Article & fatwaHigh trust

The PRIMARY OIC ruling that DISCOUNTING a bill / promissory note / cheque is RIBA

The PRIMARY OIC ruling that DISCOUNTING a bill / promissory note / cheque is RIBA — and that paying a debt off early for a rebate is HALAL only between the two original parties — the sequel installment-sale resolution, International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), Resolution No. 64 (2/7), titled 'Installment Sale' in both the Academy's official English edition and the older IRTI/IDB printed edition, adopted at the Academy's 7th session in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on 7–12 Dhū al-Qiʿdah 1412h (9–14 May 1992). This is the corpus's TWELFTH article anchored on a genuine PRIMARY OIC / IIFA resolution read verbatim, and it is the direct SEQUEL to Resolution No. 51 (2/6): where Res 51 fixed the general rule of the deferred-price / installment sale, its closing Recommendation postponed further study on three questions — (a) discounting bills of exchange through banks, (b) paying a debt before its due date in exchange for a rebate, and (c) the effect of a party's death on the remaining installments — and Res 64 is the resolution, taken up 'in continuation to resolution no. 51 (2/6)', that ANSWERS all three. Its most load-bearing line is the one that closes the door on the single most common conventional bank product a Muslim reaches for — discounting a cheque or promissory note for early cash. Verbatim (official edition), Third: 'The discount of trading instruments is not permissible in Shariah, for it amounts to a transaction involving Ribā an-Nasīʾah (interest on delayed repayment) which is prohibited.' (IRTI edition: 'The discount of commercial papers is not permissible in Shari'a for it amounts to a transaction involving "Riba an Nasi'ah" (interest on delayed repayment) which is prohibited.') But the resolution is not simply a wall of prohibitions — it also draws the fine line that separates that forbidden discounting from a lawful early-settlement rebate. Verbatim (official edition), Fourth: 'The discount of a deferred debt to accelerate its repayment, whether at the request of the creditor or of the debtor (pay less but ahead of time), is permissible in Shariah and does not fall within Ribā if not based on a prior agreement and as long as the relationship between the creditor and the debtor are bilateral. If a third party is involved between them, the discount is not permissible, subject to the Shariah ruling regarding the discount of trading instruments.' In plain terms: a creditor and his own debtor may agree, after the fact, that the debtor pays less to settle early (ḍaʿ wa taʿajjal, 'reduce and hasten') — that is a bilateral concession, not interest — but the moment a THIRD party (a bank) buys the debt at a discount, it becomes exactly the prohibited bill-discounting of item Third. That single distinction — bilateral early-settlement rebate lawful, third-party discounting of the paper unlawful — is the primary-source spine of why a Muslim can negotiate an early-payoff discount with a supplier but cannot 'factor' or discount an invoice at a bank. Res 64 opens by re-affirming Res 51's foundation (First: 'The installment sale is permissible in Shariah even if the deferred price exceeds the spot price'), confirms that written instruments themselves are merely lawful debt-recording (Second), permits an acceleration-on-default clause for the solvent debtor (Fifth), allows a debt that has fallen due through death, bankruptcy or procrastination to be discounted to speed settlement (Sixth), and finally defines insolvency itself (Seventh): the debtor 'shall have no assets above his basic needs to discharge his debt in cash or in kind'. Res 64's own paragraph (3) is later cited BY NAME as settled OIC law in the Academy's Resolution No. 101 (4/11) on debt sale.

What this source says

This corpus's primary OIC anchors each sit on a particular contract, and one of them — Resolution No. 51 (2/6), 'Installment Sales' — laid down the general rule of the deferred-payment sale (a higher pay-later price is a lawful PRICE, not interest; a separate time-charge or a late-payment surcharge is riba). But Res 51 did not settle everything: its closing Recommendation expressly POSTPONED further study on three questions it was not yet ready to rule 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 a reduction), and (c) 'the effect of the death of either party on remaining installments'. Resolution No. 64 (2/7) is the sequel that picks those up. Adopted by the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of the OIC at its 7th session in Jeddah over 7–12 Dhū al-Qiʿdah 1412h (9–14 May 1992), it opens by naming its own parent: it was issued 'Having examined the research papers submitted to the Academy concerning Installment Sale, in continuation to resolution no. 51 (2/6) in this regard'. 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 where Res 64 starts, because it first re-plants the foundation Res 51 established. Verbatim (official edition), First: 'The installment sale is permissible in Shariah even if the deferred price exceeds the spot price.' The IRTI edition renders it in near-identical words ('even if the deferred price exceed the spot price'). This is the settled OIC answer, restated a second time and in a second session, to the question every reader asks first — is a markup for paying later actually allowed? Yes: the extra you pay for time is a price on a real good, not interest on money. Everything after this item builds on that permission.

SECOND, the resolution disposes of a common confusion — that the mere PAPER a debt is written on could somehow be sold or discounted like a commodity. Verbatim (official edition), Second: 'Trading instruments (cheques, promissory notes, exchange bills) are lawful types of debt authentication by recording it in writing.' (IRTI: 'Commercial papers (cheques - promissory notes, bills of exchange) are lawful types of authentication of a debt by putting it down in writing.') A cheque or promissory note is lawful — but only as EVIDENCE of a debt, a way of recording it. It is not itself a tradable asset. That framing sets up the sharp ruling that follows.

THIRD is the load-bearing prohibition, and it is DIRECTLY sourced, not reasoned. Verbatim (official edition): 'The discount of trading instruments is not permissible in Shariah, for it amounts to a transaction involving Ribā an-Nasīʾah (interest on delayed repayment) which is prohibited.' (IRTI: 'The discount of commercial papers is not permissible in Shari'a for it amounts to a transaction involving "Riba an Nasi'ah" (interest on delayed repayment) which is prohibited.') 'Discounting' a bill is the everyday conventional-bank product: you hold a promissory note for, say, 100 payable in three months, and a bank hands you 97 now and collects the full 100 later — the 3 is the bank's charge for advancing money against time, which is precisely ribā al-nasīʾah. The Academy names it and forbids it. This is the primary-source basis on which invoice factoring, bill discounting and cheque discounting are ruled out for a Muslim, and it is why the corpus's bay' al-dayn (sale of debt) entry — selling a money-claim itself — reaches the same destination.

FOURTH is the item that keeps Res 64 from being read as a blanket ban on ever settling a debt early, and it draws the decisive line. Verbatim (official edition): 'The discount of a deferred debt to accelerate its repayment, whether at the request of the creditor or of the debtor (pay less but ahead of time), is permissible in Shariah and does not fall within Ribā if not based on a prior agreement and as long as the relationship between the creditor and the debtor are bilateral. If a third party is involved between them, the discount is not permissible, subject to the Shariah ruling regarding the discount of trading instruments.' (IRTI: 'To reduce a deferred debt with the aim of accelerating its repayment, whether at the request of the creditor or of the debtor (pay less but ahead of time), is permissible in Shari'a and does not fall within the province of Riba (which is forbidden) if it is not based on an advance agreement and as long as the relationship between the creditor and the debtor are bilateral. If there is a third party between them, the reduction is not permissible as it will then be subject to the ruling on discount of commercial papers.') This is the classical ḍaʿ wa taʿajjal ('reduce and hasten'): a creditor and HIS OWN debtor may agree, after the fact, that the debtor pays a smaller sum to close the debt early. Two conditions are stated: it must NOT be a term pre-agreed at the outset (a prior/advance agreement to reduce-for-early-payment would make the reduction a priced time-charge in reverse), and it must stay strictly BILATERAL — just the original creditor and debtor. The instant a THIRD party steps between them (a bank buying the debt at a discount), item Fourth folds straight back into item Third: it becomes prohibited bill-discounting. This single distinction is the primary-source reason a Muslim CAN negotiate an early-payoff discount directly with a supplier or financier, but CANNOT sell or factor that same debt to a bank at a discount.

FIFTH permits the acceleration remedy for default, the same remedy Res 51 allowed. Here the two editions diverge, and the divergence is disclosed rather than papered over: the official edition's Fifth is garbled ('It is permissible for both parties to a debt to agree on the fact that all installments will be due for payment if the debtor refers to repaying any of the installments owned by him, as long as he is not insolvent') — the phrase 'refers to repaying' does not parse. The IRTI edition renders the SAME clause coherently, verbatim: 'It is permissible for the two parties to a debt to agree on the fact that all installments shall be due for payment if the debtor refuses to repay any one of the installments owned by him, as long as he is not insolvent.' The coherent IRTI reading — an acceleration-on-refusal clause, valid only against a debtor who is NOT insolvent — is taken as the authoritative sense of an apparent printer's slip in the official edition, and it mirrors exactly the acceleration clause Res 51 Fifth already permits (bring the remaining installments forward; add nothing to the total).

SIXTH answers the third question Res 51 had postponed — what happens when a debt falls due prematurely. Verbatim (official edition): 'If a debt falls due following the death, bankruptcy or procrastination of the debtor, it is permissible in all these cases to discount the debt in order to accelerate settlement.' (IRTI: 'If a debt falls due because of the death, bankruptcy or procrastination of the debtor, it may be reduced in all these cases in order to speed up the coming to terms.') When death, bankruptcy or a debtor's foot-dragging causes the whole debt to fall due at once, the parties may apply the same bilateral reduce-and-hasten of item Fourth to reach a settlement. Note this is consistent with, not contrary to, the prohibition on third-party discounting: the reduction is between the estate/debtor and the original creditor.

SEVENTH defines the term that items Fifth and Sixth turn on — insolvency, the condition that necessitates deferment (a genuinely insolvent debtor cannot be accelerated against and must be granted time, per the Qur'anic rule that a debtor in hardship be given respite). Verbatim (official edition): '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.' (IRTI: 'The criterion of insolvency to be applied by trusties (bankruptcy) is that the debtor has no possessions in excess of his basic needs to discharge his debt in cash or in kind.') A debtor is insolvent, for this purpose, when he owns nothing beyond his basic needs that could be turned to paying what he owes.

That Res 64 is settled OIC law, not one ruling among many, is confirmed by the Academy's OWN later resolution, which cites it by name. In Resolution No. 101 (4/11) on 'Debt Sale, Loan Debentures, and their Shariah-based Alternatives' (11th session, Manama, 25–30 Rajab 1419h / 14–19 November 1998), the Academy's Second item reads, verbatim: 'Emphasizing the Academy resolution no. 60 (11/6) concerning Bonds ... and paragraph (3) of the Academy resolution no. 64 (2/7) regarding discounting commercial papers, issued at its seventh session held in Saudi Arabia on 7–12 Dhū al-Qiʿdah 1412h (9–14 May 1992).' In other words the later resolution on debt sale expressly re-affirms Res 64's paragraph (3) — the prohibition of discounting commercial papers — as the standing OIC position.

From all of this the reader gets a concrete, supra-madhab checklist from the primary source itself for the whole family of 'early cash for a bill / early settlement of a debt' arrangements: (1) A REAL DEFERRED-PRICE SALE is fine even at a higher price (First); a cheque or note is only a record of the debt, not a tradable asset (Second). (2) DISCOUNTING THE INSTRUMENT AT A BANK — handing over your bill/note/invoice and taking less cash now while the bank collects the full face value later — is riba al-nasīʾah and prohibited (Third). (3) AN EARLY-SETTLEMENT REBATE is permitted ONLY if it is (i) not pre-agreed as a contract term and (ii) strictly between the original creditor and debtor; introduce a third-party buyer and it becomes prohibited discounting (Fourth). (4) ACCELERATION on a solvent debtor's refusal is a lawful pre-agreed remedy (Fifth); a debt fallen due by death/bankruptcy/procrastination may be settled by the same bilateral reduction (Sixth); but a genuinely INSOLVENT debtor — one with nothing above basic needs — must be given time, not accelerated against (Seventh). An arrangement that passes these is doing what this resolution permits; a bank discounting your paper for a fee is exactly what it forbids.

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 seven substantive rules; they differ in wording throughout ('trading instruments' vs 'commercial papers'; 'The discount of a deferred debt' vs 'To reduce a deferred debt'; 'prior agreement' vs 'advance agreement'; 'which necessitates deferment' vs 'to be applied by trusties (bankruptcy)'; 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing' vs 'Allah knows best'), which strengthens confidence in the substance. ONE genuine defect is disclosed, not hidden: the official edition's Fifth item is garbled ('refers to repaying'); the IRTI edition's coherent 'refuses to repay any one of the installments' is taken as the authoritative reading of the same clause, and both are quoted verbatim so the reader can see the repair. 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 product does or does not comply — the tests are given for the reader to apply, and no product is graded here. The cross-reference to Resolution No. 101 (4/11) is quoted only for the verbatim line in which it cites Resolution No. 64 by name; nothing else in that resolution 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. 64 (2/7) / Installment Sale', with the session line 'holding its 7th session in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on 7–12 Dhū al-Qiʿdah 1412h (9–14 May 1992)' and the full operative text (the preamble and First through Seventh) — 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 N° 64/2/7 CONCERNING INSTALLMENT SALE', with the same 7th session / Jeddah / 7-12 Dhul Qi'dah 1412H (9–14 May 1992) and the same operative structure (First through Seventh) — extracted verbatim from the published PDF. THESE TWO ARE GENUINELY DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS, not two printings of one rendering: the official edition calls the written instruments 'trading instruments' where IRTI calls them 'commercial papers'; the official Fourth reads 'The discount of a deferred debt to accelerate its repayment' where IRTI reads 'To reduce a deferred debt with the aim of accelerating its repayment'; the official has 'if not based on a prior agreement' where IRTI has 'if it is not based on an advance agreement'; the official Seventh reads 'The criterion of insolvency, which necessitates deferment' where IRTI reads 'The criterion of insolvency to be applied by trusties (bankruptcy)'; the official closes 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing' where the IRTI printing closes 'Allah knows best'. ONE GENUINE DISCREPANCY IS DISCLOSED, NOT SILENTLY CORRECTED: the official edition's Fifth item is garbled — it reads 'if the debtor refers to repaying any of the installments owned by him' — which does not parse; the IRTI edition renders the SAME clause coherently as 'if the debtor refuses to repay any one of the installments owned by him', and the IRTI reading (an acceleration-on-refusal clause) is the one that makes sense of the item and matches the parallel Res 51 Fifth acceleration remedy, so it is taken as the authoritative reading of a printer's slip, both quoted verbatim. THIS IS A STRONG two-source pairing because every one of the seven substantive rules survives two independent renderings and the sole defect (the official Fifth) is repaired by the second source, not by guessing. 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 Seventh) 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. 64 (2/7) / Installment Sale', 'holding its 7th session in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on 7–12 Dhū al-Qiʿdah 1412h (9–14 May 1992)', issued 'in continuation to resolution no. 51 (2/6)' — 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 N° 64/2/7 CONCERNING INSTALLMENT SALE', same 7th session / Jeddah / 7-12 Dhul Qi'dah 1412H (9–14 May 1992) and same operative structure (First–Seventh) — 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 ('trading instruments' vs 'commercial papers'; 'The discount of a deferred debt to accelerate its repayment' vs 'To reduce a deferred debt with the aim of accelerating its repayment'; 'if not based on a prior agreement' vs 'if it is not based on an advance agreement'; 'The criterion of insolvency, which necessitates deferment' vs 'The criterion of insolvency to be applied by trusties (bankruptcy)'; official closes 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing' vs IRTI 'Allah knows best') — a strong pairing, since every one of the seven substantive rules survives two independent renderings. ONE GENUINE DEFECT DISCLOSED, NOT SILENTLY CORRECTED: the official edition's Fifth item is garbled ('if the debtor refers to repaying any of the installments owned by him'); the IRTI edition renders the same clause coherently ('if the debtor refuses to repay any one of the installments owned by him'), and the IRTI reading is taken as the authoritative sense of a printer's slip, both quoted verbatim. ADDITIONAL PRIMARY CORROBORATION that Res 64 is the settled OIC position, quoted verbatim only for the line in which the later resolution cites Res 64 by name: the Academy's Resolution No. 101 (4/11) on 'Debt Sale, Loan Debentures, and their Shariah-based Alternatives' (11th session, Manama, 25–30 Rajab 1419h / 14–19 November 1998), Second item — 'Emphasizing the Academy resolution no. 60 (11/6) concerning Bonds ... and paragraph (3) of the Academy resolution no. 64 (2/7) regarding discounting commercial papers, issued at its seventh session held in Saudi Arabia on 7–12 Dhū al-Qiʿdah 1412h (9–14 May 1992)' (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 101 is re-asserted beyond the verbatim line in which it names Resolution No. 64. 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. 64 (2/7), 7th session, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 7–12 Dhū al-Qiʿdah 1412h (9–14 May 1992), issued 'in continuation to resolution no. 51 (2/6)'. Operative content, verbatim from the Academy's official English edition (Oct 2021). FIRST (deferred-markup permitted, restating Res 51): 'The installment sale is permissible in Shariah even if the deferred price exceeds the spot price.' SECOND (instruments are debt-records, not assets): 'Trading instruments (cheques, promissory notes, exchange bills) are lawful types of debt authentication by recording it in writing.' THIRD (bill-discounting is riba — stated directly): 'The discount of trading instruments is not permissible in Shariah, for it amounts to a transaction involving Ribā an-Nasīʾah (interest on delayed repayment) which is prohibited.' FOURTH (bilateral early-settlement rebate lawful, third-party discount not): 'The discount of a deferred debt to accelerate its repayment, whether at the request of the creditor or of the debtor (pay less but ahead of time), is permissible in Shariah and does not fall within Ribā if not based on a prior agreement and as long as the relationship between the creditor and the debtor are bilateral. If a third party is involved between them, the discount is not permissible, subject to the Shariah ruling regarding the discount of trading instruments.' FIFTH (acceleration on a solvent debtor's refusal — the coherent IRTI rendering of a garbled official item): 'It is permissible for the two parties to a debt to agree on the fact that all installments shall be due for payment if the debtor refuses to repay any one of the installments owned by him, as long as he is not insolvent.' (The official edition's Fifth is garbled — 'if the debtor refers to repaying any of the installments' — and is repaired here by the IRTI edition, not by guessing.) SIXTH (debt fallen due by death/bankruptcy/procrastination may be settled by bilateral reduction): 'If a debt falls due following the death, bankruptcy or procrastination of the debtor, it is permissible in all these cases to discount the debt in order to accelerate settlement.' SEVENTH (definition of insolvency): '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.' Close: 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing.' The IRTI/IDB edition confirms the same operative content in a genuinely different translation ('commercial papers' for 'trading instruments'; 'To reduce a deferred debt' for 'The discount of a deferred debt'; 'advance agreement' for 'prior agreement'; the coherent 'refuses to repay any one of the installments' in Fifth; 'to be applied by trusties (bankruptcy)' in Seventh; close 'Allah knows best'). Both editions run First–Seventh in the same order with the same content; the ONE disclosed defect is the garbled official Fifth, repaired by the IRTI reading. Load-bearing for THIS site as the PRIMARY OIC anchor on DISCOUNTING (bill/cheque/invoice discounting = riba al-nasīʾah, prohibited) and on the lawful boundary of EARLY-SETTLEMENT REBATE (bilateral only, not pre-agreed, no third party) — the sequel that completes Res 51's coverage of the installment / credit-sale family behind murabaha and BBA. Presented faithfully to scope: no 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 TWELFTH article anchored on a genuine PRIMARY OIC / International Islamic Fiqh Academy resolution read verbatim, and the direct SEQUEL to Resolution No. 51 (2/6). WHY THIS ONE: it was the explicit NEXT candidate named at the close of round-112 ('Res 64 (2/7) Installment Sale — the sequel ruling, present in both editions'). Res 51's closing Recommendation POSTPONED three questions — (a) discounting bills of exchange through banks, (b) paying a debt before its due date for a rebate, (c) the effect of a party's death on remaining installments — and Res 64 is the resolution, taken up 'in continuation to resolution no. 51 (2/6)', that ANSWERS all three: (a) discounting commercial papers is riba al-nasīʾah, prohibited (Third); (b) an early-settlement rebate is lawful but ONLY bilaterally and not pre-agreed (Fourth); (c) a debt fallen due by death/bankruptcy/procrastination may be settled by the same bilateral reduction (Sixth). Grep-confirmed DISTINCT: no existing article mentions 'Resolution No. 64' / '64 (2/7)' / '64/2/7', and there was no dedicated verbatim entry for bill-discounting or the ḍaʿ-wa-taʿajjal early-settlement rebate. GEM #1: the load-bearing prohibition (Third) is DIRECTLY sourced, not reasoned — 'The discount of trading instruments is not permissible in Shariah, for it amounts to a transaction involving Ribā an-Nasīʾah ... which is prohibited' — the primary-source basis for ruling out invoice factoring / bill discounting / cheque discounting for a Muslim. GEM #2: the bilateral-vs-third-party line (Fourth) is the crisp primary-source distinction most readers never see stated — a creditor and his OWN debtor may agree an early-payoff discount (ḍaʿ wa taʿajjal), but the moment a third-party bank buys the debt at a discount it becomes the prohibited discounting of item Third. GEM #3: Res 64's own paragraph (3) is cited BY NAME as settled OIC law in the Academy's later Resolution No. 101 (4/11) on debt sale, quoted verbatim. TWO GENUINELY DIFFERENT English translations of the SAME resolution cross-read — the GOLD-STANDARD pairing (same standard as Res 51, 65, 85, 110, 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 1992 resolution in full so the pairing is reproducible; the translations differ throughout ('trading instruments' vs 'commercial papers'; 'The discount of a deferred debt' vs 'To reduce a deferred debt'; 'prior' vs 'advance' agreement; 'which necessitates deferment' vs 'to be applied by trusties'; 'Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing' vs 'Allah knows best'), so the substance survives two independent renderings. HONESTY NOTE: ONE genuine defect disclosed, not hidden — the official edition's Fifth item is GARBLED ('if the debtor refers to repaying any of the installments owned by him', which does not parse); the IRTI edition's coherent 'if the debtor refuses to repay any one of the installments owned by him' is taken as the authoritative reading of a printer's slip and mirrors the Res 51 Fifth acceleration clause; both quoted verbatim so the reader sees the repair (same no-fabrication discipline applied to Res 85's lettering slip and Res 65's truncated clause). 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 a later OIC resolution that cites 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 product complies (the tests are given for the reader to apply, no product graded); (e) anything from the cross-referenced Res 101 beyond the verbatim line in which it names Resolution No. 64; (f) the content of Res 60 (11/6) on Bonds (named alongside Res 64 in Res 101's Second item but not itself quoted). FRESHNESS-HONEST: a 1992 resolution — nothing time-sensitive; its date is stated explicitly, and the bill-discounting and early-settlement-rebate rules it fixes are still the live foundation for how a Muslim treats invoice factoring, cheque/bill discounting and early debt payoff. 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 75->76. PUNCH-LIST FULLY TICKED; build/lint re-confirmed green after this entry; this entry is the sequel that completes the corpus's Res 51 installment-sale coverage with the primary OIC rulings on bill-discounting and early-settlement rebate. NEXT candidate: Res 60 (11/6) 'Bonds' (named alongside Res 64 in Res 101 = a ready in-corpus lead, present in both editions), or Res 137 (3/15) Sukuk al-Ijarah once a genuinely-different second source is secured.

Topics

islamic-financeribaprohibition-of-ribariba-al-nasiahinstallment-saledeferred-payment-saledeferred-pricecredit-salebill-discountingdiscounting-commercial-papersdiscounting-trading-instrumentscheque-discountingpromissory-notebill-of-exchangeinvoice-factoringfactoringearly-settlementearly-repayment-rebateda-wa-taajjalreduce-and-hastendebt-discountthird-party-debtacceleration-clausedefault-remedyinsolvencyinsolvent-debtorprocrastinating-debtordeath-of-debtorbankruptcybay-al-daynsale-of-debtdebtmarkupmurabahabay-bithaman-ajilbbasubstance-over-formresolution-64resolution-51resolution-101oicorganisation-of-islamic-cooperationinternational-islamic-fiqh-academyiifafiqh-academyprimary-sourcecollective-ijtihadshariah-rulingislamic-bankingjeddah-1992

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.