the state of ritual impurity. This pebble has been used in an obligatory act of worship—namely, the stoning—and so it may not be used for stoning a second time, just as one may not perform ablution with water that has been used for an obligatory purification.

Second: if a slave is emancipated as an expiation, emancipating him a second time does not count. Likewise, stoning with a pebble that has already been thrown does not count a second time.

Both of these lines of reasoning are flawed.

As for the first, it is an analogy based on a disputed matter with another disputed matter. Some scholars hold that water used to remove ritual impurity may be used again to remove ritual impurity; likewise, a pebble that has been thrown may be used again. This is the view of al-Shafi‘i, may Allah have mercy on him.

For an analogy requires both sides to agree upon the ruling of the original case, so that one may bind the other to what the analogy entails. But if he says, “I do not concede that used water cannot remove ritual impurity; rather, it does remove ritual impurity,” then, once the original case upon which the analogy is based is invalidated, the derived case is likewise invalidated.

As for the second, we say: once a slave has been emancipated, he becomes free—that is, the attribute of slavery is removed from him. Thus, if it were supposed that this slave apostatized, joined the disbelievers, fought against us, and was then taken captive by us a second time, he would again become a slave and could be emancipated as an expiation. The pebble, however, undergoes no change in its essence or its description after being thrown. Thus, this analogy is an analogy with a relevant difference.

Therefore, the stronger view is that a pebble which has already been thrown is valid for use. Besides being correct, this view is also more accommodating for people, because one may sometimes drop a pebble,