premise is sufficient if the listener knows that every intoxicant is forbidden, provided he accepts that premise. If he challenges it, saying, “We do not accept that this is intoxicating,” it must be established through the testimony of someone trustworthy or through experience with something similar. This is reasoning by analogy, and it yields certainty. For when someone tests a portion of a large quantity of drink and knows that it is intoxicating, he knows that the remainder is intoxicating, since the same judgment applies to each portion.

Likewise, all other empirical propositions—such as knowing that bread satisfies hunger and water quenches thirst—are based on reasoning by analogy. Indeed, the same applies to all sensory judgments known to hold universally: their universality is known only through reasoning by analogy.

If, however, his interlocutor disputes that intoxicating fermented drink is forbidden, he needs two premises: to establish that this drink is intoxicating and that every intoxicant is forbidden. He establishes the second through various proofs, such as the Prophet’s saying, may Allah bless him and grant him peace:

“Every intoxicant is forbidden.”

And:

“Every drink that intoxicates is forbidden.”

And the report that:

“He was asked about a drink made from honey called bitʿ and a drink made from sorghum called mizr. He had been granted the gift of expressing much in few words, and he said: ‘Every intoxicant is forbidden.’”

These hadiths are recorded in the Sahīh. They, and many times as many other reports, are well known from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and show that he prohibited every intoxicating drink.

If the interlocutor says, “I know that it is intoxicating liquor, but I do not accept that intoxicating liquor is forbidden,” or, “I do not accept that it is forbidden without qualification,” then this third premise must be established, and so on. What shows you that a single premise may suffice to establish the desired conclusion is that