A Feasibility Study of Trading Digital Assets in the Metaverse from the Perspective of Islamic Law: An Exploration of the Potential Gharar (Ambiguity) Issue

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 PhD Student in Private Law, Faculty of Law, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Law, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Law, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran.‌

Abstract

‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌
The metaverse, a rapidly expanding virtual world, has evolved into a domain that significantly influences numerous aspects of human life, ranging from social interactions to complex economic transactions. In this immersive digital environment, users can buy, sell, and exchange a variety of intangible assets, including virtual land, digital artworks, avatars, and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). As the metaverse becomes increasingly integral to global commerce, it necessitates a legal framework that accounts for both its unique attributes and the enduring principles of contract law.
     From an Islamic legal perspective, the legitimacy of contracts hinges on the satisfaction of several requirements: the intention and consent of contracting parties, their legal capacity, the legitimacy of the transaction’s purpose, and most importantly, the unambiguous definition of the subject matter. The central challenge in metaverse transactions lies in verifying the nature and value of digital assets that do not possess a tangible counterpart. Unlike traditional commodities, these assets exist entirely in a virtual form, which can introduce elements of uncertainty and lead to potential disputes.
     One of the core doctrines in Islamic law that addresses uncertainty is the concept of an uncertain transaction [Gharar]. Gharar refers to excessive ambiguity or risk arising from incomplete information or the uncertain outcome of contractual obligations. Given the intangible and abstract characteristics of metaverse assets, questions arise about whether such transactions inherently involve Gharar to a degree that might invalidate the contract under Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh). This article aims to provide a foundational examination of these issues, thereby shedding light on the feasibility of metaverse transactions from the standpoint of Islamic law.
 
‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌
The principal research question driving this study is: How does the concept of Gharar apply to the trading of digital assets in the metaverse under Islamic law, and what criteria must be met for these transactions to be considered valid?
     At the core of this inquiry is determining whether the intangible nature of metaverse assets, combined with the evolving technological and contractual frameworks governing their exchange, introduces unacceptable levels of ambiguity. We seek to identify how Islamic jurisprudence can evaluate such novel forms of property and whether additional criteria—beyond those governing traditional contracts—are necessary to ensure contractual legitimacy in the digital realm.
 
‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌
In light of the underlying principles of Islamic contract law, this study posits the following primary hypothesis:
     Metaverse transactions, when rendered sufficiently transparent and when the subject matter is recognized by rational agents (i.e., deemed ‘valuable’ in custom), can be established as free from the issue of Gharar and therefore valid under Islamic law.
     Transparency is central to this hypothesis; clear contractual terms, precise descriptions of digital assets, and verifiable proof of ownership are proposed to address or eliminate uncertainty. Additionally, the study hypothesizes that if the value of a digital asset is objectively recognized by the community of ‘wise’ (or rational) individuals, then the asset meets the legitimacy requirements necessary under Islamic jurisprudence.
 
‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌
This article adopts a doctrinal research methodology, grounded in both classical and contemporary Islamic jurisprudential sources, to analyze the intricate relationship between metaverse transactions and the principle of Gharar.
 
‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌
The analysis conducted in this study illuminates several core findings related to the permissibility and validity of metaverse transactions under Islamic law, particularly when examining the potential presence of Gharar (excessive ambiguity). Building upon classical Islamic legal principles and modern technological insights, the results can be summarized in three main thematic areas.
     First, regarding the nature and legitimacy of digital assets, the study finds that while metaverse items—such as virtual land, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and other intangible commodities—lack physical existence, they can nonetheless be recognized as valid subject matters of sale. This recognition arises from their measurable and demonstrable value in virtual marketplaces, where supply and demand mirror real-world economic dynamics. The intangible characteristics of these assets do not, by themselves, introduce prohibitive levels of Gharar. Instead, proper identification of each asset’s essential features—e.g., ownership rights, distinctiveness, and utility—plays a decisive role in mitigating ambiguity and establishing a valid basis for transactions.
     Second, the study’s findings highlight the importance of transparency technologies, such as blockchain, in minimizing uncertainty. Blockchain’s distributed ledger technology ensures verifiability and traceability, thereby reducing the likelihood of hidden defects and undisclosed risks. By creating a tamper-proof record of each transaction, the contracting parties gain clarity and confidence that align with the Shari’ah requirement to eliminate hidden elements of uncertainty. In this regard, the principle of “Nafi al-Gharar” (no-harm principle) can be satisfied when essential information about the asset’s attributes, provenance, and ownership details is readily available and verifiable.
     Third, custom [‘Urf] and community recognition play pivotal roles in reducing ambiguity. As the study shows, rational individuals—through widespread social and economic practices—have come to accept certain digital assets as possessing real and quantifiable value. By acknowledging these assets as tradeable commodities, the metaverse community effectively sets a standard of transparency and uniform expectations, a concept aligned with Islamic jurisprudential teachings that emphasize communal consensus. Moreover, the “rule of Ibahah” (permissibility) reinforces that any new form of transaction not explicitly forbidden by textual evidence remains permissible, thus validating the buying, selling, and exchanging of metaverse commodities.
 
‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌
The findings of this study emphasize that trading digital assets in the metaverse, while inherently novel, need not be mired in excessive ambiguity or uncertainty if properly structured. Customary and Islamic legal principles, serving as two foundational criteria, significantly mitigate such ambiguities. By setting clear and accepted norms grounded in community consensus, these principles offer a powerful framework for ensuring the Shari’ah validity of metaverse transactions.
     In particular, the “Nafi al-Gharar” principle (prohibition of ambiguity) forms a crucial bulwark against contractual risk, stipulating that any transaction afflicted by uncertainty may be deemed invalid under Islamic law. However, when the intrinsic attributes of digital assets—ranging from NFTs to cryptocurrencies—are thoroughly documented and rendered transparent through blockchain or similar technologies, the element of Gharar is effectively neutralized. Hence, from an Islamic jurisprudential standpoint, such assets become permissible, provided their ownership and usage are unambiguously established.
     Meanwhile, the rule of Ibahah (permissibility) dictates that in situations where no explicit Shari’ah prohibition exists, the default legal position permits such transactions. Thus, absent a clear textual ban, metaverse dealings in digital assets remain lawful. Reinforcing this stance is the custom of rational individuals [‘Urf al-‘Uqala’], which elevates widespread social acknowledgment of metaverse assets as having genuine economic value. NFTs, virtual lands, and similar items are recognized by communities as holding tangible worth, notwithstanding their digital essence. This collective recognition, documented through transparent technical means, ensures that such assets are not subject to Gharar and upholds their validity in Islamic law.
     Ultimately, if a rational community deems a specific digital asset as possessing recognized value—and in the absence of explicit scriptural prohibitions—such transactions are acceptable. This alignment between community practice and Islamic jurisprudence fortifies the legitimacy of metaverse transactions, underscoring the practical viability of digital-asset trading under Shari’ah principles. By harnessing technologies that guarantee transparent information and by grounding novel practices in established legal norms, the metaverse stands poised to develop as a robust, Shari’ah-compliant marketplace for the exchange of virtual assets.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. ---------- (1375 SH/1996). Dānešnāme-ye Jahān-e Eslām (Jeld 1) [Encyclopedia of the Islamic World (Vol. 1)]. [n.p.]: Islamic Encyclopedia Foundation [in Persian].
  2. 101 Blockchains. (n.d.). Digital currency vs. cryptocurrency.
    https://101blockchains.com/digital-currency-vs-cryptocurrency
  3. Abbasi Khorasani, Hadi (1399 SH/2020). Dars-e Khārej-e Feqh [Advanced Jurisprudence Lecture] [in Persian].
  4. Amid Zanjani, Abbas Ali (1391 SH/2012). Qawāʿed-e Kollī-ye ʿUqūd: Ketāb al-Bayʿ wa-al-Mutaʾājir [General Rules of Contracts: Book of Sale and Hire]. Tehran: Khorsandi [in Persian].
  5. Amili (Shahid Awwal), Mohammad ibn Makki (1314 AH/1896). Al-Qawāʿid wa-al-Fawāʾ Qom: Society of Seminary Teachers of Qom [in Arabic].
  6. Amili (Shahid Thani), Zain al-Din ibn Ali (1410 AH/1989). Al-Rawḍah al-Bahīyah fī Sharḥ al-Lumʿah al-Dimashqīyah (Vol. 4). Qom: Davari Bookstore [in Arabic].
  7. Amoli, Mohammad Taqi (1413 AH/1992). Al-Makāsib wa-al-Bayʿ (Vols. 1 & 2). Qom: Association of Seminary Teachers of Qom [in Arabic].
  8. Ansari, Masoud, & Taheri, Mohammad Ali (1388 SH/2009). Dānešnāme-ye Ḥoqūq-e Khuṣūṣī (Jeld 3) [Encyclopedia of Private Law (Vol. 3)]. Tehran: Jangal [in Persian].
  9. Ansari, Mortaza ibn Mohammad Amin (1411 AH/1990). Al-Makāsib (Vol. 4). Qom: Dar al-Dha'a'ir [in Arabic].
  10. Araki, Mohsen (1400 SH/2021). Sokhanrānī dar Šešomīn Nešast az Selsele Nešasthā-ye ʿElmī-Pažūhešī Dīn wa Faḍā-ye Majāzī bā Maḥwarīyat-e Ḥākemīyat wa Sīāsatgoẕārī-ye Ramz Arz az Manẓar-e Feqh [Lecture in the Sixth Session of the Scientific-Research Series of Sessions on Religion and Cyberspace Focusing on the Sovereignty and Policy-Making of Cryptocurrency from the Perspective of Jurisprudence]. (Unpublished presentation) [in Persian].
  11. Bahrami Ahmadi, Hamid (1381 SH/2002). Kollīyāt-e ʿUqūd wa Qarārdādhā [Generalities of Contracts and Agreements]. Tehran: Mizan [in Persian].
  12. Barney, Nick, & Lawton, George. (2023). What is a smart contract? TechTarget.
    https://www.techtarget.com/searchcio/definition/smart-contract
  13. Bolotaeva, O. S., Stepanova, A. A., & Alekseeva, S. S. (2019). The legal nature of cryptocurrency. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 272(3), Article 032166.
    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/272/3/032166/meta
  14. Cheong, Ben Chester. (2022). Avatars in the metaverse: Potential legal issues and remedies. International Cybersecurity Law Review, 3, 467–494.
  15. Chitsazian, Mortaza, & Khorsandi, Zahra (1400 SH/2021). Māhīyat wa Mālīyat-e Arz-hā-ye Dīžītāl az Manẓar-e Feqh-e Moqāren [Nature and Value of Digital Currencies from the Perspective of Comparative Jurisprudence]. Do Faṣlnāme-ye ʿElmī-ye Feqh-e Moqāren [Scientific Biannual Journal of Comparative Jurisprudence], No. 17. [in Persian].
  16. Clifford Chance. (2023). The metaverse: What are the legal implications?
    https://www.cliffordchance.com
  17. CryptoResearch Report. (2024). The technological limitations of a blockchain-based metaverse.
    https://cryptoresearch.report/crypto-research/the-technological-limitations-of-a-blockchain-based-metaverse
  18. Emami, Hassan (1391 SH/2012). Dawreh-ye Ḥoqūq-e Madanī (Jeld 1) [Course on Civil Law (Vol. 1)]. Tehran: Eslamiyeh Bookstore [in Persian].
  19. Emami, Hassan, & Safaei, Hossein (1380 SH/2001). Ḥoqūq-e Madanī-ye Aškhāṣ wa Amwāl [Civil Law of Persons and Property]. Tehran: Mizan [in Persian].
  20. Fairfield, Joshua. (2005). Virtual property. Articles by Maurer Faculty, 1787. Indiana University.
    https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/1787
  21. Freeze, Patrick. (2022). Virtual real estate investing: What is it and is it worth it? Bay Management Group.
    https://www.baymgmtgroup.com
  22. Gadekallu, T. R., Huynh-The, T., Wang, W., Yenduri, G., Ranaweera, P., Pham, Q. V., & Liyanage, M. (2022). Blockchain for the metaverse: A review. arXiv.
    https://arxiv.org
  23. Gao, Ze, Wang, Anqi, Guljajeva, Varvara, Hui, Pan, & Braud, Tristan. (2022). Digital art in the age of metaverse and NFT: Content and creation.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371306607
  24. Hakim, Mohsen (n.d.). Nahj al-Faqāhah (Mortaza ibn Mohammad Amin Ansari, Author). Qom: 22 Bahman [in Arabic].
  25. (n.d.). NFT smart contracts.
    https://hedera.com/learning/smart-contracts/nft-smart-contract
  26. Hong Wu, H., & Zhang, W. (2023). Digital identity, privacy security, and their legal safeguards in the metaverse.
    https://doi.org/10.1051/sands/2023011
  27. (n.d.). Smart contracts.
    https://www.ibm.com/topics/smart-contracts
  28. Iravani, Ali (1379 SH/2000). Ḥāšīyeh al-Makāsib (Mortaza ibn Mohammad Amin Ansari, Author) (Vols. 1 & 2). Qom: Kotobi Najafi [in Persian].
  29. Jafari Langroudi, Mohammad Jafar (1378 SH/1999). Ḥoqūq-e Amwāl [Law of Property]. Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh [in Persian].
  30. Jafari Langroudi, Mohammad Jafar (1386 SH/2007). Mabsūṭ dar Termīnūlūžī-ye Ḥoqūq (Jeld 4) [Extended Terminology in Law (Vol. 4)]. Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh [in Persian].
  31. Kanis, S. (2022). Cryptocurrency bubbles, the wealth effect, and non-fungible token prices: Evidence from metaverse LAND. SEC Capital Market Symposium.
    https://www.sec.or.th/TH/Documents/Seminars/seminar-061265-05.pdf
  32. Kapoor, A., Dipanwita, G., Mathur, M., Yadav, R., Rupanshu, G., Gupta, M., & Kumaraguru, P. (2022). Tweetboost: Influence of social media on NFT valuation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08373.
    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.05352
  33. Katouzian, Naser (1383 SH/2004). Ḥoqūq-e Madanī: Qawāʿed-e ʿUmūmī-ye Qarārdādhā (Jeld 2) [Civil Law: General Rules of Contracts (Vol. 2)]. Tehran: Enteshar Stock Company [in Persian].
  34. Katouzian, Naser (1387 SH/2008). Amwāl wa Mālekīyat [Property and Ownership]. Tehran: Mizan Legal Foundation [in Persian].
  35. Katouzian, Naser (1389 SH/2010). Dawreh-ye Moqaddamātī-ye Ḥoqūq-e Madanī: Aʿmāl-e Ḥoqūqī Qarārdād: Īqāʿ [Preliminary Course of Civil Law: Legal Acts Contract: Unilateral Obligation]. Tehran: Enteshar Stock Company [in Persian].
  36. Khomeini, Seyyed Ruhollah (1392 SH/2013). Ketāb al-Bayʿ (Vol. 3). Tehran: Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini's Works [in Arabic].
  37. Khomeini, Seyyed Ruhollah (1424 AH/2003). Tawḍīḥ al-Masāʾil (Muḥaššá) (Vol. 8). Qom: Islamic Publications Office affiliated with the Society of Seminary Teachers of Qom [in Arabic].
  38. Khoui, Seyyed Abolqasem (1412 AH/1991). Miṣbāḥ al-Faqāhah (Vol. 5). Beirut: Dar al-Hadi [in Arabic].
  39. Laeeq, Kashif. (2022). Metaverse: Why, how and what.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358505001_Metaverse_Why_How_and_What
  40. Lee, L.-H., Braud, T., Zhou, P., Wang, L., Xu, D., Lin, Z., Kumar, A., Bermejo, C., & Hui, P. (2021). All one needs to know about metaverse: A complete survey on technological singularity, virtual ecosystem, and research agenda.
    https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11200.05124/8
  41. Liu, S. (2023). The security challenges of the “metaverse.” SANDS Journal.
    https://sands.edpsciences.org
  42. Maraghei, Seyyed Mir Abdolfattah (1417 AH/1996). ʿAnāwīn al-Fiqhīyah (Vol. 2). Qom: Islamic Publications Office affiliated with the Society of Seminary Teachers of Qom [in Arabic].
  43. Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Dictionary.
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
  44. Mirzakhani, Reza, & Saadi, Hossein Ali (1397 SH/2018). Bītkoʾīn wa Māhīyat-e Mālī-ye Feqhī-ye Pūl-e Majāzī [Bitcoin and the Jurisprudential Financial Nature of Virtual Money]. Jostārhā-ye Eqteṣādī [Economic Explorations], No. 30. doi: 10.30471/iee.2018.1555 [in Persian].
  45. Mohaqqeq Damad, Seyyed Mostafa (1406 AH/1985). Qawāʿid Fiqh (Vol. 1). Tehran: Center for Publishing Islamic Sciences [in Arabic].
  46. Mosco, Vincent. (2023). Into the metaverse: Technical challenges, social problems, utopian visions, and policy principles. Javnost – The Public, 30(2), 161–173.
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2023.2200688
  47. Mostafavi, Seyyed Kazem (1421 AH/2000). Al-Qawāʿid al-Fiqhī Qom: World Center for Islamic Sciences [in Arabic].
  48. Motahari, Mortaza (1368 SH/1989). Naẓarī be Neẓām-e Eqteṣād-e Eslāmī (Jeld 1) [A View on the Islamic Economic System (Vol. 1)]. Tehran: Sadra [in Persian].
  49. Mystakidis, Stylianos. (2022). Metaverse. Encyclopedia, 2(1), 486–497. MDPI.
    https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia2010031
  50. Najafi Kashif al-Gheta, Abbas ibn Ali (1422 AH/2001). Al-Māl al-Miṯlī wa-al-Qīmī fī al-Fiqh al-Islāmī (Vol. 1). Qom: Kashif al-Gheta [in Arabic].
  51. Naraqi, Molla Ahmad (1417 AH/1996). ʿAwāʾid al-Ayyām (Vol. 1). Qom: Islamic Propagation Office Publications [in Arabic].
  52. Newton, Casey. (2021). Mark in the metaverse. The Verge.
    https://www.theverge.com/22588022/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-ceo-metaverse-interview
  53. Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.). Blockchain [Updated definition]. Oxford University Press.
    https://newsbtc.com
  54. Panahi, Mehdi, Shams, Ahmad, & Mohammad Taheri, Mahmoud Reza (1399 SH/2020). Tabyīn-e Ḥoqūqī-ye Mafhūm-e “Dārāyī” wa Anwāʿ-e Ān dar Jahān-e Majāzī [Explain the concept of property and their types in the virtual world]. Pažūhešnāme-ye Ḥoqūq-e Eslāmī [Journal of Islamic Law Research], 21 (1), 243–266. doi: 10.30497/law.2020.2770 [in Persian].
  55. Qanavati, Jalil, Vahdati Shobeiri, Seyyed Hassan, & Abdipour, Ebrahim (1388 SH/2009). Ḥoqūq-e Qarārdādhā dar Feqh-e Emāmīyeh (Jeld 1) [Law of Contracts in Imami Jurisprudence (Vol. 1)]. Tehran: SAMT [in Persian].
  56. Qasemi Hamed, Abbas (1399 SH/2020). Ḥoqūq-e Madanī Šarāyeṭ-e Asāsī-ye Šeklgīrī-ye Qarārdād [Civil Law Basic Conditions for Contract Formation]. Tehran: Drak [in Persian].
  57. Qasemzadeh, Mortaza (1387 SH/2008). Ḥoqūq-e Madanī Uṣūl-e Qarārdādhā wa Taʿahhodāt [Civil Law Principles of Contracts and Obligations]. Tehran: Dadgostar [in Persian].
  58. Qolizadeh, Ahmad (1379 SH/2000). Wāžehšenāsī-ye Iṣṭilāḥāt-e Uṣūl-e Feqh (Jeld 1) [Terminology of Usul al-Fiqh Terms (Vol. 1)]. Tehran: Nur al-Asfiya Scientific-Cultural Research Foundation [in Persian].
  59. Rafiei, Mohammad Taqi (1378 SH/1999). Moṭāleʿeh-ye Taṭbīqī-ye Ḡarar dar Moʿāmelāt [Comparative Study of Gharar in Transactions]. Qom: Center for Islamic Studies and Research [in Persian].
  60. Rahpeik, Hassan (1398 SH/2019). Ḥoqūq-e Madanī: Ḥoqūq-e Qarārdādhā [Civil Law: Law of Contracts]. Tehran: Khorsandi [in Persian].
  61. Reserve Bank of Australia. (n.d.). Cryptocurrencies: Explainer.
    https://www.rba.gov.au/education/resources/explainers/cryptocurrencies.html
  62. Russell, John (1401 SH/2022). Metāvers: Rāhnamā-ye Worūd be Donīā-ye Šegeftangīz-e Metāvers [Metaverse: A Guide to Entering the Amazing World of the Metaverse]. Translated by Ali Taqavi. Tehran: Rah Pardakht [in Persian].
  63. Sadr, Mohammad Baqer (1389 SH/2010). Bānk-e Bedūn-e Rebā [Interest-Free Banking]. Translated by Mortaza Zanjani. Tehran: Farhange Sabz [in Persian].
  64. Safaei, Seyyed Hossein (1383 SH/2004). Dawreh-ye Moqaddamātī-ye Ḥoqūq-e Madanī (Qawāʿed-e ʿUmūmī-ye Qarārdādhā) (Jeld 2) [Preliminary Course of Civil Law (General Rules of Contracts) (Vol. 2)]. Tehran: Mizan [in Persian].
  65. Shahidi, Mehdi (1377 SH/1998). Taškīl-e Qarārdādhā wa Taʿahhodāt (Jeld 1) [Formation of Contracts and Obligations (Vol. 1)] (1st ed.). Tehran: Huquqdan [in Persian].
  66. Shahidi, Mehdi (1387 SH/2008). Ḥoqūq-e Madanī 3: Taʿahhodāt [Civil Law 3: Obligations]. Tehran: Majd [in Persian].
  67. Shamshiri, Alireza, & Amirabadi Farahani, Fereshteh (1402 SH/2023). Moʿāmeleh-ye Zamīn-e Majāzī dar Metāvers wa Chālešhā-ye Feqhī wa Ḥoqūqī-ye Ān [Virtual Land Transaction in the Metaverse and its Jurisprudential and Legal Challenges]. Do Faṣlnāme-ye Moṭāleʿāt-e Feqh wa Ḥoqūq-e Rasāneh [Biannual Journal of Jurisprudence and Media Law Studies], No. 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.22034/5.2.45 [in Persian].
  68. Shamshiri, Alireza, Salehi Aliabadi, Hamed, & Karimi, Abbas (1402 SH/2023). Wākāwī-ye Ḡarar-e Moʾaṯṯer dar Feqh-e Emāmīyeh wa Ḥoqūq-e Īrān wa Moqāyeseh-ye Ān bā Ḥoqūq-e Meṣr [Analysis of Effective Gharar in Imami Jurisprudence and Iranian Law and its Comparison with Egyptian Law]. Ḥoqūq-e Eslāmī [Islamic Law], No. 77. [in Persian].
  69. Shirvani, Masoud, & Talakesh, Malikasadat (1399 SH/2020). Qānūngoẕārī-ye Balākchīn dar Īrān, Chīn wa Engelestān [Blockchain Legislation in Iran, China, and England]. Faṣlnāme-ye Tamaddon-e Ḥoqūqī [Quarterly Journal of Legal Civilization], No. 7. [in Persian].
  70. Soltanifard, Javad, & Mohammadi, Ahmad (1403 SH/2024). Kāwešī Now dar Gostaheh-ye Mafhūmī-ye Qāʿedeh-ye “Nafy-e Ḡarar” wa Inṭibāqsanjī-ye Kharīd wa Forūš-e “Arzhā-ye Ramzpāyeh” bā Ān [A New Exploration in the Conceptual Scope of the Principle of "Prohibition of Gharar (Risk)" and Its Applicability to the Buying and Selling of "Cryptocurrencies" from the Perspective of Islamic Law]. Pažūhešnāme-ye Ḥoqūq-e Eslāmī [Journal of Islamic Law Research], 25 (4). doi: 10.30497/law.2024.245837.3494 [in Persian].
  71. Torabi, Mortaza (1400 SH/2021). Dars-e Khārej-e Feqh [Advanced Jurisprudence Lecture]. (Unpublished lecture) [in Persian].
  72. Towhidi, Mohammad Ali (1417 AH/1996). Miṣbāḥ al-Faqāhah (Taġrīrāt Dars Āyatollāh Abolqāsem Khūʾī) (Vol. 2). Qom: Ansarian Institute [in Arabic].
  73. Vahdati Shobeiri, Seyyed Hassan (1379 SH/2000). Majhūl Būdan-e Mawred-e Moʿāmeleh [Uncertainty of the Subject Matter of the Transaction]. Qom: Center for Islamic Studies and Research [in Persian].
  74. Wang, Y., Su, Z., Zhang, N., Xing, R., Liu, D., Luan, T. H., & Shen, X. (2022). A survey on metaverse: Fundamentals, security, and privacy. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.
  75. Yousefi, Ahmad Ali (1399 SH/2020). Ḍābeṭeh-ye Māl Būdan dar Mabāḥeṯ-e Feqhī [Criterion of Being Property in Jurisprudential Discussions]. Faṣlnāme-ye ʿElmī wa Eqteṣād-e Eslāmī [Scientific Quarterly of Islamic Jurisprudence and Economy], No. 79. [in Persian].
  76. Zohuri, Bahman, Nguyen, Hang T., & Moghaddam, M. (2022). What is the cryptocurrency? Is it a threat to our national security, domestically and globally? International Journal of Theoretical and Computational Physics, 3(1).