It should be clearly understood that when the lessee himself has been entrusted with the purchase of the asset intended to be leased, there are two separate relations between the institution and the client which come into operation one after the other. In the first instance, the client is an agent of the institution to purchase the asset on the latter's behalf. At this stage, the relation between the parties is nothing more than the relation of a principal and his agent. The relation of lessor and lessee has not yet come into operation.
The second stage begins from the date when the client takes delivery from the supplier. At this stage, the relation of lessor and lessee comes to play its role. These two capacities of the parties should not be mixed up or confused with each other. During the first stage, the client cannot be held liable for the obligations of a lessee. In this period, he is responsible to carry out the functions of an agent only. But when the asset is delivered to him, he is liable to discharge his obligations as a lessee.
However, there is a point of difference between murabahah and leasing. In murabahah, as mentioned earlier, actual sale should take place after the client takes delivery from the supplier, and the previous agreement of murabahah is not enough for effecting the actual sale. Therefore, after taking possession of the asset as an agent, he is bound to give intimation to the institution, and make an offer for the purchase from him. The sale takes place after the institution accepts the offer.
The procedure in leasing is different, and a little shorter. Here the parties need not affect the lease contract after taking delivery. If the institution, while appointing the client its agent, has agreed to lease the asset with effect from the date of delivery, the lease will automatically start on that date without any additional procedure. There are two reasons for this difference between murabahah and leasing:
Firstly, it is a necessary condition for a valid sale that it should be effected instantly. Thus, a sale attributed to a future date is invalid in Shariah. But leasing can be attributed to a future date. Therefore, the previous agreement is not sufficient in the case of murabahah, while it is quite enough in the case of leasing.
Secondly, the basic principle of Shariah is that one cannot claim a profit or a fee for a property the risk of which was never borne by him. Applying this principle to murabahah, the seller cannot claim a profit over a property which never remained under his risk for a moment. Therefore, if the previous agreement is held to be sufficient for effecting a sale between the client and the institution, the asset shall be transferred to the client simultaneously when he takes its possession, and the asset shall not come into the risk of the seller even for a moment. That is why the simultaneous transfer is not possible in murabahah, and there should be a fresh offer and acceptance after the delivery.
In leasing, however, the asset remains under the risk and ownership of the lessor throughout the leasing period, because the ownership has not been transferred. Therefore, if the lease period begins right from the time when the client has taken delivery, it does not violate the principle mentioned above.
Comentarios