they deemed blameworthy in analogical reasoning.

They said:

Both positions are correct. Blameworthy analogy is analogy that conflicts with a revealed text, such as the analogy of those who said, “Trade is merely like usury”; the analogy of Iblīs, by which he opposed Allah’s command to him (1) to prostrate before Adam (2); and the analogy of the polytheists who said, “Do you eat (3) what you yourselves kill, yet not eat what Allah has killed (4)?” Allah Most High says:

“Indeed, the devils inspire their allies to dispute with you. If you obey them, you will surely be polytheists.”

[Surah al-An‘ām 121].

The same applies to analogy in which (5) the subsidiary case does not share with the original case the basis upon which the ruling turns. Analogical reasoning is therefore blameworthy either because its condition is unmet—namely, because the two cases are not equivalent with respect to the basis of the ruling—or because an impediment is present—namely, a revealed text that must take precedence over it. The two are nevertheless inseparable in reality: the condition is absent only when the impediment is present, and the impediment is present (6) only when the condition is absent.

As for analogy in which the original and subsidiary cases are equivalent (7) with respect to the basis of the ruling, and which is not opposed by anything carrying greater weight, this is the analogy that must be followed. (8)

There is no doubt that some analogical reasoning is unsound, and many jurists have drawn unsound analogies,