Is analogical reasoning a valid proof for establishing Islamic legal rulings?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Your Eminence, may Allah preserve you, is analogical reasoning a valid proof for establishing Islamic legal rulings? I ask for clarification, and may Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : There is scholarly disagreement regarding the use of analogical reasoning as proof, but it is not a significant disagreement; for those who rejected it were the Zahiris, who have a specific methodology in understanding the texts. As for the majority of scholars, they affirmed the legitimacy of analogical reasoning, although they differed on the nature of this reasoning. Some were moderate in its use, while others exaggerated in its application, and this is undoubtedly an undesirable expansion. The truth is that the analogical reasoning that qualifies as a valid legal proof is what Imam al-Shafi'i said: "Analogical reasoning is a necessity; it is not resorted to except in cases of necessity." As for expanding the use of analogical reasoning, it either leads to religious innovation—such as analogizing a form of worship that emerged after it did not exist—or it results in an error that contradicts some of the texts that the one performing the analogy did not encounter. So the truth, as I mentioned earlier, is that a researcher, scholar, and independent jurist, if asked about an issue and does not find in the texts of the Book and the authentic Sunnah before him, then he is compelled to use analogical reasoning, sit with it, and rely on it. However, if there is no necessity, he should not expand in its use.
This expansion occurred among some people in a very strange and peculiar manner; to the point that some of them issued rulings through analogical reasoning that contradicted the legal texts. If the contradiction came from the original jurist, his age or, at least with caution, might be that he did not encounter the text that necessitates the invalidity of his analogy. But as for those who came after this jurist and followed him in his error, having encountered the texts that contradict his analogy; here lies the undesirable expansion, such as in the case of analogical reasoning. For example, scholars differed on some rulings, including the speech of one who forgets, is distracted, or is ignorant during prayer: does it invalidate the prayer or not? The majority of scholars, led by the Shafi'is, answer: No, the speech of these people does not invalidate the prayer. As for the Hanafis, when they listed the things that invalidate prayer, they said: speech intentionally or while distracted. And when we return to the source... they say: As for intentional speech, its evidence is such and such, including scholarly consensus; because there is no disagreement on the issue that one who intentionally speaks in prayer, and a verse has been revealed prohibiting it, namely:[Al-Baqarah 2:238] So there is no doubt in the invalidity of the prayer of one who intentionally speaks in prayer. But what about the ignorant one? What about the one who forgets? They said: The prayer of the one who forgets or is ignorant is also invalidated by analogy to the one who does it intentionally. It is this type of analogy that led some scholars of this Ummah to take the opposing position; those who said such an analogy and expanded in it and exaggerated in it took the other extreme. Other people rejected the use of analogical reasoning altogether, and at the head of them is Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm al-Zahiri.
The Shaykh : And one of their methods in discussing their opponents in some jurisprudential issues, if he finds that his opponent has no evidence from the Book or the Sunnah, he confronts him by saying: "This is analogical reasoning, and all analogical reasoning is invalid; if there were any truth in it, this would be the very essence of falsehood." When he made this opening statement, saying: "All analogical reasoning is invalid," why? Because he saw people before him who expanded in the use of analogical reasoning to a degree that was not praiseworthy, so he was unable to take a middle position; neither excess nor deficiency.
The Shaykh : Among the analogical reasoning that is necessary, what is manifest in the present age when some means have appeared, we can say now, and an example now is sufficient for explicit expression; because we have detailed the matter. Is it valid to analogize the broadcasting of the iqamah to the broadcasting of the adhan? The answer is: This is invalid; because it contradicts the Sunnah, and every analogy that is like this is destined for rejection. But let us now come to an analogy that we must have. The airplane, which is the space vessel today, was not known in previous times or the early centuries. So if we are asked: Is prayer valid in the vessel or not? We say: It is valid. What is the evidence? Some say—and I believe they are correct: Prayer is valid in the airplane by analogy to prayer in the vessel. It is established in the Sunnah that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted prayer in the vessel. But if the vessels at that time were small and rocked their passengers, the Messenger (peace be upon him) permitted praying in them while sitting. As for the vessels today, as we see, some are like a city... and they move and cut across the seas, and those in them are as if they are in their homes. In fact, the matter may be so for some airplanes; so we say: The analogy of prayer in the airplane to prayer in the vessel is a good analogy. But what was the statement of some of the predecessors who imagined such an airplane, and analogized and said: Prayer is not valid in what they imagined? Imam al-Rafi'i mentioned in "Sharh al-Wajiz," one of the Shafi'i books, the following text: If a man prays on a swing that is not suspended from the ceiling, nor far from the ground; his prayer is invalid. He imagined a swing—swings are known, they have... fixed to the ground—suspended by a pole in the middle, but he imagined something that contradicts reality... a swing that is not suspended from the ceiling, and it is a type of swings that are suspended from the ceiling, nor is it supported from the ground; so prayer on this swing is invalid. Why? Because he said: He prayed in a place other than the ground. He did not imagine the place except on the ground. And now they make airplanes and rockets, and you see people turning in them in various shapes and colors due to the vacuum existing there in the air. If a person today wanted to issue a ruling based on this hypothetical jurisprudential branch, he would invalidate prayer in the vessel; because it is the one that fits the description of that describer as a swing; which was not suspended from the ceiling nor supported from the ground.
Yes?
The questioner : The airplane, I said the vessel.
The Shaykh : Yes, in the airplane, may Allah reward you with good. The whole research is about the airplane, but the tongue precedes the remembrance.
The Shaykh : So the intention is that analogical reasoning—as Imam al-Shafi'i said—is a necessity. What is the necessity that compelled that person to say that prayer on the swing, as described above, is invalid? Expanding in the use of intellect and opinion more than what is prescribed... to this extent. So if the independent jurist truly stands before an issue and does not find a basis to rely on directly from the Book or the Sunnah, let him analogize the similar to the similar, so that the earth does not become narrow for him, however wide it may be; because in the consideration that is agreed upon to be applied by analogical reasoning, there is a refuge to which the independent jurist turns, and he finds the way open to issue a ruling on an issue that occurred and for which he did not find an explicit text. So analogical reasoning is the consideration that the Qur'an indicated from one side, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) from the other side. And analogical reasoning is sometimes analogizing by cause or analogizing by priority. If it is an analogy of this type, then welcome to it. But if it is an analogy that necessitates what we mentioned earlier of analogizing the opposite to the opposite, as we exemplified earlier with the one who said that the prayer of one who speaks while distracted or ignorant is invalidated, analogizing the ignorant to the common person, this is as al-Muhallab said: ...
The Shaykh : There is scholarly disagreement regarding the use of analogical reasoning as proof, but it is not a significant disagreement; for those who rejected it were the Zahiris, who have a specific methodology in understanding the texts. As for the majority of scholars, they affirmed the legitimacy of analogical reasoning, although they differed on the nature of this reasoning. Some were moderate in its use, while others exaggerated in its application, and this is undoubtedly an undesirable expansion. The truth is that the analogical reasoning that qualifies as a valid legal proof is what Imam al-Shafi'i said: "Analogical reasoning is a necessity; it is not resorted to except in cases of necessity." As for expanding the use of analogical reasoning, it either leads to religious innovation—such as analogizing a form of worship that emerged after it did not exist—or it results in an error that contradicts some of the texts that the one performing the analogy did not encounter. So the truth, as I mentioned earlier, is that a researcher, scholar, and independent jurist, if asked about an issue and does not find in the texts of the Book and the authentic Sunnah before him, then he is compelled to use analogical reasoning, sit with it, and rely on it. However, if there is no necessity, he should not expand in its use.
This expansion occurred among some people in a very strange and peculiar manner; to the point that some of them issued rulings through analogical reasoning that contradicted the legal texts. If the contradiction came from the original jurist, his age or, at least with caution, might be that he did not encounter the text that necessitates the invalidity of his analogy. But as for those who came after this jurist and followed him in his error, having encountered the texts that contradict his analogy; here lies the undesirable expansion, such as in the case of analogical reasoning. For example, scholars differed on some rulings, including the speech of one who forgets, is distracted, or is ignorant during prayer: does it invalidate the prayer or not? The majority of scholars, led by the Shafi'is, answer: No, the speech of these people does not invalidate the prayer. As for the Hanafis, when they listed the things that invalidate prayer, they said: speech intentionally or while distracted. And when we return to the source... they say: As for intentional speech, its evidence is such and such, including scholarly consensus; because there is no disagreement on the issue that one who intentionally speaks in prayer, and a verse has been revealed prohibiting it, namely:
and stand before Allah, devoutly obedient.
وَقُومُوا لِلَّهِ قَانِتِينَThe Shaykh : And one of their methods in discussing their opponents in some jurisprudential issues, if he finds that his opponent has no evidence from the Book or the Sunnah, he confronts him by saying: "This is analogical reasoning, and all analogical reasoning is invalid; if there were any truth in it, this would be the very essence of falsehood." When he made this opening statement, saying: "All analogical reasoning is invalid," why? Because he saw people before him who expanded in the use of analogical reasoning to a degree that was not praiseworthy, so he was unable to take a middle position
And He was a firm support between them.
وَكَانَ بَيْنَ ذَلِكَ قَوَامًاThe Shaykh : Among the analogical reasoning that is necessary, what is manifest in the present age when some means have appeared, we can say now, and an example now is sufficient for explicit expression; because we have detailed the matter. Is it valid to analogize the broadcasting of the iqamah to the broadcasting of the adhan? The answer is: This is invalid; because it contradicts the Sunnah, and every analogy that is like this is destined for rejection. But let us now come to an analogy that we must have. The airplane, which is the space vessel today, was not known in previous times or the early centuries. So if we are asked: Is prayer valid in the vessel or not? We say: It is valid. What is the evidence? Some say—and I believe they are correct: Prayer is valid in the airplane by analogy to prayer in the vessel. It is established in the Sunnah that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted prayer in the vessel. But if the vessels at that time were small and rocked their passengers, the Messenger (peace be upon him) permitted praying in them while sitting. As for the vessels today, as we see, some are like a city... and they move and cut across the seas, and those in them are as if they are in their homes. In fact, the matter may be so for some airplanes; so we say: The analogy of prayer in the airplane to prayer in the vessel is a good analogy. But what was the statement of some of the predecessors who imagined such an airplane, and analogized and said: Prayer is not valid in what they imagined? Imam al-Rafi'i mentioned in "Sharh al-Wajiz," one of the Shafi'i books, the following text: If a man prays on a swing that is not suspended from the ceiling, nor far from the ground; his prayer is invalid. He imagined a swing—swings are known, they have... fixed to the ground—suspended by a pole in the middle, but he imagined something that contradicts reality... a swing that is not suspended from the ceiling, and it is a type of swings that are suspended from the ceiling, nor is it supported from the ground; so prayer on this swing is invalid. Why? Because he said: He prayed in a place other than the ground. He did not imagine the place except on the ground. And now they make airplanes and rockets, and you see people turning in them in various shapes and colors due to the vacuum existing there in the air. If a person today wanted to issue a ruling based on this hypothetical jurisprudential branch, he would invalidate prayer in the vessel; because it is the one that fits the description of that describer as a swing; which was not suspended from the ceiling nor supported from the ground.
Yes?
The questioner : The airplane, I said the vessel.
The Shaykh : Yes, in the airplane, may Allah reward you with good. The whole research is about the airplane, but the tongue precedes the remembrance.
The Shaykh : So the intention is that analogical reasoning—as Imam al-Shafi'i said—is a necessity. What is the necessity that compelled that person to say that prayer on the swing, as described above, is invalid? Expanding in the use of intellect and opinion more than what is prescribed... to this extent. So if the independent jurist truly stands before an issue and does not find a basis to rely on directly from the Book or the Sunnah, let him analogize the similar to the similar, so that the earth does not become narrow for him, however wide it may be; because in the consideration that is agreed upon to be applied by analogical reasoning, there is a refuge to which the independent jurist turns, and he finds the way open to issue a ruling on an issue that occurred and for which he did not find an explicit text. So analogical reasoning is the consideration that the Qur'an indicated from one side, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) from the other side. And analogical reasoning is sometimes analogizing by cause or analogizing by priority. If it is an analogy of this type, then welcome to it. But if it is an analogy that necessitates what we mentioned earlier of analogizing the opposite to the opposite, as we exemplified earlier with the one who said that the prayer of one who speaks while distracted or ignorant is invalidated, analogizing the ignorant to the common person, this is as al-Muhallab said: ...
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.