The outcome of the above analysis is that Husserl’s method of ‘epoche’ is pre-eminently desirable, even if one loses one's .traditional religious beliefs, but attains and retains the condition of authenticity which is functionally akin to spirituality. It is all to the good if the individual becomes aware of his hidden assumptions and his heightened self knowledge reveals his existential depths and he becomes a more fully integrated person than he was as a ‘mass-member’ of some ‘human herd’ or other, no matter what it might be.

The Concept of an Interest-free Economy:

Interest has continued to flourish in the human family though the great historical religions disapprove of it in varying ways. Is this state of affairs merely another instance of the the distance between the ideal and the real, or is there some specific social need that interest or usury served and still serves. If so, how will that need be served if an Islamic Society abolishes interest? Again, how or in what precise way is an interest-free society more desirable than an interest-based society? The answer to these important questions should not be given by way of justifying the Quran or the Sunnah but must be based on honest and searching reflection in. the light of reliable factual investigation.

The liberal Muslim intellectuals and statesmen of the previous century, among whom S. Khuda Bakhsh occupies an honoured place, did indeed, attempt this important task. They made a distinction between (a) usury and interest and (b) different types of loans--distress loans, consumption loans and development loans for various purposes. They came to the conclusion that accepting bank interest on deposits and commercial interest were quite permissible.  However, charging interest on distress loans or even on consumption loans was un-Islamic.

Accepting bank interest on deposits is very different from charging interest on loans advanced to others. The depositor places his savings at the disposal of the bank which invests them either in the form of loans or purchase of shares in sound industrial concerns etc. Thus, the interest given by banks is, in reality, a slice of the profits which accrue to them on their investments. Interest-bearing deposits in banks or companies promote investment of idle money for the dual purpose of increasing the owner's wealth without diverting him from his actual vocation as also promoting general material prosperity through increased production and employment of the work force.

The Muslim liberals were correct in their basic approach, but their historical and analytical discussion .of the nature and function of interest was too inadequate to convince traditional conservative opinion on such matters. They were unable to provide a rationale satisfactory to both reason and Islamic faith. Perhaps this explains how and why the economic content of the contemporary movement of Islamic Resurgence has gained considerable vogue in several Muslim countries. To this theme we now turn.

To my mind, most Islamic economists who regard interest as the root of all economic ills start with three unchecked assumptions which are very far from being self-evident to a dispassionate analyst. The assumptions are: (a) there is no difference .between usury and interest so that the Quranic prohibition of usury implies the prohibition of interest; (b) the unearned income or gain from a sleeping partnership is morally right, while unearned gain in the form of interest is morally wrong because. of risk 'being present in the first case and absent in the second;  and (c) the abolition of interest would not adversely affect economic activity and growth in general, but rather purge it of social evils. Let us now examine the above assumptions in some detail.

(a) Usury, in the ancient and medieval periods, was a charge upon all types of loans including distress loans contracted even by the poorest and weakest sections of society. Avaricious money lenders did not reduce exorbitant usury rates even for distress loans, to say nothing of waiving the interest out of sympathy or compassion. In this regard there is no difference between usury and interest. Yet, it would be quite fallacious to equate the two for the following reason. The rate of usury was fixed on the model of biological reproduction or agricultural growth which follows geometrical proportions, while interest, in the modern sense, is calculated on the basis of low arithmetical proportion. The difference between the two models of growth is so enormous that to equate usury with interest becomes like equating the domestic cat with the tiger. The model of biological growth for usury was suggested (quite naturally and understandably) by the average rate of reproductive growth of domesticated animals or familiar agricultural crops, namely, approximately 400% per annum. However, modern interest rates are deliberately kept, relatively speaking, very low in appreciation of the great role of planning and skill of entrepreneur in production and the generation of profit. In other words, in pre-modern times the owner of wealth tended to over-value his own role at the expense of the merchant or industrialist, and this approach got reflected in the high rates of usury whose model was the rate of biological reproduction or agricultural growth. The biological model was quite understandable in an age when theoretical economics, social science and militant class consciousness were non-existent and the manufacturer or artisan had to borrow money in what may be termed as a 'usurer's market’. No exception was made in the case of distress or consumption loans, whose purpose was obviously quite other than increasing one’s wealth. This state of affairs led to the exploitation of the poor or the needy, specially, when non-payment of borrowed amount attracted the penalty of bonded labour.