The dilemma of paying a debt to a drug dealer often arises for individuals who have repented from a past life of crime or addiction and embraced Islam. They may find themselves owing money for illicit substances purchased prior to their conversion, while facing threats of violence if they fail to pay. This article addresses the Islamic legal status of such debts and the guiding principle of choosing the lesser of two harms.

The Legal Status of Illicit Debts

From a strict Shari’ah perspective, a debt incurred for purchasing drugs is not considered a valid debt.

In Islamic jurisprudence, for a debt to be valid, the underlying contract must be lawful, and the item exchanged must have recognized value (Mal Mutaqawwam). Since drugs and intoxicants are prohibited (Haram) and possessing them is a crime, they have no monetary value in the eyes of Islamic law. Ideally, such items should be destroyed, and no financial obligation remains for them.

Therefore, religiously speaking, a person is under no moral obligation to fulfill a contract that was void from its inception.

The Severity of Drug Dealing

Scholars note the severity of the crime of drug dealing. In many Muslim countries, drug pushers face severe penalties, sometimes even death, based on the magnitude of harm they cause to society.

This severity is often linked to the concept of Hirabah (waging war against society/corruption in the land).

Allah says regarding those who spread corruption:

“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land…” (Surah Al-Ma’idah, 5:33)

Given this context, a repentant Muslim should ideally sever all ties with such individuals and not support their illicit trade with further payments.

The Principle of Harm Reduction

However, the reality of the situation often involves immediate physical danger. If the individual refuses to pay, they may be put in harm’s way.

The primary advice is to escape the situation without paying if possible—for example, by seeking police protection, moving to another state, or relocating to a safe environment.

But if escaping is impossible and denying payment will cause certain physical harm or endanger the individual’s life, the ruling shifts based on the maxim of “Choosing the Lesser of Two Evils.”

  • Evil 1: Paying money to a criminal (which is generally disliked/prohibited as it validates a void contract).
  • Evil 2: Suffering physical harm or death.

In this specific scenario, preserving one’s life and safety takes precedence. Therefore, if there is no other way to protect oneself, paying the amount is permissible as a means to ward off a greater harm, not as an acknowledgment of a valid debt.