or merely because of a personal preference or opinion that leads him to think such a ruling ought to depend upon that characteristic. Each of them builds an entire area of law on principles of this kind; whenever he is challenged to substantiate them, his edifice collapses. They may even rely on weak reports that specialists in transmitted reports know to be fabricated lies, far from being the words of the infallible Prophet.

They may also rely on what they take to be the apparent meaning of the infallible Prophet’s words, although those words do not signify what they have understood.

As for the second group, it clings to the presumption that an existing state continues and denies a ruling because—as one of its adherents claims—there is no evidence for it, even when clear evidence from revelation exposes the falsity of its position. It distinguishes between equivalent cases in a way that no rational person would, let alone an infallible prophet. It rigidly adheres to what it considers the apparent meaning of the text, while misunderstanding both the text and its speaker’s intent. It strips religious law of its wisdom, merits, and underlying meanings, and attributes to Allah and His Messenger an arbitrariness incompatible with justice and benevolence, from which even a just king or a rational man ought to be considered free.

Everyone agrees on the exercise of independent judgment and the understanding of religious law needed to bring particular cases under the general, comprehensive rulings stated in the Quran and Sunnah.

This is what is called ascertaining the applicability of a ruling. Examples include exercising independent judgment to determine the direction of prayer when it is uncertain; a particular person’s moral integrity; customarily appropriate maintenance for a particular woman; the equivalent for a species of game or an individual game animal; the equivalent owed for destroying a particular item of property; the required maintenance of kinship ties; and the inclusion of types