StructureIdentified in the AMJA Resident Fatwa Committee resolution as offering a mushāraka contract that, in its reviewed form, required fundamental modification: AMJA cited the need to establish clear property ownership, ensure the company bears maintenance costs, and remove capital guarantees, and suggested AYA raise Muslim-investor capital to operate independently of conventional banks.
Identified by name in the AMJA Canadian resolution, which did NOT approve its mushāraka in the reviewed form — citing the need to establish clear ownership, have the company bear maintenance, and remove capital guarantees. Its own corporate, regulatory and Shariah-board details could not be independently verified. Approach with caution and confirm whether it has revised the contract.
Contract-grade public documents were read directly (e.g. a full Terms & Conditions or a scholar-reviewed contract). This rates our certainty, not the provider’s compliance.
Independent scholarly review
What independent scholars have said
AMJA's Canada Resident Fatwa Committee (ruling dated 26 Feb 2025) did NOT approve AYA's mushāraka in its reviewed form, requiring fundamental modifications: clear proof of AYA's property ownership, AYA bearing maintenance/taxes/insurance, and removal of guarantees on initial capital and profit. AMJA identified the root cause as AYA 'relying on conventional banks or credit unions to secure liquidity, which forces compliance with interest-based financing regulations,' and advised AYA to raise Muslim-investor capital to gain independence (as Manzil has). Combined with the Darul Iftaa Montreal fatwa above, this is the strongest documented negative finding on any Canadian provider in this audit.
Independent commentary is weighed, not treated as a final personal ruling. A body that rules one way is one respected voice, not a universal consensus — and rulings can lag changes to a live contract.
How the structure works
The mechanics, in principle
Identified in the AMJA Resident Fatwa Committee resolution as offering a mushāraka contract that, in its reviewed form, required fundamental modification: AMJA cited the need to establish clear property ownership, ensure the company bears maintenance costs, and remove capital guarantees, and suggested AYA raise Muslim-investor capital to operate independently of conventional banks.
This describes the structure in principle — it is not a verdict on the executed contract. Canada’s halal-finance market is young, so confirm each provider’s current executed terms before committing; the checklist below is what tests the fiqh.
From the public documents
How the contract actually works
Read from AYA Financial’s own public materials — white papers, product pages, FAQs and fatāwā — not its executed contract, which is generally not published. Where a point is undisclosed, it is said plainly rather than guessed. Sources are listed below.
AYA Financial is an intermediary, not the financier — and it is one of the very few Canadian cases where a scholar reviewed the ACTUAL executed documents. A Darul Iftaa Montreal fatwa (Mufti Mirza Zain Baig, checked/approved by Mufti Ebrahim Desai) states 'Aya Financial is not the actual financer … they are the intermediary that links the customer and the financer,' the financier being Moya Financial (a Hamilton, Ontario credit union), and that 'there is no agreement between AYA and the customer on any of the contracts.' The product is marketed as a diminishing-mushāraka declining-balance arrangement (customer min 20%, financier holds proportional shares, monthly payment = a user fee for exclusive use + share-buyback, advertised up to 95% LTV on terms up to 5 years). But the fatwa, having reviewed the 'AYA Residential Property Financing Agreement' (Schedule B), the 'Additional Provisions' (Schedule A) and a 'General Assignment of Rents,' ruled AYA 'not Shariah compliant' because 'the contracts do not reflect any shape or form of a musharakah,' 'the financer is treating this contract to be a conventional diminishing balance mortgage,' 'the financier does not share in the expenses of maintaining the property,' and 'does not share in profit or loss at the time of sale,' with a 'liquidated losses' user-fee clause showing 'MOYA is treating this agreement as a loan and not an investment venture.' AYA's advisory board (Dr. Mohammad Iqbal Masood Al-Nadvi, Dr. Hamid Slimi) is named on its site, but the named scholarly review of the executed contract reached a negative ruling — a material governance/contract red flag. Honest limit: the contracts themselves are not public (only the fatwa's quotations of them), and AYA's response/any remediation, title-registration mechanics and fee schedule are not documented.
The Six-Pillar test
The questions that decide it
This is the universal lens this site applies to every home-finance contract, anywhere. Read each pillar as a question to put to AYA Financial’s executed contract — not its brochure.
- 1
Real ownership
Does the financier genuinely take ownership of the asset — even briefly — and bear a real owner's risk, rather than only ever holding a debt secured against it?
- 2
Risk-sharing
If the asset is destroyed or its value collapses, does the financier share that loss in proportion to its stake, or is the customer left bearing it alone?
- 3
Rent vs interest
In a lease/co-ownership, is the rent benchmarked to a genuine market rent for the property — or is it calibrated to an interest rate (a base-rate + margin) in disguise?
- 4
Default mechanism
On default, does the contract behave like the end of a real lease/partnership — or does it accelerate like a loan, demanding the full outstanding 'principal' plus charges?
- 5
No guaranteed pre-fixed return
Is the financier's return tied to real ownership and risk, or is it a pre-fixed, guaranteed sum that arrives regardless of what happens to the asset?
- 6
Substance over form
Strip away the Arabic labels: does the cashflow, risk, and outcome differ from a conventional loan — or is it the same economics wearing a compliant name (ḥiyal)?
Before you sign
What to ask AYA Financial, in writing
Put these to the provider in writing and keep the answers. The reply — not the marketing — is what tells you whether the structure holds.
Has AYA implemented the structural changes AMJA required (true ownership, company-borne maintenance, no capital guarantee)?
Is the financing still ultimately sourced from a conventional bank, and if so how is riba avoided?
Who is AYA's current Shariah certifier, and can I see an up-to-date fatwa?
Whose name is on title, and how are losses/insurance shared?
The honest gap
What we have not verified
- Whether AYA has revised its contract since the AMJA resolution.
- Basic corporate, regulatory and Shariah-board details could not be verified.
- Its current operating status and provinces served.
The reasoning
Why this verdict, and not another
A verdict is only as honest as the reasoning behind it. Here is why AYA Financial sits where it does — what keeps it off a clean pass, and what keeps it off an outright avoid.
Not a clean pass because
A Darul Iftaa Montreal fatwa that reviewed the actual executed schedules ruled AYA “not Shariah compliant” — finding the financier (Moya) treats it as a conventional declining-balance loan, shares neither maintenance nor profit/loss, and uses a “liquidated losses” user fee; AYA is only an intermediary with no contract with the customer.
Not an outright avoid because
AYA is marked yellow rather than red here only because the schools and bodies are not unanimous and a provider can revise a contract after a negative ruling — but on the documented evidence this is the weakest entry in the set; confirm directly whether the contract has been changed before relying on it.
Sources
What this read is built on
The verifiable references behind this page — provider documents and independent scholarly resolutions. Read them yourself; do not take our summary on trust.