Shaykh al-Islām Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked about a statement frequently made by jurists: “This is contrary to analogy,” referring to rulings established by a scriptural text, by the statements of the Companions or some of them, or even, at times, by consensus. Examples include their statements that purifying water into which an impurity has fallen is contrary to analogy; (*) indeed, that even purifying impure matter is contrary to analogy; that performing ablution after eating camel meat is contrary to analogy; that breaking the fast through cupping is contrary to analogy; and that advance-payment sales are contrary to analogy. They likewise describe leasing, transfers of debt, contractual manumission, profit-sharing investment partnerships, sharecropping, tending orchards for a share of their yield, loans, the validity of the fast of someone who breaks it forgetfully, and continuing an invalidated Hajj—all these and other rulings—as contrary to analogy. Is this claim correct or not? And can sound analogy conflict with a scriptural text?

He replied:

All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds. The fundamental point to understand here is that “analogy” is an ambiguous term encompassing both sound and unsound analogy. Sound analogy is that which the Sharia has prescribed, and it consists in placing on an equal footing