Web Articles & Fatwas

The Northwest Territories charges for the transfer of a home and for the mortgage over it in the same section of the same Act, one subsection apart, per thousand dollars either way - and charges more for the transfer, so a riba-free purchase that must move the land twice pays the dearer instrument twice and the cheaper one never; but it is the first jurisdiction read anywhere in this corpus where that penalty STOPS GROWING, because the two rates converge above a million dollars and the gap between a riba-free purchase and a conventional one settles at exactly five hundred dollars however expensive the house becomes - while the same definition that costs the household on the ownership leg saves it on the security leg, and the register refuses to record its interest at all

home-financeregulationpropertycanadanorthwest-territoriesprimary-source+4

Yukon never wrote a word of relief for a riba-free purchase and gave it something no other jurisdiction read in this corpus has given it: its own instrument. Section 122 lets an owner charge a house either with a mortgage - defined as a charge created merely for securing a debt or loan - or with a financial encumbrance, which secures an annuity, a rent charge or a sum of money and needs no lender at all; and the tariff then puts both in the same row at the same price, so the distinction that cost households everywhere else costs nothing here. Where the financier must still take title first, both fee ladders are capped, so the penalty has an absolute ceiling of $724 for the first time anywhere in this corpus - and above a million dollars of financing the ladders cross and the riba-free purchase becomes the cheaper one to register

home-financeregulationpropertycanadayukonprimary-source+4

New Brunswick is the first jurisdiction read anywhere in this corpus whose land register already holds a place for the riba-free shape - the Land Titles Act tells the parties to add the words "and option" beside "lease" wherever the lessee has a right to purchase, the register carries a form for it, and the fee schedule prices that instrument at eighty-four dollars a parcel, the same as a mortgage and the same as a transfer - and it is also the province that did enact a once-only rule and then pointed it at the wrong thing, because it counts registry offices rather than transfers; the tax exempts a lease only while its term stays under twenty-five years, four years further out than Nova Scotia's line and still inside an ordinary home finance term; and the only rate of return on money named anywhere in the scheme is the Crown's own, at one and a half per cent a month compounded monthly

home-financeregulationpropertycanadanew-brunswickprimary-source+4

New South Wales never legislated for riba-free home finance, and its duties statute says nothing about Islam, Muslims, religion or a financier - and yet it contains the closest thing to a diminishing partnership written into any statute read in this corpus: an approved shared equity scheme, in which two or more people jointly buy a home, the household occupies it exclusively "with no limitation as to time", holds at least a twenty per cent share, and buys "an increased share in the ownership of the property at an amount agreed" - with every one of those buy-up transfers free of duty. The door is shut not by what the arrangement is but by WHO the other owner may be: a State housing corporation, a registered community housing provider, or someone the regulations prescribe, and the regulation read here prescribes nobody. Meanwhile the interest-bearing mortgage is untaxed twice over, because New South Wales did not exempt mortgage duty - it abolished it

home-financeregulationpropertyaustralianew-south-walesprimary-source+4

South Australia, the last of Australia's eight duties jurisdictions to be read here, never wrote a word about Islam, Muslims, religion or a financier into its stamp duty statute - and it is the jurisdiction where a riba-free purchase now forfeits the most. South Australia abolished duty on the commercial transfer in 2018 and kept it on the home; then, from 6 June 2024, it abolished duty altogether for first home buyers of a new home, with no price cap at all - and tied that relief to purchasers who "occupy the home as their principal place of residence". A financier that buys the house first cannot occupy it. The largest concession in the Act is the one the riba-free household cannot reach, and no provision anywhere in the Act gives it back

home-financeregulationpropertyaustraliasouth-australiaprimary-source+4

Newfoundland and Labrador never wrote a land transfer tax at all - its whole consolidated revenue statute taxes gasoline, payroll, horse racing, insurance, mining, retail sales, tobacco and vapour, and reaches land only to let a lien attach to it - and yet it is the most expensive jurisdiction read anywhere in this corpus for a riba-free purchaser, because the price of putting a deed on the register is charged on the value of the property, charged again for every further instrument by an express rule that each one is separate, capped at five thousand dollars for a mortgage and for a charge but not for a conveyance, and set nowhere in the statute book: the Act's regulation-making power has no fee limb, no fees regulation exists among the province's one thousand six hundred and sixty-three consolidated regulations, and the only document that states an amount is a departmental schedule the Minister dated two years before the Act it is now collected under

home-financeregulationpropertycanadanewfoundland-and-labradorprimary-source+4

Nova Scotia taxes the same deed twice, from two levels of government, and the municipal half only exists if a council has passed a by-law saying so: the Municipal Government Act defines "deed" to exclude a mortgage, an agreement of sale and a lease for a term of less than twenty-one years - the first tax treatment read anywhere in this corpus that turns on how long a lease runs - while the whole vocabulary of lending enters its tax Part exactly once, in one sentence, to relieve a Crown farm lender conveying to a borrower

home-financeregulationtaxpropertycanadanova-scotia+4

Prince Edward Island names only ONE financing party in its transfer tax and it is the conventional mortgagee - named three times, every time after default, every time to be relieved: the Real Property Transfer Tax Act writes "loan", "lender", "credit", "borrow" and "financial institution" zero times, its single "finance" is a Minister's title, and the one door that would fit a riba-free purchase is keyed to holding "in trust on his or her behalf", so the real ownership that makes the structure riba-free is what puts it outside the door

home-financeregulationtaxpropertycanadaprince-edward-island+4

Manitoba never relieved the mortgage - it left it out of the taxed event: Part III of The Tax Administration and Miscellaneous Taxes Act charges on tendering a "transfer", and the definition of "transfer" excludes a mortgage, so the interest-bearing loan is never taxed while a financier who takes title is; the Part writes no relief, no counting rule and no regulation power, and its one religious category is borrowed from a federal definition that requires members to own no property in their own right

home-financeregulationtaxpropertycanadamanitoba+4

Alberta made the ABSENCE OF INTEREST the test - section 64.1(4.1) of the Land Titles Act switches off the transfer levy on the riba-free financier's own registration because no interest is payable under the mortgage, not because of who the financier is, and Alberta prescribed the affidavit and the fee to go with it

home-financeregulationtaxpropertycanadaalberta+4

Saskatchewan wrote no relief and no counting rule - the Land Titles Act, 2000 keeps the price of the riba-free buyer's extra registration outside the statute book in a ministerial order, will not let that registration be sworn at a nominal value, and offers only the Registrar's unconditioned discretion to waive; yet its definition of "mortgage" is the first read anywhere here that reaches past a debt or loan, and its own published mortgage wording assumes interest

home-financeregulationtaxpropertycanadasaskatchewan+4

British Columbia never wrote the word "loan" into its transfer tax - it built a once-only rule around the agreement for sale instead, and the one place religion appears in the whole body of law relieves the congregation's land rather than the believer's home

home-financeregulationcanadainstitutionsmurabahaijarah+4

Québec put its financing relief inside the DEFINITION of "transfer", not in an exemption - and it is the first jurisdiction read here whose exemption list is closed on the face of the statute, so the negative finding is finally exhaustive

home-financeregulationtaxpropertycanadaquebec+4

Australia's duties statute books, read as far as they can be read - the Northern Territory wrote no exception for riba-free purchases, and its Act states in its own words the counting rule the other three legislatures wrote their exceptions to: the Stamp Duty Act 1978 (NT)

home-financeregulationaustraliainstitutionsmurabahamusharakah-mutanaqisah+3

Canada's provincial layer, opened - Ontario legislated against paying land transfer tax twice, headed the rule "Tax only paid once", and then relieved financing transfers only where a debt and a creditor could be pointed to

home-financeregulationcanadainstitutionsmurabahamusharakah-mutanaqisah+3

Two more findings from a third Australian statute book - the ACT rebuilt Victoria's four riba-free structures in its own words in 2023, then opened a third door for a non-bank financier and, on the regulation as published, walked nobody through it: Division 2.5.2A of the Duties Act 1999 (ACT)

home-financeregulationaustraliainstitutionsmurabahamusharakah-mutanaqisah+4

Victoria was not alone - Tasmania wrote two riba-free home-finance sequences into its duties statute in 2022, relieved the second transfer, and tied the relief to the Commonwealth banking perimeter: section 57B of the Duties Act 2001 (Tas)

home-financeregulationaustraliainstitutionsmurabahamusharakah-mutanaqisah+3

An Australian State did legislate for riba-free home finance - Victoria wrote the mechanics of four structures into its duties statute in 2004 and relieved the second transfer from duty, without once saying Islam, Shariah or Muslim: sections 57A to 57F of the Duties Act 2000 (Vic)

home-financeregulationaustraliainstitutionsmurabahaijara+4

Canada never defined a halal mortgage - it defined interest, and defined it by function rather than by name: the Criminal Code test that ignores what a payment is called, the Interest Act refusal to cap any agreed rate, and the one federal rule that forbids exactly what the prohibition is about

home-financeregulationcanadainstitutionsribamurabaha+5

Australia never wrote a law about Islamic home finance - it wrote a definition of credit that reaches one anyway: the National Credit Code on deferred debt, and the two sections that deem the mark-up over the cash price to be the charge for providing credit

home-financeregulationaustraliainstitutionsmurabahaijara+4

The letter that made halal home finance possible in the United States - and the uncomfortable fact that the permission was granted by establishing that the product is economically identical to the interest-bearing mortgage it exists to avoid: OCC Interpretive Letter #806

home-financeregulationunited-statesinstitutionsijaramurabaha+3

The binding regulatory standard that PERMITS the contract the OIC Fiqh Academy prohibits — Bank Negara Malaysia's 'Tawarruq' policy document (BNM/RH/PD 028-8, issued 28 December 2018): a central bank's mandatory Shariah requirements for the single most contested instrument in modern Islamic finance, including its own Appendix 1 admission that 'There is no direct juristic authority from the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) regarding the legitimacy of the tawarruq'

tawarruqislamic-financeribaregulationinstitutionsscholarly-disagreement+3

The definition that decides which halal home-finance products the United Kingdom actually supervises - article 63F of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, and the striking fact that it defines a 'regulated home purchase plan' without once using the words Islam, Shariah, Muslim, riba, mortgage or interest

home-financeregulationunited-kingdominstitutionsmusharakah-mutanaqisahijara+3

How do you PROVE a financial right or a contract when there is no witness — is an electronic signature or an email enough? Resolution No. 194 (9/20) 'Legal Evidence by Presumptions and Signs (Latest Updates)' is the OIC Fiqh Academy's settled ruling that modern peremptory presumptions — fingerprints, audio recording, electronic signatures, emails — may be relied on to prove financial rights and contracts, everything except the ḥudūd and qiṣāṣ.

evidenceprooflegal-evidencepresumptionsqarinahelectronic-signature+8