Is it permissible for a person to borrow money that is doubtful, meaning mixed with lawful and unlawful?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May Allah reward you. He says:The questioner : Is it permissible to borrow from a person whose wealth is mixed with lawful and unlawful?
The Shaykh : Yes, it is permissible for a person to borrow from someone whose wealth is doubtful, mixed with unlawful and lawful. This is because he borrowed it in a permissible manner. If a person takes money that is unlawful in its acquisition from the one who earned it in a permissible manner, it becomes lawful for him. Do you understand this? Yes.
If money that is unlawful in its acquisition is taken by someone other than the one who earned it in a permissible manner, it becomes lawful for him. For example, riba (usury or interest) is an increase in a place where it is not due. If a man engages in riba, this increase, for instance in coins, is not forbidden in itself, but it is forbidden by what? By its acquisition, because it was acquired in a forbidden manner. So if a person takes something from this usurer’s wealth in a permissible manner, whether by sale, loan, gift, or charity, it becomes lawful for him. Evidence for this is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who is the master of the messengers and the master of the most scrupulous, and the model to be followed, ate from the food of the Jews. It is well known that the Jews are known for what? For eating illicit gains and taking riba. So he (peace and blessings be upon him) ate from their gifts and ate from their invitations. A woman from the Jews gifted him a sheep in the year of the conquest of Khaybar, and a Jewish boy invited him in Madinah to bread made of barley and a sauce of snails, and he accepted the invitation and ate. So if a person who deals in riba invites you to eat a meal, dinner, or to drink tea or coffee, there is no blame on you for accepting his invitation and eating from him, except if there is a benefit in not accepting it. What is the benefit? The benefit is that if he knows that people do not accept his invitations, he will refrain from eating riba. So if this benefit exists, do not accept it. But if there is no benefit, or if it might be harmful, such as if this man is a relative of yours, and if you boycott him and do not accept his invitation, it leads to severing ties between you, then in that case, accept it and say "Bismillah," and the sin is on whom? On whom? On the one who earned it, on this one who acquired it in a forbidden manner. And we said "unlawful in its acquisition" to be cautious of "unlawful in itself." If it is unlawful in itself, for example, if you know that a man went to someone and stole a sheep, stole a sheep, then slaughtered it for hospitality, would you eat it?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Unlawful in itself.
The Shaykh : Because this is the very property of so-and-so that he usurped, so it is not lawful for you, nor for him. But as for that which is unlawful in its acquisition, which occurred through dealing by mutual consent, but the dealing was forbidden, then its sin is on the one who earned it. Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is permissible for a person to borrow from someone whose wealth is doubtful, mixed with unlawful and lawful. This is because he borrowed it in a permissible manner. If a person takes money that is unlawful in its acquisition from the one who earned it in a permissible manner, it becomes lawful for him. Do you understand this? Yes.
If money that is unlawful in its acquisition is taken by someone other than the one who earned it in a permissible manner, it becomes lawful for him. For example, riba (usury or interest) is an increase in a place where it is not due. If a man engages in riba, this increase, for instance in coins, is not forbidden in itself, but it is forbidden by what? By its acquisition, because it was acquired in a forbidden manner. So if a person takes something from this usurer’s wealth in a permissible manner, whether by sale, loan, gift, or charity, it becomes lawful for him. Evidence for this is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who is the master of the messengers and the master of the most scrupulous, and the model to be followed, ate from the food of the Jews. It is well known that the Jews are known for what? For eating illicit gains and taking riba. So he (peace and blessings be upon him) ate from their gifts and ate from their invitations. A woman from the Jews gifted him a sheep in the year of the conquest of Khaybar, and a Jewish boy invited him in Madinah to bread made of barley and a sauce of snails, and he accepted the invitation and ate. So if a person who deals in riba invites you to eat a meal, dinner, or to drink tea or coffee, there is no blame on you for accepting his invitation and eating from him, except if there is a benefit in not accepting it. What is the benefit? The benefit is that if he knows that people do not accept his invitations, he will refrain from eating riba. So if this benefit exists, do not accept it. But if there is no benefit, or if it might be harmful, such as if this man is a relative of yours, and if you boycott him and do not accept his invitation, it leads to severing ties between you, then in that case, accept it and say "Bismillah," and the sin is on whom? On whom? On the one who earned it, on this one who acquired it in a forbidden manner. And we said "unlawful in its acquisition" to be cautious of "unlawful in itself." If it is unlawful in itself, for example, if you know that a man went to someone and stole a sheep, stole a sheep, then slaughtered it for hospitality, would you eat it?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Why?
The student: Unlawful in itself.
The Shaykh : Because this is the very property of so-and-so that he usurped, so it is not lawful for you, nor for him. But as for that which is unlawful in its acquisition, which occurred through dealing by mutual consent, but the dealing was forbidden, then its sin is on the one who earned it. Yes.