Misconception #4:  
Regulations are to blame.

Regulations do not force any program to use an interest-based loan structure.  They are there for the protection of the consumer and their only purpose is to ensure that anyone entering a loan agreement clearly understands the terms.  Regulations are often cited as the reason why a given program uses terms like "interest" in a supposedly Shariah-compliant program, but the fact of the matter is that the regulations only apply to LENDERS, and only require full disclosure of the exact nature of a loan agreement.  They do not apply to real partnerships, co-ownerships, landlord/tenant relationships, or sellers and buyers with REAL installment payment plans.

Even if we were to assume that the regulatory agencies mistook the true nature of a given program and categorized it as loan-based when it is indeed a co-ownership, regulations only require lenders to provide adequate disclosure that shows the amount of money borrowed, the amount returned, and the effective interest rate.  They do not require a lien to be placed against the property or interfere with the rights and responsibilities held by any party in an agreement.  Therefore, if an entity truly seeks to implement a Shariah-based program, disclosures aside, the relationship should be constructed so that the rights and responsibilities in no way resemble those of a lender-borrower relationship rather those of a co-owner, or landlord/renter relationship.

Misconception #5:  
The work that went into creating those programs should be supported, not criticized.

The amount of work that goes into something ultimately has no bearing on whether it is acceptable or not.  The violators of the Sabbath certainly went to great effort in their attempt to circumvent what had been decreed for them, but that did not make it right or acceptable to God. In matters of such critical and clearly defined rule of law, only the end result should be considered and not the amount of work that went into a solution full of compromise.

Misconception #6:
Just like marriage or processing halal meat, words make all the difference.

It is a silly notion to equate such examples with rewording mortgage documents in order to collect interest from a loan-based agreement while calling it something else. The question isn't whether words can change the status of a given action, but rather whether we are observing the necessary requirements.  If the requirements call for nothing more than uttering words at the appropriate time, then those words fulfill the requirements and make the action conformant to God's law.

If, however, the requirements call for certain acts, procedures or qualifications then those must be met and words do not suffice. Would slaughtering a pig while doing all correct actions and uttering the correct words make its meat halal? Of course not. Would doing all the actions and uttering all the necessary words of marriage make it alright for a man to marry his daughter? Of course not. Words have their place and MUST be used when required and in the manner required, but actions must also take place in their proper context. Rules must be observed and the proper qualifications and conditions must be met in order for a thing to be truly halal.

Misconception #7:
It is equitable and fair if both parties agree to the program.

Equitable and fair is NOT only based on whether both parties agree to the terms or find it acceptable according to their criteria. The underlying transaction must be right and legal according to both Divine Law and the law of the land, respectively. Even if both parties agree on something that is wrong or illegal it disqualifies the transaction from being valid, whether it is according to Shariah or the law of the land, and cannot be used as a criteria when judging if something is equitable and fair.

Continue ►