#murabahah

The seller in a murabahah financing can also ask the purchaser/client to furnish a guarantee from a third party. In case of default in the payment of price at the due date, the seller may have recourse to the guarantor, who will be liable to pay the amount guaranteed by him. The rules of Shari‘ah regarding guarantee are fully discussed in the books of Islamic fiqh. However, I would point out to two burning issues in the context of Islamic banking. 

The guarantor in the contemporary commercial atmosphere does not normally guarantee a payment without a fee charged from the original debtor. The classical Fiqh literature is almost unanimous on the point that the guarantee is a voluntary transaction and no fee can be charged on a guarantee. The most the guarantor can do is to claim his actual secretarial expenses incurred in offering the guarantee, but the guarantee itself should be free of charge. The reason for this prohibition is that the person who advances money to another person as a loan cannot charge a fee for advancing a loan, because it falls under the definition of riba or interest which is prohibited. The guarantor should be subject to this prohibition all the more, because he does not advance money. He only undertakes to pay a certain amount on behalf of the original debtor in case he defaults in payment. If the person who actually pays money cannot charge a fee, how can fee be charged by a person who has merely undertaken to pay and did not pay anything in actual terms? 

Suppose, A has borrowed 100 US dollars from B who asked him to produce a guarantor. C says to A, “I pay off your debt to B right now, but you will have to pay me 110 dollars at a later date.” Obviously 10 dollars charged from A are not allowed, being interest. Then D comes to A and says, “I stand as a guarantor to you, but you will have to pay me 10 dollars for this service.” If we allow to charge a fee for guarantee, it will mean that C cannot charge 10 dollars, despite the fact that he has actually paid the amount, and D can charge 10 dollars, despite the fact that he has merely committed himself to pay only when A fails to pay. This being unfair apparently, the classical Muslim jurists have forbidden the charging of a fee for guarantee, so that both C and D, in the above example, may stand on equal footing. 

However, some contemporary scholars are considering the problem from a different angle. They feel that guarantee has become a necessity, especially in international trade where the sellers and the buyers do not know each other, and the payment of the price by the purchaser cannot be simultaneous with the supply of the goods. There has to be an intermediary who can guarantee the payment. It is utterly difficult to find the guarantors who can provide this service free of charge in required numbers. Keeping these realities in view, some Shari‘ah scholars of our time are adopting a different approach. 

From the foregoing discussion on different aspects of murabahah financing, the following conclusions may be summarized as the basic points to remember:

1. Murabahah is not a mode of financing in its origin. It is a simple sale on cost-plus basis. However, after adding the concept of deferred payment, it has been devised to be used as a mode of financing only in cases where the client intends to purchase a commodity. Therefore, it should neither be taken as an ideal Islamic mode of financing, nor a universal instrument for all sorts of financing. It should be taken as a transitory step towards the ideal Islamic system of financing based on musharakah or mudarabah.

Otherwise its use should be restricted to areas where musharakah or mudarabah cannot work.

2. While approving a murabahah facility, the sanctioning authority must make sure that the client really intends to purchase commodities which may be subject-matter of murabahah. It should never be taken as merely a paper-work having no genuine basis. 

3. No murabahah can be effected for overhead expenses, paying the bills or settling the debts of the client, nor can it be effected for purchase of currencies.

4. It is the foremost condition for the validity of murabahah that the commodity comes in the ownership and physical or constructive possession of the financier before he sells it to the customer on murabahah basis. There should be a time in which the risk of the commodity is borne by the financier. Without having its ownership or assuming the risk of the commodity, though for a short while, the transaction is not acceptable to Shari‘ah and the profit accruing therefrom is not halal.

5. The best way to effect murabahah is that the financier himself purchases the commodity directly from the supplier and after taking its delivery sells it to the client on murabahah basis. Making the client agent to purchase on behalf of the financier renders the arrangement dubious. For this very reason some Shari‘ah Boards have forbidden this technique, except in cases where direct purchase is not possible at all. Therefore, the agency concept should be avoided as far as possible.

6. If in cases of genuine need, the financier appoints the client his agent to purchase the commodity on his behalf, his different capacities (i.e. as agent and as ultimate purchaser) should be clearly distinguished. As an agent, he is a trustee, and unless he commits negligence or fraud, he is not liable to any loss so far as the commodity is in his possession as agent of the financier. After he purchases the commodity in his capacity as agent, he must inform the financier that, in fulfilling his obligation as his agent, he has taken delivery of the purchased commodity and now he extends his offer to purchase it from him. When, in response to this offer, the financier conveys his acceptance to this offer, the sale will be deemed to be complete, and the risk of the property will be passed on to the client as purchaser. At this point, he will become a debtor and the consequences of indebtedness will follow. These are the necessary requirements of murabahah financing which can never be dispensed with. While describing the concept of “murabahah as a mode of financing” we have already identified five stages of murabahah under agency agreement. Each and every step out of these five is necessary in its own right and neglecting any one of them renders the whole arrangement unacceptable.

It should be noted with care that murabahah is a border-line transaction and a slight departure from the prescribed procedure makes it step in the prohibited area of interest-based financing. Therefore this transaction must be carried out with due diligence and no requirement of Shari‘ah should be taken lightly.

7. Two different prices for cash and credit sales are allowed on condition that either of the two options is specifically elected by the customer. Once the price is fixed, it can neither be increased because of late payment, nor decreased on earlier payment.

8. In order to assure that the purchaser will pay the price promptly, he may undertake that in case of default, he will pay a certain amount to the charitable fund maintained by the financing institution. This amount may be based on per cent per annum concept, but it must invariably be spent for purely charitable purposes and should in no case form part of the income of the institution.

If the purchaser/client in murabahah financing is not able to pay according to the dates agreed upon in the murabahah agreement, he sometimes requests the seller / the bank for rescheduling the installments. In conventional banks, the loans are normally rescheduled on the basis of additional interest. This is not possible in murabahah payments. If the installments are rescheduled, no additional amount can be charged for rescheduling. The amount of the murabahah price will remain the same in the same currency.

Some Islamic banks proposed to reschedule the murabahah price in a hard currency different from the one in which the original sale took place. This was proposed to compensate the bank through appreciation of the value of the hard currency. Since this benefit was proposed to be drawn from rescheduling, it is not permissible.

All commodities which may be subject matter of sale with profit can be subject matter of murabahah, because it is a particular kind of sale. Therefore, the shares of a lawful company may be sold or purchased on murabahah basis, because according to the Islamic principles, the shares of a company represent the holder’s proportionate ownership in the assets of the company. If the assets of a company can be sold with profit, its shares can also be sold by way of murabahah. But it goes without saying that the transaction must fulfil all the basic conditions, already discussed, for the validity of a murabahah transaction. Therefore, the seller must first acquire the possession of the shares with all their rights and obligations, then sell them to his client. A buy back arrangement or selling the shares without taking their possession is not allowed at all.

Conversely, no murabahah can be effected on things which cannot be subject - matter of sale, For example murabahah is not possible in exchange of currencies, because it must be spontaneous or, if deferred, on the market rate prevalent on the date of the Transaction. [23]

Similarly, the commercial papers representing a debt receivable by the holder cannot be sold or purchased except at par value, and therefore no murabahah can be effected in respect of such papers. Similarly, any paper entitling the holder to receive a specified amount of money from the issuer cannot be negotiated. The only way of its sale is to transfer if for its face value. Therefore, they cannot be sold on murabahah basis.

Another issue regarding murabahah financing is that the murabahah price is payable at a later date. The seller/financier naturally wants to make sure that the price will be paid at the due date. for this purpose, he may ask the client to furnish a security to his satisfaction. The security may be in the form of a mortgage or a hypothecation or some kind of lien or charge. Some basic rules about this security must, therefore, be kept in mind.

1. The security can be claimed rightfully where the transaction has created a liability or a debt. No security can be asked from a person who has not incurred a liability or debt. As explained earlier, the procedure of murabahah financing comprises of different transactions carried out at different stages. In the earlier stages of the procedure, the client does not incur a debt. It is only after the commodity is sold to him by the financier on credit that the relationship of a creditor and debtor comes into existence.

Therefore, the proper way in a transaction of murabahah would be that the financier asks for a security after he has actually sold the commodity to the client and the price has become due on him, because at this stage the client incurs a debt. However, it is also permissible that the client furnishes a security at earlier stages, but after the murabahah price is determined. In this case, if the security is possessed by the financier, it will remain at his risk, meaning thereby that if it is destroyed before the actual sale to the client, he will have either to pay the market price of the mortgaged asset, and cancel the agreement of murabahah, or sell the commodity required by the client and deduct the market price of the mortgaged asset from the price of the sold property. [11]

2. It is also permissible that the sold commodity itself is given to the seller as a security. Some scholars are of the opinion that this can only be done after the purchaser has taken its delivery and not before. It means that the purchaser shall take its delivery, either physical or constructive, from the seller, then give it back to him as mortgage, so that the transaction of mortgage is distinguished from the transaction of sale. However, after studying the relevant material, it can be concluded that the earlier jurists have put this condition in cash sales only and not in credit sales.[12]

Therefore, it is not necessary that the purchaser takes the delivery of the sold property before he surrenders it as mortgage to the seller. The only requirement would be that the point of time whereby the property is held to be mortgaged should necessarily be specified, because from that point of time, the property will be held by the seller in a different capacity which should be clearly earmarked. For example, A sold a car to B on first of january for a price of Rs. 500,000/- to be paid on 30th June. A asked B to give a security for payment at the due date. B has not yet taken delivery of the car and he offered to A that he should keep the car as a mortgage from 2nd January. If the car is destroyed before 2nd of January the sale will be terminated and nothing will be payable by B. But if the car is destroyed after the second of January, sale is not terminated, but it will be subject to the rules prescribed for the destruction of a mortgage. According to Hanafi jurists, in this case, the seller will have to bear the loss of the car, to the extent of its market price or its agreed sale price, whichever is lesser. Therefore, if the market price of the car was 450,000/- he can claim only the remaining part of the agreed sale price (i.e. Rs. 50,000/- in the above example). If the market price of the car is Rs. 500,000/- or higher, nothing can be claimed from the purchaser.

This is the view of Hanafi School. The Shafi’i and Hanbali jurists hold that if the car is destroyed by the negligence of the mortgagee, he will have to bear the loss, according to its market price, but if the car is destroyed without any fault on his part, he will not be liable to anything, and the purchaser will bear the loss and will have to pay the full price.[13]

It is clear from the above example that the possession of A over the car as a seller carries effects and consequences different from his possession as a mortgagee and therefore it is necessary that the point of time on which the car is held by him as a mortgagee should clearly be defined. Otherwise different capacities will be mixed up giving rise to dispute and rendering the security invalid.

[11] Ibn Nujaym writes, وإنما يصح الرهن بدين ولو موعودا … ولو أخذ الرهن بشرط أن يقرضه كذا فهلك يده قبل أن يقرضه هلك بالأقل من قيمته ومما سمى له من القرض (البحر الرائق 450:8 ( طبع مكة 

Another important issue in murabahah financing which has been subject of debate between the contemporary Shari‘ah Scholars is that the bank/financier cannot enter into an actual sale at the time when the client seeks murabahah financing from him, because the required commodity is not owned by the bank at this stage and, as explained earlier, one cannot sell a commodity not owned by him, nor can he effect a forward sale. He is, therefore, bound to purchase the commodity from the supplier, then he can sell it to the client after having its physical or constructive possession. On the other hand, if the client is not bound to purchase the commodity after the financier has purchased it from the supplier, the financier may be confronted with a situation where he has incurred huge expenses to acquire the commodity, but the client refuses to purchase it. The commodity may be of such a nature that it has no common demand in the market and is very difficult to dispose of. In this case the financier may suffer unbearable loss.

Solution to this problem is sought in the murabahah arrangement by asking the client to sign a promise to purchase the commodity when it is acquired by the financier. Instead of being a bilateral contract of forward sale, it is a unilateral promise from the client which binds himself and not the financier. Being a one-sided promise, it is distinguishable from the bilateral forward contract.

This solution is subjected to the objection that a unilateral promise creates a moral obligation but it cannot be enforced, according to Shari‘ah, by the courts of law. This leads us to the question whether or not a one-sided promise is enforceable in Shari‘ah. The general impression is that it is not, but before accepting this impression at its face value, we will have to examine it in the light of the original sources of Shari‘ah.

A thorough study of the relevant material in the books of Islamic jurisprudence would show that the fuqaha’ (the Muslim jurists) have different views on the subject. Their views may be summarized as follows:

1. Many of them are of the opinion that ‘fulfilling a promise’ is a noble quality and it is advisable for the promisor to observe it, and its violation is reproachable, but it is neither mandatory (wajib), nor enforceable through courts. This view is attributed to Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam al-Shafi’i, Imam Ahmad and to some Maliki Jurists.[3]

However as will be shown later, many Hanafi and Maliki and some Shafi’i’ jurists do not subscribe to this view.

2. A number of the Muslim jurists are of the view that fulfilling a promise is mandatory and a promisor is under moral as well as legal obligation to fulfil his promise. According to them, promise can be enforced through courts of law. This view is ascribed to Samurah ibn Jundub ﷊ the well known companion of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم ,Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, Hasan al-Basri, Sa’id ibn al-Ashwa’, Ishaq ibn Rahwaih and Imam al-Bukhari. [4]

The same is the view of some Maliki jurists, and it is preferred by Ibn al-‘Arabi and Ibn al-Shat, and endorsed by al-Ghazzali, the famous Shafi’i jurist, who says the promise is binding, if it is made in absolute terms. The same is the view of Ibn Shubrumah. [5]

The third view is presented by some Maliki jurists. They say that in normal conditions, promise is not binding, but if the promisor has caused the promise to incur some expenses or undertake some labor or liability on the basis of promise, it is mandatory on him to fulfil his promise for which he may be compelled by the courts. [6]

Some contemporary scholars have claimed that the jurists who have accepted the binding nature of a promise have done so only with regard to unilateral gifts or other voluntary payments, but none of them has accepted the binding nature of a promise to effect a bilateral commercial or monetary transaction. However, based on a close study, this notion does not seem to be correct, because the Maliki and Hanafi jurists have allowed ‘Bai’ bil wafa’ on the basis of binding promise. Bai’ bil wafa’ is a special kind of sale whereby the purchaser of an immovable property undertakes that whenever the seller will give him the price back, he will resell the house to him.

The question of validity of ‘Bai’bil wafa’ has already been discussed in detail in the first chapter while explaining the concept of house financing on the basis of ‘diminishing musharakah’. The gist of the discussion is that if repurchase by the seller is made a condition for the original sale, it is not a valid transaction, but if the parties have entered into the original sale unconditionally, but the seller has signed a separate and independent promise to repurchase the sold property, this promise will be binding on the promisor and enforceable through the courts. The binding nature of the promise in this case has been admitted by both Maliki and Hanafi jurists. [7]

Obviously, this promise does not relate to a gift. It is a promise to effect a sale in future. Still, the Maliki and Hanafi jurists have accepted it as binding on the promisor and enforceable through the courts. It is a clear proof of the fact that the jurists who hold the promises to be binding do not restrict it to the promises of gifts etc. The same principle is applicable, according to them, to the promises whereby the promisor undertakes to enter into a bilateral contract in future.

In fact, the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم are very particular about fulfilling promises. The Holy Qur’an says:

Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas has said that this verse of the Holy Qur’an indicates that if one undertakes to do something, no matter whether it is a worship or a contract, it is obligatory on him to do It. [8]

The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is reported to have said:

This is only an example. There is a large number of injunctions in the ahadith of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم where it is ordained to fulfil the promises and it is clearly prohibited to back out, except for a valid reason.

Therefore, it is evident from these injunctions that fulfilling promise is obligatory. However, the question whether or not a promise is enforceable in courts depends on the nature of the promise. There are certainly some sorts of promises which cannot be enforced through courts. For example, at the time of engagement the parties promise to go through the marriage. These promises create a moral obligation, but obviously they cannot be enforced through courts of law. But in commercial dealings, where a party has given an absolute promise to sell or purchase something and the other party has incurred liabilities on that basis, there is no reason why such a promise should not be enforced. Therefore, on the basis of the clear injunctions of Islam, if the parties have agreed that this particular promise will be binding on the promisor, it will be enforceable.

This is not a question pertaining to murabahah alone. If promises are not enforceable in the commercial transactions, it may seriously jeopardize commercial activities. If somebody orders a trader to bring for him a certain commodity and promises to purchase it from him, on the basis of which the trader imports it from abroad by incurring huge expenses, how can it be allowed for the former to refuse to purchase it? There is nothing in the Holy Qur’an or Sunnah which prohibits the making of such promises enforceable.

It is on these grounds that the Islamic Fiqh Academy Jeddah has made the promises in commercial dealings binding on the promisor with the following conditions,

(a) It should be one-sided promise.

(b) The promise must have caused the promise to incur some liabilities.

© If the promise is to purchase something, the actual sale must take place at the appointed time by the exchange of offer and acceptance. Mere promise itself should not be taken as the concluded sale.

(d) If the promisor backs out of his promise, the court may force him either to purchase the commodity or pay actual damages to the seller. [10]

The actual damages will include the actual monetary loss suffered by him, but will not include the opportunity cost.

On this basis, it is allowed that the client promises to the financier that he will purchase the commodity after the latter acquires it from the supplier. This promise will be binding on him and may be enforced through courts in the manner explained above. This promise does not amount to actual sale. It will be simply a promise and the actual sale will take place after the commodity is acquired by the financier for which exchange of offer and acceptance will be necessary.

1. Murabahah is a particular kind of sale where the seller expressly mentions the cost of the sold commodity he has incurred, and sells it to another person by adding some profit or mark-up thereon.

2. The profit in murabahah can be determined by mutual consent, either in lump sum or through an agreed ratio of profit to be charged over the cost.

3. All the expenses incurred by the seller in acquiring the commodity like freight, custom duty etc. shall be included in the cost price and the mark-up can be applied on the aggregate cost. However, recurring expenses of the business like salaries of the staff, the rent of the premises etc. cannot be included in the cost of an individual transaction. In fact, the profit claimed over the cost takes care of these expenses.

4. Murabahah is valid only where the exact cost of a commodity can be ascertained. If the exact cost cannot be ascertained, the commodity cannot be sold on murabahah basis. In this case the commodity must be sold on musawamah (bargaining) basis i.e. without any reference to the cost or to the ratio of profit / mark-up.

The price of the commodity in such cases shall be determined in lump sum by mutual consent.

Example (1) A purchased a pair of shoes for Rs. 100/-. He wants to sell it on murabahah with 10% mark-up. The exact cost is known. The murabahah sale is valid.