For this reason, it is reported that Abū Hanīfah said:

“Do not follow Zufar’s analogies, for if you follow them, you will declare the lawful unlawful and the unlawful lawful.”

Zufar frequently applied what he considered sound analogies consistently, despite his limited knowledge of the revealed texts. Abū Yūsuf’s approach was the opposite: he was more knowledgeable about hadith than Zufar. Thus, most questions in which Zufar disagreed with his fellow jurists rested on analogical reasoning, which, upon examination, proves to be nothing but weak analogy. By contrast, in most questions in which Abū Yūsuf disagreed with Abū Hanīfah and Muhammad followed him, he followed the revealed texts and sound analogies. After Abū Hanīfah’s death, Abū Yūsuf travelled to the Hijaz and benefited from their knowledge of Sunnah reports that were not widely known in Kūfah. He used to say:

“Had my companion seen what I have seen, he would have changed his position as I have.”

He knew that his companion intended only to follow the Sharia, but that others might possess knowledge of Sunnah reports that had not reached him.

This is also the situation of many jurists in relation to one another concerning an analogy on which they have agreed, although its validity has not been established by reliable evidence. Agreement on it entails applying it consistently; yet those versed in the revealed texts may depart from it, while those unfamiliar with the texts apply it consistently.

Likewise, this is the situation of most speculative theologians on the side of affirmation in relation to those on the side of negation, in questions concerning the divine attributes, divine decree, and other matters. They may agree with them on an analogy involving negation; the latter then apply it consistently, using it to deny what the revealed texts affirm, whereas those who affirm do not do so