What is the ruling on money earned from a lawful job if its capital was unlawful, or if its tools or means of livelihood during the work were purchased with unlawful money?

If forbidden money was used to purchase goods for personal use, the amount of the forbidden money must be disposed of, and what was purchased with it becomes permissible for him.

If it involves the rights of others, such as being usurped or stolen, it must be returned to its owner if possible; otherwise, it should be given as charity on their behalf.

However, if the forbidden money was taken with the consent of its giver—such as the price of alcohol—and the recipient knew of its prohibition and gave it as charity, it is permissible for the poor person to consume it. If he did not know and then came to know, it is permissible for him to consume it.

But if the prohibition is due to usurpation or theft, scholars have differed regarding the profit generated from investing this money:

- Abu Hanifa, Ahmad, and Ibn Hazm held the view that the profit follows the principal, and the usurper has no share in it. - The Malikis and Shafi'is held the view that the profit belongs to the usurper, and he is responsible for guaranteeing the usurped money. - Ibn Taymiyyah chose the view that the profit should be divided between the usurper and the owner of the money, because it was generated by the money of one and the effort of the other.