Singing Pig

"and for once I agree with old tony, If people dont like the way  we do things here they should be free to go elsewhere Do we go to the islamic countries and ask them not to impose Sharia law on us brits who want to buy houses in those countries?"

For your information a lot of people who are after these mortgages are born in this country and they are brits like you and anybody else but if you want to bring colour in to the equation then I think you have a problem.

Its upto you what you believe and for lot of people Hindus,Christains,Muslims,Jews its a complete way of life, (and yes business and pleasure is all mixed into it).

Yes words do make a difference too, consent and non consent, can turn a innocent sexual encounter to rape, now thats what words can do.

This thread was about Sharia mortgages and you have turned it into anti this and anti that, I can have debate with you on this matter outside of SP anyday.

Where on earth did I bring colour into the equation? I have not mentioned colour at all and am unlikely too since I have friends of all colours. I have foreign tennants who are coloured but I do not actually know which country they are from since I dont care as there are good and bad people in all races. To me people are humans wherever they happened to be born.

You rightly said this thread was about Sharia Mortgages and these are in effect religious mortgages which I do not see a need for. In this country we have over 20000 residential mortgages let alone the commercial ones. Isnt that enough. There are Sharia Mortgages available in this country as I said mainly from middle eastern lenders but also from the likes of the West Brom bs. I am not against lenders providing either niche products or lenders providing mortgages for their own people but I think the market is regulated by demand and if there was a massive demand for a particular mortgage it would be satisfied. The interesting part is that when we go abroad we get what the laws permit in that country. We would love a 40 yr 90% interest only b2l  worked out on 100% rental at less than 1% over base mortgage on our villa in Cyprus but unfortunately they dont do it that way ( I could get that here). What would happen if I went say to Iran and demanded a Christian mortgage. 

I dont know why I am insulting peoples intelligence by answering this bit but Consent and Non consent are as opposite as yes and no and thats not playing with words. Return on Investment (rent) is measured in percentage just the same as interest is and there are several threads on return of investment on a b2l on this site. Most people see return of investment as interest on their own deposit.

This is a Christian country run by a democratically elected parliament and we should accept that. I have to accept it as an atheist so why shouldnt everyone else. If I dont like it I could shove off elsewhere but I accept things as they are ie Freedom of speech and rules biased in favour of a christian people. Incidentally freedom of speech is the one thing religions hate. Under the rules of this site I have the freedom to write my opinion as long as it is not racist and I am expressing an opinion that religion and business are not a very good mix and that if there is a need for Sharia mortgages Im sure the lenders have looked at it

Lets break it down to the simple stuff

A person wants a property and does not have enough money to buy it so he goes to a lender and one way or another the lender gives him the money and takes ownership of the property until the loan is paid off. The lender wants a return on their money so one pays back a lot more than was borrowed. This happens whether the mortgage is Sharia or not so why on earth do we have to mess about with a whole new set of rules just because some one wants to play with the word interest? You are not happy to pay interest but are happy for someone to pay you interest on your banks investment. 

We have to agree to disagree on this one, Its a demand that that make things happen. If there is demand for housing in a particular area, they will be built. If people want certain products in different coutries, I am sure their demands will be looked into.

For many years people took certain type of mortgages and others just stayed away from the market. They did not go out and held rallies for the Sharia mortgages to be introduced. They accpeted that it might never happen and they stayed away from the mortgage market. The Banks saw a need in this market and they have been introducing the products to tap into this market.

Your are free to say anything within a limit.

We are into buying property and there are many stratagies employed by people to gain control of property, the routes might be different but the end result is the same. There are many routes one can take to go from  london to manchester but the detination is the same. Likewise in property you can go the route of rent 2 own, sraight purchase etc, lets not foget the goal here.

Yes we all know the difference between yes and no and yes you are insulting people who are lefty, righty, greeny, or whatever. We dont all go and laugh at the  Atheist and I have got to laugh at "Thank god I have the intelligence to be an Atheist" and this just says it all who you really are.

The statement "Thank god I have the intelligence to be an Atheist" was deliberately tongue in cheek but it was written as the result of several surveys that showed the better educated one was the more they likely were to be to be Atheist due to the fact that they realised that they were being taken for a ride by the idea of a caring god (of any religion) that created the universe.

What benefits do the Sharia mortgage give the buyer? Is this just a step towards the stated aim of the muslim comunity ie Sharia law in this country. If there is no benefit to the buyer other than the word interest then why bother with them? 

> What benefits do the Sharia mortgage give the buyer?

The ability to pick a financial product that aligns with their faith.

As a Christian, I welcome people of all faiths into the UK. I'm pleased to see that there are Sharia products available, so that those who CHOOSE to follow a strict Islamic lifestyle are free to do so.

I know Moslems who are happy to use non-Sharia mortgages... I also know Catholics who are happy to use condoms... Methodists who drink alcohol... Jews who eat lobster.

Likewise, I know Moslems who adopt a strict Sharia approach to finance, Catholics who adopt the Vatican's rulings on contraception, Methodists who won't touch a drop, and Jews who follow a strictly kosher diet.

Just because SOME Jews eat lobster, I wouldn't argue that selling of Kosher food should be prohibited.

Just because SOME Methodists drink alcohol, I wouldn't argue for the banning of non-alcoholic wine (as is used in Communion in Methodist churches.) 

Just because SOME Moslems have taken out non-Sharia mortages, I wouldn't argue for the banning of a Murabaha property purchase agreement.

Mark
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum

Mark makes some interesting points about peoples hypocracy with regard to religion in that many people only take up the bits they like.The vvarious teachings have been distorted over the years. Mary Magdelen became a prostitute in Catholic teaching unknowingly, i say unknowingly because she had been dead several hundred years before she got the label. Moslems profess that their teaching is one of peace but they stil,have Jihads and the word was originally spread by violence and the sword (as indeed Christianity was)

I think part of me says we should have another thread about religion where perhaps it could be discussed in a friendly and logical manner but the Sharia mortgage is the only religious mortgage in this country (even the Catholic building soc is alledged to lend to non believers) No one has ever asked for a Hindu or Jewish or Bhuddist mortgage

I also am going to disagree with my friend Mark Harrison which is not likely to be good for me as I regard him as probably the most intellectual person on this site so this could be bit of a David and Goliath job.

The first word I dont like is "Faith". Faith is something that one has not experiences or does not know about and faith obstructs truth. Most people have their faith because of something that has been handed down to them or they read in a book. The bible and other religious teachings have been altered over the years but not in light of things found to be true but rather to make the picture fit the current thought. Eg Mary Magdalen was labeled as a prostitute a few hundred years after her death by the Catholics. It is known to not be portraid that way in the original bibles but thats what my school taught. Moslems tell us their faith is one of peace but the religion was spread by violence and the sword (as was christianity) the word Jihad also has not been dropped.

Mark said "As a Christian, I welcome people of all faiths into the UK. I'm pleased to see that there are Sharia products available, so that those who CHOOSE to follow a strict Islamic lifestyle are free to do so".

I think I know where Mark is coming from on this as I too believe in a multicultural society but nethertheless it is a dangerous statement. By welcoming all faiths he seems to be presenting them as of equally valid which I think is wrong. Everybody is entitled to think of their faith as superior to others, be they Moslems, Hindu's Jews or Christians otherwise whats the point in having faith. These faiths have over the years shown themselves to be mutually incompatible,. Therefore one has to think ones faith suprior to another. This is where the Muslim faith worries me because it does not give ground, certainly does think of itself as superior and has been growing over the years. I wonder how Mark will feel if they gain enough numbers to become the dominant religion in this country at which point it will ban all other religions. As I said earlir lets see someone demand a Christian mortgage in an Islamic state. I find it all a bit strange since really Christianity, Islam and Judaism all derived from the old testament and so presumably share the same god which if one reads the old testament you will find what a nasty piece of works he is.

Religion is interesting in that people believe it because it was written down. It never really gets corrected on the grounds of truth or new evidence. The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that teaching Creationism should be abandoned (about 150 years after Darwin showed that it was rubbish) I cannot see how after accepting that God had nothing to do with our creation his religion can go on but it does.. When Science is shown to be incorrect it is quickly corrected by new evidence and scientists work towards the truth but faith does not it carries on accepting what is known to be unlikely or implausible. When there is something a religious person does not understand he attributes it to some untouchable sky fairy. When a scientist does not understand something he looks for evidence until he finds the truth.

All this still makes me wonder why reliion should have a benefit to lending. If the sharia mortgage had some real economic benefits to the investor I would support them but I think we will continue to seem some Darwinian natural selection process in the decision to promote Sharia compliant Commercial mortgages by the UK lenders.

Mr. Helpful,

 
I suspect that a different discussion forum on religion would probably NOT help SingingPig, nor would it actually lead to better understanding between those of different faiths, and those of none.

I drafted an incredibly long reply to your points, but then realised that no-one would read it, not even my mum, so have picked out just a few points:

 
1: One can categorise Christian traditions in many ways. However, one classification often used is between A: those who believe that the Bible contains EVERYTHING that was ever important, and is the only valid source, and B: those who believe that God's message is one of continual revelation, and that in the same way we learnt more about the nature of God and the nature of man over the several thousand years before Christ, we have continued to learn more since. Hence, the Bible is the most important source of information about the nature of God, but certainly not the only source.

I come, fairly obviously, from the type-B tradition. I believe that the Bible is "fundamentally true", but written in a time where literal, technical truth was not, in fact, the norm. Instead, at the time, it was common to use allegory and parable to illustrate underlying matters.

Because of this, I don't see that people who take "some" of a religion are hypocritical.

 
2: I am generally "not bovvered" at the doom-sayers who claim that "Moslems are growing as a proportion of the UK population - once they hit a critical mass, they will take over the country." The reason for this is that I remember, some years ago, the same doom-sayers making the same predictions about Catholics. (They have such large families, they are growing so fast, once they outnumber others, we will see imposition of a Catholic church state, it'll be just like the Vatican.)

 
3: You have a rosy view of scientists. The annals of history are full of scientists who became "so wedded to their positions" that they refused to budge even when faced with other evidence. It's a fundamentally human trait, that seems to infect investors, religious types, and scientists as well. The neat thing about science is that it has institutionalised an "immune system" that works around these people, and the NEXT generation grow up formulating theories that incorporate the new evidence. Sound familiar?

So many matters for discussion...

The acceptance or rejection of such aspects as sharia mortgages, contraception, kosher and alcohol are a matter of conscience, not of faith.  The literal word of religious doctrine must necessarily be interpreted on a very personal level before being applied in the modern world.  People must be free to interpret doctrine without having the depth of their faith questioned, if the beneficial aspects of faith are to survive.

Religious teachings are generally intended to inform and guide - in ancient times they were necessarily dictatorial in order to shepherd a volatile or ignorant population.  And any ancient text taken out of its time needs interpretation to make sense.

For good or ill, guilt is and always has been a very large part of the religious experience.  If an individual's conscience allows them to interpret the literal letter of the law in a modern and practical way whilst maintaining their faith, surely this is better than having to abandon faith altogether in order to compete effectively in the modern world.  And if modifying the wording of modern documents helps them conform with religious writings, this can ease the guilt of those who feel their faith strongly, yet struggle with their interpretation of doctrine.

As far as religion and violence is concerned, human nature is what it is.  Violence stems from societal pressures, not from the teachings of religion.  Consider any major destructive event from history that was ostensibly driven by religious fervor.  Would those perpretrating these acts have found another justification if religion was absent?  Certainly.  Wherever men fight, they live and die in the name of their gods, whatever the actual motives.  And this is especially so in cultures where religious observance is an integral part of daily life, leading to the skewed view that a devout nation that suffers strife does so because of religious influence.

I have more reason than any to consider Islam a threat, and yet I know that the current climate is one driven by the political and military position, not by the Koran.  Would you consider modern Catholicism and Protestantism violent religions, and the Bible an evil text, because of the troubles in Ireland?

There is much to be said for the teachings and achievements of science.  But look deep enough, and look far enough, and you'll find that science, religion, and philosophy all merge at the extremes of our universe.  Ultimately, we can never know all there is to know, and each and every one of us relies on faith in one way or another to answer the unanswerable questions.

Our psychology is as much a part of us as our physiology, and our need for conflict, belief, and love are all as inescapable as our need for food, sleep, and the air in our lungs.