Discussion: Islamic teachings by Dr. Badawi (Canada)

[tariqkhwaja]

Interest is terrible. Terrible. To expect (in the words of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)) "money to have children" (gist) is playing with nature. I already discussed that here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-vs-religion/66544-prohibition-interest-islam.html

Please do let me know your opinion. Thank you.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hi maro, thanks for your response.

As for islam and democracy...i have my own understanding and i hope cordoba will correct me if i am mistaken....

for the shariah to be applied at the first place..we need a society with an islamic majority..we need a democratic vote....here is where islam is compatible with democracy...
if we made a vote , where 49 % , for instance, chose to apply the islamic law..then it shouldn't be applied..because muslims (who chose the shariah) are still a minority...they can only have civil courts like the one in the uk for example..

Before I say anything else, I think you should consider this: I for one would never, ever, want the government to somehow enforce or impose atheism or secular humanism on everyone, even if the majority were atheists or secular humanists. In fact, I would adamently oppose it even if 99% of the people were atheists or secular humanists. And overwhelmingly, all the other Americans (and Westerners and non-Westerners) whom I know, whether Christian or Jewish or atheist, feel the same way.

Now, what you have described is not democracy. It is the creation of an Islamic theocracy through democratic means. If you condone that, then you also condone the creation of a Hindu theocracy through democratic means. Or a Christian one, or Jewish one, or atheist one. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Where no one is free, because in every nation some tyrannical 51% majority imposes their beliefs about the universe and God on the other 49% of people?

but once the shariah was chosen by the majority to be applied ...we don't vote for its individual rulings ..as it's a divine law..not a human one that is liable to alteration and modification...in other words..You either Take it or leave it....

But I think it is human law, specifically 7th century Arabian peninsula human law. That's why there are very specific instructions about what to do with our slaves, but no instructions on what to do with people on life support who are brain-dead. Or instructions about internet security or the ethics of genetic engineering. That's why Islamic law focuses on men and women because apparently they didn't know people of mixed gender existed back then. How can you say that it does not contain cultural bias or human ignorance?

Meanwhile, there used to be many Hindus, Christians, and Jews who thought they had an ancient book that can't be changed with God's laws in it, and if they had seized power they would have forced their peculiar religious doctrines on both you and me.

Here's my solution: if it's God's law, then let God enforce it. Human beings should enforce human laws.

As for the non muslim minorities living in muslim society applying the shariah...i guess some rulings may be taken from their religions to be applied specifically for them...

What about people like me? I don't have a religion, I am a free thinking person.

 

[YmirGF]

On the long run, the whole system eventually collapses with the domino effect as a pack of cards, and that is what happened in the 1930s, and what is happening today, though let's hope we don't end up facing a global depression ...

Our Creator knows what is good for us, and He knows what is harmful, and He commands believers to keep away from what harms them, which includes dealing with usury/interest

Forgive the intrusion, Cordoba, but I think you are confusing usuary/interest with something better known as greed and lack of foresight. Interest in and of itself is not a problem, if maintained within tight guidelines. The ripple effect from the sub-prime lending fiasco was based on (from what I understand):
1. lack of regulations
2. unsound business practises (although predatory may be a more apt descriptor)
3. the ludicrous assumption that housing prices always go up.

My feeble understanding of this is that predatory loan agreements were made to people who simply did not qualify for loans in the first place. Even under Islamic contract quidelines it would be odd to loan people money when it was fairly certain that such persons would default on their loans. One analyst I was listening to the other day, who I think is very good, stated, "As long as a client could fog a mirror they were given a loan." This unsound principle started the steamrolling collapse because the insurers of the loans could not pay for all the claims. This caused a massive liquidity crunch. It is an extension of the simple idea of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" only to discover that Peter was already tapped out (broke).

Given the lunacy of the whole scenario I do not see how Islamic guidelines would have altered the outcome in the slightest, as interest itself was not the real culprit. I will admit that each home owner who could not make their loan payments saw their interest rate soar thus causing them to instantly default added to the problem. THe thing is that the original problem was that these folks couldn't pay the original payment levels, let alone the interest added on for defaulting. My nephew in Washington state was foreclosed when he could not sustain his original loan payments of $700 per month -- that resulted in him having to pay upwards to $900+ per month. The kid (and his young family of 5) lost his home, but it was a home he should never have been able to buy in the first place. I hope that makes sense.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

I don't know what Cordoba is saying but interest is very very very harmful. The consequences I cannot begin to state. Or rather the consequences I already stated in that post I referred to. Don't force me to copy/paste over here, please.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

1- What is wrong with interest-based loans (from the point of view of macro-economics and finance) is that the money created by the multiplier effect of interest-based loans is unsustainable on the long run, and eventually leads to recession and depression

There are always ups and downs, yes, but the long-term trend is up, as you can see from any graph of the stock markets over the last 100 years: The Big Picture | 100 Year Dow Jones Industrials Chart

And measures can be taken to buffer the downs so they are not catastrophic. After the Great Depression of the thirties, such measures were put in place. Since then there has been an increase in the standard of living, new technologies, and better infrastructure despite the downs. I mean we have had several recessions in the last thirty years, but at no time did we revert back to how things were, say, 100 years ago.

I'm starting to wonder if Islamic economics had something to do with the stagnation of what was once the world's largest empire, the Ottoman empire, and its finding itself hundreds of years behind its European competitors at the turn of the century.

Are interest-based loans allowed in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, and so on?

2- When buying property, most people can't afford to pay 100% up front. There is always demand for buying property on instalment

There is always buyer demand to buy on installment, okay, but there is also always seller demand to sell 100% up-front. There will always be situations, whether a seller is selling an apartment or a car or a chicken sandwich, where it is far better for the seller to only sell to those who pay 100% up front. You have not addressed those situations.

3- Yes, on the short run it looks ok, but the problem arises when the negative aspects of interest and "ficitious" money created by the multiplier effect of commercial banks on the long-run leads to whole system to collapse

I would agree with you if you were talking about totally *unregulated* lending. There has to be oversight and regulation so that people don't go wild. But there also has to be lending for there to be significant growth and innovation. The "whole system" has never collapsed in dozens of cases for over 100 years, as far as I know. Look at the US, France, UK, Australia, Germany, Japan, and on and on.....their economic systems are still here. They had downturns, yes, but the long-term trend has been up. They're still producing the best cars, the fastest computer chips, and cures and treatments for diseases that used to be fatal. Some risk and some occasional loss is the price you pay for growth, innovation, new technologies and more creativity. Compare that with the Middle East, where (and correct me if I'm wrong) the most thriving areas are places like Dubai, which required a lot of initial capital to get it started.

The long-term negative harm caused outweighs the short-term "advantages", and that one of the main problems of the business world of today: it's too short-term oriented and doesn't care much what will happen later on ... But when it happens (like in the 1930's) it's a major disaster which affects all people as it harms the whole of society ...

What is "short term" about the creation of the personal computer? Or Henry Ford's assembly line production and creation of an affordable car for the common person? Those things are still with us today. They aren't going to go away even during temporary recessions. Obviously far more people owned a car during the last American recession than owned one in 1900. And we wouldn't have things like that if banks didn't lend money to entrepreneurs, inventors, and researchers.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Spinkles and Cordoba. I would love to present my opinion on all the topics. But do you see the inherent flaw in the OP. That there are sooooo maaannnnyyy topics where to get started?

Economics, democracy, what? Please make this easier for me. You know its times like these I wish I could just talk to all of you. Does any one of you live in the Middle East? Man I would love to meet you and we could discuss all of these things.

Of course you're right, there are many topics, sorry about that. Your thread on the prohibition of interest-based loans in Islam does seem to sufficiently cover that topic, so maybe we should concentrate on issues of democracy.

I'd love to meet you too, man! Maybe someday.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I have two disagreements with what you say. First off western democracy isn't a case of doing what the majority want as the people don't get to decide but rather only to decide which members of the political ruling class will misrule over them. The best example I can think which makes this clear is the fact that the majority of people in many countries did not want their nations to invade Iraq and yet these nations done so. If democracy was rule by the majority then this would not have happened. In fact the democratic process is merely a façade to fool the common people into believing that they really have a say in the functioning of the capitalist states. But they don't, capitalists rule and decide in capitalist states.

Well, there's certainly a lot of truth to that. But that's really not the issue here. The issue is whether Islam as described by Dr. Badawi is better or worse than democracy.

 

[Cordoba]

Forgive the intrusion, Cordoba, but I think you are confusing usuary/interest with something better known as greed and lack of foresight. Interest in and of itself is not a problem, if maintained within tight guidelines.

Greed is of course a great part of the problem in the current financial crisis, but when it's combined with an interest-based economy which aims a maximizing profit (rather than maximizing the collective well-being of society on the long run), that's when we are faced with double trouble

An equity-based economy which is free of interest would not be faced with these regular recessions and depressions because there is no "fictitious" money in the system created from the multiplier effect of interest-based loans ...

In this case, the money circulating in the financial system would be a true reflection of the value of products and services in the economy, with no "bubbles" that burst every now and then due to speculation, greed and the impact of interest-based loans which make the rich richer and the poor poorer on the long run, which is one the main reasons the sub-prime market collapsed and made many others follow suit in a domino effect chain reaction

 

[Cordoba]

Are interest-based loans allowed in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, and so on?

I don't know about Iran, but in the other countries you mentioned, unfortunately yes

Having said that, in parallel there is a small but growing Islamic banking sector which more people are turning to each year, a new trend which is only around 20-30 years old

I would agree with you if you were talking about totally *unregulated* lending. There has to be oversight and regulation so that people don't go wild. But there also has to be lending for there to be significant growth and innovation. The "whole system" has never collapsed in dozens of cases for over 100 years, as far as I know. Look at the US, France, UK, Australia, Germany, Japan, and on and on.....their economic systems are still here. They had downturns, yes, but the long-term trend has been up.

If the countries you mentioned are happy with their financial system, that's good, though from the mess we see each day, most people don't look to be very happy.

The interest-based financial system is unstable on the long term as it is based on an unsound foundation,

It's like building a big building on foundations which are not strong enough to sustain earthquakes for example. From the outside it looks ok most days, but when a strong earthquake happens it can't survive

That's what happened in the 1930s eventually leading to WW2

Let's hope it does not happen again

 

[YmirGF]

Greed is of course a great part of the problem in the current financial crisis, but when it's combined with an interest-based economy which aims a maximizing profit (rather than maximizing the collective well-being of society on the long run), that's when we are faced with double trouble

An equity-based economy which is free of interest would not be faced with these regular recessions and depressions because there is no "fictitious" money in the system created from the multiplier effect of interest-based loans ...

In this case, the money circulating in the financial system would be a true reflection of the value of products and services in the economy, with no "bubbles" that burst every now and then due to speculation, greed and the impact of interest-based loans which make the rich richer and the poor poorer on the long run, which is one the main reasons the sub-prime market collapsed and made many others follow suit in a domino effect chain reaction

You actually sound quite knowledgable about this topic Cordoba, however, although I am hardly an expert, I have never heard any economist say what you are claiming. Do you have any links that offer deeper explanations of your assertions?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If the countries you mentioned are happy with their financial system, that's good, though from the mess we see each day, most people don't look to be very happy.

The interest-based financial system is unstable on the long term as it is based on an unsound foundation,

It's like building a big building on foundations which are not strong enough to sustain earthquakes for example. From the outside it looks ok most days, but when a strong earthquake happens it can't survive

Yes, I know that you believe that to be the case, but repeating it doesn't make it true. It is a fact that the long-term trend in GDP in dozens of countries that allow interest-based loans has been up for over a hundred years, which is how long we've had the modern stock exchange in the U.S. And it is a fact that life in all of these countries is in general better than it was previously even during the inevitable recessions (in fact in the U.S. recessions have occurred less frequently, and less severely, as time goes on, to the point that what we know think of as a "bad recession" might simply be *no growth*). It is a fact that the world's best innovations and technologies have come from, and could only have come from, large initial investments of capital and some risk and speculation, or "fictitious money" as I think you would call it.

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying I'm all for unregulated greedy capitalism. I'm not saying I'm against socialism, in fact many of the countries I'm referring to are socialistic. I'm simply saying that you have not provided any facts to support your claim that allowing ANY interest-based loans is bad in the long-run, period.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I want to talk about (Dr. Badawi's views on) Islam's directives on marriage as well.

The issue was put forth: what happens when a husband embraces Islam, while the wife remains a non-Muslim? Or, what happens when a wife embraces Islam while the husband remains non-Muslim? There was an interesting asymmetry in the Islamic law on this issue. Dr. Badawi said that the former case was "easy" while in the latter case the husband basically must embrace Islam or the couple must separate.

But this is not fair, and it is not equal treatment of men and women.

Also, he said that Islam forbids a Muslim to marry an agnostic or an atheist. I invite my Muslim friends to forget for a moment what Islamic law says, and simply think about the issue by itself: if two people fall in love, and they love each other even though they have different beliefs, then what right do we have to prevent them from committing themselves to each other as husband and wife? We can't possibly prohibit two people from loving each other. And to prevent two people who love each other from being together is cruel and unjust. Is it not?

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Spinkles this is a great injustice on your part. Really it is.

First you say:

so maybe we should concentrate on issues of democracy.

Then you go on to discuss interest anyways. And before we get to democracy you are talking about marraige.

Man one at a time! Slow down. You look like you have some research assignment on Islam due very soon.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Haha, tariq I am sorry, you are absolutely right, again. My apologies.

I don't have any research assignment due....I'm just interested in these issues.

 

[TashaN]

Spinkles this is a great injustice on your part. Really it is.

First you say:


Then you go on to discuss interest anyways. And before we get to democracy you are talking about marraige.

Man one at a time! Slow down. You look like you have some research assignment on Islam due very soon.

Tariq, i guess the title of the thread is clear enough. It's " Discussion: Islamic teachings by Dr. Badawi (Canada)" which means that it can be about anything Dr. Badawi teach about Islam, so take it easy.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

I am not saying what it can't be. But it makes it for easier debating if we do one thing at a time.

 

[kai]

I am not saying what it can't be. But it makes it for easier debating if we do one thing at a time.

you must learn multitasking Tariq

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Multitasking debates don't come to a point fast enough.

Anyways how about we start with democracy for now and exhaust that one? Interest is in that other post I pointed to (although Cordoba did quite well without help). And marraige things can wait.

Should we go ahead with political system and democracy, etc.

 

[maro]

Hi maro, thanks for your response.

you are most welcome...

Before I say anything else, I think you should consider this: I for one would never, ever, want the government to somehow enforce or impose atheism or secular humanism on everyone, even if the majority were atheists or secular humanists. In fact, I would adamently oppose it even if 99% of the people were atheists or secular humanists. And overwhelmingly, all the other Americans (and Westerners and non-Westerners) whom I know, whether Christian or Jewish or atheist, feel the same way.

Now, what you have described is not democracy It is the creation of an Islamic theocracy through democratic means. If you condone that, then you also condone the creation of a Hindu theocracy through democratic means. Or a Christian one, or Jewish one, or atheist one. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Where no one is free, because in every nation some tyrannical 51% majority imposes their beliefs about the universe and God on the other 49% of people?

i don't know which part of my post gives you the impression of imposing our beliefs on the non muslim minority ? applying the shariah in a country where the muslims are a majority ? i said islam is tolerant enough to modify the laws for the non muslim minority to suit their religious beliefs..

the islamic state is certainly not a theocracy...at least not with the same criteria that jump into people's minds from their experience with the christian theocracy in the dark ages...and that was clariefied earlier in this thread..and no need to repeat it

and btw..the following quote gave me the impression that you are trying to force your secularism on me..aren't you ?

Here's my solution: if it's God's law, then let God enforce it. Human beings should enforce human laws.

you realize this is a dead end for the discussion..don't you ?...if you want to understand how we view the islamic law..you are most welocome.. but if ,for one second , you thought muslims are obliged to justify their religion for you..YOU ARE MISTAKEN..

as for the free thinkers like you , they will act exactly like they do in their secular democratic governments..VOTE...is there something else you - as a free thinker- has the authority to do in your democratic country ?

Now, what you have described is not democracy

why not ? ..a vote..bowing down to the majority..does the democracy of your country have any more advantages than that ? didn't the 51 % voters for the american president imposed their view on the other 49% percent ? do you vote for the individual decisions of your democratic country ? the war on iraq for example ?

But I think it is human law, specifically 7th century Arabian peninsula human law. That's why there are very specific instructions about what to do with our slaves, but no instructions on what to do with people on life support who are brain-dead. Or instructions about internet security or the ethics of genetic engineering. That's why Islamic law focuses on men and women because apparently they didn't know people of mixed gender existed back then. How can you say that it does not contain cultural bias or human ignorance?

who told you that the modern sholars of fiqh didn't talk in stuff like brain death , genetic engineering and organ transplantaion ?
few months ago..i watched a progrm about a moroccon muslim woman who made her ph.D in the islamic stance regarding organ transplantion...thanks to her , organ transplantion was officially legalized in morocoo and she was honoured by the king himself..
the science of fiqh is how islam refreshes its blood through continous re-reading of the quran and sunnah in context...the context i am talking about here is the context of incidents...we are having some serious problems of stagnation in that science nowadays ,it's true...however ,the problem is to be attributed to muslims...not to the text..we may discuss that with more details later on in Tashan's thread : Are we stuck in the past ? - God willing-

Meanwhile, there used to be many Hindus, Christians, and Jews who thought they had an ancient book that can't be changed with God's laws in it, and if they had seized power they would have forced their peculiar religious doctrines on both you and me.

i am going to clarify that to you one more time..if you are here trying to convince muslims that they are wrong about the divinity of their religion..you better Save your time and energy for a more fruitful dicussion..
i guess you are intelligent enough to dicriminate between a discussion that can go somewhere and another one with a dead end..aren't you ?

 

[Sahar]

you realize this is a dead end for the discussion..don't you ?...if you want to understand how we view the islamic law..you are most welocome.. but if ,for one second , you thought muslims are obliged to justify their religion for you..YOU ARE MISTAKEN..

Perhaps he has a hard time having a discussion with Muslims except after demanding them to forget about their religion:

I invite my Muslim friends to forget for a moment what Islamic law says, and simply think about the issue by itself: if two people fall in love....