Uneasy questions of morality

The practices in use by the Islamic banks have evoked questions of morality. Do the practices adopted to avoid interest really do their job or is it simply a change of name? It suffices to quote a few authors.24
The Economist writes:25
..... Muslim theoreticians and bankers have between them devised ingenious ways of coping with the interest problem. One is murabaha. The Koran says you cannot borrow $100m from the bank for a year, at 5% interest, to buy the new machinery your factory needs? Fine. You get the bank to buy the machinery for you -- cost, $100m -- and then you buy the stuff from the bank, paying it $105m a year from now. The difference is that the extra $5m is not interest on loan, which the Koran (perhaps) forbids, but your thanks to the bank for the risk it takes of losing money while it is the owner of the machinery: this is honest trading, okay with the Koran. Since with modern communications the bank’s ownership may last about half a second, its risk is not great, but the transaction is pure. It is not surprising that some Muslims uneasily sniff logic-chopping here.
Dr Ghulam Qadir says of practices in Pakistan:26
Two of the modes of financing prescribed by the State Bank, namely financing through the purchase of client’s property with a buy-back agreement and sale of goods to clients on a mark-up, involved the least risk and were closest to the old interest-based operations. Hence the banks confined their operations mostly to these modes, particularly the former, after changing the simple buy-back agreement (prescribed by the State Bank) to buy-back agreement with a mark-up, as otherwise there was no incentive for them to extend any finances. The banks also reduced their mark-up-based financing, whether through the purchase of client’s property or through the sale of goods to clients, to mere paper work, instead of actual buying of goods (property), taking their possession and then selling (back) to the client. As a result, there was no difference between the mark-up as practised by the banks and the conventional interest rate, and hence it was judged repugnant to Islam in the recent decision of the Federal Shari’ah court.
As banks are essentially financial institutions and not trading houses, requiring them to undertake trading in the form of buy-back arrangements and sale on mark-up amounts to imposing on them a function for which they are not well equipped. Therefore, banks in Pakistan made such modifications in the prescribed modes which defeated the very purpose of interest-free financing. Furthermore, as these two minimum-risk modes of financing were kept open to banks, they never tried to devise innovative and imaginative modes of financing within the framework of musharakah and mudarba.
Prof. Khurshid Ahmad says:27
Murabaha (cost-plus financing) and bai’ mu’ajjal (sale with deferred payment) are permitted in the Shari’ah under certain conditions. Technically, it is not a form of financial mediation but a kind of business participation. The Shari’ah assumes that the financier actually buys the goods and then sells them to the client. Unfortunately, the current practice of “buy-back on mark-up” is not in keeping with the conditions on which murabaha or bai’ mu’ajjal are permitted. What is being done is a fictitious deal which ensures a predetermined profit to the bank without actually dealing in goods or sharing any real risk. This is against the letter and spirit of Shari’ah injunctions.
While I would not venture a fatwa, as I do not qualify for that function, yet as a student of economics and Shari’ah I regard this practice of “buy-back on mark-up” very similar to riba and would suggest its discontinuation. I understand that the Council of Islamic Ideology has also expressed a similar opinion.
Dr Hasanuz Zaman is more scathing in his condemnation:28
It emerges that practically it is impossible for large banks or the banking system to practise the modes like mark-up, bai’ salam, buy-back, murabaha, etc. in a way that fulfils the Shari’ah conditions. But in order to make themselves eligible to a return on their operations, the banks are compelled to play tricks with the letters of the law. They actually do not buy, do not posses, do not actually sell and deliver the goods; but the transition is assumed to have taken place. By signing a number of documents of purchase, sale and transfer they might fulfil a legal requirement but it is by violating the spirit of prohibition.
Again,29
It seems that in large number of cases the ghost of interest is haunting them to calculate a fixed rate percent per annum even in musharakah, mudarba, leasing, hire-purchase, rent sharing, murabaha, (bai’ mu’ajjal, mark-up), PTC, TFC, 30etc. The spirit behind all these contracts seems to make a sure earning comparable with the prevalent rate of interest and, as far as possible, avoid losses which otherwise could occur.
To sum up, in Dr Hasanuz Zaman’s words:31
... many techniques that the interest-free banks are practising are not either in full conformity with the spirit of Shari’ah or practicable in the case of large banks or the entire banking system. Moreover, they have failed to do away with undesirable aspects of interest. Thus, they have retained what an Islamic bank should eliminate.