During early caliphate era (7th-13th century), Muslim traders dominated trade in Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean (see here and here for example). I think Islam's prohibition of interest or usury must have made raising investment difficult, why would people lend money for merchants to buy their goods if they can't get interest from it?

How did the merchants raise investments, like for buying goods, ships, funding sailors and employees? Were Muslim traders disadvantaged compared to their competitors due to the usury prohibition, and how didd they manage to compensate this disadvantage?

  • 5
    @jwenting by steal, you mean rob, like a pirate? But you need ships and crew for that, meaning you need initial investment.. – Fitri Aug 26 '13 at 19:47
  • 5
    Also, the Indian ocean trade was mostly peaceful, before the arrival of the Europeans – Fitri Aug 26 '13 at 19:48
  • 2
    @Fitri no, I mean by extorting it from your local non-muslim population by threat of violence, execution, kidnapping children, or just knocking down doors and taking whatever you want. Pretty much what's happening to this day in places like Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, you name it. – jwenting Aug 27 '13 at 5:48
  • 8
    @jwenting are you saying that it is the common way for merchants in this era to raise funds for their venture? That's completely new to me – Fitri Aug 27 '13 at 16:01
  • 3
    no, it's the common way for majority muslim societies to raise funds overall (and to a degree for other cultures in which lives an affluent minority group holding another culture in general). If you read the q'uran you'll see it codified. – jwenting Aug 28 '13 at 6:10

Usually islamic banks give loans for a share in the income of the business project as opposed to fixed percent of the loan sum (see mudarabah)

The consumer loans may utilize another scheme: the bank buys, for example, a car and it becomes the bank's property, then you use this car and slowly re-buy it from the bank for greater money. Once you finished, the car becomes yours.

| improve this answer | |
  • 5
    +1 - This is the correct answer and should be accepted - it is easily verifiable. BTW, religious Jews, who also abide by the same prohibition, use exactly the same workarounds. – user2590 Aug 25 '13 at 18:32
  • 5
    Yeah, but references would be nice. – Lennart Regebro Aug 25 '13 at 22:16
  • 6
    @Vector Sorry, Anixx is not a reliable source. I have no doubt to the correctness of the answer, but I'm not voting it up unless we get some reliable sources. – Lennart Regebro Aug 25 '13 at 22:43
  • 2
    In fact, I know this is how Islamic banks today lend money (I added a wikipedia link), but my question is how about 7th-13th century, when there were no banks? How do we know that they also used these methods? – Fitri Aug 26 '13 at 12:24
  • 2
    @jwenting Shhh...... – Felix Goldberg Aug 26 '13 at 17:04

When the law prohibits interest altogether, it does not prevent it. Many people must borrow, and nobody will lend without such a consideration for the use of their money as is suitable, not only to what can be made by the use of it, but to the difficulty and danger of evading the law. The high rate of interest among all Mahometan nations is accounted for by Mr. Montesqieu, not from their poverty, but partly from this, and partly from the difficulty of recovering the money.

["The Wealth of Nations" - Adam Smith]

It was not so much a question of being able to raise investments, but of being able to do so at an interest rate sustainable for business. Law, be it religious or not, increases artificially the interest rate, thus seriously crippling economic life, but it never effectively eradicates it.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    your conclusion does not follow from the quote. Smith quotes Montesque where the latter states that poverty leads to a high risk of non-recovery of loans which in turn leads to needing high interest rates to cover that risk. That has nothing to do with legal or religious climate, it's pure economics and equally valid in all legal systems. – jwenting Feb 10 '14 at 14:52
  • I was not drawing a conclusion from the quote. If one sentence follows another, it doesn't mean they form a reasoning. – Andrei Albu Feb 10 '14 at 15:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.