Methodology

The Institute performs two functions in support of Shariah-compliant digital assets. It accredits the advisory firms that conduct reviews, and it defines the pathway through which a project proceeds to certification and continued oversight. The Institute does not itself issue determinations of permissibility in respect of third-party assets; those determinations are issued by accredited firms, by qualified persons, within a defined scope.

Part one — Accreditation of advisory firms

Purpose. Accreditation establishes that a firm is competent and independent to conduct Shariah review of digital assets in accordance with the Institute’s published standards. The Institute accredits firms; accredited firms review assets. This separation is deliberate: it allows the Institute to set and maintain a standard without itself becoming the reviewer of the projects it oversees.

Criteria for accreditation. To be accredited, a firm is required to demonstrate:

• Shariah competence — the participation of qualified scholars in Islamic commercial jurisprudence (fiqh al-muamalat), whose determinations carry recognized standing. [Placeholder — Institute to confirm the minimum qualification standard, the required number of scholars, and the treatment of the schools of jurisprudence.]
• Technical competence — a demonstrated capacity to read and assess smart-contract code on the relevant platforms, such that Shariah review proceeds from an accurate understanding of the asset’s actual behaviour. [Placeholder — Institute to confirm the standard of technical competence required.]
• Independence — the absence of disqualifying interests between the firm and the projects it reviews, together with continuing obligations of disclosure. [Placeholder — Institute to confirm the conflict-of-interest standard and disclosure requirements.]
• Methodological adherence — an undertaking to apply the Institute’s published standards and defined process, and to maintain records sufficient to permit review of the firm’s work.

Oversight of accredited firms. Accreditation is a continuing status, subject to the following:

• Periodic surveillance review of accredited firms’ work, to confirm continued adherence to the Institute’s standards.
• A public register recording current accreditations and any accreditation that has been revoked.
• A complaints channel, through which concerns regarding an accredited firm may be raised and investigated.
• A formal appeals procedure, available to firms in respect of accreditation and oversight decisions.

As a matter of principle, accreditation fees are determined independently of the outcome of any review conducted by an accredited firm.

Part two — The certification pathway

A project proceeds through four stages. A determination of permissibility is issued only at the third stage, by qualified persons.

1. Reference foundation

A project may build upon the Institute’s pre-certified, open-source reference implementations, which are published without charge and independently audited. The initial set addresses common cases, including an asset-backed (tokenized real asset) implementation, a murabaha (cost-plus sale) flow, and a stablecoin arrangement. Building upon these implementations enables a project to proceed from a compliant foundation and reduces the scope of subsequent review. Reference smart contracts →

2. Preliminary automated review

A submission is first assessed by the Institute’s automated review engine, which organizes it into a structured file for the reviewing firm. This assessment is preliminary and advisory. It does not constitute a determination, and an adverse preliminary result does not prevent a submission from proceeding to review by qualified persons. Its purpose is to make expert human review tractable, given the limited number of persons combining depth in Islamic jurisprudence with competence in smart-contract engineering. Preliminary automated review →

3. Review by qualified persons

An accredited firm conducts the review and issues the determination. Any determination of permissibility originates at this stage, with a qualified reviewer participating in every determination. The automated engine assists this review; it does not perform it.

4. Certified scope and continuous monitoring

A determination attaches to a specific deployment: a specific implementation, at a specific address, on a specific network. The Institute maintains continuous monitoring of certified deployments; where a material change is detected, the certified scope lapses pending re-certification. The scope and limits of monitoring are described on the Continuous Monitoring page. Continuous monitoring →