#Issue_The_bank_must_not_charge_interest on the period between the card debt’s due date and the date of the securitisation transaction, as this constitutes usury, which is prohibited under Islamic law.
#Rule: What is established by custom is treated as a stipulated condition.
(In banking practice, interest is in exchange for time, and this practice is a prerequisite for the increase to be considered usury; this necessitates that any increase over time constitutes usurious interest, even if it is not explicitly called interest, as the practice deems it as such, thereby establishing the correlation between time and the usurious increase).
#Rule: The validity of the ruling is contingent upon the presence or absence of the underlying cause.
(The cause is the increase in return for time; its existence necessitates the existence of usury, and its absence necessitates its absence. As long as the interest is linked to the duration, the consequent—the increase—is realised, and the necessary consequence—usury—is realised).
#Rule: The default position is that there is no increase.
(The default position is a debt without increase; an increase is incidental and requires evidence, and the absence of evidence necessitates prohibition).
#Rule: What matters is the meaning, not the wording.
(Calling it a fee or interest does not alter the reality; the reality is an increase on the debt, so changing the name does not negate the correlation between the increase and usury).
#Rule: The evidence of the text is conclusive.
(If the increase is absent, usury is absent; the absence of interest means no usury, and its presence necessitates usury).
#Derivation_of_the_Premise
(By identifying the cause—increase in exchange for time—we deduce that this scenario fulfils the same cause; therefore, the ruling applies to it).
#Refinement_of_the_Premise
(By removing irrelevant details—we omit the name of the transaction, the type of card, and retain only the increase in exchange for time as the true necessary condition).
#Verification_of_the_Premise
(Verifying the existence of the cause in reality: is there a time-based increase? The answer is yes; therefore, the necessary consequence of riba is established).
#Rule: Analogy is a branch of meaning.
(Applying this form to the riba of the pre-Islamic era: either it is paid or it accrues; it is itself a benefit in return for delay, a perfect concomitance).
#Rule: The dependent takes the ruling of the dependent upon.
(If the principal debt is such that no increase is permitted, then the term does not stand alone in its ruling, and the interest on it takes the ruling of the principal; therefore, the prohibition of increasing the debt necessitates the prohibition of interest on the term, because the interest is dependent, and the dependent cannot be separated from the ruling of the dependent upon).
#Rule: Riba may not be permitted by implication.
(Interest is subordinate to the debt, and subordination does not permit riba; therefore, the prohibition remains in force).
#Rule: The implication of the text functions as the text itself.
(The prohibition of riba is established by the text, and the time-based increase falls within the implication of the text; consequently, the ruling of prohibition applies to it by extension).
#Rule: Different matters may share a single implication.
(The card and tawarruq are different, but the time-based increase is an implication, and the ruling is the same: riba).
#Rule: The sharing of a necessary consequence implies the sharing of a necessary condition.
(Loans share the characteristic of being debts; thus, they share the necessary condition of preventing increase, which necessitates prohibition).
#Rule: The incompatibility of necessary conditions implies the incompatibility of necessary consequences.
(Usury is incompatible with permissibility; consequently, its presence renders the contract invalid).
