The PRIMARY OIC ruling on the OTHER side of the bank ledger — your deposit: the International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), Resolution No.
The PRIMARY OIC ruling on the OTHER side of the bank ledger — your deposit: the International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), Resolution No. 86 (3/9), 'Bank Deposits (Bank Accounts)', adopted at the Academy's 9th session in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 1-6 Dhū al-Qi'dah 1415H (1-6 April 1995). Its load-bearing clause holds, verbatim: 'Call deposits (current accounts) whether at Islamic banks or usury-based banks, are considered as loans in the Shariah perspective, since the bank receiving these deposits is answerable for their safety and is Shariah-bound to returning them on call' — and it adds that 'The ruling applicable to the loan is not affected by the bank's (borrower) solvency or otherwise.' It follows that any INCREASE paid on that loan is riba: 'Deposits for which interest is paid, as in the case of usury-based banks, being usury loans, are prohibited whether they are call deposits (current accounts) or term deposits, notice deposits, or savings accounts.' The resolution also states the halal alternative on the deposit side: 'Deposits placed in banks, which are seriously Shariah-compliant through an investment contract for a profit share, are considered as Muḍārabah capital, and are therefore subject to the rulings applicable to Muḍārabah (Qirad).' A second, independently-worded source (IslamQA, citing the Academy's own journal Majallat Majma' al-Fiqh, issue no. 9) confirms the same two limbs: 'Deposits that may be withdrawn at any time (demand deposit account or current account), whether they are in Islamic banks or Riba-based banks, constitute loans according to the Islamic jurisprudential point of view', and 'Deposits on which interest is paid ... These are prohibited Riba-based loans.'
What this source says
If Resolution No. 10 (10/2) settles the FINANCING side of the bank — that interest charged on a loan or mortgage is riba — this resolution settles the DEPOSITING side, the money you place with a bank and the 'interest' it offers you in return. It is the companion primary ruling, and it closes the loop: the same principle that forbids paying interest also forbids receiving it. The text is the International Islamic Fiqh Academy's Resolution No. 86 (3/9), 'Bank Deposits (Bank Accounts)', adopted at the Academy's 9th session in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, over 1-6 Dhū al-Qi'dah 1415H (1-6 April 1995). Like Resolution No. 10 it is a collective-ijtihad ruling of the OIC's supra-madhab academy, which is why it can speak for the deposit practices of the whole Muslim world rather than a single school. The reasoning turns on a single legal characterisation that is easy to miss but decides everything: what, in Shariah, IS a current account? The Academy answers verbatim: 'Call deposits (current accounts) whether at Islamic banks or usury-based banks, are considered as loans in the Shariah perspective, since the bank receiving these deposits is answerable for their safety and is Shariah-bound to returning them on call.' Read that slowly. When you deposit money in a current account, you have not left it with the bank for safekeeping the way you leave a coat at a cloakroom; you have LENT it to the bank. The proof the Academy gives is precisely the feature every depositor takes for granted — the bank guarantees the money and must return the full amount on demand. That guarantee is the signature of a loan (qard), not a trust (amanah): a trustee returns the specific thing entrusted and bears no liability if it is destroyed without negligence, whereas a borrower owes the amount back in full regardless. Because the bank guarantees and uses your money, you are its creditor and it is your debtor. The Academy underlines that this characterisation does not bend to circumstances: 'The ruling applicable to the loan is not affected by the bank's (borrower) solvency or otherwise' — a healthy bank and a shaky bank are, in this respect, the same; the deposit is a loan either way. Once the current account is seen as a loan, the interest verdict follows with the force of definition, and the Academy states it plainly: 'Deposits for which interest is paid, as in the case of usury-based banks, being usury loans, are prohibited whether they are call deposits (current accounts) or term deposits, notice deposits, or savings accounts.' This is the exact classical maxim — every loan that draws a benefit is riba (kullu qardin jarra manfa'atan fa-huwa riban) — applied to the modern savings account, the term deposit and the notice account alike. The 'interest' a bank credits to a savings account is not a gift and not a share of profit; it is a stipulated increase on a loan, and a stipulated increase on a loan is riba. Notice how comprehensively the clause sweeps: it names call, term, notice AND savings deposits, so no re-labelling of the account escapes it. And critically, it applies the ruling to interest paid by 'Islamic banks' too if such interest is paid — the label on the institution does not launder the transaction; the structure does. So far the resolution has only prohibited. But — exactly as Resolution No. 10 paired its prohibition with the trade alternative — this resolution names the halal deposit-side structure in the same breath: 'Deposits placed in banks, which are seriously Shariah-compliant through an investment contract for a profit share, are considered as Muḍārabah capital, and are therefore subject to the rulings applicable to Muḍārabah (Qirad).' Here is the whole difference between a conventional savings account and a genuine Islamic investment account in one sentence. In the forbidden version you LEND the bank money and it promises you a fixed increase — a loan with interest. In the permitted version you INVEST the money with the bank as your working-partner (mudarib) under a muḍārabah contract, and you receive an agreed SHARE of whatever real profit the investment actually earns — which means you also stand to share the loss if it loses, because that shared risk is precisely what makes the return a lawful profit rather than riba. The two look superficially similar (money in, money out) but are opposites in substance: guaranteed increase on a loan versus variable share of a real, at-risk return. The Academy's word 'seriously' ('seriously Shariah-compliant') is doing quiet but important work: it is not enough to call an account 'Islamic'; the investment contract must genuinely place the capital at risk in real, Shariah-compliant activity for the return to qualify as muḍārabah profit rather than disguised interest. A second, entirely separate source confirms the ruling — necessary, because a primary text read in translation should never stand alone. IslamQA reproduces the same Academy resolution from the Academy's own journal (Majallat Majma' al-Fiqh, issue no. 9 — i.e. the 9th session), rendering the core clauses in its own words: 'Deposits that may be withdrawn at any time (demand deposit account or current account), whether they are in Islamic banks or Riba-based banks, constitute loans according to the Islamic jurisprudential point of view', and 'Deposits on which interest is paid, as is the case in Riba-based banks. These are prohibited Riba-based loans.' The wording is independent — 'demand deposit account' rather than 'call deposits', 'jurisprudential point of view' rather than 'Shariah perspective' — but the two limbs and the verdict are identical: the current account is a loan, and interest on it is prohibited riba. When two independently-worded translations of the same resolution converge on the same two limbs, the substance is secure even though the exact English phrasing is a translator's choice. What does this mean for a Muslim in Australia, Britain, Canada or the United States, practically? Three things the resolution licenses one to say honestly. First, the ordinary current/chequing account you use to receive salary and pay bills is, in itself, a loan to the bank — permissible to use for transactional convenience; the problem is not holding an account but earning increase on it. Second, the 'interest' line on a conventional savings account or term deposit is riba to be avoided; where it cannot be refused, the mainstream scholarly guidance (documented elsewhere in this corpus) is to purify it by giving it away to the needy without seeking reward. Third, a genuinely Shariah-compliant profit-share (muḍārabah) investment account is the lawful way to earn a return on savings — provided, in the Academy's own word, the compliance is 'serious' and the capital genuinely shares real risk. Two honest limits belong on this entry. First, this is an English translation of a resolution issued in Arabic; the load-bearing quotes are verified verbatim across two fetches of the primary page and cross-confirmed by a second source that quotes the Academy's own Arabic journal, but the original binding text is the Arabic, and a translation is always an approximation of it. Second, this resolution is one of several the Academy issued on banking; it is quoted here only for what these two sources state verbatim — the loan-characterisation of current accounts, the prohibition of interest-bearing deposits of every kind, and the muḍārabah alternative — and no further clause, figure or later resolution is asserted beyond that.
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 sources cross-read 2026-07-07: [1] the PRIMARY resolution page of the International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), 'Resolution No. 86 (3/9): Bank Deposits (Bank Accounts)' (iifa-aifi.org, English) — for the resolution number/title, the session (9th), city (Abu Dhabi, UAE) and dual date (1-6 Dhū al-Qi'dah 1415H / 1-6 April 1995), and the verbatim operative clauses on (a) call deposits as loans, (b) the ruling being unaffected by the bank's solvency, (c) interest-bearing deposits as prohibited usury loans, and (d) investment deposits as Muḍārabah capital; and [2] IslamQA (islamqa.info/en/answers/113852), which quotes the SAME Academy resolution from the Academy's own journal 'Majallat Majma' al-Fiqh, issue no. 9, part i, p. 931' in an independently-worded translation ('Deposits that may be withdrawn at any time (demand deposit account or current account) ... constitute loans according to the Islamic jurisprudential point of view'; 'Deposits on which interest is paid ... These are prohibited Riba-based loans'). The IIFA page was re-fetched with a tightened prompt and returned identical wording character-for-character; source [2] cross-confirms the same two-limb ruling and, via 'issue no. 9', the same 9th-session provenance in genuinely different words. Cross-confirmed.
- Source
- PRIMARY RULING (number/title, session, city, dual date, and the verbatim operative clauses) from [1] the International Islamic Fiqh Academy (OIC), 'Resolution No. 86 (3/9): Bank Deposits (Bank Accounts)' — 9th session, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 1-6 Dhū al-Qi'dah 1415H (1-6 April 1995) — (https://iifa-aifi.org/en/32511.html), fetched, read AND re-fetched 2026-07-07 with the re-fetch returning IDENTICAL wording character-for-character. VERBATIM CLAUSES: 'Call deposits (current accounts) whether at Islamic banks or usury-based banks, are considered as loans in the Shariah perspective, since the bank receiving these deposits is answerable for their safety and is Shariah-bound to returning them on call'; 'The ruling applicable to the loan is not affected by the bank's (borrower) solvency or otherwise'; 'Deposits for which interest is paid, as in the case of usury-based banks, being usury loans, are prohibited whether they are call deposits (current accounts) or term deposits, notice deposits, or savings accounts'; 'Deposits placed in banks, which are seriously Shariah-compliant through an investment contract for a profit share, are considered as Muḍārabah capital, and are therefore subject to the rulings applicable to Muḍārabah (Qirad).' INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION (same Academy resolution, quoted from the Academy's own journal 'Majallat Majma' al-Fiqh, issue no. 9, part i, p. 931' in an independently-worded translation: 'Deposits that may be withdrawn at any time (demand deposit account or current account), whether they are in Islamic banks or Riba-based banks, constitute loans according to the Islamic jurisprudential point of view' and 'Deposits on which interest is paid, as is the case in Riba-based banks. These are prohibited Riba-based loans') from [2] IslamQA, 'What Types of Deposits Are Allowed in Islamic Banks?' (https://islamqa.info/en/answers/113852), fetched and read 2026-07-07. Two genuinely DIFFERENT sources cross-read; the resolution's core two-limb ruling (current account = loan; interest on deposits = prohibited riba) cross-confirms across both, and the 'issue no. 9' journal citation in source [2] independently matches the 9th-session provenance in source [1]. NO fabrication: source [2] cites the journal issue rather than the resolution number, and this is stated honestly; no madhab-by-madhab tally, no Qur'an/hadith number, no OTHER resolution number, and no market/AUM figure is asserted — only what the two fetched pages state verbatim.
- 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. 86 (3/9), 9th session, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 1-6 Dhū al-Qi'dah 1415H / 1-6 April 1995. Operative rulings, verbatim: 'Call deposits (current accounts) whether at Islamic banks or usury-based banks, are considered as loans in the Shariah perspective, since the bank receiving these deposits is answerable for their safety and is Shariah-bound to returning them on call'; 'The ruling applicable to the loan is not affected by the bank's (borrower) solvency or otherwise'; 'Deposits for which interest is paid, as in the case of usury-based banks, being usury loans, are prohibited whether they are call deposits (current accounts) or term deposits, notice deposits, or savings accounts'; 'Deposits placed in banks, which are seriously Shariah-compliant through an investment contract for a profit share, are considered as Muḍārabah capital, and are therefore subject to the rulings applicable to Muḍārabah (Qirad).' Load-bearing for THIS site as the PRIMARY deposit-side companion to Resolution No. 10 (10/2) (the financing-side ruling): it establishes at the widest available institutional authority that a bank current account is in law a LOAN (qard), that interest on any deposit (call/savings/term/notice) is prohibited riba, and that the lawful way to earn a return on savings is a genuine profit-share muḍārabah that puts the capital at real risk. Distinct from the wadiah/amanah entry (which documents the contested CONTRACT a bank uses to hold the money — pure custodian vs guaranteed-usable) by supplying the OIC's authoritative characterisation (loan, not trust) and the primary interest verdict. Presented faithfully to the resolution's actual scope: no madhab-by-madhab breakdown, no Qur'an/hadith number, and no OTHER OIC/AAOIFI resolution number is asserted, since none were verified verbatim in the two fetched sources; only the loan-characterisation, the interest prohibition across deposit types, and the muḍārabah alternative are claimed.
- Captured
- 2026-07-07
- Added
- 2026-07-07
- Trust
- Primary or near-primary source with a stable public URL.
Compiler’s note
The corpus's THIRD article anchored on a genuine PRIMARY OIC / International Islamic Fiqh Academy resolution read verbatim, and its FIRST primary anchor on the DEPOSIT side — taking the exact next lever the prior (Resolution No. 10) run named ('the Bank-Deposits resolution No. 86 (3/9) (current accounts as qard/loans)'). WHY THIS ONE: Resolution No. 10 (round-104) landed the financing-side cornerstone (interest on a loan/mortgage is riba), but the corpus had no PRIMARY OIC anchor for the mirror-image question every depositor faces — is the 'interest' on my savings account riba, and what IS a current account in Shariah? Resolution No. 86 answers both at the widest institutional authority: the current account is a loan (qard), so interest on it (and on term/notice/savings deposits) is prohibited riba, and the lawful return-on-savings is a genuine profit-share muḍārabah. It pairs with Resolution No. 10 to cover both sides of the bank ledger. Grep-confirmed no dup before writing: `ls content/articles | grep -iE 'resolution-86|bank-deposit|deposit|qard|current-account|mudarabah'` matched only akhuwat (qard hasan microfinance), hibah (discretionary gift return) and wadiah-amanah (the CONTESTED holding CONTRACT) — this entry is distinct: it supplies the OIC's authoritative loan-not-trust characterisation and the primary interest verdict the wadiah entry deliberately left unresolved. TWO genuinely different sources cross-read + IIFA re-fetched returning identical wording: [1] IIFA/OIC primary resolution page (iifa-aifi.org/en/32511.html) — number/title, 9th session, Abu Dhabi, 1-6 Dhū al-Qi'dah 1415H / 1-6 April 1995, and verbatim clauses (call-deposit-as-loan / solvency-irrelevant / interest-prohibited-across-deposit-types / muḍārabah-alternative); [2] IslamQA answer 113852 — independently-worded translation of the same two limbs, sourced to the Academy's own journal 'Majallat Majma' al-Fiqh, issue no. 9' (the 9th session), giving an independent provenance match. THE RIBA VERDICT IS DIRECTLY SOURCED, NOT REASONED — the Academy itself classifies interest-bearing deposits as 'usury loans ... prohibited.' TRUST 'high' (numbered/dated PRIMARY OIC resolution verified verbatim via two fetches + an independent second source quoting the Academy's own journal and converging on the same two-limb ruling; sole caveat = read in the IIFA site's English translation, not the original binding Arabic; source [2] cites the journal issue rather than the resolution number, stated honestly). DELIBERATELY DROPPED per no-fab: (a) any other clause of Resolution 86 (e.g. on mortgaging/retention) not verified verbatim; (b) any madhab-by-madhab breakdown; (c) any Qur'an/hadith number (the qard-jarra-manfa'ah maxim is named as the well-known classical maxim underlying the interest clause, not asserted with a hadith number); (d) any OTHER OIC/AAOIFI resolution number; (e) any market/AUM/named-bank figure. FRESHNESS-HONEST: a 1995 resolution + a definitional confirmation — nothing time-sensitive; the resolution's date is stated explicitly. 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 66->67. NEXT candidate: the organised-tawarruq resolution No. 179 (which would give the existing tawarruq entry a PRIMARY OIC anchor and complete the contested-contract seam) or Resolution No. 222 (6/23) on banking advantages/privileges to current-account customers (a natural sequel to THIS deposit-side entry), or URF-vs-SHART (custom vs stipulated condition) as the remaining classical-usul contrast — each still needing its own two-source-verifiable pair first. PUNCH-LIST FULLY TICKED; build/lint to be confirmed green this run; this entry advances the sole live corpus lever AND lands the primary deposit-side ruling that pairs with Resolution No. 10 to cover both sides of the bank.
Topics
islamic-financeribabank-depositscurrent-accountsavings-accountterm-depositqardloandeposit-sideinterest-on-savingsusuryprohibition-of-ribaqard-jarra-manfaahmudarabahqiradprofit-shareinvestment-accountrisk-sharingamanah-versus-qardsafekeepingoicorganisation-of-islamic-cooperationinternational-islamic-fiqh-academyiifafiqh-academyresolution-86primary-sourcecollective-ijtihadshariah-rulingconventional-bankingislamic-bankingsubstance-over-formpurification-of-interestabu-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.