and a distinction must be drawn between the implicit indication of the wording and analogy with a case having an even stronger claim to the ruling. In the former, the ruling is derived from wording that encompasses both cases in customary speech; in the latter, it is derived from the ruling itself. Thus, even if the ruling were established by an action, tacit approval, or an address whose speaker unquestionably intended only the particular case mentioned, establishing that ruling for one category would entail establishing it for whatever has a stronger claim to it. Here, general applicability rests entirely on meaning, whereas in the former case it rests on both wording and meaning. Reflect on this, for it resolves the dispute among our fellow scholars and others over whether implicit indication is derived from wording or constitutes clear analogy, and shows you that it is of two kinds. The difference is that, when general applicability is derived from the wording, the speaker intends it and uses a single instance to illustrate it, as when a grammarian says, “Zayd struck Amr.” This is unlike what is derived from meaning.

The verse mentioned earlier, namely His words:

“We gave her to you in marriage so that there would be no…”

indicates that his actions, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, entail permissibility for his community. Yet an action in itself unquestionably has no general scope through wording or linguistic convention. Its general applicability rests instead on the established principle that the community shares his rulings and follows his example.

This is also indicated by His words in the same surah:

“Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example.”

The verse calls for following his example in what befell him. Once it is established that he is to be followed with respect to the rulings governing him in his afflictions, the same applies to his actions, since an afflicted person has duties to fulfil and prohibitions to observe. Thus, this indicates