Comparing the Jumhur (Majority) and Hanafi Views

Dr. Farrukh Habib

Founder & CEO, Azka Advisors (UK)

Co-Founder of Alif Technologies (Dubai)

https://www.linkedin.com/in/drfarrukhhabib

The short answer: The Jumhur (majority) and Hanafi schools disagree on how to describe a non-halal crypto asset, but they agree on the treatment of an impermissible crypto. Under both frameworks, a crypto asset built on a haram source of value cannot be bought, sold, or used for any purpose. The disagreement is about labelling, not outcome. From here, this series adopts the Hanafi framework for its remaining parts, for reasons given in Section E.

A. What This Paper Does

This paper does not re-argue either view. Part 2 showed that crypto assets, in general, are mal under the Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali schools, referred to together as the Jumhur. [1] Part 3 showed the same conclusion under the Hanafi school, reached through a different structure. [2] This paper places the two findings side by side and asks one question: does the difference in structure change anything in practice?

As a quick recap, the Jumhur include permissibility of benefit directly into the definition of mal, so asking whether something is mal already includes asking whether it is lawful (halal). The Hanafi school splits this into two separate steps instead. First, is it mal at all using it as a general term. Second, is it a valid or valuable asset in Shari’ah (mal mutaqawwam).

B. Difference One: Where the Halal Test Sits

Take a crypto asset whose value comes directly from something haram, a casino’s revenue or wine sales, for example. [3] Under the Jumhur view, this token is not mal at all, since lawful benefit is part of the definition itself, and an unlawful benefit means the definition is never met. Under the Hanafi view, the same token is mal. It exists, it is owned, it is exchanged. But it is an invalid asset (mal ghayr mutaqawwam), the same category wine itself falls into. [4]

The label is different. The outcome is not. Jumhur says this was never property to begin with. Hanafis say this is property, but impermissible, the Shari’ah refuses to let you trade.

C. Difference Two: Are Usufructs and Rights Mal on Their Own?

A second difference is more structural, and it is where a real gap can open up. The Jumhur treat usufructs and rights (intangible assets) as mal outright, once their benefit is halal. [1] The Hanafi school treats usufructs and rights as not mal by default. They can still be traded, but only once they clear five conditions set out by Mufti Taqi Usmani. [5] The right must exist now, not merely be anticipated in the future. It must belong to its holder as an original entitlement, not merely to prevent harm. It must be transferable. It must be clearly defined, free of excessive uncertainty (gharar) and ignorance (jahalah). And custom (conventional practice) of people must treat it the way it treats ordinary property.

In most cases, this difference does not change the outcome. The five conditions largely test for what every school already cares about: does the right actually exist, is it well defined, is its benefit halal. Take an ordinary example: a registered trademark, sold with the buyer’s identity and use clearly agreed. It exists now, it can pass from seller to buyer, it is precisely defined, and traders customarily treat it as valuable. Every condition is satisfied without strain, and both the Jumhur and Hanafi schools would call it mal. What fails one school’s test usually fails the other’s too, under a different name.

One genuine edge case is worth naming. Consider a governance token that grants only a protective power, an emergency-pause right meant purely to prevent harm to a protocol, with no independent value of its own. Under the Hanafi framework, a right that exists only to ward off harm, rather than as an original entitlement, may not be tradable as mal. Jumhur, without that specific condition, might still classify the same right as mal if it is halal, defined, and customarily valued. This is a real point where the two frameworks could diverge in outcome, not just in language.

D. Where They Land Together

Outside such edge cases, the two frameworks converge cleanly. A halal crypto asset that exists, is controlled, is clearly defined, and is customarily treated as valuable is mal under both the Jumhur and Hanafi views. In practice, this describes most of what the crypto market actually trades: units held in a wallet, and rights or claims recorded against a specific counterparty, each already tested in Part 3 and found to satisfy both frameworks’ requirements. This covers the large majority of what this series will go on to classify.

E. The Series’ Choice Going Forward

From here, this series works within the Hanafi framework, for two reasons.

First, the Hanafi two-step structure, mal, then valid or invalid mal division, keeps two different questions properly separate: is this wealth, and is this wealth halal. That separation makes the remaining classification work in this series cleaner, since a crypto asset’s existence and its permissibility can be judged one at a time rather than in a single combined step.

Second, the Hanafi conditions for trading rights and usufructs are the stricter path. Because they add requirements the Jumhur may not impose explicitly, an asset that clears the Hanafi bar may easily clear the Jumhur bar too. Working within the stricter framework means this series’ conclusions hold up under both schools.

F. Scope and What Comes Next

This paper draws no conclusion about any specific coin, token, or platform. It only compares two frameworks and shows where they agree, and where they might not. The next part turns to Shari’ah classification, sorting crypto assets into the categories from the fiqh perspective. The rest of this series will use the same classification, built on the Hanafi foundation now in place.

References

[1] Fiqh of Cryptos, Part 2: Are Crypto Assets Property (Mal)? The Majority View

[2] Fiqh of Cryptos, Part 3: Is a Crypto Asset Mal? The Hanafi View

[3] As discussed in Part 2, Section 6

[4] Hashiyat Ibn Abidin (Radd al-Muhtar), vol. 4, p. 501

[5] Majallat Majma al-Fiqh al-Islami, vol. 5, p. 1935.