the prohibition to intoxication. He must have evidence showing that the ruling is linked to this shared attribute: a scriptural text, consensus, or some other means of establishing that the ruling is grounded in the attribute shared by the original case and the new case. This is called the response to the demand for proof. For someone reasoning by analogy may face several objections:

First: denying that the ruling applies to the original case.

Second: denying that the attribute to which the ruling is linked is established in the original case.

Third: denying that this attribute exists in the new case.

These three objections may be easy to answer.

Fourth: denying that the attribute is the effective cause—that is, denying that the ruling is linked to it. This is the most formidable of the objections.

The attribute to which the ruling is linked is called an effective cause, a cause, an inducement, a necessitating factor, a basis for the ruling, a motive, an indication, a sign, a shared attribute, and similar terms.

If the person advancing the argument then wishes to formulate it as a syllogism, he says:

“Nabīdh is intoxicating; every intoxicant is forbidden.”

He must establish this major premise—namely, “Every intoxicant is forbidden”—just as the first reasoner must establish that intoxication is the basis of the prohibition. What the first makes the basis of the ruling, the second makes the middle term repeated in both premises. Each must provide evidence for this. Both forms of reasoning incorporate a general, universal judgment. Hence, practitioners of logical syllogistic reasoning agree that it must contain a universal proposition,