Economics and Islam

Here is the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/12/business/12scene.html
Economics and Islam
By VIRGINIA POSTREL

Published: August 12, 2004

HE 9/11 Commission report pointedly criticizes the idea of a generic threat from terrorism. “The catastrophic threat at this moment in history is more specific,” the commission writes. “It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism.”
Islamists, who favor political rule based on Islamic principles, see liberal Western societies, particularly the United States, as godless and barbarous. They argue that the Muslim world has fallen behind the West economically and militarily because Muslims have strayed from the pure religious practice of Muhammad’s time.

As the commission report suggests, Americans know this theocratic ideology primarily as a spur to terrorism, not as a set of ideas and policies worthy of critical examination.
But Islamists do offer economic and social prescriptions that can be subjected to the same analytical and empirical scrutiny as any other policies. That scrutiny is particularly important for Muslim countries where Islamists play a significant role in politics.
In a new book, “Islam and Mammon: The Economic Predicaments of Islamism” (Princeton University Press), Timur Kuran, professor of economics and law and the King Faisal professor of Islamic thought and culture at the University of Southern California, looks at the cluster of ideas known as Islamic economics.
This concept, he notes, is a 20th-century one, developed in India before independence, when many Muslims worried that they would become an oppressed minority in a Hindu-ruled state. Some feared that Muslims might be so marginalized that they would lose their identity.
One response was Muslim nationalism, which led to the creation of Pakistan. Another was cultural separatism, which was promoted by Sayyid Abul-Ala Mawdudi, the founder of Pakistani Islamism.
Islamic economics was one of many terms - including Islamic sociology, Islamic democracy and Islamic constitutionalism - that Mawdudi used to give Western concepts a Muslim identity.
The goal, Professor Kuran said in an interview, was “to prove to Indians, but also to the world at large, that Muslims had a completely different lifestyle: to be a Muslim is to live differently.”
In the 1940’s, he said, nobody really knew what Islamic economics was. Historically, Muslims did not have distinctive economic practices.
In recent decades, Islamic economics has come to mean three things, all supposedly rooted in the “golden age” of seventh-century Arabia: a ban on interest, a wealth tax known as zakat, and honesty and altruism in commercial dealings.
In his book, Professor Kuran compares the ideal versions of these practices with the reality. Not surprisingly, he finds that in economic life even the most promising ideas tend to be modified, if not corrupted entirely. That is especially true in countries with weak civil societies and legal systems.
Take Islamic banking, which spread with the booming oil wealth of the 1970’s. Instead of charging interest, Islamic banks are supposed to share profits and losses with the enterprises they finance.
If you read an Islamic bank’s charter, Professor Kuran said, "you will say, ‘What a magnificent institution this is - exactly what the Middle East needs.’ " Islamic banks are supposed to act like venture capital funds, investing in good ideas from people who do not have the connections or collateral to get loans from conventional banks.
But Islamic banks learned the hard way that risk sharing does not work in countries where businesses keep false accounting records. “Many people came to borrow money with wonderful ideas, and they just walked away with the money,” Professor Kuran said. The banks could not reliably audit the books, and if they took a client to court, the business would just claim a loss.
Consequently, the banks all started charging what amounted to interest for loans.
The most common way around the interest ban is known as murabaha. The bank buys a capital good, a computer, say, for a client, who agrees to buy it back, with a markup, at a particular time in the future. In effect, the markup represents interest.
Islamic banks also invest in debt securities and pay depositors returns that fluctuate with prevailing interest rates. They act like money market funds.

After going through this article you might find Jamal Badawi’s lectures interesting. : )

Re: Economics and Islam

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SheikhSahab: *
The most common way around the interest ban is known as murabaha. The bank buys a capital good, a computer, say, for a client, who agrees to buy it back, with a markup, at a particular time in the future. In effect, the markup represents interest.
[/QUOTE]

The markup plays the role of interest in that is is how the bank makes money from the transaction. However, since no money is lent at all in the transaction, there is no possibility for interest itself to be paid out.

^^

What's equally relevant is that the markup "fixes" the price... e.g. i buy something for cash and it's $10, or i buy the same item on deferred payment but i have to pay $15... so long as both prices are fixed and agreed at the point of sale then that's fine...

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by gupguppy: *
^^

What's equally relevant is that the markup "fixes" the price... e.g. i buy something for cash and it's $10, or i buy the same item on deferred payment but i have to pay $15... so long as both prices are fixed and agreed at the point of sale then that's fine...
[/QUOTE]

sure about that? Can you quote s'thing from Quran or Hadith to support this. Cuz I've heared different ruling for this.

In my unlearned opinion, the spirit behind 'riba is haraam' is more important than finding convoluted ways around interest.

Exhorbitant interest rates (=usury) causes a lot of economic and social problems - that we all know.

Gupguppy, is there a time element in your example? The 'fixed prices' change if the period/ duration changes?

Is it okay to charge a 'borrower' a 'markup' that equates to say 100% interest rather than a riba of say 5%?

Usury is morally wrong and sinful. Interest is a matter of fact, at least until there is zero inflation or we manage to find an effective alternative.

Pardon me if I have stepped on some toes.

SI & cscraja, refer to…

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=13722&dgn=4

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=13973&dgn=4

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=12638&dgn=4

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by gupguppy: *
^^

What's equally relevant is that the markup "fixes" the price... e.g. i buy something for cash and it's $10, or i buy the same item on deferred payment but i have to pay $15... so long as both prices are fixed and agreed at the point of sale then that's fine...
[/QUOTE]

arey.. what is that so noble from a 30 yr fixed mortgage? I have one and I know exactly know to a penny how much I am going to pay..bank can't charge a penny more to me even if God tells them himself to do so.

Thanks for the links gupguppy.

They still don't answer this question: Is a 'delay markup' equivalent to say, 100%, even if agreed to by both the purchaser and the seller before they depart from the meeting, still better/ less usurious than an agreed 5% interest charge?

Jaza k Allah.
Here is what I learned:
Even though the texts state that it is permissible to delay payment, there is no text which states that it is permissible to increase the price in return for that delay.

Later in the same reply to justify the increment of price this is written:
2 – Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Eat not up your property among yourselves unjustly except it be a trade amongst you, by mutual consent” [al-Nisa’ 4:29]
The general meaning of this verse also indicates that trading is permissible if there is consent from both parties. If the purchaser agrees to pay a higher price in return for delaying payment, the transaction is valid.
Q: If that is the case, can we agree to borrow $10 and pay $12 after one year becuase “there is consent from both parties”

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by stupid idiot: *

Q: If that is the case, can we agree to borrow $10 and pay $12 after one year becuase "there is consent from both parties"
[/QUOTE]

What are you trading?

Got your point, let me consult it with my sheikh, now