The Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymeen said: "So the answer is: analogical reasoning is not valid for several reasons"

The questioner : So the answer is: analogical reasoning is not valid for several reasons. The first is that it is analogical reasoning in opposition to an explicit text, and any analogical reasoning in opposition to an explicit text is defective. This is because it necessitates invalidating the application of the explicit text. Also, if an explicit text distinguishes between two things in ruling, it is evidence that there are differences between them that prevent including one with the other and necessitate their separation, whether we know those differences or not. Whoever thinks that what the Lawgiver has united is separate, or that what the Lawgiver has separated is united, his opinion is certainly wrong, for the Shari'ah has come down from the Wise, the All-Aware.

The Shaykh : Now, the jurists call this analogical reasoning "defective in consideration," meaning it is not considered valid. Any analogical reasoning in opposition to an explicit text is defective because this analogical reasoning necessitates invalidating the explicit text. They said that the first one to use defective analogical reasoning was Iblis, so anyone who uses defective analogical reasoning is among his heirs. When Allah commanded him to prostrate, he said: . Analogical reasoning dictates that the better one should not prostrate to one below him. So analogical reasoning dictates that the lesser one prostrates to the greater one. It is as if Iblis is saying, "I am more deserving of being prostrated to than I am of prostrating to him." So this analogical reasoning did not benefit him. Yes.