And Ibn al-Zubayr considered it forbidden for both men and women, because of the general wording of the Prophet’s saying:

“Whoever wears silk in this world will not wear it in the Hereafter.”

Yet there were, in fact, specific texts establishing that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, permitted a menstruating woman to depart without performing the farewell circumambulation; that she could wear leather socks and other garments forbidden to a man in ihrām, though she must avoid the face veil and gloves; and that he permitted an area of silk two, three, or four fingers wide. This was made clear in the Sahīh, in the report narrated by ʿUmar, of which his son ʿAbd Allāh was unaware. He also had a robe edged with silk.

When Ibn ʿUmar and others heard these specific texts, they revised their views. They then knew that there had, in fact, been evidence stronger than the evidence upon which they had continued to rely, but of which they had been unaware. In both situations, their judgments rested on knowledge; they were not among those who follow mere conjecture. Initially, they gave precedence to the general wording over the presumption of freedom from obligation or prohibition. This preference was based on knowledge, for the former unquestionably takes precedence, and Islamic law abounds in examples of this.

The texts in His Book establishing what Allah has made obligatory or forbidden—such as ablution, prayer, pilgrimage, and other matters—are texts of general application. Likewise, He prohibited such things as carrion, blood, and pork through texts of general application. These outweigh and take precedence over the presumption of freedom from obligation or prohibition, which would negate both obligation and prohibition.

Whoever gives these texts precedence has therefore judged on the basis of knowledge, applying the stronger of two pieces of evidence whose relative strength is known. He is not among those who follow mere conjecture. However, because he allows for the possibility that the text’s general scope has been qualified, his conclusion amounts to preponderant conjecture. If he knew that there was no such qualification, he would be certain of its general application. Likewise,