What is the ruling on dealing with ill-gotten wealth, whether it is unlawful in itself (like stolen money) or due to its earning, when it transfers through inheritance, a gift, a grant, or a loan? What is the evidence for the view of the majority who deem it absolutely unlawful? And is one who differs from the majority in this controversial issue held accountable?

Unlawful money is of two types: 1. Unlawful in itself, such as stolen money. It is unlawful for the one who takes it and for anyone to whom it transfers, and it must be returned. 2. Unlawful due to its earning, such as the wage for an unlawful act. There is a difference of opinion regarding this type.

The majority opinion is that it is not lawful for the earner or for anyone else, and one must dispose of it.

The second opinion is that it becomes lawful for someone other than the earner if it transfers to them through a permissible means, such as inheritance or a gift. They cite the Prophet's dealings with the Jews as evidence, and argue that the unlawfulness is tied to the earner's responsibility, not to the money itself, and also point to the difference in the source of acquisition, such as in the hadith of Barirah.

The first opinion is stronger because the earner did not legitimately own the money to transfer it to someone else.