and obligatory prayers are not performed on a riding animal, whereas voluntary prayers are. Since it is performed on a riding animal, its ruling is opposite and contrary to that of obligatory prayers, and the same as that of voluntary prayers. It is therefore compared with obligatory prayers by analogy by contrast, and with voluntary prayers by analogy by similarity.

The same applies when it is said:

“Fish blood is pure, for if it were impure, it would have to be drained through ritual slaughter, since impure blood must be drained through ritual slaughter. Since draining it is not required, its ruling is the opposite of theirs, and it is classified with pure bodily fluids that need not be drained.”

In reality, every analogy combines analogy by similarity and analogy by contrast. Analogy by similarity associates a thing with its counterpart and treats them alike, while analogy by contrast distinguishes a thing from what differs from it and treats them differently.

Thus, one who reasons by analogy and comparison examines a thing and associates it with what resembles it, not with what differs from it. Its ruling becomes clear to him through comparison with both.

The point here concerns knowledge of what opposes the Book and the messengers, such as the claims to prophethood of Musaylima and other liars like him, and the doctrines of those who deviate from the truth, who use their reason and inner experience to oppose what the Messenger brought. The more a knowledgeable person understands these claims and what the Messenger brought, the clearer become the truth, clarity, and proof of what the Messenger brought, and the invalidity, corruption, and falsehood of those claims. Likewise, suppose there are two muftis, two judges, or two hadith scholars, one of whom speaks with knowledge and justice, while the other speaks with ignorance and injustice. Whenever you assess one in light of the other, there emerges