Why Riba (Usury) is Not Trade Explained
-
Riba is defined simply as ?usury? in Lanes lexicon.
To understand usury, you must first understand trade, as usury is ?not? trade.
To understand trade you must understand ownership, innately you may only own that which you create yourself.
In trade the only thing you then own are your labours, and it is these labours invested in the exchange that are traded.
For example if I exchange a bag of apples for a bag of potatoes, the apples and the potatoes are free, it is only the labours invested within their cultivation and delivery, that have value in exchange.
Usury is a certain benefit, which is received for the use of the thing lent beyond the return in full of the thing lent, and is not lawful. This is the lawful definition as expressed in Black?s law dictionary; it is not interest alone; that is simply one expression of the concept of usury.
The great lie oft repeated is that the definition of usury is "excessive interest", that is not the definition of usury, it is the excuse for allowing usury.
Consider usury through the perspective of trade.
Usury is unreciprocated labours, which are received for the use of something lent, beyond the return in full of the thing lent. In others words, trade is an exchange of labours, usury is a taking of labours without reciprocation.
Usury under the lawful definition has wide application, it prevents all forms of renting that involves no labour, and the problem is people do not grasp the allodial labour concept. Resources must always remain free, only the added value of your labours can be chargeable.
One of the modern terms used in place of usury is profit, not to be confused with the fruits of your labours, this is not profit. Profit is simply an alternative term for usury; profit is the rent on capital, pecuniary gain resulting from the employment of capital in any transaction, as a term it was dormant until revived in World War I; 1912 as a noun. Profitable is from early 14c., meaning "yielding benefit?.
-
I would say it is illicit gain, to fraudulently gain money for something exceeding what something is worth. For example, you are a salesman and you know a TV is sold for $1200, but because the price is wrong on the tag in your shop you charge the $1400 that is on the price tag even if your company is announcing the TV for $1200.
Or you know the karat of a piece of gold is 18 rather than 24, but you sell it as if it is 24 karat.
It is not usury if you agree to lend money to someone at an interest rate as that is a mutual agreement and a business transaction. It is also worth taking into consideration that the lent money is a loss of potential investment for the person who offers the borrower money. And as our economies work, the value of money fluctuates so the lender has probably even lost money when he gets his money back. It may be usury if you abuse someone's situation in order to make money, such as those who offer broke people in very exposed situations to borrow money at a very high interest rate.
In the end it is better with goodwill in situations.
In past ages, Christians were not allowed to take interest from people they lent money to and this phenomenon was called usury if you did. Check dictionaries. But I still consider it to be to ask for more money when the person returns the money without any such agreement.
Be safe
Amenuel -
You wish to redefine the meaning of the term usury, so in other words you want to alter the original definition that has been in existence for millennia for your own invented definition "man of faith"?
How do you plan to do that?
Usury is usury "man of faith" it does not alter that fact if you agree to a usurious exchange or not, the exchange is still usurious, why would agreement to usury change the nature of usury?
Clearly you did not read what i posted above, you do not grasp either usury or trade, as the majority you are at a loss.
-
Hello Abdun Nur,
Why sound so unfriendly?
Do you even know what it was that I said?
I am not at loss, this is not a win versus lose life we are living. I was mainly proclaiming what I deem is fraudulent behavior, and which is the real problem and not taking an interest rate from lending money in a mutually agreed business transaction, particularly a loan in where the borrower buys real estate that would increase in value or a business venture that
The English word usury is 'old use' and does imply that you gain interest from lending someone money, so from an etymological point of view then you are correct and I already wrote that in my previous post, but you seemed to immediately take a defensive stance while I mostly wrote factual information. In old times, Christians were disallowed from gaining interest when someone borrows money from them.
This tradition however stems from when market values were not fluctuating as much and the economy was not structured as it is today.
Using our contemporary economic system, a lender would with a high probability lose money in the end by lending someone money and the loan would be an unfair transaction for this person while the borrowing person may have done something with that money that gives them a financial benefit such as monetary growth. I hope you can see that logical deduction.
If we want to go back to the "usury is forbidden", then you have to also change the whole economic system into one that does not fluctuate and is built around fixed market values. You would have to say goodbye to inflation.
I am however willing to agree that our economic systems are total frauds and business tycoons create economic crises to benefit on the market. An economic crisis is only an invented phenomenon that happens because people in power put it in motion.
If you speak about huge banks where you gain interest having an account there, you would not even borrow money from an individual but a whole corporation and the tradition of usury seems to be quite retarded and depriving yourself of something.
When usury was propagated against then it meant benefiting from private persons when lending them money because they were in a financial crisis. When applying old terms you always have to take the era into consideration and what kind of situation the world is in.
Be safe
Amenuel -
I'm not being unfriendly simply asking you questions on your reply, usury is the present system, ownership is a form of usury, profit is a form of usury, rental is a form of usury, and interest on money is a form of usury, all these things take the labours of others without any reciprocation, so are not trade. The fact you do not understand usury is clear as usury is not limited to interest, not being unfriendly, usury holds the majority in economic slavery, resource scarcity in the midst of abundance, poverty while they are prevented from the natural expression of their own labours in trade, and extortions from hierarchies.
People claim excessive interest is usury for example, while at what point is usury no longer usury, this could be considered for slavery, if slavery is 100% of the fruits of your labours owned by another at what percentage are you no longer enslaved, and of course the answer is always 0%.
You as all others sadly exist within a usury model at present, and i suspect have no exposure to the alternatives, we are in agreement that usury should be removed, but we differ in the method, i do not wish to forbid it as to do so requires compulsion and there is no compulsion, I wish to establish the alternatives and then no one would be interested in usury anyway.
-
Hello,
You as all others sadly exist within a usury model at present
I do not support the current system, but I live within it, and that you do too most probably.
If we do like Jesua we may like to rid ourselves as much as possible from the monetary system.
But if you do not play someone's game by the rules then you may sadly get in trouble, especially if the system is very established. You can however stop sponsoring it. But as long as people take bank loans to buy homes they sponsor the current system. Even if you change your habits it does not affect the world much.
If you do not have a sufficient amount of money in these societies you have to rent a home or take a bank loan, that is unfortunately a fact no matter if you like it or not.
The error is in taking loans in the first place and making that a normalized behavior. Today it is normal that you borrow money from the bank to buy your home even if you do not have a poor economy and people buy their dream home and as expensive house they can possibly buy in an attractive location. They make themselves in debt (slaves) to the system.
but we differ in the method
I have not stated any method hmm
i do not wish to forbid it as to do so requires compulsion and there is no compulsion, I wish to establish the alternatives and then no one would be interested in usury anyway.
The only way of changing things is to stop sponsoring the capitalists, voting for the "correct" political parties, activate yourself politically and act as an informer and influence on people to open their eyes to what they are doing. If people only changed their attitude then things would slowly begin to change. But mega-corporations pump out propaganda and the way the economic system works is "normalized" (read up in psychology about "normalized behavior" and everyone takes it for granted and how it should work.
I talked about the communistic model on the forum but people only spit out their misconception and ignorance of what it was Karl Marx stood for in hits ideology. In this kind of established society it would not be any individual dependence on monetary funds and every material resource would be shared equally between its citizens. Hence there would not be any need for the usury system either. But because people guard what is their own, they harshly oppose this ideology, which exposes their materialism.
And it is a poor excuse to relate to nations that claim to have implemented communism such as Russia (Soviet), China, Cuba and Vietnam, because they did not really do it but it was just a political tool to seize control. It is the same as that religion has been a political tool in the Middle-East.
Such community should not be implemented by a coup d'etat but simply by changing the minds of people into standing up against their Masters (the capitalists) and that was what happened in the 20th century when the Socialist Movements as "workers' unions" stood up in Europe against such as the factory owners. The socialist countries is actually half-implemented communism. What prevents democratic countries from implementing it properly is the votes for conservatism, i.e. capitalism. In disorderly countries such as Russia, China and Cuba, communism was implemented by coup d'etat and you see the consequences and these countries did not have any solid society to begin with, it was pure rebellion rather than through diplomatic means.
In ways communism is a religion and we all know religion can easily be abused, but subtly the capitalistic model has been abused by the mega-corporations into normalizing the current society, so capitalism is also a religion.
The solution is to take the philosophical strong points (if there is any) from the religion and not become a fanatic.
I know you have said that you are anarchic and I doubt such a community can work without becoming a haven for criminals. It would derail into a capitalist nation with extortion and all kinds of atrocities. Anarchy is never a solution to any problem. That is the kind of idea that people who feel hopeless come up with to be able to rebel against the community. The sheep simply need a shepherd.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Peace Amenuel,interesting you think an anarchic community would be a haven for criminals, when the opposite is the reality, the hierarchies that dominate the masses across the earth are dominated by criminals, psychopaths, murderers, and every other form of scum and villainy, yet you think the opposite of hierarchy, anarchy would be worse?
You should take the time to examine the ancient anarchic community models that existed for centuries they have almost no crime, no prisons, no hierarchies, no usury, so no ownership, slavery, masters or laws, they functioned on the terrente system of arbitration of wrongs, needing no written laws, no granted rights, as they used inherent power and the reciprocal duty of care, ownership existed only as far as you owned that which you yourself created, all natural resources were allodial, if you wanted to educate yourself on the anarchic community structure which was if reality the original and purpose of the creation of Islam it is detailed on my website.
Violence will never free you from hierarchy, neither will begging your masters, the only method that should be applied is to establish an alternative and as far as possible ignore the hierarchical system, as the example is seen others will establish the same and over time the hierarchical psychopathic models will be rendered obsolete.
-
Peace Amenuel,interesting you think an anarchic community would be a haven for criminals, when the opposite is the reality, the hierarchies that dominate the masses across the earth are dominated by criminals, psychopaths, murderers, and every other form of scum and villainy, yet you think the opposite of hierarchy, anarchy would be worse?
It may be true that the current governments have corruption and the amount of corruption varies from country to country but it would not be better if an anarchic community model was implemented but it would turn straight into lawlessness. It is not a solution to the world's problems but would make things worse.
Many people are not capable of being their own masters. It is sad but that is the fact. The reason why the countries look like they do is because even the leaders are incompetent in many cases. But usually leaders in democratic countries are only puppets but the real influence is the community overall. People have to shape up and there has to evolve "role models" in societies.
Violence will never free you from hierarchy, neither will begging your masters, the only method that should be applied is to establish an alternative and as far as possible ignore the hierarchical system, as the example is seen others will establish the same and over time the hierarchical psychopathic models will be rendered obsolete.
The problem is not the government but it is people themselves that cause the problem. If you unravel anarchy on how the World looks today 2015 it would be total chaos.
You should take the time to examine the ancient anarchic community models that existed for centuries they have almost no crime, no prisons, no hierarchies, no usury, so no ownership, slavery, masters or laws, they functioned on the terrente system of arbitration of wrongs, needing no written laws, no granted rights, as they used inherent power and the reciprocal duty of care, ownership existed only as far as you owned that which you yourself created, all natural resources were allodial, if you wanted to educate yourself on the anarchic community structure which was if reality the original and purpose of the creation of Islam it is detailed on my website.
I am afraid you are ignorant and naive, without any intention on offense. There has been no anarchic communities but there was always a person or group who seized control and your community would be vulnerable to coup d'etat having no kind of defense against it. I wrote that the model you suggest is an utopia, perfect in theory, but it does not work in practice... UNLESS you gradually reform humans which could take years because the problem is not in the government but in each individual. A government only represents its citizens except in a dictatorship.
Even if you make it anarchy and claim it to be anarchy there will be groups in the community that will take a more leaderly role and with no constitution and governmental safety it will open up for abuse.
Islam is created by deluded sectarian clerics and it is their interpretation that you read every time you open Quran. It is to no avail unless you reinterpret it and provide an interpretation as intended by the Author.
Anyway, the discussion does not lead anywhere since we put forth our arguments and we are now in circular reasoning. You will argue yours and I will argue mine. We can leave it at this.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Amenuel, you state things as if you have knowledge about them, laws are designed to enslave the powerless and protect the masters, all laws are positive and function on constructed fictions.
So you do not need laws.
You have a constant thread in your posts, a profound ignorance of the subject matter you then express conclusions upon as if you had some foundation to do so.
Anarchic community was in the past the dominant system, this was stripped away through genocides, occupations and intimidations.
-
Usury is a certain benefit, which is received for the use of the thing lent beyond the return in full of the thing lent, and is not lawful. This is the lawful definition as expressed in Black?s law dictionary; it is not interest alone; that is simply one expression of the concept of usury.
Salam Abdun Nur
Going by the definition above, it seems that absence of usury will breakdown the current foundation of capitalism and economics. Production is limited to pure consumption, there is no more excessive production for someone to buy and later rent/lease it out in what ever form. There is no reason for someone to hold extra money and deposit into an institution either for investment or lending to gain any benefit from it. Directly it will force everyone to work to earn something, without labour there will be no reward. This also eradicates most form of speculation (speculating existence of demand for a new good may still exist bfore production). Any excess in production/income will need to be given away or destroyed (waste). If managed correctly, income distribution will be more equitable to reflect human capital required, there will no longer be slavery in the form of serving corporations (the new masters or gods in the current system). Corporations or businesses will reward human capital more than itself (a man created entity) & shareholders.
WOW! Wonderful! When can we go to that state?
-
Peace Hanslan,
sorry for the slow reply I don't visit this site very often. If you want to be involved with this project message me, I can send you the full write up of the platform, below is just the opening.
In reply, I have developed a Labour-coin platform concept A Peer-to-Peer Electronic medium of labour exchange
Advantages of ?Self-Willed? Agenesarchic Labour-Coins
1 - Labour-coin allows encrypted trading without external tracking or taxation.
2 - Labour-coin allows international exchange without banking fees, or currency exchange fees.
3 - Labour-coin allows advances of the medium of exchange through a surety peer-to-peer system, without banking monopoly or credit rating.
4 - Labour-coins allow saving without the risk of devaluation due to inflation, or currency manipulations.
5 - Labour-coin encourages and promotes ?self-willed? agenesarchic structures of exchange free of usury.
6 - Labour-coin creates a global trading platform that is equal for all, free of regional suppression or inflation of values of exchange.
7. ? Labour-coin allows an advance of labour-coins to be suspended for up to 5 years before repayment begins.Terms defined
? Agenesarchic ? agenes (in opposition to) archic (over arching - hierarchy)
? ?Self-willed? ? of your own free will, the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control of the mind over its own actions.? ?Anima? - is the inner consciousness that is turned toward the unconscious of the individual, this is substantive; anima is in direct contrast with persona, the constructed fiction of the person, which is the mask or fa?ade presented to satisfy the demands of the situation or the environment.
? Usury - Usury is a certain benefit, which is received for the use of the thing lent beyond the return in full of the thing lent. Exchange is reciprocal, labours are exchanged, usury is lending and demanding the returned in full of the thing lent, plus some of the labours of the borrower, which has no reciprocation of labour.
FoundationThe exchange of ?labour? is the foundation of all exchange; this is the true ?self-willed? agenesarchic medium of exchange.
Whenever anything is exchanged ?labour? is the only thing of intrinsic value, because an anima can only own that which they create themselves, everything else is only utilized, and so free. Labour is added and must be returned, so is not free, so belonging and exclusive to the exchange by its very nature.
In other words the only thing that is ever exchanged is your labours.
This means the true medium of exchange is ?labour?.
A medium of exchange is a way to hold value when exchange with another is desired without a reciprocal equivalent, the equivalent can be either a store of labour such as silver, or an accounting system such as the one explained here.
A true medium of exchange does not increase or decrease the original value, in so doing rewarding or robbing the holder of the medium, a labour-coin is a way to hold value without pragmatic loss or gain, so a true medium of exchange. This allows that exchange to be completed at any other time and with any other exchange.
The next ?self-willed? agenesarchic principle of the hierarchically free model is reciprocation, all exchange must be reciprocal, a one sided exchange is usurious.
So in an equivalent exchange the labour given is equal to the labour received, however not all labours are equal in time expended, unskilled labour, semi-skilled labour, skilled labour and prodigious labour, change the ratio of exchange.
There is no set rate of exchange that is between the traders but for an example, a labourer could be paid ? or ? of a labour coin an hour, while a wagon driver being semi-skilled could be paid 1 labour coins an hour, a skilled construction worker could be paid 2 labour coins an hour, a higher skilled surgeon could be paid 3 labour coins an hour, a genius who provided a unique service could demand 3 or 4 or more labour coins a hour, without the constraints and violence of hierarchy labour is worth what the traders are willing to accept and to give in exchange.
-
When you look at the Federal Reserve, interest-based currency and fractional reserve banking, you know why "riba" is forbidden. I'm wondering if income tax could also be classified as "rib." Interestingly, the Fed and the federal income tax were both enforced by law in the U.S. in the same year, 1913.
-
Greetings Abdun Nur, all,
You are forbidding part of what is trade. Trading goods/services or currency for goods/services can never be riba.
Riba is used in terms of loaning money.
Riba = return on debt
Trade profit = return on equityThe value of a good is intrinsic and subjective. That is why we demonstrate this concept using a demand curve where some people may be able to and are willing to offer more (or less) than the market value of a good. Without this, we would not have trade. People trade because they think they have something to gain in what they are buying. Intrinsic value is not objective. Thus, buying low and selling high is trade - i.e. the return on equty.
Depending on bankruptcy and default litigation laws and procedures, interest has little to no risk. Granted you can sue for a deault and recoup your loan with interest, you arent exposed to any of the firm's business/operational risk, while equity partners are.
2278 O you who acknowledge, be conscientious of God and give up what is left of the interest if you are mumineena.*
*granters of security / ones who practice their conviction truthfully
2279 If you will not do this, then take notice of a war from God and His messenger. However, if you turn back around, then you will have back your money/wealth/capital*, you will not be wronged nor will you wrong.
- i.e. the principal of the loan since riba is not considered legitimate - it is unnatural growth in money supply
2280 (If a person* is in difficult circumstances**, let there be postponement to a time of ease.) And if you give up the loan entirely as charity, it is better for you if you only knew.
*debtor
** cant pay the loan back on time2281 Be mindfully prudent of a day when you will be returned to God. Then every person will be paid what it has earned, they will not be wronged.
2282 O you who acknowledge, if you borrow debt for a specified period, then you shall record it... except if it is a trade to be done on the spot between you, then there is no blame on you if you do not record it...
-
Peace progressive,
riba means usury, and usury is a concept, that concept is not limited to interest on money, it is applicable to all trades.
Trade is a reciprocal exchange of labours.
Usury is the lending of something and after receiving it back demanding more than was given.
?Interest Is Theft, Rent Robbery, And Profit Only Another Name For Plunder.? Ezra Heywood
Usury is the ultimate centralisation of power, hierarchy is birthed its conjoined twin. For the usurious, usury is perceived as free money, extracted extortionately; for the extorted victim they perceive no alternative.
?Usury is a certain benefit which is received for the use of the thing lent beyond the return in full of the thing lent, and is not lawful.? Definition Black?s Law Dictionary.
To understand usury, you must first understand trade, as usury is ?not? trade.
To understand trade you must understand ownership, innately ?you may only own that which you create yourself?.
In trade the only thing you then own are your labours, and substantively it?s these labours invested in the exchange that are traded.
For example if I exchange a bag of apples for a bag of potatoes, the apples and the potatoes are free, it is only the labours invested within their cultivation and delivery, that have value in exchange.
Usury is unreciprocated labours, which are received for the use of something lent, beyond the return in full of the thing lent. In others words usury (riba) is
Trade is an reciprocal exchange of labours, usury is a taking of labours without reciprocation.
once you understand the concept and you understand the nature and function of systems such as ownership, rental, interest debt, taxation, and profit, it becomes clear they are forms of usury.
Taxation is a form of usury because in a feudal model all citizens are slaves, and a slave cannot own, everything is the property of the owners and the slave is lent everything, this is the basis of taxation
The interactions of individual people in a market are quite simple. People give something in exchange for something else. From these simple interactions emerges the whole global network of trade.
This requires no planning or organizing as an organic market place will develop and grow through necessity, unless you impose yourself between the traders and demand part of the trade simply to allow it, like all thieves you must use the threat of violence, kidnap and murder, ideally as a monopoly, to extract your extorted share, and you must control all trades within your own administrative monopoly, otherwise who would willingly pay a thief.