Islamic financing instruments can be categorised into profit and loss/risk sharing and non-participatory instruments. Although profit and loss sharing instruments such as musharakah are widely accepted as the ideal form of Islamic financing, prior studies suggest that alternative instruments such as murabahah are preferred by Islamic banks. Nevertheless, prior studies did not explore factors that influence the use of Islamic financing among non-financial firms. Our study fills this gap and contributes new knowledge in several ways. First, we find no evidence (...) of widespread use of Islamic financing instruments across non-financial firms. This is because the instruments are mostly used by less profitable firms with higher leverage. Second, we find that profit and loss sharing instruments are hardly used, whilst the use of murabahah is dominant. Consistent with the prediction of moral-hazard-risk avoidance theory, further analysis suggests that users with a lower asset base are associated with murabahah financing. Third, we present a critical discourse on the contentious nature of murabahah as practised. The economic significance and ethical issues associated with murabahah as practised should trigger serious efforts to steer Islamic corporate financing towards risk-sharing more than the controversial rent-seeking practice. (shrink)

One of the proofs expressing certain knowledge in fiqh method is ijma. There are hardly any scholars who do not accept that ijma is evidence. It is reported that the first person who objected to this was Mu'tazilî İbrahim en-Nazam. The group that does not accept it as a sect are the scholars who belong to the Imamiyya. It is possible to say that mujtahid scholars have been unanimous since the first period mujtahids on the fact that ijmā is (...) evidence, with a few exceptions. Although there is no significant disagreement about the fact that ijma is evidence, the scholars differed on the details of ijma's types, conditions, proofs, and the number of people who would agree on ijma. One of the issues discussed by the scholars of the methodology is the effect of ijmaa when one or more people oppose the majority of the mujtahids. While some of the methodists think that the opposition of the minority against the alliance of the majority will not harm the ijma, the majority of them argue that all mujtahids must be of the same opinion in order for the ijma to be formed. Basically, it can be said that these two approaches argue with each other, but there are also proceduralists who deal with the issue differently. Some scholars take into account the attitude of the majority towards them in an issue opposed by one or a few people. According to these scholars, if the majority does not oppose the opinion of the minority, then ijma cannot be mentioned. Because this shows that the majority also respect the opposing view. If the majority does not respect or even oppose the opinion of the minority, then the consensus of the majority becomes ijma.The arguments generally used in these discussions are the same. Usulists defend their theses based on the opposing views of some of the Companions, especially Ibn Abbas. Those who do not see the opposition of the minority as an obstacle to ijma, argue that although one or more of the Companions had dissenting views, as in the example of Ibn Abbas on riba and mut'a, the consensus of the other Companions is the ijma of the scholars. Likewise, those who argue that this is an obstacle to ijma, as well as Ibn 'Abbas's opposition to the opinion of the populace on awl, was an obstacle to the formation of ijma on an issue agreed by the other Companions.This study deals with the discussions and the arguments used by the parties. However, firstly, the information value and conditions of ijma, which is thought to be closely related to these discussions, are briefly presented. In the study, the explanations of the scholars of different sects, who were not content with the works of a certain school, were examined and tried to be evaluated. As a result, it should be noted that it is the prevailing view that the opposition of the minority against the majority will prevent the formation of ijma, based on the conditions put forward in order for ijma to be conclusive evidence. However, it has come to the conclusion that whether the opposing view of the minority is taken into account by other scholars is effective in the formation of ijma. (shrink)