Is the usurious loan offered by the state at a 2% interest rate for 100 years to meet basic needs such as marriage and housing, and which people see as the only means to achieve that, considered a permissible good loan?

Usury is forbidden by consensus of the people of knowledge, whether it is little or much, for individuals, institutions, and states. There is no difference in its prohibition between repaying an easy usurious loan or otherwise. It has been narrated in the hadith (definition) that usury consists of seventy sins, the least of which is that a man marries his mother.

There is no difference whether usury is called by its name or by another name; the consideration is its reality, like drinking intoxicants that people call by another name.

And whoever claims that livelihood affairs cannot be achieved except through usury, his statement is incorrect; because the Law and reality indicate that whoever fears Allah, He will provide him a way out and sustain him from where he does not expect.

As for dire necessity, it is considered legally valid if it reaches the degree of dire need, like eating carrion. In such cases, it is permissible to engage in usury only to the extent that it دفعs the dire need, and this applies to true necessities like housing if no alternative is available, and not merely a desire for ownership.