Blog

In this article I will cover the following areas:

• A classic home finance structure that is Islamic
• Why Islamic banks cannot do this
• How to set up it up yourself for Muslims to benefit
• What are the key risks to be aware of if embarking on this project?

Buying a home is the largest spend in our lives, and one that is generally only possible with a loan and Riba.  When it comes to solving Riba problems for Muslims, this probably ranks as the most urgent and difficult problem to be solved.

Traditionally, home finance is done via a mortgage, a loan that is secured on the property. You need a deposit, and if you don’t make your repayments, the bank repossesses the house, sells it to recoup its loan, and you are homeless.

Home finance is a low risk product for banks, because they have the property as security, and it delivers them handsome profits. Home lending by these banks also is the largest contributor to rising house prices globally.

To develop a non-lending solution for home finance is a significant task, and that is probably why we have so few actual solutions like this in the market. Let’s look at what a proper Islamic solution for home finance would look like.

We have to shift our perception of what it means to own a property and what kind of asset a home is. The traditional view is that a property is a purchase, which we get a loan for, and the lender is taking credit risk on the buyer’s ability to repay the loan, with the property acting as security in case of default.

In this scenario, the bank actually cares very little about the property apart from the only thing that matters to the bank – can it act as effective security in case of default. That is why banks ask for a deposit and have policies of the Loan to Value LTV that they will accept. If the property is worth 100k and the bank asks for 30k deposit, then the LTV is 70%. This is quite safe for the bank, as the property will have to fall in value by 30% for the bank to be in a position where the security is worth less than the loan – which will be a real problem for the bank from a risk perspective.

That is why banks prefer a lower LTV when the provide a mortgage. Banks offering 95% or 100% LTV are taking on real risk that a small fall in the property value can leave them with security worth less than the size of the loan. Banks will charge higher interest rates for loans that have a higher LTV because of this increased risk.

So now, we need to shift this whole mindset of finance for home purchase – from a banks view to an investors view.

The Islamic way to do this is to treat the property as an assets that has a market value and also can generate income via rental payments. Any analysis of an investment into a home is now governed by these market factors, instead of looking at the property as security on a loan.

Classic Islamic Structure

The Islamic structure is often referred to as Diminishing Musharakah, or Musharakah mutanaqisah. In this case, an investor purchases the home, along with some cash injection by the person who wants to live in the home, and they both purchase the property together, and they will own a % of the property in proportion to the cash they inject. If the property is valued at 100k, and the investor contributes 70k and the buyer contributes 30k, then the ownership %s are 70% and 30%.

So far so good, The next step is the investors takes steps to now generate revenue on the 70% that they own. They will now rent this 70% fo the property to the owner, and will charge 70% of the market rental rate for that property. This rental income is paid to the investor on a monthly basis.

The third step is that the “buyer” now agrees to gradually purchase the 70% that belongs to the investors. Over time, this means two things:

• The monthly rental will reduce as the buyer is renting a lower % of the property as time goes by
• The buyer will start to own more and more of the property and will eventually own all the property in due course

This is a classic DM structure, and is the basis on which an ethical and equitable structure for home finance is to be developed.

What do Islamic Banks do Instead?

Now, what we have seen in the market is that Islamic banks sometimes offer DM as a home finance structure. We have to be clear – this DM version they use is on a whole different planet to what I have just discussed. It has the same name but operates, in practice, in a wholly different manner. This is a common ploy by Islamic banks – they use Arabic terms that imply alignment with classic Shariah values, but the way they implement it shows their true intent.

And what is their true intent? They want to give a loan, and not to take equity risk in property. Why is this? This is because that is the DNA of a bank. They are created to lend money, not to invest in such things that have real market risk.

How do we know this is true? Well, apart from listening to me as I rant about these things daily, lets look at some hard facts that demonstrate this.

When bank takes a risk on anything, either by investing in it, or by giving a loan, this is a risk that the bank faces and it then has regulatory requirements that govern what this means for a bank.

The regulatory system for a bank will look at the kinds of risk that the bank holds, and then set out how much capital the bank must hold against that risk. This is because banks must be able to demonstrate that they have the ability (by having enough capital) to withstand losses. If they don’t have this ability, then any losses they suffer could lead to the bank becoming insolvent, and that is a real problem, because these banks also hold deposits form customers. If a bank becomes insolvent, and cannot repay these deposits, thent he government must step in and repay the depositors. Governments normally set a limit for this amount – in the UK this is referreed to as the FCSC (Financial Services Compensation Scheme) and the government will cover up to £85k per bank per customer. Deposit protection in Malaysia is provided by the Perbadanan Insurans Deposit Malaysia (PIDM), a government statutory body that automatically protects eligible bank deposits up to RM250,000 per depositor, per member bank.

That is a very good reason why the regulator takes tangible steps to ensure that banks do not fail, and this capital requirement is one of them.

So, banks have to demonstrate they can handle the risk that they face when they deploy capital. Now, here is the crux – when a bank gives a loan, they have a much lower capital requirement than when they invest in a real asset that has risk.

Lets look at the regulatory requirements in Malaysia, I refer to a public document – published by Bank Negara Malaysia titled Capital Adequacy Framework for Islamic Banks (Risk-Weighted Assets). I choose Malaysia for with ery good reason. Malaysia has the deepest Islamic markets, more Islamic banks, and a better regulatory infrastructure for Islamic banks than any other country.

This is a complex document, and is over 500 pages long. I will only focus on what is relevant for this topic.

Section 2.38 refers to Financing Secured by Residential Real Estate (RRE) Properties.

This is quite clear – if the LTV (here referred to as FTV) is below 80% (meaning a loan of 80k or less on a property of value 100k, meaning the balance is provided by the customer as a deposit), then this loan attracts a Risk Weight of 35%, meaning the bank must then ensure it maintains capital of 35% x 70k = 24.5k.

This 24.5k of capital is required so that, in case the bank makes a loss on this loan, it has that amount of capital ready to absorb these losses, and still be a viable commercial entity without the risk of becoming insolvent.

So each loan the bank provides has a real cost to the bank. The bank, at any time, only has a limited amount of capital. The form this capital can take is quite complex, so we will not focus on that here. But we should understand that it costs a bank to deliver a loan – it eats into the amount of regulatory capital they have available. Once that capital runs out, or is fully allocated to risk weighted exposures, then, technically, the bank cannot make any more loans, which means no more profit from lending.

Hence it is vital that banks allocate capital to these risks very carefully, and ensure the use of the capital results in optimal returns from lending, while managing the risks that arise from this lending.

Now let’s look at what is required from the bank’s capital perspective when they do not make a loan but, instead, they make an investment into an asset. This risk is very different for a bank because a loan is either repaid or it isn’t – in which case the bank can claim on the security (the property, in this case). With a real asset, the value of this asset can go up or down, and the returns delivered by that asset can also vary. These risks are outside of the bank’s control, because this is not debt. The exposure to market prices, and market forces, will result in the bank taking a more pragmatic view with regards to risk of loss.

The risk of loss is greater with such an investment. The regulator recognises this, and this is thus reflected in the risk weighting attached to such an investment.

In this instance, IPRE refers to Income Producing Real Estate, which is a reasonable classification for this type of home financing (DM). It should be noted that this covers instances of Musharakah financing for property development, and not just home financing. We can see that an assessment of Satisfactory will result in a risk weighting of 115%, which is over three times larger than the risk weighting for a home loan as we saw earlier.

This means that if the bank provides financing on a Musharakah basis, then it can expect to be required to allocate capital that is significantly higher compared to a loan. For a property of value 100k, and bank investment of 70k, the capital requirement is now 80.5k compared to 24.5k for a similar home loan.

This is over three times the capital – this means that the bank can choose either to provide a DM finance product, or instead provide over three times the amount via home loans, and still have the same risk weighted capital requirement.

It is clear that the bank is financially disincentivised to offer any kind of DM product in this instance.

So do Islamic banks offer DM financing products?

Yes, some Islamic banks do this. However, as we have seen, this is not a good financial decision for the bank. A DM product is certainly many degrees “better” from an Islamic perspective than giving an “Islamic” loan (which is a product that attracts controversy), but it is a much worse option for an Islamic bank.

That is why, when we see Islamic banks offering this product, the final DM product is not quite what it appears to be at first glance. For example, it is in the great interest of the Islamic bank to construct this DM produt so that it actually ends up looking like a loan in every meaningful way. If an Islamic bank offers a DM product, but can demonstrate that every outcome of this particular product is the same as that of a loan, then the bank is in a position to treat this DM product as a loan for risk capital purposes.

How does a bank convert a DM product to a loan product?

This is not a difficult task.

Let us revisit the DM structure in a little more detail. The classic DM model would mean that whoever owns the property (at any time both the investor and the  buyer will own a % of the property), then those owners have the full rights and risks of ownership as a result of their % ownership. What this means is the following:

• Both will share in an increase in value of the property
• Both will share in a fall in price of the property
• Both will share in costs related to ownership, such as property taxes, insurance, general maintenance and so on
• The Tenant will be responsible for ongoing maintenance that arises from residing in the property, but only for the % that is owned by the tenant – the investor should bear the portion that relates to his %
• If the market rental value increases, the investor will receive a higher rental payment, and vice versa if the market rentals fall

An interesting point arises as to the structure of the gradual buyout (by the buyer) of the % of the property that is owned by the investor. There are two approaches to this. Using our example of a property value 100k, with the investor owning 70% at the start, the investor will agree to sell his share of the property to the buyer for the same 70k, to be paid in instalments over time.

The other approach, which in my view is reflective of the risk positions of both parties, is that the buyer will gradually buy out the % of the investor at the market price at the time of that payment.

In the first instance, the buyer will pay 70k to the investor over a period, for example on a monthly basis for 12 years, which equates to 486 per month.

In the second scenario, the buyer would initially pay this 486 for a period of 12 months, and then a revaluation of the property takes place. We look at what has occurred in the preceding 12 months, and we see that the property currently has value of 100k (it has not yet been revalued) and the investor now owns 70k – 5.8k (12 months repayments of 486) which is 64.2k, which is 64.2% of the property at this time.

If, after this new market valuation,  the price has risen from 100k to 105k, then the investor still owns 64.2% of it, which is now worth 0.642 x 105k = 67.41k. Now the investor agrees to buy out 1/11^th (the agreement to purchase all the investor’s share over 12 years remains, and 11 years are left now) of this portion in the coming year, which equates to 511 per month. This is an increase on the previous year’s repayment instalments, and this is to be expected because the property value (and thus the value of the % owned by the investor) has now increased somewhat.

The same applies if the property price has been deemed to have fallen. One of the practical issues here is that conducting an annual revaluation might not be practical. It is not easy to obtain accurate valuations, even with the prevalence of market data. Nothing will tell you the value of a property until you sell it and a buyer is prepared to pay that price for it.

Everything ese is just an estimation. The other issue is that a professional revaluation will cost money – if it costs 500 to have a professional valuation every year, this can add up to be a burdensome cost for the parties to bear every year.

There are two solutions to this. One is to have any revaluation to occur less frequently, for example every five years, The other is to just ignore movements in the price, and just stick to the initial property price, which will bring us back to the first method of capital repayments.

This second method is certainly more appropriate in terms of ensuring both co-owners share the same risk and benefits of ownership, however it is less practical to achieve. However, it remains my position that if an investor owns 70% of the property, and gradually sells this % to the buyer over a period of time, the investor is entitled to benefit from any rise in property prices during that repurchase period (and the risk of prices falling).

This is something that would require a shift in mindset of the buyer. With a regular mortgage, the outcome is clear – even if the property rises or falls, all of that is due to the buyer and not to the bank. The bank has no interest in variable market rates fo the property, only to the extent that if the price falls, it should still be able to act as effective security for the loan, That is one of the reasons that LTV is not at 100% – an LTV of 70% allows for the price to fall by 30% and the bank still has security that is fit for purpose (in reality, this is tricky for the bank, because the bank will take months to repossess the property and often the banks will sell these repossessed properties at lower than market value to ensure they receive the cash as soon as possible, so the bank will start to get concerned if the prices fall by 20% or even 10%, rather than wait for 30% to be concerned.

Taking a step back, we remind ourselves that there are three key steps to a proper DM:

• The two parties co-purchase the property
• The “buyer” is now the tenant and rents the % belonging to the investor, from the invest, and pays market rental rates
• The buyer gradually purchases the % belonging to the investor

It is a key requirement that all three stages remain independant of each other. Any linkage between themn will compromise Shariah principles The best models I have seen in the markets maintain this separation of contracts and of obligations.

What this means is the two parties could buy the property and the “buyer” then decides not to rent the property at all. Or may decide to rent, but decides not the repurchase the property from the investor. These are all possible outcomes if we maintain the separation of contracts, which is the correct thing to do.

In my view, these are good outcomes. Let me explain why.

Understanding Risk

This means the investor must be prepared for these outcomes. A bank has to be prepared for non of these outcomes because it is a loan, and if the buyer fails to repay, then this is a contractual default and there is clear legal recourse here. There is no uncertainty. That means the bank has very little interest in the property, apart from its ablitiy to provide security. This creates a distance between the bank and the natural aspects of the property. The investor in a true DM cannot afford this luxury.

The investor must be prepared for the outcomes mentioned above. If the buyer refuses to rent the property, the investor has to either sell the poperty (usually not a good choice because of the costs associated with the initial purchase and then resale, which can total to 10-20% of the property price, or, and this is the real point here, be ready to rent out the property in the open market.

This means the investor must be absolutely clear and confident on the rental returns the property can deliver. If the investor is lazy and just agrees with the buyer (before a contract is made) that the buy would rent the property for 500 per month, and then the buyer refuses to sign that contract, and the investor then goes to the open market and finds out that the real rental value is only 400, then the investor immediately suffers a loss of 20% on their expected annual income.

This is disastrous for the investor. This means the investor cannot afford to create a distance between himself and the property like the bank has the luxury to be able to do. The bank will charge interest (or Islamic interest) and care not one jot about the rental value of the property.

This means that the risk of the investor and the bank are not the same. The investor immediately faces this risk that the market rental rate might be lower than anticipated. To mitigate this risk, the investor must expertly analyse the risk of ownership related to the ability of this asset to generate revenue. This is a good outcome in my view.

The investor must be very diligent in the allocation of any capital. This is only good news for the investor, though it means more work.

The same outcome will be realised in the case that the investor agrees to rent the property, but refuses to repurchase the % owned by the investor. Now the investor must rely on their own ability to recoup their investment by being able to sell the property at its market value in due course. The investor must be confident of their ability to accurately value the property.

Again, the investor does not have the luxury of the bank. The bank could not care less of property values rise or fall as long as their debt is serviced. The investor does care because he will be negatively impacted if he gets the valuation wrong.

Both of these outcomes mean the investor must be an expert in this domain. It means the risks are immediate fi they make a mistake. This is only positive. It means we will see a real relationship between investors and their responsibility of the capital they allocate.

In my view this better articulates the Amanah that is placed on us when it comes to our wealth. It is an obligation and a burden on us, and doing the extra due diligence and developing the expertise required to properly allocate capital is an effective articulation of this obligation.

Now that we have covered the relevant risk elements that apply to a genuine investor in a DM model, we can revisit the version of DM that Islamic banks use. We have seen above the wide disparity in regulatory capital requirements for an Islamic bank when the provide a loan compated to when they make a genuine Musharakah investment. For this reason, it is commercially much more preferable for an Islamic bank to provide a loan. The most widely used models here are Murabaha (the bank buys the property and then onsells it to the buyer with a mark up) and Tawarruq (the bank enters into a series of commodity purchase and sales, with the end result being the customer has an obligation to repay the loan amount back to the bank. Both of these are controversial products, and the Tawarruq model is very little removed from being a loan with interest.

In both cases, the product is a loan and thus attracts the lower regulatory capital requirements of around 35%. This is the end goal of the bank – to deliver loans, use Arabic labels for them to present a veneer or credibility, and enjoy the benefits of lower capital requirements.

In an attempt to avoid some of the controversy of these loan products, Islamic banks have been offering DM products for some years now. But we remind ourselves that Islamic banks have a habit of using Arabic terms that denote classical structures, but then applying a combination of contracts in such a manner that the outcome is precisely the same as a loan with interest.

The same process occurs with DM here. The bank will present this as a DM product proudly declaring this is a partnership, shared-ownership model. However, when we delve into the small print, we see what we must expect – amendments and tweaks that transform a classic risk bearing investment into a loan.

In order to achieve this, the bank must first identify the aspects that would, otherwise, categorise this as a genuine investment into an asset that presents equity type risk. These are exactly the same conditions I have noted above, which are clear characteristics that reflect that this arrangement is one of true risk sharing:

• Both will share in an increase in value of the property
• Both will share in a fall in price of the property
• Both will share in costs related to ownership, such as property taxes, insurance, general maintenance and so on
• The Tenant will be responsible for ongoing maintenance that arises from residing in the property, but only for the % that is owned by the tenant – the investor should bear the portion that relates to his %
• If the market rental value increases, the investor will receive a higher rental payment, and vice versa if the market rentals fall

Now, the bank must address each of these risks, and amend the contracts such that all these risks are removed. Once this has happened, what we are left with is a loan with interest. Let’s look at each of these risks and see how an Islamic bank typically deals with it:

• Both will share in an increase in value of the property
• The Islamic bank will not share in any increase in value of the property

• Both will share in a fall in price of the property
• The Islamic bank will not share in any decrease in value of the property

• Both will share in costs related to ownership, such as property taxes, insurance, general maintenance and so on
• All costs of ownership are passed onto to the buyer

• The Tenant will be responsible for ongoing maintenance that arises from residing in the property, but only for the % that is owned by the tenant – the investor should bear the portion that relates to his %
• Tenant pays all relevant costs as if he is the owner, and not the tenant

• If the market rental value increases, the investor will receive a higher rental payment, and vice versa if the market rentals fall
• The repayments are either fixed or benchmarked to an interest rate with no impact at all from the market rental rates

And that is it. The small print will ensure all the above risks are removed and entirely transferred to the tenant. It is not a difficult process.

In addition, the risks which arise from the separation of contracts, also listed earlier, are simply removed from the equation. The tenant is required to sign contracts that commit them to all three contracts at the same time:

• The joint purchase of the property
• Paying rent
• Repurchasing the property from the Islamic Bank

When all these consequences of risk are removed, then we are left with a product that is indistinguishable from a regular mortgage with interest in every way – contractually, financially, in terms or risk, and economic and legal outcomes.

The Contradiction of Islamic Banks

And that is the whole point of these processes. The Islamic must transform the classic risk-bearing DM product into a product that is a loan, so that the more favourable risk weightings apply, meaning the IB can then offer many more such loans and life merrily goes on.

The above operations and market practice are not a matter of opinion. They are a matter of logic and market practice. Once you understand the motivations and drivers of the banks, you will see that nothing else can occur. The Islamic banks must operate in this manner.

If an entity wished to raise funds to purchase property in via genuine DM structures, and take on the risk that arises from this, then at no stage would this entity become a bank. It is highly disadvantageous, and outright illogical, for this entity to be a bank. It would just operate as an investment entity, and there are countless of these across the globe.

When a bank (Islamic or otherwise) wishes to offer home finance solutions, it already is in a position where to deliver genuine Islamic and equity type products make no sense at all for it. The only factor that would make an Islamic bank offer a genuine DM product would be if it wishes to uplift Muslims and offer a truly Islamic and risk sharing structure to enable to purchase homes and avoid Riba.

But none of those things are in the remit of an Islamic bank. That is because they applied for a banking licence. If they actually wanted to do any of those things, they would have absolutely refused to even consider a banking license.

This is what it is. It is a matter of money, source of funds, the meaning of a banking license (I have not even covered credit creation, which is an even more damning indictment on Islamic banks, and another key reason why they must lend and not invest in genuine assets such as DM models).

This is just the reality – even if I withhold my opinions on these matters (and why should I?), the facts of the matter remain undisputed and unchanged.

How to Deliver such Products to the Market

The great thing about a genuine DM model is that you don’t need a banking license which is very difficult to obtain. What you do need is the following:

• A sound business plan around such DM structures indicating how investors can make effective returns in returns for the risks they bear
• Consider returns both via rental income and capital appreciation (if appropriate in your chosen structure)
• Steps taken to mitigate the materialisation of risks (such as failure of the buyer to continue with their obligations in the DM structure)
• Ensure complete separation of the three major parts of the whole structure (joint purchase, rental, and repurchase)
• Ensure you have enough data to accurate have a position on market value and rental value of the property

All of the above are possible to achieve by anyone with drive to obtain this information. There are two key aspects, in addition to the above, that will, in my experience of working with such projects, provide the strongest indication of whether a project will succeed or not.

First – is tax and local regulation. This is the biggest risk, by far. If I had to list the top three risks, all three items would be this. I cannot stress enough that a project that meets all the above commercial requirements, can certainly fail, or even fail to get off the ground, if these issues are not resolved. What I mean by this is that, very often, the local regulations and tax positions are designed for people to buy a home and live in it. Or to buy a home with a mortgage. Or to buy a home and rent it out. What is envisaged by DM is rarely taken into account. An investor buying a property jointly with a tenant, and then the tenant gradually, buying out the investor.

Applying this mechanism within an established infrastructure that is not designed for such structures, is the most difficult task for any such project.

Second – is the ability to raise funds from investors. This is never easy and often impossible. If I was a potential investor, I would consider the following factors:

• Who are these guys? Are they random Joes, or do they have a track record in real estate?
• Do they have a track record in building a business?
• Do they have a track record in raising funds?
• Do they have a track record in executing in difficult conditions?
• How do I know they will still be around in six months time?
• Is their structure properly Islamic or just another debt product?
• Do they have approval from reputable scholars?
• Who else is backing them or supporting them? Anyone that is well known?

I would consider all of these before even looking at a business plan.

In my view, the following is a solid way to enter this market as a credible entity to enable Muslims to purchase homes without Riba:

• Do some serious modelling and understand the real estate market. You need to become a domain expert here.
• Get a small team around you – doing this alone is just asking too much. Have team members that are driven to deliver this solution to the market
• Ensure you have the relevant skills to get this off the ground. You should be able to work out what those skills are
• Raise enough funds privately so that you can buy 1, or a few properties, and actually execute what you plan to do. Create living examples of your business model.
• The above shows your ability to raise organically and show commitment
• With these seed properties running, you should have enough ammunition to prepare to go to market, and then the hard work begins

I would make a couple of notes here. The two key characteristics that are needed to make this work are, first, a drive that is indefatigable. This is perhaps the most important requirement. The second is the ability to raise funds. That is a skill in itself, whether its 50k from friends, family and small investors, to 100mn from institutions.

The second note is to consider carefully how you go to market. Will your entity be a full-on profit earning project? Or will it be a cooperative aimed at uplifting communities? Do you want to raise funds in start-up style from a VC, with the aim of delivering 100x to early investors (I don’t recommend this route) or will you hustle until you get the first property running and look to raise funds to invest directly into the next properties?

If you are focused more on the valuation of your own company, then I might suggest that you revisit your priorities.

But this is just my view. It is not a requirement to be like me to succeed – far from it. Take what is good, and leave what is useless for you.

The main reasons I have seen for such projects starting and going nowhere:

• The wrong people are running this project
• Failure to raise funds
• Underestimating the complexity of tax and regulatory requirements
• Raising funds but not enough, so deployment is so slow that people lose interest, and credibility suffers

There are many other things to consider, such as ensuring the vehicle you use is appropriately registered and licensed to carry out these activities. Trying to place yourself outside of these regulatory requirements (which are there to protect retail investors and not you) so you can go to market easier is a clear red flag for me as an investor and supporter.

Legal Vehicle and Liquidity

You will want to consider utilising and appropriate legal entity to purchase the property. This will provide remoteness from the potential insolvency of your own investment company, and it will also enable easier transfer of ownership of the property during the life of the investment. In the UK, a limited company can be used as a Special Purpose Vehicle to own the asset. These are simple to set up (you can do it yourself), and will require the SPV to execute the legal agreements to purchase the property, and then the shares in that company can be split across the investors and the buyer as required.

Such a company will have its own legislation with regards to property ownership, and transfer, and you should spend some time to ensure you choose the most appropriate legal structure here.

As for liquidity, you will likely need to ensure that investors can trade in and out of their positions in the property. That may be possible with the entity structure that you choose, or you may wish to utilise a tokenised ownership model.

You will face the choice of whether to treat each property acquisition as a separate transaction with its own legal entity, or to have a single fund in place that will then allocate capital across several properties. Each model has its relative benefits and will almost entirely depend on the regulatory landscape in that country.

Summary

I have presented my thoughts above as they occur to me, as I sit here writing this article in one sitting. I could revisit it and make the structure more coherent, but maybe I will leave that for another day. I think I have covered the main points I wanted to, which are:

• Explaining a classic structure for home finance (Diminishing Musharakah)
• Explaining why banks cannot do this
• Providing some information about how to develop this into a viable business for Muslims to uplift other Muslims
• The major risk areas and pitfalls facing such ventures
• Operational matters to consider

I hope this has been useful for readers. Our Deen provides many avenues for us to operate and live with dignity in the finance space. Many of these routes are not easy, but they are there. My wish is that we see more sincere Muslim founders taking such ideas to market, and seeing them be successful.

May Allah swt make it easy for all of us.

Safdar Alam