4.Inheritance under debt

The fourth example is the property left by a deceased person whose liabilities exceed the value of all the property left by him. For the purpose of brevity we can refer to it as 'inheritance under debt'.

According to the jurists, this property is neither owned by the deceased, because he is no more alive, nor is it owned by his heirs, for the debts on the deceased have a preferential right over the property as compared to the rights of the heirs. It is not even owned by the creditors, because the settlement has not yet taken place. They have their claims over it, but it is not their property unless it is actually divided between them. Being property of nobody, it has its own existence and it can be termed a legal entity.

The heirs of the deceased or his nominated executor will look after the property as managers, but they are not the owners. If the process of the settlement of debt requires some expenses, the same will be met by the property itself.

Looked at from this angle, this 'inheritance under debt' has its own entity which may sell and purchase, becomes debtor and creditor, and has the characteristics very much similar to those of a 'juridical person.' Not only this, the liability of this 'juridical person' is certainly limited to its existing assets. If the assets do not suffice to  settle all the debts, there is no remedy left with its creditors to sue anybody, including the heirs of the deceased, for the rest of their claims.

These are some instances where the Muslim jurists have affirmed a legal entity, similar to that of a juridical person. These examples would show that the concept of 'juridical person' is not totally foreign to the Islamic jurisprudence, and if the juridical entity of a joint-stock company is accepted  on the basis of these precedents, no serious objection is likely to be raised against it.

As mentioned earlier, the question of limited liability of a company is closely related to the concept of a 'juridical person'. If a 'juridical person' can be treated a natural person in its rights and obligations, then, every person is liable only to the limit of the assets he owns, and in case he dies insolvent no other person can bear the burden of his remaining liabilities, however closely related to him he may be. On this analogy the limited liability of a joint-stock company may be justified.

The Limited Liability of the master of a slave
Here I would like to cite another example with advantage, which is the closest example to the limited liability of a joint-stock company. The example relates to a period of our past history when slavery was in vogue, and the slaves were treated as the property of their masters and were freely traded in. Although the institution of slavery with reference to our age is something past and closed, yet the legal principles laid down by our jurists while dealing with various questions pertaining to the trade of slaves are still beneficial to a student of Islamic jurisprudence, and we can avail of those principles while seeking solutions to our modern problems and in this respect, it is believed that this example is the most relevant to the question at issue. The slaves in those days were of two kinds. The first kind was of those who were not permitted by their masters to enter into any commercial transaction. A slave of this kind was called 'Qinn'. But there was another kind of slaves who were allowed by their masters to trade. A slave of this kind was called «‰Ÿ»œ†«‰Â?–ËÊ The initial capital for the purpose of trade was  given to such a slave by his master, but he was free to enter into all the commercial transactions. The capital invested by him totally belonged to  his master. The income would also vest in him, and whatever the slave earned would go to the master as his exclusive property. If in the course of trade, the slave incurred debts, the same would be set off by the cash and the stock present in the hands of the slave. But if the amount of such cash and stock would not be sufficient to set off the debts, the creditors had a right to sell the slave and settle their claims out of his price. However, if their claims would not be satisfied even after selling the slave, and the slave would die in that state of indebtedness, the creditors could not approach his master for the rest of their claims.
Here, the master was actually the owner of the whole business, the slave being merely an intermediary tool to carry out the business transactions. The slave owned nothing from the business. Still, the liability of the master was limited to the capital he invested including the value of the slave. After the death of the slave, the creditors could not have a claim over the personal assets of the master.

This is the nearest example found in the Islamic Fiqh which is very much similar to the limited liability of the share holders of a company, which can be justified on the same analogy.

On the basis of these five precedents, it seems that the concepts of a juridical person and that of limited liability do not contravene any injunction of Islam. But at the same time, it should be emphasized, that the concept of 'limited liability' should not be allowed to work for cheating people and escaping the natural liabilities consequent to a profitable trade. So, the concept could be restricted, to the public companies only who issue their shares to the general public and the number of whose shareholders is so large that each one of them cannot be held responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the business and for the debts exceeding the assets.

As for the private companies or the partnerships, the concept of limited liability should not be applied to  them, because, practically, each one of their shareholders and partners can easily acquire a knowledge of the day-to-day affairs of the business and should be held responsible for all its liabilities.

There may be an exception for the sleeping partners or the shareholders of a private company who do not take part in the business practically and their liability may be limited as per agreement between the partners.

If the sleeping partners have a limited liability under this agreement, it means, in terms of Islamic jurisprudence, that they have not allowed the working partners to incur debts exceeding the value of the assets of the business. In this case, if the debts of the business increase from the specified limit, it will be the sole responsibility of the working partners who have exceeded the limit.

The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the concept of limited liability can be justified, from the Shari‘ah viewpoint, in the public joint-stock companies and those corporate bodies only who issue their shares to general public. The concept may also be applied to the sleeping partners of a firm and to the shareholders of a private company who take no active part in the business management. But the liability of the active partners in a partnership and active shareholders of a private company should always be unlimited.

At the end, we should again recall what has been pointed out at the outset. The issue of limited liability, being a modern issue which requires a collective effort to find out its solution in the light of Shari‘ah, the above discussion should not be deemed to be a final verdict on the subject. This is only the outcome of an initial thinking which always remains subject to further study and research.