I slamic banking is based on moral foundations that make it distinct from conventional banking. Some argue that because of its foundation in I slam, I slamic banking may represent a more morally appealing alternative. Yet, evidence shows that this is not the case. Indeed, the current practice of I slamic banking has not been able to achieve its goals which are based on I slam's moral values: to enhance justice, equitability, and social well‐being. This essay examines the extent to which I slamic banking is ethical and concludes that the practice of the industry does not seem to be de facto ethical from the I slamic perspective of ethical values. It only consists in trading the same instruments of conventional banks without genuinely enforcing I slam's ethical vision. The practice of I slamic banking misrepresents I slam and does not contribute to solving social problems. The interaction between maqasid al‐shari᾽a (objectives of I slamic law) and qiyās (deductive analogy) provides a supplementary tool for interpreting the failure of the prior in terms of the practical misuse of the latter by I slamic banks. This essay provides an interpretive approach to the current debate about why I slamic banking has failed and suggests ways to move cautiously in the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mansour et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: