Last week's edition of Newsweek ran a story on payday loans (Payday Loans Can Be a Trap.) The article explained the unfairness of payday loan system, and how the borrower can end up paying significantly large sums of money than they borrowed. For instance, one example quoted had a borrower pay $8000 on a $350 loan!
Although the article talks about only one type of unfairness in the system, it nonetheless explains the intrinsic unfairness of payday loans. In one of my articles, (Interest vs Risk-Sharing in Business Partnerships) among other issues I also pointed out that interest is inherently unfair, and consequently interest-based transactions are prohibited in Islam (although Quran does not explicitly cite any reason). The Newsweek article on payday loans provides a good perspective on unfairness of loans in modern economy.
Needless to state, this is not an attempt to justify Islam's ban on interest using this reasoning.
Last year in September, Ali Sina, an ex-Muslim, and Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, one of the leading scholars of Pakistan, were requested to engage in a debate around the criticism that Mr. Sina had launched against Islam. Both accepted the proposal with Dr. Khalid Zaheer, a former professor of Lahore University of Management Sciences and currently an academic at Al-Mawrid institute, representing Mr. Ghamidi. The debate last a few months and continued until earlier this year.
The text of the debate is quite interesting to say the least. Dr. Zaheer's premise was that Quran is the book of God, and it is only Quran and Sunnah that he would defend Islam upon. From the very beginning, he made it clear that all discussions should take place with this assumption in mind. On the other hand, while Ali Sina started off with criticism on Quran, very soon the bulk of his arguments was based on Muslim beliefs and practices and his understanding of Islam based on hadith, history, and other works on Islam.
Ali Sina boasts a reward of $50,000 to anyone who 'proves' him wrong on charges he has brought against Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and 'proves' that Muhammad (pbuh) is the true messenger of God. In the beginning of the debate, Ali Sina agreed that the debate is not for polemics but for finding out the truth. But unfortunately, in the exchange that he carried with Javed Ahmed Ghamidi and Dr. Khalid Zaheer, the tone was nothing but libels against Islam, discrediting all arguments brought forth by the scholars. In addition, the arguments brought forth by the Dr. Zaheer were often not addressed and instead, derogatory charges were brought against Muslims time and again.
It is also interesting that Ali Sina held Dr. Zaheer and entire Muslim community guilty of actions of some Muslims. For instance, threats for apostasy made against Ali Sina led him to conclude that that was what Islam preached and that was what all the Muslims wanted. Irrespective of Dr. Zaheer's negation that apostasy in Islam ought not to be punished, Ali Sina not only insisted upon it but also concluded that all Muslims are, in fact, simply mendacious. Obviously, any debate which accuses the other party of lies when they present their opinion is not quite a debate rather merely an invective. Such was the tone on which this discussion ended.