the Bedouin that he had had intercourse with his wife. Had he had intercourse with his concubine, the same would have applied. Likewise, another man told him, “I saw the gleam of her anklet in the moonlight, so I fell upon her.” Had he had intercourse with her without that circumstance, the ruling would have been the same.

The correct view here is that held by the well-known imams: the ruling concerns any foul substance that Allah has forbidden when it falls into clarified butter or similar liquids. Allah has permitted wholesome things for us and forbidden foul things. Thus, when we base the ruling on this consideration, we are following the Book of Allah. When something foul falls into something wholesome, one discards the foul substance and what surrounds it, and eats what remains wholesome, as the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, commanded.

This response is not the place to discuss such questions at length. We have, however, drawn attention to this because it bears on following the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in his actions. This, then, is a matter that involves people’s juristic reasoning and inference, and whatever understanding, wisdom, and knowledge Allah grants them. Those closest to the truth are those who connect rulings to the considerations to which the Lawgiver connected them.

This is an area in which people have differed in understanding and disputed: is this derived from the Lawgiver’s words, or from considerations underlying analogical reasoning? Some have claimed that most rulings governing people’s actions are not covered by the Lawgiver’s words, but instead require analogy. Others have claimed that all such rulings are established by the revealed texts, and have gone to excess in their adherence to the apparent wording