Critique of Ribba Arguments Thus Far and a Precise Definition
-
Salam,
Brother Wakas has cited 4 arguments in this post (http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605358.msg327780#msg327780 ) and suggested that any discussion first deal with these before proceeding. So before I present my case I will critique these examples. I will concern myself only with the parts of these arguments which use the Quran to support their points.
-
The first argument by Dr. F.Rahman, defines ribba in his conclusion (1D) as "whereby the capital sum is doubled several-fold". But an examination of the words in verse 3130 shows that it is not the capital, but only the "riba" itself which is being doubled and multiplied. The capital itself does not have to double.
-
J. Islam's argument, I do agree with, but it even though it's premises are all correct, it does not reach a definitive conclusion. Terms are still left vague e.g. "exorbitant interest", but what should qualify as "exorbitant"?
-
M.L Chaudhery's argument is confusing distinct concepts. If we look at the same verses that he himself is citing, the term there is not "charity" but Zakat. And Zakat is fundamentally different than "charity" (discussion of this would require a separate thread). In any case, there is no clear definition of ribba in Chaudhery's argument.
-
Mohf's argument is mistakenly linking the two separate concepts of "Fraud" and "ribba". Fraud requires dishonesty. While ribba can be contractually transparent.
Beyond these arguments, the mainstream usually brings in concepts of "risk", but these are irrelevant to the Quranic description of Ribba which does not mention risk at all.
Now that the prerequisite has been met, let me present a very clear and unambiguous definition of Ribba derived purely from the description given in the Quran i.e. "increase which is not trade" Any increase on the returned sum/asset which is in excess of incurred costs (inflation etc.) affecting a reduction in value of the original sum/asset lent. This definition requires no elaborate argument because it is derived from the precise description provided by the Quran.
I would like to state that this thread is not for getting into long discussions on the socioeconomic consequences of such a definition. The issue here is the definition of ribba itself. Unless we can sort out the starting point and agree on this, we can't proceed with building foundational models.
-
-
w/salaam,
Brother Wakas has cited 4 arguments in this post (http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9605358.msg327780#msg327780 ) and suggested that any discussion first deal with these before proceeding.
I did not say that.
Here is what I actually said
peace,
Many people have written on this, including many posts on this forum, to name a few e.g.
http//fazlur-rahman.livejournal.com/2102.html
http//quransmessage.com/articles/riba%20FM3.htm
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12997.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604876.0If you do have an alternative, please also state clearly why other understandings may be wrong, be specific etc.
-
- Mohf's argument is mistakenly linking the two separate concepts of "Fraud" and "ribba". Fraud requires dishonesty. While ribba can be contractually transparent.
Why can Fraud and Ribba not be linked? And can you prove the red part?
I do not think Ribba has much to do with interest or economics. Many thousands of years ago (remember the verses about Jews consuming Riba), people were not as advanced to even understand difficult economics as usury. Not only that, there are probably thousands of other crimes that occured much more often than usury. Even raping is not condemned as much as Riba in the Quran.
-
Now that the prerequisite has been met, let me present a very clear and unambiguous definition of Ribba derived purely from the description given in the Quran i.e. "increase which is not trade" Any increase on the returned sum/asset which is in excess of incurred costs (inflation etc.) affecting a reduction in value of the original sum/asset lent. This definition requires no elaborate argument because it is derived from the precise description provided by the Quran.
Salaam
well, i will try to traduce part of this article https//nawaat.org/portail/2013/05/24/du-riba-du-grand-singe/
For simplicity, consider the following schedule
1000 $ loan over two years at 10% interest. The first year requires payment of interest 100 $ and 500 $ of capital reimbursment. The second year requires the payment of interest of 50 $ and 500 $ for the remaining capital.
this is clear "RIBBA' according to official understanding
Now let's remove Haram and replace it by halal simply by playing with words.Let's link the loan to a computer for example. In the "halal" contract, the lender buy a computer and choose to rent it to the borrower. Then "borrower" have to pay a rent of 100 $ for enjoying a computer he didn't pay for the first year. At the end of the first year the "borrower" buy half a computer. For the second year, borrower have to pay 50 $ for enjoying half a computer he didn't pay for a year. Finally, he pay 500 $ for buying the remining half of computer.
what does it mean ?
clearly, interest is the rent of money.
if rent of money is forbidden, then, just by playing with words, we can replace "rent of money" by "rent of the good wich is to be brought by the money".Money, in economics, is considered as a good like others. It is just ignorance in economics to says that renting money is not like renting other goods.
Classical understanding of ribba is pure hypocrisie.
Ribba is selling words of Gods. it is same root as word Rabb and mean take money for being a sub-Rabb. That's What Allah mean by saying that exchanging "hooda and guideness" for money is not a tijara (commerce).
Ribba is what false arbabs (imams, cheikhs, rabbi, monks...) do every day. They are living from what they earn by being dealers of what allah gave for free.it is easy to understand why false arbabs all agree that ribba is not what they eat. Such unanimity is very rare in religion. hail
Peace
