Publication details and dates
Original title: The Role of Khiyar al-‘Ayb in al-Bay’ Bithaman Ajil Financing. The original masthead names Saiful Azhar Rosly, Mahmood Sanusi and Norhashimah Mohd Yasin, and International Journal of Islamic Financial Services, Vol. 2 No. 3. All three authors are credited here; an incomplete catalogue byline should not replace the original.References: Recovered original paper (external full text) — PDF p. 1, title and journal masthead
The external full-text copy has 9 PDF pages; a calendar date is not printed in the masthead inspected. A later scholarly literature survey hosted by IIUM cites the article as 2000, 2(3), pp. 1–9. A 2019 USIM journal article cites it as 2001. Treat 2000 as a corroborated bibliographic year, not a freshly verified printed issue date. The original journal issue directory could not be retrieved. No DOI or ISRA paper number is claimed.References: Recovered original paper (external full text) — PDF p. 1 masthead; 9-page copy; IIUM-hosted literature survey: bibliography — PDF p. 18 (printed p. 465), Rosly et al. reference; printed year 2019 on PDF p. 1; USIM journal reference using 2001 — References, Rosly, Sanusi & Yasin (2001); Published 2019-06-12
Full text is available at the external paper link. The supplied IEFpedia post could not be reopened successfully during this check. The reconstruction inventory associates this title with the old cid66 endpoint, but that numeric mapping has not been independently reconfirmed from the live post or old download. The PDF’s title, authors and journal identity are verified separately.
The original argument in plain language
In the authors’ account, khiyar al-‘ayb is a conditional right to rescind a sale because of a defect in the item sold. The authors connect seller liability to ‘iwad, the countervalue supporting sale profit. They argue that the BBA documents examined shifted liabilities to the customer and treated the bank as financier rather than responsible seller. Their recommendation is to restore a real risk-and-liability component; this is their historical critique, not a new ruling by this page.References: Recovered original paper (external full text) — PDF pp. 1–2 and 7–8, §§1–2 and §5 Conclusion and Recommendation
The paper’s BBA sale chain and liability question
Historical structure described in sections 3.2–3.2.2; not the Maybank commodity product.
- Developer → customer
A sale agreement gives the customer the beneficial interest (rights to benefit from the property) described in the paper.
- Customer → bank
Property Purchase Agreement: the bank buys for resale.
- Bank → customer
Property Sale Agreement: resale on deferred payment including profit; security supports payment.
- The authors’ challenge
If the bank claims sale profit, what defect liability does it actually bear?
Full text alternative
The customer first has a developer sale agreement. The bank then buys under the property purchase agreement and resells under the property sale agreement with deferred payment. The paper asks whether seller responsibility accompanies that sale profit. The diagram does not establish today’s title ownership or entitlement to cancel.
The paper examines property purchase/sale documentation and explains defect-option conditions and limits. It is not an audit of every bank, a present product comparison or proof that a named customer’s agreement is invalid. Its reported court discussion is the authors’ use of a historical case; this page does not independently restate that judgment as current law.References: Recovered original paper (external full text) — PDF pp. 3–8, §§3.2–5.0; no independent current-law claim
Why finding a defect is only the start
In the paper’s account, relevant questions include when the defect existed, whether it affected value or intended use, what the buyer knew, and whether liability was waived. It also discusses acceptance after discovery, transfer of the asset, minor defects and a new defect arising in the buyer’s possession. These qualifications matter: the article should not be read as a cancellation button for any dissatisfaction.References: Recovered original paper (external full text) — PDF p. 6, §§4.1–4.2
The paper discusses rescission and return, continuing with the purchase, and price reduction in particular circumstances. For example, where a new defect occurs in the buyer’s possession alongside an older seller-side defect, the authors describe reduction of value rather than return. This describes the paper’s doctrine; it does not award a repair payment, refund or cancellation of your financing.References: Recovered original paper (external full text) — PDF pp. 5–6, §4 and §4.2, old and new defect discussion
These are attributed historical doctrinal descriptions. In particular, a waiver described by the authors does not establish that every waiver is enforceable under present Malaysian law. The available copy does not supply your signed terms, current statutory rights, facts about a defect or a dispute decision. No claim deadline, compensation amount or automatic payment suspension is supplied here.
From a research argument to a reader’s next question
Separate verified contents, dated critique and missing personal evidence.
- What is available
Original authors and journal masthead; 9-page full text. Date not printed in inspected masthead; later IIUM-hosted citation uses 2000.
- What the paper argues
Defect responsibility should accompany sale profit. Conditions and limits apply to the option discussed.
- What still needs checking
Your sale asset, signed clauses, defect facts and applicable remedy process. Do not assume that a complaint suspends payments.
Full text alternative
Full text and author/journal identity are available, with a precise date gap. The paper critiques seller liability and discusses conditional defect options. Personal remedies still require the actual agreements, defect evidence and applicable process; this record supplies no automatic legal or Shariah outcome.
A Malaysian example: keep the two files together
Fictional scenario: a buyer in Selangor notices a leak after receiving the keys. The buyer collects dated photographs, inspection notes, the developer sale agreement and handover record. In a second file, the buyer keeps the financing offer, Product Disclosure Sheet (PDS) and any property purchase/sale or agency agreements. This practical record helps establish what happened and identify the parties; it does not itself prove an entitlement.
Ask for written explanations of the defect process and the financing obligations while the issue is investigated. Ask who receives the complaint, what evidence is needed, and what contractual basis supports any proposed change to payments or settlement. These are new editorial questions, not a remedy awarded by the paper. Do not infer that sending a defect notice cancels the financing obligation.
Check what is actually being sold today
The examined Maybank Commodity Murabahah (CM) Home Financing-i PDS describes the bank buying a commodity, selling it to the customer on deferred terms and acting as agent to sell it onward for cash. The property secures the facility. That differs from the historical BBA property-sale chain in this paper. A home-financing label alone does not establish that the bank sold the house or undertook a house-defect warranty.References: Maybank CM Home Financing-i PDS — p. 1, CM product description
The PDS warns of late charges, possible set-off, foreclosure/legal action and rate-sensitive instalments. Its fire protection requirement and encouraged death/permanent-disability cover address different risks; neither statement establishes cover for workmanship defects. The bank’s product page states customer-paid legal and valuation fees and stamp duties, and no commodity trading/brokerage fee. Get actual terms and a dated quotation rather than merge older marketing concessions with this undated PDS.References: Maybank CM Home Financing-i PDS — pp. 1–2, §§2–4 and rate sensitivity; Maybank product page: application and fees — Fees and Charges
A useful checklist for any buyer
- Does my facility use BBA property sales, commodity murabahah, leasing or another structure?
- Which asset is sold in each agreement? Who is seller, buyer, agent and developer?
- What clauses cover defects, representations, waivers, notices and dispute handling?
- What continues to be payable, and who can confirm a change in writing?
- What are the costs of inspection, repair, financing and any early settlement? Which remain unknown?
These questions are useful for Muslim and non-Muslim buyers. The examined Maybank product page states an application scope of all individuals, joint applicants, residents and non-residents without a religion condition in that section. This is not an approval or equal-price promise. Religious evaluation of sale profit and liability is a separate matter from practical document collection and individual legal rights.References: Maybank product page: application and fees — How to apply
Full-text access and publication details
The external paper is recovered and its contents can support this attributed source record. The cid66 mapping, original download bytes and exact printed issue date remain unverified. This bilingual HTML explanation does not replace an original full-text download or establish an exact match to the old file. No source-dependent legal conclusion is filled in using a general BBA guide.
References
Original English papers are linked externally. The Bahasa Melayu text is a newly written explanation, not an issuer-certified translation. Access date for the sources checked here: 6 October 2026.
- Maybank CM Home Financing-i PDS
Two-page public English PDS accessed 6 October 2026. No printed issue/effective date or version identified; the customer date field is blank.
Product-specific public illustration, not your personalised offer. No rate or total from the illustration is presented here as a live quote. No defect warranty or court outcome established.
- Maybank product page: application and fees
Live webpage checked 6 October 2026; no reliable contract effective/version date stated for the cited application/fee sections.
Application scope and stated fee categories only. Marketing terms mentioning IBR or stamp-duty concessions are not merged into the undated SBR PDS or asserted as a current offer. Approval and final costs require actual documents.
- Recovered original paper (external full text)
Masthead: Vol. 2 No. 3, without a printed calendar date in the inspected copy. Later IIUM-hosted citation: 2000, pp. 1–9; other citations use 2001.
Historical original argument read in external full text. No original download bytes, present contractual audit, court outcome or new institutional ruling verified. External availability does not license full reproduction.
- IIUM-hosted literature survey: bibliography
Later scholarly article, 2019; the cited bibliography records the older paper as 2000, 2(3), pp. 1–9.
Used only as bibliographic corroboration, not as the original journal issue or proof of its exact printed date.
- USIM journal reference using 2001
Later article published 12 June 2019. Its References cite the khiyar article as 2001, 2(3), pp. 1–9.
Used only to document the conflicting later bibliographic year. It is not the original issue masthead or evidence of a present product remedy.