The first is that he gave a ruling permitting it without restriction. The second is his saying:

“Whatever He has remained silent about is among the things He has pardoned.”

This explicitly states that no sin is incurred regarding what He has remained silent about. His calling this a pardon is apparently—and Allah knows best—because declaring something lawful means authorizing its consumption through a specific pronouncement, while declaring it forbidden means prohibiting its consumption in the same way. As for what He has remained silent about, He has neither authorized it through a pronouncement specific to it nor prohibited it. One therefore returns to the foundational principle: there is no punishment until messengers have been sent. If something carries no punishment, it is not forbidden. The Sunnah contains much evidence for this principle.

The third category: Following the way of the believers and the testimony of Allah’s witnesses on His earth—those upright people who enjoin right and forbid wrong, who are protected from collectively agreeing upon error, and whom it is obligatory to follow.

I know of no disagreement among the scholars of earlier generations that whatever has not been prohibited by evidence is unrestricted and not barred. Many who have written on the principles of jurisprudence and its practical rulings have explicitly stated this. I believe that some of them have reported consensus on this, either with certainty or with a conviction approaching certainty.

If it is asked: How can there be consensus on this, when you know that people have differed concerning things before the coming of the messengers and the revelation of the Books? Is the basic rule concerning them prohibition or permissibility? Or is their ruling unknown? Or do they have no ruling at all? Moreover, the presumption that an existing state continues is an accepted form of evidence, and some of those who have written on the principles of