What is the ruling of the Shari'ah, also, regarding the heirs who inherit this corrupt wealth that was gathered in an un-Islamic manner? Is this wealth lawful for them, and do they have the right to possess it?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The following part of this question says: The listener Adam asks, "What is the ruling of the Shari'ah, also, regarding the heirs who inherit this corrupt wealth that was gathered in an un-Islamic manner? Is this wealth lawful for them, and do they have the right to possess it? And how is this wealth, which has been held for a long time without zakah, to be purified? I ask for clarification. May you be rewarded?"
The Shaykh : As for the wealth left behind by one who earned it through a forbidden means: if it is forbidden in itself, such as if he was stealing people's money or taking it from them by force, then it is obligatory for the heirs to return these moneys to their owners, because the owner is known. But if it was through earning and spending money by mutual consent, yet in a forbidden manner, then the heirs are not required to extract anything from it; the profit is theirs, and the sin is upon the one who earned it.
As for the obligatory zakah on this wealth, if they know that its owner did not pay it, the scholars differed on this. Some said that it is paid from his wealth, because it is the right of the poor, and the right of the poor is not dropped due to his negligence and neglect, meaning the negligence and neglect of the one upon whom zakah is obligatory. And some of the scholars said that it is not paid on his behalf, because he left what was obligatory upon him himself, and it does not benefit him if someone else pays it on his behalf. But the safest course is to pay the zakah if we know that the deceased did not pay it. However, this zakah does not absolve the deceased's liability if he had resolved and intended not to pay it, because that does not benefit him. But it is paid because of the attachment of the rights of the entitled persons to it. And this is the opinion of the majority of the scholars. Yes.
The Shaykh : As for the wealth left behind by one who earned it through a forbidden means: if it is forbidden in itself, such as if he was stealing people's money or taking it from them by force, then it is obligatory for the heirs to return these moneys to their owners, because the owner is known. But if it was through earning and spending money by mutual consent, yet in a forbidden manner, then the heirs are not required to extract anything from it; the profit is theirs, and the sin is upon the one who earned it.
As for the obligatory zakah on this wealth, if they know that its owner did not pay it, the scholars differed on this. Some said that it is paid from his wealth, because it is the right of the poor, and the right of the poor is not dropped due to his negligence and neglect, meaning the negligence and neglect of the one upon whom zakah is obligatory. And some of the scholars said that it is not paid on his behalf, because he left what was obligatory upon him himself, and it does not benefit him if someone else pays it on his behalf. But the safest course is to pay the zakah if we know that the deceased did not pay it. However, this zakah does not absolve the deceased's liability if he had resolved and intended not to pay it, because that does not benefit him. But it is paid because of the attachment of the rights of the entitled persons to it. And this is the opinion of the majority of the scholars. Yes.