Hany Salah, IOL Correspondent
CAIRO – The formation of an Islamic party is sparking a heated debate in Bulgaria within the Muslim community and the official establishment, amid fears of straining ethnic cohesion in the south-eastern European country.
“I do not think the formation of this party serves Bulgaria’s Muslims,” Arif Abdullah, former chairman of the Islamic Union for Development and Culture, told IslamOnline.net over the phone from Sofia.
“This is a hasty and uncalculated step.”
The Muslim Democratic Union was formed in the northern village of Slavyanovo on September 29 and Ali Yuzeirov was elected its chair.
The party, which is yet to be registered, was founded through 680 written declarations.
The news drew cautious reactions from the official establishment.
“The creation of a similar formation undoubtedly causes tension,” warned President Georgi Parvanov.
“I think the response of the public institutions was adequate.”
But the founders are defending their actions.
“The party respects the moral values which all faiths promote, including Islam,” Yuzeirov told IOL.
He said the name of the party does not mean it would be Islamic in its regulations and bylaws.
“It will be just like the registered Christian Democratic Party which respects Christian values. Our party would similarly respect Islamic values.”
Yuzeirov asserts that the party’s membership would be open to all Bulgarians.
“Every one, either Muslim or non-Muslim, can join as long as they adhere to the moral values promoted by all faiths.
“The party would defend the rights of all Bulgarians, including Muslims.”
Muslims, who make up 12 percent of Bulgaria's 7.8 million population, have lived with Christians in relative harmony for centuries.
Mostly ethnic Turkish descendants of the Ottoman Empire's reach into Europe, they live beside Christians in a culture known as "komshuluk", or neighborly relations.
Concerns
Still, some are fearful the party’s formation could strain ethnic cohesion in the European country.
“This would fuel tension between Muslims and Christians,” fears Hussein Ouda, an activist of Palestinian backgrounds.
He is worried that some nationalist parties would use the new party to incite against Muslims.
“Whoever wants to seek a new political party should be familiar with the society where they live and not embroil Muslims in such dangerous adventures.”
Abdullah, the former chairman of the Islamic Union for Development and Culture, agrees.
“The Yuzeirovs don’t have the popularity to win the elections.”
Ouda noted that the Yuzeirov brothers sparked a storm recently after forming a charity, the Bulgarian Red Crescent,” with the crescent as its emblem.
“The controversy only died down after the two brothers added the cross to the emblem upon an advice from key Muslim figures,” he added.
“Good intentions are not enough. Enthusiasm should be coupled with awareness of the reality on the ground and wisdom in dealing with it so as not to provoke the broader society.”
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Why did Hinduism never become an 'organised' religion like Christianity or Islam?
Wendy Doniger Interview (4 October 2009)
Daily News and Analysis, October 4, 2009
Why did Hinduism never become an 'organised' religion like Christianity or Islam?
by G Sampath / DNA
Mumbai: When the Romans (after converting to Christianity) and the Muslims conquered a big piece of the world, they needed religion to do it. But Hinduism could remain diverse because Indian rulers felt no need to build an empire beyond the sub-continent, says one of the world's foremost scholars of Hinduism, Wendy Doniger, in her new book, The Hindus: An Alternative History. Seen in this light, the Hindutva project is a belated political enterprise aimed at homogenising the diversity of Hindu religious expressions and present a unitary front against Islam and Christianity, although that goes against the very essence of Hinduism, she tells DNA in an exclusive interview.
What prompted you to write The Hindus: An Alternative History? Did it originate as a series of class lectures?
In a way, all of my books originate as class lectures; I find myself teaching a subject I'm interested in, and discover that none of the available books on the subject tell the students what I want them to know.For The Hindus, that feeling was intensified by the growing realisation that the things that were being said about Hinduism on the internet, particularly but not only by the Hindutva faction, needed to be counteracted by a view of Hindu history documented by reliable sources.
In what way is this book an 'alternative history'?
It's alternative to the internet/Hindutva version of Hindu history, but also to the standard, Orientalist, British version (all about Brahmins and Sanskrit), and it's about alternative people -- women and people of the lower castes.
Never powered an empire
Your book makes the point that 'Hinduism' has never been as 'organised' or 'homogenous' as the Semitic religions, such as Islam or Christianity. Why do you think this 'homogenisation' didn't happen in the evolution of Hinduism?
I think Hinduism has developed in a world where there has always been intense, creative religious inquiry, which necessarily gives rise to a number of different myths and rituals. Hindus of any faction grew up in close interaction with Hindus of many other beliefs and practices. I think Hindus have also had from the time of the Rig Veda a conviction that there are always many answers to any question. And, finally, I think that those branches of Hinduism that do become rigid generally do so in the realm of praxis -- you must not eat this or marry this person -- rather than dogma -- you must not believe this.
But what is it about Islam and Christianity that is different from Hinduism, which contributed to their homogenisation at an earlier date? Did politics contribute to it? If so, why didn't political forces have the same effect on Hinduism?
The difference lies in their histories. The emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and the Romans then conquered a big piece of the world, and the Muslims also conquered a big piece of the world, but Indian rulers did not invade countries outside of the subcontinent. And while the forces that conquered the world used religion to do it, and made their religions into dogmas that could be governed from the imperialist center, with a centralised, standardised ideology, India in general, and Hinduism in particular, could afford to go on being diverse, since they didn't need a political/religious creed to power the machines of empire.
How do you read the Hindutva project? Is it a belated attempt to 'organise' the diversity of Hindu religious expressions into a unitary faith modelled on the Semitic religions?
I think the attempt to make Hinduism a unitary religion like the Semitic religions began first with the British, who wanted to have just one thing to control, and then was picked up by the Hindu nationalists of the 19th century, who wanted to present a united front to the Christian missionaries. The Hindutva project inherits both of these traditions, as well as the desire to present a unitary front against Islam as well as Christianity.
Many believe that the Hindutva project to revive a homogenous Hinduism is born of an "inferiority complex" among the semi-westernised, middle- and upper-middle class Hindu nationalists, in relation to their colonial rulers.
British missionaries persuaded some of the upper caste Hindus of the 19th century that (Christianity's) monotheism was superior to (Hinduism's) polytheism, which is a kind of inferiority complex, I guess.This led to a tendency (still in evidence today in Hindutva rhetoric) among Hindus to insist that Hinduism is, in fact, monotheistic.
Coversions and Hinduism
Conversions (forced or otherwise) is a big issue in India today. Speaking for myself, as a Hindu, the idea of anyone 'converting' to Hinduism makes no sense to me. Can you throw some light on the historical background of conversions vis-à-vis Hindusim?
Christian attempts to convert Hindus to Christianity, as well as much less prevalent earlier Musim attempts to convert Hindus to Islam, led to a counter-movement of this sort in Hinduism. But most Hindus, the Hindus of the Vedic, Puranic, and village traditions, have never cared to convert anyone; you were born a Hindu or you weren't, and that was that. I agree with you that for most Hindus, conversion makes no sense. Hinduism therefore, by and large, is not a proselytising religion as Buddhism, for instance, always was. However, some bhakti traditions and some Vedantic traditions became monotheistic and did try to convert people -- primarily other Hindus -- to their sort of Hinduism. But this is not at all the same thing as trying to convert Muslims or Christians to Hinduism (or back to Hinduism, as it is often claimed), as the contemporary Hindutva people do.
On Sita, you write, "she [Sita] is, like Shurpanaka, a highly sexual woman, a quality that may explain not only why Ravana desires her but also why he is able to carry her off." Are you suggesting that she collaborated in her own kidnapping?
No, no, certainly Sita did not collaborate in her own kidnapping! But there was a belief, often expressed in the Puranas and parts of the Mahabharata and Ramayana, that a virtuous woman had a kind of aura that protected her from being touched by any man other than her husband; this actually worked, in part, to keep Ravana from forcing Sita into his bed when she was captive in Sri Lanka (though the Ramayana also goes out of its way to offer another explanation: Ravana had raped an apsara whose husband cursed Ravana that his head would split apart if he ever took another woman against her will. This seems to imply that Sita would not have been protected merely by her moral armour, and the author had to offer another explanation for the otherwise surprising fact that Ravana never did assault her, as he might have done). Moreover, Sita's desire for the golden deer caused her to violate her husband's command to remain within the protected area he had established for her. So I am saying that Sita was not an ascetic, was not totally in control of her emotions, and that was why Ravana could fool her.
Are you aware that some Hindu academics in America have accused you of being a "Hinduphobe" and charged you with "out-of-context eroticising of Indian culture"?
I sure do know that people keep quoting that remark about the Gita that was made up by some reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer years and years ago and that I never said.Oh, do please try to set that record straight! There is nothing that I have ever said or written to suggest that I fear Hinduism, which is what Hinduphobe would mean, nor that I hate it, as I have been accused of doing. In answer to the accusation that I have eroticised Hinduism, I should point out that only a few of my 30-odd books deal with sex or eroticism at all; all the others deal with karma, evil, dreams, history, the laws of Manu, and a host of other things. It is my critics who are sex-obsessed, who pounce upon those aspects of my work that do treat erotic topics and ignore all the rest.
Tantra: Orientalist's wet dream
You write that the Tantra tradition of Hinduism has undergone great distortions and become an "Orientalist's wet dream." Can you explain?
Well, one of the meanings of Orientalism is a view of the 'Orient' that is titillating and salacious, that assumes that 'Orientals' are all over-sexed, and so forth; views that I regard as stupid and politically driven, and that show a total lack of understanding of Hindu views of sexuality and eroticism. A wet dream is a sexual fantasy that excites the dreamer. So I think that the sort of Westerners who still hold Orientalist views of India find Tantra titillating in that way. I tried to show that the Tantric tradition in India is anything but titillating, that it has nothing at all to do with sexual excitement but is rather about sexual control and the creation of religious power.
Does New Age 'Tantric Sex' bear any relationship to what Tantra was supposed to be originally?
We don't know what Tantra was supposed to be 'originally', but we do know what is said by the earliest Tantric texts that we have, and those texts bear no relationship at all to the doctrines of New Age 'Tantric Sex.'
Daily News and Analysis, October 4, 2009
Why did Hinduism never become an 'organised' religion like Christianity or Islam?
by G Sampath / DNA
Mumbai: When the Romans (after converting to Christianity) and the Muslims conquered a big piece of the world, they needed religion to do it. But Hinduism could remain diverse because Indian rulers felt no need to build an empire beyond the sub-continent, says one of the world's foremost scholars of Hinduism, Wendy Doniger, in her new book, The Hindus: An Alternative History. Seen in this light, the Hindutva project is a belated political enterprise aimed at homogenising the diversity of Hindu religious expressions and present a unitary front against Islam and Christianity, although that goes against the very essence of Hinduism, she tells DNA in an exclusive interview.
What prompted you to write The Hindus: An Alternative History? Did it originate as a series of class lectures?
In a way, all of my books originate as class lectures; I find myself teaching a subject I'm interested in, and discover that none of the available books on the subject tell the students what I want them to know.For The Hindus, that feeling was intensified by the growing realisation that the things that were being said about Hinduism on the internet, particularly but not only by the Hindutva faction, needed to be counteracted by a view of Hindu history documented by reliable sources.
In what way is this book an 'alternative history'?
It's alternative to the internet/Hindutva version of Hindu history, but also to the standard, Orientalist, British version (all about Brahmins and Sanskrit), and it's about alternative people -- women and people of the lower castes.
Never powered an empire
Your book makes the point that 'Hinduism' has never been as 'organised' or 'homogenous' as the Semitic religions, such as Islam or Christianity. Why do you think this 'homogenisation' didn't happen in the evolution of Hinduism?
I think Hinduism has developed in a world where there has always been intense, creative religious inquiry, which necessarily gives rise to a number of different myths and rituals. Hindus of any faction grew up in close interaction with Hindus of many other beliefs and practices. I think Hindus have also had from the time of the Rig Veda a conviction that there are always many answers to any question. And, finally, I think that those branches of Hinduism that do become rigid generally do so in the realm of praxis -- you must not eat this or marry this person -- rather than dogma -- you must not believe this.
But what is it about Islam and Christianity that is different from Hinduism, which contributed to their homogenisation at an earlier date? Did politics contribute to it? If so, why didn't political forces have the same effect on Hinduism?
The difference lies in their histories. The emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and the Romans then conquered a big piece of the world, and the Muslims also conquered a big piece of the world, but Indian rulers did not invade countries outside of the subcontinent. And while the forces that conquered the world used religion to do it, and made their religions into dogmas that could be governed from the imperialist center, with a centralised, standardised ideology, India in general, and Hinduism in particular, could afford to go on being diverse, since they didn't need a political/religious creed to power the machines of empire.
How do you read the Hindutva project? Is it a belated attempt to 'organise' the diversity of Hindu religious expressions into a unitary faith modelled on the Semitic religions?
I think the attempt to make Hinduism a unitary religion like the Semitic religions began first with the British, who wanted to have just one thing to control, and then was picked up by the Hindu nationalists of the 19th century, who wanted to present a united front to the Christian missionaries. The Hindutva project inherits both of these traditions, as well as the desire to present a unitary front against Islam as well as Christianity.
Many believe that the Hindutva project to revive a homogenous Hinduism is born of an "inferiority complex" among the semi-westernised, middle- and upper-middle class Hindu nationalists, in relation to their colonial rulers.
British missionaries persuaded some of the upper caste Hindus of the 19th century that (Christianity's) monotheism was superior to (Hinduism's) polytheism, which is a kind of inferiority complex, I guess.This led to a tendency (still in evidence today in Hindutva rhetoric) among Hindus to insist that Hinduism is, in fact, monotheistic.
Coversions and Hinduism
Conversions (forced or otherwise) is a big issue in India today. Speaking for myself, as a Hindu, the idea of anyone 'converting' to Hinduism makes no sense to me. Can you throw some light on the historical background of conversions vis-à-vis Hindusim?
Christian attempts to convert Hindus to Christianity, as well as much less prevalent earlier Musim attempts to convert Hindus to Islam, led to a counter-movement of this sort in Hinduism. But most Hindus, the Hindus of the Vedic, Puranic, and village traditions, have never cared to convert anyone; you were born a Hindu or you weren't, and that was that. I agree with you that for most Hindus, conversion makes no sense. Hinduism therefore, by and large, is not a proselytising religion as Buddhism, for instance, always was. However, some bhakti traditions and some Vedantic traditions became monotheistic and did try to convert people -- primarily other Hindus -- to their sort of Hinduism. But this is not at all the same thing as trying to convert Muslims or Christians to Hinduism (or back to Hinduism, as it is often claimed), as the contemporary Hindutva people do.
On Sita, you write, "she [Sita] is, like Shurpanaka, a highly sexual woman, a quality that may explain not only why Ravana desires her but also why he is able to carry her off." Are you suggesting that she collaborated in her own kidnapping?
No, no, certainly Sita did not collaborate in her own kidnapping! But there was a belief, often expressed in the Puranas and parts of the Mahabharata and Ramayana, that a virtuous woman had a kind of aura that protected her from being touched by any man other than her husband; this actually worked, in part, to keep Ravana from forcing Sita into his bed when she was captive in Sri Lanka (though the Ramayana also goes out of its way to offer another explanation: Ravana had raped an apsara whose husband cursed Ravana that his head would split apart if he ever took another woman against her will. This seems to imply that Sita would not have been protected merely by her moral armour, and the author had to offer another explanation for the otherwise surprising fact that Ravana never did assault her, as he might have done). Moreover, Sita's desire for the golden deer caused her to violate her husband's command to remain within the protected area he had established for her. So I am saying that Sita was not an ascetic, was not totally in control of her emotions, and that was why Ravana could fool her.
Are you aware that some Hindu academics in America have accused you of being a "Hinduphobe" and charged you with "out-of-context eroticising of Indian culture"?
I sure do know that people keep quoting that remark about the Gita that was made up by some reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer years and years ago and that I never said.Oh, do please try to set that record straight! There is nothing that I have ever said or written to suggest that I fear Hinduism, which is what Hinduphobe would mean, nor that I hate it, as I have been accused of doing. In answer to the accusation that I have eroticised Hinduism, I should point out that only a few of my 30-odd books deal with sex or eroticism at all; all the others deal with karma, evil, dreams, history, the laws of Manu, and a host of other things. It is my critics who are sex-obsessed, who pounce upon those aspects of my work that do treat erotic topics and ignore all the rest.
Tantra: Orientalist's wet dream
You write that the Tantra tradition of Hinduism has undergone great distortions and become an "Orientalist's wet dream." Can you explain?
Well, one of the meanings of Orientalism is a view of the 'Orient' that is titillating and salacious, that assumes that 'Orientals' are all over-sexed, and so forth; views that I regard as stupid and politically driven, and that show a total lack of understanding of Hindu views of sexuality and eroticism. A wet dream is a sexual fantasy that excites the dreamer. So I think that the sort of Westerners who still hold Orientalist views of India find Tantra titillating in that way. I tried to show that the Tantric tradition in India is anything but titillating, that it has nothing at all to do with sexual excitement but is rather about sexual control and the creation of religious power.
Does New Age 'Tantric Sex' bear any relationship to what Tantra was supposed to be originally?
We don't know what Tantra was supposed to be 'originally', but we do know what is said by the earliest Tantric texts that we have, and those texts bear no relationship at all to the doctrines of New Age 'Tantric Sex.'
India: 2.4 million places of worship exceed the 2.1 million schools
The Hindu
Oct 06, 2009
Editorial
Land grab in god’s name
The 2001 Census of India threw up the astonishing statistic that there were 2.4 million places of worship in the country (exceeding the number of schools, at 2.1 million). What it did not divulge of course was that a large number of them were unauthorised, built by encroaching on public land. On the face of it, the Supreme Court’s interim order banning the construction of any temple, church, gurudwara, or mosque on any roadside or other public space may seem like a mere reiteration of the law. But it must be seen in a larger context. It comes in the wake of a controversy over a sensitive issue that has resulted in a recent consensus between the Centre and the States that there would be no fresh construction of places of worship in public spaces. A directive by the Gujarat High Court in 2006 that all illegal structures, including places of worship, should be demolished resulted in violence following the demolition of a dargah in Vadodara. The approach of the Supreme Court, which stayed this directive following an appeal by the Centre, seems to strike a balance between opposing illegal religious structures and being responsive to the law and order problems that could result from their demolition.
Banning fresh construction of unauthorised places of worship is the easy part. The real challenge is to deal with existing illegal places of worship, of which there are an estimated more than 60,000 in Delhi alone. With respect to religious structures obstructing roads and public places, the court has adopted a cautious view — asking State governments and Union Territories to review them on a “case by case” basis and take appropriate steps expeditiously. These places of worship have been constructed through land grabbing in the name of God, usually by anti-social elements out to make a quick buck by exploiting the religious sentiments of the people. The mushrooming of these structures, encouraged by collusive politicians, has taken place under the nose of governmental authorities. They have often chosen to turn a blind eye to the encroachments, which in many places cause traffic snarls and occupy pavement space. The motive behind the defiance of law in such cases is no different from the rampant illegal construction of residential and office spaces; and the enabling factor, weak-kneed law enforcement, is more or less the same. In the case of illegal places of worship, the court is being asked to do what successive governments have failed to do over the years. One hopes that judicial resolve will jolt governments into intervening, without fear or favour, to prevent further construction of illegal religious structures and to find a way of tackling the problem of those that exist.
Oct 06, 2009
Editorial
Land grab in god’s name
The 2001 Census of India threw up the astonishing statistic that there were 2.4 million places of worship in the country (exceeding the number of schools, at 2.1 million). What it did not divulge of course was that a large number of them were unauthorised, built by encroaching on public land. On the face of it, the Supreme Court’s interim order banning the construction of any temple, church, gurudwara, or mosque on any roadside or other public space may seem like a mere reiteration of the law. But it must be seen in a larger context. It comes in the wake of a controversy over a sensitive issue that has resulted in a recent consensus between the Centre and the States that there would be no fresh construction of places of worship in public spaces. A directive by the Gujarat High Court in 2006 that all illegal structures, including places of worship, should be demolished resulted in violence following the demolition of a dargah in Vadodara. The approach of the Supreme Court, which stayed this directive following an appeal by the Centre, seems to strike a balance between opposing illegal religious structures and being responsive to the law and order problems that could result from their demolition.
Banning fresh construction of unauthorised places of worship is the easy part. The real challenge is to deal with existing illegal places of worship, of which there are an estimated more than 60,000 in Delhi alone. With respect to religious structures obstructing roads and public places, the court has adopted a cautious view — asking State governments and Union Territories to review them on a “case by case” basis and take appropriate steps expeditiously. These places of worship have been constructed through land grabbing in the name of God, usually by anti-social elements out to make a quick buck by exploiting the religious sentiments of the people. The mushrooming of these structures, encouraged by collusive politicians, has taken place under the nose of governmental authorities. They have often chosen to turn a blind eye to the encroachments, which in many places cause traffic snarls and occupy pavement space. The motive behind the defiance of law in such cases is no different from the rampant illegal construction of residential and office spaces; and the enabling factor, weak-kneed law enforcement, is more or less the same. In the case of illegal places of worship, the court is being asked to do what successive governments have failed to do over the years. One hopes that judicial resolve will jolt governments into intervening, without fear or favour, to prevent further construction of illegal religious structures and to find a way of tackling the problem of those that exist.
The steady rise of Islamic finance
The banking crisis was avoidable, says Islamic scholar Sheikh Hussain Hussan
London has become one of the biggest centres for Islamic finance in the world, with five Islamic banks, and many others in the high street offering Islamic financial products, or "windows" as they are known.
The growth of Islamic finance has been an unexpected outcome of the attacks on the World Trade Center of 11 September 2001.
Islamic finance is based on rules from Islam's holy texts - the Koran. Scholars claim the fundamental difference to conventional banking is that Islamic finance is more ethical.
First it bans any form of "riba" or interest, preventing consumers being exploited by high rates of borrowing.
'Sinful'
Secondly, it regards speculative trading as sinful. One of the world's leading experts on Islamic finance, Sheikh Hussain Hassan, argues the whole crisis in Western banking could have been avoided if these basic sharia principles had been followed.
He said: "$600 trillion were wasted on options, futures and derivatives, all gambling. Sharia prohibited these kind of risks 14 centuries back." We have a policy of no obstacles, no special favours, towards Islamic banking or indeed any new financial company
Financial Services Authority
Some Muslims regard ordinary mortgages as sinful. The idea is for the lender and the borrower to share the risk. There are now more products on the market which help Muslims buy a house without paying interest.
The most common form of Islamic home purchase loan works like this: When a couple wants to buy a house, instead of borrowing the money, the Islamic bank buys 80% of the house for them.
The couple puts down a deposit for the other 20% and then pays the bank rent, plus regular portions of the capital. During the fixed period, ownership gradually passes from the bank to the buyer.
But if the borrower loses his job and defaults on the payments, under sharia law it is very difficult for the family to be thrown out of their home, as that would be seen as a creditor exploiting a debtor.
These interest-avoiding transactions can work on a bigger scale as well.
Farmida Bi explains why London is now attracting Muslim investment
The old Chelsea Barracks in London was bought by the Qatari government for nearly £1bn - the biggest residential property deal in the UK.
The entire transaction was done under sharia pinciples, with contracts drawn up by lawyers at Norton Rose.
Farmida Bi, one of the law firm's partners, explained that London has attracted this kind of investment because the British government wooed Islamic money in the wake of 9/11, at the expense of the US.
"It was really September 11th that made being a Muslim a political statement and not just a matter of personal faith," she said.
"And with the Patriot Act, which made investments in the US difficult for many Islamic investors, there was a significant increase in Islamic investors choosing to invest in Islamic institutions and Islamic products."
So while groups in the US were investigating terrorist connections with Islamic banks, Muslim investors pulled their money out of America.
Some of the money got diverted to London, which had traditionally been a banking centre. The British government then helped further by changing regulations to give sharia-compliant funds a level playing field with conventional ones.
Salaam Insurance offers Europe's first sharia-compliant car insurance
A spokesperson for the Financial Services Authority, the body which regulates UK financial services, said: "We have a policy of no obstacles and no special favours towards Islamic banking, or indeed any new financial company."
The desire of British Muslim consumers to affirm their identity is also leading to a growth in new consumer services.
Salaam Insurance has launched Europe's first sharia-compliant car insurance aimed at Britain's 700,000 Muslim drivers.
Bradley Brandon-Cross, its non-Muslim chief executive, finds most Muslims do not yet understand the profit and loss sharing principles of "takaful" that it is based on.
"There's clearly an education campaign we are undertaking for British Muslims, to help them understand what Islamic finance is and what it means for them," he said.
Critics say the Islamic character of the products is merely window dressing to lure in Muslim customers.
And others argue the scholars who authorise them are a narrow group whom financial institutions choose to support their new services.
But this scepticism is unlikely to halt the inexorable growth of Islamic finance - as big investors and growing numbers of Muslim consumers demand it.
London has become one of the biggest centres for Islamic finance in the world, with five Islamic banks, and many others in the high street offering Islamic financial products, or "windows" as they are known.
The growth of Islamic finance has been an unexpected outcome of the attacks on the World Trade Center of 11 September 2001.
Islamic finance is based on rules from Islam's holy texts - the Koran. Scholars claim the fundamental difference to conventional banking is that Islamic finance is more ethical.
First it bans any form of "riba" or interest, preventing consumers being exploited by high rates of borrowing.
'Sinful'
Secondly, it regards speculative trading as sinful. One of the world's leading experts on Islamic finance, Sheikh Hussain Hassan, argues the whole crisis in Western banking could have been avoided if these basic sharia principles had been followed.
He said: "$600 trillion were wasted on options, futures and derivatives, all gambling. Sharia prohibited these kind of risks 14 centuries back." We have a policy of no obstacles, no special favours, towards Islamic banking or indeed any new financial company
Financial Services Authority
Some Muslims regard ordinary mortgages as sinful. The idea is for the lender and the borrower to share the risk. There are now more products on the market which help Muslims buy a house without paying interest.
The most common form of Islamic home purchase loan works like this: When a couple wants to buy a house, instead of borrowing the money, the Islamic bank buys 80% of the house for them.
The couple puts down a deposit for the other 20% and then pays the bank rent, plus regular portions of the capital. During the fixed period, ownership gradually passes from the bank to the buyer.
But if the borrower loses his job and defaults on the payments, under sharia law it is very difficult for the family to be thrown out of their home, as that would be seen as a creditor exploiting a debtor.
These interest-avoiding transactions can work on a bigger scale as well.
Farmida Bi explains why London is now attracting Muslim investment
The old Chelsea Barracks in London was bought by the Qatari government for nearly £1bn - the biggest residential property deal in the UK.
The entire transaction was done under sharia pinciples, with contracts drawn up by lawyers at Norton Rose.
Farmida Bi, one of the law firm's partners, explained that London has attracted this kind of investment because the British government wooed Islamic money in the wake of 9/11, at the expense of the US.
"It was really September 11th that made being a Muslim a political statement and not just a matter of personal faith," she said.
"And with the Patriot Act, which made investments in the US difficult for many Islamic investors, there was a significant increase in Islamic investors choosing to invest in Islamic institutions and Islamic products."
So while groups in the US were investigating terrorist connections with Islamic banks, Muslim investors pulled their money out of America.
Some of the money got diverted to London, which had traditionally been a banking centre. The British government then helped further by changing regulations to give sharia-compliant funds a level playing field with conventional ones.
Salaam Insurance offers Europe's first sharia-compliant car insurance
A spokesperson for the Financial Services Authority, the body which regulates UK financial services, said: "We have a policy of no obstacles and no special favours towards Islamic banking, or indeed any new financial company."
The desire of British Muslim consumers to affirm their identity is also leading to a growth in new consumer services.
Salaam Insurance has launched Europe's first sharia-compliant car insurance aimed at Britain's 700,000 Muslim drivers.
Bradley Brandon-Cross, its non-Muslim chief executive, finds most Muslims do not yet understand the profit and loss sharing principles of "takaful" that it is based on.
"There's clearly an education campaign we are undertaking for British Muslims, to help them understand what Islamic finance is and what it means for them," he said.
Critics say the Islamic character of the products is merely window dressing to lure in Muslim customers.
And others argue the scholars who authorise them are a narrow group whom financial institutions choose to support their new services.
But this scepticism is unlikely to halt the inexorable growth of Islamic finance - as big investors and growing numbers of Muslim consumers demand it.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Why detained Pakistanis, others, not deported, asks court
By IANS,
New Delhi : The Delhi High Court has pulled up the government for detaining many foreigners, particularly Pakistanis, without proper detention order, and wanted to know why these people have not been deported to their countries.
Counsel Arvind Nigam told a bench of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice Manmohan that many foreign nationals have been languishing in Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) deportation camps since 2006 and no effort has been made by the government to deport them.
"Some people have been there for 2-3 years without any detention order," Nigam told the court. The exact number of people detained in these camps is not known.
Last year, 11 detainees wrote a letter to the Chief Justice complaining about the poor conditions of living in deportation camps. They said the camps faced perennial shortage of drinking water and the quality of food served was also poor. The court took the letter as a public interest litigation and initiated legal proceedings.
Government counsel Zubeda Begum said some of the people have been detained for security reasons. Others have been detained for crimes like not possessing proper visa documents and not completing basic immigration formalities.
To this, the court said: "You (government) must detain the person with appropriate legal order."
The court also asked the government counsel whether any exchange of detainees has taken place between India and Pakistan. The petition says that many of the foreign nationals in the camps are Pakistanis. The exact number of Pakistanis in such camps is not known.
"Provide us with the figures as to how many such exchange of prisoners took place (between India and Pakistan). We just can't turn a blind eye to the people who are suffering because of (lack of) diplomatic relations," the bench said.
The court asked the government counsel to consult the union home secretary and file a detailed affidavit as to what is the present status of all the foreigners living in camps by the next date of hearing.
New Delhi : The Delhi High Court has pulled up the government for detaining many foreigners, particularly Pakistanis, without proper detention order, and wanted to know why these people have not been deported to their countries.
Counsel Arvind Nigam told a bench of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice Manmohan that many foreign nationals have been languishing in Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) deportation camps since 2006 and no effort has been made by the government to deport them.
"Some people have been there for 2-3 years without any detention order," Nigam told the court. The exact number of people detained in these camps is not known.
Last year, 11 detainees wrote a letter to the Chief Justice complaining about the poor conditions of living in deportation camps. They said the camps faced perennial shortage of drinking water and the quality of food served was also poor. The court took the letter as a public interest litigation and initiated legal proceedings.
Government counsel Zubeda Begum said some of the people have been detained for security reasons. Others have been detained for crimes like not possessing proper visa documents and not completing basic immigration formalities.
To this, the court said: "You (government) must detain the person with appropriate legal order."
The court also asked the government counsel whether any exchange of detainees has taken place between India and Pakistan. The petition says that many of the foreign nationals in the camps are Pakistanis. The exact number of Pakistanis in such camps is not known.
"Provide us with the figures as to how many such exchange of prisoners took place (between India and Pakistan). We just can't turn a blind eye to the people who are suffering because of (lack of) diplomatic relations," the bench said.
The court asked the government counsel to consult the union home secretary and file a detailed affidavit as to what is the present status of all the foreigners living in camps by the next date of hearing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)