Why are we buying houses for people at six figures a throw in exchange for monthly payments over the next 30 years?

Technically, the initial investment in this type of loan would be paid off after about 14 years (13 years, 10 months to be precise) after which all future payments would be “profit”. So the state would not be on the hook for the entire 30 years. There is still the question of opportunity costs, but, since we are talking about government, it is unlikely that they would have made good use of that money anyway so it is probably a wash. Your point still stands, the problem just isn’t as drastic as your text implies. Your other points about state intervention in the market are valid, of course.

One thing to note: since there is no division of “principal” and “interest” the buyers would technically be cheated out of the opportunity to pay off the loan early through additional principal payments. Over the course of a thirty year loan, the interest paid is more twice the amount of the principal at current rates ($100K loan results in $210K interest for a total “sharia loan” of $310K.) Under normal loan conditions you could vastly reduce the term of the loan by making slightly higher payments than required. But that would not be a possibility with these “sharia loans” since the entire loan is considered principal and the payment schedule does not change. Of course, since this is part of their own religious belief, the buyers would be essentially cheating themselves so it isn’t an ethical problem. But how long do you think it will be before the ACLU figures out that these folks are losing money and sue the state for “religious discrimination”?

The faithful in the picture look Headless because of the caps(fez?) that they are wearing. Maybe that iswhy they pray in that position. Total submission to the allah-being. An Imam could cut their heads off with a scimitar at a moments notice

United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror

Let’s roll.

Why does every government bend over backward to accomodate muslims?

cadams on March 9, 2009 at 8:56 AM

Fear.

“Oh, she was beaten (lightly)? She obeyed you and you took no further action against her? Sir, you are free to go. Please don’t sue.”

Where’s my stuff??

Surely you know by now that the display of “Thou shalt not kill” in a courthouse is highly offensive, whereas Sharia law should be adopted by the very same courts.

It’s all a product of reverse evolution, and we must embrace it.

ingnesis on March 8, 2009 at 10:21 PM

You are absolutely correct…There is no separation between sharia finance…sharia law and islam…
They are one in the same…However…if you believe some…islam is an ideology …not a religion…
Something to ponder.

Times change.

kd6rxl on March 8, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Only if we let them. If the rest of your comment is right, then the Democrats have won because they’ve deflected the argument into a choice between individual rights and group entitlements, and the immigrants and their individual rights must fall in the fight against group entitlement.

I don’t think so. Lincoln’s positions appear to me to be timeless.

William Amos on March 8, 2009 at 11:46 AM

You’ve been quitE active of late…Very impressive…Don’t stop… and , thank you.

A little while back I posted a link about the ACLU investigating the state funded madrassa that was threatening non Muslim visitors that you had written a posting on. Any news on their investigation of the sacred Mohammedans and Minnesota’s obligation to pay for and promote education and instruction of the majestic laws and customs of Mohammed?

it’s interesting to note that the usual “separation of church and state” argument from the Left has been conspicuously absent here.

Well, in all fairness it’s not like this has been a super-publicized story.

But it’s only a separation of church and state issue if the state government is giving preference to one religion over another. Although Muslims are obviously the primary beneficiaries, if Christians wanted to use the program, they could. Presumably they choose not to because they can get a better deal from the banks, and they can always refinance.

That being said, I hate this idea. This is not what governments should be doing, particularly when most states are experiencing massive budget shortfalls.

If the answer is “No,” then it is flat-out unconstitutional, and must be stopped.