The arguments against Qiyas have been articulated mainly by the Zahiri (literalist) school, and some amongst the Mu'tazilah, including, Ibrahim al-Nazzam. Also in principle, the Shi‟a Imamiyyah do not recognise the validity of Qiyas, as they maintain that Qiyas is pure conjecture which must be avoided. In addition, the Quran, the Sunnah and the rulings of the Imams, according to the Shi'i Ulema, provide sufficient guidance for conduct, and any reference to Qiyas is unnecessary and unwarranted.14

This is definitely the view of the Akhbari branch of the Twelve Shi‟a, whose refutation of Qiyas closely resembles that of the Zahiris. But the Usuli branch of the Shi‟a validate action upon certain varieties of Qiyas, namely Qiyas whose „Illah is explicitly stated in the text (Qiyas mansus al-`‟Illah), analogy of the superior (Qiyas al-awla) and obvious analogy (Qiyas jali). These varieties of Qiyas, in their view, are not mere speculations; they either fall within the meaning of the text or else constitute a strong probability (Al-zann al-qawi) which may be adopted as a guide for conduct. But they validate this through recourse to Ijtihad and „Aql rather than Qiyas per se.15

However, those who rejected Qiyas like the Zahiris did not actually reject the principle of Qiyas because they accepted it when it came from the mantuq (uttered meaning). Being Zahiris i.e. literalists they did not take the „Illal (reasons) that were derived from the mafhum (implied meaning) for this would be following speculation and not certainty. And as for the „Illah taken from the Mantuq they did not call this Qiyas because they considered it as simply following the literal (Zaahir) meaning of the text whilst Qiyas for them was a term used to mean a speculative (Dhanni) process in legislation which they found unacceptable. That is why they rejected the term Qiyas and some of its forms though in reality they accepted it in principle.

Ibn Hazm one of the most outspoken against Qiyas from the Zahiri scholars said: “That God has assigned certain causes to some of His laws, but we say this only when there is a Nass (text) to confirm it.” He then goes on to quote a Hadith of the Prophet to the effect that, “The greatest wrongdoer in Islam is one who asks about something, which is not forbidden, and it is then forbidden because of his questioning”.16

Ibn Hazm continues: “We firmly deny that all the Ahkam of Shari‟ah can be explained and rationalised in terms of causes. Almighty God enacts a law as He wills. The question of „how and why‟ does not and must not be applied to His will. Hence it is improper for anyone to enquire, in the absence of a clear text, into the causes of divine laws. Anyone who poses questions and searches for the causes of God's injunctions 'defies Almighty God and commits a transgression”.17

The supporters of analogy, according to Ibn Hazm, proceed on the assumption that the Shari‟ah fails to provide a text for every matter, an assumption which is contrary to the Ayat of the Quran in his view. He quotes the following Ayat to this effect: “We have neglected nothing in the Book” (TMQ Al-An‟am: 38)

“We revealed the Book as an explanation for everything.” (TMQ An-Nahl: 89)

“This day, I perfected year religion for you, and completed My favour upon you.” (TMQ Al-Maida: 4)

Since the Ahkam of the Lawgiver are all-inclusive and provide complete guidance for all events, our only duty is to discover and implement them. In his view to consider Qiyas as an additional proof would be tantamount to an acknowledgement that the Quran fails to provide complete guidance.18

Furthermore he argues that Qiyas derives its justification from an „Illah which is common to both the original and the new case. The „Illah is either indicated in the text, in which case the ruling is derived from the text itself and Qiyas is redundant; or alternatively, where the „Illah is not so indicated, there is no way of knowing it for certain. Qiyas therefore rests on conjecture, which must not be allowed to form the basis of a legal ruling. This according to Ibn Hazm, has been mentioned in the Qur‟anic Ayah: “Conjecture avails nothing against the truth” (TMQ An-Najm: 28)

Identifying the „Illah in Qiyas is an exercise in speculation, whereas the Quran enjoins us to:

“Pursue not that of which you have no knowledge.” (TMQ 17:36)

Lastly, Ibn Hazm holds that Qiyas is forbidden in the Quran.19 Thus the verse:

“O you believers! Do not press forward before God and His Messenger, and fear God.” (TMQ Hujarat: 1)

According to his interpretation this means that the believers must avoid legislating on matters on which the Lawgiver has chosen to remain silent upon. The same point is conveyed in the Hadith where the Prophet (saw) ordered the believers as follows:

“Ask me not about matters which I have not raised, nations before you were faced with destruction because of excessive questioning and disputation with their Prophets. When I command you to do something, do it to the extent that you can, and avoid what I have forbidden.”20

Thus in regard to matters on which the Shari‟ah texts are silent, according to the Zahiri‟s it is incorrect for a Muslim to take the initiative in issuing a Hukm, for he is ordered not to do so. Qiyas therefore violates the express terms of the Quran and the Sunnah in their view.

Their arguments are flawed for the following reasons:

a) The Ayat that mention that the Deen is complete and that the Quran has an explanation of everything mean that the Islamic sources i.e. the Quran and the Sunnah have the capacity to deal with all issues. The majority of Ulema argue that either rules have come directly within these texts or through indications upon which Qiyas or Ijtihad is necessary. Making Ijtihad or Qiyas does not invalidate the meaning of these Ayat in fact they are the revealed method in order to extract the rulings from the Quran and Sunnah.

b) With reference to some of the Ayat that the opponents of Qiyas have quoted, especially on the use of speculative evidence in law, the Ayat in question forbid speculation (Zann) in matters of belief (Aqeeda) only. As for the practical rules of Fiqh, most of them are from texts which are speculative in meaning (Dhanni dalalah). This does not necessarily mean that action upon them must be suspended, the conclusion of which would mean that there would be no difference of opinion allowed at all in Fiqh, which would be contrary to established evidences permitting difference of opinion in certain areas.

c) The Ayat from the Quran that contain „Illah, the aforementioned evidences from the Sunnah and „Ijma of the Sahabah have established Qiyas as a source of Shari‟ah.