the sounder of the two views; it is not to be given to the man who committed unlawful intercourse. The same applies to wine and similar cases in which someone has obtained an unlawful benefit: he must not be allowed to retain both the payment and what he received in exchange, for that is a greater sin than selling it. If wine may not lawfully be sold for a price, how much worse if someone is given both the wine and the price? Likewise, if a man may not commit unlawful intercourse even when he pays, how much worse if he receives both the money and the illicit intercourse? Rather, this money must be disbursed like other funds intended for the common good.

The same applies here: if someone sold a commodity at a profit during the call to prayer, he takes back his commodity. If it is no longer recoverable, he gives the profit in charity rather than giving it to the buyer, since that would have helped him make the purchase. The buyer recovers the price he paid and returns the commodity. If he has sold it at a profit, he gives that profit in charity rather than giving it to the seller, since that would give the seller two profits.

The jurists have differed over whether possession acquired under an invalid contract confers ownership, does not confer ownership, or requires a distinction according to whether the property remains recoverable. This is discussed at length elsewhere. And Allah knows best.