In presenting Khaltatush Shuyoo' as an analogy (for the company entity), you did not even think that it has a shart (imperative condition) which stipulates that the animals of Zakaat should have ten factorsin common.

Furthermore, in this regard, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“They (the two partners in stock animals of Zakaat) shouldclaim from one another with justice.”

Another stipulation is that in the event of the death/loss of animals, the loss will be borne by each respective owner. Where the ownerswill refer to one another, the owners will be considered whereas inthe mas'alah mentioned by you, the company has merely been citedas a 'legal person' while the owners have been separated (and grantedimmunity—set free from all liability). Despite this glaring difference,how did you present this as an analogy (for the validity of the company)?

On page 82 you say: "Thus the correct analogy is this: The Rabbul Mudhaarib shouldconsent to the Mudhaarib's acquisition of loans on condition that he, himself, assumes liability for it."

The stipulation of this condition is improper according to the Shariahsince it is in conflict with the muqtadha (demand) of the Mudhaarabattransaction which requires that the Rabbul Maal be liable for theloss which is in excess of the profit. The general principle of the Fuqahais that a condition which is in conflict with the muqtadha of thetransaction is faasid (corrupt and haraam). Why then did you innovatesuch a condition?

Then, after raising an objection, you also present the solution byaverring that the company is a legal person. This in fact is your fabricatedterminology which you have invented for the protection of the capitalists. On the basis of this fabrication, you extracted the following consequence: "There remains no way for the creditor to obtainfulfilment of the debt." (page 82)

This is your protection (which has been theorized for the benefit ofthe capitalists). You answer the objections of the Ulama to which you have conceded, by the repeated (and monotonous) presentationof your fabricated terminology that a company is a legal person.On the same page you sought the support of the Hadith of Hadhrat Muaaz Bin Jabal (radhiyallahu anhu). But you overlook the fact thathe was a muflis (insolvent) whereas the directors (and the shareholders of the company) are people with capital (i.e. they have money—and huge financial resources). Thus, taking support from this Hadithis baseless.

LIQUIDATION OF THE COMPANY
On page 83 you state: “The liquidation of the company is the deathof the legal person”. This is your artificial life, hence your artificial death (all baseless fabrications). There is a well-known example. Arobber used to borrow utensils from an avaricious man. When he would return the utensils, he would give more than the number hehad borrowed with the comment: 'Your utensils gave birth to theseextra ones.' Once the greedy man gave all the utensils of the house tothe robber hoping that he would receive a large number in return.However, on this occasion the robber said: "All of them died."

This is the analogy of the life and death of the legal person.Hadhrat Mufti Sahib! There is no scope in Islam for this type of idea,for fabricating theories and swallowing debt, (i.e. defrauding thecreditors), then to give Shar'i protection to those who devour the debts.

ABD-E-MA'THOON
On page 83 you present Abd-e-Ma'thoon (a slave who is permitted totrade) as an analogy for the validity of the company. But this analogyis also baseless and improper. Abd-e-Ma'thoon is a (real human) slave who can be sold. His liability is limited in view of him being aslave whereas the company directors and shareholders are free persons—persons with money who had acquired loans and incurred debts of their own accord.