شرکت عنان

The most significant jurisprudential challenge regarding joint-stock companies lies in identifying their nature and position among Islamic jurisprudential company models, as well as determining whether a joint-stock company is a contractual agreement or merely an organization formed for conducting business with the assets of a group of shareholders. Among jurists and legal experts, there is a lack of consensus on this issue. Even if the theory of joint-stock companies being a contractual agreement is favored, difficulties arise in aligning this company type with jurisprudential company models. Key obstacles to accepting joint-stock companies as contracts include the existence of assets distinct from the shareholders’ personal assets, the independent legal personality of the company, the mandatory regulations governing company management, and shareholders' adherence to majority decisions.According to contemporary jurists, among Islamic contracts and company models, ‘inan partnerships and mudarabah contracts share the closest structural similarities with joint-stock companies. However, the emphasis of commercial law on selecting board members exclusively from among the shareholders presents a significant challenge to aligning joint-stock companies with mudarabah and ‘inan contracts.This descriptive-analytical study concludes that while aligning joint-stock companies with the ‘inan partnership is feasible, considering them as a new and innovative partnership contract, based on the principle of validity and freedom to enter into legitimate contracts, is more justifiable than other approaches.

Jurisprudents of different Islamic schools of thought, according to the type and combination of raised capital, have divided the types of partnership into four categories: ‘Inan, A‘mal, Mufawadha and Wujuh. Regarding the definition, effects and rulings of these kinds of partnerships, there are fundamental differences of opinion among the jurists of different Islamic schools. Due to the difference of jurisprudential and legal views and the silence of the civil law, the scope of these differences of opinion has also been extended to the authenticity or inauthenticity of Mufawadhah partnership. Those in favor of the correctness of the Mufawadhah partnership insist on reasons such as the existence of some hadiths, silent consensus, the similarity of the main nature of this kind of partnership with the two legally permissible contracts of sponsorship and representation, and the emphasis of the Islamic religion on participation and cooperation. On the other hand, the opponents of the validity of the Mufawadhah partnership have pointed to reasons such as the absence of an explicit Shariah reason about the validity of this company, arbitrary and consensus. In this article, with a comparative look at different Islamic schools of thought and with an emphasis on the jurisprudence books of Imami jurists and with the benefit of a descriptive analytical method, after defining the Mufawadhah partnership, by analyzing the reasons for and against the validity of this kind of partnership, with an emphasis on the answers, the solution and the violation that is given for the reasons of the opponents and supporters of the validity of the Mufawadhah partnership, in the end, the result is obtained that according to the silence of the law and despite the opposing opinion of some jurists, according to the opinion of jurists such as Tusi, Shahid Sani And Mofid, participating in negotiation in its famous meaning in Imami jurisprudence and following it according to Article 4 and Article 167 of the Constitution is invalid in the current laws of Iran.

One of the common contracts in the Islamic banking system is the civil partnership contract adopted from voluntary trade partnership in Imamiah jurisprudence. According to Article 7 of civil partnership contract, taken from their participation in the Central Bank’s Civil partnership model, that was approved in 2013, the responsibility for managing the company's affairs is voluntarily (gratuitously) on the partner under the supervision of the bank and based on the agreed upon documents. As in voluntary trade partnership (properties partnership) and consequently, in the civil participation contract, the agent is entitled to be paid, gratuitousness of the bank partner agency in the civil partnership contract will question its legitimacy. Therefore, the investigation of the authenticity and legitimacy of such a condition of the above mentioned contract is of paramount importance. In the present research, which was conducted using descriptive analytical method, it was found that the gratuitous contract is contrary to the Islamic law and the nature of the contract. As a result, it is void and will turn the nature of the civil contract into a prohibited loan based on the religious norms.