-
Riba In Secured Loans For Consumables
Is it riba if markup is charged on loans for consumable goods where the loan is secured against usable goods?
-
47 Replies
-
Riba In Secured Loans For Consumables
updated 2 years, 11 months ago
3 Members
·
47
Replies
-
If the loan is for a consumable item and an additional amount is demanded on top of the loaned amount then it’s riba. Securing of the loan has no relevance in this matter.
-
(1) Consumable, (2) additional amount, (3) demanded
Which one of the above is a sin given in surah Alaraf?
-
These are the components that make a loan transaction unjust.
-
-
1. Even if the borrower doesn’t have to recreate the markup as he already have an asset to cover it and he wont have to recreate anything?
2. What if i buy a car using borrowed money. Do I have to return the loan and the markup by selling the same car or can I use other sources of income to repay? Wouldn’t it be considered an “unfair” hardship on me as it involves “re-creation”?
Just trying to understand the concept of “unfair” hardship of having to “re-create”.
3. Where did we get this concept that “a mutually agreed contract that requires one of the parties to re-create is unfair or zulm”? Is it inferred through the definition of Riba or there is Quran and Hadith to support it? Is this kind of a contract null and void in any court of law in the world?
4. If A lends money to B for 10 years on markup to buy a car that has a useful life 10 years but wracked in a road accident much earlier. Can A still demand markup or that would now fall under “unfair re-creation”. What if the borrowers sells the car instead of losing it in a road accident? What if the useful life of the car is actually lower than 10 yrs the loan tenure?
Will appreciate your answers by point – a general answer wont help.
-
Hardship of having to recreate is just simple math. Let’s say that you borrow $100,000. Out of this you lose (or use up) 80%, leaving you with $20,000. Now in order to recover your loss, you don’t just have to earn 80% back, but you have to earn 500% back. If you add the additional burden of riba on top of this, it might create a situation where you will be never be able to repay your loan back.
Following are answers to your points:
1. Yes.
2. Car is not a consumable item. However, in case of a consumable item, you can repay from any source. Also any restriction of riba is for the lender, not the borrower.
3. Hopefully the above passage answers this.
4. Again, car is not a consumable item so this is not a valid concern.
-
Is it the “hardship” that makes it sin or “unfairness and Zulm”. I am trying to understand the Zulm factor in “having to recreate” as we recreate all the time to fulfill our obligations.
Lets suppose “having to recreate” is what makes Riba a sin, so in my original question, the borrower wouldn’t have to recreate anything as he’s got the loan against a usable asset which he can sell off or pay in settlement of his obligation. So what makes it a riba transaction for the lender? The example below explains my question better:
Lets say “A” asks “B” to lend money for his wedding at 10% markup against his car as collateral for one year. B is reluctant to do so as it involves Riba (as you have explained above). “A” offers an alternative; he sells his car to “B” for the loan amount and buys it back at 10% higher value payable in one year time.
Since the substance of both transactions is the same, wondering how can one is causing “hardship” and other is ok?
-
@faisalharoon Please revert when possible.
-
You have to understand this in the context that the Quran has first of all established the right of the society in one’s additional wealth. Then it has prohibited unjustly consuming the wealth of others. Riba is just one application of these principles. Hardship in recreation of wealth in loan transactions is one of the justifications provided by scholars for the prohibition of riba. As I have explained to you before, in a loan transaction it’s very intelligible and makes sense if we apply the math. However, if one is not satisfied with this justification, then they can look for a better one – it doesn’t make any difference.
-
1. Spending wealth surplus to own needs in good works is recommended but not obligatory. True or false?
2. Lending money out of money saved for future needs is not obligatory. True or false?
3. Surplus wealth recommended for spending include usable assets like bike, car or a vacant house? true or false?
4. Surplus wealth can be spend in charity, loans or business? true or false?
5. Renting business is legit business. true or false?
6. In a renting business, the lender can claim damages in form of cash or any other asset equal in value of the lost asset. T/F?
7. In a renting business, one can rent out objects made of gold and silver such as medals, shields, souvenirs, coins, etc. true or false?
8. In a renting business, one can rent liquid assets like bonds, investment certificates, contracts, derivatives. true or false?
9. Renting and trading business can be combined, for example, I rent to own an assets or i can accept a different asset in return. Like dollar for rupee. true or false?
11. Borrowers commit no sin whether they use or consume anything as long as they return it or equal value to the lender. True or false?
12. A lender commits no sin whether his borrowers use or consume the rented assets as “no bearer of a burden shall bear the burden of another”. true or false?
If all above statements are true, differentiating rent and riba based on usable and consumable is totally wrong and misleading.
There are ahadiths on Riba for hand to hand transactions that do not involve loan or credit. Therefore, defining riba as ‘Sood’ is not enough. That is one reason why scholars could not figure out the difference correctly. Riba means hanging surplus without a counter part in transaction where both sides are not equal in value. This mostly happens in loan transactors but not always.
This error in understanding Riba is extremely important as needs correction as it affects life of Muslim communities.
Please arrange a video call with some scholars of farahi school who i can explain my “counter narrative” and if they see any merits they can discuss it with sir ghamidi.
-
It’s highly encouraged to give out surplus money if a need of the society presents itself. Even if someone is not willing to part with that money, they can keep it to themselves- it can’t be lent on riba. Secondly, you keep mixing personal loan transactions with business transactions; please understand that rules are different for the two. For details you can watch the videos in the following thread:
-
Brother Wadood. I tend to agree with Faisal. Seems like you have some concerns and specific questions. I would love to ponder on those questions for my knowledge too; only if we take them one by one. It becomes difficult to handle too many items in a chat.
1. Zakat is obligatory; the rest is not
2. True (Lending without interest only)
3. Yes
4. Yes (Loans without interest only)
5. True (As long as it is not a Monopoloy or someone is not taking excessive profit by taking advantage of poor people)
6. Not necessarily; unless someone destroys rental property deliberately. Normally when something is rented, the rent includes depreciation and profit components and insurance is bought on the property in case of accidental damage.
7. Yes, as long as those items are not converted into something and used as-is.
8. False. It is lending; not renting. Renting requires tangible asset.
9. Yes
10. No. The same item need to be returned for renting. Not another item
11. No. Rented item can’t be consumed.
12. No. Rented item can’t be consumed
-
My questions or concerns are three fold:
- The right of society on the wealth surplus to own needs is on both consumable and usable. Chapter 107 endorses this point even more. In addition, how one spends his surplus money is not defined. If one chooses not to lend but invest in his business to create jobs and supply useful products is no sin on him. Hoe does it make sense to link to prohibition of riba (eating others money unjustly) on loans for consumables only ? Bear in mind the Quran n Hadith has have explained Riba differently and there is no differentiation between consumable and usable. This interpretation is added by the scholars.
- Riba is not just sood. Any transaction that has unequal exchange causes riba to the extent of the difference. One can clearly see how it is like eating others money unjustly. Unless we understand the definition correctly we can not understand the difference between riba and trade or rent.
- Trade or rent is a value fo value exchange so no question of riba. Loan with interest has unequal exchange so it begets riba. Thats the high level stuff.
Some explanations:
- Profit in trade is not riba as it is the cost of service that is added to the product such as transportation, storage, investment etc.
- Rent is a cost of usage.
- Value of goods or services exchanged is measured against fair market price.
If the above is clear we can discuss how we can apply to different scenarios.
-
To my understanding Riba is “Usury or any other unjust or exploitative gains made in trade or business”
Let’s keep “Usury.. that includes taking interest on a loan” separate from “Exploitative Gains in trade or business”
1. Based on the definition above all Riba is prohibited in Islam whether it is Usury, Interest or exploitative gains in trade or business.
Profit in trade is Riba if a business takes advantage of a dire situation (for necessaties of life; as defined differently based on the society and location) and takes extraordinary profit. This would also include if someone takes extraordinary profit due to hoarding or monopoly situation. All other business profits will not be Riba.
2. Rent is cost of usage + reasonable profit.
3. Value of goods exchanged is measured against open and fair market with open competition without regulations.
-
“Rent is cost of usage + reasonable profit.”
There is no such thing as “profit” without any underlying value being passed on to the customer. It could be either a service cost, risk taking cost, or opportunity cost and it has to be as per the fair market price. If profit or mark up is a hanging surplus without a counter part value given to customer it is riba.
-
I consider Riba as undue profit; especially if earned by taking undue advantage of a calamity, natural disaster and involving necessaties of life. You can call profit as service cost, risk taking cost or opportunity cost, but at the end of the day, it is something above the cost of equipment rented.
-
Not it’s not. Profit is cost recovery for the value addition.
There are ahadith that forbid reselling without value addition. Even in secular world, exorbitant profits without value addition are checked by the antitrust laws.
Until the definition of trade as “value for value” exchange is not understood, riba cannot be understood. People get it wrong easily by taking profit as surplus and when they are told riba also means a surplus, they get confused why the surplus in trade/rent is ok but it’s not ok in riba. Once they close this door, they start guessing other possible reasons like ‘having to create or recreate value for repayment etc.’ these types of arguments are not relevant as the same kind of hardship of creating and recreating is involved in many scenarios that do not involve riba but those transactions are not forbidden.
Similarly obligation of spending resources surplus to own needs apply to all kind of scenarios including those that do not involve loan or rba at all and therefore presenting them as the reason for riba being a sin is not correct
-
You stated “How does it make sense to link to prohibition of riba (eating others money unjustly) on loans for consumables only?” In my opinion all Usury (including interest on money) is prohibited; whether on consumable or not, but certainly it is a grave injustice if usury or interest is charged on loan that is used for consumables…because it puts undue burden on the borrowers who has to generate twice as much money to repay the loan. So, it becomes Riba, “taking undue advantage of someone’s situation or pressing need”
On the other hand, if loan was taken to expand a business, then it is not a pressing need and it is not a dire situation. So, in my opinion, the Usury or Interest is still prohibited but it is not as severe sin as the prior one I mentioned.
-
Injustice is when there is a breach of mutual contract.
If a loan or any other contract is done when the free consent of parties is compromised by a force of necessity and it is proven that the contract is biased (not as per custom of trade in that society) the contract is deemed null and void by court of law. Those who force other party to pay under such contracts are zalm and the additional money they collect is riba, be it in form of sood, rent or sale price in a hand to hand transaction.
If parties agree, there is no Zulm in returning value in a different asset. For example, i can rent to own a (surplus) cow against a ton of wheat payable over 5 years. Now buyer has to create principal and rent both and can use the cow pull a cart and also milk it to drink (consumable). This transaction is lawful only if the pice of the cow and the rent I charged is as per the market. It does doesn’t matter if the wheat he gave me had to be created or recreated or it caused any due or undue hardship on the buyer. AS long as the contract was fair free mutual consent of the parties there is no question of sin or riba or injust or unlawful eating of wealth of buyers by sellers.
-
“Injustice is when there is a breach of mutual contract”? That is an extremely narrow definition of injustice.
People in dire need will take loan and sign any contract. They will even write their life off; that doesn’t make it ok.
Let’s not involve court and justice system. There is only one court and justice; that is Allah’s court and justice. Human court and justice are biased and extremely flawed. Rich people influence to make laws and tax system in their favor. Justice system favors rich. Let’s not involve human laws.
Simple definition of Zulum is “any action of one human that puts another human in psychological or physical pain”
Wadood, I think you are mixing the concept to taking undue advantage of people and necessaties of life with the rest.
-
Human rights are the international social contracts. Regardless, fine i agree with the broader definition of injustice that any violation of human rights is injustice. Riba is a specific sin that leads to eating of others money unlawfully. however it does not fall under our obligation to feed the hungry, helping people in need by charity or loan etc. that are all our obligations.
-
Also, if something is priced and exchange is based on fair and open market, then it doesn’t become Zulum or Riba in most cases. But, still, if we charge someone based on fair market, but take advantage of their dire situation (a situation that is life threatening; food, housing, clothing, medical need), it is still Riba. An exchange for a tangible to a tangible asset is not interest. The exchange of money for more money is interest; even if the payment is secured by a physical object.
-
No doubt the rich is supposed to help the poor and the spirit of helping other should reflect in whatever we do. I have no disagreement on that one.
However, what makes riba is not lack of charitable mindset – it’s about “eating up others money unlawfully”. Even if you flip the stereotype profiles of lenders and borrowers by assuming a poor man is lending money he saved for his needs to a rich neighbors who has a million $ tied up in fixed assets like real estate, it can’t justify riba. If thats true it alone destroys the whole premise on which Sir Ghmaidi’s interpretation of riba is based.
-
Brother Wadood. Consider this, the poor man shouldn’t lend the money to rich just because the rich wants to make more money or doesn’t have ready cash for his needs. Even if he does lend, he can lend the money without interest or buy an item the rich person needs and rent it out to him at whatever the rent that is acceptable to the rich person.
I do not see a need for an interest-bearing loan in any condition. In a bigger picture, I think an economy can run on the principals of mutual investments or rental business.
I think, we agree on the general principle, it is just that we need to see everything from every perspective.
-
-
Bro Nadeem,
That was a hypothetical scenario. Here we are not discussing who should do what. The scenario is supposed to help us figure out what is wrong in riba and what makes it such a big sin that it’s like a war against God and His messenger.
The scenario shows that even if a person with no surplus resources lends money to someone who doesn’t need charity and claims riba and that causes no hardship to the borrower, it would be a sin. That’s because riba is a sin in it’s nature. it’s a zulm and it’s got nothing to do with the profile of lenders, borrowers or even the goods bought with loan money. It’s a sin because the two sides of a transaction are not equal – the difference causes loss to one party and that tantamount to zulm, injustice and eating up others money unlawfully.
On the other hand, trade has a “value for value” exchange so God has made it lawful. Rent is a form of trade instead of riba and that’s because here the value is transferred in form of usage instead of goods and as long as value exchanged is the same it does not cause transfer of wealth from one party to another.
I guess i am repeating myself so i must stop here.
If you agree with the “value for value” principle, we can move on to applying the concept to different scenarios and see how it goes.
-
I agree
-
- Ok good. Bro @faisalharoon , do you also agree or you have any questions?
Lets move on to scenarios.
Bro Nadeem, given below is something you have asked in another discussion so lets start with that one:
“Would money investment in a business without a specifically identified object to be purchased for the business and without lender having title of a specific object. In such case would receiving monthly fixed income is like receiving interest in Islam?”
Here are my views:
- Goods or titles do not make anything riba. So the transaction is cannot be unlawful because of that.
- Fixed income is Riba only in case and to the extend it’s higher than the total profit made. That’s because the value created by the loan money is less than the fixed amount being claimed. Maximum profit that can be claimed under a fixed profit arrangement is the agreed amount or the total profit whichever is lower. In case of a loss, the lender can still claim his invested amount back – that’s because Quran has allowed claiming the principal. Bear in mind, claiming principal in case of loss goes against the “value for value principle”. however’s since lender is not involved in decision making he can be indemnified for wrong decisions of the borrowers. Lender can also be indemnified for damages if principal is not returned on promised date.
If you agree with my views we can move on to the next scenario.
-
I agree with everything, except that money can’t be rented at a fixed amount of return even if it is below the profit amount. It is not right. It is an interest.
The lender if not actively participating in running the business or involved in key decision making, then he should demand a larger portion of profit sharing and lesser portion of loss taking when business goes down. For example, a lender may contributes 25% capital in a business for a mutually agreed lease period as a silent partner, then he may ask for 30% of yearly profit and only 10% of business loss on his principal in case business goes down.
-
Actually, as a second thought, if the lender is accepting lesser profit than his proper share of investment, then he can demand a full return of his principal if business goes down. But this arrangement may not be practical in real life.
-
Since Islam allows two parties to agree whichever way they want to share profit, we have no legal basis to say fixed profit is not ok. Lets say I lend money to my friends for his cab business at $100 a month fixed profit. He has many other investors and he uses the borrowed money to buy gas for the cabs, pay drivers salaries, car insurance and maintenance expenses. He also use borrowed money to buy cars to add to his fleet. Lets say $100 a month on $10000 loan is the market rate. we cannot say it’s unlwful or haram. we have no basis to say that.
Loss sharing formula depends on the partnership agreement. Here too we can’t dictate terms. Islam allows us to claim the principle (and encourages us to let go.)
Profit sharing is a subject of free and fair contract between two parties. Free consent and freedom of choice must not be comprised by false info, incomplete info, force of necessity or even planted bidders etc and the terms should be aligned with custom of trade of the society (maroof).
-
Fixed profit agreed on a free and fair agreement can become Riba, if the value created by the venture falls short of the agreed payment without any determinable fault of the borrower. Many times ventures are flopped due to “Act of God” that’s when things beyond human control go wrong. That’s why there is a standard clause called “Force Majeure” in all modern days agreements that releases the affected party of performance obligation if unforeseeable circumstances prevent him from fulfilling a contract. In such an event claims are limited to shareholders investment in the business (in an LLC) – i.e., no one can ask owners to sell their houses or private properties to pay off business debts caused by losses, unless a fraud is proven in the court of law.
-
Determining the fault in a business loss is not practical and mostly can be attributed to external forces. If you are talking about LLC then there are only partners that contribute in business. If a loan is secured by a bank, the bank makes sure that the business is solid, they secure a loan and after this to avoid losses in bankruptcy, they charge enough interest to avoid losses at a portfolio level. A business normally fail because of their inability to make the scheduled loan payment. If a business is wholy based on equity, there is a much less chance of failure in a downturn.
It is possible to run a business to completely based on equity investment, but in order to maximize profits, instead businessman take loans. So instead of wealth distributing between many people, it either stays with a wealthy businessman or goes to a bank.
-
My opinion is different. The word fixed and profits are oxymoron. To me it is giving a new name to interest to justify its use. Unless the investor is willing to take part of losses if business goes under, it is interest.
To be certain, I rather buy and lease a specific item, land, building, machinery, etc., to business, if I am seeking a fixed payment and return of full investment with profit. I do not see a need to invest cash in a business to seek a fixed monthly income. The other method will be to buy business stocks with quarterly dividends for a regular income.
-
How does a fixed amount of return makes it riba? Rib arises only when a party is short changed. How can a party be short changed if the value created out of a blend of money and efforts is more than the fixed amount payable to one party?
How is stocks different from lending money, if a company goes bust you get your principal back out of the sale proceeds of the assets just like lenders or creditors of the company do.
-
I am not understanding the need to receive a fixed payment if it is less than the fair share of the investor profit and if in case of no profit the investor receives no payment; why not in this case go for a fixed share of profits. Why fix payment and not a fixed share of profit?
In stocks, if a company goes bust, the sales of assets first pay for secured loans and other obligations and only at the end whatever is left over is paid to the stock holders; in most cases they get very little or nothing. (Here I am talking about common stocks)
-
I am actually fine with both fix amount or fixed share as profit sharing formula. My question on what basis you believe fixed amount of profit share is not a fair or legitimate agreement between the partners? I am trying to figure out the injustice or the sin in there. If we can’t find any such thing we cannot label it as haram. We can say it’s a bad negotiation for one of the party but as long as it’s done with free consent and as per the custom of trade – no one can doubt its legitimacy.
Re stocks i agree with you the shareholder get their money back in the last. I also agree that in most cases they don’t get much against their shares in case of bankruptcy. Lets assume a co pa y go bust as it fails to pay its creditors on time. Later when real estate of the company is sold it generates enough money to everyone. Are you saying in case of a bankruptcy, where shareholders get their full money back, the dividend income they have been earning on their investment was a Riba? If not how can interest earned on loans to the same company be riba?
-
Brother Wadood. Please see my last response. I am ok with a fixed amount as long as it meets the rules of Preferred Stocks as described in the referenced article.
-
I understand but my question is why only preferred stock? Why do you think common stock or loan with a fixed return is Riba? How do they go against the “value for value” or “free and fair contract” principles?
-
Common stock with fixed amount will be preferred stocks. The point is that as long as business doesn’t have to make a payment outside of the amount of profit they made and they don’t have to pay the principal back out of personal assets, fixed amount of monthly payment is not a problem.
-
true, i agree.
-
Brother Wadood, if you are talking about Preferred stock model as described in this article with a fixed monthly payment and all the other details mentioned, then it is not riba either and I agree with you.
-
-
Now let me ask you a question. A poor farmer who owns his own land need money desperately to sow and take care of his crop.
Where and at what terms he will get money? Will his land be considered a business asset and in case of a loss he will have to sell his land and pay the principal back? How would he make fixed monthly loan payments?
-
it depends on the loan contract – if the loan is secured against land the borrower has to sell his land no matter he is rich or poor.
if loan is only for business venture and not secured against land, the lender will lose his principle in case of a loss. in case of profit he will get his loan back and agreed share of profit.
In both cases the agreement should be based on good faith and fair dealing (i.e. custom of trade / maroof) of the society.
-
-
Bro Nadeem, Given below are two of the scenarios from your “rent vs interest” discussions:
5. A student needs money to travel back to his university from holidays. His friend has some savings but that is invested in stocks at 10 to 15% return in form of dividends on year on year basis. Both agree to use the money to buy plane tickets on the condition that the borrower will indemnify the lender for his loss of opportunity. This is win win for both parties. Is it oK? Bear in mind travel expense is “consumable”
6. Many people invest in a business as “principle-secured” financing at 10% fixed dividend hoping the actual profit is more than that. The business invest money in both consumables and usable assets and makes 18% profit at the year end. Of which it distributes 10% to the investors. No one knows whose money was used where. Who’s eaten Riba here?
What is your views on the above in light of “value for value” and “contract based on good faith and fair dealing” bases?
-
5 is not a business loan with an expectation of profit and money is being spent for consumable. It is 100% interest on money.
6. It is not riba, provided that business doesn’t have to pay anything above the profit made and provided the business doesn’t have to pay the principal back from personal property in case there is a business loss. Basically same arrangement as preferred stocks.
-
I agree with number 6 but need to decompose number 5 to explore the basis:
If the students buys tickets with loaned money and the airlines gives him free 15% discount voucher for the next trip – if he gives it to the lender on top of the principal amount, is it riba?
If A lends money to his friend B (interest free) through banks and incurs 5% bank charges, who will bear the bank charges?
A loses 10% income on his investment by early withdrawal of his deposit of $10K to B. The principal amount loaned will be considered 10K or (10+10%) $11K?. The cost of lending is $11K but borrower gets on $10K . who will suffer the loss assuming it’s an interest free loan and B was in a need for money.
-
Scenario 1: No Riba: The borrower paid from him guaranteed profits. It became more like a business.
Scenario 2: Bank charges are cost of doing business. If these are ACTUAL paperwork and transaction charges and not an inflated amount to disguise interest, then it is not Riba.
Scenario 3: This is Riba: You simply can’t make money on loaned money for someone’s pressing personal needs, where money is consumed and where the money needs to regenerated. If the lender loses 10%, he shouldn’t loan the money. Even if the borrower agrees to pay 10% cost of lender’s loss, it is still Riba. Islam asks people, in this case to loan money to such people without interest and if they absolutely can’t give it back then let the loan go as charity / Zakat.
That is why when I personally give loan to a poor person for a pressing need for consumable, I only loan amount that I could let go as charity, in case the borrower is unable to pay.
-
“Scenario 3: This is Riba: You simply can’t make money on loaned money for someone’s pressing personal needs, where money is consumed and where the money needs to regenerated. If the lender loses 10%, he shouldn’t loan the money. Even if the borrower agrees to pay 10% cost of lender’s loss, it is still Riba. Islam asks people, in this case to loan money to such people without interest and if they absolutely can’t give it back then let the loan go as charity / Zakat.”
l though we have already agreed that it’s not the profile of the parties or the goods that make the surplus riba (no matter it is in form of interest, usuary, rent or profit) but riba in its own nature is a sin/’zulm just like robbing, stealing or fraud and it arises when someone is short changed in a transaction be it loan or trade. We can’t say robbing is bad if rich robs the poor but if the poor robs the rich then its fine. No matter who robs who it’s a sin and zulm. We also can’t say you can steal software but not hardware. no matter what you steal, it’s a sin/zulm. Similary, a surplus is riba or zulm in its own nature for making more money than the value you offer in return based on fair market and custom of trade.
I thought we also agreed that whatever profit sharing formula two parties agree between them with free consent, good faith and fair dealing is not riba or zulm. If a rich guy who’s temporarily lost access to his foreign bank account (due to technical reasons) needs to borrow money from his poor granny (who lives on her small fixed income of 10% from her life long savings) and agrees to return the money to her with some profit to indemnify her loss, how can it be riba or zulm with this millionaire guy? Granny is only trying to help this stranded guy to go back to the other country to fix his bank account access. How can she be a “sinner” in this transaction? No body in his sane mind can ever accept this based on consumable/non-consumable criteria.
Lets stop here as we are going in circle. This discussion has dragged too long and i was hoping that we would deep dive and drill down into those two basic principles and see how they can be applied to our day to day challenges but that’s not happening for some reason – the poorly inferred bases like consumable, non consumable, surplus money and charity (that’d gotten nothing to do with riba) can never help people avoid injustice and zulm God has forbidden in loan or trade transactions. so lets call it a day and see you in some other discussion topic.
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
