[Faith-talk] Some Biblical views of usury, Re: The philosophy of Analogy in Islamic Shariah. And the verdict of usury.

[Poppa Bear]

Thanks for sharing this Mustafa. A few days ago my studies led me along this 
same foot path of truth so below I am pasting the various Biblical views I 
read in the Kings forest in hopes that some may get a better understanding 
about the Lords proclamations about usury. The text being considered is 
found in Psalm 15:5

"The demanding of
      excessive and grinding interest is a sin to be detested; the taking of 
the
      usual and current interest in a commercial country is not contrary to 
the
      law of love. The Jews were not engaged in commerce, and to lend money 
even
      at the lowest interest to their fellow farmers in times of poverty 
would
      have been usurious; but they might lend to strangers, who would 
usually be
      occupied in commerce, because in the commercial world, money is a 
fruitful
      thing, and the lender has a right to a part of its products; a loan to
      enable a non-trader to live over a season of want is quite another 
matter.
      C. H. S.
      Verse 5. "He that putteth not out his money to usury." By usury is
      generally understood the gain of anything above the principal, or that
      which was lent, exacted only in consideration of the loan, whether it 
be
      in money, corn, wares, or the like. It is most commonly taken for an
      unlawful profit which a person makes of his money or goods. The Hebrew
      word for usury signifies biting. The law of God prohibits rigorous
      imposing conditions of gain for the loan of money or goods, and 
exacting
      them without respect to the condition of the borrower, whether he gain 
or
      lose; whether poverty occasioned his borrowing, or a visible prospect 
of
      gain by employing the borrowed goods. It is said in Exodus 22:25, 26, 
"If
      thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt 
not
      be to him an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury," etc. And 
in
      Leviticus 25:35, 36, 37, "If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen 
into
      decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve him; yea, though he be a
      stranger, or a sojourner, that he may live with thee: take thou no 
usury
      of him," etc. This law forbids the taking usury from a brother that 
was
      poor, an Israelite reduced to poverty, or from a proselyte; but in
      Deuteronomy 23:20, God seems to tolerate usury towards strangers; 
"Unto a
      stranger thou mayest lend upon usury." By strangers, in this passage, 
some
      understand the Gentiles in general, or all such as were not Jews,
      excepting proselytes. Others think that by strangers are meant the
      Canaanites, and the other people that were devoted to slavery and
      subjection; of these the Hebrews were permitted to exact usury, but 
not of
      such strangers with whom they had no quarrel, and against whom the 
Lord
      had not denounced his judgments. The Hebrews were plainly commanded in
      Exodus 22:25, etc., not to receive usury for money from any that 
borrowed
      from necessity, as in that case in Nehemiah 5:5, 7. And such provision 
the
      law made for the preserving of estates to their families by the year 
of
      jubilee; for a people that had little concern in trade, could not be
      supposed to borrow money but out of necessity: but they were allowed 
to
      lend upon usury to strangers, whom yet they must not oppress. This 
law,
      therefore, in the strictness of it, it obligeth us to show mercy to 
those
      we have advantage against, and to be content to share with those we 
lend
      to in loss, as well as profit, if Providence cross them. And upon this
      condition, a valuable commentator says, It seems as lawful for me to
      receive interest for money, which another takes pains with, improves, 
but
      runs the hazard of in trade, as it is to receive rent for my land, 
which
      another takes pains with, improves, but runs the hazard of in 
husbandry."
      Alexander Cruden, 1701-1770.
      Verse 5. "He that putteth not out his money to usury." "If thou lend 
money
      to any of my people that is poor by thee." Exodus 22:25. Rather, 
according
      to the letter of the original, "If thou lend money to my people, even 
to a
      poor man with thee." The Israelites were a people but little engaged 
in
      commerce, and therefore could not in general be supposed to borrow 
money
      but from sheer necessity; and of that necessity the lender was not to 
take
      advantage by usurious exactions. The law is not to be understood as a
      prohibition of interest at any rate whatever, but of excessive 
interest or
      usury. The clause, "Thou shalt not be to him as an usurer," is 
equivalent
      to saying, 'Thou shalt not domineer and lord it over him rigorously 
and
      cruelly.' That this class of men were peculiarly to be extortionate 
and
      oppressive in their dealings with debtors would seem to be implied by 
the
      etymology of the original term for usury (Heb. neshek), which comes 
from a
      root signifying to bite; and in Nehemiah 5:2-5, we have a remarkable 
case
      of the bitter and grinding effects resulting from the creditor's 
rights
      over the debtor. A large portion of the people had not only mortgaged
      their lands, vineyards, and houses, but had actually sold their sons 
and
      daughters into bondage, to satisfy the claims of their grasping 
creditors.
      In this emergency Nehemiah espoused the cause of the poor, and 
compelled
      the rich, against whom he called the people together, to remit the 
whole
      of their dues; and, moreover, exacted from them an oath that they 
would
      never afterwards oppress their poor brethren for the payment of those
      debts. This was not because every part of those proceedings had been
      contrary to the letter of the Mosaic law, but because it was a 
flagrant
      breach of equity under the circumstances. It was taking a cruel and
      barbarous advantage of the necessities of their brethren, at which God 
was
      highly indignant, and which his servants properly rebuked. From this 
law
      the Hebrew canonists have gathered a general rule, that "Whoso 
exacteth of
      a poor man, and knoweth that he hath not aught to pay him, he
      transgresseth against this prohibition, Thou shalt not be to him as an
      exacting creditor." (Maimonides, in Ainsworth.) We nowhere learn from 
the
      institutes delivered by Moses that the simple taking of interest,
      especially from the neighbouring nations (Deuteronomy 23:19, 20), was
      forbidden to the Israelites; but the divine law would give no 
countenance
      to the griping and extortionate practices to which miserly 
money-lenders
      are always prone. The deserving and industrious poor might sometimes 
be
      reduced to such straits, that pecuniary accommodations might be very
      desirable to them; and towards such God would inculcate a mild, kind, 
and
      forbearing spirit, and the precept is enforced by the relation which 
they
      sustained to him: q.d., "Remember that you are lending to my people, 
my
      poor; and therefore, take no advantage of their necessities. Trust me
      against the fear of loss, and treat them kindly and generously." 
George
      Bush, in "Notes on the Book of Exodus," 1856.
      Verse 5. "He that putteth not out his money to usury." With respect to 
the
      first clause, as David seems to condemn all kinds of usury in general, 
and
      without exception, the very name has been everywhere held in 
detestation.
      But crafty men have invented specious names under which to conceal the
      vice; and thinking by this artifice to escape, they have plundered 
with
      greater excess than if they had lent on usury avowedly and openly. 
God,
      however, will not be dealt with and imposed upon by sophistry and 
false
      pretenses. He looks upon the thing as it really is. There is no worse
      species of usury than an unjust way of making bargains, where equity 
is
      disregarded on both sides. Let us, then, remember that all bargains, 
in
      which the one party unrighteously strives to make gain by the loss of 
the
      other party, whatever name may be given to them, are here condemned. 
It
      may be asked, whether all kinds of usury are to be put into this
      denunciation, and regarded as alike unlawful? If we condemn all 
without
      distinction, there is a danger lest many, seeing themselves brought 
into
      such a strait as to find that sin must be incurred, in whatever way 
they
      can turn themselves, may be rendered bolder by despair, and may rush
      headlong into all kinds of usury without choice or discrimination. On 
the
      other hand, whenever we concede that something may be lawfully done in
      this way, many will give themselves loose reins, thinking that a 
liberty
      to exercise usury, without control or moderation, has been granted 
them.
      In the first place, therefore, I would, above all things, counsel my
      readers to beware of ingeniously contriving deceitful pretexts by 
which to
      take advantage of their fellow men, and let them not imagine that 
anything
      can be lawful to them which is grievous and hurtful to others. . . . . 
It
      is not without cause that God has in Leviticus 25:35, 36, forbidden 
usury,
      adding this reason: "And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in 
decay
      with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, 
or a
      sojourner; that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or
      increase." We see that the end for which the law was framed was that 
man
      should not cruelly oppress the poor, who ought rather to receive 
sympathy
      and compassion. This was, indeed, a part of the judicial law which God
      appointed for the Jews in particular; but it is a common principle of
      justice, which extends to all nations, and to all ages, that we should
      keep ourselves from plundering and devouring the poor who are in 
distress
      and want. Whence it follows, that the gain which he who lends his 
money
      upon interest acquires, without doing injury to any one, is not to be
      included under the head of unlawful usury. The Hebrew word (Heb.) 
neshek,
      which David employs, being derived from another word which signifies 
to
      bite, sufficiently shows that usuries are condemned in so far as they
      involve in them, or lead to, a license of robbing, or plundering our
      fellow men. Ezekiel, indeed (chapters 18:17, and 22:12), seems to 
condemn
      the taking of any interest whatever upon money lent; but he, 
doubtless,
      has an eye to the unjust and crafty arts of gaining by which the rich
      devoured the poor people. In short, provided we had engraven on our 
hearts
      the rule of equity which Christ prescribes in Matthew 7:12, 
"Therefore,
      all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even 
so to
      them," it would not be necessary to enter into lengthened disputes
      concerning usury. John Calvin, in loc.
      Verse 5 (first clause). The Mosaic law forbids the lending of money 
for
      interest to an Israelite. Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:37; Deuteronomy
      23:19; Proverbs 28:8; Ezekiel 18:8. In several of the passages 
referred
      to, it is expressly supposed that money is lent only to the poor, a
      supposition which has its ground in the simple relations of the Mosaic
      times, in which lending, for the purpose of speculation and gain, had 
no
      existence. Such lending ought only to be a work of brotherly love; and 
it
      is a great violation of that if any one, instead of helping his 
neighbour,
      takes advantage of his need to bring him into still greater straits. 
The
      Mosaic regulation in question has, accordingly, its import also for 
New
      Testament times. With the interest-lending of capitalists, who borrow 
for
      speculation, it has nothing to do. This belongs to a quite different
      matter, as is implied even by the name (Heb.), a mordendo, according 
to
      which only such usury can be meant as plagues and impoverishes a
      neighbour. By unseasonable comparison with our modes of speech, many 
would
      expound, "His money he puts not to interest." E. W. Hengstenberg.
      Verse 5 (first clause). The worm called in Latin teredo, whereof Pliny
      hath reported something in his story, breeding in wood, to the touch 
as
      soft yet it hath such teeth as endeavoureth and consumeth the hard 
timber.
      So the usurer is a soft beast at first to handle, but in continuance 
of
      time the hardness of his teeth will eat thee up, both flesh and bone, 
if
      thou beware not. He pleadeth love, but not for thy sake, but for his 
own;
      for as the ivy colleth and claspeth the oak as a lover, but thereby it
      groweth up and over toppeth the oak, and sucketh out the juice and sap
      thereof, that it cannot thrive nor prosper; so the usurer colleth,
      embraceth, and claspeth in arms the borrower, that thereby himself may
      grow richer, and suck all wealth, goods, and riches from him, that he
      never thriveth or prospereth after. The pleasure the usurer showeth is
      like the playing of the cat with the silly mouse: the cat playeth with 
the
      mouse, but the play of the cat is the death of the mouse. The usurer
      pleasureth the borrower; but the pleasure of the usurer is the undoing 
of
      the borrower. The fox through craft slideth and tumbleth and maketh 
much
      pastime till he come to the prey, then he devoureth: the usurer maketh
      many fair speeches, giveth out many fair promises, pretendeth very 
great
      kindness, until he have got thee within his compass, then he crusheth 
and
      cruciateth thee. The usurer preyeth upon the poor, he waxeth rich at 
the
      penury of his brother, he clotheth himself with the coat of the naked, 
he
      gathereth riches of the indigency and want of his neighbour; he 
feedeth
      himself of the bread of the hungry, and devoureth his poor brother, as 
the
      beasts do the smaller; than which, saith Ambrose, there is no greater
      inhumanity and cruelty, no greater wretchedness and iniquity, as
      Chrysostom in many places, and Basil upon this Psalm, have well 
observed.
      Richard Turnbull.
 Verse 5. The rich make the poor to fill them; for usurers feed upon the
      poor, even as great fishes devour the small. Therefore, he which said, 
Let
      there not be a beggar in Israel (Deuteronomy 15:4), said too, Let 
there
      not be an usurer in Israel. For if there be usurers in Israel there 
will
      be beggars in Israel; for usurers make beggars, even as lawyers make
      quarrellers. . . . . It is a miserable occupation to live by sin, and 
a
      great comfort to a man when he looketh upon his gold and silver, and 
his
      heart telleth him, All this is well gotten; and when he lieth upon his
      death-bed, and must leave all to his children, he can say unto them, I
      leave you mine own; but the usurer cannot say, I leave you mine own, 
but I
      leave you other men's; therefore the usurer can never die in peace,
      because if he die before he maketh restitution, he dieth in his sin. 
Henry
      Smith.
      Verse 5. Biting usurers were so abhorred in the primitive church, that 
as
      they condemned the usurer himself, so they made the scribes, who wrote 
the
      bonds, and also the witnesses, incapable of any benefit; and that no
      testament or latter will, written by such should be valid. The house 
of
      the usurer was called domus Satanae, the house of the devil; and they
      ordained that no man should eat or drink with such usurer, nor fetch 
fire
      from them; and after they were dead that they should not be buried in
      Christian burial. The conclusion of this is (Ezekiel 18:13), this sin 
is
      matched with theft; and verse ll, with adultery; and verse 12, with
      violence; it is the daughter of oppression and sister to idolatry, and 
he
      that doth these things shall not dwell in God's holy hill. Albeit, 
these
      worldlings think themselves more honest than thieves and adulterers, 
yet
      the Lord maketh their case all alike. John Weemse, 1636.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doris and Chris" <chipmunks at gmx.net>
To: "Faith-talk,for the discussion of faith and religion" 
<faith-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Faith-talk] The philosophy of Analogy in Islamic Shariah. And 
the verdict of usury.


> hi, Mustafa,
>
> usuary or taking advantage of those less fortunate is a sin in all of the 
> three monotheistic religions.
>
> At 06:31 AM 2014/02/28 +0200, you wrote:There is a sdifference between the 
> banking profession asking interst in return for the financial risk they 
> take and in return for services rendered. Some traditions condemn the Jews 
> as greedy for just doing a job noone else wanted or wants for various 
> reasons.
>
> sometimes usuary is only within a percentage point of legal interst rates. 
> A personal friend of mine fell prey to that when her alcohoic husband took 
> out a loan , which she cosigned, and he promptly went out and total ed the 
> car that he had bought on that loan. my friend is retired now but for 
> years had to pay interst on the loan she had been tricked into cosigning. 
> It was only once personal bancrupcy became an option ion in Germany that 
> my friend got out of debt. My husband and I are in debt because of being 
> caught in the fangs of bureaucracy and it is incredible what fraudulant 
> loan offers we are getting. It is a good thing we do not have credit and 
> have never taken out loans before! There are a lot of villans in the 
> woodwork!
>
> Doris in Germany
>
>
>
>
>>Dear all, peace be with you.
>>
>>Today I would like to talk about the concept of analogy within Islamic 
>>Shariah.
>>
>>         What is Analogy in Shariah?
>>
>>Analogy is the utilization of inferential factors to determine a juristic 
>>verdict.
>>
>>It is considered one of the primary sources of legislation in the four 
>>madhabs.
>>
>>Madhab is the generic term for a school of thought within Islamic 
>>jurisprudence.
>>
>>Analogy within the four madhabs is intended for intellectual 
>>enlightenment.
>>
>>One of the most predominant privileges within analogy of Shariah, that it 
>>is characterized to be conciliative.
>>
>>It appositely accommodates different circumstances within different ages.
>>
>>Analogy within Shariah considerably represents its intellectual basis.
>>
>>     Many people are unaware of the significant role of analogy within 
>> Islamic shariah.
>>
>>It rationally measures the relevancy in between two objects or conditions 
>>that are thought to be similar in either their general states or 
>>circumstances.
>>
>>So for instance, drugs are entitled to the same degree  of prohibition as 
>>Alcohol, because they both have the same effect of intoxication.
>>
>>Analogy were used to determine the relation between the two which is 
>>inebriation.
>>
>>They both have this impact of causing excessive addiction and thus, they 
>>both were forbidden identically.
>>
>>This is a common example used in Shariah contemporary textbooks, to 
>>plainly illustrate analogy within elementary level.
>>
>>      Analogy were used to determine the level of similarity in between 
>> the form of usury within ancient merchandises and modern enterprises, and 
>> particularly, the ones brought by banking commercials.
>>
>>   I am intrigued though to learn about the verdict of usury within 
>> different denominations of Christianity.
>>
>>People need to be more erudite about the significant role of juristic 
>>analogy in Shariah.
>>
>>The problem that many of those who happened to be novice or untutored in 
>>the juristic field are speaking at the subject without acquiring the 
>>sufficient knowledge which makes them ineligible.
>>
>>That is a major threat to speak at something incompetently.
>>
>>It is an act of sacrilege.
>>
>>     I was fortunate to critically examine the core of the subject in 
>> depth at the university.
>>
>>Now, I would like to know what Christians think of practicing usury.
>>
>>What is their stance on this controversial issue?
>>
>>There is a wide range of opinionatedness complex within that subject.
>>
>>It really drives me up the wall when people fraudulently attempt to 
>>differentiate between the two.
>>
>>Who we are trying to fool?
>>
>>They are just the same.
>>
>>Do not attempt to delude us by making fraudulent diffeences between 
>>interest and yusury.
>>
>>There are many people who just like to fool themselves on that regard.
>>
>>I spoke to multiple juristic clerics who have developed their thorough 
>>dissertations on the subject.
>>
>>I knew a prominent cleric who composed his doctoral thesis on the subject 
>>of usury recognition in contemporary enterprises.
>>
>>He is now a well notable professor of Islamic jurisprudence at Al-Azhar 
>>University.
>>
>>He is not just some layman.
>>
>>     So please, give us a break.
>>
>>Do not be venturous in giving incorrect verdicts out of disinformation, 
>>and especially, if you are not certified in the field.
>>
>>This is a serious subject, it is certainly undiminished.
>>
>>         I once asked a Mormon about the verdict of usury in her faith.
>>
>>She basicly distorted my enquiry, as if you ask me; what is the verdict of 
>>yusury in Islam, and I would say to you; Old Macdonald had a farm.
>>
>>This is just nonsense.
>>
>>   For the sake of Allah, please tell us about what Christians think of 
>> yusury engagements, and be pious to the divine presence.
>>
>>I was gravely taken aback of what I heard from some self-appointed clerics 
>>who often appear on television giving false verdicts about the Islamic 
>>stance from interest.
>>
>>It is notorious that they are prejudiced with a particular agenda.
>>
>>They illicitly countenance some forms of interest, claiming that it is not 
>>considered yusury.
>>
>>May Allah guide them.
>>
>>It is like when a Cardiologist talks about Psychiatry and then he deceives 
>>you by proclaiming that both are just medical professions.
>>
>>        I am afraid,  that is just contempt.
>>
>>As Muslims, we never comply to a creature in the sacrifice of disobeying 
>>the Creator.
>>
>>Peace be with you.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Faith-talk mailing list
>>Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>>Faith-talk:
>>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/chipmunks%40gmx.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Faith-talk mailing list
> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> Faith-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/heavens4real%40gmail.com