Is it permissible to conduct a Murabaha transaction to purchase a house, where the bank pays 70% and the buyer pays 30%, and the house is registered in the bank's name then sold to the buyer with a 7% increase, with a late payment penalty (donated to charities), and then the house is registered in the buyer's name after all installments are paid?

The percentage paid by the client before the bank acquires ownership of the property has three possibilities: It could be a partnership, where the ordering party purchases a share and the bank purchases the other share, then the bank sells its share; or it could be a guarantee of seriousness. Both of these are permissible. As for the third possibility, which is paying it to the bank from the price of the property as if the client had purchased it before the bank acquired ownership, this is not permissible because it falls under selling what one does not own. As for Murabaha sale for the ordering party, it is permissible if it is applied to a commodity after it enters the possession of the mandated party and is seized. The promise is religiously binding and may be legally binding. A binding promise in a Murabaha sale is permissible on the condition of the option (of cancellation), otherwise, it is not permissible. Imposing a late payment penalty is not permissible, even if some contemporary scholars deem it so. The house remaining in the bank's name until the price is paid is permissible if it is considered as pawning the sold item with the seller to guarantee his right.