Linda Sarsour, the infamous leader of the women’s march who has tweeted defenses of Saudi Arabia and shari’a law, claims that if shari’a law were the law of the land, people wouldn’t have to pay interest on their loans. See here. It is probably a stretch to say she is in favor of shari’a law, and she just may be doing nothing other than taking swipes at our laws. Whatever the case, her claim is misleading. Shari’a law will exclude interest, but either the interest will still exist but not be called interest, or the number of loans will be vastly restricted because how much money is going to be loaned out if there is no chance to earn interest in it? Nitin Nohria, dean of the Harvard Business School, wrote on this topic in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago (here). His argument is based on the experiences of his father in India. His father was a top executive in one of India’s biggest companies, but he wanted to quit and start his own business. He wasn’t able to do so because he couldn’t get a loan, and he couldn’t get a loan because he didn’t have collateral. Likewise, he couldn’t buy a house until he was almost 60 for the same reason. Since collateral depends on owning things, loans would basically be for the rich and not the poor or the middle class. Keep in mind that this isn't even shari'a law, but is simply a system in which all loans require collateral. Prohibiting loans with interest would be similar or even worse.
So, yes, there wouldn’t be interest on loans, but then there wouldn’t be many loans, either.