Pembentukan Kontrak Murabahah dalam Jual Beli Hartanah di Bank-Bank : Pandangan Masyarakat Pekanbaru Riau

The enforcement of Law Number 10/1998 amending the Law Number 7/1992 regarding banking, has marked a new era for Indonesia banking system where dual banking system: shariah banking and conventional banking were practised together. In a very short time, shariah banking has experienced rapid development. However, this situation has led to a problem where a part of society considers the sale and purchase of property under murabahah agreement offered by bank that provide shariah-based loan facility is still the same as credit facility in the conventional bank in Pekanbaru. Objectives of the research are to examine the implementa-
tion of freedom of contract in the terms of murabahah agreement, secondly, to analyse the implementation of the contract terms in murabahah agreement between bank and customer, thirdly, to identify the reasons for choosing shariah-based bank for transaction; and finally, to analyse the duties and responsibilities of both the bank and customer when implementing transaction activity based on shariah principles. This research involves three conventio-
nal banks that provide shariah-based loan facility and two general shariah bank. 351 samples of respondents responded to questionnaire and the data were analysed using descriptive statistic and legal sociological analysis methodology. Results of this research indicate that: (1) the terms of the murabahah agreement between bank and customer failed to observe the principle of freedom of contract because customer has no choice but must execute a standard form agreement prepared by the bank, even though the content of such agreement is not against the law, (2) the murabahah agreement is in conformity with shariah principles, (3) the main reason for customer to choose the transaction because murabahah is in line with the Islamic principle, besides good hospitality services by bank staff, and (4) bank and customer appear to comply with their duties and responsibilities as agreed in the contract even though in some cases the customers were late in paying the loan instalment. Therefore, this research has shown that there is no proof to support the claim as mentioned above.