http://www.spotlightmichigan.com/2010/01/09/michigan-and-islamic-banking-anthony-mianecki/ Spotlight Michigan seeks to promote a more innovative and entrepreneurial culture in Michigan by cultivating and spotlighting young, talented, and entrepreneurial communities for the new economy. Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:03:24 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 http://www.spotlightmichigan.com/2010/01/09/michigan-and-islamic-banking-anthony-mianecki/comment-page-1/#comment-372 wow gold Sun, 16 May 2010 14:31:28 +0000 http://www.spotlightmichigan.com/?p=740#comment-372 thanks !! very helpful post! thanks !! very helpful post!

]]> http://www.spotlightmichigan.com/2010/01/09/michigan-and-islamic-banking-anthony-mianecki/comment-page-1/#comment-121 Andrew Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:10:45 +0000 http://www.spotlightmichigan.com/?p=740#comment-121 I agree. Islamic loans could be huge in Detroit, especially cities like Dearborn. Credit/mortgages have been given in a manner which gives ownership to the borrower at the time of purchase, instead of the actual buyer/payer which is the bank. Sharia compliant banking treats lending like more of a lease to own deal. The bank purchases the property, and agrees to share the rights to the property with the borrower if the borrower pays a certain amount of money per month/year/what-have-you. The idea here is that the bank would have an actual interest in the property. The bank, as the purchaser and majority owner (with ownership percentages adjusting each time a payment is made) would then seek to upkeep the property in the case that payments cease to be received. Because if the property value deteriorates, the value of the bank's investment decreases. So when a bank buys a house and allows a couple to live there, the bank would periodically want to check on the condition of the property. This would keep tenants happy because the bank can fix things (even if the two parties agree to pay shares of the costs equal to the percentages of ownership.) If banks had an interest in the properties they owned, they may well have an interest in the community surrounding them. For example, if a bank owns several properties in a neighborhood, they could charge more for "rent" if there were a park nearby, nice roads, good schools, etc. Likewise, if the bank owned a store they would want the best products to be of acceptable quality and price so that the business prospers. The bank would then be given a share of the profits. If no profits are made, the bank is stuck with the business and the person is out of the deal. This would make the bank more careful about the money they spend on properties and businesses because if the other party can't pay the bank back for buying the property, the investment isn't positive and the bank takes a loss. I agree. Islamic loans could be huge in Detroit, especially cities like Dearborn.
Credit/mortgages have been given in a manner which gives ownership to the borrower at the time of purchase, instead of the actual buyer/payer which is the bank. Sharia compliant banking treats lending like more of a lease to own deal. The bank purchases the property, and agrees to share the rights to the property with the borrower if the borrower pays a certain amount of money per month/year/what-have-you. The idea here is that the bank would have an actual interest in the property. The bank, as the purchaser and majority owner (with ownership percentages adjusting each time a payment is made) would then seek to upkeep the property in the case that payments cease to be received. Because if the property value deteriorates, the value of the bank’s investment decreases. So when a bank buys a house and allows a couple to live there, the bank would periodically want to check on the condition of the property. This would keep tenants happy because the bank can fix things (even if the two parties agree to pay shares of the costs equal to the percentages of ownership.) If banks had an interest in the properties they owned, they may well have an interest in the community surrounding them. For example, if a bank owns several properties in a neighborhood, they could charge more for “rent” if there were a park nearby, nice roads, good schools, etc. Likewise, if the bank owned a store they would want the best products to be of acceptable quality and price so that the business prospers. The bank would then be given a share of the profits. If no profits are made, the bank is stuck with the business and the person is out of the deal. This would make the bank more careful about the money they spend on properties and businesses because if the other party can’t pay the bank back for buying the property, the investment isn’t positive and the bank takes a loss.

]]>