Author
Listed:
- Zahid Siddique
- Muhammad Abubakar Siddique
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of this study is to explain the opinions of the Muslim jurists available in the fiqh books so that they may be compared with the approaches adopted by modern scholars for defining the concept of riba. It is argued that the method of jurists was different from the one adopted by the modern Muslim jurists and Islamic economists. The new method dichotomizes riba into those of the Quran and Sunnah. On the contrary, jurists of four Sunni schools considered the Quran and Sunnah in this regard as a single whole, and they saw Sunnah as the elaboration of riba. By explaining the similarities shared by different fiqh schools, it is explained that there is no need for a definition of riba. Design/methodology/approach - The paper uses the method of content analysis. The authors have consulted the authentic fiqh manuals of the four Sunni fiqh schools to substantiate the objectives. Findings - One of the major findings of this paper is that interest charged in loan transactions, including bank loans, is riba according to the four Sunni fiqh schools. Moreover, the paper also shows that the similarities among the four Sunni fiqh schools are far more significant than the often-highlighted disagreements among them regarding the concept of riba. The methodology adopted by modern Muslim scholars seems to add confusions around the concept of riba. Research limitations/implications - The paper discusses views of only four Sunni fiqh jurists. Originality/value - The paper explains the common methodology followed by the jurists for understanding riba, the significant similarities resulting from their common method, the link between the concept of riba and different types of financial transactions within the framework of the jurists and that combining several fiqh schools at a time is a contradiction-ridden methodology.
Suggested Citation
Zahid Siddique & Muhammad Abubakar Siddique, 2024.
"Riba and interest in Islamic jurisprudence: seeking the path to consensus,"
International Journal of Ethics and Systems, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 41(2), pages 543-561, January.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:ijoesp:ijoes-04-2023-0091
DOI: 10.1108/IJOES-04-2023-0091
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:ijoesp:ijoes-04-2023-0091. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.