قِياسُ الأدْ ى نَ عِن ى د الأصُولِي ين – حقيقتهُ، وتطبيقاتهُ، والاعتراضاتُ المُثارة حولى هُ
The Nature of Qiyās Al-Adna, Objections about It and Its Applications According to the Scholars of Uṣūl al-Fiqh

Summary/Abstract: Qiyās (analogical reasoning), as it is known, is considered the fourth source of Shari’a (Islamic law). The scholars of Uṣūl al-Fiqh considered Qiyās as one of the agreed-upon sources. Qiyās technically means “applying a case whose rule is found in the Qur’an, Sunnah or Ijma to a case whose rule is not found in any of them on account of the equation of both cases in respect of the effective cause of the rule”. The scholars of Uṣūl al-Fiqh detailed the explanation of Qiyās, it was divided into many divisions. The opinions of scholars differed on the interpretation of some divisions, and there have also been discussions about the types of qiyas among them. For instance, Qiyās was divided into the Qiyās al-Awla (analogy of higher order), Qiyās al-Musawi (analogy of equivalent order), and Qiyās al-Adna (analogy of lower order). The scholars of Uṣūl al-Fiqh gives the example of Qiyās al-Awla as beating parents is worse than saying ‘ugh’ to parents because of the similar effective cause. While the example of Qiyās al-Musawi is the Qiyās of emancipation of slaves, they compared the female slave to the male slave and gave an example that both are the same. However, an example of Qiyās al-Adna is the Qiyās of apples over barley in Ribā (Usury). The Qiyās al-Awla and Qiyās al-Musawi are agreed upon by the scholars of Uṣūl al-Fiqh, even if some of them disagree on whether it is called Qiyās or not; however, Qiyās al- Adna was objected by some scholars of Uṣūl al-Fiqh who believed that the valid Qiyās cannot be part of the Qiyās al-Adna, because if the parallel case is not equal to the original case in the effective cause, then the Qiyās is invalid. The objection to this Qiyās continued among some contemporary scholars. Despite what was raised about Qiyās al-Adna; the researcher did not find any study that touches this subject in detail. Most of the writeup about Qiyās, past and present, discussed Qiyās al-Adna with no more than one or two lines, without answering the issues that were raised about it. Moreover, the researcher did not find the uses of Qiyās al-Adna in the branch books to show the applied aspect of it. Hence, there is a need to present an adequate study that clarifies the meaning of Qiyās al-Adna, discusses the objections that have been raised about it, clarifies its relationship to other divisions of Qiyās, and deals with its application. The researcher used the analytical method and referred to the most important classical and modern Uṣūl al-Fiqh sources. The study concluded by saying that the Qiyās al-Adna is used in two senses: one of them is that in which the original case is more deserving of ruling than the parallel case, and this inferiority is in terms of the ruling, not in terms of effective cause; as it is impossible for the effective cause in the parallel case to be weaker than the original case, but the inferiority is that in original case, there are multiple valid descriptions of the effective cause, so if the mujtahid preferred one of them, he made it the effective cause, then he appended the parallel case to the original case on the basis of the equality between effective causes. This appendage is based on conjecture, this is because the ruling in the original case is stronger as it has all possible descriptions of the attic, while the parallel case may have only one description among them. The Qiyās al-Adna in the second sense is that in which the effective cause in the parallel case is weaker than the original case, so the effective cause in the original case is stronger, hence, it does not undermine the validity of the Qiyās; since the requirement is the presence of the effective cause in the parallel case, and this does not contradict the fact that it may be weaker or stronger in the parallel case. Among the findings of the research is also that the objections that were directed to the Qiyās al-Adna are weak because they are based on the fact that inferiority means the weakness of the effective cause in the parallel case, and that this requires the establishment of the difference between the original case and the parallel case. The answer is that equality between the original case and the parallel case is sufficient for it to be in the type of effective cause. It is not required to be equal in strength and intensity. As for the newly directed objections to the Qiyās al-Adna, they are also weak. As it is unfair to divide the Qiyās into the Qiyās al-Awla and Qiyās al-Musawi only, and what the objectors said that the scholars of Uṣūl al-Fiqh did not mention a correct example of the Qiyās al-Adna is contrary to the reality, as many examples exist. As for the claim that the scholars of Uṣūl al-Fiqh invented the division of the Qiyās al-Adna just to defend the Qiyās of their imams; this claim lacks evidence, the scholars of Uṣūl al-Fiqh have the persuasive justifications that prompted them to accept this division. The research showed that the discussion of the jurists about Qiyās al-Adna was not devoid - despite its brevity - of benefit. The research also concluded that the jurists has taken the term as meaning that the original case is more entitled ruling than the parallel case, because the effective cause in the original case is stronger. This means that the inferiority of the Qiyās among the jurists is in terms of the effective cause, and they did not mean by the term merely that the Qiyās was presumptive, therefore, it is found that they use this term in the objection; because they saw that the Qiyās al-Adna cannot be reached with the possibility of making the Qiyās al-Musawi.

• Details
• Contents