Hey, I'm not gonna complain about anything that allows devout idiots to restrict their ability to use modern financial tools to buy housing in my country. Screw them.

the Rogers Park bank, owned by the Loundy family, a Jewish family prominent on the North Side, has found a way to help the orthodox Islamic population buy homes.

Awesome, Jews are making money off this too. The more to rub their noses in it. I love it!

Yes I remember working in investment banks in London and there were huge agreements between the banks and various sharia scholars on the nature of investments and what to do with the interest. The interest on deposits would be skimmed off.

Working in huge investment banks I could see that islamists manipulate economies and the financial system of the west; combine that with the al muhajiroun nutters I lived near at Tottenham and the bar against screwing their women, plus their hypocrisy and no wonder I developed a distaste for muslims. The best thing to do is to nationalise their investments in the west and encourage their immigrants to leave.

So, the person needing $80,000 would actually borrow $170,000 at zero percent interest, which could lead to higher recording fees and transfer tax, Thompson said.

We make more in taxes off these dipshits as well. This only gets better and better.

And those hateful Jews are helping them do it.

Like so much of islam, the hypocrisy is amazing. Essentially they pay interest but as long as they don't call it interest, it's religiously permissible. Yet they can still deduct this interest-that-isn't-really-interest from their income for the purposes of taxes, but I can't deduct the interest on my student loans.

And so the appeasement begins...

Under current federal tax laws, Muslims who use murabaha and ijara financing can still deduct the equivalent of what they would have paid in interest from their federal income taxes, he said.

I am not happy about this. Someone at the IRS should maybe issue a ruling that they can't take this deducation. Just outta spite!

I don't need no deducation!
I don't need no thought control!

Yeah, a hat tip!

Is Allah tricked into thinking the muslims aren't really paying interest.

Hey, apparently they can trick Allah into immanentizing their eschaton for them cuz they can't wait for him to initiate it...What's a little whitewashing riba next to that? They don't even trust the guy to bring about the end of the world on a timely schedule.
Congrats on the hat tip btw! :-)

#3 Crusade Now:

The best thing to do is to nationalise their investments in the west and encourage their immigrants to leave.

Nationalize their investments? Rather socialist, isn't that? How about we freeze the assets of terrorists and their enablers, and use the money to compensate victims of their crimes? I don't see an en masse nationalization being very consistent with the American way.

"Somebody making money, lending, taking advantage of somebody's need--it's not acceptable."

The next thing you know there will be health care and education. An independent judiciary. Transparency laws and ethical conduct. Unacceptable!

Yea, we want to manipulate our system to fit their pathetic codes.

Here's what I want to know. Since all of the interest is tacked on up front then how are late payments handled? Intereste makes the debt grow as it continues to be unpaid. So if the Muslim missed two months how does that affect his price? I'd assume that it doen't since the interest is already front loaded on the loan then so would the average risk wouldn't it? But what happens if I borrow $25,000 and only pay back $80,000 of it? Do the bank and I just split the equity on the house? Can the bank sell their equity in the house to cover their loss?

I'm not sure that I understand how you are supposed to encourage someone to pay you back when the threat of the debt growing and forcing foreclosure is removed even when the ineterest is just added as part of the principle in the loan?

"Somebody making money, ...taking advantage of somebody's need--it's not acceptable."

I notice that muslims are perfectly happy to accept money and make a profit on healthcare services, food and oil, all of which are at least as great necessities as real estate.

Hypocrites.

Musharakah. The bank and the customer jointly buy a price of property, and the customer over time buys out the bank's stake. The percentage of ownership changes with each payment.

Umm, also known as a mortgage.

Allah is a simpleton > Lets create a fictional Imam blog spot so American Muslims can ask us for a religious ruling. THen we could have some fun don't you think?

sample answer: Mustafa, Allah is most displeased. You can not fool the seer of all things with creative financing.

I remember reading a long time ago that one of the reasons the Jews came to be so prevalent in financial services was because, during the Middle Ages, Christians weren't allowed to practice usury. Not sure if it was a crime or just a sin, but this led to having the Jews be the money-lenders and they've been doing quite well off it ever since.
Imagine what a stultifying effect it must have on Muslim countries' economic prospects to not be able to lend money with an interest rate.

So, the person needing $80,000 would actually borrow $170,000 at zero percent interest...

Maybe I’m missing something here, but as I see it, these people won’t start paying principle for about 17 years.

Emery: Short answer: Late fees. Hopefully, big ones.

My guess is that banks are pretty competitive, being capitalist and all. Thus, they can't afford to give away freebies. So, seems to me these wierd loans will end up being the same for both customer and bank (or maybe netting the bank a little extra for their trouble).

So we've got private institutions calling a spade a club to make a customer happy, and no one (that we know of yet) is getting any measurable special perk. I also imagine that Infidels should be able to insist on the same treatment. At first glance, I have no problem with this.

Though it still gives me the willies, and I'd rather not see such things transpiring here. Might be fun to apply for a loan, and ask what the terms are for Muslims, and what they are for Infidels!

Papertiger (#15) I love how your mind works!

papertiger LOL!

I would just remind those Jews who are calling this hypocrisy that the Torah forbids charging interest too (where do you think Muhammad got the idea from?) and so there is a Halachic device called heter iska which turns a loan into a partnership where profit is guaranteed (i.e., interest).

The idea itself is hardly indicative of a sinister conspiracy, although admittedly it never getting banks in on it is something new. But I think banks are operating out of self-interest, not passivity in the face of a steam rolling Islam. Simply put, it pays for them to give these loans so they're doing it.

I wrote a piece a while ago for the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism celebrating this trend.

The short version is that Moslems should be encouraged away from a literal, bloodyminded interpretation of their religion towards one that places reality first.

#22 cont.

Just to clarify a bit, the Torah forbids charging interest but not paying interest, so I suppose that's is a difference.

This is an area where Islam has adopted a Jewish stricture. It is forbidden for one Jew to charge interest (ribit) to another. So instead of loans one has joint ventures. The standard construct is called a heter 'iska. There is a heter iska for Israel Bonds, and all Israeli banks use them. There are lots of technicalities, and some folks do worry about them.

Like the laws of kashruth, the laws of ribit and heter iska seem inane from the outside. Mock the Muslims for this stuff if you will, but only if you're willing to mock the Jews equally.

But I would suggest instead, live and let live.

#24 James--

If charging interest is proscribed, then would not the principle of "lifnei iver" (one must not place a stumbling block before the blind) necessarily preclude paying interest as well?

#26 Ben F

If charging interest is proscribed, then would not the principle of "lifnei iver" (one must not place a stumbling block before the blind) necessarily preclude paying interest as well?

My off the cuff response is, probably.

I actually was thinking in terms of taking a loan from a non-Jewish source, like a typical bank. There's absolutely no Torah prohibition from paying interest on such a loan.

In the case you described its probable that paying interest on such a loan would be prohibited albeit on the grounds of lifnei iver rather than issurei ribit.

#22 James
Would charging interest only be proscribed if the recepient is a non-Jew?

Didn't the 9/11 hijackers buy their tickets with Visa cards? Allah must have been so displeased.

dollars to donuts--the saudis are up to their kaffirs in u.s. treasury bonds and have been for decades--anyone know more on this?

#28 Doss

Would charging interest only be proscribed if the recepient is a non-Jew?

No, in fact the opposite. Charging interest was only proscribed in loans between Jews. A loan from Jew to non-Jew or non-Jew to Jew can have interest. I know that might not sound very... nice, but that's what it says in Deut. 23:20.

By the way, Ben, I don't know what I was thinking. Paying interest is definitely also prohibited, although it might be a rabbinical prohibition (perhaps on the grounds of lifnei iver). I'll have to look it up.

#31 James
Thanks. I had meant to say "if the recepient is a Jew."

A rose by any other name.... would still charge 5.97% intrest on a home loan.

I fail to see what's so alarming about this. Reasonable people trying to find a way to be reasonable and follow their faith at the same time. This is called moderation folks, the sort of behavior that LGF should be applauding. The automatic Moslem bashing is trite and banal.

31 James:
The Talmud and the Rambam discuss that too and perhaps soften the not very ... nice stance:

The question as to the permissibility of lending with interest to people who are not part of the Jewish community, is debated in the Talmud (Bava Metzia 70b – 71a) The Talmud’s discussion is inconclusive, and the post-talmudic rabbis take up the question. Moses Maimonidies, in his great Jewish legal code (Laws of Loans, chapter 5, law 2), rules that it is permissible for a Jew to charge interest of a non-Jew only when and in the amount necessary to provide himself with a basic living. To charge a usurious rate is prohibited. The great rabbis of medieval France and Germany were somewhat more permissive under circumstances in which Jews were barred from most professions, and Jewish communities were singled out for taxation above the ordinary rates(Commentary of Tosafot to Bava Metzia 70b)

just googled it and the saudis and other wahabbi gulfies hold billions in u.s treasuries and eurobonds--you think they give back the interest earned to be down with allah and his messenger servuce--fucking hypocrites

excerpts from
"How to Make America an Islamic Nation"
by Yahiya Emerick
(Former Baptist preacher and distributor of controversial Muslim textbooks for children)

I knew that by accepting Islam I was declaring that America needed to do so too. America, my home, would naturally become an Islamic country one day. There is no other way to think if you are a truly conscientious believer in Allah.
...
The Yemenis formed a master plan and determined to stay together. They set up a fund and slowly bought one house after another, moving Muslim families in and drug-infested kafirs out, until they literally had thousands of Muslims businesses and stores in the heart of the community and bought a huge Catholic church and made it into a beautiful masjid.
...
I've never been to Muslim country before, but I'll tell you this much, I felt as if I were in an Islamic country. And this wasn't Egypt or India or Turkey. It was right here - in America.

This is what Islamic banking will enable. And the British just passed special concessions to make it easier.

Michael Farris:
I don't know about you, but to me your comment was trite and banal. Have you firmly established in your own mind the superiority of your brand of tolerance? Good for you.
Meanwhile, I would like to point out that most of the posts in this thread so far are either
-humorous
or
-informative
With a couple of exceptions. Your apparent desire for people to appreciate that this isn't all wrong is already satisfied by multiple posts in the thread. But if posting what you did gave you some satisfaction that you sure showed us, then...good.

#36 Hulugu

The Saudi "princes" are notorious hypocrites. Many of them are world famous for their sexual and material excess. Austere Islam is only for the riff raff they keep under their thumb.

Oh, and by the way Michael Farris? The moralizing, lecturing, and hectoring tone is a great way to win people over to your way of seeing things. I know I'm convinced.

#34

Islam - the religion of "Reasonable and Moderate" (with respect to the charging on interest only)

Here is part of an interesting e-mail I received today and concerns financial matters

Egyptian Jurists to Sue 'The Jews' for Compensation for 'Trillions' of Tons of Gold Allegedly Stolen During Exodus from Egypt

The August 9, 2003 edition of the Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram Al-Arabi featured an interview with Dr. Nabil Hilmi, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Al-Zaqaziq who, together with a group of Egyptian expatriates in Switzerland, is preparing an enormous lawsuit against "all the Jews of the world." The following are excerpts from the interview: [1]

Dr. Hilmi: "?Since the Jews make various demands of the Arabs and the world, and claim rights that they base on historical and religious sources, a group of Egyptians in Switzerland has opened the case of the so-called 'great exodus of the Jews from Pharaonic Egypt.' At that time, they stole from the Pharaonic Egyptians gold, jewelry, cooking utensils, silver ornaments, clothing, and more, leaving Egypt in the middle of the night with all this wealth, which today is priceless."

I know, eh schroedinger's cat? As long as they will accept a Jewy innovation to help them simultaneously own a home and fellate Allah, it makes all their other activities kosher. Soooooo moderate, these upstanding citizens.

Banks, of course, are not in business for altruistic reasons, so the “interest” is actually hidden in the cost of the loan—a hypocritical mind game that appears to satisfy the requirements of Islam: Blending banking and Islam.

Mommydoc
Yet they can still deduct this interest-that-isn't-really-interest from their income for the purposes of taxes,

I don't have any problem with such gymnastics. What really needs to be investigated is whether such special arrangements for Muslims qualify for deduction of interest on Federal taxes. This is the real crime. As far as I'm concerned they do not qualify.

Crusade Now,

Working in huge investment banks I could see that islamists manipulate economies and the financial system of the west

I am very curious to read details about this. Would you mind explaining some of the manipulative behaviors that you noticed?

Besides "Prince" Alwaleed owning "Reuters", that is...

Under current federal tax laws, Muslims who use murabaha and ijara financing can still deduct the equivalent of what they would have paid in interest from their federal income taxes, he said

WHAT BULLSHIT! Stuff like this really gets me pissed. Same as giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens and accepting Mexican matricula consular sham IDs.

Mustafa, Allah is most displeased. You can not fool the seer of all things with creative financing.

Do not take your bitterness at not being able to grasp fine distinctions out on Allah, infidel. Allah supposes you also don't see how we can cheer Osama for blowing up the World Trade Center while also blaming it on Mossad. Figures.

Didn't the 9/11 hijackers buy their tickets with Visa cards? Allah must have been so displeased.

They used American Express, infidel. It's everywhere Allah wants to be!

dennisw-I agree. How can they be allowed to receive interest-related benefits on their taxes if there is no interest involved? I hope their property tax appraisals are adjusted according to the price they paid the bank, too...

Allah-LOL! Are you the same Allah that has the blogspot blog?
Never mind, of course you are...La ilaha illa Allah!

evariste: Michael Farris? The moralizing, lecturing, and hectoring tone is a great way to win people over to your way of seeing things. I know I'm convinced."

Who says I'm trying to win people over? I was just a little disappointed that Moslems employing the same kind of pragmatism that Christians and Jews do to get thru modern life is an automatic target for (non-benign) humor.

Under current federal tax laws, Muslims who use murabaha and ijara financing can still deduct the equivalent of what they would have paid in interest from their federal income taxes

Okay, that's the money quote.

That's an outrage.

evariste
______

I hope their property tax appraisals are adjusted according to the price they paid the bank, too.....

For normal houses property is simply appraised for tax purposes. Purchase price is not a factor. There are other houses to compare it with. For unusual houses and commercial properties I sure hope they are appraised based on the special Islamic price.

#50 evariste the ony true words in islam are the first four words of the shahada in english--if you know what i mean

Who says I'm trying to win people over?

You do.

This is called moderation folks, the sort of behavior that LGF should be applauding.

That sounds like you want people to agree with you, does it not?

I was just a little disappointed that Moslems employing the same kind of pragmatism that Christians and Jews do to get thru modern life is an automatic target for (non-benign) humor.

Yeah, and Tom Daschle was deeply saddened.
Besides, who are you to determine whether or not the humor is benign, really?
So if we were making gentle, loving jokes, and laughing with Allah's minions rather than at them, it would prevent you from being disappointed?
Sorry we don't live up to your high standards, Michael Farris. I for one will try harder not to disappoint you. That's why I come to LGF almost daily, to avoid disappointing you. Not to get my fix of information and pull-no-punches humor.
You sound like a humorless lefty. Sorry if you aren't, but that's what you sound like.

Allah
_____

Oh least merciful god that thou art. Surely your lighting bolts will fry your children who engage in such scams and shams with this Northside Jew banking cabal of the Loundys.

HULUGU-Sure I do...Not sure if you mean that though? "There is no G-d" are the first four words. I don't necessarily believe in G-d but I'm not unwilling to entertain the possibility. Are you an atheist or do you mean:
"there is no allah"?
Cuz I'll agree to that! Hell no there's no fucking Allah! Stupid imaginary moon god.
Allah! I CRUSH YOU!

Literally translated it's "There is no G-d but Allah, Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah"

James, Ben F and dennisw: Now you're bringing up the tax implications, LOL! That's the point I was making. I really don't care what they call it and what machinations the banks are willing to do to accomodate them, and, for the record, I think the business of heter 'iska is just as hypocritical--forbidden is forbidden. It's like calling pork "white beef, " slaughtering it in a kosher manner, eating it and still maintaining that you keep kosher, IMO.

But if you're unwilling to call it interest for the purposes of religion, then it's hypocritical to call it interest for the purposes of avoiding taxes. And I am disgusted that the IRS is manipulated into going along with it. Which is why I labeled it the beginning of appeasement. Essentially our government is starting to pay jizyah.

#57 evariste sorry- i'm not as open minded as you--my belief in any supernatural deity is nada--however i kind of dig the greek gods for their playfulness, sexuality and irreverent interference in human affairs

This strikes me as just one more attack on the nature of capitalism.

I can foresee whee this type of "creative banking" could result in chaos in the housing and mortgage markets, unless stern laws are passed stating that the actual current value of the property is x amount of dollars.

But of course, that would not be permissible under Islamic code, unless the stated actual value approximated the value of the loan.

One more reason to hate the chaos that radical Islamists wish upon us. We should make no special concessions based on religion. To do otherwise is to subvert our government. If the non-atheistic Boy Scouts of America can't keep their camp in San Diego, but a Muslim retreat complete with prayer tower is acceptable on government land in the midwest, but the Ten Commandments is forbidden in a statehouse in the South, but not in D.C....

What the hell is going on!

I'm going to bed!

Model4 Might be fun to apply for a loan, and ask what the terms are for Muslims, and what they are for Infidels!

LOL, I wanna take out a new mortgage right now just so I can ask that ;)

Gotcha HULUGU. I used to be totally adamant that there is nothing supernatural in reality. An experience made me think there might be:
During a session with my craniosacral massage therapist I saw a freaking angel for want of a better word basically float through the wall and beam some kind of radiant positive light at me(not sure how else to describe it), among other really trippy shit that happened to me totally sober in her office. It made me cry and feel like a newborn at the same time. No it wasn't the kind of stereotype angel depicted in Christian art, but I knew (was made to know?) it was an angel nonetheless. After the session was over I asked her about it and she saw it too; according to her they often appear during sessions when she's really getting something good done with someone, and about a third of people freak out as if they had encountered a malevolent being, even though they are, to her, obviously totally benign. The rest have a similar reaction to mine.
Totally far-fetched and implausible, I know. Had you told me two years ago that in a year I would encounter this I would have laughed at you. I still don't really know what to think about it. But other experiences with her bore out the possibility of the supernatural to me in a very convincing and visceral manner. I can elaborate on other experiences-I didn't mean to really get into this. I just wanted to basically say that I am an extremely skeptical and rational person and I am not making this up. So I am willing to entertain the thought of G-d existing.

I think the business of heter 'iska is just as hypocritical--forbidden is forbidden. It's like calling pork "white beef, " slaughtering it in a kosher manner, eating it and still maintaining that you keep kosher, IMO.

Much of halachic rulings are like that, tho. For example, the Torah says disobediant sons should be stoned, but the rabbis got around that by declaring that there had never been nor would there ever be sons so disobediant as to merit that punishment, so no stoning, now and forever - case closed.

The whole Talmud is full of that kind of reasoning - it's why we make such good lawyers. You could say it's hypocritical, or you could say it's case law - a judge should have discretion, but still refer to the rules and previous rulings. I find it interesting and a lot of fun to study.

I don't have any problems with how American banks are working it out with Muslims - banks don't do anything from the goodness of their hearts, they have worked it out so they make the same interest as usual, and now they have new customers. Big deal.

I used to read INC magazine and there were always stories of innovative banks which figured out creative financing and got more customers like small entrepreneurs, who wouldn't otherwise be able to get a loan, and that's how America grows.

Momydoc
James, Ben F and dennisw: Now you're bringing up the tax implications, LOL! That's the point I was making.

Absolutely you hit on it and that's the worst part of this pretend arrangement. You have a backlog of student loans and can see the IRS being strict with you while merciful to serious Islamics who just stepped foot in America. I knew about this Muslim interest tax rip-off before reading this article. That we are so politically correct that the IRS allows interest deductions on this phony baloney Islamic mortgage. Though I just searched through the internet and there is little mention of this special Federal tax treatment

evariste:
"Sorry we don't live up to your high standards, Michael Farris. I for one will try harder not to disappoint you. That's why I come to LGF almost daily, to avoid disappointing you."

That's more like it!

Chill out!! This is a legal fiction that makes modern banking possible for Moslems. The bank is happy (more customers), the home owners are happy (they are following their customs while buying a home), and everyone benefits.

I would think that encouraging people to settle down and buy homes (with monthly payments that require financal responsibility) is a moderating factor.

Nothing makes a person wake up to reality faster than a mortgage.

You may or may not want the home owner for your neighbor but that is a different issue.

Besides - a real terrorist/drug lord/mafia chief would pay for his home in cash.

Michael Farris-LOL! I know I was kinda being a dick to you, sorry!
Glad you lightened up bro. :-)

PS I attended a day-long seminar at the Conservative seminary on how to figure out a halachic rationale for gay commitment ceremonies and ordaining gay rabbis. I learned more about how halacha is developed in one day than before or since, and some of the arguments were not only ingenious but moving, in which precepts they rested on and which precedents and methods they used.

I came away feeling immensely proud of our Jewish civilization: fiercely protective of our 4000 year old tradition, refusing to throw it away or say it doesn't matter, while shaping and manipulating it to suit our needs (which is what the rabbis did from Day One anyway - most of our holiday/Shabbat ritual is rabbinic in origin).

evariste
________

All you know is there is more than just this material plane. And of course there is. G_d moves in mysterious ways. Sometimes Hashem's angels are guiding IDF missiles into the Hamas automobiles

#45 Evariste -if I had another job at the moment - i'd name names - but I don't as yet and don't feel like being a martyr - but most of the investors I saw were from Saudi Arabia. They would shift money between currencies.......

dennisw: Yes, and if they buy the house for the higher amount as an interest-free loan, where it's all principal, how does that affect the appraisal, or property values on comparables? Does it then drive up the property values artificially, or is the bank essentially making a secured loan that is inadequately collateralized?

Yes, some of these are just accounting games that hurt no one, but the manipulation of tax laws and potential effect on the real estate market are not entirely benign.

Yehudit, yes, from an intellectual standpoint it's interesting, and certainly when halacha is interpreted to minimize harm to innocents, such as your stoning example, it's something about Judaism that makes me proud. When, however, that same technique is used to rationalize doing things just to make life more convenient, like the eruv, putting electric lights on timers, crockpots on timers, or continuously running elevators that stop on every floor so that one doesn't push the button, we trivialize the intent behind the law, and it is hypocrisy to say that one is following the law, IMO.

Yehudit, we cross posted. I am in total agreement about the positive aspects of halachic interpretation, especially when it enhances the humanity of our religion. I'm objecting more to the part that denounces Jews who drive to shul because they live too far to walk while pulling the shticklach I described above, since, as you rightfully point out, so much of our ritual is rabbinically derived.

If one doesn't wish to be bound by the tradition, that's okay, but to circumvent it while maintaining that one is following it is hypocrisy in my eyes.

Crusade Now-Don't answer if you feel doing so would jeopardize your job prospects, natch. But shifting money between currencies? In a market that turns over trillions regularly, how can some Saudi princes with a few billions seriously affect anything? What would they do, destructive speculation a la Soros?
Again, don't feel like you need to answer. I'm just curious about the mechanics of it...Definitely don't give any details that might help someone identify you somehow.

If one doesn't wish to be bound by the tradition, that's okay, but to circumvent it while maintaining that one is following it is hypocrisy in my eyes.

I understand what you're trying to say, but my point is that it's all like that. You can sort through individual examples, but there isn't a clear line where one ruling is compassionate and another is just hypocritical - they all come from the same place. In fact, that was my biggest takeaway from that seminar.

(BTW I say this as a totally not-yet-observant Jew, which makes me a big hypocrite, I guess. I am really in awe of people like the Jewish Feminist Orthodox Alliance, who really work within the system. That's love of tradition. I'm just a rebellious uneducated daughter.)

We were talking billions and I would say they comprised 25% of the "investors".....

Actually, I find one thing very funny and another sort of concerning with this situation.

The funny part deals with the bank. This is perfect bank thinking, really. They own the house and they have assured amounts of interest (more in a moment). If they need to foreclose, they simply walk in and kick the people out. Very little need to litigate and to go through the process of removing them is easy; the bank would see this as a very good position for themselves.

As for the interest issue, this is truly quite funny. The simple fact is that over a 30 year mortgage, the consumer is likely to pay nearly twice the initial loan value because of interest (generally speaking it takes an APR of around 7% to do this [the numbers take time to work out, so I'll talk in general terms]). This does two things. First, the bank is locked in for a set interest rate over the 30 years. They will never get less than that amount. This is like a God-send to a bank. Even if the loan is paid off, they will still be getting all of the interest that would accrue. This is a REALLY nice deal for the bank.

The second irony is that it prevents the Muslim buyer from using the greatest advantage of our mortgage system. [If you have never heard of this, do some research, as you can save yourself a great deal of money]. The way a loan works (and part of the reason you can't just "run numbers" off for comparison purposes) is that the APR is divided by 365 and applied daily to your loan amount. This is why APY is higher than APR [APR is the rate you agree to, APY is the result of daily interest]. This is important and VERY useful to the consumer. This is very important because at the start of the loan, you are paying almost completely interest with little principle [for a $1000 a month loan, you MIGHT be paying $50-100 in principle for each payment for the first year, if that (this is so bank insure they get some money out of the deal)]. There is also one other little catch, any money you pay over your agreed amount ONLY goes to principle. What this means is that if you pay over your minimum for the first year or two, that money can be anywhere from doubled to 5-6 times as valuable during the life of the loan (if you pay it all off over time). It is late, but if I remember the stats correctly, if you go over on your payment by 25%, you can knock off between 15-20 years off a mortgage, and all of that is due to paying less interesting, since you pay interest upon the amount that is left after each day.

Now, the system they are using for these Muslims effectively prevents this style of money saving, thus they lose the biggest advantage to using a mortgage. Have to give the bank kudos for seeing a golden money making oppurtunity.

As for the tax issue, the truth of the matter is they are taking a loan for 0% interest; there is not legal provision for taking interest payments off on property for which you overpaid. So someone might want to make a stink about this if it becomes a common trend.

Also a godo question, if someone claimed communism was a religion, would they have to pay anything for their housing?

Yehudit, I disagree that a not-fully-observant Jew is a hypocrite; quite the opposite. I don't follow all rules; for example, I don't keep kosher. But I don't pretend that I do, either; that would be hypocrisy. I am quite straightforward about my "shortcomings" but that doesn't make me any less a Jew, or less of a "good" Jew, since I keep the most important commandments, and the parts of the law that I don't follow, if anything, only hurt me and no one else. I keep all parts of the law that affect others.

I imagine you are much the same, although probably more observant than I.

For example, the Netturei Karta may follow all the laws of ritual observance to the letter, but they are bad Jews since by their acts and words, they threaten the well-being and safety of Israelis, both Jewish and otherwise.

The ultra-Orthodox rabbi I once mentioned in Denver who beat his wife, publicly threatened the Orthodox female doctor who helped her escape with her younger children to a kosher safe house in another state and then had some fringe sect in New York "excommunicate" the doctor would be another hypocritical Jew. Followed all the ritual laws but broke the most basic ones, the ones that matter most.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Of course, I've been accused of following a watered down version of Judaism and having a cartoonish understanding of our religionfaith, so you probably don't want to take anything I say about this too seriously.

#76 There is a lot of money to be made in currency fluctuatations. Also very safe market if you have any sense.

#63 evariste: Might I suggest picking up a book by Paul Tillich? He is what you might call a "liberal" Christian theologian. He has a lot of arguments for "faith and belief" aside from any specific doctrine; he uses the term "ulimate concern" a great deal. It is a good read, fairly short though deep, and it is a good place to start in a search for spirituality. Spirituality concerns questions most ask but few want answers. I hope your journey is fruitful. If you have any questions that I can try and answer, my e-mail is with all my posts. I'm not a great authority on Christianity, but I can answer most questions, regardless of direction, and I can give pointers on other religions as well [though I don't do well with religions of less than 500,000 worldwide attendents] and I have fairly good research tools if you have questions. The wonders of being a religion major [and math, see #77].

cont. from #79 "Dynamics of Faith." Might help if I listed the book name.

This was posted by TS on another thread. Very concerning for the future of dhimmitude.

Although it seems to be breaking a long-standing tradition: I thought dhimmis are not allowed to dress like or imitate muslims. WTF?

#75 Yehudit,

(BTW I say this as a totally not-yet-observant Jew, which makes me a big hypocrite, I guess. I am really in awe of people like the Jewish Feminist Orthodox Alliance, who really work within the system. That's love of tradition. I'm just a rebellious uneducated daughter.)

That Yehudit, makes you an Aishes Chayil in my eyes. Your respect for the law, humility, desire to learn and desire to grow as a Jew probably bring you admiration in the eyes of Jews across the Jewish spectrum as well as that of many non-Jews too. You're not a hypocrite at all. In fact, the way you approach Judaism is quite beautiful. And, I have learned a lot by reading your site and posts. So, you may be in awe of the Jewish Feminist Orthodox Alliance, but to me, your blog is awe-inspiring.

Perfection. Who needs it? That's for angels.
Growth. That's for human beings.

No wonder Islam hasn't advanced and is stuck in the 13th century... they reject one of the basic tenents of capitalism, i.e. the profit motive. Oh, wait a minute. This only applies to people trying to make money that aren't Islamic. It's OK to make a profit off of infidels but Allah forbids the reverse? So, the Bank of Kuwait or the First National Bank of Saudi Arabia lend only to infidels (Jews and Christians)? No wonder the left loves the Islamists. They're even bigger hypocrites than the left is.

OT: British Embassy in Iran Shuts After Shots Fired

They want their ambassador back...

Link

#78 mommydoc--

Lev. 19:17-18. I don't want to pound on this (I'm not fit to deliver a rebuke), but we all have room to improve, and this is the month that the tradition calls on us to focus on such things.

whomever asked why this is alarming - its NOT - its just interesting.

This bothers me.

In August 2001, the First Islamic Group and its co-investors completed the acquisition of a 61.0% ownership interest in Cirrus Industries, Inc. ("Cirrus")...Cirrus is the second largest manufacturer of single-engine, piston-powered, general aviation aircraft in the world....
Shari'ah and Legal
The Bank's Shari'ah and legal teams, with the active involvement of the Shari'ah Supervisory Board, work closely with the direct investment, real estate and asset management teams to develop the Bank's ground-breaking Islamic investment and financing structures. To ensure rigorous compliance with Shari'ah requirements, the Shari'ah and legal teams, and through them the Shari'ah Supervisory Board, are involved in the key phases of each new transaction. After a transaction closes, it is continuously monitored to ensure ongoing Shari'ahcompliance.

[Link: www.firstislamic.com...]

Through its US subsidiary, Crescent Capital Investments, Inc., First Islamic's direct investment team focuses on identifying, acquiring controlling interests in, and managing operating companies that have a proven track record and the potential for significant growth over a three to five year investment horizon.

And look who's on the board of Crescent, headquartered in Atlanta. One's a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and the other is from the Harvard Business School.
[Link: www.crescentcapital.com...]

OT - Another day, another bomb, brought to you by the RoP.

Russia commuter train blast kills five

This is not unlike a number of Talmudic loopholes, and an ingenious one, at that. Jews have masterminded the loophole.

See for example, ervus.

What's the big deal?

OT - Looks like another celebrity a**hole.

Johnny Depp - Big Dumb Puppy

BERLIN, Germany (Reuters) -- Hollywood star Johnny Depp said on Wednesday the United States was a stupid, aggressive puppy and he would not live there until the political climate changed.

The 40-year-old actor, who stars in the "Pirates of the Caribbean," told the German news magazine Stern he was happier staying in the south of France with his wife, the French actress and singer Vanessa Paradis, and their two children.

"America is dumb, it's like a dumb puppy that has big teeth that can bite and hurt you, aggressive," he said.

#22, 25 etc -

Yes, the Torah forbids charging interest. But that rule reflects an agrarian economy. As society became more sophisticated, it became clear that some mechanism was needed to compensate lenders for the time value of money, so the rabbis came up with a way to get around the prohibition. Two thousand years ago.

Muslims are just getting around to this now. At that rate, the "reform Islam" we're all hoping for should arrive in another, oh 1900 years or so.

As for the tax implications, anyone giving up the mortgage interest deduction is making a big sacrifice, so I wouldn't resent the borrowers in this arrangement. As for the lenders, sounds like they've found a way to reclassify interest income as capital gains income, which is taxed more cheaply in our system. So, sure, they're taking advantage of a loophole, but it's only because ideological crazies have distorted the tax code for them already. They're doing nothing worse than many, many smart tax lawyers and accountants have done before them. But that's an OT rant.

Typically Politcally Correct bull shit in order to placate the Religion of Hatred.

No, in fact the opposite. Charging interest was only proscribed in loans between Jews. A loan from Jew to non-Jew or non-Jew to Jew can have interest. I know that might not sound very... nice, but that's what it says in Deut. 23:20.

yes quite a few things in islam came right from judaism, the most notable being the whole us vs. them concept. the us just changes depending upon the name of the religion.

#90-
As mush as I hate to say this- at least Depp's action is a lot more consistent with his words than many La-La Land stars. Insert the Baldwin bros., Babs and so many others here.

The Islamic bank loan is an interesting story. Since it does not seem like they are getting a better deal, I say so what- they have to deal with the hypocracy generated by their beliefs. With all the practice they get at hypocracy this should be no big deal at all!

89 Elliott Marc Davis

What's the big deal?

Jews don't execute people who are apostates

Jews don't imprison people who criticise Moses

Jews don't believe secular law is invalid

Jews don't believe the religion mandates them to bring Jewish law to all the world

Jews don't create a Balkan/Lebanon situation wherever they are.

Go to any Muslim country, see how non Muslims are treated, and then realize that is a direct result of Muslim Majority and religious mandate.

Then ask yourself, is this the America you want?

regarding this banking system....

have 'won' this concession, watch the demands for compliance to Islam to explode!

I'm really suprised that their law required that they not PAY interest.

Interest is something somebody else decides to make you pay. I don't think you should have the option of saying it violates your religion to pay interest.

Probably the biggest problem I see with reworking the loan into a higher principal amount to cover the loss of interest made on a conventional loan program, is that if the bank has to take back the property due to non payment, they will lose money in the transaction. For example, the property is appraised at 100K, the bank "loans" 180-210K for the transaction, the borrower pays for about a year, then defaults. The bank is stuck with a large loan on the books with no way to ever recover the loss, because they overvalued the property in order to make a loan to this person.

I'd like to know how in the world that this is not considered religious discrimination. In my business, we are not allowed to even make this inquiry, and making accomodations based on religion in determining loan qualifications is absolutely forbidden.

OT: Iran's ambassador to Britain returns to Tehran

Iranian pressure on the UK continues, following the gunfire at the British embassy in Tehran and (according to debka) the killing of three British military policemen.

Iran also banned 40 or so top-level mullahs, generals and officials lest they be arrested in connection with the Argentina bombing. Link

Collecting extra money is not religiously acceptable, Gurukambal said. "Somebody making money, lending, taking advantage of somebody's need--it's not acceptable."

It's not OK to "take advantage" of somebody borrowing money, but it's OK to take advantage of somebody lending money?

More bizarro world logic.
 

"America is dumb, it's like a dumb puppy that has big teeth that can bite and hurt you, aggressive,"

And yet, he has absolutely no problem with trying to make money off of us dumb puppies. What a jerk.

This whole article and the responses of many to this article bothers me a whole lot. Judaism and to a lesser extent, Christianity, are full of all kinds of legalistic distinctions that allow people to live in today's world while remaining observant. There is no difference between observant Muslims making this kind of arrangement and Jews arranging to sell their hametz to a gentile during Passover or Christians using Easter eggs as part of the Resurrection celebration. IMHO this entire thread has been been repeatedly crossing the line into a hatred of Muslims as distasteful as any Arab antiSemitism I have seen proflied here. I am thankful for the dissenting voices such as James #22

Do the accounts that sponsor terror get the no interest treatment?

Snopes...regarding

yes quite a few things in islam came right from judaism, the most notable being the whole us vs. them concept. the us just changes depending upon the name of the religion.

The Jewish 'us' had rules and behavior norms, like any culture has. These were essentially for group members, and not to be imposed onto others.

Nowhere in the Bible is there any indication thet Jewish values or tradition were to be imposed on other people. In fact Jews were taught to avoid peoples whose customs and religions were judged abhorrent.

Remember 3-4 thousand years ago, human sacrifice was common etc...

[Link: www.fordham.edu...]

Ammianus Marcellinus: The Roman History, Book XIV.iv.1-7. , c. 380 CE

"Among these tribes, whose primary origin is derived from the cataracts of the Nile and the borders of the Blemmyae, all the men are warriors of equal rank; half naked, clad in colored cloaks down to the waist, overrunning different countries, with the aid of swift and active horses and speedy camels, alike in times of peace and war. Nor does any member of their tribe ever take plow in hand or cultivate a tree, or seek food by the tillage of the land; but they are perpetually wandering over various and extensive districts, having no home, no fixed abode or laws; nor can they endure to remain long in the same climate, no one district or country pleasing them for a continuance.

Their life is one continued wandering; their wives are hired, on special covenant, for a fixed time; and that there may be some appearance of marriage in the business, the intended wife, under the name of a dowry, offers a spear and a tent to her husband, with a right to quit him after a fixed day, if she should choose to do so. And it is inconceivable with what eagerness the individuals of both sexes give themselves up to matrimonial pleasures."
(called MUTA, still practised today)

If it makes them happy, I don't see the problem.

I got my house with a VA loan, and the VA doesn't let you borrow, irregardless of the interest rate, more than the house is worth, so our devout Muslim vets may have a problem.

Of course, with 0% interest, no mortgage interest deduction. And property taxes on a $70,000 home bought for $180,000 could be ugly.

That'd be my only complaint, if some Muslim brought a house in my neighborhood at double the going rate and messed up my tax assessment. We have a Pakistani family on the block, I guess they got their home the kufr way.

I don't know what's the fuss....orthodox jews are engaged in the same no-interest trickery with god and banks all over the banks in the world...just to single out muslims is as bigotry as the one you're blaming the muslims...let me explain: all banks in Israel are doing it with orthodox jews when they request it....it's called eiter iskah...

--"Somebody making money, lending, taking advantage of somebody's need--it's not acceptable."--

A house is not a "need" it is a "want" and part of the American dream.

If they don't want to pay interest, rent.

#90 Browfinger

Depp is less annoying to me than the celebs who say they're going to leave and then don't.

I don't know what's the fuss....orthodox jews are engaged in the same no-interest trickery with god and banks all over the banks in the world...just to single out muslims is as bigotry as the one you're blaming the muslims...let me explain: all banks in Israel are doing it with orthodox jews when they request it....it's called eiter iskah...

I'm not sure, but if it is being done in the United States, it should probably be considered just as illegal as this is another form of religious bias. If Israeli banks are doing this as a matter of business in their country, then that is their business. If it's happening in the US, then that may pose a problem.

Hey, I'm not gay, but if I was, Johnny Depp in eyeliner might tempt me.

The way I understand the Jewish law against charging interest to non-Jews but not to Jews is as follows. There is nothing wrong with charging interest. A fair interest rate allows for the best and most profitable use of economic resources. Not charging interest to other Jews is to allow for the greater establishment of Jewish values. Jews are of course a far smaller percentage of the population and therefore when no interest is charged it does not affect the overall economy to any degree. Its more of a leniency towards Jews than discrimination of non-Jews. Jews are of course required to be honest in their business dealings with everyone. There is also of course no barrier for other groups to forgo interest payments among themselves.

As for banks re-drawing loan agreements to accomodate Islamic belief, I have no problem with it. No bank lends money without it being to its own advantage and this is not an example of Islamic hypocrisy. They are being true to their own beliefs as they understand them. If it wasn't for suicide bombers, 9/11 and the state of the world this would just be trivia. Its how the money may be spent that worries me, not how it is acquired.

Kim Asham, regarding

IMHO this entire thread has been been repeatedly crossing the line into a hatred of Muslims as distasteful as any Arab antiSemitism I have seen proflied here.

we are rightfully cynical about Islam and muslims

[Link: students.washington.edu...]

In endeavoring for the establishment of the ascendancy of Islam over all other systems of life, members of the Islamic movement will have to go through the following stages:

Passive Resistance, enduring all verbal and physical persecution without retaliation;

Active Resistance, challenging the un-Islamic system when there is enough strength available to do so;

and finally, the Armed Conflict (or a non-violent and disciplined popular movement)

It should be obvious from the above discussion that armed conflict or Qitaal constitutes only the last of the nine stages or aspects of Jihad, and that these two are not synonymous terms.

Thus, we see that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) spent the entire twelve years of the Meccan period in calling people towards Islam, in organizing and training those who responded, and, during all that time, both he and his Companions endured all verbal and physical harassment with a non-violent attitude.

It was only after Hijrah, when a strong center of the Islamic Movement was established in Medina, that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) decided that now there was enough strength at his disposal to challenge the Quraysh, and only then the Islamic movement entered the phases of Active Resistance and Armed Conflict. In view of this, all the revivalist and revolutionary Islamic groups throughout the Muslim world must keep the following fact in mind: While an armed struggle against an un-Islamic political system is permissible under certain conditions (whether or not it is feasible in today's world is another issue), such a struggle cannot be launched without first going through the initial eight stages of Jihad.

....so this is Islamic strategy all over the world. To present as a law abiding minority, portraying themselves as victims denied their religious rights, accusing anyone and everyone of Islamophobia and discrimination and humiliation and oppressing Islam, until they get more and more concessions....

and then, as they grow stronger, there is a Balkinization and one sees what is happening in Sudan, Nigeria, Phillipines and anywhere there is a significan Islamic presence.

If you insist on totally ignoring the history of oppression and violence of Islam in any nation state, you are the one who is contributing to disaster

#97 John
Probably the biggest problem I see with reworking the loan into a higher principal amount to cover the loss of interest made on a conventional loan program, is that if the bank has to take back the property due to non payment, they will lose money in the transaction.

For sure the bank is covering itself. For the sake of argument, the Islamic friendly bank may get an extra $7,000 commission for originating these special home loans. Such a commission will cover them against the few loan defaulters. Of course they are taking the risk that there will be few defaulters.

#104 In the two ways that the bank is currently operating, via the article, the bank owns the house. They paid the current market value for the house, the family is just paying more for the service. So it wouldn't effect your land values, actually.

#101 Where exactly has this thread crossed the line into "hatred" of muslims? Most posts have concerned either the concept of making concessions in business for someone's religion, in the USA, or on a fairly frank discussions of dealing with religion in a different society than it originates. If this is "hatred of Muslims," then you need to find a dictionary and look of the word "hatred", though maybe you should check out a few other words first.

As for my own posts, why is it I spend all this time writing them, and they tend to be rather long, yet it seems like no one reads them.

So if you are a black Mulsim (via prison, typically) you get preferential treatment from government finance-related agencies and now creative financing from private banks? I wouldn't be suprised if these schemes are backed somehow by the federal gov't.

#112 dennisw

For sure the bank is covering itself. For the sake of argument, the Islamic friendly bank may get an extra $7,000 commission for originating these special home loans. Such a commission will cover them against the few loan defaulters. Of course they are taking the risk that there will be few defaulters.

Of course the bank is covering itself. They spread the risk around a bit more, take a little more in loan fees, etc...

Guess who they share the risk with? That's right! The other borrowers, savings customers and investors in the institution who may not even know that their interest is being used to pay for higher risk loans, and that the institution may in fact be held liable for religious discrimination.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. In fact, I agree wholeheartely. I just wonder if this banking practice has the official blessing of the ECOA and the Fair Housing Administration.

#103 ploome,

if a group of christians said we'll charge the jews more for our products than we will our fellow christians, somehow i don't think the response would be not very nice. i'm thinking it would be more like anti-semitism!!!

the issue addresses how we treat others outside our group - how and what we think about them - not so much what we do among ourselves. always turn it around - if we became the "them" in our own scriptures how would it sound to "us".

i believe the whole concept of us and them is based upon the orginal falsehood. there is no them. there is just us. period.

as far as all this loosey-goosey interpretation of scripture goes, i guess we should be thankful for small favors. but it leaves open literal interpretation of those same problematic verses. so if a judge wants to apply a stoning or another of these laws, it is his right to do so if he interprets it as such.

rather than question the validity of the source itself that would prescribe stoning as the answer for anything, we work our mental gymnastics around it to arrive at the answer we know is right anyway...while holding onto the myth. so why not just cut to the chase and avoid all the angst and misery?

Neil G.,

The way I understand the Papal law against charging interest to Papists but not to Jews is as follows. There is nothing wrong with charging interest. A fair interest rate allows for the best and most profitable use of economic resources. Not charging interest to other Papists is to allow for the greater establishment of Papal values. Papists are of course a far smaller percentage of the population and therefore when no interest is charged it does not affect the overall economy to any degree. Its more of a leniency towards fellow Papists than discrimination of Jews. Papists are of course required to be honest in their business dealings with everyone. There is also of course no barrier for other groups to forgo interest payments among themselves.

****

I'll be sure to remember and use a variation of the second bolded sentence in the future. We'll see how well it goes over when I do.

snopes

....those customs date back millenia...

no one does that today

The bank is not taking more risk than usual on these loans.

The example floating around of a 70K house and a loan of 180K...
The 180K does not go to the seller, or the borrower.
It seems the bank will pay the 65K or 70K (depending of down payment for example), then the borrower owes 180K over the life of the loan.
If he defaults immediately, the bank owns the house and can sell it for 70K. The extra 110K that the bank "loses" is not a loss, it takes the 70K and does something else for 30 years.

As for the borrower losing out because he can't "overpay" his mortgage, that is a bit silly too. He can take a 30 year, 15 year or 10 year "loan" or whatever suits him and his fake interest will reflect that.

Under the Federal truth in lending law, the bank must give the borrower a disclosure document setting forth the true price (e.g. $80,000), the time price (e.g.$192,000) and the APR (assuming 30 years and these amounts, 7%), which the customer must sign as having been read.

Under the Federal tax code, the home mortgage interest deduction is only available for those taxpayers who itemize the payments on Schedule A to their form 1040.

The "pious muslims" who engage in one of the transactions are going to have to be willfully blind to what they are doing.

BTW the sale transaction described above, is not just an islamic legal fandango, but it is also known as a time honored way of avoiding usury statutes in Anglo-American law.

Rev. Jay #77,

Good post. I was going to write about the issue of pre-payment as well. (And somebody is reading your posts!)

On one hand, I think the banks are just trying to market their product to another group of customers. But OTOH, here are some problems, some of which have been mentioned:

* Risk: The bank takes a risk that payment will be made for the whole period. If payments are not made, or are made late, the bank stands to lose a fair amount. In order to compensate for this, the bank should charge a risk premium for the loan in addition to other costs.
* Discrimination against non-Muslims: Can a non-Muslim sign up for one of these loans? If not, that's illegal AFAIK (though I am not a lawyer).
* Discrimation against Muslims: How would a bank handle a variable rate loan? Can a Muslim sue a bank for not providing the equivalent of a 5/1 ARM, an interest only loan (aka balloon), etc? How would a bank come up with these products?
* Tax Deductions for Interest: While the tax deduction exists for the purpose of encouraging home buying, the tax deduction is specifically on the Interest portion of the loan and not on the Principal.
* Pre-Payment: Besides what Rev. Jay mentioned, another way to pre-pay a loan is to pay every fifteen days instead of every thirty days. This normally shortens the life of a thirty year loan by about seven years even though the same amount is paid over the whole month. Can a Muslim qualify for this under this program? How does a bank handle this? This especially becomes an issue when mortgage rates are higher and paying them off is much more interesting then it is now.

Regarding Depps comments: Not a puppy, but as Toby Kieth sang, A Big Dog.

Oh, justice will be served and the battle will rage:
This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage.
An' you'll be sorry that you messed with the U.S. of A.
'Cos we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way.

Hey, Uncle Sam put your name at the top of his list,
And the Statue of Liberty started shaking her fist.
And the eagle will fly and it's gonna be hell,
When you hear Mother Freedom start ringing her bell.
And it'll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you.
Ah, brought to you, courtesy of the red, white and blue.

Snopes. You are not clever in the least. Just a clueless fool swanning about at LGF.

Why don't you address the unfair income tax deduction that Muslims get on these jury rigged home loans? That's the real issue, not your lamer attempts at "exposing" hypocrisy.

dennis,

Snopes. You are not clever in the least. Just a clueless fool swanning about at LGF.

Why don't you address the unfair income tax deduction that Muslims get on these jury rigged home loans? That's the real issue, not your lamer attempts at "exposing" hypocrisy.

LOL. Why don't you address my point rather than your lame attempts at calling me names?

I think any unequal treatment based upon religious belief is bogus. Muslim or otherwise.

#121 Ariel
____________

Don't worry about the loan issuing banks. They will cover against loses by charging such a premium for Islamic loans.

My real gripe is with the deduction for interest they get when they aren't making any interest payments. This stinks to high heaven. Of course they will get away with this scam, this fraud on taxpayers who follow the IRS interest deduction rules, since we are so politically correct.

#119 you have one good point and one bad one. First, you are correct that the bank takes very little risk. Actually, they are really assuming very little risk since the home would not be covered in a bankruptcy case, so the bank is in a far better position than I was thinking.

The point you are off is on pre-paying. The concept of "pre-paying" is to have a set base for the loan then pay of it. By using the way interest works and is applied, massive chunks of money, upwards of 40% of the loan if you work it correctly, is never needed to be paid because you never accrue the interest. The bank isn't just going to setup a loan like that, as it is not in their interest, and frankly, very few people know about the tricks of working loans down. A bank is not going to simply give away money they can get by telling the person of the situation. Also, they are offering a weird service, so they would argue that they have no reason to go that far out of their way to accomidate Muslims.

#121 Thanks, and I forgot about the 15 day trick as well [setup a 24 payment plan per year rather than 12]. The wonders of manipulating series mathematics.

#93 Snopes (and followups)

I once heard an explanation for this distinction that runs as follows: Given that a non-Jew can charge interest on a loan to a Jew - this is not one of the things prohibited under the Noahide Laws - then it works in reverse as well: a Jews can charge interest on a loan to a non-Jew (although the rate must be reasonable - see SoCalJustice's post, #35).

Late to the party, but: add me to those who just don't see what the big deal is here. Sure, fine, it's "hypcrisy" in a strict religious sense, but why should I be concerned that Muslims aren't being absolutely 100% doctrinally faithful? I thought that was usually a bad thing, actually. As to the idea that the participants in this are "unfairly" able to deduct a portion of their payments from their income taxes; well, the whole point of the article is to demonstrate that the "islamic" finance schemes really do contain an element of imputed interest. So why shouldn't they be able to deduct it, just as I can if I take out a plain ol' mortgage from Citibank?

There are many, many things to worry about with regards to contemporary Islam. This is not one of them.

I think the article has been edited. This passge

But Muslims who strictly adhere to Islamic doctrine would either have to save enough cash to buy a home or borrow from relatives and friends.

should have read

But Muslims who strictly adhere to Islamic doctrine would either have to save enough cash to buy a home, borrow from relatives and friends, launder drug money, sell forged immigration and indentity documents, run guns, bilk the welfare system, move to Canada where housing is free for refugee claimants, or sell their daughters into slavery.

Humph.

Sorry about that. That was uncalled for. I'm just a little bitter at the moment because my wife is losing her job so that her manager -- a member of one of those "face" cultures that will do anything to save face -- can save face and blame someone else for a management error.

Humph.

Some of the posters in this thread are way off base.

The salient point is that - murabaha, injara, whatever - the borrower is paying mortgage interest and it's idiotic to pretend that it's anything else.

Section 163(h) of the Internal Revenue Code precludes the deduction of personal interest (e.g. student loan interest). An exception is made - with limitations - for loans secured by a residence. A portion of the repayment of these loans is clearly mortgage interest and - unlike student loan interest - should be deductible.

Let the Assimilation Begin!

#90 RE: Johnny Dhimmi Depp

I really wish the media would rethink the delusion that just because someone can be convincing pretending to be a fictional character in a pretend world, that they actually know anything or can say anything meaningful about the real world. When is the media going to interview me about my views of Depp's acting performance, a topic I know just as well as Depp knows politics?

I'm really having major heartburn about all of the "artistes" that are trading on their ability to do something well in order to sell political ideas that their fans frequently don't support. Luckily, I don't like Depp's acting either, but I don't want to support the Dixie Chick's political views just because I may like their music.

I don't know how to deal with the problem given all of the idiotarians shooting their mouths off. If I boycott all of the idiotarians, I'm left watching old Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston films and listening to Charlie Daniels and Toby Keith. Does anyone have any suggestions?

I think I'll get my turban on and refinance...

#72, 73 Mommydoc

When, however, that same technique is used to rationalize doing things just to make life more convenient, like the eruv, putting electric lights on timers, crockpots on timers, or continuously running elevators that stop on every floor so that one doesn't push the button, we trivialize the intent behind the law, and it is hypocrisy to say that one is following the law, IMO.

If one doesn't wish to be bound by the tradition, that's okay, but to circumvent it while maintaining that one is following it is hypocrisy in my eyes.

Sorry for combining two posts, but I wanted to address them together. I'm afraid this might be long, but I hope you read it.

First of all, we have to recognize that Judaism believes in a dual Torah system; written and oral. A lot of people have trouble with this idea, but if you think about it objectively it should make sense. Most people view the Torah as purely a religious text, but in fact it is everything from the Constitution to the local zoning codes of a functioning society, an actual country and people of history. Yet at the same time it is simply not large enough to address every issue that arises. It doesn't purport to address every conceivable situation in its text. That's where the idea that the principles for interpreting the Torah and applying them to new situations were transmitted orally comes from. Simply put since we know that there once was a Hebrew kingdom that had the Torah as its law it simply had to be the case that the written text wasn't the beginning and end of the law. There is no society, which can function on any legal code that small.

Here I reproduce something I found that clarifies the idea a bit further:

As anyone who has read the Pentateuch knows, it is full of laws. Do this, don't do that. It is a fact that these laws are not well explicated in the text. For example, in the Ten Commandments we are taught, "Do not commit murder". However, nowhere is murder defined. It is obvious that it is not murder to kill at specific Divine command, as for example in the wars waged by Moses or when executing a criminal in fulfillment of Divine Law. But what about abortion? Infanticide? Waging war on behalf of a secular government, such as the government of the USA? Executing a criminal in accordance with secular law? Is it murder to "pull the plug" on a person in an irreversible coma? How about "mercy killing" a la Jack Kevorkian? If two "Siamese twins" are born in such a way that either we do nothing and both die, or we separate them and one must die, what are we to do? I've no doubt you can think of many more examples.
Now, while we can argue back and forth about each and every one of these questions, based on the mere text of Teach we cannot determine G-d's opinion about any one of them. But, if G-d really means us to observe His prohibition of murder, how can He not give us the full definition of murder? The solution is that He did give us the full definition, but not in the text of Tanach, rather in an oral adjunct.

It really doesn’t matter if you believe the law to be divine in origin or not. What’s important is that such an expansion of the law is a must. In any event, the idea of the oral law beside the written law goes back at minimum 2000 years.

So Judaism is not fundamentalist. In fact, fundamentalist sects such as the Sadducees and Karaites were viewed as heretics. Normative Judaism rejects the idea that such a terse, cryptic text as our Torah is simply read to understand it.

What Yehudit had to say about many laws that we consider part and parcel of Judaism (e.g., Shabbat ceremonies) is true, but I have to disagree slightly, mainly because her use of the term 'rabbinic' may be an anachronism. Some things regarded as 'rabbinic' are found in the Bible, such as prayer three times a day and facing Jerusalem when in prayer. Most people think those are later rabbinic ordnances, but they're in the book of Daniel.

We know that the Torah prohibits melacha on Shabbat, which usually is translated incorrectly as 'work'. (It really means "creative activity".) The Torah itself specifies only one creative activity that is prohibited; kindling fire. The Torah also informs us that a person who had gathered wood on Shabbat had violated the prohibition of labor. So that's it. Two forbidden labors in the Torah. But obviously that is not the end of it. What else is prohibited, what else constitutes melacha?

Well, the rabbis noticed that the prohibition of creative activity on Shabbat is juxtaposed next to a chapter about the construction of the Tabernacle in the wilderness and they deduced that the reason for its juxtaposition was to tell us something about work. What "work" did a wandering desert people have, work that they were supposed to refrain from? The only "work" the rabbis found them doing in the Torah was constructing the Tabernacle. So they deduced that the activities necessary to construct the Tabernacle constitute forbidden labor on Shabbat. From carefully analyzing the text they came up with 39 categories of forbidden labor (this includes things like dyeing and fixing, as well as kindling which, again, the Torah explicitly prohibits).

Yet at the same time that we see this process of deduction in the Mishna we know that there was almost 1500 years of Shabbat observance prior to the Mishna (circa 2nd century CE). What constituted Shabbat observance? Which labors did Jews refrain from? Why did they refrain from those labors? We can assume that the 39 categories were labors that Jews traditionally abstained from on Shabbat. Do we know with certainty that all 39 were defined in the time of Moses? Traditionally Judaism believed (and believes) so. But even if not, certainly they are ancient and came from somewhere.

We find that another Shabbat labor is forbidden in Tanakh, but it’s a labor that was not named in the Torah. In Jeremiah 17:22 we find that carrying is prohibited on Shabbat. The obvious question is – since when? The Torah doesn’t say that carrying is prohibited, but Jeremiah the Biblical prophet knows that it is and says so.

Now what was the point of this whole megillah? Hopefully to establish that you cannot just read the text of the Torah and then decide what is or isn’t consonant with tradition and the spirit of the law. The tradition and the spirit of the law are found in our tradition. So, for example, you disapprove of crock-pots. But I wonder if you know that Jewish tradition dating back at least 2000 years specifically mandates hot food for Shabbat? In fact fundamentalist sectarians like the Sadducees and Karaites sat in darkened houses eating cold food on Shabbat, contrary to Jewish tradition. The traditional Shabbat morning main dish, Cholent, is linguistically derived from the word shoalin (cooked) because it is a stew that cooks slowly on a flame over night. This dish and earlier varieties go back thousands of years. Using a crock-pot doesn’t buck tradition; having cold food does.

I could write the same essay about other things but I hope the point is a bit more clear. A big part of the reason why one might think something is circumventing the law is misunderstanding the mechanics of Jewish law and its place in tradition. Heter Iska isn't hypocrisy. It's a tool that comes straight from the Torah arsenal. It was developed using Halachic principles by serious scholars steeped in knowledge of and reverence for Torah and tradition.

#93 snopes

yes quite a few things in islam came right from judaism, the most notable being the whole us vs. them concept. the us just changes depending upon the name of the religion.

The whole "us versus them" thing is probably wired into human nature. I assume you distinguish between your family and your neighbor's, right?

If you think the Arabian tribes didn't have the concept of "the other" before being introduced to that "Jewish" idea by Muhammad you must be smoking something potent. Either that, or totally ignorant of history, geography and human societal structure.

#130

You're right, it is mortgage interest by another name, otherwise it wouldn't be a deductible item on a Schedule C.

But how does the bank protect itself from a loss if it lends $100,000 to a devout Muslim to buy a $50,000 house and the buyer subsequently defaults on the loan?
The bank will foreclose but is stuck with a $50,000 house and a unpaid $100,000 loan. The bank can get a judgement against the defaulter for the difference but try collecting it. The article doesn't address this issue but it must have been considered by the bank.

James #134 - Interesting post. Always a pleasure to learn about this sort of stuff!

#136 Paul: if I'm reading the various "islamic mortgage" schemes right, under none of them would the bank, in your scenario, actually be disbursing $100,000 at any time. So while the bank would theoretically be carrying a $100K bad debt on their books, they wouldn't be out anything more than the actual purchase price of the home at most; so they'd be similarly situated, in the case of default, to a regular ol' kuffar mortgage lender.

#129 Might I suggest your wife take the management down in flames with her? If she is going to be forced out due to something that was not her fault, she has no reason to save "face" (unless you have a great deal of stock in the company). With no ties to a company, why bother defending it?

Just a thought.

#136 Paul - The banks only loan the amount to purchase the house. The balance of the "loan" is unpaid interest (the same interest that would accrue over time on a conventional loan). If the borrower defaults, they are only out the funds advanced less any amount received from the foreclosure sale. It's the same risk they take with conventional loans.

A slight correction: home mortgage interest is deductible on Schedule A, not C ( C is used to report income from a sole proprietorship).

#136

As Occasional Reader said in #138, the 100k loan would only be on paper, while the bank would have the first sets of payment, the deed to the house and all the equity of the house, as well.

Another note, could they actually build equity in their homes under the loan scheme? In a normal situation, your house is collaterial for the loan, but you own the house and are paying the bank back for the money they loaned you directly to buy the house. Whereas with these setups, the bank owns the house, so wouldn't the equity be the banks, rather than the home dwellers [since the don't down the home, technically]? Another interesting question.

Why do so many posters assert, or assume, that the IRS should follow the ruling of a rabbi or an imam on what constitutes interest?

I sure as the dickens would not want the civil courts deferring to religious authorities when determining who may marry, or who may divorce.

If a transaction is structured in such a way as to generate interest for tax purposes but not for purposes of halacha or shari'ah, I see no problem. In fact, I would see a problem if it were the other way around. If someone trying to disclaim interest income were to argue to the IRS that his rabbi or mullah has ruled that the payments being received are not interest, I hope the IRS would treat it as a joke.

#134 I enjoyed reading that. Mostly review but some good reminders and a bit of new learning. Thanks. I read it carefully.

#111 I disagree with anyone who wants to characterize all Muslims or all of Islam on anything. I have known too many Muslims personally to be able to say this or that is true of all of Islam or of all Muslims. An attack on observant Muslims for finding a way to observe their laws is not a good thing. I see nothing pernicious, terrorist supporting, hate inciting, or bigotry protecting about finding a way for an observant Muslim to buy a home. Nor do I think all Muslims are in a conspiracy to convert all the world and control everything. That is as ridiculous as making the same accusation against Jews. It is just plain wrong to do that. Please consider directing your energy at the terrorists and their supporters and enablers where it belongs. Maybe you've been in trenches too long and you've lost your perspective on who the real enemy is. A vacation may be in order.

#129 The comment "move to Canada where housing is free for refugee claimants" is also specious ignorant Canada bashing. Potential refugees here in Canada don't get free housing for life. I KNOW because I have worked with new refugees when they arrive. Average refugee time to tax paying status is 3 years for an average of 32 years of tax paying and adding 2 kids to society who grow up and also become tax payers (not to mention the majority of refugees go into small business and generate three jobs for Canadians to fill) which is a really good return on the tax money we invest in them on their arrival. Okay a few Muslim, and Sikh, Hindu, Basque and Irish (among other) terrorists have taken advantage of Canadian generousity, but those are the exceptions and they point for the need for better reviews not the general stupidity of accepting refugees in the first place. The fact that the extremists Islamists are now complaining so bitterly about how Canada's refugee system discriminates against their kind of Muslims only proves that we do a good job of sorting real refugees from would be terrorists. May I respectfully suggest next time your personal life is being messed up you avoid posting until you cool down so you don't start running off at the keyboard insulting others.

130 david simon
The salient point is that - murabaha, injara, whatever - the borrower is paying mortgage interest and it's idiotic to pretend that it's anything else.

Untrue. The bank is paying interest on a house it bought. The Muslim is paying the bank X dollars each month as he he buys it from the bank. I wonder who is the formal owner of the house? My guess would be the bank until the last payment is made.

James,

The whole "us versus them" thing is probably wired into human nature. I assume you distinguish between your family and your neighbor's, right?

Probably a lot of things are hard-wired. Anti-Semitism and all forms of racism are based upon the very concept of other, the concept of them. Anti-Semitism and all bigotry, to a certain extent, are hard-wired.

Invert the "us" and "them" - making "us" "them" in most any social or political situation. Let's see if we still agree with the law or application at hand if we are no longer the "us" but the "them". Why do we get outraged when "us" are discriminated against but are a little more oblivious to it when it is just "them". When we are the "them", things don't always look the same.

It seems that Allah is flexable till you ask the Muslims to live under Christian control and then he is not flexable at all...

#142 Ben F.

Why do so many posters assert, or assume, that the IRS should follow the ruling of a rabbi or an imam on what constitutes interest?

I'm not sure whom you're addressing, but I see nothing in this story that suggests the IRS would follow an imam's ruling as to what constitutes interest. That determination can be made by a very matter-of-fact financial analysis.

This is classic multi-culti BS. US Banks and financial institutions have been forced by our government to go to absurd and costly lengths to disclose to consumers what the real interest cost is on their loan.

I guess all that consumer protection doesn't apply to or isn't needed by Muslims borrowers. The answer will be a whole new costly set of Government mandated PC procedures and protections designed to hide interest and disclose it at the same time in order to protect the "sensibilities" of this crowd. Don't worry, the cost of all this will be subsidized by everyone else. But don't expect the Government to disclose that fact to you.

#144 DennisW - Banks always hold title to property until the mortgage is paid. Regarding the rest of your post, these "creative financing" arrangements are nothing but conventional mortgages with smoke and mirrors legalese. That's why bank regulators and the IRS consider them loans. In accounting parlance, this is called substance over form.

Ben F #142,

If a transaction is structured in such a way as to generate interest for tax purposes but not for purposes of halacha or shari'ah, I see no problem.

Good point. I was wrong - there's no reason why the "interest" shouldn't be deductible, from a moral perspective.

Occasional Reader, David Simon,

There are other risks that you are not addressing. One example is the risk of late payments. Currently, the bank charges late fees if the payment is not done on time as an incentive for the home buyer to pay on time. Are the late fees considered interest for Islamic purposes? Or are they legitimate? If they are illegitimate and the bank is not allowed to charge them, they have to charge a higher effective interest rate to make up for the risk premium.

Now I am not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell, banks could be opening themselves up to discrimination lawsuits - discriminating against Muslims by charging them a risk premium and not offering the full portfolio of products (how do you do a variable rate loan up front?) and against non-Muslims by not offering them a comparable product (unless they do).

Occasional Reader, David Simon,

And I forgot to say - isn't it discrimination against Muslims that they can't pay back their loan early? What sort of prepayment scheme could be made?

Normally, I can take a 30-year loan to play it safe buy pay it back in 15 if my financial situation allows me to do so. Can a Muslim do that under this sort of arrangement? If not, are they being discriminated against?

#134 James

wonderful post....

I want to go to your Yeshiva....:-)

James....I am sure you know this, but this is clearly presented...

[Link: 216.239.51.104...]

Ariel - Those are good questions. I'm sure that there are lots of things that the banks haven't considered. Like any new product, these arrangements will be modified over time.

Ariel #150: I'm not sure what you mean when you say I'm "not considering" the risks. All I said was, this is in substance a mortgage loan with interest, so I see no problem with the IRS treating it as such.

Are the late fees considered interest for Islamic purposes? Or are they legitimate? If they are illegitimate and the bank is not allowed to charge them, they have to charge a higher effective interest rate to make up for the risk premium.

My answer to your first two questions: I don't know, and don't much care. This is a business decision being taken by the banks in question. If late fees are haram, then either the bank will eat the loss, or, as you yourself suggest, will pass it on to the mortgagor. Either way, what's the problem?

As to your two "discrimination" points, I very much doubt anyone could win a lawsuit on these grounds. After all, the banks are also offering to everyone--including Muslims--their standard mortgage products. As long as there is adequate disclosure to the Muslim homebuyer regarding the terms of the "islamic" financing, he/she can hardly complain for having chosen it.

Ben F(#85) You are being more than just a little presumptuous. Exactly where did I say that I "hated" anyone? I can disagree with interpretations and call them hypocritical. It implies no emotion, nor was there any. You do not need to tell me how to feel. I didn't notice you jumping in with scripture when I was being attacked for having a "cartoonish" understanding of my religion or practicing a "watered down" version of same. You will get much farther without the air of superiority.

James (#134) I'm sure that was very interesting to many on this thread. It was wasted on me. I am not against crockpots and am quite familiar with cholent, thankyou-very-much. I actually think a crockpot of cholent is a hell of a lot safer than an open flame on a stove for 28 hours. It's the multiple crockpots for multiple meals for variety that I label hypocritical, which circumvents the spirit of the law, since the focus then becomes the food. It's the waste of electricity to run an elevator constantly for 24 hours. It's the multiple lights on timers: No, one is not actually touching the switch to create the spark but one is causing the spark to be made, which is really the same thing and I believe that that's hypocritical. And don't even get me started on the eruv.

Ultimately is anyone hurt by this? No, not physically, and it's pretty trivial, really, which is why I think that expending enormous amounts of intellectual energy on pronouncements about these things is silly. However, what I believe it teaches is excuse-making for behavior, that one can always talk oneself out of personal responsibility, and it does foment a certain air of superiority in the ultra orthodox that they are keeping the laws better. Which is what leads to Haredi rock throwing at people driving cars on Shabbat or the smugness I have experienced on this blog from others who consider themselves more enlightened Jews. Feh.

My point is that I don't keep certain laws. I made a choice and ultimately, it is God to whom I answer for that, not any of you. But to get a rabbinic ruling to pretend that one is following a rule when one isn't is hypocrisy in my book.

Here's a hypothetical which takes it to the ridiculous extreme. One is alone in the desert and in danger of dying from starvation. There is no food available, and for whatever ridiculous reason suddenly a pork roast is available. To eat the pork roast is obviously permissible in this situation since it's to save a life. One is finally rescued and one feels so guilty that one goes to a rabbi to discuss it. The rabbi, of course, tells one that it was permitted since it was to save a life. Fine. What would be hypocritical would be if the rabbi said, well, for the purposes of the situation, there is a Jewish loophole that redefines the pork miraculously as chicken. In fact, not just any chicken but an Empire™ chicken!

That actually has the makings of a good joke, if I were better at those things. Something about God making the pork roastlive pig appear and saying something about if "I wanted you to eat Kosher, I would have sent Empire™." Badumpump.

For those of you who are saying that the bank normally keeps title to the property until the loan is paid off, that's just incorrect. In the case of real estate, the title is normally held by the purchaser; the lender has a lien. Same for auto loans, although the owner, AFAIK, does not receive the "pink slip" until after the loan is paid off, in order to prevent him/her from selling it and pocketing the money.

Charles, this whole thread is interesting, but as for furthering any anti-Islamic feelings, it's a big yawn. The only squirrel you got to bite on this nut is Ploome, whose Islamophobia really knows no bounds.

#156 mommydoc:

In the case of real estate, the title is normally held by the purchaser; the lender has a lien.

Roger that.

Which makes me wonder if an islamic "mortgagor" can, among other things, take out a second "mortgage". But again, that's their problem, not mine, so I don't see what the big deal is.

I also had no idea of the theological implications of crockpots! And here I thought I was a fairly well-informed gentile.

James (#134)

Thank you for that fabulous post.

#134 James: Your explanation is fine as far as it goes, but there are parts of the Torah which are (and should be) flatly ignored or contradicted by modern civilization.

It is hard to "interpret" a flat statement that adulterers will be executed, or that anyone who curses father or mother must die (Leviticus 20:9-10).

It is hard to "interpret" a flat statement that anyone who tries to convert a Jew to another religious belief is to be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 13:11).

It is hard to "interpret" a flat statement that any Jew who decides on his or her own to worship another religion is to be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 16:6).

It is hard to "interpret" a flat statement that a man whos testicles have been crushed or whose male member has been cut off is to banished from the Jewish faith (Deuteronomy 23:3).

It is hard to "interpret" a flat statement that a wife who breaks up a brawl between her husband and another man by seizing the other man's "private parts" is to have her hand cut off and be shown no pity (Deuteronomy 25:11-12).

Some of these statements would seem to be hard for any scholar to weasel their way around them.

#134 James,

Truly wonderful post. Thank you for that. Sometimes reading your posts makes me wish I hadn't wasted so much of my life in a secular sphere.

#156 Mommydoc

I guess we were talking past each other.

My point was that what you view as sneaky innovations to move the goal posts aren't really innovations at all. Hot food on Shabbat is as old as Shabbat, that's my point, and that's why crock-pots don't violate the spirit of Shabbat. To the extent that it violates your understanding of what Shabbat is your understanding of Shabbat isn't the same as Judaism's understanding of what Shabbat is. Preparing beforehand so that you have nice meals isn't making Shabbat "about food"; it's taking care that you will have oneg Shabbat, enjoyment of Shabbat, which is one of the key aspects of Shabbat.

Okay, the heter iska probably approaches calling a pig chicken a bit more than crock-pot use approaches violating the spirit of Shabbat (I still don't understand what you mean by that...?). I do understand what you mean by the starving-in-the-desert case, and I agree. The difference is that a heter iska actually requires the signing of a contract. It redefines a loan on different terms. We can do this with loans and contracts because the terms of loans, investments and contracts are anyway defined by the principals (and laws). That's just not the same as a pig which can't be made a chicken just by calling it one.

By the way the idea that the reprehensible behavior of a few people (stone-throwing at cars on Shabbat) is somehow derived from Jewish laws like eruv which somehow teach irresponsibility is nonsense, and frankly its offensive to tar all Torah observant Jews with the same brush. I hope you don't consider me "smug" for defending myself or trying to explain why our tradition and laws aren't hypocrisy but rather part of a system that allows for interpretation and contains within it tools to do so, but if you think I am being smug so be it.

#156 mommydoc,

Not that this means anything to you, but I appreciate your integrity. IMHO, just because something was "innovated" over 2000 years ago doesn't disprove the hypocrisy.

#160 Gordon,

ITA. Of course, when I say the similar things about Islam, you go kinda nutso.

#160 Gordon

On another thread we went through the requirements for capital punishment to be meted out according to Judaism. They are restrictive to the point that it is safe to say that Judaism (at least the Judaism of the past 2000 years we know for certain) has no capital punishment. I know, I know, you'll say "but the Torah says so right there!" and it does. But if you view every thought in the Torah as having asterisks next to it and the oral, traditional interpretation explaining each asterisk then you'll understand that according to Jewish tradition the purpose of those laws is essentially to emphasize the severity of the sin.

I assume you have two problems with such laws. One, the severity of the punishment. I've already explained that Jews don't and haven't for a long time meted out such punishments (and according to traditional belief, probably rarely or never did). Two, with the laws themselves. Well, you got me there. I can't expect you to agree that a Jew who tries to entice another Jew to convert to another religion is doing something bad or that a Jew who decides to convert to another religion is doing something bad. Or that any of the other things the Torah considers a severe sin is severe. But no matter. Every society has its own norms and those constantly change. Who would have thought 30 years ago that being homophobic was such a social sin? If the fact that the Torah says things that you personally disapprove of is meant as proof that its not from the divine, I would remind you that all of us approve of or disapprove of many things. Obviously the Torah cannot please everyone, for if it contained nothing that you disapproved of somewhere along the lines it would say something that the guy living in the house next door to you disapproves of.

BTW, thanks to all who enjoyed what I had to say in #134.

#164 James; thanks for the explanation. Taking away the severe punishment inflicted by the literal words of the Torah does not take away the oppobrium attached to the acts themselves.

#164 James:

I must disagree with this:

If the fact that the Torah says things that you personally disapprove of is meant as proof that its not from the divine

I think that describing the passages that Gordon cited as merely things of which Gordon "personally disapprove[s]" is putting it rather disingenuously.

If the passages we are talking about include stoning women to death for adultery, amputating a woman's hand for seizing a man's testicles, etc., then I am forced to conclude that either: a) these passages were not sent down from a "divine" being, but rather written by regular ol' human beings (my pick for most likely explanation); or b) the "divine" being in question is not benevolent.

Occasional Reader #155,

If late fees are haram, then either the bank will eat the loss, or, as you yourself suggest, will pass it on to the mortgagor. Either way, what's the problem?

There's no inherent problem as long as the bank doesn't average the cost across all borrowers - which is what I fear would be likely given worries about discrimination lawsuits. It could easily be painted as "charging brown people more" - even though they had opted to take a higher risk product - in the media; this could pressure the banks (either through lawsuits or the media) into averaging the risk across all customers.

Given that other customers are already penalized for late fees, this would end up charging non-Muslims more then Muslims - but it could be portrayed as a "fair solution". For me, it's just something interesting to think about.

As to your two "discrimination" points, I very much doubt anyone could win a lawsuit on these grounds. After all, the banks are also offering to everyone--including Muslims--their standard mortgage products.

IIRC, you are the lawyer, so I'll take your word for it. I'm not sure that that's the case for the court of public opinion... I would also want to know whether non-Muslims could sign up for an Islamic mortgage. In the aforementioned scenario - where I'd have to pay the late fees for myself and for Muslims (averaged in) - I'd sign up for an Islamic mortgage ex post haste. And if late fees are haram, I'd see nothing wrong with paying late (but not so late as to impact credit reports), which would end up being another cost for the bank to spread across everybody.

Another interesting question that this brings up is what happens with refinancing. Can an Islamic mortgage be refinanced? How would that work?

#165 Gordon,

I had to look up the word oppobrium, but ITA again, as well as with OR in #166.

If the fact that the Torah says things that you personally disapprove of is meant as proof that its not from the divine, I would remind you that all of us approve of or disapprove of many things.

If the fact that the Quran/Bible says things that you personally disapprove of is meant as proof that its not from the divine, I would remind you that all of us approve of or disapprove of many things.

Pretty much any of the montheistic faiths can make the same argument. So maybe there really are Jew trees.

James, I don't tar all observant Jews with the same brush as the rock-throwers, but there is a continuum of "holier than thou-ness" that has developed. I haven't thought of you in that light, since you have not previously condescended to me, although lines like

To the extent that it violates your understanding of what Shabbat is your understanding of Shabbat isn't the same as Judaism's understanding of what Shabbat is.

start to come close to that slippery slope, since you don't have any idea what my understanding is. You don't know me at all.

Maybe the multiple crockpots of different delights for every meal wasn't the best one, but I appreciate that you understood my pig in the wilderness example, which I struggled with.

I think what Gordon was trying to say was that we have not just interpreted things that no longer applied or were just plain immoral, we have abandoned them. But even then, to keep up the appearance of still accepting Torah as infallible, we come up with things like "no kid could ever be bad enough to deserve stoning" instead of the morally unambiguous "stoning is wrong, no matter what." That makes me sad. And I am a little ashamed that we devote the same intellectual energy to pronouncements about elevators and string to create virtual walls and doors in order to do what we need/want to do, when in the scheme of morality, whether one carries something from home to shul or uses a baby carriage is pretty irrelevant.

My point is that is harms no one to spend time on these issues, but to pat oneself on the back for observing the rule only because one found a sanctioned loophole for not observing it but labeling it as observing it is hypocritical.

For those who wonder about what I'm talking about, see here:

[Link: 216.109.117.135...]

[Link: www.ottmall.com...] (second item)

[Link: www.thejewishweek.com...]

[Link: www.agudathsholom.org...]

I thought long and hard about posting these links, since I do not want to hold my people and our beliefs, even those ritualistic ones which I have decided not to follow, up to the kind of ridicule often heaped on the muslims for similar things (and I include myself as one of the ridiculers.)

The difference is that Jews do not behead or amputate for punishment, Judaism is not misogynistic in theory or practice, and Jews are not blowing themselves or others up around the world. And, in the grand scheme of things. our rituals are not any sillier than the rituals of any of the other major religions.

#167 Ariel:

There's no inherent problem as long as the bank doesn't average the cost across all borrowers - which is what I fear would be likely given worries about discrimination lawsuits.

Given our litigious society, that's of course always possible. But the banks engaging in this would tend to have more expensive mortgages all around, and the hidden hand of the market (if it isn't stayed, of course) would punish them.

If people did sue for discrimination based on the features of a religiously-compliant product they actively chose, you could of course retaliate by suing the airlines for not providing you with a ham sandwich in your kosher meal, like the one all the non-kosher passengers got...

I would also want to know whether non-Muslims could sign up for an Islamic mortgage.

I'm quite certain that if banks restricted this home finance product solely to Muslim customers, this would violate federal law. Not that I think I'd want one of these things myself, given all the limitations we've been discussing.

I wasn't kidding about what I said in post #15. To me it looks like a huge achillies heal in the Muslim system that any old guy can appoint himself an Imam and then make rules. The way the muslims have it set up just about anybody can Issue laws and pass judgements. We could use this in the WoT to our benefit.

Mommydoc thank you for your letter on MEChA. Not that the Bee will ever print it. Their objectivity is skewed to say the least. I appreciated it anyways.

snopes (#163) Thanks.

Ariel (#167) Exactly my concerns.

#166 Occasional Reader

I think that describing the passages that Gordon cited as merely things of which Gordon "personally disapprove[s]" is putting it rather disingenuously.

If you'd said I made a huge understatement I'd agree. You're right, we aren't discussing what kind of chicken we like. But I don't think I was disingenuous. I still stand by my point that the Torah cannot please every person in every sentiment contained therein. If Gordon agreed everything in it the next guy wouldn't.

If the passages we are talking about include stoning women to death for adultery, amputating a woman's hand for seizing a man's testicles, etc., then I am forced to conclude that either: a) these passages were not sent down from a "divine" being, but rather written by regular ol' human beings (my pick for most likely explanation); or b) the "divine" being in question is not benevolent.

I understand your persepective, but would you say the divine being isn't benevolent for disapproving of such things per se (does a divine being have to approve of everything you like?) or for the punishments prescribed?

Because as I've already said Judaism believes in a dual Torah, both elements are considered to have been equally revealed. So to view such passages from a Jewish lens, one basically sees severe disapproval rather than severe punishments. Does a benevolent God have to approve of anything at all? Or just the things that the individual approves of?

#168 snopes

Pretty much any of the montheistic faiths can make the same argument.

Of course. But I remind you that Jews don't ask/ require/ want/ desire/ scheme to convert the world to Judaism by hook or by crook or by force. It really doesn't matter to me one way or another if you consider the Torah divine and I'm not trying to prove it is. But Gordon raised a reasonable critique and I merely responded to that. My point is that Gordon is basically saying "I don't like it" and I'm saying "That's your choice; if you liked it all the next guy wouldn't like it, so what difference does it make if you like it?".

#168 snopes:

but ITA again, as well as with OR in #166.

"ITA"?? I don't know that one. I looked in the FAQ, and it's not there (but I did see that I'm famous!!!).

#173 James:

I still stand by my point that the Torah cannot please every person in every sentiment contained therein.

This statement is simply too general, that's my point. If, hypothetically, some portion of the Torah called for, I dunno, sacrificing babies in order to please Yahweh, would your reaction be the same? Well, stoning women to death for adultery isn't too far off from this.

Does a benevolent God have to approve of anything at all?

The hypothetical baby-sacrifice-demanding god could not be reasonably described as "benevolent", not if the word is to have any meaning at all. I don't think the adultress-stoning-demanding god can be, either. So either a god did not actually make that demand, or the god that made it isn't "benevolent".

#169 Mommydoc

I would agree with you if the practical consequence of a refusal to denounce stoning as wrong, period, had led to Jewish insensitivy or violence. I know that the stone-throwing Charedim is a big scandal and outrageous, but I don't think you can really draw a line from riotous behavior to stoning as prescribed in the Torah. I can tell you with certainty that this is not at all what they are thinking. They're behaving exactly as thugs behave. When there were race riots in Crown Heights no one thought that the thugs involved were drawing upon an ancient African custom. Those people were behaving criminally, and the same for those few Charedim who throw stones at cars in Israel on Shabbat.

It seems that you feel that it's a moral failing of Judaism to not say "stoning is wrong regardless of what the Torah says". But the fact is that we can't denounce the Torah because in doing so we're also denouncing our assertion that God told us to do charity (for example). It thus becomes optional. I'm sure what I just wrote is going to to be met with protest, that we in fact can separate the wheat from the chaff. I hate to use slippery slope arguments, but the fact is that our Torah survives intact becase we've preserved every jot and tittle of it. Our ancestors were frankly fanatical about it, and thanks to their fanaticism we have our Torah instead of excerpts. Should we as a people decide that we will trim the so-called fat I can assure you that we will have been derelict in our custodianship and that our descendents will not have the Torah.

If the problems of violence that plagues Dar al Islam plagued Dar al Yahud I might have to agree with you that we've failed, that the rabbis failed in not condemning stoning and other excesses in and of themselves. But the fact is that despite every yeshiva high school student learning theoretical laws of stoning not a one of them is a violent 7th century misift, and if he is he didn't get it from Jewish tradition.

Occasional Reader: I am with you in your line of reasoning. Thank you.

papertiger: You're welcome. I'm sure you're right.

As far as the tax implications, slightly OT, but this isn't a good sign.

#175 Occasional Reader

I see what you're saying, but my categorical assertion is that the laws which essentially rule out capital punishment from being carried out change the entire picture. The Torah is not really saying "Stone an adulteress". What it's saying is "An adulturess comitted a sin for which she deserves to be stoned" and then we don't stone her. Yes, I'm well aware that this offends modern sensibilites and you may be unwilling to allow even that adultery is a "sin". But surely saying "adultery is very, very bad" is a far cry from saying (and meaning" "stone that adulteress".

In your example of baby sacrifice, the difference is that nearly all of us understand that adultery is wrong, even if you don't think its a "sin". Saying that infidelity in a relationship is wrong is not analogous to an arbitrary command to murder babies for no reason (even if the "sentence" is then suspended). I hope you follow the distinction I am trying to make; whatever your feelings about the barbarity of a theoretical death sentence to an adulteress, surely you too disapprove of adultery?

A perfectly valid question would be why the ambiguity? Why does it say "Stone her" when some Jewish people claim that the practicalities of getting a conviction and carrying out the sentence are so slim that the whole law is voided?

For one thing, the dual Torah system, we believe is intentional and the idea that every thought has an asterisk next to it, which requires expansion and study enables a finite body of work to encaspulate far more than what's in the relatively short text.

For another, we believe that God does vehemently disapprove of adultery (_so to speak_) and this is how he let us know. He told us in the Torah what a sin is worth, and then "suspended the sentence". Bear in mind also that whether we like it or not the Torah was worded in a far rougher time and place. Humankind was far less tame, less civilized and less mature 3300 years ago than today. Perhaps the intemperate language was exactly the medicine the ancients needed to understand how to behave ethically. If the Torah were written today it might say things differently, but then again if it were written in 1000 years from now it would necessarily be worded differently than one would be worded today.

#29wordwarp 9/2/2003 10:34PM PST

Didn't the 9/11 hijackers buy their tickets with Visa cards? Allah must have been so displeased

Not a problem -- under Sharia law it's OK to run up a large Visa bill as long as you KILL yourself before you pay any interest.

#176 James:

But the fact is that we can't denounce the Torah because in doing so we're also denouncing our assertion that God told us to do charity (for example). It thus becomes optional.

As a logical assertion, this simply isn't true. One could very well denounce (or repudiate) the more bizarre and barbaric practices called for in the Torah, while maintaining those that are, for lack of a better word, benevolent. We are thinking beings, after all. One could do this based on, say, a belief that; the more bizarre parts of the Torah were included by mistake; or were mistranslated or misinterpreted; or, if you're like me, that the whole book was written by mere humans with no supernatural intervention at all.

Occasional Reader #170,

But the banks engaging in this would tend to have more expensive mortgages all around, and the hidden hand of the market (if it isn't stayed, of course) would punish them.

Yes, that's what I would fear. Banks could be pressured into having these mortgages (discrimination! - and Gordon would tell us that this leads to apartheid and genocide :P ) and spreading the costs over the whole customer base (discrimination!). If the hidden hand of the market were not able to operate because all banks had to have these loans, then we'd all have higher costs thanks to this program.

LOL at the ham sandwich example, incidentally.

James, you misunderstand me. I am not drawing any parallel between the issue of stoning as described in the Torah and the Haredim throwing rocks, which is precisely why I have used the word "rocks" instead of stones, in the latter situation.

My point is that holier-than-thou attitudes lead to making condescending statements publicly to fellow Jews about their Judaism and to the ultimate end, which is the Haredi behavior, which is not just limited to rock throwing but to kidnapping each others' rabbis and taking their clothes off in public, as happened in Brooklyn in the eighties, IIRC. It's bad enough to be holier than thou, but when it is based on chasing down loopholes, which I and many others consider quibbling or cheating, it moves clearly into the realm of hypocrisy.

If one wants to be dishonest with oneself, fine: that's between that person and God. But when one is dishonest with another, that's despicable.

It seems that you feel that it's a moral failing of Judaism to not say "stoning is wrong regardless of what the Torah says". But the fact is that we can't denounce the Torah because in doing so we're also denouncing our assertion that God told us to do charity (for example). It thus becomes optional. I'm sure what I just wrote is going to to be met with protest, that we in fact can separate the wheat from the chaff.

Recognizing that stoning for adultery is wrong is not denouncing the Torah. It is recognizing that something that may have been morally acceptable at the time the Torah was revealed is no longer morally acceptable. We are not a static people. And I have no problem with leaving those passages in, because the Torah is a historic document, and there is a long verbal tradition as well as Talmud that allows us to reshape our practices. There are many things we do today that were not done then, just as there are many things we no longer do because there is no Temple, a historic reality. The priestly duties which are enumerated in Torah do not apply today, so they are not done.

But just because we say that stoning is wrong, or amputation of a woman's hand for touching the testicles of a man who was in a fight with her husband is wrong because these acts are not morally acceptable and are therefore in violation of the overwhelming morality of our religion does not mean that the moral aspects of the Torah become optional.

In secular law, laws are repealed without throwing out the Constitution. The Constitution is amended without erasing the passages that are essentially repealed; as I recall, when one looks at the laws of any particular government entity, the outdated law is still printed but is labeled as "repealed."

Doing the same thing with Torah does post pragmatic issues, since rewriting the actual Torah to include "repealed" statements would be unthinkable, even to me, because of the way in which Torahs are scribed and since it would involve having to destroy "outdated" copies, or removing them from ceremony, and I can't agree with doing that, either. But that's what Talmud was for, and the body of contemporary commentary.

And maybe, ultimately, that's the real and pragmatic reason behind not coming right out and saying that a law in Leviticus is just plain wrong. Because we don't want to change the Torah. I would argue that we don't need to in order to say that something is wrong.

But even this small point could get us arguing for months. ;-)

James, I like your explanation in 178 better. But if we recognize that the Torah, as written, is to some extent a function of its historical context, I think we can also say that some things contained in it are no longer relevant or appropriate to today. You bring up the issue of adultery. What about polygamy? Having concubines? Slaves? Permitted by the Torah, impermissible today.

#178 James:

The Torah is not really saying "Stone an adulteress". What it's saying is "An adulturess comitted a sin for which she deserves to be stoned" and then we don't stone her.

Some years ago I read an interesting work of history titled Albion's Fatal Tree. The author, Douglas Hay, had researched English caselaw and judicial practices from the late 18th century. He found that, in response to a rising perception among the gentry that property crimes were soaring, Parliament eventually moved toward enacting the death penalty for virtually any property crime of any consequence. However, since they couldn't very well hang half the poor in England, in fact the sentence was usually reduced by the magistrates. Thus were the "majesty and mercy" of the law demonstrated.

I find it hard to believe that an all-powerful supernatural being would find it necessary to behave like a nervous 18th century Viscount. If the (written) Torah is saying, "an adultress deserves to be stoned", it is setting forth a normative declaration. Whether or not the sentence is routinely carried out is another question. That act either "deserves" that punishment, or it doesn't. I cannot reconcile the idea of a benevolent supreme being with one who would state that it does.

Not to mention that this same supreme being allegedly felt that the death penalty was "deserving" for consensual gay sex (Leviticus 20:13), or that banishment was called for if a man has sex with a woman during her period (" " 20:18), or... I could go on. All sorts of astonishing punishments for trivial, even arbitrary "offenses".

Does muslim finance law deny the existence of inflation too?
Same math.

#180 Occasional Reader

As a logical assertion, this simply isn't true

You misunderstood me. The operative words were "that God told us to do". The point is that we've only got one Torah, and we believe that it comes from God. Of course you think it comes from men. Many people do, and no matter. I'm talking about how one views it from the point of belief. If one thinks it comes from God then one is not free to splice it and dice it. Yes, you can assert that its possible for the Torah to come from God yet contain parts that were interpolated by men, but that's not the way Judaism views the Torah. Part of our belief is that it has not been tampered with, has not been changed, and the strict methods for preserving the integrity of the text are there based upon this belief.

Like I said its not so great to use the slippery slope argument since after all one need not necessarily slip just because you're standing on a slope. But the fact is that there's no sure way to safeguard against slipping when you're on that slope -- unless there are safeguards.

By the way, in case you're wondering, I'm not deluding myself into believing that I believe the Torah is from God. I really do believe it, even while I understand completely why you think my belief is in error and perhaps even that I'm nuts.

#182 Mommydoc

But holier-than-thou attitudes don't come from the Torah and they don't come from the Talmud or Jewish tradition. They are a human foible. Some people are fanatical about their patriotism. Some people are fanatical about their taste in music and (more than some) people are fantical about their religion. But the behavior of rock-throwing Charedim or holier-than-thou Orthodox Jews isn't a feature of Judaism by any means. A whole genre of Jewish ethical literature, called mussar, exists and part of its goal is to eliminate disagreeable character traits. Condescension is one such trait.

Holier-than-thou attitudes aren't based on loopholes or Halacha. I wonder where you get the idea that it is?

And maybe, ultimately, that's the real and pragmatic reason behind not coming right out and saying that a law in Leviticus is just plain wrong. Because we don't want to change the Torah.

That may be so. It also might be so because we don't believe that adulteresses were actually stoned 3000 years ago anymore than they were in Talmudic times. Also, don't forget, we believe that it comes from God. God isn't "wrong" and we're not going to say he commands us to do things that are wrong. We don't feel at liberty to judge the morals of the one who we believe morality itself emanates from. And always remember that the severity is mainly theoretical.

But even this small point could get us arguing for months. ;-)

Indeed. :-)

#186 James:

I understand completely why you think my belief is in error and perhaps even that I'm nuts.

The former, with all respect, yes; the latter, absolutely not.

Thanks to you, mommydoc, and Ariel, for a very interesting conversation. But I really must do some work now...

James, I like your explanation in 178 better.

Thanks.

But if we recognize that the Torah, as written, is to some extent a function of its historical context, I think we can also say that some things contained in it are no longer relevant or appropriate to today. You bring up the issue of adultery. What about polygamy? Having concubines? Slaves? Permitted by the Torah, impermissible today.

There's no question that societal norms change. There's also no question that abolishing slavery was moral progress. But these things were permitted, not commanded. I think its safe to say they were a concession to the way of the world at the time. Polygamy? One wealthy man/ several women was an acceptable model for a world in which women had no ability to fend for themselves without a husband. But its worth noting that every example of polygamy in the Torah is replete with rivalry and bickering between the co-wives. It was allowed because it was a way to provide for women, but the Torah never presents this as the model for marital bliss. There is an earlier model of monogamous marriage in which the Torah described a man and women uniting and becoming "one flesh". Even the Hebrew word for "co-wife" tells us something: the word is tzarah, which literally means "trouble". Was it moral progress to abandon the practice of polygamy? Sure.

(I can go through the others if you like as well.)

The thing is we are discussing morally problematic things the Torah permitted, but didn't command. What about things that just seem downright weird, but are niether moral nor immoral, such as what you may eat? By your reasoning those too are outdated and can be dismissed. The trouble is that when the dust settles are we are left with is suggestions, not commandments. We cannot neuter Judaism this way.

#184 Occasional Reader

I find it hard to believe that an all-powerful supernatural being would find it necessary to behave like a nervous 18th century Viscount.

You aren't taking into account the mores and mentality of bronze-age people.

By the way, are saying that the idea that any human action can be met with divine disapproval means that such a being isn't benevolent?

The former, with all respect, yes; the latter, absolutely not.

Thanks. ;-) It's nice to have in depth discussions about things we can disagree on without rancor.

Actually, the Old Testament (from a Christian perspective, anyway) rules about sex during menstruation had a beneficial affect in increasing the population of the early Hebrew people. The old calendar rhythm of birth control was based on avoiding sex during the time that a woman having a standard 28 day cycle was fertile ( rhythm doesn't work well at all if a woman's cycle isn't regular), whereas a rule that states that people can't have sex during menstruation and for so many days after would tend to encourage sex during the fertile time.

Of course, if you are a Christian, following all those rules has been greatly simplified by " You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and your mind. The second is like it, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two the entire Law is based".

#188 James--

Sorry, can't resist:

There's also no question that abolishing slavery was moral progress. But these things were permitted, not commanded.

I don't read Hebrew, so can't say what the original version of the following text was; but here's the King James version:

Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

(Leviticus 25:45-46)

Notice those "shalls". Sounds like a commandment to me.

Didn't the Hebrews have a rule about freeing slaves during certain years?

Not certain, and can't quote chapter and verse.

Dr. Ed,

Do you think it's a coincidence that religious Jews have so many kids?

And speaking of which (thanks so much for the nice segue), mazal tov to the LGF extended family. My wife and I had a beautiful baby boy this past shabbos! 6 pounds, 13 ounces (of course!)

:-))

Avi (#193)

Mazel Tov! That's wonderful :-)

James, again you misunderstand me. I didn't say that holier-than-thou attitudes are part of Judaism. I am quite well aware that they are not, which has been my point all along, here and on other threads. It is why I have lost any respect for any supposed "good Jew" who has demonstrated such behavior. And it's that behavior to which I have been referring when I (rarely) have used the term "black hattery." I do not tar all people who wear black hats (literally or figuratively) with the same "black hattery" brush, BTW. Only the ones who condescend to less observant Jews, or who think that they are so holy that they do not need to work to support themselves and that it's society's responsibility to provide for them.

Nor did I say that the loopholes cause the behavior, but not recognizing that the loopholes are a quibble or intellectually dishonest makes the holier-than-thou attitude true hypocrisy. In those who are holier-than-thou to begin with.

Whether I push my baby to shul in a carriage inside or outside an eruv doesn't change the fact that I am pushing my kid in a carriage. Either it's wrong or it's not, and a piece of string doesn't change the act. It's as ridiculous to pretend that it does as to call a pig in the wilderness an Empire™ chicken. And to imply to me that just because you (not you in particular, James) have a string means you didn't break a law and I did is hypocritical.

Not at all.

It is too bad that more Jews don't have large families ( strictly from a patriotic American POV). Jews tend to place a high value on human life, and a high value on education. Just a generalization, but they make good citizens.

I thought I read something somewhere in the Old Testament about freeing slaves during certain years, but I have no idea where.

Congratulations Avi #193!

If you haven't picked out a name yet, might I suggest "Occasional"?

#193 Avi

Congratulations. Finally some good news today.

Avi, mazel tov. May he only know happiness and a long life.

Yeah, the name's not going to come until the bris (circumcision), which will be this shabbos. I wonder, does "Occasional" have a yiddish derivative?

#200 Avi,

Congratulations again. Please email me after the bris. I'll be thinking of you this Shabbos.

#117....and you know what Snopes. I don't have a problem with that just as I don't mind parochial schools, hospitals with a religious affiliation and so on. Interest is one thing, usury is another.

I just hoped to clear up a point, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Then again, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Thanks to everyone for the kind words. Sorry to hijack the thread like that. Now, what were we arguing about again?

Oh right, Jewish law. You know, it's funny. I would usually be right in the middle of this argument, but I just don't think I've got the fire for it today. After watching a child come in to the world, and seeing the potential contained within that tiny body, I just can't bring myself to jump in the fray.

Or maybe it's just lack of sleep.

Thanks for some good news for a chance, Avi. Long life and double happiness to y'all (father, mother, and child). Might I suggest "redneck"? It's a good strong name.

"change"! Preview, preview! Why do I always see the typos just as I hit post?

#203 Avi,

You know, it's funny. I would usually be right in the middle of this argument, but I just don't think I've got the fire for it today.

It's just as entertaining to sit back and watch.

Scratch that entertaining, and make it interesting.

My wife and I had a beautiful baby boy this past shabbos! 6 pounds, 13 ounces (of course!)

Mazel tov, Avi! I am amazed you are posting at all! If we don't hear from you for a few weeks we'll understand! :-)

Didn't the Hebrews have a rule about freeing slaves during certain years?

Yes, I believe it's in Mishpatim.

Avi,

Mazel Tov! I hope you and your wife and family have tons of nachas and bracha. Hope mother and son are well -- and you too! Don't forget to tell us his name. :)

Regarding some of the other points that were raised (particularly Occasional Reader's point about enslaving conquered peoples) I shall post about that as soon as I get the chance this evening (and yes, I need to think about it).

Avi - Mazel Tov on your new baby! I wouldn't suggest "Ariel" for your new baby since it seems to remind people of the Little Mermaid in the States...

Ed Moran - IIRC, there's a rule that slaves have to freed after seven years of bondage. I can't quote chapter and verse, but I do know that the rule exists. I think that a slave can request to stay on for longer but I'm not sure what happens then.

#211 Ariel,

I think that a slave can request to stay on for longer but I'm not sure what happens then.

That is stated in Yehudit's link in #209. There is also a rule about giving a slave a pillow if there is only one available. Perhaps Yehudit or James can tell us something about that. I always found it a very interesting law.

But the fact is that we can't denounce the Torah because in doing so we're also denouncing our assertion that God told us to do charity (for example). It thus becomes optional. . . . our Torah survives intact becase we've preserved every jot and tittle of it. Our ancestors were frankly fanatical about it, and thanks to their fanaticism we have our Torah instead of excerpts. Should we as a people decide that we will trim the so-called fat I can assure you that we will have been derelict in our custodianship and that our descendents will not have the Torah.

This is exactly what I was trying to say when I said it all comes from the same place. What moved me was a room full of modern Jews of various levels of observance - some of them gay themselves and certainly with a strong personal interest in the outcome - all studying halacha together, to figure out how to derive an inclusive, compassionate, and just result (the full integration of gay Jews into observant Jewish life) from our sacred texts, using accepted methods.

We didn't say "we're just going to ignore this part," we said, "how do we get here from there?" ALL of the arguments were based on well-accepted rulings or minhag using the same kinds of arguments, so we weren't even trying to update the methodology or reasoning style. We weren't even working from obscure texts or communities, but from the Shulchan Aruch, Rambam, Talmud.

To me this spoke of a great deal of respect for and commitment to the continuity of the integrity of the oral and wirtten law. I saw a very complex and thoughtful system at work and people committed to preserving it at cost to the immediate realization of some of their values, but at the same time with a hope and certainty that there was a way to reconcile Torah to their values. (As Blu Greenberg of JOFA says, "Where there's a rabbinic will, there's a halachic way.")

(At the same time, I would not hesitate to support any gay rabbi, or any Jewish gay couple to figure out a commitment ceremony using traditional Jewish form and symbols, as it were, in advance of any rulings from the Conservative Movement. But here too there is a long-standing tradition - anecdotes that have been preserved - particularly from the hassidim, of rabbis "doing the right thing" when the moment demanded it, whether the law agreed or not. Mercy and kindness, as well as saving a life, can trump the law.)

This seminar happened - as did the Conservative movement ordaining women in the 1980s - because of agitation from the grassroots, particularly a group of JTS rabbinical students. One thing that became clear as we studied the law was that halacha always has responded to the grassroots, enshrining custom as law. Which is a whole nother paragrpah.

But I have to get somewhere by 8 PM, so I am signing off now.

Yehudit, I believe Mishpatim refers only to Hebrew slaves, but for non-hebrew slaves, there is the Jubilee year, as I understand it. Although fifty years sounds like a long time to wait. I admit, I am not up on my slave law, since it's been so long since my family had any ;-)

[Link: www.torahproductions.com...]

BeharM/i> was my parasha for my bat mitzvah.

Here's a little more about the sabbatical and jubilee years:

[Link: www.torah.org...]

Sorry; Houdini the Wonder Cat helped me type my last post. His HTML skills are still weak. The messed up part is actually Behar.

#213 Yehudit: Interesting that you should bring up Jewishness and homosexuality. Many, many years ago I had a Jewish girlfriend whose sister was a rabbi (as was her husband; they had met in rabbinical school). She was the rabbi for a gay congregation (is that the right word?) in West Hollywood. I attended one of their services, althought I don't remember much about it at this point other than a lot of Hebrew and a frequent refrain of "we are proud to be Jewish and gay." I can imagine discussions such as you have had.

Christianity could learn a lot from the process.

Grodon (#216 and elsewhere on this thread, like 160 and 165) I wholeheartedly agree. You've made good points here.

#217: mommydoc: Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate your and others insights into Judaism that you post here. Knowledge is power, but it is also understanding.

Thanks, Gordon. Back at you. Just remember, you put three Jews in a room, you will get six opinions.

And if I don't say it, someone else will post back with, "Why only six?" ;-)

mommydoc--

re #156 re #85--what can I say? QED, I guess. *sigh*

OTOH, you and James have gone back and forth on some points where the feelings are strong and the common ground shaky, and yet nobody cursed anyone else's moustache or issued a fatwa, and there was far more light than heat in the exchange. I tip my hat.

And Avi, let me add my belated mazel tov.

This Allah guy must be pretty stupid.