Question:
Someone asks about a person who, before becoming Muslim, used to buy and sell intoxicants and other prohibited items. In addition, he sometimes kept money that belonged to others. Now that he has accepted Islam, he wants to know whether he must return that money to its owners or whether he may give the money to charity instead.
Answer:
Some scholars have given very careless answers to this issue. They say that if the transaction involved something prohibited—like alcohol—the person does not need to return the money. According to them, because the item itself was unlawful, the debt can simply be ignored.
But this reasoning is not correct. To understand why, we must first understand the nature of debt in economic transactions. Suppose you sell someone a sack of sugar for 5000 rupees on credit. What exactly does the buyer owe you? Does he owe you another sack of sugar? No. He owes you 5000 rupees. The moment the transaction occurs, the value of the goods becomes a monetary debt.
Even if the price of sugar rises later, the buyer still owes only the agreed amount. And if the price falls later, he still owes the same amount. The debt is not based on the physical goods but on their monetary value at the time of the agreement.
This is how all credit transactions work. Whether the item is sugar, cement, clothing, or anything else, the debt immediately becomes a monetary obligation.
Now apply this to the case mentioned in the question. Suppose a person bought alcohol worth fifty thousand rupees on credit. The moment the agreement was made, he did not merely owe bottles of alcohol—he owed fifty thousand rupees. That monetary debt remains a responsibility.
Even if the item involved was prohibited, the debt still belongs to the person who sold it. Especially if the seller was not Muslim and considered that trade permissible within his own system, keeping the money would simply be cheating.
Islam does not allow a Muslim to escape his financial obligations by using religious excuses. The Qur’an commands believers to fulfil trusts and return what belongs to others. Therefore, if someone owes money—even from a transaction that later turned out to be wrong—he must still repay the debt to the rightful owner.
Keeping the money and giving it to charity instead would not solve the problem. Charity cannot be given from wealth that belongs to someone else. First the debt must be returned to its owner.
