established, only for later generations to come and declare them obligatory. Whenever circumstances called for a ruling of prohibition or obligation to be explained, yet they mentioned neither obligation nor prohibition, this constituted their consensus that they did not regard the matter as obligatory or forbidden—which is the point at issue. This method is relied upon in many rulings. It is a major principle that the jurist should reflect upon, without overlooking its deeper implications. However, it can be accepted only if no disagreement appeared among the earliest generation. If disagreement is established, this method is invalid, and the truth is more deserving of being followed.

The tenth argument—which is actually the thirteenth:

We know with certainty that grains such as barley, white wheat, sorghum, and the like were cultivated on the farms of Medina in the time of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and his household. We also know that when animals thresh grain, they inevitably defecate and urinate. If that rendered the grain impure, it would have been forbidden altogether, or it would have been obligatory to declare it impure.

The Hijaz, Yemen, Najd, and all the other regions of Arabia embraced Islam during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). His zakat collectors and officials were sent to them to collect the tithes on their grain, whether wheat or other kinds. Brown wheat from Syria was brought to Medina, and the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the believers ate it during his lifetime. He made an agreement with the people of Khaybar under which they would receive half of its yield of fruit and crops. He would give each of his wives eighty wasqs of barley from Khaybar’s produce. All of these