concerning it, resolved the following:

First: Demand deposits (current accounts), whether held with Islamic banks or with interest-based conventional banks, are—according to juristic analysis—loans. The bank that receives such deposits holds them under a guarantee obligation and is religiously bound to repay them on demand. The fact that the bank (the borrower) is solvent does not alter the legal ruling on the loan.

Second: In actual banking practice, deposits fall into two categories:
(a) Deposits that earn interest, as is the case in conventional interest-based banks. These are prohibited usurious loans, whether they take the form of demand deposits (current accounts), fixed-term deposits, notice deposits, or savings accounts.
(b) Deposits placed with banks that genuinely comply with the rulings of Islamic law under an investment contract based on profit-sharing constitute the capital of a muḍāraba (silent partnership). The Islamic legal rules of muḍāraba (qirāḍ) therefore apply to them, including the principle that the muḍārib—the bank—may not guarantee the capital.

Third: The guarantee for demand deposits (current accounts) rests on those who borrow them, namely the shareholders of the banks, so long as they alone reap the profits generated from investing them. Depositors in investment accounts do not share in guaranteeing those current accounts, because they neither participated in borrowing them nor in earning their profits.

Fourth: Pledging deposits as collateral is permissible, whether the deposits are demand deposits (current accounts) or investment deposits. The pledge over these amounts, however, is not effected unless a procedure is put in place that prevents the account holder from disposing of the funds for the entire duration of the pledge. If the bank