An Important Warning Against Ribaa Usury & Interest Transactions

by Shaykh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz

This is a short rebuttal of a research written by Dr. Ibraahim bin Abdullah AnNaasir, in which he tried his best to show the permissibility of most types of Ribaa (usury and interest) transactions that have appeared in recent times in the numerous financial institutions of the world. Hence, we thought English speaking Muslims would benefit from this translated response by Shaikh Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz, one of the noted scholars of our time and a staunch supporter and defender of the Manhaj of the Righteous Predecessors (As-Salaf As-Saalih). Shaikh Ibn Baz's response is a refutation of the misguided effort of Dr. Ibraahim An-Naasir to allow Ribaa transactions. The Manhaj (way, method) of As-Salaf As-Saalih (meaning the Companions and the following two generations of Islam) has been blessed in our time by the presence of several noted scholars of Hadeeth and Islamic Jurisprudence (Filth). These scholars combine both vast knowledge in the religion and firm adherence to the Qur'an and the Sunnah according to the way the Salaf understood and implemented them. Shaikh Ibn Baz is one of these scholars and firmly advocates the Manhaj of the Salaf through his lectures, writings and rebuttals of misguided ideas and deviant opinions, such as this research. We ask Allah to reward our scholars and to raise high the flag of the Salaf and their Manhaj. This short response by Shaikh Ibn Baz that asserts the strict prohibition of all types of Ribaa transactions comes at a time when several so-called scholars are issuing Fatwas (religious decrees) allowing some and even most types of Ribaa. These false, deviant and erroneous Fatwas are especially welcomed by some Muslim communities and individuals who live in non-Muslim countries and who often end up imitating the ways of the Kuffaar (disbelievers) in the societies in which they live. Such people quickly embrace the misguided Fatwas that allow Ribaa, because they think that these Fatwas legalize and justify their indulging in the various types and forms of Ribaa that exist in the present time. I ask Allah to benefit these Muslims and the rest of the Muslim Ummah (nation) with this rebuttal so that they all refrain from indulging in Ribaa, in particular, and in all that Allah has forbidden for them, in general. I also ask Allah to bless the efforts of our scholars who surely face tremendous challenges in recent times, often defending the religion of Allah and His stated limits on several fronts at the same time. They defend the religion against various kinds of attacks by the enemies of Islam and the innovators in the religion. In particular, I ask Allah to grant His best rewards to Shaikh Abdul Aziz bin Baz, who wrote this rebuttal, Shaikh Muhammad Nasir ud-Din AlAlbani, Shaikh Muhammad bin Salih AlUthaimin and the rest of the scholars in general who follow the Qur'an, the Sunnah and the understanding of the Salaf As-Saalih. Aameen.

71 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2002

Reviews

[Michael Martinez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Anyone who speaks out against the evils of usury ought to have the blessings of Allah (Iesus Christus). Although this small book is lacking in clarity at many points, it nonetheless conveys a general Islamic overview of riba (primarily usury). I like the fact that in Islam, there are actually specific names for specific financial evils, like riba al-fadl and riba an-naseeah. Something interesting is that in Islam, it is not only the person materially benefitting from riba transactions that is guilty of something haram, but that even the one who is getting the negative payoff is guilty of something haram. Although this is similar to Christian teaching, Saint Thomas does teach that under certain circumstances, the victims of usury are not always guilty as sometimes they have no choice but to take out a predatory loan in order to clothe their family (which is one example among a few in which such an action is acceptable). Riba al-fadl is an action in which one exchanges something of less quality for something of more quality, and when both things are of equal kind; for example, exchanging 9 mangos for 10 mangos, that is riba al-fadl and is forbidden. Riba an-naseeah is basically just usury, but has to do with any delayment of payment, as in it is both haram to delay payment, and to receive a delayed payment, and especially when that delayed payment constitutes interest. The author claims that banks somehow combine both of these types of riba, but does not really explain how, which is something I would like to know, though it is obvious in what way a bank commits riba an-naseeah. Something interesting is that Islam permits as-salam transactions, as in they are not riba and ergo haram; as-salam transactions are basically the opposite of riba an-naseeah transactions, as in the money is paid first, and then the product being exchanged is what is delayed. It is unclear to me exactly why this is permitted, when riba an-naseeah is not, as in I would like to know the rationality of this, even though I understand that religiously (in Islam), that this is because Muhammad permitted as-salam transactions, but condemned these aforementioned kinds of riba (unless Muslims want to accuse their Muhammad of irrationality however, then they must be able to give a rational reason for this discrepancy). Other things in this book which are fine and good is that it speaks about how usury breeds hate and enmity as it is an exploitive practice that especially harms the poor. I think that by comparing usury to riba al-fadl, it is very clear why it is so unjust, for justice is giving someone what is due to them, but usury is very much like exchanging 9 mangos for 10 mangos, as in the person receiving the interest is gaining money for literally nothing, as it is clearly an unequal exchange when someone has to give you a value that exceeds what you have given them. What justice concerns itself here with, and what the teachings of Islam are saying, is that in honest financial exchanges, there ought to always be an equal exchange in value, otherwise injustice is playing out as people are given what they are not due. The book elaborates that the Islamic world is divided because of usury, as it breeds such hate and enmity over its injustice as mentioned (I think much is the same in the Christian world). I like how the author calls out the scholar he is responding to by saying that it wrong to use halal things to justify haram things (he uses as-salam transactions to justify riba, just like some coping Christians will twist Biblical verses to justify their sins). Something interesting to note is that the author thinks that Allah can misguide people (which is in fact what the Koran says), this is interesting as it diverges from the interpretation given by Ibn Rushd (he thought that it is the own dispositions of a wicked person that misguide them when they read the Koran, that it is not Allah who directly misguides them to Hell). Something else that is interesting is that the author accuses the Jews and the Christians of impiety, and that this was why Islam was able to rise, for Allah was punishing the Jews and the Christians for supposedly rejecting the Torah, the Injil (the Gospel), and the Koran, but eventually the Muslims saw their own decline, which very much shook the Islamic world (hence the Jadid movement in Central Asia); I find it interesting that you can trace this shock to this general Islamic mentality that if they are not a powerhouse, then that means they are unfaithful and that Allah is punishing them in the way they thought he was punishing the Jews and the Christians. This begs the question though, if the Jews and Christians falling from power meant Allah was punishing them, and that if they had been faithful, that Allah would have instead rewarded them just like this author says, then this implies that Allah was smiling on nations like Russia for example when they conquered the Islamic khanates and emirates of Central Asia. I think this really shows the “might is right” mentality of Islam, and that the Russians were quite literally correct and not exaggerating when they said that the only thing the Central Asian Muslims really understand is power, and so the Russians wielded it. The author also rebukes the notion that riba is somehow necessary to survive in a modern environment, which I appreciate as so many people try to say this; he mentions how Islamic economies have been able to flourish without riba, and thus dispels the notion that riba is necessary for financial well-being. One way to push back against this is to make a prisoner’s dilemma argument, but this would fail once one realizes that even recently in the 20th century when most of the world was practicing usury, a couple of countries (like the Third Reich) outlawed it and in fact became some of the strongest economies in a usury-driven world. I think the author is completely right to say that a country could be better off without usury, however, I cannot be total in my speech here as it ought to be noted that as it stands, it is usury-driven economies that are the most successful, and that there have been financially evil entities like the Phoenicians who rose to power because of their financial evil. It is simply untrue that countries collapse because of impiety (read Comte Arthur for further elaboration), in fact some specifically succeed because of it, but it is nonetheless possible to succeed without such corruption, and it has in fact been done. I think this is one of the errors of Islam, the fact that it has a kind of fusion of prosperity gospel with might is right, as in if Muslims are not wealthy and if they do not have power, then it must mean they are impious, which really shows how materially-minded Muslims are, just like the usurers.