Forum
Comments:
Anything haram
is so in large & small quantities
Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq
Associate Professor of Economics and Finance
Upper Iowa University
IBF-Net;
11/20/06; Message #5712; Reply to: #5704
[Note: To access the messages to
which my comments were in reply, one may need to subscribe to the respective
forum.]
Br. Robbani may have set a new record on this
forum in terms of the longest subject header. "Excessive interest = usury
= riba. Anything haraam is so in large & small quantities. Therefore, very
low interest = riba = haraam." Three sentences long! From now on, shall
we put our entire messages in the Subject Header?
Let me take this opportunity to express my
appreciation for Br. Robbani's effort to articulate his views. The thrust of
his argument - Anything haraam is so in large & small quantities - appears
quite strong, until one scrutinizes it closely.
a. Let's frame and characterize a discussion
appropriately.
"In a recent response to one of my
posts, Br (Dr Mohammed) Farooq (who believes that modern day interest is not
Riba) said: ..."
Br. Robbani continues to frame the discussion in a
way as if this position against blanket equation between interest and riba is
mine. Quite the contrary, since the modern banking system has emerged, it is a
well-established, continuing discourse about whether interest is ribawi
or not. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to discuss this thread not
as MY position, but as the position that does not blanketly accept the
equivalence. Indeed, in the literature the debate is already identified
as the "Equivalence school" [those who consider interest and riba as
equivalent] and "non-equivalence school" [those who do not agree
with such blanket notion of equivalence between the two]. Thus, it is
unwarranted to identify this in terms of my position.
Also, it is important to note that there is
hardly anyone in the Non-Equivalence school that considers interest as non-ribawi
in a blanket manner. For example, many among the Equivalence school have a
tendency to characterize the Tantawi fatwa as a blanket endorsement of
interest as part of the modern banking system. That is not so. As Dr. Mahmoud
El Gamal pointed out in a presentation The
recent Azhar fatwa: Its logic, and historical background:
"the fatwa did not say categorically that interest is permissible."
Therefore, it is important that challenging or disputing the riba-interest
equation does not mean recognizing unbounded permissibility of
interest as non-ribawi.
b. About the principles related to prohibition
Br. Robbani has introduced the issue of prohibition of
intoxicant and the principle of prohibition into this discussion. First,
let's note what he has written in the subject header: "Anything
haraam is so in large & small quantities." We will return to
this shortly.
Br. Robbani refers to the issue of intoxicants and their
prohibition in the following manner.
- All intoxicants are prohibited.
- This prohibition is irrespective of small or large
quanity
- The Prophet has specifically mentioned about this
prohibition regardless of the quantity.
- Jurists, such as al-Qaradawi, have affirmed the same.
- Therefore, ANYTHING haram is so in large or small
quantities.
- Riba is prohibited.
- Usury and interest are the same in secular law.
- The only difference between them is the rate.
- Therefore, similar to the case of prohibition of
intoxicants, usury/interest regardless of low or high rate is haram.
Br. Robbani, let me know if I have erred in delineating your
position, because I do believe that accurately delineating others' position
is important in a meaningful and conscientious discourse.
Now, let me go through the above sequence of statements.
1. All intoxicants are prohibited.
This is unquestionably so. Many hadiths, without a great deal
of variations, have stated so.
2. This prohibition is irrespective of small
or large quanity.
Br. Robbani is right again.
3. The Prophet has specifically mentioned
about this prohibition regardless of the quantity.
Br. Robbani is correct. The particular hadith Br. Robbani
probably referred to is: "man askara kathiruhu fa-qaliluhu haram."
[Tirmizi, Vol., 3, #1872] Almost in all collections similar hadith has been
narrated. However, in general, I request Br. Robbani and others to
always provide the relevant reference when referring to hadith. We should
not put the burden on the readers to search the entire Abu Dawood or
Tirmizi collection to find out the exact hadith being referred to.
4. Jurists, such as al-Qaradawi, have
affirmed the same.
Br. Robbani is correct that Jurists, such as Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi,
have mentioned and clarified as such in his well known and popular book
"The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam". However, notably, this
is not their interpretive conclusion or ruling, but this is directly from
the Prophet.
5. Therefore, "ANYTHING haram is so in
large or small quantities."
This is where Br. Robbani is
"wildly off the mark." Muslim jurists have not made that
wild leap from "regardless of quantity" of intoxicants to
"regardless of quantity" of "anything
prohibited".
Evidently, Br. Robbani has not read Qaradawi's book
thoroughly and carefully. Let me digress here briefly.
Sometimes we are just too eager to win an argument or prove a
point, while, instead, our discourse should be with the intention to improve
ourselves in terms of our knowledge and understanding. Such focus on
winning an argument or proving a point deprives us from the benefit of
self-critical approach to learning. While dealing with this topic of
self-critical approach would require a separate treatment, one particular
point I want to emphasize is that we often don't scrutinize our own
understanding, position and argument. Thus, we often try not to subject our
own arguments and efforts to substantiate something to the best we could.
I would like to illustrate this point by referring to what we
are discussing here. Br. Robbani refers to al-Qaradawi's observation about
intoxicant - a categorically haram thing - to be haram in small or large
quantity. However, had Br. Robbani been careful in a self-critical manner in
formulating (and at the same time evaluating) his arguments (and evidence),
he would have easily recognized the vulnerability of his argument.
For those who have not read this book of al-Qaradawi (a must
reading for Muslims), the first chapter deals with The
Islamic Principles Pertaining to Halal and Haram. In
this chapter, he outlines and discusses 11 principles in regard to Halal and
Haram. Br. Robbani missed that neither the 11 principles listed there nor
the elaborations on those 11 principles include that leap to "ANYTHING
haram is so in large & small quantities." The reason that
"wildly off the mark" leap is absent in the articulation of al-Qaradawi
is simply because they have understood that the particular "regardless
of quantity" aspect of the prohibition relates to intoxicants. It is
not to be illicitly generalized or broadened.
Now, if Br. Robbani can open the eyes of the jurists that
they have missed an important principle, then of course the
discourse can go to a different level. Anyway, I hope Br. Robbani
would understand the futility of this illicit extrapolation from what the
Prophet has meant for intoxication to a much more general level. There is no
issue here for anyone to take something to "its logical
conclusion" and that's why I find no basis for taking the position we
are discussing to its "logical conclusion."
6. Riba is prohibited.
Agreed, and there is no disagreement. It should be clarified,
however, that even among sahabas there were disagreements whether riba
al-fadl is prohibited or not. Thus, as Muslims, we must be careful in
not making any blanket statement that is not consistent with the Qur'an (and
the Sunnah).
7. Usury and interest are the same in secular
law. The only difference between them is the rate
Here is another error of Br. Robbani
that led him to the wrong conclusion. The problem here is of faulty
premise. Contrary to Br. Robbani's argument, in secular law usury and
interest are not the same. The distinction between the two is based on
elements of exploitation and injustice. Sometimes usury is even
predatory. For the precisely similar reasons, no Muslim do or can take issue
with riba, but many Muslim scholars also have made a distinction
between usury and interest. This is because riba is haram not
because it is merely riba, but Allah has prohibited it because of zulm
(exploitation/injustice) involved in it. Any conscientious mind can't but be
repulsed and thus revolt against riba. Usury as ribawi
thus also can't but be prohibited, because it is exploitative and unjust. I
am not aware of any Muslim (scholar or even layperson) who argue otherwise
about usury. However, when it comes to interest, non-usurious to be
specific, there are many scholars who do not agree with the blanket
extension of prohibition to interest.
Since Br. Robbani used prohibition of intoxication to build
his erroneous argument, let us try to understand it based on the same
prohibition. Islam does not prohibit just any drink or substance, but what
is intoxicating. Thus, the first aspect of this prohibition is that ALL
intoxicants are prohibited. The second aspect is that intoxicating feature
is what constitutes the basis for prohibition. Thus, the same thing that is
prohibited as intoxicating, if a non-intoxicating version can be made, it
would not be prohibited. That's not my understanding or intepretation.
Please read the following from Imam Malik's Muwatta:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Da'ud ibn al-Husayn
that Waqid ibn Amr ibn Sad ibn Muadh informed him from Mahmud ibn Labid
al-Ansari that when Umar ibn al-Khattab went to ash-Sham, the people of
ash-Sham complained to him about the bad air of their land and its
heaviness. They said, "Only this drink helps." Umar said,
"Drink this honey preparation." They said, "Honey does
not help us." A man from the people of that land said, "Can we
give you something of this drink which does not intoxicate?" He
said, "Yes." They cooked it until two-thirds of it evaporated
and one-third of it remained. Then they brought it to Umar. Umar put his
finger in it and then lifted his head and extended it. He said,
"This is fruit juice concentrated by boiling. This is like the
distillation with which you smear the camel's scabs." Umar ordered
them to drink it. Ubada ibn as-Samit said to him, "You have made it
halal, by Allah!" Umar said, "No, by Allah! O Allah! I will
not make anything halal for them which You have made haram for them! I
will not make anything haram for them which You have made halal for
them." [Book 42, : Number 42.5.14;
In the printed version, #1570]
I hope that this athar [reports from, and about the
deeds and precedents, the compantions] is self-explanatory.
8. Therefore, similar to the case
of prohibition of intoxicants, usury/interest regardless of low or high rate
is haram.
Unwarranted conclusion. Hopefully, already explained above.
Since the issue of intoxication has come, and the way Br.
Robbani introduced this into our exchange, it might be relevant to clarify a
few matters.
Remember I mentioned that we should not invoke any such
prohibition in an unconditional, blanket fashion. This is even more
important if we approach the issue from the traditional, juristic
perspective.
For example, it is all too well known that all intoxicants
are prohibited.
Aisha said: The Prophet (p) was asked about bit [i.e, wine
made from honey]. He replied: "Every liquor which intoxicates is
forbidden." [Sunan Abu Dawood, #3674]
However, the issue is not that simple. Particularly, according to the
position of Imam Abu Hanifah, liquors (khamr) and other things are to be
treated differently. In a footnote to the abovementioned hadith, the
following is mentioned:
Note #3125: "This shows that there is no difference between wine
made from grapes and one made from other commodities. This
distinction is made by Abu Hanifah. But his view conflicts with the
traditions of the Prophet. He applied the word khamr (wine)
to all intoxicants whether made of grapes or other ingredients." [Sunan
Abu Dawood, Vol. 3, p. 1044. trans. by Ahmad Hasan, Kitab Bhaban,
1990]
Obviously, the position of Abu Hanifah is at variance with well
known hadiths (we will ignore the fact that all of these hadiths are
ahad or solitary). I won't go into the extensive analysis of arguments and
evidences that Abu Hanifah has in favor of his position. But I just want to
reiterate the point not to take these matters as simple black and white,
when it comes to application from the juristic point of view.
We have already discussed about the hadith that states -
The Prophet (p) said: "If a large amount of anything causes
intoxication, a small amount of it is prohibited." [Sunan Abu Dawood, #3673]
An interesting nuance of this prohibition is illustrated by, once again, the
position of Imam Abu Hanifah. In the footnote to this preceding hadith, the
following is noted.
Note #3123: "This shows that wine and other intoxicants are
forbidden whether they are taken by large or small quantity. Abu Hanifah
says that the last drop which causes intoxication is prohibited. This is
not correct, for one drop alone cannot produce intoxication unless the
preceding amount is not added to it. One should avoid using large and
small quantity of intoxicants." [Vol. 3, p. 1044]
As far as I am concerned, the position of Imam Abu
Hanifah does not quite make sense, especially at the level of application.
However, my point is not to argue for or against his position. It is merely to
illustrate the importance of acknowledging so much variations in juristic
rulings at the applied level, even in regard to as categorical haram as
intoxicants.
c. Islamic injunctions at the level of details and
applications.
The pertinent questions here are: (interest
rate) fixed by which law and by what authority? Are the divine laws of Islam
subject to the secular national (or state) laws? Is the application of
Islamic law dependent on the authority of the finance minister or the
chairman of the central bank (i.e. the people who set the "legal"
interest rate). Where do we draw the line to
separate interest & usury? At which point does interest become usury,
or vice versa? Is it interest at 20% (halal according to Br Farooq)
and usury at 21% (haraam according to Br Farooq)?
Br. Robbani raises a good point here. Well, Br.
Robbani, welcome to the world of indeterminate or non-definitive,
juristic applications. Actually, there is no such specifically pin-pointed
cut-off level that I or anyone else can come up with where 20% is permissible
and 20.00000001% and above it becomes prohibited. Once again, Br. Robbani,
this discussion does not relate to merely my position and therefore try to
avoid "haram according to Br. Farooq." As I have mentioned earlier,
a conscientious framing of this discussion would be in terms of Equivalence or
Non-Equivalence School.
Now, this issue of cut-off line is not merely
about separating usurious level from non-usurious level. There are many areas
of life, where Islamic law had to deal with such cut-off level. Just look at
the Islamic legal discourse to determine what is the legal age, at which a
person is recognized as adult from an Islamic viewpoint and all the
obligations and duties become effective, and the person is legally
liable or responsible? Does Islam has such a black and white cut-off age, that
is directly from the Qur'an and/or sunnah, or from the ijma (consensus)? If
not, do we still need a cut-off level? Yes, we do. Who will come up with such
a cut-off level? The Muslims, hopefully, through a process that they can
Islamically agree with.
One last thing. It is about the question:
"Are the divine laws of Islam subject to the secular national (or state)
laws?". It is important that we are careful in using the word 'divine'.
For example, what is the punishment of drunkenness? There is nothing in the
Qur'an prescribed for it. There is nothing directly from the Prophet either.
That's why the sahabas had to come up with punishment, which was set at eighty
lashes based on qiyas (analogical deduction). For
those who might not know, this qiyas was based on qadhf [false
accusation of adultery]. Qiyas is recognized in Usul al-Fiqh as a
probabilistic method or tool and divinity can't be attributed to such laws.
The expression divine should be limited to only what is ascertained as
directly from Allah. Anything that is based on human
"interpretation" of divine text and guidance is not divine in
itself. Thus, there is a VAST area of law that societies have to divise or
formulate rulings that are not necessarily divine in themselves.
I offer these observations with an open mind and
welcome any feedback toward our mutual enrichment.
Fi amanillah.
Home
Index of My Writings
Have you visited my other sites?
Kazi Nazrul Islam?
Genocide/Bangladesh/1971?