Mastercard and Jordan Islamic Bank collaborate on Shari'ah-compliant digital payment platform
0
JIB will leverage Mastercard's payment technologies and advisory services to enhance its consumer card portfolio, introducing new features tailored to the unique needs of Shari'ah- compliant customers. The collaboration aims to support the development of new digital channels and customer engagement platforms, enabling JIB to deliver more personalized, accessible, and secure banking experiences.
'This collaboration reflects our shared commitment to advancing financial inclusion and empowering Shari'ah-compliant customers across Jordan through innovative digital solutions. Together with JIB, we are building a more connected and customer-centric financial ecosystem, powering inclusive growth, driving digital transformation, and expanding access to secure digital payments,' said Adam Jones, executive vice president and division president for West Arabia, Mastercard.
'We are excited to collaborate with Mastercard to provide innovative and Sharia'ah-compliant financial solutions. Leveraging Mastercard's global expertise and advanced technologies, we will further enhance our offerings, ensuring our customers experience secure, seamless, and value-driven financial services that adhere to Shari'ah banking principles,' said Dr. Huseein, CEO, Jordan Islamic Bank
Since its establishment in 1978, Jordan Islamic Bank (JIB) has focused on sustainable growth by driving digital transformation and expanding its electronic banking services to meet the changing needs of its customers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
6 hours ago
- The Guardian
What will the AI revolution mean for the global south?
I come from Trinidad and Tobago. As a country that was once colonized by the British, I am wary of the ways that inequalities between the global north and global south risk being perpetuated in the digital age. When we consider the lack of inclusion of the global south in discussions about artificial intelligence (AI), I think about how this translates to an eventual lack of economic leverage and geopolitical engagement in this technology that has captivated academics within the industrialised country I reside, the United States. As a scientist, I experienced an early rite of passage into the world of Silicon Valley, the land of techno-utopianism, and the promise of AI as a net positive for all. But, as an academic attending my first academic AI conference in 2019, I began to notice inconsistencies in the audience to whom the promise of AI was directed. AI researchers can often identify consistent choices for locations where such conferences are hosted, and where they are not. NeurIPS, one of the top AI conferences, has highlighted annual issues for obtaining visas for academic attendees and citizens from the African continent. Attending such a prestigious conference in the field grants one the opportunity to gain access to peers in the field, new collaborations and feedback on one's work. I often hear the word 'democratisation' within the AI community, an implication of equity in access, opportunity and merit for contribution regardless of one's country of origin. Associate professor of economics Fadhel Kaboub talks about how 'a lack of vision for oneself results in being a part of someone else's vision', reflecting on how systematically lacking an access to infrastructure results in local trade deficits in economies. As in the time of Nafta's promise of 'free trade', promises of 'AI democratisation' today still exist and benefit mainly countries with access to tech hubs not located in the global south. While the United States and other industrialized countries dominate in access to computational power and research activity, much of the low-paid manual labour involved in labelling data and the global underclass in artificial intelligence still exists in the global south. Much like coffee, cocoa, bauxite and sugar cane are produced in the global south, exported cheaply and sold at a premium in more industrialized countries, over the past few years we have seen influence in AI inextricably tied to energy consumption. Countries that can afford to consume more energy have more leverage in reinforcing power to shape the future direction of AI and what is considered valuable within the AI academic community. In 2019, Mary L Gray and Siddharth Suri published Ghost Work, which exposed the invisible labour of technology today, and at the beginning of my tenure at graduate school, the heavily cited paper Decolonial AI: Decolonial Theory as Sociotechnical Foresight in Artificial Intelligence was published. It has been five years since these seminal works. What would an AI community inspired by the Brics organisation, which united major emerging economies to advocate for themselves in a system dominated by western countries, look like for the global south? I often ask myself how AI has contributed to our legacy, and whose stories it won't tell. Has AI mitigated issues of mistrust and corruption in less-resourced countries? Has it benefited our civic communities or narrowed educational gaps between less-resourced regions? How will it make society better, and whose society will it make better? Who will be included in that future? A historical mistrust can impede adoption by developing countries. Furthermore, many developing countries have weak institutional infrastructures, poor or nonexistent laws and regulatory frameworks for data projection and cybersecurity. Therefore, even with an improved information infrastructure, they are likely to function at a disadvantage in the global information marketplace. A currency is only as good as its perceived global trust. When thinking about the democratization in AI and a vision of what it could be in years to come, AI's survival requires including more perspectives from regions such as the global south. Countries from the global south should work together to build their own markets and have a model of sovereignty for their data and data labour. Economic models often consider a definition of development that includes a measure of improvement in the quality of life of the most marginalized of its people. It is my hope that in the future that will extend to our evaluation of AI. Krystal Maughan is a PhD student at the University of Vermont studying differential privacy and machine learning
The Guardian
8 hours ago
- The Guardian
What will the AI revolution mean for the global south?
I come from Trinidad and Tobago. As a country that was once colonized by the British, I am wary of the ways that inequalities between the global north and global south risk being perpetuated in the digital age. When we consider the lack of inclusion of the global south in discussions about artificial intelligence (AI), I think about how this translates to an eventual lack of economic leverage and geopolitical engagement in this technology that has captivated academics within the industrialised country I reside, the United States. As a scientist, I experienced an early rite of passage into the world of Silicon Valley, the land of techno-utopianism, and the promise of AI as a net positive for all. But, as an academic attending my first academic AI conference in 2019, I began to notice inconsistencies in the audience to whom the promise of AI was directed. AI researchers can often identify consistent choices for locations where such conferences are hosted, and where they are not. NeurIPS, one of the top AI conferences, has highlighted annual issues for obtaining visas for academic attendees and citizens from the African continent. Attending such a prestigious conference in the field grants one the opportunity to gain access to peers in the field, new collaborations and feedback on one's work. I often hear the word 'democratisation' within the AI community, an implication of equity in access, opportunity and merit for contribution regardless of one's country of origin. Associate professor of economics Fadhel Kaboub talks about how 'a lack of vision for oneself results in being a part of someone else's vision', reflecting on how systematically lacking an access to infrastructure results in local trade deficits in economies. As in the time of Nafta's promise of 'free trade', promises of 'AI democratisation' today still exist and benefit mainly countries with access to tech hubs not located in the global south. While the United States and other industrialized countries dominate in access to computational power and research activity, much of the low-paid manual labour involved in labelling data and the global underclass in artificial intelligence still exists in the global south. Much like coffee, cocoa, bauxite and sugar cane are produced in the global south, exported cheaply and sold at a premium in more industrialized countries, over the past few years we have seen influence in AI inextricably tied to energy consumption. Countries that can afford to consume more energy have more leverage in reinforcing power to shape the future direction of AI and what is considered valuable within the AI academic community. In 2019, Mary L Gray and Siddharth Suri published Ghost Work, which exposed the invisible labour of technology today, and at the beginning of my tenure at graduate school, the heavily cited paper Decolonial AI: Decolonial Theory as Sociotechnical Foresight in Artificial Intelligence was published. It has been five years since these seminal works. What would an AI community inspired by the Brics organisation, which united major emerging economies to advocate for themselves in a system dominated by western countries, look like for the global south? I often ask myself how AI has contributed to our legacy, and whose stories it won't tell. Has AI mitigated issues of mistrust and corruption in less-resourced countries? Has it benefited our civic communities or narrowed educational gaps between less-resourced regions? How will it make society better, and whose society will it make better? Who will be included in that future? A historical mistrust can impede adoption by developing countries. Furthermore, many developing countries have weak institutional infrastructures, poor or nonexistent laws and regulatory frameworks for data projection and cybersecurity. Therefore, even with an improved information infrastructure, they are likely to function at a disadvantage in the global information marketplace. A currency is only as good as its perceived global trust. When thinking about the democratization in AI and a vision of what it could be in years to come, AI's survival requires including more perspectives from regions such as the global south. Countries from the global south should work together to build their own markets and have a model of sovereignty for their data and data labour. Economic models often consider a definition of development that includes a measure of improvement in the quality of life of the most marginalized of its people. It is my hope that in the future that will extend to our evaluation of AI. Krystal Maughan is a PhD student at the University of Vermont studying differential privacy and machine learning
The Independent
17 hours ago
- The Independent
Pardons, positions and power: Trump's donor list raises questions about pay-for-access in his administration
A new financial disclosure from a super PAC supporting President Donald Trump contains the name of the deep-pocket donors who have gained access to the White House. MAGA Inc.'s donor list includes Trump appointees, a mom who managed to get Trump to pardon her son, and cryptocurrency traders, according to a new report by the New York Times. The super PAC managed to pull some major donations for the president; according to the disclosure, MAGA Inc. raised more than $177 million for Trump since January. Some names on the list wound up working for Trump in his administration. Anjani Sinha, a friend of Trump's, was nominated to be the ambassador to Singapore. He donated $1 million to MAGA Inc. He hasn't been approved for the position yet, possibly because he struggled to answer questions about Singapore during his confirmation hearing. Cody Campbell, who is now on Trump's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition, donated half a million dollars to the super PAC. Josh Lobel, now sitting on Trump's Intelligence Advisory Board, donated $250,000. Several major donors are tied to the crypto industry, which has by and large found a friendly ally in Trump. According to the Times, Trump's inaugural committee raised an enormous $239 million, with approximately $18 million of that coming from crypto-related donors. According to the filing, donors working in cryptocurrencies accounted for $45 million of the donations reported through MAGA Inc. One donor alone — crypto entrepreneur Eric Schiermeyer — donated $1 million, and was given the chance to have dinner with Trump in Mar-a-Lago in March. The pair didn't just eat and chat — during the dinner, Schiermeyer apparently pitched Trump on an idea for a cryptocurrency called the "USA Token" that would be doled out to Americans for use in transactions. He reportedly wanted a government contract for his company to handle the task, according to the Times ' reporting. He told the paper that he managed to get his idea in front of Trump face-to-face, so he considers it a win. 'I was able to say my piece, and the idea is clearly making the rounds, so mission accomplished from my view.' he told the Times. And then there's Elizabeth Fago, who handed over $1 million to MAGA Inc. and got herself a dinner with Trump. Three weeks later, her son, Paul Walczak, who pleaded guilty to tax fraud, was pardoned. A White House spokesperson who talked to the Times anonymously said that Fago's words, rather than her cash, convinced the president to give her son a break. 'He spoke directly to a mother who pleaded for her son, and when you're talking to a mother pleading for her son, that's a pretty powerful thing,' the source reportedly said. The Independent has requested comment from The White House. According to MAGA Inc., all of the apparent benefits that come along with shoveling money at Trump are just a coincidence. It told the Times that Trump doesn't treat donors any different from normal Americans. 'President Trump values his supporters and donors, but unlike politicians before him, he cannot be bought and works toward the best interest of the country,' it told the paper.
