Ownership and Inheritance Rights Regarding Family Digital Assets on Artificial Intelligence Platforms: A Qiyās Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64691/f1a0ys83Keywords:
Digital Assets, Artificial Intelligence, Qiyās, Islamic Inheritance, Digital JurisprudenceAbstract
The transformation driven by artificial intelligence technology has given rise to digital rights with economic value. However, Islamic jurisprudence lacks a clear classification regarding the ownership and inheritance of accounts, data, generative works, and platform access rights. The core issue lies in distinguishing between māl (wealth/property), milk (ownership), ḥaqq (right), manfaʻah (usufruct/benefit), and contractual licenses, as well as determining which digital rights may constitute part of the tirkah (estate). This study aims to classify the legal status of family digital assets, examine the validity of qiyās (legal analogy)—by identifying the aṣl (original case), farʻ (branch case), ḥukm al-aṣl (ruling on the original case), and ʻillah (legal cause)—and determine the limits of their inheritance. This normative legal research employs uṣūl al-fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence), conceptual, and analytical approaches, drawing upon naṣṣ (scriptural texts from the Qur’an and Hadith) regarding inheritance, literature on qiyās, jurisprudence concerning māl and ḥuqūq (rights), as well as fatwās and digital regulations. The analysis involves mapping the characteristics of each asset, comparing the ʻillah with concepts of usufruct, intellectual property rights, and intangible assets, and testing the applicability of the original legal ruling to the digital object. The findings indicate that accounts and access rights are not uniform as objects of inheritance, as some are personal in nature and subject to platform contracts; economically valuable personal data can be the subject of rights, subject to limitations on control and transfer; generative works are inheritable provided the deceased held economic rights; and usufruct rights and licenses are inheritable only to the extent permitted by the nature of the right and contractual terms. An ʻillah based solely on economic value is insufficient; recognized utility, lawful control, transferability, and the continuity of economic rights serve as determining factors. Qiyās is valid only to a limited extent, specifically when the ʻillah in the farʻ corresponds to that of the aṣl. These findings underscore the need for a digital jurisprudence that distinguishes between ownership, usage rights, and licenses regarding the deceased’s estate.
References
A. Akramov, A., Kh. Rakhmonkulova, N., T. Khazratkulov, O., E. Inamdjanova, E., I. Imamalieva, D., R. Tuychieva, S., … R. Rustamova, N. (2024). The Impact of Digitalization in Inheritance Law. Qubahan Academic Journal, 4(3), 100–134. https://doi.org/10.48161/qaj.v4n3a863
Abdel-Nabi, A. E.-T., Alrasbi, T. S., & Bendari, M. I. (2025). Digital Inheritance from the Perspective of Omani Law and Islamic Jurisprudence. Journal of Cultural Analysis and Social Change, 10(2), 1136–1143. https://doi.org/10.64753/jcasc.v10i2.1745
Abrosimova, E. A., & Vlasenko, E. V. (2022). Inheritance of social media accounts in Germany and Sweden. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 13(2), 452–468. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2022.210
Academy, I. I. F. (1988). Resolution No. 43 (5/5) on Moral Rights. Retrieved from International Islamic Fiqh Academy website: https://iifa-aifi.org/en/54157.html
Al-Āmidī, S. al-D. (1983). al-Iḥkām fī Uṣūl al-Aḥkām. Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-‘Arabī.
Al-Ghazālī, A. Ḥāmid M. ibn M. (1993). al-Mustaṣfā min ’Ilm al-Uṣūl. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmiyyah.
Al-Juwaynī, I. al-Ḥaramayn. (1998). al-Burhān fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah.
Al-Mahmood, A., Al-Hakeem, S. M., Mahmood, M. T., Hussein, A. majeed, Kurdi, I. A., Ismael, A. A., … Algburi, S. (2025). Blockchain for Intellectual Property Protection: Securing Digital Content Ownership and Rights Management. 2025 3rd International Conference on Business Analytics for Technology and Security (ICBATS), 1–6. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBATS66542.2025.11258104
Al-Zuḥaylī, W. (1985). al-Fiqh al-Islāmī wa Adillatuh. Damascus: Dār al-Fikr.
Al-Zuḥaylī, W. (2003). Financial Transactions in Islamic Jurisprudence (M. A. El-Gamal, Ed.). Damascus: Dār al-Fikr.
Aripin, J. (2025). Hajj Fund Investment: A Comparative Contemporary Fiqh Study on Maslahah and Public Policy Perspectives in Indonesia. MILRev: Metro Islamic Law Review, 4(1), 360–388. https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v4i1.10424
Buitelaar, J. C. (2017). Post-mortem privacy and informational self-determination. Ethics and Information Technology, 19(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9421-9
Corporation, I. D. (2024). IDC’s Worldwide AI and Generative AI Spending – Industry Outlook. Retrieved from https://www.idc.com/resource-center/blog/idcs-worldwide-ai-and-generative-ai-spending-industry-outlook/
Doyle, D. T., & Brubaker, J. R. (2023). Digital Legacy: A Systematic Literature Review. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610059
Farooqui, M. O., Sharma, B., & Gupta, D. (2022). Inheritance of digital assets: Analyzing the concept of digital inheritance on social media platforms. Novum Jus, 16(3), 413–435. https://doi.org/10.14718/NovumJus.2022.16.3.15
Feriati, B., Nopita, R., Riadi, H., Harmaini, H., Sulwana, S., & Uri, F. (2025). The Integration of Science and Technology in Islamic Fiqh: A Contemporary Perspective. Indonesian Journal of Education Research (IJoER), 6(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.37251/ijoer.v6i1.1407
Geiger, C. (2024). Elaborating a Human Rights-Friendly Copyright Framework for Generative AI. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 55(7), 1129–1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01481-5
Helmi, I., & Maulin, M. (2026). Zakat on Crypto Assets and Sharia Financial Inclusion: A Comparative Fiqh al-Muamalah Analysis in Indonesia and Malaysia. Lentera, 7(2), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.32505/hc4s1d89
Huang, Z.-X., & Huang, T. (2023). Privacy Calculus Theory in the Digital Government Context: The Case of Taiwan’s New eID Policy. Social Science Computer Review, 41(5), 1745–1766. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393221117500
Iyengar, R., Park, Y.-H., & Yu, Q. (2022). The Impact of Subscription Programs on Customer Purchases. Journal of Marketing Research, 59(6), 1101–1119. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437221080163
Khan, A. Q., Matskin, M., Prodan, R., Bussler, C., Roman, D., & Soylu, A. (2024). Cloud storage cost: a taxonomy and survey. World Wide Web, 27(4), 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11280-024-01273-4
Khani, A. H. (2024). Intention and Judgment-Dependence: First-Personal vs. Third-Personal Accounts. Philosophical Explorations, 27(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2023.2232798
Kowalkowski, C., & Ulaga, W. (2024). Subscription offers in business-to-business markets: Conceptualization, taxonomy, and framework for growth. Industrial Marketing Management, 117, 440–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2024.01.014
Kugler, L. (2025). Who Owns AI’s Output? Communications of the ACM, 68(1), 14–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3696671
Kukk, M., & van Raaij, W. F. (2022). Joint and Individual Savings within Families: Evidence from Bank Accounts. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 43(3), 511–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-021-09783-3
Levashenko, A. D., & Sinelnikov-Murylev, S. G. (2025). Personal Data: Economic Problems and Legal Regulation. Economic Policy, 20(6), 96–119. https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2025-6-96-119
Lewis, D., & Moorkens, J. (2020). A Rights-Based Approach to Trustworthy AI in Social Media. Social Media + Society, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120954672
Li, X., Liu, X., & Motiwalla, L. (2021). Valuing Personal Data with Privacy Consideration. Decision Sciences, 52(2), 393–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12442
Mallare, D., Dani, N., & Bonaci, T. (2023). Decentralized identifiers. IEEE Potentials, 42(6), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPOT.2023.3272774
Morse, T., & Birnhack, M. (2024). The continuity principle of digital remains. New Media & Society, 26(9), 5240–5258. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221133535
Muhajir, M., Nisa’, I. S., Munawar, A., & Karimullah, S. S. (2023). Agus Moh Najib’s Thoughts on the Interconnection of Islamic Law and National Law. Jurnal Ilmiah Al-Syir’ah, 21(1), 86. https://doi.org/10.30984/jis.v21i1.2321
Noval, S. M. R., Rachmawati, I., Jamaludin, A., & Sumantry, D. (2026). Posthumous Personal Data Protection in the Era of Digital Eternity: Assessing Indonesia’s Legal Framework and the Relevance of Neural Rights. Asian Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 9(3), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.54392/ajir2632
Obar, J. A., & Oeldorf-Hirsch, A. (2020). The biggest lie on the Internet: ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Information, Communication & Society, 23(1), 128–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1486870
Omohwo, O., Babatunde, I. G., Kehinde, B. O., & Arome, G. J. (2023). Design of an E-Administration Platform and Its Cryptography-Based Security Model. Journal of Computer and Communications, 11(4), 166–189. https://doi.org/10.4236/jcc.2023.114008
Peters, L., Ivens, B. S., & Pardo, C. (2022). Key account managers’ identification profiles and effectiveness: A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 107, 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.09.022
Qin, H., Liu, Y., & Hu, Y. (2025). Commercial Value of Data Resource: An Overview of Current State of Research and Future Prospects. Sage Open, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251379511
Ratnawati, E. T. R., & Al Farizi, R. S. (2023). Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in the Perspective of Islamic Law. Millah: Journal of Religious Studies, 22(2), 337–408. https://doi.org/10.20885/millah.vol22.iss2.art4
Singh, R. G., Shrivastava, A., & Ruj, S. (2022). A Digital Asset Inheritance Model to Convey Online Persona Posthumously. International Journal of Information Security, 21(5), 983–1003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-022-00593-8
Teng, H.-W., Härdle, W. K., Osterrieder, J., Pele, D. T., Baals, L. J., Papavassiliou, V., … Xhumari, E. (2026). Digital assets: risks, regulations, mitigation. Financial Innovation, 12(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-025-00848-y
Woxholth, J., Zetzsche, D. A., Buckley, R. P., & Arner, D. W. (2024). Competing claims to crypto-assets. Uniform Law Review, 28(2), 226–246. https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/unad018
Yuhelson, & Hakim, N. (2025). Legal Protection of Secured Creditors in Contemporary Bankruptcy: A Comparative Study of Positive Law and Islamic Law. MILRev: Metro Islamic Law Review, 4(2), 1189–1214. https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v4i2.11518
Zamparini, L. (2024). Data, digital markets, and the economic value of privacy. Eastern Journal of European Studies, 15(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.47743/ejes-2024-0208
Zianko, V., & Nechyporenko, T. (2022). Virtual assets through the prism of domestic practice: risk-orientedness and implementation. Fìnansi Ukraïni, (3), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.33763/finukr2022.03.088
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nurhayati Nurhayati, Mukhammad Mukhammad, Abdul Talib Bin Bon
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
