Juridical Review Concerning the Legitimacy of Cryptocurrency in Islamic Law
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryptocurrency has become a significant phenomenon in the global financial world. However, within the context of Islamic law, questions regarding the validity and regulation of cryptocurrency remain a complex debate. This research aims to conduct a normative juridical analysis of cryptocurrency regulation in Islamic law, with a focus on a case study in Indonesia. The research method employed is a normative juridical approach, involving the collection and analysis of legal data from relevant sources, such as laws, regulations, and religious fatwas. This legal data is then analyzed using legal arguments and theoretical frameworks to understand and explain the legal status of cryptocurrency within Islam. This study identifies key issues that arise in the regulation of cryptocurrency in Islamic law in Indonesia, including riba (interest), gharar (uncertainty), maysir (gambling), and consumer protection. Through this normative juridical analysis, the researcher explores existing legal interpretations, relevant legal documents, and the perspectives of Islamic scholars and experts regarding the validity and permissibility of cryptocurrency. The findings of this research provide an in-depth understanding of how cryptocurrency can be categorized within the framework of Islamic law, as well as the legal implications arising from the use and trading of cryptocurrency. Additionally, this study identifies gaps and challenges in the regulation of cryptocurrency in Islamic law in Indonesia and provides recommendations for the development of more effective regulations that align with Islamic principles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it