and sexual intercourse, on the basis of the effective cause common to each pair of cases, and other similar examples.
They explain analogy by indication through such examples as inferring that the prostration of recitation is not obligatory from the permissibility of performing it while mounted, since permissibility while mounted is among the rulings governing voluntary acts of worship. Another example is inferring a ruling from a parallel ruling, as when one says: “No zakat is due on a minor’s property, so no tithe is due on his crops; his declaration that his wife is forbidden to him like his mother is not binding, so neither is his divorce.” Thus, the ruling concerning the tithe is inferred from that concerning the quarter-tithe, and the ruling concerning divorce from that concerning zihār.
They explain analogy based on resemblance as applying the ruling of an original case to a subsidiary case because of some resemblance between them. For example, a subsidiary case may fall between two original cases, resembling one in three attributes and the other in two; it is then assigned to whichever it resembles more closely. Thus, a slave resembles a free person in being human, subject to religious obligations, rewarded and punished; he resembles an animal in being owned and assigned a monetary value. He is therefore assigned to whichever he more closely resembles. Both these forms of analogy rest on an effective cause, although neither is, strictly speaking, analogy based on an effective cause. Success comes through Allah Most High.
Section
Analogy necessarily refers a case back to an original case. It is one branch of independent juristic reasoning, since such reasoning encompasses both matters referred back to an original case and matters not so referred, such as compensation for injuries, maintenance for wives, the share of blood money borne by a man as a member of the group collectively liable for its payment, and similar matters. Everyone who reasons by analogy therefore exercises independent juristic reasoning, but not everyone who exercises independent juristic reasoning reasons by analogy. Independent juristic reasoning is thus broader than analogy. As for considered opinion, it is the belief that one has arrived at the correct ruling in a matter for which no text has been transmitted; it can arise only after the full exercise of independent juristic reasoning.
Section
Everything we have discussed—the foundations of religion, the principles of jurisprudence, the categories of the Book, the meanings conveyed by its discourse, the obligation to act upon analogy, the clarification of its forms, and the explanation of its meanings—is necessary and indispensable for anyone who undertakes what Allah has urged in His Book and through His Messenger ﷺ: acquiring understanding of His religion and knowledge of His laws and rulings.