Why did Fatwa No. 79697 adopt the view attributed to Ibn Mas'ud, which states, "If the lawful and the unlawful meet, the unlawful prevails," and not adopt the other view attributed to Aisha and Ibn Umar, and chosen by Ibn Taymiyyah, which states, "If the lawful and the unlawful meet, the unlawful does not render the lawful unlawful"?

If the banknotes in the market are permissible (mubah (definition)), then working in their management is permissible. If they are impermissible (haram (definition)), then working is impermissible, unless the work is limited to managing what is permissible. What is attributed to Ibn Mas'ud, "If the permissible and the impermissible combine, the impermissible prevails," is not authentic. What is attributed to Aisha, Ibn Umar, and Ibn Taymiyyah, "If the permissible and the impermissible combine, the impermissible does not make the permissible impermissible," is authentic. This means that the impermissible does not make the permissible impermissible through, for example, adultery, and this is not in the context of financial transactions. If both the permissible and the impermissible are present in a matter, the side of the impermissible is prioritized, out of caution (wara') and as a precaution for the religion.