A man who amassed a fortune from forbidden wealth then repented: how should he dispose of this wealth? And the Shaykh’s response to those who issued a ruling permitting singing.

Al-Hawini: There is another question. A man is an actor and a singer, and during the period of his singing or acting, he amassed a huge fortune. He built a large building from it and takes a portion of rent from people. Then he repented. So here are two questions. The first question: The revenue from the tapes for public performance, this is after he repented; is it permissible for him to benefit from it instead of serving the people of salons and such things? Does he take it? And if he takes it, does he give it in charity or benefit from it? This is the first question.

The Shaykh : As for me, that is not permissible in any way. The answer to this second question is derived from the answer to the first question, because they meet in the sharing of forbidden wealth. But this person will not fail to find someone who issues a fatwa for him from the jurists of the present era, who also seek dispensations and push aside the evidence and clear proofs of the Shari'ah for some false claims. So when the matter is resolved and the ruling is strict, such as the prohibition of earning a living through singing and musical instruments, they say: There is no definitive text in the prohibition, so it is permissible! It has happened that they issued a fatwa for one of the British who converted to Islam. His earnings before were from this forbidden wealth, so they permitted him to continue after his Islam in practicing the profession of singing and earning from it, claiming that there is no definitive evidence! And they know that definitive evidence is not required in Shari'ah rulings, because Shari'ah rulings—by the consensus of the jurists—are sufficient with the predominant opinion. For some reason, it was agreed upon by the scholars of the four schools of jurisprudence and others that it is permissible to argue for a matter by analogical reasoning, which is the fourth and weakest of these four evidences because it is based on opinion, and opinion is subject to being right or wrong. If it is agreed upon by the scholars that Shari'ah rulings do not necessarily require the evidence to be definitive in establishment and definitive in meaning, but it is sufficient for it to be based on opinion in establishment and opinion in meaning, and there are hadiths regarding the prohibition of musical instruments. If we do not say that they have reached the level of a mass-transmitted report in meaning in their totality, then they are at least among the hadiths famous for their authenticity in prohibiting musical instruments. Despite this, they permitted that Muslim, after his Islam, to practice the profession of playing musical instruments and strings, knowing that there are some hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari, but they are not definitive in establishment.
So we say: It is not permissible for any Muslim who has earned forbidden wealth by means of one of the forbidden means, such as singing with instruments or with lewd voice; it is forbidden for him to continue to earn forbidden wealth by means of this profession. And if his repentance is sincere, he must exit from all of that wealth and spend it in public facilities from which no specific person benefits, and he must renew his seeking of sustenance by a lawful, permissible path.
Al-Hawini: The second question: Regarding the building he built from the forbidden wealth, the rent he collects from the residents?

The Shaykh : It is, it is.
Al-Hawini: Lawful?

The Shaykh : Forbidden. And can the shadow be straight while the stick is crooked? Forbidden.
Al-Hawini: And does this not resemble the gold of a woman, if this man rented the apartment and paid money in it?

The Shaykh : How and where is the resemblance? The forbidden wealth moved from one person to another by a lawful path, that is one thing. But here the house is still his; so he benefits from its revenue, so there is no resemblance between the two matters at all.
Al-Hawini: On the basis—pardon me—on the basis that the house, if it did not move, but this is a lease, meaning the apartment became the property of this tenant.

The Shaykh : But the fruit of what? The rent is the fruit of what? Is it not the fruit of what he earned with the forbidden wealth? They are never equal in example, so it is forbidden.