Whether this coin clears the published standards, and the filings behind that answer. The screen runs first and nothing on the trading side can override it.
Structure, momentum, positioning and levels. Separate from the Sharia verdict above, which this side never overrides.
Methodology breakdown not tracked for CHEEMS in this view. The verdict above is our compliance provider's, unchanged.
Whether the technical picture shows an edge right now. Separate from the Sharia verdict, which this side never overrides.
Cheems Token (CHEEMS) is currently marked questionable - not a clean pass or a confirmed fail, per our own multi-standard crypto screen. Our full reasoning, the standards behind it and the facts it rests on are below.
Not tracked for CHEEMS in this view — our own seven-methodology breakdown is not on this page. The verdict above is our compliance provider's, unchanged and not affected by this.
Verdict history for CHEEMS. Nothing has been recorded for it yet.
ℹ️ Coin verdicts are not change-tracked yet. An empty history here means nothing has been recorded, not that nothing has moved.
The disagreement is about MAYSIR. With no function behind it, the holding is a bet on price, which most standards treat as a gambling concern - though the riba-focused standard does not address it at all.
1 of 6 permit it; 5 do not. We report that as unsettled rather than picking a side for you.
Independently corroborated. 3 separate models read this coin and agreed on every fact the verdict turns on, though 4 minor fields could not be established by all of them.
Not established: transparent governance. Our verdict does not assume anything about these — where they would change the answer, we say so rather than guessing.
Permissible in itself, but the Council's own caution against wasting wealth on volatile speculation bears directly on a token with no function.
Fiqh Council of North America, “Regarding the Islamic Ruling on Bitcoins” — default permissibility; treated as fiat currency, so all riba rulings and bai’ al-sarf apply
No prohibition is established, but a purely price-driven holding attracts the maysir caution these scholars pair with the permission.
Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America — Dr. Salah Al-Sawy (Secretary General) and Dr. Yasir Qadhi: transactions are permissible unless clear evidence prohibits them
Maysir concern: no established function, so the holding is a bet on price alone.
This standard requires transparent governance to be established, and we could not establish it. An unestablished requirement is not a satisfied one, so this reads as unresolved rather than as a pass.
Securities Commission Malaysia, Shariah Advisory Council, 233rd-234th meetings, June-July 2020
Token layer: no manfa'ah established - nothing the token is FOR.
Amanah Advisors, Crypto Shariah Screening Framework (Mufti Faraz Adam)
No service is performed and no asset underlies it, so there is nothing for a reward to be a fee FOR.
Amanie Advisors (Dr. Daud Bakar) — Shariah certification of Ethereum staking; validation treated as a real service rendered to the network rather than a return on capital
No interest-derived return to the holder.
AAOIFI Shariah Standards - riba and non-permissible income, applied to the token's return mechanism (no dedicated crypto standard exists)
No intrinsic backing and no issuing authority; excessive gharar under this position, which applies to most digital assets including Bitcoin.
Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani (crypto trading and investment impermissible); Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah (Egypt, 2018); Diyanet Isleri Baskanligi (Turkey, 2017)
The restrictive position above is shown but excluded from our own verdict: it rejects most digital assets including Bitcoin on gharar alone, so letting it decide would mark nearly everything non-compliant — which is neither our conclusion nor a defensible reading of the evidence. Hiding it would be worse.
This is our own screening verdict, reached by applying each named standard ourselves to the facts above, last established 2026-08-29. Research, not a fatwa — for a decision that binds you, ask a scholar you trust.
Market structure by timeframe, read from real bars. A bias per timeframe rather than a forecast — timeframes disagreeing is information, not noise.
The market-structure read is still being computed — it runs in the background rather than holding this page up. Reload in a moment and it will be here.
How the rest of the sector moved over the same window. Context for a price move, never a cause of one.
Peer movement computing — it will appear here on its own.
The questions worth asking about any verdict on this page, answered plainly.
The ratio screen needs a balance sheet. A coin has neither filings nor a debt figure, so the same test cannot run. Compliance turns instead on what the token actually is and does.
Most commonly, the token is a claim on interest: a lending protocol, a yield-bearing stablecoin, or a product whose return comes from lending at interest rather than from work performed.
No. A protocol can add a lending product or change what its token does. Any verdict that moves is recorded, and a verdict that has not moved is reported as such rather than assumed.
Not on every coin. Where real disagreement exists, HTR records both positions instead of picking one. This is a research tool; a ruling for your own holding should come from a qualified scholar.
Open research, not a fatwa. HTR applies published screening standards to filings and publishes what they say, including when they disagree. Nothing here is financial advice or a recommendation to buy or sell. Verdicts can change when new filings land.
Same screen, different answers. Comparison is where the standards disagreeing becomes useful rather than confusing.
Peer screening computing — it will appear here on its own.
Plain-language summary of the evidence already on this page — the Sharia screen, structure, momentum, and order flow above. It explains the read; it doesn't make the call. Generated on demand (a live AI call), never run automatically.