Is a person held accountable for the source of funds of a company in which he is a partner and works on a permissible project, even though he is not responsible for how others obtain their money, and what he does is permissible work for his participation in a permissible company and obtaining its permissible profit? And if I open a supermarket and sell to all people – those who deal in what is permissible and what is impermissible – does my money become tainted with doubt due to the possibility of dealing with those who deal in what is impermissible (even if I know for certain, for example, that some of them deal in what is impermissible), but I deal with them in terms of buying and selling goods? And if I work in a permissible job for a person whose money is impermissible or tainted with doubt, will I be held accountable for my dealings with him (like cooks, servants, or drivers for usurers or depositors in banks), even though I perform work that is far removed from his work? And am I obliged to investigate people before dealing with them, or will I only be held accountable for what I know by chance? And when a father who deals with banks and does not pay zakat passes away, does his money (his capital, with the inability to discern its permissible from its impermissible parts, and all that he owns at the moment of his death) become tainted with doubt, harming the heirs and making it incumbent upon them to dispose of the money they inherited, or to bear a burden with their father if they benefit from what they inherited, even though they had no authority over the management of these funds when their father was alive?
The treatment of one who possesses unlawful wealth is divided into two categories: First, if the wealth is entirely unlawful, it is obligatory to avoid it, and it is forbidden to deal with its owner in any way concerning it. Second, if unlawful wealth is mixed with lawful wealth, the preponderant opinion is that it is permissible to deal with him, though it is disliked. There is no obligation to investigate the source of wealth; what is known to be unlawful must be avoided, and what is unknown is originally permissible.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: If it is known that the wealth is usurped or stolen, it is impermissible to take it. If its status is unknown, then what is unknown is like what does not exist, and the default is that what is in the possession of a Muslim is his property. If a man is known to have unlawful elements in his wealth, then refraining from dealing with him is out of piety.
If a Muslim who dealt with banks and neglected zakat dies, then before dividing the inheritance, the zakat he neglected must be paid, and the amount of usury if it can be determined. Otherwise, the heirs should strive to estimate it, and they bear no sin for their ancestor's actions as long as they did not participate in them.
Summarized from the full answer at Ftawy · reviewed Sep 2, 2026
Read the full answer on Ftawyhttps://ftawy.com/en/questions/71881