TY - JOUR AU - Sulayman al-Hanna'i, Zakariya AU - Said al-Mujahed, Muhammad PY - 2022/07/29 Y2 - 2024/03/29 TI - Multiple Methods of Uṣūlī Scholars to Define the Qiyās (Analogical Deduction): Causes and Effects: تعدد مناهج الأصوليين في تعريف القياس: الأسباب والآثار JF - International Journal of Fiqh and Usul al-Fiqh Studies JA - IJFUS VL - 6 IS - 2 SE - Arabic Articles DO - 10.31436/ijfus.v6i2.266 UR - https://journals.iium.edu.my/al-fiqh/index.php/al-fiqh/article/view/266 SP - 59 - 70 AB - <p><em>This research aims to identify the term al-qiyās al-uṣūlī (analogical deduction used in uṣūl al-fiqh), explain the methods of uṣūlī scholars to clarify its real meaning, explain the reason for their difference in these methods, and to show the impact of this difference in the uṣūlī research that exists in their books. The problem of the research is to identify the uṣūlī scholars’ definition of the term analogy (qiyās) and try to develop a comprehensive picture of their methods of this definition, searching the reason for this difference, and explaining its impact on uṣūlī sub-issues. The research uses the inductive method to track the definitions; the descriptive method to reveal what was written about the definitions, the reasons for the difference in them and its effects; and the analytical method for explaining the methods, causes and effects of the difference. The research concluded that the uṣūlī scholars used three methods in their definitions: one method considered the analogy as the work of a mujtahid represented in transferring the ruling (from the original issue to a new issue); another method considered it as the work of a mujtahid represented in manifesting (this rule); and a third method gave the analogy an additional meaning which takes place between the original issue and the new issue, and a mujtahid has nothing to do with this. This difference in definitions shows the different viewpoints. Some scholars stated that it is dependent on how the scholars interpret the rationale of the original ruling. Others stated that it is dependent on how the scholars investigate and establish the level of equality between the original case and its ruling and the new case and its ruling. Others said that it is dependent on the difference in the authenticity of reasoning by resemblance. Others suggested that the variations are influenced by many historical landmarks that resulted in having these different definitions and methods. As for the effects of this difference in the uṣūlī sub-issues, it was represented in two things: the authenticity of the analogy, and the depth of the uṣūlī research in the field of analogical deduction.</em></p> ER -