Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 72, Issue 1, pp 1–15 | Cite as

Usury and Just Compensation: Religious and Financial Ethics in Historical Perspective

  • Constant J. Mews
  • Ibrahim Abraham


Usury is a concept often associated more with religiously based financial ethics, whether Christian or Islamic, than with the secular world of contemporary finance. The problem is compounded by a tendency to interpret riba, prohibited within Islam, as both usury and interest, without adequately distinguishing these concepts. This paper argues that in Christian tradition usury has always evoked the notion of money demanded in excess of what is owed on a loan, disrupting a relationship of equality between people, whereas interest was seen as referring to just compensation to the lender. Although it is often claimed that hostility towards ‘usury’ has been in retreat in the West since the protestant Reformation, we would argue that the crucial break came not with Calvin, but with Jeremy Bentham, whose critique of the arguments of Adam Smith, upholding the reasonableness of the laws against usury, led to the abolition of the usury laws in England in 1854. There has to be a role for law, whether Islamic or secular, in regulating financial relationships. We argue that by retrieving the necessary distinction between demanding usury as illegitimate predatory lending and interest as legitimate compensation, we can discover common ground behind the driving principles of financial ethics within both Islamic and Christian tradition that may still be of relevance today. By re-examining past ethical discussions of the distinction between usury and just compensation, we argue that the world’s religious traditions can make significant contributions to contemporary debate.


usury Interest Bible Islamic finance middle ages predatory lending religion financial ethics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrews, E. L.: 2005, ‘International Business: Snow Urges Consumerism on China Trip’, New York Times, October 14, p. C1Google Scholar
  2. Anon: 1671, A Brief Survey of the Growth of Usury in England and the Mischiefs attending it (London)Google Scholar
  3. Anon: 1825, Reasons Against the Repeal of the Usury Laws (London)Google Scholar
  4. Aristotle (1952) Great Books of the Western World, vol. 2 (Nicomachean Ethics, Politics). University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Aquinas Fund: 2005, ‘LCKM Aquinas Fund: Catholic Value Investing’,, 2005, accessed June 7, 2006
  6. Ave Maria Fund: 2006, Prospectus. May 1, accessed June 7, 2006
  7. Baldwin J. W. (1970) Masters, Princes, and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and His Circle. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  8. Baue, W.: 2003, ‘Ave Maria Funds Promote Catholic Values Through Morally Responsible Investing’, html accessed June 7, 2006
  9. Bentham, J.: 1952 (orig. 1787), Defence of Usury Shewing the Impolicy of the Present Legal Restraints on the Terms of Pecuniary Bargains (T. Payne, and Son, London), reprinted in Jeremy Bentham’s Economic Writings, ed. W. Stark (Allen & Unwin, London), vol. 1, pp. 167–87Google Scholar
  10. Cafritz E., Tene O. (2002) Why French Usury Law Must Change. International Financial Law Review 22(12):32–34Google Scholar
  11. Center for Responsible Lending/Demos: 2005, ‘The Plastic Safety Net: The Reality Behind Debt in America’ Accessed 11 June 2006
  12. Dow Jones Islamic Fund: No Date, ‘Key Attributes’,, Accessed June 7, 2006
  13. Dunn, S.: 2004, ‘Money: Why ‘Moral’ Investing is a Broad Church’, Independent on Sunday (London), April 25, p. 28Google Scholar
  14. The Economist: 1996, ‘Just When you Thought it was Safe...’, The Economist, 7 July, p. 71Google Scholar
  15. Ezell, H.: 2005, ‘Your Money: Socially Responsible Funds did Well in ‘04, But Vice did Better’, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 23, p. Q5Google Scholar
  16. Felton, E.: 2001, ‘In Mutual Funds we Trust’, Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal, July 27. Accessed November 1, 2005
  17. Gittens, R.: 2002, ‘No Usury Please, We’re Bankers’, Sydney Morning Herald, April 1, p. 37Google Scholar
  18. Grahame, J.: 1817: Defence of Usury Laws and Considerations on the Probable Consequences of their Projected Repeal (Edinburgh)Google Scholar
  19. Hallock M. (2004) Predatory Lending: Legislative and Regulatory Challenges. Bank Accounting & Finance 17(2):42–48Google Scholar
  20. Hewitt, P.: 2003, ‘Forward’ in British Department for Trade and Industry, Fair, Clear and Competitive: The Consumer Credit Market in the 21st Century, p. 3Google Scholar
  21. Homer S., Sylla R. (1991) A History of Interest Rates, 3rd ed. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  22. Howard, P.: 1995, Beyond the Written Word: Preaching and Theology in the Florence of Archbishop Antoninus, 1427–1459 (Olschki, Florence)Google Scholar
  23. Hunt E. S., Murray J. M. (1999) A History of Business in Medieval Europe, 1200–1500. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. ICCR: 2003, ‘Faith based Investors Tell Congress Predatory Lending is Bad for Business’, November 9, edlend.htm accessed June 7, 2006
  25. Islamic Bank of Britain: 2006, ‘Halal Personal Finance’, nalFinance/1/Home/1/Home.jsp.accessed June 7, 2006
  26. Kaye J. (2005) Changing Definitions of Money, Nature, and Equality c. 1140–1270, reflected in Thomas Aquinas’ Question on Usury. In: Quaglioni D., et al (eds): 2005, Credito e usura fra teologia, diritto e amministrazione: linguaggi a confronto, sec. XII–XVI. Ecole française de Rome, Rome, pp 25–55Google Scholar
  27. Kedar B. Z. (1969) Arabic: rizq, Medieval Latin: risicum. Studi Medievali 3:255–259Google Scholar
  28. Keenan, M.: 2003, ‘Hail Marys Won’t Save ‘Unholy’ Stocks’, National Post (Toronto), August 29, p.␣IN1Google Scholar
  29. Kercher, B.: 2000, ‘Why the History of Australian Law is Not English’, accessed June 6, 2006
  30. Kerridge E. (2002) Usury, Interest and the Reformation. Ashgate, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Langholm O. (1998) The Legacy of Scholasticism in Economic Thought. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Larkin, N.: 2006, ‘CBA in Remote Losses’, Herald-Sun (Melbourne), January 20, p. 33Google Scholar
  33. Lemaître A. J. (2004) Une nouvelle approche. In: Collas-Heddeland E. M., et al. (eds) 2004, Pour une histoire culturelle du risque. Genèse, évolution, actualité du concept dans les sociétés occidentales. Editions Histoire et Anthropologie, Strasbourg, pp. 13–24Google Scholar
  34. Lewis M. K., Algaoud L. M. (2001) Islamic Banking. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  35. Little L. K. (1971) Pride Goes before Avarice: Social Change and the Vices in Latin Christendom. American Historical Review 76/1:16–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Little L. K. (1978) Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy in Medieval Europe. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  37. Loomis W. (2006) Theology and Corporate Ethics. Reviews in Religion and Theology 13:149–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Macey, J.: 2005, ‘ASIC Investigates Indigenous Car Loans’, The World at Noon, ABC Radio, 22 SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  39. Macquarie Dictionary: 1997, 3rd edn. (Pan Macmillan, Sydney)Google Scholar
  40. Maloney R. P. (1972) Early Conciliar Legislation on Usury. Revue de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale 39:145–157Google Scholar
  41. Maloney R. P. (1973) The Teaching of the Fathers on Usury : An Historical Study on the Development of Christian Thinking. Vigiliae Christianae 27:241–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marx, K.: 1976 (Orig. 1867), Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1, trans. Ben Fowkes (Penguin, Harmondsworth)Google Scholar
  43. Marx, K.: 1973 (Orig. 1939–1941), Grundrisse, trans. Ben Fowkes (Penguin, Harmondsworth)Google Scholar
  44. Marx, K.: 1982 (Orig. 1851), ‘Letter to Engels, 11 August’, 1851. in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels Collected Works, vol. 38 (Lawrence & Wishart, London), pp. 419–420Google Scholar
  45. MacDonald, G. J.: 2004, ‘Religious Ethics Clash with Loan Practices; as Easy Money Becomes the Norm in the US, Borrowing Habits Raise More Ethical Concerns’, Christian Science Monitor, September 29, p. 17Google Scholar
  46. Mainoni, P.: 2005, ‘Creditio e usura fra norma e prassi. Alcuni esempi lombardi (sec. xii-prima metà xiv)’, in D. Quaglioni, et al. (eds.), Credito e usura fra teologia, diritto e amministrazione: linguaggi a confronto, sec. XII–XVI. (Ecole française de Rome, Rome), pp. 129–58Google Scholar
  47. Menning C. B. (1993) Charity and State in Late Renaissance Italy: the Monte di Pietaà of Florence. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  48. Moncrief, M.: 2006, ‘CBA “Sorry” for Losses to Aborigines’, The Age (Melbourne), January 20, p. 4Google Scholar
  49. Nelson B. (1969) The Idea of Usury. From Tribal Brotherhood to Universal Brotherhood, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  50. Noonan J. T. (1957) The Scholastic Notion of Usury. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  51. Oldfield, S.: 2006, ‘CBA Loses Way in Outback’, Australian Financial Review, January 20, p. 19Google Scholar
  52. Ong, T.: 2006, ‘Indigenous Loans Reviewed’, The Australian, January 20, p. 2Google Scholar
  53. Osuri, L. T.: 2005, ‘Texas May Soon Relax Usury Law’, American Banker, June 20, p. 1Google Scholar
  54. Oxford Shorter Dictionary on Historical Principles, 1992: 3rd edn. (Oxford University Press, Oxford)Google Scholar
  55. Paganelli, M. P.: 2003, ‘In Medio Stat Virtus: An Alternative View of Usury in Adam Smith’s Thinking’, History of Political Economy 35(1), 21–48Google Scholar
  56. Palmer, H.: 2002, ‘Loan Sharks Feed on the Poor’, New Statesman, December 2, p. 18Google Scholar
  57. Piron S. (2004) L’apparition du resicum en Méditerranée occidentale, XIIe-XIIIe siecles. In: Collas-Heddeland E., et al. (eds) Pour une histoire culturelle du risque. Genèse, évolution, actualité du concept dans les sociétés occidentales. Editions Histoire et Anthropologie, Strasbourg, pp 59–76Google Scholar
  58. Piron S. (2005). Le devoir de gratitude. Emergence et vogue de la notion d’antidora au XIIIe siècle. In: Quaglioni D. et al. (eds.), Credito e usura fra teologia, diritto e amministrazione: linguaggi a confronto, sec. XII-XVI. Ecole française de Rome, Rome, pp. 73–101Google Scholar
  59. Regnier, P. and M. Penner: 2001, ‘Debtor’s Revenge’, Time (Australia), 26 February, p. 36Google Scholar
  60. Rogers, D., et al.: 1999, ‘Utilitarian Usurers’, Alberta Report, 22 February, p. 14Google Scholar
  61. Saeed A. (1999) Islamic banking and interest: a study of the prohibition of riba and its contemporary interpretation. Brill, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  62. Shatzmiller, J. (1990) Shylock Reconsidered. Jews, Moneylending, and Medieval Society. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith, A.: 1976 (orig. 1776), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner (eds.), 2 vols (Clarendon Press, Oxford)Google Scholar
  64. Tawney, R. H.: 1984 (orig. 1926), Religion and the Rise of Capitalism: A Historical Study (Penguin, Harmondsworth)Google Scholar
  65. Troeltsch, E.: 1959, ‘The Economic Ethic of Calvinism’, in R. W. Green (ed.), Protestantism and Capitalism: The Weber Thesis and Its Critics (DC Heath, Lexington, MA), pp. 21–28Google Scholar
  66. Van de Mierop M. (2005) The Invention of Interest. Sumerian Loans. In: Goetzmann W. N., Rouwenhorst K. Geert (eds) Of Value. The Financial Innovations that Created Modern Capital Markets. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 17–30Google Scholar
  67. Vice Fund: 2005, Prospectus, July 29,, accessed June 7, 2006
  68. Viner J. (1978) Religious Thought and Economic Society. Duke University Press, Durham, NCGoogle Scholar
  69. Vogel D. (1991) Business Ethics Past and Present. Public Interest 102:49–84Google Scholar
  70. Wade, M.: 2005, ‘Disputes over Credit Card Debts Soar’, Sydney Morning Herald, May 28, p. 3Google Scholar
  71. Weber, M.: 1976 (orig. 1920), The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Trans. by Talcott Parsons (Allen & Unwin, London)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Studies in Religion and TheologyMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Political and Social InquiryMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations