to it is a group of Muslims or a particular individual among them, then it is the seller himself who has wronged all those people by taking their wealth without right. As for the buyer who has paid him the equivalent value and more besides, he has wronged no one. This is clear when the seller’s wealth is so intermixed that what he acquired unlawfully cannot be distinguished from the rest. The claims of those he has wronged remain debts owed by him; they are not entitled to the particular assets in his possession. It is therefore permissible to exchange payment for those assets, while he must repay the wronged party what he took without right. A number of scholars, as Allah has willed, have given this ruling in similar cases. His situation is like that of anyone who owes people debts and wrongs his creditors by delaying repayment, for the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

“Delay in repayment by one who can afford to pay is wrongdoing.”

Nevertheless, if he exchanges what he possesses for its equivalent value and an additional amount, this is permissible by scholarly consensus, and buying from him is not disliked. If, however, he makes a gratuitous transfer that leaves him unable to repay the debt he owes, scholars hold two views on whether that transfer takes legal effect before restrictions are imposed on his disposal of his property.

It may, however, be argued that when this wrongdoer took the excess payment and used it to make a purchase, the wronged party’s claim became attached to what was purchased with his money. This differs from a debt incurred with the creditor’s consent, since such a creditor has no claim to property other than the debtor’s own.

The response is:

This depends on several principles. The first is whether the owner’s claim attaches specifically to the dirhams taken from him without right as an excess payment, or whether the usurper may repay him from whatever source he chooses.