and the other says:

“Its underlying causes and reasons are too subtle for us to grasp, and its workings and ways remain hidden from us. Allah has sent us a Messenger to purify us and teach us the Book and wisdom. He sent him to us when we knew nothing, so we simply do what we have seen him do. The Sunnah is not to be challenged with analogies or opposed with people’s opinions. Religion is not based on personal opinion; rather, opinion must be questioned when measured against religion. All people of understanding agree that analogy is inadmissible in matters of this kind.”

Third: It may be said that this entire argument rests on equating the urine of animals whose meat is lawful to eat with that of animals whose meat is unlawful to eat. Yet this treats two different things as equivalent. The urine of animals forbidden to eat has a foul smell, whereas some excrement from animals lawful to eat may even have a pleasant smell, such as the droppings of gazelles and other animals. Even when its smell is not pleasant, it does not smell like that of other animals. Its composition also generally differs, for it contains substances from what is lawful. This concerns the substance of the issue, to which we shall return, Allah willing, at the end of the discussion.

The second proof:

The widely transmitted hadith reported by the compilers of the Sahīh collections and others, narrated by Anas ibn Mālik:

“Some people from ʿUkl or ʿUraynah came to Medina and fell ill because its climate did not agree with them. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered that they be provided with milk-producing she-camels and instructed them to drink their urine and milk. When they recovered, they killed the Messenger of Allah’s herdsman, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and drove away the camels.”

He then related the rest of the hadith. The point of evidence is that he permitted them to drink the urine, which would inevitably come into contact with their mouths, hands, clothes, and vessels. Thus, if it were