Article & fatwaHigh trust

The PRIMARY OIC ruling behind the DIMINISHING-PARTNERSHIP halal mortgage — the International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), Resolution No.

The PRIMARY OIC ruling behind the DIMINISHING-PARTNERSHIP halal mortgage — the International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), Resolution No. 136 (2/15), 'Diminishing Mushārakah and its Shariah Criteria', adopted at the Academy's 15th session in Muscat, Sultanate of Oman, 14–19 Muḥarram 1425H (6–11 March 2004). This completes the corpus's primary-OIC coverage of the THREE contracts the site's whole halal-housing spine is built on: diminishing partnership (mushārakah mutanaqisah) is anchored HERE; mark-up sale (murabaha to the purchase orderer) is anchored on Resolution No. 40-41; and the lease that ends in ownership (ijarah muntahia bittamlik) on Resolution No. 110 — both already in this corpus, which had explainer material on diminishing partnership (a generic home-finance note and the Bank Negara Malaysia SAC ruling) but NO primary OIC resolution on it until now. In a diminishing-partnership home purchase the financier and the buyer co-own the house; the buyer pays the financier for the use of its share (the lease leg) AND gradually buys that share out until owning 100%. The resolution's whole job is to keep this a genuine partnership and stop it collapsing into a disguised interest loan, and its single sharpest test is the buyout price. Verbatim: 'The pledge should not be for purchasing the shares of the other party at par value because the pledge, in that case, amounts to providing a guarantee of the principal. The purchase price of the shares should be determined at market value, or a price mutually agreed upon, on the same day of concluding the sale transaction.' — i.e. the bank's share must be bought back at MARKET value (or a price freshly agreed on the day of each sale), never at par/face value, because a par-value buyout guarantees the financier its principal and that is a loan, not co-ownership. It also fixes the promise as one-sided — verbatim, 'Diminishing Mushārakah is characterized by the presence of a binding undertaking from only one party to buy out the share of the other party, provided the latter has the option (to sell or not). The buyout is effected by concluding a series of sale contracts when buying each share; these sale contracts can be performed through exchange of offer and acceptance notifications.' — only the customer binds to buy, the financier keeps the option; and it demands genuine loss-sharing — verbatim (point 2), each party subscribes capital 'each of them subscribes to a specific share of the capital of the partnership, whether in cash or another type of cash-evaluated assets after they determine the share of profit distribution, providing that each party bears his share of the loss (if incurred) commensurate to his share in the capital.' Costs are shared, not dumped on the customer (5b: expenses 'should be charged to the Mushārakah account, as per respective shares of the partners'); any return must be a percentage share of real profit, never 'a lump sum or a percentage of the subscribed principal' (5c, = interest); the several contracts must be 'kept independent from each other' (5d); and no clause may guarantee a party gets its principal back (5e). It is the clearest supra-madhab checklist an ordinary reader can put to any 'diminishing musharakah Islamic mortgage': is the buyout at market value, is the loss genuinely shared, is the 'rent' a profit share rather than a rate on the outstanding balance, and are the partnership, lease and share-sales kept as separate acts — or is it one fused instrument guaranteeing the bank its money back, 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. The lease that ends in ownership (ijarah muntahia bittamlik) is anchored on Resolution No. 110; mark-up sale (murabaha to the purchase orderer) on Resolution No. 40-41; and DIMINISHING PARTNERSHIP — mushārakah mutanaqisah, the co-ownership route — is anchored here, on Resolution No. 136 (2/15). The corpus already carried explainer material on diminishing partnership (a general home-finance note and the Bank Negara Malaysia Shariah Advisory Council ruling), but it had no PRIMARY OIC resolution on it — the same gap that Resolution No. 110 closed for the lease-to-own route. This entry closes it for the co-ownership route, completing the primary-OIC coverage of all three contracts the site's halal-housing guidance depends on.

How the contract works in a home purchase: instead of lending you money at interest, the financier BUYS THE HOUSE WITH YOU. Say the bank puts up 80% and you put up 20% — you are co-owners in those proportions. You then do two things in parallel: you pay the bank for the use of its 80% share (the lease leg), and you gradually buy that 80% off it, slice by slice, until you own the whole house and the bank owns nothing. As your ownership rises, the bank's falls — its share DIMINISHES, which is where the name comes from. Done honestly, you are a genuine co-owner buying out a partner; done as a paperwork trick — where the 'partnership' carries no real risk for the bank, the 'rent' is really interest on an outstanding balance, and the buyout is priced to hand the bank its money back with a surcharge — it is riba wearing the costume of a partnership. The line between the two is what the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of the OIC drew at its 15th session in Muscat over 14–19 Muḥarram 1425H (6–11 March 2004), in Resolution No. 136 (2/15). Like the Academy's other finance rulings it is collective ijtihad by the OIC's supra-madhab body of assembled senior scholars, so it can speak for the practice of the whole Muslim world rather than one school.

The DEFINITION comes first. Verbatim: 'Diminishing Mushārakah is a new form of relationship involving a partnership between two parties in an income-producing project, and in which one party undertakes to, gradually, purchase the share of the other, whether out of the purchaser's share in the project income or from any other source.' Two things in that sentence do the work: it is a partnership in an 'income-producing project' (a home you live in or let is treated as such an asset), and ONE party undertakes to gradually buy the other out. The buyout money can come 'out of the purchaser's share in the project income or from any other source' — you can fund your slices from the property's own income or from your salary; either is fine.

The CAPITAL AND LOSS rule (clause 2) is what makes it a partnership rather than a loan. Verbatim, each of them subscribes to a specific share of the capital, 'each of them subscribes to a specific share of the capital of the partnership, whether in cash or another type of cash-evaluated assets after they determine the share of profit distribution, providing that each party bears his share of the loss (if incurred) commensurate to his share in the capital.' The load-bearing phrase is the last one: 'each party bears his share of the loss (if incurred) commensurate to his share in the capital.' A real partner shares the downside. If the house falls in value, an 80% co-owner wears 80% of that loss. A financier who has contracted so that it CANNOT lose — who is guaranteed its money back whatever happens to the property — is not a partner; it is a lender, and the arrangement is a loan. This clause is the single reason the whole structure can be halal at all: the bank's return is justified by the ownership risk it genuinely carries.

The PROMISE is one-sided (clause 3). Verbatim: 'Diminishing Mushārakah is characterized by the presence of a binding undertaking from only one party to buy out the share of the other party, provided the latter has the option (to sell or not). The buyout is effected by concluding a series of sale contracts when buying each share; these sale contracts can be performed through exchange of offer and acceptance notifications.' Read that carefully. Only ONE party — in practice the customer — gives a binding undertaking to buy; the OTHER party 'has the option (to sell or not).' A structure where BOTH sides are bound (the bank must sell AND the customer must buy, locked together from day one) is not this contract — it starts to look like a pre-agreed sale on credit. And the buyout is not one automatic transfer: it is 'a series of sale contracts,' one real sale per slice, each with its own offer and acceptance. Ownership moves across in genuine, separate steps, not by the partnership silently mutating into a full sale.

The LEASE leg is permitted (clause 4). Verbatim: 'It is permissible for any of the two parties of the Mushārakah to rent the share of his other partner against a specific amount and a specific period. In this case, the two parties' commitment towards the cost of essential maintenance remains as per their respective capital shares.' This is how the bank earns during the co-ownership: you rent its share. Note where the resolution puts the cost of ESSENTIAL maintenance — 'as per their respective capital shares,' i.e. pro-rata to who owns what, not entirely on the customer. An owner bears an owner's costs. A product that makes you, the customer, carry 100% of the building's structural upkeep while the bank owns most of it has quietly stopped treating the bank as a co-owner.

Clause 5 then lists the FIVE CONDITIONS that separate a clean diminishing partnership from a disguised loan. Verbatim opening: 'Diminishing Mushārakah is permissible as long as it adheres to the general Shariah rulings on partnerships and to the following conditions:'

(a) THE BUYOUT-PRICE TEST — the sharpest one. Verbatim: 'The pledge should not be for purchasing the shares of the other party at par value because the pledge, in that case, amounts to providing a guarantee of the principal. The purchase price of the shares should be determined at market value, or a price mutually agreed upon, on the same day of concluding the sale transaction.' This is the test that catches most fakes. If the contract says the bank's share is always bought back at PAR (its original book value) regardless of what the house is now worth, then the bank is guaranteed its principal back — and 'the pledge, in that case, amounts to providing a guarantee of the principal.' That is the definition of a loan. A genuine partner sells its share at 'market value, or a price mutually agreed upon, on the same day' of each sale — so it shares in the ups and downs of the asset. Buyout at par = riba; buyout at fresh market/agreed value = partnership.

(b) COSTS ARE SHARED, NOT DUMPED. Verbatim: 'There should be no condition burdening any of the two parties along with the costs of insurance, maintenance, and the other expenses, because such costs and expenses should be charged to the Mushārakah account, as per respective shares of the partners.' Insurance, maintenance and other expenses go to the joint 'Mushārakah account' and are split by ownership share — they are not loaded entirely onto the customer. Again the logic is ownership: an 80% owner pays 80% of the asset's costs.

(c) RETURN IS A PROFIT SHARE, NOT INTEREST. Verbatim: 'The respective profits of the Mushārakah parties should be stipulated in the contract as percentage shares in the profit. It is not permissible to specify in the contract a lump sum or a percentage of the subscribed principal as a profit for any of the two parties.' The financier's reward has to be a genuine percentage share of actual profit — 'It is not permissible to specify in the contract a lump sum or a percentage of the subscribed principal as a profit.' A 'rent' or 'profit' computed as a rate on the outstanding finance balance IS 'a percentage of the subscribed principal' — which is precisely what this clause forbids, because that is interest by another name.

(d) THE CONTRACTS ARE KEPT SEPARATE. Verbatim: 'The contracts and commitments relating to the Mushārakah transaction should be kept independent from each other.' The partnership, the lease and the share-purchase sales are distinct instruments; they must not be fused into one all-in-one contract (the same anti-fusion, substance-over-form principle the Academy applied to lease-to-own in Resolution No. 110). Bundling them is how a loan gets smuggled in.

(e) NO PRINCIPAL GUARANTEE. Verbatim: 'There should be no stipulation in the contract that gives any of the two parties a right to get back his subscribed principal (finance).' Closing the loop on clause 2 and 5(a): nothing in the contract may promise a partner it will get its capital back. The moment such a guarantee exists, the risk-sharing that justified the return has evaporated and you are back to a loan. The resolution closes: 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing.'

Why does this matter for the everyday question 'is this diminishing-musharakah Islamic mortgage really halal'? Because it hands you concrete, supra-madhab tests you can apply to any such product: (1) BUYOUT PRICE — are the bank's shares bought back at market value or a price agreed on the day (halal), or at par/original value so the bank is guaranteed its money back (a loan)? (2) LOSS-SHARING — if the property falls in value, does the bank wear its share of the loss, or is it contractually protected? (3) RENT vs INTEREST — is the payment for the bank's share a genuine profit share, or is it a rate calculated on the outstanding finance balance (interest)? (4) COSTS — are insurance and structural maintenance split by ownership share, or dumped wholly on you? (5) SEPARATION — are the partnership, lease and buyout genuinely separate contracts with the buyout done as a series of real sales, or is it one fused instrument? A product that passes all five is doing what this resolution permits; one that fails any is, on the Academy's reasoning, an interest loan wearing a partnership's clothes.

Three honest limits belong on this entry. First, on SOURCES: this is the Academy's OWN official English text, read on two independent published surfaces — the official English edition (October 2021 PDF), used as the authoritative text, and the Academy's live English web page for the same resolution (iifa-aifi.org/en/32878.html) — which agree verbatim. It is NOT cross-read across two independently-translated editions the way this corpus's pre-2000 OIC entries are, and it cannot be: the IRTI/IDB printed edition stops at 2000, while Resolution No. 136 is a 2004 (15th-session) ruling, so no second translation exists to compare. Both surfaces are English renderings, not the binding Arabic original. Second, on the PREDECESSOR: the 13th-session Resolution No. 122 (4/13) on the same subject was expressly POSTPONED ('Postponement of deliberations and issuance of a resolution ... to a forthcoming session') and decides nothing; Resolution No. 136 (2/15) is the settled ruling that answered it, and Res 122 is not relied on here. Third, on SCOPE: no madhab-by-madhab breakdown, no vote tally, no market or AUM figure, no Qur'an verse (the resolution cites none), no hadith number, and no claim about which specific AU/UK/CA/US provider does or does not comply — the five tests are given for the reader to apply, and no provider is graded here. The mapping of the resolution's criteria onto the mechanics of a modern 'diminishing-musharakah mortgage' (the co-ownership walk-through and the five reader-tests) is the SITE'S OWN framing built from the resolution's own words, not additional wording of the Academy.

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 2026-07-18 from the International Islamic Fiqh Academy's OWN OFFICIAL ENGLISH text of the resolution, read on TWO independent published surfaces and cross-checked verbatim between them: [1] the Academy's 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. 136 (2/15) / Diminishing Mushārakah and its Shariah Criteria', with the session line 'holding its 15th session in Muscat, Sultanate of Oman, on 14–19 Muḥarram 1425h (6–11 March 2004)' and the full operative text (five numbered clauses, the fifth carrying five sub-conditions a–e) — extracted verbatim from the published PDF; and [2] the Academy's LIVE OFFICIAL ENGLISH WEB PAGE for the same resolution (iifa-aifi.org/en/32878.html), which reproduces the same session line, the same five clauses and the same closing invocation — confirming the PDF extraction is the Academy's text and not a pdftotext artefact. HONEST PROVENANCE, STATED PLAINLY: unlike this corpus's pre-2000 OIC entries (e.g. Resolution No. 110), this ruling is NOT cross-read across two independently-TRANSLATED editions. There is no such second edition to cross-read: the IRTI/IDB printed edition covers only 1985–2000, and Resolution No. 136 was adopted at the Academy's 15th session in 2004, so that edition carries no diminishing-mushārakah ruling at all. The 13th-session predecessor, Resolution No. 122 (4/13) 'Diminishing Mushārakah in light of Contemporary Contracts' (Kuwait City, December 2001), was expressly a POSTPONEMENT — its entire operative text reads 'Postponement of deliberations and issuance of a resolution on Diminishing Mushārakah in light of Contemporary Contracts to a forthcoming session, for conducting further research and study on the subject.' — so Resolution No. 136 (2/15) is the SETTLED ruling that finally answered what Res 122 had put off, and Res 122 is deliberately NOT used here (it decides nothing). Both surfaces are English renderings of the binding Arabic original, not the Arabic itself — the sole caveat on an otherwise numbered, dated, verbatim primary OIC resolution.
Source: PRIMARY RULING (full title, session/city/dates, and the full operative text — the five numbered clauses and the fifth clause's five sub-conditions a–e, plus the closing invocation) from the INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC FIQH ACADEMY (OIC), read on two independent OFFICIAL-ENGLISH surfaces that agree verbatim: [1] the Academy's OFFICIAL ENGLISH EDITION, 'Resolutions and Recommendations of the International Islamic Fiqh Academy' (official edition, October 2021), printing the ruling as 'Resolution No. 136 (2/15) / Diminishing Mushārakah and its Shariah Criteria', 'holding its 15th session in Muscat, Sultanate of Oman, on 14–19 Muḥarram 1425h (6–11 March 2004)' — 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 2026-07-18; and [2] the Academy's LIVE ENGLISH WEB PAGE for the same resolution (https://iifa-aifi.org/en/32878.html), read 2026-07-18, which reproduces the same session line, the same five clauses and the same closing — confirming the PDF text is the Academy's own and not an extraction artefact. NOT a two-independent-translation pairing (and honestly labelled as such): the IRTI/IDB printed edition covers only 1985–2000 and carries no diminishing-mushārakah ruling, because Res 136 is a 2004 (15th-session) ruling; its 13th-session predecessor Res 122 (4/13) was an explicit POSTPONEMENT and decides nothing. Both surfaces are English renderings, not the binding Arabic original. NO fabrication: no madhab-by-madhab tally, no vote count, no Qur'an verse (the resolution cites none), no hadith number, no market/AUM/named-bank figure, and no claim about any specific provider's compliance — the five reader-tests and the co-ownership walk-through are the site's own framing from the resolution's own criteria, labelled as such.
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. 136 (2/15), 15th session, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman, 14–19 Muḥarram 1425H (6–11 March 2004). Operative content, verbatim from the Academy's official English edition (Oct 2021), re-confirmed on the Academy's live English web page (iifa-aifi.org/en/32878.html). CLAUSE 1 (definition) — 'Diminishing Mushārakah is a new form of relationship involving a partnership between two parties in an income-producing project, and in which one party undertakes to, gradually, purchase the share of the other, whether out of the purchaser's share in the project income or from any other source.' CLAUSE 2 (capital and loss) — each party subscribes to a specific share of the capital, 'each of them subscribes to a specific share of the capital of the partnership, whether in cash or another type of cash-evaluated assets after they determine the share of profit distribution, providing that each party bears his share of the loss (if incurred) commensurate to his share in the capital.' CLAUSE 3 (one-sided binding promise) — 'Diminishing Mushārakah is characterized by the presence of a binding undertaking from only one party to buy out the share of the other party, provided the latter has the option (to sell or not). The buyout is effected by concluding a series of sale contracts when buying each share; these sale contracts can be performed through exchange of offer and acceptance notifications.' CLAUSE 4 (lease leg) — 'It is permissible for any of the two parties of the Mushārakah to rent the share of his other partner against a specific amount and a specific period. In this case, the two parties' commitment towards the cost of essential maintenance remains as per their respective capital shares.' CLAUSE 5 (conditions) — 'Diminishing Mushārakah is permissible as long as it adheres to the general Shariah rulings on partnerships and to the following conditions:' (a) 'The pledge should not be for purchasing the shares of the other party at par value because the pledge, in that case, amounts to providing a guarantee of the principal. The purchase price of the shares should be determined at market value, or a price mutually agreed upon, on the same day of concluding the sale transaction.' (b) 'There should be no condition burdening any of the two parties along with the costs of insurance, maintenance, and the other expenses, because such costs and expenses should be charged to the Mushārakah account, as per respective shares of the partners.' (c) 'The respective profits of the Mushārakah parties should be stipulated in the contract as percentage shares in the profit. It is not permissible to specify in the contract a lump sum or a percentage of the subscribed principal as a profit for any of the two parties.' (d) 'The contracts and commitments relating to the Mushārakah transaction should be kept independent from each other.' (e) 'There should be no stipulation in the contract that gives any of the two parties a right to get back his subscribed principal (finance).' Closing: 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing.' Load-bearing for THIS site as the PRIMARY OIC anchor of the diminishing-partnership (mushārakah mutanaqisah) home-finance structure, completing the primary-OIC coverage of the housing spine alongside Resolution No. 40-41 (murabaha to the purchase orderer) and Resolution No. 110 (ijarah muntahia bittamlik / lease-to-own). Distinct from the corpus's existing diminishing-partnership explainers (a generic home-finance note and the Bank Negara Malaysia SAC ruling), which cover mechanics/market practice — this is the primary RESOLUTION that sets the Shariah CRITERIA. The settled ruling that answered the 13th-session Resolution No. 122 (4/13), which had POSTPONED the subject. Presented faithfully to scope: no madhab-by-madhab tally, no vote count, no Qur'an verse (none cited), no hadith number, no market/AUM figure, and no provider graded; the co-ownership walk-through and five reader-tests are the site's own framing from the resolution's criteria.
Original: https://iifa-aifi.org/en/32878.html
Captured: 2026-07-18
Added: 2026-07-18
Trust: Primary or near-primary source with a stable public URL.

Compiler’s note

The corpus's primary-OIC anchor for the THIRD and last of the three halal home-finance structures — diminishing partnership (mushārakah mutanaqisah). WHY THIS ONE: the site's halal-housing spine rests on three contracts — diminishing partnership, mark-up sale (murabaha to the purchase orderer), and lease-to-own (ijarah muntahia bittamlik). The corpus already anchored murabaha on Resolution No. 40-41 and lease-to-own on Resolution No. 110, and carried EXPLAINER material on diminishing partnership (musharakah-mutanaqisah-diminishing-partnership-home-finance.json + the Bank Negara Malaysia SAC entry) — but had NO primary OIC RESOLUTION on it. Resolution No. 136 (2/15) is exactly that, and it hands an ordinary reader five concrete halal-tests for any 'diminishing-musharakah Islamic mortgage': (1) BUYOUT PRICE — market value/agreed-on-the-day (halal) vs par value (a guaranteed-principal loan); (2) LOSS-SHARING — does the financier wear its share of a fall in value; (3) RENT vs INTEREST — profit share vs a rate on the outstanding balance; (4) COSTS — insurance/maintenance split by ownership share vs dumped on the customer; (5) SEPARATION — partnership/lease/buyout kept as independent contracts with the buyout done as a series of real sales. Grep-confirmed distinct before writing: `ls content/articles | grep -iE '136|diminish|musharak'` returned only the two EXPLAINER entries (generic MM home-finance + BNM SAC), neither a primary OIC resolution — so this is the parallel of how Resolution No. 110 related to the corpus's generic ijara explainer. SOURCING: the Academy's OWN official English text on two independent surfaces (official Oct-2021 edition PDF, used as authoritative + the Academy's live English web page iifa-aifi.org/en/32878.html), agreeing verbatim. HONESTLY LABELLED as NOT a two-independent-translation gold pairing (the pre-2000 IRTI edition predates the 2004 session, so no second translation exists), which is why the second surface is the Academy's own web page rather than a rival edition — it confirms the PDF is not a pdftotext artefact. DISCLOSED PREDECESSOR (a genuine gem, not smoothed): the 13th-session Resolution No. 122 (4/13) 'Diminishing Mushārakah in light of Contemporary Contracts' (Kuwait City, Dec 2001) was expressly POSTPONED — its whole operative text is 'Postponement of deliberations and issuance of a resolution ... to a forthcoming session, for conducting further research and study on the subject.' — so Res 136 (2/15) is the SETTLED ruling that answered what Res 122 put off (the same postponement->settlement pattern as Res 14->Res 28 on zakah on shares). Res 122 is deliberately NOT used (it decides nothing) and is flagged in the deferral-avoidance list. TRUST 'high' (numbered/dated PRIMARY OIC resolution verified verbatim in the Academy's own official English edition and re-confirmed on the Academy's live English page; sole caveats = both are English translations not the binding Arabic, and there is no second independent translation to cross-read for a 2004 ruling). ALL 12 verbatim quoted spans machine-verified against the official PDF extraction before commit (build_res136.py canon() = de-hyphenate line breaks + fold curly quotes + collapse whitespace, then substring). DELIBERATELY DROPPED per no-fab: any madhab-by-madhab breakdown or vote tally; any Qur'an verse/hadith number (the resolution cites none); the CONTENT of the internally-referenced partnership doctrine beyond the resolution's own words; any market/AUM/named-bank figure; any claim about which specific AU/UK/CA/US provider complies (the five tests are for the reader to apply, no provider graded). FRESHNESS-HONEST: a 2004 resolution — nothing time-sensitive; its date is stated explicitly, and diminishing partnership it governs is still the live co-ownership pillar of Islamic home finance (Guidance Residential in the US, and various UK/AU providers, build on this structure). 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. NEXT candidate: Resolution No. 123 (5/13) 'Qirad or Joint Muḍārabah in Financial Institutions (Investment Accounts)' — the settled ruling behind halal investment/savings accounts (the mudarabah pool), uncovered and directly on-theme; or Resolution No. 137 (3/15) 'Ṣukūk al-Ijārah' (leasing bonds), the settled companion that Resolution No. 110 had postponed — each still needing its own verbatim verification first. This entry completes the primary-OIC coverage of all three contracts the site's own halal home-finance guidance depends on.

Topics

islamic-financeribamusharakahmusharakamusharakah-mutanaqisahmusharaka-mutanaqisadiminishing-musharakahdiminishing-partnershipdiminishing-partnership-home-financeco-ownershippartnershipshirkahprofit-loss-sharingloss-sharingijaraleasehome-financehalal-mortgageislamic-home-financeislamic-mortgagebuyoutmarket-valuepar-valueprincipal-guaranteesubstance-over-formseparate-contractsbinding-promisewadoptionkhiyarmaintenanceinsurancetakafulprohibition-of-ribafinancing-sideoicorganisation-of-islamic-cooperationinternational-islamic-fiqh-academyiifafiqh-academyresolution-136resolution-122primary-sourcecollective-ijtihadshariah-rulingislamic-bankingmuscat-2004

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.