Some Muslim minds have been pushed onto the path of the rational analogy. It does not depend on an indication from the Shar’a to show that an analogy should be considered, ie an ‘illah (divine reason) mentioned in a specific Shar’ee text. For them the rational Qiyas is understood by the mind from the totality of the Shar’a, without having a specific text to indicate it. It might also be understood by making analogy between one hukm and another hukm, simply because of a similarity discerned by the mind, without the presence of a reason for the hukm mentioned by the Shar’a. It might also be understood by a rational preference of the maslahah (interest) in the Shar’ee rule itself and the rest of the rules.

None of this is allowed in any way whatsoever. In their view, the Shar’a in its totality has indicated the preservation of religion, life, mind, lineage and property. In their view, whatever leads to the protection of these five things, is ordained by the Shar’a, even if the Shar’ee text has not indicated it and even though there is no Shar’ee ‘illah (reason) to indicate its consideration. They only do that because of the similarity present in the two matters. They also thought that, the Shar’a has permitted the Muslim to eat something haraam or drink alcohol in case of emergency, so if the Muslim is compelled to deal with usury, then there is nothing wrong with that due to the similarity between the two matters.

This way of understanding eludes and disagrees with the correct understanding. The reality of this method indicates its falsehood, and it is not suitable to depend upon or to adopt. This is because the rational analogy requires the bringing together of similar things, and differentiating between different things; while at the same time we see the Shar’a differentiated between similar things in many matters, and brought together different things in many matters. It also gave rules that the mind has no role in. This is enough to refute this method from its basis.