Likewise, the Most High says:

“Do not approach the orphan’s property except in the best manner.”

It remains to consider whether entrusting it to this particular merchant in return for a share of the profit constitutes dealing with it in the best manner.

Similarly, He says:

“Charitable alms are only for the poor and the needy.”

The question remains whether this particular person belongs to the poor and needy mentioned in the Quran. Likewise, Allah has prohibited intoxicants and usury in general, but the question remains whether a particular drink is an intoxicant.

Muslims—indeed, all rational people—agree on this form of reasoning: the Lawgiver cannot explicitly state the ruling for every individual case; rather, He speaks in general terms. Our Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was granted the gift of concise, comprehensive speech.

(As for the second type, which they call “isolating the effective cause,” this occurs when a ruling is explicitly stated for particular cases, yet we know that the ruling is not confined to them. The correct view is that this does not fall under analogy, since they agree that it is covered by the text. Rather, the text addresses the category to which the particular case belongs, but that category must be identified.

The case of the mouse in the clarified butter belongs here. The ruling is not confined to that particular mouse and that particular clarified butter, nor to the mice and clarified butter of Medina. Rather, someone asked the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, about a mouse that had fallen into clarified butter, and he answered him. This does not mean that the answer applies only to that person or his question, just as he answered others.

The words “mouse” and “clarified butter” were not spoken by the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, such that he himself could be said to have made the ruling dependent on them. Rather, they were spoken by the questioner, who related what had happened to him, just as he was told by