Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (586244)	9/21/2010 1:31:32 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1573092

True Lies: The Paradox of Debating Shariah By Team B on Team B Part 4 of a serialization of Shariah – The Threat to America, the report of Team B II of the Center for Security Policy. The Quran makes it difficult for non-Muslims to have sincere discussions with shariah-compliant Muslims because of a theological rationalization for lying. Under shariah, lying is not only permissible, but obligatory for Muslims in some situations. This complicates efforts to understand the true nature of the threat – and to have confidence in those Muslims at home and abroad with whom the government hopes to make common cause. Shariah has two standards of truth and falsehood. In general, the Quran disapproves of Muslims deceiving other Muslims. It declares, "Surely God guides not him who is prodigal and a liar." Yet Quranic passages and statements attributed to Mohammed in reliable hadiths provide exceptions even to the usual prohibitions on lying to fellow Muslims. Authoritative classical Islamic texts such as the 14th century Reliance of the Traveler provide practical examples of where lying even to Muslims can be appropriate. Reliance also shows further examples in quotes from Mohammed, one of which is, "I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements, and a man talking with his wife or she with him (in smoothing over differences)." These exceptions are sufficiently broad to cover most cases in which lying would be expedient. Shariah demands, moreover, that its adherents lie where it will be advantageous in dealings with infidels whose submission is a Quranic obligation. Consider the legal guidance provided in Reliance. In the Reliance sub-book titled "Holding One's Tongue," one finds sections on "Lying" and "Permissible Lying." These cite the iconic Islamic legal jurist Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali: "This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest. . . . When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N: i.e., when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is prevent one from doing something permissible) and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory." An example of the Quranic basis for the shariah standard of lying is: "Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows." Indeed, in some places, it is Allah himself who is described approvingly as a capricious deceiver: "Say, 'God leads whosoever He wills astray.'" Team B notes that the authoritative Sahih Al-Bukhari wrote that Mohammed personally authorized a permissive attitude toward telling the truth: "The Prophet said, 'If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.'" Besides lying, there is also guidance in Reliance about giving a misleading impression: "Scholars say that there is no harm in giving a misleading impression if required by an interest countenanced by Sacred Law." The issue of lying as a morally justified obligation under shariah leads us to another deceptive concept, known in Arabic as taqiyya, that national security professionals must understand in order to combat the enemy more effectively. We will discuss taqiyya in Part 5 of this series.

To: combjelly who wrote (586244)	9/24/2010 6:31:08 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573092

The point is that you get more careless mortgage lending after a big increase in housing prices starts. Also even if the lending didn't get more careless the older loans wouldn't bee seen as bad to nearly the same degree because the new higher prices would mean that the borrower had equity, and that combined with the drop in interest rates would allow a refinance. So your "Then why were most of the bad loans written after 2001?" Is a rather silly one, in response to "When they changed the regulations in 96, it was basically putting a gun to the heads of lenders while telling them if they want to survive they will lend money to unqualified candidates. " It doesn't serve to refute or respond to the point at all. Starting with the assumption that the change in regulations in 96 was important, even vital, to the inflation of the bubble, you still wouldn't see nearly as many bad loans from before 2001.