from revealed law, we would be prohibiting what Allah has not prohibited. This differs from contracts that entail instituting religious practices Allah has not authorized, for Allah has forbidden instituting any religious practice He has not authorized. No act of worship may be prescribed except by Allah’s legislation, and no customary practice may be prohibited except by Allah’s prohibition. Contracts in ordinary dealings belong to customary practices, undertaken by Muslims and disbelievers alike, even if, in another respect, they may be a means of drawing near to Allah. They are not acts of worship requiring revealed prescription. Such is the case with manumission and charity.

If it is argued:

“Contracts alter what was established by revealed law. For if the right to marital intimacy or ownership of property is established in a particular state, and someone concludes a contract that changes that state, he has altered what was established by revealed law. This is unlike tangible things that have not been prohibited, for permitting them entails no change.”

The reply is:

There is no distinction between the two. Tangible things either belong to someone or they do not. If they belong to someone, their transfer by sale or otherwise does not change the things themselves, and this falls within the category of contracts. If they belong to no one and someone acquires ownership of them by taking possession or by similar means, this is an action that changes their legal status, just as contracts do. Moreover, they are prohibited before ritual slaughter; slaughtering them is comparable to concluding a contract concerning property.

Thus, just as our actions concerning tangible things—taking possession of them and slaughtering them—are lawful by default, even when they change the legal status of the thing, so too our actions concerning property through contracts