ISLAM has the credit of having introduced radical and revolutionary changes in the entire Socio‑economic set up of the times and & people amongst whom it took birth. It not o­nly released men from the bondage of gods and idols but also claims to have given them a code of life, a method of conduct, an all time guidance in all the multitudinous aspects and facets of life. It must be remembered that essentially it is a very peaceful, evolutionary and constitutional religion. It strains every effort at avoiding taking radical measures or extreme steps. But at the same time it is not willing even for a single moment to compromise o­n principles. It first takes a measure of a thing in terms of its good or potentialities for mankind and, o­nce it is convinced of the gravity of the danger involved, it does not desist from taking ruthless measures. The higher the degree of possible evil results, the more strict is the regulation thereof. And what it considers to be essentially or totally bad, it just is not prepared to tolerate. This is precisely the case with interest. Realizing the gravity of the problem and looking at the possible evil effects in social, moral, political and even economic fields Islam took the extreme step of totally extirpating this venom from the midst of man. The relevant Qur’anic verses and traditions of the Holy Prophet are as follow:

I. Do they not see that Allah makes ample provision for whom He pleases, or straitens? Most‑surely there are signs in this for a people who believe. (xxx:37)

Then give to the near of kin his due, and to the needy and the wayfarer; this is best for those who desire Allah" pleasure, and these it is who are successful. (XXX:38)

And whatever you lay out as usury, so that it may increase in the property of men, it shall not increase with Allah, and whatever you give in charity, desiring Allah's pleasure it is these persons that shall get manifold. , (xxx: 39)

Allah is He Who created you, then gave you sustenance, then He causes you to die, then brings you to life. Is there any of your associate‑gods who does aught of it. Glory be to Him and exalted be He, above what they associate with Him. (xxv:40)

II. you who believe! do not devour usury, making additions again and again, and be careful of your duty to Allah, that you may be successful. (III:130)

And guard yourself against the fire that has been prepared for the unbelievers. (III: 131)

And obey Allah and the Apostle that you may be shown mercy. (III: 132)

And hasten to forgiveness from your Lord and a Garden the extensiveness of which is as the Heavens and the Earth, it is prepared for those who guard against Evil. (III: 133)

Those who spend benevolently in ease as well as in strait-ness and those who restrain their anger and pardon men; and Allah loves the doer of good to others (III: 134)

As for these‑their reward is forgiveness from their Lord, and gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them, and excellent is the reward of the labourers. (III : 136)

Indeed there have been examples before you, therefore travel in the Earth and see what was the end of the rejecters. (III:137)

This is a clear statement for men, and a guidance and an admonition to those who guard against Evil. (III: 138)

As for those who spend their property by night and by day, secretly and openly, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and they shaft have 'no fear, nor shall they grieve. (II:274)

Those who swallow down usury cannot arise except as o­ne whom the devil has prostrated by (his) touch does arise. That is because they say, trading is o­nly like usury; and Allah has allowed trading and forbidden usury?. To whomsoever then the admonition has come from His lord, then he desists, he shall have what has already passed, and 'his affair is in the hands of Allah; and whoever returns (to it) ‑these are the inmates of the fire; they shall abide in it. (II: 270)

Allah does not bless usury, and He causes charitable deeds to prosper, and Allah does not love any ungrateful sinner. (II : 276)

Surely they who believe and do good deeds and keep up prayer and pay the poor rate‑they shall have their reward from their Lord, and they shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve. (II: 277)

O 'you who believe' be careful of your duty to Allah and relinquish what remains due from usury, if you are believers. But if you do (it) not then be apprised of war from Allah and His apostle, and if you repent, then you shall have your capital, neither shall you make (the debtor) suffer loss, nor shall you be made to suffer loss. (II: 278‑ 279)

And if (the debtor) is in straitness, then let there be postponement until (he is in) Ease, and that you remit it as alms is better for you, if you knew. (II: 280)

And guard yourself against a day in which you shall be returned to Allah ­then every soul shall be paid back in full what it has earned, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly. (II: 281)

Commenting o­n the preceding verses Moulvi Mohammad Ali writes: Riba (literarily, an excess or addition) means an addition over and above the principal sum that is lent and includes usury as well as interest. The subject is introduced here very appropriately, for as charity is the broad basis of human sympathy, usury annihilates all sympathetic affection and leads to the extreme of miserliness. (Further) while Muslims were promised great wealth and prosperity the) were warned against an inordinate desire for amassing wealth, to which usury would certainly have led them. Hence, those who devour usury are compared to those prostrated by the touch of tile devil, which in this case stands for Mammon. It maybe noticed in passing that Islam adopts the golden mean in all cases. It does not go to the extreme of the socialist idea which aims at the annihilation of all distinctions of property right, but it establishes institutions which give the poor a certain proportion of the riches of the wealthier members of society. Such is the institution of Zakat, according to which 1/40^th portion of the amassed wealth of every member of society is taken yearly to be distributed among the poor. In perfect accordance with that institution, Islam refuses to allow the rich to grow richer by reducing the poor to still greater poverty, which is the real aim of usury. Usury, moreover, promotes habits of idleness, but its worst effect is o­n morals, as it causes man to be obsessed by selfishness, and this is, in fact, what is meant by the devil prostrating the devourer of usury. Facilities for borrowing money o­n interest, moreover, make men profligate, as similar facilities have made states and nations profligates in recent times."

A controversy is at times raised that what the Qur’an forbids is usury and not interest. This can at best be attributed to a lack of proper appre­ciation of the spirit and context of the Qur’anic injunctions. Else the verses in question are perfectly clear and also emphatic. The original word which is used is Riba‑which literally means an excess or addition. With reference to debt it means any excess above the principal lent. Therefore it includes both interest and usury. Actually all argument be­comes superfluous o­nce we read verses 278 & 279 together. Verse 278 says: discard usury; (lit: excess) verse 279 says: you can take back the capital sum. So what we are prohibited from taking is the excess over the capital sum. Since interest is also an excess over the capital lent, it is also prohibited.

Again there are people who indulge in hair splitting arguments about the nature of loans; viz, whether they are for consumptional or for productive purposes. Dr. Anwar Iqbal Qureshi has beautifully summed up this point thus:

"Even in the days of the Prophet the Jews of Medina advanced money not o­nly for consumptional purposes but also for trade. Similarly, modern banks advance money not o­nly for productive purposes but also for consumptional purposes. In fact, the essential difference between primitive and modern banking is o­ne of degree of development and not of kind. The most important thing is that this bearing of banking o­n commerce was known to the Arabs even during the Prophet's days. Indeed, it greatly surprised them that the Qur’an should permit trade and prohibit interest; but the Qur’an inspite of knowing the strength of their argument repeated: Yes, trade is permitted and interest is prohibited.

To quote the relevant verses again:

Those who devour usury

Will not stand except

As stands o­ne whom

The Evil o­ne by his touch

Hath driven to madness.

That is because they say,

'Trade is like usury'

But God hath permitted trade

And forbidden usury? (II:275)

We shall now consider some important traditions, of the Prophet in this connection. Before doing, that, however, it is better to note that there were two kinds of Riba prevailing in Arabia at that time.

These were (1) Riba Nasia: or o­n credit, and

(2) Riba Fadl i.e. o­n cash.

As regards Riba Nasia the practice was that a creditor advanced a certain loan o­n which he exacted his interest every month, the principal advanced remaining intact. After the expiry of the fixed time‑he would demand his dues from the debtor. If the latter were unable to pay, a certain 'addition' was made to the principal in consideration of the 'Easing time' allowed for repayment.

As regards Riba Cash or Riba Fadl it consisted of the exchange of like kinds or of those kinds which resemble each other. And there are innumerable traditions to the effect that this is also prohibited. To quote a few.

It is related by Abbada b. Samit that the messenger of Allah said: Gold for Gold, Silver for Silver, wheat for wheat, barley for barley, dates for dates, salt for salt, like for like, of equal measure, handful for handful. If there is difference in kind, then sell as you please, if by handful, then by handful. (Bukhari‑ Muslim).

Again:

It is related by Abu Said al‑Khudari that the Messenger of Allah said "sell not gold for gold except in equal quantity, nor sell any thing for the same thing in lesser quantity, nor sell silver for silver except in equal quantity: sell not anything for the same thing in lesser quantity, nor sell anything present for any thing absent. (Bukhari).

'It is related by Uthman who said "The Prophet, o­n him be peace, said "Do not sell o­ne Dinar for two, nor o­ne Dirham for two". (Bukhari).

Commenting o­n this Dr. Qureshi says:

"Apparently there is no possibility of any person purchasing silver for silver, but usually coins of o­ne country are exchanged for coins of another country : and o­ne has to pay commission or discount for acquiring varying coins. The Prophet had international point of view before him and wanted to establish universal coinage throughout the world. Ordinarily Byzantine coins were regarded more saleable (in those days) and were dearer than, Persian coins, in view of the fact that the Persian empire was growing weaker and weaker every day with the result that its coinage was not much in demand.

"It is related by Ibn Masud that the Prophet (on him be peace) condemned the receiver, the giver of Riba and also the witness and scribe of the transaction, they are alike"

Abu Said Khudari relates from Abu Huraria (may Allah be pleased with them). That the Prophet of God (on him be peace) appointed a person as Governor of Khaiber. He brought select dates to the Prophet who asked "Does Khaiber produce similar dates throughout the land?" He said "No. By God, we purchase o­ne (measure) of this variety of dates in exchange for two Sa's of another variety." Said the prophet "'Do not do so (again), you should first sell these dates at the market rate for money then purchase with that amount superior quality of dates."

Abu Said says that o­ne day Bilal came to the Prophet with green variety of dates. 'The Prophet enquired "From where did you bring these?" Bilal said "We had dates of inferior quality; we have, therefore, given two Sa's of that quality in exchange for o­ne Sa' of this (Superior) quality with the object of presenting it to the noble Prophet." o­n hearing this the Prophet exclaimed "Awa, Awa' (Expression of condemnation) This is clear interest. Do not do so (again), rather, when you wish to acquire dates of superior quality, first sell all the dates of inferior variety for money and then with the produce of the sale purchase dates of a superior quality."

Analyzing the significance of the aforementioned traditions of the Holy Prophet, Dr. Anwar Iqbal Qureshi observes:‑ Put together the above mentioned traditions go to state that there are two hypothetical cases of exchanging by measure riot o­nly silver and gold but also other things; first the things which are the object of exchange, belong to the same genus; for instance silver for silver, barley for barley. Such transactions, in order to be lawfully effective, demand that the commodities of exchange are of similar quality and that delivery is effected o­n the spot. In cases of credit or where the quantity of the objects of exchange differ, or when o­ne of the two objects of exchange is missing‑in all such cases the transaction is unlawful and prohibited. The second case lies in that both the objects of exchange are different, for instance gold for silver, or wheat for barley, or two seers of date in exchange for o­ne seer of cheese or oil, such transactions are lawful provided delivery is effected o­n the spot. In a nut shell "interest" lies in exchanging commodities of the same kind or genus in varying quantities, but where the two commodities of exchange vary in kind it is permissible to sell a smaller quantity of o­ne commodity in exchange for a larger or equal quantity of another commodity, provided always that the sale is not o­n credit and delivery of the commodities is effected o­n the spot.

Malik ibn Anas narrates "when I wanted to exchange o­ne hundred Dinars, Talha b. Ubaid sent for me. "Men we discussed the pros and cons of the transaction and reached at a settlement; he then took the gold in his possession and rose saying: "Wait until my treasurer returns from the public market. "Umar who was listening to this narration, said 'O Malik bin Ans, I beseech you in the name of God that you should not leave Talha until you get from him the money, because the Prophet (on him be peace) has said: "Selling gold for gold or date for date is riba, except when the exchange is from hand to hand. "

We can safely conclude that so far as Riba Nasi'a is concerned there is unanimity of opinion that it is absolutely prohibited. In case of Riba Fadl however, there is a difference of opinion among Muslim jurist. According to o­ne group Riba regulations apply o­nly to the six commodities mentioned in the traditions. o­n the other hand, the second group holds that Riba regulations apply to all those commodities which are measured by measure or weight. Shah Abdul Haqq remarks in Ashiatul‑Lamaat :

"It must be clearly noted that these six commodities alone are mentioned in the traditions, although jurists have extended the operation of the Riba regulations to other commodities by more analogus reasonings; for instance, all cereal corm . . . . But those who attach importance to the 'letters' of the law and who do not believe in analogy consider Riba regulations to apply o­nly to six commodities.

In the light of the above discussion it is clear that Islam totally and emphatically forbids the taking of interest in so far as credit transactions are concerned. Even in cash transactions there is no difference of opinion in respect of the six above mentioned commodities. In so far as the rest is concerned it is safe to act o­n the guiding principle laid down by Umar the second Caliph, who said "'Me Prophet went away Prom the world and we did not question him about usury. Therefore give up usury or anything resembling it".

It must be noted here that of all the things forbidden by Islam in no case was so forceful and so emphatic a language used by the Qur’an or the Prophet as in the case of interest. For the Qur’an apprises those who continue to participate in usurious dealings of war from Allah and his apostle The Prophet who as a matter of habit, and also perhaps of principle, preferred to use moderate language felt so strongly o­n this point that he is reported to have said that dealing in usury is tantamount to having incestuous relations with o­ne's mother. Again, whereas complete freedom and toleration was shown to the non‑Muslims in matters pertaining to their personal affairs in so far as no non-Muslim was ever forbidden the use of drinks or consumption of ham‑the money lenders of Banu Mughira were forbidden to indulge in usurious dealing after the conquest of Mecca‑and the governor of the place was instructed to wage a war against them in case of their refusal to do so. Similarly, when an agreement was concluded with the Christian power of Najran it was clearly stated therein that it would automatically become void if they had usurious dealings and in that case war would be declared against them.

Someone may here be tempted to ask the question as to what are we going to do supposing we abolish the institution of interest? The question is posed with all seriousness as to whether we can at all have a socioeconomic system wherein we can dispense with interest altogether. He answer is very simple. Firstly, o­nce it is conceded that something is really bad and undesirable it is simply bad logic to insist that we cannot do without it. Ways and means have to be found and a cure effected.

Secondly, leaving religion aside for a moment, even modern thinkers like Locke, Lord Keynes, Karl Marx and Jeffrey Mark have discussed the Evil Effects of interest and some of them have even suggested their own positive remedies.

Lastly, in discussing the prohibition of interest we have to bear in mind the economic set up envisaged by Islam. And this economic set up can in turn be fully appreciated o­nly in the light of the moral and spiritual values that Islam puts before us.

The o­ne difficulty with most of our economists today is that while discussing the institution of interest they have all the time before them o­ne or the other of the economic structures in existence in the world today. Now as it is all these economic structures whether capitalistic or communistic are totally at variance with the ideal put forward by Islam.

One has the full and complete liberty to disown Islam and then choose o­ne's own economic pattern of living but so long as o­ne professes to be a Muslim there is little justification‑ (having in view the above quoted clear cut injunctions) ‑ for any argument in favour of allowing the institution of interest to continue. There is no doubt always scope for interpretation, growth and development but no scope whatsoever for innovation.

A relentless war

Having discussed the view point of Islam concerning interest it will not perhaps be out of place to discuss the reasons for such a drastic step. As Stated earlier Islam is not prepared for a compromise o­n fundamentals. It wages a relentless war against systems and institutions that it considers to be essentially bad for mankind: Mr. Mazharuddin Siddiqui in his book Marxism or Islam has given some good arguments in support of the abolition of interest altogether. He says, "The most important point to be noted about interest is that the rate of interest is fixed before it is known whether the principal invested will fetch any profit. Interest o­n principal has to be aid even when business is run at a loss. The investor insists o­n having is pound of flesh without sharing the loss.

An attempt was made in the foregoing paragraphs to discuss the problem of 'interest' in the light of the specific injunctions of the Holy Qur’an and the traditions of the Holy Prophet. Reference was also made to the views expressed from time to time by Muslim Scholars and commentators of the Holy Book, and the author had drawn the conclusion that Islam prohibits the giving or receiving of any kind of interest whatsoever, Actually it considers interest to be nothing short of a venom for the Socioeconomic structure of society and therefore recommends; its total elimination from our economic system. These views may perhaps be acceptable o­nly to a devout Muslim. But inspite of all his devotion and reverence to the Word of God and the traditions of the Holy Prophet even he maybe prompted to put forth a reluctant query as to whether it is at all possible to do away with the institution of interest as such. Such is the irony of our present day existence that knowing a thing to be bad we find ourselves compelled by force of circumstances or by the iron discipline of our present day economic structure to put up with its undesirable principles under the shadowy name of a necessary evil. Had this alone been the case o­ne would have perhaps bad a word of sympathy for the victims of the material existence of today. But the tragedy is that a great majority of thinking and educated persons not o­nly consider interest to be nothing bad but also try to put up defenses and bring out arguments to justify its existence. And a sincere critic of the maladies pervading the present day economic system finds himself reciting the following couplet in utter bewilderment:

The object of the discussion that now follows is to affect a rationalization of the emphatic injunctions of Islam in forbidding interest altogether. The author is, however, fully conscious of his own lack of knowledge of the principles and practice of the science of economics and has tried to compensate the same by drawing freely upon the works of learned scholars like Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, Ur. Anwar Iqbal Qureshi, Mr. Mazharuddin 'Siddiqui, Sheikh Mahmud Ahmad, Prof. Mohd Uzair and the Hon'ble L.H. Hollins. He has done little more than putting together the views of these eminent thinkers in an earnest endeavour to prove that interest is not o­nly not indispensable but positively harmful arid the least that we can do to remedy the recurrence of the economic crises is to bring the rate of interest to a Zero level.

For purposes of a dispassionate and scientific appraisal of the subject this discussion has been divided into following heads:

a)A brief resume of the theories of interest put forward from time to time.

b) Interest as viewed by Moralists, Reformers, Religious leaders and eminent thinkers from the days of Aristotle o­nwards.

c) Why interest has been banned & trade permitted? What is the difference between Interest & Profit?

d) What is the Socio‑economic set up envisaged by Islam.

e) What is the alternative?

(a) A brief resume of the theories of interest put forward from time to time:

"The Theory of interest" says, Haberler in his book "Prosperity and Depression", "has for a long time been a weak spot in the science of economics, and the explanation and the determination of the interest rate still give rise to more disagreement among economists than any other branch of general economic theory".

Mercantilist Theory

It will be shown a little later that from the earliest times of recorded history interest as a method of increasing and accumulating wealth has been an object of censure and condemnation. Morality and religion did their best to keep the brutal and selfish tendencies in man under restrain but, with the gradual decline in the power of the church and the release of selfish forces from the strong anchors of religion, people began to move with the selfish forces of the times. (Hechschner Mercantilish VOL II P. 200)

It was in the period known as the Mercantilish Era (1500‑1700) that money began to be used o­n a large scale for commercial transactions and exchange began to replace barter. Mercantilists identified money with capital. In the words of Hechschner: "For them money was a factor of production o­n the footing as land, sometimes regarded as artificial wealth as distinct from the natural wealth (and) interest o­n capital was the payment for renting money, similar to rent of land". (Hechschner Mercantilish VOL.II P. 200.) The early Mercantilists, however, considered a low rate of interest to be beneficial to trade and consequently advocated the statutory fixation of low rates of interest.

Adam. Smith, Robert Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo are usually considered the founders of this school but the names of John Stauart Mill, Edge Worth, Marshall & Piga are also included by many authorities who call the latter as the New Classical School.

According to Smith and Ricardo interest was the compensation which the borrower paid to the lender for the profit he would make by use of his money. These two writers do not separate clearly interest from gross profit o­n capital. Accumulation of stock or capital was, in their opinion, the expected result of parsimony and parsimony would not be practiced unless a reward was for the sacrifice. Therefore, according to these two writiers interest was the reward or the inducement paid for savings. The rate of interest is simply explained by Adam Smith & Ricardo in their observation that "whenever a great deal can be made by the use of money, a great deal can be given for the use of it."

Marshall's contribution to theory of interest lies in emphasizing both the demand and supply in determining the rate of interest. He substituted the word "waiting" for abstinence which had been severely criticized, According to him interest o­n the supply side is the reward for the sacrifice of saying or waiting. He holds that the rate of interest is determined at the point of the intersection of the demand and supply courses for the savings. If the supply of savings is greater than the demand for savings for investment, the rate of interest falls, and investment increases till equilibrium is reached between savings and investment. Similarly if the demand for savings is greater than the supply of savings, then the rate of interest rises and investment is diminished until equilibrium between the two is restored.

Keynes' Criticism

While criticising this theory Lord Keynes says that interest is not a reward for savings, for o­ne can save without lending at interest and o­ne can get interest by lending money, which he has not saved but inherited. Savings are not determined by interest specially in a modern society where the bulk of the savings is not due to the efforts of the individuals but the corporate savings, and where credit is created by the banks.

According to the classical economists it is the rate of interest which brings about the equality between savings and investment. If saving is in excess of investment the rate of interest falls and investment is stimulated so that equality between the two is restored. Lord Keynes holds the view that it is the level of income rather than the rate of interest that ensures this equality. Savings depend o­n the level of employment and incomes.

We have also to bear in mind that savings are not determined by the rate of interest alone ‑ Prof. Gustav Cassel in his book 'Nature and Necessity of Interest,' observes: "the Amount saved by individuals out of a pen income is largely insensitive to changer, in the rate of interest. With a rise in the rate of interest some may save more, or some less than they did before. The motives behind an act of saving are complex. The proportion of its income which a community saves depends upon the size of its income, desire for security and power, and psychological states of preference as between the present and the future. Hence, net saving is likely to be affected very little by changes in rates of interest."

The fundamental defect in the classical theory of interest is that it takes a mechanistic view of society. It is not necessary that an increase in the savings by itself will lead to a corresponding increase in investment, or investments are likely to be encouraged or discouraged by the low and high rates of interest. The truth of these observations, is very well demonstrated during the periods of booms or depression when in the latter case inspite of an increase in the rate of interest there is no corresponding stimulus to investment.

Another significant defect in the classical theory is that it failed to realize the fact that savings may not be invested but may either be hoarded or left in the form of idle cash. This is what is actually happening in more than three fourth part of the world. Even in the remaining o­ne fourth part of the world, In Europe and America large funds are often kept in the form of idle cash.

Again the assumption that the rate of interest is determined by the Marginal productivity of capital is arguing in a circle. For the marginal productivity of capital is itself influenced by the rate of interest.

Abstinence Theory

This theory was propounded by Nassu William Senior who that interest was the price paid for abstinence. By abstinence he meant the conduct of a person who either abstained from the unproductive use of what he could command or designedly preferred the production of the remote to that of immediate results.

He was duly ridiculed by a socialist writer Lasalle who remarks, "The profit of capital is the wage of abstinence". Happy, even priceless expression. The ascetic millionaires of Europe, like Indian penitents or pillar saints, they stand o­n o­ne leg each o­n his column, with straining arm and pendulous body and pallid looks, holding a plate towards the people to collect the wages of their abstinence. In their midst, towering up above all his fellows, as head penitent and assetic, the Baron Rothschild".

It is mainly due to these objections that Marshall replaced the word waiting for abstinence. Prof: Cassel and Mr. Henderson have criticised the theory o­n the ground that it fails to give a satisfactory reason for why interest should be charged. They hold that what interest actually does is to direct investments o­nly to those channels which are most fruitful. It serves as a screen by means of which capital projects are sifted and o­nly those are approved that promise a future benefit in a high degree.

It may not he out of place here to point out that this in itself may be o­ne of the most cogent reasons for interest to be prohibited. For what is to be the criterion of benefit and who is to be the judge of usefulness. There may be a conflict between the private and public benefits. To a private employer who wants to invest money in distilling liqour or building houses for the poor, if the former investment yields say 6% and the latter o­nly 5%, the former is the more fruitful use and funds should be directed to installing distilleries, however evil their consequences to the public at large may be.

Productivity Theory

It regards productivity as a property inherent in capital and explains that this productivity of capital is the cause of interest. But it fails to explain why interest is charged for consumption goods.

Austrian Theory

Also known as the "agio" theory of interest is mainly the work of Bohm Bawerk. He holds that interest is an exchange phenomena and may be justified because human beings prefer present goods to future goods of like kind and number. The premium which we are prepared to pay for the present goods as compared to the same goods in future is termed by him as "agio".

But the very psychological foundation o­n which the theory is built is wrong. Many people save for the future because they feel their needs in the future may be greater than those at present.

Monetary Theory

It regards the rate of' interest as essentially a money rate. It has led to two rival theories viz:

(i) Loanable Fund Theory.

(ii) Liquidatory Preference Theory.

The difference between the two rests o­n this "Is the rate of interest determined by the supply of and demand for loanable funds or is it determined by the supply and demand for money itself.

We need not examine these theories in detail because they deal primarily with the rate and not the justification of interest.

Prof. Cassel in his "Nature and Necessity of Interest" observes that it is not certain that the sum saved out of a given income necessarily increase when the rate of interest is increased, whereas no o­ne doubts that the investment demand schedule falls with a rising rate of interest.

Keynes while refuting the Marshallian doctrine that an increase in savings is essential for the promotion of business activity remarks: "An individual decision to save does not in actual fact involve the placing of any specific forward order for consumption, but merely the cancellation of a present order. Thus since the expectation of consumption is the o­nly raison d’tre of employment there should be nothing paradoxical in the conclusion that a diminished capacity to consume has cet. par. a depressing effect o­n employment.

In the middle of his book writing under the heading, "Observations o­n Nature of Capital," he comes very close to the Islamic approach by admitting that the rate of interest in a properly run society may be zero and at the same time admits that people can earn money by enterprize. His following remarks may be read with significant interest:

"A properly run community equipped with modern technical resources, of which the population is not increasing rapidly, ought to be able to bring down the marginal efficiency of capital in equilibrium approximately to zero within a single generation, so that we should attain the conditions of a quasi‑stationery community where change and progress would result o­nly from changes in technique, taste, population, and institutions, with the products of capital selling at a price proportioned to the labour, etc., embodied in them o­n just the same principles as govern the prices of consumption goods in which capital chargers enter in an insignificant degree."

The rate of interest far from providing ample capital as is popularly believed acts as a hindrance in the way of better development of the world. Keynes argues that the growth of real capital is held back by the money rate of interest and that if this brake were removed the growth of real capital would be, in the modern world, so rapid that a zero money‑rate of interest would probably be justified, not indeed forthwith, but within a comparatively short period of time. Thus the primary need is to reduce the money rate of interest, and this, he points out, can be effected by causing money to incur carrying costs just like other stocks of barren goods.

Islam, it may be noted, imposes a carrying Costs of 2 1/2% in the form of ZAKAT o­n such stocks. It thus checks the tendency to hoard idle cash resources and provides a powerful stimulus for investing these idle stocks. This stimulus gets further momentum from the fact that it allows profits and sleeping partnerships it' which profit as well as loss is shared.

Reformers & Religious leaders

We now come to examine and assess the view held by moralists, reformers, religious leaders and other eminent thinkers.

Apart from the fact that usury has been condemned by Judaism, Christianity as well as Islam even secular history provides numerous instances when thinkers and reformers have expressed themselves in no uncertain terms against the very notion of charging interest o­n any money advanced to a borrower. Aristotle gives a vivid description of the shocking conditions which prevailed in Athens prior to the introduction of Solon's legislation in 594. He expresses himself thus:

Usury is justly to be censured, for it has not its origin in nature but amongst ourselves; for usury is most reasonably detested, as the increase of our fortunes arises from the money itself, and riot by employing it to the purpose for which it was intended. For it was devised for the sake of exchange, but usury multiplies it, and hence usury has received the name TOKOS and produce, for whatever is produced is itself like its parents; and usury is merely money born of money, so that of all means of moneymaking this is the most contrary to nature.

Of the condition prevailing in Rome at about 500 B.C. the Encyclopedia relates:

'It would be difficult to over‑estimate the importance of the influence of usury o­n the social and economic history of the Roman Republic. In the provinces the Evil of the system reached a much greater height. In 84 B.C. the war tax imposed by Sulla o­n the province of Asia was at first advanced by Roman Capitalists, and rose within fourteen years to six times its original amount. It is interesting to observe that the old law of debt was not really abolished until the dictatorship of Julius Caesar, who , practically adopted the legislation of Solon more than five centuries before; but it was too late then to save the middle class". (Encyclopedia 9th Edition Volumn XXIV P. 18).

Justinian's legislation made the accumulation of arrears illegal, and fixed the rate 6%. Even when the rates were lowered and authorized by law, usury was still regarded as a most pernicious crime. Cicero mentions that Cato, being asked what he thought of usury, made no other answer to the question than 'by asking the person who spoke to him what he thought of murder.

Forrero, in his book "GREATNESS AND DECLINE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE" Says: "the Imperial democracy that held all the world beneath its sway from the senators who bore historic names down to the humblest tiller of the soil, from Julius Caesar down to the smallest shopkeeper in a back street of Rome, was at the mercy of a small group of usurers .

Orchard and May, in their excellent work, Money lender in Grt. Britain Page 13 say that "'The first prohibition of usury in English legal writings was in the penitential of Theodore of Tarsus, who was Archbishop of Canterbury in the Seventh Century. Theodore prescribed three years penance to atone for the sin, o­ne year o­n bread and water. And later Egbert, Archbishop of York, likewise forbade usury. "Nothing is baser, nothing more cruel, than the usury of this world", said Chrysostom. St. Basil called it. "The last pitch of inhumanity."

Coming to the inunctions of various religions we find that usury was prohibited amongst the Jews as well as Christians. In Exod. 22: 35‑ 27. It is said "If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor 'by thee, thou shall not he to him as an usurer, neit her shalt thou lay upon him usury. If then at all take thy neighbours raiment to pledge, thou shall deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down: For that is his covering o­nly, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass when he crieth u to Me, that I will hear: for I am gracious".

Many years after the fall of Jerusalem, in 787 B. C., Nehemiah pleaded with people to stop oppressing o­ne another by heartlessness & greed. He said "Then I consulted with myself, and contended with the nobles and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every o­ne of his brother. And I held a great assembly against them. Also I said, the thing that ye do is not good: caught ye not to walk in the fear of our God. because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies? And I likewise my brethren and my servants, do lend them money and corn o­n usury. I pray you, let us leave off this usury. "

The Prophet Ezekiel said "If a man be just, and do of that which is lawful and right, and hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry and hath covered the naked with a garment; He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity hath executed true judgment between man and man, hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God.

Lastly I will o­nly quote a few relevant verses from the Sermon o­n the Mount: they are: "'If ye do good to them which do good to you what thank have ye for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive what thanks have ye? For sinners also lend to sinners to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and. lend hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for He is kind unto the unthankful and to the Evil". Concluding The Sermon o­n the Mount Jesuo, said "Why call me 'Lord, Lord' and obey me not? He who has listened and has not obeyed, is like a man who built a house o­n earth with no foundation; the river dashed against it and it collapsed at o­nce, and the ruin of that house was great. "

In the following paragraphs I am going to quote extensively from a book by the Hon: L.H. Hollins who has made out so convincing a case for the abolition of usury, (and interest is included in usury) that it is o­nly surprising why this institution should be allowed to exist any more. Commenting o­n the above passage from the sermon o­n the Mt. Mr. Hollins says :

As usury, in o­ne form or another, is the very foundation of our modern economy, we should not be surprised to find the structure cracking in a most disconcerting manner. Indeed, crises follows crisis with building rapidly. Scarcely have we pulled ourselves together after struggling out of o­ne crisis, than we are plunged into another and even greater severity. And this must continue until the whole fabric of our civilization comes tumbling about our Ears, or until we accept the Divine plan for reconstruction.

Similarly while discussing the prohibition of usury under the old testament he observes: After reading this for the skeptic may be moved to say "the commandments statutes and judgments may be sound enough in theory, but they will not work in a practical world". By way of reply we should like to remind such persons that these laws of God have been tried out o­n the grand scale. During the forty years reign of king David, the laws were in full operation in Israel, then a nation of some five million souls. Of the laws, kind David wrote: "The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure enlightening the Eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired o­ne they than sold, yea, than much five sold‑and in keeping of them there is great reward. " (Ps. 19:7.II)

What an inspiring passage indeed. o­nly if we could have that trust and confidence and firm assurance that comes out of an implicit faith in the purposive ness of this vast universe‑in the Supreme and Sovereign Authority of the Almighty God, in His Wisdom, His Grace and His Judgement. As Hollins says: "King David could write in this strain o­nly from a wealth of personal knowledge and experience. He had seen the laws in operation, and he knew toward the end of his life this grand old man was able to say:

“have been young, and now am old: Yet have 1 not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread". (PP ‑ 3 7: 2 6)

How similar is the exhortation of the Holy Qur’an: "Grieve not and be not in despair: You would be the exalted provided you are true believers ‑ " (II: 139)

In our survey of usury through the ages we find that it has almost universally been condemned: and yet so crooked is human nature that when left to its own selfish environment it fails to resist temptation. And in his blind persuit of worldly riches man tends to ignore and even to transgress the express commandments of God. Nevertheless, the conflict has all the time teen kept alive. There have been men of character and principle who have always raised their voice against injustice and inequity. Such a man was John Jewell, Bishop of Salisbury, who denouncing usury in a London Church during the reign of Elizabeth I commanded men: "To forsake that cruel and detestable sin". "I hear," he said, “that there are certain men in this city which wallow wretchedly in this filthiness without repentance”.

It will be of interest of those who try to differentiate between usury and interest to listen to what Bishop jewell has to say or, this subject. He says :

"Usury is a kind of lending money or com or oil or wine or of any other thing, wherein we receive again the whole principal and somewhat more for the use and occupying of the same. As if I lend a hundred pounds and for it covenant to receive a hundred and five pounds or any other greater than was the sum which I did lend. This is that, what we call usury.

"Such a kind of bargaining no good man or godly man ever used. It is filling gain, a work of darkness, a monster in nature, the overthrow of mighty kingdoms, the destruction of flourishing states, the decay of wealthy cities, the plague of the world, and the curse of the people. This is usury wheresoever it reigne‑th all those mischiefs ensue. "

One has o­nly to look at the economic history of the world after the two world wars to be reassured of the truth of the above quoted statement. The havoc that the large scale debts played with the economies of the countries involved in the web and tangle of lend‑Lease programmes, the bitterness that the people of these countries felt and continue to feel towards each other, the burden under which many of these countries are still suffering and which at least some of them feel to be too heavy to carry alone is all a very sure and a very clear vindication of all that has been said against the institution of interest. Whether we accept it or not, the truth remains that we cannot really prosper and there can be no real progress if we continue to ignore the directives of the Supreme Ruler.

Then again the question is Faired as to what is the difference between trade and interest. This question was also raised at the time when the verses pertaining to usury were revealed. Let us o­nce again repeat the relevant verses:

Those who devour usury

Will not stand except

As stands o­ne whom

The evil o­ne by his touch

Hath driven to madness.

That is because they say,

"Trade is like usury"

But God hath permitted trade

And forbidden usury. (II:270)

Now look for o­ne moment the conditions prevailing in some of the so called advanced countries and you are sure to find “one whom The Evil o­ne by his touch hath driven to madness”.

Bishop Jewell whose sermon has been quoted above gave a devastating reply to those who argued that money lent in trade (or what we call loans for production purposes) is not usury: says he

"What if a merchant take money to usury of a merchant and both be better and both be gainers Take this as a rule, there is no usury without loss. "For usury" he argued "raised prices" "Who payeth it? Any man may see. The poor people who buy."

Elaborating this point, Mr. Hollins says:

"Apparently the fact that all charges go into price and must be met by the buyer, may be he rich or poor, was either not understood or conveniently forgotten."

I will conclude the Theoretical aspect discussion of the Evils of usury by giving a quotation from Ruskin. In 1876 he wrote:

"The moment our capital is increased by having lent it, be it but in the estimation of a hair, that hairs breadth of increase is usury, just as much as stealing a farthing is theft; no less than stealing a million. But usury is worse than theft; in so far as it is obtained either by deceiving people or distressing them‑generally both, and finally deceiving the usurer himself, who comes to think that usury is a real increase, and that money can grow; whereas as usury is increase to o­ne person o­nly but decrease to another; and every gain of calculated increasment to the rich is balanced by its mathematical equivalent of decrement to the poor".

We shall now attempt a consideration of the third point in our discussion, viz: why interest has been banned in Islam and what is the difference between interest and profit? Actually the first part, i.e. why interest has been banned has been partly answered in the discussion just concluded. I will, therefore, do no more than quote Mr. Hollins o­nce again. Discussing why interest is bad he says:

"In examining the many and varied arguments it should always be borne in mind that men, while normally energetic when free to choose their own activities, show considerable ingenuity in their efforts to live without working

Supporting this view in the 17th Century, Fentoss declared

"The gains of usury are sweeter gains, without labour, without cost, without peril. so easy, so cheap, so secure. It hath bewitched 'the conscience of those who are most tender in other matters.

The most important point to be noted about interest is that the rate of interest is fixed before it is known whether the principal invested win fetch any profit. Interest o­n principal has to be paid even when business is run at a loss. The investor insists o­n having his pound of flesh without sharing any concern for the prosperity of the business. Whether the business man whom he has advanced money stands to gain or to lose in his transactions does not count at all with the investor. In other words, those who invest their money o­n interest are ready to share the profit of the business but would not share the risk and loss involved in it. This is, to say the least, a highly selfish attitude and Islam does not tolerate this kind of selfishness and unconcern for the well being of o­ne fellowmen. By developing this attitude, interest transactions produce a class of exploiters whose o­nly concern is their own well being and prosperity irrespective of what may happen to others. Islam however permits investment of money in business if the investor is ready to share both the profits and risks of the business. It would be well to quote here from Maulana Abdul Aala Maudoodi who has explained at length the difference between the profits of trade and the interest accumulations of investors. He says:

(i)In trade the purchaser and the vender exchange o­n the basis of equality. For the purchaser derives profit from that which 'he has purchased from the renders while the latter gets profit in consideration of the time, labour and sagacity which be has spent in procuring that commodity for the purchaser. Compared with this, in interest transactions there is no division of profits between the two parties o­n the basis of equality. The creditor gets for himself a definite amount of money for his loan but all that the debtor gets is certainly the time to use the money, which time does not necessarily procure him profit. On the other hand, if he has borrowed fir his domestic needs then certainly there is no possibility of any profit accruing to him from this time; and if he has borrowed it with a view to investing in some business, "this time" stands o­n even chance of producing profit or loss. The result is that o­ne of the two parties to the interest transaction gets profit with certainly while there is no such certainty in the case of the other.

I would like to add here that all productive investment is for the good of the community‑hence no wit should be charged o­n that‑you merely assist a person in doing social good‑and you are entitled to profits therefrom‑but interest is a sort of a drag o­n investment. It would retard rather than advance it.

(ii)In trade, howsoever great a profit the render might demand from the purchaser he does so o­nly o­nce. But in interest dealings the creditor does not cease to demand his interest (as long as the principal is not returned). o­n the contrary, o­n the undischarged loan his dues go o­n increasing year after year. Granting that the debtor has derived benefit from his loan; there are even then limitations to the extent of the benefit that he might have derived from the creditors' money. There are no such limitations in the case of interest due to the creditor. It is quite probable, o­n the other hand, that all the resources of the debtor, his salary, his belongings and his household utensils may not satisfy the dues of the creditor. Actually a perusal of the history of the institution of interest shows us that it has often times led to the practice worst form of slavery.

(iii)From the point of view of trade the moment a commodity is exchanged for its price, the transaction comes to an end. The purchaser does not give anything after that transaction to the vendor. In hire transactions whether of houses, land or other material, the original remains intact and is returned to the owner afterwards. It is o­nly for the use of it that the hirer liar, to pay rent to the owner. But in the case of interest, the debtor actually spends the amount borrowed from the creditor and has to return the same amount with an addition by way of interest.

(iv)In trade, professions and crafts a person derives benefit after undergoing labour, hardship, or by his skill or art. In interest transactions, o­n. the other hand, he o­nly lends out the surplus amount with him and becomes, without any personal labour, skill or hardship, a prominent partner in the earnings of his debtor. Actually he is a partner without any liability for profit or loss, and irrespective of the proportion of profit gained or loss incurred in the transaction. He merely claims the interest which he has stipulated at the time of his lending out the money. "

While noting these essential differences between trade conducted o­n the basis of profits and commercial transactions involving money lent o­n interest it should also be borne in mind that the actual experience of mankind in the modern capitalist period has also shown that borrowing and lending money o­n interest has not been an unmixed blessing to industrial and commercial activity. While interest has made possible vast accumulations of capital to finance industrial enterprise and has given credit facilities to businessmen and industrialists, it has also brought into being a class of financers whose selfishness, avarice and callousness have caused o­ne economic crises after another and periodically plunged the world in trade depressions 'with their train of mass unemployment, class conflicts and national wars. Half of the economic evils from which mankind has suffered during the last hundred years can be traced to the existence of this class of financiers with interests distinct from those of traders or industrialists.

The financier class gets a lion's share of industrial and commercial profits without any corresponding obligation to share the risks of business, due to the system of lending out money o­n interest. Most industrial andcommercial are financially dependent o­n banks which are o­nly indirectly interested in the prosperity of trade and industry. The safety of the capital loaned out by them is the primary concern of the banks and if there is the slightest risk of loss, they do not hesitate to put the whole industrial machinery out of gear by contracting credit. And this is usually done at a time when cheap credit is urgently needed to avert industrial crises and trade depression. "The great charge against the modern banking system", writes Dr. Anwar Iqbal Qureshi in "Islam and the Theory of Interest," is that it accelerates booms and during this period encourages unhealthy investments which in the long run cannot ay their way. In the period of rising industrial activity, the banks grant loans freely and this encourages all types of industries. As the demand for loans increases, they increase the rate of lending because the expectations and earning profits' in industries are high. The industrialists are prepared to borrow even at higher rates. When the banks realize that they have gone too far there is a general desire to be more and more liquid. Funds are recalled Further loans are withheld. Industry, however solvent, finds it difficult to repay. Economy and retrenchment become order of the day. Unemployment increases and all these forces perpetuate the depression."

The banks place their own interest prior to the interest of the industry as they have no real share in it. They are o­nly the creditors of industry. This serious defect in the banking system is being felt more and more everyday. In the countries that have been developing that banks should play more and more important part in the financing of industry and that they should have closer relation with industry.

I have no idea of entering into a discussion of the genesis of the banking system. It is a well known fact that it is o­nly the result of a complicated evolutionary process which traces its origin to the simple and innocent looking device of people depositing their ornaments jewellery with their own goldsmith or a trusted goldsmith of their locality for safe-custody. In course of time these goldsmiths realized that a bulk of these deposits were never asked for and that they could be safely invested in profitable enterprises. And what enterprise could have been more useful than the creation of money out of nothing. They started lending money o­n interest and such was the strength of their credit and stability that quit soon transactions were being entered into and carried along merely o­n the strength of a receipt issued by the goldsmith. This in a crude way was the beginning of the paper currency system.

But quite soon this apparently harmless act led to unforeseen evil consequences. Evil of' course o­nly to the borrowers. For in no time these goldsmiths turned money‑lenders (whom we today call bankers) came to acquire a position of dominance and control over the entire monetary and economic fabric of the society they lived in.

I must confess that when I started preparing for the discussion I thought my task was stupendous. Now that I have had an inkling into the origin and working of the banking system and the consequences it is leading to I o­nly feel surprized as to why such an artificial structure is allowed to perpetuate its hold o­n the destinies of nations. But actually there is no question of allowing it to perpetuate itself. It is they, the financiers, the capitalists, the hated money‑lenders of Yesterday formed into the respectable bankers of today who have acquired an immense control over all the channels of our economic existence. They seem to derive considerable pleasure and. reap immense benefit by manipulating the economics of vast countries the way they like and that simply because it is they who can rule With the backing of that demi‑god called money which we, partly through our ignorance of the intricacies of the financial system and partly due to our inattention to Divine Commandments have placed ourselves in their hands. Lest I should be accused of idle and vague philosophising and more verbosity, I would do well to quote a few authorities.

In the words of the Hon'ble Mr. Hollins

"Enormous power, both political & economic has been placed in the hands of a few men by reason of their control of this "machine" (banking system) For good or ill they have the rest of u, almost completely in their power."

Meyer Anselem Rothschild said: "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws".

Mr. McKenna, an Ex‑chanceller of the Exchequer of the UK, o­nce said "They who control the credit of a nation direct the policy of the Government and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people".

Dudley Dillard in his book, 'Economic of J. M. Keynes, ' observes that Banking policy in the past has all too frequently resulted in a short age money when more money was needed and an over supply of it when less money was needed

"The result of all this has been," as Mr. Anwar Iqbal Qureshi tells us, “that the movement for the nationalisation of the Banking system and taking it out of the private hands is greatly gaining momentum and is gaining the support of eminent economists”. As a matter of fact, he continues, "banking is o­ne of the very few spheres wherein state interference is not o­nly desirable but essential. To prove this contention we have the authority of the very man who revolted against the interference of the government and advocated the dectrine of Laiseez Faire. Adam Smith remarks when dealing with the subject of banking "These exertion of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments of the most free as well as of the depotical".

Banks in the Islamic System

Those who boast of the wonders of the modern world and point out to big banks and financial. houses as being indispensable achievements should know that Islam made a definite provision for a "Central National Finance House" with its branches all lover the country. That Central Finance House was the Baitul Mal. It is just the prototype of a modern, central Bank owned by the state, and performing all those functions which a modern central Bank is expected to perform except the issue of currency, The issue of currency has been entrusted by Islam to the state alone. o­ne can have as well a developed and modern system of banking under an Islamic State, as o­ne wishes with the difference that it shall be free from the defects of the present banking system. All the present banks can be allowed to continue in the Islamic State with two modifications:

(i) They should not pay any interest to their depositors. This should not be difficult to achieve. For at present a number of banks do not pay any interest o­n current accounts. The small interest that is paid in England o­n fixed deposits, varying from o­ne percent can be easily abolished without in any way affecting the savings. Moreover they can make the depositors as proportionate sharers in their profits.

(2) The Bank should not charge any interest from their clients. This, to many people, perhaps would seem most revolutionary and impractical suggestion. They would at o­nce say "this is absurd." How can the banks work without cha­rging for their service? "This apparently seems a very formidable objection but it loses its force if reexamined a little more dispassionately.

In the first place if the banks are able to borrow all their funds without paying any interest, why should they not be able to lend it without any interest? It shall at o­nce be remarked that how are their service and establishment charges to be met? But what about the service and establishment charges of hospitals, and public utility institutions? If Banks are really the pillars of modern society and their service is so essential for its well being, why like all other essential services should this service also be not available to the public and the cost of this service along with the establishment charges be not debited to the state? This cost is not likely to be very heavy when we remember that o­n account of this free service the wealth of the country is likely to increase (manifold) and its taxable capacity is bound to improve. Thus the state through an increase in it.

REVENUE can easily pay for this service.

But banking under the Islamic system will be something more than this. It will be an asset to the nation and will be able to meet its own cost. It has been pointed out earlier that Banks often times create artificial booms and depression in their desire to contract or expand credit. It was also suggested that there should be a closer relationships between banking and industry.

This cart be achieved o­nly if the banks instead of becoming creditors of industry, trade, business and commerce, become their partners. Islam, prohibits interest but allows profits and partnerships: If the banks instead of allowing loans to the industry become its partners, share the loss and profit with it, there is no objection against such banks in the Islamic system. As a matter of fact it is the o­nly way to co‑ordinate finance and industry in which both have equal share. This alliance will result in a healthier development of finance, trade and commerce o­n the o­ne hand and a closer relationship with the industry o­n the other. Thus the long felt need of a happy marriage between finance and industry can o­nly be realised fully and effectively under the Islamic system.

It will be of interest to note that Mr. Jeery Mark in his book" The Modern idolatry" has put forward a scheme of Free Money and the abolition of Debt, which bears ample testimony to the above contention. He suggests that all forms of private banking at interest should be forbidden by law and all deposits and credit balances should be taxed. He did not know, perhaps, Tat 1400 years ago Islam prohibited all interest and levied a tax of 2½ % in the form of "ZAKAT' o­n all surplus funds.

This is, however, o­nly o­ne of the basic solutions suggested by Islam. Unfortunately we who profess to follow the creed have created an artificial environment giving rise to certain artificial needs which, in turn, require artificial treatment. We have been moving like a clock pendulum or more aptly still like a shuttlecock from o­ne end to the other, attempting all the time to cure o­ne extreme evil by another extreme measure and losing in this process that sense of balance of proportion which alone can help us to develop an integrated whole.

And all this because, to quote Mr. Hollins: “man has not o­nly rejected the Divine plan for a new world, but he has tried with his finite mind, to devise his own plan for living. In view of the awful conditions now prevailing, we are justified in saying that human wisdom has failed.”

There can be no two opinions about the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Hollins. The question to ponder however is whether having acknowledged the failure of human efforts we should not revert to seek guidance from the All Knowing and All Wise Whose guidance alone is the remedy of all our ailments!