gender differential paper IJCRB

ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
JUNE 2011
VOL 3, NO 2
owner of asset temporarily lose the ownership of their assets and sooner or latter it will return to
the owner. Hence there is no difference between these two transactions.
3.3 Change in Nature: Third Justification of Rent
It is just a baseless reason, because if it is accepted then on this basis bank interest will
automatically become lawful which is considered as unlawful under prevailing concept. The
reason is that, customers of the bank deposits money in the bank and bank returned them their
principal amount and interest in the same form. During this whole transaction nature of item
(currency) is not changed. Hence on this basis bank interest should be considered as lawful.
Farooq Aziz (2004) pp 131 – 132.
3.4 Concept of Badal (Exchange): Fourth reason of rent.
Like the other arguments it is also depends on fallacy. Actual fact is that, in case of
letting badal does not took place in its original sense because when any asset e.g. machine,
house, or building is letting out by the owner, he / she receives the amount of rent and his right of
ownership remains intact. Whereas the person who takes it on rent just get a temporary right of
use, and did not get the right of ownership. In real sense of badal (exchange) right of ownership
should be transferred which is not taken place hence this transaction is not qualifying the real
sense of badal (exchange). On the other hand in case of debt, it is claimed in this case no badal
(exchange) is taken place, because when creditor pays his cash to a debtor, he / she doesn’t get
anything against it, hence this transaction is unlawful. It is again a misconception that creditor
gives loan to a debtor he / she at the some time creates which is an asset. It means that creditor
has exchanged the form of his / her asset i.e. from cash to Account Receivable and debtor got
noting. Hence the basic claim is not right.
3.4 The Factor of Risk: Fifth Argument of Rent.
It is said that due to element of risk rent becomes lawful. It is not true, because Qur’an
has strictly prohibited gambling. Hence factor of risk cannot justify rent in any case.
4. Conclusion
On the basis of above discussion it can be concluded that prevailing concept of riba is quite
baseless and doesn’t have any logical base. The basic argument under which it is said that rent of
cash is unlawful and rent of other non-perishable assets is lawful don’t recognized by Qur’an and
all reasons which are given in this regard don’t fulfill any standard of reasoning.
COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 443