Ma`rifat Eqtesadi

One of the contentious issues in the *Mudarabah* (profit-sharing partnership) contract is the guarantee of profit. This article employs a jurisprudential methodology to examine the legitimacy of four proposed approaches intended to validate a profit-guarantee stipulation within *Mudarabah*. This analysis is conducted in light of the inherent requirements of the *Mudarabah* contract, religious evidence (*adillah*), and the texts concerning *hiyal al-riba* (legal stratagems to circumvent the prohibition of *riba*). The research findings indicate that the four mechanisms for covering losses—namely, the stipulation of a result (*shart al-natijah*), the stipulation of an act (*shart al-fi'l*), the stipulation of the agent (*'amil*) waiving a portion of their share, and the stipulation of transferring the loss—fail to provide a valid religious basis for such a guarantee. This is because they differ fundamentally from a standard guarantee stipulation (*shart al-daman*) and effectively revert to *riba* (usury). Specifically, the "stipulation of a result" is religiously invalid because it imposes a liability on the agent without the actual occurrence of a loss of capital (*talaf*). The "stipulation to cover losses" is invalid because it conflates the compensation for lost potential profit (*'adam al-naf'*) with a guarantee of profit. The "stipulation for the agent to waive a portion of their share" is rejected because it creates an obligation for the agent. Finally, the "stipulation to transfer the loss" is religiously impermissible as it aligns with the prohibited practice of *riba*. Consequently, a profit guarantee in *Mudarabah* is void (*batil*), and these four approaches serve merely as a change in terminology—a stratagem to evade the prohibition of *riba*.