Year: 2025
Type: article
Abstract: Qiyas (analogical reasoning) has been a pivotal yet contentious source of Islamic jurisprudence. While most jurists accept qiyas as a logical extension of divine revelation, some schools—most notably the Zahiris and certain Mu‘tazilah thinkers—rejected it outright. Ibn Hazm’s critique is among the most systematic, grounding his rejection on the sufficiency of Qur’anic and Prophetic texts and the dangers of conjecture. This paper explores the Zahiri and Shi‘a opposition to qiyas, the contrasting acceptance by majority Sunni jurists, and the nuanced limitations placed upon qiyas in criminal and civil law. The discussion then transitions to istihsan (juristic preference), which some schools advanced as a corrective to the rigidity of qiyas. This comparative study highlights how Islamic legal thought balanced revelation, reason, and equity, while drawing parallels with Western jurisprudential tools such as equity and analogical reasoning. Keywords: Qiyas, Istihsan, Zahiri School, Ibn Hazm, Usul al-Fiqh, Analogy, Equity in Islamic Law
Source: Al-Anfal
Authors: Dr. Syed Ameer Hassan, Dr. Yasir Munir
Language: English
Subfield: Religious studies
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W7220200152