Article & fatwaHigh trust

The OIC Fiqh Academy's ruling on key money (badal khuluw)

The OIC Fiqh Academy's ruling on key money (badal khuluw) — the lump-sum premium or 'goodwill' payment a tenant pays over and above the rent to get, keep or hand over a lease, and exactly when it is halal. Resolution No. 31 (6/4) settles four everyday situations: (1) a premium the owner and tenant agree at the start of the lease is lawful when it is treated as PART OF THE RENT for the agreed term; (2) a payment the OWNER makes to a sitting tenant to vacate early is lawful because it compensates the tenant for giving up his occupancy right — but once the lease has expired with no renewal it is not allowed, because the owner is entitled to his property back; (3) a payment a departing tenant takes from an incoming tenant to hand over the remaining term is lawful, provided the head-lease terms are strictly observed and — for long-term leases — the tenant does not sublet or take key money without the owner's authorisation; and (4) after a lease has expired the outgoing tenant may not sell key money at all, because his right to the premises has ended. International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), Resolution No. 31 (6/4), adopted at the 4th session (Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 18–23 Jumādā al-Akhira 1408H / 6–11 February 1988).

What this source says

THE RULE BEHIND THE PREMIUM ON A LEASE. Key money — badal khuluw in Arabic, and variously called a lease 'premium', 'goodwill', 'pas-de-porte' or simply 'key money' in different countries — is a lump sum paid over and above the ordinary rent to obtain, keep or hand over the right to occupy premises. A shopkeeper pays a departing tenant a large one-off sum to take over a well-located store; a landlord asks for a premium up front on top of the monthly rent; a landlord pays a sitting tenant to leave early so the property can be redeveloped. Is that lawful money, or a charge for nothing? Resolution No. 31 (6/4), adopted at the OIC Fiqh Academy's 4th session in Jeddah (18–23 Jumādā al-Akhira 1408H / 6–11 February 1988 — the same session that issued Res 30 (5/4) on investment certificates), is the settled answer. It does not give one flat yes-or-no: it sorts key money into four real-world situations and rules on each.

WHY THE ACADEMY RULED. The Council issued the resolution 'Having examined the research papers submitted to the Academy concerning Key Money (Badal Khuluw)'. (The IRTI edition renders the same line as 'Having considered the research papers submitted to the Academy regarding "Key Money"'.) So this is a considered ruling on a named, practical payment that Muslim tenants, landlords and small businesses meet constantly.

POINT 1 — THE FOUR WAYS KEY MONEY ARISES. The Academy first maps the terrain. Verbatim (official): 'The key money agreement can be obtained in four different methods: a. The agreement between the owner of the real estate and the lessee at the inception of the contract. b. The agreement between the owner of the real estate and the lessee during the lease period or at the end of it. c. The agreement between the original lessee of the real estate and the new lessee during the lease period or at the end of it. d. The agreement between the new lessee and both the owner and the first lessee, concluded before or after the expiration of the lease period.' (The IRTI edition renders the head as 'Agreement on key money may be reached in four different manners'.) The point of the list is that WHO pays WHOM, and WHEN in the life of the lease, changes the ruling — so the next three paragraphs judge the payment case by case, not in the abstract.

POINT 2 — A PREMIUM AT THE START, TREATED AS RENT. Verbatim (official): 'If the owner and the lessee agree that the latter, in addition to the periodic rental, shall pay a lump sum (referred to in some countries as key money), there is no objection in Shariah to such an operation, provided that it is part of the rental for the lease period agreed upon. In the event the contract is terminated, the paid lumpsum shall be treated according to the rules applicable to rent.' (IRTI: 'there is no objection from Shari'a point of view to such an operation, provided that it is part of the rental for the lease period agreed upon.') This is the ordinary case of an up-front premium the tenant pays the landlord: it is lawful — but ONLY on the condition that it is genuinely part of the rent for the agreed term, not a charge for nothing. The tell is what happens if the lease ends early: because the premium is really pre-paid rent, on termination it is unwound 'according to the rules applicable to rent' (so an unused portion is dealt with as unused rent would be, rather than simply pocketed). A lump sum dressed up as key money but bearing no relation to the value of the occupancy for the agreed period would fail this condition.

POINT 3 — THE OWNER PAYS THE TENANT TO LEAVE EARLY. Verbatim (official): 'If, during the lease period, the owner and the lessee agree that the owner shall pay a given amount to the lessee, against the acceptance by the latter to move from the premises for the remaining period of the lease contract. This form of key money is permitted by Shariah because it compensates the lessee for waiving his occupancy rights.' The logic is important: a sitting tenant on a live lease genuinely HOLDS something of value — the right to occupy for the rest of the term — and the landlord's payment buys that right back, so it is lawful compensation, not money for nothing. But the ruling immediately draws the line at where that right ends. Verbatim (official): 'However, if the lease expires and the contract is not renewed, either explicitly or implicitly, by virtue of an automatic renewal clause, key money is not allowed, for the simple reason that the owner is entitled more than anyone else recover his property once the lease contract expires.' (IRTI: 'for the simple reason the owner is entitled more than any one else recover his property once the lease contract expires.') Once the lease is over and there is no renewal — express or through an automatic-renewal clause — the tenant no longer holds any occupancy right to be bought out of, so a demand for key money to leave would be a charge for nothing: the owner is first in line to get his own property back.

POINT 4 — THE DEPARTING TENANT TAKES KEY MONEY FROM THE NEXT TENANT. This is the classic 'buy the shop's lease' case. Verbatim (official): 'If, during the lease period, the first lessee and the new lessee agree that the former shall evacuate the premises for the remaining period of his lease contract, against payment of an amount above the periodic rental, key money is permitted by Shariah, provided the terms of the contract concluded between the owner and the first lessee are strictly observed and the laws in force are fully compliant with Shariah.' (IRTI: 'against payment of an amount in excess of the periodic rental, key money is authorized by Shari'a, provided the terms of the contract concluded between the owner and the first lessee are strictly observed and relevant provisions of Shari'a laws are fully taken into consideration.') So a sitting tenant CAN be paid by an incoming tenant to hand over the balance of his lease — but only on two guardrails: the original head-lease's terms must be honoured, and the surrounding law must itself be Shariah-compliant. The Academy then adds the sub-letting caveat. Verbatim (official): 'With respect to long-term leases, unlike short term rental contracts, which are concluded under some laws, the lessee is not permissible to rent the premise to another lessee, nor accept key money, unless authorized by the owner.' (IRTI: 'Regarding long term leases, contrary to short term rental contracts, which are concluded under some laws, the lessee may not rent the premise to another lessee and he may not accept key money, unless so authorized by the owner.') A long-lease tenant cannot simply sub-let or sell key money over the owner's head; the owner's authorisation is required. And, as in point 3, the right expires with the lease. Verbatim (official): 'However, if the agreement between the first and the new lessee after the expiration of the lease period, key money is not allowed, because the first lessee's right to use the premises has expired.' (IRTI: 'because the right of the first lessee to the use of the premise has expired.') Once the term is over, the departing tenant has nothing left to sell.

THE PRINCIPLE UNDERNEATH ALL FOUR. The resolution never says 'key money is halal' or 'key money is haram' in the abstract. Its consistent test is whether the payment is consideration for a REAL right that the recipient actually holds: pre-paid rent for a term the tenant will occupy (point 2), the buy-out of a live occupancy right (points 3 and 4 during the lease), or — where there is no live right left (points 3 and 4 after expiry) — nothing at all, which cannot lawfully be sold. That is the same manfa'ah (usufruct) logic that runs through the corpus's lease rulings: you may sell or be compensated for a benefit you genuinely possess, and you may not charge for one you do not.

HOW A RIBA-FREE HOUSEHOLD OR BUSINESS ACTUALLY USES THIS. (a) An up-front lease premium you pay a landlord is lawful IF it is structured as part of the rent for the agreed term (and therefore unwound as rent if the lease ends early) — check the contract says so, rather than treating it as an unconditional non-refundable 'key' payment (point 2). (b) If a landlord offers YOU money to vacate a property you are still leasing, taking it is lawful — you are being compensated for giving up a real occupancy right (point 3). (c) If you want to take over an existing tenant's shop or premises by paying them key money, that is lawful during their live lease, but only if their head-lease permits the handover and — for a long lease — the owner has authorised it; get the owner in the loop rather than doing a side deal (point 4). (d) Do NOT pay, or demand, key money for premises whose lease has already expired: at that point the outgoing tenant holds no right to sell and the owner is entitled to the property back (points 3 and 4, closing clauses). (e) The resolution rules on the key-money PAYMENT itself; any financing wrapped around it (for example borrowing at interest to fund a lease premium) is judged separately under the corpus's riba rulings.

WHERE THIS SITS IN THE CORPUS. Resolution 31 is the corpus's LEASE-PREMIUM / GOODWILL ruling, and it sits naturally beside the other Ijārah (lease) rulings the corpus already holds: rent-to-own and hire-purchase (Resolution 44), the lease ending in ownership — Ijārah Muntahia bi-al-Tamlīk (Resolution 110), and the maintenance-in-lease rule (Resolution 103, whose Form 4 assigns benefit-essential upkeep to the owner) — Res 31 is the companion ruling on what a tenant may lawfully PAY or RECEIVE around that lease. Its manfa'ah (usufruct) logic — you may be compensated for a real occupancy right, and may not charge for one that has expired — is the same principle that underlies bay al-wafa (Resolution 66) and the wider sale/qabḍ family. It is a sibling in date and place of Resolution 30 (5/4) on investment certificates, adopted at the very same 4th session in Jeddah.

GENUINE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO EDITIONS (disclosed, not smoothed). The two translations agree on all four operative points while differing in wording — and this is a CLEAN pairing with no substantive discrepancy (both editions carry points 1–4 identically), reported honestly rather than as a manufactured defect. WHOLE TITLE: official 'Key Money (Badal Khuluw)' (with the Arabic term as a subtitle) versus IRTI 'Concerning / Key Money' (no 'Badal Khuluw' subtitle; adds 'Concerning'). ACADEMY NAME: official 'the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of the Organization of the Islamic Conference' versus IRTI 'the Islamic Figh Academy' — the IRTI edition prints 'Figh' (a dropped/transposed-letter misprint for 'Fiqh'), reproduced here rather than silently corrected. SESSION/MONTH: official 'holding its 4th session in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on 18–23 Jumādā al-Akhira 1408h (6–11 February 1988)' versus IRTI 'holding its Fourth session, in Jeddah, (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), from 18 to 23 Jumada Thani 1408 H (February, 6 to 11, 1988)' — 'Jumādā al-Akhira' and 'Jumada Thani' are two names for the SAME sixth Islamic month, not a discrepancy. PREAMBLE: official 'Having examined the research papers submitted to the Academy concerning Key Money (Badal Khuluw)' versus IRTI 'Having considered the research papers submitted to the Academy regarding "Key Money"'. POINT 1 HEAD: official 'The key money agreement can be obtained in four different methods' versus IRTI 'Agreement on key money may be reached in four different manners'. POINT 2: official 'there is no objection in Shariah to such an operation' + the print defect 'lumpsum' (one word) versus IRTI 'there is no objection from Shari'a point of view to such an operation' + 'lump sum' (two words). POINT 4: official 'an amount above the periodic rental, key money is permitted by Shariah... the laws in force are fully compliant with Shariah' versus IRTI 'an amount in excess of the periodic rental, key money is authorized by Shari'a... relevant provisions of Shari'a laws are fully taken into consideration'; official 'the lessee is not permissible to rent the premise... nor accept key money, unless authorized by the owner' (the official edition's own slightly ungrammatical phrasing, reproduced) versus IRTI 'the lessee may not rent the premise... and he may not accept key money, unless so authorized by the owner'; official 'the first lessee's right to use the premises has expired' versus IRTI 'the right of the first lessee to the use of the premise has expired' (premises vs premise). CLOSING: official 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing.' versus IRTI 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing'. SPELLING throughout: official 'Shariah' versus IRTI 'Shari'a'. Every verbatim quote used above was machine-checked against both source PDFs (27/27 OK).

AN HONEST NOTE ON WHAT IS AND IS NOT HERE. This is a settled operative ruling — four decisive points sorting key money into its real-world forms and judging each — not a deferral. The quoted parts are the resolution's own words; the 'premium/goodwill/key money' vocabulary, the modern examples (a shop handover, an up-front lease premium, a landlord paying a tenant to leave), and the household/business how-to are plain restatements and honest applications of the resolution's own four situations, not new rulings added by this site. The resolution's text cites no Qur'an verse and no hadith number — it reasons from the law of Ijārah (hire/lease) and manfa'ah (usufruct/occupancy rights) — records no madhab tally and no vote count, and names no bank, product, figure or rate, so none is reported here. The cross-links to the other lease rulings (44, 103, 110) and the usufruct/sale family (66) are this corpus's own mapping of where a lease-premium ruling sits, offered as navigation, not as claims made by Resolution 31 itself.

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 2026-07-14, every load-bearing quote machine-verified verbatim against both source PDFs (line-wrap, hyphenation, inserted-page-number and diacritic aware, whitespace-normalised, 27/27 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. 31 (6/4) / Key Money (Badal Khuluw)'; 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 N° 31 (6/4) / Concerning Key Money'. Both editions carry the same 4th session (Jeddah, KSA, 6–11 February 1988 — the SAME session that adopted Res 30 (5/4) on muqaradah/investment certificates, already in this corpus) and the same four operative points. This is a SETTLED operative ruling, not a deferral. The load-bearing content is: (point 1) key money can arise in four ways — (a) owner↔lessee at the inception of the lease, (b) owner↔lessee during or at the end of the lease, (c) original lessee↔new lessee during or at the end of the lease, (d) new lessee↔both owner and first lessee, before or after the lease expires; (point 2) an inception-stage lump sum from lessee to owner is lawful when it is part of the rental for the agreed term, and on termination is treated by the rules applicable to rent; (point 3) an owner's payment to a sitting lessee to vacate early is lawful because it compensates the lessee for waiving his occupancy rights, but once the lease expires without renewal (explicit or by automatic-renewal clause) key money is not allowed, since the owner is first entitled to recover his property; (point 4) a departing lessee's key money from an incoming lessee for the remaining term is lawful if the head-lease terms are strictly observed and the governing laws comply with Shariah — and for long-term (as opposed to short-term) leases the lessee may not sublet or accept key money without the owner's authorisation — but after the lease has expired the first lessee may not take key money, because his right to use the premises has ended. The resolution 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.
Source: PRIMARY TEXT (full title; session/city/date; the preamble and all four operative points in full — point 1 (the four ways key money arises: owner↔lessee at inception; owner↔lessee during/at end; original lessee↔new lessee during/at end; new lessee↔both owner and first lessee before/after expiry); point 2 (an inception lump sum is lawful when it is part of the rental for the agreed term and is treated by the rules of rent on termination); point 3 (an owner's payment to a sitting lessee to vacate early is lawful as compensation for waiving occupancy rights, but not allowed once the lease expires without renewal); point 4 (a departing lessee's key money from an incoming lessee for the remaining term is lawful if the head-lease terms are observed and the governing laws comply with Shariah, with the long-term-lease sub-letting caveat requiring the owner's authorisation, and the after-expiry bar because the first lessee's right has ended)) 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. 31 (6/4) / Key Money (Badal Khuluw)' (4th session, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 6–11 February 1988) — 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 2026-07-14. 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 N° 31 (6/4) / Concerning Key Money', same 4th session, same four points — extracted verbatim from the published PDF (https://zulkiflihasan.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/majma-fiqh.pdf), read 2026-07-14. THE TWO EDITIONS ARE GENUINELY DIFFERENT RENDERINGS that converge on the same operative content; this is a CLEAN pairing (points 1–4 carried identically, no substantive discrepancy) with genuine wording differences reported rather than smoothed: WHOLE TITLE ('Key Money (Badal Khuluw)' with the Arabic subtitle vs 'Concerning / Key Money' with no 'Badal Khuluw'); ACADEMY NAME ('International Islamic Fiqh Academy' vs 'Islamic Figh Academy' — the IRTI 'Figh' is a print misprint for 'Fiqh', reproduced not corrected); SESSION/MONTH ('18–23 Jumādā al-Akhira 1408h (6–11 February 1988)' vs '18 to 23 Jumada Thani 1408 H (February, 6 to 11, 1988)' — 'Jumādā al-Akhira' and 'Jumada Thani' are two names for the same sixth Islamic month); PREAMBLE ('Having examined... concerning Key Money (Badal Khuluw)' vs 'Having considered... regarding "Key Money"'); POINT 1 ('The key money agreement can be obtained in four different methods' vs 'Agreement on key money may be reached in four different manners'); POINT 2 ('no objection in Shariah' + the print defect 'lumpsum' one word vs 'no objection from Shari'a point of view' + 'lump sum' two words); POINT 4 ('an amount above the periodic rental, key money is permitted by Shariah... the laws in force are fully compliant with Shariah' vs 'an amount in excess of the periodic rental, key money is authorized by Shari'a... relevant provisions of Shari'a laws are fully taken into consideration'; 'the lessee is not permissible to rent the premise... nor accept key money, unless authorized by the owner' vs 'the lessee may not rent the premise... and he may not accept key money, unless so authorized by the owner'; 'the first lessee's right to use the premises has expired' vs 'the right of the first lessee to the use of the premise has expired'); CLOSING ('Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing.' vs 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing'); SPELLING ('Shariah' vs 'Shari'a'). Every verbatim quote used above was machine-checked against both source PDFs (line-wrap, hyphenation, inserted-page-number and diacritic aware, whitespace-normalised, 27/27 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. 31 (6/4), 4th session (Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 18–23 Jumādā al-Akhira 1408H / 6–11 February 1988), is the Academy's SETTLED ruling on key money (badal khuluw) — the lump-sum premium or goodwill payment made over and above the rent to obtain, keep or hand over a lease. Four operative points: (1) key money arises in four ways — (a) owner↔lessee at inception, (b) owner↔lessee during or at the end of the lease, (c) original lessee↔new lessee during or at the end, (d) new lessee↔both owner and first lessee, before or after expiry — so the ruling turns on who pays whom and when; (2) an inception-stage lump sum from lessee to owner has 'no objection in Shariah... provided that it is part of the rental for the lease period agreed upon' and on termination 'shall be treated according to the rules applicable to rent' (i.e. it is really pre-paid rent); (3) an owner's payment to a sitting lessee to vacate early 'is permitted by Shariah because it compensates the lessee for waiving his occupancy rights', but once the lease expires without renewal (explicit or by automatic-renewal clause) 'key money is not allowed... the owner is entitled more than anyone else recover his property'; (4) a departing lessee's key money from an incoming lessee for the remaining term 'is permitted by Shariah, provided the terms of the contract concluded between the owner and the first lessee are strictly observed and the laws in force are fully compliant with Shariah', with the sub-letting caveat that for long-term leases 'the lessee is not permissible to rent the premise to another lessee, nor accept key money, unless authorized by the owner', and the after-expiry bar that once the term ends key money 'is not allowed, because the first lessee's right to use the premises has expired'. The decisive principle is manfa'ah (usufruct): a payment is lawful when it is consideration for a REAL right the recipient holds (pre-paid rent, or the buy-out of a live occupancy right) and unlawful when the right has expired and there is nothing to sell. This is a lease/ijarah muamalat ruling that sits alongside the corpus's other lease rulings (Res 44 rent-to-own, Res 103 maintenance-in-lease, Res 110 ijarah muntahia bittamlik) and the usufruct/sale family (Res 66 bay al-wafa); it is a same-session sibling of Res 30 (5/4). Res 31 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. It is a settled ruling, not a deferral.
Original: https://iifa-aifi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Resolutions-Recommendations-of-the-IIFA-Official-Edition-Oct-2021.pdf
Captured: 2026-07-14
Added: 2026-07-14
Trust: Primary or near-primary source with a stable public URL.

Compiler’s note

Added 2026-07-14 (auto-run). The OIC Fiqh Academy's SETTLED ruling on KEY MONEY (badal khuluw) — Res 31 (6/4), 4th session, Jeddah, KSA, 18–23 Jumādā al-Akhira 1408H / 6–11 February 1988 — chosen as the explicitly named next candidate from the Res 103 run ('Res 31 (6/4) Key Money (Badal Khuluw), a tenancy/premium ruling that pairs naturally with this maintenance-in-lease ruling'), a substantive, uncovered muamalat ruling present in BOTH editions (≤2000/≤12th session, not a deferral). It is the lump-sum premium / goodwill payment a tenant pays over and above the rent to obtain, keep or hand over a lease — the up-front lease premium, the payment to vacate early, the shop-handover key money. It is a same-session sibling of Res 30 (5/4). KILLER GEMS: (point 2) an inception lump sum from lessee to owner has 'no objection in Shariah... provided that it is part of the rental for the lease period agreed upon' and on termination 'shall be treated according to the rules applicable to rent' — a premium is lawful only as pre-paid rent, not a charge for nothing; (point 3) an owner's payment to a sitting tenant to vacate early 'is permitted by Shariah because it compensates the lessee for waiving his occupancy rights', BUT once the lease expires without renewal 'key money is not allowed... the owner is entitled more than anyone else recover his property'; (point 4) a departing tenant's key money from an incoming tenant 'is permitted by Shariah, provided the terms of the contract concluded between the owner and the first lessee are strictly observed and the laws in force are fully compliant with Shariah', with the caveat that for long-term leases 'the lessee is not permissible to rent the premise to another lessee, nor accept key money, unless authorized by the owner', and the after-expiry bar 'because the first lessee's right to use the premises has expired'. The uniting principle is manfa'ah (usufruct): you may be compensated for a real occupancy right you hold, and may not charge for one that has expired. 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), both pdftotext-verbatim. CLEAN pairing (points 1–4 carried identically, no substantive discrepancy) with genuine wording differences reported not smoothed: title 'Key Money (Badal Khuluw)' vs 'Concerning Key Money'; 'International Islamic Fiqh Academy' vs 'Islamic Figh Academy' (IRTI 'Figh' misprint reproduced); 'Jumādā al-Akhira' vs 'Jumada Thani' (same month); 'no objection in Shariah' vs 'no objection from Shari'a point of view'; official print defect 'lumpsum' (one word) vs 'lump sum'; 'an amount above the periodic rental... permitted by Shariah... laws in force are fully compliant with Shariah' vs 'an amount in excess of the periodic rental... authorized by Shari'a... relevant provisions of Shari'a laws are fully taken into consideration'; 'the lessee is not permissible to rent the premise' (official's own ungrammatical phrasing) vs 'the lessee may not rent the premise'; 'premises' vs 'premise'; closing 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing.' vs 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing'; Shariah/Shari'a. All 27 load-bearing quotes machine-verified against both source PDFs (27/27 OK, whitespace/hyphenation/inserted-page-number/diacritic aware). HONESTY built in: the four points are the resolution's own words; the 'premium/goodwill/key money' vocabulary, the modern examples and the household/business how-to are plain restatements/honest applications of the resolution's own four situations; this is a settled ruling, not a deferral. DROPPED per no-fab: Qur'an verse / hadith number (Res 31 cites none — it reasons from ijarah and manfa'ah/occupancy rights); madhab tally; vote count; any bank/product/figure/rate. Articles 99->100. Clean `rm -rf .next && npm run build` + `npm run lint` = 0/0 (verified this run). PUNCH-LIST FULLY TICKED; build/lint green. NEXT candidate (substantive finance/muamalat ruling, in BOTH editions i.e. ≤2000/≤12th session, not a deferral, not yet covered): Res 32 (7/4) 'Sale of the Trade Name and License' was DEFERRED at the 4th session (postponed to the 5th session per Res 43 (5/5)) so AVOID it as a deferral; a better candidate is a wakālah (agency) or ḍamān/kafālah (guarantee) ruling not yet in the corpus, or Res 130-series contract rulings — AVOID Res 89 (near-duplicate of Res 42), the already-covered sets, and the known deferrals Res 22/32/45/77/78/87/96.

Topics

islamic-financefiqh-of-transactionsmuamalatcontractskey-moneybadal-khuluwlease-premiumpremiumgoodwillpas-de-porteleaseleasingijarahhirerentrentaltenancytenantlesseesub-leasesublettingassignment-of-leaselease-transferhandoverlandlordlessorowneroccupancy-rightsusufructmanfaahcommercial-leaseshop-leasevacatebuy-outcompensationcompensation-for-waiving-rightslong-term-leaseshort-term-leaselease-expiryautomatic-renewalrenewal-clausereal-estatepropertyrentinghousingno-objection-in-shariahpermissibleresolution-44resolution-103resolution-110resolution-66resolution-30oicinternational-islamic-fiqh-academyiifaresolution-31res-3131-6-44th-sessionjeddahsaudi-arabia1988primary-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.