But a loan may benefit the lender, as when a loan is made in one town and repaid in another. This is why some scholars disliked it. The correct view, however, is that it is not disliked, because the borrower also benefits from it: when the lender advances the loan, both parties benefit.

Section

As for the claim that removing impurity is contrary to legal analogy, that marriage is contrary to legal analogy, and similar claims, these are among the most unsound views. Their specious argument is that human beings possess dignity, whereas marriage involves abasement of the woman, and human dignity is incompatible with abasement.

This is mistaken. Marriage serves the interests of the individual woman and of humankind. To the extent that it places the male over the female, this is part of the wisdom through which the welfare of animals generally is secured, let alone that of humankind. Such abasement is not incompatible with being human, any more than defecating when necessary, or eating and drinking, is incompatible with it—even though having no need of these things would be more perfect. Rather, people must not be denied what they need and what serves their welfare. A woman needs marriage, and it contributes to the fullness of her welfare. How, then, can it be said that legal analogy requires preventing her from marrying?

The same applies to removing impurity. The specious argument of those who say that it is contrary to legal analogy is that