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.