The Binding Unilateral Promise (wa’d) in Islamic Banking Operations: Is it Permissible for a Unilateral Promise (wa’d) to be Binding as an Alternative to a Proscribed Contract?

Past jurists have three distinct positions on the unilateral promise (wa’d): 1. For the majority of jurists, fulfilling it is recommendable. 2. For Ibn Shubrimah and others, fulfilling it is obligatory except where otherwise justified. 3. For the Maliki school, fulfilling it is obligatory, if the case entails difficulties for the unilateral promisee, i.e., in case he incurs a cost. For instance, if the promisor says to the unilateral promisee: Get married, I unilaterally promise (wa’d) you 10 thousand Riyals and the latter does marry, then, the promisor is duty-bound to fulfill his unilateral promise (wa’d). This divergence on the plain unilateral promise (wa’d) is a logical and reasonable one, which falls under "permissible controversy issues " (ma yajuz fih al-khilaf). Nevertheless, some modern jurists have moved such a unilateral promise (wa’d) from the category of voluntary offer (tabarru‘āt) to that of commutative contracts, (mu‘awadāt), so as to replace the contract. That is because these proponents have found that (murabahah, i.e., a resale contract with specification of gain (costplus original price)) is not permissible, since it falls under the sale of goods that are not in one's possession (the goods are not in the bank's possession). So they replaced the contract with the unilateral promise (wa’d), that is to say, they made the contract