Historic Judgment on Interest Given by the Supreme Court of Pakistan

[David]

Peace Br. Sharp,

The video that you quoted above had another very interesting observation. How can one lend something that one doesn't have? That is the main differnece, in my opinion, between normal renting/lending and lending by/through the current banking system. Renting out a car for profit is okay to everybody because you are actually renting out something physically there and yours. How is that different from a person (not a bank) from lending personal physical cash to someone for profit? What the Bank is doing different is lending out money that isn't even there and not even theirs for profit. Surely they can't be viewed under the same light.

Correct, they are not the same. Lending what you don?t have is much worse, in fact fraudulent. But lending on interest is also forbidden.

Thanks for summarising your views on your post. I think, in my opinion, it boils down to lending something that doesn't exist against one that does.

I think now we are going in circles. Fractional reserve banking is a new phenomenon. What is 2275-2280 talking about, if not lending what one has?

peace

[David]

Peace Jonny_k,

JK- The dictionary ifrom where i quoted had alot more terms than just these two. Maybe you can make something from the rest of them. Whats the word for "acting in ones interest" or "taking all means to insure oneself against any potential loss while renting something out" in Arabic? Im sure there is a word for that and it cant be "riba" for reasons already mentioned.

Financial interest is not a modern concept. You are the one that should be able to provide an alternative classical Arabic expression for interest, since you are the one claiming that Riba is not interest. You claim ?faida? is interest, and I show you its not. You claim ?ihtimaam? is interest, and I show you its not. You want me to continue doing your homework for you? You are claiming there is no word for ?interest? in Classical Arabic--that is not believable. You say it is the same as rent, and I gave two examples of classical Arabic words/roots that mean rent (and it does not include lending money, just as it doesn't in English, and which should not surprise anyone who understands the basics of the purpose of language and definitions). The Jews, Christians, Romans, Greeks?all had a word for interest.

JK- Ok so just let it increments then. Would mean the same in the context. It talks about trade being allowed and any increments forbidden. Now the increments logically need to refer to any uncontrolled high pricing. But if one thinks further this can only refer to items necessary for the basic standard of living. This can be implied when GOD mentions the word riba frequently in contrast to giving charity which is obviously not to provide the poor with luxury items but the items which enable them to get to the point of a standard living in society from which any further development would depend on their own efficiency.

Now the increments logically need to refer to any uncontrolled high pricing.

Once again, zero evidence.

I can summarize it. IMO GOD is stating that any trade should be fair. In the above verses it refers to loan in context and that one should not exploit others by taking excessive amounts of profit on loan which people are unable to pay and also that a person should be given more time should he not be able to return the loan immediately(this does not however mean that later on, should he have the money, he still shouldnt pay any interest). Last but not least it would be an extreme act of politeness should the whole loan be given as charity. This is also why some people consider the above verses talking about a loan to poor people who live below the standards and not about ordinary business loans and that would make even more sense. GOD Bless!

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/principal (Ru'oos) wealth (Ammwalikum), you will not be wronged nor will you wrong.

Give up what is left of al-Riba (any growth/interest on the principle lent). Only those who repent (by giving up whatever remains of the growth/interest on what is lent) will have back their original wealth. The phrase ?Original/principal wealth? leaves no doubt that anything above the original/principal lent is Riba.

It is no longer useful to discuss this issue with you any further.

peace

[Sharp001]

Peace Br. Sharp,

Correct, they are not the same. Lending what you don?t have is much worse, in fact fraudulent. But lending on interest is also forbidden.

Peace Br. David,

Even if that interest is just being charged to maintain one's lent wealth?

I think now we are going in circles. Fractional reserve banking is a new phenomenon. What is 2275-2280 talking about, if not lending what one has?

peace

Ha, ha... I guess you are right. We are going in circles now. I am sorry, I meant that is another issue which further antagonizes the whole gainful lending thing.

[jonny_k]

Peace "david",

Peace Jonny_k,

Financial interest is not a modern concept. You are the one that should be able to provide an alternative classical Arabic expression for interest, since you are the one claiming that Riba is not interest. You claim ?faida? is interest, and I show you its not. You claim ?ihtimaam? is interest, and I show you its not. You want me to continue doing your homework for you? You are claiming there is no word for ?interest? in Classical Arabic--that is not believable. You say it is the same as rent, and I gave two examples of classical Arabic words/roots that mean rent (and it does not include lending money, just as it doesn't in English, and which should not surprise anyone who understands the basics of the purpose of language and definitions). The Jews, Christians, Romans, Greeks?all had a word for interest.

Once again, zero evidence.

JK- You ignored many of the important examples i gave plus my final post above in which i summarized it all. But lemme put this nonsensible claim of yours down once and for all. According to you then salat should also mean five daily ritual prayer since sunnis used that word for it and Christians actually used it and still ujse it to mean prayer but we now know that it has nothing to do with prayer but is a commitment. Hajj means pilgrimage according to them but we know it should rather mean argument/debate. So if you rely on how some sectarians used this word then your way off track.

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/principal (Ru'oos) wealth (Ammwalikum), you will not be wronged nor will you wrong.

Give up what is left of al-Riba (any growth/interest on the principle lent). Only those who repent (by giving up whatever remains of the growth/interest on what is lent) will have back their original wealth. The phrase ?Original/principal wealth? leaves no doubt that anything above the original/principal lent is Riba.

JK- Actually "maal" does not only mean money but property in general. Now youve tricked yourself. "maal" can also be a car, bus, appartment and any other commodity. And yes in case youve taken Riba before you should ofcourse only get back your original amount of anything, not just money, for this trade was illicit anyways and from then on do it no more. Besides these verses could be talking about lending ANY PROPERTY AS charity to the poor who live below the standards as in contrast to business(bro Edip shares this view) and thus is for the sole purpose pf helping someone. Hence no rent is to be charged at all. Nothing to do with rent on money whatsoever. Man your really confusing things more and more. GOD Bless!

[farida]

farida,

Aww, come on. One cannot expect that a person of your conviction about her beliefs would risk chalking up a command which has been revealed to you as a minor sin, hoping that you would be forgiven because of your weakness. If anything, all the verses discussed in this thread regarding Al-Riba would be enough to make any believer cringe with fear of the consequences of taking Al-Riba. Are you willing to risk committing the only sin, the propagator of which has been given a notice of War from God and His prophet? If you sincerely believe that Al-Riba is all kind of interest and one cannot escape it in this world, then God is putting believers through a test which they will not be able to pass, a burden which they will not bear, in which case, where is the guidance for the believers in this corrupt system? Just commands based on His whims? Not one, I repeat, not even one of His commands burdensome on a person, yet He makes an exception with Al-Riba. I'm sorry but I, for one, am not willing to believe that. There has to be something that we are missing. Surprisingly enough, I hear people talk and talk about the traditional thinking and all, still the concept of interest from the same traditional is accepted without question.

Anyway, thanks for your response. Salam

Salaam Brothers

2275, Those who swallow usury cannot rise up ?
278,? give up what remaineth (due to you) from usury?..
279 ?warned of war (against you) from Allah and His messenger?
3130, ..Devour not usury?
4161, And of their taking usury when they were forbidden?
2276 GOD condemns usury, and blesses charities. GOD dislikes every disbeliever, guilty.
3039.. but that which ye give in charity, seeking Allah's Countenance, hath increase manifold?

Based on the above surahs I believe that major sin is devouring Al-Riba however giving interest to those who are sinners is sin too, as its encourages the practice of AL-RIBA=interest + any other unjust increase/growth in wealth.

I have never said that dealing in interest is allowed; if you look at my reply you will\note that I said ?we should not take the law into our own hands" just because we are not traditionalists and I expressed the hope that giving interest out of necessity is a lesser sin that is all. That does not mean I think it?s is right.
Allah(swt)informed us that we would all be judged individually so how can I say what I see as may be forgiviabl in my circumstances could be applied to those in a different position. We are weak human beings and we do make mistake and we ask for forgiveness from the Most Merciful, but to change the laws of the holy Qur?an to suit our perceived needs and modern economy is, I believe, a grievous sin.
Best regards
farida

[Sharp001]

Salaam Brothers

2275, Those who swallow usury cannot rise up ?
278,? give up what remaineth (due to you) from usury?..
279 ?warned of war (against you) from Allah and His messenger?
3130, ..Devour not usury?
4161, And of their taking usury when they were forbidden?
2276 GOD condemns usury, and blesses charities. GOD dislikes every disbeliever, guilty.
3039.. but that which ye give in charity, seeking Allah's Countenance, hath increase manifold?

Based on the above surahs I believe that major sin is devouring Al-Riba however giving interest to those who are sinners is sin too, as its encourages the practice of AL-RIBA=interest + any other unjust increase/growth in wealth.

I have never said that dealing in interest is allowed; if you look at my reply you will\note that I said ?we should not take the law into our own hands" just because we are not traditionalists and I expressed the hope that giving interest out of necessity is a lesser sin that is all. That does not mean I think it?s is right.
Allah(swt)informed us that we would all be judged individually so how can I say what I see as may be forgiviabl in my circumstances could be applied to those in a different position. We are weak human beings and we do make mistake and we ask for forgiveness from the Most Merciful, but to change the laws of the holy Qur?an to suit our perceived needs and modern economy is, I believe, a grievous sin.
Best regards
farida

Salam farida,

Oh, you have misunderstood. No one is trying to change the laws of the Book. The whole thread has been about a concept (Al-Riba) which has arguably been the most "taken for granted" concept in the Book. Can one say with certainty that something is haram as declared without having full knowledge of it? Attributing something to the Lord is changing the law, isn't it? Just like saying that disbelief in the Hadith is forbidden because the verses in the Book say Obey Allah and obey His messenger.

This thread has some very insightful points on the term Al-Riba, not to brag or anything, but people have made real efforts, not to change the law in the Book but to verify whether Al-Riba actually meaning all-out total interest or not? Granted that not taking or giving any interest is definitely the best because then it becomes like a charity in today's economic system (please see discussion in this thread) but the main theme of Al-Riba is not an increase in your wealth, which is probably universally acceptable. Does interest in the modern world entail increase in wealth? Some of it atleast, yes. Some of which covers the inflationary impact on your lent wealth. Just asking for an amount to maintain the originally maintained wealth is not against any of the impacts of Al-Riba. Anyway, again it is not a matter of getting ratification from other people or anything. Like you said in one thread, its 1736. Would one be willing to say anything without due thought given to it? I mean think about it this way. You lend a Rolls Royce, you get a Rolls Royce back. But with inflation, you lend a Rolls Royce, and you get a Toyota back. Without demanding the Rolls Royce back, you are actually writing off/giving to charity, the difference between the Rolls Royce and the Toyota, which is again better for you but not required. Just like an eye for eye, a life for a life, but if you forgive, it is better for you.

But thanks for your point of view anyway. I know that I held the same view before I started thinking about it. But the hypocrisy and helplessness of it all made me wonder that everybody has failed in this command in the current economy, which just implies me the Book isn't very insightful in keeping up with the changing times...

[farida]

Salam farida,

But the hypocrisy and helplessness of it all made me wonder that everybody has failed in this command in the current economy, which just implies me the Book isn't very insightful in keeping up with the changing times...

Salaam bro,

You are talking about the present era, which is considered as the time when satan has been given lose reins. Just glance back at the past golden era where there was no riba. We do not have to change our view because of the helplessness instead we should try to bring about change so that no one will be helpless and The Deen of Allah will prevail.

Best wishes
farida

[Sharp001]

Salaam bro,

You are talking about the present era, which is considered as the time when satan has been given lose reins. Just glance back at the past golden era where there was no riba. We do not have to change our view because of the helplessness instead we should try to bring about change so that no one will be helpless and The Deen of Allah will prevail.

Best wishes
farida

Sigh... do you truly think that Satan has only been given "loose reins" just in this era? What golden era was there no Riba? Riba has always been there, unfortunately, but considering that there was little or no inflation in the earlier days any and all interest would have been Al-Riba. Anyway, I don't think that I can say anything more about the view that is held about Al-Riba, but I know that it is definitely not as simple as "Al-Riba = Interest" in these times. A bit of information about it, as it was throughout the ages

http//www.mostmerciful.com/riba-revised.htm

God bless

[farida]

Sigh... What golden era was there no Riba? Riba has always been there, unfortunately, but considering that there was little or no inflation in the earlier days any and all interest would have been Al-Riba. Anyway, I don't think that I can say anything more about the view that is held about Al-Riba, A bit of information about it, as it was throughout the ages

http//www.mostmerciful.com/riba-revised.htm

God bless

Salaam

do you truly think that Satan has only been given "loose reins" just in this era?
yet

but I know that it is definitely not as simple as "Al-Riba = Interest" in these times.

Sigh!!!

Satan existed before Adam and would last till the world ends. Therefore Satanic practices have always been employed, but there was a golden era, when no slaves were left to be freed, whereas in the present times whole nations are enslaved by the burden of RIba.

All the best
farida

[huruf]

I understand that with change in prices, the money you lend to somebody may no be the same money you get back if the same amount and the same denomination is paid, and it should be increased or decreased according to the increase in prices, which should be agreed.

Now I hopes either of those interested in the topic say what is riba in the scene I discribe as follows

As to INVEST. If you put it in a bank, what you get paid may be interest, but what the bank usually get is riba(?), since the bank lends over and over the amounts it holds, to people to whom they usually also charge interest. With the riba (?) they also create other instruments whereby we endup having the bubble economy we know so well, where the real economy is buried below virtual unsupported money. As far as I can see, that is ok as long as the banks have a strong public oversight and are forced to invest in the real economy and crete wealth so some saver gets some little increment on his savings, the bank doesn't hoard nor bankers get filthy rich and the society improves. When the bankers start getting filthy rich and instead of investing in creating wealth, they speculate in bubbles, I don't know about interest or riba, but the moment has come to close the banksm give their money back to the savers and fix the economy.

Also, we have got used to interest being the price of money. Is tha really so? If prices do not change overall, I can't see from where the price of money may come. If you want to increase it, you invest. Is there such a thing as an investment where no risk is involved? If you do not want to risk, then don't invest, if prices don't go up, and why should they always go up? you would still have your money and the more you save the more you would have. Why should your money increase by itself? Because the banks can lend the same money over and over? Who should profit from that possibility? Shouldn't that be a public benefit enterprise and not something left to somebody to exploit at will without having to share the benefits of the money of many people with anybody and just pay interest? Whose benefits should be those? Why there sshould be benefits at all except to cover expenses and work?

[jonny_k]

Peace "huruf",

Also, we have got used to interest being the price of money. Is tha really so? If prices do not change overall, I can't see from where the price of money may come.

JK- It comes from the borrowers investing/working with that money which they lend and from that pay the price/rent for it just like any other commodity. If they dont make any money through investment or otherwise its not the duty of the lender/bank to run after him and this applies to all other commodities including vehicles, apartments, etc as well. How many time do i have to explain this? Please read my last couple of posts too.

If you want to increase it, you invest. Is there such a thing as an investment where no risk is involved?

JK- There is virtually no investment in which the risk is absolute zero even in interest. Yes the protection there is very great but what if the person who borrowed the money got all his property(on which basis he got the laon) damaged in a natural catastrophe? What if the whole bank goes down in which someone has invested his money and there is no more insurance to cover it up? So no there is never an absolute zero risk BUT THERE SURE CAN BE MEANS OF VERY GOOD PROTECTION. And this is the case for all commodities and not just money/currencies as explained by me earlier as well.

If you do not want to risk, then don't invest, if prices don't go up, and why should they always go up? you would still have your money and the more you save the more you would have. Why should your money increase by itself?

JK- That depends on whether you can get other people to work for you with your property or not. Then ofcourse it can happen and why not. If i say own large acres of land, i can rent it out and increase my wealth thereby. Nothing wrong with that. It happens all by itself since i have arranged all controls like insurance etc. Infact banks by offering you interest take a risk, if but very minute, on themselves. Meaning should they not be able to "rent" out the respective currencies invested with them to others within the year or make any money from other investments of your money or business, theyd have to pay you from their pockets. However they are well insured and hence they can offer it. The main thing to notice here is insurance. And insurance was never ever considered Riba.

Because the banks can lend the same money over and over? Who should profit from that possibility? Shouldn't that be a public benefit enterprise and not something left to somebody to exploit at will without having to share the benefits of the money of many people with anybody and just pay interest? Whose benefits should be those? Why there sshould be benefits at all except to cover expenses and work?

JK- The bank is an organization which USES ITS KNOWLEDGE TO ATTRACT PEOPLE INCLUDING LARGE AMOUNTS OF ADVERTISING TECHNIQUES ETC. They do most of the work for you whilst you just invest with them, sit back and relax. Thats why theres a difference between the interest the bank takes from a debtor and gives to an investor with them on the same currency. Say a bank has an interest rate of 5% on the USD if you want to borrow. Then the interest anyone would get from the same bank should he/she invest with them would be LESS THAN 5%, say 4.5%. Thus the difference .5% is the banks net profit. It's the same like say i find a very rich person who has alot of cars. I tell him that look i have great advertising skills and know how to attract people to rent your cars. Ofcourse id be taking a fixed percentage from whatever price the cars are rented out wont i? This is similar here. If you can "rent" out your money all by yourself, go ahead and do it, nobody is stopping you. Then you can charge the same interest as the bank does or even higher, within legal/social bounds, otherwise it would be Riba. GOD Bless!

[jonny_k]

Peace "sharp001" and "david",
You mentioned amongst other things

by sharp001
The video that you quoted above had another very interesting observation. How can one lend something that one doesn't have? That is the main differnece, in my opinion, between normal renting/lending and lending by/through the current banking system. Renting out a car for profit is okay to everybody because you are actually renting out something physically there and yours. How is that different from a person (not a bank) from lending personal physical cash to someone for profit? What the Bank is doing different is lending out money that isn't even there and not even theirs for profit. Surely they can't be viewed under the same light.

by david
Correct, they are not the same. Lending what you don?t have is much worse, in fact fraudulent. But lending on interest is also forbidden.

JK- Even this case is not so simple. One can actually further lend out something, which does not belong to oneself, but to another party WITH THAT PARTY'S PERMISSION. You can find such an example in my above post where a skillful businessman may ask a rich car owner to rent out his cars for him and take a fixed percentage of that profit made from the rent. Similar is the case with banks at least private banks. They further mass advertise, so to say, their investors money and rent it out with their permission since we all are also getting paid from that which is termed as interest. Yes the central banks can produce money of their own, think they have been allowed by the state to use a 71 leverage at max against the available property to back it upm and this could be debated whetehr right or wrong since it can cause the economy to collapse one day. GOD Bless!

[huruf]

Peace "huruf",
JK- It comes from the borrowers investing/working with that money which they lend and from that pay the price/rent for it just like any other commodity. If they dont make any money through investment or otherwise its not the duty of the lender/bank to run after him and this applies to all other commodities including vehicles, apartments, etc as well. How many time do i have to explain this? Please read my last couple of posts too.

JK- There is virtually no investment in which the risk is absolute zero even in interest. Yes the protection there is very great but what if the person who borrowed the money got all his property(on which basis he got the laon) damaged in a natural catastrophe? What if the whole bank goes down in which someone has invested his money and there is no more insurance to cover it up? So no there is never an absolute zero risk BUT THERE SURE CAN BE MEANS OF VERY GOOD PROTECTION. And this is the case for all commodities and not just money/currencies as explained by me earlier as well.

JK- That depends on whether you can get other people to work for you with your property or not. Then ofcourse it can happen and why not. If i say own large acres of land, i can rent it out and increase my wealth thereby. Nothing wrong with that. It happens all by itself since i have arranged all controls like insurance etc. Infact banks by offering you interest take a risk, if but very minute, on themselves. Meaning should they not be able to "rent" out the respective currencies invested with them to others within the year or make any money from other investments of your money or business, theyd have to pay you from their pockets. However they are well insured and hence they can offer it. The main thing to notice here is insurance. And insurance was never ever considered Riba.

JK- The bank is an organization which USES ITS KNOWLEDGE TO ATTRACT PEOPLE INCLUDING LARGE AMOUNTS OF ADVERTISING TECHNIQUES ETC. They do most of the work for you whilst you just invest with them, sit back and relax. Thats why theres a difference between the interest the bank takes from a debtor and gives to an investor with them on the same currency. Say a bank has an interest rate of 5% on the USD if you want to borrow. Then the interest anyone would get from the same bank should he/she invest with them would be LESS THAN 5%, say 4.5%. Thus the difference .5% is the banks net profit. It's the same like say i find a very rich person who has alot of cars. I tell him that look i have great advertising skills and know how to attract people to rent your cars. Ofcourse id be taking a fixed percentage from whatever price the cars are rented out wont i? This is similar here. If you can "rent" out your money all by yourself, go ahead and do it, nobody is stopping you. Then you can charge the same interest as the bank does or even higher, within legal/social bounds, otherwise it would be Riba. GOD Bless!

I think I wasn't clear in my questioning. In fact youhave answered with what is the present state of things, of which, more or less I am aware. In fact for what I was asking was for the moral or legitimacy foundation of it. I know there is a "price of money" and how it is determined, but what I doubt is that there is any real imperative basis to it. There is no absolute imperative why money should be constituted into a commodity, is there? It is just the convention that prevails right now and may be has prevailed more or less in societies. But like murder, the fact that it exists doesn't make it right or imperative as a law for all of society.

The same with all the other questions.

Waht you say about having acres and it being the same as money, I doubt that I agree. You buy the acres they will produce or not. That does nto exclude that even in a society without a price for money there may be enterprises that invest people's money with certain guarantees to revent breaches of trust an so on. That would surely also promote econocmic activity, even without pricing money. A big problem I see is the rising of prices as if it was a nature to them. I think that comes from the speculative and usury traits of "economical" (or antieconomical) activity, and is not an imperative either of the nature of things.

Salaam

[huruf]

What I have wanted particularly to point out, amonst all the other things, is that in fct today interest on money by modest savers is not at all a means to increase money but a means not to loose as much money due to the increase in ipc. Interest is a little means of counteracting the price increase of commodities, and rarely does so completely, because the banks, through which everything must go are charging even for breathing, so really people, normal people with current money is not getting anything out of interest, just reducing losses incurred throu ipc increases and baking charges. This I say not as any kind of doctrinal pronouncement, bust as reminder that we are not despicable thiefs if we get 2% interest, when in fact we are charged, again and summing up for breathing. If anybody has a better way of going about our normal dealings with honest money without involving financial genius, please let us know so we may all benefit. I suppose nobody is particularly keen on making gifts to poor little victim banks. They have enough (for them and us) with their own satanic bubbles.

Salaam

[jonny_k]

Peace "huruf",

I think I wasn't clear in my questioning. In fact youhave answered with what is the present state of things, of which, more or less I am aware. In fact for what I was asking was for the moral or legitimacy foundation of it. I know there is a "price of money" and how it is determined, but what I doubt is that there is any real imperative basis to it. There is no absolute imperative why money should be constituted into a commodity, is there? It is just the convention that prevails right now and may be has prevailed more or less in societies. But like murder, the fact that it exists doesn't make it right or imperative as a law for all of society.

JK- Yes there is as per FOREX i.e. foreign exchange where one currency(considered money) CHANGES IN VALUE wrt another and people either lose/gain based on their trading skills. Hence currencies are TRADED in the market one for another and must be considered commodities.

The same with all the other questions.

Waht you say about having acres and it being the same as money, I doubt that I agree. You buy the acres they will produce or not. That does nto exclude that even in a society without a price for money there may be enterprises that invest people's money with certain guarantees to revent breaches of trust an so on. That would surely also promote econocmic activity, even without pricing money. A big problem I see is the rising of prices as if it was a nature to them. I think that comes from the speculative and usury traits of "economical" (or antieconomical) activity, and is not an imperative either of the nature of things.

Salaam

JK- I dont quite understand what your trying to say here but obviously the price of money(at least on currencies) is because they are traded commodities and there is inherent risk there. GOD Bless!

[jonny_k]

Peace "huruf",

What I have wanted particularly to point out, amonst all the other things, is that in fct today interest on money by modest savers is not at all a means to increase money but a means not to loose as much money due to the increase in ipc. Interest is a little means of counteracting the price increase of commodities, and rarely does so completely, because the banks, through which everything must go are charging even for breathing, so really people, normal people with current money is not getting anything out of interest, just reducing losses incurred throu ipc increases and baking charges. This I say not as any kind of doctrinal pronouncement, bust as reminder that we are not despicable thiefs if we get 2% interest, when in fact we are charged, again and summing up for breathing. If anybody has a better way of going about our normal dealings with honest money without involving financial genius, please let us know so we may all benefit. I suppose nobody is particularly keen on making gifts to poor little victim banks. They have enough (for them and us) with their own satanic bubbles.

Salaam

JK- It is wrong to say that interest today only serves to curb inflation since the prices of products are NOT ONLY CONTINUOUSLY INCREASING. They increase and decrease in cycles depending on whether the demand/supply ratio is up or down for the product. As an example today Germans farmers are having difficulty producing dairy products, hence the price goes up. Tomorrow they might get more sophisticated machines which eases production, increases supply and at equal demand would then again decrease the price. Most of the time though prices of products remain stable wrt currency. And then the bank is not mainly taking interest on it's own money but it profits from the interest difference between the interest on which they lend YOUR money out and that interest which they pay YOU on your money as explained before. That is pure profit as it gives them money which they did not have before, non of which is Riba though. GOD Bless!

[huruf]

JD-

I know that prices fluctuate. But can you show me anymoern economy where the IPC is lower now than 5-10-15-20 years ago? You can't. It doesn't happen. So money always looses value. I wa not here putting forward a theoretical question, simply giving to understand to normal, not rich people, that the fact of getting some interest on some savings account was not only not usury, but in fact just a little help to have their money less devalued.

In general, you do not seem to get what I say or want to say, and I don't know how to say it better.

Salaam

[jonny_k]

Peace "huruf",

JD-

I know that prices fluctuate. But can you show me anymoern economy where the IPC is lower now than 5-10-15-20 years ago? You can't. It doesn't happen.

JK- What IPC are you talking about as it can refer to many things including
Ikano Power Centre, a shopping mall in Mutiara Damansara, Selangor, Malaysia
International Paralympic Committee, an international non-profit organisation of elite sports for athletes with disabilities
International Parachuting Commission, The International Parachuting Commission of F?d?ration A?ronautique Internationale.
International Patent Classification, a classification system
IPC Media, a magazine publisher
Iraq Petroleum Company, an oil company
Irish Parachute Club (LTD), A Skydiving operation based in Ireland.
Infrared Processing Center, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory
International People's College, Denmark
IPC (electronics), the Association Connecting Electronics Industries, or the Institute for Printed Circuits, is known for setting standards for the electronics industry.
?
So which one is it?

So money always looses value.

JK- Looses value wrt WHAT? Lets consider the currency of a country as money. Now the value of most vehicles and all sorts of electronic items, which are one of the most important items in todays world, always lose value wrt to the currency. Hence the currency GAINS VALUE against these and so the value of money has increased here. If you mean food items then i already gave you an example that it depends on the current conditions, sometimes the price being high, sometimes low. Same would be the case with precious metals and gems i.e. as long as they are considered precious and useful the value wrt to the currenies would be high. Should the demand decrease, or even further should the supply increase due to 1) artificial production of such or 2) extraction of such from outer space like comets and/or asteroids which is rather more likely, it would decrease. Then there is house/building/land value wrt currency. But even that depends mainly on how much commercial activity is in the area and we know that sooner or later even a booming market place might collapse or the area may become polluted or even rumours of such would be enough to drive values down wrt currency considerably. So i dont see where there is a continuous up in such prices either.

I was not here putting forward a theoretical question, simply giving to understand to normal, not rich people, that the fact of getting some interest on some savings account was not only not usury, but in fact just a little help to have their money less devalued.

JK- As i said it can go both ways and yes should the value of the holder's currency decrease wrt to all local produdcts then yes in that case interest has helped him/her in not losing too much BUT also what if the value of the currency INcreased OR remained same wrt all local products? In those cases not only would the holder have made no loss BUT PROFIT, TWICE in the first case.

In general, you do not seem to get what I say or want to say, and I don't know how to say it better.

Salaam

JK- No i think i got it just fine with a few exceptions which is almost always the case with everyone. GOD Bless!