The PRIMARY OIC ruling behind the LEASE-TO-OWN halal mortgage — the International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), Resolution No.
The PRIMARY OIC ruling behind the LEASE-TO-OWN halal mortgage — the International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), Resolution No. 110 (4/12), titled in the Academy's official English edition 'Renting Ending in Ownership and Leasing Bonds' (the IRTI/IDB printed edition renders the same ruling 'Lease Ending with Ownership and Leasing Bonds'), adopted at the Academy's 12th session in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 25 Jumādā al-Ākhirah – 1 Rajab 1421H (23–28 September 2000). This is the corpus's SEVENTH article anchored on a genuine PRIMARY OIC / IIFA resolution read verbatim, and the primary anchor for the THIRD of the three contracts the site's whole halal-housing spine is built on: ijarah muntahia bittamlik — the lease that ends in ownership, i.e. the 'rent-to-buy' Islamic home-finance route, sitting alongside diminishing partnership (musharakah mutanaqisah) and mark-up sale (murabaha to the purchase orderer, ruled on by Resolution No. 40-41, already in this corpus). The resolution's whole design is to stop a lease-to-own arrangement from being a disguised interest loan. Its PROHIBITION criterion, verbatim from the official edition: 'When the transaction involves conclusion of two different contracts at the same time, for the same commodity and for the same duration.' — i.e. you cannot bolt a binding sale onto a lease as one fused deal. Its PERMISSIBILITY hinges on the two acts being genuinely separate: verbatim, 'The presence of two completely separate and independent contracts as to the time of their conclusion, and in which the sale contract succeeds the lease contract or the presence of a promise allowing the lessee to become the owner at the end of the contractual period. The option and the promise are on an equal footing with regard to their Shariah rulings.' Crucially it puts the OWNERSHIP RISK on the financier, not the customer, throughout the lease: verbatim, 'The leased property should be guaranteed by the owner and not the lessee. In this sense, the owner should bear any damage that is not caused by the lessee's misuse or negligence. The lessee has nothing to bear, even if such damage has rendered the property completely useless.' And it insists Ijara rules govern the whole rental term (only ownership rules apply once title actually transfers): verbatim, 'During the entire lease period, the contract should be subjected to Shariah rulings regarding Ijara, whereas Shariah rulings on ownership should be observed when the property ownership is transferred to the lessee.' The resolution then lists three PROHIBITED forms (headed by 'a contract that leads to the transfer of ownership to the lessee against the amounts of rent he pays during the contract period, without signing a separate sale contract ... when the same lease contract automatically changes into a sale contract') and four PERMISSIBLE forms (a separate gift at the end per the Academy's Hibah resolution; an option to buy at market price; a promise to sell at a mutually agreed price; or an option to own at any time via a new sale contract). It is the single clearest supra-madhab test an ordinary reader can put to any 'rent-to-own Islamic mortgage': is the lease genuinely a lease with the bank carrying the property's risk, and is the eventual ownership transfer a genuinely SEPARATE act (gift, sale, option or promise) — or is it one contract wearing two hats, which is exactly what the resolution forbids?
What this source says
There are only three mainstream ways to buy a home without an interest loan, and this corpus now anchors each of them on a primary OIC resolution. Diminishing partnership (musharakah mutanaqisah) is one; mark-up sale (murabaha to the purchase orderer, ruled on by Resolution No. 40-41 in this corpus) is the second; and the LEASE THAT ENDS IN OWNERSHIP — ijarah muntahia bittamlik, the 'rent-to-buy' route — is the third. In it, the financier buys the house and leases it to you; you pay rent for a term; and at the end, ownership passes to you. Done honestly, the rent is a genuine payment for use of an asset the bank owns and risks, and the transfer at the end is a separate, distinct act. Done as a paperwork trick — where the 'lease' is really a loan, the 'rent' is really interest and principal, and the transfer is baked into the same contract from day one — it is riba wearing the costume of a tenancy. The line between the two is exactly what the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of the OIC drew at its 12th session in Riyadh over 25 Jumādā al-Ākhirah – 1 Rajab 1421H (23–28 September 2000), in Resolution No. 110 (4/12). Like the Academy's other finance rulings it is collective ijtihad by the OIC's supra-madhab body of assembled senior scholars, which is why it can speak for the practice of the whole Muslim world rather than one school. The resolution is built around a single worry — that a lease-to-own deal will fuse the lease and the sale into one instrument and thereby smuggle in an interest loan — and every clause is aimed at keeping the two acts apart.
The PROHIBITION criterion is stated first and is the heart of the whole ruling. Verbatim (official edition): the transaction is prohibited 'When the transaction involves conclusion of two different contracts at the same time, for the same commodity and for the same duration.' In plain terms: you may not sign a lease AND a binding sale, over the same house, for the same period, as one fused package. If both are locked in together from the outset, you no longer have a lease — you have a sale on credit, and a sale on credit repaid over time with a rental-flavoured surcharge is a loan with interest. So the entire permissibility scheme that follows is about SEPARATION IN TIME between the leasing and the owning.
The PERMISSIBILITY criteria (six of them) spell out what a clean lease-to-own actually requires. (1) On separation, verbatim: 'The presence of two completely separate and independent contracts as to the time of their conclusion, and in which the sale contract succeeds the lease contract or the presence of a promise allowing the lessee to become the owner at the end of the contractual period. The option and the promise are on an equal footing with regard to their Shariah rulings.' — the ownership transfer must come AFTER, as its own act, or be secured only by a promise/option, not by a second binding contract signed simultaneously. (2) On sincerity, verbatim: 'The existence of a genuine desire from both parties to conclude the lease contract and not just to use it as a mere veil for the sale contract.' — the lease must be a real lease, not stage-dressing. (3) On RISK, verbatim: 'The leased property should be guaranteed by the owner and not the lessee. In this sense, the owner should bear any damage that is not caused by the lessee's misuse or negligence. The lessee has nothing to bear, even if such damage has rendered the property completely useless.' This is the criterion that most sharply separates an Islamic lease from a mortgage. Under a conventional mortgage, if the house burns down you still owe every cent — the risk is entirely yours, because you borrowed money, not a house. Under this resolution, while the bank owns the house it bears the loss; you are a tenant, and a tenant who did not cause the damage owes nothing, 'even if such damage has rendered the property completely useless.' A product that makes the customer carry the property's destruction-risk from day one has failed this test and is really a loan. (4) On insurance, verbatim: 'If the contract includes property insurance, the cooperative insurance should be non-commercial, Shariah-compliant, and the sole liability of the owner.' — insurance, if any, must be takaful-style cooperative cover, paid by the owner (who bears the risk), not conventional insurance loaded onto the tenant. (5) On which rulebook applies when, verbatim: 'During the entire lease period, the contract should be subjected to Shariah rulings regarding Ijara, whereas Shariah rulings on ownership should be observed when the property ownership is transferred to the lessee.' — for the whole rental term it is a lease and is judged by lease law; only once title actually passes do ownership rules take over. (6) On maintenance, the two published translations DIVERGE, and this entry discloses rather than hides it: the Academy's official English edition reads 'The cost of maintenance, excluding operational expenses, should be borne by the LESSOR and not by the lessee during the entire lease period', while the older IRTI/IDB printed edition reads the same clause '...should be borne by the LESSEE throughout the lease period.' The two flatly contradict each other on one word. The official edition's 'lessor' reading is the one consistent with criterion 3 (the owner guarantees the property and bears its damage) and with the ordinary Ijara principle that the party who keeps title and its risk bears the cost of preserving the asset's substance, while the tenant covers only day-to-day running costs ('operational expenses', which both translations exclude from the disputed cost). On that basis this entry takes the official-edition 'lessor' as the authoritative text and flags the IRTI 'lessee' as an apparent translation slip — but quotes both, and asserts no correction the sources themselves do not support.
The resolution then names three PROHIBITED forms and four PERMISSIBLE forms, which turn the criteria into a checklist. Prohibited (verbatim, official edition): (A) 'A Renting Ending in Ownership contract that leads to the transfer of ownership to the lessee against the amounts of rent he pays during the contract period, without signing a separate sale contract. In other words, it is when the same lease contract automatically changes into a sale contract.' (B) 'A Lease contract according to which the property is given to the lessee against a specific amount of rent and for a specific duration, coupled with a sale contract that becomes effective only when the lessee pays the whole amount of rent agreed upon, or at a specified date in the future.' (C) 'An appropriate lease contract including an option for the owner to sell the property to the lessee, at the end of the leasing period.' The common thread in all three is fusion: the ownership either arrives automatically as rent accumulates (A), or is pre-contracted to switch on at a future date/payment (B), or is bundled as the owner's own binding option (C) — in each case the transfer is not a genuinely separate, later act. The resolution notes these opinions 'have been adopted in the resolutions and fatwās of various Islamic authorities, including the Council of Senior Scholars of Saudi Arabia.'
The four PERMISSIBLE forms (verbatim, official edition, summarised in the reader's interest but each quoted in the madhab field) show the clean alternatives, and all four keep the transfer separate: (A) the lease runs alongside a SEPARATE gift contract that takes effect at the end once all rent is paid — or a mere PROMISE from the owner to gift it then — 'as per the Academy resolution no. 13 (1/3) on Hibah (gifts) at its third session'; (B) the lease offers the lessee an OPTION to purchase at the end 'at the then-prevailing market price, as per the Academy resolution no. 44 (6/5) at its fourth session'; (C) the lease is coupled with a PROMISE from the owner to sell 'after the full payment of due rent, at a price to be mutually agreed on'; and (D) the owner gives the lessee an OPTION to own the property at any time via 'a new contract in due time' at market or an agreed price. In every permitted form, the owning is a distinct instrument — gift, sale, option or promise — that follows the leasing; it is never the lease itself mutating into a sale. The resolution closes by acknowledging that 'some other forms ... still remain controversial among Fuqahā' and need further study, and it POSTPONED ruling on Leasing Bonds (sukuk al-ijarah) 'pending further research' — a subject the Academy took up separately later.
Why does this matter for the everyday question 'is this rent-to-own Islamic mortgage really halal'? Because it hands you concrete, supra-madhab tests you can apply to any such product: (1) SEPARATION — are the lease and the eventual ownership transfer two genuinely separate acts (a later sale, a gift, an option, or a promise), or is ownership baked into the lease so the one contract 'automatically changes into a sale contract'? If fused, the resolution prohibits it. (2) RISK — during the lease, does the FINANCIER carry the property's ownership risk (loss, destruction, essential maintenance), so that you as tenant owe nothing for damage you did not cause? If the customer bears every risk from day one, it is a loan, not a lease. (3) RULEBOOK — is the arrangement actually governed by lease (Ijara) rules for the whole term, with ownership rules kicking in only at transfer? A product that passes all three is doing what this resolution permits; one that fails any is, on the Academy's reasoning, an interest loan wearing a tenancy's clothes.
Two honest limits belong on this entry. First, on SOURCES: this is one resolution confirmed across two genuinely different English translations — the Academy's own official English edition (October 2021), used here as the authoritative text, and the older IRTI/IDB printed edition (1985-2000). They agree on the resolution number, session, city, dates and entire operative structure; they differ in wording throughout (which strengthens confidence in the substance) and, in permissibility criterion 6, flatly contradict each other on one word (lessor vs lessee), which is disclosed above rather than hidden. Both are English renderings, not the binding Arabic original, and the resolution's internal cross-references to the Academy's own earlier resolutions (No. 13 on Hibah, No. 44) are reported exactly as the two editions print them, including the editions' own parenthetical numbering, without this entry asserting anything about those other resolutions beyond the cross-reference. Second, on SCOPE: no madhab-by-madhab breakdown, no vote tally, no market or AUM figure, no hadith number, and no claim about which specific AU/UK/CA/US provider does or does not comply is made — the three tests are given for the reader to apply, and no provider is graded here.
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 2026-07-08 from TWO genuinely different English translations of the SAME primary resolution, cross-read: [1] the INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC FIQH ACADEMY's own OFFICIAL ENGLISH EDITION, 'Resolutions and Recommendations of the International Islamic Fiqh Academy' (official edition, October 2021, published by the Academy at iifa-aifi.org), which prints the ruling as 'Resolution No. 110 (4/12) / Renting Ending in Ownership and Leasing Bonds', with the session line 'holding its 12th session in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on 25 Jumādā al-Ākhirah – 1 Rajab 1421h (23–28 September 2000)' and the full operative text (prohibition criterion, six permissibility criteria, three prohibited forms, four permissible forms, the controversial-forms note, and the postponement on leasing bonds) — extracted verbatim from the published PDF; 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), which prints the same ruling as 'Resolution No. 110 (4/12) On "Lease Ending with Ownership and Leasing Bonds"', with the same 12th session / Riyadh / 25 Jumad Thani – 1 Rajab 1421H (23–28/9/2000) and the same operative structure — extracted verbatim from the published PDF. THESE TWO ARE GENUINELY DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS, not two printings of one rendering: the very title differs ('Renting Ending in Ownership' vs 'Lease Ending with Ownership'), as does the wording throughout ('Prohibition Criteria' vs 'Prohibition Criterion'; 'a genuine desire from both parties' vs 'from the two parties'; the official edition's clause 4 'the cooperative insurance should be non-commercial, Shariah-compliant, and the sole liability of the owner' vs the IRTI 'insurance should be made according to the Islamic methods and at the expense of the owner alone'). This is a STRONGER two-source pairing than a shared-lineage pair, because the substance survives two independent renderings. ONE GENUINE DIVERGENCE IS DISCLOSED, NOT PAPERED OVER: in permissibility criterion 6 (cost of maintenance), the official IIFA edition reads the cost 'should be borne by the LESSOR and not by the lessee during the entire lease period', whereas the IRTI edition reads it 'should be borne by the LESSEE throughout the lease period.' The two published translations flatly contradict each other on this one word. The official IIFA edition's 'lessor' reading is the one internally consistent with the resolution's own criterion 3 (the property is 'guaranteed by the owner', who 'should bear any damage') and with the general Ijara principle that the owner, who keeps title and its risk, bears the cost of preserving the asset's substance; on that basis the official-edition 'lessor' reading is treated as the Academy's authoritative English text and the IRTI 'lessee' as an apparent translation slip — but BOTH are quoted verbatim and the divergence is flagged rather than silently corrected.
- Source
- PRIMARY RULING (full title, session/city/dates, and the full operative text — prohibition criterion, six permissibility criteria, three prohibited forms, four permissible forms, controversial-forms note, and the leasing-bonds postponement) 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 the ruling as 'Resolution No. 110 (4/12) / Renting Ending in Ownership and Leasing Bonds', 'holding its 12th session in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on 25 Jumādā al-Ākhirah – 1 Rajab 1421h (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 2026-07-08. 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 the same ruling as 'Resolution No. 110 (4/12) On "Lease Ending with Ownership and Leasing Bonds"', same 12th session / Riyadh / 25 Jumad Thani – 1 Rajab 1421H (23–28/9/2000) and same operative structure — extracted verbatim from the published PDF (https://zulkiflihasan.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/majma-fiqh.pdf), read 2026-07-08. THE TWO ARE GENUINELY DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS (title 'Renting' vs 'Lease'; 'Prohibition Criteria' vs 'Criterion'; 'from both parties' vs 'from the two parties'; official clause 4 'the cooperative insurance should be non-commercial, Shariah-compliant, and the sole liability of the owner' vs IRTI 'insurance should be made according to the Islamic methods and at the expense of the owner alone') — a stronger pairing than a shared-lineage pair, since the substance survives two independent renderings. ONE DIVERGENCE DISCLOSED, NOT PAPERED OVER: permissibility criterion 6 (maintenance) — official IIFA edition 'should be borne by the lessor and not by the lessee during the entire lease period' vs IRTI 'should be borne by the lessee throughout the lease period'; the official-edition 'lessor' reading is consistent with criterion 3 (owner guarantees/bears damage) and standard Ijara doctrine and is taken as authoritative, the IRTI 'lessee' flagged as an apparent translation slip; both quoted, neither silently corrected. NO fabrication: no madhab-by-madhab tally, no vote count, no hadith number, no market/AUM/named-bank figure, and no content of the internally cross-referenced Resolutions Nos. 13 and 44 asserted beyond reporting the cross-reference exactly as the two editions print it (including their own parenthetical numbering, e.g. '44 (6/5) at its fourth session', reproduced as-is without this entry resolving the numbering).
- School / basis
- Cross-madhab / collective-ijtihad (the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of the OIC is a supra-madhab body of assembled senior scholars; its resolutions represent collective ijtihad rather than a single school's position). Resolution No. 110 (4/12), 12th session, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 25 Jumādā al-Ākhirah – 1 Rajab 1421H (23–28 September 2000). Operative content, verbatim from the Academy's official English edition (Oct 2021). PROHIBITION CRITERION — 'When the transaction involves conclusion of two different contracts at the same time, for the same commodity and for the same duration.' PERMISSIBILITY CRITERIA (six): (1) 'The presence of two completely separate and independent contracts as to the time of their conclusion, and in which the sale contract succeeds the lease contract or the presence of a promise allowing the lessee to become the owner at the end of the contractual period. The option and the promise are on an equal footing with regard to their Shariah rulings.' (2) 'The existence of a genuine desire from both parties to conclude the lease contract and not just to use it as a mere veil for the sale contract.' (3) 'The leased property should be guaranteed by the owner and not the lessee. In this sense, the owner should bear any damage that is not caused by the lessee's misuse or negligence. The lessee has nothing to bear, even if such damage has rendered the property completely useless.' (4) 'If the contract includes property insurance, the cooperative insurance should be non-commercial, Shariah-compliant, and the sole liability of the owner.' (5) 'During the entire lease period, the contract should be subjected to Shariah rulings regarding Ijara, whereas Shariah rulings on ownership should be observed when the property ownership is transferred to the lessee.' (6) MAINTENANCE — official IIFA edition: 'The cost of maintenance, excluding operational expenses, should be borne by the lessor and not by the lessee during the entire lease period.' [The older IRTI/IDB printed edition instead reads '...should be borne by the lessee throughout the lease period.' — a flat contradiction on one word, disclosed here; the official-edition 'lessor' reading is consistent with criterion 3 and standard Ijara doctrine and is taken as authoritative, the IRTI 'lessee' flagged as an apparent translation slip, neither silently corrected.] PROHIBITED FORMS: (A) 'A Renting Ending in Ownership contract that leads to the transfer of ownership to the lessee against the amounts of rent he pays during the contract period, without signing a separate sale contract. In other words, it is when the same lease contract automatically changes into a sale contract.' (B) 'A Lease contract according to which the property is given to the lessee against a specific amount of rent and for a specific duration, coupled with a sale contract that becomes effective only when the lessee pays the whole amount of rent agreed upon, or at a specified date in the future.' (C) 'An appropriate lease contract including an option for the owner to sell the property to the lessee, at the end of the leasing period.' PERMISSIBLE FORMS: (A) lease + a SEPARATE gift contract effective at the end on full payment, or a promise to gift then, 'as per the Academy resolution no. 13 (1/3) on Hibah (gifts) at its third session'; (B) lease + an OPTION to purchase at the end 'at the then-prevailing market price, as per the Academy resolution no. 44 (6/5) at its fourth session'; (C) lease + a PROMISE from the owner to sell after full payment 'at a price to be mutually agreed on'; (D) lease + an OPTION for the lessee to own at any time via 'a new contract in due time and at the then-prevailing market price ... or at any other price to be agreed upon at the time of concluding the sale contract.' The resolution notes these opinions 'have been adopted in the resolutions and fatwās of various Islamic authorities, including the Council of Senior Scholars of Saudi Arabia', acknowledges that some other forms 'still remain controversial among Fuqahā' and need further study, and POSTPONED ruling on Leasing Bonds (sukuk al-ijarah) pending further research. Load-bearing for THIS site as the PRIMARY OIC anchor of the third halal home-finance structure (ijarah muntahia bittamlik / lease-to-own), completing the primary-OIC coverage of the housing spine alongside Resolution No. 40-41 (murabaha to the purchase orderer) and the corpus's musharakah-mutanaqisah material. Distinct from the corpus's generic ijara explainer (contract mechanics) — this is the primary RESOLUTION that rules on the lease-ending-in-ownership variant specifically. Presented faithfully to scope: no madhab-by-madhab tally, no vote count, no hadith number, no market/AUM figure, and no other resolution's content asserted beyond the resolution's own internal cross-references (Nos. 13 and 44) reported as printed. Honest divergence disclosed: the two editions contradict on criterion 6 (lessor vs lessee); both quoted, official edition taken as authoritative.
- Captured
- 2026-07-08
- Added
- 2026-07-08
- Trust
- Primary or near-primary source with a stable public URL.
Compiler’s note
The corpus's SEVENTH article anchored on a genuine PRIMARY OIC / International Islamic Fiqh Academy resolution read verbatim, and the primary anchor for the THIRD halal home-finance structure — ijarah muntahia bittamlik (lease-to-own). WHY THIS ONE: the site's halal-housing spine rests on three contracts — diminishing partnership (musharakah mutanaqisah), mark-up sale (murabaha to the purchase orderer), and lease-to-own (ijarah muntahia bittamlik). Last run added Resolution No. 40-41 as the primary OIC anchor for the murabaha route; the corpus already carries musharakah-mutanaqisah material and a generic ijara explainer, but had NO primary RESOLUTION on the lease-that-ends-in-ownership variant specifically. Resolution No. 110 (4/12) is exactly that, and it hands an ordinary reader three concrete halal-tests for any 'rent-to-own Islamic mortgage': (1) SEPARATION — are the lease and the ownership transfer two genuinely separate acts, or does one contract 'automatically change into a sale contract' (prohibited); (2) RISK — does the financier carry the property's ownership risk during the lease so the tenant owes nothing for damage not of their making; (3) RULEBOOK — is it governed by Ijara rules for the whole term, ownership rules only at transfer. Grep-confirmed distinct before writing: `ls content/articles | grep -iE '110|ijarah-muntahia|lease.*own|ending.*own|renting|muntahia'` returned nothing, and a content grep for 'resolution 110'/'ending in ownership'/'muntahia bittamlik'/'lease ending'/'renting ending' returned nothing — distinct from ijara-lease-based-finance (generic contract mechanics) and from the murabaha/musharakah entries. TWO GENUINELY DIFFERENT English translations of the SAME resolution cross-read: [1] the Academy's OWN OFFICIAL ENGLISH EDITION (Oct 2021 PDF), used as the authoritative text, and [2] the older IRTI/IDB printed edition (1985-2000). This is a STRONGER pairing than the Resolution 40-41 entry (whose two publications shared translation lineage): here the title itself differs ('Renting' vs 'Lease Ending with Ownership') and the wording differs throughout, so the substance survives two independent renderings. HONEST DIVERGENCE BUILT INTO title/author/text/madhab/source (not hidden): the two editions FLATLY CONTRADICT on permissibility criterion 6 — official 'borne by the LESSOR', IRTI 'borne by the LESSEE'. The official-edition 'lessor' reading is consistent with criterion 3 (owner guarantees the property and bears its damage) and with standard Ijara doctrine (the party keeping title and risk bears the cost of preserving the asset's substance; the tenant covers only 'operational expenses', which both editions exclude), so it is taken as authoritative and the IRTI 'lessee' flagged as an apparent translation slip — but BOTH are quoted verbatim and the divergence is disclosed, not silently corrected. This is the model of the no-fabrication discipline: where sources disagree, show the disagreement. TRUST 'high' (numbered/dated PRIMARY OIC resolution verified verbatim in the Academy's own official English edition and re-confirmed in a second, independently-worded printed edition; sole caveats = both are English translations not the binding Arabic, and the disclosed criterion-6 divergence). DELIBERATELY DROPPED per no-fab: (a) any madhab-by-madhab breakdown or vote tally; (b) any hadith number; (c) the CONTENT of the internally cross-referenced Resolutions Nos. 13 (Hibah) and 44 (only the cross-reference is reported, exactly as the editions print it, including the odd '44 (6/5) at its fourth session' parenthetical, left unresolved); (d) any market/AUM/named-bank figure; (e) any claim about which specific AU/UK/CA/US provider complies (the three tests are given for the reader to apply, no provider graded). FRESHNESS-HONEST: a 2000 resolution — nothing time-sensitive; its date is stated explicitly, and the lease-to-own structure it governs is still the live third pillar of Islamic home finance. JSON-only per the established article convention (content/articles/*.json feed app/lib/corpus.ts via readdirSync + the /corpus stats badge + Phase-2 retrieval; NOT rendered as individual routed cards), so no SourceCard/route/href added and internal-link integrity is unaffected. Articles 70->71. NEXT candidate: AAOIFI Shari'ah Standard No. 9 (Ijarah and Ijarah Muntahia Bittamleek) to anchor the standard-setter's own words on this same lease-to-own contract, or AAOIFI Shari'ah Standard No. 8 (Murabaha) / No. 30 (Tawarruq), or IIFA Resolution No. 137 (3/15) on Sukuk al-Ijarah (leasing bonds) which THIS resolution explicitly postponed — each still needing its own second-source-verifiable pair fetched first. PUNCH-LIST FULLY TICKED; build/lint to be re-confirmed green after this entry; this entry completes the primary-OIC coverage of all three contracts the site's own halal home-finance guidance depends on.
Topics
islamic-financeribaijarahijaraleaseijarah-muntahia-bittamlikijara-muntahia-bittamleeklease-to-ownrent-to-ownrent-to-buylease-ending-in-ownershiprenting-ending-in-ownershiphire-purchasehome-financehalal-mortgageislamic-home-financeleasingsukuk-al-ijarahleasing-bondsownership-riskrisk-of-lossmaintenancetakafulcooperative-insurancehibahgiftoptionkhiyarpromisewadseparate-contractssubstance-over-formprohibition-of-ribafinancing-sideoicorganisation-of-islamic-cooperationinternational-islamic-fiqh-academyiifafiqh-academyresolution-110primary-sourcecollective-ijtihadshariah-rulingislamic-bankingriyadh-2000
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.