| 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.   |