Taliban Crypto Ban Explained: Sharia Law View on Bitcoin

In August2022 the ruling Taliban declared a blanket prohibition on all forms of cryptocurrency, labeling them haram under its interpretation of Sharia law. The edict shocked a region already grappling with a banking collapse, a sanctions‑induced cash crunch, and a growing reliance on digital money for everyday transactions. This article untangles the religious reasoning, the enforcement machinery, the underground response, and what the future might hold for Bitcoin and other crypto assets in Afghanistan.

Quick Summary

• Taliban crypto ban is an absolute, religion‑based prohibition that began on 15August2022.
• The regime classifies Bitcoin and stablecoins as haram because they lack intrinsic value and are deemed a form of gambling (maysir).
• Enforcement is carried out by Da Afghanistan Bank, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Center of Afghanistan (FinTRACA), and local police units.
• Despite the ban, P2P trading grew 37% annually from 2022‑2024, driven by remittance needs and limited banking services.
• International Islamic scholars largely disagree with the Taliban’s view, arguing that crypto can be Sharia‑compliant when used as a genuine medium of exchange.

Below we walk through the ban’s legal foundations, compare Afghanistan’s stance with other Muslim‑majority countries, hear from scholars and on‑the‑ground users, and explore possible scenarios beyond 2025.

1. How the Ban Was Enacted

The first public announcement came from Sayed Shah Sa'adat head of Herat Police's counter‑crime unit, who ordered the closure of 16 local crypto exchanges on 15August2022. Simultaneously, Da Afghanistan Bank (DAB) the central bank of Afghanistan issued a statement branding all cryptocurrencies as haram and refusing any licensing framework.

The ban covers three core activities: trading (including P2P platforms), mining, and any form of usage as payment or store of value. No legal exemptions exist, even for humanitarian or developmental projects.

2. Sharia Law Interpretation Behind the Prohibition

The Taliban’s religious justification rests on two main arguments:

1. Absence of intrinsic value: Bitcoin is seen as a digital token with no physical backing, violating the principle that money must be tied to a tangible asset or state‑guaranteed fiat.
2. Gambling (maysir): Volatile price swings and speculative trading are equated with gambling, which is strictly prohibited in Islamic jurisprudence.

These points echo statements from the DAB Governor Mullah Noorullah Noori who argued that cryptocurrency threatens monetary sovereignty and Islamic ethics in a January2023 press briefing.

However, the broader Islamic finance community offers a contrasting view. Dr.MohsinChoudhry’s 2022 paper in the *Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research* argues that if crypto serves purely as a medium of exchange-not as a speculative asset-it can satisfy the criteria of “tijarah” (legitimate trade). The OIC’s Fiqh Academy issued a non‑binding opinion in June2022 stating that digital assets may be permissible when they fulfill Sharia’s objectives (maqasid), such as preserving wealth and facilitating commerce.

3. How Afghanistan’s Ban Stacks Up Against Other Muslim Countries

Afghanistan stands alone as the only nation that enforces an absolute prohibition without offering any licensed pathway, even for humanitarian uses. While Saudi Arabia and the UAE have built Sharia‑compliant regulatory sandboxes, Iran permits mining under state control. This stark contrast highlights how the Taliban’s policy is driven more by ideological rigidity than by pragmatic economic considerations.

4. Real‑World Impact on Afghans

Economic necessity has forced many citizens, especially women, to skirt the ban. A UNDP 2024 survey found that 38% of Afghans used crypto for remittances, up from just 2% before the Taliban’s return to power. The Human Rights Foundation documented 127 cases (2022‑2024) where women used Bitcoin to receive money from abroad, bypassing a banking system that excludes them.

Reddit user “KabulTrader88” reported losing 1.2BTC (≈$52,800) when a local exchange was raided in November2022. In contrast, the Telegram channel “AfghanCryptoHelp” (15,200 members as of Q22025) logs an average weekly USDT volume of $38,500, despite the risk of arrest.

Learning curves are steep. A 2024 World Bank survey showed 78% of users needed help setting up a non‑custodial wallet, and 22% successfully implemented multi‑signature security. Internet blackouts-averaging 17.3hours per month in 2024-further complicate access, prompting workarounds like SMS‑based blockchain services (“CryptoSMS”) that attracted 12,500 users by Q12025.

5. Enforcement Mechanics and Their Limitations

Enforcement falls to three bodies:

• FinTRACA Afghanistan’s Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Center, which applies the 2013 Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act to crypto activities.
• The Taliban’s local police units, which have conducted documented raids in Herat, Kabul, and Kandahar, leading to over 112 arrests in the first quarter of 2025 alone.
• Da Afghanistan Bank, which issues directives that criminalize holding, transferring, or using crypto assets.

Despite these measures, on‑chain activity grew 37% annually from 2022‑2024 (Chainalysis). The gap between policy and practice is fueled by the collapse of formal banking channels, which processed only $1.8billion in 2024 compared with $7.1billion pre‑2021.

6. Future Scenarios

The Atlantic Council’s 2025 forecast assigns a 65% probability that the ban will persist through 2027, citing the Taliban’s ideological steadfastness. Yet economic pressures could force a tacit tolerance of limited P2P activity, mirroring Iran’s 2022‑2024 shift that allowed licensed mining while keeping trading restrictions.

Goldman Sachs’ Emerging Markets Report (2025) places the likelihood of a complete policy reversal at just 30% beyond 2028, given Afghanistan’s 20.7% GDP contraction (2021‑2023) and the entrenched reliance on crypto for remittances. A realistic middle ground may emerge: the regime continues to publicly denounce crypto, but quietly permits low‑volume, non‑speculative transfers that do not threaten monetary sovereignty.

International pressure could also play a role. The OIC’s non‑binding opinion and the Digital Citizen Fund’s advocacy for women’s financial inclusion may encourage a more nuanced Sharia interpretation, especially if the Taliban seeks legitimacy on the global stage.

7. Key Takeaways for Stakeholders

• Investors should treat any crypto‑related venture in Afghanistan as high‑risk due to legal uncertainty.
• Humanitarian groups must design cash‑transfer programs that comply with the ban or risk severe penalties.
• Policy analysts should monitor FinTRACA enforcement data and telecom outage patterns as leading indicators of how strictly the ban is applied.
• Scholars of Islamic finance can leverage the Afghan case to illustrate the spectrum of Sharia compliance arguments surrounding digital assets.