Ba'zi musulmon fikrlari ratsional qiyos yo'liga og'diriladi. Bu qiyos uchun Shar'dan biror dalil ko'rsatilishiga, ya'ni maxsus Shar'iy matnda zikr qilingan 'illat (ilohiy sabab)ga tayanishga muhtoj emas. Ular uchun ratsional qiyos Shar'ning umumiy mazmunidan aql orqali anglanadi, unga ko'rsatuvchi aniq matn bo'lmasa ham. Shuningdek, u bir hukmni boshqa hukm bilan, Shar' tomonidan zikr qilingan hukm sababi bo'lmagan holda, faqat aql ilg'agan o'xshashlik asosida taqqoslash yo'li bilan ham tushunilishi mumkin. U yana Shar'iy qoidaning o'zida va qolgan qoidalarda maslahat (manfaat)ni aqliy jihatdan afzal ko'rish orqali ham anglanishi mumkin.

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.

Ularning fikricha, Shariat butunlikda dinni, jonni, aqlni, nasabni va molni saqlashni ko‘rsatgan. Ularning fikricha, bu besh narsaning himoyasiga olib keladigan har qanday narsa Shariat tomonidan buyurilgan, hatto Shariy matn buni ko‘rsatmagan bo‘lsa ham va uni e’tiborga olishni ko‘rsatuvchi Shariy 'illat (sabab) bo‘lmasa ham. Ular buni faqat ikki masala o‘rtasidagi o‘xshashlik tufayli qiladilar. Shuningdek, ular Shariat zarurat holatida musulmonga harom narsani yeyishga yoki spirtli ichimlik ichishga ruxsat bergan, shuning uchun agar musulmon foizli muomalaga majbur bo‘lsa, ikki masala o‘rtasidagi o‘xshashlik tufayli bunda hech qanday yomonlik yo‘q, deb ham o‘ylaganlar.

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.

Ushbu fahmlash usuli to'g'ri tushunchadan chetga chiqadi va unga zid keladi. Bu usulning mohiyati uning noto'g'riligini ko'rsatadi, shuning uchun unga tayanish va uni qabul qilish to'g'ri emas. Chunki aqliy qiyos o'xshash narsalarni bir-biriga yaqinlashtirishni va farqli narsalarni ajratishni talab qiladi; holbuki, biz shariat ko'plab masalalarda o'xshash narsalarni ajratganini, ko'plab masalalarda esa farqli narsalarni bir-biriga yaqinlashtirganini ko'ramiz. Shuningdek, u aql hech qanday rol o'ynamaydigan hukmlarni ham belgilagan. Bu esa ushbu usulni uning asosidanoq rad etish uchun yetarlidir.

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.