Islam suffers the same abuse of the fundaments of “interest”/”usury”/”Riba” in “rent.” But there are evidently some further dark twists in resultant prescriptions for re-use of “money” — or at least, its effective equivalent. I have had Muslims explain an early, extreme division in Islam which is quite possibly/probably responsible for the extreme and unqualified faults of what today is wrongly called, “Islamic banking.” Volumetric impropriety precipitates from a concept of re-use of the same, very restrictive circulation.
And you have inherent multiplication of debt by “rent” — with the terminology intending no more than to evade the forbiddance of “Riba” (“interest” or “usury”). Original scripture has no equivalent terms. Thus “rent” fall under the same forbidding, as the original material forbid only to ask *more* in repayment than was ostensibly lent.
The thing that really casts doubt upon the ostensible authority of early scripture is that in ostensibly conveying trade by forms of what we today call “money,” scripture provides no revelation at all of not just the seeming need, but the inevitable indispensability of promissory obligations.
So *all this* has to be understood to put the facts in their only true light… and effectively then, you have the only facts posing the possibility or probability of offending and/or deterring the ostensible “fundamentalist” from *ever* understanding the actual underlying fundamentals and their implications and extended “legalities.”
Frankly, on the contrary, I think that inevitably, we can only recognize that these facts reflect upon (or expose) obvious adulteration of actual ruling law or natural law, with subversions which prove the subject proposition to be far less than its contemporarily supposed origins.
In other words, the indispensable principles we can now prove may indeed predicate true science and religion — or the only true “faith.” But all around us, we see instead how often people will choose wrongly to cling to intentional deviation, as if *it were* “faithful.”
Nonetheless, MPE™ is sharia compliant, and is not only the only proposition which is faithful to the forbiddance of Riba in Islam; it is also the only possible *just* implementation of this forbiddance, and the further objects of a monetary system — which are at least implicitly, to sustain the rightful prosperity of the people as a substantive right.