but if the recipient is entitled to an amount equal to what is taken, he may receive it from any funds that may lawfully be disbursed, such as property whose owner is unknown when its disbursement becomes obligatory. If they refuse to return it to its rightful recipient, is it preferable to leave it in the hands of the wrongdoers, or to strive to spend it on the interests of its owners and the Muslims, provided that the person striving to do so disapproves of its original seizure, did not assist in taking it, and indeed sought to prevent it?

This is an important question that deserves careful attention; otherwise, one may fall into committing prohibited acts or neglecting obligations. Assisting injustice is a prohibited act. Yet if obligations cannot be fulfilled without the expenditure just mentioned, refraining from it amounts to neglecting those obligations. If the only alternatives are to leave the money in the wrongdoer’s hands or spend it on beneficial purposes, then forbidding such expenditure assists in increasing injustice by leaving it in the wrongdoer’s hands. Just as injustice must be eliminated, it must be reduced when eliminating it altogether is impossible. This is a principle of great importance, and Allah knows best.

Another principle is that doubtful funds should be directed towards uses furthest removed from direct personal benefit, giving priority to the most remote. Thus, regarding a cupper’s earnings, the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—instructed that they be used to feed slaves and a water-drawing animal. The most direct benefit is that obtained through food, drink, and the like; next comes clothing in contact with the outside of the body; then buildings that provide shelter while remaining separate from it; then incidental benefits such as riding and the like. Such is the ranking of the ways one benefits from one’s provision. This is also the practice of our fellow jurists.