whereas a judicial ruling is an exercise of independent reasoning in its particular time and circumstances; it may vary from one judge to another, from one era to another, and from one situation to another. Legislation, however, does not change.

There are examples of this. Among them is that the Messenger ﷺ ruled that the one who kills an enemy combatant is entitled to the slain man’s spoils, saying: “Whoever kills an enemy combatant shall have his spoils.” (1) The scholars differed over cases of this kind: is this legislation or a judicial ruling? Those who say that it is a judicial ruling hold that, in that particular battle, the Messenger ﷺ granted the spoils to whoever killed an enemy combatant. Those who regard it as legislation hold that it applies generally to all battles.

Thus, if medical science, through precise examination, establishes before the year has elapsed that the man is impotent, or establishes that he is not impotent, or says that it is possible for his sexual capacity to return during one of the seasons of the year, may we depart from this ruling? If we say that it falls under legislation, then we do not depart from it. Even if physicians tell us with absolute certainty that this man’s ability to have intercourse will not return, we do not act upon that; rather, we defer the matter. But if we say that it falls under judicial rulings subject to independent reasoning, then, if physicians known for competence and trustworthiness determine that his ability to have intercourse will not return, there is no benefit in deferring the matter. Nothing is gained by postponement except harm to the wife. In reality, regarding the non-return of his sexual ability, he resembles one whose penis has been severed; therefore, there is then no need for postponement.

It is also medically known, and widely recognized among people, that when a man’s lower back is cauterized, his sexual desire is nullified: either because he is unable to ejaculate or because he is unable to achieve an erection. Hence,