A man who amassed a fortune from forbidden wealth then repented: how should he dispose of this money? The Shaykh responds to those who issued a ruling permitting singing.

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

The Shaykh : In my view, that is not permissible in any way. The answer to the second question is derived from the answer to the first question, because they meet in the sharing of forbidden wealth. However, this person will not fail to find someone among the jurists of the present era who will issue a fatwa for him. These are the ones 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 regarding the prohibition, so it is permissible. It has happened that they issued a fatwa for one of the British who had embraced Islam. His previous earnings were from this forbidden wealth, so they permitted him to continue in his profession of singing and earning from it after his Islam, claiming that there is no definitive evidence. They know that definitive evidence is not required in Shari'ah rulings, because by the consensus of the jurists, the predominant probability is sufficient in Shari'ah rulings. For some reason, it is 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 proofs 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 a proof that is definitive in authenticity and definitive in meaning, but it is sufficient for it to be probable in authenticity and probable 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, they are at least among the hadiths famous for their authenticity regarding the prohibition of musical instruments. Despite this, they permitted that Muslim, after his Islam, to engage in the profession of playing musical instruments and strings, knowing that there are some hadiths in Sahih al-Bukhari, but they are not definitive in authenticity. 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, to continue to earn forbidden wealth through this profession. And if his repentance is sincere, he must dispose of all of that wealth and spend it in public facilities from which no specific person benefits, and he must renew his seeking of sustenance through a lawful, permissible path.
Al-Huwaini: The second question: Regarding the building he built with forbidden wealth, the rent he collects from the residents.

The Shaykh : It is; it is.
Al-Huwaini: Lawful.

The Shaykh : Forbidden. And how can the shadow be straight while the stick is crooked? Forbidden.
Al-Huwaini: Then, does this not resemble the gold of a woman? This man rented the apartment and paid money for 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. There is absolutely no resemblance between the two matters.
Al-Huwaini: On the basis of, excuse me

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
Al-Huwaini: On the basis that the house, even if it did not transfer, but this is a lease, meaning the apartment became the property of this tenant.

The Shaykh : But what is the fruit of? What is the fruit of the lease? Is it not the fruit of what he earned with forbidden wealth? They are not comparable at all, so it is forbidden.