> Just because an activity was widely condemned by ancient religions does not make it evil in fact

i can't believe we still need to explain this to people

This is literally a logical fallacy. We see the evils of interest every time the topics of wage gaps, national debt, and so many others come up. Yet, it seems most people are blind to it, and try to patch the system, not realizing one of the core contributors to the problem.

A lot of the problems you bring up have already been solved. You should take a look at sharia-compliant finance.

This is a very interesting point, and everybody should look at this! But I would also counter that everybody should read David Graeber's book "Debt: The First 5000 Years" as it covers this and much much much more. Probably one of the most interesting books on the concept of money and lending and how human societies have organized around it.

Please note that not all "Sharia-compliant" financing models are in fact, Sharia compliant. As a matter of fact, many of them aren't (unfortunately). What ended up happening is that many so called "Sharia compliant" solutions are simply changing the names (and some minor mechanisms) of modern day usurious offerings (e.g. bonds, mortgages), and then slapped the "Sharia" label on them. However, talk to proper scholars and they will tell you that they're nothing but usury in disguise.

That being said, I've seen some good attempts at producing proper Sharia compliant offerings. But most people will not want them, because they have true risk sharing, unlike the modern financial system which feeds off the poor and widens the gap.

They absolutely are "usury" in disguise because usury is defined as lending for profit and forbidden and the governments of these countries have acknowledged that they cannot run a modern economy and develop a modern society without allowing for lending for profit, but they cannot admit this because there are serious consequences for admitting that the book is wrong on this topic.

Define "true risk sharing", if you mean what I think you mean, the opportunity for a borrower to file bankruptcy is true risk sharing.

Many of the governments you're referring to have been installed by the West. They're either too lazy, or more likely, forced by the West not to implement a proper Islamic financial model. The ones that haven't been installed by the West are constantly fought to prevent them from prospering.

Running an economy without lending for profit has already been proven to work, so the Book (Quran) most certainly isn't wrong about the evil of interest. Just look at Islamic history until post WWII and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, where colonialism followed and the occupiers brought with them and force installed their usurious financial systems. Even if you look at non-Islamic experiences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io2a4SOX22Y

True risk sharing is where there is no contractual obligation for the lender (or "investor") to profit. Islam declares that any loan that produces any sort of benefit to the lender (tangible or intangible) as Riba - a term used to encompass a class of impermissible financial transactions which includes, but not exclusive to, usury and interest.

You can't really discuss usury in a modern context without taking into account, the entirely modern notion of what money is. I.e. the instrument of today's national currencies are entirely detached from what used to be considered money, which was what the concept of usury applied to.

More specifically, when the government openly inflates the money supply by a certain percentage every year, then investing your cash into T-bills could suddenly be seen as merely a defensive move, to protect your holdings, rather than a usurious transaction with you as the benefactor.

I am not arguing that point or another, but this is just one example out of many where the issue gets confused by the complications of the modern financial system. It could well be argued (and many do) that large swathes of the financial system is incompatible with Islamic principles, and that the only acceptable option is a radical reimagining of these structures. In that, they would agree with a growing secular movement who are increasingly discovering that the monetary and financial system is stacked against them, and enriches the few at the expense of the many.

I guess what I'm saying is that it makes little sense to rail against 'usury' while ignoring the realities of the 'modern' nature of money.

> I.e. the instrument of today's national currencies are entirely detached from what used to be considered money, which was what the concept of usury applied to.

True. Which is another core problem. We should go back to proper money, not what we have today.

Let's take a step back. Why did the governments decide to detach money from gold and other metals? It's because they want to be able to print money at will to cover their ever increasing debts, due to interest. What effect does this have on the average person? They work hard to save money, only to have their savings devalued because of someone else's greed and incompetence. This is not sustainable.

That sounds like the "not real communism" argument. "Not real sharia". I would argue that SA is absolutely real sharia, and they have schemes to allow mortgages that function basically like lending but avoid mechanisms that would look like lending for profit by the letter.

The problem with rules against lending for profit is that you have no incentive to let anyone use what you have for their own benefit. If someone comes to me with an awesome business plan and wants some money, if I want to help them I am going to expect them to take the risk on their business plan rather than subject me to it.

What's SA? Saudi Arabia I presume? Are you a scholar to argue what is and isn't compatible with Islamic laws? We go back to our texts (Quran, Hadith) to determine whether something is or isn't compatible with Shariah. There are explicit texts that prohibit increasing the price of an item in exchange for a delay in payment.

> you have no incentive to let anyone use what you have for their own benefit.

Renting is a trivial counter-example.

> if I want to help them I am going to expect them to take the risk on their business plan rather than subject me to it.

Which is specifically one reason why lending with interest is prohibited. You don't get to profit off of the need or misery of others. There's a power dynamic difference that Islam aims to make more even. We've already seen countless times how this ended up throughout history. And we're living it today.

I'm not a scholar, but I'd guess that the Saudi government consult scholars and their government is probably more knowledgeable than either of us on this topic. You discredit their rules by claiming that they were installed by the west (which does not matter, either they follow sharia or they don't) and then appeal to scholars. Sounds to me like you want your idea of sharia and anyone who disagrees "needs to consult a scholar".

I've always disliked this appeal to scholars in Islam because Islam likes to set itself apart claiming there is no pope or interpretive authority on the law of God and then any time a person has a disagreement they appeal to an authoritative priesthood class to stifle discussion on issues that matter. For a religion that bills itself as easy to understand by the common follower of the religion, deference to human beings as authorities are quite common.

Acknowledged but cannot admit? I'm a bit lost on what you're asserting here.

Any lending for profit is dangerous and predatory. You mock religions, but fail to defend your point. We're literally living the destruction and huge gaps and wage issues caused by interest, yet no one is batting an eye. I feel sorry for humanity at times.

You're arguing against a strawman. I never said that people will be forced to lend money without compensation. With 0% interest rates, any lending will be purely out of charity. If people want to make money, they will invest it, as we've been doing for millenia. Invested in moral ways.

There exist today developers who will sell property in installments, without upping the price. I've seen this in at least one West Asian country, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were more commonplace.

I'm not who you're responding to, but you've yet to defend your assertion, that lending for profit is always predatory, and your assertion that "we have known for centuries" by way of bronze age cults (in my opinion) that this is indisputable fact. It isn't indisputable, defend your point.

I'm not calling you stupid or anything like that, but you're showing that you do not quite understand how lending and markets and even investing works. You're ignorant on this topic and I strongly advise you to do a lot of reading on it.

I'm aware of how things work. The fact of the matter is that even if we go back not long ago to pre-WWII, we see a certain individual produce a huge economic recovery by banning interest, among other things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io2a4SOX22Y

His stated position is that war spoils are more ethical than interest because the raiding party shares the risks and profits equally

Who said anything about war spoils?

You did when you said maal-e-ghanimat was equal risk to all participants

Where? Plus, "maal e ghanimat" is invalid Arabic.

Fine, ghanimat ul harb I suppose.

The point remains, you're the one bringing up the spoils of war straw man. Not sure what this has to do with the discussion that interest is bad.