Controversies / Issues in IBF

Bay Inah / Tawaruq
Is viewed by some observers and practitioners as a hilah (legal trick), as the objective of the transaction is to exchange of money in different quantities at different times.
The argument for legalising or forbidding Inah and Tawarruq is based on the intention (niyyah) of the parties, i.e. real vs. declared intention.

Bay Inah is a legal sale in the Shafie School, where the intention is not a significant element in determining the validity of the contract. This is the basis for the endorsement of Bay Inah by BNM’s and SC’s SAC.
Rayner (The Theory of Contract in Islamic Law, 1991) concludes that the Malikis and Hanafis give due effect to the real intention or niyyah of the parties, but that as regards illicit motives both schools are reluctant to make such an uncertain element as motive a dependent factor of a legal act. The Hanbali School however, always gives precedence to real intention over declared intention. According to him, the general tendency of Islamic law seems to be to give priority to the declared intention. However, in the Shafie School, this is not just a tendency but a doctrinal stance.

Debt - property or money?
The Malaysian (presumably based on the Shafie’s opinions) view is that debt is a property and hence can be traded freely. For example, a RM100 million debt can be exchanged for RM90 million in cash without any implications.

The middle eastern views debt as money and therefore can only be changed with money of equivalent value. The RM10 million difference in the above example is therefore riba.

Purchase undertaking in an Ijarah transaction - valuation issues?
A purchase undertaking is part of an Ijarah transaction for the sole purpose of returning the leased asset(s) back to the originator. The Purchase undertaking (PU) is present because it was never the intention of the originator to sell the assets in the first place. Another reason is to facilitate the redemption of the principal, similar to the mechanics of a conventional bond/loan which explains why the PU is undertaken at nominal value and not marked to the prevailing market values.

The issue with PU is not whether it is allowed by Shariah or not but it has more to do with the price transacted under the undertaking. If the price is based on the prevailing price at the time of executing the undertaking, I see no issues. It is about justice and fairness to the contracting parties. If the market price is below the PU exercise price, it would mean injustice to the purchaser and conversely, it would be unfair to the seller if the market price is more than the price transacted under the PU.

Purchase undertaking in a Musharakah/Mudharabah transaction – capital protection?
Like the PU in an Ijarah transaction, its presence in a Mudharabah/Musharakah transaction is to facilitate the principal redemption to mirror the mechanics of a conventional bond. A PU under this circumstance tantamount to guaranteeing capital. It is permissible for a third party to guarantee capital but it should be done on the basis of hibah (gift).

BBA, Justice Abdul Wahab and the Court of Appeal

In July 2008, High Court judge Datuk Abdul Wahab Patail had ruled that the application of the BBA contracts in Arab Malaysian Finance Berhad v Taman Ihsan Jaya & Others (2008) was contrary to the Islamic Banking Act 1983 (IBA).

On March 31, the Court of Appeal unanimously overturned Abdul Wahab's much-debated judgment in the Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd v Ghazali Shamsuddin & Two Others, and nine other cases.

Abdul Wahab Patail ruled that BBA is a loan transaction and not a trade based financing. This is because there is no transfer of title from the customer to the bank during the PPA and hence the bank has no legal or beneficial capacity/right to make a valid sale under the subsequent PSA. This was why there was a fear of default under BBA contracts because the contract itself is deemed not enforceable.

Therefore, the BBA is deemed a conventional loan with an Arabic name, the form changes but in substance it is still a plain conventional loan and the profits charged under a BBA transaction are therefore deemed to be interest.

On 31st March (the report in the Malaysian Reserve is 6 months late), the 3 member CoA ruled that Abdul Wahab had erred in making his judgement and reversed the ruling, re-establishing BBA as a bona fide sale transaction and upholding to sanctity of the BBA contracts. The 3 member bench rules that “civil courts should not decide whether a matter is in accordance with the religion of Islam”. Such issues need to be solved in consultation with Islamic scholars. And since BNM’s SAC has endorsed BBA as an approved product, civil court judges should not dispute it.

My opinion – the BBA was created in 1983 based on the conventional loan platform to enable Islamic finance to break into the market while operating on the existing platforms. It was true 26 years ago when awareness on Islamic finance was low and such products were necessary to avoid “cultural shocks”. But as knowledge on Islamic finance grew, such Inah based products are not necessary anymore; the market has more understanding of the Islamic financial system and is ready to accept the structural differences.

Abdul Wahab was arguing on valid grounds, he is merely exposing the “loan behind the façade of a trade” element of the BBA.

It is about time the market, the regulators and the judiciary accept the fact that BBA is a product designed to ease the entry of Islamic finance into the market. It has outlived its purpose and should be phased out completely.

Controller of Compliance

Dr Mohamad Nedal Alchaar, secretary-general of the Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI) declared at the IFN 2009 Issuers & Investors Asia Forum that his organization will determine the Shariah compliance of a product, and that this could be done from the latter half of next year.

This model of a central body deciding/monitoring/controlling Shariah compliance of financial products is not new; Bank Negara Malaysia and the Securities Commission is already playing that role (for the Malaysian market) as no product is allowed to be sold without their seal of Shariah compliance.

With a central compliance regulator, what will happen to the individual FI’s Shariah Advisory Committee (SAC)? What is their role? Are their decisions/recommendations binding? A central Shariah compliance authority could relegate their role to a mere secretariat, vetting Shariah issues before being approved (or rejected) by the central body.

A central, globally accepted Shariah controller of compliance being the standard setter and standard bearer could help in solving the standardisation issue. But, isn’t the OIC Fiqh Academy already doing that?

Any central body wishing to determine the Shariah compliance of a product would not be successful if standardisation of the Shariah interpretation is not in place. We should work towards that first.