Saturday, March 7, 2009

Exclusive Q&A With the President of a Michigan Sharia Bank Part II


This is the continuation of the Exclusive Q&A With the President of a Michigan Sharia Bank Part I story. In part I the president of the bank tells me that I am illogical not to want Sharia law here. Now when I explain to him that I know what Sharia law is he backtracks.

Here is where we left off in part I.

Here is my return email to the University Bank President Mr. Ranzini.

Mr. Ranzini,
Thanks for responding.

Saying that I do not want the barbaric Sharia law in Western culture is very logical. Our country is not about a set of laws that treats one religion better than the other. Christians and Jews are not looking to impose a set of barbaric laws on the world, Muslims are and you are helping them. It is no coincidence that you implemented sharia banking and also banned the Christmas party and alcohol. It is obviously not because that you had some sudden pity for alcoholics. You are clearly more concerned with your Islamic customers over anyone else. You catering to Islamic banking needs is clearly promoting a religion and all of those food choices that you mentioned are for nationalities and not an ideology which calls for world domination. So your comparison is invalid.

Are you a Muslim and would you like to defend this on talk radio tonight?

Chris

Mr.Ranzini was kind enough to respond, but look how he ducks that he has gone beyond sharia banking and has catered to Muslims by banning the annual Christmas party and banning alcohol at after work gatherings. Mr. Ranzini has shown he is a Christian who is clearly more concerned with the beliefs of Muslims over anyone else. He will make an obident dhimmi.


Here is his response.


Dear Mr. Logan:
I’m a Catholic!

I agree with you that our laws in the U.S. should not treat one religion better than any other. Private individuals can enter into contracts as they see fit and are free to do so. How contracts are drawn up is left to the individuals to decide. I can wrote “I O U $1,000” on a piece of paper and sign it and that’s a contract. I can also go to Citibank and get a 100 page commercial real estate loan agreement. Maybe other options in between exist. If the Jewish only bank in NYC or the Christian only bank in Minnesota (they both exist) offer loan contracts drawn up under certain principles to meet the religious needs of their consumers, good for them, I don’t care. At the end of the day, if the legal contracts are violated by one party or another a U.S. court of law, using U.S. Law will interpret the contracts and decide what to do. The U.S. courts will not consider Sharia (Sharia isn’t even mention in our legal contracts with our customers, nor is any religion referenced).

Having a new born baby at home, my desire to work at night is low at the moment. Just curious, your suggestion about the talk show makes me ask, do you work for or with a talk radio show?

Best wishes,

Stephen


In the upcoming part III I mentioned the lawsuit filed against the US government for bailing out AIG, which also is promoting sharia banking. The lawsuit was filed because our government is not supposed to be promoting any religion. In the email Mr.Ranzini tries to marginalize the lawsuit, because the lawyer is a Jew.

Stay tuned!!

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

What a weakling this Ranzini is. He might as well convert already.

Anonymous said...

If his bank does not charge fees or interest on their lending, how do they stay in business? Are they subject to the same lending laws as other banks? Are they an "equal opportunity lender"? I wonder what would happen if a bunch of Detroit's inner city.. ahem... "dwellers" decided to ask for loans. Can they be forced to lend? Our dear "I'm not a Muslim" president used to sue any bank that refused to lend to his south side friends. Wonder how he would respond to that.

Christopher Logan said...

What they do is make money a different way. They will take a house that is lets say $100,000 and just sell it for $130,000. So technically there is no interest.
But on top of that he banned the annual Christmas party and alcohol at after work gatherings. Now if that is not bowing down to Islam, I do not know what is.

That is a good point, maybe I will give them a call on Monday to see if they still give out regular loans.

ShariahFinanceWatch said...

A couple of comments:

1. Mr. Ranzini dismisses the AIG suit because the lawyer is a Jew? Wow. Just...wow. I didn't know the St. Thomas More Law Center was affiliated with Judaism. Evidently there is much we can all learn from Mr. Ranzini, starting with his original thoughts on the history of usury and religion and ending with this latest revelation...

2. The whole concept of interest is something worth examining...this is taken from a Frontpagemag.com interview of my friend and colleague Alex Alexiev back in April 2008:

The most common SCF transaction is called murabaha which is the equivalent of a conventional bank loan to finance a purchase. What makes murabaha ostensibly Islamic is that the bank supposedly purchases the good and takes a degree of risk on while holding it prior to selling it to the customer on repayment terms, including a mark-up (interest) for the service. In practice, both operations happen simultaneously, the client is also asked to purchase insurance and there is zero risk for the bank. In fact, the bank also charges in advance penalties for late payment that are refunded if the loan is paid on time. In everything but name, this is a standard interest loan except that it is invariably more expensive. A similar thing happens with home mortgages where the bank purchases the home and finances it by requiring ‘rental’ payments in a transparent scheme called ‘diminishing musharaka.’

After engaging in semantic acrobatics to deny that what’s involved is interest-based mortgage lending, the bank then turns around and tells its clients to take the interest deduction on their tax return, and the IRS authorities, bless their compassionate hearts, fully oblige them.

Christopher Logan said...

SFW,
Thanks for being straight forward with us, unlike Mr. Ranzini.

I should be posting the final part tomorrow or Tuesday the latest.

Anonymous said...

ShariahFinanceWatch said...
A couple of comments:

1. Mr. Ranzini dismisses the AIG suit because the lawyer is a Jew? Wow. Just...wow. I didn't know the St. Thomas More Law Center was affiliated with Judaism. Evidently there is much we can all learn from Mr. Ranzini, starting with his original thoughts on the history of usury and religion and ending with this latest revelation...


It sure is amazing how Ranzini was all of sudden against usury which just happened to be at the same time he saw he could make more money for the bank by bringing in sharia banking. On top of that he bans booze and the party, what a freaking coward this man is. He also a liar as he tries to spin and spin. I guess he missed the "thou shall not lie" part.

The Munz said...

Chris, you have him by the short hairs. Good job,. His last question about radio is also telling. He is afraid of negative publicity.
I think all he is doing is trying to create a niche bank for himself that he can make a profit at and is completely ignorant of what he is in fact doing.

he is looking beyond his duty as an American to soothing his ego with a few dollars in a banking system that is now faltering.


You did a good JOB!

Christopher Logan said...

Thanks Munz!!