The former minister and leader of the Justice and Development Party, Mohamed Najib Boulif, expressed his denunciation of what was stated in the intervention of the Minister of Endowments and Islamic Affairs, Ahmed Al-Tawfiq, during the first Hasani lesson of the year, in which he spoke about usury and bank interest.

In a lengthy article, Bolev criticized what the minister said in the aforementioned lesson, saying, “As for the thirteenth case, it concerns dealing with banks. This is because some religious theologians have embarrassed the conscience of Muslims by saying that usury is the interest on a loan of any amount, knowing that the wisdom of the Qur’an came to break with a practice that was common in some ancient civilizations, which was the enslavement of those unable to repay the debt with double interest, and some Greek philosophers had They denounced it. As for borrowing in this era, most of it is for necessity or investment, and the interest that is paid is related to the term price and the return for services, while the interest decreases as the economy grows in the country.

In response, Boulif recorded that Al-Tawfiq used the logic of “immediate exclusion” of the basic and approved opinion of the majority of Muslims, by speaking from the beginning of his discussion of this point about “some theologians on religion.” Explaining that these “religious speakers” are the audience for the opinion that prohibits bank interest in the main schools of jurisprudence, as well as all legal scholarly academies across the world, Bolev wondered whose opinion is considered “religious speaking”? Is the vast majority of Muslim scholars or the “few” who have a different opinion and want to impose it on the vast majority?

Bolev considered that the minister presented a fallacy and “made up” his own classification, to fool people that those who borrow at interest from banks do so mostly out of necessity and investment.

Boulev stressed that when experts generally talk about loans directed to investment, they are usually classified as equipment loans, while equipment loans remained in the range of 179.7 billion dirhams, between 2020-2022, that is, approximately 16%-17% of the total loans provided to the economy. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the incorrect percentages stated by the Minister (most loans) to justify his position.

Boulif also responded to the issue of the necessity of taking usury, asking whether borrowing to buy a house for 5 million dirhams, for example, is necessary? Is it necessary to borrow to buy a good quality TV for 10,000 dirhams? Is it necessary to borrow at interest to take a tourist trip to “certain” islands for 50,000 dirhams?

On the other hand, Bolev considered that what the minister spoke about regarding the problem of Muslims’ relations with the West and its scientific and industrial superiority is an exaggeration that is difficult to believe, stressing that all the problems the minister spoke about have been subject to great debate and many responses during various times.

He added that what the minister thinks is useful in liberalism, such as “loan interest,” I may not find useful, and therefore I will reject it. Hence, it is necessary to resort to specialists associated with strict “governing” rules that can determine the “usefulness of a thing” or not.

Bolev said that the minister’s statements about bank interest have implications that may be evident from the developments taking place in the field of economic and financial management in many Islamic countries, which follow the same path as the developments that took place in the West, as we find them in general following the same paths as the Church. Which developed over time from the complete prohibition of usury of all kinds, to the prohibition of only one type of loans, to the approval of bank interest, to the approval of all usurious transactions without exception… in accordance with the words of the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, in the authentic hadith on the authority of Abu Saad Al-Khudri: “You will follow the Sunnahs.” Those before you followed the example of a speck with a speck, to the point that if they entered a lizard’s hole, you would have entered it. They said: Jews and Christians? He said: Who?

Boulif emphasized that the eternal debate about usury has been told by God Almighty in the Qur’an, and he gave us the answer: “That is because they said: Trade is only like usury, and God has permitted trade and forbidden usury.”