It is noted that the “question of the applicability or otherwise of the prohibition of Riba to non-Muslims” was not handled properly. In fact, it has been proposed that the Shariat Appellate Bench ought to have restored the case back to the Federal court to determine the issue. There was a need for more research where studies should be the basis for the determination of such cases; regarding the tying of the loans to hard currencies like the dollar, sharing of losses between the lender and the borrower and inclusion of inflation aspects in the sharing deal. It is opinionated that several papers and resolutions have been held, and it is important that they be deeply analyzed. The question has been found to “neither justify interest nor provides a substitute for in the banking transactions”, and the matter has thus been left pending for further investigation through research and study.
There was a need for the Shariat Appellate Bench to leave the matter regarding inflation and indexation for a fresh decision for further analysis and research. For instance, inflation needs to be featured regarding the principal borrowed (hence it requires definition) in an attempt to eliminate the possibility of exploitation. The lack of solution of some contentions such as that arising from the failure of sending of documents to the relevant determinants of the case in support of some claims (regarding interest charged by the bank not being part of Riba to the Shariat Appellate Bench) by the Imams of Jurists. The rejection for a plea on the basis that there were errors pending in the record makes it necessary for a review. There is a need for further research on the financial systems in question “in the contemporary Muslim countries of the world”. It is important that the matter be taken back to the Federal Shariat Court so that it would have to give definite findings regarding the issues in question since the Shariat Appellate Bench failed in this respect.