Debit card for Manedwolf

[De Selby]

Who's freaking out?  I thought the choice of image on the card was amusing.

Chris

That's a photoshop image, obviously, and the person who's freaking out is the blogger.

Yes, we know it's a photo-shop.  And it's amusing.  So...

I just read the blogger's whole post (but I didn't sift through the comments) and she admits to being in the dark on banking issues.  So, she's asking what this card does, exactly, and if it is not another attempt at funding terrorism.  I don't think I'd call that freaking out. 



 

Asking whether or not mastercard is conspiring to fund terrorism with this product???  

It's freaking out because it's premised on the notion that somehow, anything at all Islamic should be suspected of or examined for links to terrorism.  This might make sense if it were a blog about, say, explosives purchases by a religious organization, or military training....

But financial products offered by Mastercard? Seriously-that's just nuts.

[De Selby]

There is no such thing as instant debiting and crediting.  There cannot be.  Any sort of electronic payment has a lag time associated with it.  If the problem is timing, then a sharia-legal debit card isn't.

Take it up with the advertisers of the card-that's clearly what they are claiming this card does.  Maybe Mastercard is making a false representation, but that's obviously the selling point for this card as a shariah compliant product.

[Perd Hapley]

Asking whether or not mastercard is conspiring to fund terrorism with this product??? 

It's freaking out because it's premised on the notion that somehow, anything at all Islamic should be suspected of or examined for links to terrorism.  This might make sense if it were a blog about, say, explosives purchases by a religious organization, or military training....

But financial products offered by Mastercard? Seriously-that's just nuts.

Nobody said Mastercard was conspiring to do anything. 

Given the very legitimate concerns over the funding of terrorism, it's silly for you to accuse this chick of any paranoid "premise."  God forbid an ignorant person should ask a simple question. 

And if my definition of freaking out was as loose as yours, I might say you were freaking out. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

There is no such thing as instant debiting and crediting.  There cannot be.  Any sort of electronic payment has a lag time associated with it.  If the problem is timing, then a sharia-legal debit card isn't.

Take it up with the advertisers of the card-that's clearly what they are claiming this card does.  Maybe Mastercard is making a false representation, but that's obviously the selling point for this card as a shariah compliant product.

If Muslims buy the card based on that, then they're making a huge mistake.  Concentrating on instantaneous debits and credits in a misgfuided attempt to provide overdraft-proofness seems to be missing the point.  Fractional reserve banking is utterly incompatible with sharia, and no debit card would ever be sharia compliant.

I don't get it.  But I guess I don't have to.  I'm not a Muslim, so I don't freak out over the intricacies of banking.

[De Selby]

Asking whether or not mastercard is conspiring to fund terrorism with this product??? 

It's freaking out because it's premised on the notion that somehow, anything at all Islamic should be suspected of or examined for links to terrorism.  This might make sense if it were a blog about, say, explosives purchases by a religious organization, or military training....

But financial products offered by Mastercard? Seriously-that's just nuts.

Nobody said Mastercard was conspiring to do anything. 

Given the very legitimate concerns over the funding of terrorism, it's silly for you to accuse this chick of any paranoid "premise."  God forbid an ignorant person should ask a simple question. 

And if my definition of freaking out was as loose as yours, I might say you were freaking out. 

Yeah, are there legitimate concerns that mastercard is conspiring to fund terrorism though? Because this is an article about Mastercard working with banks to provide a financial service....not an article about suspected terrorists, about an organization making shady moves with money, or anything else that might imply wrongdoing.  When that yields questions about terrorism, it's more than ignorance-it's paranoia. The only reason she has for linking this to terrorism is that it has the word "muslim" attached to it. 

I do think it's paranoid to assume that anything connected to Muslims must automatically be suspected of terrorism. 

Maybe some think it's legitimate to inquire about terrorist connections any time the word "Muslim" is attached to any project, or if there are any "muslims" in sight, but I consider that to be religious bigotry, and I have a hard time seeing how there's a reasonable argument to the contrary.

[De Selby]

I don't get it.  But I guess I don't have to.  I'm not a Muslim, so I don't freak out over the intricacies of banking.

This comment reminds me of the multitude of charges that Christians "are freaking out" about sex ed or pre-marital sex, and that their rules are "puritanical medieval morals" or whatever you want to call it. 

"Freaking out" about the intricacies of life is a matter of perspective, I guess. For my part, I try not disparage sincere religious practice, especially when the practice is benign (like, say, alternative banking products or private schools for Jewish and Christian kids). 

I think it's good for human beings to have faith and to want to live it, ymmv.

[roo_ster]

You think Kosher rules are weird?  Wait till you meet people that keep part Kosher - like who will not eat pork, but will eat shellfish.  Franky, as a Jew, I am under the impression that if G-d didn't want us to eat pork, he wouldn't have made it so delicious (as I eat my ham sandwhich for lunch).

But that's another topic I guess.

If He didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them outta meat.

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah, are there legitimate concerns that mastercard is conspiring to fund terrorism though? Because this is an article about Mastercard working with banks to provide a financial service....not an article about suspected terrorists, about an organization making shady moves with money, or anything else that might imply wrongdoing.  

Nope.  Read the blog again.  She was talking about "Sharia-compliant banks."  I don't know if there is such an animal, but that's what she was talking about.  She didn't say that Mastercard was intending the cards to be used for terrorist purposes. 

And again, this isn't just anything with the word "Muslim" attached to it.  This is a product that is aimed at Muslims, and can be used to move money.  The last I heard, there was a world-wide effort to stop CERTAIN Muslims (terrorists) from doing that.  It's not entirely crazy to think that terrorist sympathizers are looking for a new way to skirt the law. 

And just to clarify, I'm not trying to tell you the lady's fears are justified, just that there's nothing "freaky" about what she has to say.

[De Selby]

Yeah, are there legitimate concerns that mastercard is conspiring to fund terrorism though? Because this is an article about Mastercard working with banks to provide a financial service....not an article about suspected terrorists, about an organization making shady moves with money, or anything else that might imply wrongdoing.  

Nope.  Read the blog again.  She was talking about "Sharia-compliant banks."  I don't know if there is such an animal, but that's what she was talking about.  She didn't say that Mastercard was intending the cards to be used for terrorist purposes. 

And again, this isn't just anything with the word "Muslim" attached to it.  This is a product that is aimed at Muslims, and can be used to move money.  The last I heard, there was a world-wide effort to stop CERTAIN Muslims (terrorists) from doing that.  It's not entirely crazy to think that terrorist sympathizers are looking for a new way to skirt the law. 

And just to clarify, I'm not trying to tell you the lady's fears are justified, just that there's nothing "freaky" about what she has to say.

Okay, so if it involves money and Muslims, it's automatically reasonable to speculate as to terrorist connections?  You honestly believe that such a principle is reasonable?

And if the lady's fears are not justified....what are they? 

They look to be obviously motivated solely by the fact that "Muslim" is a word involved here.  Can you identify any cause at all for a connection to terrorism other than the fact that Muslims are involved? 

[cordex]

I actually really like the overdraft-prevention idea.

[roo_ster]

Okay, so if it involves money and Muslims, it's automatically reasonable to speculate as to terrorist connections?  You honestly believe that such a principle is reasonable?

And if the lady's fears are not justified....what are they? 

They look to be obviously motivated solely by the fact that "Muslim" is a word involved here.  Can you identify any cause at all for a connection to terrorism other than the fact that Muslims are involved? 

The NorAID precedent. 

Setting up a charity ostensibly to aid wimmin, chillun, & fluffy puppies as cover for providing aid to terrorist organizations.

Like antisemitism, Muslims in the West have a tendency to set up such front organizations to provide funds for Hamas, the Hezzies, and other similar terrorist groups.  And then blow *expletive deleted*it about discrimination when caught out at it as an octopus blows ink.

Muslims are the demographic most likely to use such devices, since N Ireland has cooled off.

[Perd Hapley]

Okay, so if it involves money and Muslims, it's automatically reasonable to speculate as to terrorist connections?  You honestly believe that such a principle is reasonable?

Of course.  Why don't you?  This isn't some sort of bigotry in which one automatically assumes Muslims must be guilty.  It is simply a response to the fact that people are killing us in the name of Islam, so we are wary.

And I'm not talking about a criminal investigation, here, just speculation by private parties.  Chill.

[De Selby]

Okay, so if it involves money and Muslims, it's automatically reasonable to speculate as to terrorist connections?  You honestly believe that such a principle is reasonable?

Of course.  Why don't you?  This isn't some sort of bigotry in which one automatically assumes Muslims must be guilty.  It is simply a response to the fact that people are killing us in the name of Islam, so we are wary.

And I'm not talking about a criminal investigation, here, just speculation by private parties.  Chill.

Yeah, it's still obviously bigotry-some muslims attacked America, therefore, any Muslim is fair game for speculation as to terror?

I fail to see how that's any different than an anti-semite justifying his anti-semitic "speculation" on the grounds that many of the accountants and lawyers involved in the major financial and corporate scandals have been Jews, and that therefore it's "reasonable" to speculate as to whether a Jewish oriented charity or bank is "involved in embezzlement or some other kind of financial fraud, because lots of Jews have been involved in such things."

If you simply change the target, it's obvious that this kind of thinking is naked bigotry. 

[De Selby]

Okay, so if it involves money and Muslims, it's automatically reasonable to speculate as to terrorist connections?  You honestly believe that such a principle is reasonable?

And if the lady's fears are not justified....what are they? 

They look to be obviously motivated solely by the fact that "Muslim" is a word involved here.  Can you identify any cause at all for a connection to terrorism other than the fact that Muslims are involved? 

The NorAID precedent. 

Setting up a charity ostensibly to aid wimmin, chillun, & fluffy puppies as cover for providing aid to terrorist organizations.

Like antisemitism, Muslims in the West have a tendency to set up such front organizations to provide funds for Hamas, the Hezzies, and other similar terrorist groups.  And then blow *expletive deleted*it about discrimination when caught out at it as an octopus blows ink.

Muslims are the demographic most likely to use such devices, since N Ireland has cooled off.

yeah...but what does this have to do with a credit card that follows Muslim market trends?

If it were an article about an organization with shady bona fides, this might even make sense.  But Mastercard? 

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah, it's still obviously bigotry-some muslims attacked America, therefore, any Muslim is fair game for speculation as to terror?

No one said that.  And no one suspected Mastercard of anything.  You're just making things up now. 

[De Selby]

Yeah, it's still obviously bigotry-some muslims attacked America, therefore, any Muslim is fair game for speculation as to terror?

No one said that.  And no one suspected Mastercard of anything.  You're just making things up now. 

Uh, the article is about mastercard and a product that it offers....yet you're saying that speculation about terrorism is reasonable because the product is marketed to Muslims.

The point about mastercard is that there isn't any reasonable basis in this article for raising the terrorist flag-it involves no shady organizations, no shady individuals, and has absolutely nothing to do with any activity that is associated with terrorism....but Muslims are mentioned as the target consumer of the product, and so therefore, by the bigoted principle that because some Muslims are terrorists, all Muslims must therefore be suspected of terrorism, the issue gets paraded around in a situation that has absolutely zero to do with violence of any kind. 

[seeker_two]

 
Okay, so if it involves money and Muslims, it's automatically reasonable to speculate as to terrorist connections?  You honestly believe that such a principle is reasonable?
 

If the burkah fits......

If it were an article about an organization with shady bona fides, this might even make sense.  But Mastercard? 

Money is money.....and Mastercard has done business with plenty of shady organizations before.....

[De Selby]

 
Okay, so if it involves money and Muslims, it's automatically reasonable to speculate as to terrorist connections?  You honestly believe that such a principle is reasonable?
 

If the burkah fits......

If it were an article about an organization with shady bona fides, this might even make sense.  But Mastercard? 

Money is money.....and Mastercard has done business with plenty of shady organizations before.....

Yeah....so why again does this "burkah fit"?

[Scout26]

You think Kosher rules are weird?  Wait till you meet people that keep part Kosher - like who will not eat pork, but will eat shellfish.  Franky, as a Jew, I am under the impression that if G-d didn't want us to eat pork, he wouldn't have made it so delicious (as I eat my ham sandwhich for lunch).

But that's another topic I guess.

If He didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them outta meat.

Well, there is the whole Leviticus thing.....And I asked my Christian friends to point out where in the New Testament Heyzeus said.  "Pork, yep, I talked to dad about that and he said it's cool now."

But just to clarify on putpose for the kosher thing.  They were basically the first food safety/saniation laws.  Of course like all .gov programs, they got more and more complicated and out of hand over the centuries. 

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah, it's still obviously bigotry-some muslims attacked America, therefore, any Muslim is fair game for speculation as to terror?

No one said that.  And no one suspected Mastercard of anything.  You're just making things up now. 

Uh, the article is about mastercard and a product that it offers....yet you're saying that speculation about terrorism is reasonable because the product is marketed to Muslims.

The point about mastercard is that there isn't any reasonable basis in this article for raising the terrorist flag-it involves no shady organizations, no shady individuals, and has absolutely nothing to do with any activity that is associated with terrorism....but Muslims are mentioned as the target consumer of the product, and so therefore, by the bigoted principle that because some Muslims are terrorists, all Muslims must therefore be suspected of terrorism, the issue gets paraded around in a situation that has absolutely zero to do with violence of any kind. 

Sigh.  The "shady organizations" would be the people who (hypothetically) would use this banking service for illegal purposes, because (hypothetically) the "sharia-compliant banks" would not provide information to the authorities, even though Mastercard had no intention of aiding terrorists.  Or (hypothetically) the shady organizations were the ones who (hypothetically) asked for such a banking service in the first place, telling Mastercard they were just trying to be good religious folks. 

Or, you could have read the article, so I didn't have to explain all of this to you in such a painstaking fashion.

Are we done with this thread yet?   

[De Selby]

Sigh.  The "shady organizations" would be the people who (hypothetically) would use this banking service for illegal purposes, because (hypothetically) the "sharia-compliant banks" would not provide information to the authorities, even though Mastercard had no intention of aiding terrorists.

Yeah-that is a conspiracy theory premised on the notion that because a bank has a product that complies with Shariah law (there are no "all shariah" banks operating outside of some very small areas in Pakistan that I'm aware of), it is therefore more likely to collaborate with terrorists.  If you read the article, you will notice a total lack of any discussion of shady banks, or even small middle eastern banks working with mastercard to provide the service.

What's the underlying assumption here? Muslim religion=suspicion of terrorism.  It's that plain.  There is no other evidence or suggestion in the story that implies a link to terrorism besides the fact that the major banks who offer shariah compliant accounts (including citi group) will be doing business with Muslims.

The idea that they will somehow conspire with terrorists to keep transactions secret is no different from speculating that a Jewish accountant will help Jewish CEO friends hide corporate fraud.  When you apply it to that group, the bigotry is obvious. 

Apparently plain thinking flies right out the window whenever the words "Islam" or "Muslim" appear. 

I'd rather be done with naked bigotry against Muslims than be done with anything else.

[seeker_two]

Well, there is the whole Leviticus thing.....And I asked my Christian friends to point out where in the New Testament Heyzeus said.  "Pork, yep, I talked to dad about that and he said it's cool now."

Check out Acts where Peter has his vision of the animals....only thing Christians can't eat are things that might affect their witness to another....like a big, greasy bacon double-cheeseburger in front of someone on a diet.....

[Perd Hapley]

Scout,

Jesus did not specifically repeal each and every bit of the Mosaic law, bit by bit.  But the He and His apostles did state that the He had fulfilled (completed) the law, and set it aside.  Based on that, we believe it was meant for His people, for the pre-Christian epoch, not for all believers for all time.

The idea that they will somehow conspire with terrorists to keep transactions secret is no different from speculating that a Jewish accountant will help Jewish CEO friends hide corporate fraud.  When you apply it to that group, the bigotry is obvious.  

I guess I must have missed that whole world-wide conspiracy by Jews, to commit corporate fraud, in the name of Judaism.  I did, however, hear that there was a world-wide conspiracy by some Muslims, to funnel money to terrorists, in the name of Islam.  Perhaps the editors of Bigotry Today are biased in their conspiracy coverage.  It's the only news source I trust.

[BrokenPaw]

The part that I don't get about Sharia banking (and this is something that I've brought up before with respect to some other behaviors I've observed in some Muslims) is that much of it seems to be simply semantic hair-splitting as a way of getting around the letter of Allah's rules, rather than trying to follow the spirit of them as well.

For instance, Sharia forbids charging interest, so a Sharia bank account cannot be interest-bearing.  Instead, the principle in the account is used to buy some portion of an asset (held by the bank), which the bank retains use of, and therefore the account-holder is entitled to "rent" on the portion of the asset that he owns.

So where a traditional savings account with $1000 in it might earn 3% APY, and thus have $1030 in it by the end of the year, a Sharia savings account with $1000 in it might therefore "own" a small portion of the bank building, and the rent on that portion of the bank building might, say, equate to $30/year.  So at the end of the year, the account would have $1030 in it.

This sort of disingenuous reasoning seems to be on the same level as a Christian reading the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" and deciding that "borrowing for an indefinitely long time without first obtaining permission" is OK, because it isn't, technically, theft.

-BP

[El Tejon]

If this debit card would be for Manewolf, wouldn't it be a twenty paragraph rant about hfc?