The Fiat System, Islamic Scholars Skepticism, and Bitcoin’s Philosophical Alignment.
We examine the fiat monetary system through the conceptual lens of Islamic economic thought, investigate the philosophical and technical roots of scholarly skepticism toward Bitcoin, and explore how Bitcoin’s design principles may structurally align with the ethical objectives of an Islamic economic framework. Rather than comparing the divine and the technological, it seeks to analyze both systems at the level of structure, value production, and systemic ethics. The argument proceeds from the premise that both Islamic economics and Bitcoin ,critique centralized monetary power and aim to restore justice, transparency, and productive equilibrium in human exchange.
1. The Fiat System: An Institutionalized Departure from Islamic Economic Tenets
The contemporary fiat monetary order represents a radical historical deviation from commodity-based systems that previously constrained monetary authorities. In its architecture and operational logic, fiat currency conflicts with several key normative objectives embedded in the Islamic economic tradition,most notably the prohibition of unearned gain, the obligation to preserve wealth, and the requirement that value creation be anchored in real economic activity.
1.1 The Institutionalization of Riba (Unearned Gain)
Fiat money originates as debt. Central banks create new currency through credit issuance and control its cost via interest rate adjustments. This process institutionalizes *riba*,the extraction of gain from money itself without productive exchange. The financial sector profits from the temporal dimension of debt, not from value added through labor, trade, or risk-bearing. In Islamic economic reasoning, such gain lacks legitimacy because it produces asymmetry between creditor and debtor, transferring wealth without reciprocal effort. By embedding interest in the architecture of money creation, fiat systems make exploitation systemic rather than incidental.
The moral consequence is that money no longer serves as a neutral medium of exchange but becomes an instrument of rent-seeking. Capital accumulates not through innovation or productivity but through privileged access to credit. The resulting asymmetry conflicts with the Islamic requirement that wealth circulate equitably and that exchange reflects genuine economic contribution.
1.2 The Cantillon Effect and Systemic Inequality
The fiat system’s structure produces a phenomenon economists describe as the Cantillon Effect: those closest to the source of new money benefit first, before the expansion of supply devalues existing currency. Governments, commercial banks, and large asset holders gain purchasing power, while wage earners and fixed-income groups experience delayed and diluted benefits. Inflation operates as a hidden tax, transferring real value from the public to the issuers of credit.
From an Islamic ethical perspective, this mechanism violates distributive justice. It privileges position over productivity, proximity to power over contribution to the real economy. The Islamic conception of *adl* (justice) and *qist* (fair measure) requires proportionality between effort, risk, and reward. The fiat system structurally disrupts this balance by institutionalizing wealth transfer through monetary asymmetry rather than exchange.
1.3 Inflation and the Erosion of Wealth
Because fiat currency has no inherent scarcity, it is inherently inflationary. Its supply can expand indefinitely according to policy discretion. This characteristic introduces *gharar*,uncertainty and ambiguity,into economic life, as the future purchasing power of money becomes unpredictable. Inflation dissolves the temporal trust necessary for stable contracts and undermines the objective of protecting wealth (hifdh al-mal), one of the higher aims of Islamic economic ethics.
Historically, commodity-based standards such as gold and silver constrained arbitrary expansion, anchoring monetary value in the physical limits of extraction and production. By severing that link, fiat systems transformed currency from a store of value into a policy tool. This shift replaced real constraints with managerial discretion, making instability a permanent feature rather than an occasional failure.
2. The Philosophical and Technical Grounds for Islamic Scholar Skepticism Toward Bitcoin
While Bitcoin appears to address many of fiat’s ethical and structural flaws, significant skepticism persists among Islamic scholars. This skepticism emerges from conceptual, jurisprudential, and sociological factors rather than from simple conservatism. Understanding these reservations requires examining the epistemic foundations of Islamic legal reasoning and how they intersect with digital assets’ novel characteristics.
2.1 The Foundational Question: Is Bitcoin “Māl”?
In classical jurisprudence, for an asset to be legally tradable, it must constitute *Māl*,property with recognized value that can be possessed, stored, and exchanged for legitimate benefit. The debate surrounding Bitcoin’s status as *Māl* reflects a broader ontological tension: can something intangible, existing only as an entry on a distributed ledger, be considered a legitimate store of value?
Traditionalists argue that value must have tangible or utilitarian grounding. Bitcoin’s worth, in their view, depends solely on collective belief rather than intrinsic properties, rendering it vulnerable to speculative excess. Others contend that *urf*,prevailing social practice,can confer legitimacy: if people widely accept Bitcoin as valuable, its status as *Māl* becomes functionally established.
The division thus mirrors an epistemic divide between *essentialists*, who locate value in substance, and *functionalists*, who locate it in consensus and utility. The fiat system itself once faced similar scrutiny, but its state endorsement and legal tender status resolved doubts. Bitcoin, lacking such institutional backing, invites renewed ontological debate.
2.2 Gharar and Maysir: Volatility and Speculative Dynamics
Bitcoin’s volatility has been a principal source of concern. Price instability introduces *gharar*, as parties cannot reliably predict the future value of the asset they trade. Moreover, speculative trading behavior often mirrors *maysir*,games of chance in which gain is decoupled from productive activity.
Yet this critique conflates moral uncertainty with market uncertainty. *Gharar* in classical jurisprudence denotes contractual ambiguity or deception that creates unfair advantage, not statistical fluctuation. Bitcoin’s volatility, while extreme, results from price discovery in a nascent market rather than from deception. However, when participation becomes driven primarily by short-term speculation, it does resemble *maysir*,wealth generation through zero-sum positional betting. The challenge, then, is not Bitcoin’s existence but its mode of use: whether it functions as a medium of exchange and store of value or as a speculative instrument divorced from real economy interaction.
2.3 The Decentralization Problem: Authority, Accountability, and Use
Bitcoin’s decentralized structure, while technically elegant, complicates traditional mechanisms of accountability. Without a central issuing authority, the system cannot be regulated through conventional juridical models that rely on human oversight. This autonomy raises legitimate questions about illicit use, fraud prevention, and responsibility.
Islamic economic ethics emphasize transparency (*bayān*) and accountability (*mas’uliyyah*) in financial dealings. Bitcoin’s pseudonymous architecture, although publicly auditable, challenges familiar categories of identification and verification. For many scholars, this technological opacity translates into ethical uncertainty. National fatwa bodies in several Muslim-majority countries have thus adopted precautionary positions, not necessarily rejecting the technology itself but suspending its approval pending clearer regulatory mechanisms.
2.4 The Institutional Dimension: Interpretive Inertia
Beyond jurisprudence lies sociology. Islamic scholarship operates within institutional frameworks that preserve doctrinal continuity. These frameworks evolved to interpret stable categories:gold, silver, trade goods, debt instruments,not self-adjusting digital networks. The pace of innovation in cryptography and distributed systems outstrips traditional methods of consensus-building (*ijma’*). As a result, scholars trained in interpretive hierarchies face a moving epistemic target: a financial phenomenon that evolves faster than legal adaptation.
This lag does not indicate hostility to progress but reveals the friction between historically slow cycles of jurisprudential adaptation and the rapid dynamics of digital innovation
Of all the critiques leveled against Bitcoin, perhaps the most resonant, and yet most fundamentally flawed, is the appeal to tradition: gold has been “proven by time.” This argument, steeped in the weight of millennia, posits that gold’s long-standing reign as a store of value is an unassailable virtue, while Bitcoin’s youth is a fatal vice. However, this perspective commits a critical error by isolating money from its context. It fails to recognize that what humans use as money is not determined by an immutable, pre-ordained law, but is inextricably shaped by the technological and communicational capabilities of the era. When we re-insert this crucial variable into the equation, a new narrative emerges: money evolves in lockstep with communication. From this vantage point, gold was the perfect money for a slow-moving world, fiat was an unstable intermediary for an accelerating one, and Bitcoin is the native monetary protocol for the age of light-speed information
#bitcoin #nostr
