Are they condemning sukuk? I thought sukuk was an attempt to reconcile the desirable qualities of a loan with Islamic jurisprudence surrounding finance?

So unless the commenter thought sukuk was illegitimate (I haven't seen them state this, maybe they have), wouldn't it be reasonable assume they consider sukuk acceptable?

Perhaps obviously, I'm only vaguely aware of Islamic finance, so I may be missing something basic.

*EDIT*:

I've just seen the comments where they appear to be condemning sukuk, or at least common implementations.

But it seems like their point is that they think it's simply slapping a different label on lending, which I'm inclined to agree with (especially if there are repurchase agreements and guaranteed returns).

A lot, if not most, of present day "Islamic finance" isn't compatible with Islam. They're simple relabeling of Western practices with Arabic terms, but underneath they're more or less the same. There are many Hadiths and narrations prohibiting and condemning these actions.

So ghazwa is a preferable alternative for economic growth. Gotcha. Let me know how taking potshots at NATO in Syria goes. How are you any better than Western colonialists then?

Please look up straw man fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

It's well known that many Arab governments today have been installed by the Western colonialists. It's established history. We're still living the effects of post WWII colonization and Sykes-Picot. Of course, there is blame on us too, but to deny external influence is also ignorant.