This is our published view
The bench stands behind it
For your facts, in confidence, put the question to the firm.
The bench stands behind it
The position
With the Dubai regime added, the three UAE Shariah-governance regimes resolve into two models, not three.
With the Dubai regime added, the three UAE Shariah-governance regimes resolve into two models, not three. Onshore, under the Central Bank framework, the model is centralised: a statutory apex authority, the Higher Shariah Authority, whose rulings bind, which approves each institution’s committee, adopts the AAOIFI Shariah Standards as the binding minimum, and prescribes takaful structures. In both financial free zones, the Dubai International Financial Centre under the Dubai Financial Services Authority and the Abu Dhabi Global Market under the Financial Services Regulatory Authority, the model is decentralised and near-identical: no apex Shariah authority, a firm-appointed Shari'a Supervisory Board, AAOIFI governance standards adopted by rule-reference, and a regulator that does not itself determine Shariah compliance. The DFSA states this expressly, describing itself as a “Shari'a systems regulator” that does not make determinations on the Shariah aspects of products but requires firms to run the systems and controls (DFSA statement, May 2026).
So the line that matters is onshore against free zone, and the two free zones are variations on a single model rather than two different ones. This article adds the Dubai leg to the comparison built in the companion article on the onshore and ADGM regimes, and draws the three-way synthesis.
On sourcing, the tiers here are uneven and are stated as such. The ADGM rules were read in full in the companion article; the onshore instruments were read across the earlier articles in this series; the DFSA material is drawn from the DFSA rulebook as retrieved through search and from the DFSA’s own May 2026 statement, with the DFSA register itself not directly accessed because it blocks automated retrieval, so the DFSA-specific points are corroborated against the near-identical ADGM rules rather than quoted from the DFSA register.
The Dubai regime’s defining feature is the regulator’s deliberate distance from the Shariah judgment. The DFSA describes its own role as that of a “Shari'a systems regulator”: it does not make determinations on the Shariah aspects of financial products or services, and instead requires Authorised Persons to establish systems and controls to support their Islamic financial business and its risks (DFSA statement accompanying Consultation Paper 172, May 2026). That is the same posture the ADGM regulator takes, and the opposite of the onshore Authority, which exists precisely to determine the Shariah.
The gateway is an endorsement. A Person must obtain an Islamic-finance endorsement to its authorisation before conducting Islamic Financial Business, whether as an Islamic Financial Institution whose whole business is Shariah-compliant or through an Islamic Window operated as a segregated part of a conventional business (Islamic Finance Rules, IFR 2.3; DFSA rulebook). The ADGM achieves the same result through a Financial Services Permission stipulation; the concept is the same, the label differs. In both, the licence carries an Islamic gateway, and the firm, not the regulator, owns the Shariah content behind it.
On the two features that most sharply distinguish the free zones from onshore, the committee and the standard, the Dubai and Abu Dhabi regimes align with each other. Each Authorised Person conducting Islamic Financial Business must appoint its own Shari'a Supervisory Board of at least three competent members who are not directors or Controllers of the firm, appointed by the firm rather than approved by the regulator (IFR 3.5; DFSA rulebook, corroborated by the ADGM Islamic Finance Rules set out in the companion article). The board directs and reviews the firm’s Shariah compliance; the regulator holds an information right, not an approval power.
The standard is adopted the same way in both free zones: by rule-reference to specific AAOIFI governance standards. Shariah reviews must follow AAOIFI GSIFI No. 2, the annual board report must comply with GSIFI No. 1, and the internal Shariah review must follow GSIFI No. 3 (IFR 3.6 to 3.7; DFSA rulebook, matching the ADGM provisions). This is the same targeted, process-level adoption the companion article identified in ADGM, and it differs from onshore in the same way: onshore adopts the AAOIFI substantive Shariah Standards as the binding minimum through an apex resolution, whereas both free zones adopt the AAOIFI governance standards by rule and leave the substantive Shariah call to each firm’s board.
On takaful, the DIFC takes the free-zone approach of regulating disclosure rather than prescribing structure, and is currently moving to strengthen it. The DFSA’s Islamic Finance Rules contain takaful-specific requirements in their own chapter (IFR chapter 8), and in May 2026 the DFSA proposed, in Consultation Paper 172, to require all takaful sales to disclose contract features, fee calculations, surplus-sharing arrangements and potential additional contributions, whether or not the firm holds an Islamic endorsement (DFSA statement, May 2026). That proposed disclosure set closely tracks what the ADGM rules already require, and neither free-zone regulator prescribes the takaful business model the way the onshore Authority does. Whether CP 172 has since been made into the rulebook is a matter to confirm, as the consultation closed for comment on 19 June 2026.
Profit-sharing investment accounts, the Islamic deposit-alternative, are regulated in the DIFC as they are in ADGM, with concentration and large-exposure limits on the assets they fund (IFR chapter 5 and the prudential module; DFSA rulebook). The detailed displaced-commercial-risk machinery examined in the companion article on ADGM has its counterpart in the DFSA regime. Here too the two free zones share an approach that the onshore Shariah-governance articles in this series have not yet reached on the onshore side, so the onshore comparison on investment accounts remains flagged rather than drawn.
Placing the three side by side, the structure is not three regimes but two. The onshore regime is built around a central authority that owns the Shariah: it determines compliance, approves the committees, sets the standard as a binding minimum, and prescribes the takaful form. Each free-zone regime is built around the firm: the firm appoints its board, the board owns the Shariah, the regulator runs systems oversight and adopts AAOIFI governance standards by reference, and structure is left to the market within disclosure rules. The Dubai and Abu Dhabi regimes are, on the evidence of their rules, the same model expressed in two rulebooks.
The consequence for the reader is that the meaningful choice is not between three Shariah-governance systems but between the onshore centralised model and the free-zone systems-regulator model, with the choice between the two free zones turning on other regulatory and commercial factors rather than on the shape of Shariah governance. The point the free zones share, and the sharpest contrast with onshore, is that in neither Dubai nor Abu Dhabi does the regulator put its name to a product’s Shariah compliance; onshore, the Authority does exactly that.
The two free-zone regimes are not identical to the last rule, and the differences are worth noting at the tier the sources support. The gateway is labelled differently, an endorsement in the DIFC and a Financial Services Permission stipulation in ADGM, though the effect is the same. The DFSA has adopted the explicit self-description of a “Shari'a systems regulator,” which crystallises a posture the ADGM regulator holds in substance. And the timing of reform differs: the DIFC is mid-consultation on strengthened takaful disclosures and endorsement clarity under CP 172, where the equivalent disclosure requirements already sit in the ADGM rules. These are variations within one model, not a second model, and the finer rule-level differences between the two free-zone rulebooks were not compared line by line here because the DFSA rules were not read from the register directly; that line-by-line comparison is reserved for a reading of both rulebooks at their primary source.
For a group deciding where to conduct Islamic business, the three-way picture sets up a single trade-off. Onshore offers centralised certainty: the Authority determines the Shariah, there is one apex, and a product cleared through the onshore machinery carries the regulator’s Shariah imprimatur, at the cost of rigidity, a prescribed takaful form and an Authority-approved committee. The free zones offer flexibility: the firm’s own board owns the Shariah, structures are open within disclosure rules, and the committee is constituted from within, at the cost that the regulator does not stand behind the product’s Shariah compliance.
The cross-perimeter point, made in the companion articles and reinforced here, is that a product’s Shariah status does not travel automatically between the three. An onshore Authority ruling binds within the onshore perimeter; a free-zone board’s approval governs that firm within its zone; and neither free-zone regulator’s regime imports the other’s, nor the onshore Authority’s determinations. The two-layer discipline holds throughout: in each regime the regulatory instrument binds, and AAOIFI is adopted, but what is adopted and how far it binds differs between the onshore minimum-standard model and the free-zone governance-standard model. A group cannot assume one Shariah-governance design satisfies all three; the divergences should be mapped at the structuring stage.
What is settled, at the stated tiers, is the two-model picture. The DFSA is a systems regulator that does not determine Shariah compliance (its own May 2026 statement). The DIFC and ADGM free-zone regimes are near-identical: firm-appointed Shari'a Supervisory Boards, AAOIFI governance standards by rule-reference, and takaful regulated by disclosure rather than prescribed structure (ADGM from the primary rules set out in the companion article; DIFC from the DFSA rulebook, corroborated against ADGM). The onshore regime is the centralised apex model (earlier articles in this series).
What is open is chiefly the depth of the DFSA sourcing. The current DFSA Islamic Finance Rules module is version VER22/12-25, but its text was not read from the register directly because the DFSA rulebook host blocks automated retrieval; the DFSA-specific rule citations here are therefore drawn from search retrieval and corroborated by the near-identical ADGM rules, and should be confirmed against the DFSA register before reliance. The line-by-line DIFC-versus-ADGM comparison, and the onshore-versus-free-zone comparison on investment accounts, are reserved pending the relevant primary texts.
What is moving is the DIFC. Consultation Paper 172, on which comment closed on 19 June 2026, proposes to amend the DFSA Islamic Finance Rules on endorsement scope and takaful disclosure; whether those amendments have been made, and in what form, should be checked, because they change the DIFC leg of this comparison. This analysis rests, on the ADGM and onshore sides, on the instruments set out in the companion articles, and on the DFSA side on the rulebook as retrieved through search and the DFSA’s own statement. Where the position turns on the current DFSA register, on the outcome of CP 172, or on a rule-level free-zone comparison, those instruments govern and should be read at their primary source.
For your facts, in confidence, put the question to the firm.
The bench stands behind it