wronged. They have been denied their right to freely available resources unless they pay money, some of which is used to extract those resources while the remainder is taken. This does not make unlawful for them what was lawful for them. This is clear where the wrongful charges are proportionate—for example, where each quantity is sold at a fixed price and some of the proceeds are used to extract those resources. Here, there is no doubt whatsoever about the permissibility of the purchase, for the funds used to extract the resources also belong to them by right.

This is like someone seizing another man’s house and ordering the owner’s servants to prepare food from what is in it. That food does not become unlawful for the dispossessed owner, since he owns both the property itself and the benefits derived from it. All that has happened is that someone has acted without his authorization and without having authority over him. This does not make his property unlawful for him, nor even make giving his property away unlawful, by the unanimous agreement of the Muslims—even if the means used to extract those resources involve no transactions with the jointly held funds administered by the ruler.

If, however, the ruler’s deputies wrongfully press people into service to extract those resources, this is like forcing someone to cook food or weave a garment for him, or cooking food with stolen firewood, and similar cases in which the item itself is lawful but wrongdoing has occurred in transforming it from one state to another. This does give rise to doubt. The way to remove that doubt is to assess the benefit added to the item through the wronged person’s labour and pay that person his wages. If the wronged person cannot be identified, the amount should be given in charity on his behalf. At most, this amounts to a mixture of what is lawful and what is unlawful. Even if the assets he owns were mixed with money that