RNA -Virtual currency, according to the Governmental Jurisprudence, has different dimensions, and its analysis from the stance of the individual jurisprudence shouldn’t render its examination from the position of governmental jurisprudence redundant. A question has recently raised across the society is that whether the use of Bitcoin, and generally virtual currency, is regarded legitimate by the Jurisprudence or not.
Extraction of Bitcoin
The deal over Bitcoin can be regarded as Contract of Reward. Considering the confirmation of the credit/value of the Bitcoin, the general contract of reward is concluded over it. To anyone who performs the accounting process of Bitcoin, a specific number of Bitcoins is assigned. The conditions of reward applies to this contract. The legitimate rewarding activity and the amount of rewarding is absolutely known within this contract.
Selling and Buying Bitcoin
The essence of the performed transaction in buying and selling Bitcoin needs to be examined. All the conditions of transaction applies to buying and selling Bitcoin. In the section of Bitcoin as an asset, it was suggested that Bitcoin is an asset. The subject of transaction is known, can be submitted and existent.
According to some jurisprudents, the subject of transaction should be concrete and palpable. This condition also doesn’t damage the sale condition of Bitcoin transaction, as a credit asset, similar to a concrete property, can be the subject of transaction. The evidence for the mentioned claim is the propriety of the transaction of the credit properties.
Virtual Currency and Governmental Jurisprudence
In Islam, there are two types of principles: Initial and Secondary. The secondary regulations governs the initial ones. In some specific cases, when the vital interests and values of the world of Islam are threatened, the secondary regulations, guaranteeing the fulfilment of the supreme and vital values of Islam, nullify the initial regulations. Some of such regulations which are applicable to the virtual currency are the followings;
The Principle of Negation of Domination
Any relation that leads to the political, economic, cultural and military domination of the foreign parties over Muslims is not appropriate. Jurisprudents regard this principle as the Principle of Negation of Domination (prevention from the domination of non-Muslims). It should be explored that whether could the prevalence of virtual currency in a Muslim society cause the domination of foreign parties over the Muslim society or not?
The expediency principle applies to those cases, regarding which the general or public expediency, or higher economic expediency have a rule, that is opposite to the initial or secondary regulations. The question “whether is the prevalence of the virtual currency incompatible with the general interests of the Muslim society or not?” still remains to be answered in this regard.
The Principle of Prohibited Contributions to Sin
It can be mentioned that being obedient to the oppressor, advocating an oppressing government and enemies and contribution to social corruptions are the issues to which this principle has the highest application within the Jurisprudence. Bitcoin can also be used for money laundering and terrorist operations. Considering such a feature, a question that raises is that “whether is not the use of virtual currency a help to the conduction of social corruptions?”
The Principle of Prohibited Reinforcement of the Non-believer
Both wisdom and tradition suggest that the prohibition of reinforcing non-believers is a jurisprudential rule and the expression “or reinforcement of non-believing and atheism”, mentioned by Tuhaf al-Ughul Hadith, is the best argument suggesting this principle. Whether is the use of virtual currency an evidence for reinforcement of the non-believers?
In conclusion, it can be mentioned that, virtual currency, according to the view of the Governmental Jurisprudence, has different dimensions, and its analysis from the individual jurisprudence should not lead to the neglect of its analysis, approached from the stance of governmental jurisprudence.
The thorough examination of either of the aforementioned principles, along with the epistemology of the virtual currency, forms the prelude to this analysis. The comprehensive definition of either of the above principles should be provided by the competent jurisprudent. The accurate epistemology of virtual currency should also be done by those economic and financial experts who are well versed in the topics and foundations of jurisprudence.
Mahdi Khosh Akhlagh