and its recipient’s accepting it was not unlawful, even though many people die leaving agnatic heirs who have not yet been identified.

Once this is clear, we may say:

If a Muslim knows that particular property has been seized unlawfully or acquired under contracts where taking possession does not render it lawful, he must avoid it. If I know that someone has stolen property, misappropriated property entrusted to him, or seized it from its owner by force and without right, I may not accept it from him—whether as a gift, in exchange for something, as payment of wages or the price of goods sold, or as repayment of a loan—for it is the very property belonging to the person who was wronged. If, however, he acquired that property on the basis of a tenable legal interpretation recognized in the school of one of the imams, I may accept it in payment for goods sold, wages, a loan, or other debts.

If its status is unknown, then what is unknown is treated as nonexistent. The presumption regarding property in a Muslim’s possession is that it belongs to him, if he claims ownership, or that he has authority over it—as the administrator of an endowment, the guardian of an orphan, or the administrator of the public treasury—or that he acts as an agent concerning it. A Muslim’s or a non-Muslim protected subject’s dealings with property in the capacity of owner or guardian are permissible.

Thus, if I do not know the status of the property in his possession, I proceed on the basis of this presumption. Then, even if he had in fact seized that dirham unlawfully, without my knowing it, I was ignorant of that fact, and what is unknown is treated as nonexistent. My accepting payment for goods sold, wages for work, or repayment of a loan is therefore no less permissible than my taking lost property, for I took the lost property without