has wronged them, not the purchaser; the goods are therefore lawful for him. This issue is discussed at length elsewhere.

The crux of the argument for prohibiting these goods is that whoever deems them unlawful says: “They were sold without permission, agency, or legal authority.” But this premise is disputed. Rather, the owners approve of their sale and have authorized it; what they do not approve of is the proceeds being taken. Suppose, for example, that someone authorized another person to sell something, and that person sold it but took the price for himself. The owner approves of the sale, but not of the seller taking the price for himself.

Even supposing that the owner had not authorized the sale, his interests under Islamic law require that the goods be sold, for this is better than letting them spoil, and they can only be sold in this manner. Selling them and collecting the price—whoever does so—is better than letting them spoil. The seller can then be required to pay over the price, while people benefit from the goods. This is better than demanding their value from the usurper while the goods spoil. Much more could be said on such matters. Allah knows best what is correct.

He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

Concerning those whose wealth is predominantly unlawful, such as toll collectors, those who consume usury, and others like them; those engaged in forbidden occupations, such as makers of images and astrologers; and the assistants of rulers: is it lawful to obtain food from them through commercial dealings, or not?