Historic Judgment on Interest Given by the Supreme Court of Pakistan

Sharp001

Peace Br. Sharp,

Sorry if I offended you, so please forgive me. Let?s start fresh.

It will take me some time to reply to your post.
(How did you write so much, so fast!)

peace

p.s. I will respond to the "jonny_k" too ;D

Br. David,

No offence taken. In fact, I think I should be apologizing to you if my post comes of as patronizing in any way. Such was not my intent when I was writing the post... wasn't thinking too much about diplomacy.

As for writing fast, it took me a good two hours to write it and I wouldn't call that quick. But in any case, I look forward to your post.

Peace

David

Peace jonny_k,

Where are you getting this info from? Do you have actual archaeological evidence to support your statement? If you just got it from hadith, forget it, we reject those as entirely unauthentic here. Now if you translate "interest" into Arabic the word is "FA'IDA" NOT "RIBA".

Where did you get ?Fa?ida? = interest? Do you have any archaeological evidence for this?
I said Classical Arabic. Fa?ida does not mean interest in classical Arabic, it means ?profit, advantage, benefit, or good which God bestows upon a man, and which he gains or acquires, and which he produces.? (it is actually a sick joke that the word fa?ida is used for interest nowadays). Pg. 254, third column, halfway down.

http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume6/00000254.pdf

So given that ?Fa?ida? does not mean interest, what is the CLASSICAL ARABIC word for interest? I haven?t seen any word other than Al-Riba to mean interest in classical Arabic. If you know of a Classical Arabic word that means interest, then please bring forth your evidence. If you cannot, and you continue to claim that Al-Riba is not interest, then what you are saying is that there was no Classical Arabic word for interest! That is not believable, especially since the Arabs were in contact with the Jews and Christians, and that usury has been around for thousands of years, easily to the time of the ancient Greeks (moralist philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle condemned the practice).

Riba means an increase, an unjust increase in the Quranic context.

Yes, Riba means an increase over the principal sum lent. i.e. interest/usury

This IMHO can only apply in case of raising the prices of fundamental items required for human welfare like the food items are INCREASED by an amount so that the common people are hardly able to pay for even those anymore.

Let?s see some evidence from the Quran?s verses.

If you still claim "riba" is the "rent" on money lent, then youll have to define what is money for in today's world ANYTHING THAT HAS AN EXCHANGE VALUE IN THE MARKET maybe considered as money eg the huge DAX or other stock shares, gold, silver, gems, cars etc. Hence in your case for example it would be "riba" to charge a fixed amount for renting out a car. GOD Bless!

If rabbit tails are used as, and function as money, then they are money. If they are binary digits on a computer and function as money, then they are money. If they are gold and silver (which have been used for thousands of years as money), and they function as money, then they are money. I never limited money to paper currency. Money is an abstract concept.

So we need to look at the nature of money (from article posted)

1.) Money has no intrinsic utility. It cannot be utilized in direct fulfillment of human needs. It can only be used for acquiring some goods or services. A commodity, on the other hand, has intrinsic utility and can be utilized directly without exchanging it for some other thing.

2.) The commodities can be of different qualities while money has no quality except that it is a measure of value or a medium of exchange. Therefore, all the units of money of the same denomination, are hundred per cent equal to each other. An old and dirty note of $100 is the same as a brand new minted $100.

3.) In commodities, the transactions of sale and purchase are effected on an identified particular commodity. If someone has purchased a particular car by pin-pointing it, and the seller has agreed, then they deserve to receive the same car. The seller cannot compel him to take the delivery of another car, though of the same type or quality.

So, if cars are used AS MONEY, then yes, it would be ?riba? to charge a fixed amount for renting out a car. But cars aren?t used AS MONEY are they? There is an inherent quality, utility, and uniqueness about cars. They are a real commodity. So they are NOT money.

David

Peace Br. Sharp,

Commandment #9 If you speak then be Just (Adl) even if against a relative.

Br. David, one of the reasons I had mentioned the word "Adl" used in the verse against it's English counterpart was to reinforce the meaning of the word "Just" used in the translation. "Adl" literally means equity/justice. It is usually used to described the equitable attribute of a judgement between two parties, e.g. He dealt with "Adl" (equity/justice) between the two parties. This understanding is further supported by the second part of the commandment, "even if against a relative". In my post, I have used the words "just/truthful" for summarising, which I admit was presumptuous on my part. To speak with Truth (Huq) and to speak with Justice (Adl) are two different attributes of speech. I hope you are following what I am trying to infer here. If you feel that this is "conjecture" on my part, we can always question my understanding of the word "Adl" and "Huq" by referring the usage to the other brothers and sisters on the forum who are more well versed in Arabic, as well as the following Lexicon link for the word 'Adl'

http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume5/00000259.pdf

In the context of 16106, One who believes in Allah does so only because he comes to know the Truth. When such a person utters disbelief under compulsion, he is simply not speaking with Truth (Huq), i.e. lieing, which is pardonable under the circumstances. However, on the other hand, he utters disbelieves after believing (i.e. knowing the Truth) under no compulsion, he breaks the covenant with God, i.e. Commandment #10.

Agreed.

Where did you get the literal meaning of Riba from?

I got the translation from the following

http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume3/00000189.pdf

Why do you accept certain parts of the dictionary and reject other parts? (I?m not saying the dictionary is perfect, but what is your criteria?)

Interestingly, it says "it increased/augmented, said in terms of property". I, for the life of me, can't understand why people have just been limited Al-Riba to Money transactions then.

It says the following

It (a thing, T, S, Msb) increased, or augmented. (T, S, M, Msb, K.)
Said, in this sense, of property (Mgh or, said of property, It increased by usury. (M, TA.)

The reason Al-Riba is limited to money transactions is because that is the way people do business now, however, Al-Riba was understood to be an addition over the principle of anything lent (usury/interest). So if I lend you 1 pound of wheat, and I expect 1.5 pounds of wheat in return, that was understood to be al-Riba. Please take a look at the same page, third column, halfway down, for a more detailed explanation of Riba.

Br. David. "Al-Riba is Interest" is well documented, you say. Where and by whom, may I ask? Perchance, would the source be somewhere outside the Book, from a period unseen (Ghaib)? Dangerously close to the realm of, how you say, "Hearsay" and "Conjecture", wouldn't you agree? Anyway, I read a couple of verses in the Book which I thought were pertinent, but I believe that you have quoted the sources of the claims somewhere down the post. I will mention them there. On to the next point.

Everyone takes sources of information from other than the Book. It is impossible not to. So the question becomes, what sources do you accept and what sources don?t you accept, and why. Now, since you use Lane?s Lexicon, you obviously trust it to some extent, as do I. And Lane?s (as well as other dictionaries) mention that al-Riba means interest/usury (for money matters). And when I substitute ?al-Riba? to mean interest in the verses of the Quran, they form a good, consistent, and coherent understanding. Taking a closer look at Lane?s I see this meaning of al-Riba = usury is attributed to at least the following sources the ?Mohkam.?, the ?Maghrib? of El-Mutarrizee, Taj el-Aroos, and the ?Misbah? of El-Feiyoomee. I have not checked to see where those sources derived this information from. Some of it could have been from the Hadith, as well as other sources. And I don?t know Arabic well enough to check-up on this information for myself. But if you are going to take the view that you don?t trust anything outside of the Quran, then you should at the very least be consistent, and that includes not accepting Lane?s definition of Riba as growth.

I should mention, I am beginning to consider that the practice of usury/interest may be explicity referred to when it is called ?Al-Riba? with the definite article, as opposed to just Riba (as in 3039) which may be the more generic case. I have seen a few translators make that distinction. It would be nice to have the opinion of someone knowledgeable in Arabic on this case. In such a case, it would bolster my argument that Al-Riba is something specific and not generic as you interpret.

What price discrimination is, is just one of the possible ways to wrongfully increase/grow one's wealth and property. Is the assertion that price discrimination is one of the causes of Al-Riba really that unreasonable, so as to be termed a "conjecture"? I thought it was a pretty "logical" progression that price discrimination increases profits of a business and wrongfully so because of its inequitable nature.

Yes, it is conjecture. Why is price discrimination unjust? Suppose I want to sell something wholesale to someone because they are my friend, and not charge them the usual rate. Does that warrant War from God and His Messenger? Suppose I want to sell something at a higher price to people with adequate funds, and charge less for poor people. That is also price discrimination. Or maybe I want to charge less for students and seniors. What if I choose to sell something cheaper to people who buy in volume? That is also price discrimination. What about the restaurant owner who charges less for kids? meals? The amount of food in a kids? meal is more than the price reflects (compared to an adult meal). That is price discrimination.

Br. David. Just read what you have written. The Book says that the people who support Riba say that Trade in like Al-Riba. But in reality what people who support interest do say is "Interest is like trade". Two very different assertions. Nobody I have ever heard, who defends interest has said that Trade is like interest. Doesn't this seem even a little bit odd to you.

Br. Sharp. I had already read this in the thread you pointed me to, and I don?t see your point. No, it doesn?t seem odd to me. First of all, that is an Arabic expression, and I am not knowledgeable enough/fluent in Arabic to discern if it makes any difference semantically. Just because it may seem odd in English, doesn?t mean it is odd in Arabic. In English when we want to justify something, we will often compare something bad to something good (i.e. the thing we wish to justify to the thing which is commonly held to be good). So, the only point you could be making is that the item mentioned first is the bad thing, and the item mentioned second is actually the good thing, and we have been confusing the two all along. Yet, this is clarified in the next sentence. Trade is lawful, ?al-Riba? is forbidden, so the change in order makes no difference. So, frankly, I really don?t see what point you are trying to make.

And adding an orphan's rightful property/wealth to one's own wealth is just one of the possible ways to wrongfully increase/grow one's wealth and property. Is that still so illogical an assertion?

It is not illogical to say that consuming the wealth of an orphan is wrong, but to make Al-Riba equivalent to such a practice is what I don?t agree with, and for which you have no evidence.

So, is that the criteria, then? Because it was so grave and serious that God and His messenger declared War, we just HAD to find a specific meaning for Al-Riba, even if we were unable to understand it from the Book and looked towards history, the unseen and opinions of other people.

No, that is not THE criteria, but it is an argument, along with other lines of evidence, to point to such an understanding.

Are you actually implying that the Book, which claims to be a complete guidance and an explanation of all things for a believer, would not have an explanation within itself about what Al-Riba actually is? Oh boy, we are a long way from home. The Book's verses confirm each other, that is the beauty of it and why it is the complete guidance. Whatever I have tried to allude to is from the Book and the Book alone. I don't want to attribute man-made opinions to the Book that since interest is apparently bad for the economy as it increases the wealth of the rich making them richer and poor poorer, it has to have been forbidden and thus, has to be Al-Riba. You said that I was being subjective when I was trying to look for the understanding of Al-Riba from within the Book? Honestly, considering that we hold the Book as THE objective Truth (Al-Huq), how is what you are alluding to any more objective and unbiased? Am I implying that the rich should keep on getting richer? No, because with wealth, God has attached many responsibilities, which include spending in the way of God, spending in charity, avoiding greed and wrongful sources of wealth etc.

Br. Sharp. I don?t think you are being reasonable in this regard. Yes, the verses confirm each other. That is why we have to look at all verses that discuss a subject to come to an understanding. And yes, through the usage, we can come to better understand the meaning of the words, and also check to see if it is consistent to the dictionary definition. You are correct that the Quran is ?al-Haq?, but I think your expectations for the Quran are unreasonable. The Quran is not a dictionary. The Quran was revealed in a language understood by its recipients. It didn?t need to define every single word it used.

Quote from David on Yesterday at 061230 PM
It doesn?t mention anything about ?you having paid your dues to him in good measure?.

Now that's just being stubborn. In ANY business transaction, there is a give and a take. The seller/lender would give something and the buyer/borrower would give him money for it. If seller/lender is waiting for the payment from the buyer/borrower, which the 2280 suggests, he must have given something to the buyer/borrower (which was due to him under the transaction) and is thus waiting for the buyer/borrower to fulfil his part of the consideration. Did it honestly need to be mentioned? When I said what I said, I was just stating the obvious.

I haven?t been called stubborn in quite a while. (believe it or not)

Why is it being stubborn? Either I misunderstood you, or I did understand you correctly, and you added stuff incorrectly. There is nothing mentioning ?you have paid your dues to him in good measure?. If it is talking about a pure loan, then there is no exchange of money for goods. When I loan money to someone, I don?t get anything in return, and I don?t take collateral. All I do is record it in writing. I trust the person to pay me back. So there is no give and take like you seemed to be suggesting in your paraphrasing of the verse, and to which I objected.

Just when I had established that 282 had nothing to do with Al-Riba or interest, you turn around and say that 2282 strengthens the argument that Al-Riba is interest? Talk about going in circles, eh? And what makes your argument "perfectly logical" and not "circular", when its context is about the rules of recording the debt transaction and does not at all address the terms of the transaction?

Br. Sharp. The reason what you said was circular logic is because this is what you were essentially (not exactly) claiming

1.) Al-Riba is not interest

2.) Therefore the verses 2275-282 do not mention interest.

3.) Since 282 discusses debt transaction, and interest is nowhere to be found, and al-Riba has been discussed, we can conclude that al-Riba is not interest.

That was what I was referring to. But when one looks at 2275-2283, you see that the entire thing is about debts, loans, interest. It has a common theme. That is my point. Therefore, the fact that al-Riba is mentioned in such a context where the writing of debts (and hence loans) are discussed, strengthens my argument. It doesn?t have to be mentioned in 282, because it was already mentioned several times in the adjacent verses. I really don?t know how else to explain it.

Yet, on the contrary, when orphans and giving full measure are discussed in more detail elsewhere in the Quran, we don?t find any mention of al-Riba.

You ask for a word for "interest" in "Classic Arabic". I thank Br. johnny_k for his input in this thread and will quote him for the requested definition

Quote from jonny_k on Today at 034343 AM
Now if you translate "interest" into Arabic the word is "FA'IDA" NOT "RIBA". Riba means an increase, an unjust increase in the Quranic context.

I have responded to jonny_k with regards to this and you can view my response there.

On a side note, you believe that the Book is in Classic Arabic? The following thread is helpful in that regard

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=14531.msg153036#msg153036

Thanks for the reference to that link. I will try to read it when I have time, God willing. I quickly skimmed it, and my point by Classical Arabic was not grammar structures and the like (btw, I am not taking a position on whether it is CA or not because I haven?t read it yet). What I meant was Old Arabic, or Arabic spoken and understood by the Arabs at the time of prophet Muhammad. (now you are being stubborn)

Did I expect an explanation in the Book for Al-Riba? Of course, I did. As I mentioned earlier this post, the Book is a complete guidance and an explanation of all things, so why wouldn't I expect an explanation of Al-Riba from the Book? The question is why didn't you?

I have already discussed this. Al-Quran is not a dictionary. Do you expect a definition within the Quran of every single word used in the Quran? That is not reasonable. If that is the case, then you shouldn?t consult any dictionaries for anything, including the meaning of root words. And yet you do consult dictionaries?I hope you see the inherent inconsistency.

Quote from David on Yesterday at 061230 PM
What practice is known for allowing ones wealth to double and redouble in its extreme form? Interest.

How about the stock market? Market players have been known to become overnight millionaires. Talk about extreme, eh? No.... Well, then how about the Real Estate Market? Quadrupling, anyone? Interest isn't even nearly as extreme as these.

Was the stock market and the real estate market thriving in 600 A.D.???

I will reiterate that it is a weak point only, and only, because of its source. Did I say that stealing was Al-Riba? Let me check.... No. I just said that prohibition of stealing is mentioned in the 10 commandments. So is 'Al_Riba' = stealing? Br., I am sorry but I will have to go back to the equation I have mentioned earlier.

"Al-Riba" = Wrongful Increase/Growth in Wealth and Property

And adding to one's wealth by stealing other's, is just one of the possible ways to wrongfully increase/grow one's wealth and property. Is that still so illogical an assertion?

What is illogical is to say that ?al-Riba? referred to in verse 4161 is referring to the ?Thou shalt not steal? commandment in the Old Testament. So you are saying that in verse 4161, al-Riba = stealing. Elsewhere al-Riba means different things, but in that verse, that is what it is referring to?at least that is what you are claiming. But if that is the case, then why didn?t the Quran just say ?And for them stealing when they were told not to?. It would have been easier, and wouldn?t have required the C-word.

On to your quoted sources prohibition of interest. Now I would like to quote the verses from the Book that I mentioned which I found was of relevance to using the sources that you quoted above.

2120 & 121 - "Neither the Jews nor the Nazarenes will be pleased with you until you follow their beliefs. Say "The guidance is God's guidance." And if you follow their wishes after the knowledge that has come to you, then there is none who can help or protect you against God. Those to whom We have given the Scripture and they recite it as it truthfully deserves to be recited; they believe in it. As for those who disbelieve in it, they are the losers."

Consider this verse with verse 160 of Chapter 4

4160 - "Because of the wickedness from those who are Jews, We made forbidden to them the good things that had been lawful to them; and for their deterring many from the path of God."

Now we know from 4160 that God prohibited some things for the Jews which were permissible before for them. Why? Because of their wickedness and evil practices. What was the use of prohibiting them? Because these things were the means through which they practiced their wickedness and prohibiting them would curtail their wickedness.

What about 2120 and 2121? When you go to them with what is revealed to you, The Jews, as well as the Nazarenes, will say that you should follow their beliefs. What you have just quoted above are their beliefs. Whether they practice is or not is irrelevant. But they believe that interest is forbidden. And we are told not to follow their beliefs. That is enough for me.

First, I didn?t say, because it is in the Bible (OT and NT), then we should follow it too. My understanding that Al-Riba is interest comes from all the verses in the Quran. Therefore, what I was pointing to was that the Quran says the Jews were forbidden from taking al-Riba. So, it is not unreasonable to assume that whatever al-Riba is, then the prohibition for it would be in the Bible. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Jews? breaking of this commandment was well-known, given that the Quran brings up the matter. If no one was aware of it, then it wouldn?t be as useful to bring it up, because it wouldn?t resonate with anyone.
And we see that it is mentioned several times in the OT that the Jews should not take interest (for them consuming al-Riba when they were told not to), and yet they were well-known for breaking that commandment.

Second, they are told not to kill and not to commit adultery. That is their beliefs. Should we not follow those beliefs? Is that enough for you?
And don?t say we are also told not to do that, to which I would argue, we are also told not to consume al-Riba/interest.

Third, the word being used is ?Millat?, it is not referring to their Scriptures. Look at 2121, it is referring to their Scripture.

Fourth, the Quran talks in high regard with respect to previous Scripture. The Quran is said to ?authenticate what is present of the Scripture and supersede it?. So again, it is not unreasonable to assume that a commandment in the Bible is also contained in the Quran (and vice versa). Please note, I am not claiming that the Bible (OT and NT) is properly preserved.

543 And how can they make you their judge when they have the Torah, in which is God?s judgment; then they turn away after that. Those are not believers.
544 We have sent down the Torah, in it is guidance and a light; the prophets who have surrendered judged with it for those who are Jews, as well as the Rabbis, and the Priests, for what they were entrusted of God?s Scripture, and they were witness over. So do not fear the people but fear Me; and do not purchase with My revelations a cheap price. And whoever does not judge with what God has sent down, then these are the rejecters.
545 And We have decreed for them in it that a life for a life, and an eye for an eye, and a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and wounds to be similar; and whoever remits anything of it, then it will cancel sins for him. And whoever does not judge with what God has sent down, then these are the wicked.
546 And We sent in their footsteps Jesus the son of Mary, authenticating what was present with him of the Torah. And We gave him the Injeel, in it is guidance and light, and to authenticate what is present with him of the Torah, and a guidance and lesson for the righteous.
547 And let the people of the Injeel judge with what God has sent down in it. And whoever does not judge with what God has sent down, then these are the vile ones.
548 And We have sent down to you the Scripture with truth, authenticating what is present of the Scripture and superseding it. So judge between them by what God has sent down, and do not follow their desires from what has come to you of the truth. For each of you We have made laws, and a structure; and had God willed, He would have made you all one nation, but He tests you with what He has given you; so strive to do good. To God you will return all of you, and He will inform you regarding that in which you dispute.
549 And judge between them by what God has sent down, and do not follow their wishes, and beware lest they divert you away from some of what God has sent down to you. If they turn away, then know that God wants to inflict them with some of their sins; and most of the people are corrupt.
550 Is it the judgment of the days of ignorance that they seek? Who is better than God as a judge for a people that comprehend?

For argument's sake, let's assume that interest actually was forbidden to them by God. I know that I am in the C-word territory now and will be bashed all over the place for what I am about to write but is it so difficult to imagine that one of the "good" things that were forbidden to the Jews as mentioned in 4160 could have been interest because it was a means from which they conducted wickedness, practiced Al-Riba, and consumed other people's properties with unjust means (Ba'atil) - 4161?

I don?t understand what you are trying to say here.

4160 Because of the wickedness from those who are Jews, We made forbidden to them the good things that were lawful to them; and for their deterring many from the path of God.
4161 And for them taking financial interest when they were told not to, and for them consuming peoples money unjustly. We have prepared for the disbelievers amongst them a painful retribution.
This is how I see 4160-161, with the verses slightly rearranged.

Because of the wickedness from those who are Jews, and for their deterring many from the path of God, And for them taking financial interest (al-Riba) when they were told not to, and for them consuming peoples money unjustly, We made forbidden to them the good things that were lawful to them. We have prepared for the disbelievers amongst them a painful retribution.

In other words, it is not saying that al-Riba is a good thing that was forbidden to them. It is saying they did all these bad things deterring people from God?s path, taking al-Riba when they were told not to, consuming people?s money unjustly. And because of this, they were forbidden good things that were lawful to them as a punishment. The good things that were made forbidden are not mentioned.

con't

David

And here I thought I was the only one who was paranoid. If it was my intent to look at the verses separately, I wouldn't have quoted all of them one after the other and discussed them at the same time. But let's see how "consistent" and "coherent" its understanding becomes when the verses are laid end-to-end.

It is not paranoia. I am just saying that you treated each verse separately, instead of taking the 2275-2282 AS A WHOLE. That is how you are able to take Al-Riba in 2275 to mean price discrimination, and yet, a couple of verses later, Al-Riba is something completely different. That is my problem with your analysis. You are taking verses out of context. I am not claiming that you are doing it in a malicious way, but just that your methodology is flawed. Al-Riba cannot be something specific in one verse (price discrimination), and then magically transform into being something completely general in the very next verse (a wrongful addition to wealth).

Br. David, your first sentence, as you so eloquently put it in my case, "fails your definition of 'Al-Riba'". Like you said, people claim that interest is the same as trade. BUT the verse says the peope who consume Al-Riba say that trade is the same as Al-Riba, NOT Al-Riba is the same as trade. So, if we place interest in just the first verse, we get "People who consume 'interest' say that trade is like 'interest'". But people don't say that, do they? They say interest is like trade. In the verse from the Book, "Trade" is the Subject, but in the people's claims, "Interest" is the Subject. So the verse can't be talking about the interest that people are talking about. It effectively breaks down all the "logic", "coherence", "consistency", and "history" that is claimed.

No it doesn?t. See my previous response to this topic.

Since we are playing dictionary here, let's see what the definition of money is

"Money is any token or other object that functions as a medium of exchange that is socially and legally accepted in payment for goods and services and in settlement of debts. Money also serves as a standard of value for measuring the relative worth of different goods and services and as a store of value." (Source Wikipedia)

I wasn?t playing dictionary. I didn?t consult a dictionary when I wrote what I did. I was just explaining the difference between money and normal commodities. But thanks for the definition. It is more complete than what I wrote.

What about the other two functions

(1) A store of value
(2) A measure of good and services.

So, If I receive cash for something I sell, the cash I have is not an asset? Does it not represent my holdings, my assets? Is it not just another form, a more liquid one, of my assets? If so, it is as much of an asset capable of renting as any other asset.

No, it is not an asset capable of renting (and expecting an increase) as any other asset. Please see my response to jonny_k about the nature of money.

I agree that increase in money supply is a major cause of inflation and not scarcity. But to say the interest is a contributor to inflation is very presumptuous. In fact, Inflation is the main protagonist which causes interest rates to increase and not the other way around.

Here is the reason why interest causes inflation

The majority of money is created as debt, which has interest attached to it. During the money creation process, the interest is not created. So in order to pay off the interest, additional money must be borrowed. Since the full debt cannot be serviced, the interest keeps growing year after year, which means additional money must be borrowed to pay down the debt, which means additional money must be created. That additional borrowed money itself has interest attached to it, and on and on in a vicious cycle. More money = inflation.

Interest doesn't reflect reality, but the scenario you painted does? Mildly speaking, it is a very impractical and unworkable system.

Why is it impractical and unworkable? You have to prove it. (There are knowledgable economists who hold the same position I am advocating.)

I have some money. Why should I lend it to anyone when I can, as you said, invest it to increase my wealth? Now you might say that what about people with excess and idle money, which they don't need for the moment? The following verse tells us the answer to that question

2219 - "They ask you about intoxicants and gambling. Say "In them is great harm, and a benefit for mankind; but their harm is greater than their benefit." And they ask you how much are they to give, Say "The excess over expense." It is thus that God clarifies for you the revelations that you may think."

So, summarily, there are two ways in which a person can spend his wealth. To spend it for himself and spend in the way of God in the manner indicated in the above verse.

It says ?The excess? NOT ?The excess over expense.? Where did you get that translation from?

(2) "So those who want to increase their wealth would be investing their money through partnerships, which comes with a risk of loss."

Let's take an example. I come across some inheritance and I have no business sense. I want to invest my money but I don't know where to invest it. I enter a partnership with some friends who have a pretty good know-how of the construction business. They don't have the money but I do. So they propose that with my money and their business know-how, they may be able to set-up and run a profitable business venture. I'm a little skeptical, because I am concerned about the losses. They assure me that initially there may be losses but they show me that the construction industry is booming and will continue to boom, so there is a good chance that we will eventually be raking in loads of profits. I agree and So a company is set-up with my money and their know-how. We start off with some losses and upon questioning my partners about them, they assure me, it is just the initial stages. I just need to be patient. Some time later, they come to me and say that they have won a major contract and are in need of a little more money to successfully carry it out. I am hesitant but they are convincing. They land the contract and soon start quoting "unexpected" expenses in relation to the contract. At the end of the contract, they say that it was a net loss because of those expenses, but assure me that there is nothing to worry about, as we have penetrated the market and should be raking in the dough soon. I am convinced. This cycle continues until I have no more spare money. When they hear that, they look at each other and say that in that case we can't go on and will have to wind up the Company. They declare bankruptcy and that's that. I am flabbergasted that I have lost all my money for nothing and my "partners" have lost nothing.

Do you think, that after that incident, anyone will invest their money EVER again? Not me, sorry. So, if there is no investment in the economy from people with money but no business know-how, that economy is going to prosper? Highly unlikely.

Businesses fail all the time, and yet people still invest. People lose money in stocks all the time, and yet there is no shortage of people buying stocks. There are also ?venture capitalists? and ?Angel investors?.
The only thing your story indicated was that (the presumably fictitious) you are not a risk-taker. Some people are, some people aren?t. The same mentality holds true for anything that involves risk. Are you going to avoid women altogether because a single girl broke your heart? Are you going to never ride a bicycle again because you fell down and broke your arm?

So tell me, how do you get me to invest in the economy for the "prosperity of humanity", with a fear and a risk that I will lose my wealth?

Well, don?t invest in businesses if you aren?t a risk taker. Give all of your extra money to charity if you wish, it will be good for your soul. Or give some of it to charity and spend the rest into the economy on goods and services that will help humanity prosper and stimulate the economy by allowing for the free-flow of money. Or use it as a learning experience, be a little wiser, and don?t invest your entire inheritance on a single business venture. Diversify your portfolio. Buy shares in different companies, give some to charity, and spend some into the economy on goods and services.

In the end, I would say, that although I would have loved to discuss the articles that you posted from James Robertson & Co. with you, but it would be futile because just as they are proponents of an interest-free economy, they are proponents of interest-based economy as well. Further, all of those writings which try to simulate an interest-free economy are heavily based on assumptions and the C-word. The discussion would end up as matters of opinion and different points of view. You can say at this point that consider the present economic system has failed so miserably, therefore, the interest-free economy must be the way out. I'd say that the current economy has failed because some have taken an unjust advantage of the system and just as they have taken advantage of this system, they will take advantage of the next system that comes along, and we will be back to square one.

Agree to disagree.

What will prevent such a failure the economy will be the upheld priniciples of equity and fairness as described in the Book.

Yes, like getting rid of usury/interest. )

peace

jonny_k

Peace "David",

Peace jonny_k,

Where did you get ?Fa?ida? = interest? Do you have any archaeological evidence for this?
I said Classical Arabic. Fa?ida does not mean interest in classical Arabic, it means ?profit, advantage, benefit, or good which God bestows upon a man, and which he gains or acquires, and which he produces.? (it is actually a sick joke that the word fa?ida is used for interest nowadays). Pg. 254, third column, halfway down.

http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume6/00000254.pdf

]

JK- When a bank rents out a currency iisnt it seeking profit/advantage/benefit so that is almost the same aint it?

So given that ?Fa?ida? does not mean interest, what is the CLASSICAL ARABIC word for interest? I haven?t seen any word other than Al-Riba to mean interest in classical Arabic. If you know of a Classical Arabic word that means interest, then please bring forth your evidence. If you cannot, and you continue to claim that Al-Riba is not interest, then what you are saying is that there was no Classical Arabic word for interest! That is not believable, especially since the Arabs were in contact with the Jews and Christians, and that usury has been around for thousands of years, easily to the time of the ancient Greeks (moralist philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle condemned the practice).

Yes, Riba means an increase over the principal sum lent. i.e. interest/usury

JK- The 2nd phrase is implied and not part of the meaning of ?riba?.

Let?s see some evidence from the Quran?s verses.

If rabbit tails are used as, and function as money, then they are money. If they are binary digits on a computer and function as money, then they are money. If they are gold and silver (which have been used for thousands of years as money), and they function as money, then they are money. I never limited money to paper currency. Money is an abstract concept.

JK- So there we have it and since anything which has exchange value in the market is money, we cannot rent out even a car according to your definition since it would be ?riba?.

So we need to look at the nature of money (from article posted)

1.) Money has no intrinsic utility. It cannot be utilized in direct fulfillment of human needs. It can only be used for acquiring some goods or services. A commodity, on the other hand, has intrinsic utility and can be utilized directly without exchanging it for some other thing.

2.) The commodities can be of different qualities while money has no quality except that it is a measure of value or a medium of exchange. Therefore, all the units of money of the same denomination, are hundred per cent equal to each other. An old and dirty note of $100 is the same as a brand new minted $100.

3.) In commodities, the transactions of sale and purchase are effected on an identified particular commodity. If someone has purchased a particular car by pin-pointing it, and the seller has agreed, then they deserve to receive the same car. The seller cannot compel him to take the delivery of another car, though of the same type or quality.

So, if cars are used AS MONEY, then yes, it would be ?riba? to charge a fixed amount for renting out a car. But cars aren?t used AS MONEY are they? There is an inherent quality, utility, and uniqueness about cars. They are a real commodity. So they are NOT money.

JK- Currencies are also considered commodities in today?s world and so are gold, silver etc. This is what ive been trying to make clear to you. Your claim that a fresh $100 bill = an old $100 bill is irrelevant since theres no difference in use btw an old and a new note. Gold was and is still used in many cases to represent the value of other goods BUT here a scratched or dirty unit of gold could be of less value than another shiny kg because its purity could be in doubt. With a dollar bill there are certain marks by which it is identified whether its true or fake so it is much more easy there. The main point is that a $100 bill is NOT always the same with respect to other currencies i.e. it can increase or decrease, and thus becomes a tradable commodity wrt those. GOD Bless!

jonny_k

Peace "David",

You also said amongst other things

...So if I lend you 1 pound of wheat, and I expect 1.5 pounds of wheat in return, that was understood to be al-Riba.

JK- Ok what if i lend you 1 pound of wheat and expect USD 1 in return after a fixed time period? Would that then not be "riba" according to you? Also could you tell me what is the difference when a bank buys a house at a certain price say x USD and then sells it to you over installments for a max of 10 yrs totalling 2x USD. Would that be "riba" too? If the bank has insured itself against all possible losses in this case then what is the difference between this scheme and the usual system where infact one could be paying the bank less should one be able to get all the money within a year? GOD Bless!

David

Peace jonny_k,

I will respond to your questions if you first respond to those I posed to you previously

1.) What is the classical arabic word for interest?

And more importantly,

2.) Let's see some evidence for your understanding of Riba in the Quran's verses. Can you explain how it fits into those verses?

thanks,
peace

jonny_k

Peace "david",

Peace jonny_k,

I will respond to your questions if you first respond to those I posed to you previously

1.) What is the classical arabic word for interest?

JK- Most likely the Arabic term for "rent" which im unaware off at this moment.

And more importantly,

2.) Let's see some evidence for your understanding of Riba in the Quran's verses. Can you explain how it fits into those verses?

thanks,
peace

JK- As i already mentioned the term itself means "increase" and the Quran mentions it in opposition to charity in one instance and in another states that trade is allowed whilst riba is not.
Those who charge illegal increments are in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence. This is because they claim that USURY is the same as commerce. However, GOD permits commerce(rent/interest include IMHO), and prohibits "illegal increment". Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from Riba, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with GOD. As for those who persist in Riba, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever.
GOD condemns illegal increments, and blesses charities. GOD dislikes every disbeliever, guilty.
The illegal increment that is practiced to increase some people's wealth, does not gain anything at GOD. But if you give to charity, seeking GOD's pleasure, these are the ones who receive their reward manifold.
From this i can only conclude that Riba is the illegal increment in prices of everyday products which one would need 1) for survival 2) to at least have ones basic needs so as to live a what is defined as humane life by the scientific community. It is easy for crooks to exploit peoples needs in this way thereby deriving a lot of money out of them, making themselves rich whilst utterly destroying those poor ones. Ofcourse Riba would also refer to illegal increased interest/rent of any sort, eg credit sharks. GOD Bless!

Sharp001

Peace Br. David,

I apologize for the late reply to your post. It's just that busy season has started and I am not able to find adequate time for the forum. But In any case, I read your post and, as you would probably have guessed already, there are some aspects of your posts I agree with and some I don't. There is still a communication gap but it is narrowing, that it is. I will try my utmost to keep this reply as short as possible.

Please allow me to summarise your questions from what I gathered from your post

(1) Why do I even use a dictionary, if I don't trust anything outside the Book?
(2) What is my criteria for using the Lexicon dictionary?
(3) Other than the Book, What sources do I accept and what I don't and why?
(4) Why do I expect so much from the Book, why do I think it is a dictionary and wasn't the Book revealed in language which would be understood by its recipients and thus wouldn't need to define every word?
(5) In old Arabic understood at the time of Prophet Muhammad, why doesn't Al-Riba mean interest, since "Fa'ida" just means profit?
(6) Why, if at all, is Price Discrimination unjust?
(7) Isn't "Al-Riba" something specific and explicit, as opposed to just "Riba" in 3037-40?
(8.) Why do I persist with the premise "you have paid your dues to him in good measure" and think that there is a give and a take in every transaction, including a loan?
(9) Why do I persist in saying that money is also an asset?
(10) Don't 2275 - 2282 just revolve around debts, loans and interest?
(11) Am I saying that stealing is Al-Riba?
(12) Why do I think that consuming the wealth of an orphan is equivalent to Al-Riba without apparent evidence?
(13) Was the stock market and the real estate market thriving in 600 A.D.? If not, how can Al-Riba be expected to be attributable to them?
(14) Why do I see a difference in "Trade is like Al-Riba" and "Al-Riba is like Trade"?
(15) Doesn't interest cause inflation?
(16) Where does 2219 say "The excess over expense"?
(17) Since Interest is prohibited in the OT and the NT and the Jews have been indicated as breaking that commandment, isn't that sufficient evidence to take Al-Riba to mean interest in 4160?
(1 What was I trying to imply when I wrote, "one of the "good" things that were forbidden to the Jews as mentioned in 4160 could have been interest because it was a means from which they conducted wickedness, practiced Al-Riba, and consumed other people's properties with unjust means"?
(19) Is it unreasonable to assume that a commandment in the Bible is also contained in the Quran and vice versa?
(20) If I am not a risk taker, why should I invest in business, when I could find other ways of spending the money like by giving to charity or spend into the economy?

I hope that I have understood your concerns correctly. Now, for the answers.

(1) Why do I even use a dictionary, if I don't trust anything outside the Book?
(2) What is my criteria for using the Arabic Lexicon dictionary?
(3) Other than the Book, What sources do I accept and what I don't and why?
(4) Why do I expect so much from the Book, why do I think it is a dictionary and wasn't the Book revealed in language which would be understood by its recipients and thus wouldn't need to define every word?
(5) In old Arabic understood at the time of Prophet Muhammad, why doesn't Al-Riba mean interest, since "Fa'ida" just means profit?
First of all, if I have in any way implied that I consider the Book a dictionary, then I apologize and take it back, simply because my first language is not Arabic and to see myself what is written in the Book, I do need a dictionary. But that is the ONLY role of the dictionary for me. To SEE what is written in the most "Literal" of senses. The Book doesn't itself claim to be a dictionary but it does claim that it is a detailed explanation of itself, so how can I say that it is a dictionary? It's an absurd claim, whosoever makes it. To UNDERSTAND what is written and what the message is, I trust only Him to clarify it and my sense of reason, along with the other senses, given by Him for that purpose.

7516 to 20 - "Do not move with your tongue to hasten with it. That truly on Us is gathering/accumulating it , and its reading. So when We read it, so follow its reading. Then that truly on Us is its clarification/explanation."

2110 - "We had descended to you a Book in it is your Remembrance, so do you not reason?"

"Literal" meanings to Arabic words would be without any outside or preconceived understanding. Now the next logical question to that statement would be how does I actually find out if there is such an impurity in the translation. Well, research is best as it would complement reason.

So what was the research that I put to confirm that "Riba" can reasonably be expected to mean just "increase/growth"? Surprisingly enough, I started off with an assumption that you mentioned. Riba must have been a word that was readily understood by the people of Prophet Muhammad's time. At that time, both christians and jews were present. Also since Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic are part of the same family tree, so a degree of similarity could be expected among them. Luckily enough, I came across a post from Br. Nun de plume on the forum, which illustrated that assumption

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=b1c7fedbfc1821f26673430cb6b046fc&topic=15924.msg155633#msg155633

so, I looked up what was the equivalent word for "increase/growth" in the Testaments. I discovered that a word "Rabah" existed in the Testament which was defined as "to multiply, increase; to be or grow great". My source is as follows

http//www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07235&version=kjv

Now this seemed too much a coincidence to me, "Rabah" in Hebrew and "Riba" in Arabic, essentially the same meaning. So I reasoned that Riba can reasonably be expected to mean "increase/growth", and so the Jews, Christians and Arabs of Prophet Muhammad's time could relate to each other when "Riba" or "Rabah" was mentioned in a conversation amongst them. This further strengthened the commonality of the origin of the languages and that these languages must have been similar enough to be used and understood amongst themselves.

Then, it occured to me, what about "usury"? What word, if any, did Hebrew have for it? Using the same source, I discovered that "Nawshak" or "Neshek" was the word used in the Testaments for "usury". My source

http//www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05391&version=kjv
http//www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05392&version=kjv

Did I look for an equivalent word for "Neshek" in Arabic? I did but could not find a word specifically for it. Now what are all the resulting possibilities of that exercise?

(1) There must be an Arabic word for "Neshek". I just didn't look hard enough.
(2) There is/was no Arabic word for "Neshek", because there was/is no concept of interest amongst the Arabs.
(3) There is/was no Arabic word for "Neshek", because Interest to Arabs was just a concept similar to profit or gain (Nafa'A) on any other business transaction. (P.S. Interestingly enough, I was unable to find the word "Fa'ida" in the Book. If you know of any instance where it is mentioned therein, please let me know.)
(4) There is/was an Arabic Word for "Neshek" which is/was "Al-Riba".

I am pretty sure, we both agree that (2) is very unreasonable. For (1), I am open to any other research results that anyone can present to support or reject it. For (3) , frankly speaking, I have yet to come across any conclusive evidence to support it. But I believe that based on the above it is reasonablly conclusive that Riba just means "increase/growth". Adding "by usury" to just "Riba" is just presumptuous considering the above. However, we'll further explore the (4) possibility, i.e. Usury = Al-Riba as we go down in the post.

What sources other than the Book do I accept? Strictly speaking, No SOURCE other than the Book because it claims that it is a Book fully explained and detailed, but I admit that I accept other RESOURCES; research and reason, accessible by me just to complement my understanding of the Message. So apparently both of us use the same resources and the same methodology. Yet we still come up with different conclusions.

(6) Why, if at all, is Price Discrimination Unjust?
Without any reference to "Al-Riba", would you say that all forms of Price Discrimination are just and fair? Since when is it fair to charge someone more for something, just because God granted them wealth? It's like playing Robin Hood. Take more from the rich and pass that benefit to the poor by charging them less. If one want to be charitable and gracious to the unfortunate or to his/her friends, one should do that with one's own wealth and not at the expense of others. One has no right to play judge, jury and executioner. If you feel that the wealthy are being unjust, let that be between them and God. If we take matters into our own hands, we risk unjust treatment of another person and thus are no better than the rich who are exploitative. I can understanding charging less than a standard price to somebody, when it comes at your own expense. But charging more than the standard price to anyone, regardless of their status, is exploitative, no matter how you look at it.

(7) Isn't "Al-Riba" something specific and explicit, as opposed to just "Riba"?
An excellent point. But then, isn't "Al-Bay'a" (2275) also something specific and explicit, as opposed to just "Bay'a"? In that case, finding out the true explanation of "Al-Bay'a" is just as important as finding out the true explanation of "Al-Riba", if not more important, because that could essentially tell us what "Al-Riba" actually is.

(8.) Why do I persist with the premise "you have paid your dues to him in good measure" and think that there is a give and a take in every transaction, including a loan?
(9) Why do I persist in saying that money is also an asset?
I still fail to understand why there is still a communication gap in this regard. Let me reproduce that verse here again.

2280 - "If the person is facing insolvency, then you shall wait until he becomes able. And if you relinquish it as a charity it is better for you if you knew."

I think we both mutually agree that this verse talks about a debt between two people, a lender and a borrower. To simplify, let's say that it is a money loan of $100 and interest-free. An agreement is written, in which two promises are made. The Lender promises to lend $100 to the Borrower. In return, the Borrower promises to return the $100 back to the Lender after 6 months. After the promises are made and the agreement signed, it becomes due on the Lender to give $100 to the Borrower and only once the $100 is paid to the Borrower, does the counterpromise of the Borrower to return the $100 become due on him. If you paid the Borrower just $50, is he obliged to give you back the $50 back at the end of the 6th month? No, because the agreement was for the full $100 dollars and it was due on the lender to pay the full amount. Only after the lender pays the full amount can he expect the counterpromise of the Borrowed to be fulfilled. So, if I said that once the Lender pays the $100 due from him to the Borrower, how is that different from the lender "having paid his dues to the him (Borrower) in good measure"?

If you still do not see my point, then the only possible reason I imagine for that is that you believe that since money cannot represent a good and therefore, no exchange of anything takes place in a debt transaction. If that is the case, Br. David, then I am afraid that it wouldn't be fruitful to continue this discussion any further.

Money is what money does. When you lend money, you are not lending nothing, rather you are lending to the borrower your rights attached to the money's purpose, which is, what it can buy. That is the object of the transaction, the rights to money's purpose. That is exactly why if you lend $100 in say, $1 bills, you don't expect the same $1 bills back, you expect back the rights which $100 represent.

(10) Don't 2275 - 2282 just revolve around debts, loans and interest?
(11) Am I saying that stealing is Al-Riba?
(12) Why do I think that consuming the wealth of an orphan is equivalent to Al-Riba without apparent evidence?
(13) Was the stock market and the real estate market thriving in 600 A.D.? If not, how can Al-Riba be expected to be attributable to them?

To answer these questions, I think we need to look at the verses 2275 - 2282 again. Please allow me to reproduce them below

2275 - Those who consume Al-Riba, they do not rise except as the one who is being beaten by the devil out of direct touch. That is because they have said "Al-Ba'ay is like Al-Riba." While God has made trade lawful, and He has forbidden Al-Riba. Whoever has received understanding from His Lord and ceases, then he will be forgiven for what was before this and his case will be with God. But whoever returns, then they are the people of the Fire, in it they will abide eternally.

2276 - God wipes out Al-Riba and He grants growth to the charities. And God does not like any wicked sinner.

2277 - Those who believe and do good works, and kept the Al-Salat, and contribute towards betterment; they will have their rewards with their Lord and there is no fear over them nor will they grieve.

2278 - O you who believe, be aware of God and give up what is left of Al-Riba if you are truly believers.

2279 - And if you will not do this, then take notice of a war from God and His messenger; but if you repent, then you will have back your original (Ru'oos) principal/capital, you will not be wronged nor will you wrong.

2280 - If the person is facing insolvency, then you shall wait until he becomes able. And if you relinquish it as a charity it is better for you if you knew.

2281 - And be aware of a Day when you will be returned to God then every soul will be paid what it has earned, they will not be wronged.

2282 - O you who believe, if you borrow debt for a future period, then you shall record it. And let a scribe of justice record it for you; and let not the scribe refuse to record as God has taught him. Let him record and let the person who is borrowing dictate to him, and let him be aware of God, and let him not reduce from it anything. If the one who is borrowing is immature or weak or he cannot dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate with justice; and bring two witnesses from amongst your men; if they are not two men, then a man and two women from whom you will accept their testimony, so that if one of them becomes occupied, then the one can recall the other. And let the witnesses not refuse to come if they are called. And do not fail to record it no matter how small or large until its maturity. That is more just with God and better for the testimony, and better that you do not have doubts; except if it is a trade to be done on the spot between you, then there is no sin upon you if you do not record it. And have evidence if you trade. No scribe shall be harmed nor any witness; for if you do so then it is vileness on your part, and be aware of God and God teaches you and God is aware of all things.

Considering these verses again, 2275, 2276, 2278 and 2279, are assuredly, without a doubt about "Al-Riba (The increase/growth)". However, I believe 2279 is very important as I think it effectively connects to the remaining verses 2280 to 2282. How? The key word is "Ru'soou Ammwalikum (Original wealths)", a concept which is most likely to be associated with Lending. To me, the logical progression, or in fact the drill-down, seems as follows

2278 - Give up Al-Riba.
2279 - If you give up Al-Riba, you will be entitled to the original wealths, which become due to you.
2280 - If the original wealths due to you are unable to be paid by the person from whom they are due, then we should wait until he becomes able. However, it is better to write it off as charity.
2281 - Whatever dues to you that you relinquished will be paid to you on "The Day".
2282 - Administrative instructions for debt and trading.

What is the conclusion? Well, my revised understanding is "Al-Riba" is only related to Lending and therefore, cannot be attributed anything else, i.e. stealing, orphans wealth, price discrimination etc.

(14) Why do I see a difference in "Trade is like Al-Riba" and "Al-Riba is like Trade"?
Considering you point of view, I have no absolutely no issues with the ultimate conclusion which comes after the comparison, which is that "Al-Riba" is prohibited and "Al-Bay'a" is permitted. For illustration purposes, Let us consider the justification sentences in both cases.

Justification Since Trade is like Al-Riba, then why isn't trade prohibited?
Answer Because God has permitted Trade and prohibited Al-Riba

Justification Since Al-Riba is like Trade, so it's fine.
Answer Because Allah has permitted Trade and prohibited Al-Riba

To me, the first one makes more sense, but I can see now that it is not the most weighty and convincing argument that I can put forth using that logic. So, I take it back as a point of argument that I put forth before.

(15) Doesn't interest cause inflation?
Okay, you said by that "The majority of money is created as debt". Taking this premise and assuming that there is absolutely no interest in the economy, will there be no inflation in the economy? The answer is, obviously, no. Because as long as there is debt creation, irrespective of whether it is interest-free or otherwise, there will be inflation. So, unless you can wipe off debt from the economy, inflation is here to stay.

(16) Where does 2219 say "The excess over expense"?
Well, that is the literal meaning of the word (Al-AAafwa), from this source

http//www.openburhan.net/ob.php?sid=2&vid=219

Yousuf Ali translates it as "What is beyond your needs". You said that 2219 says just "The excess". Might I ask what your understanding is about what "The excess" is, if not, the excess "over your needs and requirements"?

(17) Since Interest is prohibited in the OT and the NT and the Jews have indicated as breaking that commandment, isn't that sufficient evidence to take Al-Riba to mean interest in 4160?
(1 What was I trying to imply when I wrote, "one of the "good" things that were forbidden to the Jews as mentioned in 4160 could have been interest because it was a means from which they conducted wickedness, practiced Al-Riba, and consumed other people's properties with unjust means"?
(19) Is it unreasonable to assume that a commandment in the Bible is also contained in the Quran and vice versa?
(20) If I am not a risk taker, why should I invest in business, when I could find other ways of spending the money like by giving to charity or spend into the economy?
As I had explained earlier, in the OT and the NT, "Nawshak" or "Neshek" (Usury) was prohibited to them. Usury, by its definition, implies exploitative or excessive interest. I don't think I need to reiterate that explotaitive or excessive basically take their roots from unjust or wrongful. I suppose the question is then, what is excessive or exploitative interest.

I have actually thought a lot about the whole topic under discussion, considering all the verses and the understanding that I have gained uptil this moment. I pondered a lot about how it connects, "The growth/increase", "Original Wealths", "Lending", "Excessive/Exploitative amounts" and "Growth from Charities and the opposite effect of Al-Riba" and came up with a revised understanding, which I would like to share with you and everybody who reads this post.

First Scenario
Let us start of with the premise of an ideal interest-free economy with inflation resulting from interest-free debt creation (which we had established before in the answer to (15) above). Now let's say I lend $100 to somebody for a period of, say, a year. After the year, due to inflation, the purchasing power in the economy is affected and thus, the "value" of $100 drops to, say, $97. So now at the end of the year, I receive back the $100 without interest, the value of which is actually $97, in terms of the economy. My "Original Wealth" when I lent the money was $100. Now the effect of the interest-free repayment on my "Original Wealth" is that I have in essence received less ($97) than what I began with and The further effect it would have is a slight decrease in inflation and a slight growth in the economy because, effectively what you have done in economic terms is given $3 in charity. This exactly fits with the second part of 2276, i.e. God grants growth from charities. Relinquishing debt would actually result in an inflow of resources into the economy without creation of new money to pay against it.

Second Scenario
Now let's take an interest-based economy with inflation resulting debt creation as well as the gainful interest attached it. To understand what I mean by gainful interest, let's say that I lend $100 to somebody for a period of a year. After the year, due to inflation, the purchasing power in the economy is affected and thus, the "value" of $100 drops to $97. So now at the end of the year, I receive back the $100 with interest of $5. My "Original Wealth" when I lent the money was $100. Considering the inflationary effect, I have received $102 ($97 + $5) in economic terms. So, now the effect of the interest-based repayment on my "Original Wealth" is that I have actually "increased/grown" my wealth by $2 and the further effect it would have is a slight increase in inflation (because of the effective economic creation of the extra $2) and a slight decline in the economy. And this fits with the first part of 2276, i.e. God wipes out Al-Riba. It had the exact opposite effect of relinquishing debt on the economy. This $2 is, in my opinion, Al-Riba.

Third Scenario
It follows that if there is an interest-based economy with inflation resulting debt creation as well as the inflation-compensating interest attached it, there would be no economic change. Let us take the same illustration and say that I lend $100 to somebody for a period of a year. After the year, due to inflation, the purchasing power in the economy is affected and thus, the "value" of $100 drops to $97. So now at the end of the year, I receive back the $100 with interest of $3. My "Original Wealth" when I lent the money was $100. Considering the inflationary effect, I have received $100 ($97 + $3) in economic terms. So, now the effect of the interest-based repayment on my "Original Wealth" was that economically it has remained the same, no growth and no charity, and the further effect it would have is a no change in inflation and no change in the economy.

For me, this fits with everything, 3130, 4160-161 and even 2275. Considering that "Al-Bay'aa" is something specific, people would say that inflation-compensation interest debt (Al-Bay'aa) is like gainful-interest debt (Al-Riba), so what is wrong with Al-Riba? Because God has permitted Al-Bay'aa and forbidden Al-Riba. Al-Bay'aa simply maintains your "Original Wealth"; it doesn't grow it as Al-Riba does. It also fits with the previous scriptures where there was, and is, a prohibition of usury, which is "excessive/gainful interest".

It also safeguards the person who is not a risk taker, because he will not lose his wealth if he lends it out and thus would not be averse to lending.

I also thought over the verses 3037-40, in which just "Riba" is used. Now, I think it is safe to assume that this is different from "Al-Riba", a specific increase/growth to one's wealth from gainful interest, as I understand it. So what increase in your wealth would not grow with God even if you use it to grow other people's wealth? It occured to me that I had heard that somewhere. Then, I realised that the answer to (6) above was somewhat similar. Take from the rich's wealth, give it to the poor to increase their wealth. You are effectively not spending out of your own pockets. If you want to favour the poor, give them the discount without compensating that with higher-than-standard prices to people who can afford it. Just because the rich were granted wealth by God, doesn't mean that it is okay to exploit their wealth. It is unjust. The same goes for any increases to your wealth (Riba) which you use to benefit others, even if they are needy and deserving, be it, from orphan's wealth, stealing etc. Such contribution will hold no meaning and no growth with God.

So, in conclusion, I should thank you for getting me to think further about in light of the Book and I do apologize for my late reply. I am not sure, nor do I expect, that you will agree to what my revised understanding is, but if not, I suppose for the true understanding of Al-Riba, 2275 puts it best

2275 - "...Whoever has received understanding from His Lord and ceases, then he will be forgiven for what was before this and his case will be with God...."

... It will come from God alone.

Peace.

David

Peace Br. Sharp, jonny_k,

I apologize for the late reply to your post. It's just that busy season has started and I am not able to find adequate time for the forum.

I totally understand, so no worries. I've also been very busy over the last few weeks. It will take me some time before I can respond to your post and jonny_ks post, but I will do so, God willing.

peace peace

David

Peace jonny_k,

JK- When a bank rents out a currency iisnt it seeking profit/advantage/benefit so that is almost the same aint it?

You can say that one can earn a profit by charging interest, but you can?t say the words ?profit? and ?interest? are synonymous. Therefore there should be two different words to describe each action.

JK- So there we have it and since anything which has exchange value in the market is money, we cannot rent out even a car according to your definition since it would be ?riba?.

I never said that anything that has an exchange value is money. I said money is a medium of exchange. There is a difference between those two statements.

Your claim that a fresh $100 bill = an old $100 bill is irrelevant since theres no difference in use btw an old and a new note.

Exactly, that was my point.

Gold was and is still used in many cases to represent the value of other goods BUT here a scratched or dirty unit of gold could be of less value than another shiny kg because its purity could be in doubt.

If gold is being used as money, then its being scratched or dirty is not of any consequence. Is a dirty or scratched copper penny, or a dirty or scratched nickel worth any less than a newly minted penny or nickel? I have two pennies sitting in front of me. One was minted in 1964, and the other was minted in 2007, yet they have the same value. Why is that?

With a dollar bill there are certain marks by which it is identified whether its true or fake so it is much more easy there. The main point is that a $100 bill is NOT always the same with respect to other currencies i.e. it can increase or decrease, and thus becomes a tradable commodity wrt those. GOD Bless!

Why does the value of one currency fluctuating with respect to another currency have any bearing on whether it is (or should be) a tradable commodity? I do not see money as a commodity (let alone a tradable one) because of the nature of money, which is not the same as the nature of commodities as explained previously.

JK- Ok what if i lend you 1 pound of wheat and expect USD 1 in return after a fixed time period? Would that then not be "riba" according to you?

It depends on what the value of the one pound of wheat was. If the 1 pound of wheat was worth USD 1, then no it wouldn?t be ?riba? imo.

Also could you tell me what is the difference when a bank buys a house at a certain price say x USD and then sells it to you over installments for a max of 10 yrs totalling 2x USD. Would that be "riba" too? If the bank has insured itself against all possible losses in this case then what is the difference between this scheme and the usual system where infact one could be paying the bank less should one be able to get all the money within a year?

My understanding is that it is not Riba because a commodity is being sold. Furthermore, since the bank is the owner, then they are responsible for the house. In the usual system, the bank is not the owner, and has no responsibility. Just because one could be paying less doesn?t make the system a good one, or even a moral one.

1.) What is the classical arabic word for interest?

JK- Most likely the Arabic term for "rent" which im unaware off at this moment.

You can say that interest is like renting your money, but you can?t say the words ?rent? and ?interest? are synonymous. Therefore there should be two different words to describe each action.
BTW, is it such an irrelevant point that you couldn?t be bothered to do a little research on the issue?

And more importantly,

2.) Let's see some evidence for your understanding of Riba in the Quran's verses. Can you explain how it fits into those verses?

JK- As i already mentioned the term itself means "increase" and the Quran mentions it in opposition to charity in one instance and in another states that trade is allowed whilst riba is not.
Those who charge illegal increments are in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence. This is because they claim that USURY is the same as commerce. However, GOD permits commerce(rent/interest include IMHO), and prohibits "illegal increment". Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from Riba, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with GOD. As for those who persist in Riba, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever.
GOD condemns illegal increments, and blesses charities. GOD dislikes every disbeliever, guilty.
The illegal increment that is practiced to increase some people's wealth, does not gain anything at GOD. But if you give to charity, seeking GOD's pleasure, these are the ones who receive their reward manifold.
From this i can only conclude that Riba is the illegal increment in prices of everyday products which one would need 1) for survival 2) to at least have ones basic needs so as to live a what is defined as humane life by the scientific community. It is easy for crooks to exploit peoples needs in this way thereby deriving a lot of money out of them, making themselves rich whilst utterly destroying those poor ones. Ofcourse Riba would also refer to illegal increased interest/rent of any sort, eg credit sharks. GOD Bless!

When I asked you this question, I (naively) assumed you would take the time to actually think about it. You did not even include all the verses where it talks about al-Riba.
In 2275 you shift the meaning of al-Riba within one sentence of one another. It is ?those who charge illegal increments?, and then one sentence later it becomes USURY? And your claim that Riba is the illegal increment of prices of everyday products is supported by zero evidence.

I think it is best for us to agree to disagree, until you are willing to be serious about the issue.

peace

David

Peace Br. Sharp,

I apologize for the late reply to your post. It's just that busy season has started and I am not able to find adequate time for the forum. But In any case, I read your post and, as you would probably have guessed already, there are some aspects of your posts I agree with and some I don't. There is still a communication gap but it is narrowing, that it is. I will try my utmost to keep this reply as short as possible.

I replied even later so no problem. I have also been super busy.