Apparently interest (receiving or paying) is completely banned

>>1560171
From what I remember, banks use what's purchased as collateral on the loans, so when you take a loan, you set a time to pay it off by or they take what you bought with it.

>>1560171
Ironically, Islamic economies quickly became the closest thing to capitalism until the 18th century or so, what with the all trade ventures, entrepreneurship, enormous markets, economic philosophy, powerful financial instruments and practices etc.

>>1560171

Usury was banned in Medieval Christian Europe for a time too.

>>1560171
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riba
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking_and_finance

But tax isn't illegal.

Can't you just have a state bank that makes interest free loans, but they collect tax on the wealth generated from it, and take collateral from people that can't pay?

>>1560214
This.

"The Old Testament authority - Exodus 22:25, Leviticus 25:35, and Deuteronomy 20:19 - does not constitute a blanket ban on interest-taking, but condemns taking interest from the poor, and within the Jewish community. The taking of interest was forbidden to clerics from AD 314. It was strictly forbidden for laymen in 1179. The beginning of the end as far as the total ban on interest was concerned came in the sixteenth century. Although Luther and Zwingli still condemned it utterly, Calvin and some progressive Catholic thinkers such as Collet and Antoine argued that interest-taking did not constitute usury, as long as it represented the real difference between the value of present and future sums of money, and was not mere extortion. That all interest was not in itself sinful was finally decided in a series of decisions in the institutions of the Catholic Church in the nineteenth century."

>>1560171

I think its meant to be in the context of charity. That for most people lending money isn't business but meant to help someone and to charge interest was to profit off their misfortune.

>interest is haram
>that'll be a 100 dorra fee for withdrawing 5 dorra, thank you

That's how muslim banks operate

>>1560214
Furthermore, compound interest was essentially considered loansharking in Rome. The Twelve Tables also famously state that those who commit usury shall pay 4 times the amount, while those who merely steal money or destroy property only pay twice the amount.

File: Thomas-Aquinas.jpg (186KB, 505x701px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 505x701px

>>1560214
Thomas Aquinas literally devotes a swath of the De Malo to determining that lending money at interest is a mortal sin, let me repeat, a MORTAL SIN, the kind that auto-condemn you if you die without confessing them.

As a practicing Catholic I tend to agree with the Church on many things, but their allowance of usury is one of the most disgusting betrayals in their history, and something I absolutely can't condone.

>>1560278
Discouraging you to withdraw money is part of the service, anon!
It's like those geniuses who came up with a website where you pledge to lose weight or do your homework or whatever and if you don't meet your objectives they charge you. The entire point is to discipline people like Pavlov's dog by zapping their wallet.

>>1560342
He wasn't alone either:

Lateran III decreed that persons who accepted interest on loans [were excommunicated and] could receive neither the sacraments nor Christian burial.[15] Pope Clement V made the belief in the right to usury a heresy in 1311, and abolished all secular legislation which allowed it.[16] Pope Sixtus V condemned the practice of charging interest as "detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity."[16]
Theological historian John Noonan argues that "the doctrine [of usury] was enunciated by popes, expressed by three ecumenical councils, proclaimed by bishops, and taught unanimously by theologians."[5]

Vix pervenit: On Usury and Other Dishonest Profit was an encyclical, promulgated by Pope Benedict XIV on November 1, 1745, which condemned the practice of charging interest on loans as usury.

The encyclical states:
"The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract. This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to another only as much as he has received. The sin rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious."

The prohibition was rather unequivocal, rejecting even "moderate" rates of interest.[8] The prohibition on usury did not extend only to loan contracts but also condemned those who "falsely and rashly persuade themselves" that "other just contracts exist, for which it is permissible to receive a moderate amount of interest. Should any one think like this, he will oppose not only the judgment of the Catholic Church on usury, but also common human sense and natural reason."[8]