Re-Examining the Structure of Firms and the Provision of Finance: The Case for Islamic Partnerships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past, Muslims and non-Muslims mainly depended on equity-based financing while debt was an exception, but this whole system was altered with the inception of banks followed by the corporations and the role of partnerships started to shrink. Accordingly, many issues emerged concerning the current financial system, for instance three different banking theories were developed that are based on different understanding of how banks and money function and each lead to different economic and policy implications. Frankly, the new entire system was borrowed from the English law and hence raised doubt about its compliance with Sharī’ah. Accordingly, the study aims to re-examine the structure of corporations, especially the concept of legal personality, and the provision of debt finance under the principles of Islamic law and their effect on the economy as compared to partnerships. The study employed library research, content analysis as well as case study approaches and found that the only correct banking theory that is supported by an empirical evidence is the credit creation theory which states that banks can create money out of nothing. Moreover, after analyzing the concept of legal personality, the concept proved not to be accepted by the classical scholars although the majority of the contemporary scholars insist on its validity. Furthermore, the whole structure was found to contradict some of the main principles of Islamic law. Finally, partnerships were found to be more efficient than the debt-based system in terms of allocating the investable resources and the marginal efficiency of capital.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".