As I study Islamic finance, all roads lead back to a book entitled Scholastic Analysis of Usury written in 1957 by an American lawyer named John Noonan. Islamic scholars compare and contrast their laws against the development of Christian laws, as told by Noonan. It appears Islamic scholars near universally believe the Church changed its teaching on usury, and Islamic scholars are concerned that their faith might follow the same error. Well, not to worry, the Catholic church still condemns usury. But more on that another time.
As I read Noonan I am perplexed as to why anyone would arrive at the conclusion that the church allows usury. As I read on Islamic finance, I can understand how Islamic scholars might believe so. Islam consults the Koran and its saints and theologians to arrive at Shariah. So far, usury is forbidden. Islam has no pope to declare for all time and places an infallible truth. Well, Noonan cites the Bible in passing but he is heavy on saints and theologians to arrive at a change in church teaching on usury. Hence, the Islamic scholars, I suspect, are observing Noonan's sources and analogizing them to Islam's path to Truth. Problem is, Noonan's citing of theologians and canon law does not trump the infallible teachings of the Church. Usury is sin.
Curiously, back to Noonan and Scholastic Analysis of Usury, for such an oft-cited book, it is not available on Amazon.com, in spite of the fact that the author is living and still producing books. Alibris.com has no copies either. Further, there are only 445 copies, among all 11 editions, available in libraries around the world. For the book to be rather unavailable, it takes the efforts of the author.
Another curiosity, for a book relating to faith and morals, written by a "staunch catholic" back in 1957, to not have a nihil obstat and an imprimatur is odd, expecially one so verses in Canon Law:
Noonan went on to become a federal judge and write more books, his most recent published in 2011. Why is his first so difficult to find? Perhaps I am not the only one to realize that Noonan's first book is rather disingenuous. I'll write more on usury and Islamic finance later, but I wanted to mark the curious source document for the idea that the Church permits usury.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
As I read Noonan I am perplexed as to why anyone would arrive at the conclusion that the church allows usury. As I read on Islamic finance, I can understand how Islamic scholars might believe so. Islam consults the Koran and its saints and theologians to arrive at Shariah. So far, usury is forbidden. Islam has no pope to declare for all time and places an infallible truth. Well, Noonan cites the Bible in passing but he is heavy on saints and theologians to arrive at a change in church teaching on usury. Hence, the Islamic scholars, I suspect, are observing Noonan's sources and analogizing them to Islam's path to Truth. Problem is, Noonan's citing of theologians and canon law does not trump the infallible teachings of the Church. Usury is sin.
What a comparison! With no pope, as in Islam, the Truth is maintained. With a pope, the Truth is widely ignored.
I will write more on this later, but I want to mention arguments in writing, especially by lawyers. As I read this book, Scholastic Analysis of Usury, I am astonished at how often Noonan is using rhetorical tracks and shifting definitions to make his case. He is truly a gifted writer, but has no one who cites him noticed the games he plays? Perhaps having grown up among lawyers I was tipped off to such tactics. And I do credit a book called the Art of Cross Examination which lays out the most powerful scams lawyers advance.
Another curiosity, for a book relating to faith and morals, written by a "staunch catholic" back in 1957, to not have a nihil obstat and an imprimatur is odd, expecially one so verses in Canon Law:
Can. 823 §1. In order to preserve the integrity of the truths of faith and morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right to be watchful so that no harm is done to the faith or morals of the Christian faithful through writings or the use of instruments of social communication. They also have the duty and right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgment and have the duty and right to condemn writings which harm correct faith or good morals.
Noonan went on to become a federal judge and write more books, his most recent published in 2011. Why is his first so difficult to find? Perhaps I am not the only one to realize that Noonan's first book is rather disingenuous. I'll write more on usury and Islamic finance later, but I wanted to mark the curious source document for the idea that the Church permits usury.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
1 comments:
The best recent book on Islamic Law and its effects on finance would be The Long Divergence: How Islamic Law Held Back the Middle East, by Timur Kuran. The title gives away his obvious bias, but his comparison of European and Islamic (primarily Ottoman) corporate law is worth a read. Of course if you read the less scholarly (but more entertaining Holy War: How Vasco da GAma's Epic Voyages Turned the Tide in a Centuries Old Clash of Civilizations by Nigel Cliff you'll see it argued that the it was the dismantling of Islamic dominance of the spice trade by the Portuguese, not Islamic law, that led to the downfall of powerful Middle Eastern city states.
The best primers on Islamic law written in English are by Joseph Schacht--the seminal An Introduction to Islamic Law--and Wael B. Hallaq--Islamic Legal Theories; The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law (Themes in Islamic Law); Authority, Continuity and Change in Islamic Law; or Sharia: Theory, Practice, Transformations.
Islamic finance as it currently exists, which is to say as a form of modern banking and finance with all attendent electronic and managerial innovations, is sophisticated and innovative and bares little resemblence to medieval Islamic finance as written about by most scholars.
Post a Comment