What is the ruling on voluntary participation in social security, and is it permissible to adopt the view that allows it?

Subscribing to social security is permissible under certain conditions, the most important of which is that the subscribers' funds are not invested in fields forbidden by Islamic law. If the subscription is compulsory, there is no sin upon the subscriber, and they should take what resulted from the forbidden act, donate it, and only what was deducted from them becomes lawful for them. However, if it is optional and the subscriber enters social security by choice, then it is incorrect to say that they are not held accountable.

The statement of the Hanafis, "The unlawful does not transfer through two liabilities," is interpreted to mean when one is unaware of it. Otherwise, the unlawfulness multiplies with knowledge of it, except for the heir if they know that their inheritor's earnings were unlawful, in which case it becomes lawful for them unless they know the specific owner. As for one who knows of usurpation, it is not lawful for them to take it, and if they do not know the owner, they must donate it. What has been narrated from the Hanafis confirms that consuming known unlawful things is not permissible.