of his school.

The third view is that taking possession confers ownership if restitution of the property is no longer possible. But if it can be returned to its owner and has undergone no change in its characteristics or price, taking possession does not confer ownership. This is the view reported from Mālik’s school.

We have discussed these matters and principles at length elsewhere, outside this response. Here, however, we have drawn attention to important principles that open up the question of ambiguity concerning this foundational principle, which is one of the foundations of Islam. As Imam Ahmad and others have said, the foundations of Islam revolve around three hadiths—the Prophet’s sayings:

“What is lawful is clear, and what is unlawful is clear.”

“Actions are judged only by intentions.”

“Whoever performs an act that is not in accordance with our teaching will have it rejected.”

Actions are either enjoined or forbidden. The first hadith addresses what is forbidden, while what is enjoined concerns either the heart’s purpose, namely intention, or the outward action, which must be prescribed and conform to the Sunnah. Thus, concerning Allah’s words,

“that He may test you as to which of you is best in deeds,”

al-Fudayl ibn ‘Iyād said, “That which is most sincere and most correct.” They asked, “Abū ‘Alī, what do you mean by ‘most sincere and most correct’?”

He replied, “If an action is sincere but not correct, it will not be accepted. If it is correct but not sincere, it will not be accepted until it is both sincere and correct. To be sincere is to be done for Allah, and to be correct is to conform to the Sunnah.”

It is thus clear that the claim made by the person who said, “Eating lawful food is impossible, and it cannot be found in this age,” is mistaken and contrary to scholarly consensus. Rather,