Consider the following questions which illustrate the ambiguity of the contract: 1- Why does the tenant need to pay a large down payment? (Frequently an amount equal to 10% of the price is required. A genuine tenant does of course make some kind of down payment, relevant to the period of the tenancy, but no credible tenancy agreement can bind the tenant to place such a large down payment.) If this is the quality of the question then it only illuminates that he has either not seen the contracts or did not understand them whatsoever. 2- Who pays the insurance of the house? Is it the bank or the tenant? (Technically, the owner of an asset is the one who should pay for its insurance.) This is irrelevant to whether the contract agreement is impermissible. 3- What will happen if there is loss or damage to the property and the insurance company refuses to cover the losses incurred? Who will pay for this? (Once again, if the bank is the actual owner, and such a loss or damage occurred through no fault of the client, then the bank cannot hold the client responsible for damages.) See above 4- If the tenant decides to stop the tenancy agreement, the bank will sell the property. If the price of the property has depreciated in the meantime (which means the bank as the owner of the property suffers a loss), why is the client bound to compensate that entire loss while being only a tenant? See answer to point one. i just do not think this sheikh actual got what actually is involved in the contracts The point of all these questions is to address the central issue, namely, who is considered the actual owner (and thus liable for any damages or depreciation in value) for the duration of the lease? Is it the bank (in which case all of the above scenarios do not make sense), or is it the client (in which case this contract is not a lease contract in the first place, but rather something else)? It is an old document date 2004. I think people should be conscious of just copying and pasting information that is just causes fitna. If you have a thorough piece of evidence that dissects the contracts involved and can prove the impermissibility especially the hanafi school of ruling (since Mufti Taqi the originator for HSBC is from that school then this will be of a contributed to the situation