RFP Module 2 common mistakes
RFP Module 2 · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the capstone as a knowledge-recall test and answering with memorised definitions of Riba, Gharar and Maisir instead of applying them to the specific transaction structure given in the prompt.
Earlier modules reward definitional recall, so candidates carry that habit into Module 7, where marks are allocated to the quality of the Shariah analysis of a concrete case rather than to reciting textbook terms.
What to do instead
Before writing, restate the transaction in your own words, then name each prohibited element that is actually engaged, cite the condition it breaches, and state the cure (for example, restructuring a sale so ownership and risk pass before resale). Practise by taking three real deal structures and writing a two-paragraph Shariah diagnosis for each without using any definition you have not applied.
Confusing the roles of the Shariah Supervisory Board, the Shariah review/audit function and the internal Shariah compliance officer, and assigning approval authority to the wrong body in governance questions.
The three functions overlap in day-to-day language, and candidates who have not worked in an Islamic bank default to a generic 'compliance approves it' answer.
What to do instead
Build a one-page role map: the Board issues fatwas and binding opinions; Shariah review/audit tests whether actual practice conforms; the compliance officer monitors and reports exceptions. Then answer every governance question by naming which of the three acts, what it produces (fatwa, audit report, exception log) and to whom it reports (usually the Board and the board risk committee).
Drafting the capstone report as a descriptive summary of the institution's products without a defined scope, methodology, sampling approach and evidence trail, so the assessor cannot see how conclusions were reached.
Candidates treat the capstone as an essay and write from general impressions, having never been taught that a Shariah review is an assurance engagement requiring documented scope and evidence.
What to do instead
Structure the report to the standard review lifecycle: objective and scope, criteria (which AAOIFI standards and internal fatwas), sample selection and rationale, testing performed, exceptions found with evidence references, root cause, remediation owner and date, and an overall opinion. Draft the scope and criteria sections first, before any analysis, so every later finding maps back to them.
Relying on AAOIFI standards as if they were the only applicable framework, ignoring that the institution's own fatwas, the local central bank rulebook and, in some jurisdictions, a national Shariah advisory council also bind the answer.
AAOIFI is the most memorable framework from earlier study, and candidates do not check whether the scenario specifies a jurisdiction or an internal policy that overrides or supplements it.
What to do instead
For every question, run a quick hierarchy check: national regulator rules first, then the institution's own fatwas and policies, then AAOIFI as the reference standard where the others are silent. State the hierarchy explicitly in your answer and flag any conflict between layers rather than silently picking one.
Identifying a Shariah breach but stopping there, without classifying severity, tracing the root cause, or stating a remediation, so the answer reads as an observation rather than a finding.
Candidates equate 'spotting the problem' with 'answering the question', a habit reinforced by earlier modules where naming the issue earned the mark.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed finding template and use it every time: condition required, actual practice observed, gap, severity and rationale, root cause, remediation action, responsible owner, target date, and whether the issue is isolated or systemic. Practise converting five bare observations into full findings until the template is automatic.
Mixing up profit rate and profit-sharing ratio in a Musharakah or Mudarabah question, or applying a fixed return to a structure that must share risk, producing an answer that is itself non-compliant.
Conventional finance training makes fixed percentage returns feel natural, and candidates use 'profit rate' loosely without distinguishing the ratio from the return.
What to do instead
Before answering any partnership question, write down which party contributes capital, which contributes effort, and how profit is split as a ratio of actual profit, and confirm losses fall on capital unless there is misconduct or negligence. Check your draft answer for any sentence that guarantees a return to a capital provider and delete or restructure it.
Ignoring the sequence of ownership and risk transfer in Murabaha, Tawarruq and Ijarah, and describing a sale or lease that would in substance be a loan with interest.
Candidates compress multi-step structures into a single line for brevity and lose the steps that make the structure Shariah-compliant, especially the institution taking ownership and bearing risk before onward sale.
What to do instead
Draw the transaction as numbered steps with the owner and the risk-bearer at each step, then write the answer from the diagram. Verify that at least one step shows the institution holding title and bearing ownership risk, and that no step makes the customer's obligation a pure repayment of money with an increment.
Presenting a recommendation without discussing alternatives and trade-offs, so a choice between Sukuk structures, hedging via Wa'd, or a Takaful model is justified only by preference.
Capstone questions often ask for a recommendation, and candidates answer with a single option, forgetting that the marks are for the reasoning that discriminates between options.
What to do instead
For every recommendation, write a short options table with at least two alternatives, the Shariah, commercial and operational merits of each, and the specific criteria that decide the choice. End with the recommendation, the conditions under which it would change, and the residual risks accepted.
Handling Zakat, purification of non-compliant income, or late payment penalties by simply stating the rule, without saying who calculates it, from which base, when it is paid, and where the money goes.
These are treated as minor side topics in earlier study, so candidates give a one-line answer and miss the operational detail the capstone expects.
What to do instead
For each of these items, write the full operational chain: the base and rate, the calculation owner and frequency, the approval required, the destination (charity, not institution income, for penalties), and the disclosure or reporting line. Keep a one-page reference card for these three items and rehearse it before the exam.
Running out of time because the candidate spends most of the allocation on the descriptive background section and leaves the analysis, findings and recommendations thin or unfinished.
Background is easy to write and feels productive, while analysis requires judgement, so time is misallocated under exam pressure.
What to do instead
Allocate time by mark weight before starting, cap the background at a short paragraph, and write the findings and recommendations sections first if time is tight. Practise full timed capstone papers at least twice, tracking minutes per section, so the allocation is rehearsed rather than improvised.