Many people on social media criticize Islamic scholars for saying that cryptocurrency is not permissible. They often say, “Scholars first declare every new invention forbidden, and later they make it permissible.”
This criticism comes from a misunderstanding of both Islamic law and how legal systems work.
The following are some of the important principles that the Islamic Scholars use to derive rulings and reach conclusions on any matter:
- New Things Are Examined Before They Are Approved
No sensible government or regulatory authority approves a new medicine as soon as it is invented. Every new drug goes through careful testing to make sure it is safe. Until then, it is not approved for public use.
Islamic law follows the same cautious approach. When a new financial system appears, scholars first examine whether it contains gharar (excessive uncertainty), qimār (gambling), fraud, injustice, or public harm.
The Prophet ﷺ said:
“Leave that which makes you doubt for that which does not make you doubt.” (Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī)
This teaches Muslims to avoid doubtful matters until they become clear.
Allah also says:
“Do not throw yourselves into destruction with your own hands.” (Qur’an 2:195)
Therefore, if a financial system may cause serious harm to people’s wealth, scholars advise caution until its reality becomes clear.
Even companies like Google and Apple first release a “beta version” to test for bugs and security problems before making it available to everyone.
Similarly, Islamic law acts like a protective firewall. It protects people from entering risky financial systems before they are proven to be safe.
Stock market regulators also suspend trading when prices become wildly unstable because of speculation. Cryptocurrency markets often experience such extreme volatility, where a single news report or social media post can wipe out billions of dollars in value. If financial regulators consider this dangerous, it is understandable that Islamic scholars also advise caution.
- The Ruling Changes Because the Reality Changes
Some people think scholars simply change their opinions whenever they wish. This is incorrect.
In the past, paper money was viewed with suspicion because it had no strong legal backing. Later, governments recognized it, established laws to regulate it, and guaranteed its value. Once its reality changed, scholars accepted it as valid currency.
The same principle applies to cryptocurrency.
Today, many cryptocurrencies are not backed by governments, and their value is often driven by speculation. If, in the future, governments officially recognize them, establish proper regulations, reduce excessive uncertainty, and stabilize their value, scholars may reconsider their rulings.
This does not mean the earlier ruling was wrong. It simply means that the circumstances have changed.
Islamic law has a well-known legal maxim:
“The ruling revolves around its effective cause (‘illah): when the cause exists, the ruling exists; when the cause disappears, the ruling also disappears.”
Another legal maxim states:
“Judgments may change with the change of time, place, customs, and circumstances,”provided the clear texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah are not violated.
Some people compare cryptocurrency with bank accounts or ATM cards. However, there is an important difference. The numbers in a bank account represent real national currency backed by the government, and you can withdraw that money as cash. Many cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, are not backed by any government or tangible asset. Their market value often depends on whether another buyer is willing to pay more.
- Even Experts Are Still Uncertain
Many central banks, economists, and governments around the world continue to debate cryptocurrency. Some countries have banned it, later relaxed restrictions, and then imposed new regulations after observing its risks. If financial experts themselves are still uncertain, it is unreasonable to expect Islamic scholars to immediately declare it permissible without careful study.
- Islamic Rulings Depend on Their Cause
One of the established principles of Islamic jurisprudence is:
“A ruling exists because of its cause.”
If something is prohibited because it contains gambling, fraud, excessive uncertainty, or causes public harm, the ruling remains as long as those reasons remain.
If those reasons disappear, the ruling may also change.
This is not inconsistency. It is a normal application of Islamic legal principles.
For example:
Wine was prohibited because it intoxicates. It not intoxicates the spirit but also the mind and the society. So, the safest and wisest action was to remove the threat entirely, not to manage it, since it inevitably leads to harm that would ultimately cost people their faith, health, wealth, dignity, families and even their lives.
Selling fish still swimming in the sea or birds flying in the sky is prohibited because of excessive uncertainty (gharar). If ownership and delivery become certain, the reason for prohibition is removed.
Modern contracts that did not exist in the Prophet’s time have been accepted by scholars when they meet the principles of justice, transparency, and mutual consent.
- The Duty of Scholars Is to Protect People
It would be much easier for scholars to declare everything permissible and gain popularity.
However, one of the great legal maxims of Islam says:
“Preventing harm takes precedence over obtaining benefit.” (Dar’ al-mafāsid muqaddam ‘alā jalb al-maṣāliḥ).
Another legal maxim states:
“There should be neither harm nor reciprocating harm.” (Lā ḍarar wa lā ḍirār.) (Sunan Ibn Mājah)
If scholars declare something permissible too quickly and people lose their life savings because of it, they would bear a serious moral and religious responsibility.
Conclusion
Saying that something is forbidden at first and later becomes permissible is not a contradiction. The principles of Islamic law do not change. What changes is the reality of the matter. When a new technology or financial system removes the reasons that originally made it impermissible and begins to satisfy the principles of Islamic law, its ruling may also change.
This is not because scholars have abandoned their principles. Rather, they are applying those same principles to a new reality.
This is how Islamic jurisprudence has always worked throughout history.
