5 ms·

When are we going to realize that any lending with expectation of profit (usury, interest, etc.) is predatory? There's a reason that these loans are prohibited

When are we going to realize that any lending with expectation of profit (usury, interest, etc.) is predatory? There's a reason that these loans are prohibited in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Yet, we keep thinking that there can exist the phenomenon of lending for profit, and keep a society going without its destructive behaviors. Time and time again it's shown to be parasitic and causes huge inequality.

hawk_ 6y ago
i am pretty sure loans weren't prohibited in Judaism, there's a reason for that whole history of money lending in europe predominantly done by the Jews. as for interest always bring predatory - like many things it's not so black and white. it's about moderation and regulation.
- gher-shyu3i 6y ago
  It's prohibited for Jews to lend each other money with interest, ask any practicing Jew today. It seems to be a "loophole" that they're claiming that it only applies to lending money to each other, but not to gentiles. Interest cannot be done in moderation, we've seen those attempts countless times, yet it always gets out of control. It's not dissimilar with drinking. Some people may drink in moderation, but there will always be drunk driving and homicides and many other terrible things caused by drinking. No way around it with moderation.
  - hawk_ 6y ago
    interesting loophole. didn't know of it. but the answer can't be prohibition either can it? for drunk drivers, the consequences should be harsher no doubt. driving is a privilege not a right and should be recognized as such. but banning drinking alcohol altogether hasn't worked well in any society at large.
    - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
      > but banning drinking alcohol altogether hasn't worked well in any society at large. Nope :) I come from a society where when drinking was prohibited, people complied immediately. It was documented that the streets of Madinah were flooded with wine when the prohibition came down because everyone poured out their stashes. Of course, there will always be a small minority who will refuse to abide, either due to temptation or stubbornness. However, the prohibition under Islam has proven to work very very well. It's fallicious thinking to apply the failure of ban that was instituted in the US and generalize to other cultures. Islam has prohibited intoxicants 1400 years ago, but many people don't seem to bring it up. Edit: it seems people are downvoting our discussion.
MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
Lending is predatory. That doesn't make it unethical. Is it unethical for a lion to kill a baby zebra that couldn't get away? No that's the nature of the beast. People need to step outside this fantasy world that everyone can be winners/successful. Newsflash, they can't. We can have compassion for those that fail, hence why the US has some of the most relaxed and borrower favorable bankruptcy laws. People act as though bankruptcy is like suicide. It's not. You just aren't trusted with other people's money for 7 years. You can very easily keep your house if you have a good relationship with the bank (which happens more than you think). Banks hate foreclosure. They'd rather risk some missed payments here and there or refinance than foreclose. The system isn't perfect. But outright decrying it because the precepts of old religions where people told us we shouldn't eat shellfish or pork for arbitrary reasons is no basis in rational policy making. Should we base our policy of slavery on Muhammad's opinion about having slaves as long as they aren't Muslim? Like c'mon...these theologies do not contain the end all be all to the way life works.
- gher-shyu3i 6y ago
  > Is it unethical for a lion to kill a baby zebra that couldn't get away? Under an atheistic materialistic world view, we can kill off the entire population of the earth and it's all the same. However, we're not animals. Actually, even animals don't do that. > People need to step outside this fantasy world that everyone can be winners/successful. That's not what we're saying. Islam never says that everyone is going to be equally financially successful. As a matter of fact, people with wealth are going to be accountable for how they gained their wealth, and where they spent it, it's a test. That's why the poor enter Heaven before the wealthy, because they have less to be accountable for. Islam places barriers on exceedingly immoral and parasitic and destructive practices, like lending money with interest, fornication, drinking, etc., and everything else within those bounds is a fair game. That's why we witnessed the immense and unprecedented growth of a religion and population, reaching the Islamic Golden Age when the rules of Islam were generally being applied correctly (at least much better than today). > We can have compassion for those that fail If that's the argument, then Islam has even more compassion. Lend the needy money *without* interest, and give them charity (Zakat and Sadaqah), and more. We already know that there was a time in Iraq where there were no people left to take charity as people gave their Zakat and Sadaqah. > Should we base our policy of slavery on Muhammad's (ﷺ) opinion about having slaves as long as they aren't Muslim I think you have a misconception. Having or not having slaves under Islam has nothing to do with the religion of the slave. > told us we shouldn't eat shellfish or pork for arbitrary reasons is no basis in rational policy making We don't follow a religion because it tells us not to eat pork or shellfish. We don't determine the truth of a religion due to those same factors. It's the other way around, once it is determined that the religion is True, then we follow its rulings and teachings. > Like c'mon...these theologies do not contain the end all be all to the way life works. Depends on which theologies you're talking about. It's a fallacy to group all religions under one umbrella then toss them out altogether as equally false. Islam has proven to be a system that has brought up a culture out of nothing, and went on to give us the Islamic Golden Age, among many other beautiful things.
btheshoe 6y ago
yes, because what religions do and don't prohibit is such a great way of measuring what's right and wrong our entire economy runs off lending and debt. get rid of it and you make the world worse for everyone.
- gher-shyu3i 6y ago
  It's a fallacy to discard certain (or all) religious practices as outdated. Furthermore the notions of right and wrong do not exist in an atheistic materialistic world view. This is by admission of well known atheist figures. Today's economy runs off of lending, yet people keep crying from the inequality and other messes we're in, and keep trying to patch them up without success, and that's because the root is rotten, so it will never be fixed. We can learn a few things from economies that didn't run off of lending. See: Islam, and read about the Islamic Golden Age. We already know that there was a time in Iraq where there were no people left to take charity because everyone was well off and honest. That would never happen in an economy based on lending.

hawk_ 6y ago

i am pretty sure loans weren't prohibited in Judaism, there's a reason for that whole history of money lending in europe predominantly done by the Jews. as for interest always bring predatory - like many things it's not so black and white. it's about moderation and regulation.

gher-shyu3i 6y ago
It's prohibited for Jews to lend each other money with interest, ask any practicing Jew today. It seems to be a "loophole" that they're claiming that it only applies to lending money to each other, but not to gentiles. Interest cannot be done in moderation, we've seen those attempts countless times, yet it always gets out of control. It's not dissimilar with drinking. Some people may drink in moderation, but there will always be drunk driving and homicides and many other terrible things caused by drinking. No way around it with moderation.
- hawk_ 6y ago
  interesting loophole. didn't know of it. but the answer can't be prohibition either can it? for drunk drivers, the consequences should be harsher no doubt. driving is a privilege not a right and should be recognized as such. but banning drinking alcohol altogether hasn't worked well in any society at large.
  - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
    > but banning drinking alcohol altogether hasn't worked well in any society at large. Nope :) I come from a society where when drinking was prohibited, people complied immediately. It was documented that the streets of Madinah were flooded with wine when the prohibition came down because everyone poured out their stashes. Of course, there will always be a small minority who will refuse to abide, either due to temptation or stubbornness. However, the prohibition under Islam has proven to work very very well. It's fallicious thinking to apply the failure of ban that was instituted in the US and generalize to other cultures. Islam has prohibited intoxicants 1400 years ago, but many people don't seem to bring it up. Edit: it seems people are downvoting our discussion.

MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago

Lending is predatory. That doesn't make it unethical. Is it unethical for a lion to kill a baby zebra that couldn't get away? No that's the nature of the beast. People need to step outside this fantasy world that everyone can be winners/successful. Newsflash, they can't. We can have compassion for those that fail, hence why the US has some of the most relaxed and borrower favorable bankruptcy laws. People act as though bankruptcy is like suicide. It's not. You just aren't trusted with other people's money for 7 years. You can very easily keep your house if you have a good relationship with the bank (which happens more than you think). Banks hate foreclosure. They'd rather risk some missed payments here and there or refinance than foreclose. The system isn't perfect. But outright decrying it because the precepts of old religions where people told us we shouldn't eat shellfish or pork for arbitrary reasons is no basis in rational policy making. Should we base our policy of slavery on Muhammad's opinion about having slaves as long as they aren't Muslim? Like c'mon...these theologies do not contain the end all be all to the way life works.

gher-shyu3i 6y ago
> Is it unethical for a lion to kill a baby zebra that couldn't get away? Under an atheistic materialistic world view, we can kill off the entire population of the earth and it's all the same. However, we're not animals. Actually, even animals don't do that. > People need to step outside this fantasy world that everyone can be winners/successful. That's not what we're saying. Islam never says that everyone is going to be equally financially successful. As a matter of fact, people with wealth are going to be accountable for how they gained their wealth, and where they spent it, it's a test. That's why the poor enter Heaven before the wealthy, because they have less to be accountable for. Islam places barriers on exceedingly immoral and parasitic and destructive practices, like lending money with interest, fornication, drinking, etc., and everything else within those bounds is a fair game. That's why we witnessed the immense and unprecedented growth of a religion and population, reaching the Islamic Golden Age when the rules of Islam were generally being applied correctly (at least much better than today). > We can have compassion for those that fail If that's the argument, then Islam has even more compassion. Lend the needy money *without* interest, and give them charity (Zakat and Sadaqah), and more. We already know that there was a time in Iraq where there were no people left to take charity as people gave their Zakat and Sadaqah. > Should we base our policy of slavery on Muhammad's (ﷺ) opinion about having slaves as long as they aren't Muslim I think you have a misconception. Having or not having slaves under Islam has nothing to do with the religion of the slave. > told us we shouldn't eat shellfish or pork for arbitrary reasons is no basis in rational policy making We don't follow a religion because it tells us not to eat pork or shellfish. We don't determine the truth of a religion due to those same factors. It's the other way around, once it is determined that the religion is True, then we follow its rulings and teachings. > Like c'mon...these theologies do not contain the end all be all to the way life works. Depends on which theologies you're talking about. It's a fallacy to group all religions under one umbrella then toss them out altogether as equally false. Islam has proven to be a system that has brought up a culture out of nothing, and went on to give us the Islamic Golden Age, among many other beautiful things.

btheshoe 6y ago

yes, because what religions do and don't prohibit is such a great way of measuring what's right and wrong our entire economy runs off lending and debt. get rid of it and you make the world worse for everyone.

gher-shyu3i 6y ago
It's a fallacy to discard certain (or all) religious practices as outdated. Furthermore the notions of right and wrong do not exist in an atheistic materialistic world view. This is by admission of well known atheist figures. Today's economy runs off of lending, yet people keep crying from the inequality and other messes we're in, and keep trying to patch them up without success, and that's because the root is rotten, so it will never be fixed. We can learn a few things from economies that didn't run off of lending. See: Islam, and read about the Islamic Golden Age. We already know that there was a time in Iraq where there were no people left to take charity because everyone was well off and honest. That would never happen in an economy based on lending.