For all intents and purposes "interest" today means usury, although once upon a time, on the theoretical argument level, there was a difference. And even then, interest meant a loss, not a gain.
But as Judge Noonan emphasized to me, and this is an example of the kind of clear thinking you need to be a judge, usury is about the loan.
A loan can only be a charitable act. A buddy in a jam, the widower down the street making ends meet, travel money to be paid back later.
A loan would never be for consumption, for if the widower is starving, she needs another kind of charity, not a loan.
A loan would never be for business purposes, for business requires shared risk, and usury expressly requires guaranteed return when life has no guarantees to offer. If you want to make money with your money, you invest it at risk in a business, not lend it at usury to a business or person.
A loan of a horse or a car earns no consideration or fee, for the instant one charged a friend for the use of a car it becomes a rental.
A loan of a horse for a fee is not a loan but a rental. Loans and rentals are different because to rent something is to make use of it but not own it. There is wear and tear in a rental that is acceptable. And if the horse dies, it is the owner who is out, not the renter. Same with a house that burns down (sans negligence). Under usury, if the loan money goes up in smoke, under any circumstances, it must still be paid back. And there is the enslaving trap. When sure things don't work out, you end up enslaved.
A loan is a charitable act in itself. One does not have the use of his money until the loan is repaid, so yes, there is a lack experienced by the lender and in that measure there is charity. With a loan another charitable act is immanent: forbearance or even forgiveness. Making a loan is running the risk you will be paid late or not at all. In that case, the lender is obliged to let it go.
Business and charity ought never mix. If they come together the outcome is necessarily evil (in the sense of "lack of good.") When the sacred couples with the profane, in divine hybridization, the result is profane. You can get profane from the sacred and the profane, but you cannot get sacred from that union.
Make money doing business. Next, do charity. Mohammed is much clearer on this than any other prophet.
Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.
But as Judge Noonan emphasized to me, and this is an example of the kind of clear thinking you need to be a judge, usury is about the loan.
A loan can only be a charitable act. A buddy in a jam, the widower down the street making ends meet, travel money to be paid back later.
A loan would never be for consumption, for if the widower is starving, she needs another kind of charity, not a loan.
A loan would never be for business purposes, for business requires shared risk, and usury expressly requires guaranteed return when life has no guarantees to offer. If you want to make money with your money, you invest it at risk in a business, not lend it at usury to a business or person.
A loan of a horse or a car earns no consideration or fee, for the instant one charged a friend for the use of a car it becomes a rental.
A loan of a horse for a fee is not a loan but a rental. Loans and rentals are different because to rent something is to make use of it but not own it. There is wear and tear in a rental that is acceptable. And if the horse dies, it is the owner who is out, not the renter. Same with a house that burns down (sans negligence). Under usury, if the loan money goes up in smoke, under any circumstances, it must still be paid back. And there is the enslaving trap. When sure things don't work out, you end up enslaved.
A loan is a charitable act in itself. One does not have the use of his money until the loan is repaid, so yes, there is a lack experienced by the lender and in that measure there is charity. With a loan another charitable act is immanent: forbearance or even forgiveness. Making a loan is running the risk you will be paid late or not at all. In that case, the lender is obliged to let it go.
Business and charity ought never mix. If they come together the outcome is necessarily evil (in the sense of "lack of good.") When the sacred couples with the profane, in divine hybridization, the result is profane. You can get profane from the sacred and the profane, but you cannot get sacred from that union.
Make money doing business. Next, do charity. Mohammed is much clearer on this than any other prophet.
Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.
No comments:
Post a Comment