It is not any sin to be rich.

[eanassir]

It is not any sin to be rich​

But it is sin when the rich does not offer the due (Zakat) alms out of his surplus money, and it is a sin to withhold the money from the poor, the needy, orphans and widows when they are in need.​

Moreover, the rich has to be grateful to God for He bestowed on him such wealth; but it is a sin if the rich does not thank his Lord for his bounty.​

In addition, the rich should not be proud with his wealth, nor neglect in his duties to his relatives and other people.​

The rich should bear in mind that the wealth that he has is only a matter of trial to see will he be grateful and expend for the sake of God for the poor and the needy? Or will he be ungrateful and deprive the needy of their rights and be independent of God and His apostles and His revealed books: the Torah, the Gospel and the Quran.​

Some of the rich think that he is preferred by God, and God loves him, therefore, He blessed him with his wealth; but this is wrong: God does not love this man, so that He made him rich, as does not He hate that man, so He made him poor. But all that is only a matter of trial.​

This is in the Quran 89: 15-​

فَأَمَّا الْإِنسَانُ إِذَا مَا ابْتَلَاهُ رَبُّهُ فَأَكْرَمَهُ وَنَعَّمَهُ فَيَقُولُ رَبِّي أَكْرَمَنِ . وَأَمَّا إِذَا مَا ابْتَلَاهُ فَقَدَرَ عَلَيْهِ رِزْقَهُ فَيَقُولُ رَبِّي أَهَانَنِ . كَلَّا بَل لَّا تُكْرِمُونَ الْيَتِيمَ . وَلَا تَحَاضُّونَ عَلَى طَعَامِ الْمِسْكِينِ . وَتَأْكُلُونَ التُّرَاثَ أَكْلًا لَّمًّا . وَتُحِبُّونَ الْمَالَ حُبًّا جَمًّا​

The explanation:
(As for man: whenever his Lord tries him by being Generous to him [with wealth] and blessing him [with many favors], then he says: "My Lord has honored me [because He prefers me.]​

But when He tries him [with poverty] and stints for him his provision, then he says: "Surely my Lord has despised me [because he hates me.]"​

No, [We do not like the man whom We enrich, nor do We hate the man for whom We stint the provision, but We only try them by the richness and poverty]; ​

but [We hate those among] you: ​

>>[who are miser and do not honor the orphan.​

>> And [We hate that] you do not urge [people] on the feeding of the needy.​

>> And [that] you endeavor [the annual income of] the heritage successively [without paying alms to the poor.]​

>> And [that] you love [hording] the wealth with an ardent love.​

Not at all; [for the endeavoring of the heritage does not prolong life, nor does hording of the wealth save man from God's punishment;
but it is the honoring of the orphans that prolongs life and the paying of alms to the poor and needy saves from the punishment.])
----------------------------------------------------------​

In addition, the wealth may hinder man from devoting himself to God alone and from working for the prosperity in the kingdom of heaven in the next afterlife; ​

as is this understood from the rich man with Prophet Jesus, when Jesus said concerning him: as in the Gospel according to Matthew 19: 23-24​

"23 Jesus said to his disciples, "Most assuredly I say to you, a rich man will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven with difficulty.
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God." ​

http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com/#ten%20commandments%20of%20ezra
quranandhebrewbible.t35.com/#ten%20commandments%20of%20ezra​

 

[L Gilbert]

IMO, it is a sin (I prefer the term "bad aspect") to be greedy, to want more than one needs at the expense of others.

 

[El Barto]

IMO, it is a sin (I prefer the term "bad aspect") to be greedy, to want more than one needs at the expense of others.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

[MHz]

It is not any sin to be rich​

But it is sin when the rich does not offer the due (Zakat) alms out of his surplus money, and it is a sin to withhold the money from the poor, the needy, orphans and widows when they are in need.​

The Bible would classify somebody as being rich if they had more money than the bankers (take home pay) Below that line (poor and poorest)certain benefits kick in, above that line banks can and do charge some form of interest. In a busy economy their income would be more and they do more. In lean times they take in less and they do less. The system is geared to keeping the poorest as close to the dividing line as possible. Nor does it try to stifle all business growth, a sound business should not be subsidized by the poor, nor does it need an annual growth that is more than single digit prophets. The general public all benefit because anything above that growth margin would take care of any interest owing and above that it would mean reduced prices.

I would have to re-read those Scriptural references to see how else it could affect banking at the pace we do it and at the pace growth will affect this system we use today. Never being able to repay a loan doesn't last forever. It could last much longer if when the interest is paid the client gets to keep the rest. @ 5% interest the Gov borrows 1M, the way it is today he hast to pay back the 1M+5%. The payback should be the 5% and the rest stays with the Gov forever. When damaged it is replaced for free because the Bank gets the old and now unusable tender. The borrower always ends up with the purchase. The Bank has to pay all his bills from that 5%. The amount of new money (growth) is still a good chunk of change for doing nothing but paper-work. Canada has paid them 42B/yr plus all the other interest and all the other service charges. Take from the poor they should be able to demand lower prices cause they have less money. Take from the rich at years end they are still richer than they were, in lean time the poor have no extra money to spend so he loses his business and becomes less wealthy.

The Jewish practices that were given in the OT could be updated simple by making Christians and Muslims and others as being relatives because all 3 recognize one God as being the true God. They don't have to agree on anything else. The ones outsides are still covered by conditions that apply to times of peace. Across the board banking is one of them. The rich carry the whole weight of banking, the poor have this as a free service.

 

[lone wolf]

Free service? What bank do you deal with????

 

[Toro]

Whew! Good stuff. I might have to become a Muslim. I don't know if I'll get into heaven otherwise.

(Or anywise for that matter...)

 

[MHz]

Free service? What bank do you deal with????

Same kind you deal with, 150/yr for a very basic package, my billionaire employer get money from the bank most likely. His loans would certainly have a lower interest rate.
Nail the poor just as hard as you can seems to be a banking rule. Only the poorest can have a cheque bounce, the bank dings him about 40 and the other end also has some for of penalty. Might be 80 in total, don't tell me it costs the banks and the company 80 bucks for each transaction they do. Get a little higher up the ladder and the bank has protection for bad cheques for a few dollars/mo.

The bank God set up in the OT workes quite well because it put the least burdon on the poorest. The guy who get a wefare cheque in direct deposit probably pays more in banking services than somebody who clears 100,000/yr ebven though the poorer ones uses the banking system the least. God notices things like that and those left in charge of those things will not necessairly get a pat on the back for a job well done. Simple because the poor are saddled with an expense that the rich could easily absorb with minimal impact to their wealth.

Farmers were also told to leave the corners of their fields for the poor at harvest time. It won't eliminate the poor.

The rich today would be the ones who own the 10 biggest banks, those ones intentionally keep some in poverty, God will certainly see them as being dead to faith, that isn't a good thing to have happen. The rich below that just don't care, donations to the poor usyually ave to be a tax-deduction so the poorest taxpayer pays for some of that donation indirectly.

 

[MHz]

Moreover, the rich has to be grateful to God for He bestowed on him such wealth; but it is a sin if the rich does not thank his Lord for his bounty. ​

Since money was mentioned near the very beginning it would seem to be a necessary evil. Used properly wealth can be a blessing, Job was said to be wealthy. One would expect that to be found favorable in God's view Job's servants were not kept as dirt-poor slaves. When money becomes more important than God then the evil part of it is winning.
​

The rich should bear in mind that the wealth that he has is only a matter of trial to see will he be grateful and expend for the sake of God for the poor and the needy? Or will he be ungrateful and deprive the needy of their rights and be independent of God and His apostles and His revealed books: the Torah, the Gospel and the Quran.​

I'm quite sure God doesn't make some rich to test them, that would be using temptation to do evil. I'm not all that convinced that rich and poor have rigid definitions. The rich man and the beggar Lazarus certainly applies to the needs of the body, as does the separation of the sheep and goats. Those are examples from the 4 Gospels, the Epistles have even more example by quote from Jesus should be enough to show the point as Scripture originally intended.

Some of the rich think that he is preferred by God, and God loves him, therefore, He blessed him with his wealth; but this is wrong: God does not love this man, so that He made him rich, as does not He hate that man, so He made him poor. But all that is only a matter of trial. ​

Most often these day a person is born into wealth or born into poverty. I admit there are cases of the poor becoming rich or the rich becoming poor but in the vast majority id you are born into one class you are still in that class at death, your father and your sons will most likely live the same sort of life.

When the rich start doing things to assure those two classes never mingle to any great deal that is when things start to be hidden, from people and from God. Monarchs and serfs have been thy norm rather than the exception.
​

In addition, the wealth may hinder man from devoting himself to God alone and from working for the prosperity in the kingdom of heaven in the next afterlife; ​

as is this understood from the rich man with Prophet Jesus, when Jesus said concerning him: as in the Gospel according to Matthew 19: 23-24​

"23 Jesus said to his disciples, "Most assuredly I say to you, a rich man will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven with difficulty.
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."​

In the NT it was the rich man who wanted to follow Jesus, his first task was to give all he owned to the poor, it was too much to ask and he left keeping his earthly riches at the expense of 'the Kingdom'. The picture on the money is who it belongs to, if the owner calls it all back (depression and economic ruin) that is not God at work.

 

[TenPenny]

The rich today would be the ones who own the 10 biggest banks, those ones intentionally keep some in poverty, God will certainly see them as being dead to faith, that isn't a good thing to have happen. The rich below that just don't care, donations to the poor usyually ave to be a tax-deduction so the poorest taxpayer pays for some of that donation indirectly.

Do you include all of the shareholders of the 10 biggest banks in that category of rich?

 

[Johnnny]

Some people work hard for there hard earned pennies... If they choose to keep it thats there decision...

 

[DurkaDurka]

 

[Johnnny]

gimmie the cash money, ima get that gold, platinum for life

 

[DurkaDurka]

gimmie the cash money, ima get that gold, platinum for life

bahahahahaha! :smile:

 

[DurkaDurka]

 

[captain morgan]

Nail the poor just as hard as you can seems to be a banking rule. Only the poorest can have a cheque bounce, the bank dings him about 40 and the other end also has some for of penalty. Might be 80 in total, don't tell me it costs the banks and the company 80 bucks for each transaction they do. Get a little higher up the ladder and the bank has protection for bad cheques for a few dollars/mo.

Only the 'poor' can have a cheque bounce?.. Yeah, sure. As far as the cost of a bounced cheque, how about don't write cheques that aren't covered and save yourself $80?... Blaming an individual's mismanagement on the rest of the world is not the answer.

The guy who get a wefare cheque in direct deposit probably pays more in banking services than somebody who clears 100,000/yr ebven though the poorer ones uses the banking system the least.

Your banking costs are directly related to your individual usage, it very little to do with your account balance. That said, those persons with significant funds deposited in a bank do receive preferenial treatment only because the bank makes money from their deposits - there is no bank that provides their facilities and services exclusively as a charitable function to society... If you don't like the fees then keep your cash under a matress or buried under the shed... Just don't bitch when it gets lost or stolen.

Simple because the poor are saddled with an expense that the rich could easily absorb with minimal impact to their wealth.

Since when is it the responsibility of 'the wealthy' to 'absorb' all of your banking costs?... Why are you so dead-set on demanding that others pay your way?

donations to the poor usyually ave to be a tax-deduction so the poorest taxpayer pays for some of that donation indirectly.

Your annual tax bill and the associated fees, GST/PST's, property taxes, mill rates and assessments aren't tax deductible, are they?


.... Time to stand-up and be counted buddy and stop this moaning about how everyone with a few more dollars than you owe you a living.

 

[L Gilbert]

It's one thing to bring in an average wage and have a little in the bank for kids' education, daughters' weddings, etc. it's another to have millions and billions sitting around simply making more. Why? What good is it doing then? Even Bill Gates spreads his around. Pattison, too.

 

[lone wolf]

My grandmother started bank accounts for each of her great grandkids. In three years, service charges ate the fifty bucks and the bank was demanding more.

 

[captain morgan]

What's an average wage?.. The issue revolves around the relativity of what is wealth? More to the point, how does one measure wealth and what is rich and what is poor?

In terms of spreading-around the wealth, the CRA demands that this happens. When you combine the fed+prov taxes, the total exceeds 50% in some jurisdictions. Factor-in GST, PST payroll tax and all the other add-ons and you see that the fact is that the more you make, the more you contribute in both actual dollars as well as a higher %.

Last point, you will see the highest and most damning poverty in those countries that have yet to fully advance their economies and societies. These nations/regions where you see the Bill Gates' of the world ensure that the tax system demands that the money be spread around, but also allows that people have the opportunity to generate profits with no ceiling.

The bottom line is that the very moment that you restrict (driectly or indirectly) the amount of money that one can earn is the exact moment that the individuals/companies that contribute the most into the system will leave.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

IMO, it is a sin (I prefer the term "bad aspect") to be greedy, to want more than one needs at the expense of others.

I don’t believe in sin, Gilbert, in my opinion, nothing is sinful. There can be such a thing as unethical, but sinful? ‘Sinful’ doesn’t make sense to me.

And I don’t know what you mean by ‘at the expense of others’. If you are talking about exploiting the poor, benefiting from other peoples’ misery (like making money from tobacco, for instance), then I agree, that would definitely be unethical.

However, in capitalistic system, one person makes money, sometimes at the expense of another. Thus, if I make money from stock market, it sometimes comes at the expense of other investors. If I bought low, sold high and made money in a stock, that means that there was some poor schmo who sold low (when I bought), bought high (when I sold) and thus lost money.

Well, I refuse to feel sorry for the poor schmo. If there are two businesses in the same neighbourhood (two dry cleaning stores, two restaurants etc.), one may prosper and the other may go belly up. You could say that one is making money at the expense of others. There is nothing wrong with that, that is how capitalism, free enterprise works.

So one has to be careful when saying that one shoud not make money at the expense of others. It all depends upon the circumstances.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It's one thing to bring in an average wage and have a little in the bank for kids' education, daughters' weddings, etc. it's another to have millions and billions sitting around simply making more. Why? What good is it doing then? Even Bill Gates spreads his around. Pattison, too.

What you are saying sounds suspiciously like Communism, Gilbert. If people have millions and use it to make more money, what is wrong with that?

We started from scratch and we have done very well indeed financially. I being an IT professional, my wife being a doctor and both earning to our full capacity (and living frugally) has made us very well off financially.

I use that money to make more money in the stock market. There is nothing wrong with that. While we made our money the hard way, there are some who are born into money. There is nothing wrong with that either, it is the luck of the draw.

So what is your advice to somebody who has millions sitting in the stock market making even more money? That they donate all their surplus money to the poor? That is never going to happen.

In life each of us finds his/her own level. Each of us finds different levels of money, comfort, happiness etc. There is nothing wrong with that. The world would be a boring place indeed, if everybody has same amount of money, if everybody ad an average wage and a little more in the bank. There are rich, there are poor and it is always going to be that way.

By hard work, frugal living and smart investments, we have achieved financial security and level of comfort that we desire. I am not ashamed of it, and I am not about to donate my surplus money to anybody (though we do donate to charities).