The Use of Wa’Dan in Islamic Contract FX Forward: Weighting between Maslahah and Mafsadah
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Islamic foreign exchange forward contract widely use the principle of wa’d in order to fulfil the need of hedging. The contract is an alternative solution to conventional forward contract, whereby one party will promise to the other party to exchange currency at an agreed rate for a future date. The adaptation of wa’d (unilateral promise) or wa’dan (two unilateral promise) is seen as an exit mechanism or makharij to the impermissible conventional derivatives contract. Some opined that it is merely mimicking conventional products and labelling them as 'Islamic' in form alone. As a subsequence, it gives the same effect as conventional derivative contract and would create some economic problems. Hence, the objective of this paper is to examine the Islamic foreign exchange forward contract based on wa’dan in shariah perspectives, whether it will attain maslahah or mafsadah to the people. This study took the form of a qualitative study using the approach of content analysis method as a research design. Documents analysed in this study are al-Quran and some related maxims of jurisprudence. This study found that Islamic foreign exchange forward contract give some maslahah to the parties involved, including investors, financial institutions, corporate sectors, and Islamic economy at large. This is due to the urgent need of the Islamic economy to the Islamic hedging to solve the problem of price volatility in the market. Nevertheless, the adaptation of wa’dan principle in the Islamic foreign exchange forward contract would also lead to mafsadah as it would threaten the economy if the contract is misused for merely speculation purposes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".