Does Ibn Rushd's statement: "Whether he has other lawful money or not, it is not permissible," mean that it is not permissible to deal with someone whose lawful money has become mixed with stolen money, even if he has other lawful money?

Ibn Rushd (Averroes) discussed the wealth of oppressive rulers, usurers, and bribetakers in a chapter titled "The Wealth of Oppressive Rulers, Usurers, and Bribetakers," dividing it into two categories:

Category One: Unlawful wealth that could not be returned in kind to its rightful owners, and thus became a debt (transferred to the obligor's liability). This has three scenarios: 1. When the predominant portion of one's wealth is lawful. 2. When the predominant portion of one's wealth is unlawful. 3. When all of one's wealth is unlawful, or when the unlawful portion has consumed one's entire liability.

Category Two: Unlawful wealth that remains in kind with its possessor, and whose return to its owners is still possible. It is impermissible for anyone to deal with this wealth, whether through sale, purchase, gift, or acceptance as a debt, regardless of whether the possessor has lawful wealth or not. Whoever deals with it knowingly is considered like an usurper.

This distinction between specific unlawful wealth and mixed wealth is narrated from the Salaf (early Muslims). Abd al-Razzaq narrated from Ibn Mas'ud regarding someone whose neighbor practices usury and invites him: "Its benefit is for you, and its sin is upon him." Whereas Sufyan said: "If you know it specifically, do not touch it."

Scholars have differed on dealing with the owner of mixed wealth: If the predominant portion of his wealth is unlawful, eating from it is disliked, and some have forbidden it. If the predominant portion of his wealth is lawful, dealing with him and eating from his wealth is permissible.

Scholars have unanimously agreed on the impermissibility of consuming wealth that is known to be specifically unlawful, having been acquired through an illicit means.