Article & fatwaHigh trust

The PRIMARY OIC ruling that a higher deferred / installment price is HALAL

The PRIMARY OIC ruling that a higher deferred / installment price is HALAL — and that a separate interest charge or a late-payment surcharge on it is RIBA — the deferred-payment / installment sale, International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), Resolution No. 51 (2/6), titled in the Academy's official English edition 'Installment Sales' (the older IRTI/IDB printed edition renders the same ruling 'Sales on Installments'), adopted at the Academy's 6th session in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410h (14–20 March 1990). This is the corpus's ELEVENTH article anchored on a genuine PRIMARY OIC / IIFA resolution read verbatim, and it is the load-bearing GENERAL rule under the whole credit-sale family the site relies on — murabaha (Res 40-41), bay' bithaman ajil (BBA), and every consumer / home credit sale where a bank buys an asset and sells it on for more, payable over time. Its single most important line settles the question every reader asks first — is a markup for paying later actually allowed? Verbatim (official edition), First: 'It is permissible to fix an increased price for a commodity sold on deferred payment, as compared to its cash price. It is also permissible to mention different prices for cash and deferred sales.' That is the primary-source foundation of the halal credit sale: the extra you pay for time is a PRICE on a real good, not interest on money. But the resolution then draws the line that separates that permitted markup from riba, and it draws it three times. Second (verbatim): 'It is not permissible, in installments sale, to fix the spot price on cash basis, then to charge interest expressly tied with different periods, as separate from the price of the commodity' — i.e. once the deferred price is agreed it is a fixed price, not a principal plus a time-charge. Third (verbatim, the riba guard stated directly, not reasoned): 'If the buyer/debtor delays the payment of installments after the specified date, it is not permissible to charge any amount in addition to his principal liability, whether it is made a pre-condition in the contract or it is claimed without a previous agreement, because it is Ribā, hence prohibited in Shariah.' Fourth (verbatim): 'It is prohibited for a solvent debtor to delay the payment of the installments from their due dates. However, it is not permissible to impose a compensation in case he delays the payment' — so even a deliberately-late solvent debtor sins, yet the seller still may not levy a late charge, because that charge would itself be riba on a debt. What the seller MAY do is accelerate: Fifth permits a pre-agreed clause that on default the remaining installments 'shall be due at once before their agreed date' (IRTI wording) — a remedy that changes only the TIMING of the fixed debt and adds nothing to it. This is the primary-source spine of the entire site: the markup on a real deferred-price SALE is lawful; a separate interest charge, and any surcharge for late payment, are not.

What this source says

This corpus's other primary OIC anchors each sit on a particular contract: the FINANCING side (Resolution No. 10, that conventional interest is riba; Resolution No. 40-41, murabaha to the purchase orderer), the DEPOSIT side (Resolution No. 86, that a current account is a loan; Resolution No. 222, on the perks a bank may give a depositor), the LEASING side (Resolution No. 110, lease-to-own), the INVESTMENT side (Resolution No. 30, the muqaradah bond), and the two 'buy a good that does not yet exist' contracts (Resolution No. 65, istiṣnāʿ / make-to-order; Resolution No. 85, salam / forward sale). This entry adds the GENERAL rule that sits underneath the whole credit-sale family — the deferred-payment or installment sale — because murabaha, bay' bithaman ajil (BBA) and every 'buy now, pay over time' Islamic finance product are, at bottom, installment sales of a real asset, and the Academy ruled on their permissibility and their limits in one clean resolution. Its primary OIC ruling is Resolution No. 51 (2/6), adopted by the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of the OIC at its 6th session in Jeddah over 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410h (14–20 March 1990). Like the Academy's other finance rulings it is collective ijtihad by the OIC's supra-madhab body of assembled senior scholars, which is why it can speak for the practice of the whole Muslim world rather than one school.

Start with the line the ordinary reader most needs, because it is the one every 'is the markup just interest in disguise?' argument turns on. Verbatim (official edition), First: 'It is permissible to fix an increased price for a commodity sold on deferred payment, as compared to its cash price. It is also permissible to mention different prices for cash and deferred sales. Even the deferred prices can vary according to the different periods specified for payment, and such variance can be expressly disclosed by the seller to the customer.' The IRTI edition renders it in almost identical words. In plain terms: a seller may lawfully charge more when the buyer pays later, may quote a cash price and a (higher) deferred price side by side, and may even scale the deferred price to the length of the term — and none of that is riba, because it is a PRICE fixed on a real good at the moment of sale, not a charge for the use of money over time. This is the primary-source foundation of the halal credit sale, and therefore of murabaha (Resolution No. 40-41), of BBA, and of every Islamic home- or car-finance structure that works by the financier buying an asset and reselling it to the customer for a higher, fixed, deferred price.

The First item also fixes the one thing that MUST be nailed down at contract time — which mode of payment, and hence which price, actually applies. Verbatim (official edition): 'But the sale cannot take place until the parties agree to contract a particular mode of payment and specify whether the payment is in cash or deferred. Therefore, if the sale takes place without specifying a single particular mode of payment, leaving it uncertain whether the buyer shall pay in cash or in installments, the sale is not permissible according to Shariah.' (The IRTI edition: 'the sale is not valid according to Shari'a'.) The reason is the corpus's gharar principle: a sale left hanging between two prices is a sale with an uncertain price, and that uncertainty voids it. The cure is simple and is exactly what a proper murabaha does — the single deferred price is agreed and fixed before the contract is struck.

Now the three lines that separate that permitted markup from riba. FIRST GUARD — the deferred price is a fixed price, not a principal-plus-a-time-charge. Verbatim (official edition), Second: 'It is not permissible, in installments sale, to fix the spot price on cash basis, then to charge interest expressly tied with different periods, as separate from the price of the commodity, no matter whether the parties have agreed on a particular rate of interest or have left it to the current market rate.' This is the sharp edge that catches a disguised loan: if a contract sets the cash price and then bolts on a separate, period-linked charge (whether a fixed 'rate' or a floating market rate), it has stopped being a sale at a deferred price and become a loan at interest — prohibited, regardless of what the parties call it. The whole legitimacy of the deferred markup depends on its being baked into ONE agreed price, not itemised as interest on the side.

SECOND GUARD — no surcharge when the buyer pays late, and this one is DIRECTLY sourced, not reasoned. Verbatim (official edition), Third: 'If the buyer/debtor delays the payment of installments after the specified date, it is not permissible to charge any amount in addition to his principal liability, whether it is made a pre-condition in the contract or it is claimed without a previous agreement, because it is Ribā, hence prohibited in Shariah.' The IRTI edition: '...because it is "Riba", hence prohibited in Shari'a.' Once the deferred price is agreed it is a settled debt, and any extra levied because that debt is paid late is riba — the exact same reasoning the corpus's istiṣnāʿ (Res 65) and salam (Res 85) entries rely on for their no-late-penalty rules. Note the reach of the words 'whether it is made a pre-condition in the contract or it is claimed without a previous agreement': a late-payment fee is riba even if the customer signed up to it in advance. A pre-agreed penalty clause does not launder it.

THIRD GUARD — the solvent late-payer sins, but STILL cannot be charged. Verbatim (official edition), Fourth: 'It is prohibited for a solvent debtor to delay the payment of the installments from their due dates. However, it is not permissible to impose a compensation in case he delays the payment.' (IRTI: 'It is prohibited (Haram) for a solvent debtor to delay the payment of the installments from their due dates. However, it is not permissible in Shari'a to impose a compensation in case he delays the payment.') This is the fine balance the resolution strikes: deliberate foot-dragging by someone who can pay is itself a sin on the debtor's part — the Academy does not excuse it — yet the seller's remedy is NOT a monetary charge, because that charge would be riba. The moral fault of the debtor does not create a lawful income for the creditor.

So what CAN a seller do about default? The resolution answers with a remedy that touches only the timing, not the size, of the fixed debt. Verbatim (IRTI edition, the clearer rendering), Fifth: 'It is permissible for the seller to impose a condition in the sale agreement that if the debtor/the buyer delays the payment of some installments, all the remaining installments shall be due at once before their agreed date. This condition may be a valid condition, provided that the buyer had agreed to it when entering into the sale agreement.' (The official edition renders the same acceleration clause more tersely, requiring only that 'the buyer had agreed to it when entering into the sale agreement'.) An acceleration clause is lawful because it merely brings forward the SAME total price the buyer already owes — it adds nothing to the debt, exactly the kind of remedy salam allows the buyer (wait, or cancel and recover capital). And Sixth, on security, verbatim (official edition): 'The seller has no right to secure the ownership (of the sold commodity) after the sale has taken place. However, it is permissible for him to impose a condition that the buyer shall mortgage the sold commodity with the seller to secure his right of receiving the deferred installments of the price.' The sale is a real sale — the seller cannot pretend still to own the asset as a back-door security — but he may take the sold thing as a proper mortgage / pledge (rahn, the corpus's own security-contract entry) against the deferred price.

That Res 51 is the load-bearing anchor, not one ruling among many, is confirmed by the Academy's OWN later resolutions, which cite it by name. In its Resolution No. 109 (the penalty resolution the corpus's istiṣnāʿ entry already quotes), the Academy restates Res 51 verbatim as its authority: 'Resolution no. 51 (2/6) on Installment 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."' And its later resolution on insolvency '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'. In other words the Academy treats Res 51's Third and Fourth items as the settled OIC position on late-payment charges, reaffirmed across sessions.

From all of this the reader gets a concrete, supra-madhab checklist from the primary source itself for any 'Islamic' installment / murabaha / BBA / home- or car-finance contract: (1) ONE FIXED DEFERRED PRICE — is the higher, pay-later price a single agreed price on a real asset (permitted, First), rather than a cash price with a separate, period-linked interest charge bolted on (riba, Second)? (2) NO LATE-PAYMENT CHARGE — if you pay an installment late, does the contract add nothing to what you already owe, or does it levy a fee (riba, Third — even if you agreed to it in advance, and even if you are a solvent debtor who is genuinely at fault, Fourth)? (3) ACCELERATION, NOT SURCHARGE — is the seller's default remedy simply to bring the remaining installments forward (permitted, Fifth), or to increase the total? (4) A REAL SALE WITH PROPER SECURITY — has ownership genuinely passed to you, with the asset taken only as a mortgage/pledge for the deferred price (permitted, Sixth), rather than the 'seller' clinging to ownership as disguised security? A product that passes all four is doing what this resolution permits; one that charges default interest, or itemises a separate time-charge, or keeps you uncertain which price applies, is not.

Two honest limits belong on this entry. First, on SOURCES: this is one resolution confirmed across two genuinely different English translations — the Academy's own official English edition (October 2021), used here as the authoritative text, and the older IRTI/IDB printed edition (1985-2000). They agree on the resolution number, session, city, dates and every one of the six substantive rules plus the three recommendation items; they differ in wording throughout ('Installment Sales' vs 'Sales on Installments'; 'not permissible according to Shariah' vs 'not valid according to Shari'a'; the terse vs explicit rendering of the Fifth acceleration clause; 'Indeed, Allāh is the Giver of success' vs 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing'), which strengthens confidence in the substance. Unlike the salam resolution (Res 85), there is no lettering / structural discrepancy to disclose here — both editions run First through Sixth in the same order with the same content. Both are English renderings, not the binding Arabic original. Second, on SCOPE: no madhab-by-madhab breakdown, no vote tally, no market or AUM figure, no hadith number (the resolution cites none), and no claim about which specific AU/UK/CA/US murabaha or installment product does or does not comply — the four tests are given for the reader to apply, and no product is graded here. The cross-references to Resolution No. 109 and to the insolvency resolution are quoted only for the verbatim lines in which each cites Resolution No. 51 by name; nothing else in those resolutions is re-asserted.

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 2026-07-09 from TWO genuinely different English translations of the SAME primary resolution, cross-read: [1] the INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC FIQH ACADEMY's own 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. 51 (2/6) / Installment Sales', with the session line 'holding its 6th session in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410h (14–20 March 1990)' and the full operative text (the preamble, First through Sixth, and the closing Recommendation a–c) — extracted verbatim from the published PDF; 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), which prints the same ruling as 'RESOLUTION NO (51/2/6) CONCERNING "SALES ON INSTALLMENTS"', with the same 6th session / Jeddah / 17 to 23 Sha'ban 1410H (14–20 March 1990) and the same operative structure (First through Sixth + the same three recommendation items) — extracted verbatim from the published PDF. THESE TWO ARE GENUINELY DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS, not two printings of one rendering: the official edition titles it 'Installment Sales' where IRTI titles it 'Sales on Installments'; the official closes its First item 'the sale is not permissible according to Shariah' where IRTI has 'the sale is not valid according to Shari'a'; the official Fourth reads 'it is not permissible to impose a compensation' where IRTI has 'it is not permissible in Shari'a to impose a compensation'; the official renders Fifth tersely ('to pay installments before their deadlines when the debtor/buyer delays the payment of some installments') where IRTI makes the same acceleration remedy explicit ('all the remaining installments shall be due at once before their agreed date'); the official closes 'Indeed, Allāh is the Giver of success' where the IRTI printing closes 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing'. THIS IS A STRONG two-source pairing because every one of the six substantive rules survives two independent renderings. UNLIKE the sibling salam resolution (Res 85), there is NO structural / lettering discrepancy to disclose here: both editions number the operative rules First through Sixth in the same order with the same content — the only differences are in wording, and the sole wording gap worth flagging (the terse official Fifth) is resolved not by guessing but by the IRTI edition's clearer rendering of the same acceleration-on-default clause. Both editions are English renderings, not the binding Arabic original.
Source: PRIMARY RULING (full title, session/city/dates, preamble and the full operative text — First through Sixth and the closing Recommendation a–c) 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 the ruling as 'Resolution No. 51 (2/6) / Installment Sales', 'holding its 6th session in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410h (14–20 March 1990)' — 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 2026-07-09. 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 the same ruling as 'RESOLUTION NO (51/2/6) CONCERNING "SALES ON INSTALLMENTS"', same 6th session / Jeddah / 17 to 23 Sha'ban 1410H (14–20 March 1990) and same operative structure (First–Sixth + the same three recommendation items) — extracted verbatim from the published PDF (https://zulkiflihasan.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/majma-fiqh.pdf), read 2026-07-09. THE TWO ARE GENUINELY DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS ('Installment Sales' vs 'Sales on Installments'; 'the sale is not permissible according to Shariah' vs 'the sale is not valid according to Shari'a'; 'it is not permissible to impose a compensation' vs 'it is not permissible in Shari'a to impose a compensation'; the terse official Fifth vs the IRTI edition's explicit 'all the remaining installments shall be due at once before their agreed date'; official closes 'Indeed, Allāh is the Giver of success' vs IRTI 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing') — a strong pairing, since every one of the six substantive rules survives two independent renderings. NO structural / lettering discrepancy between the editions here (both run First–Sixth in the same order with the same content), unlike the sibling salam resolution (Res 85). ADDITIONAL PRIMARY CORROBORATION that Res 51 is the settled OIC position, quoted verbatim only for the lines in which each later resolution cites Res 51 by name: the Academy's Resolution No. 109 restates it — 'Resolution no. 51 (2/6) on Installment 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."' — and its later insolvency resolution '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' (both read verbatim from the same official-edition PDF). NO fabrication: no madhab-by-madhab tally, no vote count, no hadith number, no market/AUM/named-fund figure, and no product graded. Nothing from the cross-referenced Res 109 or the insolvency resolution is re-asserted beyond the verbatim lines in which each names Res 51. Both editions are English renderings, not the binding Arabic original.
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. 51 (2/6), 6th session, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 17–23 Shaʿbān 1410h (14–20 March 1990). Operative content, verbatim from the Academy's official English edition (Oct 2021). FIRST (deferred-markup permitted + price-certainty): 'It is permissible to fix an increased price for a commodity sold on deferred payment, as compared to its cash price. It is also permissible to mention different prices for cash and deferred sales. Even the deferred prices can vary according to the different periods specified for payment, and such variance can be expressly disclosed by the seller to the customer. But the sale cannot take place until the parties agree to contract a particular mode of payment and specify whether the payment is in cash or deferred. Therefore, if the sale takes place without specifying a single particular mode of payment, leaving it uncertain whether the buyer shall pay in cash or in installments, the sale is not permissible according to Shariah.' SECOND (no separate time-tied interest): 'It is not permissible, in installments sale, to fix the spot price on cash basis, then to charge interest expressly tied with different periods, as separate from the price of the commodity, no matter whether the parties have agreed on a particular rate of interest or have left it to the current market rate.' THIRD (no late-payment surcharge — riba, stated directly): 'If the buyer/debtor delays the payment of installments after the specified date, it is not permissible to charge any amount in addition to his principal liability, whether it is made a pre-condition in the contract or it is claimed without a previous agreement, because it is Ribā, hence prohibited in Shariah.' FOURTH (solvent late-payer sins, yet no compensation): 'It is prohibited for a solvent debtor to delay the payment of the installments from their due dates. However, it is not permissible to impose a compensation in case he delays the payment.' FIFTH (acceleration remedy permitted; IRTI's clearer rendering): 'It is permissible for the seller to impose a condition in the sale agreement that if the debtor/the buyer delays the payment of some installments, all the remaining installments shall be due at once before their agreed date. This condition may be a valid condition, provided that the buyer had agreed to it when entering into the sale agreement.' SIXTH (real sale + mortgage security): 'The seller has no right to secure the ownership (of the sold commodity) after the sale has taken place. However, it is permissible for him to impose a condition that the buyer shall mortgage the sold commodity with the seller to secure his right of receiving the deferred installments of the price.' Recommendation: further study postponed on (a) discounting bills of exchange through banks, (b) payment of debt before its due date in exchange for a rebate (pay-early-and-take), (c) effect of the death of either party on remaining installments. Close: 'Indeed, Allāh is the Giver of success.' The IRTI/IDB edition confirms the same operative content in a genuinely different translation ('Sales on Installments'; First closes 'the sale is not valid according to Shari'a'; Third closes 'because it is "Riba", hence prohibited in Shari'a'; Fourth 'it is not permissible in Shari'a to impose a compensation'; Fifth explicit 'all the remaining installments shall be due at once before their agreed date'; close 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing'). NO structural discrepancy between the editions (both run First–Sixth in the same order with the same content) — unlike the salam resolution (Res 85), where a lettering slip had to be disclosed. Load-bearing for THIS site as the PRIMARY OIC anchor of the DEFERRED-PRICE / INSTALLMENT SALE that underpins murabaha (Res 40-41), bay' bithaman ajil (BBA) and every consumer/home credit-sale structure: the deferred markup is a lawful PRICE, a separate period-tied interest charge and any late-payment surcharge are riba. Presented faithfully to scope: no madhab-by-madhab tally, no vote count, no hadith number, no market/AUM figure, and no product graded. Both editions are English translations, not the binding Arabic original.
Original: https://iifa-aifi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Resolutions-Recommendations-of-the-IIFA-Official-Edition-Oct-2021.pdf
Captured: 2026-07-09
Added: 2026-07-09
Trust: Primary or near-primary source with a stable public URL.

Compiler’s note

The corpus's ELEVENTH article anchored on a genuine PRIMARY OIC / International Islamic Fiqh Academy resolution read verbatim, and the GENERAL rule under the whole credit-sale family the site's guidance leans on — murabaha (Res 40-41), bay' bithaman ajil (BBA), and every consumer/home 'buy now, pay over time' structure. WHY THIS ONE: it was the explicit NEXT candidate named at the close of both the istiṣnāʿ (round-110) and salam (round-111) entries ('Res 51 (2/6) Installment Sale, quoted inside Res 109, present in both editions = a ready gold-standard pairing'). It had no dedicated verbatim entry — the deferred-payment sale existed only as the Wikipedia-sourced bay-bithaman-ajil-deferred-payment-sale.json (trust 'medium'), which quotes NO primary resolution; grep-confirmed distinct (only the Res 65 and Res 85 articles mention 'Resolution No. 51', and only as the named next-candidate, neither anchoring on it). Resolution No. 51 (2/6) hands an ordinary reader a four-point halal-test for any 'Islamic' installment / murabaha / BBA / home- or car-finance contract: (1) ONE FIXED DEFERRED PRICE — the higher pay-later price is a single agreed price on a real asset (permitted, First), NOT a cash price with a separate period-linked interest charge bolted on (riba, Second); (2) NO LATE-PAYMENT CHARGE — nothing may be added to what you already owe if you pay late (riba, Third — even if pre-agreed, and even for a solvent debtor genuinely at fault, Fourth); (3) ACCELERATION, NOT SURCHARGE — the seller's default remedy is to bring the remaining installments forward (permitted, Fifth), not to increase the total; (4) A REAL SALE WITH PROPER SECURITY — ownership genuinely passes, the asset taken only as a mortgage/pledge for the deferred price (permitted, Sixth). GEM #1: the FIRST item is the primary-source FOUNDATION of the entire halal credit sale — 'It is permissible to fix an increased price for a commodity sold on deferred payment, as compared to its cash price' — the settled answer to 'isn't the murabaha markup just interest?': no, it is a PRICE on a real good. GEM #2: the no-late-penalty rule (Third) is DIRECTLY sourced, not reasoned — 'because it is Ribā, hence prohibited in Shariah' — and its reach is explicit: a late-payment fee is riba 'whether it is made a pre-condition in the contract or it is claimed without a previous agreement', i.e. pre-agreeing to it does NOT launder it. GEM #3: Res 51 is confirmed as the settled OIC position by the Academy's OWN later resolutions, quoted verbatim — Res 109 (the penalty resolution the istiṣnāʿ entry already uses) restates it word-for-word, and the insolvency resolution reiterates its items Third & Fourth. TWO GENUINELY DIFFERENT English translations of the SAME resolution cross-read — the GOLD-STANDARD pairing (same standard as Res 65, Res 85, Res 110, Res 30): [1] the Academy's OWN OFFICIAL ENGLISH EDITION (Oct 2021 PDF), used as authoritative text, and [2] the older IRTI/IDB printed edition (1985-2000), both carrying this 1990 resolution in full so the pairing is reproducible; the translations differ throughout ('Installment Sales' vs 'Sales on Installments'; 'not permissible according to Shariah' vs 'not valid according to Shari'a'; terse vs explicit Fifth; 'Indeed, Allāh is the Giver of success' vs 'Verily, Allah is All-Knowing'), so the substance survives two independent renderings. HONESTY NOTE: UNLIKE the salam resolution (Res 85), there is NO lettering / structural discrepancy to disclose here — both editions run First through Sixth in the same order with the same content; the only wording gap worth flagging (the terse official Fifth) is resolved by the IRTI edition's clearer rendering of the SAME acceleration-on-default clause, not by guessing. TRUST 'high' (numbered/dated PRIMARY OIC resolution verified verbatim in the Academy's own official English edition, re-confirmed in a second independently-worded printed edition, and further corroborated by two later OIC resolutions that cite it by name; sole caveat = all are English translations, not the binding Arabic). DELIBERATELY DROPPED per no-fab: (a) any madhab-by-madhab breakdown or vote tally; (b) any hadith number (the resolution cites none); (c) any market/AUM/named-fund figure; (d) any claim about which specific AU/UK/CA/US murabaha or installment product complies (the four tests are given for the reader to apply, no product graded); (e) anything from the cross-referenced Res 109 or the insolvency resolution beyond the verbatim lines in which each names Res 51. FRESHNESS-HONEST: a 1990 resolution — nothing time-sensitive; its date is stated explicitly, and the deferred-price principles it fixes are still the live foundation of murabaha, BBA and Islamic home/consumer credit finance. JSON-only per the established article convention (content/articles/*.json feed app/lib/corpus.ts via readdirSync + the /corpus stats badge + Phase-2 retrieval; NOT rendered as individual routed cards), so no SourceCard/route/href added and internal-link integrity is unaffected. Articles 74->75. PUNCH-LIST FULLY TICKED; build/lint re-confirmed green after this entry; this entry anchors the deferred-price / installment sale that sits under the corpus's murabaha, BBA, istiṣnāʿ and salam coverage.

Topics

islamic-financeribaprohibition-of-ribainstallment-saleinstallment-salessales-on-installmentsdeferred-payment-saledeferred-pricecredit-salecash-vs-deferred-pricemarkupprofit-markupmurabahabay-bithaman-ajilbbahome-financecar-financeconsumer-financelate-payment-penaltypenalty-clausedefault-remedyacceleration-clausecompensation-for-delaysolvent-debtorprocrastinating-debtorrahnmortgage-pledgesecuritydebtghararprice-certaintysubstance-over-formresolution-51resolution-40-41resolution-65resolution-85resolution-109oicorganisation-of-islamic-cooperationinternational-islamic-fiqh-academyiifafiqh-academyprimary-sourcecollective-ijtihadshariah-rulingislamic-bankingjeddah-1990

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.