the literalists says, “This ruling applies only to a mouse that has fallen into clarified butter,” is mistaken. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not restrict the ruling to that particular case; rather, when asked about it, he gave a ruling concerning it. When a request for a ruling concerns a particular case or category, the mufti addresses it specifically because he was asked about it, not because the ruling applies exclusively to it. A similar example is the report:

“He was asked about a man who had entered the state of consecration for ‘umrah while wearing a robe perfumed with a saffron-based scent. He said: ‘Remove the robe, wash off the perfume, and do in your ‘umrah what you would do in your Hajj.’”

He thus answered the question about the robe. Had the man been wearing a shirt or something similar, the ruling would have been the same, by unanimous agreement.

The second kind of analogy is when a text stipulates a ruling on account of an underlying factor that is also present in another case. If evidence establishes that the ruling is tied to the underlying factor shared by the original case and the new case, the two are treated alike, and this constitutes sound analogy. The Companions and those who followed them in righteousness employed both kinds. Both are means of understanding the Lawgiver’s intent.

Drawing inferences from the Lawgiver’s words requires knowing that the wording is authentically attributable to him and knowing what he intends by it. Once we know his intent, if we know that the ruling is based on the shared underlying factor, rather than on a factor specific to