Moving Away from Tawarruq?

Twenty-six Islamic banks signed off on a standardised Wakalah deposit agreement, which some bankers said could help the industry reduce its reliance on the controversial Commodity Murabahah structure, Reuters reports. “Besides cost and resource savings, the adoption of the standardised Wakalah placement agreement would promote transparency, consistency, operational efficiencies and robustness in Islamic deposit placement transactions,” said the Association of Islamic Banking Institutions Malaysia, which launched the template agreement. “In six months’ time, all the banks will be using the Wakalah,” said one Malaysian Islamic banker. “It has fewer issues than the Commodity Murabahah.”

Wakalah is an agency structure where a depositor or investor authorises an agent (the bank) to invest his funds in Shariah compliant assets or businesses.

Finding alternatives to replace controversial instruments is a step in the right direction and it augurs well for the industry.

Organised Tawarruq not a perfect structure

In its basic form, Tawarruq is an asset sale to a purchaser with deferred payment terms. The purchaser then sells the asset to a third party to get funds. Organised Tawarruq is similar although the transactions are executed through banks.

Reuters reports Shariah adviser Rusni Hassan saying that Organised Tawarruq as it is currently practised is not ideal from the Shariah's viewpoint.

According to the report (Nov 4, 2009), Rusni opines that organised Tawarruq should avoid specifying beforehand the parties' obligations under the contract although this protects their legal rights, backing a divisive Fiqh Academy ruling that had thrown the industry into turmoil. She objects to organised Tawarruq because the two contracts are in one when they should be independent of each other.

I agree with her views but I foresee it will further divide the industry especially when respected scholars like Nizam Yaqubi and Akram Laldin see no harm in organised Tawarruq.

Other scholars who disapprove of Tawarruq include Muhammad Nejatullah Siddiqi and Monzer Kahf.

Siddiqi views Tawarruq to be identical to interest based loans both from the functional and macroeconomic perspective. His justification for categorising Tawarruq as non-compliant is due to its harms (mafasid) being greater that its benefits (masalih). He lists;
1) creation of excessive debt;
2) exchange of money with more money in future, which is unfair in view of the risk and uncertainty involved;
3) debt proliferation, which is liken to gambling and speculation;
4) inflationary expansion;
5) inequity in the distribution of income and wealth;
6) greater instability in the economy; and
7) inefficient allocation of resources.
as the many harms of Tawarruq.

Kahf opines that Tawarruq is worse than the practice of interest-based loan legally and economically.

I have to disagree (with apologies) with Sheikhs Yaqubi and Akram on the permissibility of Tawarruq. Being of limited knowledge, I depend on the views and opinions of the scholars and in this case the arguments presented by Siddiqi make more sense to me.

Liquidity Management

Conventional wisdom states that money must generate returns all the time, even when it is idle. Hence the creation of the money market, a place for trading idle money. When there is a trade, there will be a price; and the price of money is the interest rate. What determines the interest rate? Other than the forces of demand and supply; monetary policy, expectation of changes in the base rate, inflation also influences the price of money.

The money market is also a place where mismatches in assets and liabilities are rectified. Banks with excess funds (liabilities > assets) will sell (lend) the idle cash in the money market and banks facing a shortage of funds (assets > liability) will buy (borrow) money from the market.

The money market is therefore crucial to ensure the banking system and the economy works smoothly.

Why then do I say that the money market is an anomaly in Shariah based finance?

Firstly (I’m already sounding like a broken record), my understanding is, Shariah prohibits the trading of money because money is not a commodity; it is merely a tool to facilitate trade. Money is potential capital, useful only when put into productive economic use.

Secondly, money is a ribawi item, one which cannot be exchanged unless it is equal in value and transacted spot. The following hadith is the basis of this ruling.

The Prophet s.a.w. said “gold for gold, silver for silver, wheat for wheat, barley for barley, dates for dates and salt for salt should be exchanged like for like, equal for equal and hand to hand [on the spot]. If the types of the exchanged commodities are different, then sell them as you wish, if they are exchanged on the basis of a hand-to-hand transaction. (Sahih Muslim)

Therefore, the act of lending overnight money at 3.2%, contravenes the above hadith because (1) the exchanged value differs and (2) it is not exchanged on spot basis.

Then Tawarruq came along. Liquidity management in a Shariah compliant manner is now possible via the buying and selling of commodities (which does not leave the warehouse and is reused again and again for subsequent transactions). The route is longer but the objective is met nonetheless, money is exchanged in different amounts at different times, made “permissible” due to the presence of the trade. It sounds like a hilah to me because the whole transaction is undertaken merely to circumvent Shariah ruling on riba. It also does not entail any direct economic activity. The biggest beneficiary is the commodity brokers, getting paid for facilitating a seemingly pointless transaction.

No doubt, there will be times of excess liquidity and it does not make economic sense to keep the potential capital idle without generating any income.

This excess liquidity can be channelled towards financing short term projects or providing short term funding. Trade financing would be a good place to start. Retailers/traders usually buy from suppliers or wholesalers or manufacturers on credit terms. Banks could offer a short term murabahah facility to finance this type of transactions in the form of a 3 day, 1 week, 2 week or 30 day murabahah financing. This would channel the excess liquidity towards funding real economic activity.

Another way to absorb the excess liquidity is by way of a short term lease. A clearing house needs to be set up. The clearing house shall own a pool of tenanted properties. When a bank (or anyone for that matter) has excess liquidity, they will purchase property from the clearing house and the rental will be paid to them. When they need the cash, the property will be sold back to the clearing house at market value. In most cases, the purchase and sale price would be the same as it is quite unlikely for real estate values to fluctuate very much in the span of a few weeks.

Both methods entails actual economic activity and the returns from the investment are generated from actual economic activity.

There is always a Shariah based solution to every financial need. If there isn’t, the financial transaction is probably not in tandem with Shariah in the first place.

Bursa Suq Al Sila

I have always thought that Shariah based finance is always trade based as decreed in the Quran, 2:275 “… Allah hath permitted trade and forbidden usury …“

Based on my limited knowledge, a trade is a transaction where money and physical goods or services are exchanged. Therefore, is it a bona fide trade when the intention to take physical possession in absent?

Inah is a contract involving the movement of money form one party to another using “trade” to facilitate the transfer. The trade in Inah is (IMHO) a smokescreen, a legal trick to “legalise” the transfer of money including the additional (profit) amount. The Malaysian market has finally accepted this fact and phased out the use of Inah when conducting Shariah based financial transactions. The argument is however based on the number of contracting parties and NOT the absence of intention to take physical delivery of the traded goods. Based on the “number of contracting parties” view, the Tawarruq is formulated and deemed compliant despite the intention of taking physical delivery is still absent (OIC’s Fiqh Academy decided that Tawarruq may not be compliant after all but some scholars argue that “organised Tawarruq” should be allowed – I have no idea what organised Tawarruq is).

So, how do we move money from one party to another the Shariah compliant way? Where and how do we place idle funds?

I propose a property clearing house be set up, containing a pool of real estate assets, each individual property with their own legal title. The properties must be generating economic activity/value such as a warehouse, shophouse or residential properties, or even industrial properties/factories. The clearing house will own all the property and sell the property to those wanting to place idle funds for short periods. The properties will then be leased back to the clearing house and at the end of the agreed lease period be sold back to the clearing house at current market value. Given that the lease/investment period is short, between 1 week and 6 months, fluctuation in values should not be too drastic.

The proposed structure will at least eliminate the element of buying and selling assets purely for the purpose of transferring money and getting a little bit more back. The lease and sell back will be determined based on the prevailing market prices thus eliminating concerns concerning riba and gharar.

Tawarruq – a Tripartite Inah?

The OIC Fiqh Academy rules that organised Tawarruq is unacceptable (Resolution 179 (19/5) 26 – 30 April 2009). In particular they ruled that it came into conflict with Maqasid Shariah (the basic principles underlying Shariah).

Tawarruq is widely used as a liquidity management tool and most scholars sanction the structure. However, some scholars argue it involves legal trickery and contains elements of interest based lending. Tawarruq does not create any enonomic activity but instead it creates debts.

What is Tawarruq? To me, it is basically an Inah with an additional contracting party. The whole process of buying and selling metals/commodities is merely a charade, a legal trick as the main purpose is to transfer cash from one party to another. I commented on the issue previously (http://shariah-finance.blogspot.com/2009/05/commodity-trading.html) and I sort of feel vindicated by OIC’s declaration.

It has always been argued by some that niyah (intention) is secondary when undertaking such contracts. I do not agree. If we exclude niyah, everything will be permissible. A lot of observers have urged Islamic finance practitioners to look at the substance behind the form when structuring Shariah based solutions, the on going debate on substance over form of Islamic banking products and services.

Dr Nikan Firoozye (http://islamic-finance-resources.blogspot.com/) opines that we should categorize products by their Shariah-risk, with hiyal (legal trick) the most risky. I wish to add that if such measure is used, the higher the Shariah-risk is, the less compliant the product is.

Dr Mohammad Akram Laldin, a respected Malaysian religious scholar, disagreed with OIC's ruling, saying organised tawarruq does not violate Islamic law principles. “From the point of view of Islamic law, there is nothing wrong with the transaction itself.” (http://islamicfinanceupdates.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/islam-allows-organised-tawarruq-asset-sales-scholar/)

I do not see this declaration as a hindrance to the growth or development of Shariah based finance. I see it as moving out and away from the conventional norms and in the long run will bode well for Islamic banking and finance. BBA and Inah based products are being gradually phased out in Malaysia and with the latest declaration, expect to see more products being out of favour. My guess is Commodity Murabahah will be next.

Commodity Trading?

I’m not a Shariah scholar but I think I know a “hilah” or legal trick when I see one.

Selling and buying back a commodity (Bai Inah) between two parties is obviously a legal trick undertaken to circumvent the laws of Shariah. But what about artificially trading and exchanging commodities between 3-4 parties? By artificially I mean the trading of the commodities does not bring any economic benefit apart from facilitating the movements of cash and enabling a sum of money today to be returned at a later date inclusive of the “profit”. Hey, I just described Commodity Murabahah.

I have been made to understand and have always believed that Shariah based trade and finance must involve productive economic activity. Transferring commodities within seconds does not create any productive economic activity. Transferring commodities for this purpose tantamount to a legal trick, hilah. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Commodity Murabahah exist for liquidity purposes. Without it, how will Shariah based financial institutions manage their liquidity? Maybe the answer lies in how Shariah based financial institutions look at liquidity management. Do they need it in the first place? Deposits undertaken under the contract of Mudharabah are not demand deposits, they are investments, and liquidating investments has its steps and conditions. Savings deposit under the contract of Wadi’ah is for safekeeping and is not supposed to be utilised. If they are, then the onus is on the FI to meet the withdrawal demands of the customers.

Conventional banks use customer deposits to fund loans. They face the problem of matching short term liabilities with long term assets. Shariah based FI do not face the same dilemma because they are NOT supposed to fund financing with customer’s (Wadi’ah) deposits. Financing are done on a profit sharing basis, it is done in a partnership. Therefore, any financing arrangement is between the customers, and the FI merely acts a facilitator, arranger, manager or if they commit their own capital, as a partner and hence liquidity issues might not occur.

What I’m trying to say is, if Shariah based financial institutions undertake Shariah based financing exactly how it is supposed to be done, they won’t need legal tricks. There is no need to complicate things just to conform to the conventional norms.