In a series of pamphlets entitled MWL Series on Islam
sponsored by Rabita they write:
“Q6: Is it allowed to take a loan from the bank to buy a house
with interest (mortgage) in a non Muslim country?
A6: There is no harm in taking a loan with interest from the
bank to buy a house that would be owned by the Muslim after
the loan and the interest are paid with one remark that the loan’s
instalment plus interest are not more than the house rent should
a Muslim rent it but they may be less.”226
Part 3: The religious reforms 227
The justification is the following:
“This is according to Al-Hanafi school concerning a Muslim
who lives in the house of war (among disbelievers) for in that case
what is taken into consideration is the total a Muslim pays to
them. If it saves his wealth then it is permissible as long as it is
done with their approval and without cheating even if it is done
in an Islamically prohibited way like interest.”
This is completely absurd. It makes no attempt at understanding
what a bank loan is. It suggests that usury will be acceptable as
long as it is below current rent market prices. ‘If it saves his wealth
then it is halal’: this is the mechanism of utilitarian assessment.
It is interesting that in the same pamphlet published by Rabita the question is asked about wearing the scarf in a non-Muslim country and the answer is very different:
“Q2: About the difficulty of wearing the Hijab (veil), for a new
Muslim woman in a non Muslim country. Is it possible to allow
such a woman to discard the Hijab?
A2: The foreign women who embrace Islam sincerely and whole
heartedly but find it difficult to abide by the Hijab (covering what
should be covered of their bodies), we cannot change the Islamic
legal decision for their sake, and thus allow them to discard Hijab
and go semi-naked or bare headed in order to satisfy them. For
this would be a contradiction in the Islamic judgment between
permission and prohibition.”
This position of Rabita is a typical puritanical position that is at
the core of a political utilitarianism which is still the dominant
view in reformist circles. The pamphlet continues on the issue of
the scarf with untamed persistence:
“If, however, such women should discard the Hijab they should
feel and believe that this is prohibited in Islam; because if they
believe that it is permissible and is not prohibited in Islam, this is
against Islam. There is indeed a big difference from the Islamic
perspective between a person who disobeys God’s commands
although he believes in the prohibition to do so and the person
who considers his disobedience lawful. For indeed such a person
who believes that the clear cut prohibited act to be lawful is an
unbeliever. Like a person who drinks wine in disobedience, he is
still a Muslim, while the one who thinks wine to be lawful, he is
an unbeliever. Based on this the practice of those new Muslim
women who discard Hijab without believing this to be lawful, but
they only wait until their will becomes stronger, this is better than
their remaining disbelievers and Allah knows best.”
