Today's posting topic is the question posed by western mass when they takling about conspiracy of financial crisis in US that denarists already predicted for the last few years (or decades ago..). Now same case happened again and caught by authorities. This time the Texas billionaire Allen Stanford. He was charged with "massive" fraud involving his Stanford International Bank. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused Stanford of fraudulently selling $8 billion in high-yield certificates of deposit. They want to know how Stanford International Bank could earn profit without lending money.
The arrest of Sir Allen Stanford reminds of the case of Bernie Madoff. In December, 2008, he was charged with perpetrating investment fraud. Bernie paid returns to investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors rather than from profit.
And do you remember Arthur Nadel who was accused by federal authorities of defrauding clients of millions of dollars? Or Nicholas Cosmo, an investment-firm owner, surrendered to federal authorities. He earned over $370 million between 2006 and 2008 by promising investors 48% annual returns from funding commercial loans.
Bernie Madoff, Allen Stanford, Arthur Nadel, Nicholas Cosmo … Who is next? What is going on in this world? Why have investors started to lose their businesses and what to expect in the future? Can these events be a part of a big game that somebody plays?
For those who attended the gold dinar talk or conference or ever heard about this before, this is nothing to be shocked..
Is this really make you rich? think again..
2 ulasan:
apa komen ustaz pasal isu perbankan islam kat malaysia, yang dipertikaikan konsepnya x betul2 berlandaskan shariah. yg latest nya pasal isu BBA yg di anggap void oleh mahkamah sivil. ada jugak kawan yg nak present isu ni cakap, ada tbaca yg middle east scholar x approve konsep BBA malaysia yg sama dgn konsep bay al inah. ada juga yg mengatakan BBA sama dengan Murabahah tp di Malaysia dikatakan guna 2 konsep yg berbeza tapi sebenarnya sama.pendapat&komen ustaz?
1. Konsepnya betul. Mereka berhujah Nabi bila bermuamalah di pasar yahudi tidak menukar sistem di pasar yahudi tersebut tetapi hanya mengubah siste akadnya sahaja. Maka mereka melakukan perkara yang di dalam perbankan Islam. Mereka hanya menukar akad dan agreement on the paper sahaja tidak kepada sistem itu sendiri.
2. Konsep BBA dipertikaikan kerana beberapa isu tentang pelaksanaannya. Begitu juga penentuan harga pada masa akan datang, juga terdapat gharar. Sekali lagi hujah mereka adalah "an taradhim minkum" iaitu keredhaan kedua2 belah pihak menghalalkan akad yang dibuat.
3. Begitu juga Bay' Inah yang menjual barangan semula kepada pihak yang sama sedangkan barangan yang dibelipada akad pertama secara tangguh itu tidak lagi dilangsaikan. Sekali lagi hujah mereka adalah kerana agreement telah ditandatangani mengatakan hak barangan telah pun sabit kepada customer walaupun harga bertangguh dan belm dilangsaikan.
4. Pendapat saya ialah tiada masalah tentang itu, namun saya berpandangan lebih jauh lagi dengan persoalan2 seperti, tercapaikah matlamat kesejahteraan umat islam bila sistem ini diteruskan?
Ini semua adalah kaedah didalam menyesuaikan Islam itu di dalam sistem yang bukan berlandaskan Islam.
Catat Ulasan