How every verdict is made.
Scholarly fatwas in·Evidence-based verdicts out
Scholars issue the fatwas. Our engine applies them to each project's own documents, and every step is shown.
Four stages. Facts before rulings.
Facts first
Is it property?
Three layers
Four tests
How we work, in fullShow less
Deep fundamental analysis. Exhaustive extraction from the project's foundational sources — whitepaper, official documentation, GitHub repositories, tokenomics records — to establish the exact business model, token utility, and revenue mechanics. Facts first, before any ruling.
Rigorous reasoning. The extracted facts are weighed against Islamic finance principles — riba, gharar, maysir, and haram activity — along the reasoning pathways of established fatwas. The output is a clear, evidence-based ruling with every step shown.
Our evaluation rests on both traditional Islamic jurisprudence and rigorous fundamental analysis. Certified scholars issue the fatwas; our intelligence engine applies them — screening crypto assets continuously against established fiqh, Qur'an, and hadith guidelines. Nothing is invented. Everything is traced.
Is it property at all?
Most screeners skip this question. A token has to meet six conditions before it counts as wealth.
It presently exists
The balance or allocation is already recorded on the network — not merely promised for the future.
It is exclusive and ascertainable
Supply, issuance and the holder's rights can be objectively verified, not guessed at.
It can be held and transferred
The holder can take exclusive control, preserve it, and move it without anyone's permission.
It carries a lawful use
At least one genuine, lawful use or benefit — the bar is deliberately low.
It is treated as wealth
A real body of people acquire, hold and exchange it, with markets and custody built around it.
It is free of ambiguity
Opaque supply, retained mint authority, freeze powers and upgradeable contracts are all disclosed.
What you actually ownShow less
A digital asset is not property by default — it is a ḥaqq, an exclusive, protocol-recognised right of control over a ledger position. It becomes recognised property when that right meets the conditions above.
A single genuine lawful use is enough, even where it is not the dominant one, and volatility is never a property defect. But a token with no genuine use at all — one that survives only because buyers hope to resell it higher — is not turned into property by a market price.
We also classify what you actually own: a native protocol position where nobody owes you anything, an issuer redemption claim such as most fiat-backed stablecoins, or title to custodied property such as tokenised gold. A claim is not impermissible for being a claim — but you are told plainly whether you own a thing or a claim on somebody.
Three layers. One failure is enough.
A permissible token cannot rescue an unlawful application, and a lawful application cannot rescue an impermissible token.
Infrastructure — where it runs
The base protocol and anything it relies on. A neutral network is never downgraded for what others deploy on it.
Read moreShow less
The base protocol and consensus, together with any secondary platform the asset relies on — an L2, a sidechain, a bridge, a custodian. A neutral, general-purpose network that merely hosts many kinds of application does not by itself disqualify the native asset of that protocol. Hosting is not endorsement, and we never downgrade a Layer 1 for what strangers deploy on it. Only infrastructure built so that using the asset necessarily means engaging in unlawful activity fails here.
Application — what it does
The actual service or use case the project delivers. Where an application exists only to provide unlawful services, no token tied to that application is compliant, however elegant its engineering.
Asset — what you own
The token itself: its utility, its economics, and its legal nature. A token that grants an impermissible right, or that is used for unlawful activity, fails at this layer regardless of how neutral the chain beneath it is.
Four tests. No exceptions.
Every asset is tested against the core prohibitions.
Absence of riba (usury)
Consensus mechanisms, lending protocols, and token utility must not involve or promote interest-based transactions — anywhere in the stack.
Absence of gharar (excessive uncertainty)
The token needs clear, defined utility, and its system design must mitigate excessive risk or deceit. Opacity is treated as a failure, not a neutral.
Absence of maysir (gambling)
Any protocol that relies on chance-based outcomes for reward distribution is ruled out — lotteries, raffles, and gamified speculation included.
Halal business activity
The project's ecosystem must not facilitate impermissible industries — adult entertainment, alcohol, illicit trade — directly or through its primary integrations.
Why meme coins get different verdicts.
A coin is never banned or approved for being a meme. Each is judged on how it actually works.
Underlying technology — e.g. Dogecoin
A joke origin doesn't change the architecture: its own proof-of-work chain functioning as a pure peer-to-peer medium of exchange, with no smart-contract riba or gharar. Fundamental simplicity aligns with permissible financial technology.
Evolved utility — e.g. Shiba Inu
Some tokens outgrow their meme origins into real ecosystems — decentralized exchanges, payment rails. If those utilities run without forced interest-bearing protocols or gambling mechanics, they pass the foundational screen.
Predatory mechanics — e.g. MemeCore
Projects fail when their core tokenomics rely on gharar (opaque contracts, no real documentation) or maysir (built-in lottery mechanics, gamified speculative rewards, predatory transaction taxes). If the primary mechanism rewards gambling-like behavior over utility, the verdict is Haram.
Where this comes from.
A verdict here is the output of a written methodology applied to researched facts, drawn from published work.
The screening frameworkMufti Faraz Adam's “Is Crypto Halal?” (Amanah Advisors, 2026).
The three-layer screen, the treatment of a digital asset as a ḥaqq that becomes recognised property (māl) only on stated conditions, and the classification of tokens by legal nature — a native protocol position, a claim on an issuer, or title to custodied property — follow the analysis set out in “Is Crypto Halal? The Definitive Shariah Guide to Crypto and Digital Assets” by Mufti Faraz Adam (Amanah Advisors, 2026). The conditions under which a right becomes tradable property are those identified by Mufti Taqi Usmani and reproduced in that work.
The financial screensAAOIFI thresholds: one applies to crypto, three to tokenized stocks.
The income and ratio thresholds follow the AAOIFI screening standard. Which of them applies depends on what is being screened, because AAOIFI wrote them for a listed company's shares and only one of the two tracks below has a company behind it.
On a crypto asset, one threshold applies: non-compliant income below 5% of the revenue that reaches the token. The two balance-sheet ratios are not applied to protocol tokens. A network publishes no audited accounts to compute them from, and asserting a ratio we cannot derive would be inventing a number rather than screening one.
On a tokenized stock, all three apply: interest-bearing debt below 30% of market capitalisation, cash and interest-bearing securities below 30%, and non-compliant income below 5% of revenue. Here there is a real listed company behind the token, so the two ratios are computed line by line from its own filings against point-in-time market capitalisation, rather than estimated.
On both tracks, impure income under the 5% threshold does not taint a holding — it is tolerated and purified, and a purification estimate is published alongside the verdict.
What this is notNot an endorsement of ShariaQuant by any scholar or body named here.
Implementing a published framework is our own engineering decision. It is not an endorsement of ShariaQuant by Mufti Faraz Adam, by Amanah Advisors, by AAOIFI, or by any scholar named on this page, and no scholar has reviewed the individual verdicts this site publishes. Where the source material leaves a question open, we say so on the asset's report rather than resolving it silently.
Where scholars disagreeThis is one contemporary position, and several bodies rule against crypto.
This methodology implements one contemporary position, and there is no consensus behind it. Egypt's Dar al-Ifta, Turkey's Diyanet, Indonesia's MUI and the UAE's General Authority for Islamic Affairs have each ruled against crypto, some of them naming conditions under which they would revisit it, and Mufti Taqi Usmani has said it “seems to be impermissible in principle.” AAOIFI and the OIC Fiqh Academy have issued no definitive ruling either way. Those positions are set out in full and in their own words on the scholarly fatwas page. Read them alongside this one: a verdict here is only as strong as the school it comes from.
Our engine provides a data-driven reasoning path grounded in the published sources above. Markets and protocols change — complement this tool with personal diligence and consultation with certified Islamic finance experts. This is analysis, not a fatwa.