Screening decides what you may own. Purification handles what you may keep. Enter what a holding paid you and this works out the amount — from the company's own filing, with the figures it was divided from shown rather than asserted.
IDP.DE COMPLIANT · Stock
| Line | Figure | What it is |
|---|---|---|
| Interest income | $125.0M | Interest the company earned, chiefly on its own cash and deposits. |
| Non-permissible income | $125.0M | The numerator — the two lines above, added. |
| Total revenue | $9.9B | The denominator, as the company reported it. |
| Shares outstanding | not filed here | Only the per-share method needs this. Without it that row below stays blank rather than guessing. |
Income-statement figures as reported 2025-12-31. Read from the issuer's own filing and converted to US dollars where the filing is in another currency — the same figures the 7-standard screen divides, never a second set. Every published standard here fails a company above 5%, so a passing company is not a company with none.
Three conventions, computed side by side. They are not to be added together — each is a whole answer under a different rule, and which rule applies to you is a ruling this site does not make.
| Method | Your figure | The arithmetic | To purify |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proportion of income received | — | dividend received × 1.2638% | enter a dividend |
| AAOIFI per-share | — | unavailable — this filer's share count is not held here | no share count |
| Capital gain (the disputed view) | — | realised gain × 1.2638% | enter a gain |
Two of these carry your currency and one does not. The proportional and capital-gains figures are a share of a number you typed, so they come back in whatever currency you typed it in. The per-share figure is built from the filing and is therefore in US dollars, converted at the rate for the filing's own period where the issuer reports in another currency.
Dividends are the settled part. Every published screening standard tolerates a small amount of impermissible income inside an otherwise compliant company — usually up to 5% of revenue — on the reasoning that a minor, unavoidable element does not contaminate an enterprise that is fundamentally permissible. That permits the holding. It does not make that portion of the income lawful to keep, and purification is what closes the gap.
The per-share method is AAOIFI's own. Instead of taking a percentage of your dividend, it divides the company's total non-permissible income by its shares outstanding and multiplies by the shares you held. On a company that pays no dividend the proportional method returns nothing and this one does not, which is the practical reason both are offered here rather than one.
Capital gains are a real disagreement, and it is not settled by arithmetic. The narrower view holds that only income actually distributed to you can be impermissible income, since a price rise is a change in the market's valuation of an asset you lawfully owned. The broader view holds that the price partly reflects retained impermissible earnings and applies the same share to the gain. Both are held by qualified scholars. The figure is computed above and labelled as the disputed one; choosing between them is not this site's to do.
It is neither zakat nor sadaqah. Zakat is an obligation on wealth you lawfully own; purification is the disposal of wealth you do not, so it is given without expecting reward for it, and it is not deductible against zakat — which remains due separately, at 2.5%, on the rest. The full explainer, including where the money should go →
Save holdings to your account and the purification figure totals across all of them, with zakat on the value beside it. Free, and the only part of this that needs a sign-in — because it stores figures that are yours.
Drop the position export from your broker and the whole portfolio is screened at once — compliant share by value, and the purification arithmetic over every holding we can rate. Nothing uploaded is written to disk.
The 7 published standards this site computes, each with its own threshold and its own denominator — and the non-permissible income line that every one of them shares.
No. This is arithmetic over a figure read from a company's filing. It does not tell anyone what they owe, and it takes no position on which school's method is correct — which is why three are shown rather than one. For a ruling that applies to you, ask a qualified scholar.
From the issuer's own filing, not from a data vendor's published ratio. Interest income plus realised gains on interest-bearing debt securities, over total revenue — the exact figures shown in the table above, and the exact quotient the screening standards test against their 5% line. The page cannot show one number and screen on another, because both read the same stored result.
Either the symbol is not on the screened universe at all, or it is and the filer published no revenue line to divide by. Those are different answers and the page says which. Neither is reported as zero — a purification figure of 0.00 means "nothing to give", and we will not print that when what we mean is "we could not work it out".
It is recomputed when a new filing lands, so it moves roughly with the reporting calendar rather than with the price. The date beside the figures above is the period they were reported for, not the day this page was built. If you want to be told when a company's verdict moves, a compliance alert emails you.
See also: Dividend purification, explained · Screening methodology · Glossary: purification · Purification & zakat over your own holdings · Open research, not a fatwa. Not financial advice.