Most later scholars affiliated with jurisprudence or Sufism are afflicted by this.

This view, supported by Mālik’s principles, Ahmad’s principles, and some of the principles of other scholars, is the soundest view. Most of the early Muslims’ dealings also support it. People’s livelihoods cannot function properly without it. Anyone who goes too far in prohibiting what he considers uncertainty in transactions will inevitably find himself compelled to permit what Allah has forbidden. He must then either depart from the school he follows on this issue or resort to a stratagem. We have observed people and received accounts of their conduct, yet we have never seen anyone consistently adhere to his school’s prohibition of these transactions; indeed, he cannot do so. We know with certainty that the harm involved in prohibition is not removed by the stratagem they propose.

It is therefore inconceivable that the Lawgiver would forbid something we need, then permit it only through a pointless stratagem that amounts to mere play.

I have reflected on most of what has led people to resort to stratagems and found that it comes down to one of two things. The first is sins for which they were punished by restrictions in their affairs. They could find no way to escape these restrictions except through stratagems, but those stratagems only increased their affliction. This is what happened to the Sabbath-breakers among the Jews, as Allah Most High says:

“Because of wrongdoing on the part of the Jews, We forbade them good things that had been made lawful to them.”

This is a sin in conduct. The second is excessive strictness arising from their belief that the Lawgiver has prohibited certain things. This belief then compels them to seek permission through stratagems. This is an error in scholarly judgment. Otherwise, whoever fears Allah and takes what He has made lawful