so it is necessary to identify the effective cause on which the ruling depends. Some call this form of reasoning analogy, while others do not. Hence Abū Hanīfah and his followers employed it in cases where they did not employ analogy. The correct view is that this does not belong to the kind of analogy that is open to dispute, just as scholars unanimously agree that ascertaining whether the effective cause applies to a particular case is not open to dispute. These three forms—“ascertaining whether the effective cause applies,” “isolating the effective cause,” and “deriving the effective cause”—together encompass independent legal reasoning.

The first consists in applying the revealed texts and scholarly consensus. A ruling is attached to an attribute, and applying it to a particular case requires establishing that the attribute is present in that case. For example, we know that Allah has commanded us to call upright witnesses from among ourselves, whom we find acceptable. Yet every individual witness cannot be specified, so we must determine whether particular witnesses are upright and acceptable.

Likewise, Allah has commanded spouses to live together honorably, and the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“Women are entitled to provision and clothing in accordance with what is reasonable.”

Every individual husband cannot be specified, so individual cases must be examined. Some jurists hold that a wife’s maintenance is fixed by Islamic law. The correct view, however, is that of the majority: it is determined by customary practice, as the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to Hind:

“Take what reasonably suffices for you and your child.”