Reported by John Bean.
With much of British commerce and industry becoming a Chinese takeaway, parts of the City of London could soon bear more than a passing resemblance to an Arab Souk.
This could be the outcome of the World Islamic Economic Forum held in London, with David Cameron in attendance, on October 29th. Significantly, it was the first time the Forum was held in a non-Islamic country.
The British Prime Minister told the meeting that our Treasury is drawing up plans to issue a £200m Sukuk, a form of debt that complies with Islamic financial law. Backed by the Chancellor George Osborne (fresh from kow-towing to the Chinese for any further scraps they can throw our way), we are told that this new sharia-compliant gilt “ will enable Britain to tap the growing pool of Islamic investments that is forecast to top £1.3 trillion by next year.
This is how it works. To comply with Sharia law, Islamic investors are forbidden to receive interest. Sukuks avoid this problem by ensuring the fixed return investors receive on the debt is linked to the profit generated by an underlying asset. Moving out of the City and on to the streets of Britain, these Islamic government bonds will aid Muslims offering products such as mortgages. That will be helpful for them in snaffling up some more of our housing. If Cameron believes they will even think of voting Tory as a result, then he should think again.
Sharia-compliant funds have already been used to fund some of our capital’s largest developments, including the Shard building – Europe’s tallest – and the Olympic Village. British Democrats are not opposed to foreign financial investments in this country per se, but they must be closely confined to the specific business concerned. They should not be in such a volume that they spread to the very structure of our society and its cultural history. It becomes worse in the case of Sharia because in the long-term it could mean adopting other aspects of Sharia law. These include amputations for theft and death by stoning for women ( but not men) committing adultery, to give just two examples.
As the business editor of the Daily Telegraph said (29.10.13): “ Launching a UK Sukuk is not without its difficulties, not least creating a board to ensure the bond complies with strict Sharia laws that govern Islamic finance. Such boards, which include Muslim scholars and experts, are notoriously opaque and will be a new challenge for the Financial Conduct Authority.”
Visit Brit Dems Media Join the Brit Dems
10
Why does Camoron insist in sucking up to Islam. We have enough problems without the Tories sucking up to a minority religion in the UK. We are in a complete mess where morality and integrity have been sacrificed on the altar of politicians who have never done a proper job.We as Nationalists must join together to fight the menace of Islam and the growing political elite who treat the public with contempt.
They are not sucking up to a minority. They are positioning themselves to retain power when we the British people have been replaced.
This story will pose a tricky problem for many nationalists, given the vigorous historical anti-usury discourse of our milieu. The sukkuk functions exactly as nationalist critics of traditional banking models say that investments should function. Money is not lent at interest, rather capital is invested, risk is shared and profits are distributed. Personally, I see nothing wrong with charging fair interest on money lent, but it is strange that many who do nevertheless lambast the prime minister for approving of sukkuk finance!
I agree with Adrian that there is nothing wrong in principle in charging a fair interest on money lent. But my opposition to sukkuk finance in a non-Moslem country (well, we are not at present) is that its use is in order to comply with Sharia law.
Agree with Adrian basically. Islamic banking is about the only thing about Islam that appeals to me.
The whole basis of our economy needs drastic reform. This is an interesting website: http://www.positivemoney.org
Abolishing fractional reserve banking has arguments for it and those against. But it’s become a bit of a cult so you don’t hear the againsts much from the faithful. But it is a genuine debate unlike some other funny money cults.
There is a new kid on the block called the ‘Chicago Plan revisited’ which comes from the IMF so it’s not just an amateur fantasy based on misunderstanding. .