The Legal Presumption Regarding Things between Permissibility, Prohibition, and Suspension: A Comparative Juristic Study

Abstract

In the juristic perspective regarding "the origin" (i.e.,the fundamental ruling) of things, there are three well-known theories:

Permissibility (Ibahah): This theory asserts that, fundamentally, all things are permissible unless there is clear evidence indicating their prohibition. This means that everything is naturally halal (lawful) and permissible until the Shariah explicitly forbids it.

Suspension (Tawaqquf): According to this theory, if there is no clear evidence in the Shariah regarding a particular matter, it is prudent to suspend judgment. This means that neither its permissibility nor its prohibition will be established until a clear legal ruling is found regarding it.

Prohibition (Harām): This theory posits that, fundamentally, all things are prohibited until there is evidence from the Shariah allowing their permissibility.

Generally, among scholars, the first theory of permissibility (Ibahah) is more widely accepted, as it is considered closer to the general principles of the Qurān and Sunnah. The research article in question presents an analytical and comparative study of the arguments surrounding the differences of opinion among scholars regarding these three views.