If the company goes insolvent, the capitalist shareholders have noliability. They are not responsible for the debts of the company.Mufti Sahib has fabricated this concept and has produced severalanalogies in substantiation. Alas! This concept does not have theslightest affinity with Islam. None of the analogies presented by Mufti Sahib has any relationship with this concept. Inspite of this, he has made an ardent effort to defend the capitalists by means of this(self-fabricated) concept. (Limited liability and absolution from debtare in fact concepts which Mufti Taqi Sahib has borrowed from thecapitalist system solely to provide Shar'i justification and legality fort hese fallacious haraam concepts—Mujlisul Ulama)

Thus Mufti Sahib says: "Shirkat (Partnership) does not have its own independentexistence. But the company has its own independent legal existence. It is termed a legal entity." Page 80 Mufti Taqi Sahib's motive underlying this statement is the defence ofthe capitalists. He has extracted the following conclusion from this concept:“

The liability of the directors too is limited. The liability of the companywhich is a legal person is also limited. In effect, there is no relieffor the creditors to claim payment of debts in excess of the assetsof the company. In the terminology of the Fuqaha, when there is noway for settling the debts of the creditors, it is called Kharaabus Zimmah.” Page 82. By these averments he has given immunity to the capitalist shareholders.If the company goes insolvent, the shareholders are absolvedof all liability. The basis for this claim is nothing but a fabricated ter-minology.

In order to give protection to the shareholders he has presentedhis personal idea. In the process he has deemed that all thepeople are ignoramuses who will swallow this fabrication of thecompany being a legal person. This is never the terminology of theFuqaha.Furthermore, the analogies which he has presented have no relationshipwith this fabricated fiction of a legal person. There is the differenceof heaven and earth between them. In fact, according to theprinciple of the Fuqaha stated in Sharh Uqood Rasmul Mufti, he hasno right to present analogies.On page 80 of his book, Mufti Sahib has presented the intuition of Waqf as an analogy for the fictitious concept. It is incorrect to presentan analogy with Waqf because a Waqf has no owner. The popularrule regarding Waqf is: "A Waqf is not owned (by anyone) norcan it be assigned to (anyone's) ownership."

But in the company concept,the shareholders are (supposedly) the owners. They obtain loansand assume responsibility. They consume the profit of the companywhereas there is nothing of this sort in a Waqf. The profits of a Waqfare also Waqf while there is no one responsible for its loss.On page 80 he has also made the analogy with the Baitul Maal. Thisanalogy is also erroneous because the assets in a Baitul Maal are alsoa type of Waqf.On page 81, Mufti Taqi Saheb has presented the analogy of KhaltatutShu-yoo'.

On the same page he acknowledges that this concept is notin compliance with the Hanafi Math-hab. Since he is a Hanafi, he hasno right of presenting this example. He further adds:"It should be remembered that between the system of the companyand Khaltatut Shuyoo' is the difference......"When there is a difference, then why present it in substantiation?On page 81 he concedes:"However, this terminology is certainly a new one. "Why did he invent such terminology to give protection to the capitalists?On page 81 he has also presented in substantiation the analogy with one who is described as Mustaghraq bid dain (one over-

whelmed by debt, i.e. an insolvent person). This too is erroneous becausehere the insolvent debtor is deceased while the directors andshareholders of a company are alive. Thus all four analogies are fallacious.The rule is that when there is a difference between the mas'alah andthe examples presented, then the analogies are baseless. Refer toSharh Uqood Rasmul Mufti where it states:

"....Because, it is rare that for a contingent development there isno mention in the kutub of the Math-hab, either in exactitude or bythe mention of a general principle which embraces it (the new development). A similar example is insufficient (for the formulationof a ruling) because it is quite probable that between the new developmentand the acquired example there is a subtle difference which is beyond his (the Aalim's) comprehension. The Fuqaha have differentiated between numerous masaa-il and their similarities(i.e. similar occurrences). So much so, that they have compiled books of such differences."