[yucky]

    > whether the Templars picked it up by learning and adapting Islamic Hawala during the crusades

Doubtful. Money lenders/changers existed long before Islam (something about Jesus flipping their tables over in the Temple), and Hawala from my understanding is a flat commission based service (not interest based), since usury is forbidden.

[motohagiography]

Christianity forbids usury as well, hence why hawala seemed like a plausible candidate system for how the Templar banking system may have scaled. Interest calculations are complicated, where something simple like a commission scales easily. Given what we know now about economics and how systems scale, it seems like there is a systems view of the necessary conditions that might shed some new light on some history that has a lot of woo around it.

[yucky]

   > Christianity forbids usury as well

I don't believe this is correct. Admittedly I'm agnostic though, so I may be mistaken. But I've studied the subject quite a bit as an outsider.

[geye1234]

Catholicism teaches that usury is morally evil and therefore always wrong. 'Usury' means taking any amount of interest on a full-recourse loan (ie a loan where the collateral is not limited to a particular asset or set of assets -- so yes, it includes credit cards, student loans and most mortgages).

[O]ur Lord, according to Luke the evangelist, has bound us by a clear command that we ought not to expect any addition to the capital sum when we grant a loan. For, that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.

– Lateran V

[The following proposition is condemned as erroneous:] Since ready cash is more valuable than that to be paid, and since there is no one who does not consider ready cash of greater worth than future cash, a creditor can demand something beyond the principal from the borrower, and for this reason be excused from usury. – Various Errors on Moral Subjects (II), Pope Innocent XI by decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679 (Denzinger)

One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned by arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the money borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully, either to increase one’s fortune, to purchase new estates, or to engage in business transactions. – Vix Pervenit, encyclical of Benedict XIV

More here if anyone's interested: https://tinyurl.com/2f6dkh5p

[yucky]

It looks like the Catholics don't consider any interest to be usurious, only excessive interest (which leaves a lot of wiggle room).

[zdragnar]

That's directly contradicting the Pope:

> One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive

from the parent comment

[yucky]

Well not quite. On page 32 of their Annual Report you can see in the income statement where they are earning millions in interest[0].

[0] http://www.ior.va/content/ior/en/media/annual-report/annual-...

[OkayPhysicist]

Christianity inherited its ban on usury from Judaism, just like Islam. The Jews took it to mean they were only forbidden from charging interest to other members of their faith, but the Catholic Church outright forbade interest taking for a long time, well into the Renaissance.

The turning point was probably around the same time the Church came around on Liberal republics replacing kings and queens.

[labster]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#Christianity

It sure looks like direct words from Jesus to me, not to expect anything in return for a loan. It’s just that Christian culture chose to ignore this rule in exchange for capitalism and colonialism.

[Retric]

This doesn’t seem to ban interest instead denouncing expectation of any payments including principal repayments. Though the nuance is clearly lost when converting from the original text to English. It’s interesting framing because the question becomes if X is a good thing is not X automatically a bad thing or could it be neutral?

“And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them, expecting nothing in return. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”” - Luke 6:34-36 NIV

The Old Testament’s anti interest framing is quoted as “making a profit off a loan from a poor person is exploiting that person (Exodus 22:25–27)” alternative translations: https://www.biblehub.com/exodus/22-25.htm but poor person is an interesting exception. Loaning money to a rich person is hardly exploiting them so a Bentley dealership offering car loans on 250,000 car seems perfectly acceptable.

[pessimizer]

The temptation to make a theological argument is a distraction here. The fact is that Catholicism thought that interest was a sin for a very long time, so Christians weren't allowed to do it. It's the only reason that Jews are slandered with accusations of usury, because they were the only Europeans allowed to openly make a living lending money.

[Retric]

The theological argument is simply context to understand why the Church changed it’s mind between 325 and 1311. It then changed again between 1311 and now. And of course why the Eastern Christian perspective on usury is yet again different.

This stuff is really caught up on more fundamental philosophical changes over huge stretches of time. Someone outside of western culture reading the text as written would presumably miss the argument around interest and instead view it as a setup for the final line Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” While someone within the culture sees echoes of arguments going back thousands of years.

PS: No offense meant if your belief system is based on the assumption that this stuff is unchanged through time.

[yucky]

That doesn't at all read as being forbidden. It reads like Jesus giving advice to people to give freely and not expect anything return. Not seeing any Thou Shalt Not's or other sternly worded proclamations. Which is probably why all of their early church councils were split on the subject. As opposed to stealing, killing, adultery etc. which everyone was in agreement on based on the scripture.

Contrast that with the usury wordings in Islamic scripture where it is treated essentially the same as stealing, and it's not worded as a friendly suggestion but rather a strict proclamation. Those differences in scripture make it clear why the different religions see it so differently.

[TimTheTinker]

> it's not worded as a friendly suggestion but rather a strict proclamation

Jesus's positive commands ("do this") are consistently aimed at the heart rather than specific outward behaviors. What matters is not the specifics of the good things you do, but the degree to which you're loving God and loving your neighbor from your heart in those actions.

Hence when he saw a poor widow giving only 2 copper coins to the temple treasury (about 1/64 of a day's wages), he said she had given more than all the others, because she had given all she had to live on. My interpretation is that he said this because she was showing a heart that was fully given to God and trusting him completely to provide.