On the issue of analogical reasoning.

The questioner : Some of the precise scholars said that... then the denial of analogical reasoning did not intend to deny analogical reasoning in its entirety, but rather denied what occurred with Ibn Hazm, and he criticized those who generalized analogical reasoning by saying that the legal proofs did not cover all legal issues, so if... occurred, and he said that every issue must have a text in the Shari'ah, but it may be subject to the scholar; at that point, he uses analogical reasoning out of necessity. I said: ... Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) himself sometimes uses analogical reasoning... and he clarified it by his action, and they added to that, O Shaykh, by saying: The example Ibn Hazm gave clarifies this matter, which is that... in general, what he used as evidence by analogical reasoning was their prohibition of a circumstance of... and they said that they used as evidence that analogical reasoning is based on rebuking, for Allah (Mighty and Majestic) forbade rebuking; so it is even more so that He forbids striking. And Ibn Hazm said that the prohibition of rebuking came in texts from the Book and the Sunnah, including the command to be kind, the command to be dutiful, the command to lower the wing, and the command... and these commands indicate... that no sane person says that being dutiful includes striking your parents or... so the issue is that the legal proofs do not cover... occurred, so it was not analogical reasoning... and they said, does one who does not consider analogical reasoning like one who considers eating carrion... is it permissible in dire necessity despite the general prohibition?

The Shaykh : I believe that this answer is a fabrication between Ibn Hazm's explicit denial of analogical reasoning and the statement of Imam al-Shafi'i that I mentioned earlier; and the truth is that analogical reasoning is a necessity; that is because Ibn Hazm does not even accept a fortiori reasoning, and the meaning of the previous interpretation is: if a man says to another, "Be polite to so-and-so, even if you do not say 'ugh' to him," does Ibn Hazm understand that this Arab speaker means that, a fortiori, the one commanded is forbidden from saying 'ugh' to a guest or a scholar; that he forbids him, a fortiori, from striking him with his palm? So what is the benefit of using the entire verse as evidence? He does not accept analogical reasoning, not even a fortiori reasoning, which is understood from the Arabic language as a matter of course. Therefore, you will not find him accepting any analogical reasoning, not even this a fortiori reasoning. And if every analogical reasoning on earth is, as Ibn Hazm says, what do we say about this phrase that is always used against his opponents? "This is analogical reasoning, and all analogical reasoning is invalid, and if there were any truth in it, this would be the very essence of falsehood." This cliché... is never addressed. So the correct view is that Ibn Hazm was very expansive in criticizing analogical reasoning and those who use it. As for the fact that he falls into contradicting the condemnation of analogical reasoning and its practitioners; this does not mean that he accepts any part of analogical reasoning, but it means that the rule he established is not an old rule. We find, for example, many scholars, especially the Hanafis among them and the theologians, who establish a rule, but when applying it, they do not adhere to it. This does not mean that they do not... by the rule, but it means that they establish rules that they are forced to contradict; because they are not sound in their absolute form. For example, it is known in the principles of the Hanafi school that it is not permissible to specify the certain, i.e., the mass-transmitted, with a text of a limited chain. Do you see if they adhere to this rule in their derivation of legal rulings? Far from it! They say: A weak hadith is not used as evidence for rulings. Do they adhere to that? How many times have they contradicted this rule and established legal rulings with weak hadiths.