The truth of the matter is that nothing has been prescribed contrary to sound analogy. Rather, whatever is said to depart from analogy must possess a distinguishing characteristic that sets it apart from the cases with which it is contrasted and requires a different ruling. If another case shares that characteristic, it receives the same ruling; otherwise, it is a distinct case.

As for disputed rulings, an example is when a hadith establishes something contrary to a particular rule, and some say: “This is contrary to analogy,” or “contrary to analogy based on established principles.” There are several examples of this, among the best known being the sale of an animal whose milk has been allowed to accumulate in its udder. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“Do not allow milk to accumulate in the udders of camels or sheep. Whoever purchases an animal treated in this way has the choice, after milking it, of whichever of two courses he prefers: if he is satisfied with it, he may keep it; if dissatisfied, he may return it together with a sā‘ measure of dates.”

This is an authentic hadith. Nevertheless, some have said that it conflicts with analogy based on established principles in several respects:

One is that it permits the purchased animal to be returned despite there being neither a defect nor a failure to match its description.

Another is that entitlement to the yield follows liability for loss. Thus, the purchaser owes no compensation for milk produced while the animal is in his possession, yet here he is required to compensate for it.

Another is that milk is a fungible commodity, so compensation for it must be made with its equivalent.

Another is that anything without an equivalent must be compensated for at its monetary value, yet here compensation is required in dates.