The PRIMARY OIC ruling that the conventional BOND
The PRIMARY OIC ruling that the conventional BOND — and its 'zero-coupon' and 'prize' variants — is a prohibited interest-bearing loan no matter what it is renamed, and that the lawful substitute is the Muḍārabah (profit-and-loss-sharing) certificate: International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), Resolution No. 60 (11/6), titled 'Bonds' in both the Academy's official English edition and the older IRTI/IDB printed edition, 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 THIRTEENTH article anchored on a genuine PRIMARY OIC / IIFA resolution read verbatim, and it is the sibling — from the very SAME 6th session — of Resolution No. 51 (2/6) on installment sales, and the mirror-image companion of Resolution No. 30 (5/4) on Muqāraḍah Bonds already in this corpus: where Res 30 sets out the HALAL profit-sharing certificate, Res 60 is the resolution that PROHIBITS the conventional interest bond and points the reader straight back to Res 30 for the alternative. Its most load-bearing line closes the door on the single most common fixed-income instrument a saver is offered — the interest-bearing bond, whatever it is called. Verbatim (official edition), First: 'The bonds which represent a commitment to pay its amount along with an interest related to its nominal value or to a predetermined profit are prohibited in Shariah. Their issues, their purchase and their trading, all are prohibited because they are interest-bearing loans, no matter whether their issuing authority belongs to the private sector or is a State-affiliated public entity. The alteration in the nomenclature, such as calling the bonds “certificate” or “investment securities” or “saving certificates” or calling the interest as “profit” or “income” or “service charge” or “commission” have no effect on the aforementioned ruling.' The ruling then extends to the two variants a reader is most likely to be told are 'different': the zero-coupon bond (Second: a loan 'sold at a price inferior to their nominal value', the gap being the disguised interest) and the prize bond (Third: a loan paying 'a predetermined profit or an additional amount' by ballot, which 'have a resemblance with gambling (qimār)'). And it does not stop at prohibition — Fourth names the halal replacement outright. Verbatim (official edition), Fourth: 'The usury-based bonds, which are prohibited, can be substituted by the bonds and certificates issued on the basis of a contract of Muḍārabah (profit and loss sharing) meant for a particular project or a particular enterprise or company, wherein no predetermined profit or interest shall be paid to the bearers, but they shall be entitled to get a proportionate share in the profit of the project in relation to the proportion of their respective investments. This profit cannot be given to them unless it has been effectively accrued. A scheme of the Muḍārabah certificate has already been approved by the Academy in resolution no. 30 (5/4) issued at its fourth session, concerning Muqāraḍah Bonds.' That is the primary-source spine of why a Muslim cannot buy a government or corporate bond, a term deposit dressed as a 'certificate', a 'capital-guaranteed savings note', or a 'prize-linked bond' — and why the Shariah answer to fixed income is the sukuk/muḍārabah certificate that pays a real, accrued, proportionate share of an enterprise's profit and carries its risk, not a predetermined return on a loan.
What this source says
This corpus already carries the two halves of the Academy's answer on the SAVINGS/CAPITAL-MARKETS side, and this entry is the piece that joins them. Resolution No. 30 (5/4) sets out the HALAL instrument — the Muqāraḍah / muḍārabah investment certificate that pays a real profit-share, not interest. Resolution No. 10 (10/2) settles that conventional bank interest is riba. Resolution No. 60 (11/6) is the ruling that applies that verdict to the single most common fixed-income product a saver is offered — the BOND — and then hands the reader straight back to Res 30 for what to buy instead. It was adopted by the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of the OIC at its 6th session in Jeddah over 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410h (14–20 March 1990) — the SAME session that produced Res 51 (2/6) on installment sales (Res 51 was topic 2 of that session, Res 60 was topic 11), so the two are siblings. 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. It grew directly out of a dedicated Financial Markets Seminar: the resolution records that it was issued 'Having reviewed the research papers, recommendations, and conclusions of the Financial Markets Seminar held in Rabat, Kingdom of Morocco on 20–24 Rabīʿ al-Akhir 1410 (20–24 October 1989)', jointly run by the Academy and the IRTI of the Islamic Development Bank.
Start with what the resolution means by a 'bond', because the definition is the whole case. Verbatim (official edition), the preamble: 'Having considered that a bond is a certificate by which its issuer undertakes the liability of paying its nominal value to the bearer on its maturity along with an agreed-upon interest relating to its value or to a predetermined profit, either in lumpsum or as a discount or in the form of prizes to be distributed on the basis of ballot.' (IRTI: 'Keeping in view that a bond is a certificate by which its issuer undertakes the liability of paying its face value to the bearer on its maturity along with an agreed interest relating to its value or to a pre-determined profit, either in lump-sum or as a discount or in the form of prizes to be distributed on the basis of ballot.') Read it closely: a bond is a promise to repay a principal PLUS a predetermined extra — and the resolution already flags the three forms that extra takes (a lump-sum coupon, a discount to face value, or a ballot prize), which is exactly what First, Second and Third then rule on in turn.
FIRST is the load-bearing prohibition, and it is DIRECTLY sourced, not reasoned. Verbatim (official edition): 'The bonds which represent a commitment to pay its amount along with an interest related to its nominal value or to a predetermined profit are prohibited in Shariah. Their issues, their purchase and their trading, all are prohibited because they are interest-bearing loans, no matter whether their issuing authority belongs to the private sector or is a State-affiliated public entity. The alteration in the nomenclature, such as calling the bonds “certificate” or “investment securities” or “saving certificates” or calling the interest as “profit” or “income” or “service charge” or “commission” have no effect on the aforementioned ruling.' (IRTI: 'The bonds which represent an undertaking to pay its amount along with an interest related to its face value or to a pre-determined profit are prohibited in Shari'a. Their issuance, their purchase and their negotiation, are all prohibited because they are interest-bearing loans, no matter whether their issuing authority belongs to the private sector or is a public entity related to the State. The change in the nomenclature, such as calling the bonds “certificate” or investment securities” or “saving certificates” or calling the interest “profit” or “income” or “service charge” or “commission” has no effect on the aforesaid ruling.') Two things are decided here that a reader needs. FIRST, the whole life-cycle is closed off: issuing a bond, buying a bond, and trading a bond on a secondary market are ALL prohibited — you cannot escape the ruling by merely purchasing an existing bond rather than subscribing at issue. SECOND, and this is the item's real teeth, a GOVERNMENT bond is no different from a corporate one ('private sector or … State-affiliated public entity'), and — the substance-over-form point the whole site turns on — RENAMING the instrument changes nothing: call the bond a 'certificate', an 'investment security' or a 'savings certificate', call the interest a 'profit', 'income', a 'service charge' or a 'commission', and it remains a prohibited interest-bearing loan.
SECOND applies that to the zero-coupon bond, the instrument most often presented as somehow interest-free because 'it pays no coupon'. Verbatim (official edition): 'The “zero coupon bonds” are also prohibited because they are loans sold at a price inferior to their nominal value, and the owners of such bonds benefit from the difference in their prices which is considered a discount on the bonds.' (IRTI: 'The “zero coupon bonds” are also prohibited because they are loans sold at a price inferior to their face value, and the owners of such bonds benefit from the difference in their prices which is considered a discount on the bonds.') A zero-coupon bond pays no periodic interest — but you buy it for, say, 90 and are repaid 100 at maturity, and that 10 IS the interest, delivered as a discount instead of a coupon. The Academy names the mechanism and forbids it: the discount is the riba.
THIRD applies it to the prize bond (the 'premium bond' / lottery bond), and adds a second prohibition on top of the first. Verbatim (official edition): 'Similarly, the “prize bonds” are also prohibited because they are loans in which a liability to pay a predetermined profit or an additional amount is undertaken in favor of their bearers as a whole, or in favor of an undermined number of persons out of them. Moreover, these bonds have a resemblance with gambling (qimār).' (IRTI: 'Similarly, the “prize bonds” are also prohibited because they are loans in which a liability to pay a pre-determined profit or an additional amount is undertaken in favor of their bearers as a whole, or in favor of an undermined number of persons out of them. Moreover, these bonds have a resemblance with gambling (“Qimar”).') A prize bond is a loan to the issuer whose 'return' is paid out as prizes drawn by ballot to some bondholders. It is doubly defective: as a loan promising an extra it is riba, and because the extra is allocated by lot it also resembles qimār (gambling). This is the primary-source basis for treating national 'premium bond' / prize-linked savings schemes as impermissible.
FOURTH is the constructive half — the resolution refuses to leave the saver with only a 'no'. Verbatim (official edition): 'The usury-based bonds, which are prohibited, can be substituted by the bonds and certificates issued on the basis of a contract of Muḍārabah (profit and loss sharing) meant for a particular project or a particular enterprise or company, wherein no predetermined profit or interest shall be paid to the bearers, but they shall be entitled to get a proportionate share in the profit of the project in relation to the proportion of their respective investments. This profit cannot be given to them unless it has been effectively accrued. A scheme of the Muḍārabah certificate has already been approved by the Academy in resolution no. 30 (5/4) issued at its fourth session, concerning Muqāraḍah Bonds.' (IRTI: 'The interest bearing bonds can be substituted by the bonds and certificates issued on the basis of the contract of “Mudharabah” (Profit and loss sharing) meant for a particular project or a particular enterprise, wherein no pre-determined profit or interest shall be paid to the bearers, but they shall be entitled to get a proportionate share in the profit of the project in relation to the proportion of their respective investments. This profit cannot be given to them unless it has been actually yielded. A draft scheme of the “Mudharabah certificate” has already been approved by the Council of the Academy in Resolution No. 30/5/4 of its Fourth session. This resolution can be availed of for further details.') Here is the whole logic of Islamic fixed income in one paragraph, from the primary source: replace the loan-at-interest with an EQUITY-LIKE certificate over a real project or enterprise, where (i) NO return is predetermined, (ii) the holder gets a PROPORTIONATE share of the actual profit in line with his investment, and (iii) that profit is paid only once it has genuinely accrued — meaning the holder also stands to share the loss if the venture underperforms. That is the muḍārabah / sukuk investment certificate, and Res 60 does not merely gesture at it: it points by name to Resolution No. 30 (5/4) — the Muqāraḍah / Muḍārabah bond scheme that already sits in this corpus as its own entry — as the worked-out alternative.
That Res 60 is settled OIC law, not one ruling among many, is confirmed by the Academy's OWN later resolutions, which cite it by name. In Resolution No. 101 (4/11) on debt sale (11th session, Manama, 1998) the Academy's Second item reads, verbatim: 'Emphasizing the Academy resolution no. 60 (11/6) concerning Bonds, issued at its sixth session held in Saudi Arabia on 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410h (14–20 March 1990) and paragraph (3) of the Academy resolution no. 64 (2/7) regarding discounting commercial papers' — pairing Res 60 with the corpus's Res 64 entry as the two standing anti-riba anchors on the securities side. And in Resolution No. 156 (5/17) on ṣukūk al-mushāraka (17th session, Amman) the Academy records, verbatim, that it was issued 'Having recalled the Academy resolution no. 30 (5/4) on Muqāradah Bonds … and resolution no. 137 (3/15) on Ṣukūk al-Ijārah, as well as resolution no. 60 (11/6) which prohibits Debt Securities' — placing Res 60 alongside Res 30 (the corpus's muḍārabah-bond entry) as, respectively, the prohibition and the alternative that together frame the Academy's whole ṣukūk doctrine.
From all of this the reader gets a concrete, supra-madhab checklist from the primary source itself for the whole family of 'bond / fixed-income / capital-guaranteed savings' products: (1) A CONVENTIONAL BOND — a certificate repaying principal plus a predetermined interest or 'profit' — is prohibited to issue, to buy, AND to trade, whether the issuer is a company or a government (First). (2) RENAMING changes nothing — 'certificate', 'investment security', 'savings certificate' for the bond; 'profit', 'income', 'service charge', 'commission' for the interest — the ruling stands (First). (3) A ZERO-COUPON BOND is not a way around it: the discount to face value IS the interest (Second). (4) A PRIZE / PREMIUM BOND is doubly prohibited — riba as a loan promising an extra, and a resemblance to gambling because the extra is drawn by ballot (Third). (5) THE LAWFUL SUBSTITUTE is the muḍārabah / sukuk certificate over a real project: no predetermined return, a proportionate share of actual accrued profit, and genuine exposure to loss — the instrument worked out in Resolution No. 30 (5/4) (Fourth). An arrangement that passes these is doing what this resolution permits; a bond paying a fixed or predetermined return on money lent is exactly what it forbids.
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 one of the four substantive rules; they differ in wording throughout ('nominal value' vs 'face value'; 'their trading' vs 'their negotiation'; 'a State-affiliated public entity' vs 'a public entity related to the State'; 'The usury-based bonds, which are prohibited' vs 'The interest bearing bonds'; 'effectively accrued' vs 'actually yielded'; 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing' vs 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing'), which strengthens confidence in the substance. UNLIKE several earlier entries there is NO substantive discrepancy to repair here — both editions run First–Fourth identically, and the only non-wording differences are trivial typography in the IRTI heading — an honestly clean pairing rather than a manufactured one. Both are English renderings, not the binding Arabic original. Second, on SCOPE: no madhab-by-madhab breakdown, no vote tally, no market or AUM figure, no hadith number (the resolution cites none), and no claim about which specific AU/UK/CA/US product does or does not comply — the tests are given for the reader to apply, and no product is graded here. The cross-references to Resolution No. 101 (4/11) and Resolution No. 156 (5/17) are quoted only for the verbatim lines in which they cite Resolution No. 60 by name; nothing else in those resolutions is re-asserted, and the CONTENT of Res 30 (5/4) — the substitute instrument — lives in its own corpus entry, not 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 2026-07-09 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. 60 (11/6) / Bonds', 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 (the preamble bond-definition and First through Fourth) — 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. (60/11/6) CONCERNING “BONDS”', with the same 6th session / Jeddah / 17–23 Sha'baan 1410 H (14–20 March 1990) and the same operative structure (First through Fourth) — extracted verbatim from the published PDF. THESE TWO ARE GENUINELY DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS, not two printings of one rendering: the official edition speaks of a bond's 'nominal value' where IRTI says 'face value'; the official First forbids 'their issues, their purchase and their trading' where IRTI forbids 'their issuance, their purchase and their negotiation'; the official reads 'a State-affiliated public entity' where IRTI reads 'a public entity related to the State'; the official 'The alteration in the nomenclature' is IRTI's 'The change in the nomenclature'; the official Fourth opens 'The usury-based bonds, which are prohibited, can be substituted' where IRTI opens 'The interest bearing bonds can be substituted'; the official has the profit paid only when 'effectively accrued' where IRTI has 'actually yielded'; the official closes 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing' where the IRTI printing closes 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing'. UNLIKE the corpus's Res 85 (a lettering slip), Res 65 (a truncated clause) and Res 64 (a garbled Fifth), THIS pairing has NO substantive discrepancy to disclose: both editions run First–Fourth in the same order with the same content, and the only differences are the translation-wording above plus trivial typography in the IRTI heading (a stray space, curly vs straight quotes) — an honestly clean two-source match. Both editions are English renderings, not the binding Arabic original.
- Source
- PRIMARY RULING (full title, session/city/dates, preamble bond-definition and the full operative text — First through Fourth) 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. 60 (11/6) / Bonds', 'holding its 6th session in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410h (14–20 March 1990)', issued on the conclusions of the Financial Markets Seminar (Rabat, Morocco, 20–24 Rabīʿ al-Akhir 1410 / 20–24 October 1989) held jointly with the IRTI of the IDB — 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 2026-07-09. 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. (60/11/6) CONCERNING “BONDS”', same 6th session / Jeddah / 17–23 Sha'baan 1410 H (14–20 March 1990) and same operative structure (First–Fourth) — extracted verbatim from the published PDF (https://zulkiflihasan.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/majma-fiqh.pdf), read 2026-07-09. THE TWO ARE GENUINELY DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS ('nominal value' vs 'face value'; 'Their issues, their purchase and their trading' vs 'Their issuance, their purchase and their negotiation'; 'a State-affiliated public entity' vs 'a public entity related to the State'; 'The alteration in the nomenclature' vs 'The change in the nomenclature'; Fourth 'The usury-based bonds, which are prohibited, can be substituted' vs 'The interest bearing bonds can be substituted'; 'effectively accrued' vs 'actually yielded'; official closes 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing' vs IRTI 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing') — a strong pairing, since every one of the four substantive rules survives two independent renderings. NO SUBSTANTIVE DISCREPANCY TO DISCLOSE: unlike the corpus's Res 85 (lettering slip), Res 65 (truncated clause) and Res 64 (garbled Fifth), both editions here run First–Fourth identically; the only differences are the translation wording above plus trivial typography in the IRTI heading (a stray space and curly vs straight quotes) — reported honestly as a clean match, not a manufactured defect. ADDITIONAL PRIMARY CORROBORATION that Res 60 is the settled OIC position, quoted verbatim only for the lines in which later resolutions cite Res 60 by name: (a) the Academy's Resolution No. 101 (4/11) on debt sale (11th session, Manama, 25–30 Rajab 1419h / 14–19 November 1998), Second item — 'Emphasizing the Academy resolution no. 60 (11/6) concerning Bonds, issued at its sixth session held in Saudi Arabia on 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410h (14–20 March 1990) and paragraph (3) of the Academy resolution no. 64 (2/7) regarding discounting commercial papers'; and (b) the Academy's Resolution No. 156 (5/17) on Ṣukūk al-Mushāraka (17th session, Amman) — 'Having recalled the Academy resolution no. 30 (5/4) on Muqāradah Bonds … and resolution no. 137 (3/15) on Ṣukūk al-Ijārah, as well as resolution no. 60 (11/6) which prohibits Debt Securities' (both read verbatim from the same official-edition PDF). NO fabrication: no madhab-by-madhab tally, no vote count, no hadith number, no market/AUM/named-fund figure, and no product graded. Nothing from the cross-referenced Res 101 or Res 156 is re-asserted beyond the verbatim lines in which they name Resolution No. 60, and the CONTENT of the substitute instrument (Res 30 (5/4)) lives in its own corpus entry, not here. 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. 60 (11/6), 6th session, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410h (14–20 March 1990) — the SAME session as Res 51 (2/6) — issued on the conclusions of the Financial Markets Seminar (Rabat, 20–24 October 1989). Operative content, verbatim from the Academy's official English edition (Oct 2021). PREAMBLE (what a bond IS): 'a bond is a certificate by which its issuer undertakes the liability of paying its nominal value to the bearer on its maturity along with an agreed-upon interest relating to its value or to a predetermined profit, either in lumpsum or as a discount or in the form of prizes to be distributed on the basis of ballot.' FIRST (conventional bond prohibited to issue/buy/trade; government = corporate; renaming irrelevant — stated directly): 'The bonds which represent a commitment to pay its amount along with an interest related to its nominal value or to a predetermined profit are prohibited in Shariah. Their issues, their purchase and their trading, all are prohibited because they are interest-bearing loans, no matter whether their issuing authority belongs to the private sector or is a State-affiliated public entity. The alteration in the nomenclature, such as calling the bonds “certificate” or “investment securities” or “saving certificates” or calling the interest as “profit” or “income” or “service charge” or “commission” have no effect on the aforementioned ruling.' SECOND (zero-coupon bond — the discount IS the interest): 'The “zero coupon bonds” are also prohibited because they are loans sold at a price inferior to their nominal value, and the owners of such bonds benefit from the difference in their prices which is considered a discount on the bonds.' THIRD (prize bond — riba AND resembles gambling): 'Similarly, the “prize bonds” are also prohibited because they are loans in which a liability to pay a predetermined profit or an additional amount is undertaken in favor of their bearers as a whole, or in favor of an undermined number of persons out of them. Moreover, these bonds have a resemblance with gambling (qimār).' FOURTH (halal substitute = muḍārabah certificate, pointing to Res 30): 'The usury-based bonds, which are prohibited, can be substituted by the bonds and certificates issued on the basis of a contract of Muḍārabah (profit and loss sharing) meant for a particular project or a particular enterprise or company, wherein no predetermined profit or interest shall be paid to the bearers, but they shall be entitled to get a proportionate share in the profit of the project in relation to the proportion of their respective investments. This profit cannot be given to them unless it has been effectively accrued. A scheme of the Muḍārabah certificate has already been approved by the Academy in resolution no. 30 (5/4) issued at its fourth session, concerning Muqāraḍah Bonds.' Close: 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing.' The IRTI/IDB edition confirms the same operative content in a genuinely different translation ('face value' for 'nominal value'; 'their negotiation' for 'their trading'; 'a public entity related to the State' for 'a State-affiliated public entity'; 'The interest bearing bonds' for 'The usury-based bonds, which are prohibited'; 'actually yielded' for 'effectively accrued'; close 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing'). Both editions run First–Fourth in the same order with the same content; UNLIKE Res 85/65/64 there is NO substantive discrepancy to disclose — the pairing is honestly clean, differing only in translation wording plus trivial IRTI-heading typography. Load-bearing for THIS site as the PRIMARY OIC anchor on BONDS / FIXED INCOME (the conventional bond, zero-coupon bond and prize bond are all prohibited interest-bearing loans; renaming changes nothing; the lawful substitute is the muḍārabah/sukuk certificate of Res 30) — the prohibition half whose halal counterpart, Res 30 (5/4), already lives in this corpus. 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
- 2026-07-09
- Added
- 2026-07-09
- Trust
- Primary or near-primary source with a stable public URL.
Compiler’s note
The corpus's THIRTEENTH article anchored on a genuine PRIMARY OIC / International Islamic Fiqh Academy resolution read verbatim, and the mirror-image companion of the corpus's existing Res 30 (5/4) Muqāraḍah-Bonds entry. WHY THIS ONE: it was the explicit NEXT candidate named at the close of round-113 ('Res 60 (11/6) Bonds — named alongside Res 64 in Res 101 = a ready in-corpus lead, present in both editions'). It completes the savings/capital-markets pairing the corpus was building: Res 30 (5/4) = the HALAL muḍārabah/investment certificate; Res 10 (10/2) = conventional bank interest is riba; and now Res 60 (11/6) = the ruling that applies that verdict to the BOND (the commonest fixed-income product) and points back to Res 30 for the alternative. Also a SIBLING of Res 51 (2/6): both were adopted at the SAME 6th session (Jeddah, 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410h / 14–20 March 1990). Grep-confirmed DISTINCT: no existing article carried a dedicated verbatim entry for 'Resolution No. 60' / '60 (11/6)' / '60/11/6' (the only prior mention was a one-line cross-reference/dropped-note inside the Res 64 article). GEM #1: the load-bearing prohibition (First) is DIRECTLY sourced, not reasoned, and settles two things a reader needs — a GOVERNMENT bond is no different from a corporate one, and RENAMING the instrument ('certificate', 'investment security', 'savings certificate'; interest as 'profit'/'income'/'service charge'/'commission') changes nothing: the substance-over-form principle stated in the primary text. GEM #2: the resolution pre-empts the two 'but this one is different' variants — the zero-coupon bond (Second: the discount to face value IS the interest) and the prize/premium bond (Third: riba AND a resemblance to gambling because the return is drawn by ballot) — the primary-source basis for ruling out prize-linked / premium savings bonds. GEM #3: Fourth does not stop at 'no' — it names the halal SUBSTITUTE (the muḍārabah profit-and-loss certificate over a real project: no predetermined return, proportionate share of actual accrued profit, genuine loss exposure) and points BY NAME to Resolution No. 30 (5/4), which already sits in this corpus as its own entry — a clean internal cross-reference. TWO GENUINELY DIFFERENT English translations of the SAME resolution cross-read — the GOLD-STANDARD pairing (same standard as Res 51, 64, 65, 85, 110, 30): [1] the Academy's OWN OFFICIAL ENGLISH EDITION (Oct 2021 PDF), used as authoritative text, and [2] the older IRTI/IDB printed edition (1985-2000), both carrying this 1990 resolution in full so the pairing is reproducible; the translations differ throughout ('nominal value' vs 'face value'; 'their trading' vs 'their negotiation'; 'a State-affiliated public entity' vs 'a public entity related to the State'; 'The usury-based bonds, which are prohibited' vs 'The interest bearing bonds'; 'effectively accrued' vs 'actually yielded'; 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing' vs 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing'), so the substance survives two independent renderings. HONESTY NOTE: UNLIKE Res 85 (lettering slip), Res 65 (truncated clause) and Res 64 (garbled Fifth), this pairing has NO substantive discrepancy to disclose — both editions run First–Fourth identically, differing only in translation wording plus trivial IRTI-heading typography (a stray space, curly vs straight quotes); reported honestly as a clean match rather than a manufactured defect (the no-fabrication discipline cuts both ways — do not invent a discrepancy where none exists). CORROBORATION that Res 60 is settled OIC law, quoted verbatim only for the naming lines: Res 101 (4/11) on debt sale pairs it with Res 64 (2/7); Res 156 (5/17) on ṣukūk al-mushāraka recalls it alongside Res 30 (5/4) and Res 137 (3/15) as the ruling 'which prohibits Debt Securities'. TRUST 'high' (numbered/dated PRIMARY OIC resolution verified verbatim in the Academy's own official English edition, re-confirmed in a second independently-worded printed edition, and further corroborated by two later OIC resolutions that cite it by name; sole caveat = all are English translations, not the binding Arabic). DELIBERATELY DROPPED per no-fab: (a) any madhab-by-madhab breakdown or vote tally; (b) any hadith number (the resolution cites none); (c) any market/AUM/named-fund figure or named-sukuk-issue; (d) any claim about which specific AU/UK/CA/US product complies (the tests are given for the reader to apply, no product graded); (e) anything from the cross-referenced Res 101 or Res 156 beyond the verbatim lines in which they name Resolution No. 60; (f) the CONTENT of the substitute instrument Res 30 (5/4) and of Res 64 (2/7) and Res 137 (3/15), all of which are either their own corpus entries (30, 64) or left for a future run (137). FRESHNESS-HONEST: a 1990 resolution — nothing time-sensitive; its date is stated explicitly, and the bond / zero-coupon / prize-bond rules it fixes, and the muḍārabah-certificate substitute it names, are still the live foundation for how a Muslim treats fixed income, government/premium bonds and sukuk. 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 76->77. PUNCH-LIST FULLY TICKED; build/lint re-confirmed green after this entry; this entry is the prohibition half that completes the corpus's capital-markets pairing with the existing Res 30 (5/4) muḍārabah-bond entry. NEXT candidate: Res 137 (3/15) Ṣukūk al-Ijārah (named alongside Res 60 and Res 30 in Res 156 = a ready in-corpus lead) once a genuinely-different second source is secured, or Res 101 (4/11) 'Debt Sale' itself (the resolution that cites BOTH Res 60 and Res 64, present in both editions).
Topics
islamic-financeribaprohibition-of-ribariba-al-nasiahbondsconventional-bondinterest-bearing-loanfixed-incomedebt-securitieszero-coupon-bondprize-bondpremium-bondlottery-bondqimargamblingmaysirsavings-certificateinvestment-securitiessubstance-over-formrenaming-does-not-change-rulinggovernment-bondsovereign-bondcorporate-bondcapital-marketsfinancial-marketssukukmudarabahmudarabah-certificatemuqaradah-bondsprofit-and-loss-sharingprofit-sharehalal-substituteislamic-investingresolution-60resolution-30resolution-51resolution-64resolution-101resolution-156resolution-137oicorganisation-of-islamic-cooperationinternational-islamic-fiqh-academyiifafiqh-academyprimary-sourcecollective-ijtihadshariah-rulingislamic-bankingjeddah-1990
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.