Is the default ruling of things permissibility?

Al-Shawkani closes Irshad al-Fuhul with a conclusion on two questions, the first being: where scholars differ and no proof addresses a thing or its kind, is the default permissibility, prohibition or suspension of judgement? ¹ He prefaces it by noting that no one disputes that reason grasps some things, such as qualities of perfection and deficiency, and that reason's judgements fall into five kinds like those of the law: obligation, as repaying a debt; prohibition, as injustice; recommendation, as kindness; disapproval, as bad character; and permission, as an owner's use of his property. ¹

Al-Shawkani reports that a group of jurists, a group of Shafi'is and Muhammad ibn Abd Allah ibn Abd al-Hakam held that the default is permissibility, and that some later scholars attributed this to the majority. ¹ He reports a second view — attributed in this printing to "the majority" — that a thing's ruling is known only by a proof specific to it or its kind, so that without one the default is prohibition. ¹ Al-Ash'ari, Abu Bakr al-Sayrafi and some Shafi'is held suspension, meaning one cannot know whether there is a ruling at all, and al-Razi stated in al-Mahsul that the default for benefits is permission and for harms prohibition. ^{1 2}

Its holders cite the Qur'an's rebuke of those who forbid God's adornment and the good things of provision (al-A'raf 32): if the kind is not forbidden, none of its members is; the verses declaring good things lawful, reading "good" as what is naturally agreeable rather than "lawful", which would be redundant; the verse limiting the forbidden foods (al-An'am 145), which makes permission the rule and prohibition the exception; and the verse on the subjection of what is in the heavens and the earth (al-Jathiya 13). ² From the Sunna they cite the hadith of Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas in the two Sahihs that the gravest offender among Muslims is one who asked about something that was then forbidden because he asked, and the hadith of Salman al-Farisi (may God be pleased with him) in al-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah that, asked about clarified butter, cheese and furs, the Prophet ﷺ said the lawful is what God made lawful in His Book, the unlawful what He forbade, and what He was silent on He has pardoned. ²

From reason: using what harms neither its owner nor its user cannot be forbidden, like using a lamp's light or a wall's shade; and God created things for a purpose, not in vain (al-Mu'minun 115), and their benefit cannot return to Him, so they were made for those who need them, and only what He has forbidden for its harm is withheld. ²

He notes that its holders cited the verse on the detailing of what is forbidden (al-An'am 119); he answers that it lies outside the dispute, which concerns only what has no stated ruling for itself or its kind. ² They cited the verse forbidding people to declare things lawful or unlawful by their own tongues (al-Nahl 116); he answers that those who hold permissibility do not do so on their own account but on proofs from the Book and the Sunna. ² Some cited the hadith "the lawful is clear and the unlawful is clear, and between them are doubtful matters"; he holds that it does not show the default to be prohibition, since the doubtful is what two proofs pull in opposite directions, while what God was silent on is pardoned, and he mentions a separate treatise of his on this hadith. ^{2 3} They cited the hadith "your blood and your property are sacred to you"; he answers that it concerns property already owned, while the dispute is about things God created for His servants that no one yet owns. ³

The views are given as al-Shawkani reports them; the texts of those who held prohibition or suspension, and academic treatment of the question, have not yet been added.