Intended Meaning
This claim means that the witness links the prohibition of ribā to its harm to the debtor and to financial justice. At the same time, it notes that the creditor gains an immediate benefit, without treating the existence of that benefit as a justification for the ruling.
What Is Attributed to Shahrur
The witness states: “Ribā is prohibited despite the creditor’s immediate benefit, because it harms the debtor and conflicts with financial justice.” Accordingly, the explicitly stated rationale here is harm to the debtor and conflict with financial justice.
For reading in the context of the book: Muhammad Shahrur, Mother of the Book and Its Details.
Atlas Explanation
The text distinguishes between two things: an immediate benefit accruing to the creditor and a harmful effect borne by the debtor. The witness therefore does not address ribā solely from the perspective of the creditor’s immediate benefit; rather, it links the ruling to the effect it calls harm and to the standard of financial justice.
This relates to a broader context concerning Legislation, Limits, and Prohibition, without this witness alone establishing the details of that context.
Synthetic Conclusion
The statement may be read as a rationale for the ruling that combines the transaction’s effect on the debtor with the standard of financial justice. This is a direct explanatory inference from the wording of the witness, not an independent definition of ribā.
Open Question and Limits of the Evidence
The witness alone does not specify what counts as harm to the debtor, nor does it clarify the forms of ribā covered by this rationale or how “financial justice” is to be measured. Its location is also preserved only at the level of the section and chapter, not by page number or raw context.