On the same page you aver that despite them being alive, the debt cannot be claimed from them. How could you have made this averment thereby ruining and disadvantaging the creditors (so terribly,unjustly and recklessly)? Maulana Mufti Abdus Sattaar of Multanhas correctly said that your every interpretation is beyond comprehension.What is the need for presenting such (baseless) interpretations?

(There is no difficulty in unravelling the mystery of all the weird andbaatil interpretations of Mufti Taqi Sahib. The sole aim is to legalize capitalism and its baatil products for the Riba banks of the westernworld. After all, Hadhrat Mufti Sahib is a member of the so-calledShariah boards of almost all the top kuffaar riba banks of the westernworld. Mufti Abdus Sattaar Multaani Sahib should therefore not be wonderstruck by the stark weirdness of Mufti Taqi's unprincipledta 'weelaat—Mujlisul Ulama of S.A.)

On page 83 you proceed to narrate the Shar'i dimension of some importantissues of the company.LIABILITY: In this matter too, you have employed several maneuvers.You say: "This liability (of the company) in terms of theShariah is neither Dhimaan (liability) nor Kifaalat (Securityship)."—Page 84. If this is not liability (in terms of the Shariah) then whydid you designate it as liability? You further say: "Kifaalat or Dhimaanat pertains to such debt which is Waajib (incumbent). Purchasingshares is not waajib."

BRIBERY
This means that while accepting it being liability it is not waajib. Mufti Sahib! Shares are not debt. Then you say: "This is commission without anything in exchange which according to Fiqh is bribery."

Mufti Sahib! Truly this is the reality. But with your interpretationsyou remove it from the confines of bribery. This is improper for you.You further say: "However, there are some acts for which remunerationmay be taken, e.g. inspecting the company and what will be thebusiness of the company, etc." (From the sublime to the ridiculous—Mujlisul Ulama)

But, remuneration and commission are not acquired for these activities.Those who accept such commission state with clarity that it is by way of dhimaanat (liability). Why do you present interpretations(to negate their explicit claim)? You have shown those who have made clear admissions, the way of legalizing bribery. Secondly, the inspection and assessment are effected for one's own purchase ofshares. What is the meaning of taking commission and remunerationfor an activity executed for oneself? What is the commission being paid for?

You have also presented another interpretation, viz., the remunerationis in lieu of the activity of agency of procuring buyers. Thereafter you somersaulted and say: "In practice this is what the banks do.They do not retain the shares. On the contrary, they sell the shares toothers."

This purchase is for oneself. The selling is effected afterwards. How does the bank then become the agent? If there is profit or loss, it isfor the account of the bank. In reality the bank, etc. verbally say: "Weare liable for the procurement of shares." You, yourself had finally conceded this. You had also branded this as bribery. But you simplyhave no valid interpretation.

Towards the end of the same page, you mention an interpretationwhich you relate to the Ulama. But, you, yourself refuted it. Thisthen is your mas'alah of dhimaanat