
* A similar article in the Financial Times reported financial links between 74-year-old Swiss Muslim convert, businessman and neo-Nazi Ahmed Huber, and MB members, notably Youssef Nada, Ali Ghaleb Himmat and who founded the Al Taqwa Bank. According to the U.S. government, Al Taqwa "has long acted as financial advisers to al-Qaeda." Huber himself is noted in Europe for his links with alleged neo-Nazi and other far right elements.[46][47] He is reported to have "confirmed" having "had contact with associates of Osama bin Laden at an Islamic conference in Beirut," whom he called `very discreet, well-educated, very intelligent people.`[46]
* Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, an "expert in the art of deception" was an influential lobbyist and founder and head of the Brotherhood-linked American Muslim Council before being convicted and sentenced to 23 years in prison for conspiracy to murder Saudi Prince Abdullah at the behest of Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi.[48]
* An important aspect of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology is the sanctioning of Jihad such as the 2004 fatwa issued by Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi making it a religious obligation of Muslims to abduct and kill USA citizens in Iraq.


And again, New2Canada, you miss my entire point. We are not talking about NAMES, OR BELIEFS, OR RELIGION OR CULTURE. We are talking about VIOLENT ACTIONS AND HATE.

What I would like to know is why you have such contempt for Canada, for the West, for our values and for the things that attract thousands to our shores every single year, year after year? Why support organizations and systems and doctrines and ideologies and people who seek to destroy those things?

 

[New2Canada]

Everyone condemns repressive laws but you missed Toby's and my point that Islamic Banking itself is not repressive.

All the examples you have given have nothing to do with Islamic Banking. Please make the link that transacting in Islamic Banking leads one to support any sort of repressive laws.

I do not support any organization that uses violence to achieve its means but I do support plurality in any society and that part of accepting plurality is allowing members of that society to lead a life in pursuit of happiness especially if it does not hinge on other's misery. Now, Islamic banking doesn't bring any misery to anyone else and hence, people wishing to transact using such means should be allowed to do so.

You are assuming that I have contempt for Canada or the west. Did you see that I wrote good thing about the US above, implying people are more interested with potential of a presidential candidate than his genealogy or his name. Just because I disagree with you doesn't imply that I am anti-west. Where in the world did I say I dislike the west. Yes, the west as with any cultural entity has done bad things in its history. That is not something anyone can deny. The holocaust is one such example. But saying I hate the holocaust doesn't imply I hate the west. I do hate the specific people who committed it.

I am proud that I am in the US which had great people like Barack and McCain running for elections. Both will never generalize Islamic Banking to be bad, just because they fight Islamic fundamentalists. McCain openly castigated a woman for calling Barack an Arab

Finally, let me leave you with a thought. Members of the US congress like James Strom Thurmond not only encouraged but fought on the side of segregationists. Does this make all ideals of the US government bad? (By asking this rhetorical question, I am obviously implying that ideals of the US government is not bad and hence not anti-west). Yusul-al-Qaradawi is no less or no more worse person than James was in heydays. The big difference is that Yusef threatens your life, but being caucasian were hardly impacted by James' action. There are many members of the US government who were part of the KKK but this doesn't mean the US government is bad. That is what you fail to understand. There are good policies and bad policies and Islamic banking is not a bad system. What is bad is that Yusef was doing. Just because he was the head of Islamic banking in Britain doesn't make Islamic Banking bad. Anyway, enough with the fear-mongering.

 

[rupeshhari]

Why don't you make a link between practicing Islamic banking leads to those violent actions and hate? I still haven't seen you making the link. All I have seen is you making a link between a violent man who used Islamic banking as a means to fund his violence. I am sure he used western type of banking too. For sure, the perpetrators of 9/11 used western style banking to fund their terror. This in no way implies that we should close down western type of banking.

 

[PommeDeRoute]

I can keep providing evidence and you can keep rationalizing and we can go on and on. What more evidence can I provide than a leading authority on Islamic banking in Britain who finances terrorism? This individual helps control a major part of banking in the United Kingdom and has been proven to finance terrorism. What other links would you like me to show you?

My point is Islamic banking is banking according to Sharia and Sharia is an oppressive set of laws that codifies hate, intolerance and violence.

New2Canada, did I say all ideals of Islam are bad? No, only the doctrines of hate, violence and intolerance, just like the ones of Strom Thurmond. I would no more condone a system of banking based on Apartheid or racism than I would condone one based on Sharia.

The reason why I talked about having contempt for the west and for Canada is because Sharia has already been the subject of rigorous debate here and it has been rejected. That is the democratic process and yet it seems that we are being held hostage by a determined minority here in Canada as well as by international interests who continue to try to impose this nonsense on us. And you know what? They are succeeding because they are preying on our well-intentioned laws on human rights and our fear of being branded racists. Take a look at this: http://ezralevant.com/2009/12/two-fascinating-years-in-the-b.html. This is why courage is required. I believe that acting in any other way is to have contempt for the west.

And finally, rupeshhari, you say that this individual probably used "western" banks to finance his criminal activities, too, and you ask rhetorically whether this means we should shut down western banking. Presumably you mean that since he used western banks in addition to Islamic banks it somehow makes Islamic banking OK. For one thing, we don't have a major international terrorist financer holding the reigns of the western banking system (there is no "western" banking system anyway, no one system of banking that adheres to "western" laws") and if this individual did use "western" banks to finance his criminal activities, all it means is that we need even tighter anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing laws. It does not mean that we need to allow banking based on Sharia because terrorists are just going to use the western banks to finance their hate and violence. What you are saying is, "Who cares? It's going to happen anyway so why bother trying to stop it?"

 

[toby]

There are (now) four of us engaged in this debate. We will soon be three if the tenor doesn’t change immediately. I have a lot of time for intelligent discussion; no time at all for head butting.

In discussion, participants are willing to listen to other points of view and perhaps learn something. In debate, which is where we are now, the purpose is to win points with rhetoric and by twisting what the other says.

PommeDeRoute, I do believe we are all in agreement that terrorism of any type has no place in Canada. Neither has bullying, where one faction seeks to impose it own view on others, and stop criticism with bully tactics like the court challenges mounted by Islamic extremists.

But when Rupsehari asked a key question, “Why don't you make a link between practicing Islamic banking leads to those violent actions and hate?”, which is what I am wondering too, you did not make the link. Not for me at any rate. I have read and re-read your reply, and what I see is sophistry, a skilled debater trying to win points by rebutting and ridiculing the others’ point of view.

Re-stated, I believe that your main point is this: by accommodating Sharia customers, HSBC is supporting Sharia Law and its atrocities.
Have I got that right? If so, please concisely explain for us:

• Are all adherents to Sharia Law extremists?
• Is a bank that provides Sharia-compliant products (whatever they may be) in effect a supporter of Sharia law, hence atrocities?

My mind is still open on this issue. But I must say that in scanning the following article, I did not find any ready reference to extremism. In fact, the author seems quite a reasonable, likeable person, and an adherent to Sharia Law.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/sharia_1.shtml

I await your elucidation. But insult me, or try to manipulate me by telling me I lack courage for not agreeing with you, and I will dismiss you as a would-be bully.

 

[PommeDeRoute]

To answer briefly, because I'm getting tired and am short on time at the moment:

What do you mean by adherent? If you mean people who simply happen to live under Sharia, then no; no more than all South Africans or Southerners were racists. But if I morally and psychologically support a system that condones violence, murder and hatred, then I would call that extremism, yes.

How can a bank that conducts business based on Sharia NOT be a supporter of Sharia law?

 

[toby]

“What do you mean by adherent? If you mean people who simply happen to live under Sharia, then no; no more than all South Africans or Southerners were racists.”

Seems reasonable. So, if you are saying that not all “Sharians” (for want of a better term at present) are extremists, does it follow that some “Sharians” could disagree with cutting off hands for theft, even though Sharia Law countenances this? Can this distinction be made or is it cutting things too finely?

There might be room for this distinction if Sharia Law countenances cutting off hands for theft only in extreme cases, and leaves a lot of room for clemency. While the practice itself leaves us aghast, if it is used sparingly, and effectively (the article I cited points out, there are very few handless people running around Sharia communities), then I certainly would think more before rushing to condemn.

And selective use of punishments – even ones bizarre to us -- is not equivalent to spreading hatred. Not necessarily. I have yet to read that Sharianism foments hatred, except in the examples you have cited. Knowing how the press love sensationalist stories, it is conceivable that a few extremists have misrepresented Sharianism to us.

It bears study, before acting. But if, after consideration, it is clear that Sharianism foments hatred, I will agree with you.

But first, where’s the evidence? If you repeat that you’ve already given the evidence, then I think you miss my point – either because I have failed to articulate it clearly, or because you choose to misunderstand me.

Understand me: I am not an apologist for Sharia Law. I am simply trying to understand the Law before I decide whether to condemn HSBC for offering “Sharia compliant” products in Sharia communities.

You ask “How can a bank that conducts business based on Sharia NOT be a supporter of Sharia law?” I reply that you have put it backwards. You made the charge, so it not up to others to exculpate HSBC; rather, it is up to you to show that such a bank is a supporter of Sharia-sponsored hatred, and repeating sensational stories, and promoting guilt by association, is not enough.

 

[PommeDeRoute]

You know, the more evidence I provide, the more it appalled I become at what I am reading. There is a plethora of evidence out there that Islamic banking finances hate and violence and intolerance and murder. You know, I am not even trying to belittle or discredit or dismiss anyone's arguments here. I think the sort of information below speaks for itself. That is why any arguments in support of this nonsense seem ridiculous in comparison. Honest people do not want to believe the worst in others. But the worst in others is right there under our noses and we are choosing to look away.

I refuse to look away.

Sure individual "Sharians" are may disagree with aspects of Sharia, but it is a doctrine of systematic, codified hate, murder and intolerance. Consider these points from http://www.nevilleawards.com/islamic_banking2.shtml:

Tenets of Shariah

In his essay, "Islamic Finance or Financing Islamism," Alex Alexiev outlined the following tenets of Shariah taken from "The Reliance of the Traveler: The Classic Manual of Sacred Law":

• A woman is eligible for only half of the inheritance of a man
• A virgin may be married against her will by her father or grandfather
• A woman may not leave the house without her husband's permission
• A Muslim man may marry four women, including Christians and Jews; a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim
• Beating an insubordinate wife is permissible
• Female sexual mutilation is obligatory
• Adultery [or the perception of adultery] is punished by death by stoning
• Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a religious obligation
• Apostasy from Islam is punishable by death without trial
• Lying to infidels in time of jihad is permissible (What makes you think that they are being honest with you about their intentions?)

And further from the same source:

“Shariah finance institutions that have funded militant Islamism for more than 30 years. Alexiev cites Islamic Development Bank's hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Hamas in support of suicide bombing. Bank Al-Taqwa and other banks and charities run by Saudi billionaires have funded al-Qaida activities.

Additionally, Shariah law mandates that Muslims donate 2.5 percent of their annual incomes to charities - including jihadists. When 400 banks regularly contribute to such charities, potential financial sums can be virtually limitless.”

And again from the same source:

“Shariah Compliant Finance (SCF) is based on a Shariah Law, which is a politicized and radical doctrine found not in the Koran but in man-made compilations of Muhammad’s life. (In fact, the Koran only says the word “Shariah” once and it isn’t referring to jurisprudence, but is just a word meaning “right path.”) It doesn’t allow women to leave their house without their husband’s permission, it allows men to beat insubordinate wives, slavery is permitted and legitimate, adultery is punished by death, and homosexuals are to be killed, to name just a few.

Shariah Law is practiced by the most radical of Islamists, but they constantly work to convince much of the Islamic world that it is the one true way to end western culture and return to the proper ways of Islam. The growth of Shariah followers allows these Islamists to have great economic power…”
“SCF also requires business/banks who are engaged in Shariah transactions to contribute zakat, or a 2.5% donation to Muslim charity. While this sounds good, al Qaeda was able to receive between $300 and $500 million from zakat contributors who used a web of charities and front companies to funnel money through Islamic banks. We have also seen this in the U.S. as zakat was sent to the Holy Land Foundation, which is currently being prosecuted by the Department of Justice, and they in turn sent funds to Hamas.”

“Perhaps even scarier than a business that becomes SCF and unknowingly sends zakat funds to terrorists, thus causing the complete collapse of that business, is the fact that many countries are using Sovereign Wealth Funds, government funds, to buy up large tracks of real estate and businesses. For instance, Abu Dhabi, the government, bought a 75% stake in the NYC Chrysler Building. If they decide the Chrysler building must be Shariah compliant, then all ATMs must be removed because they charge interest if you don't have the right bank card. Also, all business tenants in the building would have to prove they are Shariah compliant and do no business related to futures trading, alcohol or pork products, etc. If they are not Shariah compliant, they could be evicted. This is just an example, but countries and investors could hire radical SCF scholars to support their right to evict tenets and claim “religious freedoms” to do so.”

From http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30909:

“The 12-point handbook rests on shari'a interpretations of MB founder Hassan al-Banna, who in 1928 envisioned a caliphate (Islamic empire) to impose shari'a law globally. To establish the universal Islamic state, the plan orders Muslims to conduct “gradual, parallel work to control local power centers ...[with] institutional work as means to this end” and create “special Islamic economic, social and other institutions,” as well as “necessary economic institutions” to fund spreading fundamentalist Islam.”

“The MB invented shari'a banking and finance in the 20th century to implement classical financial jihad (jihad bi al-mal) and the Islamic statutes requiring it. Al Banna designed the political, economic and financial foundations that give 21st century Muslims tools to fulfill this classical form of jihad, mandated by and central to the Qur'an.”

 

[toby]

Most thoughtful. Thanks for this starting point. I will - to be objective -- seek other research to arrive at a balance position, and then I will report here.

But first I feel it necessary to consult other authorities on Shariah Law. Your sources quote each other too frequently, thus perhaps reinforcing each others' viewpoints (or preconceptions?) rather than examining them critically.

I want to determine whether there is room for individual interpretation of Shariah Law, or whether every devotee of Shariah Law must necessarily be a supporter of all of Shariah's dictates, including Jihad (hence terrorism). If the latter is true, then a bank providing Shariah-compliant services would indeed seem to be promoting the end result -- terrorism. But if the former is true, then a bank providing Shariah products is not necessarily supporting the more extreme forms of the Law, and is not supporting terrorism necessarily.

An analogy would be a bank serving Christian customers in a community where all customers are radical fundamentalists, and quote from the Bible to justify killing doctors who perform abortions. Is such a bank indirectly supporting extremism? Yes.

But if the bank is operating in a community where only a small part of the Christian customer base are extremists, then no, we cannot fairly accuse the bank of complicity in abortion-related killings.

We might want to require the bank to serve selectively, canvas its customers and expel the extremists, but that is a quite different issue.

So, back in a while.