that before revealed law there is neither a declaration of permissibility nor a declaration of prohibition. Since there was no prohibition, that absence is presumed to continue and remain in effect; thus the position remains the same now. The point is that these things entail neither sin nor punishment.

As for reasoning from similarities and parallels, and exercising independent judgment concerning comprehensive principles, there are many arguments, some of which we shall indicate.

First:

Allah, glorified be He, created these things and placed enjoyment and benefit for human beings in them; some may even become indispensable to them. He, glorified be He, is Generous, Glorious, Munificent, Merciful, Self-Sufficient, and the One upon whom all depend. Knowing this leads to the knowledge that He does not punish or torment a person merely for enjoying these things. This is the point to be established.

Second:

They provide benefit free from harm, and are therefore permissible, like everything else whose permissibility is expressly stated. Revelation indicates that the ruling is attached to this characteristic, in His words:

“He makes lawful for them what is good and forbids them what is foul.”

Thus, everything beneficial is good, and everything harmful is foul. There is also the evident appropriateness, apparent to anyone possessed of reason, of associating benefit with permissibility and harm with prohibition. There is, moreover, their correlation: prohibition accompanies harm, being present in carrion, blood, pork, creatures with fangs or talons, wine, and other things harmful to people, and absent in livestock, milk, and other such things.

Third:

These things either have a ruling or they do not.