The PRIMARY OIC ruling behind halal FORWARD-SALE / advance-payment producer finance
The PRIMARY OIC ruling behind halal FORWARD-SALE / advance-payment producer finance — the salam (forward sale with immediate payment) contract — the International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), Resolution No. 85 (2/9), titled in the Academy's official English edition 'Salam Sale and its Contemporary Applications' (the older IRTI/IDB printed edition renders the same ruling '"As-Salam" (Forward Sale with immediate payment) and its Modern Applications'), adopted at the Academy's 9th session in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, on 1–6 Dhū al-Qiʿdah 1415h (1–6 April 1995). This is the corpus's TENTH article anchored on a genuine PRIMARY OIC / IIFA resolution read verbatim, and it is the sale-contract SIBLING of Resolution No. 65 (istiṣnāʿ): salam and istiṣnāʿ are the two classic contracts for buying a good that does not yet exist, and where istiṣnāʿ lets the price be deferred, salam requires it to be paid UP FRONT — which is exactly what makes salam finance the PRODUCER rather than the buyer. The resolution's whole purpose is to keep salam a genuine advance-payment SALE of a precisely-described future commodity, not a disguised interest loan. Its core, verbatim (official edition), is anti-gharar on the good — 'Commodities in which a Salam contract may take place include any permissible tradable goods with definable features, imputable as a debt' and the contract 'must be well-defined either by tying it to a well-known deadline or to an event whose happening is an absolute certainty' — and immediate on the price: 'Salam capital should – in principle – be received promptly during majlis al-aqd (attendance of the parties)' (deferrable only 'for two or three days'). The two riba guards are stated directly, not reasoned. On penalties, verbatim: 'It is not permissible to include a penalty clause for the delay of providing the commodity since a commodity sold through Salam is a debt and it is not permissible to impose an additional charge for delayed repayment of debt' (the IRTI edition: 'Penalties for delayed delivering of goods subject of a Salam sale are not permissible, for such a sale is equated with a debt and no penalties are permissible for a delay in debt settlement'). And on debt-for-debt, verbatim: 'It is not permissible to use a debt as a capital for a Salam sale since this would amount to selling a debt against another debt.' It is the clearest primary-source checklist an ordinary reader can put to any 'Islamic salam', 'forward-purchase' or agricultural/commodity finance: a spec-defined future commodity with a fixed deadline, a price paid in full at the sitting (so the money finances real production, not time on a loan), no surcharge for late delivery, and real capital — never a debt bought with a debt.
What this source says
Every one of this corpus's other primary OIC anchors sits on a particular seam of a bank's business — 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 HOME-FINANCE / leasing side (Resolution No. 110, lease-to-own), the INVESTMENT side (Resolution No. 30, the muqaradah bond / investment certificate) and the MAKE-TO-ORDER side (Resolution No. 65, istiṣnāʿ, the manufacture / construction-order contract). This entry adds the other half of the 'buying a good that does not yet exist' pair: salam. Its primary OIC ruling is Resolution No. 85 (2/9), adopted by the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of the OIC at its 9th session in Abu Dhabi over 1–6 Dhū al-Qiʿdah 1415h (1–6 April 1995) — the same session that produced the deposits ruling, Resolution No. 86. Salam is the forward-purchase sale: you pay now, in full, for a precisely-described commodity to be delivered later. It is the classic instrument for financing a PRODUCER — a farmer, a manufacturer, a craftsman — who needs cash today and has goods to deliver at harvest or after a production run. 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 what salam IS and the anti-gharar discipline on the good, because a forward sale of a not-yet-existing thing is exactly where 'excessive uncertainty' (the corpus's own gharar entry) would creep in if the good were left vague. Verbatim (official edition), First (a): 'Commodities in which a Salam contract may take place include any permissible tradable goods with definable features, imputable as a debt, be they raw materials, agricultural products or manufactured goods.' First (b): 'Salam contract must be well-defined either by tying it to a well-known deadline or to an event whose happening is an absolute certainty even if the date of its occurrence may be subject to a slight difference not likely to cause discord such as the harvesting season.' The IRTI edition renders the same two rules 'any marketable goods with definable features, imputable as a debt' and 'Forward buying maturity must be well set either by linking it to a specific date or to an event whose happening is an absolute certainty'. In plain terms: the commodity must be fungible and spec-definable (so it can be owed as a debt), and the delivery date must be pinned down — you cannot buy 'some wheat, sometime'.
The clause that makes salam a genuine advance-payment SALE rather than a loan is the one on the price, and it is the single sharpest contrast with its sibling istiṣnāʿ. Verbatim (official edition), First (c): 'Salam capital should – in principle – be received promptly during majlis al-aqd (attendance of the parties). However, it is permissible to defer it for two or three days, albeit on condition, the period of deferment being neither equal to nor above the date fixed in the Salam contract.' The IRTI edition: 'By and large, the rules is that Salam capital should be received promptly in the "Majlis" (i.e. time and place of the negotiation). However this may be deferred for two or three days...'. Read that against istiṣnāʿ. In istiṣnāʿ (Resolution No. 65, third clause) 'it is permissible to defer payment in full or in installments'; in salam the price must be handed over at the sitting. That is not a technicality — it is the whole economic point. Because the buyer pays the FULL price up front, the money reaches the producer at the moment he needs working capital, and the buyer's return comes from buying the future commodity at a keener forward price and taking genuine delivery-and-price risk on a real good — not from lending a sum and charging for the passage of time. The IRTI edition even builds this into the title: '(Forward Sale with immediate payment)'.
The first riba guard is on penalties, and — exactly as in the istiṣnāʿ entry — it is DIRECTLY sourced, not reasoned. Verbatim (official edition), First (g): 'It is not permissible to include a penalty clause for the delay of providing the commodity since a commodity sold through Salam is a debt and it is not permissible to impose an additional charge for delayed repayment of debt.' The IRTI edition, at its clause (f): 'Penalties for delayed delivering of goods subject of a Salam sale are not permissible, for such a sale is equated with a debt and no penalties are permissible for a delay in debt settlement.' The reasoning is the corpus's spine in miniature: the thing the seller owes (the future commodity) is in law a DEBT, and any extra charge levied because a debt is settled late is riba — so no late-delivery penalty is allowed. What IS allowed is a genuine remedy that adds nothing to the debt. Verbatim (official edition), First (f): 'In case the recipient (i.e. the selling party) fails to deliver the goods subject to Salam on maturity date, then the creditor (i.e. the buyer) may, at his discretion, either wait until the goods are available or cancel the contract and recover his capital. However, if the default is due to genuine incapacity, then tolerance is in the order of the day until better times.' The buyer's remedy is to wait or to unwind and get his own money back — never to bolt an interest-like surcharge onto the seller's debt. (Note the mirror-image of the istiṣnāʿ rule: there, a penalty may fall on the MAKER for late delivery but never on a buyer for late payment; here, there is no money-debt owed by a late-paying buyer at all — the buyer has already paid — so the only possible default is the seller's late delivery of a commodity-debt, and that too carries no penalty.)
The second riba guard blocks the debt-for-debt trap that the corpus's bay al-dayn (sale of debt) entry warns about. Verbatim (official edition), First (h): 'It is not permissible to use a debt as a capital for a Salam sale since this would amount to selling a debt against another debt.' The IRTI edition, at its clause (h): 'A debt may not be used as a capital for a Salam sale, since this would amount to selling a debt against another debt.' The salam capital must be real value handed over — cash or goods — not a receivable the buyer is already owed; otherwise the 'sale' collapses into exchanging one IOU for another, which is precisely the money-for-money increase the whole prohibition targets. The resolution also confirms the ordinary commercial flexibilities that do NOT breach any of this: the buyer may take security (First d: 'There is no restriction in Shariah for the purchasing party to take a pawn or a security from the recipient (the selling party)'), and after maturity the buyer may take something other than cash in substitution, provided the substitute is itself salam-amenable (First e).
Why does this matter for the everyday question 'is this salam / forward-purchase / commodity finance actually halal'? Because the resolution's Second section is explicitly about the modern banking use. Verbatim (official edition): 'Salam is considered today as a highly effective financing instrument in Islamic economy and in the activities of Islamic banks due to its flexibility and responsiveness to the various needs of financing, be it for short, medium or long terms, as well as its adaptability to the needs of various and multiple sections of customers, be they producers, agrarians, industrialists, building contractors, or traders...'. The Academy then lists concrete uses — financing agricultural operations (the bank buys a farmer's future crop by salam, extending 'this benefit of a great value' and protecting him 'against the failure to meet their production targets on account of financial deficit'), financing the pre-production and export stages of agricultural or industrial goods, and financing handicraftsmen, small producers and manufacturers by advancing them tools, equipment or raw material as forward (salam) capital. In other words the Academy's own answer to 'how may a producer be financed without an interest loan' is: buy his defined future output now, in full, under salam — Resolution No. 85's contract, put to the exact producer-financing use that distinguishes it from the buyer-financing sales (murabaha) and the make-to-order sale (istiṣnāʿ).
From all of this the reader gets a concrete, supra-madhab checklist from the primary source itself for any 'Islamic salam' or forward-purchase finance: (1) FULL PRICE UP FRONT — is the whole price paid at the sitting (majlis al-aqd), not lent now and repaid later? That advance payment is what makes it finance real production rather than time on a loan. (2) A DEFINED FUTURE GOOD — is the commodity a fungible, spec-definable debt (nature, type, quality, quantity) with a fixed delivery deadline, so there is no vagueness left to breed a dispute? (3) NO SURCHARGE FOR LATE DELIVERY — because the deliverable is a debt, is the seller free of any penalty for lateness (the buyer's only remedies being to wait, or to cancel and recover his capital), rather than facing an added charge that would be riba on a debt? (4) NOT DEBT-FOR-DEBT — is the salam capital real value (cash or goods), not itself a debt used to buy a debt? A product that passes all four is doing what this resolution permits; one that charges the producer extra for late delivery, or leaves the commodity vaguely specified, or is really a cash loan dressed as a forward sale, 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 eight substantive First-section rules plus the Second-section applications; they differ in wording throughout ('Salam Sale' vs 'As-Salam (Forward Sale with immediate payment)'; 'permissible tradable goods' vs 'marketable goods'; 'majlis al-aqd (attendance of the parties)' vs '"Majlis" (i.e. time and place of the negotiation)'), which strengthens confidence in the substance; and — disclosed above — the IRTI edition letters the First section a,b,c,d,e,f,h (folding the exchange and failure-to-deliver clauses into one 'e)' and skipping the letter 'g)'), a lettering slip only, with no substantive rule lost. 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 salam or commodity-finance product does or does not comply — the four tests are given for the reader to apply, and no product is graded here. The comparison to istiṣnāʿ (Resolution No. 65) is drawn only from the verbatim price clauses of each resolution; nothing else in Resolution No. 65 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 2026-07-08 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. 85 (2/9) / Salam Sale and its Contemporary Applications', with the session line 'holding its 9th session in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, on 1–6 Dhū al-Qi’dah 1415h (1–6 April 1995)' and the full operative text (the preamble, First a–h, Second a–c, and the closing Recommendation) — 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° 85/2/9 CONCERNING "AS-SALAM (FORWARD SALE WITH IMMEDIATE PAYMENT) AND ITS MODERN APPLICATIONS', with the same 9th session / Abu Dhabi / 1 to 6 Dhul Qi'da 1415H (1–6 April 1995) and the same operative structure — extracted verbatim from the published PDF. THESE TWO ARE GENUINELY DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS, not two printings of one rendering: the official edition titles it 'Salam Sale and its Contemporary Applications' where IRTI titles it '"As-Salam" (Forward Sale with immediate payment) and its Modern Applications' (the IRTI title makes the defining feature — immediate payment — explicit in the heading itself); the official 'any permissible tradable goods with definable features' where IRTI has 'any marketable goods with definable features'; the official 'tying it to a well-known deadline or to an event' where IRTI has 'linking it to a specific date or to an event'; the official 'received promptly during majlis al-aqd (attendance of the parties)' where IRTI has 'received promptly in the "Majlis" (i.e. time and place of the negotiation)'; the official 'There is no restriction in Shariah for the purchasing party to take a pawn or a security' where IRTI has 'It is not objectionable Shari'a - wise, for the purchasing party to take a pawn or a security'; the official closes 'Indeed, Allāh is the Giver of success' where the IRTI printing carries no closing invocation. THIS IS A STRONG two-source pairing because the substance survives two independent renderings. ONE GENUINE DIFFERENCE IN THE SOURCE ITSELF IS DISCLOSED, NOT PAPERED OVER: the two editions LETTER the First section differently. The official edition separates the clauses cleanly a–h, with e = the buyer's right to exchange the goods, f = the buyer's remedy if the seller fails to deliver (wait, or cancel and recover capital), g = no penalty clause for late delivery, and h = no debt as capital. The IRTI edition FOLDS the exchange clause and the failure-to-deliver clause into a single lettered item 'e)', then labels the no-penalty clause 'f)' and SKIPS the letter 'g)' entirely, jumping from f) straight to h) — so IRTI runs a,b,c,d,e,f,h. The two agree completely on the eight substantive rules; only IRTI's lettering drops a letter. 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 a–h, Second a–c, and the closing Recommendation) 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. 85 (2/9) / Salam Sale and its Contemporary Applications', 'holding its 9th session in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, on 1–6 Dhū al-Qi’dah 1415h (1–6 April 1995)' — 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 2026-07-08. 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° 85/2/9 CONCERNING "AS-SALAM (FORWARD SALE WITH IMMEDIATE PAYMENT) AND ITS MODERN APPLICATIONS', same 9th session / Abu Dhabi / 1 to 6 Dhul Qi'da 1415H (1–6 April 1995) and same operative structure — extracted verbatim from the published PDF (https://zulkiflihasan.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/majma-fiqh.pdf), read 2026-07-08. THE TWO ARE GENUINELY DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS ('Salam Sale' vs 'As-Salam (Forward Sale with immediate payment)'; 'permissible tradable goods' vs 'marketable goods'; 'tying it to a well-known deadline' vs 'linking it to a specific date'; 'majlis al-aqd (attendance of the parties)' vs '"Majlis" (i.e. time and place of the negotiation)'; 'There is no restriction in Shariah' vs 'It is not objectionable Shari'a - wise'; official closes 'Indeed, Allāh is the Giver of success' vs no closing invocation in the IRTI printing) — a strong pairing, since the substance survives two independent renderings. ONE GENUINE SOURCE DIFFERENCE DISCLOSED, NOT PAPERED OVER: the IRTI edition letters the First section a,b,c,d,e,f,h — it merges the official edition's clause e (buyer's right to exchange the goods) and clause f (buyer's remedy on the seller's failure to deliver) into a single item 'e)', labels the no-penalty clause 'f)', and skips the letter 'g)' — a lettering slip only; both editions carry all eight substantive rules identically. NO fabrication: no madhab-by-madhab tally, no vote count, no hadith number, no market/AUM/named-fund figure, and no product graded. The contrast with istiṣnāʿ is drawn only from the verbatim price clauses of Resolution No. 85 (First c) and Resolution No. 65 (Third), each read verbatim from these same two editions; nothing else in Resolution No. 65 is re-asserted here. 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. 85 (2/9), 9th session, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 1–6 Dhū al-Qiʿdah 1415h (1–6 April 1995). Operative content, verbatim from the Academy's official English edition (Oct 2021). FIRST — Salam Sale: (a) 'Commodities in which a Salam contract may take place include any permissible tradable goods with definable features, imputable as a debt, be they raw materials, agricultural products or manufactured goods.' (b) 'Salam contract must be well-defined either by tying it to a well-known deadline or to an event whose happening is an absolute certainty even if the date of its occurrence may be subject to a slight difference not likely to cause discord such as the harvesting season.' (c, immediate-payment core) 'Salam capital should – in principle – be received promptly during majlis al-aqd (attendance of the parties). However, it is permissible to defer it for two or three days, albeit on condition, the period of deferment being neither equal to nor above the date fixed in the Salam contract.' (d) 'There is no restriction in Shariah for the purchasing party to take a pawn or a security from the recipient (the selling party).' (e) 'It is permissible for the buyer to exchange the goods subject to Salam for something else other than cash after maturity of the deadline...on condition that the substitute is itself amenable for Salam against the Salam capital.' (f, buyer's remedy) 'In case the recipient (i.e. the selling party) fails to deliver the goods subject to Salam on maturity date, then the creditor (i.e. the buyer) may, at his discretion, either wait until the goods are available or cancel the contract and recover his capital. However, if the default is due to genuine incapacity, then tolerance is in the order of the day until better times.' (g, penalty riba guard) 'It is not permissible to include a penalty clause for the delay of providing the commodity since a commodity sold through Salam is a debt and it is not permissible to impose an additional charge for delayed repayment of debt.' (h, debt-for-debt guard) 'It is not permissible to use a debt as a capital for a Salam sale since this would amount to selling a debt against another debt.' SECOND — Contemporary Applications: 'Salam is considered today as a highly effective financing instrument in Islamic economy and in the activities of Islamic banks...be they producers, agrarians, industrialists, building contractors, or traders', with uses in financing agricultural operations, pre-production/export stages, and handicraftsmen/small producers via forward (salam) capital. Close: 'Indeed, Allāh is the Giver of success.' The IRTI/IDB edition confirms the same operative content in a genuinely different translation ('"As-Salam" (Forward Sale with immediate payment) and its Modern Applications'; 'any marketable goods with definable features'; capital 'received promptly in the "Majlis" (i.e. time and place of the negotiation)'; penalty clause (its (f)) 'Penalties for delayed delivering of goods subject of a Salam sale are not permissible, for such a sale is equated with a debt and no penalties are permissible for a delay in debt settlement'; debt-for-debt (its (h)) 'A debt may not be used as a capital for a Salam sale, since this would amount to selling a debt against another debt'). SOURCE DIFFERENCE DISCLOSED: the IRTI edition letters the First section a,b,c,d,e,f,h — it folds the official edition's clauses e (exchange) and f (failure-to-deliver remedy) into a single 'e)' and skips the letter 'g)' — a lettering slip only; the eight substantive rules are identical across both editions. Load-bearing for THIS site as the PRIMARY OIC anchor of the FORWARD-SALE / advance-payment producer-financing contract, the sibling of istiṣnāʿ (Res 65) in the corpus's primary-OIC coverage. 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.
- Captured
- 2026-07-08
- Added
- 2026-07-08
- Trust
- Primary or near-primary source with a stable public URL.
Compiler’s note
The corpus's TENTH article anchored on a genuine PRIMARY OIC / International Islamic Fiqh Academy resolution read verbatim, and the sale-contract SIBLING of Resolution No. 65 (istiṣnāʿ, round-110): salam and istiṣnāʿ are the two classic contracts for buying a good that does not yet exist. WHY THIS ONE: it was the explicit NEXT candidate named at the close of the istiṣnāʿ entry ('Res 85 (2/9) Salam and Res 51 (2/6) Installment Sale...both present in the IRTI + official editions = a ready gold-standard pairing each'). Salam is the forward-sale / advance-payment contract that finances the PRODUCER, and its primary OIC ruling had no dedicated verbatim entry — only a general Wikipedia-sourced mechanism explainer (salam-forward-sale-financing-the-producer.json, trust 'medium'), which quotes NO primary resolution and is not IIFA-anchored; grep-confirmed distinct (no article quotes 'Resolution No. 85' or 'majlis al-aqd'). Resolution No. 85 (2/9) hands an ordinary reader a four-point halal-test for any 'Islamic salam / forward-purchase / commodity' finance: (1) FULL PRICE UP FRONT — the whole price paid at the sitting (majlis al-aqd), clause c, which is what makes it finance real production rather than time on a loan; (2) A DEFINED FUTURE GOOD — a fungible, spec-definable debt with a fixed deadline (clauses a–b), so no gharar; (3) NO SURCHARGE FOR LATE DELIVERY — because the deliverable is a debt (clause g), the buyer's only remedies are to wait or cancel and recover capital (clause f), never an added charge; (4) NOT DEBT-FOR-DEBT — the salam capital must be real value, not a debt used to buy a debt (clause h). GEM: the no-penalty riba rule is DIRECTLY sourced, not reasoned — the resolution itself says a penalty for late delivery is impermissible 'since a commodity sold through Salam is a debt and it is not permissible to impose an additional charge for delayed repayment of debt'; and it is the exact mirror of the istiṣnāʿ/Res 109 penalty logic (there a penalty may fall on the late MAKER but never a late-paying buyer; here the buyer has already paid, so the only default is the seller's late delivery of a commodity-debt, which likewise carries no penalty). The price clause (c) also confirms, from the primary source, the salient contrast the istiṣnāʿ entry asserted: in salam the full price MUST be paid up front, in istiṣnāʿ it may be deferred. TWO GENUINELY DIFFERENT English translations of the SAME resolution cross-read — the GOLD-STANDARD pairing (same standard as Res 65, 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 1995 resolution in full so the pairing is reproducible; the translations differ throughout ('Salam Sale' vs 'As-Salam (Forward Sale with immediate payment)'; 'permissible tradable goods' vs 'marketable goods'; 'majlis al-aqd (attendance of the parties)' vs '"Majlis" (i.e. time and place of the negotiation)'), so the substance survives two independent renderings. ONE GENUINE SOURCE DIFFERENCE DISCLOSED, NOT HIDDEN (built into title/author/text/madhab/source): the IRTI edition letters the First section a,b,c,d,e,f,h — it folds the official edition's clauses e (exchange) and f (failure-to-deliver remedy) into a single 'e)' and skips the letter 'g)' — a lettering slip only; both editions carry all eight substantive rules identically. This is the no-fabrication discipline applied to a real discrepancy: reported, not silently corrected. TRUST 'high' (numbered/dated PRIMARY OIC resolution verified verbatim in the Academy's own official English edition and re-confirmed in a second, independently-worded printed edition; sole caveat = both 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 salam or commodity-finance product complies (the four tests are given for the reader to apply, no product graded); (e) anything from the cross-referenced Resolution No. 65 (istiṣnāʿ) beyond its verbatim price clause used for the contrast, and nothing from Res 51 (Installment Sale), which remains the next candidate for a future run. FRESHNESS-HONEST: a 1995 resolution — nothing time-sensitive; its date is stated explicitly, and the salam principles it fixes are still the live foundation of Islamic forward-sale, agricultural and commodity 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 73->74. PUNCH-LIST FULLY TICKED; build/lint re-confirmed green after this entry; this entry completes the buy-a-not-yet-existing-good pair (salam + istiṣnāʿ) in the corpus's primary-OIC coverage.
Topics
islamic-financeribaprohibition-of-ribasalambay-salamas-salamforward-saleforward-purchaseadvance-paymentproducer-financeagricultural-financecommodity-financeworking-capitalsale-contractdeferred-deliveryistisnamake-to-ordermurabahapenalty-clauselate-delivery-penaltydebtbay-al-daynsale-of-debtdebt-for-debtghararspecificationmajlis-al-aqddefinable-commodityresolution-85resolution-65resolution-51substance-over-formoicorganisation-of-islamic-cooperationinternational-islamic-fiqh-academyiifafiqh-academyprimary-sourcecollective-ijtihadshariah-rulingislamic-bankingabu-dhabi-1995
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.