it shares with pork and blood the fact of being forbidden, the designation “unwholesome” encompasses them all. The prohibition therefore applies to the general attribute, rather than being confined to any particular kind. Nothing in the Messenger’s words, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, indicates that the ruling is confined to a particular kind, since it is tied to the shared general attribute—unwholesomeness. Thus, any unwholesome solid substance that falls into clarified butter has the same ruling as the mouse, whether it is blood, a solid carcass, or something similar.

One then considers clarified butter and recognizes that Islamic law does not single it out in this respect: the same applies to all other oils and fats, and then to all other liquids.

It remains to consider: should a distinction be drawn between water and other liquids, or should they be treated alike? Should solids and liquids be distinguished, or treated alike? Should small and large quantities be distinguished, or treated alike? These are subtle questions over which scholars have disagreed.

The point here is that only ignorant opponents of analogical reasoning reject reasoning of this kind. The same applies to an explicitly stated effective cause, to analogy based on equivalence to the original case, and to a fortiori analogy.

As for analogy in which the effective cause of the original ruling is inferred by assessing an attribute’s suitability as a basis for that ruling, this is a matter for scholarly judgment.

For this reason, jurists who employ analogical reasoning, among Ahmad’s followers and others, have disagreed on this matter. Some accept only an explicitly stated effective cause, while others accept a cause whose legal effect is established,