enjoining, forbidding, or granting permission—as with enjoining what is wholly or predominantly good, or forbidding what is wholly or predominantly harmful. When considerations conflict, the weightier one takes precedence—as explained earlier—to the extent possible.

But if the person being commanded or forbidden does not keep within what is possible, whether through ignorance or wrongdoing, and neither his ignorance nor his wrongdoing can be remedied, it may be better to refrain from commanding or forbidding him. As has been said, some questions are best answered with silence. Likewise, at the outset, the Lawgiver refrained from commanding certain things and forbidding others until Islam had gained ascendancy and become firmly established. The same applies to a scholar when explaining and conveying religious teachings: he may postpone explaining and conveying certain matters until he is able to do so, just as Allah, glorified be He, delayed revealing certain verses and explaining certain rulings until His Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—was able to explain them.

The reality of this matter is made clear by Allah’s words:

“We would never punish until We had sent a messenger.”

The proof is established against people only when two conditions are met: they must be able to learn what Allah has revealed and have the ability to act upon it.

As for someone unable to acquire knowledge, such as an insane person, or unable to act, he is subject to neither commands nor prohibitions. If knowledge of part of the religion becomes inaccessible, or acting upon part of it becomes impossible, then someone unable to acquire that knowledge or act upon its prescriptions is, in that respect, like someone cut off from knowledge of the religion altogether or unable to act upon any of it—as in the case of insanity, for example. These are periods of interruption in religious guidance. Thus, when scholars, rulers, or both arise to uphold the religion, their explanation of what the Messenger brought