Article & fatwaHigh trust

The primary-source ruling that decides the single most operationally contentious question in Islamic finance: can a lender charge a late-payment…

The primary-source ruling that decides the single most operationally contentious question in Islamic finance: can a lender charge a late-payment penalty on a borrower who defaults? The OIC Fiqh Academy's answer, verbatim — a penalty clause is permissible ‘in all financial contracts except when the original commitment is a debt’, because ‘the imposition of a penalty clause in debt contracts is usurious in the strict sense’. The gem is the asymmetry inside a single contract: you MAY penalise a contractor, supplier or manufacturer who delivers late (they owe a good), but you may NOT penalise a debtor who pays late ‘whether due to insolvency or payment evasion’ (he owes money) — the primary-source reason a genuinely halal home-finance, instalment or card facility cannot bolt a conventional late fee onto the financing debt. International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), Resolution No. 109 (3/12), ‘Penalty Clause’ (official edition) / ‘Penalty Provision’ (IRTI edition), adopted at the 12th session (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 25 Jumādā al-Ākhirah – 1 Rajab 1421H / 23–28 September 2000). Sits on the same 12th-session page as Resolution 108 (credit cards) and recalls three resolutions already in this corpus by name — Res 85 (Salam), Res 65 (Istiṣnāʿ) and Res 51 (Instalment Sale).

What this source says

THE RULING BEHIND EVERY ‘CAN AN ISLAMIC LENDER CHARGE A LATE FEE?’ ARGUMENT. Adopted at the OIC Fiqh Academy's 12th session in Riyadh (25 Jumādā al-Ākhirah – 1 Rajab 1421H / 23–28 September 2000) — the same session, and in the printed editions the very next page, as Resolution 108 on credit cards — Resolution No. 109 (3/12) is the Academy's settled ruling on the penalty (liquidated-damages) clause. It is the primary source that decides the single most contentious operational question in Islamic finance: when a customer pays late, may the financier charge a penalty? The answer turns on ONE distinction, and getting that distinction right is the whole point of the resolution.

CLAUSE ONE — WHAT A PENALTY CLAUSE IS. The Academy first fixes the definition. Verbatim (official edition): ‘A penalty clause, in legal terminology, is an agreement between the two contracting parties on how to assess the compensation for the entitled party in case of default or delay of the other party.’ In plain terms: the two sides agree in advance what one will pay the other if it defaults or is late — the Islamic-finance equivalent of a liquidated-damages / late-payment clause.

CLAUSE TWO — IT BUILDS ON RULINGS ALREADY IN THIS CORPUS. Resolution 109 does not start from scratch; Clause Two confirms the Academy's previous resolutions and names three, each already an entry here. From Resolution 85 (2/9) on Salam: ‘It is not permissible to include a penalty clause for delay of providing the commodity since a commodity sold through Salam is a debt and it is not permissible to impose an additional charge for delayed repayment of debt.’ From Resolution 65 (3/7) on Istiṣnāʿ: ‘It is permissible to include a penalty clause if both contracting parties agree, unless subject to inevitable circumstances.’ From Resolution 51 (2/6) on Instalment Sale: ‘When the purchaser delays the payment of due installments, it is not permissible to impose any additional charge whether by virtue of a predetermined condition or otherwise. Such a practice amounts to a commitment of the prohibited usury.’ The three recalls already contain the answer in miniature: a penalty for late delivery of a GOOD can be lawful (Istiṣnāʿ), but a penalty for late payment of a DEBT is riba (Salam, Instalment). Clause Four then states the principle that unifies them.

CLAUSE THREE — WHERE THE CLAUSE MAY LIVE. Verbatim: ‘It is permissible to include the penalty clause in the original contract or make it a separate agreement that succeeds the contract prior to the occurrence of the anticipated loss.’ So the clause can be written into the contract itself or agreed separately afterwards — but, crucially, it must be settled BEFORE the loss happens, not conjured up after a default to justify a charge.

CLAUSE FOUR — THE DECIDING LINE (GOODS YES, DEBT NO). This is the heart of the resolution and the sentence the whole field turns on. Verbatim: ‘It is permissible to include a penalty clause in all financial contracts except when the original commitment is a debt. The imposition of a penalty clause in debt contracts is usurious in the strict sense.’ Read the exception carefully: a penalty is fine in general, but the moment the thing owed is MONEY (a debt), a penalty on late payment of that money is riba — an extra sum demanded for time on a debt, which is the classic definition of usury. The resolution then works both sides of the line with concrete examples. PERMITTED (verbatim): ‘it is permissible, for instance, to make a penalty clause on the contractor in the construction contract, the supplier in supply contracts and the manufacturer in Istina contracts if they fail to or delay in meeting their commitments’ — because a contractor, supplier or manufacturer owes a GOOD or WORK, not money, so a late-delivery penalty compensates a real breach. PROHIBITED (verbatim): ‘It is not permissible, for instance, to make a penalty clause in Installment Sale on a debtor who delays the payment of unpaid installments, whether due to insolvency or payment evasion. It is also not permissible to impose such a clause in the Istisna contract on a purchaser who fails to meet his obligations’ — because the instalment buyer, and the Istiṣnāʿ purchaser, owe MONEY, and a surcharge on late money is riba even against a wilful, solvent evader. (Note: the official edition prints the manufacturing contract as ‘Istina’ here — a dropped-letter misprint for istiṣnāʿ, corroborated by the IRTI edition's ‘Istina 'a’ and by Clause Two's own citation of ‘Resolution no. 65 (3/7) on Istiṣnāʿ’; flagged, not silently corrected.)

THE GEM: THE SAME CONTRACT CAN CUT BOTH WAYS. The most useful thing a reader can carry away is that the permit and the prohibition can live in a SINGLE deal. In an Istiṣnāʿ (make-to-order) contract you MAY penalise the maker for delivering late (he owes a good) but you may NOT penalise the buyer for paying late (he owes money). That asymmetry is exactly why a genuinely Shariah-structured off-plan or construction facility can carry delivery-performance penalties on the builder, yet a genuinely Shariah-structured consumer credit, instalment or home-finance facility cannot bolt a conventional late-payment fee onto the customer's financing debt — the customer's obligation is a debt, and Resolution 109 calls a penalty on it ‘usurious in the strict sense’.

CLAUSE FIVE — WHAT COUNTS AS COMPENSABLE LOSS. Where a penalty IS lawful (i.e. not on a debt), the resolution limits what it may cover. Verbatim: ‘The loss, which is permissible to compensate, includes the actual financial loss suffered by the partner, any other material loss and the certainly realisable gain that he misses due to his partner's default or delay. This does not include moral prejudice.’ So compensation tracks real, quantifiable harm — money actually lost, and a gain that would CERTAINLY have been realised but for the breach — and explicitly excludes ‘moral prejudice’ (hurt feelings, reputational upset). This keeps a lawful penalty tethered to genuine damages rather than becoming a disguised profit on delay.

CLAUSE SIX — WHEN THE PENALTY EVAPORATES. Verbatim: ‘The penalty clause should become null and void when the concerned partner proves that his failure to meet obligations was due to reasons that fall out of his control, or when he proves that his partner has suffered no loss as a result of his breach of the contract.’ Two escape valves: force majeure (a breach beyond the party's control) and no-harm (if the other side lost nothing, there is nothing to compensate). A lawful penalty is compensation for loss, not a windfall — no loss, no penalty.

CLAUSE SEVEN — A JUDGE CAN TRIM AN EXCESSIVE PENALTY. Verbatim: ‘The Court is permitted, if so required by one of the two parties, to adjust the compensation amount, subject to a reasonable justification, or when the compensation proves to be exaggerated.’ Even a validly agreed penalty is not untouchable: a court may scale it down where it is exaggerated relative to the actual loss.

THE HONEST CODA — THE ACADEMY ADMITS THE PROBLEM IS UNSOLVED. The resolution closes not with a solution to the awkward consequence of Clause Four (that Islamic banks are left with no lawful late-fee stick against a wilful defaulter) but with a request for more work. Verbatim Recommendation: ‘To organize a specialized symposium to research and study the terms and regulations that could be proposed to Islamic banks to guarantee the recovery of their owed debts.’ That is a candid primary-source admission that, as of 2000, the Academy had ruled OUT the conventional answer (a late-payment charge on the debt) without yet ruling IN a replacement mechanism for banks facing defaulters — the honest state of the question, left open in the text itself.

HOW A HOUSEHOLD ACTUALLY USES THIS. (a) If an ‘Islamic’ home-finance, instalment, BNPL or card facility charges a late-payment FEE on your outstanding financing balance, that is precisely the debt-penalty Resolution 109 calls ‘usurious in the strict sense’ — the presence of a genuine, Shariah-compliant structure elsewhere in the product does not launder a late fee on the debt. (b) Distinguish a penalty on DELIVERY from a penalty on PAYMENT: a builder or supplier who is late owes a good, so a delivery penalty in a construction/off-plan/supply contract can be legitimate; a customer who is late owes money, so a payment penalty on him cannot. (c) A lawful penalty (on a non-debt breach) must be tied to real, provable loss — actual damage plus a certainly-missed gain — not ‘moral prejudice’, and it falls away entirely if the delay was beyond the party's control or caused no loss. (d) Because the resolution's own Recommendation leaves the bank-side recovery question open, treat any provider's late-payment mechanism as something to scrutinise, not assume compliant.

GENUINE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO EDITIONS (disclosed, not smoothed). The two translations agree on every operative point while differing in wording. TITLE / KEY TERM: the official edition calls it a ‘Penalty Clause’ throughout; the IRTI edition calls it a ‘Penalty Provision’ throughout — the same instrument under two names. MONTH NAME: official ‘25 Jumādā al-Ākhirah – 1 Rajab 1421h’ versus IRTI ‘the 25th of Jumad Thani to 1st of Rajab 1421 H’ — NOT a real divergence, since Jumādā al-Ākhirah and Jumādā al-Thānī are two names for the SAME sixth Islamic month; the Gregorian dating (23–28 September 2000) is identical in both. THE RES 65 RECALL: official ‘It is permissible to include a penalty clause if both contracting parties agree, unless subject to inevitable circumstances’ versus IRTI ‘It is permissible to include a penalty provision in the Istisna 'a contract except for inevitable circumstances’ — a genuine wording difference (the official rendering surfaces the mutual-agreement condition; both keep the inevitable-circumstances carve-out). CLAUSE FOUR EXAMPLES: official ‘the contractor in the construction contract, the supplier in supply contracts’ versus IRTI ‘the contractor in contractual agreements, the deliverer in delivery contracts’. CLAUSE FIVE: official ‘the certainly realisable gain … This does not include moral prejudice’ versus IRTI ‘the certainly obtainable gain … It does not include moral losses’. THE ‘ISTINA’ PRINT SLIP: the official edition's Clause Four prints the manufacturing contract as ‘Istina contracts’ and ‘the Istisna contract’ — an internal inconsistency where ‘Istina’ is a dropped-letter misprint for istiṣnāʿ; the IRTI edition reads ‘Istina 'a’ / ‘Istisna 'a’, and Clause Two of BOTH editions cites ‘Resolution no. 65 (3/7) on Istiṣnāʿ’, so the intended word is certain; reported, not silently corrected. PAGE-BREAK INSERTION: in the official PDF the page number ‘218’ falls inside Clause Four between ‘in all financial contracts’ and ‘except when the original commitment is a debt’; both halves are verbatim across the break. CLOSING INVOCATION: one genuine divergence, reported rather than reconciled — the official edition closes ‘Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing.’ while the IRTI edition closes ‘And Allah (S. W. T) knows better’. Every verbatim quote used above was machine-checked against both source PDFs (22/22 OK).

AN HONEST NOTE ON WHAT IS AND IS NOT HERE. This is a settled operative ruling (seven decisive clauses plus a closing Recommendation), not a deferral. The seven clauses above are the resolution's own words; the ‘goods yes, debt no’ framing and the ‘same contract cuts both ways’ gem are plain restatements of Clause Four's own worked examples, not inferences added by this site. The three recalled rulings (Res 85 Salam, Res 65 Istiṣnāʿ, Res 51 Instalment Sale) are quoted only in the wording Resolution 109 itself uses to recall them, and each has its own full entry in this corpus. The resolution's text cites no Qur'an verse and no hadith number, records no madhab tally and no vote count, and names no bank, product, figure or rate — so none is reported here. Whether any later standard-setter went on to permit a compensation-to-charity mechanism for defaulters is a separate, post-2000 development and is NOT part of Resolution 109, whose own Recommendation expressly leaves the bank-recovery question open; it is not attributed to this resolution here. The ‘how a household uses this’ guidance and the cross-links to Resolutions 108 (credit cards, same session), 10 (bank interest is ribā) and 51/65/85 are the corpus's own commentary drawn from the resolutions' shared logic, not additional clauses of Resolution 109.

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 2026-07-13, every load-bearing quote machine-verified verbatim against both source PDFs (line-wrap, hyphenation, inserted-page-number and diacritic 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 it as ‘Resolution No. 109 (3/12) / Penalty Clause’; 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 No. 109 (3/12) / On “Penalty Provision”’. Both editions carry the same 12th session (Riyadh, 23–28 September 2000), the same seven operative clauses plus a closing Recommendation, and the same reliance on the earlier Salam (Res 85), Istiṣnāʿ (Res 65) and Instalment-Sale (Res 51) resolutions. This is a SETTLED operative ruling, not a deferral. The load-bearing content is the seven Resolves clauses: (First) the legal definition of a penalty clause; (Second) confirmation of the three prior resolutions it names verbatim; (Third) the clause may sit in the original contract or a separate pre-loss agreement; (Fourth, KEY) permissible in all financial contracts except where the original commitment is a debt, a penalty on which ‘is usurious in the strict sense’ — with a worked permit (contractor/supplier/manufacturer who delays delivery) and a worked prohibition (a debtor who delays instalment payments, or an Istiṣnāʿ purchaser who fails to pay); (Fifth) the compensable loss is real financial/material loss plus the certainly-realisable missed gain, NOT moral prejudice; (Sixth) the clause is void where the breach was beyond the party's control or caused no loss; (Seventh) a court may reduce an exaggerated compensation. Its own closing Recommendation is an honest admission that the debt-recovery problem was left unsolved: it asks for a specialised symposium on how Islamic banks can guarantee collection of their owed debts.
Source: PRIMARY TEXT (full title; session/city/date; the seven operative Resolves clauses in full — First the definition of a penalty clause, Second the verbatim recall of Res 85 (Salam), Res 65 (Istiṣnāʿ) and Res 51 (Instalment Sale), Third the clause may sit in the original contract or a separate pre-loss agreement, Fourth permissible in all financial contracts ‘except when the original commitment is a debt’ with the worked contractor/supplier/manufacturer permit and the worked instalment-debtor / Istiṣnāʿ-purchaser prohibition, Fifth the compensable loss limited to real financial/material loss plus the certainly-realisable missed gain and excluding moral prejudice, Sixth the clause void for force majeure or no-loss, Seventh a court may trim an exaggerated compensation — plus the closing Recommendation for a symposium on Islamic-bank debt recovery and 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. 109 (3/12) / Penalty Clause’ (12th session, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 25 Jumādā al-Ākhirah – 1 Rajab 1421H / 23–28 September 2000) — 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 2026-07-13. 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 it as ‘Resolution No. 109 (3/12) / On “Penalty Provision”’, same 12th session, same seven clauses and Recommendation — extracted verbatim from the published PDF (https://zulkiflihasan.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/majma-fiqh.pdf), read 2026-07-13. THE TWO EDITIONS ARE GENUINELY DIFFERENT RENDERINGS that converge on the same operative content; genuine differences reported rather than smoothed: KEY TERM (‘Penalty Clause’ vs ‘Penalty Provision’ throughout); MONTH NAME (‘Jumādā al-Ākhirah’ vs ‘Jumad Thani’ — the SAME sixth Islamic month under its two names, identical Gregorian 23–28 September 2000, so NOT a real divergence); THE RES 65 RECALL (official ‘if both contracting parties agree, unless subject to inevitable circumstances’ vs IRTI ‘in the Istisna 'a contract except for inevitable circumstances’); CLAUSE FOUR EXAMPLES (‘the construction contract, the supplier in supply contracts’ vs ‘contractual agreements, the deliverer in delivery contracts’); CLAUSE FIVE (‘certainly realisable gain … moral prejudice’ vs ‘certainly obtainable gain … moral losses’); the OFFICIAL-EDITION PRINT SLIP ‘Istina’ for istiṣnāʿ in Clause Four (corroborated by IRTI's ‘Istina 'a’ and by both editions' Clause-Two citation of Resolution No. 65 (3/7) on Istiṣnāʿ, flagged not corrected); and a PAGE-NUMBER ‘218’ inserted inside Clause Four at a page break (both halves verbatim across the break). ONE GENUINE DIVERGENCE IN THE CLOSING INVOCATION, disclosed not reconciled: official ‘Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing.’ vs IRTI ‘And Allah (S. W. T) knows better’. Every verbatim quote used above was machine-checked against both source PDFs (line-wrap, hyphenation, inserted-page-number and diacritic 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 text. Resolution No. 109 (3/12), 12th session (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 25 Jumādā al-Ākhirah – 1 Rajab 1421H / 23–28 September 2000), is the Academy's SETTLED ruling on the penalty (liquidated-damages) clause — ‘Penalty Clause’ in the official edition, ‘Penalty Provision’ in the IRTI edition. Seven operative clauses plus a closing Recommendation: (First) a penalty clause is an advance agreement on assessing compensation for default or delay; (Second) it confirms three prior resolutions already in this corpus — Res 85 (2/9) Salam, Res 65 (3/7) Istiṣnāʿ and Res 51 (2/6) Instalment Sale — quoted in Res 109's own recall wording; (Third) the clause may be in the original contract or a separate agreement settled before the loss occurs; (Fourth, KEY) it is permissible ‘in all financial contracts except when the original commitment is a debt’, because ‘the imposition of a penalty clause in debt contracts is usurious in the strict sense’ — permitted on a contractor/supplier/manufacturer who delivers late (they owe a good or work), prohibited on an instalment debtor who pays late ‘whether due to insolvency or payment evasion’ and on an Istiṣnāʿ purchaser who fails to pay (they owe money); (Fifth) compensable loss is actual financial loss, other material loss and the certainly-realisable missed gain, NOT moral prejudice; (Sixth) the clause is void where the breach was beyond the party's control or caused no loss; (Seventh) a court may reduce an exaggerated compensation. The decisive gem is the asymmetry inside one contract — a delivery penalty on the maker is lawful while a payment penalty on the buyer is riba — which is the primary-source reason a genuinely halal instalment, card or home-finance facility cannot charge a conventional late fee on the financing debt. The resolution's own closing Recommendation candidly leaves the bank-side debt-recovery problem unsolved, asking for a specialised symposium on how Islamic banks can guarantee collection of owed debts. Res 109 cites no Qur'an verse, no hadith number, no madhab count and no vote, so none is reported here; it names no bank, product, figure or rate. The recalled Salam/Istiṣnāʿ/Instalment rulings (Res 85/65/51) and the ribā anchor (Res 10) are cross-links, not clauses of Res 109; any later compensation-to-charity mechanism for defaulters is a separate post-2000 development and is not attributed to this resolution.
Original: https://iifa-aifi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Resolutions-Recommendations-of-the-IIFA-Official-Edition-Oct-2021.pdf
Captured: 2026-07-13
Added: 2026-07-13
Trust: Primary or near-primary source with a stable public URL.

Compiler’s note

Added 2026-07-13 (auto-run). The OIC Fiqh Academy's SETTLED ruling on the penalty (liquidated-damages) clause — Res 109 (3/12), 12th session, Riyadh, 25 Jumādā al-Ākhirah – 1 Rajab 1421H / 23–28 September 2000 — taken as the standing NEXT-candidate named at the close of the Res 108 run (already extracted from the same 12th-session page during that run). Directly on-theme: the primary-source basis for the single most contentious operational question in Islamic finance — whether a lender may charge a late-payment penalty on a defaulting borrower. KILLER GEM (Clause Fourth, verbatim official): ‘It is permissible to include a penalty clause in all financial contracts except when the original commitment is a debt. The imposition of a penalty clause in debt contracts is usurious in the strict sense.’ GEM 2 (the asymmetry, from Clause Four's worked examples): a penalty IS permitted on a contractor/supplier/manufacturer who delivers late (owes a good) but NOT on an instalment debtor who pays late ‘whether due to insolvency or payment evasion’ or an Istiṣnāʿ purchaser who fails to pay (owes money) — the same contract can carry a lawful delivery penalty and an unlawful payment penalty, which is why a halal instalment/card/home-finance facility cannot bolt a conventional late fee onto the financing debt. GEM 3 (Clause Fifth): a lawful penalty (on a non-debt) is limited to real financial/material loss plus the certainly-realisable missed gain, excluding ‘moral prejudice’. GEM 4 (Clause Sixth): the penalty is void for force majeure or where no loss was suffered; (Clause Seventh) a court may trim an exaggerated one. HONEST CODA: the resolution's own closing Recommendation asks for a specialised symposium on how Islamic banks can guarantee recovery of owed debts — a candid primary-source admission that, having ruled OUT a late-fee on the debt, the Academy had not yet ruled IN a replacement recovery mechanism (the open state of the question, in the text itself). Cross-links: Clause Two recalls Res 85 (Salam), Res 65 (Istiṣnāʿ) and Res 51 (Instalment Sale) BY NAME, all already in this corpus; the ribā anchor is Res 10; sits on the same page as Res 108 (credit cards). GOLD-STANDARD pairing: two genuinely different English editions cross-read — the Academy's OWN OFFICIAL ENGLISH EDITION (Oct 2021 PDF) + the IRTI/IDB printed edition (1985-2000, which carries this 12th-session/2000 resolution, so the pairing holds), both pdftotext-verbatim. Genuine divergences reported not smoothed: key term ‘Penalty Clause’ vs ‘Penalty Provision’ throughout; month ‘Jumādā al-Ākhirah’ vs ‘Jumad Thani’ (same 6th month, NO real divergence, identical Gregorian); the Res 65 recall wording (official surfaces the mutual-agreement condition); Clause Four examples (‘construction contract/supplier’ vs ‘contractual agreements/deliverer’); Clause Five (‘realisable gain/moral prejudice’ vs ‘obtainable gain/moral losses’); the official-edition ‘Istina’ dropped-letter misprint for istiṣnāʿ in Clause Four (corroborated by IRTI + both editions' Clause-Two citation of Res 65 on Istiṣnāʿ, flagged not corrected); a page-number ‘218’ inserted inside Clause Four at a page break (both halves verbatim across); and ONE genuine CLOSING-INVOCATION divergence (‘Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing.’ vs ‘And Allah (S. W. T) knows better’). All 22 load-bearing quotes machine-verified against both source PDFs (22/22 OK, whitespace/hyphenation/inserted-page-number/diacritic aware). HONESTY built in: the seven clauses are the resolution's own words; the ‘goods yes, debt no’ framing and the ‘same contract cuts both ways’ gem are plain restatements of Clause Four's worked examples; the three recalled rulings are quoted only in Res 109's own recall wording and each has its own corpus entry; any later compensation-to-charity mechanism for defaulters is a separate post-2000 development NOT attributed to Res 109 (whose own Recommendation leaves the recovery question open). DROPPED per no-fab: Qur'an verse / hadith number (Res 109 cites none); madhab tally; vote count; any bank/product/figure/rate. Articles 93->94. Clean `rm -rf .next && npm run build` green; `npm run lint` = 0/0. NEXT candidate (substantive finance ruling, in BOTH editions i.e. ≤2000/≤12th session, not a deferral, not yet covered): Res 73 (4/8) Auction Contracts, or Res 129/130-series if in range; AVOID Res 89 currency (near-duplicate of Res 42) and the known deferrals Res 22/45/77/78/87/96.

Topics

islamic-financepenalty-clausepenalty-provisionlate-paymentlate-feeliquidated-damagesdefaultdelinquencycompensationdamagesdebtdebt-penaltyribausuryinterestgharamahtawidhinstalment-saleinstallment-saleistisnasalamconstruction-contractsupply-contractoff-planhome-financebnplconsumer-financeforce-majeureno-loss-no-penaltycourt-adjustmentmoral-prejudicecertainly-realisable-gaininsolvencypayment-evasiondefaulterislamic-bankingdebt-recoveryoicinternational-islamic-fiqh-academyiifaresolution-109res-109109-3-1212th-sessionriyadh2000primary-sourcecollective-ijtihadsettled-ruling

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.