UNORTHODOX ARTICLES
Edip Yuksel
An unorthodox approach to three controversial issues: Wife-beating,
Abortion and Usury. Edip Yuksel argues that the verse 4:34 is entirely
mistranslated by traditional scholars who were invariably male. He also
argues that abortion is not murder if it is done during the first trimester. He
uses the context of the Quran to explain the meaning of "Riba."
BEATING WOMEN, OR BEATING AROUND THE BUSH, OR....
Edip Yuksel
"Verse 4:34 of the Quran orders believers to beat their wives; so, Islam is
a male dominant religion." Many of us have heard this criticism from
Christians, atheists, agnostics, etc. Personally, every time I read 4:34, I felt
that something was wrong. How does God, the Most Wise order us to beat
our women? What kind of solution is that? It is in contrast to the verses in
which God describes marriage:
"Among His signs is that He created for you spouses from
among yourselves, in order to have tranquility and
contentment with each other. He places in your heart love
and care towards your spouses. In this, there are signs for
people who think." (30:21)
Obviously, this mixed messages have bothered many contemporary
translators of the Quran. To avoid the moral and intellectual problems, they
tried to soften the word "beat" when they translate the verse 4:34. For
instance, Yusuf Ali uses a merciful parentheses after "beat" to save
women:
". . . As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty
and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share
their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly). . ." (4:34)
Many tried to "beat" around the bush to "beat" the problem generated by the
"beat" of 4:34.
When I finished the Turkish translation (1991), this verse was on the top of
my orange list to study carefully. Whenever I encounter a problem regarding
the understanding of a Quranic verse, I remember 20:114 and pray
accordingly: "Most Exalted is God, the only true King. Do not rush into
(understanding) the Quran before it is revealed to you, an say, 'My Lord,
increase my knowledge.'"
Almost all of the translations have mistranslated the four key words or terms
of this particular verse. These are: "Qawwamune," "Faddallallahu ba'dahum
ala ba'd," "Nushuzehunne," and "Fadribuhunne." In our late book, "Errors
in Turkish Translations" (Istanbul, 1992) we have discussed the real
meaning of these words and the motivation and reasons for mistranslating
them. Here, we will focus on the last word, "Fadribuhunne."
A Famous Multi-Meaning Word
The problem comes from the word "Idribuhunne" which we used to translate
as "beat them". The root of this word is "DaRaBa". If you look at any Arabic
dictionary you will find a long list of meanings ascribed to this word. That list
is one of the longest list in whole Arabic dictionary. It can be said that
"DaRaBa" is the number-one multi-meaning word in Arabic. It has so many
different meanings, we can find numerous different meanings ascribed to it
in the Quran.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
To travel, to get out: 3:156; 4:101; 38:44; 73:20; 2:273
To strike: 2:60,73; 7:160; 8:12; 20:77; 24:31; 26:63; 37:93; 47:4
To beat: 8:50; 47:27
To set up: 43:58; 57:13
To give (examples): 14:24,45; 16:75,76,112; 18:32,45; 24:35;
30:28,58; 36:78; 39:27,29; 43:17; 59:21; 66:10,11
To take away, to ignore: 43:5
To condemn: 2:61
To seal, to draw over: 18:11
To cover: 24:31
To explain: 13:17
As you see, in Quran alone we can witness the verb "DaRaBa" having at
least ten different meanings. "DaRaBa" has also other meanings which are
not mentioned in the Quran. For example, in the Arabic language, you do
not print money--you "DaRaBa" money, you do not multiply numbers--you
"DaRaBa" numbers, you do not cease the work--you "DaRaBa" the work. In
Turkish we have many verbs similar to DaRaBa, such as "tutmak",
"calmak", "vurmak" etc. In English we have two verbs which are almost
equivalent to "DaRaBa". These are "strike" and "beat".
Webster's Dictionary gives fourteen meanings to the verb "strike": hit
(against); ignite; (of snake) bite; (of plants) (cause to) take root; attack; hook
(fish); sound (time) as bell in clock etc.; affect; arrive at, come upon; enter
mind of; discover (gold, oil etc.); dismantle, remove; make (coin); cease
work as protest or to make demands. The same dictionary gives eight
meanings to the verb "beat": strike repeatedly; overcome; surpass; stir
vigorously with striking action; flap (wings); make, wear (path); throb; sail
against wind.
In the beginning of this article (underlined) I deliberately used "beat" in three
different meanings in a single statement just to show the variety of
meanings in a single word. In English, when we order someone to "beat it"
we mean "get out". Similarly in Arabic, when we order someone with the
commend form of "DaRaBa", that is "iDRiB", we mean "get out".
How Can We Find The Appropriate Meaning
When we encounter a multi-meaning word, we select the proper meaning
according to the context, forms, and common sense. For instance, if we had
have translated "DaRaBa" in 13:17 as "beat" instead of "explain", the
meaning would be ridiculous:
. . . God thus beats the truth and falsehood." (13:17)
Another example of mistranslation of "DaRaBa" can be found in the
translation of 38:44. All the translations (except Dr. Khalifa's translation)
inject a male-made story to justify their silly translation. Here is how Yusuf
Ali translates the verse about Job:
"And take in the hand a little grass, and strike therewith: and
break not (the oath)."
Yusuf Ali, in the footnote narrates the traditional story: "He (Job) must have
said in his haste to the woman that he would beat her: he is asked now to
correct her with only a wisp of grass, to show that he was gentle and
humble as well as patient and constant."
However, without injecting this story, we can translate it as the following:
"Now, you shall travel the land to fulfill your pledge (that is to
deliver the message)." We found him steadfast. What a good
servant! He was a submitter. (38:44)
Let's turn back to 4:34
Additionally, the word "Nushuz" which is generally translated as "opposition"
has another meaning which can be translated as degrees of disloyalty
ranging from flirtation to sexual liaison. If we study 4:34 carefully we will find
a clue that leads us to translate that word as "flirting or cheating" or
"extramarital affair" (Any word or words that reflect the range of disloyalty in
marriage). The clue is the phrase before "Nushuz" as reads: ". . . and
observe God's commandments, even when alone in their privacy." This
phrase emphasizes the importance of loyalty in marriage life.
Furthermore, the same word "Nushuz" is used in 4:128, but it is used to
describe the misbehavior of husbands not wives as was in 4:34. So, the
traditional translation of "Nushuz", that is, "opposition" will not fit here. In
vertical relations, "opposition" cannot be a double-edged behavior. So,
translators try to avoid this contradiction by ascribing just the opposite
meaning of "opposition", i.e., "oppression" in verse 4:128. However, the
meaning of "Nushuz" as "disloyalty" is appropriate for both cases described
in 4:34 and 4:128.
A Coherent Understanding
When we read 4:34 we should not understand "idribuhunne" as "beat those
women". We must remember that this word has many meanings. God gives
us three ways of dealing with extra-marital-affair. In the beginning stage of
such misbehavior husband should start from giving advice. If it does not
work and she goes further and commit a proven adultery, that time husband
has the right to strike them out (4:34 & 65:1).
Let's present our suggestion for the translation of verse 4:34
"Men traditionally take care of women, since God has
endowed each of them with certain qualities and men spend
from their financial resources. The righteous women are
obedient (to God) and during the absence (of their husband)
they honor them according to God's commandment. As for
those women whom you are experiencing a fear of disloyalty
from, you shall first advice them, then (if they continue) you
may desert them in bed, then you may strike them out. If they
obey you then don't transgress against them. God is Most
High, Supreme." (4:34).
Beating women who are cheating is not an ultimate solution; but "striking
them out" from your house is the best solution. And it is fair too.
ABORTION IS MURDER, IF. . .
Edip Yuksel
We know that almost every law has some exceptions, or conditions. For
instance, acording to the Quran, the first and second cmmendments, that
is, idol worship, is an unforgivable sin IF it is maintained until death after 40
years of life. Killing a person is great offense IF it is not done for selfdefense. Similarly, the abortion case also has some conditions and
exceptions.
If I had read sister Shakira Karipineni's article on abortion nine or ten
months before its publication, I would have agreed with her a hundred
percent. However, last summer (1992), some verses of the Quran suddenly
picked my attention. After studying them carefully I found out that my
position on abortion was not entirely Quranic. My culture and my upbringing
had contributed to my position. I found myself in the threshold of a difficult
decision. I had to modify my position towards abortion. I had to add an "IF"
to my personal conviction which could be summarized in three words:
"abortion is murder". When I was convinced by the Quranic verses I had no
choice but to obey. Later, when I shared my position on the issue at the last
year's conference it created a controversy. Dr. Karipineni's article as a wellwritten reaction, needs an answer.
Life is different than personhood
"Questions, such as when does life begin, have been asked for centuries. . .
. , we now have strong scientific proof that life starts at conception." she
says, in her article published in the previous issue of Submitters
Perspective. In her statement there is a semantic problem. The word "life"
was repeated twice, and they have different meanings, or implications. In
order to make her statement relevant to the issue, we should substitute the
first one with "personhood". I believe that using two different concepts
interchangeably tosses us into a fundamental confusion on this issue.
The discussion on abortion centralizes around the vital question, "When can
fetus be considered as a person?" Nobody is questioning the life of the
fetus. In fact, every single cell of a human has a complete genetic code of a
human being. To be a person, obviously, requires more than merely having
the proper genetic code.
The Quran clearly distinguishes life from personhood. Life, in the Quran, is
"Hayaat", on the other hand, personhood, self or soul is "Nafs". According to
the Quran plants and animals have life, but humans have both life and
personhood, that is, soul or consciousness. Human soul is the source of
consciousness and self-awareness. Thus, harvesting plants or slaughtering
animals is not considered "murder". Murder is the act of unjustly terminating
the relationship between body and soul (conciousness).
The difference between life and personhood is explicitly explained by
the Quran:
God takes the souls (al Anfus) at their death, and also those
that do not die during their sleep. He keeps back (the soul) of
those on whom He has decreed death, . But the rest, He
sends them (to their bodies) for a predetermined interim. In
this there are lessons for people who reflect. (39:42)
We learn that in sleep our soul, or personhood (Nafs) is temporarily taken
away. We learn that life is entirely different than personhood. Termination of
life necessarily results in death, which is the permanent departure of soul.
However, if the body is not fatally harmed, life can continue for awhile even
after the soul is taken for good. The last moments of Jesus is an example of
this unique case.
Here, I have to point another error in the article. She says, "we have a 'life
span' (during which we need redeem ourselves). We do not have a 'soul
span.' The assigned soul cannot die and is eternal." This statement is not
Quranic; it is only a popular expression. Expressions in a particular
language cannot be suggested as evidence neither for a scientific
argument, nor for a religious argument. People who opposed Galileo
benefited from the "sun sets" and "sun rises".
Having life does not necessitate having soul
Some religious scholars prohibited countraception by claiming that human
sperm is a candidate for a soul. Their fallacious logic was this: God has
already assigned life to one of the sperms, thus, preventing its development
is a great sin, if not murder. Ironically, sister Shakira's article appears to
support such a fallacy. She says: "God talks about creating the human from
'clay' or 'dust' and then from a drop. This human already has a soul
assigned." The second part of her statement again has nothing to do with
the Quran.
The point is: Having life or containing the complete genetic code does not
require personhood. There is a lot of discussion among philosophers on the
definition of personhood. However, there is almost a consensus on defining
it as consciousness, which I believe fits the Quranic example stated in
39:42, quoted earlier.
Thus, having genetic structure and life does not provide personhood for the
embryo. Personhood or consciousness is much more than the sum of its
parts.
Quran condemns the killing of new-borns:
You shall not kill your children due to fear of poverty. We
provide for them, as well as for you. Killing them is a gross
offense. (17:31)
Shakira Karipineni, in her article, claims that in the verse above "reference
is made to a child without differentiating whether the child is inside or
outside the womb." This is another basic error regarding this issue. Verse
17:31 clearly states that the reference is to children who are outside the
womb, not inside them. Neither the English nor the original Arabic word
justify her statements. According to Webster's Dictionary a "child" is a
"young human being", and "childhood" is the "period between birth and
puberty." Nevertheless, English speaking people can use this word for fetus
as in "unborn children."
On the other hand, the Arabic word for child "Walad (pl: Awlad)" does not
need a dictionary to define, since it is a self-defining word. In Arabic
"walada" means to "give birth" and "walad" means "the one who is born."
Thus, an Arabic speaker can say that "I will have a 'walad'" or "I am
pregnant to a 'walad'", but she cannot say "I'm carrying a 'walad' in my
womb".
We must also consider the relevance of this basic commandment at the
time of the revelation. If we study the Quran we see that some Arabs were
killing their children after birth. When they learned that their newborn
children were girls, parents would decide to kill them shortly after their birth.
Thus, when one of them gets a baby girl, his face becomes
darkened with overwhelming grief. Ashamed, he hides from
the people, because of the bad news. Should he keep the
baby grudgingly, or bury her in the dust. Miserable indeed is
their judgment. (16:58,59)
There were economical and social reasons for this inhuman behavior.
Unending tribal wars, the inter-tribal and international trade had increased
the value of boys over girls. Tribal society had created pressure against
having daughters. This pressure, combined with individual economical
weakness provided a vicious and devilish motivation to kill their daughters,
just after birth. This action is expressed with the word "infanticide", not
"abortion."
Murdering a soul is a gross crime
Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that
anyone who murders a soul who did not commit murder or
horrendous crimes, is as if he murdered all the people. . .
(5:32)
Killing a person (al Nafs) without justification is the greatest crime after idol
worship. The life of a soul (person), believer or disbeliever, black or white,
young or adult is sacred. If the evolving creature is considered as a person,
then the verses condemning the "killing of person (al Nafs)" will entail
abortion. This is the only relevant Quranic argument regarding abortion.
However, an important question will remain unanswered: when can we
consider the evolving creature in the uterus as a human or a person? Just
after conception, or after the first trimester, or after delivery?
Soul does not appear with conception
According to the Quran "a new creature" is created after certain stages of
development. Here are two verses that summarize this evolution:
O people, if you have any doubt about resurrection,
(remember that) we created you from dust, and subsequently
from a tiny drop (sperm), which turns into a hanging
(embryo), then it becomes a fetus that is formed or
unformed. . . (22:5).
Then we developed the drop into a hanging (embryo), then
developed the hanging (embryo) into a bite-size (fetus), then
created the bite-size (fetus) into bones, then covered the
bones with flesh, then produced a new creature. Most
blessed is God, the best Creator. (23:14)
The later verse, in particular, gives more detail about the stages of creation
in the uterus. From the above two verses we get a very clear picture of
those stages:
1. Sperm
2. Embryo
3. Bite-size fetus (approximately two inches)
a. Formation of bones
b. Formation of flesh
4. Finally, a new creature
It is obvious that "a new creature" does not come into existence with
conception. Embryo, as an evolving biological organism, is not considered
as a person. After a certain point in fetal stage soul (personality) emerges.
When is the time of that crucial point?
Verse 46:15 tells us that the total period for both pregnancy (Haml), and
nursing (Fesaal) is 30 months.
We enjoined the human being to honor his parents. His
mother bore him arduously, gave birth to him arduously, her
bearing him and until his weaning takes thirty months. . .
(46:15)
Verse 2:233 tells us the MAXIMUM nursing period as two FULL years, that
is, 24 months.
Divorced mothers shall nurse their infants two full years, if
the father wishes to complete the nursing . . . (2:233)
Therefore, from the above two verses we learn that the pregnancy period
for a person is 30-24 = 6 months. We know that a normal pregnancy period
is approximately 9 months, or more accurately 266 days or 38 weeks.
(Rules and examples are based on normal or common cases.)
In order to find the precise time of evolving fetus to person, we should
express pregnancy period in terms of days: 6 months are equal to 180 days.
Thus, the period of pregnancy that is not considered as bearing soul is 266180=86 days. Therefore, under cross-light of the Quranic verses we may
conclude that the fetus does not have soul, or personhood until 86 days
after conception.
This Quranic information about the process of creation, I believe, is a mercy
from God Almighty who knows the trauma and dilemma of victims of rape
and incest.
DISCUSSIONS ON THE TOPIC
If a human does not have soul (al Nafs) while he or she is sleeping, then,
according to your argument, the killing of a sleeping body should not be
considered murder!
This is one of the objections that can be raised against my argument. At
least, there are two important differences between a sleeping person and a
sperm or an embryo or an early fetus: 1) A sperm or an embryo or an early
fetus does not have soul yet, but a sleeping body has already a soul. This
difference is similar to a property which has a landlord on vacation versus
land which is nobody's. Their legal status is different. You can stake a claim
on the latter, but not the former. 2) A sleeping person is a member of
society. Throughout his life he has gained relationships and responsibilities.
A furious article was written as a response to my speech. The author
labeled my position as "irresponsible, immature and irrational." He
condemned me to hell frequently without mentioning my name. I will not
mention his name either. I hope that he is not under the delusion that he
has the privilege of judging and condemning people. I will not reciprocate
his style. Here are some objections raised by the angry author, followed by
our reply:
"Abortion is murder, and is clarified by God telling us in 2:228 and 65:4 that
the first three months of pregnancy are so important that a divorced woman
will have to change her life plan if she found herself pregnant."
This objection has several problems. First, those two verses, by any means,
do not conflict the permission for abortion before the first trimester. Those
two verses and a limited permission for abortion can be the premises of a
valid argument. The importance of something does not necessarily make
that thing sacred.
For instance, compare the claim above with the following statement:
"wasting man's seminal fluid through contraception is prohibited, and is
clearly clarified by God telling us in 53:45-46 that the man's seminal fluid is
so important the baby's gender and his or her entire life depends on."
Obviously, this is not a logically valid argument. Similarly, there is no
deductive link between the importance of pregnancy and the prohibition of
abortion.
Second, the aforementioned verses state the right of husbands. Thus, we
may infer that abortion cannot be permitted without the husband's consent.
"You murder somebody you murder a body not a soul, because soul does
not die. So, abortion has to do with killing the body not killing the soul and
there should be no argument as to when the soul enters the body."
Who says that the soul does not die? Is it another new hadith? This
statement contradicts many of the Quranic verses. For instance:
Every soul (Nafs) is destined to taste death, and you receive
your recompense on the Day of Resurrection. . . (3:185)
The word "Nafs" (soul) occurs in plural form "Anfus" in the verse describing
the similarity and difference between sleep and death:
God takes the souls (Anfus) at their death, also those that do
not die during their sleep. . . (39:42)
Therefore, "soul does not die" is simply a wrong statement.
"Again the lack of guidance and lack of grasp on the Arabic language led
some to misunderstand the expression "your children" (in 6:151). The
reference here to "your children" is used by the Arabic speaking people for
both who are inside the womb and outside."
It is easy to check this claim. A brief survey among Arabic speaking people
will show that the word "Awlad" (children) is never used for the fetuses
inside the womb. In order to conduct this survey objectively, they should not
be briefed about the argument, to prevent a biased response. Furthermore,
both the Quran and modern Arabic dictionaries reject this claim. Arabic
speaking people use "Ganin" (The covered one) for fetus. The Quran uses
the plural form of this word, "Aginna" in 53:32. The Quran also uses several
descriptive words corresponding to the stages of fetus: "Alaqa, Mudga." In a
broader term, fetus is "Haml" (load, burden), as in the following verse:
That day a nursing mother will discard her infant, and a
pregnant woman will bring forth her fetus (haml). . . (22:2)
"In Arabic, the verb "Walada" means to give birth, the word "Maolood" is the
one who is born, and God used it in 31:33. But the word "Awlad" is another
derivative of the root word "walada" and does not only mean "the one who is
born." In Arabic the word father Waled is derived from the same root word
"Walada," but the father does not give birth."
Here, a wrong statement is being sandwiched between two correct
statements. The word "Awlad" (born children) as the plural form of "Walad"
(born child) means only "the one who is born." As I suggested before, you
can examine it yourself. To verify the meaning of a single word, you don't
need to be an expert on Arabic.
As for the word "Waled", we need a little bit the knowledge of linguistics.
First, this word does not simply correspond "father". The equivalent of father
is "Ab". You can use the word "Ab" (father) in relation to fetus. For example,
you can ask a pregnant woman "who is the father (Ab) of your baby?"
However, you cannot ask an Arabic speaking pregnant woman "who is the
"Waled" of your baby?" We must keep in mind that a person becomes
"Waleda" (the one who gave birth) or "Waled" (the one who caused the
birth, or, the one who begot) after the birth of their child.
For instance, verse 22:2 refers to the one who "brings forth or aborts her
fetus" as "a pregnant woman", not as "one who gives birth, or mother" i.e.,
"Waleda". Both the word "Waleda" (mother) and "Waled" (father of a born
child) is ascribed to people after they have born children. Thus, you cannot
claim that you are a "Waleda" or a "Waled" if you don't have a baby outside
the womb.
In brief, the word "Waleda" is used for the mother because she "gave birth",
and the word "Waled" is used for the father because he "caused the birth".
Besides, there is a unique aspect of Arabic language which creates words
such as "Abawayn" which literally means "two fathers", but is used for
parents.
"The confirmation of the meaning that the word "Walad" or "Awlad" is used
by God for the children to be, comes from 3:47: "She said, 'My Lord, how
can I have a son when no man has touched me?' He said, 'God thus
creates whatever He wills. To have anything done, He simply says to it 'Be'
and it is.' " In this verse, Mary uses the word son "Walad" for the son to be,
and he was not born yet."
Well, this verse is not about the fetus. It is a PROPHECY about a son to be.
Thus, it is very appropriate to inform him with the word "Walad". In that
verse God informs Mary that she will give birth to a son.
A question for further research
Please notice the different implication of these two statements:
1. The one WHO is inside the womb
2. The one WHICH is inside the womb
In Arabic, the pronoun "Man" (who) is used for persons, such as humans,
jinns and angels. The pronoun "Ma" (which), however, is used for nonpersons, such as animals, plants, and stars. "Ma" is also used for the
mixture of both categories. For instance, the whole living creatures can be
referred with "Ma."
The question: Which pronoun does the Quran use for the fetus? You may
check 2:228; 3:35.
Summary
1) Quran condemns the action of child killing after birth (6:151; 17:31).
2) Killing a person is a great sin (5:32).
3) Having life is different than having a soul (39:42).
4) Embryo, as an evolving biological organism is not considered as a
person. After a certain point in fetal stage soul (personality) emergs and a
new person is created (22:5; 23:14).
5) Embryo is NOT considered as a "person" before 12 weeks in the uterus
(46:15 and 2:233).
Conclusion
Abortion is murder IF it is committed after the first trimester unless the
mother's life is in danger. I do not recommend or even suggest abortion; but
I believe that it should remain an option especially for the victims of
traumatic circumstances, such as rape or incest.
USURY
Edip Yuksel
Until recently I had questions that constantly tickled my mind regarding what
constitutes "riba" (often translated as usury, or interest), such as: What is
my justification for understanding it as "interest" or "usury"? What is the
clear-cut difference between usury and interest? What is the Arabic word for
interest? Did people have two different words for usury and interest during
the time of revelation? What constitutes "high interest"? What justification
can one provide for considering 15% or 18% or 20% as the border line
between the Satanic usury and lawful interest? Do any fixed percentage,
such as 20%, have any meaning in continuously contemporary economies
afflicted with continously fluctuatign inflation and devaluation? Is it possible
to refrain from all kinds of interest in today’s economy?
After reading an excellent letter written by brother Dr. Amir Azadi of Canada
on interest, these questions were transformed to giant intellectual
challenges. I started talking with some friends on the issue. I found that
some already had a satisfactory answer to my questions. For instance, Dr.
Gatut S. Adisoma provided me with a paradigm-shifting hint. The answer
was incredibly simple too! Finally, after studying related verses, the issue
became clear for me. Before sharing this simple answer for all the above
questions regarding usury or interest, I would like to quote the first three
paragraphs from Izadi’s article:
"Throughout history people have often debated the issue of usury in Islam.
The question has always been: what exactly constitutes usury, or "riba" as
mentioned in the Quran? It is my opinion, and that of numerous Islamic
scholars, that usury as stated in the Quran refers to any "fixed" percentage
of earnings collected for money loaned or deposited. The emphasis here is
on "fixed" because it precludes the lender from any losses. Earnings,
however, which vary with the profits or losses of the borrower are not to be
considered usury. However there have always been those who have
disagreed, and held the view that usury only implies the charging of
exorbitant interest, or charging compounded interest, or any trade where
one party takes advantage of another’s predicament, or put simply, unfair
business practices. The same propounders of this theory maintain that
lending money at fixed interest rates is entirely satisfactory, because as
long as there is mutual agreement usury can be considered a form of trade.
The Quran provides the best response to this assertion in 2:275. "Those
who earn from usury stand like one struck by the devil’s touch. That is
because they claim usury is a form of trade. But God permits trade and
prohibits usury. . ."
"If usury merely implied amoral business practices such as profiteering or
loan sharking the issue would be a moral one, and thus easily discernible to
be wrong in consideration of all other teachings in the Quran. However, it
seems likely that usury implies an activity which can easily resemble
legitimate trade, thereby necessitating the mention of usury as different from
trade. Eventually, however, it does become a moral issue, but only after we
have understood the long-term repercussions it has on society. It is
extremely important to educate ourselves in this respect, and not form
opinions in haste after only listening to one or two scholars, but actively
seek for ourselves all the available facts and base our decisions upon the
research.
"Since it is not readily obvious why usury (earnings with fixed percentages)
should be prohibited when all that seems to take place is a legitimate
transaction between two parties that are in mutual agreement, the
detrimental effects of such fixed earnings on society should be considered.
The subject of this paper is to show precisely such effects of usury on the
economy, and how in the absence of usury a more productive, stable, and
just society will result. The effects of usury on inflation, unemployment, and
government deficits will be considered, as well as its contribution to the
widening gap between the rich and the poor."
Dr. Izadi, after this introduction, provides the reader with a detailed
argument supporting his points made above. Though I’m not an economist
nor a businessman, I found his argument sound and compelling. He
demonstrates myriad problems and side effects which are apparently
caused by usury (which he uses it synonym of "interest"). Leaving this
argument for experts on economy, I would like to invite you for a new look to
the verses regarding interest or usury.
This "new"--for me at least--understanding makes the aforementioned
questions and arguments irrelevant. If we evaluate all the verses on the
issue (2:261-281; 3:130-134 and 4:161-162), we will clearly see that the
prohibition has nothing to do with business interactions; it is about charity
and loaning money for charity purposes. Quran prohibits charging any
interest, be low or high, on money lent to people in need. The borrower is
defined as "the poor" who needs the money to spend on his/her basic
necessities, not as an entrepreneur who wants to start or improve
businesses. They are not out there to make money from your loan, but try to
survive on it. Therefore, God prohibits us from taking advantage of our
neighbor’s or friend’s basic needs. Lending them money is not business, but
entirely a humanitarian act, an act of charity. You are supposed to help the
poor without exploiting their weakness.
Below are the verses from Sura 2 (Al-Baqarah) that I believe, define "riba"
(usury or interest) as loans lent for the purpose of charity. The word charity
is highlighted, to pull your attention to the context:
•
•
•
270. Any CHARITY you give, or a CHARITABLE pledge you fulfill,
God is fully aware thereof. As for the wicked, they will have no
helpers.
271. If you declare your CHARITIES, they are still good. But if you
keep them anonymous, and give them to the poor, it is better for
you, and remits more of your sins. God is fully Cognizant of
everything you do.
272. You are not responsible for guiding anyone. God is the only
one who guides whoever chooses. Any CHARITY you give is for
your own good. Any CHARITY you give shall be for the sake of God.
Any CHARITY you give will be repaid to you, without the least
injustice.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
273. CHARITY shall go to the poor who are suffering in the cause of
God, and cannot emigrate. The unaware may think that they are
rich, due to their dignity. But you can recognize them by certain
signs; they never beg from people persistently. Whatever CHARITY
you give, God is fully aware thereof.
274. Those who give to CHARITY night and day, secretly and
publicly, receive their recompense from their Lord; they will have
nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.
275. Those who charge "riba" are in the same position as those
controlled by the devilÕs influence. This is because they claim that
"riba" is the same as commerce, However, God permits commerce,
and prohibits "riba". Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from
his Lord, and refrains from "riba", he may keep his past earnings,
and his judgment rests with God. As for those who persist in "riba",
they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever.
276. God condemns "riba", and increases (yurbi) CHARITIES. God
dislikes every disbeliever, guilty.
277. Those who believe and lead a righteous life, and observe the
Contact Prayers (Salat), and give the obligatory CHARITY (Zakat),
they receive their recompense from their Lord; they will have nothing
to fear, nor will they grieve.
278. O you who believe, you shall observe God and refrain from all
kinds of "riba", if you are believers.
279. If you do not, then expect a war from God and His messenger.
But if you repent, you may keep your capitals, without inflicting
injustice, or incurring injustice.
280. If the debtor is unable to pay, wait for a better time. If you give
up the loan as a CHARITY, it would be better for you, if you only
knew.
281. Beware of the day when you are returned to God, and every
soul is paid for everything it had done, without the least injustice.
I kept the original word "riba" to let the reader infer its meaning from the
Quranic context by themselves. Different forms of the word "riba" is used in
many verses meaning: to swell (22:5; 4139), to increase (30:39), more
numerous (16:92), a hill, an elevated part of the Earth (2:265, 23:50), high
and fertile (2:265), lofty (23:50), exceedingly severe (69:10), high, abundant
(13:17) increase (2:276).
Verse 2:276 is enough by itself to clarify the issue, since it contrasts "riba"
with charity. Besides, it clarifies the literal meaning of "riba" by using a verb
(yurbi = increases) from the same root with "riba" to describe charity.
If we reflect on the context, I believe, it will save us from personal
speculations and uncertainty regarding this Satanic conduct which is
equivalent of declaring war against God and His messenger. It will also
save us from relying on contradictory opinions of scholars or any hadith
besides the Quran.
From http://www.yuksel.org/e/religion/unorthodox.htm