Historic Judgment on Interest Given by the Supreme Court of Pakistan

Sharp001

Peace Br. David,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

... It will come from God alone.

Peace.

David

Peace Br. Sharp, jonny_k,

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

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

peace peace

David

Peace jonny_k,

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly, that was my point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And more importantly,

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

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

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

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

peace

David

Peace Br. Sharp,

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

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