Kimya cha Mtume (SAW), yaani idhini yake, ni katika Sunnah; ni sawa na kauli yake na kitendo chake. Kwa hiyo, mtu akifanya kitendo mbele ya Mtume ﷺ, au katika zama zake, naye akawa anajua, na akawa na uwezo wa kukikataza, kisha akanyamaza juu yake na kukiidhinisha kwa huyo mtu bila kukikosoa kitendo chake, basi hilo litaangaliwa: ikiwa hakuna katazo lililotangulia kutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ kwa kitendo hicho, wala katazo lolote linalojulikana juu yake, basi ukimya wake juu ya mtendaji wake, na idhini yake kwake juu ya jambo hilo, unaonyesha kuruhusiwa kwa kitendo hicho na kuondolewa lawama kwa kukifanya. Hiyo ni kwa sababu, kama kitendo chake hakiruhusiwi, Mtume ﷺ angemkataza, kwa kuwa Mjumbe hanyamazi akijua kitendo kiovu (munkar); kwa hiyo ukimya wake ni dalili ya kuruhusiwa. Ikiwa Mtume ﷺ alikwisha kukataza kitendo hicho hapo awali na katazo lake likajulikana, basi ukimya wa Mjumbe hauwezi kufikiriwa, kwa kuwa ungekuwa ni idhini ya kufanya kilichokatazwa, na hilo haliwezekani kwa Mtume ﷺ. Kuhusu ukimya wake juu ya makafiri walio chini ya ulinzi wa Waislamu (ahl al-dhimmah), ambao walikuwa wakienda mara kwa mara makanisani mwao, jambo ambalo ni kitendo cha ukafiri; hilo halionyeshi idhini yake ya kufanya ukafiri, bali linaonyesha kuwaacha ahl al-dhimmah wafanye ibada zao wenyewe, na si dalili ya kuruhusiwa kwenda kanisani. Basi masharti ya kuzingatia ukimya kuwa ni katika Sunnah (idhini) ni: kwamba hakuna katazo lililotangulia kwa kitendo hicho, na kwamba Mtume ﷺ alikijua, yaani kilifanyika mbele yake, au katika zama zake naye akakijua, na kwamba Mtume ﷺ alikuwa na uwezo wa kukikataza (kukizuia). Isipokuwa pale ukimya huo hauchukuliwi kuwa ni katika Sunnah. Maana ya katazo ni kumzuia mtendaji wake, na si kwamba Mtume hakuwa na mwelekeo wa kulila. Kwani dhabu alikuliwa mbele ya Nabii ﷺ naye hakula kutoka kwake, na alipoulizwa akasema:

The silence of the Prophet (SAW), i.e. His approval is from the Sunnah, it is like His saying and His action equally the same, so if one did an action in the presence of the Prophet, or in His era and He knew about it, and was able to forbid it, then He kept silent about it and approved it for him without dispraising his action; it will be looked, if there is no previous forbiddance for that action from the Prophet (SAW), and no forbiddance is known for it, then His silence about its doer, and His approval to him on it denotes the permissibility of that action and the lifting up of the blame for doing it. That is because, if his action is not permissible; the Prophet would forbid him, since the Messenger does not keep silence if He knows about an evil (munkar) action, therefore His silence is a daleel for the permissibility. If the Prophet had previously forbade that action and its forbiddance became known; the silence of the Messenger can not be imagined, because it would be an approval to do what is forbidden. And this is impossible for the Prophet (SAW). As for His silence about the kuffaar under the Muslims' protection (ahl al-dthimmah), who used to frequently go to their churches, which is a kufr action; it does not denote His approval to do the kufr, but it denotes leaving ahl al-dthimmah to perform their own worship, and it is not a daleel for the permissibility to go to the church. So the conditions to consider the silence to be from the Sunnah (approval) are: that there is no previous forbiddance for the action, and the Messenger (SAW) knew about it, i.e. it was done in His presence, or in His era and He knew it, and that the Messenger was able to forbid (prevent) it, except that the silence is not considered to be from the Sunnah. The meaning of the forbiddance it is restraining its doer, and not that the Messenger does not trend to it, because the dab lizard got eaten in the presence of the Prophet and He did not eat from it, and when He was asked He said:

"Haikuwepo katika nchi ya watu wangu, kwa hiyo naona ninaichukia" imepokewa na Al-Bukhari. Kwa hiyo, kwamba Mtume ﷺ anaichukia haimaanishi kwamba ni haramu, na kutozuia kwake wale waliokila kwake ni kunyamaza kuhusu jambo hilo, kwa hiyo ni dalili ya kuruhusiwa. Pia imepokewa kutoka kwa Naafi': kwamba Ibn Omar alisikia sauti ya filimbi ya mchungaji, kisha akaweka ncha za vidole vyake masikioni mwake, na akageuza ngamia wake aliyekuwa akipanda kutoka njia, huku akisema: Ewe Naafi', unasikia? Nami nikasema: Ndiyo. Akaendelea kuondoka hadi nilipomwambia hapana. Kisha akashusha mikono yake, akarudisha ngamia wake njiani, na akasema: Nilimwona Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alipousikia sauti ya filimbi ya mchungaji, naye akafanya hivi. Imepokewa na Ahmad. Hii si kuwa ni kukataza kwa mchungaji, bali ni kunyamaza kumhusu, na ni dalili ya kuruhusiwa kwa filimbi na kuruhusiwa kuisikia. Kuhusu kuziba masikio yake; inawezekana alijiepusha nayo kama alivyojiepusha na mambo mengi yaliyoruhusiwa, kama alivyojiepusha kuweka dirhamu au dinari ndani ya nyumba yake usiku kucha, na alivyojiepusha kula kenge. Kwa hiyo, kunyamaza kwa Mtume ﷺ kunamaanisha kutomzuia anayefanya kitendo hicho, hata kama ameonyesha kwamba yeye mwenyewe anachukia kitendo hicho.

"It did not exist in the land of my people so I find myself detests it" compiled by Al-Bukhari. So being that the Messenger detests it is not of the forbiddance, and His none restraining those who ate it is considered to be silence about it, so it is a daleel for the permissibility. Also it was narrated from Naafi': That Ibn Omar heard the sound of a shepherd's pipe, then he put his finger tips in his ears, and deviated his riding camel from the way while he was saying: O Naafi' could you hear? I say: yes, then he keeps going away until I said no, then he put his hands down, and returned his riding camel to the way, and said: I saw the Messenger of Allah (SAW) when He heard the sound of a shepherd's pipe and He did like this" compiled by Ahmad. This is not considered to be forbiddance for the shepherd, but it is a silence about him, and it is a daleel for the permissibility of the pipe and the permissibility of hearing it, and as for blocking His hearing; it is possible that He avoided it as He used to avoid many permissible things, as He avoided to keep in His house dirham or dinaar overnight, and as He avoided eating the lizard. Accordingly, the silence of the Messenger means not restraining the one who does the action, even if He shows His self detest of the action.