food and drink, lies in the lower part of the body. The breast and similar organs, however, are in the upper part. This is not so with an animal: its udder is toward its rear, yet contains wholesome milk. There is no hope of establishing rulings through conjectures such as these.

As for the third argument, it rests on distinguishing this substance from other pure substances. If the distinction is based on its being repugnant, it is invalidated by all the other repugnant substances, some of which may be even more repugnant. If it is based on a particular degree of repugnance, that degree must be precisely defined. This has already been explained.

The general response has three aspects:

First: This is an analogy set against explicit transmitted reports, and is therefore fundamentally unsound. Whoever treats as equivalent things that the Sunnah distinguishes echoes the statement of those who said:

“Trade is only like usury, whereas Allah has permitted trade and forbidden usury.”

Thus, the Sunnah has declared one pure and the other impure.

Second: This is an analogy concerning a subject whose underlying causes and determining factors have not become apparent, and whose rationale has not become clear, and what … (1). Rather, people hold two positions on this:

One group says: This is purely a matter of submission and a test of obedience. There is therefore no room for analogy or extending rulings to other cases, nor for treating cases as equivalent or distinguishing between them.