a garment?” A woman said to him, “Suppose you doubt the first principles of reason.” Or can a ruling concerning something be justified by a reason that has no bearing on it? This is like saying, “Do not strike the faces of Adam’s descendants, for their father possesses characteristics peculiar to him that they do not share, such as having been created without parents”; or saying, “Do not strike the faces of Adam’s descendants, for their father was created without parents.”

Third, this justifies the ruling by something that entails its negation, which is among the gravest contradictions. They interpreted the hadith to mean that Adam was not created from a drop of sperm, a clinging clot, and a lump of flesh, and that he did not come into being over a long period through the elements. His descendants, however, were created from a drop of sperm, then a clinging clot, then a lump of flesh; they were created over a period of time from the elements of the earth. If the reason prohibiting striking or reviling the face is that he was created in that manner, and this reason does not apply to his descendants, then striking and reviling their faces should be permissible, since the reason does not apply to them. For Adam