The principle of Sharia oversight is fundamental in distinguishing Islamic banks from traditional ones. However, a critical question arises: do these bodies function as genuinely independent regulators, or have they evolved into tools for legitimizing pre-determined decisions made behind closed doors? This issue was the focus of a recent episode of the program 'Bab Hiwar', where experts in Islamic economics debated this pertinent topic, highlighting the contrasting views surrounding the integrity and actions of these supervisory bodies.

The discussions revealed a deep divide between proponents who view Islamic banks as a legitimate alternative to usurious transactions aimed at ensuring social justice, and skeptics who regard them merely as a religious facade obscuring practices indistinguishable from conventional banks. Yasmin Al-Dhawadi, a researcher in political sociology, critically asserted that these Sharia supervisory bodies often merely comply with the requirements imposed by management, noting that most Islamic banks are extensions of traditional banks rather than being truly independent entities.

Al-Dhawadi described these supervisory bodies as "a facade to legitimize certain decisions aimed at maximizing profits," pointing out that many transactions labeled as Islamic often involve mere manipulation of terms. This ongoing debate underscores significant concerns about the authenticity and efficacy of Sharia compliance within the banking sector, suggesting a need for more rigorous scrutiny and transparency in Islamic banking practices.