Introduction and ObjectiveThe institution of banking and the development of interest-free or Islamic banking have long been central issues in both jurisprudential and economic debates within Muslim societies. From the very inception of modern banking systems, jurists have examined the religious and legal implications of the ownership of bank assets and the permissibility of transactions conducted through banks. Among the most debated questions is whether banks, especially state-owned institutions, can be considered legitimate owners of their assets and liabilities. A significant strand of jurisprudential opinion has denied the possibility of ownership for legal entities altogether, thereby extending this denial to state banks. On this view, bank assets are considered majhūl al-mālik (unknown-owner property), and any use of them requires authorization from the religious authority. Other jurists, while accepting the principle of ownership for legal entities, nevertheless argue that because banks lack a legitimate Sharia trustee, transactions with them are invalid, and the resulting assets should likewise be categorized as unknown-owner property. The objective of the present research is to critically analyze these jurisprudential views through the lens of modern monetary economics. Specifically, the study seeks to demonstrate that once the mechanisms of intra-bank Money creation are taken into account—whether under the financial intermediation model, the Money Multiplier model, or the theory of Money creation ex nihilo—the categorization of bank assets as majhūl al-mālik becomes unsustainable. The research therefore aims not only to critique existing jurisprudential positions but also to propose an updated interpretative framework that aligns more closely with contemporary banking realities. 2. Methods and MaterialsThe study employs a library-based, analytical methodology, integrating jurisprudential sources in both Shiʿa legal scholarship and contemporary financial theory. The research materials can be divided into three categories: Classical and contemporary jurisprudential texts. Works of leading jurists such as Āyatollāh al-ʿUẓmā al-Khuʾī, Āyatollāh Sīstānī, Muḥammad Ṣadr, and other scholars who have articulated positions regarding the ownership of state assets, banking transactions, and the doctrine of majhūl al-mālik. These sources were analyzed to map the diversity of jurisprudential opinion, ranging from complete denial of corporate ownership to more nuanced positions contingent on the presence of a Sharia trustee. 1. Legal and statutory materials. Iranian civil law, statutory provisions on majhūl al-mālik property, and advisory opinions of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Justice were consulted to understand the positive-law context within which the debate is situated. These materials clarify how ownership and custodianship are defined in practice and how these definitions intersect with classical jurisprudential categories. 2. Economic and banking theory. Contemporary literature on monetary economics, particularly the distinction between financial intermediation, the Money Multiplier, and endogenous Money creation, was utilized to provide a theoretical framework for understanding how banks actually create Money and liabilities. Works by scholars such as Mishkin and Iranian researchers on Islamic banking were key in articulating the contrast between the traditional “loan-based” perception of banks and the modern understanding of banks as creators of credit. The methodology was thus comparative and interdisciplinary, juxtaposing jurisprudential reasoning with economic realities, and testing whether jurisprudential categorizations withstand scrutiny when applied to the actual functioning of modern banks. 3. Research FindingsThe research yielded several important findings: a. Misconceptions about banking as mere intermediation. Many jurists’ arguments in favor of labeling bank assets as unknown-owner property rest on an outdated assumption: that banks are merely intermediaries transferring funds from depositors to borrowers. This “financial intermediation” model no longer reflects the operational reality of modern banking. In fact, banks are creators of credit, not passive intermediaries. b. The mechanics of intra-bank Money creation. Modern banking operates through balance-sheet expansion. When a bank issues a loan, it simultaneously records a new asset (the loan) and a new liability (the depositor’s account), thereby creating new purchasing power. This mechanism, whether described through the Multiplier model or through the endogenous Money creation framework, illustrates that banks create Money through accounting entries rather than transferring pre-existing deposits. c. Implications for ownership. Because every loan contract establishes a bilateral, identifiable relationship between the bank (as creditor) and the customer (as debtor), the ownership of the resulting claims and liabilities is clear and traceable. Consequently, these cannot be classified as majhūl al-mālik, which is defined as property whose owner is unidentifiable or inaccessible. d. Jurisprudential diversity. While some jurists, such as al-Khuʾī and his followers, reject corporate ownership altogether, others like Muḥammad Bāqir al-Ṣadr accept the principle of corporate ownership but deny the validity of banking transactions in non-Islamic states due to the absence of a Sharia trustee. However, even in these views, the argument pertains to the validity of transactions, not to the unknowability of ownership. The extension of these concerns into the category of majhūl al-mālik appears conceptually and doctrinally strained. e. Legal definitions of unknown-owner property. According to Iranian civil law (e. g., Article 28 of the Civil Code), majhūl al-mālik refers to property once owned by a known person but whose current owner cannot be identified or reached. This definition does not apply to bank deposits or assets, where both the contracting parties and their obligations are fully documented. f. Practical and doctrinal consequences. Labeling bank assets as unknown-owner property would generate untenable legal and practical consequences. For example, it would imply that every depositor, borrower, or employee of a state bank is engaged in handling property without an identifiable owner, which would collapse the legitimacy of modern economic systems. 4. Discussion and ConclusionThe research highlights a fundamental gap between classical jurisprudential categories and the operational realities of modern banking. The doctrine of majhūl al-mālik was historically developed to address cases such as lost property, unclaimed assets, or situations where ownership was genuinely obscure. Its extension to banking deposits is conceptually flawed for several reasons: 1. Transparency of ownership. Every deposit, loan, and credit entry in a bank is associated with a specific, identifiable party. Unlike lost or abandoned property, these assets are not ownerless. 2. Nature of Money. Modern Money is not a physical commodity but a legal-financial construct that simultaneously constitutes an asset and a liability. Treating Money as if it were a physical good (requiring prior accumulation before lending) misrepresents its actual nature and misleads jurisprudential reasoning. 3. The role of the state and Sharia trusteeship. Even where the legitimacy of a state or the presence of a Sharia trustee is questioned, the result is a problem of ḥukmī (legal authorization), not mawḍūʿī (ontological ownership). In other words, the issue is whether the transaction is valid, not whether the property is ownerless. 4. Economic coherence. Declaring bank assets majhūl al-mālik would destabilize the entire economic order, an outcome inconsistent with the objectives of Sharia (maqāṣid al-sharīʿa), which include the protection of property, facilitation of transactions, and preservation of societal welfare. Conclusion. The study concludes that the classification of bank assets and deposits as majhūl al-mālik lacks both jurisprudential and economic justification. Even under the strictest assumptions—denial of corporate ownership or absence of a Sharia trustee—the reality of intra-bank Money creation demonstrates that ownership remains clear and identifiable. Accordingly, the application of the doctrine of unknown-owner property to bank deposits must be rejected. Innovation of the study. What distinguishes this research from earlier jurisprudential treatments is its integration of monetary economics into the analysis. Previous discussions largely relied on the outdated financial intermediation model, which made the misapplication of majhūl al-mālik seem plausible. By shifting the analytical lens to endogenous Money creation, the study demonstrates that the issue is not one of unknown ownership but of jurisprudential adaptation to modern economic institutions. Practical implication. The findings call for a reconsideration of jurisprudential and legal frameworks surrounding Islamic banking. Aligning legal interpretations with the realities of Money creation can strengthen the legitimacy and functionality of interest-free banking systems, ensuring they remain both religiously compliant and economically coherent.