The subject of Ribaa is not merely an academic discussion, rather, it is one which can be generate frustration. Most items related to economic theory, politics and ideological projects, are actually much more complex and nuanced than usually imagined, and our subject is no different.
The Qur'an says that God allows trade, yet forbids Ribaa (Q 2:275). It also says that if it is not abandoned, the result would be to expect "war from God and His Messenger" ( Q 2:279). Therefore,it is important to understand what constitutes Ribaa, and to discover if any guidance exists within the Islamic teachings on economic subjects.
What is Ribaa?
As a word, it has to do with an unwarranted increase of wealth. It has been used to express theft or even oppression. Typically, it is rendered simply as "interest", or as "usury", the latter term meaning an extraordinarily high amount of interest to be paid to the creditor, in addition to the principal.
Admittedly, the terms "interest" and "usury" carry different meanings, so while the latter word is very clear, the former, in its popular usage, has caused a great deal of confusion.
How does the Qur'an address Ribaa?
There are only four sections of the Qur'an that addresses clearly the subject of Ribaa. A selection from each section, as well as contextual explanation and analysis, is given below:
(1) "Allah will deprive Ribaa(ft.1) of all growth, But will give increase for deeds of charity, for He loveth not creatures ungrateful and wicked." (Q 2:276)
Context:
Starting from Q 2:261, we have a discussion on the importance of charity (sadaqa). Almost as a contrast to that, Q 2:275 says that those consuming Ribaa stand as if touched by Satan. VV. 278-279 informs us that people of faith are supposed to abandon Ribaa, and are told to be aware of war from God, and not to act in an oppressive manner. Also of interest here is 2:280, which says that the one experiencing hardship (dhu- 'usratin) should be given time to pay by the creditor, yet that forgiving the debt is better.
Analysis:
The main target of this discussion is to provide a contrast between charity and profiteering. Q 2:275 tells us that while God has indeed allowed business, He has not allowed Ribaa. Trade is done for benefit, profit. Ribaa, similarly, is (mainly) profit driven(ft.2). What is the difference between "business" and "Ribaa"? Indeed, this very question is raised in the opening words of Q 2:275.
The context shows a wider societal problem, one which has parallels in today's world. With almost no exception, we are all under financial constraints, with limited access to funds for both immediate and long term needs. Thus, we are obliged to use credit cards, take out loans, and be subjected to ridiculous interest payments. This occurs on levels both small and great.
School loans has repeatedly been an issue in American politics, with many voices calling for a general debt forgiveness. A person can spend as much as fifteen, twenty years, paying off not only the principal amount, but the interest rates, seemingly never escaping that cycle. While there are certainly attempts to regulate these things, in general what is perhaps more disturbing is that the majority of us think of this as a normal occurrence.
(2) "O you who believe! Do not consume Ribaa, multiplied, doubled, rather, have reverence for God, so that perhaps you will be successful." (Q 3:130).
Context:
There are a number of disparate items in context here, including discussions on Jesus and the battle of Badr. The lack of engaging in Ribaa is associated with Taqwaa and "success". Q 3:134 describes those with Taqwaa, deserving of paradise, as those who "spend freely..restrain anger, pardons, who repent to God when they have wronged their own selves."
Analysis:
This is directed towards people of faith (alladheena Aamanoo), rich folks who, prior to the revelation addressing this, engaged in Ribaa alongside their Non Muslim countrymen. This verse, alongside Q 2:279, shows us that the job of Islam is not limited to theology and ritual. It is meant to be a means to remove oppression, tyranny, and ignorance that is harmful to society.
The "money-lenders" are viewed as profiting from the misery of others, taking advantage of them, in order to make themselves richer. The Prophet-Messiah Jesus, upon whom be peace, is said to have actually turned over, violently, the money changers tables within the temple (Matt. 21:12).
To plant the seeds for destruction, and thereafter benefit from it, is clearly another form of Ribaa that is condemned within this Quranic verse.
(3) "And they took Ribaa, though they were forbidden from it, consumed people's wealth in Baatil (ft.3), and We (Allah) have prepared for the Kaafireen a great punishment" (Q 4:161)
Context:
This is given in context of Jews who attempted to crucify Jesus, opposing his mission. Q 4:160 states that they "blocked many from the path of Allah". This would seem to suggest that they used their ill-gotten wealth to fund disinformation campaigns.
Analysis:
Jewish law allowed the charging of interest to Non Jews, but prohibited it when dealing with each other ( Deut.23:19, Leviticus 25:36). Interest was seen as taboo in Christian Europe (until relatively recently), thus, Jewish money-lenders were the ones that would issue loans needed by governments to wage wars, among other things. This-in part- was the reason that Christian Europeans viewed them with such hostility, often leading to violence and persecution.
The religious or ethnic/racial identity of powerful forces, who engage in oppression and disinformation campaigns, is actually not that much of an issue. Good people and bad people can be found in every community. Indeed, the Qur'an, in the very next verse ( 4:162) makes it clear that the previous description does not describe the group in their entirety. The Qur'an is very careful not to stereotype.
It states therein that there are Jews of knowledge and piety, who are rewarded by Allah. This is also found in Q 2:62 and Q 5:69.
(4)
" That which ye lay out for increase through the property of (other) people, will have no increase with Allah: But that which ye lay out for charity....it is those who will get a recompense multiplied."( Q 30:39, Yusuf Ali translation).
The word Ribaa appears in the original Arabic, as well as a present tense verbal form (liyarboo) which Yusuf Ali has translated as "increase". The context starts at verse 38, which speaks of the importance of charity.
Analysis:
We can go to verse 33 to 39, which speaks of man's dual nature of gratitude (when in need), and stingy (when armed with plenty), and God's overall provision. A greater sense of social responsibility is placed on people of faith, that their focus should be more upon Allah than it is for wealth.
Summary of above verses:
It is apparent that the religion of Islam seeks not only to free people from being slaves to heartless entities, it seeks to instill within its followers a sense of deep social responsibilities, particularly when they are blessed with wealth and power.
These verses seem to speak mainly on loan transactions, and shows that the mentality of the lender should not be of profit, but rather of humanitarian gesture. The lender certainly deserves his money back when the person in debt has it to return, however it should not be with the motivations of profit.
Modern life questions introduction
Since interest, at some level, is almost impossible to escape, a number of questions emerge. Our research of the writings of the scholars, as well as fatwa websites encompassing Muslims of various theological leanings, reveal that there are very different answers to the same queries. One example is that of obtaining a mortgage in order to own a house. Some scholars argue that it is fine, so long as it is only one house (arguing that housing is a necessity), therefore obtaining a second house, for profit, by securing a loan from a financial institution (the second home seemingly to either sell or rent out for profit) would be sinful. Others argue that, in fact, no mortgage is lawful, ever, that it is better to rent out an apartment for the remainder of one's life, than it would be to own one's home by securing a loan which would be paid back with interest.
While I will share some answers to queries of this nature, there are important observations that must be made first.
(a) In both a Western and Eastern context, Ribaa cannot be avoided unless we are willing to think outside of the box. I have long been an advocate of families and friends pulling their resources together to buy a house, all the parties having an agreement beforehand as to the home's use, maintenance and the like. In this way, ribaa could be avoided. Even from a worldly perspective, avoiding Ribaa also entails avoiding extra costs.
(b) The prohibition of alcohol, gambling, and intoxicants, by extension, forbids a number of other items associated with them, and those guidelines being in place goes a long way in having some financial stability, being able to make sound decisions.
(c) Qur'an 17:26-31 gives financial guidelines. In essence, we are neither to be wasteful nor stingy.
(d) In seeking funds for a business investment, consider seeking out an individual or group who would be willing to invest in a partnership, where all parties can either earn profit or suffer loss. When such investments are made, it goes a long way in creating a healthy economy for masses of people, as well as encouraging the investors to act with intelligence, planning and the like. Seeking the same from a bank or other financial institution would result in that institution getting back their principle investment, as well as interest, regardless of the success or failure of the business venture.
(e) All of these have to be put together if Ribaa is to be eliminated. As mentioned in point (a), thinking outside the box. The Somali community in the Minneapolis area have done work in this regards, a summary of which can be found at https://thetransformseries.net/2019/07/22/bypassing-banks-disrupting-mortgages-with-somalis/ . Another initiative taken by four sisters, to eliminate credit and school debt totally $182,000 in just two years, https://www.simplemost.com/four-sisters-got-rid-182000-debt-just-two-years/. (ft.4)
Modern life questions: some answers
We invite the reader to keep in mind that not every answer applies to every reader, this article is designed to make us think about alternatives to how we generally handle these affairs.
School Loans
While foundational education is free in the United States, colleges and universities are not. Most students, even from high income families, obtain, at some point, loans to pay their tuition fees. If interest bearing loans can be avoided, all the better, however if this is not possible for an individual student, it seems there would be no choice but to seek out interest bearing loans from financial institutions.
Mortgages/House loans
I think this depends on the unique situation of the buyer. Some people can easily save money, while others may not have access to that sort of income. It is without doubt that owning one's home is better than renting out, in that there is a stronger sense of security in the former. One argument is that mortgages are in fact lawful. They have always been seen as lawful in Islamic jurisprudence, minus the interest. Indeed, one argument I encountered that the "interest" labeled on a house purchase is actually not interest at all, but rather profit, which is allowed. One writer, Mahmoud Abu Saud(ft.5), cites Q 2:283 as evidence. After all, the value of a house can fluctuate, so a glaring injustice can emerge.
In any case, it seems to me that if sufficient funds are not available for outright purchase, the buyer can seek out a loan from an institution, with the intention of paying it off in a timely manner. However, the buyer has to be informed of the risks involved in such a transaction, and God knows best!
Car Loans
It is my view that this should be the least difficult of affairs. In an American context, buying a car without interest is relatively easy. Inexpensive,used vehicles are widely available, and even cars can be purchased without interest, if paid off in a timely manner.
Certainly, everyone's circumstances are unique. Those circumstances must be factored in before taking out a loan for a vehicle.
Credit cards
Most credit cards will not incur any interest if the balances are paid off within thirty days. Therefore, if the holder is a responsible person, there is no problem in using them.
Concluding thoughts
The modern economic system is not Divine. It has its many drawbacks. As individuals, as communities, I encourage my readers to think outside of the box. Islam certainly has elements which, if applied in a healthy and wise fashion, could eliminate many of the pitfalls mankind is currently experiencing. However, wisdom, and an awareness of our realities on the ground, are needed. For some of us, it is Islamically valid to eat pork, because we are in famine, but for others, it is totally forbidden. We have to look at our own realities, in order to find the answer that fits.
Footnotes
(1) The translation was taken from Yusuf Ali, with the exception that I kept the original Arabic word Ribaa.
(2) Sometimes Ribaa is employed as a means to bring forth enslavement, particularly in the international realm. A brief article explaining the International Monetary Fund (IMF) projects in these regards can be found at https://dailytimes.com.pk/280820/enslaved-by-debt/
(3) Baatil is a very rich and nuanced word. It can be false, weak, even ridiculous. In the Quranic verse cited, it carries the meaning of wealth being misused, misappropriated, spent to either "fool the masses" or to provide a false narrative.
(4) I wrote a brief article during the 99% movement's rise in 2011 which can be found https://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2011/12/99-percent-movement-handwriting-on-wall.html
(5) The book is called Masaa-il Iqtisaadiyyah Mu'aasirah by Mahmoud Abu Saud ( Ohio, 1986, Zakat Research Foundation)
33 comments:
Hello Waheed. This is an interesting article.
In your conclusion, you really do sum up the problem with Islamic religious views, but I don't think you understand the underlying cause of these problems. You acknowledge that it might be "Islamically valid" to disregard commandments when their is a greater necessity and that you need to consider "our own realities".
The problem with religious commandments is that they attempt to separate black from white. Unfortunately, we do not live in a black and white world. Verses that say that Allah loves this or that Allah hates that do not reflect this reality. The world that Allah created requires us to find middle paths.
As you point out, the Qur'an makes a connection between ribaa and sadaqa. In a sense, these are the "black" and "white". Loosely speaking, they connect to capitalism and socialism. In your article, you point to community solutions as a way to avoid ribaa. There are many examples of organisations that provide these mechanism in a structured way: credit unions, mutual insurance, cooperatives, communes and such things. These can be labelled as "socialist" or "communist".
In the USA, more than in any other Western country, there is a very strong anti-socialist voice. Politicians who advocate for socialist policies or anti-capitalist policies get ruthlessly attacked and get accused of "trying to destroy the free society that our forefathers fought for." The wealthy have created this fear of socialism.
Especially since the time of President Reagan and under administrations of both parties, the USA has been on a steady path towards unregulated capitalism and has been resisting policies that would promote greater social justice. We have elements like that here in Canada, too, but they are not nearly as powerful.
Anti-socialism is in many ways like a religion. In their world, socialism is the "black" and unregulated free enterprise is the "white". They are able to point to socialist experiment that have failed and conclude, in a religious kind of way, that socialism in any form must be evil.
The problem, as you can see, is that nothing falls neatly into "black and white". Societies that have eliminated all private property have failed. On the other hand, societies that don't regulate wealth at all have rapidly widening wealth gaps which quickly lead to violent social unrest. We need to find a middle path. Most Western countries have done a better job of finding a middle path than the USA. All but the USA have universal health care; many have low-cost or free post-secondary education; many have developed low-cost housing; most have low-cost or free public transit systems; a few provide basic minimum incomes. All of these reduce the wealth gap and improve social equality. These are socialist policies worth fighting for.
Our fight is a fight against the "religious" attitudes of the far-right that there are absolutes and that deviations from these absolutes will "destroy our society". This cannot be answered by a religion like Islam with its own set of absolutes. Both rely on fear and intimidation to advance their own interests.
Hello N.B.
Regarding your reply above, I actually agree with most of it, nonetheless, there are a couple of points you have shared that I would like to posit a thought.
* Certainly there is a "middle path" that has to be sought out in all matters, indeed, this is actually Qur'anic ( see Q 2:143).
*This does not negate that, as a matter of religious conviction, that alterations, reform, and, in some instances, radical changes, must be made in order to adhere to the Divine imperative towards justice, including economic justice, and social improvement.
*Prophet Muhammad did that when he forgave the debt owed to his family, and similarly the Quranic texts which forbade Ribaa.
*Islam does in fact recognize private property, so in this sense it certainly is not communist or socialist. Neither is Islam "capitalistic", although admittedly there have been attempts to explain the faith in language associated with those ideologies. I would say that a fair examination of Islam would show that it is, in these regards, a middle path.
* You are right in the examples you have cited regarding the USA vis a vis other Western nations insofar as social services and the like.
* The overall point of the article, as well as in the answers to particular queries, is that these are hard issues to address, especially in a Western context. How can we deal with crippling Ribaa in the world? There are some micro examples, some of which you shared, but I argue that the thinking pattern has to be more open, hard work and sacrifice, needed in order to remove the monster of Ribaa as much as possible.
* There is another aspect of this, which was not mentioned at all in the article, and that is is that there are ahadeeth, statements of the Prophet, peace be on him, in which the rise of Ribaa is associated with eschatological signs. There is an interesting Muslim scholar who focuses on this aspect in his books/videos. It maybe beneficial for you to have a look at some of his videos. His name is Shaikh Imran Hosein. I only share him because his analysis is nontraditional, yet provoking.
Hello Waheed.
I have watched part of Imran Hosein's video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRAcU48y04k It has provoked some thought in a number of directions:
1. I think you ought to be aware already of my opinions about "eschatological" arguments. Religious people, Christians and Muslims in particular, have been foretelling an "end of time" for centuries. How long do we have to wait before we reject such "prophesies"? Any argument based on these "prophesies" are scams and need to be rejected outright.
2. Both you and Hosein are attempting to understand the complexities of socioeconomics from the perspective of 7th Century Medina. There are two problems with this: First is that the issues are far broader than what you can find in Medina of that time and second is that we don't have much understanding of the problems that Muhammad was seeing in Medina. Who were the money lenders and what was their source of wealth? Who were the borrowers and what created their need to borrow? Perhaps it was the case that the banking system in Medina was simple enough that it could be abolished outright. Do we know?
3. Hosein is arguing exactly as I'm saying that we must not argue. I've only watched the first 30 minutes, but in that time he has attempted to draw clear lines between was is "halal" and what is "haram". However, I don't think it is possible to draw such clear lines. There is a middle ground that Islam is unable to recognise (and which Q 2:143 is not speaking about). Your article is an attempt to justify a middle path which is a compromise between was is COMMANDED in the Qur'an and what is possible in the real world.
It would be better to reject Muhammad's simplistic notions and look at the problems with an open mind. Both of you attempt to explain the distinction in Q 275 but, from a moral perspective, there is no need to make a distinction in that way. Both banking and trade/business can be exploitative and it is this exploitation that is the evil. Both banking and business can be fair, too, but "fair" is a relative term and most transactions that we regard as "fair" involve some degree of exploitation. That's the middle path that we accept.
Something I find surprising about the Qur'an is that it is able to absolutely prohibit "ribaa" but doesn't absolutely prohibit slavery. We choose to borrow money and by doing so we allow ourselves to be exploited by moneylenders; slaves do not choose slavery and do not choose to be exploited.
In modern times, we have "abolished" slavery, yet everywhere we look we see people being exploited by "business" in what amounts to slavery, but you want to give this a pass and blame it all on banking?
Once again, the Qur'an is a very inadequate guidebook. Its author was unqualified to make absolute pronouncements concerning economic policies.
@ N-B
Thank you for your comment.
(1) Eschatology or millenialism are certainly controversial issues, especially for those without faith. To be honest I view the "signs of the times" as found in the texts (Qur'an and Ahadeeth, or for Christians the Bible) to be things to be on the lookout for, when evaluating the health of the society, or even the globe. The texts of the ahadeeth- when speaking on this- are simply too clear for me to ignore. So while I can understand your perspective, I- on the other hand, have to atleast consider it. Historical exploration reveals that "Interest" was limited in Jewish tradition, and forbidden by Christians, until relatively recently.
(2) The world has indeed moved in a broader direction than Madinah (or Arabia itself) in the Prophet's time. There is information in the Quran commentary works on issues such as the identity of the borrowers and the like, but that's not particularly relevant for the moment.
(3) You have made a point regarding slavery and exploitative business. However, that is also (the latter and, to a certain extent, the former) addressed by the prohibition of Ribaa as well. Ribaa, as a word, is understood as theft, as a gain unjustly received. As for "slavery", we discussed that (the focus being on sex slavery) in a different article. The prohibition of "slavery", in a strong way that is found with alcohol and ribaa, was not made, and part of the reason being that "slavery" happens in different contexts, including war. In today's language, they are called "prisoners of war". Those convicted of certain crimes are sentenced to prison time, where (depending on a number of factors), they can actually work (and get a pittance of a "salary"). The reality of the US prison system led the likes of Michelle Alexander to write "The New Jim Crow", to show that slavery in fact still exists!
(4) Those taken prisoner during war, or as a result of a court conviction, do they choose to be in that situation?
(5) The system of borrowing money, for whatever reason, is indeed exploitative, even if it looks otherwise. This is especially true in the American context. There are high paying American athletes who have fled to Russia, as a means to escape the interest from the school loans. I think you are largely aware of these problems, and it is true that while all of us are involved with Ribaa in some level, it should be something we want to stay away from.
(6) The article looks at the Quranic texts on Ribaa, with the hope of understanding what is precisely prohibited, as well as modern application.
For people like me, there is nothing "controversial" about eschatology, just as there is nothing "controversial" about evolutionary theory or about the benefits of vaccines. These things are only "controversial" in the minds of unscientific people.
Muhammad correctly observed that nations are not permanent and that when a nation fails it is replaced by another. There are social scientists who study the rise and fall of nations and, with such study, we can have an understanding of the "signs of the times" that indicate when a nation is in decline. This is by no means a new field of study and some "prophets" and ancient philosophers already had an understanding of some of these signs.
Not only am I aware of the problems related to lending and of student loans, I have direct experience with both. I can tell you that Hosein displays his ignorance when he describes loans as being without risk to the lender. I have worked in a financial institution and I have been involved in loan approval decisions. You even describe people who have forfeited on their loans but you don't appear to have any understanding of the implications of loan forfeiture.
You assert that lending is necessarily exploitative, but that simply isn't true.
We have sponsored a student through a university degree in the USA. I know exactly how much it cost and how impossible it would have been for this student to undertake this education without our help. However, it is entirely misplaced to blame banks for the high cost of post-secondary education. At the same time, it is also wrong that student financing has become a lucrative for-profit business.
Similarly, we have helped our children with the cost of buying a house. That, too, would've been impossible for them to do on their own given the high price of property in our region. However, it would again be misplaced to blame banks for the high cost of property.
I asked about who were the borrowers in Muhammad's time because it is important to understand the pressures to borrow. You said that "Muhammad ... forgave the debt owed to his family", but a loan within a family is an entirely different situation. If these are the sorts of loans Muhammad was familiar with, then it isn't at all unusual that such loans would be interest-free.
You seem to understand that exploitation is a very nuanced problem. This implies that your "hope of understanding what is precisely prohibited" is futile simply because anything this nuanced can never be understood with that kind of precision. Lines need to be drawn and there will always be disagreements as to where the lines should be drawn.
You cannot divide black from white when everything is grey. The best that we can do is develop standards by which to judge when something is too far in one direction or the other.
Hello NB
Thank you for your comment.
*Insofar as the lending system is concerned, be it for education, vehicle, home, or medical assistance (and, a related factor to this discussion is healthcare, especially in the U.S. context), I have seen the exploitation. Perhaps the issue is is that on the outside, it all appears fine. I have, thank God, been able to avoid most of this (but admittedly not all), however, others around me have horror stories. An article on The Journalist Resource website has the following quote that is relevant to this discussion, using the example of payday loans " Annualized rates are about 390 percent, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a federal consumer watchdog. (At that rate, a $1,000 loan would cost over $4,000 to repay after one year.) By contrast, credit card interest rate averages tend to hover between 12 and 20 percent." https://journalistsresource.org/economics/payday-loans-exploit-poor-people-research/
*Another article starts out by stating" Student loans have quickly become the most exploitative, unethical and deceitful loan systems on the market. Uncapped to reasonable inflation they bleed those questing for higher education dry and profiteer off of hapless children committing to 30 year promises while still in school." https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/liam-evans/student-loans_b_16058982.html.
* Islam, in a sense, is neither capitalistic nor socialist in its economic worldview, even though it's name has been used to push both systems. It's a wonderful thing, laudable, that you supported your children, and perhaps others, in their education and housing venture. This is- in a sense- precisely the point. You did so (unless you tell us differently) out of love and care for them. The intention is what is important.
* If one reads the Quranic passages related to Ribaa, it is apparent that the intention behind the "help" must be clear and sincere.
On a bigger scale, take a look at this article on the IMF
https://meziesblog.com/how-the-imf-and-world-bank-destroyed-africa/
Ultimately what I would like to see happen is that we, as individuals, regardless of our respective faiths, be influenced to think outside of the box, and, therefore, act outside what is considered "normal". If a family group can get together to support their members education effort, medical bills, housing, etc, such things are a million times better than using financial institutions.
More than that, looking at the environment, our use of "disposable" plates and the like, the family breakdown, individualism gone amuck, addictions, and a host of other things, endangers the world and even the planet itself. These are connected, and arguably side affects, of the same worldview that sees Ribaa as legitimate.
These are among the reasons I see this particular subject as important.
Waheed, you are still trying to turn this issue into a binary good-or-bad question. Yes, most people will agree that payday loans are harmful and most people will agree that interest-free loans within a family are acceptable. There is a complete spectrum of cases between these extremes. You should not seize on the worst case and make a judgement based on that. Q 2:275 makes a distinction which simply cannot be defined clearly. I'm saying this from a mathematical perspective. A man, Muhammad, cannot assert a law which is contradicted by one of Allah's mathematical laws. You are wasting your time trying to excuse this verse and it isn’t helpful to others trying to convince them that there is truth in it. To truly understand it, you need a clear understanding of the context at that time and what was bothering Muhammad at that particular moment, however, that is a different conversation.
I found it interesting that you used the phrase "out of love" in this context. This is not a concept that I've found explicitly in the Qur'an.
When I started to write this post a couple of weeks ago, I wasn't going to get into the details about my motivation for what I've described in my post. However, thinking about it, motivation IS PRECISELY the issue.
Let's first say two things that my motivation was NOT. I don't do anything "seeking the pleasure of Allah" in the hope of being rewarded in "the Hereafter". I actually find it quite disturbing that an intention like that would be considered "clear and sincere". And I didn't do these things in search of praise nor did I tell you about these things seeking your praise or approval. That wasn't the point, not at all.
The point you seem to be missing is that banking and loans are not at the root of these problems. The root of these problems is that for education, health care, and housing, a certain amount of wealth is required but it is wealth that isn't available to many, many people, especially not early in adult life when the shortfall is greatest. At my stage in life, I have accumulated more wealth than I need, meanwhile there are young adults who don't have the wealth that they need. That is the problem.
I am not a billionaire, rather, there are millions of Canadians and tens of millions of Americans who are as wealthy as I am. Together, we have amply wealth to provide university education for everyone who seeks and would benefit from such an education. Many countries around the world do much better with this, so why is it not better in Canada and why is it such a problem in the USA?
As humans, are motivations are complex to understand. We are motivated by emotions and many people are inspired to help others because of a deeply felt emotional connection to those who are suffering. We are also motivated by our rational understanding of situations and are inspired to help others because we see injustice and feel a moral responsibility to do what we can to mitigate injustices. There is enormous injustice in the world and we need to understand the causes of injustice.
Ribaa, the economic exploitation of others, is just a consequence of the power that comes from the wealth gap. Indeed, there are powerful people who see nothing wrong with using power this way; there is no such thing as “abuse of power” in their minds. By openly turning a blind eye to abuses of power and extortion at the highest level, the USA is on a tragic downward slide into tyranny and oppression. Many of us outside the USA pray that Americans will turn this around. The global consequences of this decline are enormous.
@ N-B
Thank you for your comment.
" Waheed, you are still trying to turn this issue into a binary good-or-bad question. Yes, most people will agree that payday loans are harmful and most people will agree that interest-free loans within a family are acceptable. There is a complete spectrum of cases between these extremes." (N-B quote)
There is a spectrum of difference, and likewise I can agree that it's not always black and white. To use another example, while it is true that there are complex issues involved in race relations, that does not mean that racism is still a moral or logical choice to follow.
" You are wasting your time trying to excuse this verse and it isn’t helpful to others trying to convince them that there is truth in it. To truly understand it, you need a clear understanding of the context at that time and what was bothering Muhammad at that particular moment, however, that is a different conversation." (N-B)
Certainly that is a view many hold, but for our purposes, it isn't necessary. The post itself sought to examine the Quranic verses regarding Ribaa in context.
" The point you seem to be missing is that banking and loans are not at the root of these problems. The root of these problems is that for education, health care, and housing, a certain amount of wealth is required but it is wealth that isn't available to many, many people, especially not early in adult life when the shortfall is greatest. At my stage in life, I have accumulated more wealth than I need, meanwhile there are young adults who don't have the wealth that they need. That is the problem" ( N-B)
Now we are getting somewhere. WE live in a place and time where basic necessities are increasingly out of reach, even if a college degree is present. The system itself is the problem, and we (as in you and I, and anyone who looks at these issues) have been looking at only certain aspects.
Your post actually articulates many of the points that we want to find addressed.
On an individual level, escaping these traps can be very hard. It becomes easier when there's backup, not only financial, but moral and spiritual. It's not enough to "avoid Ribaa", Patience has to be there, thriftiness has to be present, and many more qualities. These are things which Islam seeks to cultivate in people.
"Now we are getting somewhere."
I don't know which part of "we" is getting somewhere. You haven't acknowledged the fundamental flaws in your arguments defending Muhammad on whatever it was that he was bothered by at that time. The very presence of these verses shows that your point "WE live in a place and time where basic necessities are increasingly out of reach" is utterly mistaken. The verses show something which is generally known, namely, that these problems have been problems for a very long time.
You need to admit that the very reason that you wrote the article in the first place is that Muslims who try to follow the guidance in the Qur'an are confused by these verses and don't know how to respond to them. The verses (for example, 2:275) are as harsh as any found in the Qur'an and a devout Muslim would be very fearful of the consequences of not understanding what they mean.
However, there is good reason for them to be confused and it is very simple: The verses are indeed confusing because they do not make good sense. The best advice you could give to Muslims who are confused and concerned is to simply tell them to pay no attention to these verses. They are nonsense and they do not provide a useful starting point for understanding economic challenges. You won't even try to explain them to me in the context of when they were revealed!
Yes, I hope that I have articulated some ideas that are relevant. You talk about patience and thriftiness, but do you find them HERE in these verses? It may well be true that Islam seeks to cultivate these in people, as do most philosophies both before and after Islam, however, you can't point the Qur'an as a wellspring for these ideas.
By contrast, look how often words like "fear" appear in these verses. That is what Islam seeks to cultivate through the Qur'an.
Waheed, perhaps for your readers' benefit, I should elaborate on my issue with the Medinan context of these verses.
Most of these verses come during the first two years after the migration to Medina. The Muslims of that time did not suffer from the sorts of modern problems that you are describing; they were not struggling to pay for university educations, or expensive real estate, or cars, nor were they overspending on luxury items and vacations. They arrived in Medina with very, very little wealth and they were facing grave difficulties in providing the basic necessities of life for themselves and their families. It is clear from these verses, that the Muslims were suffering from the exploitation of wealthy Medinans. It is not surprising that the language directed at these lenders is as strong as it is. But who were these lenders?
The verses Surah 4:160-162 make it explicit that it was the Jews who were the wealthy lenders. In these verses, Muhammad speaks of the believers and the disbelievers AMONG THEM. Surah 2 is largely direct towards the Jews and in Q 2:278 when he says "O you who have believed", it is implicit that he is referring to Jews.
The verses related to Ribaa are directed towards the money-lending Jews and not towards his followers. He is telling them that if they were truly believers, they would help the Muslims with charity rather than exploiting them with usary. He tells them that there is still time to repent.
We know that soon after this, Muhammad and his followers assaulted the Jewish communities in Medina and robbed them of their wealth and distributed it among themselves. They expelled or slaughtered the Jews. After the Jews had been punished as Muhammad said that they would be, we find no further verses concerning Ribaa. The Ribaa problem had been solved.
As I've pointed out, an understanding of the context needs to be the starting point for understanding the Qur'an. That is certainly the case for these verses.
N-B
Thanks for your comments.
You write: " The very presence of these verses shows that your point "WE live in a place and time where basic necessities are increasingly out of reach" is utterly mistaken. The verses show something which is generally known, namely, that these problems have been problems for a very long time."
My assertion could have been articulated better, so it is correct that these issues have existed for a very long time, as has war, poverty and a host of other issues.
" You talk about patience and thriftiness, but do you find them HERE in these verses? It may well be true that Islam seeks to cultivate these in people, as do most philosophies both before and after Islam, however, you can't point the Qur'an as a wellspring for these ideas.
By contrast, look how often words like "fear" appear in these verses. That is what Islam seeks to cultivate through the Qur'an." (N-B quotes)
Taqwaa is not precisely "fear", it is a word rich in meaning. Most translate it as "fear" or "reverence" of God. However one takes the term, it is a cognition of God- according to religion in general- which is needed as a tool to prevent injustice. The Bible articulates this as well when it says "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God" (Psalms 111:10).
" Yes, I hope that I have articulated some ideas that are relevant. You talk about patience and thriftiness, but do you find them HERE in these verses? It may well be true that Islam seeks to cultivate these in people, as do most philosophies both before and after Islam, however, you can't point the Qur'an as a wellspring for these ideas." (N-B)
Actually, as the article is divided, look at the second and forth Quranic passages cited, the comments associated with them in the article, and have a read of the Quranic passages cited for yourself. In other places in the Qur'an patience, thriftiness and the like are discussed. One should examine the concepts as a whole in the Quranic scripture, and that would include gathering all the verses on certain subjects together for study.
I am unsure of your latter comment, as I have never asserted that the Qur'an is the only scripture or source that has advocated abandonment of Ribaa, embracing thriftiness and the like.
It is amazing, in your most recent comment, that you would attempt to portray the Quranic prohibition of Ribaa as an attack on the Jews. This very article shows that there is one place in this discussion where Jews are mentioned, but in the same section of the relevant passage it shows that stereotyping was not on the Quranic agenda!
I will refer you to the article itself. " The religious or ethnic/racial identity of powerful forces, who engage in oppression and disinformation campaigns, is actually not that much of an issue. Good people and bad people can be found in every community. Indeed, the Qur'an, in the very next verse ( 4:162) makes it clear that the previous description does not describe the group in their entirety. The Qur'an is very careful not to stereotype.
It states therein that there are Jews of knowledge and piety, who are rewarded by Allah. This is also found in Q 2:62 and Q 5:69."
What is "amazing" is that you don't actually dispute the facts:
1. The Qur'an specifically identifies the lenders as Jews.
2. The communities to which these Jews belonged were plundered, the land taken from them and their people expelled, slaughtered or enslaved, in their entirety.
3. Ribaa is never again mentioned in the Qur'an.
Also "amazing" is that you are insinuating that I'm the one who is "stereotyping". However, I have admitted that it is probably true that there were some Jews who engaged in usury and that the strong language against them would have been justified.
You don't seem to understand the politics and the significance of identifying the audience to whom Muhammad was speaking. At this point in time, Muhammad was still trying to win the Jews over to Islam. It is not surprising that he is trying to win over those "of knowledge and piety." However, within months of telling them "no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve", he was destroying "the group in their entirety". Stop this nonsense about "the Qur'an is very careful not to stereotype." All of the Jews received the same treatment, "good people and bad people [that] can be found in every community." Such was the reward that was meted out by "Allah's Messenger" for those "of knowledge and piety".
You seem like an honest person, yet you spread so much falsehood. It's hard for me to reconcile, however, I've seen recently how millions can fall for "the big lie" and how they can seemingly innocently repeat the lie. I sincerely wish that I could do better in opening your eyes to the truth.
Interesting conclusions...let's go through it
(1) There is one section, as the article highlights, wherein there is a reference to some Jews, however, there are other places, but in one of those places, if you start from 2:261, it is addressing "O you who have faith", a reference to Muslims. That is universally understood. Moreover, in Q 2:278, it addresses "O you who have faith, have Taqwaaa of Allah, and give up what remains of Ribaa, if you (really ) are believers".
(2) The particular groups who had staged their intrigues were punished, just as what would happen in the modern world. Canada imposes fines and financial penalties, so let's not pretend it is something else, reparations are even made in modern war contexts as well.
Another amazing thing is this continued wish to view me in particular (or perhaps Muslims in general) as your students, in need for you to teach us the truth about our faith. While I have no problem learning from anyone qualified, your view seems to be simply too much. To be honest, I think it is YOU who spread so much falsehood, because you come up with interpretations of the Islamic faith and history that are a bit bizarre, and then become upset when we don't agree to your conclusions, either those you have come to on your own, or those which have been copied from Islamophobic writings.
I don't impose my views on people. I don't believe in debates either, and have strong relationships with Non Muslims, even clergy. So you cannot in all honesty accuse me of being hateful or bigoted towards non Muslims.
How about you? Can you say the same?
Well I have to say, I can't think of anyone else that I've met with the same attitude towards learning that you have.
I was told as a child that one of the best ways to learn a subject is to try to teach it to someone else. I'm not lecturing you about Islam; simply formulating my thoughts in an organized way. If you are able to correct me, then you could do so in a constructive way. At the same time, I have learned a lot from the "students" whom I have approached in this way. It is unfortunate that you are so uncooperative for I would learn a lot more quickly if you weren't.
As far as you being my teacher, I have to be honest and say that you have lost my trust. At first, I accepted what you told me as truth. However, over the years, far too often what you have told me has turned out to be either untrue or deliberately deceptive. I would never expect that from a teacher.
Case in point, you assert that it is "universally understood" that "O you who have faith, have Taqwaaa of Allah" only refers to Muslims. However, we find these ideas connected directly to Jews in several places in the Qur'an. You even connected the Jews to Taqwaaa earlier in this thread when you cited Psalm 111:10. I do not believe for one second that I'm at the first person EVER to consider the possibility that Muhammad was addressing a Jewish audience with some of these verses.
My point is simply that we need to be open-minded about these verses and to whom they were addressed, and then to understand how the nuance shifts depending on the audience. That could be a topic of discussion, related to the main topic of ribaa, if you were willing to discuss such a thing.
I have no idea what you are referring to when you mention Canada. The closest thing that I can think of that rivals the assaults, the abductions, the rapes and the forced marriages of 7th Century Arabia would be the treatment of some indigenous people. However, no respectable person today defends the way that the European settlers assaulted the native people. A few may defend as well-intentioned the establishment of Christian schools to teach "the savages" European culture and religion. However, if anything, that should serve as a warning for those who would impose their beliefs on others. You say that YOU do not do this, but that cannot be said about Islam in general.
Canadian soldiers were active in Afghanistan. Was there an incident where they plundered an Afghan village, killing the men and bringing the women and children back to Canada to live as slaves in their own households? Not surprisingly, such an incident was never reported in the Canadian news. I would like to learn more about it!
"I don't believe in debates either". What does that mean? A debate is merely a forum for presenting differing ideas so that their relative merits can be examined. Regardless, in every forum that I've visited, it is rare for Muslims to address non-Muslims with the same respect that they address other Muslims.
It is true that I have lost respect for your authority on the subject of Islam; I no longer trust what you tell me. However, that is personal and nothing to do with hate or bigotry. Perhaps the fault is mine in that I expected more from you and that I expected that you had knowledgeable resources behind you that you would consult. I should not have presumed that you would be as interested in these questions as I am.
Dear N-B
I have never asserted that I am "your teacher". You are certainly someone who reads this blog, and comments on it, even more than I do, and perhaps lest consistently, watch our videos. You assert that you are a teacher, but we have no way of ascertaining where and what you teach, as you have never shared that information. I'm sorry, but "hundreds of hours" of reading (of which we have to take your word for it) does not quality you to "teach" about Islam.
Overall, I am a patient person, and answer your queries, and engage you even when others would have lost their patience. You will recall being banned from the WI website, because of your repeated insults and disparaging remarks about Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. Now, if you judge my answers or my knowledge as being inadequate, that is your choice, yet, YOU are the one who consistently posts here, seemingly belligerent most of the time. If you feel that you can't gain anything of interest on this blog, why even bother to engage?
You have misunderstood my comment above, perhaps it is because of not carefully reading it (or of not carefully reading the Islamic sources in general), or you have simply engaged in a tactic, but allow me to correct your assertion. Above, you write :" Case in point, you assert that it is "universally understood" that "O you who have faith, have Taqwaaa of Allah" only refers to Muslims. However, we find these ideas connected directly to Jews in several places in the Qur'an. You even connected the Jews to Taqwaaa earlier in this thread when you cited Psalm 111:10. I do not believe for one second that I'm at the first person EVER to consider the possibility that Muhammad was addressing a Jewish audience with some of these verses."
The verse that I have quoted- twice now- does not negate that there are Jews with Taqwaaa. I have never denied that. It reads "O you who believe, have taqwaaa of Allah, and give up what remains of Ribaa if you (really) have faith." The expression "O you who believe", is indeed universally understood as talking to Muslims, to followers of the Prophet, not to Jews, Not to Christians.
This is not something I am making up. There is no disagreement about this from any quarters. Indeed, the same expression is used, clearly directed to the followers of the Prophet, in hundreds of places in the Qur'an. "O you who believe, fasting is ordained on you, as it was on those before you.."(Q 2:183) "Indeed, those who believe (innal ladheena Aamanoo), and those who are Jewish, and Christians, and sabians.." (Q 2:62). "O you who believe, fighting is prescribed on you.." (Q 2:216), the list goes on and on.
There is no deception taking place. You are simply stating a sound bite.
The original article does cite a place in the Qur'an wherein Jews are mentioned in connection to Ribaa (in the article it is cited as Simply "number 3"), but reading the context of the other cited texts, it goes beyond them.
It goes to the behaviour and ethics of Muslims, not those of Jews.
For the 1st reference in the article, Ibn Katheer's commentary mentions "Jews" only once, and that is a hadeeth condemning those who play around with Divine prohibitions, attempting to find loopholes. Anyways let's move on...
I mentioned Canada only because you have mentioned it in the past as a place of justice (if memory serves, you were citing efforts to correct the legacy as well as rights of the native peoples), the point was that Canada imposes financial penalties, as does every other society today, and it's not viewed as anti Jewish, anti this or pro that, so you should perhaps see the reports you allude to in the same way, as penalties for certain crimes, the crimes of treason and rebellion, colluding with enemy forces and the like.
As for debates, I was trying to say that I am past the point of arguing with people on religion. I prefer dialogue, discussion, not debates. In addition, I have very good relationships with even the clergy of faiths that I don't belong to. I wondered aloud if you could say the same? That you have good relationships with Muslims, personally? Although I doubt it, I genuinely hope that you do. If you do, perhaps you will learn that Muslims are human beings too, and generally don't need you to somehow rescue us from our faith.
Waheed, you truly astonish me. You wrote: "The point was that Canada imposes financial penalties, as does every other society today, and it's not viewed as anti Jewish, anti this or pro that, so you should perhaps see the reports you allude to in the same way, as penalties for certain crimes, the crimes of treason and rebellion, colluding with enemy forces and the like."
Do you feel no shame?
You compare the imposition of financial penalties to the slaughter of an entire tribe or to the enslavement of women and children? I wouldn't feel any differently had the victims of Muhammad's atrocities been other than Jewish. At no time have Canadians committed atrocities like these, but that isn't the point either. Had I grown up somewhere that had the dark shadow of such atrocities over me, for example, had I been born in Germany instead of in Canada, I wouldn't be praising my predecessors. I wouldn't be defending the slaughter as being a just penalty. I wouldn't be showing cute videos to very young children glorifying the rounding up of people.
Doesn't the Qur'an teach that no one can be held accountable for the crimes of another person?
It is utterly disgraceful. Shame on you for defending the indefensible.
Hello NB
What is astonishing is that you either are consistent in misunderstanding my posts, or feel compelled to misrepresent them to other readers. I am not sure which it is.
* If there are criminals arrested in Canada, both parents for example, the authorities would try a number of options to find them housing, either with other family members or in foster home/Children's services, some entities set up to handle such arrangements.
*"Cute videos to very young children glorifying the rounding up of people"? I am unsure of what you are referring to here.
In any case, all the above that you raised (and which I have briefly addressed) are basically red herrings that you have raised because you have seen that the previous argument that you raised (regarding the Jews, Ribaa, who is being addressed as "those who believe") earlier in the thread has been shown to be an incorrect reading on your part.
You truly are a specialist in false equivalents and diversions.
Perhaps you will actually watch this video and comment on it this time. I've pointed it out to you a couple of times and you don't seem to seen anything wrong with it.
https://youtu.be/xNdpvCWT2Ag
The first time, your comment was "I don't understand your opposition to the video you shared, unless it is simply the content ( summarizing the history) that you feel children should not be exposed to?
Lessons on a variety of subjects are taught daily by schools and teachers globally. If Muslims can't teach their children about the history, who tells us what they can and should be taught?"
Your readers can decide for themselves who misrepresents and who does not; they can decide for themselves what is just and what is unjust; they can distinguish or not distinguish the atrocities of Muhammad's assaults and normal criminal justice.
I don't expect you to change. I do wish that there were readers who would join in.
Regardless of the difference in our views as to who it was who was practising usury in 7th Century Arabia, I am sure that your readers can see that these verses bear no relationship to the modern issues that you are trying to relate them to. I hope that they will keep that in mind when making their own financial decisions.
Catching up with all of these comments..
* I remember the "cute video" now. This is partly why I rarely post the content of other Muslim speakers, because it would be assumed that that speaker/content is something I agree with 100%, and thus placed in some position where I would have to talk about their other materials. I stand by the quote you shared from me as posted above, history is shared in a school environment, placed in a way that is digestible for the audience.
* This entire article was dealing with the subject of Ribaa, you raising all of these other things is totally unnecessary.
Waheed, you do understand that you have a role in representing what it means to be a Muslim?
The video does not represent some outlier view of the history and, as best as I can tell, Muslims do not seem to take issue with the way the history is being presented in that video. While you don't speak for all Muslims, YOU have not taken issue with anything in that video.
Naturally, I am going to assume that you see nothing wrong with the portrayals of the people in the video. You don't want to discuss that video? That's your choice, of course.
However, if you are unable to see anything wrong with it and aren't willing to confess your disgust for what it contains, then there is something seriously wrong with you. You, indeed, are in need of "rescuing".
If you prefer, you could respond in more detail where you first avoided discussing this video and then with reference to the article to which it pertained.
However, as it stands, your comment on the video and the material which the video is based on is "No comment". I will infer from that what I will. You've had every opportunity to respond. I would not want to be in your place.
NB
Yes, I have some role, but at the end of the day I can only represent my own views and content. In addition, I have my family life, community role, financial roles, etc that I have to concentrate on, so spending every waking hour arguing about a video I did not produce, the interlocuter being a screenname with an unknown identity, is not a priority for me.
You have asserted that you are a teacher. If that's the case, have you ever taught children? If so, you would understand very well that the way one teaches, for example, six year olds, is not the same as teaching those who are 26 years old! This is my experience, and should be common sense.
In the comment section of the interfaith friendship post, you mention that readers should take you to task rather than being "typical". well, a handful have interacted with you over time, and after a while, they either lose interest in engaging because of your attitudes and simply move on with life. Most of us, myself included, don't have free time on our hands to constantly debate online. Perhaps you are retired, but I am not! Most of our readers are not retired either. So it's not that you are convincing readers that you are correct in much of your assertions, readers simply decide not to waste time.
It is not asking a lot of you or your readers to look at that video and declare it to be unsuited for any audience. It is grooming the children who watch it to hate others and to be tolerant of unjust warfare and enslavement and mistreatment of women. No child should be subjected to watching that video. Children are trusting and they absorb harmful messages in ways that we ought to understand.
Parents and teachers should not wait until their retirement to speak the truth about it.
My dear NB,
The above, in my view, are just buzz words, as well as simply a matter of perspective vis a vis certain conflicts.
If you feel so strongly about that video (which no one here had any involvement in), you should reach out to the producers of that film yourself, rather than making a complaint about it in the comment section of a blog that has no connection to it.
Well, Waheed, do you really think you can dismiss that video so simply?
I could reach out to the producers, however, I would rather do that knowing that there are Muslims who support me in my complaint. It is Muslim children who are being corrupted by that video and if not a single Muslim here sees a problem with that video, then what point would there be of taking this up with the producers of the video?
I have been using the video as an example of something that we ought to have common cause with. We ought to be able to agree on something and if we can't agree that that video is a horrendous thing to show to children, then what will we EVER agree on?
Is there not even one Muslim reading this who has the courage to speak up?
PS. I just googled "common cause". I did not realize that this expression had been usurped by an activist group. I used the phrase in its common, vernacular sense... something that all people should be willing to fight for.
To NB, I have been a reader on this website, and I must say that you are one of the most ignorant, arrogant people I have ever seen. Why the blog owner tolerates you is beyond me.
@ NB
You want Muslims to object to a video made regarding the leader of the hypocrites, Abdullah Ibn Ubayy? A video made summarizing a figure regarded as treacherous and immoral? A video that I had no hand in even creating?
Hi "Anonymous"
I don't think that N.B. is himself an evil person, however I do think he is someone who really needs to learn a bit more, calm down in his assertions, and be realistic.
In general, I try to engage with everyone who engages with me, as time permits. We pray for Allah's guidance for us all.
Thank you for the comment.
In three shorts posts, the two of you have managed to round out what I have learned about Muslims. This will be my last post in this blog. I have known for a long time that there was no point in speaking to Waheed. Now I know that his readers are no better. I get no joy from reaching such a conclusion.
@Anonymous: Although it is the case that what I conclude can be very negative, I try to be positive and constructive. If you address me in a positive way and point out how I have been "ignorant" and "arrogant", I could think about what you say. As it is, it is YOU who comes across as "ignorant" and "arrogant".
You use the words "tolerates you", which is precisely the issue that I have been addressing in many of my posts. It reflects the arrogant view that non-Muslims need to be "tolerated" in our "unguided" state. Another conclusion that I have reached, again without joy, is that Islam teaches intolerance. Since you say that you have been reading this blog, you know that I have backed up this conclusion by pointing to numerous texts. The video that has been mentioned in this thread is an example.
I have accused Waheed of many faults, it is true. One in particular is his double standard. We see it in each of his last two posts in this thread:
First, concerning the video, Waheed seems unable to divorce himself from taking a prejudicial view of its content. From his perspective, we already know who is good and who is immoral. I don't begin with such a prejudice. I look at the incidents objectively, ignoring which side were Muslims and which side were not. I have no problem asking the question "what if it were the Muslims who were being assaulted by non-Muslims". I have no trouble imagining the international outcry if such an attack took place today, regardless of the ethnicity or religion of the perpetrators and of the victims. Muslims would be outraged if Muslims were assaulted that way and it would escalate into a major world crisis. Non-Muslims around the world would join with the Muslims in condemning such an attack. In such circumstances, a man who decried the attack, as Abdullah Ibn Ubayy did in his time, would be praised by Muslims, not labelled as "treacherous and immoral”.
Yet, Waheed is unable to see this incident from the perspective of the victims and from the perspective of Abdullah Ibn Ubayy. Worse than that, not a single reader is brave enough to utter a single word concerning this incident and how it is being portrayed, even to very young children.
This is the double standard that Waheed holds to. That is why I feel justified in describing him as a hypocrite. That no Muslim will speak up, makes this a trait of the stereotypical Muslim; I fully expect every Muslim that I meet to be a hypocrite. Again, this is not a conclusion that I sought nor welcome.
Further to Waheed's double standard, can you imagine the response that I would receive if I was rude to a Muslim poster here? Would Waheed say to me: "I don't think that Anonymous is himself an evil person ... needs to learn a bit more ... calm down ... be realistic"? You call me "arrogant", but isn't that kind of patronising attitude an example of arrogance? Would he say "Thank you for the comment." if it had been my comment?
I'm done here. Further engagement is pointless. I feel helplessness when I consider what actions could be taken that might stave off the inevitable conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims in our Western society.
This has been an utterly disheartening experience for me, and entirely not what I expected.
Hello NB
Life is very busy these days, so just getting around to returning to the blog.
* You constantly play the victim. You have for a number of years not only insulted me (from time to time), but you have constantly insulted the Prophet Muhammad, above anyone and everything else, yet you cry foul when someone calls you out on it? Any reader can simply look at the comments on almost all articles present, in which the insults will flow, despite our relative patience with you (something you have acknowledged in some of your comments).
* I think you PRETEND to be objective, or atleast pretend to yourself. You keep harping on a video that I neither produced nor posted, about a figure whose history, from our sources, shows him as a villian. It is like asking a Jewish reader to say something nice about Adolph Hitler. It would just be a ridiculous request.
* You have been rude to Muslim posters here. That's the funny thing, You have been extremely rude to other Muslims when they post on this blog. Ambruin, and Shenango, for example. Both were very respectful to you, but the fact that they would even DARE disagree with your views on Islam, brings forth your wrath. Take a read at the link. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=60437669680290811&postID=3778797387179538249
* If you choose not to post here anymore, that is your choice, just as it was your choice to come to this blog in the first place. I hope that you will grow to be easier to engage. Take care.
Post a Comment