Is Bitcoin halal?

Yes on our screen, and the reasoning is short enough to hold in your head.

Nothing in it pays interest

Riba needs a loan with a guaranteed increase attached to it. Bitcoin has no lender, no borrower and no promised return. Nobody owes you anything while you hold it, and there is no issuer to ask for your money back, because there is no issuer at all.

That clears the prohibition which disqualifies most crypto assets, and it clears it in one step.

Nobody is on the other side of your trade

Maysir, gambling, needs a zero sum transfer settled by an uncertain event. Buying Bitcoin is not that. You hand over money and receive an asset that is now yours. If the price falls, nobody collects your loss as their winnings.

That is ordinary ownership risk, the same risk carried by gold, by property, or by a shop.

You know exactly what you are buying

Gharar is uncertainty about the thing being sold. Bitcoin's supply schedule was fixed in 2009 and is public. There will be 21 million, issuance halves on a known timetable, and anyone can read the code and the ledger themselves. There is no team wallet able to print more, and no undisclosed allocation waiting to be released.

Very few assets in crypto are defined this precisely. Most fail exactly here.

So where is the disagreement?

It is real, and it is about none of the above.

Scholars who rule Bitcoin impermissible almost never argue that it contains riba. They argue something more fundamental: that a purely digital thing is not mal, meaning recognised property, in the first place. If it is not property, then no sale of it is valid, and the three tests above never get run at all.

That is the actual fault line, and it is the next lesson.

In one line: Bitcoin carries no interest, no wager and no hidden supply, so it passes the three usual tests, and the remaining objection is whether it counts as property.