> You can take out a loan on an existing mortgaged asset after you built some equity into it, especially if the asset increased in price during that period.

Is not a mortgage very similar to owning X% of a thing? Like, if I had a mortgage for $100,000 and I've paid $10,000 towards it, it's almost akin to owning 1/10 of the house (which would play out in the event of liquidation, all other things equal). That real estate tends to rise in value as an asset class is tangential to the topic of usary. It seems plain to me that there is a concept of the current value of something versus the future value of something, with the difference being expressed as interest (to some degree)?

You sound like you're defining "development" when you talk about the difference between the future and present values of something. But I guess if the people actually doing the development pay interest to the people they got money from to do the development then it is... interest to some degree? Of course that results in less net development (due to the interest paid) but am I at least describing it in a way you recognize as accurate?

This is basically the Islamic redefinition of interest.

If you paid $10k toward a $100k asset, most of that $10k actually goes toward interest because of how the loan is setup.

Islam never denies that time and money are related, it just places moral restrictions on how money can be used in society without exploitation.

I have some bad news for you if you think profit sharing is going to replace free cash flow as a metric for company expansion. What happens if there's no profit? Have you been watching that Khadim Hussain Rizvi video where he tells the Pakistan Army to just repay the IMF loans' principal?

If there's no profit, the investors and the company owners have taken the risk and share it equally. What's the problem?

I'm not aware of Pakistan's Army deal with the IMF. If they took on an interest bearing loan, it's their problem they got themselves into.

You might want to look into Amazon or “Hollywood accounting”

The fact that there are other examples of exploitation and fraud is tangential. The argument is that interest is one form of exploitation, it's not the only form.

My point is unequally shared risk is exploitation, but maal-e-ghanimat isn't?

Ghanayem is not unequally shared risk. People go to war for reasons, sacrifice their lives, and the winner takes bounties.

They didn’t have one. Rizvi was encouraging a coup for them to deal with loans of civilian govt