Article & fatwaHigh trust

The OIC Fiqh Academy's settled ruling on how a Muslim may take part in an auction

The OIC Fiqh Academy's settled ruling on how a Muslim may take part in an auction — the everyday transaction behind property auctions, car auctions, government tenders and online marketplaces. The killer content is Clause 7: najash (shill or dummy bidding) is prohibited, and the resolution names four concrete forms of it — phantom bids to push the price up, fake expert praise, a false claim that a certain price was already paid, and the modern media version (audio, visual or print hype that ascribes unreal characteristics to the item or pumps its price). Clauses 4–5 also settle the practical mechanics a bidder meets: a refundable entry DEPOSIT is permissible (returned to every non-winning bidder, deducted from the winner's price), and an ENTRY FEE is fine only as genuine cost recovery ‘not exceeding the actual value’. International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), Resolution No. 73 (4/8), ‘Auction Contracts’, adopted at the 8th session (Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam, 1–7 Muḥarram 1414H / 21–27 June 1993).

What this source says

THE PRIMARY-SOURCE RULES FOR BIDDING HONESTLY. Auctions are one of the most ordinary transactions a household meets — a property going under the hammer, a repossessed car, a government tender, a charity fundraiser, an online marketplace listing with a countdown. Resolution No. 73 (4/8), adopted at the OIC Fiqh Academy's 8th session in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei (1–7 Muḥarram 1414H / 21–27 June 1993), is the Academy's settled ruling on how a Muslim may take part in one. It runs to seven operative clauses. Most are practical mechanics; the last is the one that changes behaviour.

WHY THE ACADEMY RULED. The preamble is candid about the trigger. Verbatim (official edition), the Council issued the ruling ‘Having considered that auction contracts are a common practice today and, in some cases, have involved certain infractions which have made it necessary to regulate its application in a way that would preserve the rights of the contract’s parties, in compliance with Shariah rulings’, and ‘Having noted that that even governments and institutions have approved this type of contract through specific administrative regulations’. So the ruling is not a ban on auctions — auctions are lawful — but a set of guardrails against the ‘infractions’ that creep into them.

CLAUSE ONE — WHAT AN AUCTION CONTRACT IS. Verbatim: ‘An auction contract is an exchange contract involving an invitation by interested parties, verbally or in writing, to participate in the auction. The contract is concluded with the consent of the seller.’ Two things matter here: an auction is a genuine exchange (‘mu‘āwaḍah’) contract, and it closes only when the SELLER consents — the fall of the hammer is the seller accepting the highest bid, so up to that point the process is invitation and offer, not a binding sale.

CLAUSE TWO — IT COMES IN MANY FORMS. Verbatim: an auction ‘may vary in nature according to its object and ramify into a sale or lease or other types of contract’, and ‘it may also be optional, such as ordinary auctions amongst individuals, or compulsory such as in the case of auctions dictated by the judiciary’. In plain terms: the object auctioned can be a thing sold, a lease, or something else; and the auction can be voluntary (an ordinary sale between people) or compelled (a court-ordered or legally mandated sale, e.g. of seized or bankrupt assets). The same Shariah rules govern all of them.

CLAUSE THREE — THE PAPERWORK MUST STAY WITHIN SHARIAH. Verbatim: an auction's procedures ‘in terms of written documentation, arrangements and administrative and legal terms and conditions must not be in contradiction with Shariah rulings’. The administrative machinery around an auction (registration, terms of sale, legal conditions) is permitted — but it cannot smuggle in a term that breaks a Shariah rule (an interest charge, an unjust forfeiture, a gharar-laden condition).

CLAUSE FOUR — THE ENTRY DEPOSIT IS FINE, AND REFUNDABLE. This is the clause a real bidder meets first. Verbatim: ‘Requiring a deposit from those wishing to enter the auction sale is permissible in Shariah. Their deposits must be reinstituted to all the participants who have not been the last bidders. The deposit is deducted from the selling price for the winning bidder.’ So a bidding deposit (the earnest money an auction house takes before it hands you a paddle) is lawful — with two conditions baked into the text: every LOSING bidder must get their deposit BACK in full, and the WINNER's deposit is not an extra charge but is set against (deducted from) the price they owe. A deposit that is forfeited by losing bidders, or pocketed on top of the price from the winner, is not what this clause permits.

CLAUSE FIVE — AN ENTRY FEE ONLY AT COST. Verbatim: ‘There is no restriction in Shariah to charging entry fees – value of the schedule of conditions – not exceeding the actual value as it represents a cost thereto.’ An auction house may charge for the ‘schedule of conditions’ (the catalogue/terms pack a bidder buys to enter), but ONLY up to its actual cost — because the fee is cost recovery, not a profit centre. A padded ‘entry fee’ dressed up as cost is outside the permission.

CLAUSE SIX — INSTITUTIONS MAY BID FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT. Verbatim: ‘It is permissible for an Islamic financial institution or any other party to initiate investment projects to secure for itself a higher benefit, whether the investor is a party in a Muḍārabah contract with the Bank or not.’ A bank or any party may enter and use auctions as part of legitimate investment activity — the profit motive of a bidder is not itself objectionable — and this holds whether or not the money at play sits in a Muḍārabah arrangement with the institution.

CLAUSE SEVEN — THE HEART OF IT: NAJASH IS FORBIDDEN. The clause that matters most is the prohibition of najash — the classical Sunnah prohibition of manipulating a sale by fake bidding — which the Academy restates and, crucially, updates for the modern marketplace. Verbatim (official edition): ‘Najash (shill bidding), which Shariah prohibits, may include the following practices’, and it then names four. (a) ‘Someone with no intention to buy, offering higher bids just to entice the buyer into making higher offers.’ That is the textbook shill/dummy bid — a plant who bids only to push the real buyer up. (b) ‘Someone not really intending to buy, pretending to admire the commodity as an expert, and extol its benefits to the buyer, thus affecting a higher price.’ The fake connoisseur who talks the item up to inflate the price. (c) The owner, agent or broker who ‘claims falsely that a specific price has been paid for it, so as to mislead the buyer’ — the invented ‘someone already offered X’ anchor. (d) — and this is the forward-looking part — ‘Contemporary forms of Najash, which Shariah prohibits, include the use of the media, whether audio, visual, or in print to attribute unreal characteristics to the commodity, or to increase the price in order to entice the buyer and manipulates him into entering the contract.’ In one 1993 sentence the Academy extends najash from the auction floor to advertising and media hype: fabricated features, staged scarcity and price manipulation through audio, video or print are the same prohibited deception in a new medium.

THE GEM: NAJASH IS BROADER THAN A FAKE BID. The most useful thing to carry away is that Resolution 73 refuses to confine najash to a plant raising a paddle. Its four sub-clauses cover (a) phantom bids, (b) fake expert praise, (c) a false claim of a prior price, and (d) media-driven hype — all as one prohibited family. That maps directly onto today's marketplace: shill bidding on an online auction, dummy bidding at a property auction (which secular law in several countries also bans), fake ‘sold’ or ‘someone just bought this’ urgency prompts, invented ‘retail price’ anchors on a discount listing, paid influencer hype ascribing unreal features to a product, and staged countdown scarcity. The resolution's own words already reach the audio, visual and print versions — so the digital versions are the same forbidden deception, not a novel loophole.

HOW A HOUSEHOLD ACTUALLY USES THIS. (a) Bidding in an auction is lawful — property, car, government-tender, charity or online — provided the process is honest and its terms don't break a Shariah rule (Clauses 1–3). (b) A refundable deposit to enter is fine; if you lose, you must get it back in full, and if you win it comes off your price, not on top of it (Clause 4). An auction whose rules let it keep losing bidders' deposits, or charge the winner the deposit as an extra, is offside. (c) An entry/catalogue fee is acceptable only as genuine cost recovery, not a hidden margin (Clause 5). (d) Do NOT take part in najash from either side: never place a bid you don't intend to honour to push a price up, never talk an item up as a fake expert, never claim a price was offered that wasn't — and treat listings that use manufactured urgency, fake ‘already sold’ signals, invented reference prices or hype ascribing unreal features as the modern najash the resolution names (Clause 7). (e) As a seller or agent, dummy bidding and vendor bids concealed as genuine are the very practice Clause 7(a) and 7(c) prohibit.

WHERE THIS SITS IN THE CORPUS. Resolution 73 is not a riba ruling; it belongs to the broader integrity-of-contract fabric this corpus also documents — the sibling of gharar (excessive uncertainty) and sadd al-dharāʾī (blocking the means to a forbidden end). A riba-free household is not only interest-free; its dealings are also free of the deception najash embodies. The clause that a lawful transaction ‘must not be in contradiction with Shariah rulings’ (Clause 3) is the same guardrail that keeps an auction's paperwork clear of an interest charge.

GENUINE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO EDITIONS (disclosed, not smoothed). The two translations agree on every operative point while differing in wording. NUMBER FORMAT: official ‘Resolution No. 73 (4/8)’ versus IRTI ‘Resolution N° 73/4/8’ (same designation). CLAUSE 1: official ‘an invitation by interested parties … to participate’ versus IRTI ‘an invitation to interest[ed] parties … to partake’ (IRTI drops the ‘-ed’ of ‘interested’, a print slip). CLAUSE 2: official ‘compulsory such as in the case of auctions dictated by the judiciary’ versus IRTI ‘… dictated by law’ — a genuine wording difference (a court order versus the law generally), same practical class of compelled auction; official ‘governmental entities’ versus IRTI ‘governmental bodies’. CLAUSE 3: official ‘written documentation’ versus IRTI ‘written records’. CLAUSE 4: official ‘deducted from the selling price for the winning bidder’ versus IRTI ‘… for the last bidder’ — same person (the highest/last bid is the winner) under two names; a page number ‘137’ falls inside the word ‘partic-[137]ipants’ at a page break in the official PDF, both halves verbatim across the break. CLAUSE 5: official ‘There is no restriction in Shariah to charging entry fees’ versus IRTI ‘There is no objection from Shari‘a point of view to levying entrance fees’. CLAUSE 6: official ‘It is permissible for an Islamic financial institution … to initiate’ versus IRTI ‘An Islamic financial institution … may initiate’ (same permission, active voice). CLAUSE 7 GLOSS: official glosses najash as ‘(shill bidding)’ versus IRTI ‘(Deception in bidding)’ — two English renderings of the same Arabic term. 7(a): official ‘entice the buyer’ versus IRTI ‘entice the earnest buyer’. 7(b): official ‘thus affecting a higher price’ versus IRTI ‘thus effecting a higher price’ — the official ‘affecting’ reads as a print slip for ‘effecting’ (to bring about); reported, not corrected. 7(d): official ‘to attribute unreal characteristics to the commodity … entice the buyer and manipulates him’ versus IRTI ‘to ascribe to the commodity unreal characteristics … seduce the buyer and entice him’. CLOSING INVOCATION: one genuine divergence, reported rather than reconciled — official ‘Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing.’ versus IRTI ‘Allah knows best….’. 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 (seven decisive Resolves clauses), not a deferral. The seven clauses above are the resolution's own words; the ‘najash is broader than a fake bid’ gem and the mapping onto shill/dummy bidding, fake urgency and influencer hype are plain restatements of Clause 7's own four sub-clauses (which already name the ‘audio, visual, or in print’ media forms), not inferences bolted on by this site. The resolution's text cites no Qur'an verse and no hadith number — the najash prohibition is a well-known Sunnah ruling, but Resolution 73 quotes no specific hadith, so none is reported here — records no madhab tally and no vote count, and names no institution, product, figure or rate, so none is reported. The cross-links to gharar, sadd al-dharāʾī and the riba anchor are the corpus's own commentary on where this ruling sits, not additional clauses of Resolution 73.

Wording inside quotation marks is quoted from the source. The rest is this notebook’s summary of it — read the original before relying on it.

Provenance

Compiled from: Compiled from TWO genuinely different English translations of the SAME primary resolution, cross-read 2026-07-13, every load-bearing quote machine-verified verbatim against both source PDFs (line-wrap, hyphenation, inserted-page-number and diacritic aware, whitespace-normalised, 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. 73 (4/8) / Auction Contracts’; 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° 73/4/8 / Concerning Auction Contracts’. Both editions carry the same 8th session (Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam, 21–27 June 1993) and the same seven operative Resolves clauses. This is a SETTLED operative ruling, not a deferral. The load-bearing content is the seven clauses: (1) the definition of an auction contract (an invitation to bid, concluded on the seller's consent); (2) it may be optional (ordinary auctions) or compulsory (judicial/legal auctions) and take the form of a sale, lease or other contract; (3) its administrative and legal procedures must not contradict Shariah; (4, PRACTICAL) a deposit to enter is permissible and must be returned to every non-winning bidder, being deducted from the price only for the winning/last bidder; (5) an entry fee (the value of the schedule of conditions) is lawful only up to actual cost; (6) an Islamic financial institution or any party may initiate investment projects to secure a higher benefit, whether or not the investor is in a Muḍārabah with the bank; (7, KEY) najash — deception in bidding — is prohibited, with four named forms including the modern media version. The resolution cites no Qur'an verse and no hadith number, records no madhab tally and no vote count, and names no institution, product, figure or rate.
Source: PRIMARY TEXT (full title; session/city/date; the seven operative Resolves clauses in full — (1) the definition of an auction contract concluded on the seller's consent, (2) optional versus compulsory/judicial auctions and the sale/lease/other forms, (3) the requirement that written and administrative-legal procedures not contradict Shariah, (4) the permissible refundable entry deposit returned to non-winning bidders and deducted from the winning/last bidder's price, (5) the entry fee lawful only up to actual cost, (6) an Islamic financial institution or any party permitted to initiate investment projects whether or not in a Muḍārabah, and (7) the prohibition of najash with its four named forms including contemporary media najash — plus the closing invocation) from [1] the INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC FIQH ACADEMY (OIC) OFFICIAL ENGLISH EDITION, ‘Resolutions and Recommendations of the International Islamic Fiqh Academy’ (official edition, October 2021), printing it as ‘Resolution No. 73 (4/8) / Auction Contracts’ (8th session, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam, 1–7 Muḥarram 1414H / 21–27 June 1993) — extracted verbatim from the published PDF (https://iifa-aifi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Resolutions-Recommendations-of-the-IIFA-Official-Edition-Oct-2021.pdf), read 2026-07-13. CONFIRMING SECOND, GENUINELY DIFFERENT TRANSLATION from [2] the IRTI/IDB PRINTED EDITION, ‘Resolutions and Recommendations of the Council of the Islamic Fiqh Academy 1985-2000’ (Islamic Research and Training Institute, Islamic Development Bank, Jeddah), printing it as ‘Resolution N° 73/4/8 / Concerning Auction Contracts’, same 8th session, same seven clauses — extracted verbatim from the published PDF (https://zulkiflihasan.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/majma-fiqh.pdf), read 2026-07-13. THE TWO EDITIONS ARE GENUINELY DIFFERENT RENDERINGS that converge on the same operative content; genuine differences reported rather than smoothed: NUMBER FORMAT (‘No. 73 (4/8)’ vs ‘N° 73/4/8’); CLAUSE 1 (‘invitation by interested parties … to participate’ vs ‘invitation to interest[ed] parties … to partake’); CLAUSE 2 (‘dictated by the judiciary’ vs ‘dictated by law’; ‘governmental entities’ vs ‘governmental bodies’); CLAUSE 3 (‘written documentation’ vs ‘written records’); CLAUSE 4 (‘for the winning bidder’ vs ‘for the last bidder’, plus a page-number ‘137’ inserted inside ‘partic-ipants’ at a page break in the official PDF, both halves verbatim across the break); CLAUSE 5 (‘no restriction in Shariah to charging entry fees’ vs ‘no objection from Shari‘a point of view to levying entrance fees’); CLAUSE 6 (‘It is permissible for an Islamic financial institution … to initiate’ vs ‘An Islamic financial institution … may initiate’); CLAUSE 7 GLOSS (‘shill bidding’ vs ‘Deception in bidding’); 7(a) (‘entice the buyer’ vs ‘entice the earnest buyer’); 7(b) (‘affecting a higher price’ vs ‘effecting a higher price’ — the official ‘affecting’ reads as a print slip, flagged not corrected); 7(d) (‘attribute unreal characteristics to the commodity … entice the buyer and manipulates him’ vs ‘ascribe to the commodity unreal characteristics … seduce the buyer and entice him’). ONE GENUINE DIVERGENCE IN THE CLOSING INVOCATION, disclosed not reconciled: official ‘Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing.’ vs IRTI ‘Allah knows best….’. Every verbatim quote used above was machine-checked against both source PDFs (line-wrap, hyphenation, inserted-page-number and diacritic aware, 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. 73 (4/8), 8th session (Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam, 1–7 Muḥarram 1414H / 21–27 June 1993), is the Academy's SETTLED ruling on the auction (bay‘ al-muzāyadah) contract — ‘Auction Contracts’ in both editions. Seven operative Resolves clauses: (1) an auction is an exchange contract, an invitation to bid concluded on the seller's consent; (2) it may be optional (ordinary auctions) or compulsory (judicial/legal auctions) and take the form of a sale, lease or other contract; (3) its written, administrative and legal procedures must not contradict Shariah; (4) a deposit to enter is permissible, refunded in full to every non-winning bidder and deducted from the price for the winning/last bidder; (5) an entry fee (value of the schedule of conditions) is lawful only up to actual cost as cost recovery; (6) an Islamic financial institution or any party may initiate investment projects to secure a higher benefit, whether or not the investor is in a Muḍārabah with the bank; (7, KEY) najash (deception in bidding) is prohibited, in four named forms — (a) phantom bids by someone with no intention to buy, (b) fake expert praise to inflate the price, (c) a false claim that a specific price was already paid, and (d) contemporary media najash: audio, visual or print hype that attributes unreal characteristics to the commodity or pumps its price to manipulate the buyer. The decisive gem is Clause 7's breadth — najash is not only a plant raising a paddle but a family of deceptions that already reaches, in the resolution's own words, the ‘audio, visual, or in print’ media forms, i.e. the modern shill bid, fake-urgency prompt, invented reference price and influencer hype. This is not a riba ruling; it sits with gharar and sadd al-dharāʾī in the corpus's integrity-of-contract fabric. Res 73 cites no Qur'an verse, no hadith number (the najash prohibition is Sunnah-based but Res 73 quotes no specific hadith), no madhab count and no vote, so none is reported here; it names no institution, product, figure or rate.
Original: https://iifa-aifi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Resolutions-Recommendations-of-the-IIFA-Official-Edition-Oct-2021.pdf
Captured: 2026-07-13
Added: 2026-07-13
Trust: Primary or near-primary source with a stable public URL.

Compiler’s note

Added 2026-07-13 (auto-run). The OIC Fiqh Academy's SETTLED ruling on the auction (bay‘ al-muzāyadah) contract — Res 73 (4/8), 8th session, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, 1–7 Muḥarram 1414H / 21–27 June 1993 — taken as the standing NEXT-candidate named at the close of the Res 109 run. A deliberate branch off the recent riba/finance cluster into the corpus's integrity-of-contract fabric (sibling of gharar and sadd al-dharāʾī), chosen because auctions are a genuinely everyday household transaction (property/car/government-tender/charity/online). KILLER GEM (Clause 7, verbatim official): najash ‘(shill bidding), which Shariah prohibits’ in four named forms — (a) phantom bids by someone with no intention to buy, (b) fake expert praise ‘thus affecting a higher price’, (c) a false claim ‘that a specific price has been paid for it, so as to mislead the buyer’, and (d) CONTEMPORARY media najash: ‘the use of the media, whether audio, visual, or in print to attribute unreal characteristics to the commodity, or to increase the price’ — a 1993 primary-source hook straight onto modern shill bidding, fake-urgency prompts, invented reference prices and influencer hype. GEM 2 (Clause 4): the entry DEPOSIT is permissible but must be ‘reinstituted to all the participants who have not been the last bidders’ and ‘deducted from the selling price for the winning bidder’ — refundable to losers, credited (not surcharged) to the winner. GEM 3 (Clause 5): an entry fee is lawful only ‘not exceeding the actual value as it represents a cost thereto’ (cost recovery, not margin). GOLD-STANDARD pairing: two genuinely different English editions cross-read — the Academy's OWN OFFICIAL ENGLISH EDITION (Oct 2021 PDF) + the IRTI/IDB printed edition (1985-2000, which carries this 8th-session/1993 resolution, so the pairing holds), both pdftotext-verbatim. Genuine divergences reported not smoothed: number format ‘No. 73 (4/8)’ vs ‘N° 73/4/8’; Clause 1 ‘by interested parties/participate’ vs ‘to interest parties/partake’; Clause 2 ‘by the judiciary’ vs ‘by law’ and ‘entities’ vs ‘bodies’; Clause 3 ‘documentation’ vs ‘records’; Clause 4 ‘winning bidder’ vs ‘last bidder’ plus a page-number ‘137’ inserted inside ‘partic-ipants’ at a page break (both halves verbatim across); Clause 5 ‘no restriction… entry fees’ vs ‘no objection… entrance fees’; Clause 6 ‘It is permissible for… to initiate’ vs ‘… may initiate’; Clause 7 gloss ‘shill bidding’ vs ‘Deception in bidding’; 7(a) ‘the buyer’ vs ‘the earnest buyer’; 7(b) ‘affecting’ vs ‘effecting’ (official print slip, flagged); 7(d) ‘attribute… manipulates him’ vs ‘ascribe… seduce… entice him’; and ONE genuine CLOSING-INVOCATION divergence (‘Indeed, Allāh is All-Knowing.’ vs ‘Allah knows best….’). All 27 load-bearing quotes machine-verified against both source PDFs (27/27 OK, whitespace/hyphenation/inserted-page-number/diacritic aware; the sole raw ‘miss’ was the inserted page number ‘137’ splitting ‘participants’ in Clause 4, confirmed verbatim across the break). HONESTY built in: the seven clauses are the resolution's own words; the ‘najash is broader than a fake bid’ gem and the mapping onto online shill bidding / fake urgency / influencer hype are plain restatements of Clause 7's own four sub-clauses (which already name the ‘audio, visual, or in print’ media forms). DROPPED per no-fab: Qur'an verse / hadith number (Res 73 cites none — najash is Sunnah-based but no specific hadith is quoted in the resolution); madhab tally; vote count; any institution/product/figure/rate. Articles 94->95. Clean `rm -rf .next && npm run build` green; `npm run lint` = 0/0. NEXT candidate (substantive finance/muamalat ruling, in BOTH editions i.e. ≤2000/≤12th session, not a deferral, not yet covered): a ḍamān (guarantee) or wakālah (agency) neighbour, or Res 40–41 (murābaḥa to the purchase-orderer) if not already covered; AVOID Res 89 currency (near-duplicate of Res 42) and the known deferrals Res 22/45/77/78/87/96.

Topics

islamic-financefiqh-of-transactionsmuamalatauctionauction-contractbay-al-muzayadahmuzayadahbiddingnajashshill-biddingdummy-biddingvendor-biddingdeceptionfraudghararmisrepresentationdepositearnest-moneyhamish-jiddiyyahrefundable-depositentry-feeschedule-of-conditionstendergovernment-tenderproperty-auctioncar-auctiononline-auctionmarketplaceecommercefake-reviewsfalse-advertisingprice-manipulationmanufactured-scarcitymudarabahinvestmentconsumer-protectionhonest-dealingsadd-al-dharaioicinternational-islamic-fiqh-academyiifaresolution-73res-7373-4-88th-sessionbruneibandar-seri-begawan1993primary-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.