إطلاقات خلاف القياس عند الأصوليين ومناقشة آراء الـمنكرين لوجوده
The Uses of ‘Contrary to Analogy’ According to the Scholars of Uṣūl al-Fiqh and a Discussion of its Nonexistence

Summary/Abstract: This research explains and analyzes the term “contrary to analogy” (Khilaf al-Qiyas) according to scholars of uṣūl al-fiqh, shows the places in which they use it, and clarifies the surrounding problems and suspicions related to it, Then the research discusses the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328) and those who followed him in denying the existence of rulings contrary to analogy in the Shari'ah, and presents their evidence and objections that they addressed to the majority of scholars of uṣūl al-fiqh. In addition, the study tried to rectify what some contemporaries missed, and pointed out the defects in their writings on the topic. The research concluded with a set of results, the most prominent of which is that the term “contrary to analogy” is used in two senses: the first is the provisions contrary to their analogues because it is excluded from the general rules. The second is the provisions that analogy cannot be applied to them, and that the course of the scholars of uṣūl al-fiqh who use the term is correct and does not entail any problem. Moreover, the study clarified that those who negate the term “contrary to analogy”, acknowledge its existence in other places, but in different forms, which means that most of their objection is directed to the use of the term, with the caveat that the disagreement between these two viewpoints is not a purely verbal one, rather, it has practical effects, and that the use of this term and what is in its meaning is not limited to the late scholars, but rather it was mentioned by the Imams of Ijtihad in the first centuries. Furthermore, the study provided that the objection to the use of the term “contrary to analogy” cannot be directed to all the rulings mentioned in contradiction to analogy, as some of them are agreed upon that they are excluded from the rules, and that the course of the majority aligns with the modern legal view of differentiation between the rule and the exception.

• Details
• Contents