Written on 2/1/12 in response to a couple of readings (sorry, I can't give adequate bibliography) for my Modern Muslim Thought class.
I found the fatwa, issued by the
1403/1983 Meccan Islamic Law Academy of the World Muslim League, to be hypocritical in it’s function. It was saying
that one could receive interest from a bank or financial dealing, but could not
benefit from it, instead donating
it to some good cause, like a school. In order to make sure that the person
couldn’t benefit from the donation (a good deed), they termed such a donation
as not being sadaqah, but
instead a cleansing of the sin of taking the interest. I found it interesting
that the Academy felt confident to declare that this donation was null and void
in the eyes of God. I didn’t realize that they had such insight. To me, it’s
semantics.
The argument
against this fatwa made sense to me, as it is true that in this world it is
nearly impossible to not have and benefits that come from bank interest of some
kind. They also attacked the hypocrisy of the fatwa. The argument didn’t make
it clear, however, which interest is allowed and which forbidden. The response left me feeling as
though they were suggesting the permission of all interest dealings because
it’s just to hard to “separate” in our modern world.
The
insurance fatwas were interesting, and I could follow the logic that such
insurance policies are liken to gambling, which is forbidden in the Qur'an, but
they didn’t address situations where law requires insurance – like with cars in
Michigan where drivers are required by law to have auto insurance.
Life
insurance is less of a gamble (as indicated for a reason why it is forbidden)
than is auto or property insurance. It is true that one may never reap a
benefit from paying for property insurance, but we all die eventually. Where is
the gamble?
No comments:
Post a Comment
I would love to hear your comments and critiques. The only thing I ask is that you be respectful to me and others. Thank you!