property belonging to anyone else. That is a prohibition tied to deliberate choice, and we ought not to commit it. If someone nevertheless goes ahead and does so, he is sinful for the very act, having abandoned the proper choice; but neither his own possessions nor the things that were lawful to him become forbidden.

552 – An example is the report that the Prophet instructed a diner to eat from what is directly in front of him and not from the very top of the trencher of tharīd (meat-and-bread stew), and that he forbade spending the night on the roadside. Should a person eat from a place not in front of him, or from the top of the food, or camp on the roadside, he is sinful for that action—provided he knew of the Prophet’s prohibition—but the food itself does not become unlawful to him.

553 – The food is distinct from the act; it did not require any further factor to make it lawful—it was lawful already. Hence the lawful does not turn into the unlawful for him merely because he disobeyed in the manner of eating.

554 – The same applies to the prohibition of camping on the roadside: the road itself remains permissible, and he is sinful only for choosing to camp there; his disobedience does not make the road forbidden to him.

555 – I say that he incurs sin in such matters only once the proof is established that the person knew the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, had prohibited it.