What may an Islamic market actually be built from?

WHAT MAY AN ISLAMIC MARKET ACTUALLY BE BUILT FROM? A Muslim who has decided not to touch ribā eventually hits a builder's question rather than a lawyer's one: fine — so what are the parts? Not 'is this bank product halal', but the prior question that decides it: which instruments may a Shariah-based market legitimately be assembled from at all? Resolution No. 74 (5/8) 'Shariah Applications for the Islamic Market' is the OIC Fiqh Academy answering exactly that, and its answer is unusual enough to be worth reading for its shape before its content.

THE ANSWER IS A MAP, NOT AN INVENTION. Faced with the chance to design new instruments, the Academy instead assembled the market out of contracts it had already ruled on. Head 'First: Shares' disposes of the entire equity question in one sentence: 'The International Islamic Fiqh Academy issued resolution no. 63 (1/7) on Financial Markets (Shares, Options, Commodities and Currencies), elucidating Shariah rulings applicable to them and the method in which they can be utilized for the realization of the Islamic Financial Market.' Head 'Second: Ṣukūk' splits in two and does the same twice — 'Muqāraḍah bonds and Investment Bonds were the subject of the Academy resolution no. 30 (5/4) on Muqāraḍah Bonds.' and 'Leasing bonds, or hire-purchase bonds, were the subject of the Academy resolution no. 44 (6/5). These bonds can therefore play an effective role in the Islamic financial market in terms of benefits.' Head 'Fourth: Istiṣnāʿ (Manufacturing Contract)' is a single line — 'Istiṣnāʿ contracts were subject of the Academy resolution no. 65 (3/7).' And head 'Sixth: Wad and Muwa’ada (Promise and Mutual Promises)' closes the same way: 'The Academy issued resolution nos. 40–41 (2–3/5) on promises and mutual promises in Murābaḥah to the purchase orderer.'

THE ONE RULE IT RESTATES IN ITS OWN VOICE. Head 'Third: Salam (Forward Buying Contract)' is the exception, and it is the head a working investor should read twice. It first explains why forward buying earns its place at all: 'Since Salam (forward buying) contract covers a wide range in its terms and conditions, it is advantageous for the buyer in investing his surplus funds for profit, as well as the seller in securing adequate commodity prices.' Then it reaches back and pins down the limit rather than leaving it to the cross-reference: 'The Academy resolution no. 63 (1/7) is thereby reiterated to the effect that a commodity which is subject of a forward contract cannot be sold until it is received.' — and quotes that earlier ruling word for word, that 'a commodity purchased through a Salam (forward buying) contract cannot be sold before it is received.' Of everything in this resolution, that is the line with the widest modern reach: you may pay today for goods delivered later, but you may not trade on the paper before the goods are actually in your hands. It is the rule that separates genuine forward purchasing from the paper-shuffling of a contract you never intend to take delivery of.

WHY DEFERRED SALE IS ON THE LIST. Head 'Fifth: Bay Ajal (Deferred Sale)' is the one head that neither rules nor points, in its own text, to a numbered resolution — it argues the case on the merits: 'Deferred sale is another mode of investment that facilitates purchasing transactions. It benefits both the purchaser who gets immediate access to the commodity while paying later and the seller who secures higher prices. This results in a broader distribution and availability of commodities for the society.' The justification is social, not merely contractual: paying over time widens who can buy, and that widening is treated as a public good. (The official edition attaches its supporting authorities to this head in a footnote rather than in the sentence.)

THE FORM, STATED HONESTLY. Read as a dispositive ruling, Res 74 is thin: five of its six heads settle their subject by naming a resolution issued elsewhere, and only head Third states an operative rule in the resolution's own voice. This entry does not dress that up. But read as what it is — a map — it is doing something none of the individual rulings can do. It is the Academy's own statement of which contracts an Islamic market is composed of, and therefore of what is NOT on the list. Nothing was invented for the occasion. Every named building block already had a ruling behind it.

AND THE PART MOST RESOLUTIONS LEAVE OUT: WHAT IT DID NOT KNOW. Res 74's Recommendation is a published research agenda — the Academy naming, on the record, the gaps in its own map: 'Calling on researchers, scholars, and economists to prepare studies and research on the topics that have not been discussed in depth, in order to elicit their applicability and draw on them in a Shariah-compatible way for the benefit of Islamic financial market. These topics include:' — and then seven of them: 'Mushārakah Bonds with all their categories.'; 'Formulation of leasing or hire-purchase contracts.'; 'Compensation for Salam debt, consensus settlement, discount, partnership, discount, reconciliation, etc.'; 'Mutual promise in other than Murābaḥah sales, particularly in currency exchange.'; 'Debt selling.'; 'Sulḥ (honorable settlement) in the financial market (compensation, etc.).'; and 'Clearing.' A reader used to being sold certainty should notice what that list is: an institution publishing its own unfinished business instead of implying the map was complete.

TWO OF THE SEVEN WERE LATER TAKEN UP. Two items on that agenda are the express subject of later Academy rulings this corpus already carries: mutual promises outside murābaḥah (item d) by Resolution No. 157 (6/17) 'Mutual Promises and Collusion in Contracts', and debt selling (item e) by Resolution No. 158 (7/17) 'Sale of Debts'. Neither of those texts says it was written in answer to this call, and no such causal link is claimed here — only that the gap Res 74 named was, later, filled. The other five items are not tracked here, and this entry makes no claim about them.

EVERY POINTER IN THIS RESOLUTION LANDS INSIDE THIS CORPUS. That is checked mechanically, not asserted: the build gate for this entry extracts every resolution number Res 74 refers to — the shares ruling, the two ṣukūk rulings, the istiṣnāʿ ruling, the promise rulings and the two authorities footnoted under deferred sale — and fails unless each one has an article on disk. It passes. So this entry is usable as what its subject is: an index. Read the map here, then read the ruling behind whichever block you are standing on.

WHY IT BELONGS HERE. Most of a riba-free education is spent on prohibitions — what you may not sign, what you must walk away from. This resolution is the rarer, constructive half of the same question, and it makes two things concrete for anyone actually deploying money. First, the permitted set is short and named: equity, ṣukūk of the muqāraḍah and leasing kinds, salam, istiṣnāʿ, deferred sale, and binding promises. An instrument that cannot be honestly reduced to one of these is not an Islamic-market instrument merely because it is sold as one. Second, head Third's limit — do not sell what you have not received — is the single most quietly violated rule in modern commodity and consumer trading, and it is stated here in the Academy's own words, twice. The resolution's closing line is 'Indeed, Allāh is the Giver of success.'