HALAL TRADING ROOM

There is no single answer, and any site that gives you one is choosing a side without telling you. The Fiqh Council of North America holds Bitcoin permissible. Mufti Taqi Usmani holds crypto trading impermissible. Both are serious, both are published, and both are shown here. Where the frameworks agree — and on interest they agree completely — you can rely on that agreement. Where they split, you are seeing the actual state of scholarly opinion rather than our summary of it.

The standards are the grounds we screen on, not a poll we report. We do not average them and we do not take a majority. They are applied in a fixed order, and the first rule that fires decides:

1. A decisive prohibition ends it. Interest (riba), a prohibited underlying business, or leveraged and synthetic exposure — any one of these and the answer is NON-COMPLIANT. Every standard here agrees on these, the most permissive and the most restrictive alike, so there is no disagreement to weigh and no reason to soften it.
2. Unanimous permission, and only unanimous. If every standard we synthesise reaches permissible, so do we — COMPLIANT. Not "most". If a serious framework hesitates, we do not tell you the question is settled.
3. A split is reported as a split. Where they genuinely differ the answer is QUESTIONABLE, and the disagreement itself is the reason we give. This is the honest answer for staking and for meme coins. Manufacturing a verdict out of a majority would hide the very thing you came here to see.
4. What we could not establish is never guessed. If the facts a rule needs are missing, the answer is NEEDS REVIEW — a statement about our evidence, not about the asset.

One standard is deliberately excluded from that synthesis, and shown anyway. The restrictive position rejects almost every digital asset, Bitcoin included, on gharar alone. Letting it vote would mark nearly everything non-compliant, which is neither our conclusion nor a defensible reading of the evidence. Hiding it would misrepresent the field. Naming it as excluded, and saying why, is the only honest option of the three — so it appears on every coin page, labelled.

No framework here is applied by judgement call. Each coin is first described using the closed vocabulary below — one value per question — and the verdicts are then computed from those values by rule. That is what makes them checkable: on any coin's page you can see which value it was given and re-derive every verdict yourself.

“Not established” is a real answer and is never quietly read as “no”. A coin we cannot describe confidently is reported as needing review rather than being passed or failed on a guess.

The rules above are only as good as the description they are applied to. So the description is the part we check hardest, and we tell you how well it held.

Each coin is read from its own documentation and independent third-party metadata, and turned into the closed vocabulary above — one value per question, with the specific findings that support each one. Those findings are printed on the coin's page, so a verdict is something you can check line by line rather than take on trust.

Then it is read again, independently. Separate models re-read the same coin from a differently-worded brief and their answers are compared field by field. This exists because of a real failure: a single misreading once marked Ethereum's staking as interest-bearing, and the page briefly showed every framework rejecting it — a false claim about what scholars say. One reading is a single point of failure, so there is more than one. 324 of 456 independently re-read coins agree on every fact their verdict turns on.

Where the readings differ, we ask whether it changes anything. Two models can call the same thing "staking" and "delegated staking" — a difference in wording that every standard treats identically. So each reading is run through the standards separately, and the disagreement only counts if the verdicts come out different. On 33 coins it does, and those pages say so.

A coin whose description we cannot pin down confidently is reported as needing review rather than being passed or failed on a guess, and a coin whose two independent routes reach different answers is held back from the detailed breakdown entirely until we have chased down which is wrong.

Settled: interest. Every framework here — the most permissive and the most restrictive alike — rejects a token whose return is interest, or a stablecoin whose peg is backed by interest-bearing reserves. When you see a coin marked non-compliant for riba, there is no scholarly split behind it.

Contested: staking. The Fiqh Council treats a coin as currency, so the full riba rulings apply and a staking return becomes questionable. AMJA and SC Malaysia see no clear prohibition. Amanah screens the staking mechanism as its own layer. This is why a proof-of-stake coin can show three different answers on one page — that is the disagreement, not a bug.

Contested: meme coins. Most frameworks raise maysir — a holding whose whole proposition is price. The AAOIFI-derived screen passes them, because the riba and non-permissible-income principles genuinely do not address gambling. We report that rather than quietly extending the standard past what it says.

Contested: crypto itself. The restrictive position rejects Bitcoin outright on gharar and the absence of intrinsic backing. We include it because leaving it out would make the spectrum look narrower than it is.

463 coins currently show the full framework breakdown, and the frameworks disagree on 385 of them. A coin without the section has either not been screened yet or is being held back — we say which rather than defaulting it to anything.

39 screened coins are deliberately withheld. The frameworks are applied to a structured description of each token, and we publish the breakdown only where at least one framework independently reaches the same verdict we did. Where none does, the description is more likely wrong than every scholar is — a lending product described as paying nothing, say — and rather than print that we hold the coin back for review. Note this still publishes genuine disagreement: a coin several frameworks call questionable while we call it compliant appears in full, because that split is the very thing worth showing.

• It is not a fatwa, and no scholar on this page has reviewed our application of their framework. We apply published positions as faithfully as we can state them; the responsibility for that application is ours, not theirs.
• It says nothing about whether an asset is a good investment. Permissible and advisable are different questions, and this screen answers only the first.
• It does not screen how you trade. Leverage, margin and short selling raise their own questions that a verdict about the asset does not settle.
• It is a point-in-time reading. A protocol that adds a lending product or changes what backs its peg can change status, and our verdict is only as current as the date printed on the coin's page.
• Coverage is deliberately narrower than the market. A coin we have not screened does not appear with a verdict at all, rather than defaulting to "probably fine".