Does Haram Money Become halal Via Inheritance?

My brother who has asked his name to be withheld from California emails, that he has inherited a certain amount of wealth from his father who recently passed away. Now his father was a businessman who had many businesses and the man says this person says that I know that not all of his businesses were halal, especially in his earlier years, he would deal with riba and he sold haram products, meaning the father would have haram businesses, and the son says, There is no doubt that a portion of the wealth that he earned is haram. However, now that my father has passed away, and this money is coming to me, does that make the money Hallel? For me, that is the question we're going to deal

with in the first part of our session today.

Why

auto sell me call Bernie in Lurie, Jalan nor Hayy him first, oh, lickety in

June.

And when one can rephrase it, basically and that is that does hurt our money become halal, when it transfers the ownership from a deceased person to the inheritors. First, let us begin by saying the default, the default is that when one inherits money, that one does not have to ask about where this money came from. One does not have to go back to the tax receipts and to go back 1020 3040 years, you do not have to do any research. If a deceased relative has left you money, it's not your obligation to find out. So for example, if you find out your uncle has passed away, and you are the inheritor you did, or he left, you know, a deceased relative left for you 1/3 of his wealth, which

is of course completely Hala and in Islam, it's not your obligation to find out what was his occupation? Where did he earn every single penny from? On the contrary, the default is that when there is no suspicion, you don't raise any suspicion. And in fact, this is the unanimous consensus of all the scholars of Islam. Imam an nawawi, the famous scholar of the Shafi school remarks

excuse me, in his Muchmore volume nine page 428

That's mine. What is a Marlin? Well, um Yeah, Adam in a in a cassava who Marissa who I mean Khaled in a min haram. What I'm talking Allah for Hua, Hala, loon BHMS llama, whoever inherited some money. And he doesn't know where this person obtained the money from? Was it from how long was it from halal, and there's no suspicion is just that you don't know. Then he said it is permissible but huge amount of the scholars. Okay. So first point here, it's not your job to go research. Second point. In this case, you're saying it's my father. And I know he was involved in Haram. So we get now to the second point. What do you mean, my dear brother, but how long?

Do you mean that which is unanimously agreed upon to be haram? Or do you mean that which had a gray area, and which some scholars said oh, we shouldn't do this transaction? And other said, No, it is permissible. In my humble opinion, if the matter was gray area, ie, where you have two different opinions and a group of respectable reputable Rolemaster, this transaction is haram. And another group of reputable mainstream aroma said that no, this is actually a halal transaction, then it is not your job to choose one filthy position for your father over another. And you should have a good opinion of your father that maybe your father did research and he followed an opinion that maybe you

don't think is the stronger one, but it is still within the acceptable framework of Islam. So for example, and here my point is that when you say your father did haram, right, again, I'm just pushing a little bit back and saying, Are you sure that it was clear cut haram? Or was it an ambiguous area that makes you uncomfortable, but perhaps for your father, you know, he asked the verdict and he was completely permissible for this. So my second point, let's distinguish between that which is without a doubt haram, for example, a person who owns a liquor store there is no question that that is haram and the money that it is acquires is haram and the money is cursed. Or

for example, a person takes bribes or for example, a person embezzled funds working for a corporation or a bank, or for example, a person outright stole literally stole something from another person, right? There is no question this is unambiguous. There are no two opinions clear cut haram. In this case. Yes, your question is valid and it's to his point that my father did haram I know he did have on now that he's passed away I'm inheriting the money. Is it halal for me?

That's a legitimate question, or did your father enact transactions that are ambiguous gray? Some people said halal, others said haram, for example, mortgage loan, a lot of people say, Oh, my father had a mortgage. And I don't think mortgages are halal, but he had a mortgage. And now I inherit the house and we say to this Brother Yes, subhanAllah Annie, you know, your father in sha Allah follow the mainstream photo, and I have a longer lecture about mortgages don't make the issue that which is great to be like the issue which is clear cut right? Or another example, again, I have a very clear opinion about life insurance, I do not think it is permissible. Personally, I do not think it is

permissible to have a longer q&a, you can find it online on this very channel, you can find my explanation of life insurance, nonetheless, whether I like it or not, I cannot deny that a group of reputable mainstream odema have their reasonings and logic. And they have opined that, given the world we live in life insurance is permissible, I strongly disagree, I strongly I don't have life insurance, and if anybody comes to me, I say we should not get life insurance. But now you say to me that Oh, my father had life insurance, right. And I think it is held on but he had it that his opinion, you know, whatever it was, am I allowed to take it and I say here, well, we cannot equate a

gray area where there are two opinions with that which is clear cut. And in my humble opinion, you should not be asking about a gray area. And you know, I mean, obviously if you want to be an impartial, a very, very cautious and following Taqwa to the maximum, no doubt if you want to give it to no problem awaiting sadhaka. But I would say if your father followed a filthy position that you disagree with, well, that should not make it any issue for you. And insha Allah have has none of your father, that he followed a position about mortgages about something that you know, might be a minority for you, but still, it should be within the mainstream. And therefore it is not even a

question of how Rahman Khaled it's a question of your father following a method or a position other than your own. And so it would not become impermissible for you in the slightest. Now, Allah knows best Now, let us return to the fact that what if it was clear cut out on so there must be two conditions in order for you to ask this question. The first condition you know for certain that your father or whoever you're inheriting the money from acquired haram money. Again, it is not your obligation to do research and where you to do research for no reason. Honestly, this is a type of sin because you're going beyond and you're going to a level of what is called tickle if you're doing

above and beyond what the law requires. And it is actually detrimental to your Imana Taqwa to go to this level, we don't ask let us know Anisha to the law contest so can we don't go beyond what we should ask about however in this case, it's your father so obviously you grew up with him you know where his money is coming from and perhaps you had some back and forth and your neck and you're getting angry inshallah hope if you if it was clear cut down on I hope that inshallah once you're a full grown man that you have had conversations with your father, for example, why did you I'm just giving an example. Why did you own a liquor shop you should not own one get rid of this repent to

Allah subhanho wa taala. Now, obviously, again, if your father repented in his lifetime, gave up that haram business and gave charity to make up for that then once again this question does not arise. Okay, so a past sin, and a past acquisition of haram money that your father repented from, and did not have a continuous income from and inshallah Allah gave you no repentance between him and Allah and gave that charity whatnot. Once again, it's not your business that once upon a time your father and haram don't worry about it. So clear cut haram. And you know this for a fact without you, you know, doing any type of research on this, and that this money is still in his possession. Again,

we're not talking about a repentance with all of these conditions. Now, your question is legitimate, I hope you understand if any of these other conditions are not met, you did not know it was haram, you're just you're going above and beyond or it's a gray area, or it was a past sin that he repented from then this question should be null and void and you should not ask it and the money is Khaled. Let us go now to what if all of these conditions are met? And so you know for a fact that it is haram. It is clear cut haram unambiguous for example, stolen money for example, embezzlement, for example, fraud and no repentance was done and that is still a part of the inheritance, right? That

is still a part of you know, what is owned by your father. Now to answer this question, we get to this is the precursor now we get to answering your question. So is it permissible to obtain haram wealth via inheritance? Or we can rephrase the question, does the transaction of inheritance make that which was haram into Khaled Okay?

So, in order to answer this question, I'll summarize for you the three main opinions about this. The first opinion, minority opinion is that, and this is very minority opinion, really, and that is that the money is completely valid. And whatever sins your father or anybody else has done is upon your father, and you are absolutely you know, scot free to take this money in its entirety. Now, this opinion was held by a number of early scholars, such as Al Hasan al boiserie, and Soufiane authority, and from the Maliki scholars, Cynon, the famous compiler of the Maliki and the one who extrapolated so many fatawa and whatnot, and there and others as well. And their main evidence was

that the sin of the person is on the one who the was on the sinner, and the sin does not transfer to anybody else. And as Allah says, In the Quran, well as it was the law to withdraw, that no person shall bear the sins of another. So the fact that your father committed a sin and earned how money should not have any impact on you. And also the fact that generally speaking, exchanging something between owners exchanging the ownership of something transferring the ownership of something nullifies the previous claims on that item, meaning give you a simple example, suppose a person who owns a liquor store suppose a drug King, you know, somebody who's a mafia, and you know, he's mafia,

you know, he's involved in the drug industry, and you are mashallah a clean, pure Halal grocer, you sell vegetables, you sell apples and oranges and bananas and potatoes, right? And this drug mafia comes in and you know, this guy's a criminal, and he hands you $10, and he wants to buy bananas, is this transaction, Helen, pretty much by unanimous consensus is head on, because he's buying bananas from you. And you don't have to ask this person, where did he get his money from? If we were to start going to this level, then the whole world would go, you know, we would not be able to have any transaction. So the fact that when a person whom you know, to have held on money, you know, has a

business transaction with you that is halal. It's not your business to find out where did that person's money come from? Where else obviously, and even if you know it to be, you know, that this person is a criminal, and he has what not now, if you were to be safe and say, I don't want to do business, and you know, that's up to you. But to say that it is haram, really, hardly any scholars said that. So the scholars who said that, because a transfer of ownership makes the Haram basically into halal. So for example, the person, you know, as I said, has had on money, but he engages in a business transaction with you that is halal. That's not your business, your transaction is halal

with him. So they said by analogy, so to via inheritance, so to just like if they did a business transaction, that money would become permissible, so to the person has died, so the person did the sin, therefore, the transfer of inheritance we'll make the originally haram money, it will make it halal for you. Now, this is a minority opinion, the vast majority majority of scholars pushed back at this. And they said no, actually, we cannot make these claims simply because as for point number one, why that is it was the rotten wizard okra, nobody's talking about sin. There is no question the son is not guilty for the sins of the father. But we're talking about, you know, for a fact this

money is haram, can you take it right? That's a separate question altogether. And the question of sin, the fact that the Father is a sinner, doesn't mean the sun is the sinner. But the question now is that is the sun sinful? Acquiring the sinful money? That's the question here. And the vast majority balked at this. And so we cannot just make a simple extraction from the verse As for the issue of transactions, transforming ownership and making the Haram basically into a halal, we say, the other scholars said that this is not like a regular transaction, you are not exchanging any goods, the man is not buying any groceries from you. On the contrary, this is an acquired an

acquisition without any effort, this is acquiring the wealth of somebody else because of their death, you didn't do anything, you're not paying anything in return, this is essentially a free gift to you and you have a bit of a higher burden now that is this something permissible for me or not. So they basically said you cannot make an analogy between you know, a person walking into your head out store for a halal transaction with his head on money, you cannot make this analogy with inheritance because you're not giving anything in return. And so they said that it is an incorrect analogy. So this is the first opinion minority opinion they said it is head on obviously I already

told you that there are two or three opinions the second opinion and I've already given you their evidence is they refuted the first one and they said the second opinion is that an inheritance does not transform the Haram money into halal for you and that that which was haram remains How long if you know that it is how

wrong. And this is frankly the default position of the four schools of Sunni law the Hanafi, Shafali, Malik and humbleness. It is the position of shareholders I'm even Taymiyah and pretty much the the default the majority the vast majority one can say is that the Haram money does not become hallowed simply because of the death of the person involved and therefore,

you are not allowed to acquire the portion of the of the money that is haram Mm hmm. No, we says that if you know the inheritance to be haram and you know those whom it belongs to, then you must return the money to those whom it belongs to what Illa the solder will be here otherwise, you must give sadaqa from it. And even Aberdeen from the Athena offices the same in a riddle matar volume five page 247 The exact same thing that it is haram to inherit haram money regardless of whether you know who the original owners are or not. If you know the money to be held on then then it is haram for you to inherit. And shareholder some immune Tamia was asked about a person who left money that

had haram elements in it. Is it halal for the children to inherit that money and even Taymiyah responded other the animal wallet or whatever you read you who the portion that the man the child knows that you took from Reba so the question was the man would give it about loans and he would get extra money back from the zebra loans. This is unanimous haram to give a loan of Riba and take back more unanimously This is how long as for mortgages as explained in a longer q&a There is no unanimous you have a lot of gray area in this regard to give a Dubai loan is not the same as being forced to take and I've given a longer q&a about that. But the point is here have been Tamia was

asked a man would give loans and he would take riba from those loans he'd give 100,000 Take back 110,000 Even Taymiyah said, the amount that the child who inherits the money knows to be from riba he must get rid of that loan, and either return it to the one who gave the loan ie the one to whom the loan was given. Or if he doesn't know who the person was, he gives sadaqa. He gives it in sadhaka. And even rushed of the Maliki's immigration agenda grandfather, it will reach said that the mirror off the inheritance does not become Khaled if the original money was haram. And this is the stronger in the correct opinion and quote. So this is basically the standard and the default

position. And of course, their evidences are logical their common sense, their evidence is basically is that if the money was not permissible in the first place, and since this is an inheritance, it's not a transaction, but essentially a free transfer of wealth because of death. It doesn't make the Haram halal. Simply because the person has died, it wasn't allowed for him to acquire in the first place, you knew it wasn't allowed for him to acquire now that you have access to the exact same, you should either if you know for a fact how much it is, you get rid of it. Or if you don't know you guesstimate, because at the end of the day, hardly anybody has 100% Hold on wealth, if a person is

involved in how long 1020 3050 80% is how long, but clearly, usually there's held businesses and other things that he's done. So you should make a guesstimate, if you don't know the exact and you get rid of that which is haram. If you know the people whom it belongs to you return to those people. And if you don't, then you give it a sadaqa because that money is not halal for you, and you shall be rewarded for your piety, because you were pious and cautious in this money. So this is the majority opinion and it is the second opinion on our list. And it is a good opinion. And if you wish to follow it, then that is fine. The opinion that I find personally the one that makes the most

sense to me is the third opinion. And the third opinion is a middle opinion between the first and the second, the third opinion is a middle opinion between the first and the second one. And that is to differentiate between the types of haram. So any money that had a specific owner, and that you know for a fact that this money belongs to somebody else, and the person whom you're inheriting from, in this case, your father took it unlawfully and unjustly and that that person is owed that money that you should and you must give it back to that person or to his inheritors. Or if you cannot contact him or it's going to cause more issues you give it in South Africa on behalf of that

person. So if suffered a law there was blatant stealing, if you know this person or your father blatantly stole a piece of land or stole an amount of money from a person who deserved it and acquired it illegally, and you know this for a fact, then there is no question that you cannot continue to perpetuate this specific injustice against a group of people that are known to you. However, if the money was generically haram, ie it's not specifically belonging to a person

But generically, your father did things he should not have done.

And, you know, for example, in this case, let's give an example of embezzlement. Let's give an example of Vishwa. Let's give an example of riba for example, right? This is generic haram in the sense that

your father did not unjustly acquire surreptitiously steel, a person specific right. Rather, it was generic and there are no known people you can return the money to. In this case, the third group of scholars says that even though it is better for you to get rid of that money, you are not sinful if you acquire that money, which was generically taken because there are no exact people you can give it to. So rather than give it to a group of strangers, your father did the sin, the sin is on your father, you do not carry the sin. And since the money doesn't have specific rightful owners here, that's the key point of the third group. The third group says that, well, who are you going to give

it back to you're going to give it back to some strangers or you're going to give it a soda to some strangers? Well, I mean, your father did the sin rather than give it to a group of strangers the sin is on your father and you are allowed to but it's not encouraged. If you want to be pure, you want to be better and not give it you know, not take it, no doubt that is better for you, but in and of itself, it will not transfer the sin of that haram money will not transfer to you. Because there are no specific claimants to that particular wealth. And this is the position of a group of scholars, you will find them really amongst all of the modahaus some scholars have a position basically it's

modified to a which is that to basically says all of the money should be given and to ace as well. If you know specifically who the money is owed to you should give it otherwise generically. If it's money that is generic and not specific, then you're not required to give it back because there's no person to give it back to. And this is the fact where you find it from great scholars like a one Cherie see of the Maliki's also my own teacher entertainment Allah hammer. This was a fatwa that he held and so he says, for example, that I'll model Maru Hala Lenoir if you were in carnal Maru, Ruth,

several women How long were in Canada more risk? That's a woman how long that the money that is inherited becomes halal for the one who inherits even if the one from whom it is inherited, acquired it from haram means and into entertainment goes on and says that if the person knows that this money is stolen from Fudan or acquired illegally from a specific person, he must return it to that person. However, if it was acquired via a haram, you know, mechanism, such as for example, the person acquired it from riba right, so this is not stealing from a person, but he acquired it from haram. So even or Damien says that it becomes halal for the Waratah for the inheritors, and the sin is upon

the person who did it and the deceased person. And that and then he goes on and explains that it's not required for the one who inherits the money to go and find out you know, every single detail about where the money was acquired from, unless we know for a fact that a particular item or a particular amount was basically stolen or taken from specific people, in which case the level of Herma what is called the level of sanctity of that money becomes too high, and it is not allowed to transfer. And in my humble opinion, this third opinion makes the most sense to me. And of course, no doubt, if you were to follow the second opinion, which is that all such money is held on that it is

safer, no doubt about that, and it is better, and it is going to be clear to one's conscience and more blessed to your wealth. But if one follows the third opinion, and still I would say give some sadaqa to purify it for yourself and realize that you know, this is not you know, the purest of money, but to say that you are sinful and you didn't do it. I don't see this as also being fair, because there is no individual that can claim Hey, that is my money on the contrary, is generic haram that the one who did it will have to answer to Allah. But now that you are inheriting you don't have to answer for that. And Allah azza wa jal knows verse This is a difficult scenario

situation. So between the second and the third opinion whichever one is clear to your conscience, that should be permissible and Allah knows best

for

either

me, stuck here down seni one tells

me what to feed

at what

feels cool we talking

down to

me down

Hello