|
Islamic Finance - Musharakah & Mudarabah
By Mufti Muhammad Taqi
Usmani
Diminishing
Musharakah
1) Introduction
2) House financing on the basis of diminishing Musharakah
3) Diminishing Musharakah for carrying business of services
4) Diminishing Musharakah in trade
Introduction:
-
Another form of
Musharakah, developed in the near past, is 'Diminishing
Musharakah'. According to this concept, a financier and his
client participate either in the joint ownership of a property
or an equipment, or in a joint commercial enterprise. The share
of the financier is further divided into a number of units and
it is understood that the client will purchase the units of the
share of the financier one by one periodically, thus increasing
his own share till all the units of the financier are purchased
by him so as to make him the sole owner of the property, or the
commercial enterprise, as the case may be.
The Diminishing Musharakah based on the above concept has taken
different shapes in different transactions. Some examples are
given below:
1. It has been used mostly in house financing. The client
wants to purchase a house for which he does not have adequate
funds. He approaches the financier who agrees to participate
with him in purchasing the required house. 20% of the price is
paid by the client and 80% of the price by the financier. Thus
the financier owns 80% of the house while the client owns 20%.
After purchasing the property jointly, the client uses the house
for his residential requirement and pays rent to the financier
for using his share in the property. At the same time the share
of financier is further divided in eight equal units, each unit
representing 10% ownership of the house. The client promises to
the financier that he will purchase one unit after three months.
Accordingly, after the first term of three months he purchases
one unit of the share of the financier by paying 1/10th of the
price of the house. It reduces the share of the financier from
80% to 70%. Hence, the rent payable to the financier is also
reduced to that extent. At the end of the second term, he
purchases another unit increasing his share in the property to
40% and reducing the share of the financier to 60% and
consequentially reducing the rent to that proportion. This
process goes on in the same fashion until after the end of two
years, the client purchases the whole share of the financier
reducing the share of the financier to 'zero' and increasing his
own share to 100%.
This arrangement allows the financier to claim rent according to
his proportion of ownership in the property and at the same time
allows him periodical return of a part of his principal through
purchases of the units of his share.
2. 'A' wants to purchase a taxi to use it for offering
transport services to passengers and to earn income through
fares recovered from them, but he is short of funds. 'B' agrees
to participate in the purchase of the taxi, therefore, both of
them purchase a taxi jointly. 80% of the price is paid by 'B'
and 20% is paid by 'A'. After the taxi is purchased, it is
employed to provide transport to the passengers whereby the net
income of Rs. 1000/- is earned on daily basis. Since 'B' has 80%
share in the taxi it is agreed that 80% of the fare will be
given to him and the rest of 20% will be retained by 'A' who has
a 20% share in the taxi. It means that Rs. 800/- is earned by
'B' and Rs. 200/- by 'A' on daily basis. At the same time the
share of 'B' is further divided into eight units. After three
months 'A' purchases one unit from the share of 'B'.
Consequently the share of 'B' is reduced to 70% and share of 'A'
is increased to 30% meaning thereby that as from that date 'A'
will be entitled to Rs. 300/- from the daily income of the taxi
and 'B' will earn Rs. 700/-. This process will go on until after
the expiry of two years, the whole taxi will be owned by 'A' and
'B' will take back his original investment along with income
distributed to him as aforesaid.
3. 'A' wishes to start the business of ready-made garments
but lacks the required funds for that business. 'B' agrees to
participate with him for a specified period, say two years. 40%
of the investment is contributed by 'A' and 60% by 'B'. Both
start the business on the basis of Musharakah. The proportion of
profit allocated for each one of them is expressly agreed upon.
But at the same time 'B's share in the business is divided to
six equal units and 'A' keeps purchasing these units on gradual
basis until after the end of two years 'B' comes out of the
business, leaving its exclusive ownership to 'A'. Apart from
periodical profits earned by 'B', he gains the price of the
units of his share which, in practical terms, tend to repay to
him the original amount invested by him.
Analyzed from the Shari‘ah point of view this arrangement is
composed of different transactions which come to play their role
at different stages. Therefore, each one of the foregoing three
forms of diminishing Musharakah is discussed below in the light
of the Islamic principles:
House
financing on the basis of diminishing Musharakah: -
The proposed
arrangement is composed of the following transactions:
1. To create joint ownership in the property (Shirkat-al-Milk).
2. Giving the share of the financier to the client on rent.
3. Promise from the client to purchase the units of share of
the financier.
4. Actual purchase of the units at different stages.
5. Adjustment of the rental according to the remaining share
of the financier in the property.
Let me discuss each ingredient of the arrangement in a greater
detail.
i) The first step in the above arrangement is to create a
joint ownership in the property. It has already been explained
in the beginning of this chapter that 'Shirkat-al-Milk' (joint
ownership) can come into existence in different ways including
joint purchase by the parties. This has been expressly allowed
by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Therefore no objection
can be raised against creating this joint ownership.
ii) The second part of the arrangement is that the financier
leases his share in the house to his client and charges rent
from him. This arrangement is also above board because there is
no difference of opinion among the Muslim jurists in the
permissibility of leasing one's undivided share in a property to
his partner. If the undivided share is leased out to a third
party its permissibility is a point of difference between the
Muslim jurists. Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Zufar are of the view
that the undivided share cannot be leased out to a third party,
while Imam Malik and Imam Shafi‘i, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Ibn
Hasan hold that the undivided share can be leased out to any
person. But so far as the property is leased to the partner
himself, all of them are unanimous on the validity of 'Ijarah'.
iii) The third step in the aforesaid arrangement is that the
client purchases different units of the undivided share of the
financier. This transaction is also allowed. If the undivided
share relates to both land and building, the sale of both is
allowed according to all the Islamic schools. Similarly if the
undivided share of the building is intended to be sold to the
partner, it is also allowed unanimously by all the Muslim
jurists. However, there is a difference of opinion if it is sold
to the third party.1
It is clear from the foregoing three points that each one of the
transactions mentioned hereinabove is allowed per se, but the
question is whether this transaction may be combined in a single
arrangement. The answer is that if all these transactions have
been combined by making each one of them a condition to the
other, then this is not allowed in Shari‘ah, because it is a
well settled rule in the Islamic legal system that one
transaction cannot be made a pre-condition for another. However,
the proposed scheme suggests that instead of making two
transactions conditional to each other, there should be one
sided promise from the client, firstly, to take share of the
financier on lease and pay the agreed rent, and secondly, to
purchase different units of the share of the financier of the
house at different stages. This leads us to the fourth issue,
which is, the enforceability of such a promise.
iv) It is generally believed that a promise to do something
creates only a moral obligation on the promisor which cannot be
enforced through courts of law. However, there are a number of
Muslim jurists who opine that promises are enforceable, and the
court of law can compel the promisor to fulfill his promise,
especially, in the context of commercial activities. Some Maliki
and Hanafi jurists can be cited, in particular, who have
declared that the promises can be enforced through courts of law
in cases of need. The Hanafi jurists have adopted this view with
regard to a particular sale called 'bai-bilwafa'. This
bai-bilwafa is a special arrangement of sale of a house whereby
the buyer promises to the seller that whenever the latter gives
him back the price of the house, he will resell the house to
him. This arrangement was in vogue in countries of central Asia,
and the Hanafi jurists have opined that if the resale of the
house to the original seller is made a condition for the initial
sale, it is not allowed. However, if the first sale is effected
without any condition, but after effecting the sale, the buyer
promises to resell the house whenever the seller offers to him
the same price, this promise is acceptable and it creates not
only a moral obligation, but also an enforceable right of the
original seller. The Muslim jurists allowing this arrangement
have based their view on the principle that " ‚

(the promise can be made enforceable at the time of need).
Even if the
promise has been made before effecting the first sale, after
which the sale has been effected without a condition, it is also
allowed by certain Hanafi jurists. 1
One may raise
an objection that if the promise of resale has been taken before
entering into an actual sale, it practically amounts to putting
a condition on the sale itself, because the promise is
understood to have been entered into between the parties at the
time of sale, and therefore, even if the sale is without an
express condition, it should be taken as conditional because a
promise in an express term has preceded it.
This objection can be answered by saying that there is a big
difference between putting a condition in the sale and making a
separate promise without making it a condition. If the condition
is expressly mentioned at the time of sale, it means that the
sale will be valid only if the condition is fulfilled, meaning
thereby that if the condition is not fulfilled in future, the
present sale will become void. This makes the transaction of
sale contingent on a future event which may or may not occur. It
leads to uncertainty (Gharar) in the transaction which is
totally prohibited in Shari‘ah.
Conversely, if the sale is without any condition, but one of the
two parties has promised to do something separately, then the
sale cannot be held to be contingent or conditional with
fulfilling of the promise made. It will take effect irrespective
of whether or not the promisor fulfils his promise. Even if the
promisor backs out of his promise, the sale will remain
effective. The most the promise can do is to compel the promisor
through court of law to fulfill his promise and if the promisor
is unable to fulfil the promise, the promise can claim actual
damages he has suffered because of the default.
This makes it clear that a separate and independent promise to
purchase does not render the original contract conditional or
contingent. Therefore, it can be enforced.
On the basis of this analysis, diminishing Musharakah may be
used for House Financing with following conditions:
a) The agreement of joint purchase, leasing and selling
different units of the share of the financier should not be
tied-up together in one single contract. However, the joint
purchase and the contract of lease may be joined in one document
whereby the financier agrees to lease his share, after joint
purchase, to the client. This is allowed because, as explained
in the relevant chapter, Ijarah can be effected for a future
date. At the same time the client may sign one-sided promise to
purchase different units of the share of the financier
periodically and the financier may undertake that when the
client will purchase a unit of his share, the rent of the
remaining units will be reduced accordingly.
b) At the time of the purchase of each unit, sale must be
effected by the exchange of offer and acceptance at that
particular date.
c) It will be preferable that the purchase of different
units by the client is effected on the basis of the market value
of the house as prevalent on the date of purchase of that unit,
but it is also permissible that a particular price is agreed in
the promise of purchase signed by the client.
Diminishing
Musharakah for carrying business of services:
The second
example given above for diminishing musharakah is the joint
purchase of a taxi run for earning income by using it as a hired
vehicle. This arrangement consists of the following ingredients:
i) Creating joint ownership in a taxi in the form of Shirkah
al-Milk. As already stated this is allowed in Shari‘ah.
ii) Musharakah in the income generated through the services
of taxi. It is also allowed as mentioned earlier in this
chapter.
iii) Purchase of different units of the share of the
financier by the client. This is again subject to the conditions
already detailed in the case of House financing. However, there
is a slight difference between House financing and the
arrangement suggested in this second example. The taxi, when
used as a hired vehicle, normally depreciates in value over
time, therefore, depreciation in the value of taxi must be kept
in mind while determining the price of different units of the
share of the financier.
Diminishing
Musharakah in trade:
The third
example of diminishing Musharakah as given above is that the
financier contributes 60% of the capital for launching a
business of ready made garments, for example. This arrangement
is composed of two ingredients only:
1) In the first place, the arrangement is simply a
Musharakah whereby two partners invest different amounts of
capital in a joint enterprise. This is obviously permissible
subject to the conditions of Musharakah already spelled out
earlier in this chapter.
2) Purchase of different units of the share of the
financier by the client. This may be in the form of a separate
and independent promise by the client. The requirements of
Shari‘ah regarding this promise are the same as explained in
the case of House financing with one very important difference.
Here the price of units of the financier cannot be fixed in the
promise to purchase, because if the price is fixed before hand
at the time of entering into Musharakah, it will practically
mean that the client has ensured the principal invested by the
financier with or without profit, which is strictly prohibited
in the case of Musharakah. Therefore, there are two options for
the financier about fixing the price of his units to be
purchased by the client. One option is that he agrees to sell
the units on the basis of valuation of the business at the time
of the purchase of each unit. If the value of the business has
increased, the price will be higher and if it has decreased the
price will be less. Such valuation may be carried out in
accordance with the recognized principles through the experts,
whose identity may be agreed upon between the parties when the
promise is signed. The second option is that the financier
allows the client to sell these units to any body else at
whatever price he can, but at the same time he offers a specific
price to the client, meaning thereby that if he finds a
purchaser of that unit at a higher price, he may sell it to him,
but if he wants to sell it to the financier, the latter will be
agreeable to purchase it at the price fixed by him before hand.
Although both these options are available according to the
principles of Shari‘ah, the second option does not seem to be
feasible for the financier, because it would lead to injecting
new partners in the Musharakah which will disturb the whole
arrangement and defeat the purpose of diminishing Musharakah in
which the financier wants to get his money back within a
specified period. Therefore, in order to implement the objective
of diminishing Musharakah, only the first option is practical.
|