Question:
As a Digital Marketing Agency, is outsourcing the services for our clients from another Digital Marketing Agency (called White Label Agency) – is this permissible? [Question Published as Received]
The Fatwa
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
The Answer
As a Digital Marketing Agency, outsourcing services for your clients from another Digital Marketing Agency, commonly referred to as a White Label Agency, is permissible. This is subject to the condition that the customer does not stipulate that the work must be exclusively carried out by the original service provider.
It is crucial to maintain transparency with clients where necessary and ensure that the quality of service promised is consistently delivered. Additionally, the primary agency retains responsibility and accountability for the services rendered to the end client, even when they are outsourced.
The Fiqh of The Answer
A white label agency is a company that provides services or products to another company, which then rebrands those services or products as their own. Essentially, the white label agency does the work “behind the scenes,” allowing the client company to present the end result as if it was produced in-house. This is common in various industries like digital marketing, software development, and product manufacturing. For example, a white label digital marketing agency might create a website or run an SEO campaign for a client, and the client would then sell or present that service to their own customers under their own brand name.
The mechanics of outsourcing to a white labelling agency revolve around the strategic positioning of an intermediary who bridges the gap between client demand and service provision. At the outset, entrepreneurs identify profitable service niches—whether that be graphic design, content creation, software development, or any number of digital services. They then set up a digital storefront or platform to attract and communicate with potential clients. Pricing strategy is crucial; the drop servicer typically marks up the price to ensure a margin between what they charge their clients and what they pay their third-party providers. Once an order is received, the entrepreneur forwards the job details to the freelancer or an agency responsible for executing the work. Upon completion, the service is delivered back through the drop servicer to the client, ensuring continuity and a seamless customer experience.
‘Allāmah Marghīnānī (d.593 AH) in al-Hidāyah, supported by commentators such as Sighnāqī (d.711 AH) and Bābirti (d.786 AH), asserts that when a party is commissioned for a piece of work, they have the prerogative to delegate it. This is grounded in the idea that the task becomes their responsibility, providing them the discretion to either execute the task personally or by contracting to a third-party , much like discharging a debt, the obligation can be fulfilled directly or by delegating the task to someone else. This view finds concurrence in Ibn Nujaym’s (d.970 AH) al-Baḥr al-Rā’iq.
Corresponding to the above Ibn ‘Abidīn (d.1252 AH) states, “The agreement primarily focuses on the task’s completion or its outcome.” Anecdotally it is mentioned In Taqrīrāt al-Rafiī’ī that this if it is not stipulated contractually that he should be the sole ‘servicer’.
Liability (Ḍamān) is a critical component in the realm of task delegation, especially in the context of crafts and trades. In the context of drop-servicing, the contracted party is classified as an Ajīr Mushtarak. Imām al-Qudūrī (d.428 AH) defines the Ajīr Mushtarak as an individual who is only entitled to compensation upon the completion of the assigned task or work. This, in contrast to the Ajīr Khāṣ, who is remunerated for their time and presence, rather than specifically for their contribution or task delivery.
A divergent stance exists between Imām Abū Ḥanīfah (d.150 AH) and his esteemed students, Abū Yūsuf (d.182 AH) and Muhammad (d.189 AH), regarding the liability of Ajīr Mushtarak. While Imām Abū Ḥanīfah posits that the Ajīr Mushtarak is free from liability, owing to the trust (Amanah) inherent in their agreement and provided they commit no deliberate transgressions. Imām Abū Yūsuf and Imām Muḥammad contend that even minor negligence or inattention renders the Ajīr liable. The sole exception (istiḥsān) they acknowledge arises when the Ajīr faces situations beyond their control, such as force majeures.
Ibn ‘Abidīn (d.1252 AH), highlighting this difference, suggests that Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s perspective aligns with Qiyās (analogical reasoning) and rationality due to the nature said agreements have. By default the prevailing directive (fatwā), across the chapters of Fiqh predominantly aligns with Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s view, barring a few exceptions, where a compelling need arises necessitating diversion from his view. This is termed ‘Rasm al-Muftī.’ Hence, Ibn ‘Abidīn notes that due to evolving societal conditions, the verdict should lean towards the opinions of . Imām Abū Yūsuf and Imām Muḥammad. Zayla’ī (d.743 AH) articulates the rationale behind this and highlights that without imposing responsibility, there is a risk that individuals might grow negligent in safeguarding goods or, worse, use theft or damage as pretexts for misappropriation.
The query pertaining to liability in cases of subcontracting: Who is responsible when issues arise? Based on the above, both agreements should be viewed as separate entities. As a result, the initial contractor is liable to the primary client, and the subcontracted worker, the white labelling agency, is answerable to the original contractor. The latter does not in any manner negate responsibility of the drop servicer’s service(s) to the initial consumer.
And Almighty Allah Alone Knows Best
Maulana Ammar Y Badat
Trainee Mufti
Reviewed and approved by
Mufti Faraz Adam
Darul Iftaa Muadh ibn Jabal
www.darulfiqh.com
DISCLAIMER:
The views and opinions expressed in this answer belong only to the author and do not in any way represent or reflect the views of any institutions to which he may be affiliated.
Arguments and ideas propounded in this answer are based on the juristic interpretations and reasoning of the author. Given that contemporary issues and interpretations of contemporary issues are subjective in nature, another Mufti may reach different conclusions to the one expressed by the author. Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure total accuracy and soundness from a Shari’ah perspective, the author is open to any correction or juristic guidance. On the event of any juristic shortcomings, the author will retract any or all of the conclusions expressed within this answer.
The Shari’ah ruling given herein is based specifically on the scenario in question. The author bears no responsibility towards any party that acts or does not act on this answer and is exempted from any and all forms of loss or damage. This answer may not be used as evidence in any court of law without prior written consent from the author. Consideration is only given and is restricted to the specific links provided, the author does not endorse nor approve of any other content the website may contain.
وإن أطلق له العمل فله أن يستاجر من يعمله لأن المستحق عمل في ذمته ويمكن ايفاؤه بنفسه أو بالاستعانة بغيره بمنزلة إيفاء الدين (الهداية وكذا في البحر الرائق)
لأن المعقود عليه في حقه هو العمل أو أثره. (حاشية ابن عابدين) قوله أو أثره أى وأثره إذا لم يشترط أن يعمل بنفسه (تقريرات الرافعي)
وفي البدائع لا يضمن عنده ماهلك بغير صنعة قبل العمل أو بعده لأنه أمانة في يده وهو القياس، وقالا يضمن الا من حرق غالب أو لصوص مكابرين وهو استحسان (حاشية ابن عابدين)
إعلم ان كثيرا من الأحكام التي نص عليها المجتهد صاحب المذهب ، بناء على ماكان في عرفه وزمانه قد تغيرت بتغير الازمان بسبب فساد أهل الزمان…. منه تضمين الأجير المشترك. (عقود رسم الفتى)
(فإذا هلك بسبب يمكن الاحتراز عنه كالغصب والسرقة كان التقصير من جهته فيضمنه كالوديعة إذا كانت بأجر) ش: لأنه صار بالتقصير تاركا ذلك الحفظ المستحق فيضمن، فصار مثل الدق، فالمستحق بالعقد دق سليم عن عيب التحرق، فإذا انحرق كان ضامنا م: (بخلاف ما لا يمكن الاحتراز عنه كالموت حتف أنفه والحريق الغالب وغيره) ش: مثل بسيل الغالب والفار على بلد هو فيه م: (لأنه لا تقصير من جهته) ش: فلم يكن متعديا فلا يضمن
م: (ولأبي حنيفة – رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ – أن العين أمانة في يده، لأن القبض حصل بإذنه) ش: لإقامة العمل فيه فلا يكون مضمونا عليه كالمودع وأجير الواحد م: (ولهذا) ش: توضيح لما قبله م: (لو هلك بسبب لا يمكن الاحتراز عنه لا يضمنه ولو كان مضمونا) ش: يعني ولو كان المتاع مضمونا في يده م: (يضمنه كما في المغصوب) ش: أي كما يضمن في المغصوب في الحالين. (البناية شرح الهداية)