Difference In Opinion On The Issue

There is a minor difference of opinion among the scholars that follow the word to the letter, and those who deal with the broad principles on this issue. The point of contention is to understand whether things are inherently prohibited or permissible? Therefore, all of the scholars that deal with the principles consider everything permissible, unless there is a clear directive against it. The second group considers that things are prohibited, unless clearly declared to be permissible.

The truth of the matter was that unless there was a clear verdict against it, one must consider that thing to be acceptable. There was a plain ruling of Imam Ja’far As-Sadiq (‘a) on this issue, “Everything is permissible or halal, unless there is a clear judgment against it”. This was the distinct feature of the Islamic law, which was in tandem with its constitution.

One must bear in mind that this clause was applicable only where a permanent judgement could not be made through the acceptable logic. This included matters such as those whose outcome would vary with the change of place or person, and changes had to be made to the law according to the prevailing circumstances.

However, in matters where logic and intellect endured, such as theft, telling lies or committing tyranny, then rulings against such affairs did not require any clear verdict. These actions would be considered haram (illegal).