Talk:Sukuk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

this definition sucks! i looked back at some fo the previous defintions, and they were so much better. for me, the central issue is that a sukuk is an islamic equivalent of a bond, a fixed insturment security. Why is there so much meaningless waffle about islamic finance in this artcile, when the real issues is missed? thanks, to anyone that can improve this. Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.92.224 (talk • contribs)

I agree. The previous version was removed because it was a cut-and-pasted copyright violation from some other site, and this version sounds suspiciously like it's copied from somewhere else too. Want to take a crack at writing a short and succinct explanation of the Sukuk concept yourself? Be WP:BOLD and go for it.... wikipediatrix 16:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

>>You guys are harsh! meaningless waffle - well i think both of you misunderstand.

Indeed Sukuk are the nearest thing to an islamic 'bond' but that gives no understanding as why there is a need for an alternative for islamic investors - Sukuk?

The key point is that within islamic finance they cannot invest in conventional fixed income securities and hence have created a kind of subsititute that is acceptable for muslim investors. Why can't they invest in conventional bonds? well for the key reasons/principles mentioned in the definition. As such, I felt understanding why they cannot invest in typical bonds gives a better understanding of what are the key structural features in Sukuk and how they are different. Now the layman can survive very well calling it an 'islamic bond', but for those who want to understand the differences and the reason for them - i think this helps.

Wikipediatrix is right is that in is a massively summarised version of an 8000 word paper "I" wrote on the subject. Its been cited by FT, Bloomberg, Reuters, Gulf News, MEED et al. The author also provides commentary/info on the topic to BusinessWeek and the Economist.

Sorry if you thought my contribution useless, I saw a blank space under the defn (never saw the old one you mention) and thought the topic was too important to leave empty - its a shame that you are confident enought to rubbish my effort while offering no contribution of your own.. Anyhow free country/web etc.. and i think Wikipedia is one amazing phenomenon.

kho.

I came to this article to learn, but it is very poorly written. Since I am not learned in Islamic finance, I'm not qualified to address its' flaws. Even if I were to attempt to clean up the grammar and sentence construction, I'm afraid I would damage the meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.132.27.187 (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

so what are they?

The article doesn't anywhere actually define sukuk, or explain how they work. What sort of agreement do they embody? What are the typical terms and mechanisms? The article says that they cannot charge or pay interest in the usual sense due to Islamic law, but doesn't say what they do do instead. --Delirium 23:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with kho that you're being harsh, and this was a great help to me. Magpie68 (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

kho, was it you who wrote the linguistics page? maybe it's just me but it does not seem like something out of an encyclopedia. it seems like someone offended with people mispronouncing and misusing the word in question is trying to convince people to "do it his way". i agree that if people are making mistakes it is correct to point it out but the useage of phrases such as "So next time you are reading or writing about Sukuk, keep in mind the correct usage." is unecessary and inappropriate. It seems more like a guide to arabic linguistics as opposed to what it should be which is an encyclopedia article IDENTIFYING linguistic issues not COMMENTING ON them or ENCOURAGING people to take action agaist the issues. --Eviltimmehempire (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

> The 'terminology' section that has been added is also highly inappropriate; recommend that the line "A good analogy is..." should be deleted altogether and the paragraph be completely re-written. Saying things like "one can always use..." are not appropriate to an encyclopaedia article. It should be re-written in a simple and straightforward fashion, as a sentence that explains that a. sukuk is the plural of sakk and b. sakk is rarely used so such bonds are primarily referred to as an islamic bond in the singular; the sentence should then be added to one of the other sections and the terminology section deleted.--82.32.195.84 (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

==========

>Go to the ROOTS : It would be useless to delve deeper into the complexity of Sukuk and other 'so-called' Islamic financial products. I would highly recommend for anyone who wants an authentic analysis of the MONEY ITSELF!

PS. : Anyone can challenge the author's conclusions but that would require you to present your analysis in opposition to the facts stated hereby in the article.

       Here's the link to that article by Dr. Imran N.Hosein : <anofollow" class="external free">http://www.imranhosein.org/content/view/103/1/">Islam and the Future of Money</a>

regards, Salman Ul Haq, [email protected]

Say what?

Okay, maybe I'm just slow, but the article makes little sense to me. It says: "Sukuk are securities that comply with the Islamic law and its investment principles, which prohibits the charging, or paying of interest."

Okay, so I'm not charging interest. I'm just giving someone some capital, and they pay me back for the capital plus some extra money for the time value of the money that was tied up while while the borrower was using it. Uh...that's the definition of interest.

This article is badly in need of a sentence along the lines of "Unlike a traditional interest-bearing security, a Sukuk _________________." Because if the article explains anywhere what the difference is, I'm not able to understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.57.203 (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's because it can't make sense, by definition. Any tax attorney is familiar with the concept of imputed interest, and these Sukuk transactions are riddled with imputed interest. If the religious scholars want to ignore imputed interest, that is their business, but don't expect it to make any sense to the rest of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.48.131 (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in the opening sentence

The word 'certificate' links to academic certificate. Not an encouraging start to the article. --عبد المؤمن (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

COI

Per the box at the top of this page, this article has been edited by a person with a conflict of interest. I have placed a COI tag on the article. Independent editors need to review the article for NPOV and sourcing. Once the article is clean, the tag can be removed. Please leave a note here, if you do that cleaning and remove the tag. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

sukuk.com is not a reliable source

Just noting it needs to be removed/replaced. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sukuk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081024205357/http://www.sukuk.net:80/news/newsfull.php?newid=6429 to http://www.sukuk.net/news/newsfull.php?newid=6429

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)