his umrah what he would do during his Hajj.

There is also his instruction to someone who had purchased one sā' (a measure) of good dates for two sā' of inferior dates: he was to sell the inferior dates for dirhams, then use the proceeds to purchase good dates. Likewise, there is his instruction to Barīrah, upon her emancipation, to make her choice.

Other examples include his stoning of Mā'iz and the Ghāmidī woman, his amputation of the hands of the thief who stole Safwān’s cloak, the Makhzūmī woman, and others, and similar cases.

All scholars know that the ruling of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is not confined to those particular individuals or cases, but extends to comparable ones. They must, however, identify the common basis upon which the Lawgiver made the ruling depend.

This may be evident, or it may be obscure. An evident example is that the cause for stoning is unlawful intercourse by a person who meets the conditions of married status, and the cause for amputation is theft.

An obscure example is whether expiation became obligatory specifically because of intercourse, or because of breaking the fast in general. Was it required for a particular kind of breaking the fast, or for the whole category? Was it required for intercourse during a valid fast in Ramadan, or during an obligatory fast in Ramadan, whether valid or vitiated—just as it is required in an obligatory state of consecration, whether valid or vitiated? These are matters over which the jurists have disagreed.

Likewise, when he answered the question about the mouse that had fallen into clarified butter, there is no doubt that the ruling was not confined to that particular mouse and that particular butter, nor to one kind of mouse and one kind of clarified butter. A general ruling must therefore be established.

Many, or most, of those who reject analogical reasoning acknowledge this kind of reasoning. Many jurists do not call it analogy; rather, they use it to establish expiations and prescribed punishments, even if they do not establish these through analogical reasoning, for