Answer: According to Islam, a contract between a lender and
borrower should be an equitable one. It should ensure justice to both parties
and safeguard their rights on equal footings. If one party’s interest is
protected more than the other even minutely, injustice creeps in. In a Ribā
contract, justice to both parties is not ensured. While the lender is ensured a
safe return, the borrower is not and the lender is least bothered with it. This
seems unethical. Various measures have been suggested by economists that reduce
risk for the lender. All said and done, these measures may be efficient but the
fact remains that they do not ensure equal justice to both parties. Injustice,
you’ll agree, is something very objectionable and cannot be tolerated at any
level.
The only just arrangement in which a person or institution
does not want to enter into a profit and loss agreement and wants to ‘earn money
through lending’ seems to be that in the contract agreement the lending entity
gives an undertaking to the borrower that it will be entitled to a percentage
share in the profit only if the borrower does earn profit on the investment
made. |