Ribaa
-
Peace Layth
Sorry for late reply.
Thanks for the welcome.Imraan
-
Peace Johnny
Apologies for late reply.
JK- Ok but first this has nothing to do with renting out currency which if the bank didnt do this should then not be Riba according to you. Say i earn currency which is then ofcourse backed by my work that i did. If i then rent that currency to someone that shouldnt be riba then. Are we clear on that issue at least?
NOW the Quran contrasts "riba" with "sadaqaat(charity)" and "zakat". See for example
GOD condemns usury, and blesses charities. GOD dislikes every disbeliever, guilty.
O you who believe, you shall not take usury, compounded over and over. Observe GOD, that you may succeed.
The usury that is practiced to increase some people's wealth, does not gain anything at GOD. But if you give to charity(zakat), seeking GOD's
pleasure, these are the ones who receive their reward manifold.So it is actually INCREASING ones wealth and compounding that over and over without giving charity what "riba" refers too and not just any increase. If the latter were the case then any robbery/theft could be considered "riba". The example you mentioned can be considered fraud in one way or another. On the other hand banks are also in crisis hence the US Fed has allowed their banks to issue a money leverage of max of 71 against current balance. It is not that simple to get rid of this system but it is not what "riba" means.
I would like to take this discussion a few steps back if you'll permit me.
First let's look at the verses containing "bay'a" to determine what the Al bay'a in 2275 refers to
2254; 2275; 9111; 1431; 2240; 2437; 3921; 4810; 4818; 6012; 629
2275, 2437 & 629 are all dependant on the meaning of "bay'a" & do not provide much clarification beyond the fact that it is some kind of business dealing. The rest of the verses, though IMO do point to a cleare understanding.
In 2254 and 1431 the believers are told to give from what has been provided to us before the day comes when there will be no bay'un. So here we see again that there will be no "dealing" on this day.
In 9111, God says He has bought from the believers their lives & wealth in exchange for paradise, &the believers should rejoice in the "bay'i" they have "baaya'tum". This verse seems to indicate that this "bay'i" involves an exchange.
In 3921, the rain is described with how it "yanaabee'a" in the earth. Again, I think there is an element of exchange involved as the earth gains minerals from the water, the earth provides passageway for the water.
In 4810 & 48 18, we find the word "yubaayi'oon" in reference to pledging allegiance. Here we see that we see that God grants a great recompense for the allegiance.
In 6012, we find "yubaayi'naka" in reference to women seeking asylum and making a pledge the prophet. Here too, we see that the prophet is to pray to God to forgive these women in exchange for their pledge.
As for 2240, I need a little more time with it.
To sum up, I believe that the best meaning of bay'a is exchange. I also believe that an exchange involes one thing for another. This is why I do not think we are permitted to exchange one thing for more of the same thing, as this is not an exchange, but ribaa.
I will address the meaning of ribaa soon. God willing.
JK- Your statement in bold is FALSE. The banks can always identify true notes from fake although ordinary people maybe fooled. Theres so much protection marks and holograms in today's notes that you might be able to fool some individuals but never the banks. Today more and more shops have electronic counter feit detection machines provided to them by the banks. INFACT you can fool ordinary people better with fake gold, jewellery and other seemingly valuable objects than currency notes. GOD Bless!
You seem to have misunderstood what I am saying. I am not referring only to counterfeit notes printed by someone who doesn't have legal authority to do so, but also notes printed without anything backing it. These notes have all required anti counterfeit devices because the are consifered legal tender. THese are the "counterfeits" I am referring to.
Peace,
Imraan
-
Peace "1celostnowfound",
Peace Johnny
Apologies for late reply.
I would like to take this discussion a few steps back if you'll permit me.
First let's look at the verses containing "bay'a" to determine what the Al bay'a in 2275 refers to
2254; 2275; 9111; 1431; 2240; 2437; 3921; 4810; 4818; 6012; 629
2275, 2437 & 629 are all dependant on the meaning of "bay'a" & do not provide much clarification beyond the fact that it is some kind of business dealing. The rest of the verses, though IMO do point to a cleare understanding.
In 2254 and 1431 the believers are told to give from what has been provided to us before the day comes when there will be no bay'un. So here we see again that there will be no "dealing" on this day.
In 9111, God says He has bought from the believers their lives & wealth in exchange for paradise, &the believers should rejoice in the "bay'i" they have "baaya'tum". This verse seems to indicate that this "bay'i" involves an exchange.
In 3921, the rain is described with how it "yanaabee'a" in the earth. Again, I think there is an element of exchange involved as the earth gains minerals from the water, the earth provides passageway for the water.
In 4810 & 48 18, we find the word "yubaayi'oon" in reference to pledging allegiance. Here we see that we see that God grants a great recompense for the allegiance.
In 6012, we find "yubaayi'naka" in reference to women seeking asylum and making a pledge the prophet. Here too, we see that the prophet is to pray to God to forgive these women in exchange for their pledge.
As for 2240, I need a little more time with it.
JK- Notice again this verse and the phrase in bold in particular
Those who charge usury are in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence. This is because they claim that commerce is like usury(al baih mithlur riba). However, GOD permits commerce, and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with GOD. As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever.Notice that the phrase says "they claim that baih is like riba" NOT that they claim "riba is like baih". This is very important. The latter woudlve implied western bankers who might claim that what theyr doing is mere business and hence this riba is like doing any other business. BUT that is NOT the admonishment. Here GOD is admonishing those people who make trade equal to riba and thereby condemn the trade. NOW who are the ones doing that? Once again it's the "islamic" countries who claim interest(particular deal) is riba.
To sum up, I believe that the best meaning of bay'a is exchange. I also believe that an exchange involes one thing for another. This is why I do not think we are permitted to exchange one thing for more of the same thing, as this is not an exchange, but ribaa.
JK- Ok then how about a bank charging say 1000 USD per year for every EUR 10,000 lent? According to your definition that shouldnt be riba since here these are two different currencies and as everyone knows in the forex market today different currencies also act as different commodities(which are different things) as they are traded against each other and they lose/gain value wrt each other.
Dont you see that this definition is nonsensible too?I will address the meaning of ribaa soon. God willing.
You seem to have misunderstood what I am saying. I am not referring only to counterfeit notes printed by someone who doesn't have legal authority to do so, but also notes printed without anything backing it. These notes have all required anti counterfeit devices because the are consifered legal tender. THese are the "counterfeits" I am referring to.
Peace,
Imraan
JK- I agree banks have set the leverage at 71 against backup for printing currency. This is because theyr in a crisis and they somehow need to get out of it. This however has nothing to do with lending out a currency being riba. GOD Bless!
-
Peace Johnny,
JK- Notice again this verse and the phrase in bold in particular
Those who charge usury are in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence. This is because they claim that commerce is like usury(al baih mithlur riba). However, GOD permits commerce, and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with GOD. As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever.Notice that the phrase says "they claim that baih is like riba" NOT that they claim "riba is like baih". This is very important. The latter woudlve implied western bankers who might claim that what theyr doing is mere business and hence this riba is like doing any other business. BUT that is NOT the admonishment. Here GOD is admonishing those people who make trade equal to riba and thereby condemn the trade. NOW who are the ones doing that? Once again it's the "islamic" countries who claim interest(particular deal) is riba.
I see what you're saying, but I'm not not sure that the difference is that important. Whether I say "good is like evil" or "evil is like good", the point is that both are false since they are different.
JK- Ok then how about a bank charging say 1000 USD per year for every EUR 10,000 lent? According to your definition that shouldnt be riba since here these are two different currencies and as everyone knows in the forex market today different currencies also act as different commodities(which are different things) as they are traded against each other and they lose/gain value wrt each other.
Dont you see that this definition is nonsensible too?The reaon for my view is that I don't consider currency to be an asset. See below.
JK- I agree banks have set the leverage at 71 against backup for printing currency. This is because theyr in a crisis and they somehow need to get out of it. This however has nothing to do with lending out a currency being riba. GOD Bless!
The point I am trying to make here is that currency is not representative of anything you own because of the printing of currency which is not backed by anything. We have no real way of telling which currency is backed by something real and which is not. This is because the leverage you refer to is not something that is in operation currently because banks are in crisis. This leverage has always been there at some ratio or other since the inception of fractional reserve banking (even before that). Therefore I may have worked for my money, but I may, and most probably have, been paid with money that was created without any real backing.
I would like to discuss the ribaa issue in the sense of lending out currency even though I believe that the currencies themselves are ribaa. First, I would like to clarify some of your views on ribaa & sadaqah.
My understanding of your view on what ribaa is
We are required to give sadaqah (charity). If we do not give charity, then the amount we should have given in charity is ribaa. Thus that amout is not lawful for us. I realise this may be an over simplification, but is that the gist of your understanding of ribaa?
If this is your view, I would like your view on how much charity we should give. My understanding is what is beyond our needs. If this is so, do you agree with me that each individual decides what is beyond their individual needs and as such, will give accordingly?
In your opnion, is there a point beyond which we cannot reasonably say our needs are not being met and thererfore should be giving any excess beyond that as charity?
God Bless.
Imraan
-
Peace "1celostnowfound",
Peace Johnny,
I see what you're saying, but I'm not not sure that the difference is that important. Whether I say "good is like evil" or "evil is like good", the point is that both are false since they are different.
JK- Your example is quoted without context and hence we cannot know what is meant. Secondly "riba" and "bai" are two ACTIVITIES whereas good and evil just attributes so its a very different scenario. I explained clearly that when one says "usury is like trade. But GOD allowed trade and forbade usury..." it would THEN imply that the person is seeking to justify usury by making it equal to any other trade. HOWEVER if he claims the reverse i.e. "trade is like usury(which is the case in the Quran). But GOD allowed trade..." then it implies that the person wants to equate a particular kind of trade with usury and thereby put a ban on that which is exactly what "muslims" are doing by saying bank interst is riba whilst it is not. It's just another way of dealing.
The reaon for my view is that I don't consider currency to be an asset. See below.
JK- This is WRONG as ive explained that currency is also SUBJECT TO RISK. How then can it not be an asset? Just consider the forex market where currencies are exchanged one for another and they lose/gain value wrt each other. Currency is the most liquid asset
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset#Current_assets
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AssetThe point I am trying to make here is that currency is not representative of anything you own because of the printing of currency which is not backed by anything. We have no real way of telling which currency is backed by something real and which is not. This is because the leverage you refer to is not something that is in operation currently because banks are in crisis. This leverage has always been there at some ratio or other since the inception of fractional reserve banking (even before that). Therefore I may have worked for my money, but I may, and most probably have, been paid with money that was created without any real backing.
JK- As i said whether something is backed by something or not IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE ISSUE and has nothing to do with riba. Furthermore it is orignally intended that currency be backed by labor, minerals, precious metals, patents etc etc. The concept of riba in the Quran has clearly been contrasted with charity i.e. people accumulating/increasing wealth without giving to the poor. At best you can label this as fraud from the banks' side.
I would like to discuss the ribaa issue in the sense of lending out currency even though I believe that the currencies themselves are ribaa. First, I would like to clarify some of your views on ribaa & sadaqah.
JK- So now your saying the currencies themselves are riba. Here your going both against the traditional understanding of riba as well as the Quran's. This is thus entirely made up. Just because a word means increase doesnt mean any increase in something is riba. Accroding to your logic increasing the welfare of other humans should be riba too then. I told you the Quran clearly contrasts riba with charity.
My understanding of your view on what ribaa is
We are required to give sadaqah (charity). If we do not give charity, then the amount we should have given in charity is ribaa. Thus that amout is not lawful for us. I realise this may be an over simplification, but is that the gist of your understanding of ribaa?
JK_ EXACTLY.
If this is your view, I would like your view on how much charity we should give. My understanding is what is beyond our needs. If this is so, do you agree with me that each individual decides what is beyond their individual needs and as such, will give accordingly?
JK- NO the Quranic the following Quranic verse says 20% or 1/5th and is commonly misunderstood as to refer only to war booty BUT "ghanimtum" in general implies ANY GAIN. Thus here it what it says
You should know that your gain from anything(ghanimtum MIN SHAYIN) ONE-FIFTH shall go to GOD and the messenger(with intentions of the Quranic system), to be given to the relatives, the orphans, the poor, and the traveling alien. You will do this if you believe in GOD and in what we revealed to our servant in the period of decision, the period between the two joinings(jama'an, where the decision of distribution is made i.e. individual and state). GOD is Omnipotent.In your opnion, is there a point beyond which we cannot reasonably say our needs are not being met and thererfore should be giving any excess beyond that as charity?
God Bless.
Imraan
JK- As i explained the Quran already mentions the amount. Even if it did not mention the amount it would not just be one individual who decides, unless we reach a stage where everyone has become independent, but a collective independent scientific study be conducted and charity issued accordingly. In case we all reach independence then each one should IMO sincerely ix him/herself according to his/her study for a defined period of time and not abandon or redeclare the rate until the time is passed the minimum of which also would have to be sincerely defined by the individuals. However i doubt such a stage of total indepence would ever be reached and also i believe as stated above that 841 defines the charity rate at 20%. GOD Bless!
-
Peace Johnny,
Thank you for your cotinued responses. Let me say, at the outset of this reply, that I am treading very carefully with this one because of the implications of cosuming ribaa as per AQ.
JK- Your example is quoted without context and hence we cannot know what is meant. Secondly "riba" and "bai" are two ACTIVITIES whereas good and evil just attributes so its a very different scenario. I explained clearly that when one says "usury is like trade. But GOD allowed trade and forbade usury..." it would THEN imply that the person is seeking to justify usury by making it equal to any other trade. HOWEVER if he claims the reverse i.e. "trade is like usury(which is the case in the Quran). But GOD allowed trade..." then it implies that the person wants to equate a particular kind of trade with usury and thereby put a ban on that which is exactly what "muslims" are doing by saying bank interst is riba whilst it is not. It's just another way of dealing.
Like I said, I see what you're saying, and I would like to see it this way, but am careful on this issue. See my 1st line in reply. One of the main reasons I am investigating this issue is that I know that the God will not instruct us in anything that is impossible to fulfil, will not put a burden on us greater than we can bear. My previous research has led me to the conclusions I have reached. These conclusions seem impossible to uphold. Therefore I am looking for more insight in the matter.
If we were to accept that bank interest is not ribaa, would you consider it just ? and would you consider it a contract between two consenting parties ? As for the second question, apply it to us as muslims and mu'mins. If this is the case for us, we should remember that the debtor should dictate the terms of the contract if we are trading with future obligation.
I don't think that we can make a distinction between acceptable interest and unacceptable interest (or simple and compound). The principle should stand either way.
Also, don't you think that spending in the cause of the God includes more than just giving what is traditionally termed charity, but also investment in enterprise thereby providing jobs for more people (teach to fish as opposed to give a fish). You would be gaining, so I'm not sure this qualifies as "sadaqah".
JK- This is WRONG as ive explained that currency is also SUBJECT TO RISK. How then can it not be an asset? Just consider the forex market where currencies are exchanged one for another and they lose/gain value wrt each other. Currency is the most liquid asset
Let's leave this for another discussion as I am looking for clarification on ribaa and as you have said it is a seperate issue. So we will go ahead with paper money being an asset for the purposes of this discussion.
JK- As i said whether something is backed by something or not IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE ISSUE and has nothing to do with riba. Furthermore it is orignally intended that currency be backed by labor, minerals, precious metals, patents etc etc. The concept of riba in the Quran has clearly been contrasted with charity i.e. people accumulating/increasing wealth without giving to the poor. At best you can label this as fraud from the banks' side.
Ok, seperate issue.
JK- So now your saying the currencies themselves are riba. Here your going both against the traditional understanding of riba as well as the Quran's. This is thus entirely made up. Just because a word means increase doesnt mean any increase in something is riba. Accroding to your logic increasing the welfare of other humans should be riba too then. I told you the Quran clearly contrasts riba with charity.
First part seperate issue.
As far as AQ contrasting ribaa with charity, I am well aware of this. My issue was with what should be given. I will respond to this on the next quote.
JK- NO the Quranic the following Quranic verse says 20% or 1/5th and is commonly misunderstood as to refer only to war booty BUT "ghanimtum" in general implies ANY GAIN. Thus here it what it says
You should know that your gain from anything(ghanimtum MIN SHAYIN) ONE-FIFTH shall go to GOD and the messenger(with intentions of the Quranic system), to be given to the relatives, the orphans, the poor, and the traveling alien. You will do this if you believe in GOD and in what we revealed to our servant in the period of decision, the period between the two joinings(jama'an, where the decision of distribution is made i.e. individual and state). GOD is Omnipotent.I have always seen this as booty due to the obvious abundant mistranslations out there. I believe you are right in this. There is no mention of war booty. It's amazing that even when I think that I have dispossessed myself of preconceived notions in matters of deen, they continuously creep up and bite me in the #**. THank you for pointing this out.
I would like to know if you think 2219 refers to the amount the 20% should be calculated on?
Look forward to your response.
Imraan
-
Salaaman brother Imraan,
Very interesting... Allow me to give a thought
You wrote "To sum up, I believe that the best meaning of bay'a is exchange"
I think "In 9111, God says He has bought from the believers their lives & wealth in exchange for paradise, &the believers should rejoice in the "bay'i" they have "baaya'tum". This verse seems to indicate that this "bay'i" involves an exchange."
Bay'a is buy for me. Tijara(t) you can say is exchange or what ever.
And also you wrote "Whether I say "good is like evil" or "evil is like good", the point is that both are false since they are different."
As per my understanding you have taken it wrong. What Allah said is " Those who charge usury are in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence. This is because they claim that commerce is like usury(al baih mithlur riba). However, GOD permits commerce, and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with GOD. As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever."
They said that there is no difference in Riba and Trade. Both are like each other. Example of good and evil is not compairable or not in context with the aayat 2275
Regards,
mmKhan -
Peace mmKhan
Thank you for your response.
The example I gave of good and evil was to illustrate that whether AQ says "they say bay' is like ribaa" or "they say ribaa is like bay' ", the meaning is the same. I do accept that I did not provide context and that it was an oversight on my part. However it is worth taking into consideration what johnny_k has said regarding this
JK- Notice again this verse and the phrase in bold in particular
Those who charge usury are in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence. This is because they claim that commerce is like usury(al baih mithlur riba). However, GOD permits commerce, and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with GOD. As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever.Notice that the phrase says "they claim that baih is like riba" NOT that they claim "riba is like baih". This is very important. The latter woudlve implied western bankers who might claim that what theyr doing is mere business and hence this riba is like doing any other business. BUT that is NOT the admonishment. Here GOD is admonishing those people who make trade equal to riba and thereby condemn the trade. NOW who are the ones doing that? Once again it's the "islamic" countries who claim interest(particular deal) is riba.
JK- Your example is quoted without context and hence we cannot know what is meant. Secondly "riba" and "bai" are two ACTIVITIES whereas good and evil just attributes so its a very different scenario. I explained clearly that when one says "usury is like trade. But GOD allowed trade and forbade usury..." it would THEN imply that the person is seeking to justify usury by making it equal to any other trade. HOWEVER if he claims the reverse i.e. "trade is like usury(which is the case in the Quran). But GOD allowed trade..." then it implies that the person wants to equate a particular kind of trade with usury and thereby put a ban on that which is exactly what "muslims" are doing by saying bank interst is riba whilst it is not. It's just another way of dealing.
You said in your post
As per my understanding you have taken it wrong. What Allah said is " Those who charge usury are in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence. This is because they claim that commerce is like usury(al baih mithlur riba).
However, GOD permits commerce, and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with GOD. As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever."They said that there is no difference in Riba and Trade. Both are like each other. Example of good and evil is not compairable or not in context with the aayat 2275
I think the main issue that needs to be resolved is "What constitutes ribaa?
Please see Johnny's opinion on ribaa.
So it is actually INCREASING ones wealth and compounding that over and over without giving charity what "riba" refers too and not just any increase. If the latter were the case then any robbery/theft could be considered "riba". The example you mentioned can be considered fraud in one way or another. On the other hand banks are also in crisis hence the US Fed has allowed their banks to issue a money leverage of max of 71 against current balance. It is not that simple to get rid of this system but it is not what "riba" means.
Please note that if we consider ribaa to be any kind of interest or even just compound interest, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible in today's world to comply with verses of AQ
- taking note of war from the God and HIs messenger.
- 485 Whoever rallies to a good cause shall have a share in its blessings;103 and whoever rallies to an evil cause shall be answerable for his part in it for, indeed, God watches over everything.104. We cannot support banks and many other institutions due to these verses.
This is why I am trying to define ribaa accoeding to AQ. Since nobody can argue that ribaa is permitted, once we have a definition of ribaa, we know exactly what to avoid. It is of the utmost importance that ribaa be something we CAN avoid since the God will not instruct us in something we cannot fulfil.
Also ribaa is always contrasted with charity in the context of AQ. Hence Johnny's understanding of ribaa needs to be considered. I am careful with this issue due to the implications in AQ, and while I see merit in JOhnny's view, I am still not entirely convinced that the term ribaa does not include interest.
Imraan
-
Salaaman Imraan,
Thank you and I see what you mean...
You wrote "I think the main issue that needs to be resolved is "What constitutes ribaa?"
But I think there is some relation between ribaa and bayye, so I tried to give my views... When Allah has used both the words in a single verse, there must be some reason. We have to get clear on each and every part in relation to ribaa topic. Then only we can reach a fruitful conclusion inshaAllah.
And I am with most of part of JK.
I wanted to add a point that may be helpful in this discussion. Allah said
"2279 for if you do it not, then know that you are at war with God and His Apostle. But if you repent, then you shall be entitled to your principal you will do no wrong, and neither will you be wronged."
Fain lam tafAAaloo fathanoo biharbin mina Allahi warasoolihi wain tubtum falakum ruoosu amwalikum la tathlimoona wala tuthlamoona
(2279)
We should not do zulm nor should we get.
I such case if we involve banks, neither we are doing zulm on them nor they are on us. This is just a thought.
BTW, interest and usury same? hmm
May Allah guide us all towards the path that He has chosen for us and agreed with.
Regards,
mmKhan -
Peace mmKhan
You wrote
But I think there is some relation between ribaa and bayye, so I tried to give my views... When Allah has used both the words in a single verse, there must be some reason. We have to get clear on each and every part in relation to ribaa topic. Then only we can reach a fruitful conclusion inshaAllah.
I agree. However, if you consider Johnny's view
Notice that the phrase says "they claim that baih is like riba" NOT that they claim "riba is like baih". This is very important. The latter woudlve implied western bankers who might claim that what theyr doing is mere business and hence this riba is like doing any other business. BUT that is NOT the admonishment. Here GOD is admonishing those people who make trade equal to riba and thereby condemn the trade. NOW who are the ones doing that? Once again it's the "islamic" countries who claim interest(particular deal) is riba.
it would seem that the claim of bay' being like ribaa may come from people trying to forbid something the God has permitted rather than people trying to permit what the God has forbidden. As I mentioned, this is worth considering and should not be discounted.
You wrote
I wanted to add a point that may be helpful in this discussion. Allah said
"2279 for if you do it not, then know that you are at war with God and His Apostle. But if you repent, then you shall be entitled to your principal you will do no wrong, and neither will you be wronged."
Fain lam tafAAaloo fathanoo biharbin mina Allahi warasoolihi wain tubtum falakum ruoosu amwalikum la tathlimoona wala tuthlamoona
(2279)
We should not do zulm nor should we get.
I such case if we involve banks, neither we are doing zulm on them nor they are on us. This is just a thought.
Your conclusion would only hold true if, in fact, interest is not ribaa. This is the question at hand.
BTW, interest and usury same?
I don't belive that there can be a distinction between interest and usury. Interest, in my opinion, is just a more socially aceptable way of stating usury. Again, the question is Does interest/usury constitute ribaa?
THank you for your input. Look forward to your reply.
Imraan
-
Peace "1celost",
Peace Johnny,
Thank you for your cotinued responses. Let me say, at the outset of this reply, that I am treading very carefully with this one because of the implications of cosuming ribaa as per AQ.
JK- Yes but remeber it is the INTENTIONS which counts with GOD. Therefore if we sincerely and using the best of our knowledge and reason understand a certain Quranic term in a certain way, it would make no sense if GOD punihsed us even if that understanding of ours was wrong or not entirely correct. Otherwise GOD wouldnt be just and that contradicts His attribute.
Like I said, I see what you're saying, and I would like to see it this way, but am careful on this issue. See my 1st line in reply. One of the main reasons I am investigating this issue is that I know that the God will not instruct us in anything that is impossible to fulfil, will not put a burden on us greater than we can bear. My previous research has led me to the conclusions I have reached. These conclusions seem impossible to uphold. Therefore I am looking for more insight in the matter.
JK- Ok so you came to a certain conclusion and so did i. The point is we now have to discuss the issue and find the flaw and the +ve points in our arguments so we can come closer to the truth.
If we were to accept that bank interest is not ribaa, would you consider it just ? and would you consider it a contract between two consenting parties ? As for the second question, apply it to us as muslims and mu'mins. If this is the case for us, we should remember that the debtor should dictate the terms of the contract if we are trading with future obligation.
JK- Ofcourse an interest contract with a normal registered bank, NOT a credit shark, can be considered just. It's just like renting a car from any of the registered car rental companies whom we know to the best of our knowledge are trustworthy. As for the terms they are laid out by the car rental or bank in advance. You can either accept them or you do not need to borrow from them.
I don't think that we can make a distinction between acceptable interest and unacceptable interest (or simple and compound). The principle should stand either way.
JK- MAN now your back to square one. I told you currency is an ASSET, the most liquid one too just like cars, houses, platinum, diamonds etc. Thus if the latter can be rent out so can currency and this is termed as interest. It has nothing to do with riba
Also, don't you think that spending in the cause of the God includes more than just giving what is traditionally termed charity, but also investment in enterprise thereby providing jobs for more people (teach to fish as opposed to give a fish). You would be gaining, so I'm not sure this qualifies as "sadaqah".
JK- Ofcourse it qualifies as sadaqah. It doesnt matter if you gain BUT your intention is TO HELP OTHERS primarily and that is sadaqah. Also i believe anything given more than 20% on income is also sadaqah or extra charity.
Let's leave this for another discussion as I am looking for clarification on ribaa and as you have said it is a seperate issue. So we will go ahead with paper money being an asset for the purposes of this discussion.
JK- Not only paper money but currency. When you borrow money from a bank you usually do so electronically, the currency being transferred to your account, NOT taking paper money out.
Ok, seperate issue.
First part seperate issue.
As far as AQ contrasting ribaa with charity, I am well aware of this. My issue was with what should be given. I will respond to this on the next quote.
I have always seen this as booty due to the obvious abundant mistranslations out there. I believe you are right in this. There is no mention of war booty. It's amazing that even when I think that I have dispossessed myself of preconceived notions in matters of deen, they continuously creep up and bite me in the #**. THank you for pointing this out.
JK- Your welcome.
I would like to know if you think 2219 refers to the amount the 20% should be calculated on?
Look forward to your response.
Imraan
JK- That is one possibility that the other verse clarifies 2219, yes. But also 2219 might be talking about general charity. However i believe the former makes more sense since the Quran was revealed in stages. GOD Bless!
-
Peace Johnny
Sorry about late reply.
Quote
Like I said, I see what you're saying, and I would like to see it this way, but am careful on this issue. See my 1st line in reply. One of the main reasons I am investigating this issue is that I know that the God will not instruct us in anything that is impossible to fulfil, will not put a burden on us greater than we can bear. My previous research has led me to the conclusions I have reached. These conclusions seem impossible to uphold. Therefore I am looking for more insight in the matter.JK- Ok so you came to a certain conclusion and so did i. The point is we now have to discuss the issue and find the flaw and the +ve points in our arguments so we can come closer to the truth.
I have not yet reached the same conclusion as you have. What I am saying is that removing yourself from interest totally seems impossible. This may just be due to a lack of commitment on my side or any other number of reasons. Your view does demonstrate some merit. However, I am making certain assumptions for the purpose of exploring your view. Thge main assumption being your concept of fiat currency. I don't necessarily agree with your concept of fiat currency, but the assumption of fiat cuurency as a commodity is necessary in order explore your view.
AS for finding the flaws and positive points, I think that this requires a discussin involving many areas of the economy. The issue of ribaa then, based onthe assumption that fiat currency is a legitimate commodity, is at hand.
Can commodities be rented out? If they can be rented out, are their any rules pertaining to these rental agreements that can be extracted from AQ? Does the renting out f commodities constitute ribaa? These are the question I have. They may seem to have obvious answers, but please indulge me with an opinion as I am trying to formulate an opinion at the moment.
JK- Ofcourse an interest contract with a normal registered bank, NOT a credit shark, can be considered just. It's just like renting a car from any of the registered car rental companies whom we know to the best of our knowledge are trustworthy. As for the terms they are laid out by the car rental or bank in advance. You can either accept them or you do not need to borrow from them.
The problem I find with thsi reasoning is that, as you metioned in an earlier post the law of creation of money could be considered as fraud by the banks, but has nothing to do with ribaa. If this is, in fact the case, we should certainly not be dealing with these institutuions as we are then perpetuating this fraud. AQ tells us not to aid an evil cause and surely fraud is an evil cause.
Quote
I don't think that we can make a distinction between acceptable interest and unacceptable interest (or simple and compound). The principle should stand either way.JK- MAN now your back to square one. I told you currency is an ASSET, the most liquid one too just like cars, houses, platinum, diamonds etc. Thus if the latter can be rent out so can currency and this is termed as interest. It has nothing to do with riba
I am back to square one because it was a passing thought that made its way to my post. Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with your view on the legitimacy of fiat currency. We will not deal with this issue now, so my apologies for it creeping backinto the discussion.
Quote
Let's leave this for another discussion as I am looking for clarification on ribaa and as you have said it is a seperate issue. So we will go ahead with paper money being an asset for the purposes of this discussion.JK- Not only paper money but currency. When you borrow money from a bank you usually do so electronically, the currency being transferred to your account, NOT taking paper money out.
Even though this is for another discussion, if we need to refer to this currency, we should refer to it as fiat currency.
There is a view among some people that the system of Islam is essentially a socialist one. Even in an economic sense. I have been reading articles by various groups and individuals on their views regarding an Islamic economic system. It seems that the the authors of the argument for a socialist economic system have been able to justify their stance clearly from AQ whereas those promoting a free market system with social responsibility seem to rely more on interpretations of economic theory than quoting its basis from AQ. It may just be that the free market proponents I have read have just not referenced AQ enough or in an effective manner, but I woud like your view on this. It may seem slightly off topic, but what I am trying to establish is whther or not we are living in an economic environment that is compatible with the laws of AQ.
Peace
Imraan
-
Peace Imran,
Can commodities be rented out? If they can be rented out, are their any rules pertaining to these rental agreements that can be extracted from AQ? Does the renting out f commodities constitute ribaa? These are the question I have. They may seem to have obvious answers, but please indulge me with an opinion as I am trying to formulate an opinion at the moment.
I think rent can be charged for commodity ONLY if that commodity is being used personally. That rent should be equal in amount to the amount the owner will have to spend out of pocket to pay for an alternate commodity due to not being able to use it. For example, I own a car which I am actually using and my friend wants to rent the car from me. He should pay me the amount I will need to arrange alternate similar transport for myself as rent.
If, however, I have excess commodities that I am not actually using, then I cannot charge rent on them but can only sell them, because in such a case the rent would be "ribaa"/unfair increase. I will get my commodity back plus some extra assets. I can rent such a commodity only if the renter gets percentage ownership of the commodity in proportion to the amount paid as rent.
Charging of interest/rent on currency of intrinsic value will similarly be not ribaa if that currency was part of the owner's needs and was being actively used, but will be ribaa if it was excess currency laying around and not being actively used. If we give out of the excess money and get principal + extra money in the form of interest back ---> that will be "ribaa"/unfair increase.
We can, however, make a business investment with our excess money with someone and then get the principal + extra money back in the form of percentage of profit ---> that is "bia3"; or we can buy low and sell high at a price mutually agreed by both parties or exchange it with another commodity ---> that is also "bia3"; or we can lend our excess money to someone to help start their business and then they can pay the original principal back without any interest and the net effect will have been helping that person in the way of God. We do need to keep giving at least 20 % of our excess money in the way of God in form of charity without expecting it back. I think this is how "ribaa" is contrasted with "bia3" and charity in AQ.
I agree that the current fiat currency system in which currency is not backed up by anything of intrinsic value and money is being created from thin air leads to an "unfair increase" and is the same as "ribaa". This system is evil and results in a vicious cycle that will eventually lead to complete collapse of the economic system, and needs to be completely abolished in a community based on AQ. Unfortunately there is no such community in existence in the world at this time so our first effort should be to establish such a community. This would require a lot of striving with our wealth and time and is what defines a "momin".
Please see the following mind blowing video about the current evil system of money as debt and its origins and repercussions
http//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&ei=y8faSMzyCoL8rALJtainCw&q
This understanding is mine alone and could easily be flawed so constructive criticisms backed by Quranic evidence are welcome to help improve my understanding or come to a better one. I would, however, prefer to read the criticism from the sidelines and not actively participate in a debate about my understanding at this time.
-
Peace 1CELOSTNOWFOUND,
I also have a very similar view on ribaa anything that is unlawful increase in wealth.
for example i see what is done in society today
Moneyuse Money to buy --> Patatoes from farm sell in supermarkets for more Money
so what we see here is Money < Money usury?? or trading? the purpose was to get more money...
now is there any verse in the AQ that would support this as not being a good thing?
Surah 83 perhaps?831 Woe to those who cheat.
832 Those who when they are receiving any measure from the people, they take it in full.
833 And when they are the ones giving measure or weight, they give less than due.They give less then due to us? and get full measure from the farmers??
I remember when I worked in a corner store it completly works like this everything is bought from a source and sold more expensive.
where as if you are a source then you can give directly to the people.
Is it possible to be a source?? yes.... just become a farmer.but here again we have the problem how do we get the land in the first place if everything is interest? so we have to work with interest and use it??
until we dont have to anymore?? And what do we tell the person who is selling the land? is this fair? wouldnt i be a cheater too? -
Peace all,
THank you fo your valuable input on this issue. I have however decided to discuss this issue in a broader sense, viz. Economic System of the Quran. It can be found here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597204.0
Please participate in this discussion if you can.
Imraan
-
peace barmack,
It seems you fail to take into account what is involved in buying the potato from the farmer and selling it in the supermarket. What about time, sourcing, transport, packaging, promotion/advertising, complying with any standards that are in place etc.
Your example is only valid if NOTHING is done to the potato and it is sold at a higher price than what was paid to the farmer.
-
Peace Wakas,
Yes thank you for correcting me.
It completly makes sense that we would be paying for those reasons so there is no interest involved because the end product isnt the same as the begining product. the end product is in fact what was done to get it in the store and to our feet. -
Peace All
My opinion at present is that money must either have intrinsic value or be used strictly as a medium of exchange that is free from growth in itself.But without interest, there would not be an incentive to pay the money back to the lender. Would you pu the people who dont pay the money back to the lender in jail, or would you, as a lender put 1-4% interest on the money so that there is an incentive to pay it back on time.
Furthermore, remember the expression "time is money, money is time". You pay the lender for the time that you have taken from him, where he/she could have used the money as an investment.
-
Edip-Layth - End Note 83 (2275)
It is common wisdom that "high" interest rates are not healthy for a good economy. The interest that the Quran prohibits is not the interest collected from money lent for businesses, but rather the money lent for consumption of necessities. When considered with its context, this prohibition is about usury. The Quran does not treat this subject in the context of business or trade, but in the context of the charity to the needy. Those who exploit the basic needs of individuals may attempt to justify their usury as free market trade. The interest charge on credit cards used by needy consumers should be considered usury, since the money borrowed is not invested for profitable business enterprise, but spent on basic needs. Modern banks charge obscene amounts of fees and interest (usury) to their customers who need the money the most. They have developed extensive tricks to steal from their needy victims. Unfortunately, banks have the power to legalize their robberies by buying the elected legislators. Through constant and cunning propaganda, they have even succeeded in legitimizing their exploitation and theft, even to their victims. See 3130; 4161.
Any comments?
-
"If you lend money to any of my people that is poor by you, you shall not be to him as an usurer, neither shall you lay on him usury."
Take you no usury of him, or increase but fear your God; that your brother may live with you."
You shall not give him your money on usury, nor lend him your victuals for increase."
You shall not lend on usury to your brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent on usury "
To a stranger you may lend on usury; but to your brother you shall not lend on usury that the LORD your God may bless you in all that you set your hand to in the land where you go to possess it."
Those who charge usury 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, and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with God. As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever (Al-Baqarah 2275)
God condemns usury, and blesses charities.God dislikes every disbeliever, guilty. Lo! those who believe and do good works and establish worship and pay the poor-due, their reward is with their Lord and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. O you who believe, you shall observe God and refrain from all kinds of usury, if you are believers. If you do not, then expect a war from God and His messenger. But if you repent, you may keep your capitals, without inflicting injustice, or incurring injustice. If the debtor is unable to pay, wait for a better time. If you give up the loan as a charity, it would be better for you, if you only knew. (Al-Baqarah 2276-280)
O you who believe, you shall not take usury, compounded over and over. Observe God, that you may succeed. (Al-'Imran 3130)
And for practicing usury, which was forbidden, and for consuming the people's money illicitly. We have prepared for the disbelievers among them painful retribution. (Al-Nisa 4161)
The usury that is practiced to increase some people's wealth, does not gain anything at God. But if people give to charity, seeking God's pleasure, these are the ones who receive their reward many fold. (Ar-Rum 3039)
Its talking about abuse and taking advantage of the poor. I don't think its talking about business transaction where the person is doing so willingly and for business reasons. Its like 3rd world debt where people rather than help the poor, take advantage of them knowing the money they lend is used for survival and not for investments.
Like someone who is desperate and then you lend him money you know he will use to heal someone sick or to pay of some debts he inherited or to feed himslef and his family. How can this person ever repay you?
Notice the Koran and OT contrasts between riba and charity. You don't give charity except to the needy. Anotherwords, exploitation.
