The PRIMARY OIC ruling where the Fiqh Academy FIRST told banks to PREFER AVOIDING rent-to-own — and named the clean alternatives.
The PRIMARY OIC ruling where the Fiqh Academy FIRST told banks to PREFER AVOIDING rent-to-own — and named the clean alternatives. International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), Resolution No. 44 (6/5), titled ‘Rent-to-Own Contracts’ in the Academy’s official English edition and ‘Hire-Purchase Contracts’ in the IRTI/IDB edition, adopted at the 5th session (Kuwait City, 1–6 Jumādā al-Ūlā 1409h / 10–15 December 1988). The cautious ORIGIN of the Academy’s lease-to-own jurisprudence: it resolves that it is ‘a priority to refrain’ from rent-to-own modes and to use two safer alternatives instead — an installment sale after adequate guarantees, or a plain lease that gives the tenant a genuine end-of-term CHOICE (extend, walk away, or buy at MARKET VALUE) — and postpones the more elaborate forms to a later session. That later, detailed permissive framework is Res 110 (4/12), already in this corpus; Res 44 is where the caution starts.
What this source says
THIS IS WHERE THE HALAL LEASE-TO-OWN STORY ACTUALLY BEGINS — AND IT BEGINS WITH A WARNING. Almost every ‘Islamic mortgage’ marketed to Western Muslims as rent-to-own, lease-to-own, or ijārah-muntahia-bittamlīk traces its jurisprudence back to the OIC International Islamic Fiqh Academy. Most people only meet the Academy’s DETAILED framework, Res 110 (4/12) of the 12th session (already in this corpus), which sets out the conditions under which a lease-that-ends-in-ownership can be permissible. But the Academy’s FIRST word on the structure, six sessions earlier, was not a green light. Resolution No. 44 (6/5), adopted at the 5th session (Kuwait City, 10–15 December 1988), opens by telling Islamic banks to prefer NOT to use it.
THE TWO RULES THAT DO THE WORK. Verbatim (official edition): ‘First: It is a priority to refrain from rent-to-own modes and adopt other alternatives, two of which are as follows: a. Installment sale after receiving adequate guarantees. b. The rental contract, by which the lesser gives to the lessee the choice, after completing all due installments, between the following options: • Extension of the rental period, • Termination of the rental contract and return of the property to its owner, • Purchase of the rented item at market value at the end of the rental period.’ Then, ‘Second: There are many other forms of rent-to-own contracts, on which the debate has been postponed to the next session, pending the receipt of their sample contracts’. The IRTI/IDB edition renders the same two rulings under the title ‘Hire-Purchase Contracts’: ‘It is preferable to refrain from the form of hire-purchase deals and adopt other alternatives of which two are mentioned hereunder’, then the installment-sale option and ‘The lease contract, by which the Lesser gives to the lessee the choice, after the end of the contract, between the following options’ — extend the lease, terminate and return the property, or ‘The purchase of the leased item at market value at the end of the lease period.’ Two independent translations, one message: prefer to avoid rent-to-own; if you lease, keep the lease a real lease with a genuine end-of-term choice, and if the tenant buys, he buys at MARKET VALUE, not at a pre-fixed token price baked into the ‘rent.’
WHY ‘MARKET VALUE’ AND ‘A GENUINE CHOICE’ ARE THE LOAD-BEARING WORDS. The danger in rent-to-own is that it is really a credit sale wearing a lease costume: the ‘rent’ is secretly the price-plus-interest of the asset, and the final ‘purchase’ is a foregone conclusion for a nominal sum. The Academy’s two clean alternatives close exactly that gap. Alternative (a) says: if you actually want to sell on credit, DO a real installment sale (a known, permitted contract) and secure it with guarantees — don’t disguise it. Alternative (b) says: if you want a lease, let it stay a lease — the tenant must genuinely be able to walk away or extend at the end, and any purchase must be at the item’s MARKET VALUE at that time, not at a value pre-loaded into the rental payments. Both alternatives refuse the fudge where ‘lease’ and ‘sale’ are collapsed into one instrument so that interest can ride along inside the rent.
IT RESTS ON AN EARLIER RESOLUTION — AND SAYS SO. Res 44 does not appear from nowhere; it recalls the Academy’s prior work on leasing by name. Verbatim (official edition): ‘Having recalled resolution of the Academy no. 13 (1/3), in response to the questions submitted by the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) (Par. B) concerning renting transactions’. The IRTI edition carries the same recall: ‘Recalling also resolution n° 13 (1/3) adopted by the Council at its session, in response to the queries submitted by the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) (n° 1 Para b) concerning leasing operations’. So the primary text itself places Res 44 inside a chain: the Academy had already answered IDB questions on leasing (Res 13), and here it turns to the specific rent-to-own hybrid.
THE HONESTY HEADLINE — THIS IS A STARTING POINT, NOT THE FINAL WORD. It would be a misreading to quote Res 44 as ‘the Fiqh Academy banned rent-to-own.’ It did not ban it — it said prefer to refrain and, crucially, EXPRESSLY POSTPONED the many other forms to a later session ‘pending the receipt of their sample contracts.’ That later work is what eventually produced the detailed, conditionally-permissive framework of Res 110 (4/12) that most halal-finance providers cite today. So the accurate arc is: 1988 (Res 44) — caution plus two safe alternatives, elaborate forms deferred; later (Res 110) — a structured framework spelling out when a lease-ending-in-ownership can be valid. Anyone citing Res 44 as a blanket prohibition is quoting the caution without the deferral the same resolution attaches to it; anyone citing Res 110 as unconditional approval is quoting the framework without the caution it grew out of. Both belong in the picture.
GENUINE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO EDITIONS (disclosed, not smoothed). The two translations diverge in wording throughout — title (‘Rent-to-Own Contracts’ vs ‘HIRE-PURCHASE CONTRACTS’), the priority clause (‘It is a priority to refrain from rent-to-own modes’ vs ‘It is preferable to refrain from the form of hire-purchase deals’), and the vocabulary (‘rental contract / rented item / rental period’ vs ‘lease contract / leased item / lease period’), the recall citation (‘(Par. B) concerning renting transactions’ vs ‘(n° 1 Para b) concerning leasing operations’), and the closing invocation (official ‘Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing.’ vs IRTI ‘Verily, Allah is All-Knowing’). ONE WORDING DIVERGENCE WORTH FLAGGING (reported, not smoothed): the moment at which the tenant’s end-of-term choice arises is phrased differently — the official edition says the choice comes ‘after completing all due installments,’ while the IRTI edition says ‘after the end of the contract.’ Both denote the end of the lease term, so the substance is the same (a genuine choice at the finish of the lease), but the two editions frame the trigger differently and a careful reader deserves to know that. Both editions carry the same two substantive rulings (prefer to refrain plus the two named alternatives; postpone the other forms) identically — the differences are translation wording, not substance.
WHERE IT LANDS FOR A WESTERN MUSLIM. If a provider offers you ‘rent-to-own’ or ‘lease-to-own’ home finance, this resolution gives you the questions to ask. Is this a REAL lease where I could genuinely hand the property back or extend at the end — or is the ‘purchase’ a foregone conclusion dressed up as rent? If I do buy at the end, do I buy at the property’s MARKET VALUE then, or at a figure pre-baked into my payments (which is how interest sneaks in)? Would a plain installment sale with proper guarantees, or an honest lease-with-option, be cleaner than this hybrid? The Academy’s own first instinct in 1988 was to prefer those cleaner routes. Its later, detailed framework (Res 110) sets conditions under which a structured lease-to-own can pass — but Res 44 is the reminder that the burden is on the STRUCTURE to prove it is a genuine lease-plus-choice and not a credit sale with interest hidden in the rent.
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 2026-07-11, every load-bearing quote machine-verified verbatim against both source PDFs (line-wrap and hyphenation aware, whitespace-normalised, 22/22 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 the ruling as ‘Resolution No. 44 (6/5) / Rent-to-Own 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 N° 44 (6/5) CONCERNING HIRE-PURCHASE CONTRACTS’. Both editions carry the same 5th session (Kuwait City, 1–6 Jumādā al-Ūlā 1409h / 10–15 December 1988), the same recall of Res 13 (1/3) on renting/leasing transactions, and the same two operative rulings (prefer to refrain from rent-to-own and use two named alternatives; postpone the other forms to the next session).
- Source
- PRIMARY RULING (full title, session/city/dates, preamble recalling Res 13 (1/3), and the full two-part operative text — First: prefer to refrain from rent-to-own and adopt two named alternatives [installment sale after adequate guarantees; a lease giving the lessee an end-of-term choice to extend, terminate/return, or buy at market value]; Second: other forms postponed to the next session pending sample contracts; plus the closing invocation) 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. 44 (6/5) / Rent-to-Own Contracts’, ‘holding its 5th session in Kuwait City, State of Kuwait, on 1–6 Jumādā al-Ūlā 1409h (10–15 December 1988)’ — 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 2026-07-11. 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 N° 44 (6/5) CONCERNING HIRE-PURCHASE CONTRACTS’, same Fifth session / Kuwait-City / 1st to 6th Jumada al-Oula 1409 H (10 to 15 December 1988), same recall of Res 13 (1/3) and same two operative rulings — extracted verbatim from the published PDF (https://zulkiflihasan.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/majma-fiqh.pdf), read 2026-07-11. THE TWO EDITIONS ARE GENUINELY DIFFERENT RENDERINGS that converge on the same rulings; genuine wording differences reported rather than smoothed: title ‘Rent-to-Own Contracts’ vs ‘HIRE-PURCHASE CONTRACTS’; priority clause ‘It is a priority to refrain from rent-to-own modes’ vs ‘It is preferable to refrain from the form of hire-purchase deals’; vocabulary ‘rental contract / rented item / rental period’ vs ‘lease contract / leased item / lease period’; recall citation ‘(Par. B) concerning renting transactions’ vs ‘(n° 1 Para b) concerning leasing operations’; closing ‘Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing.’ (official) vs ‘Verily, Allah is All-Knowing’ (IRTI). ONE WORDING DIVERGENCE FLAGGED NOT HIDDEN: the trigger for the tenant’s end-of-term choice reads ‘after completing all due installments’ (official) vs ‘after the end of the contract’ (IRTI) — both denote the end of the lease term (same substance: a genuine choice at the finish of the lease), the two editions merely frame the trigger differently; reported, not smoothed. Every verbatim quote used above was machine-checked against both source PDFs (line-wrap and hyphenation aware, 22/22 OK). Trust: high (two independent verbatim primary editions of the same OIC resolution).
- School / basis
- Comparative / transactional-law with a PRIMARY OIC collective-ijtihad ruling (it is a priority to refrain from rent-to-own / hire-purchase modes and instead use one of two named alternatives — an installment sale backed by adequate guarantees, or a genuine lease giving the tenant an end-of-term choice to extend, terminate and return, or buy the item at its MARKET VALUE — with the more elaborate rent-to-own forms expressly postponed to a later session). This is the cautious ORIGIN (5th session, 1988) of the Academy’s lease-to-own jurisprudence; it recalls the earlier leasing resolution Res 13 (1/3), and the deferred ‘other forms’ were later taken up in the detailed, conditionally-permissive framework of Res 110 (4/12), already in this corpus. The caution-plus-alternatives is the load-bearing content; the permissibility conditions live in the later resolution, not here.
- Captured
- 2026-07-11
- Added
- 2026-07-11
- Trust
- Primary or near-primary source with a stable public URL.
Compiler’s note
Added 2026-07-11 (auto-run). Corpus’s TWENTY-SECOND primary-OIC anchor and the CAUTIONARY ORIGIN of the Academy’s lease-to-own jurisprudence — the explicit sibling/precursor to the already-covered Res 110 (4/12), which is the later detailed permissive framework. Where Res 110 sets out when a lease-ending-in-ownership can be valid, Res 44 (6/5) is the Academy’s FIRST word on the structure (5th session, 1988): it is ‘a priority to refrain’ from rent-to-own / hire-purchase modes, use two clean alternatives instead (installment sale after adequate guarantees; a genuine lease with an end-of-term choice to extend, terminate/return, or buy at MARKET VALUE), and the more elaborate forms are EXPRESSLY POSTPONED to a later session. Primary-source basis for the site’s recurring caution that a ‘rent-to-own’ product must be a REAL lease-plus-genuine-choice (purchase at market value, not a pre-fixed token baked into the rent) and not a credit sale with interest hidden inside the rental payments. HONESTY built into the entry (not smoothed): Res 44 did NOT ban rent-to-own — it prefers to refrain AND postpones the other forms; the permissibility conditions live in the later Res 110, so the entry frames Res 44 as the cautious starting point of an arc, not a blanket prohibition. GOLD-STANDARD pairing: two genuinely different English translations cross-read — the Academy’s OWN OFFICIAL ENGLISH EDITION (Oct 2021 PDF, authoritative, ‘Rent-to-Own Contracts’) + the IRTI/IDB printed edition (1985-2000, ‘Hire-Purchase Contracts’), both pdftotext-verbatim, both carrying this 1988 resolution in full; wording differs in title, the priority clause, the lease/rental vocabulary, the recall citation and the closing invocation, plus ONE flagged wording divergence in the option-trigger (‘after completing all due installments’ vs ‘after the end of the contract’ — same substance, end of lease term; reported, not smoothed). All 22 load-bearing quotes machine-verified against both source PDFs (22/22 OK, whitespace/hyphenation aware). DROPPED per no-fab: madhab tally; vote count; Qur’an verse / hadith number (Res 44’s operative text cites none); any named rent-to-own product/bank/app; any product graded; any figure/rate; and the CONTENT of the recalled Res 13 (1/3) and the later Res 110 (4/12) beyond the structural links and the verbatim recall line. Articles 85->86. Clean build 208/208 + lint 0/0. NEXT candidate (in both editions, finance-relevant, not yet covered): Res 51 sibling on murabaha/installment already covered — look to Res 65 istisna already covered; genuinely-open substantive candidates include Res 66 (7/7) on Zakah of debts or a securities/istihsan resolution; the post-2000 Res 137 (3/15) and Res 157/158 (17th session) still await a genuinely-different second source (IRTI 1985-2000 stops before the 17th session). Res 22 (10/3) checked and DROPPED as a candidate: it is only a procedural placeholder that commissions studies and defers to Res 30 (5/4) — no substantive rule of its own.
Topics
islamic-financeislamic-contract-lawhome-financemortgage-alternativerent-to-ownlease-to-ownhire-purchaseijarahijarah-muntahia-bittamliklease-ending-in-ownershipinstallment-salecredit-salemarket-valuegenuine-optionlease-versus-saleribausuryhidden-interestguaranteesleasingrentingres-13res-110-precursoroicinternational-islamic-fiqh-academyiifaresolution-446-55th-sessionkuwait1988primary-sourcecollective-ijtihadislamic-development-bankidbconsumer-protectionhalal-mortgage
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.