Evidence before conviction
Why this exists, how it's built, and what it isn't.
Most halal-investing content is a blog: articles, opinions, the occasional screener embedded from someone else's API. This is the opposite bet - a real, in-house quantitative research platform that happens to be built entirely around Sharia-screened assets. Compliance screening, signal generation, and statistical evidence tracking aren't features bolted onto a content site; they're the actual product.
Five steps, every time — from Sharia screen to a resolved, published outcome.
Business activity and financial ratios, across seven published methodologies. Nothing reaches the next stage without clearing this one.
Trend, momentum and volume, read against the prevailing market regime rather than in isolation.
VWAP position, market structure and institutional order flow — each scored on its own, each kept on the record.
The factors resolve to a single analytical score, with a defined entry, stop and target — and the level that invalidates the thesis.
Tracked to a real, resolved result and published — win or loss, in the same table, with the sample size attached.
Stated outright, because the alternative — implying one exists — would be worse.
Some halal-screening platforms lead with this: a named scholar, or a supervisory board, standing behind every verdict on the page. This platform has none, and the honest thing to do with that fact is say it plainly rather than write around it. Nothing on this site should be read as scholarly endorsement, certification, or a fatwa — not a page title, not a badge, not a sentence that could be misread that way. Where this page can't cite a name, it won't gesture at one either.
What it offers instead is not a substitute for that trust — it's a different basis for it. Every verdict here traces to published Sharia screening criteria — seven named ratio standards with their actual thresholds, applied to figures a company filed with a regulator, not a house rule invented for this site. Where two of those published standards genuinely disagree about the same company, that's published too, on its own page, rather than folded into one confident-sounding answer. And on an individual symbol's page — AAPL is one real example, not a cherry-picked one — the specific filed figure behind each ratio and the threshold it was tested against are both shown, so the arithmetic is something a reader can redo, not something they're asked to take on trust.
That is the check this platform is asking to be held to: not "trust the name behind this," but "here is the arithmetic — verify it, or ask a scholar you already trust to."
Every stock and coin on this site is screened before it's eligible to appear anywhere - a signal, a chart, a pick. Screening runs through Halal Terminal as the primary provider, cross-checked against an in-house engine covering 7 published Islamic finance ratio methodologies (AAOIFI, Usmani, Dow Jones Islamic, S&P Shariah, MSCI Islamic, MSCI Islamic M-Series, FTSE Shariah) plus a business-activity classifier. See the full breakdown on Methodology.
Every hypothesis this platform tests - which signal types actually have edge, which factors predict outcomes, whether a filter change helped - is registered before its result is known, tracked on Research Lab, and labeled by real evidence strength rather than a bare number. A question can't be quietly reworded after the fact to match what the data happened to show. When a strategy doesn't hold up, that gets published too - the record includes real rejected hypotheses and reverted changes, not just the wins.
Swing and scalp signals post with a real stop, target, and outcome - WIN or LOSS - on Signals, and real trading performance is tracked openly on Performance. There's no paid tier holding back better signals or hiding losing ones.
See also: Screening Methodology · Research Lab · Join the Discord · Not financial or religious advice.