But if his original capital was lawful, and he increased it through profits earned by this means of livelihood, his wealth has become doubtful to the extent that other people’s wealth has been mixed into it. It cannot be described as unlawful, nor as wholly lawful. If the lawful portion predominates, buying from him is permissible, though refraining is an act of religious scrupulousness. If the unlawful portion predominates, there are two juristic views as to whether buying from him is lawful or unlawful.

There is no doubt that he is entitled to some of the profit he makes: namely, what someone in his position would ordinarily be entitled to. Even if his property had been taken from him under an invalid contract, he would be owed its equivalent or the value of its equivalent. The purchasers take his goods, so they owe him their equivalent or their fair value.

Moreover, those responsible for the monopoly arrangement take from him some of what he has wrongfully taken. A shop may cost twenty, yet they compel him to pay fifty because of the monopoly arrangement. Those additional thirty are unlawful for them, and have already been taken from him. As for the unlawful excess that remains with him, that is the portion of his wealth at issue. Where there is need, and another option is weighed against it, the grounds for a concession are stronger. Allah knows best.