such as giving charity to the poor. Where the owner’s identity is uncertain, Ahmad holds that lots should be drawn, while Abū Hanīfah holds that the property should be divided. A thousand useful questions of practical relevance follow from this principle.

This also provides an answer to the hypothetical case posed by Abū al-Maʿālī in his book “al-Ghiyāthī” and taken up by those who followed him: if unlawful property were to encompass the earth and no means of obtaining lawful property remained, people would be permitted as much food, clothing, and housing as they needed; and need is broader than necessity. He explained that this situation could arise if unjust rulers seized property without right and distributed it among the people, and that his own time was close to this hypothetical situation—so what of later times?

Yet what he proposed is an impossible hypothesis that cannot arise, because of the “principle of Islamic law” I have mentioned. For prohibited things fall into two categories: things prohibited in themselves, such as impure substances, including blood and carrion; and things prohibited because of another person’s rights, though their kind is permissible, such as food, housing, clothing, riding animals, money, and other things.

The prohibition of all these things comes down to injustice, for they become prohibited only for two reasons:

(The first is taking possession of them without their owner’s willing consent and without the Lawgiver’s permission. This is outright injustice, such as theft, breach of trust, and overt forcible seizure. This is the category most widely recognized as prohibited.