they are oaths that bind those who swear them to what they have undertaken, and they do not fall within the scope of the text.” There is no doubt that the text supports the first position. Whoever says, “The text does not explain the ruling on all oaths taken by Muslims,” is expressing his own opinion, not what the text indicates.

The same applies to most matters disputed among Muslims: whoever seeks what will resolve the dispute in the texts of the Quran and Sunnah will find it, and it will become clear that these texts encompass rulings governing actions in general.

Imam Ahmad used to say: “There is no question about which one is asked without the Companions having addressed it or a comparable case.” The Companions generally supported their positions with scriptural texts, as is well known of them. They also exercised independent judgment, expressed their considered opinions, and argued on the basis of sound analogy.

Sound analogy is of two kinds:

The first is when it is known that the only difference between the new case and the original case has no legal significance. Thus, it is authentically reported in al-Sahīh that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was asked about a mouse that had fallen into clarified butter. He said: “Remove it and what surrounds it, and eat your clarified butter.”

Muslims unanimously agree that this ruling is not confined to that particular mouse and that particular clarified butter. Hence, the vast majority of scholars have said that any ritually impure substance that falls into any kind of fat or oil—such as a mouse falling into oil or a cat falling into clarified butter—is subject to the same ruling as that mouse which fell into clarified butter. Whoever among