A Jurisprudential and Legal Study of the Rescheduling of Claims Arising from Banking Contracts in Light of the Latest Central Bank Directives

Abstract

Employing a descriptive-analytical approach and library-based research method, this study examines the jurisprudential and legal dimensions of the institution of the “rescheduling of claims arising from banking contracts,” with particular emphasis on the latest directives issued by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, especially the Executive Directive on the Procedures for Rescheduling the Claims of Credit Institutions, approved in 2019, and the new Central Bank Law, approved on June 20, 2023. The principal research question concerns the boundary between Sharia-compliant rescheduling and usurious deferment (ribā arising from deferment), and the extent to which the Central Bank’s recent directives have succeeded in clarifying and operationalizing this boundary from jurisprudential and legal perspectives. The findings indicate that, in light of Qur’an 2:280, the rule of hardship (ʿusr wa ḥaraj), the principle of no harm (lā ḍarar), and the maxim al-ajal qisṭun min al-thaman (“deferment constitutes a portion of the price”), the granting of additional time is, in itself, permissible and indeed commendable. Its legitimacy, however, is conditional upon the absence of any stipulation requiring an increase in consideration in exchange for extending the repayment period and upon the conclusion of a new agreement based on genuine Islamic contracts, such as settlement (ṣulḥ), debt purchase, novation, and participatory contracts. From a legal perspective, rescheduling must also be undertaken within the framework of the principle of freedom of contract, the binding force of contracts, the principle of no harm, and the prohibition of unreasonable contractual terms so as to avoid conflict with the general rules governing contracts. The comparative analysis conducted in this study, drawing on the Sharia standards of international institutions such as the Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI), the resolution of the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation concerning the rescheduling of debts, and the supervisory principles of the Islamic Financial Services Board (IFSB), alongside the experiences of Malaysia and Indonesia, demonstrates that Iran has moved in a direction consistent with international standards in terms of Sharia compliance; however, it continues to lag behind in technological infrastructure, contract standardization, and centralized supervision. The findings further show that the adoption of the new Central Bank Law, by formally recognizing the binding authority of the Sharia Council, constitutes an effective step toward resolving previous ambiguities. Nevertheless, shortcomings such as the merely formal or fictitious use of certain rescheduling contracts, weaknesses in credit-scoring systems, and the absence of standardized legal templates remain significant challenges. Finally, the article proposes practical and research-oriented solutions for reforming the structure of bank-claim rescheduling.