on the basis of a defensible interpretation; for such a person has an even stronger claim to pardon and excuse than an unbeliever acting on an interpretation. When some jurists imposed restrictions in this matter upon a scrupulous person, they drove him to transact with unbelievers and abandon dealings with Muslims. Yet it is well known that Allah and His Messenger do not command a Muslim to partake of the wealth of unbelievers while shunning the wealth of Muslims. Rather, Muslims have a greater claim to every good, and unbelievers to every evil.

The Third Principle

What is unlawful falls into two categories. The first is what is unlawful because of its nature, such as carrion, blood, and pork. If any of these mixes with water, another liquid, or other food and changes its taste, colour, or smell, it renders it unlawful. If it does not change it, there is disagreement, which is not our subject here.

The second category is what is unlawful because of the manner in which it was acquired, such as property taken by usurpation or through an invalid contract. When this is mixed with lawful property, it does not render the lawful property unlawful. Thus, if a man usurps dirhams, dinars, flour, wheat, or bread and mixes it with his own property, this does not render the whole unlawful for either party. Rather, if the two portions are alike, they can divide the mixture, each taking the amount to which he is entitled, even if each receives some of the other’s actual property in exchange for the equivalent received by the other.

Is mixing to be treated as destruction? There are two views on this within the schools of al-Shāfi'ī, Ahmad, and others.

The first is that it is treated as destruction, so he gives the owner an equivalent of what he is owed, from whatever source he chooses.