Talk:Usury/Archive 1

"The Quran forbids usury and interest. Quite a few states in USA have laws against usury. Usury is defined as excessive interest. A Dictionary defines usury as "an excessive or inordinate premium for the use of money borrowed", "extortionate interest", or "the practice of taking exorbitant or excessive interest." The Arabic language also makes distinction between interest (Fa'eda) and usury (Reba). The Quran forbids Reba or usury.

My view is that Earning interest and paying interest is perfectly acceptable, but Quran has prohibited interest. Interest is an essential component of the financial aspect of an individual or an organization. Individuals may need to save money in a bank, may carry a credit card for convenience, or may borrow and pay interest for an automobile or to own a house. Borrowing money and thus paying interest for business loans is an essential component for business and organizations. Thus paying interest, as long as it is not considered excessive by the standard of the day and community, to a credit card company, to a financial institution for a loan of any kind (business, car, house mortgage) is allowed and perfectly legal from a Quranic point of view. Also earning interest from a financial institution like a bank or bonds or mutual fund is also fine.

As defined above usury is excessive interest. Unlicensed or illegal moneylenders (mafia as a well known example) charge usury, excessive interest. Such unlicensed or illegal moneylenders are all over the world and can easily be accessed by a few inquiries. For those who live in USA, any individual can find out about these moneylenders by asking about them within their ethnic business community. These illegal moneylenders have entirely separate standards for making loans - they charge excessive interest (usury) and usually rely on someone's life (guarantor) as collateral. The Quran forbids in dealing with usury - borrowing money and paying usury or earning money by charging usury. The Quran specifically states that usury cannot be equated to commerce or taken as a normal business practice. The practice of usury, unfortunately, is prevalent all over the world with individuals and business engaged in this practice.

In practical terms as long as we are dealing with any state-licensed institution like a bank, Mortgage Company, Credit Card Company, etc., we are not violating any Quranic commandment as these institutions usually follow the law of the land and do not charge excessive interest. They calculate their interest rate on daily basis considering the status of the economy and the need of the society. However, if we deal with the illegal moneylenders who practice usury, we are in violation of clear Quranic commandments. This is not to say that one may not borrow or lend money to a friend or relative and even charge interest. Such transaction must be in writing as the Quran cleary commands in verse 2:282 and may involve interest, to at least pay for the cost of the loan to the lender if any, and compensate for any change in the value of the currency over the time of the loan, but should not involve usury."

Your answer as Muslim is totally Wrong. As Islam do not allow any INTEREST to be charged, is Haram. It's funny how u call it verse instead of Surah ! I think either u are not muslim or u are stray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.173.147.246 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle had an enormous influence on the Church's teaching about usury for 1500 years. That is missing from this page. Aristotle saw that charging interest was charging more than an item was worth. He regarded such an activity as giving money an unnatural value. It is not supposed to grow. You don't have to be a Marxist to see how this contributes to an unstable economic situation. Not only the costs of interest, but also the costs of profit, credit, and inflation are all passed down to the poorest members of society. That is why capitalism always creates a poor underclass. The poor pay more for everything and they pay it in cash. In a sense, they are the engine of the system. The rich and the poor are the two sides of capitalism. You learn all this in Economics 101. Bdubay (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely add that if you have the sources to back it up, but the article does explicitly mention Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics, which were the medeival continuation of the Aristotlean tradition. 74.83.14.59 (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the reference to the converted jews as Morranos, this may be worth verifying but I think that the Morranos were only the jews who appeared to convert to Christianity, yet secretly remained as practicing jews, not the jews who converted to Chritianity, they should thereafter be identified as christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.152.67 (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Jesus is one of the historical figures mentioned who condemned usury, but I didn't see any New Testament references under Biblical Injunctions. Is there perhaps evidence of this in non-Canonical works?

I was always under the impression that there were references in the new testament to this. I'd also like to see evidence of these views from any source.

Some say his condemnation of money-changing in the temple was simply because the money-changers were in the wrong place, and that he had nothing against this or other forms of usury. If so, we should remove the claim that he "spoke out against" usury, even though he was presumably opposed to it (since his silence implies support of the old testament's injunctions against it). Biblical scholars, can you help here please?

Wragge 17:15, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Didn't Jesus give a parable in which he negatively portrayed someone who passed up an opportunity to loan money at interest?

The previous question probably refers to the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30, Luke 19:11-27). Three servants are each given large sums of money (a talent was a sizeable unit of weight; the parable refers to that weight in money). Their master is going on a trip. Two of the servants trade (or perhaps invest) the money, doubling it, and returning the total to the master on his return. The third servant buries the money in the ground, and returns only what he had been given. The master rebukes him and says that at the least the servant might have invested the sum with bankers "and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest." (Matthew 25:28, NRSV). Interpretations vary, but this passage would not seem a condemnation of interest or the servant wouldn't have been rebuked for not investing the money. 69.138.9.90 01:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I was the one who placed that previous question.) That's exactly what I thought. Jesus doesn't belong on a list of people who "condemned usury". Any claim to interpret his words to mean such would clearly be original research. That he opposed usury is not sufficient reason to put him in that section, though again, it's doubtful he even opposed it. MrVoluntarist 15:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The parable of the talents does NOT justify moneylending at interest. In the parable, the master (who may or may not be Jesus) rebuked the evil servant for not making use of the money in trying to invest it to get more, and he said that it would have been better to put it with the moneylenders at interest. This is a comparison, not a value judgement on the appropriateness of moneylenders. Clearly, if the master wanted to deposit the money with the moneylenders, he could have done so himself with less risk than going through the servant whom he knew was evil (this particular servant was only given 1, not 2 or 5 talents to invest while the master was away). To understand the comparison, the comparison only makes sense if the moneylenders ARE evil. For example, if I tell my girlfriend that she is no better than a harlot, because she slept with someone, that does not mean that I'm saying that harlotry is ok. Likewise, the master is not saying that moneylending at interest is ok.Jason Hommel 09:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, almost missed this. Thanks for responding. I think this confirms what I said though, I don't think your example is analagous. Jesus is saying, "it was stupid to bury your money instead of lending it out at interest!" That's at least an implicit endorsement of interest. Jesus wouldn't have mentioned something he thought was evil as a "better use of time". For example, imagine him saying, "Why did you mope around all day when you could have been raping women?" MrVoluntarist 14:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Jesus did say this in Matthew 21:31 "...Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you." Now, there are many different Christian groups in the world, and many different beliefs, but I don't know of a single Chrisitian group in the world that would twist this verse into saying that harlots are destined for the kingdom of God, and that this verse proves that harlotry is now ok. Why not? Because harlotry you can easily see with your mind, is wrong, (unlike usury which people typically think is ok) and you recognize the literary comparison here regarding harlotry is being used to showcase the utter evil of the people that Jesus is condemning in Matthew 21:31. Likewise, in the parable of the talents, the comparison must be to something very bad, to showcase how much worse the evil servant actually was. It would make no sense to say, "you should have at least invested in that stock that went up ten fold.", because that's not the least that could have been done. The language is not a tacit approval of banking at all, the language shows that banking is very, very, very bad, among the very worst of all possible investment choices that could have been chosen, except that what the evil servant did (specifically tried to not make money) was worse. In other words, banking is the LEAST next best thing that could have been done, and you are ignoring the entire point that the master could have deposited his money with the bankers in the first place, and he didn't! At the very least, this is a debatable point, and not a conclusive point that you are making, that Jesus thinks that usury is ok, because there is not a single other verse where Jesus says usury is ok, and in other places, Luke 6, Jesus says to not lend at interest. And at the most, I've conclusively proved you wrong on this point, that Jesus did not endorse usury at all, no more than he endorsed harlotry. Furthermore, it is no place to put your personal opinion of what Jesus taught about usury in the encyclopedia. A mere listing of Bible quotes should be fine, and then, if you want to add in discussion points below that section, ok. Jason Hommel 19:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the original query: Yes, there are New Testament references where Jesus condemned usury; Luke 6:35 reports him saying " lend, expecting nothing in return ".( English Standard Version) while Matthew 5 : 16 etc says Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil it, which has to include what the Old Testament has to say on the subject[[62.6.139.11 15:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

Late in the day I discover this Talk thread, having just made a page edit. I'd wecome comments on that Edit.

Additionally, I've just posted the following relevant comment at the Talk page for Capitalism:

"I suggest that re-ordering of this page is appropriate:

Finance capitalism is both a tautology and (as Finance - the use of money for profit in the forms of rent, interest, dividends and unequal pay for work) forms the action element of capitalism (the pre-conditional element - ownership of property or theft from and of the commonweal depending upon the mode of analysis - preceding the action elements (each of which has their own history).

Since access to finance (money and its equivalents) is the precondition (under capitalism) for the 'owned/stolen' elements (land, banking rights, knowledge ownership rights and sanctioned variable paid work income rates), then the history of capitalism is probably co-extensive with the history of money.

You are conflating money and capital. Even non-capitalist countries such as Cuba and the former USSR had money. Finance capitalism is a useful way to note how finance is now (mis)using the ability to create money without actually risking or supplying capital. This has been an increasingly disturbing development since the deregulation of banking and finance began in the early 1980s, through the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagal, up until today, with the outbreak of systemic financial instability. Concerning capitalism being co-extensive with the history of money: money existed many hundreds of years before a socio-economic structure recognizable as capitalism emerged. See, for example, John Kenneth Galbraith, Economics in Perspective: A Critical History, 1987.--TonyWikrent (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In support of this, the Wikipedia entry under usury points to the pre-mediaeval existence of a capitalist element in largely feudalist societies (ie those where the ownership of land was the predominant source of power).

The pivotal changes seem to have come with the permission to charge interest on lent money: particularly the Act 'In restraint of usury' of Henry VIII in England in 1545 (see: a) 'In Restraint of Usury: the Lending of Money at Interest', Sir Harry Page, The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounts, London, 1985, b) the Bibliography therein, and c) especially 'The Idea of Usury: from Tribal Brotherhood to Universal Otherhood', Benjamin Nelson, 2nd Edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1949, enlarged 2nd edition, 1969.)

Accordingly, I suggest the inclusion of such a stater text as the above at the start of the article, and will wait a few days for responses before doing so.

John Courtneidge

I believe that the reason Jesus was outraged at the money changers was the money itself. Jews would have been changing Denarius's for temple money. What was on a Denarius? A big ole' image of Caesar, a false god. Jews were not supposed to have that money, much less be exchanging it outside the temple.

Jason Whatley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.171.221 (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"

Any comments?

Thanks

Jason, that doesn't really make sense in the context of, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..."Luke 20:25 Matthew 22:21 Mark 12:17 Besides, he Jesus specifically quotes Isaiah and says "The texts say, "MY HOUSE will be a house of prayer", but you make of it a Den of Thieves." Luke 19:46, Mark 11:17, Matthew 21:13. Considering the charge of theft, the concern for the use of Roman coin is likely minor at best. Further, if Paul is to be believed as a Christian, he certainly had no problem utilizing Roman creations (specifically laws) to further his evangelism. This might be shown that Jesus (if the Holy Spirit, and he are the same, which Paul claimed to act under) would not have been unhappy with the utilization of Roman constructions for the good of the kingdom of heaven. 147.226.64.15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Bible quotations should always mention the version/edition of the Bible. Could the person who added them please make the correction?

The Matt. 5:16 use to support the idea that since Jesus came to fullfil the law, He has indeed supported the laws forbiding usury should be considered. That quotation refers to Jesus coming and doing things so that what prophesies about Him in the law book (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deutronomy), and the books of Psalms would come true. This does not suggest that Jesus came to condone everything that was said in the laws. Adjei Poku (ghana) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.87.90.102 (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited Luke 9:23 from the incorrect paraphrase to the actual NIV quote. The section on Luke could still use some work, I'm not sure of the original author's purpose here. Also, there is an open quote with no closing quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.76.93 (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is customary to name the version, especially if it is still under copyright. But of much greater importance is being fair to the context, which is an important rule of interpretation violated by the choices of Matthew 25:27 and Luke 19:22-23 for application to usury. As everyone knows these texts are part of a parabolic teaching about the proper use of God's gifts. They say absolutely nothing about usury, either good or bad. Rather, usury is being used to illustrate a higher principal. One cannot make a parable walk on all fours (this reference, for those who missed it, is to, "Behold the lamb," (John 1:29 AV) where the audience expects to turn and see Messiah, they did not expect to see a four legged wooley creature). However, Christ addresses a close parallel issue with great vehemence, the issue of Jubilee which is thematic to Luke (consult Luke 1:51-53 and 4:18-19 in any version you like). What is clear from these passages is that Christ fulfills the Hebrew Old Testament Jubilee right then (Luke 4:21). One has only to read the parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:23-35) to get a very clear picture of what Christ intends to do with those who disregard His Jubilee. Even more embarrassing is our incessant prayer, "Forgive us our debts...." (Matthew 6:12 AV) which is a direct request that the Father, for Christ's sake, would make the Jubilee apply in our lives in all its broad aspects. How dare we pray such a prayer and not be in obedience to it? It is amazing that this topic is only of Mid-importance, since it is the single most important issue in contemporary politics. The greatest threat to National Security, [Jobs, etc.] is the debt. (Ron Paul-Oct, 2004; Dennis Blair and Mike Mullen-Feb, 2009; Philip Hammond-Jan, 2012) http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul213.html http://security.nationaljournal.com/2009/03/biggest-security-threat-econom.php http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/debt-our-greatest-national-security-threat/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8995148/Philip-Hammond-Debt-crisis-is-greatest-threat-to-national-security.html It seems obvious that we must attack debt by any means available. How about a 21% Federal usury law for a start, then reduce it by 3% a year for six tears. How about putting a maximum time limit on debt, say 10 years or less, except for housing. Any unpaid debt at the end of the limit would be forgiven. These would be a fair and gentle application of the Jubilee.CHS-Theologian 07:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herb Swanson (talk • contribs)

Okay, I finally went ahead an deleted Jesus from the list of people against usury. I don't know of any mention in the Bible where he speaks against it; instead he tells a parable in which he negatively portrays someone who *avoids* loaning money at interest. If the person who put that had in mind the time Jesus kicked the moneychangers from the temple, sorry, that doesn't cut it. Jesus was clearly against the *place* of the moneychanging, not moneychanging itself. I find it rather strange that someone put Jesus on the list without being able to include a quote in the giant Biblical reference set. So Jesus is off the list until someone can find a place where he says anything against usury. And no, the Catholic Church's teachings don't count. 24.162.140.213 01:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people continue to delete the following scripture as somehow not on topic?

Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great…

It clearly says, "without expecting to get anything back", which is the direct opposite of demanding a return more than you lent, which is the definition of usury.Jason Hommel 09:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No citation on hand, and not sure how it would fit into the article, but the scholastic theologian Domingo de Soto argued that Luke 6:35 had nothing to do with lending money at interest, which later became the opinion of the Catholic Church. A.w.hogan 19:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ma sure Jesus does not want people to take interest because by faith, if christians lend with interest, God Himself will bless the person and willingly reward him/her. The problem I have is what about the banks who are not operating under any biblical considerations and yet giving loans to people; shouldn't they charge interest? and you say that is not good? What about those of us who put money in the bank and are expecting interest on it? [Bernard Adjei-Poku] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.87.90.102 (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard - when one puts money into a bank and receives interest, the amount of money increases. However, due to inflation, the value of the money decreases. So if the interest is close to inflation then I doubt it would count as usury. About the parable of the master and his servants, it is just that: a parable. Many have interpreted it to be an older parable which Jesus uses to allude to God's grace in the form of "money", the point being to take the grace given to you and make it greater. As with any parable, however, it is open to interpretation. I would recommend striking it from the page, especially considering the original Greek or Aramaic may have had certain subtleties or connotations lost in the translation or deliberately struck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.147.33 (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was not making money of changing currencies a form of usury? I think it was and still is. In fact one of the few times when Jesus actually uses force in the Bible is when he forcefully removes the money changers from the temple. Does this not in and of itself highlight the grave sin of usury? When a man sent by God, who by all means was peaceful and even gave due regard to the sinner, used such force it should show you exactly how usury is viewed by Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.246.138 (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be some strong POVs on this issue. There are really only two totally unambiguous prohibitions of usury in the Bible, and both are in the Old Testament. That doesn't mean other stories weren't, at certain times and by various theologians, interpreted as being against usury. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and a whole range of others commented on these things. How do folks feel about explaining their positions on New Testament prohibitions of usury, rather than saying the New Testament is or is not making that statement? If I don't get any responses, I'll make that change in about a week, and see if it resolves the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LugalbandaUruk (talk • contribs) 22:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to paint usury and interest as synonyms when they are not. Usury means an exorbitantly high level of interest. The relationship is more along the lines of the one between "fat" and "obese".

Also while usury comes from usus it is not a direct descendant. Its Latin counterpart is in fact "usuria" which means interestingly enough "lending at exorbitant interest". It descends from the word "usura" which means "a sum paid for using money" and it in turn is descended from "usus" meaning "use".

The whole article is distorted by this original misconception.

I haven't made any changes to the article mostly due to the fact that I would have to redo more than half of it, and I don't want to do that, and cause a edit war.

I agree that usury and interest are not exact synonyms; if anything usury is broader, however. Theological sources and in many cases socialists refer to any kind of "overcharging" or "unfair charging" as usury. (For example, the Islamic equivalent, riba, includes a boatman charging more to rescue a drowning victim than he normally charges to ferry people - nothing to do with interest - while it does not refer to a merchant giving discounts to people who pay upfront rather than in installments - which is a form of interest.) However, it is the case that interest of any kind has historically been referenced as "usury", and only later did the meaning change to "exorbitantly high interest". The article already reflects this shift.

The part about decending from "usus" is there, not because it's the "truth" but because that's what etymologists say it comes from. If you can find a source specifically making the connection you claim, cite it and make the change. Otherwise it's original research. MrVoluntarist 20:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found this link that supports it and I originally got the information from Google's Dictionary page on usury here

Alright, go ahead and edit the etymology. As for that answers.com page, it just repeats what's in the Wikipedia article and supports the definition it gives. MrVoluntarist 22:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is impossible to define "usury" as "excesive" interest. Because that just pushes the definition further away in to trying to define what "excessive" is. Usury is defined for us already in the Biblical scriptures as ANY increase.

All of the earlier citations that I've read from this article mention usury as loaning with interest with no mention of "excessive". If it is a more modern interpretation I feel that the word excessive should be removed from the definition because usury is a term no longer commonly used and should only refer to the meaning of the original and not the modern rare use which seems to be only a slanted interpretation of what the original meant.

.

My comment: Please discuss and dont throw away. It was rejected. I wanna know why....

Hello Wiki'rs, i place the original definition here (in the middle of the text) then maybe later we can edit it in more nicer. <= This means i want feedback on this......

I found this article on Usury, but the entire article describes the avalanche, while in motion, lets say : the aftermath. The source of an avalanche is a waterfilm between the rock and a mass of snow. The source of Usury is following :

Usury is when someone creates pressed paper and have people NOT pay printing and administration costs for the work but immediately make them pay the actual (printed on paper) money value.

Thats the final definition of Usury.

It is not about tax and interest and loans and mortgages, and many such, these are things that are done with the money AFTER receiving it. Usury is a tool in a monetary system where the People can make use of what Userers call "money", actually, it's just Monopoly money whose value is orally determined, while the actual value is only the ink and paper it is printed on. Money which gets its value through the beautiful monetary construction-names that are created. Remember: we are talking about AIR here. If you are "Using" lots of money, then there must be paid for that use, that extra amount must come from somewhere. To pay the extra amount you will have to sell something to get money; The big disadvantage is that the People that sell their real money, gold, silver, jewelry, real estate and companies to pay those extra "debt" are getting only poorer. (by definition)=this means FOR SURE!!! If Usury was done by the Government of a country (state-Usury) then it is legal. (Public Usury, the people benefit from it). a monetairy mechanism. A Tool. Usury (The criminal form) is recognizable if there is a growing national debt while the People (the payer) is NOT actually benefitting from it AND The Usurers are operating in cartelform (private, no public control). The combination of these two is very important because that makes it illegal. This against an entire people is the crime of Usury. The People can not resist and they get guaranteed poorer. Therefore, in 1275 the mechanism of (private) Usury was already prohibited by law and during the last two thousand years condemned by very known people. (Jezus Christ, Mohammad, Plato, Pilates, Napoleon, Theodor Herzl, Abe Lincoln, Adolf Hitler, John F. Kennedy and many more...) Actually : (private)-Usury is a crime against Humanity.

The opposite of Usury is Treasury.

without the mechanism of usury a treasury would be empty or void.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury_Act_1660 This usury act does not forbid it but makes it a little cheaper. This means, it was reinstated against the 1275 verdict.

My English is not very good so don't blame me if texts or words are in strange order; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravojelta (talk • contribs) 21:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's original research - you must have references to [[WP:RS|reliable], verfiable sources to back up your statements and conclusions. Without that, it will continue to be removed. Ravensfire (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading an article making the case that interest on loans is legitimate according to the bible on loans not meant for charity - commercial loans (http://www.reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/bet/bet98.04.htm). Citing Leviticus 25:35-37 instead of just 36 and 37 gives much more credence to this view. Also, I think it can be a bit misleading to make a (somewhat false) segmentation between verses right next to each other.

I'd like to add that they are not fully explained either. I have no idea what charging "interest on lent money" means. It makes no sense. I went to Catholic school for a LONG time and know a great deal of obscure things that represent time better spent learning things that would have been useful in my later life, but if twelve years of Catholic school and a google search don't turn up what on earth it is, it's too obscure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.80.154 (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have texts with any particular detail on point, so I cannot make a concise summary for the economics section of the article, but I think the article should mention the core economic logic underlying savings and investment, and hence the interest rate. The reasons for saving and investment, the tradeoff between future and present consumption, the compensation for such/price of money, time value of money and so on.

The "scholastic theology" section of this article goes off on a long anti-capitalist rant, contrary to the neutral POV policy, which is qualified by the weasel words "For many." The other side of the argument in favor of charging interest on loans -- i.e., that it provides compensation to the lender for the risk that the borrower will default on the loan -- is completely overlooked in this section.

REPLY - I do not find a "a long anti-capitalist rant" as alleged in the paragraph above. Methinks thou doth protest too much. I am detecting more and more edgy defensiveness as Wall Street and corporatism come increasingly under attack as the financial and economic crises which began in August 2007 deepen. Note that the person who wrote the paragraph above next presents the classic neo-liberal argument for banking and charging interest as "the other side of the argument." The other side of what argument? The article is on usury, not on banking and charging interest.

The plain fact is that there was a tremendous amount of thinking done by theologians in the 1400s to 1600s on the question of usury, and that should be noted here. And the biblical references to usury and, ahem, charging interest, are definitely germane and extremely useful to have immediately at hand. It is what makes Wikipedia so useful and valuable. There are apparently people who are getting increasingly nervous now with growing awareness by both elites and the public in general that neo-liberal economic nostrums such as the "free market" are failing to achieve the greatest social welfare as promised. - END of REPLY —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyWikrent (talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording of "arguments for and against" to read simply "arguments for", because the censors have deleted all the arguments against usury. Go ahead, and keep your one sided biased article, and keep the truth buried. DAMN CENSORS! -end-

Please, religious people and students of the Arts, as much as you might feel that simplistic systems of ethics are applicable to international debt markets, that thousand-year-old religious scriptures are of aid in the modern global economy, or that the arguments against usury are valid (they are not; you do not sufficiently understand economic theory), do not state your viewpoint as to the supposed supremacy of anachronistic Islamic analyses in the article. Provide the arguments for and against and allow the reader to make a decision, laughable as the mere reference of Medieval writers in consideration of modern debt markets is.

Suggesting that interest repayments leads to "legal force" which infers that interest itself is a source of "violence" and "government failure" is very biased. Sounds like religious dogma to me. Acssm 20:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've handled the bias in that section, so I removed the tag and added an original research warning requesting source for the arguments. MrVoluntarist 15:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an Islamicist, but a Chrisitan, and an extremely successful student of the capital markets, as I make millions by investing. It is axiomatic that any contract that requires a future obligation of any kind does require enforcement, or the use of force, to secure compliance in the event of willful refusal of compliance, or non-payment. This is not bias, this is reality. This is why people enter into contracts, and why there are court systems in the first place. Thus, usury contracts can be legitamately said to be a source of violence, as they require enforcement for non-payment, reposession, and government force to enforce them.

Sorry, there are plenty of unsecured loans in the United States and elsewhere, and the credit system makes people try like mad to avoid declaring bankruptcy, since it will prevent them from getting future loans, apartment rentals, etc. Certainly, some people sign away their property, conditional on loan non-payment, and, attempting to reneg on this transfer after default, force must be used. But then, in both cases, force is used to defend property and enforce it. So, that statement is either false or useless. Unless we want to preface every article with the claim "oh by the way, property depends on force", we can't include this bit about "usury can be abolished merely by not recognizing it in law". MrVoluntarist 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lending money at interest is ethical if we can establish that such a system denies no one in a community of borrowers the ability to repay his debt in full. Since the monetary systems of most countries of the world are based on interest-bearing debt, it is worthwhile to illustrate the ethical challenge of such systems with a simple example.

Let's consider a small group of 10 people each of whose products and services contribute to the gross domestic product of their community. They are used to exchanging products and services with each other through barter, but recognize its limitations. One day a man comes into town and observes the group making their trades. He announces to them that he can supply money, which will make trade easier for everyone.

On December 1st, the lender offers each member of the community $1,000 in paper money he produced with a sophisticated printing press. Excited at the idea of easy trade, each of the 10 signs a loan agreement stating that in exchange for the $1,000 he promises to pay $86 per month for 12 months (5.85% APR). The first payment is due January 1st and subsequent payments are likewise due on the 1st of each subsequent month. The lender also requires each borrower to declare an asset, e.g., a car, machinery, piece of real property, or other property as security for his loan. Since each member of the community considers himself honest and hardworking, he is sure of his personal ability to pay off the loan and, therefore, agrees to the terms.

December trade goes well with the $10,000 (10 x $1,000) of new money in circulation. But by mid-June, having paid more than half the initial sum in circulation to the lender, the the borrowers notice that money is getting scarce. So they begin bartering their goods and services again to make up for the lack of currency.

Now assume community members conduct fairly even trade during the year, none are savers, and the lender doesn't spend back into the community any loan payments he receives. In the worst case, On December 1st, at least 4 of the 10 borrowers will be unable to make their final payments, which permits the lender to seize assets they declared as collateral on their loan agreements. In the best case, only one of the borrowers will "mismanage" his money, defaulting on his loan in September. If anyone in the community saves money during the year, the resulting decrease in circulating money forces others to default on their loans earlier.

Let's look at it from the lender's perspective. On December 1st, he prints $10,000 in crisp bills and divides it equally ($1,000) among 10 people. He receives $86 x 10 = $860 each month, $26.67 of which is interest. By November, total payments to the lender are $9,460 with only $540 left in circulation. On December 1st, if everyone were able to pay his debt in full, total payments to the lender would be $10,320.

But the lender made only $10,000 available to the community. The community members have no way of producing the additional $320 the lender requires as interest on their loans. Only the lender can supply the additional money and he will only supply it if the borrower agrees to pay (additional) interest. The lender knows that charging interest empirically forces repossessions, foreclosures, and bankruptcies in a significant portion of the borrowing population.

Is it ethical, then, for a country to enforce law that divides the population into an elite lending class who regularly force a large number of the massive borrowing class into poverty? Would disclosing the true nature of the lending business to the borrowing class make it any more ethical? —Preceding unsigned comment added 21:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty poor understanding of economics and money in general. Money don't come into existence with some guy "supplying" money. It's an intrinsic product of an economy. In your example, the town can either choose to print more of this money (which won't result in inflation because its production has actually grown), or simply allow the use of goods as substitute for interest payment. Your argument entirely rests on a fallacious construction of an senseless economy taking even more senseless actions. 38.98.221.194 (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not against charging interest myself, but i too do have the impression that the section contains only arguments for, not against usury (including practices which i find more... questionable, like use of force, or overcharging). surely there are some arguments against usury?--Ghazer (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are arguments against usury but you have to step back for a bit and realize that nearly every modern day nation has bankrupcy laws to protect against the result of usury. Without bankrupcy protection, compounding interests can cripple a person's ability to get out of debt, and therefore remain in debt bondage. Also in ancient times, debts can be passed to succeeding generations so an entire family could be in debt. Governments are usually the instrument of enforcing debt and so there is no running away. Today, we have high interests and even crazier things like ballon payments and variable interest rates. However, we also have foreclosures instead of debtors prisons and gangsters beating you up for money. Can you just imagine what would happen if instead of forclosures, the banks simply rounded all the residents and made them work in labor camps or have collection agencies take out their livers to sell on the black market? That's why compounding interest today isn't as bad as it once was.--75.26.190.161 (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved around the text in the "historical" section in an attempt to make the idea flow a bit better. I also rewrote the section on traditional Jewish law. There were grammatical errors and had several half baked ideas in one paragraph. I tried to distill the salient point of the entire paragraph, but also deleted the bulk of offshoots about discrimination against Jews because I felt it detracted from the main issue: ursury and its historical meaning

I had read some of the talk comments concerning the meaning of ursury and attempted to hedge the concept by describing it as excessive interest but also came to be used as a term describing "unfair" money-lending practices.

71.32.51.201 07:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)new to wiki[reply]

What is this statement doing in here: "Many pre-313 A.D. religious sects - commonly lumped together under the rubric "Gnostics" - were aggressively hunted down and their texts were destroyed."? It has nothing to do with the surrounding context. 130.76.32.144 (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph is terrible:

Before 313 A.D., the Christian communities were largely confined to the urban business class. By the 4th century, Constantine's legislation created the Catholic Church. Many pre-313 A.D. religious sects - commonly lumped together under the rubric "Gnostics" - were aggressively hunted down and their texts were destroyed. The Catholic Church now embraced all the social classes within it. As for general social conditions, the rich who were in a position to take advantage of the situation became the money-lenders when the ever-increasing tax demands in the last declining days of the Empire crippled and eventually destroyed the peasant class by reducing tenant-farmers to serfdom. It was only too evident that usury meant exploitation of the poor.

Points:

1. According to the widest definition of Christian - Jesus, not Constantine I created the church. Constantine legalized the existing church under the empire and saught to unify it's teaching to prevent schism. Various flavors / sects / usurpers and/or preservers of the "One True" faith might disagree about what the term Catholic means- but I don't think anyone asserts that the church was created by Constantine.
2. According to both Roman Catholicism, and all flavors of Orthodoxy (Eastern and Oriental), as well if I'm not mistaken as Assyrians / Chaldeans, etc etc and probably many protestants there existed a concrete record of martyrs who were members of the aristocracy. So I'm not sure where this class analysis comes from. It might very well be true - I can see that the middle class would be less vested in the existing system and empathize with the poor, etc. (see also Marxian class analysis, or Adam Smith for that matter) - and I can also see that supression of other religions would deepen the churchs reach, but this seems to need a source (and it would be an interesting read)
3. As for the 'other religions were called Gnosticism' part - this is garbage. Other sects of christian (in a loose sense of the word) people were considered gnostic

as well as other non-christian gnostics (see Mani, etc). But there were also plain-old pagans and what have you - and lumping them all together is erroneous here too..

I'm not a wiki person, so I'm not trying to come up with the right rephrasing for all this - but it's bad. Other references to the 'catholic' church also could be made a little bit more generic as it obfuscates pre-schism and early church history and kind of implies that the See of Rome vis-a-vis the Papacy was created from the get go - which is very clearly at least ambiguous and open to the most fervent forms of rabid debate.

I know it's not a church article, but it should still be accurate / written in a straightforward way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.214.12 (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

..the borrower is the slave of the lender. --Proverbs 22:7 (English Standard Version) ...and the borrower becomes the lender's slave. --Proverbs 22:7 (New American Standard Bible) ...those who borrow are slaves of moneylenders. --Proverbs 22:7 (Contemporary English Version) It can be calculated that if you invested an ounce of gold at 1/4 of 1% interest rate, 6000 years ago, it would grow to about 6 billion ounces. But the best estimates are that there is less than 5 billion ounces of gold in the world from all gold mining in the history of the world. Therefore, since it is impossible to pay back more than exists, the practice of usury creates the condition of perpetual slavery for borrowers. For example, the United States had a debt of $250 billion at the end of world war II. At the time, with gold at $35/oz., that amounted to 7.1 billion ounces of gold. True to form, tax rates in the U.S. range from 30% to over 50%. Historically, serfs paid 30% of income to their masters, and slaves paid 50%.

This section was added by an anon user. I think it would be better if it was sourced, since it looks like original research at the moment. MrArt 03:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I registered and added sources. Thank you.Jason Hommel 06:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for registering. Your source says servant, not slave. To include the rest of the paragraph, you need to quote a reputable source that makes the argument. Otherwise it is definitely original research --MrArt 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should that be removed for now then? I tried to even it out, but maybe it just shouldn't be there. MrVoluntarist 23:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would get rid of the whole section, but let's wait and see what Mr Hommel has to say. --MrArt 23:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not going to wait -- he didn't even bother to do the math properly. At 0.25 percent pa interest, 6000 years would mean about 3 million, not 6 billion ounces. MrVoluntarist 00:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking for sources, and then asking about the sources. Servant and slave are synonymous, as other translations note, as I have now noted. The source of interest calculation is actually a bad calculator, one I found quickly, in response to the demand for a source. My actual source was Microsoft Excel. But I suppose the real problem here is that I am making an argument, and not citing a source of the argument, and thus I'm pushing a Point of View. On the other hand, the topic is Usury, a Biblical word and topic, and I'm quoting a Biblical scripture on topic that helps to explain why usury is wrong (even though the scripture quoted, Proverbs 22:7, does not use the word "usury". Further, I'm explaining, through math, why Proverbs 22:7 is correct in noting that borrowers can be described as slaves of the moneylenders. I thought that was the point here, in listing criticisms to usury. As it stands, none of the other arguments against usury even list any sources at all, and in this argument, I listed several. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jason Hommel (talk • contribs) 11:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this getting very interesting! Nowadays, slavery is universally condemned. But I'm not sure that when the Bible was written, it had quite the same bad connotations. At least, the Bible does not seem to condemn it (according to this web site, though of course it may be a biased site. I'm sure you know more than me!) I think your quote would be better in the 'Injunctions against usury within religious texts' section. You are right about the other arguments not having sources, perhaps we can work together to add some? MrArt 13:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original Mosaic Code meliorates slavery but does not eliminate it. Consider it a stepping stone to begin to cross a river of pain and oppression.

Jason, your argument about exponential financial growth equalling slavery is original research or needs to be sourced. Not the math; not the debt figures; the actual claim that "being able to make that much money through this method is tantamount to slavery". Who argued that? Plus, I corrected the math part, though I'm not sure what it now proves. MrVoluntarist 14:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, in that each point I'm making may be able to be backed up, I'm making an argument. Instead, I listed Nehemiah, in which both the people being oppressed by usury call it slavery, and Nehemiah also likens it to slavery. This way, I'm not presenting original research. Jason Hommel 19:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. However, now that entire section is just biblical citations (not present Christian/Jewish theorists who have long since dropped the opposition to interest), so it should probably be a subheading under the "biblical injunctions against usury". That is, it should list the current quotes and then say "Characterization as slavery" and then list the slavery-related ones you added. I would do the same for the "Islam" part in "ethical arguments against usury", but that does refer to modern theorists. MrVoluntarist 19:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good suggestion. Thank you for recognizing and pointing out the proper category for this section. Jason Hommel 01:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New Testament and the Old Testament are collections of books which explain and illustrate the issue of usury in its oldest meaning, which is both the extraction of interest and the extraction of excessive interest (the modern meaning of usury). Interest and usury are forms of slavery, yet more vicious forms of slavery existed throughout the Bronze Age, through the modern age. Jesus the Nasaraean opposed usury while acknowledging the practice existed. Christian theorists who debate whether the bronze age Law of Moses is acceptable legal code cite different New Testament books to argue the relevance or irrelevance of the Mosaic Code, and show that particular books support or defend slavery versus abolition of slavery in its various forms, even within the same book. As a comparison, the Bible has exhortations in some books to drink wine, yet warnings against imbibing in other passages.

There are significant distinctions between current theorists, and the areas of their current disagreement. Each usually explains the status quo, in an attempt to establish a common theoretical foundation, then argues for changes either to that foundation or on other significant issues. The best current scholarship seems to me to be based on whether the Law of Moses and the prophets is still the Word of God, an argument that has been ongoing among Christians since the time of John the Baptist. Abolition theorists of the "War of the Bibles" at the time of the U.S. Civil War led to rights of citizenship for emancipated slaves. Bond slavery continues, and so does abolitionist sentiment. Thinkers concerned about the morality of interest, usury and other forms of legal and illegal human bondage, from all the various religions and philosophies, explain their opposition with various arguments.

My main concern is that you discount the meme that Jesus presented, "Love your enemies," and the implications of his actions and words. For example, at Luke 16:14, "The Pharisees, who were money lovers, were listening to all these things, and they began to sneer at him." They understood Jesus was attacking their legalized usury. Responding, Jesus declares the end of the Law of Moses and the Prophets on which they premised their actions. But the next paragraph appears to perpetuate the Law forever. The obvious circumstance is that there was some later editing of the text. So biblical scholars research to evaluate Jesus sayings. The current vogue when examining the words of Jesus is to consider the evaluations of the Jesus Seminar 1993 [[1]]. Words are colour-coded -- RED: Jesus really said it; PINK: Jesus might have said something like it; GREY: Jesus didn't say it but it's the sort of thing he would have said; BLACK: Jesus didn't say it nor would he ever say such a thing. Interestingly, sentences regarding the end of the Law of Moses are considered more genuine than attributions regarding the continuation of the Law of Moses (and its laws regarding slavery and lending), yet both positions are considered unlikely to be authentic words of Jesus, instead being derivations by factions of his disciples.

Regardless of whether Jesus actually spoke similar words, a common error is to disarticulate the "parable of the talents" into figurative and literal components. Jesus is attributed to have used metaphor to illustrate his concern that those who gain wealth through usury have a difficult time acquiring the kingdom of heaven. If Jesus parable (parabolic teaching) was clearly speaking figuratively, then talents (money) represent the resources of person belonging to God. So giving one's talents to moneylenders is also figurative, not literal. The moneylenders represent people not belonging to God. The focus of Jesus parable is that godly people sin when they do not attempt to do good works. Giving the money to lenders would be the absolute worse choice, i.e. allowing ungodly people to use one's own resources, yet even that would be better than no action at all. To view the parable as endorsing usury is fallacious.

Place Jesus back on the list of religious authorities opposed to usury, because he considered it antithetical to holiness.98.224.223.229 20:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that the bibilical text here is in NLT rather than the public domain KJV? Borisblue 04:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the Hebrew Bible, I found the translations to be inaccurate and tendentious. I changed to classic JPS1917 and added a link to ORT translation with Rashi commentary. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From this Section;

Moreover, in the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is more explicit:

"If you have money, don't lend it at interest. Rather, give [it] to someone from whom you won't get it back." (Saying 95)

Here, Jesus is made to go farther than He actually did: He asks us to lend and hope not for gain or increase. We are entitled to receive what is ours back again, but even then, not to cause the debtor to be thrown into destitution.

Doesn't make much sense to me, what does it mean by 'was made to go farther than He actually did'? It seems like someones personal interpretation rather than a legitimate & objective statement. Number36 21:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

28.120.24|172.128.120.24]] 18:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this addition is a commentary/POV on the Saying recorded in 'Thomas', and, should be deleted.

I've also added book references.

John courtneidge 03:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've deleted it, glad it wasn't just me.

I also think a 'citation needed' should be added to the earlier parts of the new testament section, especially when it makes claims about what they were understood to mean until modern times, it begs the question of who it was that understood to mean it that way and who it is that is interpreting it the other way in modern times? (And also what it means by 'modern times' which is a bit ambiguous). And while both interpretations seem to be valid, it seems to me that it presents the latter, and what it asserts to be the more 'modern', is the more accurate. Perhaps it would be better to reorganise the entire section to simply present the relevant quotes, but I think pointing out that the wording can be taken either way is valuable for the article, just that perhaps the way it is now worded isn't the best way of doing it. Number36 05:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Usury and the law" has the following:

Congress has opted to put a federal criminal limit on interest rates by the RICO definitions of "unlawful debt" which make it a federal felony to lend money at an interest rate more than two times the local state usury rate and then try to collect that "unlawful debt"- Source 18 USCA 1961 B(6)(B).

(my highlighting) and "Usury rates in the US" has:

And in some states (as New York) such loans are voided, meaning made void from the beginning or ab initio. Ref NY Gen Oblig 5-501 et seq. and NY 1503.

References are great, but wouldn't it be better to cite these so they appear correctly in the reference section? Without knowing what these documents actually are, I'm not willing to try to cite them properly myself.

Jarich 11:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone, with a better understanding than I, make a SE version of this article?

I heard that Islam, or a sect of Islam may perhaps actually allow lending, but with a capped limit of something like 2.5%. May need investigating.

80.229.47.244 10:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)jago25[reply]

You heard wrong. Interest on money or anything that can be used as money (ex. gold) is forbidden (the profit jewellers make is on the workmanship not the gold itself). Most Muslim scholars even say that taking a loan and paying the interst is forbidden not only recieving it. This is for both sunni and shia muslims.

2.5% is the general amount of zakat (Islamic tax) to be paied by the rich to the poor. --Maha Odeh 09:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the definition in the article needs to be reviewed, in other online encyclopedias (e.g. Merriam Webster Usury is defined as;

1. the lending of money with an interest charge for its use; especially : the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates
2. an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specifically : interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money

There are clearly two meanings, as a synonym for interest, and the practice of charging excessive interest. Page 84 of Human Ecology Vol 1 (Thomas Robertson 1977 reprint of the 1948 publication) has a good overview of the definition and questions the subjectivity around what actually is lending at an excessive interest rate. This article clearly slants towards the second definition.

There is also no information on Major vs Minor Usury. --Zven (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as edits to the lead section, this sounds like a good start to me. The current lead section has no references, your definition does; so if you ask me, that means you win. However, for the main body of the article, note that sometimes articles purposefully do not deal with every aspect of the word itself. Instead, the word refers to a specific encylopedic topic; in which case some other article named by some synonym covers other meanings. In these cases, there are templates that can be used to explain the scope of each article. In this case, the first definition can be covered by articles such as Credit (finance), Interest, Moneylender, or other article. I'm not certain what if any organization exists here as I'm not intimately familiar with any of these articles. -Verdatum (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rm (cleanup tag removed by Washburnmav (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)) because overall article is in fact at wiki overall quality level without quibbling about the defintion of the latter. Needs some minor structural adjustments and placement in context which I will attempt (next talk §).[reply]

rm

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (December 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

from Hebrew Bible/Old Testament because it's not, it's just quoted material from the named source.

rm

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

from Ethical arguments for and against usury because there are now notes.

as far as the remaining tag on the New Testament §, a little formatting, not as much as in Riba would be consistent with overall article and previous §;at the other extreme a subsection breakout by Christian denomination could be given.

Lycurgus (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of exorbitant interest has lost all meaning in a system of fractional reserve banking where money creation is controlled by private banks and policy set by a central bank. The cost of borrowing as a percentage of income, the impact of debt on prices of everything else, the total cost of the money / debt system on the economy should determine "usury". While the advantages of usury are well stated in the article, the impact upon our society of 90 years of varying monetary manipulation would suggest we live in a society run by usury. The rates may be only 2 - 3%, but because no actual capital is at risk (result of fractional reserve banking which allows creation of money to originate a loan) the charging of any interest is usurious.

The impact of usury upon our culture is profound, as evidenced by this discussion. We are very much serfs to the banking class. They create money to "lend" us at interest, which miraculously is approximately 33% of our income. Then they lend money to governments, corporations, etc, which cost us an additional 33% .... leaving us with 33% - the classic tradeoff of the feudal system. The interest charged as a rate is irrelevant - they determine the relative value of everything in the economy, since they create the money. It is the portion of income devoted to various costs that is important, and this is why usury has been so maligned in the past.

Finally, there are relatively few modern arguments against usury not because it is an ethical pursuit, but because of the paradigm shift necessitate by a debt based money system. If we begin to reject the charging of interest, the system would collapse. That does not make it ethical or even beneficial, it is the reason why we are oblivious to its dangers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.146.234 (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically just organized and put existing content in context, no other substantive changes other than that noted in § above. No content was removed or altered up to this action, just put in context. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "rate" to "statute" (since that is what the section is actually about), other minor clean-up. Also put in context with other wiki articles, etc, (see edit comments). 74.78.162.229 (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completed cleanup as in edit log, marshalling of content in this page. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

important suggested addition - there should be added discussion in this article of RICO loansharking provisions (18 USCA 1961) which seem to be a further FEDERAL interest rate limit as that stattue defines an "unlawful debt" to be one with interest rate more than 2x usury interest rate ... these RICO loansharking limits were meant to be a national upper limit on interest rates and make aloan with interest rates above those high rates an "unlawful debt" (loansharking debt) that is NOT collectible 18 USCA 1962, and any such atempt to collect such an inlawful loan is a federal (RICO) felony... so the interplay of these RICO statutes with usury statutes should be included in this article ... esp as such an upper RICO loan sharking interest rate limit is surely applicable to most all credit card loans ... esp as TILA includes as part of the finance charge or interest rate ... ALL FEES (TILA 226.4 (finance charge) 226.28 (state laws pre-empted) and so with such fees , e.g. overlimit and late fees added in to the interst rate / finance charge ... most all credit cards then have finance charges / interest rates over 50 % (if late and over the limit) making them fail as having rates above the RICO loansharking limits - samson joans learned hand qv 69.121.221.97 (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph(shown in part below) contradicts itself, and could also do with citing a reference to the word 'Marranos':

...In 1290, all Jews were expelled from England...however, not all Jews were expelled, word for this conversion was called "Marranos" ... There is no link to 'Marranos' , but when I looked it up on Wikipedia, it seems actually the term is specific to 'secret' Iberian Jews - was this use of the Spanish word really contemporary to England also ?

The phrase 'it was easy to convert to Christianity...' could probably do with citing a reference or two as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monowiki (talk • contribs) 20:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the sentence:

In 1980, due to inflation, national banks (banks that generally include N.A. in their name), federally chartered savings banks, installment plan sellers and chartered loan companies were exempted from state usury limits by the federal government through a special law. This effectively overrode all state and local usury laws.

as coming from an unreliable source because the source itself, the 'Lectric Law Library, states at the top of the page: "This info is always changing so confirm anything before relying on it." That alone fails WP:RS.

More importantly, I don't think it's accurate. The closest thing to a "special law" I can think of that brought that result wasn't anything passed by Congress but the Supreme Court's Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. decision, which held unanimously that the National Banking Act of 1863 allowed national banks to charge a rate of interest legal in the state they were chartered in, regardless of where the borrower lived.

I am adding this to the article, removing this "special law" thing, and leaving this message here in case anyone can explain this better and cite a reliable source to that effect. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how about some arguments AGAINST it.. for fuck sake that is one of the most biased wikipedia article sections I have ever seen! 12.52.96.200 (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a 'citation needed' tag next to Moses, where he is cited as being one of many ancients who were against usury? You have two quotes from Leviticus just above that! You did know that the first five books of the bible were written by him, didn't you? 80.7.116.40 (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Business has always been accepted as a right and proper activity[28] by all cultures, including those that reject usury."

I'm not so sure about that.

All cultures? Maybe if you define 'business' very broadly to simply mean 'production and distribution of goods' (e.g. so that if one person gives one another a piece of food that would be 'business' under this overly broad definition).

Contrast with, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge " Over the next years, the Khmer Rouge killed many intellectuals, city-dwellers, minority people, and many of their own party members and soldiers who were suspected of being traitors.[6]

The Khmer Rouge wanted to eliminate anyone suspected of "involvement in free-market activities." Suspected capitalists encompassed professionals and almost everyone with an education, many urban dwellers, and people with connections to foreign governments. " Bayle Shanks (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some have suggested that the development of double entry bookkeeping would provide a powerful argument in favor of the legitimacy and integrity of usury but this is an obvious non-sequitur. Business has always been accepted as a right and proper activity[30] by all cultures, including those that reject usury.

If "some" ^{[weasel words]} anonymous people have suggested made a non-sequiter, then they probably irrelivent and can be disregarded. On the other hand, if this is a notable opinion, then it ought to be explained who thinks this, why they think this, and why they are wrong. Wardog (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I noticed with this talk page is that the concept of usury and interest seems to be hinging on scriptures and religious texts as if the problem with 'interest' as a form of 'charging above and beyond the principle for the use of whatever it is' can only be supported or not by religious texts.

What about from a logical standpoint that it is impossible for someone to 'pay' off the interest component of any loan without causing economic loss to another? This is my claim. The interest component of a loan can never truly be settled without some 'loss' being incurred elsewhere, and that 'loss' can never be compensated for.

If I am sole maker/supplier/provider of a particular product, and I lend some to another at interest, then where does the borrower find the 'interest' part but from me? To pay me back the interest, the borrower must borrow again, and again, and again. Money is no different. There is a finite supply of it whether its Gold, seashells, paper or electronic money. To extract your interest you must either devote your time, at the expense of devoting it to other duties, to finding it (by digging it up from the ground, farming it from the sea etc)or by taking it from someone else through the game of commerce.

In MILLS & ORS v SHEAHAN [2007] South Australian Supreme Court 365 (16 October 2007) at

^[1]

30. In a competitive world where one person’s economic gain is commonly another’s loss, a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing mere economic loss to another, as distinct from physical injury to another’s personal property, may be inconsistent with community standards in relation to what is ordinarily legitimate in the pursuit of personal advantage: Bryan v Maloney at 618 affirming Jaensch v Coffey [1984] HCA 52; (1984) 155 CLR 549; Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman [1985] HCA 41; (1985) 157 CLR 424 at 503. McHugh J has described this as individual autonomy: Hill v Van Erp (1997) 188 CLR 159 at 211; Perre v Apand at 114-117; Woolcock Street at [78] where he said:

       In Hill v Van Erp, I pointed out that “Anglo-Australian law has never accepted the proposition that a person owes a duty of care to another person merely because the first person knows that his or her careless act may cause economic loss to the latter person”. Speaking generally, a person owes no duty to prevent economic loss to another person even though the first person intends to cause economic loss to that other person. This particular immunity from liability reflects the common law’s concern with the autonomy of the individual and its desire to give effect to the choices of the individual by not burdening his or her freedom of action. Thus, as long as a person is legitimately protecting or pursuing his or her commercial interests, the common law does not require that person to be concerned with the effect of his or her conduct on the economic interests of other persons. 

It is apparent from this case that the law has found commerce and economic gain/loss to be part of free will and free choice. It's your choice, but essentially, you either play the game and accept the consequences, or, you choose not to and accept other consequences. The consequences of playing the commerce game is that the interest component can never truly be paid off without economic loss, and therefore, the only way to extinguish that debt is through forgiveness.

If I was to take usury and determine the message from the religious texts it would be that a borrower who borrows at interest is, by their own free will and choice, choosing to devote their time to another master, at the expense of devotion to God (I use the term devotion to God to mean anything that is deemed charitable, community orientated, as opposed to self gain and private profits), for that 'interest' component. You can not serve two masters. If I have to work to pay off the interest, then I work for the lender at that time, not God. It may very well be that God has supplied everyone a mechanism by which to experience what it is like to be deprived of the ability to serve Him, which makes perfect sense, seeing as the act of borrowing, although seemingly an almost a complete necessity in today's world, is the by-product of wanting something now rather than saving up for it, which is itself a by-product of sin or acting on emotions, and not objectivity. Think about this: where did the great American dream or Aussie dream come from to own their own home? Is not a home a god given right? Then why is it a dream and why are we serving the master of 'interest' to reach that dream at the expense of 30 years of being deprived of the ability to serve God or our fellow man? Because we choose to.

So my claim is that its not to do with the amount of interest, nor who said what in which religious text, but that there is an inherent problem with using interest in your daily affairs if at the same time you have made a covenant with God or whomever to treat others as you would have them treat you. Thank you.1.123.140.98 (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems very interesting, but do you plan on using this to contribute to the article? If so, how?

After all, that is the point of a talk page. . .

Yster76 (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Floudering Newbie, pls email with advice if appropriate]

I have proposed an edit of the "Judaism" sub-section within "Religious Context"

Changes -

a) Reorganised paragraph. b) Added parentheses for distinction. c) Added the words "where different" for clarity.

Reasoning -

1) As it stood, sentance one "usury is forbidden" was irrefutably contradicted by sentance two which essentially states that usury between Jew and non-Jew is permitted.

2) This sub-section is specifically labelled "Judaism". Obviously 'Judaism' is not 'Christianity'. To those readers unfamiliar with the commonality (or the differences) between the Jewish and Christian Tanakh/Old Testament the references to Christianity within the "Judaism" section may present as perculiar and confusing, especially given that a distinct section labelled "Christianity" which directly follows.

It seems to be appropriate to eventually reorganise the "Religious Context" section along the lines of old Abrahamic scriptures / later Abrahamic scriptures/ other scriptures.

The sub-section "Judaism" still makes perfect sense when stripped of all reference to Christianity. However, I recognise the valid intent of including those references given the current structural contraints of the page.

Consequently I have simply added paratheses to the two references to Christianity within "Judaism" to indicate they are adjunctive. Such is consistent with the pre-existing use of parentheses to indicate differences in verse numbering between the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

3) As it stood, a reader could be forgiven for thinking that (eg) Leviticus 25:36 was not part of the Christian scripture.

Worryerr-au (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the changes with my stock "not an improvement" reason. Now I see some merit in the changes. I've restored the clarification "where different". My objection reflex was triggered by the reorganization to "Within the Jewish scripture...", which presents an awfully long clause before "Jews are forbidden to use...", and which needs a comma to separate the two sentence parts. I see your point about "forbidden" declared in the first sentence, only to be contradicted later. To that end, I modified it and shifted it to follow the second sentence. Better? Willondon (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]