ʿAbbās, Ibn al-Zubayr, al-Thawrī, Isḥāq, and others.
The sounder opinion is that it is permissible, and this was the position adopted by al-Qāḍī and the author of al-Mughnī. The reason is that the borrower’s aim is solely to benefit himself, while any benefit that reaches the lender is incidental. It therefore resembles taking a siftaja (bill of exchange) from him and repaying it in another town, for the arrangement serves the interests of both parties. The kind of benefit that turns a loan into usury is the one that is exclusive to the lender—such as the lender’s residing in the borrower’s house, riding his animals, or accepting his gifts—because the borrower gains nothing from that. In the present issues, however, the benefit is shared, and the two parties cooperate in obtaining it; hence it falls under mutual assistance and partnership.
- Bank deposits are of two kinds: those that bear interest and those that do not.
In either case they are deemed loans, and investing them through interest constitutes a usurious loan. Thus, bank deposits are:
• Deposits that draw interest: this is the forbidden usurious loan. In the first period it entails both ribā al-faḍl and ribā al-nasīʾah, and in the periods thereafter it becomes the compounded pre-Islamic usury.
• Deposits without interest: they are called bank deposits, but in reality they are loans—yet they remain impermissible.
Resolution of the Islamic Fiqh Academy concerning bank deposits (bank accounts), Resolution no. 86:
The Council of the Islamic Fiqh Academy, convened at its ninth conference in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 1–6 Dhu al-Qaʿdah 1415 AH (1–6 April 1995 CE), after reviewing the studies submitted to the Academy on the subject of bank deposits (bank accounts) and after listening to the discussions that took place