Show Posts
351
Economics Forum / Re: Ribaa
« on: August 11, 2008, 11:19:22 AM »
Peace Johnny,
I see what you're saying, but I'm not not sure that the difference is that important. Whether I say "good is like evil" or "evil is like good", the point is that both are false since they are different.
The reaon for my view is that I don't consider currency to be an asset. See below.
The point I am trying to make here is that currency is not representative of anything you own because of the printing of currency which is not backed by anything. We have no real way of telling which currency is backed by something real and which is not. This is because the leverage you refer to is not something that is in operation currently because banks are in crisis. This leverage has always been there at some ratio or other since the inception of fractional reserve banking (even before that). Therefore I may have worked for my money, but I may, and most probably have, been paid with money that was created without any real backing.
I would like to discuss the ribaa issue in the sense of lending out currency even though I believe that the currencies themselves are ribaa. First, I would like to clarify some of your views on ribaa & sadaqah.
My understanding of your view on what ribaa is:
We are required to give sadaqah (charity). If we do not give charity, then the amount we should have given in charity is ribaa. Thus that amout is not lawful for us. I realise this may be an over simplification, but is that the gist of your understanding of ribaa?
If this is your view, I would like your view on how much charity we should give. My understanding is what is beyond our needs. If this is so, do you agree with me that each individual decides what is beyond their individual needs and as such, will give accordingly?
In your opnion, is there a point beyond which we cannot reasonably say our needs are not being met and thererfore should be giving any excess beyond that as charity?
God Bless.
Imraan
Quote
JK- Notice again this verse and the phrase in bold in particular:
[2:275] Those who charge usury are in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence. This is because they claim that commerce is like usury(al baih mithlur riba). However, GOD permits commerce, and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with GOD. As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever.
Notice that the phrase says "they claim that baih is like riba" NOT that they claim "riba is like baih". This is very important. The latter woudlve implied western bankers who might claim that what theyr doing is mere business and hence this riba is like doing any other business. BUT that is NOT the admonishment. Here GOD is admonishing those people who make trade equal to riba and thereby condemn the trade. NOW who are the ones doing that? Once again it's the "islamic" countries who claim interest(particular deal) is riba.
I see what you're saying, but I'm not not sure that the difference is that important. Whether I say "good is like evil" or "evil is like good", the point is that both are false since they are different.
Quote
JK- Ok then how about a bank charging say 1000 USD per year for every EUR 10,000 lent? According to your definition that shouldnt be riba since here these are two different currencies and as everyone knows in the forex market today different currencies also act as different commodities(which are different things) as they are traded against each other and they lose/gain value wrt each other.
Dont you see that this definition is nonsensible too?
The reaon for my view is that I don't consider currency to be an asset. See below.
Quote
JK- I agree banks have set the leverage at 7:1 against backup for printing currency. This is because theyr in a crisis and they somehow need to get out of it. This however has nothing to do with lending out a currency being riba. GOD Bless!
The point I am trying to make here is that currency is not representative of anything you own because of the printing of currency which is not backed by anything. We have no real way of telling which currency is backed by something real and which is not. This is because the leverage you refer to is not something that is in operation currently because banks are in crisis. This leverage has always been there at some ratio or other since the inception of fractional reserve banking (even before that). Therefore I may have worked for my money, but I may, and most probably have, been paid with money that was created without any real backing.
I would like to discuss the ribaa issue in the sense of lending out currency even though I believe that the currencies themselves are ribaa. First, I would like to clarify some of your views on ribaa & sadaqah.
My understanding of your view on what ribaa is:
We are required to give sadaqah (charity). If we do not give charity, then the amount we should have given in charity is ribaa. Thus that amout is not lawful for us. I realise this may be an over simplification, but is that the gist of your understanding of ribaa?
If this is your view, I would like your view on how much charity we should give. My understanding is what is beyond our needs. If this is so, do you agree with me that each individual decides what is beyond their individual needs and as such, will give accordingly?
In your opnion, is there a point beyond which we cannot reasonably say our needs are not being met and thererfore should be giving any excess beyond that as charity?
God Bless.
Imraan