Historic Judgment on Interest Given by the Supreme Court of Pakistan
-
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?
yetbut 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 -
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?
-
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!
-
Peace "sharp001" and "david",
You mentioned amongst other thingsby 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!
-
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
-
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
-
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!
-
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!
-
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
-
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!