Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Using bank facilities other than the subject of the contract is one of the basic challenges in banking, especially Islamic banking. Sometimes, customers mention some things to get bank facilities during the contract. Still, after the contract, they allocate money outside of what was agreed in the contract, and even in some cases, they may have the intention of deceiving the bank and intending to violate the contract from the beginning. This article raises the question of if the customer violates the contract, what is the obligatory sentence and status sentence of it? It seeks to determine the Sharia ruling on this issue. To find the answer to this question, the hypothesis of obligatory haram and invalidity of the contract has been put to the test, and an attempt has been made to clarify the Sharia ruling of this act by using jurisprudential sources and the opinions of jurists. In this research, the qualitative method of content analysis has been used and an attempt has been made to analyze sources and jurisprudential texts based on scientific theories. The results of the research show that compliance with the contract is mandatory and violation of it is considered a violation of the permission of the owner (bank) and makes the recipient of the facility to be the guarantor for any damages. Jurisprudents differ about the validity of the contract in case of the customer's violation, but the benefits from the capital will belong to the customer, and the customer's possession of these benefits is subject to the bank's permission.
Ibrahimi et al. (Tue,) studied this question.