NU Congress Recognizes Bitcoin as an Asset, but Where Are the Boundaries in Indonesia?

The 35th Congress of Nahdlatul Ulama, or NU, adopted a more detailed position on Bitcoin. Through its Bahtsul Masail Waqi’iyah deliberation, the congress concluded that Bitcoin could qualify as property, or mal, and a medium of exchange, or tsaman, under its fiqh analysis. Transactions involving Bitcoin as a digital asset were also considered valid and permissible.

That conclusion does not make Bitcoin Indonesia’s official currency, allow it to replace the rupiah, or authorize its unrestricted use as a payment instrument. One of the most consequential parts of the decision is precisely the separation between Bitcoin as a digital asset and Bitcoin as a currency operating within Indonesia.

The decision therefore needs to be read through three distinct layers: the fiqh classification of Bitcoin, Indonesia’s national currency law, and the regulatory framework for crypto-asset trading. These layers are related, but they do not create the same rights, obligations, or legal consequences.

What Did the NU Congress Actually Decide?

The decision emerged from the Bahtsul Masail Waqi’iyah Commission and was presented during the third plenary session of the 35th NU Congress in Jombang, East Java, on August 29, 2026.

According to the official NU Online report, the discussion addressed two questions. The first was whether Bitcoin met the fiqh requirements for property and a medium of exchange. The second concerned the permissibility of transactions involving Bitcoin.

The commission concluded that Bitcoin could be treated as mal because it has recognized value and utility, can be owned and transferred, and can be exchanged for goods or other assets. It was also considered capable of performing a tsaman function within the fiqh analysis adopted by the congress.

The classification did not depend on Bitcoin having a physical form. The reasoning focused on utility, control, transferability, and social recognition of value. In practice, control over Bitcoin is demonstrated through the ability to control the relevant address and private key.

The commission then stated that transactions involving Bitcoin as a digital asset were valid and permissible. A different conclusion applied when Bitcoin was positioned as a currency intended to replace the rupiah in Indonesia.

“The Bahtsul Masail Waqi’iyah reasoning on Bitcoin’s classification as mal and tsaman under fiqh. Source: NU Online, report on the third plenary session of the 35th NU Congress, published August 30, 2026.”

The screenshot documents the reasoning applied in the fiqh decision. It does not prove that Bitcoin has a stable price, that its technology is risk-free, or that every type of Bitcoin transaction is automatically permissible.

Three Layers That Should Not Be Conflated

A. Bitcoin’s Status Under Fiqh

The first layer asks whether Bitcoin can be recognized as property with value and serve as the subject of a transaction. The NU Congress answered this question positively for Bitcoin.

Recognition as mal means that Bitcoin can be owned and exchanged within the framework examined by the congress. It does not automatically validate every contract, purpose, or method of trading it.

A transaction may still need to be examined for the source of funds, contractual clarity, ownership, asset delivery, manipulation, leverage, excessive uncertainty, and potential harm to another party. A spot purchase that gives the buyer ownership of Bitcoin, for example, has a different structure from a leveraged derivative contract that can be liquidated.

B. Bitcoin’s Position Under Currency Law

The second layer concerns which payment instrument is legally recognized in Indonesia. Law No. 7 of 2011 on Currency establishes the rupiah as Indonesia’s legal tender.

Bank Indonesia implemented the rupiah-use obligation through Bank Indonesia Regulation No. 17/3/PBI/2015. According to Bank Indonesia’s official explanation, parties must use the rupiah for cash and non-cash transactions within Indonesia, subject to specified regulatory exceptions.

Recognizing Bitcoin as an asset and a medium of exchange under a fiqh analysis does not therefore make it an official currency. The NU decision itself states that positioning Bitcoin as a currency in Indonesia is not permissible because it conflicts with national law.

“Mandatory use of the rupiah for cash and non-cash transactions in Indonesia, including the listed exceptions. Source: Bank Indonesia, Bank Indonesia Regulation No. 17/3/PBI/2015, March 31, 2015.”

The exceptions include specified categories such as international trade, cross-border grants, foreign-currency bank deposits, and international financing. They do not create a blanket authorization for every Bitcoin payment. A transaction must still meet the legal form, purpose, and conditions of the relevant exception.

C. Bitcoin as a Digital Financial Asset

The third layer is crypto-asset regulation. Since January 10, 2025, the Financial Services Authority, or OJK, has been responsible for regulating and supervising crypto-asset trading in Indonesia.

OJK Regulation No. 27 of 2024, as subsequently amended, establishes the framework for trading digital financial assets, including crypto assets. It covers institutional requirements, governance, trading operations, reporting, system security, data protection, risk management, and consumer protection.

This framework regulates Bitcoin as a digital financial asset. It does not classify Bitcoin as sovereign money, a bank deposit, or a government-guaranteed product.

An Asset, a Medium of Exchange, and Legal Tender Are Not the Same Thing

The term “transaction instrument” can be misunderstood when removed from the context of the NU decision. Under fiqh, an item with recognized value may become the object or consideration in an exchange. Positive law, however, determines which instrument may serve as official payment within Indonesia.

The distinction becomes clearer through practical examples.

Buying Bitcoin as an asset

A person exchanges rupiah or another asset for Bitcoin and holds it as a digital asset. This activity falls within the crypto-asset trading framework and remains subject to applicable access and regulatory requirements.

The NU decision may serve as a fiqh reference for NU members regarding Bitcoin’s status as property. It does not remove price risk, transaction costs, platform exposure, transfer errors, or the possibility of losing wallet access.

Selling Bitcoin and receiving rupiah

A Bitcoin holder sells the asset through an available mechanism and receives the proceeds in rupiah. Bitcoin is treated as a traded asset, while the rupiah remains the applicable unit of account and legal payment instrument.

The amount received still depends on market conditions, spreads, liquidity, fees, taxes, and execution timing. A transaction being considered permissible under a fiqh decision does not guarantee a favorable sale price or profit.

Paying for goods in Indonesia directly with Bitcoin

The analysis changes when a merchant prices goods in Bitcoin and accepts Bitcoin as settlement for a domestic payment. Such use may conflict with the mandatory use of the rupiah.

Calling the arrangement a barter, asset transfer, or on-chain settlement does not automatically change its substance. If the transaction settles payment for goods or services in Indonesia, the rupiah requirement remains relevant.

Sending Bitcoin abroad

Bitcoin can technically be transferred across borders without relying on traditional banking hours. Technical capability, however, is not evidence that every cross-border transfer satisfies the law.

Users may still need to consider asset-transfer rules, taxation, source-of-funds requirements, anti-money-laundering controls, sanctions, reporting duties, the recipient’s status, and the rules of the destination jurisdiction. Exceptions for international trade or financing cannot be applied to Bitcoin without examining the actual structure of the transaction.

The Decision Concerns Bitcoin, Not Every Crypto Asset

A frequently overlooked boundary is the subject of the decision. The NU Congress specifically examined Bitcoin. Its conclusion should not automatically be extended to every token, stablecoin, meme coin, governance token, or crypto derivative.

These instruments can have materially different structures:

• Bitcoin does not have a corporate issuer controlling supply or promising redemption.

• Stablecoins usually depend on an issuer, reserves, custodians, and redemption mechanisms.

• Project tokens may provide utility, governance rights, service access, or economic claims.

• Meme coins may have limited utility and highly concentrated ownership.

• Tokenized assets may involve an issuer, underlying assets, legal contracts, custody, and redemption rights.

• Futures contracts do not provide direct ownership of the underlying asset and may involve leverage and liquidation.

Because those structures differ, a conclusion about Bitcoin cannot automatically be transferred to every blockchain-based product.

How Does the NU Decision Differ from the MUI Position Adopted in 2021?

The NU decision also needs to be understood within the broader range of views held by Indonesian religious institutions.

In 2021, the Indonesian Ulema Council’s Commission for Fatwas stated that using cryptocurrency as currency was prohibited because of gharar, dharar, and conflict with Indonesia’s currency rules. Regarding cryptocurrency as a commodity or digital asset, the MUI decision distinguished between assets that failed to meet the applicable sil’ah requirements and assets with an underlying basis and clear utility.

The 2026 NU Congress examined Bitcoin more specifically and concluded that it met the requirements for mal and tsaman. Different scopes, methodologies, definitions of utility, and assessments of asset control can produce different conclusions.

The distinction should not be reduced to one institution supporting crypto while another rejects it. Readers need to examine:

• Whether the discussion concerns Bitcoin or cryptocurrency generally.

• Whether the instrument is being treated as currency, a commodity, or a digital asset.

• How utility and control are assessed.

• Whether a transaction provides direct ownership or only derivative exposure.

• Whether the structure involves gharar, dharar, qimar, manipulation, or unlawful use.

This approach allows each fiqh decision to be read according to its actual object and context rather than through a simplified halal-or-haram label.

Recognizing Bitcoin as an Asset Does Not Remove Its Risks

The fiqh decision does not change Bitcoin’s technology or risk profile.

Price volatility

Bitcoin can experience large price changes over short periods. Its price may be influenced by global liquidity, investment-product flows, interest rates, leverage, sentiment, regulation, and large-holder activity.

Private-key risk

A private key provides control over Bitcoin, but it also creates responsibility. Losing a seed phrase, signing a malicious transaction, or sending funds to the wrong address can result in permanent loss.

Platform and counterparty risk

When Bitcoin is held through a service provider, users face operational, security, withdrawal, and counterparty risks. Bitcoin’s recognition as property does not guarantee that every provider can return user assets under all conditions.

Leverage risk

Derivative products can liquidate a position when available margin becomes insufficient. A decision concerning Bitcoin as an asset should not be interpreted as blanket approval of every leveraged strategy.

Use and source-of-funds risk

A transaction can remain impermissible or unlawful if it supports fraud, money laundering, manipulation, prohibited financing, or concealment of the source of funds. A valid asset does not legitimize an unlawful purpose or transaction method.

Readers who want to monitor Bitcoin’s price, volume, and market movement can use the MEXC BTC market page. Market data does not determine the legal status of a transaction, an individual religious assessment, or investment suitability.

What Should Be Monitored Next?

The NU decision provides a clearer fiqh basis for treating Bitcoin as a digital asset. Several developments still require attention.

A complete publication of the congress decision would clarify the scope of mal, tsaman, transaction use, and the relevant conditions. A news summary may not contain every argument, exception, or qualification considered during the deliberation.

Further guidance may also be needed for spot trading, custody, products involving other assets, derivatives, leverage, and issuer-backed tokens. A Bitcoin-specific decision does not resolve every digital-product structure.

Bank Indonesia and OJK rules remain the reference points for determining rupiah use, crypto trading, service-provider licensing, and consumer protection. A fiqh decision does not replace state regulation, while state regulation does not decide an individual’s religious assessment.

Conclusion

The 35th NU Congress concluded that Bitcoin met the requirements for property and a medium of exchange under its fiqh analysis. Transactions involving Bitcoin as a digital asset were also considered valid and permissible.

The boundary remains clear. Bitcoin does not become Indonesia’s official currency and cannot be treated as a universal replacement for the rupiah in domestic payments. The decision also does not automatically apply to every crypto asset, derivative contract, or trading method.

The practical implication lies in separating functions. Bitcoin may be owned and traded as a digital asset within the applicable framework, while the rupiah remains Indonesia’s legal payment instrument. Each transaction must still be assessed according to its contract, purpose, ownership structure, source of funds, risks, and legal compliance.

The next developments to watch are the complete congress formulation, guidance for more complex crypto products, and the interaction between OJK and Bank Indonesia rules. Until those details are available, the decision should not be interpreted as blanket approval for every activity carrying the Bitcoin or crypto label.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for information and education. It is not an individual fatwa, legal advice, or investment recommendation. Readers seeking a religious assessment of their personal circumstances should consult a qualified fiqh muamalah expert. For legal certainty, refer to the latest rules issued by Bank Indonesia, OJK, and other relevant authorities. Bitcoin is highly volatile and may result in a partial or total loss of funds.