Al-Qiyaas is built or based upon the shared commonality of the Far’u (branch) with the ‘Asl (origin) in respect to one single ‘Illah however the ‘Illah could be stronger (or more evident) in the branch than it is in the origin. This is the Qiyaas Al-Awlaa.

It could also be equal in the branch as it is in the origin. This is called Al-Qiyaas Al-Musaawiy.

And it could be weaker in the branch than it is in the origin. This is called Al-Qiyaas Al-Adnaa.

This is when the ‘Illah of the branch (Far’u) is stronger than it is in origin (Asl) and so the establishment (or proof/affirmation) of the Hukm in the branch is Awlaa (more evident or applicable) than in respect to the origin.

Example:

Allah Ta’Aalaa says:

The text here prohibits At-Ta’feef (showing displeasure/disdain)

towards the parents and the ‘Illah is that which is contained within the Lafzh (expression) in terms of (the meaning of) harm. This same ‘Illah of ‘harm’ is present in the act of hitting the parents in a more powerful and stronger manner. Consequently, the prohibition of hitting the parents (which is the branch) is Awlaa (more effective/fitting) than the prohibition of showing displeasure towards the parents (which is the origin).

Some of the scholars of Usool held the opinion that the prohibition of hitting the parents is established by the very text itself and not by Qiyaas. That is because the Mafhoom of the text (i.e. what is understood from the text by implication) indicates and guides to that prohibition without (the need of) Qiyaas. It represents alerting or drawing attention to what is higher or greater through that which is lower or lesser than it. So the Ta’feef (displaying displeasure) is Muharram (prohibited) by the Mantooq of the text (i.e. what is expressly understood from the worded expressions) whilst hitting or insulting is prohibited through the Mafhoom of the text (i.e. the implied understanding) and this represents the correct view.

Similarly, another example of this is found in the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

It is understood from the Aayah without Qiyaas that this category of people are not trustworthy in respect to that which is greater than a Deenaar.

This is where the ‘Illah in the Asl (origin) is equal (Musaawiy) to the ‘Illah in the Far’u (branch) and most of Qiyaas revolves around this category. In the example that we mentioned earlier which is the ‘Illah of the prohibition of conducting trade as the time of Salaat ulJumu’ah represented in the ‘Illah of Ilhaa’ (distraction) from the performance of the Salaah, then the distraction due to Ijaarah (leasing/renting) or engaging in a sporting activity for instance, which represents the branch, is equal in respect to the distraction found in the act of conducting trade.

Examples:

His Qawl Ta’Aalaa:

This part of the Aayah came after the request to the Messenger of Allah (saw) to divide and distribute the spoils (booty) amongst the poor Muslims and the ‘Illah (reason) is so that the wealth does not remain circulating amongst the wealthy or rich alone. As such, the command came for the spoils (Al-Fai’) to be distributed upon the poor.

‘Umar ibn Al-Khattaab (ra) made Qiyaas (analogy) with the lands of Iraq that had been opened by force upon that wealth. As such he kept it in the hands of its original people upon the basis that they pay Kharaaj and so that the revenue of this Kharaaj would be distributed upon the poor Muslims and be used to foster their affairs until the Day of Judgement.

Consequently, preventing the circulation of wealth amongst a particular class represents the ‘Illah and this ‘Illah is equal or applies equally in respect to the wealth manifested in spoils or booty and the wealth which is represented in the Kharaaj.

This is when the ‘Illah is realised weaker or to a lesser degree in the Far’u (branch) than it is realised in the Asl (origin).

Some have utilised that in respect to the intoxication that they regarded to represent the ‘Illah for the Tahreem (prohibition) of Khamr in the case where this ‘Illah of Iskaar (causing intoxication)

could be weaker in a barley alcoholic beverage than a date beverage for example.

Iskaar (causing intoxication) is the Sabab (cause) of the prohibition and not the ‘Illah and what they have made analogy upon with the Khamr of grapes like the Nabeedh (other fermented beverages from dates for example) then it is in its reality Khamr (alcohol) and the text already includes and encapsulates it without Qiyaas. That is because the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

Therefore, the word Khamr is applied to everything that intoxicates the mind, where it clouds it and makes it dull-witted. Consequently, Iskaar (causing intoxication) is not an ‘Illah. Had it been the ‘Illah then drinking a portion of Khamr without that causing intoxication would be Mubaah (permissible) whilst the text of the Shaari’ (legislator) has mentioned its prohibition by the statement of the Messenger of Allah (saw):

There is therefore no Dalaalah (indication) in respect to the Adnaa (lower) being analogised with the A’alaa (higher). So in respect to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

The Mantooq (expressed meaning) of the Lafzh (wording) indicates that there are people whom if you were to give them a great amount of money they would safeguard it and return it. The Mafhoom (implied meaning) of the Lafzh indicates that if the like of these people were to be given less than a Cantar (great amount) they would safeguard it and return or repay it (readily). This is not understood or derived by Qiyaas but rather from the Dalaalah (indication) of the Mafhoom (the understanding that is implied).

Al-Qiyaas is divided in terms of its level and strength into two categories: Jaliy and Khafiy.

This is the type in which there is no differentiator between the Asl (origin) and the Far’u (branch) in respect to realising the ‘Illah within each of them. This is evident in respect to the Qiyaas Al-Musaawiy mentioned previously and some have said that it is realised in both the Qiyaas Al-Awlaa and the Qiyaas Al-Musaawiy.

This is when there is a differentiator in respect to the realisation of the ‘Illah between the branch and the origin. An example of this is like the Qiyaas of killing with a heavy or blunt object like a rock upon the killing carried out with the sharp (or piercing) object like a sword and a bullet, in the case where it is permitted for the differentiator to be influential or impacting (Mu’aththir) or not. For this reason, Abu Haneefah (rh) held that Al-Qisaas (punishment of retribution) is not obligatory in relation to the killing undertaken by a heavy object whilst other Fuqahaa viewed that Al-Qisaas is obligatory in its case.

And this, according to their opinion, does not include or cover other than Al-Qiyaas Al-Adnaa. However, the correct opinion is that the heavy or blunt object is analogised with the sharp object due to the absence of a differentiator between them in respect to fulfilling or realising the ‘Illah which is the occurrence of killing (or murder).

Ash-Shaafi’iy called the Qiyaas Al-Jaliy: ‘Qiyaas Al-Ma’naa’ (of meaning) and he called the Qiyaas Al-Khafiy: ‘Qiyaas Ash-Shabah’ (resemblence)