Islam On Usury

Comes a professor of Islamic finance, Prof. Saiful Azhar Rosly, who is writes English quite well, and sounds orthodox, so to speak.

There is a geography of Islamic finance, where the principles seem more or less met.

For my part, I believe a no-usury regime would advance, peace, economic justice and prosperity, and I believe the lack thereof is due to (interest) usury in our economy.

It appears in Islam one gains guidance from qualified religious leaders, although there are various schools of thought, so in effect one can be a good Muslim yet hold directly contradictory views on a topic.  Having said that, to act contrary to Islamic teaching, to be so judged, can have very severe consequences I am told.  As in Christianity, Islam has many schools, and the good professors notes three major schools on the question of riba (usury):

1) The Jabarite school of theology:: They say that man’s actions are determined and predestined by God. Man has no will of his own. He could do nothing on his own choice. Jabarites thinking is also called determinism. Good and evil are all God’s own making.. Believing in the jabarites doctrine will make an individual docile and living without hope of improving his life as everything has been decreed by God. In this manner, the jabarites are also known as the fatalist The Mutazilites protested against this belief by saying that God has given man complete power over his actions as he is free to act any way he liked. It was this freedom of choice between good and evil that man responsible for his deeds. They also say that is man’s actions were predestined, why should God exhort man in the Quran to acquire virtue. Thus determinism of man’s action is not line with the Quranic teaching.
2) The Mu’tazilites school of theology: they are guided by reason and says that man has absolute freedom of will. Man has the power to build his own character, whether to lead a virtuous or vicious life. They maintained that human reason was competent to know the verities of the universe and was completely free to go searching after the Truth. They applied reason to all truths contained in the Quran and explained away those passages that they did not find conforming to reason. They even speculate about the duty of a believer in that if he is incapable of knowing truth by reason, they would be doomed to the hell fire.
2) The ‘Asharite shool of theology: ‘Asharism is a movement that ran counter the ideas of Mu’tazilism. It aims at compromising between reason and revelation. It wants to reconcile the dictates of reason with the dogma of faith. The ‘Asharites gave authority to God and advocates the view of predestination and predetermination of man’s past activities. Man has no freedom of will, no liberty of action but has been given the power of acquisition

In Christianity, the rules are actually quite clear, and people with impunity reject them.  There is zero consequence (on earth anyway.)  100% of Catholics know that to miss Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin.  But some 70% regularly do so.  Probably some 60% of Catholics know artificial birth control is a mortal sin, but some 80% reject the teaching.  No consequences noticeable.  Maybe only 1/100th of 1% of Catholics know involvement in interest is a mortal sin.  Would it matter if 90% knew?

I mean only to compare and contrast, and note with regret in either system, it seems, the result of largely  escaped rules is somewhat equal.  People are people.

The regret then is where is the proof we who advocate Shariah and Catholic teaching compliance on usury, that is to be usury-free, is better?  We only have individual witness, not a valid and reliable scientific basis from which to proceed.  But then, perhaps that is by design, usury-free is a benefit limited to those who submit to the Will of God.

Along these lines, this professor also notes:

Surah al-Baqarah 275 says that, "Allah has allowed al-bay and prohibits riba". The question now is to whom this verse pointed at?The answer lies in the verse preceding the above according to which the disbelievers (i.e. musyrikun) says, " that al-bay is the same as riba".

This is a rebuke to possibly Moslem, but surely Christian, contemporary advocates who claim "we now know things the ancients, the Prophet, and the scholastics did not know.  The modern project is to claim  that turning a profit on a loan is no different than turning a profit on a business deal, for a loan is a business deal.  The Prophet Mohammed spurns the question fourteen hundred years ago.  That should have put an end to it, but it keeps popping up.  The Professor elucidates:

Apparently, the Quran is putting one point very straight to themusyrikun. If you have money and intends to earn from the money, do it by way of trading (al-bay') and not by making loans and charging riba on them.
The rich merchants of Mekkah (i.e the musyrikun) who relentlessly stood against the teaching of Prophet Muhammad (saw) usually make money from loans (qard) in two ways:1) making loans to the poor sorely for their consumption needs2) making loans to traders as capital

Exactly the idea in "modern economics" things are different now, and the ancients and Medievals were simply ignorant is risible.

Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post