Peluang untuk melabur kekayaan, menghimpunkan buruh dan kepakaran, serta membentuk syarikat secara cekap adalah asas kepada mana-mana masyarakat. Sementara masyarakat Barat telah berkumpul di sekitar syarikat saham gabungan yang diniagakan secara bebas di pasaran saham, Islam telah menetapkan peraturan khusus untuk pembentukan dan fungsi syarikat yang mempunyai beberapa perbezaan yang ketara.

The opportunity to invest wealth, aggregate labour and expertise, and form companies in an efficient manner is fundamental to any society. While western societies have congregated around the joint stock company which is freely traded on stock markets, Islam has set out specific rules for the formation and function of companies which have some distinct differences.

Islam memandang pembentukan syarikat sebagai satu transaksi khusus yang memerlukan tawaran dan penerimaan oleh semua peserta, bermakna mesti wujud persetujuan antara rakan kongsi bagi kemasukan peserta baharu. Asas kepada transaksi ini juga ialah tanggapan bahawa entiti korporat mempunyai unsur modal dan unsur badan yang tertentu, sedangkan syarikat saham gabungan yang piawai ialah syarikat modal semata-mata (malah Pengarahnya pun pekerja). Unsur "badan" bagi syarikat adalah syarat mutlak kerana ia menetapkan akauntabiliti dan tanggungjawab yang lengkap terhadap tindakan syarikat. Ini, ditambah dengan larangan "tanggungan terhad", bermakna sifat tanpa nama yang di sebalik-nya ramai bersembunyi dalam PLC (Public Limited Company) piawai atau SA (Société Anonyme di Perancis) dapat dielakkan. Ketiadaan badan yang bertanggungjawab dengan tanggungan terhad ini telah membawa akibat yang buruk dalam krisis semasa. 26.

Islam treats the formation of the company as a specific transaction requiring an offer and acceptance by all participants meaning that there must be agreement between partners for new participants. Fundamental to the transaction is also the notion that the corporate entity has a specific capital and body element, whereas the standard joint stock company is a company of capital only (even the Directors are employees). A “body” element to the company is an absolute requirement as it establishes complete accountability and responsibility for the actions of the company. This coupled with prohibition of “limited liability” means that the anonymity behind which many hide in the standard PLC (Public Limited Company) or SA (Société Anonyme in France) is avoided. This lack of an accountable body with limited liability has had disastrous consequences in the current crisis. 26.

Apabila Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif Lehman Brothers yang dicemari nama baik, Richard Fuld, memberi keterangan kepada Kongres pada 6 Oktober 2008, dia mempertahankan gaji sebanyak $484 juta miliknya sedangkan dia sedar bahawa dia sedang melepaskan diri daripada bencana yang diuruskan olehnya dan rakan-rakan sekerjanya di bank itu. Tanpa sebarang liabiliti peribadi atas pengungkitan aset kunci kira-kira sebanyak 20 hingga 30 kali ganda, pertaruhan yang sangat berisiko yang mereka ambil, mahupun ratusan ribu kontrak derivatif yang masih belum dijelaskan, Fuld dengan selesa dapat mengetepikan kebanyakan soalan. Dalam keterangannya, dia berkata dia mengambil "tanggungjawab penuh" atas kebankrapan Lehman Brothers dan "berasa sangat terkilan" dengannya. Namun, malah beberapa hari sebelum bank itu runtuh (gagal memperoleh bailout daripada Perbendaharaan), eksekutif mereka masih meluluskan "bayaran khas" sebanyak $20 juta untuk pegawai kanan yang akan berundur.

When the disgraced Chief Executive officer of the failed investment Bank Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld, gave testimony to Congress on October 6th, 2008 he defended his $484 million in salary fully aware that he was walking away from the disaster he and his colleagues oversaw at the bank. Without any personal liability for the 20 or 30 times leveraging of their balance sheet assets, the enormously risky bets they were taking nor the hundreds of thousands of derivative contracts which remain outstanding, Fuld could happily brush aside most questions. In his testimony he said he took “full responsibility” for the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and “felt horrible” about it. Yet, even days before the bank collapsed (failed to gain a Treasury bailout) their executives were endorsing $20 million in ‘special payments’ for departing senior executives27.

Perdebatan mengenai tahap bonus eksekutif dalam krisis ini dan sama ada ia patut dikurangkan mengabaikan fakta yang paling penting. Apabila tiada atau hampir tiada akauntabiliti kewangan dan undang-undang bagi tindakan sesebuah bank, maka kita boleh menjangkakan jenis keterlampauan yang telah menjadi lumrah. Undang-undang korporat Islam memastikan bahawa pemilik syarikat tidak berlindung di sebalik liabiliti terhad; mereka bertanggungjawab sepenuhnya terhadap prestasi kontrak mereka dan sebarang impak kewangan bagi semua transaksi yang mereka masuki. Tambahan pula, perundangan reaktif seperti undang-undang Sarbanes Oxley yang diperkenalkan di Amerika Syarikat sebagai tindak balas kepada skandal Enron dan WorldCom, yang melibatkan eksekutif kanan yang secara berkesan "memanipulasi buku kira-kira", hampir tidak memberi kesan dalam krisis ini kerana ia gagal menangani elemen utama liabiliti bagi transaksi bank/institusi. Dalam Islam, pemilik/rakan kongsi mana-mana syarikat kekal bertanggungjawab terhadap kerugian walaupun selepas syarikat itu gagal. Isu akauntabiliti sebenar bagi tindakan, dan bukannya pengurangan bonus yang berkemungkinan berlaku, memberikan tahap kewarasan kepada amalan dagangan eksekutif syarikat.

The debate over levels of executive bonuses in this crisis and whether they should be curtailed neglects the most important fact. When there is little or no actual monetary and legal accountability for the actions of a bank then we can expect the type of excesses that have become common. Islamic corporate law ensures that the owners of the company are not shielded behind limited liability, they are fully accountable for the performance of their contracts and any monetary impact for all the transactions they enter into. Furthermore reactive legislation such as the Sarbannes Oxley laws introduced in the US in response to the Enron and Worldcom debacles where senior executives were effectively “cooking the books” has had virtually no effect in this crisis because it failed to address the key element of liability for the transactions of the banks/institutions. In Islam the owners/partners of any company remain liable for losses even after a company has failed. This issue of real accountability for actions, rather than potential curtailment of bonuses provides a level of sobriety to the trading practices of company executives.

Perlu juga ditekankan bahawa, dengan beberapa pengecualian, pengungkitan agresif (pinjaman), pertaruhan derivatif, dan pelbagai transaksi berisiko itu semuanya sah di sisi undang-undang korporat yang longgar yang mengawal perniagaan di Barat. Maka tidaklah menghairankan bahawa para eksekutif telah mengambil kesempatan daripada persekitaran perdagangan yang longgar sebegini untuk memacu pakej pampasan yang besar buat diri mereka sendiri, tanpa banyak mengambil berat tentang risiko yang terlibat.

It must also be stressed that, with a few exceptions, the aggressive leveraging (borrowings), derivative bets, and array of risky transactions were all fully legal under the lax corporate laws governing business in the West. It is thus little wonder that executives have taken advantage of such a lax trading environment to drive massive compensation packets for themselves, with little concern for the risks involved.