They knew that what the Messenger of Allah—may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him—had forbidden [merely amounted to] an additional prohibition, not an abrogation of the Quran. The Quran indicated only that Allah had forbidden carrion, blood, and pork. The absence of prohibition does not constitute a declaration of lawfulness; it merely leaves the matter as it previously stood. Allah stated this in Surah al-An‘ām, which is Meccan by scholarly consensus. It is not, as the followers of Mālik and al-Shāfi‘ī supposed, among the last portions of the Quran to have been revealed. Rather, Surah al-Mā’idah was revealed later, and Allah said therein: “Lawful for you are all good things” [al-Mā’idah: 4]. It thus became known that the absence of prohibition mentioned in Surah al-An‘ām was not a declaration of lawfulness, but merely legislative silence. The Messenger of Allah’s prohibition therefore ended that silence; it did not abrogate the Quran.

However, the hadith scholars did not agree with the Kufans concerning everything that they deemed forbidden. Rather, they regarded horsemeat as lawful because authentic reports from the Prophet—may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him—establish that he permitted it on the day of Khaybar, and that a horse was slaughtered during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah—may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him—and its meat was eaten. They also regarded the spiny-tailed lizard as lawful because authentic reports relate that the Prophet—may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him—said, “I do not forbid it,” and because it was eaten at his table while he watched, without his objecting to those who ate it. The same applies to other things for which a concession has been reported.