with an equivalent slave woman, unless a distinction is drawn between his wife’s slave woman and another’s. If there is a distinction between them recognized by the Sharia, it may be upheld; otherwise, analogical reasoning requires that they be treated alike. As for the words of Allah, Mighty and Majestic:

“Do not compel your slave women to prostitution, if they desire chastity, seeking the fleeting gains of worldly life. But if anyone compels them, then after their being compelled, Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

This prohibits compelling them to earn money through prostitution, as it is reported that Ibn Ubayy, the hypocrite, had slave women whom he forced into prostitution. This is not the same as forcing a slave woman to submit to his own unlawful intercourse with her. The latter amounts to mutilating her, whereas the former means obliging her to go and engage in illicit intercourse herself. Moreover, it might be said that emancipation on account of mutilation had not yet been prescribed when the verse was revealed, but was prescribed later.

Discussing this hadith is a particularly delicate matter. If it is reliably established, then this is the explanation that has become apparent to me and the way to account for it on the basis of established principles. If it is not reliably established, there is no need to discuss it.

In short, I know of no authentic hadith that cannot be accounted for on the basis of established principles. I have reflected on as much of the evidence of the Sharia as I could, and I have never found sound analogical reasoning that contradicts an authentic hadith, just as clear reason does not contradict authentic transmitted revelation. Rather, whenever you find an analogy contradicting a transmitted report, one of the two must be unsound. Yet much of what distinguishes sound analogy from unsound analogy eludes even eminent scholars, let alone those below them in learning. For properly understanding the attributes that determine rulings