Why is analogy not permissible in religion, even though there are some matters that contradict logical analogy, such as: that killing is a greater sin than adultery, yet killing requires two witnesses while adultery requires four witnesses; and that urine is more impure than semen, yet urine requires ablution while semen requires ghusl (full ritual bath); and that prayer is greater than fasting, yet a menstruating woman must make up for missed fasts but not missed prayers?

Analogy (Qiyas) is one of the valid legal proofs according to the majority of scholars, unlike the Zahiris and Mu'tazilah. However, it must meet certain conditions and controls, otherwise, it would be flawed. Satan fell into a flawed analogy. Some rulings of the Sharia are devotional (ibadiyyah) and their reasons are unknown, such as His saying, the Almighty: (He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned). What the questioner mentioned aligns with sound analogy: The witnesses for murder are two, and for adultery are four; because the right of blood is greater, and the right of Allah is built upon forgiveness. Ritual bathing (ghusl) is legislated for semen but not for urine, despite urine being impure, due to the changes that occur in the body after ejaculation. And a menstruating woman is commanded to make up for fasting but not for prayer, because fasting is easy and infrequent, whereas making up for prayer is difficult and frequent, and to remove hardship from her.