The OIC Fiqh Academy's ruling on supply and tender contracts — the everyday keystone that ties five contracts a riba-free household already knows into one rule.
The OIC Fiqh Academy's ruling on supply and tender contracts — the everyday keystone that ties five contracts a riba-free household already knows into one rule. Resolution No. 107 (1/12) settles two ordinary business dealings: (1) a SUPPLY (delivery) contract, where you undertake to deliver known goods in instalments for a price paid later, and (2) a TENDER (bidding) contract, where a buyer invites the lowest offer. The killer content is the fork in clause one: if the buyer pays the whole price up front the deal is lawful Salam; if he pays nothing up front and the two sides bind themselves by an exchange of promises (muwāʿadah), it becomes a prohibited sale of debt-for-debt. Tendering is lawful and follows the auction rules. International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), Resolution No. 107 (1/12), adopted at the 12th session (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 25 Jumādā al-Ākhirah – 1 Rajab 1421H / 23–28 September 2000).
What this source says
THE EVERYDAY CONTRACT THE CORPUS WAS MISSING. Most people never sign a murābaḥa or a ṣukūk, but almost every trading household or small business eventually signs a SUPPLY contract (I will deliver you these goods, in these instalments, and you will pay me over time) or takes part in a TENDER (the buyer asks several suppliers for their lowest price). Resolution No. 107 (1/12), adopted at the OIC Fiqh Academy's 12th session in Riyadh (25 Jumādā al-Ākhirah – 1 Rajab 1421H / 23–28 September 2000), is the settled ruling on both. Its quiet power is that it does not invent a new contract — it routes each ordinary dealing back to a named contract the household already has a rule for, and marks the ONE branch that turns into riba by another name.
WHY THE ACADEMY RULED. The Council issued the resolution 'Having examined the research papers submitted to the Academy concerning Supply and Bidding Contracts' and 'Having listened to the discussions of the Academy's members and experts and several Fiqh scholars on the subject.' (The IRTI edition renders the same body as 'having looked into the research papers on Delivery and Tendering Contracts submitted to it, and listening to the discussions of its members, experts and a number of Fuqaha'a on the subject.') So this is a considered ruling on a named, practical problem.
PART ONE — THE SUPPLY (DELIVERY) CONTRACT. The Academy first defines it. Verbatim (official edition): 'A supply contract is a contract under which the first party undertakes to deliver, at specific periods, successive amounts of a well-defined commodity to another party, for a specific sum of money with a total or partial deferred payment.' The IRTI edition renders the same definition: 'Delivery Contract is a contract according to which the first party undertakes to deliver, at specific periods of time, successive amounts of a well known commodity to another party, against a certain amount of money either totally or partially payable in the future.' The whole ruling then turns on WHAT the goods are and WHEN the price is paid.
BRANCH A — GOODS THAT MUST BE MANUFACTURED = ISTIṢNĀʿ. Verbatim (official): 'If the commodity in question is of the type that needs to be manufactured, the contract is Istiṣnāʿ and should abide by the Istiṣnāʿ rulings as stipulated in the Academy resolution no. 65 (3/7).' In other words, a supply deal for made-to-order goods is not a special new thing — it is the manufacture contract the corpus already documents (Resolution 65), with its rules on specification, deferred or scheduled payment, and permitted penalty clauses.
BRANCH B — READY GOODS, PRICE PAID IN FULL = SALAM (LAWFUL). Verbatim (official): 'When the orderer pays the whole price when signing the contract, this contract will then abide by Shariah rulings on Salam and thus becomes permissible as provided for in the Academy resolution no. 85 (2/9).' This is the clean, lawful route: pay now, receive the well-defined commodity at the agreed future date. It is Salam (forward purchase), already a corpus entry (Resolution 85).
BRANCH C — READY GOODS, PRICE NOT PAID, BOUND BY PROMISES = PROHIBITED (THE GEM). Here is the branch that quietly becomes riba. Verbatim (official): 'When the orderer does not pay the whole price when signing the contract, this contract becomes not permissible if it is based on the exchange of binding mutual promises (Muwāʿadah) between the two parties.' The reason, verbatim (official): 'The impressibility of such arrangement, as indicated in the Academy resolution nos. 40–41, is due to the fact that the exchange of binding promises between any two parties is similar to concluding a contract. Hence, a sale contract concluded in this manner would entail the prohibited practice of selling debt for a debt.' (Both editions print 'impressibility' — an evident print slip for 'impermissibility'; flagged, not corrected.) Read that carefully: if neither the goods nor the price change hands, and the two sides are nonetheless LOCKED IN by binding promises, the fiqh treats the pair of promises as if a sale were already concluded — a sale in which BOTH sides owe (one owes goods, the other owes money). That is bayʿ al-dayn bi al-dayn, selling a debt for a debt, which the corpus documents as prohibited. This is the same binding-promise (muwāʿadah) machinery the Academy analysed for murābaḥa-to-the-purchase-orderer in Resolutions 40–41.
BRANCH C, THE ESCAPE HATCH — NON-BINDING PROMISES. The Academy immediately shows the lawful way to arrange future supply without paying up front. Verbatim (official): 'If, however, the promises exchanged between the two parties are not binding on one or both of them, the transaction becomes permissible provided that the sale should be concluded with either a new contract or on delivery.' (IRTI: '…the deal becomes permissible, yet the sale has to be finally concluded with either a new contract or on spot at the time of delivery.') The line between lawful and forbidden is therefore BINDINGNESS: a mere non-binding intention to deal, followed by a REAL contract at delivery, is fine; a pair of promises that already lock both sides in — with no price paid and no goods delivered — is a debt-for-debt sale and is out.
PART TWO — THE TENDER (BIDDING) CONTRACT. The Academy then turns to competitive procurement. Verbatim (official): 'Bidding means asking for the lowest price offer to purchase a commodity or a service. The party requesting the commodity or service calls for bids from interested suppliers according to given conditions and specifications.' (IRTI: 'Tendering is a means of reaching the lowest price offer for providing a good or service.') Ruling, verbatim (official): 'Bidding is permissible in Shariah. It resembles auctioning; and therefore abides by the same rulings, whether bidding is public or limited, internal or external, open or discreet.' (IRTI: 'It resembles Auctioning and needs to observe all its Shari'ah stipulations… whether Tendering is public or limited, internal or external, open or confidential.') The Academy anchors this to its own auction ruling: both editions cross-reference 'resolution no. 73 (8/4)' passed 'by the Eighth Session of the Academy' — i.e. the najash / auction resolution the corpus already holds (whose correct code is 73 (4/8): both print editions here misprint the pair as 8/4, but the sequential number 73 and the words 'Eighth Session' fix it as the fourth resolution of the eighth session). Because tendering IS a kind of auction, the auction integrity rules — no najash (shill/fake bidding), honest specifications — carry straight over.
RESTRICTING WHO MAY BID. Finally, verbatim (official): 'It is permissible to restrict bidding to officially classified bidders or those who obtain government licenses, provided that such classification or licensing is based on equitable grounds.' (IRTI: 'officially classified tenderers or those who obtain government licenses, provided that such classification or licensing is founded on fair grounds.') Pre-qualifying suppliers is allowed — but only on fair, non-arbitrary criteria, not as a cover for excluding rivals unjustly.
HOW A RIBA-FREE HOUSEHOLD OR SMALL BUSINESS ACTUALLY USES THIS. (a) Agreeing to supply made-to-order goods over time? That is Istiṣnāʿ — follow the manufacture rules (clear specification, agreed delivery, price payable up front, deferred or scheduled) (Branch A / Res 65). (b) Buying ready goods for future delivery and willing to pay now? That is lawful Salam — pay the full price at contracting (Branch B / Res 85). (c) The trap: agreeing to a future purchase where NO price is paid now but both sides are contractually LOCKED IN by binding promises — that is the prohibited debt-for-debt sale; restructure it (Branch C / Res 40–41). (d) The lawful alternative: keep the pre-deal understanding non-binding and sign the ACTUAL sale contract at (or before) delivery, or pay the price up front and make it Salam (Branch C escape hatch). (e) Running or entering a tender? It is permitted — treat it like an honest auction: no fake bids, truthful specs, and any pre-qualification of bidders must rest on equitable grounds (Part 2 / Res 73).
WHERE THIS SITS IN THE CORPUS. Resolution 107 is the corpus's keystone on ordinary trade contracts because it does not stand alone — it explicitly routes each branch back to a resolution already documented here: Istiṣnāʿ (Resolution 65), Salam (Resolution 85), the binding-promise / murābaḥa-to-the-purchase-orderer analysis and its debt-for-debt danger (Resolutions 40–41, and the corpus's bayʿ al-dayn entries), and auction integrity / najash (Resolution 73). It is the practical hub that shows a household how the individual contracts it has learned actually connect in a real supply or tender deal, and it marks the one branch (binding promises, nothing exchanged) where an innocent-looking supply arrangement crosses into the prohibited sale of debt for debt.
GENUINE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO EDITIONS (disclosed, not smoothed). The two translations agree on every operative point while differing in wording. WHOLE TITLE: official 'Supply and Bidding Contracts' versus IRTI 'Delivery and Tendering Contracts' — two renderings of the Arabic ʿaqd al-tawrīd (supply/delivery) and munāqaṣah (bidding/tendering); the IRTI edition even glosses part one as 'Delivery Contract (Aqdul Tawreed)'. SECTION LABELS: 'Supply Contracts'/'Bidding Contracts' versus 'Delivery Contract'/'Tendering Contracts'. DEFINITION: official 'a well-defined commodity… for a specific sum of money with a total or partial deferred payment' versus IRTI 'a well known commodity… against a certain amount of money either totally or partially payable in the future'. BINDING-PROMISE TERM: official 'binding mutual promises (Muwāʿadah)' versus IRTI 'binding promises (Mua'adah)'; and official 'the exchange of binding promises between any two parties' versus IRTI 'exchange of enforceable promises between any two parties'. RES 40–41 CITATION: official 'the Academy resolution nos. 40–41' versus IRTI 'Resolution No. (40 — 41) of the Academy'. SHARED PRINT SLIP: BOTH editions print 'impressibility'/'Impressibility' for 'impermissibility' — a shared slip, flagged not corrected. ESCAPE HATCH: official 'concluded with either a new contract or on delivery' versus IRTI 'concluded with either a new contract or on spot at the time of delivery'. TENDER DEFINITION: official 'Bidding means asking for the lowest price offer to purchase a commodity or a service' versus IRTI 'Tendering is a means of reaching the lowest price offer for providing a good or service'. AUCTION RULING: official 'It resembles auctioning; and therefore abides by the same rulings' versus IRTI 'It resembles Auctioning and needs to observe all its Shari'ah stipulations'. OPENNESS: official 'open or discreet' versus IRTI 'open or confidential'. RES 73 CROSS-REFERENCE: both editions print '73 (8/4)' and both say 'Eighth Session' — an evident shared misprint of the pair-code (the correct code is 73 (4/8), the fourth resolution of the eighth session), flagged not corrected. WHO MAY BID: official 'officially classified bidders… based on equitable grounds' versus IRTI 'officially classified tenderers… founded on fair grounds'. SESSION DATE: official '25 Jumādā al-Ākhirah – 1 Rajab 1421h (23–28 September 2000)' versus IRTI '25th of Jumad Thani — to the 1st of Rajab 1421 H (23 -28/9/2000)' — Jumādā al-Ākhirah and Jumad Thani are the SAME sixth Islamic month under two transliterations, and the Gregorian dates are identical; no real divergence. Every verbatim quote used above was machine-checked against both source PDFs (36/36 OK).
AN HONEST NOTE ON WHAT IS AND IS NOT HERE. This is a settled operative ruling (two decisive parts — Supply/Delivery contracts and Bidding/Tendering contracts), not a deferral. The definitions, branches and rulings above are the resolution's own words; the 'binding-vs-non-binding is the whole line' gem, the 'route each branch to a named contract' framing, and the mapping onto a small business's real supply and tender deals are plain restatements of the resolution's two parts, not inferences bolted on by this site. The resolution's text cites no Qur'an verse and no hadith number — it reasons from the fiqh of contract formation (a binding exchange of promises is treated as a concluded contract) and the prohibition of bayʿ al-dayn bi al-dayn (selling debt for debt) — records no madhab tally and no vote count, and names no bank, product, figure or rate, so none is reported here. The cross-links to Resolutions 65, 85, 40–41 and 73 are stated by the resolution itself; the further note that its correct auction cross-reference code is 73 (4/8) rather than the printed 8/4 is this corpus's own reconciliation, disclosed as such.
Wording inside quotation marks is quoted from the source. The rest is this notebook’s summary of it — read the original before relying on it.
Provenance
- Compiled from
- Compiled from TWO genuinely different English translations of the SAME primary resolution, cross-read 2026-07-14, every load-bearing quote machine-verified verbatim against both source PDFs (line-wrap, hyphenation, inserted-page-number and diacritic aware, whitespace-normalised, 36/36 OK): [1] the INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC FIQH ACADEMY (OIC) OFFICIAL ENGLISH EDITION, 'Resolutions and Recommendations of the International Islamic Fiqh Academy' (official edition, October 2021), printing it as 'Resolution No. 107 (1/12) / Supply and Bidding Contracts'; and [2] the IRTI/IDB PRINTED EDITION, 'Resolutions and Recommendations of the Council of the Islamic Fiqh Academy 1985-2000' (Islamic Research and Training Institute, Islamic Development Bank, Jeddah), printing it as 'Resolution No. 107 (1/12) / On "Delivery and Tendering Contracts"'. Both editions carry the same 12th session (Riyadh, 23–28 September 2000) and the same two operative parts (Supply/Delivery contracts; Bidding/Tendering contracts). This is a SETTLED operative ruling, not a deferral. The load-bearing content is: (Part 1) a supply contract is defined as an undertaking to deliver a well-defined commodity in successive instalments for a price wholly or partly paid in the future; if the good must be manufactured the contract is Istiṣnāʿ (Res 65 (3/7)); if it is a ready commodity delivered at a set future date, it is lawful Salam when the orderer pays the whole price at signing (Res 85 (2/9)) but is impermissible when he does not pay and the two parties are bound by an exchange of binding promises (muwāʿadah), because that is treated as a concluded sale and amounts to selling debt for debt (Res 40–41); if the exchanged promises are NOT binding on one or both parties the deal is permissible provided the sale is finally concluded with a new contract or on delivery; (Part 2) bidding/tendering is seeking the lowest price offer, it is permissible and resembles auctioning (Res 73), whether public or limited, internal or external, open or discreet, and it is permissible to restrict tendering to officially classified or licensed suppliers provided the classification is on equitable grounds. The resolution cites no Qur'an verse and no hadith number, records no madhab tally and no vote count, and names no bank, product, figure or rate.
- Source
- PRIMARY TEXT (full title; session/city/date; both operative parts in full — Part 1 (Supply/Delivery): the definition, the Istiṣnāʿ branch (Res 65 (3/7)), the paid-in-full Salam branch (Res 85 (2/9)), the impermissible binding-promise (muwāʿadah) branch treated as a concluded sale and hence bayʿ al-dayn bi al-dayn (Res 40–41), and the permissible non-binding-promise escape hatch requiring a fresh contract or conclusion at delivery; Part 2 (Bidding/Tendering): the definition, the permissibility resembling auctioning (Res 73, printed 8/4, correctly 4/8), and the permissibility of restricting tendering to classified/licensed suppliers on equitable grounds) from [1] the INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC FIQH ACADEMY (OIC) OFFICIAL ENGLISH EDITION, 'Resolutions and Recommendations of the International Islamic Fiqh Academy' (official edition, October 2021), printing it as 'Resolution No. 107 (1/12) / Supply and Bidding Contracts' (12th session, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 23–28 September 2000) — extracted verbatim from the published PDF (https://iifa-aifi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Resolutions-Recommendations-of-the-IIFA-Official-Edition-Oct-2021.pdf), read 2026-07-14. CONFIRMING SECOND, GENUINELY DIFFERENT TRANSLATION from [2] the IRTI/IDB PRINTED EDITION, 'Resolutions and Recommendations of the Council of the Islamic Fiqh Academy 1985-2000' (Islamic Research and Training Institute, Islamic Development Bank, Jeddah), printing it as 'Resolution No. 107 (1/12) / On "Delivery and Tendering Contracts"', same 12th session, same two parts — extracted verbatim from the published PDF (https://zulkiflihasan.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/majma-fiqh.pdf), read 2026-07-14. THE TWO EDITIONS ARE GENUINELY DIFFERENT RENDERINGS that converge on the same operative content; genuine differences reported rather than smoothed: WHOLE TITLE ('Supply and Bidding Contracts' vs 'Delivery and Tendering Contracts' — two renderings of ʿaqd al-tawrīd and munāqaṣah; IRTI glosses part one 'Delivery Contract (Aqdul Tawreed)'); SECTION LABELS ('Supply/Bidding' vs 'Delivery/Tendering'); DEFINITION ('a well-defined commodity… total or partial deferred payment' vs 'a well known commodity… either totally or partially payable in the future'); BINDING-PROMISE TERM ('binding mutual promises (Muwāʿadah)' vs 'binding promises (Mua'adah)'; 'binding promises between any two parties' vs 'enforceable promises between any two parties'); RES 40–41 CITATION ('the Academy resolution nos. 40–41' vs 'Resolution No. (40 — 41) of the Academy'); SHARED PRINT SLIP ('impressibility'/'Impressibility' for 'impermissibility' in BOTH, flagged not corrected); ESCAPE HATCH ('concluded with either a new contract or on delivery' vs '…or on spot at the time of delivery'); TENDER DEFINITION ('Bidding means asking for the lowest price offer to purchase a commodity or a service' vs 'Tendering is a means of reaching the lowest price offer for providing a good or service'); AUCTION RULING ('resembles auctioning; and therefore abides by the same rulings' vs 'resembles Auctioning and needs to observe all its Shari'ah stipulations'); OPENNESS ('open or discreet' vs 'open or confidential'); RES 73 CROSS-REFERENCE (both print '73 (8/4)' and both say 'Eighth Session' — evident shared misprint of the pair-code; correct code 73 (4/8), the fourth resolution of the eighth session, confirmed by 'Eighth Session', flagged not corrected); WHO MAY BID ('officially classified bidders… equitable grounds' vs 'officially classified tenderers… fair grounds'); SESSION DATE ('Jumādā al-Ākhirah' vs 'Jumad Thani' — SAME sixth month, identical Gregorian, no real divergence). Every verbatim quote used above was machine-checked against both source PDFs (line-wrap, hyphenation, inserted-page-number and diacritic aware, whitespace-normalised, 36/36 OK). Trust: high (two independent verbatim primary editions of the same OIC resolution).
- School / basis
- Comparative / transactional-law with a PRIMARY OIC collective-ijtihad text. Resolution No. 107 (1/12), 12th session (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 25 Jumādā al-Ākhirah – 1 Rajab 1421H / 23–28 September 2000), is the Academy's SETTLED ruling on supply/delivery contracts and bidding/tender contracts. Two operative parts: (Part 1, Supply/Delivery) a contract to deliver a well-defined commodity in successive instalments for a price wholly or partly deferred — routed to Istiṣnāʿ if the goods must be manufactured (Res 65 (3/7)); lawful Salam if a ready commodity is delivered at a set future date AND the orderer pays the whole price at signing (Res 85 (2/9)); impermissible if he does not pay and the parties are bound by an exchange of binding promises (muwāʿadah), because that is treated as a concluded sale and amounts to selling debt for debt (Res 40–41); permissible again if the exchanged promises are NOT binding, provided the sale is finally concluded by a new contract or at delivery. (Part 2, Bidding/Tendering) seeking the lowest price offer is permissible and resembles auctioning (Res 73), whether public/limited, internal/external, open/discreet; restricting tendering to classified or licensed suppliers is allowed on equitable grounds. The decisive gem is Part 1's fork: the SAME future-supply intention is lawful Salam (price paid up front) or a lawful non-binding arrangement (real contract at delivery), but becomes the prohibited debt-for-debt sale the moment nothing is exchanged yet both sides are locked in by binding promises — the very muwāʿadah machinery the Academy analysed in Res 40–41. This is a trade/muamalat ruling that ties together five contracts the corpus documents individually (Istiṣnāʿ, Salam, murābaḥa binding-promise/bayʿ al-dayn, auction/najash). Res 107 cites no Qur'an verse, no hadith number, no madhab count and no vote, so none is reported here; it names no bank, product, figure or rate. Both print editions misprint the auction cross-reference as 73 (8/4); the correct code is 73 (4/8) (fourth resolution of the eighth session), confirmed by the words 'Eighth Session' — disclosed, not silently corrected.
- Captured
- 2026-07-14
- Added
- 2026-07-14
- Trust
- Primary or near-primary source with a stable public URL.
Compiler’s note
Added 2026-07-14 (auto-run). The OIC Fiqh Academy's SETTLED ruling on supply/delivery and bidding/tender contracts — Res 107 (1/12), 12th session, Riyadh, 25 Jumādā al-Ākhirah – 1 Rajab 1421H / 23–28 September 2000 — the explicitly named NEXT candidate from the Res 115 run, chosen because it is the everyday trade contract a small business actually signs AND it is a KEYSTONE that routes each branch to a resolution already in this corpus (Istiṣnāʿ Res 65, Salam Res 85, binding-promise/bayʿ al-dayn Res 40–41, auction/najash Res 73 — all verified present on disk). KILLER GEM (Part 1 fork, verbatim official): pay the whole price up front and a future-supply deal is lawful Salam (Res 85); keep the pre-deal understanding non-binding and sign the real sale at delivery and it is fine; but 'When the orderer does not pay the whole price when signing the contract, this contract becomes not permissible if it is based on the exchange of binding mutual promises (Muwāʿadah)… the exchange of binding promises between any two parties is similar to concluding a contract. Hence, a sale contract concluded in this manner would entail the prohibited practice of selling debt for a debt' (Res 40–41). The whole line is BINDINGNESS, not the intention to deal. GEM 2 (Part 2): tendering is lawful, resembles auctioning (Res 73) and inherits its integrity rules (no najash); restricting bidders to classified/licensed suppliers is allowed only on equitable grounds. GOLD-STANDARD pairing: two genuinely different English editions cross-read — the Academy's OWN OFFICIAL ENGLISH EDITION (Oct 2021 PDF) + the IRTI/IDB printed edition (1985-2000, which carries this 12th-session/2000 resolution, so the pairing holds), both pdftotext-verbatim. Genuine divergences reported not smoothed: whole title 'Supply and Bidding' vs 'Delivery and Tendering' (ʿaqd al-tawrīd / munāqaṣah); 'well-defined commodity… deferred payment' vs 'well known commodity… payable in the future'; 'binding mutual promises (Muwāʿadah)' vs 'binding promises (Mua'adah)', 'binding' vs 'enforceable' promises; Res 40–41 'nos. 40–41' vs '(40 — 41)'; SHARED slip 'impressibility' for 'impermissibility' in BOTH; escape hatch 'on delivery' vs 'on spot at the time of delivery'; tender def 'asking for the lowest price offer to purchase a commodity or a service' vs 'a means of reaching the lowest price offer for providing a good or service'; 'abides by the same rulings' vs 'needs to observe all its Shari'ah stipulations'; 'open or discreet' vs 'open or confidential'; Res 73 cross-ref BOTH print '(8/4)' + 'Eighth Session' (shared misprint; correct 73 (4/8), disclosed not silently fixed); 'classified bidders… equitable grounds' vs 'classified tenderers… fair grounds'; session month 'Jumādā al-Ākhirah' vs 'Jumad Thani' (SAME 6th month, identical Gregorian, no real divergence). All 36 load-bearing quotes machine-verified against both source PDFs (36/36 OK, whitespace/hyphenation/inserted-page-number/diacritic aware). HONESTY built in: the definitions/branches/rulings are the resolution's own words; the binding-vs-non-binding gem, the 'route each branch to a named contract' framing and the small-business mapping are plain restatements of the two parts; the auction-code reconciliation (73 (4/8) not the printed 8/4) is this corpus's own note, disclosed as such. DROPPED per no-fab: Qur'an verse / hadith number (Res 107 cites none — it reasons from contract-formation fiqh and the bayʿ al-dayn bi al-dayn prohibition); madhab tally; vote count; any bank/product/figure/rate. Articles 96->97. Clean `rm -rf .next && npm run build` green; `npm run lint` = 0/0. NEXT candidate (substantive finance/muamalat ruling, in BOTH editions i.e. ≤2000/≤12th session, not a deferral, not yet covered): a wakālah (agency) or ḍamān (guarantee) ruling not yet in the corpus; AVOID Res 89 currency (near-duplicate of Res 42), the already-covered 12th-session set (108/109/110/115) and the known deferrals Res 22/45/77/78/87/96.
Topics
islamic-financefiqh-of-transactionsmuamalattradecommercesupply-contractdelivery-contractaqd-al-tawridtawreedtendertenderingbidding-contractmunaqasaprocurementistisnamanufacture-contractsalamforward-salemuwaadahbinding-promisepromisewadbay-al-dayn-bi-al-daynsale-of-debt-for-debtdebt-for-debtribausuryauctionnajashshill-biddingdeferred-paymentinstalmentsfuture-deliverygovernment-licensesupplier-classificationpre-qualificationsmall-businesscontractscontract-formationresolution-40-41resolution-65resolution-73resolution-85oicinternational-islamic-fiqh-academyiifaresolution-107res-107107-1-1212th-sessionriyadh2000primary-sourcecollective-ijtihadsettled-ruling
This is source material, not a ruling. The corpus records what a named source actually said, so that you can read it yourself and take it to a scholar you trust. Ask the corpus to search all entries at once, or return to the library.