Article & fatwaHigh trust

The PRIMARY OIC ruling for the reader who cannot pay — the International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), Resolution No.

The PRIMARY OIC ruling for the reader who cannot pay — the International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), Resolution No. 186 (1/20), 'Shariah Rulings on Insolvency and Bankruptcy', adopted at the Academy's 20th session in Oran, Algeria, on 26 Shawwāl – 2 Dhū al-Qi'dah 1433H (13–18 September 2012), together with its settled 2018 continuation, Resolution No. 218 (2/23). Where Resolutions 40-41, 110 and 136 anchor the home-finance CONTRACTS, 123 the investment account, 137 ṣukūk and 177 the GOVERNANCE layer, this anchors the hardest human case the exit material has to answer: what Shariah actually rules when a person in debt genuinely cannot repay. Its central holding is that the proven insolvent is not a defaulter to be punished but a debtor with a RIGHT — he 'becomes entitled to respite until time when he is in a position to repay', on the authority of the verse the resolution itself cites, «If the debtor is in a difficulty, grant him time till it is easy for him to repay.» (Al-Baqarah, 280) — and that he 'is not sentenced to imprisonment when he proves his insolvency'. It also carries an honest limit this entry states rather than hides: the Academy expressly POSTPONED the question of how these categories map onto modern statutory insolvency law, so this resolution does not tell any reader whether to file under their own country's bankruptcy regime.

What this source says

Every other primary ruling in this corpus answers a question asked by someone who still has options: which contract may I use, who may certify it, where may I park savings. This one answers the question asked by someone who has run out of them. A reader working through the exit material — leaving an interest-bearing mortgage, clearing card debt, unwinding a loan taken before they knew — eventually reaches the case where the arithmetic does not close. Resolution 186 is the settled, primary OIC statement of what Shariah rules in exactly that case, and its answer is not the one the reader fears.

THE TEST: WHAT COUNTS AS INSOLVENCY. Resolution 186 defines the state before it rules on it. It builds explicitly on an earlier ruling, 'Taking into account clause (seventh) of the Academy resolution no. 64 (2/7) on Criterion of Judgement about State of Insolvency that Necessitates Respite' — note that Res 186 cites that clause by its SUBJECT; Resolution 64's own printed title is 'Installment Sale', and clause Seventh sits inside it. That clause is the operative test, and it is admirably concrete: 'Seventh: The criterion of insolvency, which necessitates deferment, is that the debtor shall have no assets above his basic needs to discharge his debt in cash or in kind.' Insolvency is therefore not a feeling of being stretched, nor a bad month, nor an unwillingness to sell things one would rather keep. It is the absence of assets ABOVE BASIC NEEDS, in cash or in kind, sufficient to discharge the debt. Res 186 then states the definition in its own words: insolvency is 'a contingent description denoting the state in which a person becomes unable to do his obligatory spending or repay his due debts.' 'Contingent' is doing real work there — it is a state a person passes through, not an identity.

INSOLVENT IS NOT BANKRUPT, AND THE DIFFERENCE DECIDES EVERYTHING. The resolution's section Second draws four distinctions, and a reader who conflates the two words will misread their own situation. Bankruptcy 'refers to the insufficiency of the debtor's funds to repay his mature debts.' (1) 'Insolvency could be preceded by a state of richness or not, contrary to bankruptcy which can never occur except after richness.' (2) The consequences diverge sharply: on a bankruptcy verdict the bankrupt is placed under a restraining order, 'whereas the insolvent who proves his insolvency by Shari'ah-satisfactory ways, becomes entitled to respite until time when he is in a position to repay' — and the resolution grounds that entitlement in the text it quotes directly, «If the debtor is in a difficulty, grant him time till it is easy for him to repay.» (Al-Baqarah, 280). (3) 'The insolvent is not sentenced to imprisonment when he proves his insolvency, while the bankrupt can be imprisoned by way of ta'zīr (discretionary punishment), in case of deception, cheating, negligence or default.' (4) 'Insolvency can relate to either a debt or legal right such as sustenance expenses, contrary to bankruptcy, which always relates to debt.'

READ THE SECOND AND THIRD OF THOSE AGAIN, because they are the reason this ruling belongs in the exit material. Respite for the proven insolvent is not the creditor's charity, extended at discretion and withdrawable at will. The resolution frames it as an ENTITLEMENT — the debtor 'becomes entitled' to it — resting on a Qur'anic command addressed to the creditor. And the punitive consequence a reader in debt most fears is expressly withheld from them: imprisonment attaches to the bankrupt, and even then by way of ta'zīr and only 'in case of deception, cheating, negligence or default' — not to the person who proves they simply cannot pay. A great deal of the shame that keeps people from opening their statements is shame at a status that this resolution does not assign to them.

WHAT A COURT MAY AND MAY NOT DO (section Third). The rulings on the bankrupt are structural and, notably, all judicial rather than self-executing. 'The bankrupt has to be deprived of the right to dispose of his property in any way that could cause harm to his creditors' — but 'Imposition and cessation of such prevention should be by virtue of a judicial verdict.' Travel restriction is permitted, and bounded by the same harm test: 'It is permissible to prevent a bankrupt from travelling, if his travelling would lead to clear harm to his creditors' rights.' Maturity collapses: 'On declaration of bankruptcy, dates of maturity of outstanding debts, which the bankrupt owes to other parties, cease to be valid.' Realisation is the court's job and is owed to BOTH sides — 'Judiciary should sell bankrupt's assets in the way it deems most beneficent to the creditors and debtor and divide sale proceeds' — and discharge is not final against later means: 'If it appears that the bankrupt has new assets, creditors have the right to claim repayment of the unsettled portion of their debt out of the funds obtained from the sale of these new assets.' Finally, a rule of identifiable property: 'When a creditor finds, after the declaration of bankruptcy, the same asset he lent to the bankrupt among the latter's assets, the creditor has the right to get his asset back provided the asset is still in its original condition and its value has not been repaid to the creditor.'

THE LATE-FEE RULING (section Fourth), which is where this meets the riba material directly. The Academy 'reiterates what has been stated in its previous resolution no. 51 (2/6), items (Third & Fourth) on "Installment Sale," regarding the prohibition of imposing a fine or stipulating compensation on procrastinating solvent debtor, while he could be burdened with legal expenses.' Follow the logic carefully, because it cuts in a direction that surprises people. The subject of that prohibition is the PROCRASTINATING SOLVENT debtor — the person who CAN pay and does not. Even against him, a fine or stipulated compensation is prohibited; only actual legal expenses may be charged. If a monetary penalty may not be levied even on the debtor with the least sympathetic case, the conventional late-payment fee and penalty interest rate — levied automatically, without regard to whether the debtor is solvent or insolvent, and calculated as a charge on the debt rather than as a recovery of real costs — has no basis here at all. (Resolution 109 (3/12), already in this corpus on the penalty clause and late payment, is the fuller treatment.)

THE LIMIT — WHAT THIS RESOLUTION DELIBERATELY DOES NOT DECIDE. Section Fifth must be reported or the entry would mislead. 'The Academy sees a postponement of the discussion on the following issues regarding "Insolvency and Bankruptcy" to a later session', and lists four: 'Fiqh issues relating to the protection of Islamic financial institutions, including "Insurance of Debts" and "Commitment to Donate."'; 'Rulings on disposals of the bankrupt and the insolvent during period of suspicion.'; 'Rulings on the bankruptcy of Companies and Financial Institutions in the context of Contemporary Systems.'; and — the one that matters most to a reader in Sydney, London, Toronto or Chicago — 'Issues relating to (civil) insolvency, because it is being observed that the term insolvency in man-made laws may sometimes comprise bankruptcy and insolvency in the Islamic Fiqh perspective.' That is the Academy noticing, and declining to resolve on the spot, precisely the mapping problem a reader faces: their national statute uses these words, but not with these boundaries. So this resolution supplies the Shariah CATEGORIES and the rights attaching to them; it does NOT tell anyone whether to file under their own country's insolvency regime, and this site does not extend it to say so. That question is a matter for qualified local scholarly and legal advice together, and no figure, statute or threshold is asserted here for any market.

WHAT WAS SETTLED LATER. The Academy did return to it. Resolution No. 218 (2/23), 'Rulings on Insolvency and Bankruptcy in Shariah and Contemporary Systems (Continuation to the Previous Resolution)', adopted at the 23rd session in al-Madinah al-Munawwarah on 19–23 Ṣafar 1440h (28 October – 1 November 2018), is settled and contains no postponement of its own. It opens with 'First: confirmation of the Academy resolution no. 186 (1/20) statement on the definition of insolvency and insolvent debtor. In determining the applications of insolvency, customary practices should be taken into account.' — so the 2012 definitions stand, now read against local custom. It then tightens two points: 'No bankruptcy without a judicial decree.' and 'Rulings on bankruptcy apply for both natural and legal persons.' On institutions it draws the same insolvent/bankrupt line: 'A default in payment (of due obligations) is insolvency. It cannot be considered bankruptcy in the Shariah perspective if the assets owned by the institution or the company fulfil its debts.' — a missed payment is not bankruptcy while the assets cover the debts. It endorses restructuring routes including debt-to-equity conversion: 'Transforming debts into shares (capitalization) through increasing the capital of the indebted company by issuing ordinary shares which the creditor contributes with his debt owed by the company.' And it is candid that work remains, asking 'The Secretariat of the Academy to continue studying the effects of insolvency and bankruptcy on limited liability companies, including the case when its majority owner is still at financial ease.' Note what Res 218 took up and what it did not: it addressed the INSTITUTIONAL questions Res 186 deferred, and left the civil/personal statutory-mapping question where Res 186 left it.

HOW TO USE THIS. Four things a reader can take from a settled primary source rather than from this site's own opinion. (1) There is a definite test for insolvency — no assets above basic needs, in cash or in kind, to discharge the debt — and it is worth applying honestly in both directions before assuming either that one is trapped or that one is entitled to relief. (2) If that test is met and proven, respite is an entitlement grounded in an explicit Qur'anic command to the creditor, not a favour to be begged for. (3) The proven insolvent is not subject to the punitive treatment reserved for the deceiving or negligent bankrupt. (4) Penalty fees on late payment are prohibited even against a solvent debtor who is simply procrastinating, with only real legal expenses recoverable. And one thing a reader may NOT take from it: any conclusion about their own country's bankruptcy statute, which the Academy expressly set aside. Both editions of that — what is ruled and what is left open — are the resolution's own doing, and reporting only the first half would be the more comfortable and the less honest thing to do.

Closing invocation of both resolutions: 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing.'

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 2026-07-18 from the International Islamic Fiqh Academy's OWN OFFICIAL ENGLISH text of the resolution, read on TWO published Academy surfaces: [1] the Academy's 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. 186 (1/20) / Shariah Rulings on Insolvency and Bankruptcy' with the session line 'holding its 20th session in Oran, People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, on 26 Shawwāl – 2 Dhū al-Qi'dah 1433h (13–18 September 2012)'; and [2] the Academy's LIVE ENGLISH WEB PAGE for the same resolution at https://iifa-aifi.org/en/33028.html. The settled continuation, Resolution No. 218 (2/23) (23rd session, al-Madinah al-Munawwarah, 28 October – 1 November 2018), was read on the same two surfaces (live page: https://iifa-aifi.org/en/33140.html), as was the cross-referenced Resolution No. 64 (2/7). HONEST SOURCING LABEL: this is NOT a two-independent-TRANSLATION gold pairing, and it cannot be — the IRTI/IDB printed English edition covers only the resolutions of 1985–2000, and Resolution 186 is a 20th-session (September 2012) ruling, so it lies outside that edition's range entirely (the same constraint that applies to Resolutions 123, 136, 137 and 177). A FURTHER HONESTY MARKER: the live web page for Res 186 renders the operative sections in condensed form rather than reproducing the printed edition word-for-word, so it corroborates the resolution's number, title, session, city, dates and section STRUCTURE, but it is the official printed edition — not the web page — that is the authority for every verbatim span quoted here. That distinction is stated rather than glossed. Every embedded quotation was machine-verified as an exact substring of the official-edition text extraction (page-numbers stripped, de-hyphenated, quote-folded, whitespace-collapsed) before this entry was written; any span that failed would have aborted the build (35/35 spans passed across Res 186, Res 64 and Res 218). One span DID fail on first run — a macron this compiler had added to 'al-Madinah' that the official edition does not print — and was corrected to the source reading rather than left to stand.
Source: PRIMARY RULING (full title, session/city/dates and the operative content — the definition of insolvency and of the insolvent debtor built on the Res 64 (2/7) clause-seventh criterion; the four insolvent-vs-bankrupt distinctions including the entitlement to respite on the authority of Al-Baqarah 280 and the withholding of imprisonment from the proven insolvent; the section-Third rulings on the bankrupt (judicial restraint on disposal, bounded travel prevention, collapse of maturity dates, judicial realisation for the benefit of creditors AND debtor, recourse against later-acquired assets, and the identifiable-asset rule); the section-Fourth reiteration of Res 51 (2/6) prohibiting a fine or stipulated compensation on the procrastinating SOLVENT debtor while permitting legal expenses; and the section-Fifth EXPRESS POSTPONEMENT of four supplementary issues, including the mapping of these categories onto civil/statutory insolvency law) from the INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC FIQH ACADEMY (OIC), read on two of the Academy's own official-English surfaces: [1] the OFFICIAL ENGLISH EDITION, 'Resolutions and Recommendations of the International Islamic Fiqh Academy' (official edition, October 2021), printing the ruling as 'Resolution No. 186 (1/20) / Shariah Rulings on Insolvency and Bankruptcy', 'holding its 20th session in Oran, People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, on 26 Shawwāl – 2 Dhū al-Qi'dah 1433h (13–18 September 2012)'; and [2] the Academy's LIVE ENGLISH WEB PAGE, https://iifa-aifi.org/en/33028.html. SETTLED CONTINUATION also read and quoted: Resolution No. 218 (2/23) (official edition; live page https://iifa-aifi.org/en/33140.html). CROSS-REFERENCED AND VERIFIED ON DISK: Resolution No. 64 (2/7) 'Installment Sale', clause Seventh. HONEST LABEL: not a two-independent-translation gold pairing (impossible here — the IRTI/IDB printed edition ends at year 2000 and these are 2012 and 2018 resolutions); and the live web page renders the sections in condensed form rather than word-for-word, so it corroborates number, title, session, city, dates and structure while the official printed edition is the authority for every verbatim span. Every quotation machine-verified as an exact substring of the official-edition extraction before writing (35/35 spans across Res 186, Res 64 and Res 218).
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. 186 (1/20), 20th session, Oran, Algeria, 26 Shawwāl – 2 Dhū al-Qi'dah 1433H (13–18 September 2012), with its continuation Resolution No. 218 (2/23), 23rd session, al-Madinah al-Munawwarah, 19–23 Ṣafar 1440H (28 October – 1 November 2018). Operative content, verbatim from the Academy's official English edition (Oct 2021). FIRST (definitions) — building on 'clause (seventh) of the Academy resolution no. 64 (2/7)', whose operative test reads 'Seventh: The criterion of insolvency, which necessitates deferment, is that the debtor shall have no assets above his basic needs to discharge his debt in cash or in kind.', insolvency is 'a contingent description denoting the state in which a person becomes unable to do his obligatory spending or repay his due debts'; 'Bankruptcy as a precise concept refers to the insufficiency of the debtor's funds to repay his mature debts.' SECOND (four distinctions) — 'Insolvency could be preceded by a state of richness or not, contrary to bankruptcy which can never occur except after richness.'; the insolvent 'who proves his insolvency by Shari'ah-satisfactory ways, becomes entitled to respite until time when he is in a position to repay', per «If the debtor is in a difficulty, grant him time till it is easy for him to repay.» (Al-Baqarah, 280); 'The insolvent is not sentenced to imprisonment when he proves his insolvency, while the bankrupt can be imprisoned by way of ta'zīr (discretionary punishment), in case of deception, cheating, negligence or default.'; 'Insolvency can relate to either a debt or legal right such as sustenance expenses, contrary to bankruptcy, which always relates to debt.' THIRD (rulings on the bankrupt) — deprivation of harmful disposal with 'Imposition and cessation of such prevention ... by virtue of a judicial verdict'; travel prevention permitted where it 'would lead to clear harm to his creditors' rights'; 'On declaration of bankruptcy, dates of maturity of outstanding debts ... cease to be valid.'; 'Judiciary should sell bankrupt's assets in the way it deems most beneficent to the creditors and debtor and divide sale proceeds.'; later-acquired assets remain reachable; and the identifiable-asset rule, 'the creditor has the right to get his asset back provided the asset is still in its original condition and its value has not been repaid to the creditor.' FOURTH (late fees) — reiterating Res 51 (2/6), 'the prohibition of imposing a fine or stipulating compensation on procrastinating solvent debtor, while he could be burdened with legal expenses.' FIFTH (EXPRESSLY POSTPONED, reported not hidden) — 'The Academy sees a postponement of the discussion on the following issues ... to a later session', namely protection of Islamic financial institutions; 'Rulings on disposals of the bankrupt and the insolvent during period of suspicion.'; 'Rulings on the bankruptcy of Companies and Financial Institutions in the context of Contemporary Systems.'; and 'Issues relating to (civil) insolvency, because it is being observed that the term insolvency in man-made laws may sometimes comprise bankruptcy and insolvency in the Islamic Fiqh perspective.' RES 218 (settled continuation, no postponements) — confirms the Res 186 definitions with customary practice taken into account; 'No bankruptcy without a judicial decree.'; 'Rulings on bankruptcy apply for both natural and legal persons.'; 'A default in payment (of due obligations) is insolvency. It cannot be considered bankruptcy in the Shariah perspective if the assets owned by the institution or the company fulfil its debts.'; debt-to-equity restructuring via 'Transforming debts into shares (capitalization) ...'; and a recommendation for 'The Secretariat of the Academy to continue studying the effects of insolvency and bankruptcy on limited liability companies'. Closing invocation: 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing.'
Original: https://iifa-aifi.org/en/33028.html
Captured: 2026-07-18
Added: 2026-07-18
Trust: Primary or near-primary source with a stable public URL.

Compiler’s note

The corpus's primary-OIC anchor for INSOLVENCY, DEBT HARDSHIP AND BANKRUPTCY — the ruling that speaks to the reader the rest of the exit material eventually reaches: the one who cannot pay. WHY THIS ONE: Res 177's two named next candidates were Res 153 (2/17) 'Iftā: Requirements and Ethics' and Res 186 (1/20). Both were checked on disk and both are uncovered and settled; Res 186 was chosen because the brief names the EXIT section as the user's stated top priority and this ruling is the primary source directly beneath it, whereas Res 153 governs the fatwā-giver (a governance refinement on top of Res 177, which the corpus already has). SETTLEDNESS — HANDLED DIFFERENTLY FROM PREVIOUS RUNS AND WORTH READING BEFORE THE NEXT ONE: Res 186 is NOT postponement-free. It carries exactly one postponement, in section Fifth, deferring four SUPPLEMENTARY issues, while sections First–Fourth are operative rulings under a clean 'Resolves'. The blanket gate used by build_res137.py / build_res177.py ('any occurrence of postpone => reject') would have wrongly rejected it, and simply removing that gate would have wrongly hidden the deferral. build_res186.py therefore asserts the postponement is CONFINED to section Fifth (zero occurrences before the Fifth heading, exactly one in total) and the article discloses it prominently. That is the correct treatment and differs from the flat AVOID applied to Res 122 (4/13) and Res 124 (6/13), which are postponements of the WHOLE subject. FOUR reader-tests, each from the resolutions' own words: (1) THE INSOLVENCY TEST is concrete and comes from the cross-referenced Res 64 (2/7) clause Seventh — 'the debtor shall have no assets above his basic needs to discharge his debt in cash or in kind'; (2) RESPITE IS AN ENTITLEMENT, not creditor charity — the proven insolvent 'becomes entitled to respite until time when he is in a position to repay', which the resolution grounds in the verse it itself quotes, «If the debtor is in a difficulty, grant him time till it is easy for him to repay.» (Al-Baqarah, 280); (3) THE PROVEN INSOLVENT IS NOT PUNISHED — he 'is not sentenced to imprisonment when he proves his insolvency', with ta'zīr reserved for the bankrupt 'in case of deception, cheating, negligence or default'; (4) LATE FEES ARE PROHIBITED EVEN AGAINST THE SOLVENT PROCRASTINATOR, with only actual 'legal expenses' recoverable (reiterating Res 51 (2/6), already in this corpus; Res 109 (3/12) is the fuller treatment, also already in the corpus). THE HONEST LIMIT, stated prominently in the entry rather than buried: section Fifth expressly postponed 'Issues relating to (civil) insolvency, because it is being observed that the term insolvency in man-made laws may sometimes comprise bankruptcy and insolvency in the Islamic Fiqh perspective' — i.e. the Academy noticed and declined to resolve the exact mapping problem a Western reader faces. The entry therefore supplies the Shariah categories and refuses to extend them to any national bankruptcy statute; no threshold, figure or regulation is asserted for any market. The settled 2018 continuation, Res 218 (2/23) (zero postponements, machine-checked), IS quoted: it confirms the Res 186 definitions, adds 'No bankruptcy without a judicial decree.' and that rulings 'apply for both natural and legal persons', rules that a missed payment is insolvency not bankruptcy while assets cover debts, and endorses debt-to-equity restructuring — but it took up the INSTITUTIONAL deferrals and left the civil/personal statutory question open, which the entry says explicitly. SOURCING (honestly labelled): the Academy's official Oct-2021 English edition PDF plus the live English pages iifa-aifi.org/en/33028.html (Res 186) and iifa-aifi.org/en/33140.html (Res 218). NOT a two-independent-translation gold pairing and it cannot be — the IRTI/IDB printed edition covers only 1985–2000 (same constraint as Res 123/136/137/177). NEW SOURCING NUANCE vs previous runs: for Res 177 the live page matched the print edition verbatim (down to a shared typo); here the live page renders the sections in CONDENSED form, so it corroborates number/title/session/city/dates/structure but is NOT the authority for wording — every verbatim span is verified against the printed edition only, and the entry says so. DISCLOSED ARTIFACT: the official edition prints 'al-Madinah' without the macron it applies elsewhere; reproduced as found. A span asserting the macron failed the gate on first run and was corrected to the source reading — the gate working as intended, recorded here as evidence it is load-bearing rather than ceremonial. DROPPED per no-fab: no madhab tally, no vote count, no hadith number, no figure, no rate, no national statute described or named, no provider graded, and no claim about what any country's bankruptcy law requires. The ONE Qur'anic citation (Al-Baqarah 280) is included because the resolution itself quotes it with that reference — not sourced independently by this compiler. GLOBAL-FIRST: a universal ruling on debt hardship with no market-specific content and no AU baseline; the single passage that mentions readers by location names four cities across the four editions symmetrically and only to say the resolution does NOT decide their statutory question. All 35 verbatim spans machine-verified (build_res186.py canon = strip standalone page-number lines + de-hyphenate + fold quotes/dashes + collapse whitespace, then substring; body_index guards against matching the table-of-contents entry). NEXT candidate: Res 153 (2/17) 'Iftā: Requirements and Ethics' (still uncovered, settled, cross-referenced by Res 177 ¶1b-iv — the natural companion governing the fatwā-GIVER where 177 governs the board); or Res 218 (2/23) in its own right if a standalone entry is wanted, though it is substantially quoted here already; or Res 158 (sale of debts), Res 170 (timeshare), Res 187 (cooperative insurance), all uncovered. VERIFY 'Resolves' on disk first AND confirm not already covered — Res 177's own named candidate Res 30 turned out to be already in the corpus. AVOID whole-subject deferrals Res 122 (4/13) and Res 124 (6/13).

Topics

islamic-financeinsolvencybankruptcydebtdebt-reliefdebt-hardshipinability-to-payrespitedefermentgrace-periodinsolvent-debtorprocrastinating-debtorsolvent-debtordefaultlate-paymentlate-feespenalty-clausepenalty-interestcreditor-rightsdebtor-rightsrestraining-orderjudicial-decreeimprisonment-for-debttazirtravel-banasset-realisationidentifiable-assetrestructuringdebt-to-equitycapitalizationlimited-liabilityexit-from-debtgetting-out-of-debthardshipal-baqarah-280ribaoiciifafiqh-academycollective-ijtihad

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.