THE meeting between Pakistan’s crypto czar and Mufti Taqi Usmani has placed a difficult question squarely before policymakers: how does a state bring digital assets into formal finance when one of the country’s most influential religious scholars remains unconvinced of their religious and economic standing? Bilal bin Saqib has described his discussion with the senior scholar on the Shariah status of digital assets as “constructive”.
A recent fatwa has declared crypto-based purchases impermissible, describing cryptocurrency as the recording of “fictitious numbers” rather than recognised wealth. In a country where Islamic finance is part of the banking mainstream, such objections carry weight. Public confidence in any new financial product will depend not only on technological claims, but on whether citizens believe the instrument has legal substance, religious legitimacy and economic value.
The state, however, cannot behave as though the crypto economy does not exist. Officials have claimed that around 40 million Pakistanis are already engaged with digital assets, largely through informal platforms. Chainalysis has ranked Pakistan among the world’s leading crypto-adoption markets. That should worry regulators as much as it excites innovators. A large informal market means exposure to fraud, speculation, illicit transfers, tax leakage and ordinary citizens risking their savings in a space they may barely understand.
There has been some institutional movement. The Virtual Assets Act, 2026, created PVARA, whose board includes the heads of the State Bank, SECP and FBR. Banks have been allowed to open accounts for licensed virtual asset service providers under compliance requirements involving due diligence, segregated client accounts and suspicious-transaction reporting. PVARA’s draft regulations also refer to licensing, technology standards, cybersecurity, consumer protection, AML/CFT obligations and asset segregation. These safeguards are necessary, but their value will be judged by enforcement, not vocabulary.
A speculative coin, a stablecoin, a tokenised real-world asset and a blockchain payment system do not raise identical legal, financial or Shariah questions. Treating all digital assets as one undifferentiated category will only deepen confusion.
Pakistan’s weak financial literacy and long history of Ponzi schemes make the public especially vulnerable to promises of quick wealth. Crypto policy should not be written for conference panels, foreign investors or social media applause. It should be written for citizens who may be persuaded to put scarce savings into products whose volatility, legal status and religious standing remain unsettled. *