Ma`rifat Eqtesadi

Revenue-sharing agreements have become a significant new financing solution, particularly in areas such as startups and higher education. Unlike traditional methods such as loans or venture capital (VC), these agreements are structured around a portion of future revenue rather than relying on heavy collateral or equity transfers. Within this framework, models such as revenue-based financing (RBF) and income-sharing agreements (ISA) are used to provide capital to businesses and individuals. In the RBF model, the investor receives a percentage of the company’s gross revenue up to a certain limit, while in the ISA model, the individual commits to paying a portion of their revenue over a specified period. Despite their features such as flexibility in payment and reduced need for collateral, these agreements face challenges from a jurisprudential perspective. A descriptive-analytical study of this issue shows that if these contracts are considered as loans, any receipt of an amount exceeding the principal amount will be usurious in nature. On the other hand, if these models are defined as partnerships, principles such as profit sharing after deducting expenses must be observed, while in the RBF and ISA structures, profit is divided based on gross income, which is not consistent with the partnership rules in Islamic jurisprudence. Although solutions such as the use of a Joaleh contract or the definition of income as a "negotiable right" in a compound Murabaha contract have been proposed to adapt these contracts to Sharia standards, these approaches also present challenges due to jurisprudential considerations and customary requirements of contracts.