Murabaha (cost plus profit) financing is the most common mode of financing in Islamic banks. Disputes involve murabaha have been subject for several academic studies. For example, in Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Shamil Bank of Bahrain EC  APP LR 01/ 28 (UK), murabaha has been reinterpreted as loans charging interests. Academics argue that this implies that Islamic finance scholars replicate conventional modes of financing (El-Gamal 2006, Hamoudi 2007, Djojosugito 2008, Hanafi 2012, Oseni et al. 2016, Baamir 2010, Abozaid 2010, Maita 2013, Moghul et al. 2003). From an economic perspective, Kuran (2004) states that the rigidity of the legal and institutional Islamic financial instruments are key factors on the economic underdevelopment in the Middle East. Hanafi (2012), on the other hand, asserted that solving IFC related cases under non-Islamic law led to unfair treatment to the parties involved because judges lack Islamic commercial law background. Thus, implementing murabaha in as it is the most widely used in Islamic banks,
Kuran, T. (2004). Why the Middle East is economically underdeveloped: Historical Mecanishm of Institutional Stagnation. Journal of Economics Perspective, 18(4), 71-90.
Based on the above, this dissertation is aimed at (1) investigating the legal and regulatory challenges of murabaha in civil and common through interviewing bankers, lawyers, and sharia scholars; (2) studying the role of consumer protection in safeguarding the rights of parties in debt-based products such as murabaha; (3) exploring the role of almurabaha aldawwara (revolving murabaha) in deposits insurance.