The PRIMARY OIC ruling on QABḌ (TAKING POSSESSION) — when do you actually 'possess' an asset, and can crediting a bank account count as possession?
The PRIMARY OIC ruling on QABḌ (TAKING POSSESSION) — when do you actually 'possess' an asset, and can crediting a bank account count as possession? International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), Resolution No. 53 (4/6), titled 'Qabḍ (Taking Possession): Forms (esp. the latest) and their Rulings' in the Academy's official English edition (the IRTI/IDB edition prints it as 'Possession: Its Different Forms, Especially the Modern Forms and their Rules'), adopted at the Academy's 6th session in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410h (14–20 March 1990). This is the corpus's SIXTEENTH article anchored on a genuine PRIMARY OIC / IIFA resolution read verbatim, and its primary-source anchor for the doctrine that quietly underpins almost every contract the corpus already covers: qabḍ, the requirement to take possession of a thing before you may on-sell it. The classical rule is that you may not sell what you do not possess; Res 53 modernises that rule for the banking age by settling that possession may be CONSTRUCTIVE (qabḍ ḥukmī), not only physical. Verbatim (official edition), First: 'Just as the possession of commodities may be physical, by taking the commodity in one’s hand or measuring or weighing the eatables, or by transferring or delivering the commodity to the premises of the possessor, similarly the possession may also be an implied or constructive possession which takes place by leaving the commodity at one’s disposal and enabling him to deal with it as he wills. This will be deemed a valid possession, even though the physical possession has not taken place.' The mode, it adds, 'may vary from commodity to commodity, according to its nature and pursuant to the different customs prevalent in this behalf' — so ʿUrf (custom) fixes what counts as taking hold of a given asset. The resolution then names two recognised forms of constructive possession: crediting a sum of money to a customer's bank account (directly, by transfer, or through a currency-exchange debit-and-credit), subject to the rules of Ṣarf; and receipt of a cheque 'provided that the issuer’s account has an amount which can be drawn in the currency specified in the cheque, and the bank has closed it (for the payee).' This is the primary-source foundation for why a bank credit or a properly-funded cheque can stand in for physically handling cash — and, read the other way, for why a commodity that is never genuinely placed at the buyer's disposal has not really been possessed at all (the fault line under commodity-murābaḥa and organised tawarruq).
What this source says
Almost every contract the corpus already covers rests on a doctrine it had not yet anchored in a primary source: qabḍ, the taking of possession. The classical Sharīʿah rule — stated in these same editions in the Academy's other sale resolutions and rooted in the ḥadīth forbidding the sale of what one does not possess — is that you may not on-sell a thing until you have taken possession of it. That single requirement is the hinge on which the corpus's other entries turn: it is why a murābaḥa financier must actually own and take the asset before selling it to the customer (Res 40–41), why salam's forward buyer takes a debt rather than goods (Res 85), why the spot-exchange (ṣarf) rules demand hand-to-hand settlement, and why the contested commodity-murābaḥa / organised-tawarruq structures (Res 179) are argued over precisely on the question of whether the commodity is ever genuinely possessed before it is resold. Resolution No. 53 (4/6) is the OIC's primary-source ruling on what taking possession actually means once banking replaces the physical handing-over of goods and cash. It was adopted by the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of the OIC at its 6th session in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, over 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410h (14–20 March 1990) — the same session that produced Res 51 (installment sales) and Res 60 (bonds), both already in this corpus. Like the Academy's other rulings it is collective ijtihād 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. Verbatim (official edition), the preamble: 'The Council of the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, holding its 6th session in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410h (14–20 March 1990), Having examined the research papers submitted to the Academy concerning Qabḍ (taking possession): Forms (esp. the latest) and their Rulings, Having listened to the discussions on the subject, Resolves'. (IRTI heads the ruling 'CONCERNING "POSSESSION: ITS DIFFERENT FORMS, ESPECIALLY THE MODERN FORMS AND THEIR RULES"'.)
FIRST: PHYSICAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION. This is the load-bearing principle and it is directly sourced. Verbatim (official edition): 'Just as the possession of commodities may be physical, by taking the commodity in one’s hand or measuring or weighing the eatables, or by transferring or delivering the commodity to the premises of the possessor, similarly the possession may also be an implied or constructive possession which takes place by leaving the commodity at one’s disposal and enabling him to deal with it as he wills. This will be deemed a valid possession, even though the physical possession has not taken place. As for the mode of possession, it may vary from commodity to commodity, according to its nature and pursuant to the different customs prevalent in this behalf.' (Honestly noted: the two editions render this FIRST paragraph almost word-for-word identically — the genuine translation divergences in this resolution sit in the title and in the Second section, not here; only the closing invocation and the numbering style differ overall.) Two things are settled here. First, possession need not be physical: enabling someone to deal with a thing as he wills — placing it genuinely at his disposal — is itself a valid qabḍ (qabḍ ḥukmī, constructive possession). Second, WHAT counts as taking hold of a given asset is fixed by its nature and by ʿUrf (custom) — the resolution deliberately does not impose one universal act of possession on gold, grain and a bank balance alike. This is the primary-source basis both for the flexibility that lets Islamic banking function and for the discipline that stops the concept being emptied out: the test is real control and real disposal, not a paper formality.
SECOND: THE RECOGNISED MODERN FORMS. The resolution then names the everyday banking acts that qualify as constructive possession. Verbatim (official edition): 'Some of the forms of Qabḍ Ḥukmī (constructive possession) recognized both in Shariah and ʿUrf, are as follows:' (IRTI: 'Some of the forms of the constructive possession recognized both in Shari'a and the custom are enumerated hereunder:'). The FIRST form is crediting money to a bank account, in three cases: (a) verbatim, 'Where a sum of money has been credited to the account of the customer, either directly or through a Bank transfer'; (b) 'Where a customer contracts a sale of Ṣarf with the bank in the case of the purchase of a currency for another currency in favor of the customer’s account' (IRTI: '… by purchasing a currency for another currency standing in his own account'); and (c) where the bank, on the customer's order, debits his account and credits another account in another currency, in the same or another bank, for the same or a different customer — with the express proviso that 'it is necessary for the banks to take into consideration Shariah rules governing the Ṣarf contract.' The resolution then draws a careful line so that a credit-entry is not treated as possession before it is real: verbatim, 'If such crediting takes some time to enabling the beneficiary to draw the amount so credited, this delay can be allowed, provided it does not exceed usual period normally allowed in such transaction. However, the beneficiary of such crediting cannot deal in the currency during the allowed period until the crediting takes its full effect by enabling the beneficiary to draw the amount.' In other words a book-entry counts as possession only once it actually empowers the payee to draw the funds — a settlement lag is tolerated, but you may not trade on money you cannot yet withdraw. The SECOND form is receipt of a cheque, tightly conditioned. Verbatim (official edition): 'Receipt of a cheque, provided that the issuer’s account has an amount which can be drawn in the currency specified in the cheque, and the bank has closed it (for the payee).' (IRTI: 'Receipt of a cheque, provided that its amount stands in the account of the issuer, and can be drawn in the currency specified in the cheque, and the bank has closed it (for the payee).') A cheque is possession only when it is genuinely funded and earmarked — a bad or unfunded cheque takes possession of nothing. The resolution closes with the tahmid: official 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing'; IRTI 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing'.
WHY THIS MATTERS FOR THE HALAL-FINANCE READER. Res 53 is short, but it is a keystone, because the possession requirement is what keeps several riba- and gharar-control rules from being gamed. (1) It supplies the primary-source answer to 'has the bank really bought the asset?' in a murābaḥa or commodity sale: constructive possession is enough, but there must be genuine control and disposal (First), not merely a name on a warehouse receipt no one can act on. This is exactly the pressure-point on which organised commodity-murābaḥa / tawarruq is defended or attacked — Res 53 sets the standard the commodity leg must actually meet. (2) It legitimises the plumbing of modern Islamic banking — a bank credit, a transfer, a properly-funded cheque all count as taking possession — which is why electronic settlement is compatible with the Sharīʿah in principle. (3) But it fences that legitimacy: currency crediting must observe the ṣarf rules (Second 1), and no one may deal in credited money until the credit is fully effective, so the resolution does not bless treating an unsettled or unfunded entry as cash in hand. (4) By tying the mode of possession to ʿUrf, it hands later scholars and standard-setters a principled way to decide what counts as possession for new instruments — without abandoning the underlying test of real control. That later bodies rely on exactly this ruling is visible in the Academy's own corpus: its later Resolution No. 102 (5/11) on currency trading (11th session, Manama) opens by 'Confirming … resolution no. 53 (4/6) concerning Qabḍ (taking possession), paragraph (2-i-c)' (official edition; the IRTI edition renders the same recall 'Resolution no. 53 (4/6) in respect of receipt of money, paragraph (Two): (1-c)') — a clean internal cross-reference showing Res 53 is settled OIC law that the currency-exchange rulings are built on. (These naming lines are quoted verbatim only for the cross-reference; the CONTENT of Res 102 is not asserted here.)
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 every substantive rule under First and Second; they differ in wording throughout (the title 'Qabḍ (Taking Possession)…' vs 'Possession: Its Different Forms…'; 'recognized both in Shariah and ʿUrf' vs 'recognized both in Shari'a and the custom'; the '1./2.' vs 'i./ii.' numbering; '1(b)' 'in favor of the customer’s account' vs 'standing in his own account'; the cheque proviso 'the issuer’s account has an amount which can be drawn' vs 'its amount stands in the account of the issuer, and can be drawn'), which strengthens confidence that the substance survives two independent renderings. The sole disclosed difference that is not itself a rule is the closing invocation (official 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing' vs IRTI 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing'). Unlike some earlier pairings in this corpus, there is NO lettering slip, truncated clause or typographical defect here — both editions run First and Second identically, so this is reported as a clean match rather than a manufactured discrepancy. Both are English renderings, not the binding Arabic original. Second, on SCOPE: no madhab-by-madhab breakdown, no vote tally, no hadith number (the resolution cites none by collection or number), no market or AUM figure, and no claim that any particular bank, cheque-clearing system, murābaḥa platform or tawarruq desk does or does not genuinely effect possession — Res 53 gives the test; applying it to a specific product is left to the reader, and no product is graded. Nothing from the corpus's related entries (Res 40–41 murābaḥa, Res 85 salam, Res 179 tawarruq, the ṣarf material, or bay al-dayn) is re-asserted here beyond naming the doctrinal link.
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 2026-07-10 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. 53 (4/6) / Qabḍ (Taking Possession): Forms (esp. the latest) and their Rulings', with the session line 'holding its 6th session in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410h (14–20 March 1990)' and the full operative text (First: physical vs constructive possession; Second: two recognised forms of qabḍ ḥukmī — bank crediting and receipt of a cheque) — 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. (53/4/6) CONCERNING "POSSESSION: ITS DIFFERENT FORMS, ESPECIALLY THE MODERN FORMS AND THEIR RULES"', same 6th session / Jeddah / 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410H (14–20 March 1990) and the same operative structure — extracted verbatim from the published PDF. THESE TWO ARE GENUINELY DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS, not two printings of one rendering: the official title reads 'Qabḍ (Taking Possession): Forms (esp. the latest) and their Rulings' where IRTI reads 'Possession: Its Different Forms, Especially the Modern Forms and their Rules'; the official Second intro reads 'Some of the forms of Qabḍ Ḥukmī (constructive possession) recognized both in Shariah and ʿUrf, are as follows' where IRTI reads 'Some of the forms of the constructive possession recognized both in Shari'a and the custom are enumerated hereunder'; the official numbers the forms '1. … 2.' where IRTI numbers them 'i. … ii.'; official '1(b)' reads 'a sale of Ṣarf with the bank in the case of the purchase of a currency for another currency in favor of the customer’s account' where IRTI reads 'a sale of "Sarf" by purchasing a currency for another currency standing in his own account'; official '1(c)' reads 'whether it is credited in favor of the same or a different customer' where IRTI reads 'no matter whether it is credited in favor of the same customer or in favor of any other person'; official 'Shariah rules governing the Ṣarf contract' vs IRTI 'Islamic rules governing the contract of "Sarf"'; and the cheque clause official 'provided that the issuer’s account has an amount which can be drawn in the currency specified in the cheque' vs IRTI 'provided that its amount stands in the account of the issuer, and can be drawn in the currency specified in the cheque'. ONE honestly-disclosed NON-RULE divergence: the two editions CLOSE with different (both tahmid-style) invocations — the official edition ends 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing', the IRTI printing ends 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing'. UNLIKE Res 85 (a lettering slip), Res 65 (a truncated clause) or Res 63 (an 'apposite'/'opposite' typo), this pairing carries NO substantive discrepancy and no genuine defect: both editions run First–Second identically in order and content, differing only in translation wording, the '1/2' vs 'i/ii' numbering style, and the closing invocation. It is reported honestly as a CLEAN match, not a manufactured defect — the no-fabrication discipline cuts both ways. Both editions are English renderings, not the binding Arabic original.
- Source
- PRIMARY RULING (full title, session/city/dates, preamble and the full operative text — First: physical vs constructive possession; Second: two recognised forms of qabḍ ḥukmī, bank crediting and receipt of a cheque; closing tahmid) 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. 53 (4/6) / Qabḍ (Taking Possession): Forms (esp. the latest) and their Rulings', 'holding its 6th session in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410h (14–20 March 1990)' — 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 2026-07-10. 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. (53/4/6) CONCERNING "POSSESSION: ITS DIFFERENT FORMS, ESPECIALLY THE MODERN FORMS AND THEIR RULES"', same 6th session / Jeddah / 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410H (14–20 March 1990) and the same operative structure — extracted verbatim from the published PDF (https://zulkiflihasan.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/majma-fiqh.pdf), read 2026-07-10. THE TWO ARE GENUINELY DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS (title 'Qabḍ (Taking Possession): Forms (esp. the latest) and their Rulings' vs 'Possession: Its Different Forms, Especially the Modern Forms and their Rules'; Second intro 'recognized both in Shariah and ʿUrf' vs 'recognized both in Shari'a and the custom'; numbering '1./2.' vs 'i./ii.'; '1(b)' 'in favor of the customer’s account' vs 'standing in his own account'; '1(c)' 'whether it is credited in favor of the same or a different customer' vs 'no matter whether it is credited in favor of the same customer or in favor of any other person'; 'Shariah rules governing the Ṣarf contract' vs 'Islamic rules governing the contract of "Sarf"'; cheque proviso 'the issuer’s account has an amount which can be drawn in the currency specified in the cheque' vs 'its amount stands in the account of the issuer, and can be drawn in the currency specified in the cheque') — a strong pairing, since every substantive rule under First and Second survives two independent renderings. ONE HONESTLY-DISCLOSED DIVERGENCE that is NOT a substantive-rule discrepancy: the two editions CLOSE with different tahmid-style invocations — the official edition ends 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing' while the IRTI printing ends 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing'. There is NO lettering slip, truncated clause or typographical defect in this pairing (unlike Res 85 / Res 65 / Res 63); both editions run First and Second identically in order and content, so this is reported as a CLEAN two-edition match, not a manufactured defect — the no-fabrication discipline applied to confirm agreement as readily as it flags divergence. Every verbatim quote machine-verified against both source PDFs (line-wrap and hyphenation aware, e.g. the wrapped official 'trans-ferring' and 'rec-ognized' rejoined and confirmed). CORROBORATION that Res 53 is settled OIC law (naming line quoted verbatim only): the Academy's own later Resolution No. 102 (5/11) 'Currency Trading' (11th session, Manama) opens 'First: Confirming the Academy resolution no. 21 (9/3) concerning banknotes and the changing value of currency, resolution no. 63 (1/7) concerning the stock exchange … and resolution no. 53 (4/6) concerning Qabḍ (taking possession), paragraph (2-i-c)' (official edition); the IRTI edition renders the same recall '… and Resolution no. 53 (4/6) in respect of receipt of money, paragraph (Two): (1-c)'. Present in BOTH primary editions because it is a 1990 / 6th-session resolution, within the IRTI 1985-2000 edition's range. NO fabrication: no madhab-by-madhab tally, no vote count, no hadith number (the resolution cites none), no market/AUM/named-fund figure, and no product graded (no claim about which specific bank, clearing system, murābaḥa platform or tawarruq desk genuinely effects possession). The CONTENT of the cross-referenced Res 102 (5/11), and of the corpus's related entries (Res 40–41, Res 85, Res 179, the ṣarf material, bay al-dayn), is not asserted here beyond naming the doctrinal link. Both editions are English renderings, not the binding Arabic original.
- 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. 53 (4/6), 6th session, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410h (14–20 March 1990). Operative content, verbatim from the Academy's official English edition (Oct 2021). FIRST (physical and constructive possession): 'Just as the possession of commodities may be physical, by taking the commodity in one’s hand or measuring or weighing the eatables, or by transferring or delivering the commodity to the premises of the possessor, similarly the possession may also be an implied or constructive possession which takes place by leaving the commodity at one’s disposal and enabling him to deal with it as he wills. This will be deemed a valid possession, even though the physical possession has not taken place. As for the mode of possession, it may vary from commodity to commodity, according to its nature and pursuant to the different customs prevalent in this behalf.' SECOND (recognised forms of qabḍ ḥukmī): '1. Crediting a sum of money in the customer’s bank account' in three cases — '(a) Where a sum of money has been credited to the account of the customer, either directly or through a Bank transfer'; '(b) Where a customer contracts a sale of Ṣarf with the bank in the case of the purchase of a currency for another currency in favor of the customer’s account'; '(c)' the bank debits the customer's account and credits another account in another currency, same or another bank, same or different customer, with 'it is necessary for the banks to take into consideration Shariah rules governing the Ṣarf contract', and the settlement-lag proviso 'the beneficiary of such crediting cannot deal in the currency during the allowed period until the crediting takes its full effect by enabling the beneficiary to draw the amount.' '2. Receipt of a cheque, provided that the issuer’s account has an amount which can be drawn in the currency specified in the cheque, and the bank has closed it (for the payee).' Close (official): 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing.' The IRTI/IDB edition confirms the same rules in a genuinely different translation (title 'Possession: Its Different Forms, Especially the Modern Forms and their Rules'; 'recognized both in Shari'a and the custom'; 'i./ii.' numbering; '(b)' 'standing in his own account'; cheque proviso 'its amount stands in the account of the issuer, and can be drawn'), with ONE disclosed NON-RULE difference: it closes 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing' (vs 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing'). No lettering slip, truncation or typo — a clean two-edition match, reported as such. Load-bearing for THIS site as the PRIMARY OIC anchor on QABḌ / TAKING POSSESSION: possession may be constructive (qabḍ ḥukmī), fixed by ʿUrf, so long as the thing is genuinely at the buyer's disposal; a bank credit or a funded, earmarked cheque counts, but no one may deal in credited money before the credit is effective, and currency crediting must observe the ṣarf rules — the primary-source foundation under the corpus's murābaḥa (Res 40–41), salam (Res 85), ṣarf and (contested) commodity-murābaḥa / tawarruq (Res 179) entries, since each turns on whether real possession occurred before resale. Corroborated as settled OIC law by the Academy's own later Res 102 (5/11) Currency Trading (11th session, Manama), which opens by 'Confirming … resolution no. 53 (4/6) concerning Qabḍ (taking possession), paragraph (2-i-c)' (naming line quoted verbatim only). Presented faithfully to scope: no madhab tally, no vote count, no hadith number, no market/AUM figure, and no product graded. Both editions are English translations, not the binding Arabic original.
- Captured
- 2026-07-10
- Added
- 2026-07-10
- Trust
- Primary or near-primary source with a stable public URL.
Compiler’s note
The corpus's SIXTEENTH article anchored on a genuine PRIMARY OIC / International Islamic Fiqh Academy resolution read verbatim, and its primary-source anchor for QABḌ (taking possession) — the doctrine that silently underpins almost every contract the corpus already covers. WHY THIS ONE: the classical rule 'do not sell what you do not possess' is the hinge under murābaḥa (Res 40–41), salam (Res 85), ṣarf, and the contested commodity-murābaḥa / organised-tawarruq structures (Res 179) — each turns on whether real possession occurred before resale — yet the corpus had NO primary-source ruling on what taking possession actually MEANS in the banking age. Res 53 (4/6) is the OIC's direct answer, and was the explicit next-candidate named at the close of the Res 63 entry ('the primary anchor for constructive possession under commodity-murabaha / tawarruq'). Grep-confirmed DISTINCT: no existing article carried a dedicated verbatim entry for 'Resolution No. 53' / '53 (4/6)' (the only prior hits were passing MENTIONS of it as a next-candidate in the Res 63 notes, plus incidental uses of the word 'possession'). Present in BOTH primary editions (a 1990 / 6th-session resolution, within the IRTI 1985-2000 range). GEM #1 (the core rule, directly sourced): First settles that possession may be CONSTRUCTIVE (qabḍ ḥukmī), not only physical — 'leaving the commodity at one’s disposal and enabling him to deal with it as he wills … will be deemed a valid possession, even though the physical possession has not taken place' — and that the MODE of possession is fixed by the asset's nature and by ʿUrf (custom), so the concept is both flexible enough for banking and disciplined by a real-control test. GEM #2 (the banking plumbing): Second names bank crediting (direct, by transfer, or via a ṣarf debit-and-credit, subject to the ṣarf rules) and receipt of a funded, earmarked cheque as recognised forms of constructive possession — the primary-source basis for why electronic settlement and cheques are compatible with the Sharīʿah in principle. GEM #3 (the fence, so it can't be gamed): the resolution bars dealing in credited money 'during the allowed period until the crediting takes its full effect by enabling the beneficiary to draw the amount', and conditions the cheque on the issuer's account being genuinely funded and drawable — so an unsettled book-entry or a bad cheque is NOT possession; and by demanding genuine disposal it sets the standard the commodity leg of tawarruq/commodity-murābaḥa must actually meet. GEM #4 (honesty as a feature): the entry is explicit that Res 53 gives the TEST and does not grade any product — it makes no claim about whether a specific bank, clearing system, murābaḥa platform or tawarruq desk really effects possession. GOLD-STANDARD pairing: two GENUINELY DIFFERENT English translations cross-read (same standard as Res 30/40-41/51/60/63/64/65/85/101/110) — [1] the Academy's OWN OFFICIAL ENGLISH EDITION (Oct 2021 PDF), authoritative, + [2] the IRTI/IDB printed edition (1985-2000), both pdftotext-verbatim, both carrying this 1990 resolution in full; the translations differ throughout (title 'Qabḍ (Taking Possession)…' vs 'Possession: Its Different Forms…'; 'recognized both in Shariah and ʿUrf' vs 'both in Shari'a and the custom'; '1./2.' vs 'i./ii.'; 'in favor of the customer’s account' vs 'standing in his own account'; cheque 'the issuer’s account has an amount which can be drawn' vs 'its amount stands in the account of the issuer, and can be drawn'), so the substance survives two independent renderings. HONESTY NOTE: UNLIKE Res 85 (lettering slip), Res 65 (truncated clause) and Res 63 ('apposite'/'opposite' typo), this pairing has NO substantive discrepancy and NO genuine defect — both editions run First–Second identically; the sole non-rule difference is the closing invocation (official 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing' vs IRTI 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing'). Reported HONESTLY as a clean match, NOT a manufactured defect — no-fabrication discipline confirms agreement as readily as it flags divergence. CORROBORATION (verbatim recall line only): the Academy's own later Res 102 (5/11) Currency Trading (11th session, Manama) opens by 'Confirming … resolution no. 53 (4/6) concerning Qabḍ (taking possession), paragraph (2-i-c)' (official; IRTI: 'Resolution no. 53 (4/6) in respect of receipt of money, paragraph (Two): (1-c)') — settled OIC law that later currency rulings build on. Every verbatim quote machine-verified against both source PDFs (line-wrap/hyphenation aware; the wrapped official 'trans-ferring' and 'rec-ognized' rejoined and confirmed). 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 caveat = both are English translations, not the binding Arabic original). DELIBERATELY DROPPED per no-fab: (a) any madhab-by-madhab breakdown or vote tally; (b) any hadith number (the resolution cites none — the classical 'do not sell what you do not possess' rule is referenced as doctrinal background, not quoted with a collection/number in this resolution); (c) any market/AUM/named-fund figure or named product; (d) any claim that a specific bank/clearing system/platform/tawarruq desk does or does not genuinely effect possession (the test is given; no product graded); (e) the CONTENT of the cross-referenced Res 102 (5/11) beyond the verbatim naming line, and of the corpus's related entries (Res 40–41, Res 85, Res 179, ṣarf, bay al-dayn) beyond naming the doctrinal link. FRESHNESS-HONEST: a 1990 resolution — nothing time-sensitive; its date is stated explicitly, and the possession doctrine it fixes is still the live foundation for how a Muslim judges whether a sale/finance structure took real possession before resale. 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 79->80. PUNCH-LIST FULLY TICKED; build/lint re-confirmed green after this entry. NEXT candidate: Res 66 (4/7) 'Bay al-Wafa' (7th session, 1992 — in BOTH editions; the OIC's dedicated ruling on the sale-with-right-of-redemption the corpus currently covers only via a general explainer), or Res 55 (6/6) / Res 52 (3/6) from the same 6th-session cluster once each is confirmed present in both editions; the post-2000 leads Res 137 (3/15) Ṣukūk al-Ijārah and Res 158 (7/17) Sale of Debts still await a genuinely-different second source beyond the official edition (the IRTI 1985-2000 edition stops before their sessions).
Topics
islamic-financeribaprohibition-of-ribaqabdtaking-possessionconstructive-possessionqabd-hukmiphysical-possessionpossession-before-salesell-what-you-do-not-possessmurabahacommodity-murabahatawarruqorganised-tawarruqsalamsarfcurrency-exchangespot-settlementbank-transferbank-creditchequesettlementurfcustomghararconstructive-deliverydeliveryresolution-53resolution-102resolution-40-41resolution-85resolution-179oicorganisation-of-islamic-cooperationinternational-islamic-fiqh-academyiifafiqh-academyprimary-sourcecollective-ijtihadshariah-rulingjeddah-1990sixth-session
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.