0
PENALTY
ON LATE
PAYMENT IS
INTEREST
By
Mujlisul Ulama of S.A
P.O Box 3393
Port Elizabeth
South Africa
1
PENALTY ON LATE PAYMENT IS INTEREST
THE ‘PENALTY’ CHARGE OF BANKS IS RIBA
HE SO-CALLED ‘Islamic’ banks being followers of the kuffaar
capitalist system operate their business dealing in precisely the
same form and method as the non-Muslim banks do. The only
difference is that the deceptive banks belonging to Muslims
employ Islamic terminology and use baseless interpretation to give an
Islamic hue to their baatil transactions.
We propose to discuss in this pamphlet some issues in this regard and
the capitalist mentality which has discoloured and disfigured the eyes
and minds of the Muslim bankers who devour Riba under various ploys
and guises.
1. In a pamphlet issued by Albaraka Bank, the following question is
posed: “is the Bank allowed to charge an administration fee (for
providing a settlement figure)?”
Answering its own question, the Bank says: “Yes ,the Bank is allowed to
charge an administration fee equal to the actual cost incurred by
providing the settlement figures.”
Firstly, the method of calculating ‘settlement figures’ is a method
which the Muslim bank has adopted from the kaafir bank. Even the
Muslim bank follows the exact method of deducting future interest
charges in the method adopted to arrive at a ‘settlement figure’. A
creditor in Islam is allowed to reduce the debt for the debtor at his
discretion, whim and fancy. He is not bound to adopt the kuffaar
system of calculating the ‘settlement’. The capitalist system is
thoroughly governed by riba. At every step riba is involved. Even in
calculating the ‘settlement’ figure, riba is a crucial factor. The Muslim
bank employs the very same system.
The mentality of the Muslim banks, is the mentality of riba-capitalist. A
debtor is given a reduction or his debt is waived in obedience to the
express Qur’aanic command to do so and thereby gain thawaab and
the Pleasure of Allah Ta’ala. For this laudable goal, there is no need to
resort to the riba system of the people who are driven to insanity by
the touch of shaitaan on account of the riba they devour. When Allah
Ta’ala is kept in mind – and this is a Waajib injunction for Muslims –
T
2
then there is no need to calculate a ‘settlement’ figure on the basis of
the riba system employed by the non-Muslim banks.
The Muslim banks claim that they do not charge interest in their
dealings. If this is true, what calculation is there and what calculation
cost are involved in ‘working’ out a ‘settlement’ figure? The bank
owner has to open his mouth after consulting his heart to say what the
‘settlement’; figure is. The Qur’aan commanding waiving of the debt
describes it (the deduction/waiver) as ‘Sadqah’. There is no need to
utilize the riba-capitalist method of interest-deduction to arrive at a
settlement figure. Since the settlement figure is merely the amount
which the debtor has to pay after the bank owner has opened his
mouth to state the amount, the question of ‘incurring costs for
providing a settlement figure’ is Islamically absurd and downright
stupid. It is stupid in Islamic terms. But in the concept of the riba-
capitalists, it is an essential method to employ because the reduction
involves only interest – haram riba. Hence, some ‘calculation’ becomes
necessary. The Muslim banks operating the very same riba system,
conduct themselves in the same manner in which their non-Muslim
riba-counterpart act.
If the Muslim bank owners divest their minds of the kufr mentality of
the capitalist riba world, they need not bamboozle their Muslim clients
with ‘working out costs’. In fact there are no such costs. They present
this excuse to ensure that they do not waive part of the actual and
original debts. The calculation is necessary to ensure that only the
‘excess’ part is waived. The reduction operates in only in the excess,
hence the deception of calculating a ‘settlement’ figure. While the
bank is entitled to refuse a reduction, it should not deceive clients with
its ‘ calculating costs’ which is simply a device of the kuffaar system.
Besides the prohibition of the aforementioned riba-charge for ‘working
out’ a ‘settlement figure’, the method of the settlement or giving a
discount adopted by Albaraka Bank is not permissible and falls within
the category of riba. Explaining its method, Albaraka Bank states: “It is
also the sole right of the Bank to suggest a full settlement figure and a
new settlement date.”
The “ne settlement date” which the Bank stipulates and to which the
client (the debtor) agrees, effectively renders the deal haram. While
giving a discount is the sole right of the bank, it (the Bank) has no right
3
to stipulate a new settlement date in the type of installment contract
which it has already concluded with the client. In this regard we shall
content ourselves with a reference to Mufti Taqi Saheb to whom
Albaraka Bank ostensibly has offered its taqleed allegiance, albeit when
it suits its capitalistic monetary designs and motives. One the issue of
settlement prior to due date, Mufti Taqi Saheb writes in his book,
Introduction of Islamic Finance:
“for these reasons, the majority of the jurists hold that if the ealier
payment is conditioned with discount, it is not permissible. However, if
this is not taken to be a condition for earlier payment, and the creditor
gives a rebate voluntary on his own, it is permissible. The same view is
Taken by the Islamic Fiqh Academy at its annual session.”
When it suits them , the capitalists in our community quote Mufti Taqi
Saheb voraciously and in abundance in an attempt to browbeat other
Ulama, but they conveniently sidestep his view which are in conflict
with their flagrant riba policies and methods of operation.
The present system of ‘prior’ settlement’ adopted by Albaraka Bank is
not permissible notwithstanding the fact that a lawful alternative
exists, but which does not suit the riba-palates of the bankers.
2. Albaraka Bank’s pamphlets states: “The Bank, as the creditor, has a
clause in its contacts which states that if a debtor fails to pay an
installment on due date, the debtor undertakes to pay a fixed
amount to charity (the charity clause).”
The modernists have a peculiar trait of dishonesty, especially when
their monetary interest are concerned. It is common and conspicuous
knowledge that modernists are the enemies of Taqleed. They have no
respect for the Taqleed of even the great Aimmah Mujtahideen such as
Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh). They consider themselves
worthy of discarding the Waajib Taqleed of Islam. However, if their
pecuniary interest can benefit from making Taqleed of even someone
who has no rank in relation to the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen, then they
will readily proclaim him to be ‘eminent’, ‘distinguished’, ‘great’ and
‘illustrious’ in a bid to fool laymen who have no understanding of the
Law. Suddenly they feel snug in making Taqleed of the liberal view
expressed by Mufti Taqi Usamini Saheb.
4
Let it be clearly understood that the so-called ‘charity clause’ is a Riba
Clause. The so-called ‘charity charge’ is a clear-cut Riba charge in the
meaning of the Shariah’s definition of Riba. Mufti Taq Saheb’s view of
permissibility is baseless. It has no validity in the Shariah Interest is
haram by the absolute directive of the Qur’aan and Ahaadtih. There is
absolutely no scope for this permissibility advocated by Mufti Taqi
Saheb. We have answered his arguments I detail in our book The
Penalty of Default. Whoever wishes to have the book, may write to us.
The argument of the Maliki Jurist is misleading. In our book on the
refutation of this haram interest charge, it appears as follows:
“However, this is misleading. Neither AL-Hattaab nor any other Maaliki
Fuqaha have cited the example of ‘interest on late payments’ The
Maaliki Fuqaha, not even the minority to whom Hadhrat Mufti Taqi
Saheb has made reference, claimed that the interest penalty can be
legalized on the basis of a self-imposed Yameen.
Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Saheb has incorrectly fitted his personal view into a
context which leads readers to the conclusion that this specific example
of interest-penalty has been legalized by some Maaliki Jurists when in
reality it is not so. The view of the interest penalty becoming lawful on
the basis of a self-imposed vow is the opinion of only Hadhrat Mufti
Taqi Saheb. This example is not given by Al-Hattaab. All Maaliki Fuqaha
unanimously condemn and ban interest on late payments.”
We have pursued this argument and its refutation in detail in our book,
The Penalty of Default? Let us assume for a moment that a Maaliki
jurist had in fact legalized the riba charge. In the case, it will be set
aside in view of the absolute and stringest prohibition stated
emphatically and with great clarity in the Quraan and Hadith. On the
assumption that a Maaliki jurist did legalize this particular example of
haraam interest, then we refer Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Saheb to page 52 of
his book, The Legal Status of Following a Math-hab. In his book,
Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Saheb writes:
“Imam Abdullah ibn Ja’far (apparently) allowed singing with musical
instruments; Imam Qasim ibn Muhammad allowed pictures which did
not have any shadows; Imam A’mush held the opinion that fasting
started with sunrise and not at dawn; Imam Ataa ibn Abu Rbaah
maintained that if Eid fell on a Friday, both the Friday prayer and the
Afternoon (zuhr) prayers would be dropped and there would be no
5
salaat until Asr; Imam Dawood Tai and Imam Ibn Hazm both believed
that a person could see his potential fiancé in the nude, and Imam ibn
Sahnoon has supposedly allowed anal intercourse”
Commenting on the state of affairs of such obscure and in fact, wrongly
narrated views, Mufti Taqi Sahab says on page 52 of his book: “….
Following every Imam would give rise to a new school of thought based
on carnal desires and the devil’s temptations, making a mockery out of
religion in this manner is not permissible.”
Just as Mufti Taqi Saheb will not advocate any of these obscure views
which are in diametric conflict with the Shariah notwithstanding their
attribution to distinguished Islamic personalities, so too is it expected of
him to set aside any obscure view which he has stumbled across, but
which conflicts with the Jamhoor.
Furthermore, Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Saheb is a Hanafi Muqallid. He may
not diverge from the Hanafi Math-hab, especially when the matter
pertains to the pecuniary interests of a handful of modernist capitalist
bankers, and moreover when the opinion he tenders is in violent
conflict with both the express teachings and spirit of the Qur’aan and
Hadith. The monotonous and repeated reference to Maaliki jurists by a
Hanafi Muqallid in endeavours to find permissibility for Shar’i
prohibitions does not bode well for Muslims. Modernists and deviates
are being allowed the facility of leaning on Ulama for seeking support
for their worldly enterprises which are in clear conflict with the
Shariah.
Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Saheb is expected to follow this very same principle
which he has espoused in his book. He should desist from satisfying the
carnal desires of the riba-capitalists in the Ummah by digging up
obscure, minority views and presenting his personal opinions on the
basis of untenable interpretations. He possesses no right to leech out
an obscure view which even the Jamhoor Maaliki Fuqaha reject, then
to use it as a basis to rescind the absolute Qur’aanic and Hadith
prohibition of riba-a prohibition on which there exists the 14 century
Ijma’ of the Ummah of all Math-habs.
In short, there is absolutely no Shar’i basis and no scope for the
permissibility of the interest charge which the banks deceptively
market under the brand of ‘penalty and charity’. This is a plain
6
interpretation of shaitaan to satisfy the ‘carnal desires and the devil’s
temptations’ of the capitalist bankers in our community.
3. In a silly bid to substantiate the haraam riba view, Albaraka Bank
says: “Although this payment may appear to be Riba (Interest) it is
clearly not, as the amount is paid by the debtor to charity and not to
the creditor.”
Much intelligence is not required to see through the falsity of this
stupid argument. Even a laymen not versed in the intricacies of Shar’i
uloom can readily understand the insipidity and fallacy of this
argument. The end does not justify a haram deed. If a man gambles
with the intention of passing all the proceeds to charity and not
deriving any benefit whatsoever for himself, does the act of gambling
become halaal? A sin does not become lawful if the end for which it is
perpetrated is noble. Charity does into render riba Halaal.
The charge for late payments is riba since it is stipulated by the
creditor. His intention of diverting the riba to charity does not extricate
the riba from the confines of prohibition. It remains haram riba. There
is absolutely no basis in the Shariah for legalizing riba if it will be given
to charity in the same way that gambling and prostitution cannot be
legalized to serve the cause of charity.
The Bank offers the following stupid argument: “…. it is clearly not
(Riba) as the amount is paid by the debtor to charity and not to the
creditor”.
They have indeed descended to a ludicrous low ebb of argumentation.
The above statement is like saying: it is clearly not gambling as the
amount (won in gambling) is paid by the gambler to a charity. No
sensible Muslim will ever accept this argument to be valid. Riba does
not cease to be Riba if the debtor pays the interest money to a charity
at the behest and command of the creditor. The creditor (Albaraka
Bank) compels the debtor to pay its riba charge to charity at the
discretion and will of the Bank, in the same way as someone compels
another to gamble and contribute the proceeds thereof charity or to
commit prostitution and hand over the ill-gotten gain to charity.
4. Albaraka Bank compounding its falsehood claims: “The payment of
an amount to charity due to non-payment by the debtor on the
occurrence of a future event is generally not permissible. However,
7
Muslim jurists are unanimous that they are permissible if they are
permissible if the contract and obligations are Tabarru, i.e. contract
of donations and suretyship. The payment to charity on purely
commercial contract, such as sale and lease fall outside this and are
not permissible.”
The bank here trips over itself in self-contradiction. It firstly recognizes
the hurmat (being haraam) of the interest penalty. Then it baselessly
seeks to justify it by citing an imaginary unanimity of the jurists. There
is not a single Faqeeh who has opined that the haram interest charge
on late payments is permissible. Let the Bank produce its proof for its
imagined unanimity.
Bank dealings – its leasing, selling, etc. contracts are purely commercial
transactions. The question of Tabarru’ (Kindness, Charity, Donation)
simply does not arise. It is furthest from the minds of riba-intoxicated
capitalists. It is a shameless displace in audacity and deception to even
attempt to give a Tabarru’ hue to the heartless nature of the contracts
and transactions of these riba-banks.
Muslims should clearly understand the following in regard to these so-
called Islamic banks:
1. They operate like the kuffaar Riba banks.
2. The penalty on late payment of installments is 100% Riba.
3. It is not permissible to invest in these Riba banks in the same
way as it is not permissible to invest in the non-Muslim banks.
4. Their Unit Trust schemes are not permissible. Our detailed
explanation will, Insha’ Allah, be published soon.
5. Their takafol (insurance) schemes are haraam conventional
kuffaar insurance covered with the thin veneer of Islamic
terminology. Such insurance is just as haram as conventional
insurance of the kuffaar insurance companies. In fact, ‘Takafol’
insurance is conventional insurance. Insha’ Allah, our
discussion on this topic will published soon.
“Those who devour riba do not stand except as one whom the
Shaitaan has driven to insanity with (his) touch. That is so because
they say: ‘Trade is only like riba’, whereas Allah has made lawful
trade and has made riba haram.”
(Qur’aan, Surah Baqarah, Aayat 275)
8
THE CURSE OF RIBA
-
“The devourer of Riba: He who devours riba will be resurrected
insane on the Day of Qiyaamah”
-
“The ultimate consequence of riba is decrease (in wealth and its
barkat), even though it (apparently) is an increase (in wealth).”
-
“Allah has assumed upon Himself not to allow four (types of)
persons entry into Jannat nor will he allow them to taste of the
bounties of Jannat: an alcoholic, a devourer of riba, a devourer
of the property of an orphan and one who is disobedient to his
parents.”
-
“Riba is a conglomeration of 72 sins, the lightest of these (72
sins) being like fornicating with one’s own mother. And, the
worst riba is to ruin the reputation of a Muslim.”
-
“There are 72 sins in riba, the lightest of which is like fornicating
with one’s own mother during (one’s) state of Islam. One
dirham of riba is worse than committing zina (fornication) more
than 33 times. On the Day of Qiyaamah, Allah will command all
people, good and bad, to stand at attention except the
devourer of riba. He will not stand except as a man whom
shaitaan has driven to insanity by his embrace.”
-
“A nation among whom zina and riba have become rampant,
has invited the punishment of Allah to settle on them.”
-
“On the Night when I was taken on the (Mi’raaj) Journey when
we reached the seventh heaven, I gazed upwards, and I
suddenly saw lighting and thunder. I then came upon a
community of people. Their stomachs were as (large as) houses
in which were serpents which could be seen from outside their
stomach. I said: “O Jibraeel? Who are these people?” He said:
“They are the devourers of riba.”
-
“I have no responsibility towards a man who devourers riba.”
9
Subscribe to:
The Majlis
“Voice of Islam”
Presenting the Knowledge of Islam, the Qur’aan and the Sunnah
in Pristine Purity.
Presenting the Deen of Islam as propounded and practised by
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his illustrious
Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum).
Rates R30.00 (South Africa)
US$15 (Neighbouring States)
US$20 (Rest of the world)
Send your subscriptions to:
The Majlis, Subscription Dept.
P.O. Box 3393, Port Elizabeth
6056
South Africa
Printed by: As Saadiqeen Islamic Centre (A.S.I.C)
assaadiqeen@gmail.com
Email:
www.asic-sa.co.za
0:00--:--
Reproduced from https://themajlis.co.za/books/penalty-on-late-payment-is-interest/