In these modern days, credit card has become a normal purchasing partner for an individual. It seems to be inseparable with modern people today and sometimes referred to as the oil for our economic machinery. Everywhere we go today, even do not have cash in hand they still can buy especially shopping malls, service establishment, petrol stations or even coffee shops just swipe by using card credit. Credit card from Islamic perspective invites a lot of discussion and sometimes controversy due to its nature which is based on “credit”. Following to Ustaz Zaharudin Abd Rahman (2008) explains apart from all types of conventional lending products and conventional investment accounts in commercial banks, Muslims today are also exposed to transactions that contain elements of riba in the use of conventional credit cards. 

Riba is one of the prohibited thing in Islam. As we know riba is an excess or growth and there are two types of riba which is Riba Al-Fadh and Riba An-Nasiah. In this context, we are discussing about an issue of Riba in credit card. Credit card is a card issues by a financial company which enable the cardholder to borrow fund. Other than that, issuance of credit card has the condition that the cardholder will pay back the original borrowed amount plus any additional agreed-upon charges. So here, we state the main issues that can damage economic Islamic if the elements of riba not stop from now. 

First and foremost, transaction that contain elements of riba in the use credit cards when the charges are incurred due to the payment of credit card debts. This issue when at the time of the agreement, it was made clear that the late penalties were incurred on any payment that exceeded the time period granted. This payment is interest on the lapse of debt repayment. This additional payment known as riba al-nasiah which is the payment for the purpose of increasing the time of debt which is clearly illegal in the syarak. It was the result of the fiqh conference of credit cards in Bahrain in November 1998. Therefore, in terms of aqad clearly indicates the use of banned conventional credit cards for containing elements of usury. 

The second issue we are discuss about the revolving credit limit. In this issue, the cardholder is not obliged to settle his debts as a whole but is allowed to pay the interest rate ratios provided. The remaining balance is settled during the given period and will be levied on the deferred amount. According to Islamic laws, Hadith and Quran, it is prohibited to pay interest on the money which is withdrawn in advance, like this all the additional interest charges of delaying payment is also prohibited. 

In other issue is about an annual fees charged for the cardholder that have element of riba is   financially charged to cardholders. Obviously, there are two different views about it, the need for insight and the forbidding view. In islamic perspective, an annual fees charged for cardholder that has purpose to cover the cost of management for example the price card, cost of managerial service and others. but the fees must related to the cost of service. But in second views, that the payment of membership fees should not be. This is because credit card practices to be disallowed from the shariah point of view. 

        The kootu fund can be likened to a traditional micro-financing scheme, whereby small loans of typically less than Rm100 are extended to the rural poor, mainly at the village level. As an informal way to borrow small amounts of money, kootu funds were vulnerable to abuse. This led to passage of the Kootu Funds (Prohibition) Act 1971. Since then, any kootu schemes have been forbidden and any registered business running anything resembling a kootu will be penalised up to RM5,000 and/or a jail up to three years.

       The kootu fund is a high-risk investment which is subject to fraud. A kootu or online fund may make profits through ways ranging from simple drawing of lots to auctions to members. In cases where the scheme is as large as World Heritage Resources, a business that was incorporated under the Registration of Business Act 1956 (Act 197),which had more than 300,000 members and a total fund size of RM30 million accumulated over two years, the financial risks to participants is high. The high possibility of funds disappearing with or without a trace, regardless of whether the scheme is operated by a registered business. the returns in this case were paid using postal orders, which are under the radar of financial institutions money-laundering systems.

Pengurangan tawaran produk berasaskan BBA dapat dikaitkan dengan beberapa isu yang muncul. Isu utama adalah isu perundangan yang berkaitan dengan produk BBA. Meskipun beberapa kes mahkamah yang melibatkan produk BBA menyaksikan keputusan juri menyebelahi pihak Bank Islam, namun sorotan daripada kes tersebut secara tidak langsung memberikan imej yang buruk berkenaan produk BBA.Sebagai contoh, kes pertama melibatkan Dato’ Hj Nik Mahmud Bin Daud v. Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad, dalam kes ini,Plaintif iaitu Dato’ Hj Nik Mahmud Bin Daud telah membangkitkan isu yang menarik bertarikh 5 Oktober 1994 , iaitu plaintif telah memohon kepada mahkamah supaya mengisytiharkan bahawa produk BBA tersebut adalah terbatal disebabkan produk itu sendiri bertentangan dengan undang2 negeri , iaitu menyalahi peruntukan Enakmen Perizaban Melayu (Kelantan) 1930 dan Kanun Tanah Negara 1965.

Bagaimana boleh bercanggah dengan undang-undang negeri?

Kan kita semua sudah sedia maklum bahawa BBA adalah perjanjian jual beli, iaitu dimana Bank Islam akan membeli tanah daripada pelanggan, dan kemudian menjual kembali kepada pelanggan. Isunya berlaku disebabkan peruntukan Enakmen Perizaban Melayu (Kelantan) 1930 tidak membenarkan mana2 tanah ataupun rezab melayu daripada dipindahkan hak miliknya daripada melayu kepada bukan melayu.

Baik , kita kembali kepada kes ini, apabila Dato’ Hj Nik Mahmud Bin Daud menjual kepada Bank Islam,persoalannya , adakah Bank Islam dikira sebagai orang melayu? TIdak, ianya adalah sebuah institusi , yang tidak boleh diiktiraf sebagai melayu atau bukan melayu. Jadinya penghujahan plaintif ada justifikasi yang jelas hakikatnya, iaitu BBA ini telahpun membuat orang melayu iaitu nik menjual kepada institusi yang tak boleh diiktiraf melayu ataupun bukan melayu. Dan ini jelas melanggar undang2. 

Namun demikian, keputusan mahkamah menolak kes ini dan memberi keputusan yang menyebelahi Bank Islam. Iaitu kontrak BBA tidak melanggar peruntukan seksyen 7 Enakmen Perizaban Melayu 1930. Alasan penghakiman yang diberikan oleh Yang Arif Idris Yusoff H dalam kes tersebut adalah seperti berikut:

“Unlike in the instant case it was never the intention of the parties, in as much as it can ever be said to be within their contemplation, to involve any transfer of proprietorship. It so happened that the execution of the property purchase agreement and the property sale agreement constituted part of the process required by the Islamic banking procedure before a party can avail itself of the financial facilities provided by the defendant.” 

Maksud mudahnya adalah sebenarnya bukan keinginan kedua-dua parti untuk melakukan pemindahan hak milik tersebut, ianya hnya dijadikan proses “JUAL” DAN “BELI” semata2 kerana ianya adalah proses yang diperlukan oleh Bank Islam untuk memberikan financing kepada pelanggannya. Penghujahan ini sebenarnya telah melahirkan persepsi negatif dalam kalangan pelanggan kerana ia memberi gambaran seolah2 perjanjian jual beli tersebut hanyalah di atas kertas semata2, namun hakikatnya hak milik tetap tidak berlaku proses pemindahan. Perkara ini juga disebabkann oleh perjanjian “BANK ISLAM BELI DARIPADA PEMBELI” DAN perjanjian “BANK ISLAM MENJUAL KEMBALI KE PEMBELI” dilakukan serentak. (Perjanjian Belian Harta adalah satu dokumen penting untuk memberikan hakmilik benefisial kepada Bank sebelum ia menjual semula aset tersebut kepada pelanggannya) . 

Sepatutnya kedua2 perjanjian ini tidak boleh ditandatangani serentak dan dilewatkan beberapa jam untuk menunjukkan adanya perpindahan hak milik. Namun cadangan ini jika diterima pakai sekalipun, tetap tidak menafikan fakta bahawa ianya akan bercanggah dengan peruntukan enakmen negeri Kelantan.

 

 

Yang kedua,kita lihat dalam kes “Affin Bank Berhad v. Zulkifli Bin Abdullah” , dimana isunya adalah pihak Bank bersetuju untuk melakukan restructuring terhadap pembiayaan yang diberikan terhadap Zulkifli.Dalam kes ini, isunya, adakah penyemakan harga jualan yang diberikan adalah suatu tindakan yang sah menurut perspektif syariah ataupun tidak, ,,,,,saya berikan analogy mudah,

Apabila kita membeli perabot dari sebuah kedai pada satu hari dengan cara ansuran, bolehkah penjual tersebut pada keesokan harinya menyatakan kepada pembeli itu bahawa harga jualan telah disemak dan dinaikkan kepada harga yang lebih tinggi? Jawapannya tidak , 

Begitulah yg terjadi dalam kes ini, apabila ketika Zulkifli Bin Abdullah ingin membuat restructuring terhadap financing beliau yg disebabkan default in payment, Bank Islam telah menaikkan jumlah pembayaran tersebut. Drpd RM446,847.28(1997). kepada RM 992,363.40(1999)..

Baiklah, itu dua isu perundangan yang sedikit sebanyak memberikan persepsi negatif terhadap produk BBA, slain itu, kita juga dpt melihat, antara sebab produk BBA semakin berkurangan di Malaysia adalah kerana produk BBA ini, tidak diterima secara global. Ianya agak popular di Brunei,Bangladesh dan Malaysia kerana kita mengikut pendirian mazhab syafie yang membenarkan aplikasi BBA, namun jika kita lihat di Asia Barat serta Pakistan, mereka lebih memilih untuk menggunapakai konsep ijarah ataupun musharakah kerana mereka berpendapat BBA menyerupai Bai Inah .

Hal ini sepertimana yang telah diucapkan oleh Muhammad Nejatullah Siddiqi , iaitu Walaupun BBA dibenarkan di sisi syarak, Siddiqi tidak menggalakkan ia digunakan oleh bank-bank Islam dalam produk pembiayaan mereka. Beliau menyebut: “I would prefer that Bai’ al-Muajjal be removed from the list of permissible methods altogether. Even if we concede to its permissibility in legal form, we have the overriding legal maxim that ‘anything leading to something prohibited stands prohibited’ (ma adda ila al-haram fahuwa haram)…” 

Malah,Di Pakistan, Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani selaku salah seorang hakim dalam kes M. Aslam Khaki v. Syed Muhammad Hashim8 memutuskan bahawa pembiayaan yang dibuat berasaskan tambahan untung (mark-up) seperti bai’ al-muajjal (BBA) adalah tidak sah untuk dijadikan asas produk perbankan kerana dibimbangi mengandungi unsur riba.

 

Penghujahan yang digunakan oleh mereka adalah kerana mereka berpendapat tidak boleh menjual kembali kepada pemilik asal dengan cara bertangguh pada harga yang lebih mahal daripada saat pembelian. Hal tersebut termasuk dalam permasalahan ‘inah, 

Penggunaan dokumentasi Property Purchase Agreement (PPA) dan Property Sale Agreement (PSA) didakwa hanya sebagai pelengkap untuk memberi kesan kepada transaksi BBA Ini kerana, semasa pelanggan datang untuk menjual aset di bawah PPA, dia bukan pemilik sebenar barangan jualan/aset kerana pelanggan berkenaan hanya membayar sebahagian daripada harga jumlah keseluruhan aset.

Contohnya, 10 peratus kepada pemaju di bawah Amalan menjual dan membeli balik di bawah PSA dan PPA adalah semata-mata untuk memperoleh wang tunai yang perlu dibayar kepada penjual. Apabila dihasratkan hanya untuk mendapatkan wang tunai, maka transaksi sebegini menunjukkan berlakunya kontrak bai’ al- ‘inah. Dalam hal ini, bank hanya berperanan selaku pembiaya dan bukannya penjual.

Previously, PTPTN charges 3% of the 'reducing balance' or 3% of the outstanding debt, which is clearly usury, similar to the way of riba calculation by conventional banks. This is because the service charge is not confirmed by any Shariah Council which clearly contains elements of riba in its calculations. 

Although the way of ujrah calculation in PTPTN is cheap and validated by the Fatwa Committee of Malaysia, but this method still cannot penetrate the law that has been decided by international scholars. In Islamic law, individual lenders, private financial institutions or governments cannot impose any financial charges on borrowers, in particular from the type of percentage lent to the amount of lending, which is changing with the change in the amount of lending. However, the concept of ujrah in PTPTN is still in use. Apart from the understanding of nas, international scholars prohibit it from avoiding this wage charge to be a trick on usury, which originally charges added to the loan as time value of money. This is because riba charges and wage charges are the same according to the concepts and stages of economic outlook.

In conclusion, ujrah in PTPTN may not be the best option to settle the debt as it seems to be a trick behind it, which makes us to trust more to the method as it uses Islamic term. The 1% can be considered as an alternative way to make the borrower pay their debt as soon as possible.