The Role of Shariah Auditor in Islamic Banks: The Effect of Shariah Governance Framework (SGF) 2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper ascertains the current roles and responsibilities of Shariah auditor in the Islamic banking industry in Malaysia. To explore further, we identify the changes in these roles, especially after the introduction of the Shariah Governance Framework (SGF) 2011. The study employs a qualitative method by utilizing in-depth interviews with nine (9) key individuals in Malaysian Islamic banks. Our findings support the notion that Shariah auditors' roles and responsibilities are still under the jurisdiction of the banks' internal audit unit. More importantly, Shariah auditors play their roles as the third line of defense by giving assurance to the shareholders and stakeholders that all businesses and operations comply with Shariah precepts. Also, Shariah auditors need to look at the internal control elements of whether effective and efficient enough to alleviate any possible Shariah breaches. In terms of changes in its roles after the SGF implementation, most of the interviewees assert that the approach has been changed from compliance audit to risk-based audit. Our findings guide us to propose more structured and specific guidelines about Shariah auditors' roles and responsibilities in the Islamic banks. This guideline eventually could provide stimulus to improve governance and strengthen market as well as stakeholder's confidence. Finally, this study stipulates some precious recommendations to further enhance the Shariah auditor roles not only in the Malaysian Islamic banking industry but also in similar contexts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".