of so many men among the early Muslims and the Successors.” For this condemnation came from their peers, from those above them, or from those close to them in rank. When disagreement arises, the matter must be referred to Allah and His Messenger.

Nevertheless, the example of those who adopted the weaker opinion can help establish an excuse for those who act on an interpretation. For nearly every category of what Allah has forbidden—such as unlawful killing, unlawful sexual intercourse, wine, gambling, and violations of property and honour—includes forms that some groups within the Muslim nation have deemed lawful on the basis of an interpretation. Among those who deemed them lawful were righteous members of this nation, people of knowledge and faith.

Yet someone who deems such a thing lawful does not believe it to be forbidden or included in what Allah and His Messenger have condemned. Thus, someone who fights during civil strife on the basis of an interpretation does not believe that he has killed a believer without right. Someone who permits temporary marriage, hushūsh, or a marriage intended to make a divorced woman lawful again for her former husband does not believe that he has permitted unlawful intercourse and fornication. Someone who permits nabīdh (a fermented drink) on the basis of an interpretation, certain forms of usurious transactions, or contracts involving wagering does not believe that he has permitted wine, gambling, and usury.

However, the occurrence of such interpretations among leaders of knowledge and faith whose example is followed has become a cause of trials and discord. Those who revere them may follow their example in these matters, yet may not stop at the limits at which those leaders stopped. Rather, they may go further and introduce additions that never came from those eminent leaders. Meanwhile, those who know that the general category of such conduct is forbidden may overstep the bounds against those who acted on an interpretation through a kind of