Hadhrat Mufti Taqi Saheb, proceeding to justify the riba penalty, states in his book: “In order to solve this problem, some contemporary scholars have suggested that the dishonest clients who default in payment deliber- ately should be made liable for the loss it may have suffered on ac- count of default.”
This view of “some contemporary scholars” is devoid of Shar’i sub- stance. It is baseless personal opinion. It cannot be substantiated on any principle or particular of the Shariah. Regardless of the status and names of the contemporary scholars, their personal views lack Shar’i validity and force. A scholar cannot claim that his personal opinion unsubstantiated on a Shar’i premise, carries the force of the Shariah. The personal opinions of “contemporary scholars” are of no significance as far as the Shariah is concerned. Our concern is with Shar’i substantiation for a view. If the opinion is devoid of such a ba- sis, it will simply be dismissed as a fallacy and as a figment of the imagination of the contemporary scholar. On what Shar’i premise do these contemporary scholars justify the riba penalty? Mufti Saheb has not presented their grounds for this opinion which is palpably baseless and bereft of Shar’i support. They have to first prove that it is lawful in Islam to impose a riba penalty on a dishonest defaulter. Where and when did the Shariah condone a riba penalty on the basis of the dishonesty—in fact, assumed dishon- esty — of one who defaults in his payments? The opinion of these “contemporary scholars” cannot be cited as grounds for abrogating the prohibition of riba and making lawful the riba penalty.
Besides the question of riba, the claim that the bank suffers a loss in consequence of payment defaults is baseless. What precisely is the loss which the bank suffers as a result of late payment of instalments by clients? If it is alleged that the money which had to be paid on due date would have been profitably invested, then we respond: Assumed loss of future profit is not a loss in Shar’i terms. Future profit is a fic- tion. It is not wealth in possession which one loses. In actual fact, there is no loss which the bank or the creditor suffers in consequence of late payment.
On the contrary, Allah Ta’ala has exhorted extension of time for the debtor, and there is great reward in the Aakhirah and much barkat in this world for patiently accepting the delay in the acquisition of pay- ment. The patient wait is rewarded with 16 times more thawaab than the reward for giving Qardh-e-Hasanah (Beautiful Loan). The loss is more imagined than real.
This 16 fold thawaab for patiently waiting in expectation of payment from the defaulter, purely for Allah’s Pleasure, is inscribed on the Portals of Jannat. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) reported that he saw this inscription on the Night of Mi’raaj. Can the Muslim trader, creditor or banker not locate sufficient enthusiasm in his Imaan to pursue this colossal treasure of the Aakhirah in exchange for the simple sacrifice of waiting patiently for payment? When the return for waiting is so huge and wonderful, does it behove any Mus- lim to desire justification and legalization of the vice of riba for the paltry gain of a little extra money squeezed from a suffering debtor— and all this vice on the flimsiest pretext of the imagined
‘dishonesty’ of the Muslim debtor!!!
Surely the Muslim banker/financer/trader/entrepreneur does pay Za- kaat and does give Sadqah to a variety of Islamic institutions. Is there no niche in his heart for accommodating the hard-pressed debtor for gaining Allah’s Pleasure and the tremendous thawaab of the Aakhirah by means of the very simple ‘sacrifice’ of waiting for pay- ment from a defaulting debtor? Can he not treat his waiting as an ex- tension of his Sadqah programme? Is there an imperative need for him to pursue the ‘carrion of this world’ by insisting on the riba pen- alty thereby excluding himself from the special rewards in store for those who enthusiastically respond to the Call of the Qur’aan to grant extension to the debtor, and not to regard him as a man of dishonesty on the pretext of gratifying the inordinate craving for money.
The two considerations —the vice of riba and the Call of the Qur’aan to be lenient on debtors — overshadow and dispatch into oblivion every argument which the Fiqh academies and the liberal Ulama ten- der in justification and for legalization of the capitalist practice of pe- nalizing the debtor with riba.
In the same way that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), his Sa- haabah and the Aimmah and Mashaaikh applied the moral code to deter deliberate defaulters, so too are the Ulama —the Warathatul Ambiyaa— expected to apply the moral precept of this Deen to deter the dishonest debtor from perpetrating his injustice of deliberate pro- crastination in effecting payments on due date.
The endeavour to water down the clarity of the Shariah on issues and to cloak the commands of Islam in an aura of ambiguity in a bid to forge a latitude for accommodating alien and kufr concepts and theo- ries is most contemptible. This contemptibility becomes more repul- sive when the exercise emanates from the Ulama.
This digression was necessary to indicate the inseparability of the Akhlaaqi (Moral) dimension from any topic and discussion pertain- ing to this Deen because Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Verily, this world has been created for you, while you have been created for the Aakhirah.” Thus, the theme of the Aakhirah necessarily dominates or should dominate every attitude of the Mu’min.