一些穆斯林学者的思想被引向了理性类比的路径。这种类比并不依赖于沙里尔（Shar'a）的某种指示来表明应当考虑类比，即不依赖于某段具体的沙里尔经文中提到的'illah（神圣理由）。对于他们而言，理性的类比（Qiyas）是心智从沙里尔的整体精神中领会的，无需一段特定的经文来指示。它也可能是通过将一个hukm（律例）与另一个hukm进行类比而得出的，仅仅因为心智辨识出两者之间的相似性，而沙里尔并未提及该律例的理由。它还可能是通过理性地偏重沙里尔律例本身以及其余律例中的maslahah（公益）而得出的。

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.

在他们看来,整个沙里尔法已经指明了对宗教、生命、理智、血统和财产的保护。在他们看来,凡是能够达到保护这五项事物的措施,都是沙里尔法所规定的,即使沙里尔法的经文没有明确指出,也没有沙里尔法的"伊莱"(理由)来表明其应被考虑。他们之所以这样做,只是因为两件事之间存在相似之处。他们还认为,沙里尔法允许穆斯林在紧急情况下食用haraam的东西或饮酒,因此,如果穆斯林被迫从事高利贷交易,那么由于两件事之间的相似性,这样做也没有任何问题。

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.

这种理解方式偏离了正确的理解，与之相悖。这一方法的实际情形表明其站不住脚，不宜依赖，也不宜采纳。原因在于，理性类比要求将相似的事物归为一类，将不同的事物加以区分；然而我们看到，在许多事务上，法律（Shar'a）对相似的事物作出了区分，对不同的事物却作出了等同。它还制定了一些理性无从置喙的规定。仅此一点，便足以从根本上驳倒这一方法。

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.