What type of Riba is prohibited ?
-
Peace Progressive
I don't think that your conclusion based on 2275 is correct. Rather than it being obvious that riba has nothing to do with trade, it is obvious that there is some similarity that caused people to say that "trade is like riba".
While I don't agree with everything Abdun Nur says regarding particular forces he names as being at play in the global system (only because the quran does not allow conjecture), there are most certainly gross negative impacts on society due to the institution of usury. The quran demands that we use reason when understanding it & I think that to disregard the effects of usurious transactions is a mistake.
I also think that you are viewing the concept of riba in isolation. I would suggest that you research the origin of fiat currency as it is fundmental in understanding the concept of usury as we know it today. In the time of the quranic revelation, riba had to be understood in terms of issuing a loan of something that had intrinsic value & demanding more of the same back. In today's economy, the media of exchange have themselves become usurious. Currencies are themselves usurious today. Any way I think a more wholistic approach to the subject is in order. Remember 1736. Investigate the issue fully before drawing conclusions. If you have already investigated these issues & others in arriving at your conclusions, I apologise for the assumptions I have made. But if you have, I would like to take this discussion further since I find it hard to believe that a thorough investigation would lead to the conclusion you have reached regarding the permissibilty of usurious loans to people who are not in dire need.
Imraan
-
Peace Imraan,
I don't think that your conclusion based on 2275 is correct. Rather than it being obvious that riba has nothing to do with trade, it is obvious that there is some similarity that caused people to say that "trade is like riba".
This is exactly my point. Those who make conclusions such as "'riba' means 'excessive' gains from business transactions" have confused 'riba' with trade.
I also think that you are viewing the concept of riba in isolation. I would suggest that you research the origin of fiat currency as it is fundmental in understanding the concept of usury as we know it today. In the time of the quranic revelation, riba had to be understood in terms of issuing a loan of something that had intrinsic value & demanding more of the same back. In today's economy, the media of exchange have themselves become usurious. Currencies are themselves usurious today. Any way I think a more wholistic approach to the subject is in order. Remember 1736. Investigate the issue fully before drawing conclusions. If you have already investigated these issues & others in arriving at your conclusions, I apologise for the assumptions I have made. But if you have, I would like to take this discussion further since I find it hard to believe that a thorough investigation would lead to the conclusion you have reached regarding the permissibilty of usurious loans to people who are not in dire need.
My priority when defining the term 'riba' or finding out any other things/concepts in the Quran is the Quran itself. Did you carefully read my post and look at the context? Did God put in the verses about charity and contrast charity and 'riba' for nothing?
I will have a look at fiat currency.
-
Badar,
Dear progressive show me that there are any context for Riba in Al-Kitab. It is prohibited, period. Meaning no excessive gains are allowed under any circumstances. If one still insist upon excessive gains, he is declared to be at war with Rubb.
Badar
Did you even read my first post in this thread where I have explained my position using the Quran only, and not some dictionary?
Right now, it looks like you have no clue about what I have written.
Peace
-
Peace Progressive
Peace Imraan,
This is exactly my point. Those who make conclusions such as "'riba' means 'excessive' gains from business transactions" have confused 'riba' with trade.
My priority when defining the term 'riba' or finding out other things in the Quran is the Quran itself. Did you carefully read my post and look at the context? Did God put in the verses about charity and contrast charity and 'riba' for nothing?
I will have a look at fiat currency.
While the context is important, it should also be remembered that in order to define quranic terminology from the quran itself, it is necessary to employ tasreef (looking at other instances of the word & its root derivative in the quran). This assists us in removing preconceived ideas about quranic terminology that are a product of centuries of false indoctrination.
Imraan
-
Peace Imraan
Peace Progressive
While the context is important it should also be remembered that in order to define quranic terminology from the quran itself, it is necessary to employ tasreef (looking at other instances of the word & its root derivative in the quran). This assists us in removing preconceived ideas about quranic terminology that are a product of centuries of false indoctrination.
What does tasreef tell you?
What does the context tell you?
I have highlited the word 'ribala' in my post. I should have also highlited 'yurbi'.
From PRL
Ra-Ba-Waw = it increased/augmented, the practicing/taking of usury, excess/addition, an addition obtained more than what is supposed to be received, become high/grown up/large/swollen/risen, mount up, to grow/swell, out of breath, panting. rabiyatun - ever-increasing, severe. arba (comp. form) - more numerous, more increased.
The context is thoroughly discussed in my first post.
-
Salaam progressive,
you think I wish you to accept my view of usury , no, I wish you to understand what you are attempting to convince others of, namely that usury is acceptable under certain conditions, and even more perversely you wish to support your conclusions through misunderstanding the verses of the Qur'an, even with the poor translations into English available, it is clear usury is a fundamental prohibition, and its removal from society will establish freedom, in conjunction with the other prerequisite to freedom the removal of all human sovereignty, again this is a foundation of Islamic freedom.
The present world usury system will collapse shortly, it is based on a fraud, I will simplify the explanation a little, every currency, the pound, the dollar, the Euro, whichever currency you wish to pick are all fiat, meaning they only have value because the government of the state allowing the issue of the currency say?s it has value.
All the central banks, like for example the bank of England, or the Federal reserve are private companies that pay no tax and show no accounts, they print money for the cost of printing and lend it at interest. This mean every note in circulation has been borrowed, by a government, a company, or an individual, and this is the crucial problem with this fraud, over twenty years for every note lent, the bank receives on average four back, so for this system to continue, the bank must double the amount of currency in circulation every ten years, which means your savings half in value every ten years, the cost of goods doubles every ten years, the amount of taxation must increase and services must decline as the bank demands a greater and greater share of the tax collected.
So this means the volume of money in the world must double every ten years, it is easy when viewed from this perspective to see the problem, you can only double for so long before you arrive at sums so enormous it becomes impossible to lend that volume of money.
When the money, been drawn back into the banking system exceeds the money leaving the banking system, you get mass unemployment, businesses go under on mass, governments go bankrupt, poverty spreads throughout the world.
The way the banking system addresses this in the short term is to manufacture wars, wars are the best way to inject vast amounts of money into the world economy.
Does any of this sound familiar?
-
@ AN,
are you deliberately trying to distort my view on riba, make a straw man and mislead
the readers here concerning what my position on riba is? What is wrong with your logic,
arguementation and reading skills? Do you think your position is more valid than mine,
although you have
provided ZERO Quranic evidence? This is AGAINST THE FORUM RULES! I suggest that you
read my first post on this thread 3 times, and to read about what the Quran says about
people who bring no proofs for their claims and bring forward illogical ones.I don't have much time right now. I'll get back to you tomorrow.
-
@ AN,
are you deliberately trying to distort my view on riba, make a straw man and mislead
the readers here concerning what my position on riba is? What is wrong with your logic,
arguementation and reading skills? Do you think your position is more valid than mine,
although you have
provided ZERO Quranic evidence? This is AGAINST THE FORUM RULES! I suggest that you
read my first post on this thread 3 times, and to read about what the Quran says about
people who bring no proofs for their claims and bring forward illogical ones.I don't have much time right now. I'll get back to you tomorrow.
Peace
Brother you also never produce Quranic evidence. You rely upon 19ers distorted Quranic translation.Regards
-
Peace
Brother you also never produce Quranic evidence. You rely upon 19ers distorted Quranic translation.Regards
salaam brother
would you please suggest any Quranic translation which you think is not distorted? thanks
-
peace Imraan,
Yes, I agree that 'al riba' is harram (~forbidden) as per 2275.I believe 3130 literally says "... doubling re-doubling" or "doubling, multiplying" or could be an expression for "compounded over and over" (I have not checked this last rendering). My point was that theoretically riba could mean (simple or compounded) interest as long as it did not go over doubling - this is one possible interpretation of 3130. Not that I actually agree with that possibility, I'm just saying. But if we take 2275 into account, then whatever riba is it is harram, even if it did mean (simple or compounded) interest. As you say, it may be a gradual banning process, I did think of this too but I did not check it.
I'm not sure if the above equates to what you "put to rest" originally, but maybe thats clarified.
peace bkanwar2,
your definition of riba meaning "excessive gains in a business transaction" is refuted by 3130 and 2279.###############
From my studies, it is clear from the usage of riba and its root RBW it is a type of growth (I quite like 3039 for this). If it grows, its riba, to me thats clear. A question then arises, what if there is an addition with no growth, e.g. I lend you 100 gold coins, you give me 110 gold coins in a year, with both parties agreeing obviously. Of course, even after a year and no repayment, it cannot rise, and also any addition (i.e. the extra 10) is not recoverable under Quranic law, and potentially the whole sum has to be remitted as charity if it cannot be paid . Is this still riba? I'm not sure, as I have not studied it, nor have I seen anyone prove it is or is not.
If we look at what trade is, we can see that trade is often an object + added value (e.g. time spent collecting it, refining it, marketing it, testing it etc etc), so an addition has been placed on it, but is this addition riba? I think clearly not. So, is there a difference in the examples, of the additions? Most will say yes, and I agree to a certain extent. But it is almost never black and white like this. What if in trade a person adds X on top, that not only covers costs, but also makes a profit (a necessity), which is needed for reinvestment, buying stock to sell etc. Is this addition riba? This addition looks a lot like the first addition, and at this point becomes quite subjective. Secondly, what if the person lending 100 gold coins asks for stock or items of some kind worth 110 gold coins at the current market value, is this riba? As we can see, it is not black and white, so my view is that AQ would adopt the most simple and practical solution, and that seems to me, to be no growth. As long as it is remembered fixed additions are not recoverable, and the whole sum may have to be given as charity if unable to pay. This is of course not based on a fiat currency system, and it does not answer if this aspect is for mumin or everyone, but if mumin were in charge of an area then they could I assume make the laws for that area.As I said however, I have not studied it, but the above is my thoughts at this time.
-
As you say, it may be a gradual banning process, I did think of this too but I did not check it.
Do you mean that God allowed it at first, and then prohibited it (which would be abrogation)? Please clarify.
Thanks
-
Salaam progressive,
you think I wish you to accept my view of usury , no, I wish you to understand what you are attempting to convince others of, namely that usury is acceptable under certain conditions, and even more perversely you wish to support your conclusions through misunderstanding the verses of the Qur'an, even with the poor translations into English available, it is clear usury is a fundamental prohibition, and its removal from society will establish freedom, in conjunction with the other prerequisite to freedom the removal of all human sovereignty, again this is a foundation of Islamic freedom.
The present world usury system will collapse shortly, it is based on a fraud, I will simplify the explanation a little, every currency, the pound, the dollar, the Euro, whichever currency you wish to pick are all fiat, meaning they only have value because the government of the state allowing the issue of the currency say?s it has value.
All the central banks, like for example the bank of England, or the Federal reserve are private companies that pay no tax and show no accounts, they print money for the cost of printing and lend it at interest. This mean every note in circulation has been borrowed, by a government, a company, or an individual, and this is the crucial problem with this fraud, over twenty years for every note lent, the bank receives on average four back, so for this system to continue, the bank must double the amount of currency in circulation every ten years, which means your savings half in value every ten years, the cost of goods doubles every ten years, the amount of taxation must increase and services must decline as the bank demands a greater and greater share of the tax collected.
So this means the volume of money in the world must double every ten years, it is easy when viewed from this perspective to see the problem, you can only double for so long before you arrive at sums so enormous it becomes impossible to lend that volume of money.
When the money, been drawn back into the banking system exceeds the money leaving the banking system, you get mass unemployment, businesses go under on mass, governments go bankrupt, poverty spreads throughout the world.
The way the banking system addresses this in the short term is to manufacture wars, wars are the best way to inject vast amounts of money into the world economy.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Your way of arguing
What you have presented (your personal opinion) = riba (which is prohibited);
my arguement is not the same as yours (I am deeming prohibited what you are deeming prohibited), hence I am saying that riba is not prohibited.Does this sound logical to you?
You have made a straw man. You have presented your personal opinion of riba (without quranic evidence, and call it 'usury', next, you clam that I promote usury, because I deem OK what you/your personal opinion does not deem OK, although you have brought no proof.
Read my first post again.
And because you have not noticed it so far, I will tell you I agree that riba is prohibited, of course (2275).
My definiton of riba is not the same as yours, though. This doesnt mean that I dont think riba is prohibited.
You have to learn that MANY, MANY, MANY... people dont share the same opinion(s) with you, concerning whatever subject matter - get used to it.Peace
-
Concepts are clarified for vivid understanding either by quoting similarities or contrasts.
In the eyes of those people who take they see and find it in appearance and essence exactly as
This is the contention and stand point of those who actually took . In view of it anyone who is trying to understand without finding what is, he is just wandering and working on conjectural hypothesis not the Qur'aan. Notwithstanding that apparently both are identical Allah says He has declared while He has declared as prohibited.
And the contrast is this
And those who were doing the act of taking were advised
And you people leave the remaining/still outstanding from .
is something which was being taken on that earlier given to the person from whom was being taken
is something that was taken on given to others.
The person who had taken "principle amount" may not be able to return it instantly, in that case it was advised to give him more time to return/pay back what he had taken
And if your debtor be in straitened circumstances to return the principal debt, then give him time till his monetary condition becomes better
And then is explained and defined in 2282.
O you who say to have believed! When you people enter into a commercial deal of promissory nature for a period with specific terminating point in time for payment, then you must put it in writing and a scribe must amongst you write down in just manner;
The other type of business transanction is quite distinct from it
there is exception to this injunction that you may not reduce to writing the business/rotation-selling and buying of goods that you do daily on spot hand to hand;
Note the contrast in these two types of business transanctions; one is masculine and the other is feminine.
In goods are delivered but payment is to be made in a certain period of time the terminating moment of which is settled and determined between the parties concerned and the price charged is exhorbitantly higher than the market price obtaining at the time of agreement depending on the length of time duration for payment. In case of death of the recepient this is the amount which must be paid before distributing the inheritance.
-
Peace Progressive
Do you mean that God allowed it at first, and then prohibited it (which would be abrogation)? Please clarify.
Thanks
This concept I find to be extremely misunderstood in the quran. There many examples to be found in the quran where it may appear that there are instructions of an apparent contradictory nature. This, in my opinion arises from viewing the quran as a static document. It cannot be so as it has to be functional for all time.
Now just because there are injunctions brought in gradually, it does not mean that those which are apparently abrogated have no function any more. In fact they serve a very important function for all time, which is that just as people at the time of Muhammad needed to make changes in their lives slowly (step by step), so too would people in any day & age need the same latitude.These verses therefore function today in exactly the same way they functioned at the time of their revelation.
Therefore, in the case of riba, what I was pointing out is that it only seems logical to me that 3130 is an earlier revelation as it tells us not to devour riba "doubling & redoubling" or "doubling & multiplying" or "compounded". In 2275, we are told that riba (without any qualification of doubling & mutiplying, etc.) is haraam or prohibited. This in itself could be considered an apparent contradiction in the quran. For me this, & many other apparent contradictions are clarified by understanding that communities & individuals who come to the quran are each at different levels of their respective developments, both individually & collectively. The quran therefore provides an entry point from which an individual or community proceed to the goal that God wants us to attain regardless of what stage of development they are currently at.
Also check out the following thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598672.0
Imraan
-
Peace Wakas
From my studies, it is clear from the usage of riba and its root RBW it is a type of growth (I quite like 3039 for this). If it grows, its riba, to me thats clear. A question then arises, what if there is an addition with no growth, e.g. I lend you 100 gold coins, you give me 110 gold coins in a year, with both parties agreeing obviously. Of course, even after a year and no repayment, it cannot rise, and also any addition (i.e. the extra 10) is not recoverable under Quranic law, and potentially the whole sum has to be remitted as charity if it cannot be paid . Is this still riba? I'm not sure, as I have not studied it, nor have I seen anyone prove it is or is not.
If we look at what trade is, we can see that trade is often an object + added value (e.g. time spent collecting it, refining it, marketing it, testing it etc etc), so an addition has been placed on it, but is this addition riba? I think clearly not. So, is there a difference in the examples, of the additions? Most will say yes, and I agree to a certain extent. But it is almost never black and white like this. What if in trade a person adds X on top, that not only covers costs, but also makes a profit (a necessity), which is needed for reinvestment, buying stock to sell etc. Is this addition riba? This addition looks a lot like the first addition, and at this point becomes quite subjective. Secondly, what if the person lending 100 gold coins asks for stock or items of some kind worth 110 gold coins at the current market value, is this riba? As we can see, it is not black and white, so my view is that AQ would adopt the most simple and practical solution, and that seems to me, to be no growth. As long as it is remembered fixed additions are not recoverable, and the whole sum may have to be given as charity if unable to pay. This is of course not based on a fiat currency system, and it does not answer if this aspect is for mumin or everyone, but if mumin were in charge of an area then they could I assume make the laws for that area.As I said however, I have not studied it, but the above is my thoughts at this time.
I understand that your are defining here in terms of currency that is not fiat. However, when looking at the aspect of bay'a & its root derivatives, I have found, as I mentioned earlier, that there seems to be a correlation between bay'a & an exchange of one thing for a different thing, not noe thing for more of the same thing over a period of time. In other words there are two items involved in such a transaction (commercial or otherwise). When looking at riba & its root derivatives, I have found that there seems to be a correlation between riba & an increase in the subject under discussion in the context. In other words there is only one item involved in such a transaction (commercial or otherwise).
Imraan
-
Salaam,
This is my final post on Riba in this thread, as there seems to be a strange intentional perversion of reason been expressed within it, meaning when the correct model is presented an intentionally confusing follows.
Usury does not require you to establish its meaning, it has a well established and well documented definition, it is only those wishing to trade usuriously and justify their actions to those around them that wish to re-define it.
It would not really matter if you did re-define the definition to your ends, as the act and result would remain apparent, so its true definition can not be altered, as it has a physical reality.
And as I have presented an example of that reality previously in the tread, people can decide for themselves, usury has been practiced for thousands of years in an evolving form.
The best definition is
?The premeditated theft of the fruits of someone else?s labour.?
This would then mean every form of taxation, would be Riba.
Every form of long term renting would be Riba.
Every interest baring loan would be Riba.
Every form of gambling, stock market, futures market, pensions market, bonds, would be Riba.
Even the fiat money we all use every day is a form of usury.We exist in a usury (Riba) system, it would be impossible to have an Islamic system, which is detailed on servantofthelight.com in the essay, ?Qur?anic Caliphate.?, in conjunction or in competition with the existing system, they are mutually exclusive.
-
stock market, futures market, pensions market, bonds, would be Riba.
2275 Those who consume usury, do not rise except as the one who is being beaten by the devil out of direct touch. That is because they have said, "Trade is like usury." Indeed God has made trade lawful, yet He has forbidden usury. 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 the usury and grants growth to the charities. God does not like any ingrate sinner.
Again, riba is in direct contrast with charity. I guess you will disregard this.
Peace
-
2275 Those who consume usury, do not rise except as the one who is being beaten by the devil out of direct touch. That is because they have said, "Trade is like usury." Indeed God has made trade lawful, yet He has forbidden usury. 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 the usury and grants growth to the charities. God does not like any ingrate sinner.
Again, riba is in direct contrast with charity. I guess you will disregard this.
Peace
The one who translated as "trade" perhaps knew nothing about the economic dealings. Trade is cash, hand to hand transactions, exchange, revolving of goods- sale and purchase while according to Qur'aan is different. As stated earlier
In goods are delivered but payment is to be made in a certain period of time the terminating moment of which is settled and determined between the parties concerned and the price charged is exhorbitantly higher than the market price obtaining at the time of agreement depending on the length of time duration for payment. In case of death of the recepient this is the amount which must be paid before distributing the inheritance. -
Peace,
They say trade is like usury because both involve increasing the value of a capital be it goods or money.
The increase of trade needs labor to work out.
The increase of usury doesn't need any labor to work out.
And because money is a representation of labor and not time, trade is allowed and usury is forbidden.
Thats why people in a usurious economy can have incredible amounts of money without executing the amount of labor required to acquire this wealth. They simply stole it from someone else's fruit of labor.
So the poor is literally working for the rich.
Peace,
Rami
