Satiricus does not understand economics. He is ashamed to say that despite being a Hindu he does not understand Hindu economics. So it goes without saying that not being a Muslim he does not understand Islamic economics. And when Islamic economics gets seasoned with secular economics, things become undeniably ununderstandable for this simpleton. So when it was reported in the press a few months back that a government committee headed by the Reserve Bank chief was ?studying the possibilities of instruments of Islamic banking,? even this wretched retard had his reservations. And the confusion in his befuddled brain was worse confounded as he had read in the same press report about a Muslim professor publicly expressing doubts about how any type of banking can be Islamic. This particular professor was obviously not enough Muslim, and still less secular.
Unfortunately, the British, being a nation of shop-keepers (as Napoleon called them), and Christian shop-keepers at that, they often indulge in the anti-secular activity of taking an inconveniently close look at Muslim money matters. And what do they find? Their finding, often published in the press, is that Islamic economics in general, or Islamic banking in particular, is a case example of Shakespeare'sLaw?A rose by any other name smells as sweet, a barber by any other name, like hair stylist, remains a barber. For instance, the other day a lady asked in a letter to the London Times: A number of UK banks now provide ?Sharia-compliant? mortgages to buy a home but where is the real difference? Explaining what actually happens, she wrote: ?Instead of charging interest, the bank agrees to purchase the property and then rent it to the mortgagee until such time as legal ownership can be transferred. By this time the bank will have earned the same amount as it would have by charging interest, and the purchaser will have paid as much.?
Well, now, what does that mean? It means charging interest and calling it interest is anti-Islamic, but charging interest and calling it something else is not. For the lady of the London Times letter writes in her concluding paragraph: ?It reminds me of the time I visited an Amish community in the US. Landline telephones were prohibited, as the Amish believe that the devil may enter a house by way of the wires. They all, therefore, use mobile phones.? See? The devil is not mobile enough to use a mobile phone for transportation, so he is stumped. A devil of an idea, Satiricus must say.
