StructureNeeyah provides co-ownership capital covering up to 80% of the purchase price, funded EXCLUSIVELY from a private accredited-investor pool (no conventional bank or secondary-market involvement). The homeowner pays monthly rent on Neeyah's share at local market rates; both parties share maintenance, insurance and property taxes proportionally by ownership share; the homeowner buys out Neeyah's share incrementally over 15 years. If the term expires without full purchase, the property is sold and proceeds split proportionally. If the client ends the partnership, Neeyah has the property valued and sells it for not less than 97.5% of its market value, with the proceeds divided by ownership share (AMJA Fatwa 87782).
The standout new US finding: AMJA's Resident Fatwa Committee (Fatwa ID 87782, issued 14 January 2026) reviewed the diminishing-partnership contract Neeyah submitted and found it 'a contract acceptable under Islamic law' — the most recent specific AMJA approval of a US home-finance contract in this audit. The green is conditional: AMJA also recommended Neeyah appoint a formal named independent Shariah Supervisory Board, which has not been publicly confirmed, and no NMLS number is publicly verifiable.
Provider’s website ↗Contract-grade public documents were read directly (e.g. a full Terms & Conditions or a scholar-reviewed contract). This rates our certainty, not the provider’s compliance.
The five questions
How it answers, at a glance
Which contract
Diminishing musharakah“the homeowner buys out Neeyah's share incrementally over 15 years”
Who holds title
Not disclosed“the executed co-ownership agreement is not publicly posted; no NMLS number is publicly confirmable”
How the price or rent is set
Market rent“The homeowner pays monthly rent on Neeyah's share at local market rates”
What happens on default
Not publicly documented“the executed co-ownership agreement is not publicly posted”
Independent scholarly ruling
Approved by an independent body“AMJA Resident Fatwa Committee, Fatwa ID 87782, issued 14 January 2026 (listed on AMJA's site 22 January) — the controlling Shariah opinion, which declared the contract acceptable”
Note: A co-ownership model, but the text does not say how the buyer's share grows, how rent is set, who is on title or what happens on default.
See how it compares across the US, UK and CanadaEstablished & regulatory standing
The verifiable facts
Established
Founded 2023 (CEO Abeer Ali, per secondary bios). When re-checked on 1 October 2026, Neeyah's invest page showed "$18M+ Invested", 63 homes, 162 investors and 21 states (self-reported, undated counters).
Regulatory standing
No NMLS registration found in indexed sources; we have not confirmed whether a co-ownership model like this one needs one. Its invest page lists 21 states (1 October 2026); the exact state-by-state licence list is not public. Capital is raised from accredited investors via private placement.
Shariah board
Who certifies it
No named independent Shariah Supervisory Board is publicly disclosed. AMJA reviewed the contract directly (Fatwa 87782) and recommended Neeyah establish a formal board per OIC Islamic Fiqh Academy standards.
A named, credentialled board is a real signal — but a provider’s own board certifying its own product is not the same as arm’s-length review. Weigh it alongside the independent commentary below.
Independent scholarly review
What independent scholars have said
AMJA Resident Fatwa Committee, Fatwa ID 87782, issued 14 January 2026 (listed on AMJA's site 22 January) — the controlling Shariah opinion, which declared the contract acceptable while recommending a formal independent board.
Independent commentary is weighed, not treated as a final personal ruling. A body that rules one way is one respected voice, not a universal consensus — and rulings can lag changes to a live contract.
How the structure works
The mechanics, in principle
Neeyah provides co-ownership capital covering up to 80% of the purchase price, funded EXCLUSIVELY from a private accredited-investor pool (no conventional bank or secondary-market involvement). The homeowner pays monthly rent on Neeyah's share at local market rates; both parties share maintenance, insurance and property taxes proportionally by ownership share; the homeowner buys out Neeyah's share incrementally over 15 years. If the term expires without full purchase, the property is sold and proceeds split proportionally. If the client ends the partnership, Neeyah has the property valued and sells it for not less than 97.5% of its market value, with the proceeds divided by ownership share (AMJA Fatwa 87782).
This describes the structure in principle — it is not a verdict on the executed contract. How the contract actually behaves is what the checklist below tests.
From the public documents
How the contract actually works
Read from Neeyah’s own public materials — white papers, product pages, FAQs and fatāwā — not its executed contract, which is generally not published. Where a point is undisclosed, it is said plainly rather than guessed. Sources are listed below.
AMJA Fatwa 87782 (Jan 2026) is the controlling opinion and found the contract acceptable for four documented reasons: (1) financing relies solely on private investor funds with no conventional-bank involvement — the exact contamination that caused AMJA to rule LARIBA and Ijara CDC impermissible; (2) expenses (maintenance, insurance, taxes) are shared proportionally by ownership — directly remedying the defect AMJA cited in Guidance Residential's 2014 review; (3) the rule that, if the client ends the partnership, the property is sold for not less than 97.5% of its market value and the proceeds split by share was reviewed and accepted; (4) the investor side (fixed management fee plus profit-sharing on sale) was reviewed and accepted. The one outstanding AMJA condition is the appointment of a named independent Shariah supervisory board, which is not public, and the executed co-ownership agreement is not publicly posted; no NMLS number is publicly confirmable. These gaps keep it short of an unconditional green but do not override AMJA's explicit contract approval.
The Six-Pillar test
The questions that decide it
This is the universal lens this site applies to every home-finance contract, anywhere. Read each pillar as a question to put to Neeyah’s executed contract — not its brochure.
- 1
Real ownership
Does the financier genuinely take ownership of the asset — even briefly — and bear a real owner's risk, rather than only ever holding a debt secured against it?
- 2
Risk-sharing
If the asset is destroyed or its value collapses, does the financier share that loss in proportion to its stake, or is the customer left bearing it alone?
- 3
Rent vs interest
In a lease/co-ownership, is the rent benchmarked to a genuine market rent for the property — or is it calibrated to an interest rate (a base-rate + margin) in disguise?
- 4
Default mechanism
On default, does the contract behave like the end of a real lease/partnership — or does it accelerate like a loan, demanding the full outstanding 'principal' plus charges?
- 5
No guaranteed pre-fixed return
Is the financier's return tied to real ownership and risk, or is it a pre-fixed, guaranteed sum that arrives regardless of what happens to the asset?
- 6
Substance over form
Strip away the Arabic labels: does the cashflow, risk, and outcome differ from a conventional loan — or is it the same economics wearing a compliant name (ḥiyal)?
Before you sign
What to ask Neeyah, in writing
Put these to the provider in writing and keep the answers. The reply — not the marketing — is what tells you whether the structure holds.
Has AMJA's recommended independent Shariah Supervisory Board been constituted, and who are the named members?
What is your NMLS number and in which specific states are you currently licensed?
May I review the complete co-ownership and purchase agreements before signing?
What happens to my position if Neeyah's investor pool faces liquidity constraints mid-term?
How is the local-market rent rate calculated and independently audited?
The honest gap
What we have not verified
- NMLS number and state-licence list not publicly verifiable — check NMLS Consumer Access directly.
- The AMJA-recommended independent Shariah board is not yet publicly named.
- Founding date (2023) is from secondary bios, not a primary regulatory filing.
- The securities framework for the investor fundraising (Reg D or other) is not publicly confirmed.
The reasoning
Why this verdict, and not another
A verdict is only as honest as the reasoning behind it. Here is why Neeyah sits where it does — what keeps it off a clean pass, and what keeps it off an outright avoid.
Not a clean pass because
The AMJA-recommended independent Shariah board is not publicly confirmed, the NMLS registration is unverified, and the executed contract is not publicly posted.
Not an outright avoid because
AMJA Fatwa 87782 reviewed the contract Neeyah submitted and declared it acceptable — no conventional-bank funding, proportional expense-sharing, and an accepted 97.5%-of-market-value sale floor were the tests AMJA applied and passed.
Sources
What this read is built on
The verifiable references behind this page — provider documents and independent scholarly resolutions. Read them yourself; do not take our summary on trust.