Is Buying and Selling Stolen Property Haram in Islam?

Buying and Selling Stolen Property

Question: What do the scholars of Islam state regarding the following matter: Zaid buys and sells stolen property. Is it permissible to purchase goods from Zaid and then sell them to another party while being aware of this fact?

اَلْجَوَابُ بِعَوْنِ الْمَلِکِ الْوَھَّابِ اَللّھُمَّ ھِدَایَۃَ الْحَقِّ وَالصَّوَابِ

Answer: Issues regarding the trade of stolen property arise in almost every market. The Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah, Imam Aḥmad Razā Khan رَحْمَةُ الـلّٰـهِ عَـلَيْه, has outlined two scenarios regarding the prohibition of purchasing stolen property:

1. When it is definitively known that the property is stolen.

2. When there is a strong presumption based on clear evidence that the goods are stolen.

In both of these cases, purchasing such property is impermissible. A third potential scenario is when the buyer was neither aware nor had any indication at the time of purchase, but discovers the truth later on. In this scenario, it is obligatory to return the property to its rightful owner.

It is stated in Fatāwā Riḍawiyyah:

It is forbidden to knowingly purchase stolen property. Indeed, it is forbidden even if it is not definitively known but strongly suspected (maẓnūn). For instance, if an illiterate person, whose ancestors were also illiterate, brings a scholarly book to sell and claims it as his own property, it is not permissible to purchase it. However, if there is neither knowledge nor clear evidence [of theft], the purchase is permissible. If it is subsequently proven to be stolen, its use is haram; rather, it must be returned to the owner. If the owner is unavailable, it should be given to their heirs, and if they cannot be traced, it must be given to the poor.[1]

وَاللہُ اَعْلَمُ عَزَّوجَلَّ وَ رَسُوْلُہ اَعْلَم صلَّی اللّٰہُ تعالٰی علیہِ واٰلہٖ وسلَّم

Determining the Price After Receiving Goods

Question: What do the scholars of Islam state regarding this matter: A person buys groceries from a shop every month by providing a list of items to the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper delivers the goods to the person’s home after three or four days, providing a list showing the price of each item and the total amount, after which the person pays. Is this transaction valid?

اَلْجَوَابُ بِعَوْنِ الْمَلِکِ الْوَھَّابِ اَللّٰھُمَّ ھِدَایَۃَ الْحَقِّ وَالصَّوَابِ

Answer: The situation described constitutes BayꜤ al-TaꜤāṭī (sale concluded through mutual exchange), in which the offer and acceptance (Ījāb wa Qabūl) are effected through the exchange of goods and payment rather than verbal declaration, and in such a state where the buyer is aware of the price of each item. Therefore, there is no legal flaw in the described scenario, and this method is refined and free from juristic complexities.

However, a slightly different situation—commonly practised by people—where supplies are taken throughout the month and the account and prices are determined only at the end, has been discussed extensively by the jurists, who ultimately ruled it permissible.

As stated in Al-Durr al-Mukhtār:

"The items that people take from shopkeepers and then calculate the price after using them are permissible by way of juristic preference (Istiḥsān)."[2]

The erudite Ḥanafī jurist, Mufti Amjad ꜤAlī al-AꜤẓamī رَحْمَةُ الـلّٰـهِ عَـلَيْه, states in Bahār-e-SharīꜤat:

"Items are ordered from shopkeepers for consumption, and the price is calculated after they have been used; doing so is permissible by way of Istiḥsān."[3]

وَاللہُ اَعْلَمُ عَزَّوجَلَّ وَ رَسُوْلُہ اَعْلَم صلَّی اللہ تعالٰی علیہ واٰلہٖ وسلَّم

Exchanging Currency

Question: What do the scholars of Islam state regarding the practice at bus stops where people exchange currency? They take a 100-rupee note and give 90 rupees in coins in return. Is this permissible, or does it constitute usury?

اَلْجَوَابُ بِعَوْنِ الْمَلِکِ الْوَھَّابِ اَللّٰھُمَّ ھِدَایَۃَ الْحَقِّ وَالصَّوَابِ

Answer: If 90 rupees in coins are given in exchange for a 100-rupee note, this transaction is permissible, whether it is conducted as a cash transaction on both sides or involves credit on one side. This does not constitute usury. This is because when coins are exchanged for a note, they differ in both genus (jins) and measure (qadr); therefore, disparity in amount and credit are permissible.

As stated in Al-Durr al-Mukhtār:

وَاِنْ عَدِمَا حَلَّا لِعَدَمِ الْعِلَّۃِ فَبَقِیَ عَلٰی اَصْلِ الْاِبَاحَۃِ

Translation: "If both [measure] and [genus] are absent, then disparity and credit are permissible due to the absence of the effective cause (Ꜥillah); thus, the sale remains upon its original ruling of permissibility."[4]

However, it must be noted that this ruling applies to the exchange of notes for coins. If a 100-rupee note is exchanged for 90 rupees in notes, the transaction is only permissible if it is conducted as a cash transaction without any credit on either side. If credit occurs from one party, the transaction becomes impermissible. This is because the genus is the same [paper currency], but the amount differs. In such a case, while disparity in amount is permitted, credit is forbidden.

As stated in Al-Durr al-Mukhtār:

وَاِنْ وُجِدَ اَحَدُھُمَا اَیِ الْقَدَرُ وَحْدَہُ اَوِ الْجِنْسُ وَحْدَہُ حَلَّ الْفَضْلُ وَحَرُمَ النَسَاءُ

Translation: "If one of the two is present—meaning either measure alone or genus alone—then disparity is permitted, but credit is forbidden."[5]

وَاللہُ اَعْلَمُ عَزَّوجَلَّ وَ رَسُوْلُہٗ اَعْلَم صلَّی اللہ تعالٰی علیہ واٰلہٖ وسلَّم

Giving the Hide of a Sacrificial Animal as Remuneration is Impermissible

Question: What do the scholars of religion say regarding this matter: Is it permissible to give the hide of a sacrificial animal to the butcher as payment for slaughtering the animal and preparing the meat?

اَلْجَوَابُ بِعَوْنِ الْمَلِکِ الْوَھَّابِ اَللّٰھُمَّ ھِدَایَۃَ الْحَقِّ وَالصَّوَابِ

Answer: It is not permissible to give any part of the sacrificial animal—such as the meat, the head, feet, or the hide—to the butcher as remuneration. Instead, a separate wage must be fixed for his services.

ꜤAllāmah ꜤAlā al-Dīn al-Ḥaṣkafī رَحْمَةُ الـلّٰـهِ عَـلَيْه states:

لَایُعْطٰي اَجْرُ الْجَزَّارِ مِنْھَا لِاَنَّہُ کَبَیْعٍ

Translation: "The slaughterer is not to be given any part of it [the sacrificial animal] as remuneration, because doing so is akin to a sale (bayꜤ)."[6]

Imam Ahl al-Sunnah, Imam Aḥmad Razā Khan رَحْمَةُ الـلّٰـهِ عَـلَيْه, while explaining the ruling on giving any part of the sacrifice as payment, states:

"If this is stipulated as a wage, it is unlawful (haram)."[7]

The erudite Hanafi jurist, Mufti Amjad ꜤAlī al-AꜤẓamī رَحْمَةُ الـلّٰـهِ عَـلَيْه states:

"The hide, meat, or any part of the sacrificial animal cannot be given to the butcher or the slaughterer as remuneration."[8]

وَاللہُ اَعْلَمُ عَزَّوَجَلَّ وَ رَسُوْلُہُ اَعْلَم صلَّی اللہ تعالٰی علیہ واٰلہٖ وسلَّم