How HalalCrypto Screens Coins (Behind the Scenes)

We get asked a version of the same question every week: how do you actually decide if a coin is halal? This article is the long answer. It covers the three layers, what triggers a verdict change, how we cite the underlying standards, why we sometimes disagree publicly with other halal screeners, and where our process has real limits we are not going to hide.

This is the pillar article for our methodology. The shorter, structured version lives at /halal-methodology and /aaoifi-aligned-halal-screening.

The three layers

Every verdict on every asset goes through three layers, in order. An asset must clear all three to be marked halal in our screener.

Layer 1: The asset itself

Question: is the underlying token, considered on its own merits, permissible to own as māl (property) under classical Islamic property law and AAOIFI Standard 59?

What we check:

• Classification under Standard 59. Payment-type, utility, security, or tokenized financial asset.
• Underlying economic substance. Does the token represent something — a unit of computation, scarce digital property, a claim on a real asset?
• Mechanism of issuance. PoW, PoS, pre-mine, fair launch. We do not exclude PoS tokens by default; we do exclude tokens whose issuance is structurally interest-like.
• Use case legitimacy. A token whose only described use is "speculation" fails here. A token used for governance, fees, or access does not fail solely on use case.
• Madhab divergence. When the four-Sunni schools and the Ja'fari school diverge on the asset, we flag it; we do not silently pick a side.

What we cite: AAOIFI Standard 59, the named scholarly opinion or fatwa, and the madhab-specific positions where they exist.

Layer 1 is the layer most consumers think is the whole screen. It is not.

Layer 2: The protocol

Question: does the protocol itself engage in riba, structurally fund maysir, or rely on excessive gharar in its core operation?

What we check:

• Lending mechanics. Does the protocol pay or collect interest on borrowed assets? Aave, Compound, and similar fail here.
• Yield source. If the protocol pays yield to holders or stakers, where does the yield come from? Issuance-as-payment-for-validation can be permissible (see our ETH pillar). Yield paid out of a lending book is not.
• Derivative and leverage exposure. Some "perp DEXes" have a governance token. Holding the token is, in effect, holding equity in a leverage-derivatives business. Layer 2 catches this.
• Insurance and counterparty structures. Some protocols include built-in interest-bearing reserves; we trace these.

Layer 2 is where most opinions diverge between halal screeners. We document our reasoning per protocol, in plain English, in the asset page.

Layer 3: The platform business

Question: is the entity (company or DAO) operating the asset structurally aligned with permissible activity?

What we check:

• Revenue sources of the operating entity. A token that passes layers 1 and 2 but whose backing company derives most of its revenue from interest-bearing instruments (a typical exchange-issued token) can fail here.
• Marketing claims. Does the operator publicly promote products we treat as impermissible? This is a signal of operational mismatch.
• Sharia compliance certification. We do not give weight to self-certification. We do give weight to AAOIFI-aligned third-party attestation.
• Jurisdictional and regulatory status. A platform whose operations are explicitly built on interest-bearing structures (e.g., a CeFi yield aggregator) fails here regardless of asset-level cleanness.

Layer 3 is where we are most likely to disagree publicly with other screeners. We will mark an asset that clears 1 and 2 as review required if the operating entity is structurally riba-dependent — even if a competitor marks it green.

What triggers a verdict change

A verdict is not a permanent property of an asset. We re-review on these triggers:

• A new AAOIFI standard or AAOIFI clarification touching the asset class.
• A protocol upgrade that changes the yield mechanism (e.g., a chain moving from PoW to PoS).
• A material change in the operating entity (acquisition, new product line, regulatory action).
• A new madhab-specific fatwa from a recognized council.
• A reader-reported correction with supporting evidence.

Every change is logged in the asset page with the date and the trigger. We do not silently update verdicts.

How we cite

A verdict without citation is just opinion. Every asset page on our screener includes:

• The named standard (AAOIFI 59 §clause, etc.).
• The named fatwa or scholarly statement, where one exists.
• The link to the primary source — not to a third-party summary, when we can avoid it.
• The date the citation was last verified.

If we cannot cite a standard or named scholar for a position, we say so. Some assets — particularly novel DeFi structures — sit in genuinely uncharted fiqh territory. We will not invent a fatwa to fill a gap.

Where we disagree with other halal crypto screeners

We are not the only halal crypto screener in 2026. Several others exist, and we respect the work — but we disagree in three places.

Self-certification is not certification. Some screeners give green status to assets whose operators have published an in-house Shariah board opinion with no external review. We do not. AAOIFI-aligned external attestation is the threshold.

Layer 2 leakage. Some screeners mark assets as halal based on layer 1 alone. We have seen this produce green marks on assets whose protocol behavior was clearly riba-bearing. We catch these in layer 2.

Marketing-driven verdicts. A small number of services have published "halal" lists that conspicuously include the assets of their commercial partners. We do not take sponsorship that touches editorial.

We mention this not to attack competitors but because readers should know that the labels on this market are not all measured against the same ruler. Our own comparing halal crypto services article is honest about where we have weaknesses too.

Where our process has real limits

We are not omniscient. Specifically:

• Novel protocol releases. A new DeFi primitive can launch on a Tuesday and be in widespread use by Friday. Our research cadence is weekly for major chains, monthly for long-tail. There is a real gap.
• Off-chain operating-entity changes. When a private company changes its revenue mix, we depend on disclosure. If disclosure is opaque, our layer-3 verdict has a confidence margin.
• Sub-fiqh detail. Some madhab-specific positions on, e.g., the permissibility of certain LP structures are still being formulated. Where there is no settled view, we publish review-required and say so plainly.
• Translation and cultural fit. Most of our source material is in English, Arabic, and Urdu. Important fatwas in Bahasa, Turkish, or Persian sometimes reach us late.

What the "review required" state means

Three colors come out of the screener: pass, fail, and review required. The third is not a hedge — it is a substantive signal.

A "review required" verdict means at least one of:

• We have not yet completed our internal research for this asset.
• The asset has divergent scholarly opinion and we cannot pick a default without misleading the reader.
• The protocol has a structural feature (e.g., embedded leverage) that requires per-user examination, because permissibility depends on what you do with the asset, not the asset itself.

A "review required" verdict is not an invitation to ignore it. It is a signal that you should slow down.

How a reader can challenge a verdict

If you think a verdict on our screener is wrong, the editorial process is:

1. Email the editorial team (team@gethalalcrypto.com) with the asset, the verdict, and your reasoning with citations.
2. We log the request publicly in the asset page.
3. We respond with either a verdict change (with the trigger logged) or a written defense of the existing verdict.
4. If you are an accredited scholar issuing a fatwa, we will publish your statement alongside our reasoning even if we ultimately disagree.

This process exists because the alternative — an opaque editor making silent calls — produces a screen no one can trust.

How to read an asset page

When you load, e.g., the BTC asset page or ETH asset page, the structure is:

1. Verdict. Pass, fail, or review required.
2. Layer breakdown. What each layer found.
3. Citations. Standards, fatwas, primary sources.
4. Last reviewed. Date and reviewer initials.
5. What changes the verdict. The specific trigger that would flip the call.
6. Related reads. Pillar articles, methodology notes, country guides.

If your asset page is missing any of those, it is a documentation bug. Tell us.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does HalalCrypto's verdict on some assets differ from other halal crypto screeners? Mostly because of layer 2 and layer 3. Other screeners often stop after the asset-level review. We additionally examine the protocol's yield and lending mechanics and the operating entity's revenue sources.

Is AAOIFI Standard 59 the only thing you use? It is the most-cited framework, but not the only one. We also cite Standard 21 (sukuk), Standard 62 (related), and specific fatwas from named scholars where they extend AAOIFI's reasoning to assets the standards did not pre-rule on.

Do you certify coins as halal? No. We publish reasoned verdicts and cite the standards. Certification is the domain of accredited Shariah supervisory boards. Our screen is decision-support, not certification.

How often is the screener updated? Major-chain assets are re-reviewed weekly. Long-tail assets are re-reviewed monthly or on a trigger event.

Can the verdict on Bitcoin change? Yes — if the asset itself changes (a hard fork that alters consensus), if a new standard introduces a constraint, or if material new scholarly opinion is published. Every verdict has an "updates that would change this" section.

---

Last reviewed 2026-05-17. Editorial process owned by the HalalCrypto Editorial Team.