Apabila melihat isu YB khalid samad & YB Zul, rasanya ia membuatkan puak2 UMNO bertepuk tangan kerana melihat dua sahabat ini berbalah dalam mempertahankan pendirian masing2 didalam isu penggunaan kalimah Allah. Perkara sedemikian menunjukkan kerapuhan didalam pakatan rakyat dalam mencapai kesepakatan berhubung isu ini. walaupun PKR&PAS sudah membuat ketetapan serta pendirian bahawa non muslim dibenarkan menggunakan kalimah Allah selagi mana mereka tidak menyalah gunakan kalimah tersebut dgn tujuan menghina,mencaci atau mempunyai maksud yg tersembunyi terhadap umat Islam sehingga menggugat akidah mereka.
Pemimpin tertinggi PAS melihat ia dari sudut dakwah bagi mendekatkan non muslimm kepada Islam.Namun begitu, terdapat segelintir pemimpin2 PAS&PKR yg tidak setuju & menentang tindakan parti membenarkan penggunaan kalimah Allah dgn alasan berdasarkan dalil2 & nas2 didalam al-quran.Antara mereka adalah Dr Haron Din & YB Zulkifli Noordin. Tindakan YB zul membuat laporan polis terhadap YB khalid samad menimbulkan pelbagai reaksi dr semua pihak didalam PR.
Bagi saya, penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh non muslim ada pro & kontranya. Sebagai muslim, kita perlu duduk berbincang & mencari jalan penyelesaian dalam masalah ini. Saya tidak faham mengapa mahkamah sivil yang membuatkan keputusan samada non muslim dibenarkan menggunakan nama Allah atau tidak. sedangkan nama Allah adalah berkaitan dengan umat Islam & umat islam ataupun para ulama & pemikir Islam lah yg perlu menentukan samada non muslim layak atau tidak menggunakan nama Allah.
Ia menjadi tanda tanya bagi saya adakah suatu hari nanti perkara berkaitan dgn syariah akan dibawa ke mahkamah sivil??? Berkait dengan YB Zul, media2 pro UMNO mengemburkan bahwa YB akan keluar parti dan dipelawa@dijemput menyertai UMNO kerana bg mereka pendirian YB sama dgn ketetapan UMNO berkaitan peggunaan nama Allah ini. Spekulasi ini timbul dari susulan tindakan yg akan ditetapkan oleh jawatankuasa displin PKR. saya melihat, walau apa pun tindakan atau hukuman yg akan dikenakan oleh parti terhadap YB, beliau sepatutnya berdiri teguh dibelakang DSAI&PKR bagi meneruskan perjuangan politik beliau. Bukan hanya kerana masalah atau berbeza pendapat didalam sesuatu isu, YB perlu keluar parti. Itu bukanlah satu jalan penyelesaiannya.
Adakah jika YB melompat menyertai UMNO, perbezaan pendapat atau ideologi tidak akan timbul?? Lihat shj apa yg telah berlaku kepada zaid ibrahim, rasanya YB cukup jelas apa yg berlaku terhadap beliau. YB telah komen didalam blog YB sendiri. Saya mengharapkan YB istiqamah dan bersabar dalam perjuangan politik YB. Kerana bg saya YB adalah satu aset berharga buat PKR. Didalam sesuatu parti atau faction perlu wujudnya 'contrarist' bagi mengimbangkan pendapat atau pandangan yg dirasa tidak benar atau tidak menepati kehendak agama khususnya.
Perdebatan yg belaku bukan lah bagi mengundang permusuhan tetapi sebaliknya untuk mencari kesepakatan atau satu 'cure' yg terbaik bagi sesuatu permasalahan yg timbul. saya juga berharap YB khalid & YB zul yg sedang bertegang ini tidak bermusuhan. kerana mereka amat diperlukan oleh parti bagi meneruskan perjuangan serta khidmat mereka amat ditagihkan bukan shj pejuang2 Allah malah rakyat di Kulim & Shah Alam.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Parti pembangkang menang besar
TOKYO 30 Ogos - Parti pembangkang Jepun, Parti Demokratik (DPJ) mencatat kemenangan besar pada pilihan raya umum negara ini hari ini, menewaskan parti pemerintah Parti Liberal Demokratik (LDP) pimpinan Taro Aso.
Ia merupakan satu catatan sejarah dalam politik Jepun dalam tempoh lebih separuh abad.
Mengikut tinjauan yang dijalankan oleh TV Asahi, sebaik-baik pengundian tamat hari ini, DPJ dijangka memenangi 315 kerusi daripada 480 kerusi di Dewan Rendah, manakala Tokyo Broadcasting System pula meramalkan parti pembangkang berhaluan tengah-kiri itu akan memenangi 321 kerusi.
Badan penyiaran awam, NHK pula meramalkan DPJ akan memenangi antara 298 dan 329 kerusi, berbanding antara 84 hingga 131 kerusi oleh parti konservatif LDP pimpinan Perdana Menteri Taro Aso, 68 tahun.
Nippon Television pula menjangkakan DPJ memenangi 324 kerusi berbanding LDP sebanyak 96 kerusi.
"Ia merupakan kemenangan besar. Ia pilihan raya yang dramatik," kata wartawan veteran yang berkhidmat dengan akhbar harian Asahi Shimbun, Hiroshi Hoshi kepada TV Asahi.
LDP - yang telah memerintah Jepun sejak 1955 kecuali 'berehat sekejap' selama 10-bulan pada 1993-1994, mempunyai 303 kerusi di Parlimen berbanding DPJ sebanyak 112 kerusi sebelum Parlimen dibubarkan Julai lalu.
Taro Aso
DPJ yang diketuai Yukio Hatoyama, 62, dijangka menubuhkan Kabinet baru, dalam masa beberapa minggu lagi. Kemenangan besar ini akan memudahkan debat berhubung polisi di Parlimen, yang sebelum ini menghadapi kebuntuan berikutan kejayaan DPJ dan sekutunya menguasai Dewan Tinggi pada 2007.
"Parti pemerintah (LDP) telah mengkhianati rakyat sejak empat tahun lalu, menyebabkan ekonomi semakin parah, hutang awam meningkat melebihi enam trilion yen (RM225 bilion), pembaziran, merosakkan jaringan keselamatan sosial dan menjarakkan lagi jurang antara golongan miskin dan kaya," demikian menurut kenyataan DPJ ketika proses pengundian bermula pagi tadi.
Pegawai berkata, jumlah pengundi yang keluar mengundi adalah tinggi, walaupun diramalkan taufan menghampiri Jepun - menunjukkan orang ramai sangat berminat dalam pilihan raya kali ini.
Sementara itu, Taro Aso berkata, dia akan meletak jawatan sebagai Presiden LDP.
"Saya perlu menanggung tanggungjawab itu," katanya kepada stesen penyiaran, NHK. - Agensi
Bilakah agaknya parti pembangkang di malaysia nak menang besar mengatasi parti pemerintah???? jepun da mula melakukan perubahan...malaysia bila lagi??
Ia merupakan satu catatan sejarah dalam politik Jepun dalam tempoh lebih separuh abad.
Mengikut tinjauan yang dijalankan oleh TV Asahi, sebaik-baik pengundian tamat hari ini, DPJ dijangka memenangi 315 kerusi daripada 480 kerusi di Dewan Rendah, manakala Tokyo Broadcasting System pula meramalkan parti pembangkang berhaluan tengah-kiri itu akan memenangi 321 kerusi.
Badan penyiaran awam, NHK pula meramalkan DPJ akan memenangi antara 298 dan 329 kerusi, berbanding antara 84 hingga 131 kerusi oleh parti konservatif LDP pimpinan Perdana Menteri Taro Aso, 68 tahun.
Nippon Television pula menjangkakan DPJ memenangi 324 kerusi berbanding LDP sebanyak 96 kerusi.
"Ia merupakan kemenangan besar. Ia pilihan raya yang dramatik," kata wartawan veteran yang berkhidmat dengan akhbar harian Asahi Shimbun, Hiroshi Hoshi kepada TV Asahi.
LDP - yang telah memerintah Jepun sejak 1955 kecuali 'berehat sekejap' selama 10-bulan pada 1993-1994, mempunyai 303 kerusi di Parlimen berbanding DPJ sebanyak 112 kerusi sebelum Parlimen dibubarkan Julai lalu.
Taro Aso
DPJ yang diketuai Yukio Hatoyama, 62, dijangka menubuhkan Kabinet baru, dalam masa beberapa minggu lagi. Kemenangan besar ini akan memudahkan debat berhubung polisi di Parlimen, yang sebelum ini menghadapi kebuntuan berikutan kejayaan DPJ dan sekutunya menguasai Dewan Tinggi pada 2007.
"Parti pemerintah (LDP) telah mengkhianati rakyat sejak empat tahun lalu, menyebabkan ekonomi semakin parah, hutang awam meningkat melebihi enam trilion yen (RM225 bilion), pembaziran, merosakkan jaringan keselamatan sosial dan menjarakkan lagi jurang antara golongan miskin dan kaya," demikian menurut kenyataan DPJ ketika proses pengundian bermula pagi tadi.
Pegawai berkata, jumlah pengundi yang keluar mengundi adalah tinggi, walaupun diramalkan taufan menghampiri Jepun - menunjukkan orang ramai sangat berminat dalam pilihan raya kali ini.
Sementara itu, Taro Aso berkata, dia akan meletak jawatan sebagai Presiden LDP.
"Saya perlu menanggung tanggungjawab itu," katanya kepada stesen penyiaran, NHK. - Agensi
Bilakah agaknya parti pembangkang di malaysia nak menang besar mengatasi parti pemerintah???? jepun da mula melakukan perubahan...malaysia bila lagi??
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Majlis fatwa diminta ulas tuduhan Nik Aziz??
Petikan Akhbar Kosmo! Online
PUTRAJAYA - Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan dan ulama diminta mengeluarkan kenyataan berhubung tuduhan Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat kononnya ajaran Islam yang dibawa oleh UMNO tidak boleh membawa seseorang Muslim masuk syurga.
Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin berkata, adalah wajar jika ulama meneliti apa yang telah diungkapkan oleh Nik Aziz dan memberikan pandangan sama ada kenyataan Mursyidul Am Pas itu benar daripada segi Islam, atau jika bercanggah, apakah pula hukumnya.
"Saya dah cakap akan keluarlah fatwa-fatwa baru (daripada pembangkang). Jadi, jangkaan saya betul kerana kita menghadapi pilihan raya kecil di Permatang Pasir.
"Walaupun saya faham agama, tetapi kenyataan saya berbaur politik. Dalam soal ini, saya tidak mahu guna politik. Ini soal hukum, soal akidah dan soal agama.
"Lebih baik para alim ulama dan Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan buat keputusan sebenarnya. Kalau lebih cepat, lebih bagus," katanya selepas melancarkan buku siri Evolusi Kepimpinan 1 karya Prof. Khairil Annas Jusoh di sini semalam.
Menurut Muhyiddin, sebagai seorang yang beriman dan faham tentang agama Islam adalah tidak wajar Nik Aziz mengeluarkan kenyataan sedemikian.
Pendapat Saya...Apabila seorang ulama mengeluarkan kenyatan bahawa "tidak masuk syurga jika masuk umno", itu bukanlah satu fatwa yang mengharuskan atau menghalalkan satu cara. akan tetapi ia merupakan satu kenyataan berbentuk untuk memberi peringatan atau satu nasihat bahawa bersama suatu kumpulan yang menyimpang dari syariat Islam patut kita sebagai Muslim menjauhi kumpulan tersebut.
Muhyiddin yassin sepertinya menggunakan kenyataan Nik Aziz ini bagi mencemarkan keperibadian tok guru dan mempergunakannya untuk menjana modal kempen pilihanaraya di Permatang pasir. sejak akhir2 ini, muhyiddin terlalu banyak melakukan serangan kepada tok guru Nik Aziz. Dengan mempergunakan segala kata2 atau kenyataan yang dikeluarkan oleh tok guru yang mana, mungkin disalah erti atau tidak difahami maksudnya yang sebenar oleh pihak tertentu.
Rakyat malaysia amnya, mengetahui apakah bentuk perjuangan yang dibawa oleh umno. perjuangan yang hanya bersifat keduniaan, perjuangan membela nasib bangsa melayu tetapi meminggirkan ajaran dan fahaman atau agama orang melayu itu sendiri iaitu Islam. pemimpin umno sendiri menolak pegangan akidah yang dibawa oleh Islam. Shahrizat abd jalil sendiri sebagai contohnya menyokong tindakan SIS dalam aspek pemakaian tudung dikalangan muslimah yang mana ia dianggap menyekat kebebasan individu berpakaian.Tetapi tidak hairan lah, shahrizat juga tidak tau bertudung mengikut syariat Islam.
Berita hari ini melaporkan Tuan Guru Dato' Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat sebagai ekstrem apabila menganggap dasar yang dibawa Umno iaitu memisahkan agama dan politik tidak akan membawa ahlinya ke syurga.Dengan sebab itu, pelbagai pihak mengecam Menteri Besar Kelantan itu. Diantaranya Mufti UMNO sendiri iaitu Mufti Perak, Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria yang dilaporkan menyebut tiada nas dalam al Quran dan Hadis mensyaratkan seorang itu perlu menjadi ahli sesuatu parti sebelum boleh masuk syurga.
Mengapa apabila Nik Aziz membuat kenyataan sebegini, Muhyiddin meminta para ulama dan pemikir Islam atau majlis fatwa untuk meneliti kenyataan ini. Mengapa tidak meminta majlis fatwa dan para ulama sekalian meneliti parti UMNO itu sendiri yang telah jauh dari Islam. Apabila timbul satu isu berkaitan agama maka mula ia mengatakan umno memperjuangkan agama , ini bagi menunjukkan kepada rakyat bahawa umno masih bersama Islam. Ini semuanya retorik belaka.
Dalam situasi sekarang semua mengetahui bahawa pihak mana yang berjuang dalam mendaulatkan Islam dan kumpulan mana yang meminggirkan Islam. Justeru itu, kenyataan Mursyidul Am PAS mengenai mana2 pihak yang mendokong parti yang memisahkan agama dan politik tidak akan masuk syurga adalah tepat dan tidak menyalahi hukum agama.
wallahualam...
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
THE NATURE OF RIBA IN ISLAM
By M. UMER CHAPRA
Socio-economic justice is one of the cherished goals of all societies. There is, however, a difference of opinion on the strategy that should be used to realize this goal. In spite of this difference, one element which is common in the strategy of four of the world’s major religions (Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is the prohibition of interest? Since the followers of the first three of these religions have in general moved away from this prohibition, there are some Muslims who wish to do the same by arguing that what Islam has prohibited is riba and not interest. In their opinion bank interest is not riba. This raises the question of whether interest is really prohibited in Islam. This paper tries to answer this question in the light of the Qur’an, hadith and fiqh.
The consensus prevailing among Muslims throughout history has been, and continues to be, that riba among other things, includes interest. This consensus is clearly reflected in the unanimous verdict of a number of international conferences of fuqaha (jurists) which have been held to discuss the question of riba, including the Mu’tamar al-Fiqh al-Islami held in Paris in 1951 and in Cairo in 1965, and the OIC and Rabitah Fiqh Committee meetings held in 1985 and 1986 in Cairo and Makkah respectively. The Pakistan Council of Islamic Ideology clearly reflected this consensus when it concluded in its 1980 report on the elimination of interest from the Pakistan economy that: “The term riba encompasses interest in all its manifestations irrespective of whether it relates to loans for consumption purposes or for productive purposes, whether the loans are of a personal nature or of a commercial type, whether the borrower is a government, a private individual or a concern, and whether the rate of interest is low or high”.
The Prohibition of Riba
The prohibition of riba appears in the Qur’an in four different revelations. The first of these (30:39), revealed in Makkah, emphasized that while interest deprived wealth of God’s blessings, charity raised it manifold. The second (4:161), revealed in the early Madinah period, severely condemned it, in line with its prohibition in the previous scriptures. It placed those who took riba in juxtaposition with those who wrongfully appropriated other people’s property and threatened both with severe punishment from God. The third revelation (3:130-2), around the second or third year after Hijrah, enjoined Muslims to keep away from riba if they desired their own welfare (in the comprehensive Islamic sense). The fourth revelation (2:275-81), near the completion of the Prophet’s mission, severely censured those who take riba by declaring them to be at war with God and His Messenger, established a clear distinction between trade and riba, and required Muslims to annul all outstanding riba, instructing them to take only the principal amount, and to forego even this in case of the borrowers’ hardship.
The Prophet, peace and blessings of God be on him, also condemned in the most unambiguous words not only those who take riba but also those who give riba and those who record the transaction or act as witnesses to it. He even equated the taking of riba to committing adultery thirty-six times or being guilty of incest with one’s own mother.
The meaning of riba
After knowing this severe verdict of the Qur’an and the Sunnah against riba, it is necessary to determine what the term riba really stands for. Riba literally means increase, addition, expansion or growth. It is, however, not every increase or growth which has been prohibited by Islam. In the Shari‘ah, riba technically refers to the “premium” that must be paid by the borrower to the lender along with the principal amount as a condition for the loan or for an extension in its maturity. In this sense, riba has the same meaning and import as interest in accordance with the consensus of all the fuqaha without any exception. The term riba is, however, used in the Shari‘ah in two senses. The first is riba al-nasi’ah and the second is riba al-fadl.
Riba al-Nasi’ah
The term nasi’ah comes from the root nasa’a which means to postpone, defer, or wait, and refers to the time that is allowed to the borrower to repay the loan in return for the ‘addition’ or the ‘premium’. Hence riba al-nasi’ah is equivalent to the interes charged on loans. It is in this sense that the term riba has been used in the Qur’an in verse 2:275, which states that “God has allowed trade and forbidden riba (interest)” The prohibition of riba al-nasi’ah essentially implies that the fixing in advance of a positive rate of return on a loan as a reward for waiting is not permitted by the Shari‘ah. It makes no difference whether the rate of return is small or big, or a fixed or variable per cent of the principal, or an absolute amount to be paid in advance or on maturity, or a gift or service to be received as a condition for the loan. The point in question is the predetermined positiveness of the return. It is important to note that, according to the Shari‘ah, the waiting involved in the repayment of a loan does not by itself justify a positive reward.
There is hardly any room even for arguing that the prohibition applies only to consumption loans and not to business loans. This is because the borrowing during the Prophets’ times was not for consumption purposes but rather mainly for financing long distance trade. Accordingly, the late Shaykh Abu Zahrah, one of the most prominent and respected Islamic scholars of this century, has rightly pointed out that: There is absolutely no evidence to support that the riba of al-Jahiliyyah [pre-Islamic days] was on consumption and not on development loans. In fact the loans for which a research scholar finds support in history are production loans. The circumstances of the Arabs, the position of Makkah and the trade of Quraysh, all lend support to the assertion that the loans were for production and not consumption purposes.
Even Professor Abraham Udovitch, Ex-Chairman of the Department of Near Eastern Studies at the Princeton University, has clarified that “Any assertion that medieval credit was for consumption only and not for production, is just untenable with reference to the medieval Near East”. Hence, the Quranic verse about remitting the principal in the event of the borrower’s hardship does not refer to consumption loans. It refers essentially to interest-based business loans where the borrower had encountered losses and was unable to repay even the principal, leave alone the interest. The whole argument that interest causes hardship only for the one who borrows for consumption needs is misfounded. It is the obligation of the Muslim society to meet the dire consumption needs of the poor. Borrowing for conspicuous consumption has been discoursed by Islam and most of the borrowing in the classical Muslim society was for business purposes.
It is only in this context that one may be able to understand the argument of the Jahiliyyah that trade is like interest and the distinction that the Qur’an draws between trade and interest. While in trade an entrepreneur has the prospect of making a profit, he also faces the risk of incurring a loss. In contrast with this, interest is predetermined to be positive irrespective of the ultimate outcome of business, which may be positive or negative depending to a great extent on factors beyond the control of the entrepreneur. Imam Razi (d. 313AH/925AC) himself posed the question of what was wrong in charging interest when the borrower was going to employ the funds so borrowed in his business and thereby earn a profit. His well-considered reply to the question was: “While the earning of profit is uncertain, the payment of interest is predetermined and certain. The profit may or may not be realized. Hence there can be no doubt that the payment of something definite in return for something uncertain inflicts a harm.
Accordingly, riba is essentially in conflict with the clear and unequivocal Islamic emphasis on socio-economic justice. Financiers who do not wish to take the risk are entitled to only the principal and no more. Those who insist on charging riba in spite of its prohibition are declared by the Qur’an to be at war with God and His Prophet, peace be and blessings of God on him. On the occasion of his Farewell Pilgrimage, the Prophet, while declaring the abolition of interest, announced the remission of interest accumulated in favour of his uncle Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib. This was interest on business loans extended to the Banu Thaqif tribe. This tribe had not taken the loan from Abbas and others for fulfilling consumption needs but for expanding their business.
This was not an isolated case but a prevalent form of business financing in those days. Several tribe members having skill in trading acted essentially like large partnerships, borrowing finance from members of their own tribe or from other friendly tribes, to carry long distance trade on a large-scale, which their own resources would not permit. This is because they could not undertake too many business trips abroad from east to west. The slow means of communication, the difficult terrain and the harsh climate confined them to mainly two caravan trips during the year, one in summer and one in winter.
Accordingly they collected all the finance they could muster to purchase the exportable local produce, sell it abroad and bring back what was necessary to satisfy the entire needs of their society for imports during a specific period. Most of the interest-based transactions mentioned in the classical commentaries in relation to the prohibition of riba are loans taken by tribes from each other, each tribe acting like a large partnership company.I slam abolished the interest-based nature of these relationships and reorganized them on a profit-and-loss sharing basis. The financier got a just share and the entrepreneur did not get crushed under adverse conditions, one of which was the caravan being way-laid on the way. There is, thus, absolutely no difference of opinion among all schools of Muslim jurisprudence that riba al-nasi’ah stands for interest and, is haram or prohibited.
The nature of the prohibition is strict, absolute and unambiguous. However, if the return on principal can be either positive or negative, depending on the final outcome of the business, which is not known in advance, it is allowed provided that it is shared in accordance with the principles of justice laid down in the Shari‘ah.
Riba al-Fadl
While Islam has prohibited interest on loans and allowed trade, it has not allowed everything in trade. This is because it wishes to not merely eliminate the injustice that is intrinsic in the institution of interest on loans as well as all forms of dishonest and unjust exchanges in business transactions, but also close the backdoor to riba because, according to the unanimously accepted legal maxims of Islamic juris- prudence, anything that serves as a means to the unlawful is also unlawful. Since people may be exploited or cheated in several different ways, the Prophet warned that a Muslim could indulge in riba in seventy (several) different ways.
This is the reason why the Prophet, peace and blessings of God be on him, said: “Leave what creates doubt in your mind in favour of what does not create doubt” (cited by Ibn Kathir in his commentary on verse 2:275). Caliph Umar was thus inspired to say: “Abstain not only from riba but also from ribah”. Ribah is from rayb which literally means ‘doubt’ or ‘suspicion’ and refers to income which has the semblance of riba or which raises doubts in the mind about its rightfulness. It covers all income derived from injustice to, or exploitation of, others. Thus, it may be said in brief that anything that is unjustifiably received as ‘extra’ by one of the two counterparties to a trade transaction is riba al-fadl, which may be defined in the words of Ibn al-Arabi as “all excess over what is justified by the counter-value”.
The Prophet, peace and blessings of God be on him, has indicated, by way of example, at least four different ways of indulging in riba al-fadl. These are not all- inclusive but, nevertheless, help us understand the implications of riba al-fadl. The first of these is the exploitation that may take place in trade through the use of unfair means even though trade is by itself allowed. He equated with riba even the cheating of an unsophisticated entrant into the market (ghabn al-mustarsil) and the rigging of prices in an auction with the help of an agent (al- najash). Analogically one may conclude that the extra money earned through such exploitation and deception falls within the ambit of riba al-fadl. Another way of being guilty of indulging in riba al-fadl is by accepting a reward in return for making a recommendation in favour of a person.
This implies that the performance of an apparently charitable act with the intention of making money surreptitiously is also prohibited. The rationale behind this may be that such a money- motivated recommendation might give benefit to a person who does not deserve and, thereby, indirectly deprive others who are more deserving. A third way of indulging in riba al-fadl is through barter transactions because of the difficulty of measuring the counter-values precisely in such transactions. The Prophet, peace and blessings of God be on him, therefore discouraged barter in a monetized economy and required that the commodity to be exchanged on the basis of barter be sold against cash and the proceedings used to buy the needed commodity.
This leads to the fourth way of indulging in riba al-fadl which has received the maximum attention of the fuqaha. A number of authentic hadiths stipulate that, if the same genus of commodities is exchanged against each other, then the same quantity and weight of the commodities (sawa’an bi sawa’in and mithlan bi mithlin or equal for equal and like for like) should be exchanged hand-to-hand (yadan bi yadin).If the commodities exchanged are different, it does not matter if there is difference in weight and quantity, provided that the exchange takes place hand to hand. One of the implications of this requirement is the elimination of the backdoor to riba (which is referred to in fiqh as sadd al-dhari‘ah). Another implication of these hadiths, as understood by the fuqaha, is the prohibition of futures transactions in foreign exchange. This is because, if the rate of exchange is fixed in advance for a futures exchange in currencies, there may be a great deal of injustice if the market rate of exchange changes. The Shari‘ah, therefore, requires that in a futures transaction the exchange must take place on the basis of the rate prevailing on the date of settlement.
However, whether hedging, which is one way of managing the risks involved in exchange rate fluctuations, is possible within the constraints of the Shari‘ah is a question which needs the attention of the fuqaha.
Implications of the Two Type s of Riba
Riba al-nasi’ah and riba al-fadl are, thus, essentially counterparts of the verse “God has allowed trade and prohibited riba” (2:275). While riba al-nasi’ah relates to loans and is prohibited in the second part of the verse, riba al-fadl relates to trade and is implied in the first part. Because trade is allowed in principle, it does not mean that everything is allowed in trade. Since the injustice inflicted through riba may also be perpetuated through transactions in commodities and currencies, riba al-fadl refers to all such injustices or exploitations. It requires absence of rigging, uncertainty and speculation. It demands a fair knowledge of the prevailing prices and the quality of goods being purchased or sold on the part of both the buyer and the seller. It necessitates the elimination of cheating in prices or quality, and in measures or weights. All business practices which lead to the exploitation of the buyer or the seller must be effectively eliminated. While riba al-nasi’ah can be defined in a few words, riba al-fadl, interspersing a vast array of business transactions and practices, is not so easy to specify. This is what may have prompted ‘Umar, the Second Caliph, to say: “The Prophet, peace and blessings of God be on him, was taken without elaborating it to us”.
The attempt to justify riba al-nasi’ah or the interest on loans on the basis of this saying of Umar is absolutely fallacious because the reaction of Umar, by way of caution, was to give up not only riba but also ribah. It is true that the Prophet specified only a few ways of indulging in riba al-fadl and did not indicate all the different ways, as one may have desired. However, this was not necessary and not even feasible. Forms of injustice and exploitation in trade and exchange of currencies have changed over the centuries and it was not possible for anyone to foresee and specify them all 1400 years ago. The Qur’an and the Sunnah are there to provide the principles on the basis of which the Ummah can do so. This is the ongoing challenge to all Muslims to examine their economic practices continually in the light of Islamic teachings and to eliminate all shades of injustice.
This is a more difficult task than eliminating riba al-nasi’ah. It requires a total commitment and an overall restructuring of the entire economy within the Islamic framework to ensure justice. This was, and is, the unique contribution of Islam. While riba al-nasi’ah was well-known in the Jahiliyyah, the concept of riba al-fadl was introduced by Islam and reflects the stamp of its own unflinching emphasis on socio-economic justice. The principal reason why the Qur’an has delivered such a harsh verdict against interest is that Islam wishes to establish an economic system where all forms of exploitation are eliminated, and particularly the injustice perpetuated in the form of the financier being assured of a positive return without doing any work or sharing i the risk, while the entrepreneur, in spite of his management and hard work, is not assured of such a positive return. Islam wishes to establish justice between the financier and the entrepreneur.
Under these circumstances it is difficult to see how anyone could justify interest in an Islamic society. The difficulty to understand the prohibition comes from lack of appreciation of the whole complex of Islamic values, and particularly its uncomprising emphasis on socio-economic justice and equitable distribution of income and wealth. Any attempt to treat the prohibition of riba as an isolated religious injunction and not as an integral part of the Islamic socio-economic order with its overall ethos, goals and values is bound to create confusion.
For further information about "RIBA" practices visit the link below:
http://www.zaharuddin.net/content/category/14/50/93/
A lecture by Maulana Imran N. Hosein talk about "The Prohibition of Riba (Interest)Socio-economic justice is one of the cherished goals of all societies. There is, however, a difference of opinion on the strategy that should be used to realize this goal. In spite of this difference, one element which is common in the strategy of four of the world’s major religions (Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is the prohibition of interest? Since the followers of the first three of these religions have in general moved away from this prohibition, there are some Muslims who wish to do the same by arguing that what Islam has prohibited is riba and not interest. In their opinion bank interest is not riba. This raises the question of whether interest is really prohibited in Islam. This paper tries to answer this question in the light of the Qur’an, hadith and fiqh.
The consensus prevailing among Muslims throughout history has been, and continues to be, that riba among other things, includes interest. This consensus is clearly reflected in the unanimous verdict of a number of international conferences of fuqaha (jurists) which have been held to discuss the question of riba, including the Mu’tamar al-Fiqh al-Islami held in Paris in 1951 and in Cairo in 1965, and the OIC and Rabitah Fiqh Committee meetings held in 1985 and 1986 in Cairo and Makkah respectively. The Pakistan Council of Islamic Ideology clearly reflected this consensus when it concluded in its 1980 report on the elimination of interest from the Pakistan economy that: “The term riba encompasses interest in all its manifestations irrespective of whether it relates to loans for consumption purposes or for productive purposes, whether the loans are of a personal nature or of a commercial type, whether the borrower is a government, a private individual or a concern, and whether the rate of interest is low or high”.
The Prohibition of Riba
The prohibition of riba appears in the Qur’an in four different revelations. The first of these (30:39), revealed in Makkah, emphasized that while interest deprived wealth of God’s blessings, charity raised it manifold. The second (4:161), revealed in the early Madinah period, severely condemned it, in line with its prohibition in the previous scriptures. It placed those who took riba in juxtaposition with those who wrongfully appropriated other people’s property and threatened both with severe punishment from God. The third revelation (3:130-2), around the second or third year after Hijrah, enjoined Muslims to keep away from riba if they desired their own welfare (in the comprehensive Islamic sense). The fourth revelation (2:275-81), near the completion of the Prophet’s mission, severely censured those who take riba by declaring them to be at war with God and His Messenger, established a clear distinction between trade and riba, and required Muslims to annul all outstanding riba, instructing them to take only the principal amount, and to forego even this in case of the borrowers’ hardship.
The Prophet, peace and blessings of God be on him, also condemned in the most unambiguous words not only those who take riba but also those who give riba and those who record the transaction or act as witnesses to it. He even equated the taking of riba to committing adultery thirty-six times or being guilty of incest with one’s own mother.
The meaning of riba
After knowing this severe verdict of the Qur’an and the Sunnah against riba, it is necessary to determine what the term riba really stands for. Riba literally means increase, addition, expansion or growth. It is, however, not every increase or growth which has been prohibited by Islam. In the Shari‘ah, riba technically refers to the “premium” that must be paid by the borrower to the lender along with the principal amount as a condition for the loan or for an extension in its maturity. In this sense, riba has the same meaning and import as interest in accordance with the consensus of all the fuqaha without any exception. The term riba is, however, used in the Shari‘ah in two senses. The first is riba al-nasi’ah and the second is riba al-fadl.
Riba al-Nasi’ah
The term nasi’ah comes from the root nasa’a which means to postpone, defer, or wait, and refers to the time that is allowed to the borrower to repay the loan in return for the ‘addition’ or the ‘premium’. Hence riba al-nasi’ah is equivalent to the interes charged on loans. It is in this sense that the term riba has been used in the Qur’an in verse 2:275, which states that “God has allowed trade and forbidden riba (interest)” The prohibition of riba al-nasi’ah essentially implies that the fixing in advance of a positive rate of return on a loan as a reward for waiting is not permitted by the Shari‘ah. It makes no difference whether the rate of return is small or big, or a fixed or variable per cent of the principal, or an absolute amount to be paid in advance or on maturity, or a gift or service to be received as a condition for the loan. The point in question is the predetermined positiveness of the return. It is important to note that, according to the Shari‘ah, the waiting involved in the repayment of a loan does not by itself justify a positive reward.
There is hardly any room even for arguing that the prohibition applies only to consumption loans and not to business loans. This is because the borrowing during the Prophets’ times was not for consumption purposes but rather mainly for financing long distance trade. Accordingly, the late Shaykh Abu Zahrah, one of the most prominent and respected Islamic scholars of this century, has rightly pointed out that: There is absolutely no evidence to support that the riba of al-Jahiliyyah [pre-Islamic days] was on consumption and not on development loans. In fact the loans for which a research scholar finds support in history are production loans. The circumstances of the Arabs, the position of Makkah and the trade of Quraysh, all lend support to the assertion that the loans were for production and not consumption purposes.
Even Professor Abraham Udovitch, Ex-Chairman of the Department of Near Eastern Studies at the Princeton University, has clarified that “Any assertion that medieval credit was for consumption only and not for production, is just untenable with reference to the medieval Near East”. Hence, the Quranic verse about remitting the principal in the event of the borrower’s hardship does not refer to consumption loans. It refers essentially to interest-based business loans where the borrower had encountered losses and was unable to repay even the principal, leave alone the interest. The whole argument that interest causes hardship only for the one who borrows for consumption needs is misfounded. It is the obligation of the Muslim society to meet the dire consumption needs of the poor. Borrowing for conspicuous consumption has been discoursed by Islam and most of the borrowing in the classical Muslim society was for business purposes.
It is only in this context that one may be able to understand the argument of the Jahiliyyah that trade is like interest and the distinction that the Qur’an draws between trade and interest. While in trade an entrepreneur has the prospect of making a profit, he also faces the risk of incurring a loss. In contrast with this, interest is predetermined to be positive irrespective of the ultimate outcome of business, which may be positive or negative depending to a great extent on factors beyond the control of the entrepreneur. Imam Razi (d. 313AH/925AC) himself posed the question of what was wrong in charging interest when the borrower was going to employ the funds so borrowed in his business and thereby earn a profit. His well-considered reply to the question was: “While the earning of profit is uncertain, the payment of interest is predetermined and certain. The profit may or may not be realized. Hence there can be no doubt that the payment of something definite in return for something uncertain inflicts a harm.
Accordingly, riba is essentially in conflict with the clear and unequivocal Islamic emphasis on socio-economic justice. Financiers who do not wish to take the risk are entitled to only the principal and no more. Those who insist on charging riba in spite of its prohibition are declared by the Qur’an to be at war with God and His Prophet, peace be and blessings of God on him. On the occasion of his Farewell Pilgrimage, the Prophet, while declaring the abolition of interest, announced the remission of interest accumulated in favour of his uncle Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib. This was interest on business loans extended to the Banu Thaqif tribe. This tribe had not taken the loan from Abbas and others for fulfilling consumption needs but for expanding their business.
This was not an isolated case but a prevalent form of business financing in those days. Several tribe members having skill in trading acted essentially like large partnerships, borrowing finance from members of their own tribe or from other friendly tribes, to carry long distance trade on a large-scale, which their own resources would not permit. This is because they could not undertake too many business trips abroad from east to west. The slow means of communication, the difficult terrain and the harsh climate confined them to mainly two caravan trips during the year, one in summer and one in winter.
Accordingly they collected all the finance they could muster to purchase the exportable local produce, sell it abroad and bring back what was necessary to satisfy the entire needs of their society for imports during a specific period. Most of the interest-based transactions mentioned in the classical commentaries in relation to the prohibition of riba are loans taken by tribes from each other, each tribe acting like a large partnership company.I slam abolished the interest-based nature of these relationships and reorganized them on a profit-and-loss sharing basis. The financier got a just share and the entrepreneur did not get crushed under adverse conditions, one of which was the caravan being way-laid on the way. There is, thus, absolutely no difference of opinion among all schools of Muslim jurisprudence that riba al-nasi’ah stands for interest and, is haram or prohibited.
The nature of the prohibition is strict, absolute and unambiguous. However, if the return on principal can be either positive or negative, depending on the final outcome of the business, which is not known in advance, it is allowed provided that it is shared in accordance with the principles of justice laid down in the Shari‘ah.
Riba al-Fadl
While Islam has prohibited interest on loans and allowed trade, it has not allowed everything in trade. This is because it wishes to not merely eliminate the injustice that is intrinsic in the institution of interest on loans as well as all forms of dishonest and unjust exchanges in business transactions, but also close the backdoor to riba because, according to the unanimously accepted legal maxims of Islamic juris- prudence, anything that serves as a means to the unlawful is also unlawful. Since people may be exploited or cheated in several different ways, the Prophet warned that a Muslim could indulge in riba in seventy (several) different ways.
This is the reason why the Prophet, peace and blessings of God be on him, said: “Leave what creates doubt in your mind in favour of what does not create doubt” (cited by Ibn Kathir in his commentary on verse 2:275). Caliph Umar was thus inspired to say: “Abstain not only from riba but also from ribah”. Ribah is from rayb which literally means ‘doubt’ or ‘suspicion’ and refers to income which has the semblance of riba or which raises doubts in the mind about its rightfulness. It covers all income derived from injustice to, or exploitation of, others. Thus, it may be said in brief that anything that is unjustifiably received as ‘extra’ by one of the two counterparties to a trade transaction is riba al-fadl, which may be defined in the words of Ibn al-Arabi as “all excess over what is justified by the counter-value”.
The Prophet, peace and blessings of God be on him, has indicated, by way of example, at least four different ways of indulging in riba al-fadl. These are not all- inclusive but, nevertheless, help us understand the implications of riba al-fadl. The first of these is the exploitation that may take place in trade through the use of unfair means even though trade is by itself allowed. He equated with riba even the cheating of an unsophisticated entrant into the market (ghabn al-mustarsil) and the rigging of prices in an auction with the help of an agent (al- najash). Analogically one may conclude that the extra money earned through such exploitation and deception falls within the ambit of riba al-fadl. Another way of being guilty of indulging in riba al-fadl is by accepting a reward in return for making a recommendation in favour of a person.
This implies that the performance of an apparently charitable act with the intention of making money surreptitiously is also prohibited. The rationale behind this may be that such a money- motivated recommendation might give benefit to a person who does not deserve and, thereby, indirectly deprive others who are more deserving. A third way of indulging in riba al-fadl is through barter transactions because of the difficulty of measuring the counter-values precisely in such transactions. The Prophet, peace and blessings of God be on him, therefore discouraged barter in a monetized economy and required that the commodity to be exchanged on the basis of barter be sold against cash and the proceedings used to buy the needed commodity.
This leads to the fourth way of indulging in riba al-fadl which has received the maximum attention of the fuqaha. A number of authentic hadiths stipulate that, if the same genus of commodities is exchanged against each other, then the same quantity and weight of the commodities (sawa’an bi sawa’in and mithlan bi mithlin or equal for equal and like for like) should be exchanged hand-to-hand (yadan bi yadin).If the commodities exchanged are different, it does not matter if there is difference in weight and quantity, provided that the exchange takes place hand to hand. One of the implications of this requirement is the elimination of the backdoor to riba (which is referred to in fiqh as sadd al-dhari‘ah). Another implication of these hadiths, as understood by the fuqaha, is the prohibition of futures transactions in foreign exchange. This is because, if the rate of exchange is fixed in advance for a futures exchange in currencies, there may be a great deal of injustice if the market rate of exchange changes. The Shari‘ah, therefore, requires that in a futures transaction the exchange must take place on the basis of the rate prevailing on the date of settlement.
However, whether hedging, which is one way of managing the risks involved in exchange rate fluctuations, is possible within the constraints of the Shari‘ah is a question which needs the attention of the fuqaha.
Implications of the Two Type s of Riba
Riba al-nasi’ah and riba al-fadl are, thus, essentially counterparts of the verse “God has allowed trade and prohibited riba” (2:275). While riba al-nasi’ah relates to loans and is prohibited in the second part of the verse, riba al-fadl relates to trade and is implied in the first part. Because trade is allowed in principle, it does not mean that everything is allowed in trade. Since the injustice inflicted through riba may also be perpetuated through transactions in commodities and currencies, riba al-fadl refers to all such injustices or exploitations. It requires absence of rigging, uncertainty and speculation. It demands a fair knowledge of the prevailing prices and the quality of goods being purchased or sold on the part of both the buyer and the seller. It necessitates the elimination of cheating in prices or quality, and in measures or weights. All business practices which lead to the exploitation of the buyer or the seller must be effectively eliminated. While riba al-nasi’ah can be defined in a few words, riba al-fadl, interspersing a vast array of business transactions and practices, is not so easy to specify. This is what may have prompted ‘Umar, the Second Caliph, to say: “The Prophet, peace and blessings of God be on him, was taken without elaborating it to us”.
The attempt to justify riba al-nasi’ah or the interest on loans on the basis of this saying of Umar is absolutely fallacious because the reaction of Umar, by way of caution, was to give up not only riba but also ribah. It is true that the Prophet specified only a few ways of indulging in riba al-fadl and did not indicate all the different ways, as one may have desired. However, this was not necessary and not even feasible. Forms of injustice and exploitation in trade and exchange of currencies have changed over the centuries and it was not possible for anyone to foresee and specify them all 1400 years ago. The Qur’an and the Sunnah are there to provide the principles on the basis of which the Ummah can do so. This is the ongoing challenge to all Muslims to examine their economic practices continually in the light of Islamic teachings and to eliminate all shades of injustice.
This is a more difficult task than eliminating riba al-nasi’ah. It requires a total commitment and an overall restructuring of the entire economy within the Islamic framework to ensure justice. This was, and is, the unique contribution of Islam. While riba al-nasi’ah was well-known in the Jahiliyyah, the concept of riba al-fadl was introduced by Islam and reflects the stamp of its own unflinching emphasis on socio-economic justice. The principal reason why the Qur’an has delivered such a harsh verdict against interest is that Islam wishes to establish an economic system where all forms of exploitation are eliminated, and particularly the injustice perpetuated in the form of the financier being assured of a positive return without doing any work or sharing i the risk, while the entrepreneur, in spite of his management and hard work, is not assured of such a positive return. Islam wishes to establish justice between the financier and the entrepreneur.
Under these circumstances it is difficult to see how anyone could justify interest in an Islamic society. The difficulty to understand the prohibition comes from lack of appreciation of the whole complex of Islamic values, and particularly its uncomprising emphasis on socio-economic justice and equitable distribution of income and wealth. Any attempt to treat the prohibition of riba as an isolated religious injunction and not as an integral part of the Islamic socio-economic order with its overall ethos, goals and values is bound to create confusion.
For further information about "RIBA" practices visit the link below:
http://www.zaharuddin.net/content/category/14/50/93/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![](<a href="http://testi.iluvislam.com"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3598/3334811773_591f06f8b2.jpg" border="0"><br /><b>Dapatkan Mesej Bergambar di Sini</b></a>)
