The Revival of Mudharabah Contract: A Proposed Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mudharabah is a profit-sharing partnership agreement of a business venture to carry out economic activities. Despite its potential socioeconomic benefits to the parties involved and to the society, the application of mudharabah is limited to engineered Islamic finance products which transform the conventional financial products into Shari’ah-compliant ones. We argue that, in order to realise the mudharabah true potentials, among others, the mudharabah contract needs to be revived. The purpose of this study is to propose a framework in reviving the mudharabah contract between the sahibul mal (capital provider/investor) and the mudharib (entrepreneur). The research methods used in this study are library research and content analysis. As a result, agency theory is recognised to be very relevant to the mudharabah contract. To revive the mudharabah contract, tahaluf concept (Islamic treaty with compliance with Shari’ah) is identified as the most suitable concept to be adopted. This proposed framework serves as guidance in formulating the data collection strategy from different perspectives i.e. from sahibul mal, mudharib, Shari’ah advisors and academicians.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".