Decide and state the scholarly review path — honestly

[eaitbrahim]

The single highest-leverage credibility item for the intended audience, and it is not code.

A Muslim developer evaluating keel will reasonably ask: who checked the fiqh? Today the honest answer is "the operator, reading Ayub and the knowledge base". That is a defensible basis for a personal tool and a thin one for a project inviting the world.

Options, roughly by cost

1. A named advisor who reviews the fiqh basis document and the encoded rulings, credited in the repo. Highest credibility, hardest to arrange
2. A documented review process without a standing advisor — what gets reviewed, by whom, how a ruling is recorded and revisited. Honest and achievable
3. Explicit disclaimer only — state plainly that no scholarly review has occurred and the operator is responsible for their own attestations. This is the current state, and it is acceptable if said out loud

Acceptance

• Decide which of the three we are actually offering, and say so in the README — an ambiguous claim here is worse than a modest one
• If (1) or (2): document the process, the scope of review, and what a reviewer is and is not endorsing
• Approach candidate reviewers via Islamic finance programmes — IIUM, INCEIF, Durham — or established Islamic fintech practitioners

Warning

Do not imply endorsement that does not exist. In this domain an overstated claim is not a marketing problem, it is a trust-destroying one.