Whilst the global financial crisis has provided Islamic finance with a unique opportunity in the international financial system, the future success of the industry moving forward, will also depend on its continuing ability to innovate more indigenous shariah-based instruments and evolve business models that strengthen the nexus of Islamic finance with the real economy. An essential part of the overall infrastructure therefore is an effective legal framework to provide an enabling environment that will enforce the legality of contracts according to the Shariah and the regulatory treatment of the new and innovative Islamic financial solutions. 2  BIS central bankers’ speeches  While Islamic finance practitioners and scholars continue to draw from the source of fiqh muamalat to create new and innovative instruments, the legal framework needs to be further strengthened to ensure alignment with new market developments. This is to ensure that it continues to lend certainty and predictability to the innovative products and financial transactions. Furthermore, as Islamic financial activities venture beyond national boundaries, the development of legal frameworks that is facilitative of cross-border transactions is pivotal. There has to be court recognition and acceptance of the Islamic contracts within the common and civil law systems, with a common approach of interpreting the rights of the contracting parties based on Shariah principles, in particular for cross-border transactions. Malaysia has taken the approach to address this imperative via the Law Harmonisation Committee which was established in 2010.
Second, the decline in short-term real interest rates has been accompanied by a similarly steep fall in longer-term real interest rates. The yield on the 10–20 year portion of the indexed gilt curve, for example, was 4% in the mid-1990s; by the end of that decade it had dropped to barely 2%; on the eve of the financial crisis, in mid-2007, it was less than 1%; today it is –0.3% (Chart 4). This is significant because, just as a matter of principle, it’s hard to see how pure monetary disturbances – including any independent decisions of monetary  (Woodford (2003)). Occasionally people distinguish the short and longer-term level of this rate (using “natural” and “equilibrium” respectively). Neutral is the term usually reserved for the rate that would keep the economy cyclically stable over the longer term – the intercept in the Taylor rule – though in many settings this is the same as the natural rate. BIS central bankers’ speeches  3  policy makers – can have very enduring influences on real things, including real interest rates (that’s particularly true for monetary authorities in relatively small and open economies like the UK). So they’re unlikely to have had much bearing on real forward rates. Third, even if you doubt these basic principles, the data show that, where we’re able to isolate autonomous (or at least unexpected4) shifts in official interest rates, they don’t seem to produce any reaction in longer-term real forward rates (Chart 5).