Riba

[Abu Nur]

Salaam Aleikum, 

What is our different scholar opinion about riba and living in west that mostly consume and work with riba. 

I read once that it is permissible to buy a product in monthly payment such that you only consider the full price without riba, even when it is included to the full price. 

@Muhammad Al-Hurr @Ashvazdanghe

Edited November 13, 2021 by Abu Nur

[Ashvazdanghe]

Salam for riba  happenes in case of exchanging  same material likewise exchanging  money with extra money or   for example  giving 1 kilo of rice in exchange  of returning  1 kilo & 1 grain of rice but on the other hand buying  any product by money  in monthly payment "even when it is included to the full price  " is not Riba because it's exchanging  money with other thing than money.

https://farsi.khamenei.ir/treatise-content?id=149

https://farsi.khamenei.ir/news-content?id=27826

 

[Abu Nur]

2 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam for riba  happenes in case of exchanging  same material likewise exchanging  money with extra money or   for example  giving 1 kilo of rice in exchange  of returning  1 kilo & 1 grain of rice but on the other hand buying  any product by money  in monthly payment "even when it is included to the full price  " is not Riba because it's exchanging  money with other thing than money.

https://farsi.khamenei.ir/treatise-content?id=149

https://farsi.khamenei.ir/news-content?id=27826

 

In west when you order product with monthly option, they use banks  who pays fully the price to that company you bought the product and you need now to pay this bank the loan monthly where they add interest to original price. Is this same thing? 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Abu Nur

[Abu Hadi]

This is from Sayyid Sistani, 

It is not permissible to obtain loan from a state owned bank subject to a condition of payment of interest, irrespective of whether or not it is obtained by mortgaging some property. If such a loan was obtained, however, it is invalid and so is the condition, because the bank does not own the money under its disposal to give it to the debtor.

To avoid such a problem, it is permissible for the customer to receive the money on the basis of majhoulil malik(owner is unknown(1)), not with the intent of taking loan. As a matter of ihtiyat, obtaining such a loan must be with the permission of the Marji', who can authorize(2) the recipient as how to go about spending it. However, the person obtaining the loan should not pay attention to the fact that, whether he likes it or not, the bank will charge some additional amount from him, and even though he will have to pay the additional amount when the bank demands it.

http://najaf.org/books/203/?id=14

It is not permissible to deposit money with state owned banks, that is to say by way of loan, with the proviso of obtaining interest. It is usury that is haraam.

From an Islamic shari'a law standpoint, depositing the money in the bank, albeit without attaching conditions to receiving interest, amounts to wasting it. The justification for this ruling is that whatever money could be retrieved from the bank is not the bank's money per se. Rather it is from that which is majhoulil malik. Accordingly, profits and interest yielded by the depositor during his [religious] tax year, before setting aside the khums, is a matter of ishkal(doubt(3)). This is because he has the right of disposal over it for his living expenditure, and is not permitted to waste it. If he caused it to be wasted, he should compensate its owners.

(1) This is my translation of 'majhoulil malik'. It is not part of the original text from the source. 

(2) The original spelling was 'authorise'. Changed to the correct spelling 'authorize'

(3) This is my tranlation of the term 'ishkal'. Not part of the original text from the source. 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Abu Hadi

[Ashvazdanghe]

1 hour ago, Abu Nur said:

In west when you order product with monthly option, they use banks  who pays fully the price to that company you bought the product and you need now to pay this bank the loan monthly where they add interest to original price. Is this same thing? 

Salam this is a way of bypassing  Riba which a type of solution  for lesser involvement  in Riba which if you ave no other option then you can use it likewise eating meat of pig in case of your survival depends on consuming it so therefore use this method only in case of real need to it when you have no other choice for buying your necessary  product.

[Abu Hadi]

IMHO, the summary of what Sayyid Sistani (and other ulema) are saying is as follows (in summary)

1) Taking money with the intention of getting interest, or loaning someone money with interest is haram, absolutely. There is no doubt about that. That doesn't change when you live in the West

2) It is a possibility that someone has no other option but to take a loan with interest. This is especially true in the West, where something like a house or a car is so expensive (especially nowdays with inflation) compared to the average salary, that almost no-one could afford to pay cash for these things and the entire financial system in the West is based on interest(riba). So since a car or a house in a necessity for most people, and not an optional thing, they can take the loan, not with the intention of taking a loan with interest, or paying interest, but with the intention of paying the principle, and realizing that I will be forced at some point to pay the interest, so the interest should be payed with the intention of majhoulil malik (owner is unknown) , and not with the intention of paying interest, which is haram.

This condition comes in because once someone loans out money with interest, that interest does not belong to them. It is 'owner unknown' at that point. They are only entitled to the principle. So any methods they use to force someone to pay that money to them, even though it is not their money (under Sharia law) is considered 'thulm' oppression, since they are not the owners of that money so they have no right to it. So when the one who took the loan pays back the money, they should know that the money does not belong to the bank, it is 'owner unknown' and they are being forced to pay it thru compulsion (like the bank threatening to take their house, their car, etc, which they are legally entitled to do according to Western Law, but not according to Islamic law, this is where those systems of law diverge from each other). 

So if they pay the money back, knowing that the 'owner is unknown' and they are doing it because they are being oppressed and to avoid a greater harm (like their house or their car, which they need, being taken), then they can do that. This is the way a mumin/a should think about this. If they are paying it back, with the niyyat of paying interest (riba), then they are doing something haram. I know some think this is a trivial distinction, but it  isn't. One way is kufr (rejection of the laws of Allah(s.w.a)) while the other is Iman(faith). 

The same rules apply if someone is getting paid interest thru opening a checking, savings account, money market account, etc. If they money they are getting thru this account is a return on an investment they made (for example they invested the money in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc), there is nothing wrong with this, and this is not riba and not haram. They can take the money with this intention. If the money is being given to them solely for keeping this money in their account and not doing anything with it, this is riba, and it is haram to take this money with the intention of taking riba. They shouldn't do anything intentionally to get this money. 

At the same time, I live in the West and I know that when you open a savings account, and keep your money in there, you do get a small amount of riba, which you 'didn't sign up for'. You didn't ask the bank to give this to you, you were just trying to open an account as a place to securely save your money. If they bank gives this money to you, you should take it with the intention of 'owner is unknown', since it is not your money. Some people say, 'Well you should just withdrawl the money and burn it or flush it'. That would also be haram, it would be 'israf' (extravegance and wastefulness). So you can take the money, as long as 1) You don't do anything intentionally in order to receive that money, 2) You don't take it with the intention of taking interest 3) You take it with the intention of 'owner is unknown' and in order to avoid do israf, by destroying it. 

 

 

[Haji 2003]

Some relevant concepts

Quote

 

The concept of riba is not limited to interest. Two forms of riba are identified in Islamic law. They are riba al-qarud which relates to usury involving loans, and riba al-buyu which relates to usury involving trade. The latter can take two forms. Riba al-fadl involves an exchange of unequal qualities or quantities of the same commodity simultaneously, whilst riba al-nisa involves the non-simultaneous exchange of equal qualities and quantities of the same commodity. The prohibition applies to objects which can be measured or weighed and which, in addition, belong to the same species. Forbidden are both an excess in quantity and a delay in performance.

Riba al-qarud, the usury of loans, involves a charge on a loan arising due to the passage of time, in other words a loan at interest, and is sometimes referred to as riba al-nasia, the usury of waiting. It arises where a user of another’s wealth, in any form, is contracted by the other to pay a specified increase in addition to the principal amount in repayment. If the increase is predetermined as a specified amount at the outset of the transaction, however this increase occurs, then the loan becomes a usurious one. The prohibition has been extended to all loans and debts where an increase accrues to the creditor.

 

Lewis, M.K. and Kaleem, A., 2019. Attitudes of Judaism, Christianity and Islam to usury. In Religion and Finance (pp. 40-74). Edward Elgar Publishing.

[kadhim]

On 11/14/2021 at 8:30 AM, Abu Hadi said:

IMHO, the summary of what Sayyid Sistani (and other ulema) are saying is as follows (in summary)

1) Taking money with the intention of getting interest, or loaning someone money with interest is haram, absolutely. There is no doubt about that. That doesn't change when you live in the West

2) It is a possibility that someone has no other option but to take a loan with interest. This is especially true in the West, where something like a house or a car is so expensive (especially nowdays with inflation) compared to the average salary, that almost no-one could afford to pay cash for these things and the entire financial system in the West is based on interest(riba). So since a car or a house in a necessity for most people, and not an optional thing, they can take the loan, not with the intention of taking a loan with interest, or paying interest, but with the intention of paying the principle, and realizing that I will be forced at some point to pay the interest, so the interest should be payed with the intention of majhoulil malik (owner is unknown) , and not with the intention of paying interest, which is haram.

This condition comes in because once someone loans out money with interest, that interest does not belong to them. It is 'owner unknown' at that point. They are only entitled to the principle. So any methods they use to force someone to pay that money to them, even though it is not their money (under Sharia law) is considered 'thulm' oppression, since they are not the owners of that money so they have no right to it. So when the one who took the loan pays back the money, they should know that the money does not belong to the bank, it is 'owner unknown' and they are being forced to pay it thru compulsion (like the bank threatening to take their house, their car, etc, which they are legally entitled to do according to Western Law, but not according to Islamic law, this is where those systems of law diverge from each other). 

So if they pay the money back, knowing that the 'owner is unknown' and they are doing it because they are being oppressed and to avoid a greater harm (like their house or their car, which they need, being taken), then they can do that. This is the way a mumin/a should think about this. If they are paying it back, with the niyyat of paying interest (riba), then they are doing something haram. I know some think this is a trivial distinction, but it  isn't. One way is kufr (rejection of the laws of Allah(s.w.a)) while the other is Iman(faith). 

The same rules apply if someone is getting paid interest thru opening a checking, savings account, money market account, etc. If they money they are getting thru this account is a return on an investment they made (for example they invested the money in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc), there is nothing wrong with this, and this is not riba and not haram. They can take the money with this intention. If the money is being given to them solely for keeping this money in their account and not doing anything with it, this is riba, and it is haram to take this money with the intention of taking riba. They shouldn't do anything intentionally to get this money. 

At the same time, I live in the West and I know that when you open a savings account, and keep your money in there, you do get a small amount of riba, which you 'didn't sign up for'. You didn't ask the bank to give this to you, you were just trying to open an account as a place to securely save your money. If they bank gives this money to you, you should take it with the intention of 'owner is unknown', since it is not your money. Some people say, 'Well you should just withdrawl the money and burn it or flush it'. That would also be haram, it would be 'israf' (extravegance and wastefulness). So you can take the money, as long as 1) You don't do anything intentionally in order to receive that money, 2) You don't take it with the intention of taking interest 3) You take it with the intention of 'owner is unknown' and in order to avoid do israf, by destroying it. 

 

 

The gymnastics that Seestani works here to get a rational answer out of his starting assumptions is no doubt impressive. But the fact that he has to work so hard to get a realistic result is a sign something is off with the assumptions. It’s a kludge. It’s a hack. 

Even if we throw out the reasonable ability for the bank to get extra money to make a profit, or even to pay its employees and costs, or to manage risk—without which, let’s be honest, such lending simply would never happen at scale—even if we stick dogmatically to the classic idea that in loans and other transactions, the borrower needs to return only the equal of what he borrowed, same for same, even then, by that standard, the idea of “no interest” fails for paper money. Because of the time value of money. 

Borrowing at zero internet over a long period of time like for a mortgage becomes theft on the part of the borrower. Because even at a previously normal 2% inflation, that last dollar paid on the mortgage 25 years from now is worth 60 cents in today dollars. 1 / 1.02^25 = 0.6. Paying back a dollar with 60 cents is unjust. You can’t get around this arithmetic.

This is why “Islamic consumer finance” is basically “I can’t believe it’s not interest.”

Edited January 26 by kadhim

[Gaius I. Caesar]

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

Even if we throw out the reasonable ability for the bank to get extra money to make a profit, or even to pay its employees and costs, or to manage risk—without which, let’s be honest, such lending simply would never happen at scale—even if we stick dogmatically to the classic idea that in loans and other transactions, the borrower needs to return only the equal of what he borrowed, same for same, even then, by that standard, the idea of “no interest” fails for paper money. Because of the time value of money. 

Borrowing at zero internet over a long period of time like for a mortgage becomes theft on the part of the borrower. Because even at a previously normal 2% inflation, that last dollar paid on the mortgage 25 years from now is worth 60 cents in today dollars. 1 / 1.02^25 = 0.6. Paying back a dollar with 60 cents is unjust. You can’t get around this arithmetic.

This is why “Islamic consumer finance” is basically “I can’t believe it’s not interest.”

This is where most of my confusion regarding Islamic financing stems from, the time value of money changes and as you said, paying back a dollar with 60 cents is unjust, not mention stupid and deceptive as well. I think we should keep in mind in this discussion that: يُرِيدُ ٱللَّهُ أَن يُخَفِّفَ عَنكُمْ ۚ وَخُلِقَ ٱلْإِنسَـٰنُ ضَعِيفًۭا ٢٨ 

And Allāh wants to lighten for you [your difficulties]; and mankind was created weak. (4:28)

[VoidVortex]

a book on islamic economics was written by Shaheed al-Sadr.

Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr | Al-Islam.org

there are six books on islamic economics in the above link written by him. 

[Haji 2003]

21 hours ago, kadhim said:

Borrowing at zero internet over a long period of time like for a mortgage becomes theft on the part of the borrower.

I think you have answered your own question.

In such instances the loan is can only be one of the following:

• an act of charity
• irrational

Since charity is looked upon favourably in islam we can't discount that.

There is of course a third option which is because a loan without interest is effectively charity anyone who is not minded to be charitable will not make a loan. They will go for some other option that offers a return and likely one where they have to bear some level of risk.

To my mind Islam sees owners of capital as people able to take risks and so they should.

Another item on my list is looking into Islamic views on risk-taking (I have a hunch it's looked upon favourably), based on hazy recollections of ayats referring to travellers.

Islamic injunctions against riba make no sense if seen through the lens of the existing system that is very much based around riba. I've created a new thread here that shifts the focus away from the personal to the macroeconomic.

 

[kadhim]

2 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

There is of course a third option which is because a loan without interest is effectively charity anyone who is not minded to be charitable will not make a loan. They will go for some other option that offers a return and likely one where they have to bear some level of risk.

The problem with this of course, which you deliberately decline to speak out loud, is that in that case it would, for all intents and purposes, not happen. Not at any appreciable scale.

None of this world you’re living in and thriving in would happen without finance. That’s just reality. Not the ability for so many people to buy cars and houses. Not the ability for businesses to grow and change so dynamically, not the ability for technology and innovation to grow so quickly and dynamically. None of that happens without finance. None of that happens without financiers who specialize in that service. And financiers don’t happen without interest as a mechanism to manage financial risk. It just doesn’t happen. There is a reason that the world changes more in a decade than it used to in a millennium. Have you ever checked out Niall Ferguson’s Ascent of Money book/series? It’s inextricably tied into the fabric of creating the world we know. 

Does finance need to be more carefully regulated to control its darker tendencies? Absolutely. We need to keep it on a leash so it serves us rather than owns us. Just as we do with our own individual passions. But inherently, the finance industry is a tremendously useful infrastructural service to humanity, and that simply won’t happen if they can’t make money in exchange for the useful service they provide. 

You’re a globetrotting businessman Haji. You know this. I know you know these realities. But you’re conveniently pretending not to get this for the sake of the argument. It’s fundamentally dishonest. 

2 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Islamic injunctions against riba make no sense if seen through the lens of the existing system that is very much based around riba. I've created a new thread here that shifts the focus away from the personal to the macroeconomic.

Fundamentally, you’re ironically engaging in an un-Islamic mindset here. Islam never sought to restrict itself to some Utopian textbook world that doesn’t exist. It speaks to the grimy reality that does and charts an intellectually honest middle way through whatever context it is in, and that includes macroeconomic realities. 

It did this with slavery. It’s not pro-slavery, but it came to a world where that was the reality, and it worked around it pragmatically. It didn’t tell people to have some sort of weird cognitive dissonance about it. It didn’t say, “slavery is haram, but you can own slaves as long as you but the person with the intention that they’re not really a slave.” No. It just said. “Hey, so slavery is a macroeconomic reality. It serves a purpose today, there’s a reason for it. It’s not going to change any time soon. Let’s make the best of it and try to round off the edges to make it suck less.” 

Same basic idea today. Let’s be reasonable and distinguish between modest interest as a reasonable and useful financial service, and more predatory lending, and treat only the latter as riba. Be smart with how we use credit. Try to protect vulnerable people from being abused by lenders. But accept the waters we are swimming in. 

Possibly in a few decades, with AI, and robotics, and nanotechnology, and the bounty of resources that space business could bring, we will reach a post-scarcity reality where the underlying assumptions of Capitalism and modern finance no longer have much useful relevance, and we will need to rethink it again what Islamic economic morality looks like. 

But for now I think it’s just basic sense to recognize what century we’re living in and deal with that with the same frank honesty and pragmatism with which Muhammad (saws) and his family (عليه السلام) dealt with slavery and other non-Utopian realities of their day. 

[Haji 2003]

4 hours ago, kadhim said:

The problem with this of course, which you deliberately decline to speak out loud, is that in that case it would, for all intents and purposes, not happen.

Why not. If owners of capital have the choice of giving money away at 0% or investing in a range of assets varying in levels of risk - why would they not elect to put together a portfolio of assets varying in terms of their riskiness?

If they are rational they will do this rather than put their capital under the mattress to be devalued by inflation.

4 hours ago, kadhim said:

None of this world you’re living in and thriving in would happen without finance.

You are conflating 'finance' with charging interest.

There are multiple ways that financing can happen without resorting to owners of capital gaining risk free returns.

Indiegogo and kickstarter for example enable entrepreneurs to bypass banks and raise from customers the funding necessary to put new products into production. In this situation it's customers who now bear risk in a manner that they never did before. And more broadly there are crowd funding options for a variety of different purposes.

4 hours ago, kadhim said:

You’re a globetrotting businessman Haji. You know this. I know you know these realities.

Well. There was a point in time when I had the chance to get a mortgage and buy property the way people are supposed to. I decided instead to invest in equities (unleveraged).

Would I have been better off today if I had taken out a mortgage and invested in property? Yes. Would I have been extremely well off if I had played the mortgage game very aggressively? Yes.

My stock returns have provided a comfortable living.

But there would have been a wider social cost had I aggressively gone down the property route. My acquisitions would have made it more difficult for someone else to own their own home. And this is one of the issues with credit markets - where money is lent with the use of interest rates as the pricing mechanism - they can exacerbate social/economic inequalities.

As with a number of other Islamic injunctions - everything seems to point to social justice being the overall objective.

[Sabrejet]

How is a young-middle aged adult supposed to buy a house without resorting to a mortgage of some sort? It's difficult enough to save up for a downpayment, let alone saving for the entire cost of the house in one go.

There are only two options:

1- trust the verdicts of the scholars and get a mortgage

2- live on rent your entire life, unless you miraculously save enough to buy a decent house somewhere in your 70's

There seems to be no other way as long as the current Italian banking and fiat currency system is in place.

Edited January 27 by Sabrejet

[Haji 2003]

Especially for the North Americans here, it's worth noting that it's perfectly possible for an advanced western society which performs very well on all socio-economic metrics to have a very high aversion to debt.

Quote

 

Germany's extreme debt aversion is even rooted in the German language itself, says Prof Marcel Fratzscher, head of Germany's leading Economic Research Institute.

"The German word for debt - 'schuld' - is the same as the German word for 'guilt'," he explains. "To get into debt you have done something bad and that describes the German people's attitude quite well."

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31369185

This is borne out by the following chart which shows "Total household debt as share of GDP in selected countries worldwide in 2020".

Rather than emulate the countries at the top of the list, if our religion tells us that interest is bad, we should be looking at the way the countries at the bottom of the list have achieved economic success without taking on as much personal debt as everyone else.

 

[kadhim]

2 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Why not. If owners of capital have the choice of giving money away at 0% or investing in a range of assets varying in levels of risk - why would they not elect to put together a portfolio of assets varying in terms of their riskiness?

If they are rational they will do this rather than put their capital under the mattress to be devalued by inflation.

I meant that things like mortgages and car loans and even student finance would more or less not happen without interest. Right? You agreed that the only way loans like this would happen would be from an irrational lender or someone lending for charity. The supply of charitable funds would not be nearly close to demand. You’re in the UK, right?

So for example, this page -  https://www.fca.org.uk/data/mortgage-lending-statistics#:~:text=Latest findings,higher than in 2021 Q3. - says Q3 mortgage advances for 2022 was about £86 billion. So, annualized, about £320 billion. 

In effect, it wouldn’t happen.

I mean, mortgages, maybe you could work out an equity arrangement where the lender retains a percentage of the profit of the house is sold. And student loans maybe the payback could be a share of earnings for a certain number of years after graduation. I don’t see an alternative for car loans that isn’t interest in disguise though.

2 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

You are conflating 'finance' with charging interest.

There are multiple ways that financing can happen without resorting to owners of capital gaining risk free returns.

Haji. For real, bruv.

Interest is the most straightforward way to put a price on the risk of lending financial capital. It’s a rental price on money in proportion to the risk. In economics, a price on something helps you manage and decide between alternate uses of a thing. 

The interest rate gives a lender information to consider as to how to allocate that money for lending in an intelligent way. There is no such thing as “risk free returns” in finance. There is always the risk of the borrower defaulting, going bankrupt/insolvent, etc. Always a risk you lose the money you lend. An interest rate proportional to estimated risk of default is simply a mechanism to help you manage that across your portfolio. The interest rate is the financial incentive to undertake more risk. 

You understand this. I don’t know why you’re pretending not to know this. 

Without this mechanism to price risk, investors will not take higher risk investments. They stick to safer investments or just sit on their money and overall investments go back to premodern levels and growth of tech and economy goes back to those levels too. 

It’s not a coincidence that the invention of modern banking was followed on by the joint stock company, the age of exploration, the Industrial Revolution, and so on. It’s interlinked. 

There’s a lot that can be done with venture capital funds and equity investment alone to help channel surplus money of people to useful investments that can give returns and help build interesting things. But there’s still always going to be a lot of need for straight up lending money at a rate to oil the whole system. 
 

2 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Indiegogo and kickstarter for example enable entrepreneurs to bypass banks and raise from customers the funding necessary to put new products into production. In this situation it's customers who now bear risk in a manner that they never did before. And more broadly there are crowd funding options for a variety of different purposes.

Bruv. That’s the digital equivalent of passing a hat around. It’s not the same ballpark. It’s not the same sport. You’re not going to replace the finance industry with this. Be serious. 
 

2 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Well. There was a point in time when I had the chance to get a mortgage and buy property the way people are supposed to. I decided instead to invest in equities (unleveraged).

Would I have been better off today if I had taken out a mortgage and invested in property? Yes. Would I have been extremely well off if I had played the mortgage game very aggressively? Yes.

My stock returns have provided a comfortable living.

But there would have been a wider social cost had I aggressively gone down the property route. My acquisitions would have made it more difficult for someone else to own their own home. And this is one of the issues with credit markets - where money is lent with the use of interest rates as the pricing mechanism - they can exacerbate social/economic inequalities.

As with a number of other Islamic injunctions - everything seems to point to social justice being the overall objective.

I’m not sure how or why you made the wild leap from the idea of having a mortgage for one’s own home to multi property housing speculation. It’s two quite different things. Buying a house for you and your family doesn’t mean you have to become the Monopoly man. 

So are you just saying you skipped out on property investment for speculation? Or that you also chose to rent a flat instead of buying a house? 

 

 

Edited January 27 by kadhim

[notme]

Rent and mortgage are essentially the same: you don't own it. It is impossible to buy a house without a mortgage. Paying rent to the bank is not better or worse than paying rent to a landlord, and after a few decades you might end up actually owning a house.

Same with student loans - education is impossible without them for most of us. Paying thousands per year to a bank for the rest of your life is not better or worse than taking a low wage job and never earning enough to be secure in your household, plus if you're lucky and know the right people you might even actually enjoy your work.

Car loans are a different matter.  I don't think they are allowed.

 

 

Edit: an alternative to rent or mortgage would be squatting. I might try that out once all my children are grown.

Edited January 28 by notme

[EiE]

@Abu Hadi

There are many affordable automobiles and houses available, there isn't a shortage of them unless you're seeking for houses in exclusive neighbourhoods like Hollywood, etc. Neither a car nor a house requires borrowing money. You can also rent a home if you are unable to buy one without borrowing money, which many have been doing fine.

 I actually find it funny how we can bend the rules when it comes to interest, it's as if the banks are making the sharia, perhaps banks have some influence.....

 

 

the question is, how far can we truly bend the rules?
Is it enough to tweak my intention for it to become halal? Can I do it with something else? perhaps occasionaly drinking because I find it necessary during board meeting, so that I can have sucesful career path, or maybe I can just do zina but tweak my intention to make it halal, because I might not have access to my wife everywere I go and the women there are not ahlul kitab. You get my point.

 

 

[Gaius I. Caesar]

6 hours ago, notme said:

Edit: an alternative to rent or mortgage would be squatting. I might try that out once all my children are grown.

Don't do it, squatting is theft and can be potentially dangerous. I plan on buying and living in a ger, try looking into a ger. They're portable and don't require a mortgage to buy. 

[Haji 2003]

7 hours ago, notme said:

Rent and mortgage are essentially the same: you don't own it. It is impossible to buy a house without a mortgage. Paying rent to the bank is not better or worse than paying rent to a landlord, and after a few decades you might end up actually owning a house.

The big difference is that paying a mortgage also involves paying an interest component to the bank and our religion has an injunction against paying more to a lender than you originally borrowed.

 

7 hours ago, notme said:

Same with student loans - education is impossible without them for most of us.

Just because a country has established rapacious universities who charge extortionate fees, for which loans are needed, does not invalidate the Islamic law. It's perfectly possible to have a first world, developed country education system where fees are not charged or if small loans are needed they are offered by government.

 

Overall I think it's interesting that we have North Americans whose societies have been completely overtaken by a loan and interest culture and who are now unable to imagine a society without these.

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 11/14/2021 at 5:00 PM, Abu Hadi said:

At the same time, I live in the West and I know that when you open a savings account, and keep your money in there, you do get a small amount of riba, which you 'didn't sign up for'. You didn't ask the bank to give this to you, you were just trying to open an account as a place to securely save your money. If they bank gives this money to you, you should take it with the intention of 'owner is unknown', since it is not your money. Some people say, 'Well you should just withdrawl the money and burn it or flush it'. That would also be haram, it would be 'israf' (extravegance and wastefulness). So you can take the money, as long as 1) You don't do anything intentionally in order to receive that money, 2) You don't take it with the intention of taking interest 3) You take it with the intention of 'owner is unknown' and in order to avoid do israf, by destroying it.

Salam becaue  we have similar procedure in Irnaina Banks so I think ii will bel helpfull .

On 1/26/2023 at 6:34 PM, Gaius I. Caesar said:

This is where most of my confusion regarding Islamic financing stems from, the time value of money changes and as you said, paying back a dollar with 60 cents is unjust, not mention stupid and deceptive as well. I think we should keep in mind in this discussion that: يُرِيدُ ٱللَّهُ أَن يُخَفِّفَ عَنكُمْ ۚ وَخُلِقَ ٱلْإِنسَـٰنُ ضَعِيفًۭا ٢٨ 

And Allāh wants to lighten for you [your difficulties]; and mankind was created weak. (4:28)

Is it permissible to receive interest from Iranian banks?

question

The Iranian banks give interest to those who have savings accounts. Is the interest (mark-up) which is given by the banks to the account holder halal or haram?

Concise answer

The nature of the deposits made by the clients in the banks of the Islamic Republic of Iran is such that the clients deposit their money with the bank on short or long term basis. The bank acts as an agent of the client using his savings in [business] transactions. In this case the transactions conducted by the bank are interest-free. The interest earned by the bank through these transactions belongs to the depositor but the bank receives a part of the interest as haq al-wikalah [i.e. the right of agency].[1]

 

As for the interests given by banks of other countries, it depends on the nature of the contracts concluded between the client (depositor) and the bank.

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa2142

On 1/26/2023 at 5:06 PM, kadhim said:

The gymnastics that Seestani works here to get a rational answer out of his starting assumptions is no doubt impressive. But the fact that he has to work so hard to get a realistic result is a sign something is off with the assumptions. It’s a kludge. It’s a hack. 

 

Is bank interest Halal or Haram?

In general, according to the opinion of the majority of jurists and Marja taqlid authorities, if the deposit in the bank is in the form of Mudharabah and its Shariah and jurisprudence rules are fully observed, it is permissible to take interest from the bank.

Mudharabah is a transaction in which one person gives money to another to buy and sell with it, and the profit is given to the parties according to the contract by determining the share.

Grand Ayatollah Sistani's opinion

According to his point of view, any deposit and bank transaction that takes place in the form of a Sharia contract is permissible. Of course, his majesty distinguishs between public and private banks. According to him, seizing all the profits of private banks is permissible and Halal, but in the case of the profits of state banks, half of the profits should be allocated to the poor. The percentage and type of interest does not make a difference in the verdict; In general, if the depositor has the intention of participating in the transaction and does not recognize himself as a creditor  from  bank, there is no obstacle to taking interest.

Quote

Grand Ayatollah Khamenei's opinion

According to his majesty, there is no obstacle to any bank transaction that is approved by the Islamic Council and confirmed by the Guardian Council. his majesty  believes that it is permissible if the depositor hands over all the authority, including the type of activity and the amount of his share, to the bank, and the resulting profit which is  for the purpose of using the deposit in Halal transactions is Halal.

https://setare.com/fa/news/35174/سود-بانکی-حلال-است-یا-حرام-نظر-مراجع-تقلید-و-احکام/

 

[notme]

14 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

The big difference is that paying a mortgage also involves paying an interest component to the bank and our religion has an injunction against paying more to a lender than you originally borrowed.

How is paying $1000 per month to a bank excessive interest, but paying $2000 per month to a landlord for the same property is not? Either way if you miss two payments you are evicted.  Either way you do not actually own the property.  How is paying (excessive) rent to a landlord not usury? 

14 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

Overall I think it's interesting that we have North Americans whose societies have been completely overtaken by a loan and interest culture and who are now unable to imagine a society without these.

It's not difficult to imagine, but this isn't the world we live in.  I'd like to see a world where everyone has access to as much education as they want regardless of their wealth. I'd like to see a world in which everyone is secure in a safe and adequate home.  But if we mindlessly rigidly adhere to Islamic laws without considering societal context we will end up with all Muslims impoverished due to lack of education,  and paying all our meager resources to banks through rent rather than saving up for a less expensive but otherwise identical mortgage.  

Individual people renting as landlords is different. Most rentals are from banks or other corporate entities in my part of the world.  I do not see the difference between paying a corporation interest or paying a corporation absurdly high rent.  The single difference is that in order to obtain a mortgage, one must make a large down payment and have a good credit score.  Rentals only require a moderate deposit and a fair credit score.  

[notme]

4 hours ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

Don't do it, squatting is theft and can be potentially dangerous. I plan on buying and living in a ger, try looking into a ger. They're portable and don't require a mortgage to buy. 

A ger or an RV still gotta be placed somewhere.  It's still squatting unless you own or have permission to use the land.  

[Abu Hadi]

On 1/26/2023 at 8:36 AM, kadhim said:

The gymnastics that Seestani works here to get a rational answer out of his starting assumptions is no doubt impressive. But the fact that he has to work so hard to get a realistic result is a sign something is off with the assumptions. It’s a kludge. It’s a hack. 

Even if we throw out the reasonable ability for the bank to get extra money to make a profit, or even to pay its employees and costs, or to manage risk—without which, let’s be honest, such lending simply would never happen at scale—even if we stick dogmatically to the classic idea that in loans and other transactions, the borrower needs to return only the equal of what he borrowed, same for same, even then, by that standard, the idea of “no interest” fails for paper money. Because of the time value of money. 

Borrowing at zero internet over a long period of time like for a mortgage becomes theft on the part of the borrower. Because even at a previously normal 2% inflation, that last dollar paid on the mortgage 25 years from now is worth 60 cents in today dollars. 1 / 1.02^25 = 0.6. Paying back a dollar with 60 cents is unjust. You can’t get around this arithmetic.

This is why “Islamic consumer finance” is basically “I can’t believe it’s not interest.”

Sistani is trying to do a 'work around' based on the current reality that most experience in Western Countries, and many Eastern Countries also. I wouldn't call it 'gymnastics' using that term is pejorative. Sistani is recognizing what reality is, and trying to work within it using Islamic principles. 

Modern economics, in almost all places in the world, is based on predatory capitalism, the strong taking advantage of the weak thru the weaponization of the monetary system, i.e. interest. This is creating vast problems in the world such as growing inequality, billions for the few, near starvation for the many. Most people now are starting to 'wake up' and recognize that. 

If you read some books, like 'Our Economics' by Imam Baqir Sadr((رضي الله عنه)), he is not talking about mortgages with zero interest over time. Under the current system (interest based), yes you are right that would be theft. What he is taking about is an investment based lending system, rather than an interest based one. It is based on the principle of shared risk, by the borrower and lending institution. For example, if you buy a house under this system, the bank would add in their fees (to cover their costs associated with processing and maintaining the loan) to the loan amount and that total amount would be divided into payments (monthly, quarterly, annual, etc) and the borrower would be responsible for those payments. Each one of those payments would be applied to the principles of the loan (since there is no interest). If the house increased in value, the lending institution would share in that profit if the house was sold before the loan was paid off. 

For example, say you took at $250,000 loan for a house from a bank like this. The price of the house was 220k and the bank added in 30k for their fees, for example. The total is 250. If this was paid over 30 years, each monthly payment would be $694.00. Say for example after 5 years, either the person couldn't afford the house anymore or they just wanted to move or buy another house. They would still owe 208,000 on the house. If the house appreciated in value over those 5 years, the profits would be divided based on % ownership when the house was sold. So at that point. Borrower owns 16% of the house and bank owns 84% of the house. So the house would be sold and the profits would be split accordingly. This is the incentive for the bank. They would still make a profit, as they would be entitled to this share.  If the borrower pays the full amount and gets full ownership and owns the house, the bank got their lending fees and didn't lose money and probably made some profit (which was built into the fees).

If the house decreased in value over those 5 years, the house would be sold, and the losses would be shared accordingly, like an investment. This would give an incentive for the buyer to stay in the house. The other benefit is that the math is relatively simple and easy to understand for the vast majority of people. So a real and understandable 'free market' could be set up where banks compete with each other based on what they offer to the consumer and this would be transparent and easy to understand. 

Now compare this to the current system where if the house decreases in value or the borrower loses their job and can't make the payments, they will either owe the full amount (plus penalties), i.e. they are responsible for the full loss plus some more, or they will be forced to declare bankruptcy. Also under the current system, mortgage contracts are hundreds of pages long and most buyers don't even understand what they are signing. So this system would encourage risk and investment, but not irresponsible risk. The borrower and lender are partners and both assume risk and both can potentially benefit thru profit. There are still aspects to this system which are 'problems' and need to be worked out (Imam Baqir Sadr even acknowledges this in his book where he goes into more detail) but a basic framework is there and should be developed further and this system has the potential to be much more fair and just compared to the current system. 

 

Edited January 28 by Abu Hadi

[Haji 2003]

1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

Now compare this to the current system where if the house decreases in value or the borrower loses their job and can't make the payments, they will either owe the full amount (plus penalties), i.e. they are responsible for the full loss plus some more, or they will be forced to declare bankruptcy.

Thanks for a very full and clearly explained answer.

There is an addendum to the above point that you have made.

One of the causes behind the financial crash of 2009 was the sale of mortgages to people who obviously could not afford them. However since financial advisors and realtors etc. got a commission they did not care and banks could sell on the debt.

The Islamic system neatly bypasses this obvious source of what economists call moral hazard.

[EiE]

Let's use a hypothetical case:

Banks do lend money with interest, so If there's 1 million $ in circulation and the banks want 5% interest, that becomes 1.05 million $ that must be paid back.

Were do you get the extra 50k $ if there's only 1 million $ in circulation? perhaps this is the zulm part, that there's always going to be a party indebted due to zulm, e.i someone will be required to pay back extra 50k $ that doesnt even exist.

[Muhammed Ali]

7 hours ago, EiE said:

Were do you get the extra 50k $ if there's only 1 million $ in circulation? perhaps this is the zulm part, that there's always going to be a party indebted due to zulm, e.i someone will be required to pay back extra 50k $ that doesnt even exist.

An interest based system requires the constant creation of new money to fulfill the mass debt. In this way money loses purchasing power and it is unfair on those who save.

Among other harmful things it also creates asset bubbles such as inflated house prices because people can borrow money to pay more and they also want to get rid of their money because it depreciates in value.

A person doesn't need to be Muslim to see the flaws of interest.

Interest should be replaced with equity or saving to buy.

[kadhim]

9 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

Sistani is trying to do a 'work around' based on the current reality that most experience in Western Countries, and many Eastern Countries also. I wouldn't call it 'gymnastics' using that term is pejorative. Sistani is recognizing what reality is, and trying to work within it using Islamic principles. 

Modern economics, in almost all places in the world, is based on predatory capitalism, the strong taking advantage of the weak thru the weaponization of the monetary system, i.e. interest. This is creating vast problems in the world such as growing inequality, billions for the few, near starvation for the many. Most people now are starting to 'wake up' and recognize that. 

If you read some books, like 'Our Economics' by Imam Baqir Sadr((رضي الله عنه)), he is not talking about mortgages with zero interest over time. Under the current system (interest based), yes you are right that would be theft. What he is taking about is an investment based lending system, rather than an interest based one. It is based on the principle of shared risk, by the borrower and lending institution. For example, if you buy a house under this system, the bank would add in their fees (to cover their costs associated with processing and maintaining the loan) to the loan amount and that total amount would be divided into payments (monthly, quarterly, annual, etc) and the borrower would be responsible for those payments. Each one of those payments would be applied to the principles of the loan (since there is no interest). If the house increased in value, the lending institution would share in that profit if the house was sold before the loan was paid off. 

For example, say you took at $250,000 loan for a house from a bank like this. The price of the house was 220k and the bank added in 30k for their fees, for example. The total is 250. If this was paid over 30 years, each monthly payment would be $694.00. Say for example after 5 years, either the person couldn't afford the house anymore or they just wanted to move or buy another house. They would still owe 208,000 on the house. If the house appreciated in value over those 5 years, the profits would be divided based on % ownership when the house was sold. So at that point. Borrower owns 16% of the house and bank owns 84% of the house. So the house would be sold and the profits would be split accordingly. This is the incentive for the bank. They would still make a profit, as they would be entitled to this share.  If the borrower pays the full amount and gets full ownership and owns the house, the bank got their lending fees and didn't lose money and probably made some profit (which was built into the fees).

If the house decreased in value over those 5 years, the house would be sold, and the losses would be shared accordingly, like an investment. This would give an incentive for the buyer to stay in the house. The other benefit is that the math is relatively simple and easy to understand for the vast majority of people. So a real and understandable 'free market' could be set up where banks compete with each other based on what they offer to the consumer and this would be transparent and easy to understand. 

Now compare this to the current system where if the house decreases in value or the borrower loses their job and can't make the payments, they will either owe the full amount (plus penalties), i.e. they are responsible for the full loss plus some more, or they will be forced to declare bankruptcy. Also under the current system, mortgage contracts are hundreds of pages long and most buyers don't even understand what they are signing. So this system would encourage risk and investment, but not irresponsible risk. The borrower and lender are partners and both assume risk and both can potentially benefit thru profit. There are still aspects to this system which are 'problems' and need to be worked out (Imam Baqir Sadr even acknowledges this in his book where he goes into more detail) but a basic framework is there and should be developed further and this system has the potential to be much more fair and just compared to the current system. 

I read Iqtasaduna years back. I have the same comment for that as I do for what Seestani is doing. It’s exactly the same mortgage, just a different label. Instead of calling the 30k “interest,” we call it “I can’t believe it’s not interest.”

But deep down, it still is what it is. 

[Haji 2003]

6 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

Among other harmful things it also creates asset bubbles such as inflated house prices because people can borrow money to pay more and they also want to get rid of their money because it depreciates in value.

It's true that being able to borrow today in order to buy now what you could have bought tomorrow is a benefit of interest rates.

The problem is what happens tomorrow?

Do you settle today's debt, or take more?

And if you borrow more tomorrow what happens the day after?

The following is today's news story and one which will ultimately not have a happy ending, whenever that will be.

Quote

The [US] government last week started taking “extraordinary measures” to meet its obligations after the country hit its $31.4tn borrowing limit.

https://www.ft.com/content/1a3172dd-22a8-4123-99c6-631cbf7f7e9f

[Abu Hadi]

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

I read Iqtasaduna years back. I have the same comment for that as I do for what Seestani is doing. It’s exactly the same mortgage, just a different label. Instead of calling the 30k “interest,” we call it “I can’t believe it’s not interest.”

But deep down, it still is what it is. 

 

There are two main differences. First, the amount you owe is not fixed and set in the beginning in a clear and concise fashion. It is based on a complex formula of amortization schedule and also in many cases a variable interest rate which could change the amount you owe randomly. In Islam, this is not a valid contract.  A valid contract means that each party understands what they owe and their responsibilities and benefits BEFORE the contract is commenced and these terms don't change over the course of the loan. 

Second, the lender has a gigantic and unfair advantage over the borrower simply because they have access to capital and the borrower doesn't. So the lender can 'force' the buyer into agreeing to terms that are not in their benefit / best interest and these lenders collude together so that no borrower except a very wealthy one (who probably doesn't need a loan anyway) has any real choice as far as the terms of their loan. There is no real competition at this level (in a significant way) and they are forced to accept whatever terms the lenders (as a collective) are willing to give them. There is no incentive for the lenders to ever change this way of doing business since they are benefiting greatly from this present system. It is no accident that almost all the highly profitable (over the long term) corporations are giant financial corps (like Chase, BOA, etc) that either dictate their own terms that benefit them with no challenger and thus make huge profits or when they don't make huge enough profits are bailed out by the government (like what happened in 2008) because even the governments are afraid of them (because they are the main financiers of political campaigns). This is not a level playing field or a fair system. This is what Islam is against. 

I will admit that there are many financial institutions that call themselves 'Islamic' and are just interest based systems using another name for it. I have already stated that previously. The theoretical framework, at least, is there to build a real Islamic finance system. There just needs to be enough brave people to actually do it and change the world in the process. 

Edited January 28 by Abu Hadi

[kadhim]

7 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

There are two main differences. First, the amount you owe is not fixed and set in the beginning in a clear and concise fashion. It is based on a complex formula of amortization schedule and also in many cases a variable interest rate which could change the amount you owe randomly. In Islam, this is not a valid contract.  A valid contract means that each party understands what they owe and their responsibilities and benefits BEFORE the contract is commenced and these terms don't change over the course of the loan. 

Have I got a financial product for you: It’s called a fixed rate mortgage. 
 

15 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

Second, the lender has a gigantic and unfair advantage over the borrower simply because they have access to capital and the borrower doesn't. So the lender can 'force' the buyer into agreeing to terms that are not in their benefit / best interest and these lenders collude together so that no borrower except a very wealthy one (who probably doesn't need a loan anyway) has any real choice as far as the terms of their loan. There is no real competition at this level (in a significant way) and they are forced to accept whatever terms the lenders (as a collective) are willing to give them. There is no incentive for the lenders to ever change this way of doing business since they are benefiting greatly from this present system. It is no accident that almost all the highly profitable (over the long term) corporations are giant financial corps (like Chase, BOA, etc) that either dictate their own terms that benefit them with no challenger and thus make huge profits or when they don't make huge enough profits are bailed out by the government (like what happened in 2008) because even the governments are afraid of them (because they are the main financiers of political campaigns). This is not a level playing field or a fair system. This is what Islam is against. 

A bank is going to be a bank, right? That’s going to apply to whatever sort of bank it is. The mathematics of the macroeconomic reality of the moment the mortgage is written and the riskiness of the particular borrower profile given their history, I mean, it’s going to depend on the particular lender’s risk model, but there’s realistically only so far the results can rationally vary. I wouldn’t say it’s collusion so much as just commonly understood principles of financial math. 

[Guest Business]

Price doesn't exist for the purpose of quantifying risk. It reflects risk quantitatively, for sure. But it exists because the lender has leverage in the supply demand relationship with the borrower. The price is a measure of this leverage in each loan transaction. Naturally, the risk is part of the calculation of this leverage. A high risk loan won't have many lenders lining up, increasing the leverage of the willing lender. 

If we imagine a situation where there is no leverage for the lender to settle an interest rate, like if it's politically dangerous and there's no escaping the country, then the lender will still give loans to make profit. The only difference being that he will give a number of loans to different ventures to make sure his share of the profits for each add up to a good bulwark against the failure of the higher risk (but also higher share) loans. Also, high risk ventures will tend to being jointly financed which is more responsible.

In the end, the motive for profit remains the same in both systems and that's what's in the driving seat and will drive through the best option available. When the interest option is available it will take it and when it's not it will take the next best option. Finance advisors and consultancies will also facilitate (for a fee) the most profitable .

 

The idea that this would take society back to primitive levels is premature. Back then, there were cartels, guilds, state monopolies, heavy taxes and duties and levies, and rigid class structures. These were the main structural hindrances. Investment and its instruments were still in their infancy and older business models were like old habits, determining cautious attitudes to risk and exploration and large-scale and logistically-complex projects. This was a chief psychological hindrance. What changed that was the opening of exotic colonised markets to Europe by private and semi-private monopolies like the Dutch East India Company, and the creation of the stock exchange by the Dutch and imitated elsewhere, and the relaxing of mercantilist policies. But as rivalries emerged on the lucrative and increasingly Laissez-faire scene, it also increased lender leverage. 

If for the sake of argument lenders refused to exploit that leverage, say for religious reasons, then they would carry on doing what they were doing financing large projects. None of the main hindrances would apply. 

The reason this larger scale financing didn't start in the Islamic World is because the habits generated by old business model was not disrupted by the discovery of a large untapped potential requiring complex logistics and an institution for joint-financing by unprecedented numbers of persons. Indeed, the origin of crowdfunding. If a similar discovery had created a similar disruption, there's no reason why similar large scale financing instruments would not be devised in the Islamic world. 

Nothing can be done about interest at the moment though, because it requires international treaties. It's a bit like fossil fuels. You can't unilaterally ban them, even if they are harming the planet. Sure, it's profitable and actually in this case (unlike riba) we would definitely slide back without it. But it remains a necessary evil to overcome.

So that's why Sistani has to set directions within the realm of current possibility. But with international treaties, it's definitely possible to maintain the current levels of financing without charging interest. 

Riba is not an inevitability. By no means. 

 

[Haji 2003]

“A high risk loan won't have many lenders lining up, increasing the leverage of the willing lender.”

Yes in a society where interest charging exists and its availability is subject to free markets - groups of people can be disenfranchised by having credit withheld. 

Thanks for this. The site would benefit from more contributions by you.

[Abu Hadi]

15 hours ago, kadhim said:

Have I got a financial product for you: It’s called a fixed rate mortgage. 

Have you had a fixed rate mortgage ? I've had 2. What I described is not a fixed rate mortgage. 

With a fixed rate mortgage, you pay ONLY  interest for the first 10 years or so (I'm not sure you know what an amortization schedule is. You can look it up). For the first 10 years or so, you are basically renting the house. You're principle doesn't decrease (maybe by a few dollars). You are still responsible for 100% of the loan amount (approx 100%) should you decide to leave the house or you can't make the payments. If you are a few days late with the payment, the bank can come in, take your house, give you nothing, and you are stuck with a huge bill (penalties). Oh, and you don't have a house. So you are now homeless. The bank loses nothing. They will kick you out, then turn around and sell the house, or maybe wait a few years and sit on it (because they have the money to do this) until they can sell it for more money. 

So you take all the risk, and they get all the reward. This is an unjust system. It's ok if you don't want to acknowledge this, I'm not speaking to you specifically. The other financial products such as variable rate mortgages, reverse mortgages, etc, are scams, not loans. They are worse than this. Also, the only people (nowdays) who qualify for fixed rate mortgages with a somewhat reasonable interest rate (if there is such a thing) are those with high incomes and nearly perfect credit. This is about 10% of the US population. The rest will have no choice other than going for these scam products (like variable rate) if they want to live in a house and not throw their money down the toilet (i.e. renting). An Islamic system (investment, not interest based) would solve most of these problems. Most people in the US, non muslims, would prefer the Islamic system over the current system (there have been surveys done about this, but do you really need a survey to tell you the obvious) but it is not happening (real Islamic banks) and the only reason is the stranglehold the mega finance corps like Chase, BOA, etc, have over the US political system via their bribes (oops, I mean political campaign donations). 

 

Edited January 29 by Abu Hadi

[AliTanjiro]

Can anyone send me clear fatwa from any marja saying mortgage and interest is 100% halal without changing intention since you know that you will be paying interest also no such thing as fixed price for 30 years in Australia so are you going to paying more or less than borrowed amount. with so much evidence form Quran and Hadith why riba is wrong it’s an unjust system. Renting = dead money? You using someone service/item/home hence you gotta pay for it nothing is free. I pay $530 a week rent my parents pay $5500 a month I don’t see the need to live in debt just to own a home after 30 years if you live long enough. Both my parents have to work just to provide but Al hamdullilah I can provide for my family of a single income. Think about all of these things. Don’t fall into the traps and sometimes you have to take sacrifices for the sake of allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)