Özet:

Thomas d'Aquin was the most important theorist in the field of theology and philosophy in medieval Europe. The social-ictisadic subjects are not only in the religious-ethical ground, they also reveal social-ictisadic evidence. Faiz has an important position in Aquinas' social-ictistic thought. This article discusses the interference with the interest prohibition of Aquinas. “Is he one of the strong last defenders of the interest prohibition or is he a goddess who opened the door to the legalization of the interest and went on the wall?” To answer the question. Thomas d'Aquin fails against the absolute Sure: Whoever gives and receives the loan, whoever of which nation, whether religious or debtor or poor or rich, the interest is unjust and sin, is prohibited. Everyone is brother, and everyone should be the same as he treats his brother. The Jews refuse their understanding of the way that a foreign (not Jewish) can be borrowed with interest, and that it can be borrowed with interest. While Aquinas opposes the interest, it is based on the Tevrat and the Bible, Aristotle, the distinction between the goods in the Roman law of the period of Justinian "which is used in the consumer's seat" - "which can be used in the consumer's seat". The use of the first kind of goods does not make it mandatory to be destroyed by itself, while the second does not make it mandatory. The interest is seen as a particular event in the case of the loan of the kind of "the goods that require the use to be consumed personally": the borrowing is "the price of the use (intifâ) right". This price may be taken from the kind of property borrowed, from the kind of property borrowed, from the kind of money borrowed, or from the kind of money borrowed, or from the kind of money borrowed, or from the kind of money borrowed, or from the kind of money borrowed, or from the kind of money borrowed, or from the kind of money borrowed. The amount of money to be paid for is the amount of money to be paid for. Money is a good that can only be used for consumption. The sale of the right to use the money is the profit received from the loan. The right to the righteous, the right to the righteous, the right to the righteous, the right to the righteous, the right to the righteous. But when sustainable goods are borrowed, the cost of use is not in the interest rate according to Aquinas and is legitimate. Aquinas has introduced a new way of interference with the interest prohibition based on the distinction of "commodity that can be used in the consumption rate - goods that can be used through business". This type of interest is both the most original and most prominent side of Aquinas in terms of interest. Those who brought the tenk, claimed that Aquinas had opened the interest issue from the religious-ethical-legal ground to the social-discriminatory ground. However, Aquinas' opinions on any matter should not be considered on a pure economic ground, and his legal and moral arguments should also be considered. Aquinas is not one of the strong last defenders, but one of the strong last defenders.