Free overdraft - but only if you're a Muslim...

Lloyds Bank has said it will not charge Muslim customers if they go into their overdrafts.

The bank sent out a booklet this month explaining changes to its personal banking services, including one that would allow Muslims to avoid overdraft charges, The Telegraph reported.

Lloyds Bank said the changes reflect the needs of 'customers who cannot receive credit or debit interest due to their religious beliefs'...

Full Story... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lloyds-bank-removes-overdraft-fee-from-islamic-accounts-9291932.html

*************

Erm, what?
Surely it is not up to the bank to not charge them... It's up to them not to use the overdraft??

Are you trying to make my head explode, like that bloke in Scanners.....?

And Lloyds bank is one of those that caused the banking collapse and was bailed out by the taxpayers.

There might be more to it if you read the rest of the article but I'm not really sure...

The “Sharia-approved” Islamic accounts were set up by the high street bank to appeal to Muslim customers who are not allowed to receive or pay interest under Sharia law.

On its website Lloyds says: “Following the guidance of Islam is an important part of everyday life, so we've made it an important part of everyday banking. Our Sharia committee of two independent scholars has guided us to create an account that’s right for you.”

Again though, I make the point that there's only supposed to be 3.5m of 'em in the country, so why all the pandering.....?

But we all know why really, don't we......?

SO if I move my banking to Lloyds, I can get a free overdraft? hmm...

They would have to give me one, otherwise I could play the 'magic card' of Racism...


Oh...Hang on, i cant can I...   

I don't see the problem with this. The bank are clearly trying to entice Muslim customers whose religion is against profiteering from lending money to those in need. Muslims tend to stay away from high street banks because they are not allowed to make interest on savings and feel it's immoral being charged interest on loans.
Muslims tend to be better customers as they don't like borrowing and would not run up credit they can't afford to repay (which is why there's a tradition of borrowing money from family or their own communities). Plus they don't want interest on their savings so it's a win-win for the bank.

To me it's like insurance companies offering lower premiums to women, older people, people living in certain postcodes because they make less claims and actuarially they represent a lower risk - the corollary of which is that I don't see why I should pay a higher premium to support boy racers and inner city car crime.
In this case, Muslims represent lower risk to the bank. Not sure how many Muslims would take them up on the offer though.

All well and good, lusty but you know as well as I do that if Nat West suddenly created an account for non-Muslims, there'd be an outcry from The Islamic Council of Britain, spearheaded by the Guardian.

And this is where it all falls down.

I can see the commercial appeal for Lloyds, but should they be allowed to do it?

It's clearly a discriminatory practice based on religious belief.

Why can't I get one of those accounts just because I'm not a Muslim?

That's punishing me for my religious beliefs, surely....?

And if the shoe was on the other foot, we all know what would happen.....

I'm fucking fuming at this!  

Apparently, the Islamic account can be opened by anyone who wants one.

Biggie wrote:Apparently, the Islamic account can be opened by anyone who wants one.

...and can presumably prove they're a bona-fide Muslim with a letter from their Imam.

Now where did I leave mine....?

Breadman wrote:All well and good, lusty but you know as well as I do that if Nat West suddenly created an account for non-Muslims, there'd be an outcry from The Islamic Council of Britain, spearheaded by the Guardian.

And this is where it all falls down.

I can see the commercial appeal for Lloyds, but should they be allowed to do it?

It's clearly a discriminatory practice based on religious belief.

Why can't I get one of those accounts just because I'm not a Muslim?

That's punishing me for my religious beliefs, surely....?

And if the shoe was on the other foot, we all know what would happen.....

I don't see 18 year olds and convicted bad drivers rioting on the streets because they have to pay higher insurance premiums though. 
Isn't the whole point of capitalist actuarialism about discrimination in order to ameliorate risk? It's just a fact of life that older female drivers have less accidents than young male drivers and therefore cost insurance companies less on claims. Similarly, Muslims have a far better record of loan repayment/not borrowing amounts they can't repay.
And this is an actuarial issue. If you disagree with it then you are arguing in favour of people with bad credit history having the same right to borrow as much money as want as responsible citizens - and that the banks should have no option but to give it to them.
The banks are a business not a public service - and like any business they have the right to serve who they want and how they want.

No it's not.

Actuarial tables are drawn up from hard-evidence based data.

Not religious belief.

And there's the (pardon the choice of phrase) fundamental difference.

Breadman wrote:No it's not.

Actuarial tables are drawn up from hard-evidence based data.

Not religious belief.

And there's the (pardon the choice of phrase) fundamental difference.

Non-sequitur. 
That's like saying Actuarial tables for motor insurance risk are drawn up from hard evidence-based data. Not gender or age i.e. the data that constitutes the tables in the first place.
The argument is sooooooo so-so.

Fair enough, but I still can't get away from the thought that if the bank came up with a similar account that excluded Muslims (for whatever actuarial reason - hypothetical, stay with me), there would be an outcry and they'd never be allowed to do it.

It just doesn't seem "fair" and I know that sounds whiney and lame, but I'm getting truly fed up of the one section of modern British society that still creates and, in some cases, fosters home-grown terrorists like those two fucking idiots that killed Lee Rigby, being ostensibly pandered to.

I'm not a naive Mail-reading Tory, but I have witnessed whole sections of my home town become dirty holes that truly aren't safe for non-Muslims to walk through over the years.

They preach peace and love on the face of it, but the fact is they sneer at us, see us as inferior and hide behind their religion when it suits, despite many, many of them being alcohol drinking, pork-eating drug dealers.

It's double standards but if you voice any concerns about it, you get branded a racist and lumped in with Nick Griffin and his lot.

Breadman wrote:Fair enough, but I still can't get away from the thought that if the bank came up with a similar account that excluded Muslims (for whatever actuarial reason - hypothetical, stay with me), there would be an outcry and they'd never be allowed to do it.

It just doesn't seem "fair" and I know that sounds whiney and lame, but I'm getting truly fed up of the one section of modern British society that still creates and, in some cases, fosters home-grown terrorists like those two fucking idiots that killed Lee Rigby, being ostensibly pandered to.

I'm not a naive Mail-reading Tory, but I have witnessed whole sections of my home town become dirty holes that truly aren't safe for non-Muslims to walk through over the years.

They preach peace and love on the face of it, but the fact is they sneer at us, see us as inferior and hide behind their religion when it suits, despite many, many of them being alcohol drinking, pork-eating drug dealers.

It's double standards but if you voice any concerns about it, you get branded a racist and lumped in with Nick Griffin and his lot.

This is a different issue, but I agree by and large. Surely the bank would have been aware of the potential fall out of this scheme even if it makes economic sense?
I don't have anything against Muslims as a group - like most cultures and nations there are good 'uns and bad 'uns. Nor do I think that Islam is the cause of cultural behaviour or religious bigotry - I just reckon that some people - and in particular certain Imams - use religion as a vehicle for gaining personal power and influence and that the average British Muslim is as susceptible to hype/gullible as the rest of us. Whereas some may head down the road to fanaticism, so we head down the road to consumerist capitalism and there's little or no difference in our ability to avoid being duped by the rhetoric - wherever it's coming from.
However, I can see that moves like this will upset people who already feel British Muslims are being pandered to - or suspect some sort of conspiratorial plot is afoot.
I'm quite sympathetic to the Muslim community if only for the majority of integrated hard-working, tax-paying decent members of the community, but even I can see that this is bound to cause concern in some quarters.
Wouldn't surprise me if the British Muslim Council wasn't to come out and make some comment about the potential this has to cause further divisions between British Muslims and British non-Muslims.
It's insensitive to discriminate on the basis of religion even if that religion preaches that you shouldn't borrow more than you can repay. 
Given the fact that like every group of British society, the Muslim community has it's fair share of smackheads and criminals, perhaps Lloyd's should apply a test - the "How good a Muslim are you?" test before handing out the loans.