Journal issue
Use this issue to find the original research behind questions about Islamic finance, then check what has changed before applying it to a Malaysian contract or dispute. The contents below help you choose a paper without treating a journal article as a bank offer, court ruling or personal Shariah decision.
Sources checked 6 October 2026
Historical English-language issue published by the International Shari’ah Research Academy for Islamic Finance (ISRA), December 2011. This is a newly written reader record, not the original issue or a new journal publication.ARCH · CR
The issue links household finance and investment questions with the legal and reporting systems surrounding them. Start with A2 for the courts paper, A1 for Australian diminishing partnership, A4 for historical investment screening or P1 for sukuk categories. The five research notes add promises, accounting, pledge-based credit, takaful risks and offshore markets.ARCH
The recovered contribution list is complete against the archived index. Reconstruction of the five research notes’ page ranges and DOIs is incomplete. An IFSB bibliography cites N1 at pp. 135–140; this secondary range has not been checked against the original note. The archive also lists table of contents, editorial, contributor notes and contributor guidelines; their complete original files were not recovered. The listed 176-page extent is not the sum of the article page ranges.ARCH · CR · IFSB
A1: Diminishing partnership in Australia; A2: Courts and cross-border disputes; A3: Debate about the gold dinar; A4: Comparison of investment screening; P1: Sukuk categories and legal structure; N1: Promises in financial contracts; N2: Accounting principles and Islamic transactions; N3: Pledge-based microcredit and fees; N4: Permissible risks in takaful; N5: Offshore Islamic capital markets.
All ten contributions listed by the original issue index are retained in their original section order. Titles remain in English; the summaries are new short paraphrases of checked archived or publisher-deposited abstracts. Page ranges and DOIs come from checked registered metadata unless a field explicitly names a secondary citation. A missing field means unverified, not nonexistent.
Abu Umar Faruq Ahmad · pp. 7–40
Examines diminishing-partnership practice at Australian Islamic financial institutions and its Shariah assessment.ARCH · CR
Summary of checked archived or publisher-deposited abstracts, not a full-text review. Historical scope; no present-day legal or product conclusion is established here.
Zulkifli Hasan; Mehmet Asutay · pp. 41–71
Reviews court decisions in Malaysia, the United Kingdom, India and the United States; argues for stronger legal infrastructure.ARCH · CR · DUR
Summary uses the clean publisher-deposited abstract registered under DOI 10.55188/ijif.v3i2.131; the archived and indexed Durham abstracts contain unrelated appended text. Full text not inspected; no present-day litigation outcome is established.
Ahamed Kameel Mydin Meera · pp. 73–89
Responds to Murat Cizakca’s earlier gold-dinar critique and explains the proponents’ position.ARCH · CR
Summary of checked archived or publisher-deposited abstracts, not a full-text review. Historical scope; no present-day legal or product conclusion is established here.
Catherine S F Ho; Nurul Afiqah Abd Rahman; Noor Hafizha Muhamad Yusuf; Zaminor Zamzamirn@Zamzamin · pp. 91–110
Compares quantitative screening methods across 21 organisations; the archived summary proposes greater harmonisation.ARCH · CR
The archived byline lists four names as shown, including its unusual final-name spelling; the newer DOI metadata lists only Catherine S F Ho. The original printed byline remains to be checked. Summary only; historical screening methods are not a current eligibility test.
Michael Rainey; Omar Salah · pp. 113–131
Uses the November 2009 GE Capital Sukuk to discuss why structural categories have legal consequences.ARCH · CR
Summary of checked archived or publisher-deposited abstracts, not a full-text review. Historical scope; no present-day legal or product conclusion is established here.
Shabana Hasan; Marjan Muhammad · Cited page range: 135–140 (IFSB bibliography; original note not inspected)
Examines unilateral and bilateral promises and whether two separate promises differ from a mutual promise.ARCH · IFSB
Summary of the archived publisher abstract, not a full-text review. Historical scope; no present-day legal or product conclusion is established here.
Zurina Shafii · Pages not independently recovered
Discusses whether IFRS principles can accommodate Islamic financial transactions in the anticipated 2012 reporting transition.ARCH
Summary of the archived publisher abstract, not a full-text review. Historical scope; no present-day legal or product conclusion is established here.
Mohamed Fairooz Abdul Khir · Pages not independently recovered
Examines the legal characterisation of pledge-based microcredit, including safekeeping fees exceeding actual storage cost.ARCH
Summary of the archived publisher abstract, not a full-text review. Historical scope; no present-day legal or product conclusion is established here.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah Ahmad; Ashraf Md Hashim · Pages not independently recovered
A preliminary study seeking parameters for Shariah screening of risks covered by takaful operators.ARCH
Summary of the archived publisher abstract, not a full-text review. Historical scope; no present-day legal or product conclusion is established here.
Beebee Salma Sairally · Pages not independently recovered
Proposes comparing offshore financial centres, their Islamic offerings, legal regimes and development challenges.ARCH
Summary of the archived publisher abstract, not a full-text review. Historical scope; no present-day legal or product conclusion is established here.
The old index appends “Islamic Home Finance in the Social Mirror” to A1’s title and unrelated value-co-creation text to A2’s abstract. The DOI record supplies A1’s clean title and a clean publisher-deposited abstract for A2, which supports its summary here. The indexed Durham abstract also includes the unrelated text, so Durham is used only to corroborate bibliographic identity. The appended text is not presented as Hasan and Asutay’s finding.ARCH · CR · DUR
The original issue index identifies December 2011. Newer DOI metadata gives 15 December 2011, while the archive itself states only the month. This record therefore uses month and year as the main issue date. Retrieval on 6 October 2026 is a separate event, not republication or a new legal effective date.ARCH · CR
IIUM record 26706 contains a backlink to this issue but identifies a different paper: a takaful relationship-marketing article in Volume 4, Issue 1 (2012). It is not added to this issue’s contents. Where a byline or citation conflicts, check the original paper rather than treating every database field as authoritative.BACKLINK
Historical research can shape your questions. It cannot fill in an unseen contract or decide your case.
The December 2011 issue identity and contribution list are verified. Checked archived or publisher-deposited abstracts support short summaries; DOI metadata supports citation fields. A current decision separately needs the actual contract, current costs and eligibility documents, and relevant complaint rules. No present-day outcome follows from the historic issue alone.
For a fictional Malaysian household disputing a financing balance, the courts or institutions paper can help frame a question about which contract, law and decision-maker matter. Bring the actual signed agreement, payment history, balance calculation and provider’s decision to the relevant adviser or complaint channel. This reading exercise does not calculate the household’s liability or determine the outcome.
For a present-day complaint, start with the provider’s written complaint process and check the Financial Markets Ombudsman Service (FMOS) eligibility, scope and filing rules. Its March 2026 guide covers both conventional and Islamic services; access depends on the service, member and dispute criteria. A historical article is not a substitute for those rules.FMOS
Muslim and non-Muslim readers can use this research record. It does not set eligibility for any bank product, investment, takaful plan or complaint. A discussion of Shariah is an attributed scholarly argument; it does not establish that a particular reader or transaction is approved.
To follow money, ownership and obligations in a real product, locate the operative contract and disclosure document: who provides cash, what is sold or pledged, who owns each asset or receivable (money still owed), who must pay, and what happens at default or early settlement. Ask about the quoted charge, its calculation base, legal or custody costs and exclusions. This issue supplies research questions, not current product prices or protections.
The old index lists RM45 / US$35 for the issue. Those are historical catalogue prices, not a current purchase quotation or an access guarantee. A DOI link verifies a registered route, not free full text. Some routes may require a subscription, permission or library access; no account or purchase was used for this reconstruction.ARCH · CR
Zulkifli Hasan; Mehmet Asutay (2011). An Analysis of the Courts’ Decisions on Islamic Finance Disputes. ISRA International Journal of Islamic Finance, 3(2), 41–71. https://doi.org/10.55188/ijif.v3i2.131
Use the original English title and year. Add the DOI if appropriate; record your access date separately. A citation does not prove that you read the full text or that the argument is current.
Zulkifli Hasan; Mehmet Asutay (2011). An Analysis of the Courts’ Decisions on Islamic Finance Disputes. ISRA International Journal of Islamic Finance, 3(2), 41–71. https://doi.org/10.55188/ijif.v3i2.131 Author credit, publication year, issue and pages identify the original work; no present-day rule is inferred.
Original titles and authors are retained. Explanations and reading maps are newly written; they are not the original editorial or abstracts. All sources were checked on 6 October 2026.
Issuer: International Shari’ah Research Academy for Islamic Finance (ISRA); archived by Internet Archive
Issue: December 2011 · Archive capture: 16 December 2013 · Access: 6 October 2026
Section checked: Issue heading, extent/ISSN/price, academic/practitioner/research-note sections and their abstracts
Scope and limitation: Issue index and abstracts only; original download files and full-text claims not verified. Historical price, not a current quotation. Navigation and copyright footer dates do not replace the issue date.
Issuer: Crossref; bibliographic metadata deposited by publishers
Historical works: December 2011; newer main-article records: 15 December 2011 · Access: 6 October 2026
Section checked: Items filtered locally to Volume 3, Issue 2; title, author, page, DOI, published and resource fields; publisher-deposited abstract fields for the five main articles
Scope and limitation: Bibliographic metadata and publisher-deposited abstracts for five main articles, not full text. Research-note abstract support comes from the original issue index. Registry records do not prove complete authorship, identical versions or free access.
Issuer: Financial Markets Ombudsman Service (FMOS)
Published: 24 March 2026 · No separate effective date stated · Access: 6 October 2026
Section checked: Who Can File a Dispute; Important Boundaries; Step 1: Complain to the Institution First
Scope and limitation: Supports the provider-first step and inclusion of conventional/Islamic services, subject to eligibility and scope. This page does not assess an individual case; no detailed deadline calculation is reproduced here.
Issuer: Durham University author repository
Work: 2011 · Access to indexed record: 6 October 2026 · Full text not verified
Section checked: Indexed title and bibliographic citation; abstract examined for source contamination
Scope and limitation: Indexed title and citation corroborate the courts paper. Its indexed abstract also appends unrelated value-co-creation text; it is not the source of the A2 summary. Direct record and full text were not recovered.
Issuer: International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) Repository
Article: 2012, Volume 4, Issue 1 · Access: 6 October 2026
Section checked: DC.title, DC.creator, DC.date, DC.identifier and Official URL fields
Scope and limitation: Identifies Building agent-customer relationship in the Takaful industry: a framework of Islamic relationship marketing; it links to the 2011 issue but is not part of it. Not a source of court-paper findings.
Issuer: Islamic Financial Services Board (IFSB); working-paper author Volker Nienhaus
Working paper: October 2015 · Cited work: 2011 · Access: 6 October 2026
Section checked: WP-03/10/2015, References, printed p. 71 (PDF page 87), Hasan and Muhammad (2011) citation
Scope and limitation: Secondary bibliographic evidence for N1 only: cited pp. 135–140, not verified against the original note. No DOI supplied. The upload path is not the publication date; working-paper views are the author’s, not Board views.