3 ms·

> If people are free to practice Islam then they must also be free to choose not to practice Islam and require interest on loans. That's not the point of discu

> If people are free to practice Islam then they must also be free to choose not to practice Islam and require interest on loans. That's not the point of discussion. The argument is that we have known for literally thousands of years that charging interest on loans is a destructive practice. It's banned in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity for a reason. Yet we cry today at the mess we're in, as if we didn't know any better. > They are contractually owed a payment. Its not profit until expenses are subtracted. And there is always the risk that the other party does not return the money. They're owed more money than the capital. That's what is prohibited. It doesn't matter if it's profit or revenue. Banks operate and generate ridiculous profits on this basis. > It seems you may have identified a problems with the law then. So the law can't protect the contract? What's the point in writing a contract then in the first place? Take that away and no business contract makes sense anymore since it can't be enforced by the law.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> The argument is that we have known for literally thousands of years that charging interest on loans is a destructive practice. We don’t know that, we only know that Abrahamic theocrats have prohibited it. > They're owed more money than the capital. That's what is prohibited. It doesn't matter if it's profit or revenue. Yes, this is foolish. > Banks operate and generate ridiculous profits on this basis. Banks generate ridiculous profits in fractional reserve banking. In a system where they have to survive on the difference between interest collected and interest paid then they only profit when they make good loans and are able to collect them in a timely manner. > So the law can't protect the contract? What's the point in writing a contract then in the first place? How does the law draw blood from a stone? You yourself said the law is wrong for continuously accumulating interest on an unpaid debt. It seems youkve forgotten the problems you already identified. > Take that away and no business contract makes sense anymore since it can't be enforced by the law. This only applies to the business contract that we have both identified as problematic.
- gher-shyu3i 6y ago
  > We don’t know that, we only know that Abrahamic theocrats have prohibited it. (1) They're prophets. (2) We know that, look around you at what's happening. > Yes, this is foolish. It's not. Look around you at the disasters. > they only profit when they make good loans An interest bearing loan is, by definition, not good. It's predatory. So it means that those banks profit most on the most predatory loans, exactly as I was explaining. > You yourself said the law is wrong for continuously accumulating interest on an unpaid debt That's part of it. The argument is that the law protects interest bearing loan contracts instead of nullify them.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> The argument is that we have known for literally thousands of years that charging interest on loans is a destructive practice. We don’t know that, we only know that Abrahamic theocrats have prohibited it. > They're owed more money than the capital. That's what is prohibited. It doesn't matter if it's profit or revenue. Yes, this is foolish. > Banks operate and generate ridiculous profits on this basis. Banks generate ridiculous profits in fractional reserve banking. In a system where they have to survive on the difference between interest collected and interest paid then they only profit when they make good loans and are able to collect them in a timely manner. > So the law can't protect the contract? What's the point in writing a contract then in the first place? How does the law draw blood from a stone? You yourself said the law is wrong for continuously accumulating interest on an unpaid debt. It seems youkve forgotten the problems you already identified. > Take that away and no business contract makes sense anymore since it can't be enforced by the law. This only applies to the business contract that we have both identified as problematic.

gher-shyu3i 6y ago
> We don’t know that, we only know that Abrahamic theocrats have prohibited it. (1) They're prophets. (2) We know that, look around you at what's happening. > Yes, this is foolish. It's not. Look around you at the disasters. > they only profit when they make good loans An interest bearing loan is, by definition, not good. It's predatory. So it means that those banks profit most on the most predatory loans, exactly as I was explaining. > You yourself said the law is wrong for continuously accumulating interest on an unpaid debt That's part of it. The argument is that the law protects interest bearing loan contracts instead of nullify them.