Wasu tunanin Musulmi sun karkata zuwa hanyar qiyasi na hankali. Wannan qiyasi ba ya dogara ga wata alama daga Shari'a da ke nuna cewa ya kamata a yi la'akari da qiyasi, watau 'illah (dalilin hukunci na Allah) da aka ambata a cikin wata takamaiman nassi na Shari'a. A gare su, qiyasin hankali ana fahimtarsa ta hankali daga cikakkiyar Shari'a, ba tare da samun takamaiman nassi da zai nuna shi ba. Haka kuma ana iya fahimtarsa ta hanyar yin qiyasi tsakanin wani hukunci da wani hukuncin, saboda kamanceceniyar da hankali ya gano, ba tare da kasancewar dalilin hukuncin da Shari'a ta ambata ba. Hakanan ana iya fahimtarsa ta hanyar zabin maslaha (moriya) na hankali a cikin hukuncin Shari'a kanta da sauran hukunce-hukuncen.

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.

A ra'ayinsu, Shari'a gaba ɗaya ta nuna kiyaye addini, rai, hankali, nasaba da dukiya. A ra'ayinsu, duk abin da ke kai ga kare waɗannan abubuwa guda biyar, Shari'a ta wajabta shi, koda kuwa nassin Shari'a bai nuna hakan ba, kuma babu wani dalilin Shari'a da ke nuna a lura da shi. Suna yin hakan ne kawai saboda kamanceceniyar da ke tsakanin al'amuran biyu. Sun kuma yi tunanin cewa Shari'a ta halatta wa Musulmi ya ci abin da aka haramta ko ya sha barasa idan akwai gaggawa, don haka idan Musulmi ya tilasta ya yi mu'amala da riba, to babu laifi a hakan saboda kamanceceniyar da ke tsakanin al'amuran biyu.

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.

Wannan hanyar fahimta tana karkata daga fahimta madaidaiciya kuma tana saɓawa da ita. Hakikanin wannan hanya yana nuna rashin gaskiyarta, don haka bai dace a dogara da ita ko a karɓe ta ba. Wannan saboda kwatanta bisa hankali yana buƙatar haɗa abubuwa masu kama da juna, da bambance tsakanin abubuwa mabambanta; alhali kuwa muna ganin Shari'a ta bambance tsakanin abubuwa masu kama da juna a al'amura da yawa, kuma ta haɗa abubuwa mabambanta a al'amura da yawa. Haka kuma ta kafa dokoki da hankali ba shi da wani rawa a cikinsu. Wannan ya isa ya karyata wannan hanya daga tushenta.

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.