The Conflict of Proofs between Text and Analogical Reasoning (Qiyās): an applied Study

Abstract

Qiyās (analogical reasoning) is a foundational source and proof from which a jurist derives Islamic legal rulings, alongside the Qur’an, Sunnah, and Ijmāʿ (consensus). This study examines the authority of Qiyās in Islamic jurisprudence and the conditions governing conflicts between textual evidence and analogical reasoning. In particular, the research aims to clarify the concept of conflict between textual evidence and Qiyās, the legitimacy of Qiyās in Islamic jurisprudence, and the conditions under which conflicts between textual evidence and Qiyās arise. To achieve this, the study explores specific topics, including the option of rescinding a sale (khiyār al-majlis), the superior types of sacrificial animals (aḍḥiyyah), nullification of ablution due to laughter during prayer, and the purification of garments from dried seminal fluid.
The study concludes that the disagreement among jurists, specifically between the Ḥanafīs and the majority of scholars, does not pertain to the legitimacy of Qiyās itself but rather to its application in particular issues. It further establishes that textual evidence in Islamic law does not inherently conflict, as all evidence ultimately traces back to a unified source. Any apparent conflict is attributable to the jurist’s interpretation. When definitive textual evidence (naṣṣ qaṭʿī) conflicts with Qiyās, the Qiyās is categorically invalid without disagreement. However, if speculative textual evidence (naṣṣ ẓannī), such as solitary narrations (khabar al-wāḥid), conflicts with Qiyās and the rationale (ʿillah) for Qiyās is explicitly stated in definitive evidence, Qiyās should be prioritized over the solitary narration. Conversely, if each invalidates the implications of the other, the majority of Islamic legal theorists uphold the precedence of textual evidence over Qiyās.