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 2012. This is a newly written reader record, not the original issue or a new journal publication.ARCH · CR
This issue joins debates about home-financing calculations and debt-led financial systems with evidence about GCC banks and sukuk structure. Its research notes cover insolvency, Shariah reporting, dispute-resolution institutions, takaful objectives and waqf. These are different kinds of work: a critique, an empirical study and a research proposal should not be read as interchangeable proof.ARCH
All ten contributions, their author lists and page ranges are recovered from the original index and DOI metadata. The complete original table-of-contents, editorial and contributor-note files were not recovered. The earlier DOI register identifies an editorial by Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki, pp. 1–4 (10.12816/0002745); this verifies its citation, not the unseen editorial’s contents. The archive’s 208-page extent includes material beyond the ten contributions listed here.ARCH · CR
A1: Home-financing model debate; A2: Debt financing and systemic stress; A3: Financial crisis and securitisation; A4: GCC banks: efficiency and stock performance; P1: Receivables, assets and sukuk trading; N1: Insolvency and taflis; N2: Shariah reports and reporting standards; N3: Institutions for resolving disputes; N4: Protection, wealth and human dignity; N5: Waqf and social development.
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.
Ahamed Kameel Mydin Meera · pp. 7–23
Challenges Zubair Hasan’s diminishing-balance proposal and its claimed advantages over diminishing partnership.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.
Registered DOI / publisher route: 10.55188/ijif.v4i2.144
Earlier registered DOI: 10.12816/0002746
Abbas Mirakhor; Noureddine Krichene; Mughees Shaukat · pp. 25–52
Argues that interest-based debt finance is under structural strain and considers risk sharing as an alternative.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.
Registered DOI / publisher route: 10.55188/ijif.v4i2.145
Earlier registered DOI: 10.12816/0002747
Sherif Ayoub · pp. 53–87
Distinguishes ideal Islamic principles from sukuk practice at the time of the study when discussing the global financial crisis.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.
Registered DOI / publisher route: 10.55188/ijif.v4i2.146
Earlier registered DOI: 10.12816/0002748
Samir Srairi; Imen Kouki · pp. 89–116
Studies 25 Islamic banks in Gulf Cooperation Council countries during 2003–2009 using data envelopment analysis.ARCH · CR
The archived abstract reports efficiency changes and associations with share returns. Its historical sample does not predict returns for a Malaysian bank or establish causation; the dataset and estimates have not been reproduced here.
Registered DOI / publisher route: 10.55188/ijif.v4i2.147
Earlier registered DOI: 10.12816/0002749
Rafe Haneef · pp. 119–140
Discusses mixed-asset wakalah sukuk and juristic reasoning about the physical-asset threshold for trading.ARCH · CR
The article asks whether a smaller physical-asset share could be permissible. Its discussion, including a 90% receivables (money still owed) / 10% physical-assets example, is a historical research question, not a universal trading rule or approval for a current sukuk.
Registered DOI / publisher route: 10.55188/ijif.v4i2.148
Earlier registered DOI: 10.12816/0002750
Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki; Hakimah Yaacob; Lokmanulhakim Hussain · pp. 143–148
Compares Malaysian bankruptcy law with Shariah perspectives and discusses potential legal and procedural reform.ARCH · CR
Summary of the archived publisher abstract, not a full-text review. Historical scope; no present-day legal or product conclusion is established here.
Apnizan Abdullah · pp. 149–157
Compares AAOIFI’s 2010 report specimens with Bank Negara Malaysia’s 2003 GP8-i guidance.ARCH · CR
Summary of the archived publisher abstract, not a full-text review. Historical scope; no present-day legal or product conclusion is established here.
Umar A. Oseni; Abu Umar Faruq Ahmad · pp. 159–165
Examines Malaysia’s dispute-resolution institutions and the feasibility of alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms.ARCH · CR · IIUM
Short paraphrase of the archived abstract. The original pp. 159–165 were read during the recorded source review, confirming the scope: investigation of historical institutions and ADR feasibility. The paper does not establish today’s complaint route or deadlines.
Syahida Abdullah · pp. 167–171
Considers takaful’s protection of life and wealth, adding human dignity to the discussion of Shariah objectives.ARCH · CR
Summary of the archived publisher abstract, not a full-text review. Historical scope; no present-day legal or product conclusion is established here.
Mazrul Shahir Md Zuki · pp. 173–178
Reviews waqf’s historical welfare role and explores how it could contribute to contemporary socio-economic development.ARCH · CR
Summary of the archived publisher abstract, not a full-text review. Historical scope; no present-day legal or product conclusion is established here.
The original issue is dated December 2012. The older DOI records state December 2012; the newer records for the five main articles state 15 December 2012. Both identifiers are shown where verified. They identify the same bibliographic work here, but the full-text files have not been compared and no identical-version claim is made.ARCH · CR
For N3, the IIUM repository confirms the issue, both authors and pp. 159–165. The original seven-page PDF was read during the recorded source review, confirming those fields and the historical research scope. Its deposit date, 17 June 2013, is not the issue date. The article’s historical institutional account cannot establish the route or deadline for a complaint today.IIUM
No study in this issue is treated here as a prediction of your investment return, approval of a particular financing calculation, or a new ruling on debt trading. The numerical asset mix mentioned in P1 illustrates the author’s research question; it is not a calculator or a present-day compliance test.ARCH
Historical research can shape your questions. It cannot fill in an unseen contract or decide your case.
The December 2012 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
Umar A. Oseni; Abu Umar Faruq Ahmad (2012). Blazing the Trail: The Institutional Framework for Dispute Resolution in Malaysia’s Islamic Finance Industry. ISRA International Journal of Islamic Finance, 4(2), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.12816/0002753
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.
Umar A. Oseni; Abu Umar Faruq Ahmad (2012). Blazing the Trail: The Institutional Framework for Dispute Resolution in Malaysia’s Islamic Finance Industry. ISRA International Journal of Islamic Finance, 4(2), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.12816/0002753 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 2012 · 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 2012; newer main-article records: 15 December 2012 · Access: 6 October 2026
Section checked: Items filtered locally to Volume 4, 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: International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) Repository
Work: December 2012 · Deposited: 17 June 2013 · Access: 6 October 2026
Section checked: Repository title, authors, citation, deposit date and abstract; original published-version PDF, printed pp. 159–165, read during the recorded source review
Scope and limitation: Repository metadata and abstract checked. The original seven-page PDF and its first page were checked during the recorded source review, confirming title, both authors, pp. 159–165 and the historical research scope. The short summary remains an abstract paraphrase. The printer footer dated 20 December 2012 is a production timestamp, not the issue publication or legal effective date. Other issue papers were not inspected in full.