Screening Methodology

Data sources, in order of trust

  1. SEC EDGAR company facts (us-gaap XBRL) — balance sheet and income statement values, preferring the most recent 10-K. Every value in a response carries its XBRL tag, form, period, accession number, and a link to the filing.
  2. Market data — market capitalization and industry/sector classification, labeled source: market_data.
  3. Disclosed estimates — where filings do not break out a figure (e.g. alcohol share of restaurant sales), we apply an industry-level estimate and say so in the response notes.

The four methodologies

Each company is checked independently against the published thresholds of AAOIFI, the Dow Jones Islamic Market index, MSCI Islamic, and the S&P Shariah index: debt, cash & interest-bearing securities, and receivables ratios (each against that methodology's denominator), plus a 5% ceiling on non-permissible revenue. The response shows every check: value, threshold, pass/fail.

The 0–100 score

Six components: business activity (25), interest income (25), debt (20), cash & securities (10), receivables (5), and cross-methodology agreement (15). A verdict of compliant requires a score of 65+ and methodology support — a verdict never contradicts all four methodologies.

Hard rules

Non-permissible revenue

Interest income (from filings) plus an industry-level estimate for categories with known haram revenue share (restaurants ~4% alcohol, hotels ~8%, supermarkets ~3%, etc.). The purification percentage equals this combined share — the portion of dividends and gains to donate.

ETFs

Screened by look-through of publicly disclosed top holdings, weighted by fund weight. Coverage is disclosed on every response; below 45% coverage we cap the verdict at questionable. More than 5% of screened weight in non-compliant holdings fails the fund.

Known approximations

Disagree with a threshold or an estimate? Email daleel@o11r.com — the methodology is versioned precisely so it can improve in public.