But it is not resorted to in cases of necessity *** except after this loss (Clarification that analogical reasoning is not resorted to except when an explicit text is absent)
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"But it is not resorted to in cases of necessity *** except after this loss"
"But it is not resorted to in cases of necessity *** except after this loss"
This means that we do not resort to analogical reasoning (qiyas) except when an explicit text is absent. If we find an explicit text, we are in no need of analogical reasoning. If we do not find it, we resort to analogical reasoning. Thus, analogical reasoning is to explicit texts what carrion is to lawfully slaughtered meat: when is it permissible to eat carrion? In cases of dire necessity. Similarly, analogical reasoning is to explicit texts what earth is to water: we do not use it except when the use of water is impossible. Therefore, analogical reasoning is not resorted to except in cases of dire necessity. If we are compelled to do so and find neither an explicit text nor scholarly consensus, we rely on it at that time, turning to analogical reasoning.
"But it is not resorted to in cases of necessity *** except after this loss"
This means that we do not resort to analogical reasoning (qiyas) except when an explicit text is absent. If we find an explicit text, we are in no need of analogical reasoning. If we do not find it, we resort to analogical reasoning. Thus, analogical reasoning is to explicit texts what carrion is to lawfully slaughtered meat: when is it permissible to eat carrion? In cases of dire necessity. Similarly, analogical reasoning is to explicit texts what earth is to water: we do not use it except when the use of water is impossible. Therefore, analogical reasoning is not resorted to except in cases of dire necessity. If we are compelled to do so and find neither an explicit text nor scholarly consensus, we rely on it at that time, turning to analogical reasoning.