Payg'ambarning (SAW) jimligi, ya'ni Uning roziligi Sunnatdandir; u Uning so'zi va amali kabi teng hukmdadir. Shunday ekan, agar kimdir Payg'ambar huzurida yoki Uning davrida biror amalni qilgan bo'lsa va U bundan xabardor bo'lib, uni man qilishga qodir bo'lsa, lekin jim turib, bu amalni qilgan kishini qoralamasdan, unga rozilik bildirgan bo'lsa, unda qaraladi: agar bu amal uchun avvalroq Payg'ambar tomonidan man etish bo'lmagan va unga oid hech qanday man etish ma'lum bo'lmagan bo'lsa, u holda Uning bu amal egasi haqidagi jimligi va unga bergan roziligi shu amalning joiz ekanini hamda uni qilgani uchun ayb ko'tarilganini bildiradi. Chunki agar bu amal joiz bo'lmaganida, Payg'ambar uni man qilardi, chunki Rasul yomon (munkar) ishdan xabardor bo'lsa, jim turmaydi; demak, Uning jimligi joizlikning dalilidir. Agar Payg'ambar bu amalni oldin man qilgan bo'lib, bu man etish ma'lum bo'lgan bo'lsa, Rasulning jimligi tasavvur qilib bo'lmaydi, chunki bu harom qilingan ishni qilishga rozilik bildirgan bo'lar edi. Payg'ambar (SAW) uchun esa bu mumkin emas. Musulmonlar himoyasidagi kofirlar (ahl az-zimma) haqida esa, ular tez-tez o'z cherkovlariga borib turardilar, bu kufr amali bo'lsa-da, Uning jimligi kufr qilishga rozilik bildirmaydi, balki ahl az-zimmaga o'z ibodatlarini bajarishni qoldirishni bildiradi va cherkovga borish joiz ekanining dalili emas. Demak, jimlikni Sunnatdan (rozilik) deb hisoblash shartlari quyidagilar: amal uchun avvalroq man etish bo'lmasligi, Rasul (SAW) bundan xabardor bo'lishi, ya'ni amal Uning huzurida yoki Uning davrida qilingan va U buni bilgan bo'lishi hamda Rasul uni man qilishga (to'sishga) qodir bo'lishi. Ammo bu shartlardan biri bo'lmasa, jimlik Sunnat hisoblanmaydi. Taqiqlashning ma'nosi uning qiluvchisini tiyishdir, Rasul unga moyil emas degani emas. Chunki dab kaltakesagi Payg'ambarning huzurida yeyildi, lekin U undan yemadi va undan so'ralganda U dedi:

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:

"Bu mening qavmim yurtida mavjud bo'lmagan, shuning uchun men uni yomon ko'raman", deb Al-Buxoriy rivoyat qilgan. Demak, Payg'ambarning ﷺ uni yomon ko'rishi harom qilish emas, va Uning uni yeyayotganlarni to'xtatmagani ham uning haqida sukut qilishi hisoblanadi, shuning uchun bu ruxsat uchun dalildir. Shuningdek, Nafi'dan rivoyat qilinishicha: Ibn Umar cho'pon nayining ovozini eshitdi, so'ng ikki barmoqlarini qulog'iga tiqdi va minib olgan tuyasini yo'ldan burib ketdi, shu bilan birga: "Ey Nafi', eshityapsanmi?" dedi. Men: "Ha", dedim. U yana uzoqlashib ketaverdi, so'ng men: "Yo'q", dedim. Shunda u qo'llarini tushirdi va tuyasini yo'lga qaytarib, dedi: "Men Allah Elchisini ﷺ cho'pon nayining ovozini eshitganda xuddi shunday qilganini ko'rganman", deb Ahmad rivoyat qilgan. Bu cho'pon uchun harom qilish emas, balki uning haqida sukut qilishdir, hamda naydan foydalanish va uning ovozini eshitish ruxsat etilganligining dalilidir. Naydan foydalanish va uning ovozini eshitish ruxsat etilganligining dalilidir. Payg'ambarning ﷺ quloqlarini berkitishiga kelsak, ehtimol U buni, ko'p ruxsat etilgan narsalardan qochganidek, qochgandir: masalan, Uning uyida bir dirham yoki bir dinorni tunab qoldirishdan qochgani va kaltakesak yeyishdan qochgani kabi. Shunday ekan, Payg'ambarning ﷺ sukuti, amalni qilayotgan kishini qaytarmaganini anglatadi, garchi U o'sha amalni yomon ko'rganini ko'rsatsa ham.

"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.