What is the ruling on investing in Haptco Company, which yields enormous profits, and whose operators claim that its activity is limited to trading in matters permissible by Sharia?

Upon reviewing the Hebco company contract, it was found that most of its clauses are shrouded in ambiguity and lack of clarity, which increases confusion and unease, especially since the contracts are not identical. Furthermore, some clauses prohibit dealing with this company, namely:

1. Clause 5: Which stipulates the payment of a specific portion of the profits to the second party (not exceeding a certain percentage of the capital). This leads to gharar (excessive uncertainty) and the squandering of the first party's right, and it contradicts the intent of a company contract. 2. Clause 8: Includes restrictions on the second party and penalizes them with a percentage if they do not notify the other party within a specific period. This contradicts the principle that a company contract is not binding, and that mere consent does not permit unlawful transactions. 3. Clause 9: A check is paid to the second party proving their right, on the condition of guarantee. It is known that the hand of a partner and an agent is a hand of trust (yad amanah) and not a hand of guarantee (yad dhaman), and it is not permissible in Islamic law to hold either of them liable for guarantee except in cases of negligence or dereliction.

Conclusion: What we have seen of the contracts of this company is not free from significant Sharia-related objections that affect the validity of the contract. A Muslim should be cautious of any transaction that might bring unlawful or questionable wealth.