Talk:Contractum trinius
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Islamic banking
The final paragraph seems like a thinly veiled attack on Islamic banking without any consideration of pro/con arguments. I think it would be more neutral to simply provide a link to the full Islamic banking article, without the hostile implications. Let me know if you feel my edit is inappropriate. Maronz 14:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- The contractum trinius isn't inherently a bad thing — or at least it's not made out to be in the article. So I'm not sure that saying that a form of it is used by some modern Islamic banks is (as far as I see it) an attack on those institutions. Could do with a source stating that it actually is being used by the banks, though. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- On a quick search, it looks like my hunch was right. Google makes the link between Islamic banking and the contractum trinius seem tenuous at best, with only a handful mentioning both together - compared to the 800,000+ hits for "Islamic banking". However, since half the hits mentioning the contractum trinius at all make a comparison to Islamic banking, a brief mention is probably warranted. I've added a link to such an essay to back up the point that some do make the connection, though I've no major objection if it's removed. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks good :) I described it as a possible attack because I think a Muslim would be reasonably offended when a practice called "Islamic" is being described as a clever trick to get around Islamic law. The way it is now is perfect though. Maronz 03:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- So what if they're offended? Islamic banking *is* an attempt to get around Islamic law, just as the Contractum trinius is an attempt to get around biblical law. If a Muslim were offended, then surely they should petition their Islamic banks to offer genuine zero-interest loans, not complain about Wikipedia. -DrPizza 14:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I changed it less because it would offend than because the link seems somewhat tenuous based on googling. I'll admit I don't happen to have access to any literature, online or offline, about Islamic banking – so if anyone can provide an authoritative reference comparing the two feel free to include it. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there are certainly some Muslims who feel that common Islamic banking practices are illegitimate. The author of the comparison linked in the article is one of those authors; some feel that nothing short of true interest free loans are acceptable (that is, those loans whose terms admit no time preference/opportunity cost/etc. to money); others would extend that to profit-sharing schemes (for investments, at least); others argue that hire-purchase agreements (where the goods are rented for a period and paid off at the end of that period) are acceptable, as no penalty fees can be owed, but the goods can be repossessed on failure to pay. -DrPizza 23:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, but bear in mind that this isn't an article on Islamic banking. That exists here. If you can find any certified experts positing a connection between the contractum trinius and modern banking practices, it belongs here. Otherwise, it probably doesn't. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there are certainly some Muslims who feel that common Islamic banking practices are illegitimate. The author of the comparison linked in the article is one of those authors; some feel that nothing short of true interest free loans are acceptable (that is, those loans whose terms admit no time preference/opportunity cost/etc. to money); others would extend that to profit-sharing schemes (for investments, at least); others argue that hire-purchase agreements (where the goods are rented for a period and paid off at the end of that period) are acceptable, as no penalty fees can be owed, but the goods can be repossessed on failure to pay. -DrPizza 23:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I changed it less because it would offend than because the link seems somewhat tenuous based on googling. I'll admit I don't happen to have access to any literature, online or offline, about Islamic banking – so if anyone can provide an authoritative reference comparing the two feel free to include it. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
