Sebagian umat Islam ada yang meragukan kehalalan praktik perdagangan berjangka. Bagaimana menurut padangan para pakar Islam? Apa pendapat para ulama mengenai trading forex, trading saham, trading index, saham, dan komoditi? Mari kita ikuti selengkapnya. Oleh sementara fuqaha ahli fiqih Islam , hadits tersebut ditafsirkan secara saklek. Pokoknya, setiap praktik jual beli yang tidak ada barangnya pada waktu akad, haram. Penafsiran secara demikian itu, tak pelak lagi, membuat fiqih Islam sulit untuk memenuhi tuntutan jaman yang terus berkembang dengan perubahan-perubahannya.
Karena itu, sejumlah ulama klasik yang terkenal dengan pemikiran cemerlangnya, menentang cara penafsiran yang terkesan sempit tersebut. Ulama bermazhab Hambali ini berpendapat, bahwa tidak benar jual-beli barang yang tidak ada dilarang. Dalam Sunnah Nabi, hanya terdapat larangan menjual barang yang belum ada, sebagaimana larangan beberapa barang yang sudah ada pada waktu akad.
Garar adalah ketidakpastian tentang apakah barang yang diperjual-belikan itu dapat diserahkan atau tidak. Misalnya, seseorang menjual unta yang hilang. Atau menjual barang milik orang lain, padahal tidak diberi kewenangan oleh yang bersangkutan. Jadi, meskipun pada waktu akad barangnya tidak ada, namun ada kepastian diadakan pada waktu diperlukan sehingga bisa diserahkan kepada pembeli, maka jual beli tersebut sah. Sebaliknya, kendati barangnya sudah ada tapi — karena satu dan lain hal — tidak mungkin diserahkan kepada pembeli, maka jual beli itu tidak sah.
Perdagangan berjangka, jelas, bukan garar. Sebab, dalam kontrak berjangkanya, jenis komoditi yang dijual-belikan sudah ditentukan. Begitu juga dengan jumlah, mutu, tempat dan waktu penyerahannya. Semuanya berjalan di atas rel aturan resmi yang ketat, sebagai antisipasi terjadinya praktek penyimpangan berupa penipuan — satu hal yang sebetulnya bisa juga terjadi pada praktik jua-beli konvensional.
Karena itu, status hukumnya dapat dikategorikan kepada masalah ijtihadiyyah. Klasifikasi ijtihadiyyah masuk ke dalam wilayah fi ma la nasha fih, yakni masalah hukum yang tidak mempunyai referensi nash hukum yang pasti. Artinya, nash hukum dalam bentuk Al-Quran dan Sunnah sudah selesai; tidak lagi ada tambahan. Dengan demikian, kasus-kasus hukum yang baru muncul mesti diberikan kepastian hukumnya melalui ijtihad. Dalam kasus hukum PBK, ijtihad dapat merujuk kepada teori perubahan hukum yang diperkenalkan oleh Ibn Qoyyim al-Jauziyyah.
Ia menjelaskan, fatwa hukum dapat berubah karena beberapa variabel perubahnya, yakni: Artinya, kebenaran hukum itu dijumpai dalam kenyataan empirik; bukan dalam alam pemikiran atau alam idea. Paradigma ini diturunkan dari prinsip hukum Islam tentang keadilan yang dalam Al Quran digunakan istilah al-mizan, a-qisth, al-wasth, dan al-adl. Dalam penerapannya, secara khusus masalah PBK dapat dimasukkan ke dalam bidang kajian fiqh al-siyasah maliyyah, yakni politik hukum kebendaan.
Dengan kata lain, PBK termasuk kajian hukum Islam dalam pengertian bagaimana hukum Islam diterapkan dalam masalah kepemilikan atas harta benda, melalui perdagangan berjangka komoditi dalam era globalisasi dan perdagangan bebas.
Realisasi yang paling mungkin dalam rangka melindungi pelaku dan pihak-pihak yang terlibat dalam perdagangan berjangka komoditi dalam ruang dan waktu serta pertimbangan tujuan dan manfaatnya dewasa ini, sejalan dengan semangat dan bunyi UU No. Keabsahan transaksi jual beli berjangka, ditentukan oleh terpenuhinya rukun dan syarat sebagai berikut: There is a general consensus among Islamic jurists on the view that currencies of different countries can be exchanged on a spot basis at a rate different from unity, since currencies of different countries are distinct entities with different values or intrinsic worth, and purchasing power.
There also seems to be a general agreement among a majority of scholars on the view that currency exchange on a forward basis is not permissible, that is, when the rights and obligations of both parties relate to a future date. However, there is considerable difference of opinion among jurists when the rights of either one of the parties, which is same as obligation of the counterparty, is deferred to a future date.
To elaborate, let us consider the example of two individuals A and B who belong to two different countries, India and US respectively. A intends to sell Indian rupees and buy U. The converse is true for B. The rupee-dollar exchange rate agreed upon is 1: The transaction is settled on a spot basis from both ends. Such transactions are valid and Islamically permissible. There are no two opinions about the same.
The second possibility is that settlement of the transaction from both ends is deferred to a future date, say after six months from now. The predominant view is that such a contract is not Islamically permissible. A minority view considers it permissible. The third scenario is that the transaction is partly settled from one end only. There are diametrically opposite views on the permissibility of such contracts which amount to bai-salam in currencies.
The purpose of this paper is to present a comprehensive analysis of various arguments in support and against the permissibility of these basic contracts involving currencies. The first form of contracting involving exchange of countervalues on a spot basis is beyond any kind of controversy. Permissibility or otherwise of the second type of contract in which delivery of one of the countervalues is deferred to a future date, is generally discussed in the framework of riba prohibition.
Accordingly we discuss this contract in detail in section 2 dealing with the issue of prohibition of riba. Permissibility of the third form of contract in which delivery of both the countervalues is deferred, is generally discussed within the framework of reducing risk and uncertainty or gharar involved in such contracts. This, therefore, is the central theme of section 3 which deals with the issue of gharar. Section 4 attempts a holistic view of the Sharia relates issues as also the economic significance of the basic forms of contracting in the currency market.
The divergence of views1 on the permissibility or otherwise of exchange contracts in currencies can be traced primarily to the issue of riba prohibition. The need to eliminate riba in all forms of exchange contracts is of utmost importance. Riba in its Sharia context is generally defined2 as an unlawful gain derived from the quantitative inequality of the countervalues in any transaction purporting to effect the exchange of two or more species anwa , which belong to the same genus jins and are governed by the same efficient cause illa.
Riba is generally classified into riba al-fadl excess and riba al-nasia deferment which denote an unlawful advantage by way of excess or deferment respectively.
Prohibition of the former is achieved by a stipulation that the rate of exchange between the objects is unity and no gain is permissible to either party. The latter kind of riba is prohibited by disallowing deferred settlement and ensuring that the transaction is settled on the spot by both the parties.
Another form of riba is called riba al-jahiliyya or pre-Islamic riba which surfaces when the lender asks the borrower on the maturity date if the latter would settle the debt or increase the same. Increase is accompanied by charging interest on the amount initially borrowed. The prohibition of riba in the exchange of currencies belonging to different countries requires a process of analogy qiyas. And in any such exercise involving analogy qiyas , efficient cause illa plays an extremely important role.
It is a common efficient cause illa , which connects the object of the analogy with its subject, in the exercise of analogical reasoning. The appropriate efficient cause illa in case of exchange contracts has been variously defined by the major schools of Fiqh. This difference is reflected in the analogous reasoning for paper currencies belonging to different countries. A question of considerable significance in the process of analogous reasoning relates to the comparison between paper currencies with gold and silver.
In the early days of Islam, gold and silver performed all the functions of money thaman. Currencies were made of gold and silver with a known intrinsic value quantum of gold or silver contained in them. Such currencies are described as thaman haqiqi, or naqdain in Fiqh literature. These were universally acceptable as principal means of exchange, accounting for a large chunk of transactions. Many other commodities, such as, various inferior metals also served as means of exchange, but with limited acceptability.
These are described as fals in Fiqh literature. These are also known as thaman istalahi because of the fact that their acceptability stems not from their intrinsic worth, but due to the status accorded by the society during a particular period of time. The above two forms of currencies have been treated very differently by early Islamic jurists from the standpoint of permissibility of contracts involving them.
The issue that needs to be resolved is whether the present age paper currencies fall under the former category or the latter. One view is that these should be treated at par with thaman haqiqi or gold and silver, since these serve as the principal means of exchange and unit of account like the latter. Hence, by analogous reasoning, all the Sharia-related norms and injunctions applicable to thaman haqiqi should also be applicable to paper currency.
Exchange of thaman haqiqi is known as bai-sarf, and hence, the transactions in paper currencies should be governed by the Sharia rules relevant for bai-sarf. The contrary view asserts that paper currencies should be treated in a manner similar to fals or thaman istalahi because of the fact that their face value is different from their intrinsic worth.
Their acceptability stems from their legal status within the domestic country or global economic importance as in case of US dollars, for instance. It also applies, by analogy qiyas to all species which are governed by the same efficient cause illa or which belong to any one of the genera of the six objects cited in the tradition.
However, there is no general agreement among the various schools of Fiqh and even scholars belonging to the same school on the definition and identification of efficient cause illa of riba. For the Hanafis, efficient cause illa of riba has two dimensions: If in a given exchange, both the elements of efficient cause illa are present, that is, the exchanged countervalues belong to the same genus jins and are all weighable or all measurable, then no gain is permissible the exchange rate must be equal to unity and the exchange must be on a spot basis.
In case of gold and silver, the two elements of efficient cause illa are: This is also the Hanbali view according to one version3. A different version is similar to the Shafii and Maliki view, as discussed below. Thus, when gold is exchanged for gold, or silver is exchanged for silver, only spot transactions without any gain are permissible.
It is also possible that in a given exchange, one of the two elements of efficient cause illa is present and the other is absent. For example, if the exchanged articles are all weighable or measurable but belong to different genus jins or, if the exchanged articles belong to same genus jins but neither is weighable nor measurable, then exchange with gain at a rate different from unity is permissible, but the exchange must be on a spot basis.
Thus, when gold is exchanged for silver, the rate can be different from unity but no deferred settlement is permissible. If none of the two elements of efficient cause illa of riba are present in a given exchange, then none of the injunctions for riba prohibition apply. Exchange can take place with or without gain and both on a spot or deferred basis. Considering the case of exchange involving paper currencies belonging to different countries, riba prohibition would require a search for efficient cause illa.
Currencies belonging to different countries are clearly distinct entities; these are legal tender within specific geographical boundaries with different intrinsic worth or purchasing power. Hence, a large majority of scholars perhaps rightly assert that there is no unity of genus jins. Additionally, these are neither weighable nor measurable.
This leads to a direct conclusion that none of the two elements of efficient cause illa of riba exist in such exchange.More...