Riba

When the rate is exorbitant, the terms of contract are not fully disclosed, or it is not based on mutual consent, interest would be subject to prohibition of riba. To repeat, interest in loans or debts for mutual benefits and mutually agreed, without any exploitative aspects and without any terms undisclosed, may not be prohibited.
This non-Equivalence view also clarifies that loan (qard) – pure monetary loan without backed by any real asset (real in economic sense), is not ribawi. Thus, there is no need to resort to legal stratagems or artifices (hiyal) to try to circumvent the prohibition of riba, and come up with substitute of interests that are different only in name, label or form.
Sharing of profit-loss and risk is not an Islamic invention. A good part of the modern business forms and transactions are based on PLS. However, people may choose PLS or non-PLS as they find relevant, appropriate and effective in their business context, as long as no zulm or exploitation occurs.

Since the condition – stipulation of any excess makes it haram – can’t be proven or established, the blanket prohibition of interest remains unproven, and thus the orthodox view about interest (subject to the conditions mentioned above) as per the prohibition of riba too remains unproven.

To repeat, the definition based on the Equivalence view is: Riba is any stipulated excess over the principal in a loan or debt. The most fundamental and critical argument against the traditional definition is that there is no incontrovertible corroboration from the Qur’an or hadith (directly from the Prophet) that it is the “stipulation” or that it is demanded by the lender that makes an excess over the principal is what constitutes riba. The next most important argument is that riba can’t be understood or defined without reference to the notion and reality of zulm