Those who reject analogical reasoning and are known for adhering to the Sunnah do not dispute the general scope of revealed wording, even if someone calls it “universal analogy.” Rather, this is their mainstay and safeguard, together with the presumption that an existing state continues.

This, then, is one kind.

Those who dispute both analogical reasoning and the general scope of revealed wording—as some of the Rāfidah have done—have closed off their own path to knowing religious rulings. Hence, they appeal to what they claim is the pronouncement of the infallible one.

Some people think that an explicitly stated effective cause is what is called “ascertaining the applicability of the effective cause,” and that it falls within this category. That is not so, for this matter is disputed.

There is a second kind, called “isolating the effective cause.” This is where the Lawgiver has expressly stated a ruling concerning a particular case, while textual evidence and scholarly consensus establish that the ruling is not confined to that case but extends to others. It then becomes necessary to isolate the basis of the ruling: that is, to identify precisely the attribute upon which the ruling depends, neither adding to it nor subtracting from it.

An example is the Prophet’s instruction, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, to the Bedouin who sought his ruling after having intercourse with his wife during Ramadan: he instructed him to offer expiation. Then, when the basket was brought, he said:

“Feed your family with it.”

Another example is his instruction to someone who asked him about a mouse that had fallen into clarified butter: the mouse and the surrounding portion were to be discarded, and the butter eaten.

Another is his instruction to someone who asked him about a person who had entered the consecrated state for ʿumrah while wearing a robe and being heavily anointed with saffron-based perfume: he was to remove the robe, wash off the perfume, and do during