Because he brought in his report what reason does not refer to, but rather what is permissible or stands upon, and it does not undermine one of the pillars of Sharia law nor invalidate one of its principles. So if he brought something that reason permitted and the law remained silent about, then we should not reject it at all, and we have the choice to accept it, if this is the case of the informer. It is required by justice. It does not harm us to accept him just as we accept his testimony and judge by it in matters of property and lives. If he is not fair in our knowledge, then we will see. If what he informed of is true according to what we have of the valid reasons we have, we will accept it. Otherwise, we will leave it in the section on permissible matters and we will not say anything about whoever said it. It is a written testimony that we ask. About her, God Almighty said, “Their testimony will be recorded and they will be questioned, and I am more deserving of advising himself in that. And if this informer did not bring anything except what the infallible one brought, then he is imitating for us what narration we have about him, so there is no benefit to us that he added with his information. Rather, they come, may God be pleased with them, with secrets and rulings from the secrets of the Sharia that are outside of the law.” The power of thought and earning is never attained except through observation, inspiration, and the like of these methods, and from here comes the benefit [Page 32 of the Cairo edition]

By his saying, peace be upon him, “If there are modern scholars among my nation, then among them is Omar

! And his statement regarding Abu Bakr regarding his virtue in secret is different from him, and if these knowledges in existence were not denied, his statement would not be of any use.