P L d 2000 s c 225 (Riba prohibition stayed)

 

 

 

The element of Zulm and injustice in Riba has to be discussed in the wide application of concept of justice in the field of distribution of resources and socio-economic life in the society. It is difficult to agree with the contention that the charging of interest is prohibited only because of the wrong and injustice it inflicts upon the poor. This argument does not go far enough towards the full rationale of the prohibition. Borrowings during the days of the Prophet (s.a.a.w.) were primarily undertaken not by the poor for their personal needs, as the Bait al-Mal as well as the philanthropic Muslim community was more than ready to come forward to respond to the needs of the poor, but borrowings were always taken by the tribes and groups of rich traders who operated as large partnership companies to conduct large scale trade. Tribes and tribal groups worked as trading companies whose formation was necessitated by the prevailing circumstances: the different terrain, the harsh climate, the inclement weather and the slow means of communication. These factors had made the task of the trade caravans difficult and time consuming. In such conditions it was almost impossible for individual traders and businessman to undertake trade journeys on their own and to pay for their business trips to such far off places as are known to be the destinies of Arab Traders: Rome, Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, Persia, Zanjibar, China, India, Sri Lanka etc. In view of these difficulties, Arab traders had organized themselves into large tribal groups which operated as big partnership companies, and undertook two major business trips every year: to the East during the winter and to the West during the summer as referred to in the Qur’an as the trip of the winter and the trip of the summer (the Qur’an:106). According to the available data members of the Makkahn aristocracy and the businessmen from the hill resort of Tayef either themselves undertook these journeys or contributed to it by providing money to those who undertook them. The traders joining the caravans also took big loans from more affluent members of the aristocracy and the business community. The money so borrowed remained blocked for long periods of time extending from months to years. It was, therefore, necessary for the caravans to muster and mobilize all available financial resources by which they would also purchase the local exportable products to be sold abroad so that the importable items and products manufactured in the different parts of the world are brought to the `Mother of the Towns’. Thus all the needs of the local population were procured and fulfilled till the next trip was organized. Any person familiar with the history of trade in pre-Islamic Arabia knows the secret of the affluence of the Makkahn society as well as of their undisputed political prestige and unrivaled commercial influence throughout Arabia. This international trade accounted for the pride and vanity of the inhabitants of Makkah and Tayef. It was because of this deeprooted nature of Riba and interest in the life of Arabia which accounts for the stern opposition of the Makkahns to the message of Islam. It also answers the question why gradualism was observed by Islam in eliminating this evil. It also explains the curt and the uncompromising attitude of Islam towards any form of Riba or any element of interest or usury.

 

 

 

It is known to everyone familiar with Seerah and Islamic history that the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the righteous Caliphs as well as other companions after him made many agreements with the non-Muslims living in Islamic territories. Such agreements were made with Jews. Christians and the Polytheists living in different areas. Under these agreements, these non-Muslims were granted their rights of honourable living within the territories of Islam according to their respective religious convictions. They were even permitted to drink liquor and eat pork. Yet despite these liberal conditions of religio-cultural autonomy, they were never allowed to indulge in the transactions of interest. The agreement made by the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) with the Christian of Najran and the polytheists of Tayef clearly stipulated the condition that in the event of their indulging in the business of interest, this agreement shall be void.

 

 

 

Similarly the Second Caliph Umar (r.a.) made a number of treaties with non-Muslim tribes under which the latter were permitted to live as free citizens under the Islamic dispensation. The texts of these treaties have been thoroughly discussed by the Jurists of Islam. They have paid special attention to the treaties during the reign of Umar (r.a.) and derived from them detailed provisions of the Shariah with regard to the relations with non-Muslims. These documents were prepared by the Prophet’s own companions. There could not have been a more sacred source than the treaties made by the companions. All these documents and treaties stipulate the condition that these treaties shall be void if the non-Muslims indulged in any transaction of usury, This clearly means that if they will murder a Muslim, only the murderer shall be punished. The community as a whole will not be taken to task. If these people will be found involved in any conspiracies against Muslims, then only the conspirators will bear the brunt of their misdeeds. And this will not affect the agreement with the community of non-Muslims as a whole. Similarly, anyone committing adultery shall be individually held liable to punishment. The agreement will remain intact But if anyone indulged in usury, then the whole agreement shall ipso facto become void and there will then be open war with them. This clearly demonstrates that the Prophet (s.a.a.w.) and the Prophet’s companions considered usury such a heinous crime that an individual’s commission of it was regarded as sufficient ground for terminating the whole agreement of peace and friendship with them.

 

 

 

It has been pointed out that the very verse of the Qur’an that implies disapproval of Riba is Verse 39 of the Chapter al-Rum. This verse refutes the supposition that through Riba the wealth grows. For in the sight of Allah this is no growth. But the spending by way of Zakat and charity that seeks the pleasure of Allah is the real excess and growth. This chapter was revealed in Makkah prior to Hijrah. This shows that even before handing down detailed provisions of the Shariah, the Qur’an had forewarned its followers about the undesirability of Riba. The first express mention of the prohibition of Riba for the Muslims, as discussed earlier, is found in Verse 130 of Surah Al-i-Imran of the Qur’an which was revealed in the context of the Qur’anic narration of the battle of Uhud. Apparently there is no relevance of this battle to the prohibition of interest. But actually there is close relation between the two. The Mufassirin have mentioned a number of reasons for this Qur’anic reference to the prohibition of interest in the context of this narration of the battle of Uhud. Some of these reasons are as follows:

 

 

 

(i)         The difficulties faced by the Muslims during the Battle of Uhud and the heavy loss of lives was chiefly attributable to the secret collusion between the Jews and the hypocrites (the latter were in effect the agents of Jews).

 

 

 

(ii) The Jews exercised an effective control over the market and commercial life of Madinah. All the Arab tribes of the adjoining areas were in debt to the Jews (the Jews had always been proverbial for their practice and promotion of usury. They still control the interest bearing banking system of the world today). Through lending money on interest, they had shattered these Arab tribes in the stakes of their influence. In this context, the Qur’an dealt a severe blow to their economic domination by declaring the prohibition of interest. Thus it gave a message to the believers for all times to come that the most effective means of liberating themselves and guarding themselves against the conspiracies of the Jews was the prohibition of interest. (If usury or interest is totally abolished it becomes quite easy to terminate the economic domination of the Jews and their agents. That is why whenever the issue of abolishing interest is agitated, the strongest opposition comes from the mercenaries of Jews and Hindus who are chosen allies of each other as eaters of interest).

 

 

 

(iii)       In the battle of Uhud some Muslims showed weakness which was exploited by the infidel forces and the tables were turned. This weakness was caused by the eating of interest which blackens the heart. This darkness of the hear hampers the performance of virtuous deeds.

 

 

 

(iv)       The thing which had caused the greatest loss to the Muslims in the Battle of Uhud was the retreat of the marksmen from their position in their hurry to get the spoils of war. This attitude betrayed a certain love of wealth. If love of wealth becomes deep-rooted, this love leads to the practices of usury and gambling. That was why Allah (s.w.t.) uprooted this feeling at the very outset by prohibiting interest so as to keep the human tendency to love wealth within natural limits.

 

 

 

(v)        The spirit of Jihad is to give away one’s life and property in the cause of Allah. without hesitation. If this spirit is weak, the requirements of Jihad cannot be fulfilled. That is why the fighters in the cause of Allah are to this day immune from the germs of eating usury. In fact the eaters of usury have never been seen fighting in the cause of Allah. This is because performing Jihad with money and wealth and eating usury are two totally opposite things.

 

 

 

In the verse cited above, eating doubled and redoubled usury has been prohibited. However, this does not mean that eating interest less than double or quadruple is permissible. For the express injunctions of the Qur’an and the Sunnah clearly prohibit the practice of interest in the above forms. The expression used in the above verse has been employed to expose the evil and abominable nature of usury.

 

 

 

These verses not only clearly and emphatically prohibit the practice of Riba, but also point to an evident and obvious difference between Riba and buying and selling. The Qur’an has contented itself by regarding those who equate between the .two as baseless and stupid. It has not detailed the difference between the two. This shows that the Qur’an considers this difference to be such an obvious and self-evident fact that hardly needs elaboration.

 

 

 

The major difference between sale and interest is that the money received in sale in consideration of some wealth whereas the money which the eater of usury charges in excess to the principal is not charged in consideration of any wealth. The second difference between sale and usury is that buying and selling promote trade and thus disseminate wealth, whereas in usury, the wealth shrinks and becomes concentrated. As a result of this the eaters of usury become richer and richer. The third difference between sale and usury is that everyone is responsible for the gain and loss of the wealth that he holds. But in the system of usury the creditor is merely entitled to gain and throws the entire burden of loss on the debtor. The fourth difference between sale and usury is that the transaction of sale once taking place is concluded and the two parties thereafter may carry on their normal business. Whereas the eaters of usury in most cases do not leave the debtors and continue endlessly with their claims on him. The curse of compound interest causes untold destruction of the whole families through its treacherous mechanism. The fifth difference between sale and usury is that once the profit is procured by whatever ratio it might be the claims of the seller come to an end. But the demands of the eaters of usury seldom end and often continue to secure gains and interests for long periods of time. The sixth difference between sale and usury is that-the process of sale claims the hard work, potential, ingenuity and time of the seller and thereafter provide him with some profit. Whereas in the case of usury, the eater stays away from all labour and toil and from the security of his home, he continues to receive all gains and interests. In this way, he is not a participant in the trade or business. These and several other differences between sale and usury underline the emphatic Qur’anic Injunction of considering one of them is totally prohibited and the other is pure and permissible.

 

 

 

Commenting both on the economic rationale and the moral wisdom of the prohibition of Riba, it is said that usury is not the means to progress and prosperity, rather it is conducive to decline and bankruptcy. The wealth acquired out of usury is devoid of blessing. It neither provides contentment of the heart or tranquillity of the soul, nor does it promise any real system of social justice for the society. Moreover, the eaters of usury shall be deprived of the ultimate bliss of the hereafter. But on the other hand, charity (Sadaqa a brings blessing to wealth. The performer of this good is rewarded with the wealth of inner contentment and peace of mind. Moreover, a society based on the values of truth, brotherhood and compassion soon witnesses a system of socio-economic justice in a real sense. In addition the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) has pointed to the fact that the wealth of usury despite its apparent increase eventually leads to bankruptcy. History of economics also clears this fact out. When a society dealing with usury is afflicted by recession, it meets such disastrous and catastrophic consequences that are without parallel in an interest-free society. The rise and fall characteristic of an interest-bearing system that affect the trade and business are almost absent in an interest-free economy. The theories propounded by economists about trade cycles and their after-effects are more or less applicable to the system based on the concepts of usury. The Qur’an verse (ii:276) makes a comparison between usury and charity. Both of them are concepts that are poles apart in their letter and spirit. The former essentially represents the attitudes of greed, selfishness, exploitation and a mad pursuit of money and wealth. The latter epitomizes the virtuous and lofty values of cooperation, fraternity and contentment.

 

 

 

The last Qur’anic verse pertaining to usury that was revealed at the conquest of Makkah prior to the Farewell Pilgrimage, abolishes all prior claims and outstanding dues of interest. This injunction was further reiterated by the Prophet (p.b.u.h.), in his last sermon during the Farewell Pilgrimage. Moreover, acting on his old practice, the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) first implemented the prohibition on himself and his family before imposing it on others. He abolished all claims of his uncle Abbas to the outstanding dues of interest. Moreover, he abolished all claims of interest that Muslims had against non-Muslims. In this verse the Qur’an has used the term ra’s al-mal (capital). This is a clear allusion to the fact that this prohibitory command extends to both commercial and consumption loans. Because on the one hand, the consumption loans were in negligible number, and on the other, it was quite unlikely and of rare occurrence, in view of the golden Arab traditions of generosity, charity, and helping the needy, that the chieftains of Quraish and generous and magnanimous men like Abbas bin Abd alMuttalib should extend consumption loans to poor people on interest.

 

 

 

Islam seeks to build a society based on justice and equity. It bears the torch of the perennial values of justice and generosity and wants these free from the elements of selfishness, exploitation and mutual deception and fraud. It is rather anchored in the noble feelings of cooperation, mutual values to reign supreme in the society as a whole. The nature of relations between the individual members of the society stipulated by Islam is rooted in mutual care, brotherhood and sympathetic cooperation. Hence, the relationship and the dealing between the members of the Islamic society is sympathy and support. To protect and promote these noble values, Islam has closed all the avenues of oppression and exploitation. It has prohibited and discouraged all those things that lead to injustice and oppression and has extolled and encouraged all those deeds that inspire people towards mutual care and cooperation.

 

 

 

The mentality which is bred by the indulgence of people in usury militates against the values of Islam at every step. For the sole aim of the eaters of usury is to fill their purse and pocket through exploiting the needs and wants of other people. Therefore, the words of sympathy and care are foreign to their vocabulary. In fact the Islamic concepts of mutual care and healthy cooperation are totally intolerable in their quarters not to speak of finding any congenial climate for their fruition. In the following pages we would enumerate some of those evils of interest that bring into focus the contradiction and conflict between the practice of interest and the. over-all teachings of Islam. For facility of comprehension, we may divide these evils into three main categories:

 

 

 

(1) Moral evils.

 

 

 

(2) Social evils.

 

 

 

(3) Economic evils.

 

 

 

First, the moral evils. The ethical considerations were seldom allowed to enter the arena of economics and banking under the aegis of the Western civilization. However, under the Islamic terms of reference, it should be the conviction of us all *as Muslims that the goodness or evilness of everything is to be determined by those moral principles that have been prescribed by the Shariah. It is on the basis of these principles that we regard something as permissible or prohibited:

 

 

 

(i)         The very first evil of usury is its being a sheer injustice. Not only that, but it gives rise to a series of injustices the scope of which is widened and expanded day by day and moment after moment. Any business initiated on the terms of usury starts a new vicious circle of usury in the society. This vicious circle tramples the innocent hopes and aspirations of all those whom it envelopes and entangles. With the result that none feels the slightest tinge of remorse over the plunder of an oppressed home, bankruptcy of an insolvent, or destruction of the supporter of someone rendered suddenly shelterless. This cruel and callous psyche is the essential consequence of usury. Once these hardened attitudes gain ground in human affairs, the result is the eventual death of all elements of humanness, virtue and fraternal feelings among the people.

 

 

 

(ii)        The second biggest evil of usury is that it engenders such an abominable and loathsome self-entredness that makes everyone solely concerned with his own profiteering and success in business. Whatever might be happening to others is none of his business. Whether the debtor is dying of starvation or living in luxury is not the creditor’s concern at all. His sole concern is to secure his principal amount with interest at the stipulated time whether this might require the debtor to sell off his domestic utensils or dress of his body.

 

 

 

(iii)       The third evil of usury which leads to scores of serious cultural ailments is the superiority of money and wealth over human beings. Whereas money is merely an instrument of fulfilling human needs. 1t is not an end per se. But under the system established by the eaters of usury, man is relegated to a secondary position while the satisfaction of his needs is given ever lesser importance. Money and capital assumes the first and foremost priority in life. This attitude reduces man’s, labour into a worthless and trivial thing, while capital becomes a value unto itself. None regrets the loss of human toil and labour. But if the eater of usury by any chance loses a few pennies, he leaves sighs of grief for grief for many years. The system of usury, instead of making man the object and the capital his servant, turns the capital into deity and reduces man into its subject and servant.

 

 

 

(iv)       Once entangled in the vicious circle of usury, one forgets the blessings of legitimate earning. For the blessing that one receives out of his earning through hard labour is never enjoyed by those who receive free and labourless benefits of capital in the security of their homes In the beginning human nature refrains from indulging in usury. With the passage of time man becomes addicted to easy proceeds of interest and becomes averse to the thought of legitimate sustenance.

 

 

 

(v)        While explaining verse (2: 275) the exegetes have said that the eaters of usury become so much blinded by love of wealth and capital that this becomes their sole motive in life This sick obsession with money erodes all moral virtues one after the other. Greed and niggardliness that have been vehemently condemned not only by the Qur’an and the Sunnah but by all books of religion and morality, permeate the soul and spirit of usury eaters- Their chief motive of life becomes hoarding of wealth through maximum exploitation and deprivation of others.

 

 

 

(vi)       It is often observed that the eaters of usury soon take to gambling. Once they are overcome by the damns of greed and passion for money, their minds become engrossed in thinking of new ways of grabbing money and securing gains. Soon their diabolical mind seduces them to pursue the way of gambling which is even easier means of getting riches than usury. When one becomes habitual in enjoying easy money, he taps every source that might provide him maximum wealth with minimum labour. And this object is quite easy of attainment through gambling. When human perversion drags someone to plug the games of chance, he gravitates to the lowest ebb of indignity and disgrace. How often one hears of those who lose their wives and daughters in gambling.

 

 

 

These were some of the very obvious evils of usury that pertain to moral category and that are to be found in all those societies that practise the system of usury. Although mention of morality in the context of economics often raises many eyebrows, but if we are really genuine in our claims of Islamizing the society, then we will have to initiate and conclude everything on the moral criteria. Apart from these moral evils, there are certain social evils that are borne of the womb of usury. These evils infect the whole social fabric with their germs of corruption and finally bring about the destruction of a society. We will mention below some of these social evils that directly arise out of the system of usury. These are the evils that have afflicted the contemporary society including a large part of the present day Muslim Society with their ailment.

 

 

 

(vii) The horrible concentration of wealth (which we will shortly elaborate) brought about in the society owing to the system of usury bifurcates the society into two parts. On one side of the fence there are found some individuals who are the eaters of usury. They control 95 % of the whole society’s resources. Through this monopoly they dictate their whims to the society. On the other side of the fence are found millions of multitudes languishing and crying for a morsel of bread to keep their bodies and souls together. This brings a serious social divide between the two classes. This divide is further cemented by the economic frontiers that are permanently established between them minimizing the prospects of the social nobility for the poor and deprived ones. This state of affairs breeds mutual distrust and hatred often leading to rancour feuds and fights. In this way the society presents such abominable specimens of class struggle that have constituted a classical chapter of history in the communist philosophy.