4 ms·

Please note that not all "Sharia-compliant" financing models are in fact, Sharia compliant. As a matter of fact, many of them aren't (unfortunately). What ended

Please note that not all "Sharia-compliant" financing models are in fact, Sharia compliant. As a matter of fact, many of them aren't (unfortunately). What ended up happening is that many so called "Sharia compliant" solutions are simply changing the names (and some minor mechanisms) of modern day usurious offerings (e.g. bonds, mortgages), and then slapped the "Sharia" label on them. However, talk to proper scholars and they will tell you that they're nothing but usury in disguise. That being said, I've seen some good attempts at producing proper Sharia compliant offerings. But most people will not want them, because they have true risk sharing, unlike the modern financial system which feeds off the poor and widens the gap.

betwixthewires 6y ago
They absolutely are "usury" in disguise because usury is defined as lending for profit and forbidden and the governments of these countries have acknowledged that they cannot run a modern economy and develop a modern society without allowing for lending for profit, but they cannot admit this because there are serious consequences for admitting that the book is wrong on this topic. Define "true risk sharing", if you mean what I think you mean, the opportunity for a borrower to file bankruptcy is true risk sharing.
- gher-shyu3i 6y ago
  Many of the governments you're referring to have been installed by the West. They're either too lazy, or more likely, forced by the West not to implement a proper Islamic financial model. The ones that haven't been installed by the West are constantly fought to prevent them from prospering. Running an economy without lending for profit has already been proven to work, so the Book (Quran) most certainly isn't wrong about the evil of interest. Just look at Islamic history until post WWII and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, where colonialism followed and the occupiers brought with them and force installed their usurious financial systems. Even if you look at non-Islamic experiences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io2a4SOX22Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io2a4SOX22Y True risk sharing is where there is no contractual obligation for the lender (or "investor") to profit. Islam declares that any loan that produces any sort of benefit to the lender (tangible or intangible) as Riba - a term used to encompass a class of impermissible financial transactions which includes, but not exclusive to, usury and interest.
  - johnyzee 6y ago
    You can't really discuss usury in a modern context without taking into account, the entirely modern notion of what money is. I.e. the instrument of today's national currencies are entirely detached from what used to be considered money, which was what the concept of usury applied to. More specifically, when the government openly inflates the money supply by a certain percentage every year, then investing your cash into T-bills could suddenly be seen as merely a defensive move, to protect your holdings, rather than a usurious transaction with you as the benefactor. I am not arguing that point or another, but this is just one example out of many where the issue gets confused by the complications of the modern financial system. It could well be argued (and many do) that large swathes of the financial system is incompatible with Islamic principles, and that the only acceptable option is a radical reimagining of these structures. In that, they would agree with a growing secular movement who are increasingly discovering that the monetary and financial system is stacked against them, and enriches the few at the expense of the many. I guess what I'm saying is that it makes little sense to rail against 'usury' while ignoring the realities of the 'modern' nature of money.
    - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
      > I.e. the instrument of today's national currencies are entirely detached from what used to be considered money, which was what the concept of usury applied to. True. Which is another core problem. We should go back to proper money, not what we have today. Let's take a step back. Why did the governments decide to detach money from gold and other metals? It's because they want to be able to print money at will to cover their ever increasing debts, due to interest. What effect does this have on the average person? They work hard to save money, only to have their savings devalued because of someone else's greed and incompetence. This is not sustainable.
  - betwixthewires 6y ago
    That sounds like the "not real communism" argument. "Not real sharia". I would argue that SA is absolutely real sharia, and they have schemes to allow mortgages that function basically like lending but avoid mechanisms that would look like lending for profit by the letter. The problem with rules against lending for profit is that you have no incentive to let anyone use what you have for their own benefit. If someone comes to me with an awesome business plan and wants some money, if I want to help them I am going to expect them to take the risk on their business plan rather than subject me to it.
- FooHentai 6y ago
  Acknowledged but cannot admit? I'm a bit lost on what you're asserting here.

betwixthewires 6y ago

They absolutely are "usury" in disguise because usury is defined as lending for profit and forbidden and the governments of these countries have acknowledged that they cannot run a modern economy and develop a modern society without allowing for lending for profit, but they cannot admit this because there are serious consequences for admitting that the book is wrong on this topic. Define "true risk sharing", if you mean what I think you mean, the opportunity for a borrower to file bankruptcy is true risk sharing.

gher-shyu3i 6y ago
Many of the governments you're referring to have been installed by the West. They're either too lazy, or more likely, forced by the West not to implement a proper Islamic financial model. The ones that haven't been installed by the West are constantly fought to prevent them from prospering. Running an economy without lending for profit has already been proven to work, so the Book (Quran) most certainly isn't wrong about the evil of interest. Just look at Islamic history until post WWII and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, where colonialism followed and the occupiers brought with them and force installed their usurious financial systems. Even if you look at non-Islamic experiences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io2a4SOX22Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io2a4SOX22Y True risk sharing is where there is no contractual obligation for the lender (or "investor") to profit. Islam declares that any loan that produces any sort of benefit to the lender (tangible or intangible) as Riba - a term used to encompass a class of impermissible financial transactions which includes, but not exclusive to, usury and interest.
- johnyzee 6y ago
  You can't really discuss usury in a modern context without taking into account, the entirely modern notion of what money is. I.e. the instrument of today's national currencies are entirely detached from what used to be considered money, which was what the concept of usury applied to. More specifically, when the government openly inflates the money supply by a certain percentage every year, then investing your cash into T-bills could suddenly be seen as merely a defensive move, to protect your holdings, rather than a usurious transaction with you as the benefactor. I am not arguing that point or another, but this is just one example out of many where the issue gets confused by the complications of the modern financial system. It could well be argued (and many do) that large swathes of the financial system is incompatible with Islamic principles, and that the only acceptable option is a radical reimagining of these structures. In that, they would agree with a growing secular movement who are increasingly discovering that the monetary and financial system is stacked against them, and enriches the few at the expense of the many. I guess what I'm saying is that it makes little sense to rail against 'usury' while ignoring the realities of the 'modern' nature of money.
  - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
    > I.e. the instrument of today's national currencies are entirely detached from what used to be considered money, which was what the concept of usury applied to. True. Which is another core problem. We should go back to proper money, not what we have today. Let's take a step back. Why did the governments decide to detach money from gold and other metals? It's because they want to be able to print money at will to cover their ever increasing debts, due to interest. What effect does this have on the average person? They work hard to save money, only to have their savings devalued because of someone else's greed and incompetence. This is not sustainable.
- betwixthewires 6y ago
  That sounds like the "not real communism" argument. "Not real sharia". I would argue that SA is absolutely real sharia, and they have schemes to allow mortgages that function basically like lending but avoid mechanisms that would look like lending for profit by the letter. The problem with rules against lending for profit is that you have no incentive to let anyone use what you have for their own benefit. If someone comes to me with an awesome business plan and wants some money, if I want to help them I am going to expect them to take the risk on their business plan rather than subject me to it.
FooHentai 6y ago
Acknowledged but cannot admit? I'm a bit lost on what you're asserting here.