An endless discussion arises whenever the debate turns to the two financing tools — conventional and “Islamic” — with Qur’anic verses and Prophetic hadiths cited in support. I place the latter term in quotation marks because I question how rightful it is to describe it with the name of our noble religion. I am not deeply versed in Islamic jurisprudence, but I trust the value of my doubts when the matter relates to economic analysis. Doubts can become the cornerstone of a journey of inquiry.

These tools rest on fixed foundations, and their usefulness and validity are inferred through interpretations of verses and hadiths that do not change. There is no dispute over what has been established as useful and permissible if money itself has not changed. Yet the money of the day before yesterday was gold, whose scarcity was governed by nature. The money of yesterday was paper linked to that gold, whose scarcity was still governed only by nature. As for the money of today, it is paper linked to supply and demand, which determine its value, fluctuating under the control of an interest rate that has not been, is not, and will not be sanctioned in our religion. The strengthening of currency value comes through scarcity created by higher interest rates. Lowering interest rates, meanwhile, is a means of increasing cash flow among people when that money becomes too scarce. Rates are raised at times and lowered at others according to market conditions and the degree of comfort experienced by those who use that money. Scarcity is no longer governed by what comes from nature; it is governed by human decisions, which may be right or wrong.

Should we continue relying on the same interpretive texts for those verses and hadiths even though money itself changed after the “Nixon Shock”? Should we rely on them while knowing with certainty that interest permeates the entire financial system — not merely at the level of individuals, but also across financing institutions and central banks? Should we rely on them while knowing that these tools, whether conventional or “Islamic,” reinforce the time value of money, which increases the wealth of the rich and the poverty of the poor? It is known as the time value of money, yet it is nothing but the usury we came to know from childhood, and it stands as the foundation of finance principles taught in every university today.

There is no doubt that what is known as “Islamic” finance is less harsh on the borrower, as it avoids the volatility of interest rates found in conventional financing. But is that alone enough to describe it with the name of Islam? The conditions and basic structure of money today have changed. Financial systems have changed and been turned upside down. So by which text should inference now be made? Today’s money is paper with no commodity value, and tomorrow’s money may be “Bitcoin,” or what is known as electronic currency. Shall we apply the same text that legitimized financing instruments built around what is naturally scarce to what is scarce on paper or electronically, and made by human beings?

Has the time come to change the description of this financing, so that it does not become the promotion of an instrument in the name of the nation’s religion? And even if its permissibility is established today, what guarantees that its invalidity will not be established in the future? And would people agree on that? How troubling it is that I can already sense how people may view this promotion as resembling the promotion of a terrorist group that called itself the “Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.”

I am not deeply versed in Islamic jurisprudence, but I trust the value of my doubts when the matter relates to economic analysis.

How does Islamic finance in modern monetary systems affect the economy?

Its effect appears in how costs, incentives, and resources are managed, and in the economy's ability to turn decisions into sustainable value. The direct context is so-called Islamic finance, questioning whether old rulings fit fiat money, interest-based systems, and future digital currencies.

When does price and value become a problem when productivity is absent?

Confusing price with value traps judgment in the visible number, while value is tied to benefit and the ability to preserve purchasing power. When productivity is ignored, the idea becomes a limited procedure that does not change the wider path.

When does scarcity and trust in money become a problem when productivity is absent?

Scarcity protects trust when it is clear and credible, while undisciplined expansion needs strong institutions to prevent value from eroding. When productivity is ignored, the idea becomes a limited procedure that does not change the wider path.

When does the value of money become a problem when productivity is absent?

Money’s value comes from its ability to preserve benefit, enable exchange, and represent trust, not merely from its form or name. When productivity is ignored, the idea becomes a limited procedure that does not change the wider path.