Qiyas (coming soon)

Qiyas means analogy it is the 4^th of the 4 shari’I proofs and the least relied upon of the 4 (book, sunnah, ijma and qiyas being last.) Linguistically Qiyas means Measurement in example “I measured the thobe”. It can also mean likeness or resemblance “one man is like another yuqas (he is like).” In English to measure up implies some similar between 2 things. Termologically the meaning of Qiyas according to Imam Juwayni “to return the branch to the root (the usl) through a cause that binds them in a ruling.” An analogy is to take one situation your identity a root or point of a situation and then you go to another situation its making an argument that situation 1 is a branch upon a usl and situation 2 is a branch from that same usl (thereby justifying Qiyas had they been from different usl it would not make sense to use Qiyas). Imam Hattab will now give his denitoin “to bring them back, to make them (the branches) to give them an equivalent in the ruling.” Imam hattab says the Qiyas done in rice in relation to wheat in regards to Usry for the Malikis they are both things that are eaten and stored. Riba is forbidden on all forms of wealth in this case Malikis draw Qiyas on the rice and wheat as both are stored as wealth therefor you can charge riba on it like a lone etc the Shafi’I would say they are both food items in agreement with the Malikis. Rice and wheat are still very important in our modern times they are for legal purposes the same despite being different specifies of food but the legal understanding is that they are the same.

Qiyas has 3 categories

1. Qiyas ilatan (Analogy by a common characteristic/Ila)
2. Qiyas dalalatin (analogy by indication which means daleel has an indicator)
3. Qiyas shubhin (Analogy of resemblance)

What is Analogy by common characteristic?

The common characteristic between it obligates a ruling in that breaking ruling from it is not logically acceptable (to a logical mind) and it would not make sense for them to not be together.” when we say its logically unsound, we don’t mean its in its essence impossible like a square circle but rather we mean unsound in a different way such as the prohibition of striking one’s parents like the prohibition of saying “Uff” to your parents. If you cannot harm them by saying uff how much more so is it prohibited to harm them physical with your hands it would not make logical sense to be able to beat who you can’t say uff too.

Disagreement on Qiyas by ila

There are disagreements to this type of Qiyas there are those who say this cannot be analogized. Some dispute if this is really an analogy or not but Imam hattab does not go into detail regarding this point.

What is Analogy by indication?

That is when the common thing between 2 cases is indicated towards a ruling but not necessitating it (not obliging it) in the first case it necessitates it but, in this category, it is indicates towards it not necessitating it. Imam Hattab says this is the most common type of Qiyas, you derive the 2^nd ruling in permissible way from the first and its possible to break away from this as well it’s a bit flexible. This type is also weaker than the first which has a necessary connection between 2  situations whereas this indicates but it’s not binding according to Imam hattab who says “This type is weaker than the first because the common characteristic within it is indicative of the ruling but it’s not so apparent that it is permissible to break from it” an example the analogy of the money of a child and the wealth of a mature adult in regards to zakat being payd on it and the joining factor is that both are money that people will have access to and use and make more money. Zakat on a minor’s money will be managed by their adult guardian. The root is adults paying zakat when its over the nisab but what do we do whena child’s wealth become over the nisab? It would be used in zakat once it reaches nisab but not under the command of the child. There are differing views upon this Imam hattab says “other people reject this such an Abu Hanifa” Abu hanafia does not allow zakat upon a child’s money.

What is analogy by Shubhin?

This goes back to 2 roots so it’s a situation but it resembles one of the roots more in example  murdered slave. A murdered slave it would go back to the laws of free people (free man killing free man) a slave is a human and a man but you can also trace it back to fundamental rules of destruction o fproperty as a slave is property of another this means you have 2 roots that relates to this. You can either look at the rules of murder or rules of property (one freeman destroys another freemans property) Imam hattabs says Its more accurate to deal with cases of property as the slave is more like property than a free man because he is bought and sold and is able to be inheritable it can be given as an endowment a wafed he has a price based on his value that correlates to his characteristic all of that would affect his blood money.” That is Imam hattab is writing his prefers to look at it from the rules of property over a murder case although both would be valid. This analogy is weaker than the 2^nd case (Analogy by indication) because its weaker there are even more differing opinions on accepting it when you make Qiyas by resemblance they can make more rebottles. You want to avoid having to resort to this type of Qiyas as much as possible.

recap

The first is you have 2 cases that are clearly connected, the 2^nd case is there is a bit more doubt in how you would apply and in the 3^rd case you would take it back to multiple principles so it’s the weakest form.

Pillars of Qiyas

Qiyas is to take 1 legal ruling from the life of the prophet and apply It to a new situation if the situation is similar enough for inspiration. “There are 4 pillars of analogy 1. Branch (a particular case or perhaps a particular case the proper dealt with 2. Usl (a root case, the foundation 3. Ila (common characteristic between the 2 cases you are comparing too, the prophet or something in the Quran t o your situation you are dealing with the Ila is the common characteristic between them 4. hukm, for each of these 4 pillars there are conditions.” Imam Juwaynis says the conditions for the branch case is that it be appropriate it coincides with the root.” The branch causes the appropriate to the root case in in the usl (impotence of the root case) the principle at stake for example the prohibition of wine would be carried over to all type of alcohol the Ila would be intoxication. The root and the branch must match up, you can’t take a ruling on zakat on crop and decide what to do with criminal case of theft as there is no connection but the prohibition of different types of alcohol there is a similar Ila.

Helpful phrase from Imam Hattab

Imam Hattab gives a quick phrase which covers the 4 pillars of Qiyas and how it is done “رد الفرع إلى الأصل بعلة تجمعهما في الحكم” You return the branch to the root by the common characteristic which unites them in the ruling. its ruling should be established the proof it is agreed upon the 2 parties. Both parties should accept the hadith and they should both agree on the Qiyas principles that is relevant to the situation at hand. If you were doing Qiyas in your own mind you would have to do that yourself but when you are making fiqh rulings that will be applied in the real world you would need to adhere to these guidelines if the fiqh will never leave your head it would not matter as it never gets implemented.

If there is no disagreement

Then the establishment the ruling of the root with by a proof giving by a person making Qiyas. Establish what the hukm what on the original usl and they will make their own conclusion that the Usl and the fara have the same conclusion.

Conditions of the common characteristic

“It should be dispersed among its parts and effects such that’s it attributes are found along with it.” What this means is the Ila, if you have a theory of the underlining principle it should stand up to scrutiny that it is found everywhere you expect it to be found. In the example of banning of khmr it is clearly found In Islam to be haram if the prophet allowed one type of khmr but banned another then it would cast doubt upon the Ila but the prophet did not therefore we can see the Ila is the khmr and the Ila appears where you expect it to appear (in the rulings). The Ila should be coherent and appear where you expect it to be in order to be valid, we have an example given by Imam hattab

Example of this in practice

Imam Hattab says “Murder with a dull weapon” Quick point some that is interesting about this as opposed to the western legal system where murder is clear cut the point is the intention to cause death succeeding in that intention by whatever means that is in the Islamic legal system there is more attention given to the means so murder with a knife or sword is more serious than without. If you attack someone with a rolling pin instead of knife and they die it would be man slaughter but with a sword it has a purpose to cut flesh which is why Imam Hattab mentions murder with a blunt instrument. If you kill a man with a blunt weapon premeditated then you would do qisas which is a common punishment in Islamic law where someone can be a guilty party can be punished at the discretion of the wounded party, if a man murders one man he can be killed in returned that is qisas.

This rule is not universal

 if a father murders his son there is no qisas against him even if it was intentional so it is not universal. We were talking about conditions of the ila it’s not totally universal as a father who murders his son there is not qisas. A parent would murder their own children to kill their own child is punishment enough but I do not recall the official ruling. If it is said that Zakat is obligatory on livestock (walking creatures) in order to help the poor (because that’s the ila of zakat to get money to help the poor) it would say it is broken by the. What he is saying is that the proposition is to give the poor what they want and this Is broken by not giving the poor anything they want such as diamonds so the Ila is not giving the poor what they want that is an incorrect way to look at zakat in this case. The source of the brokenness (invalidity) lies in the presence of the share characteristics without the ruling. The issue is when you find the common characteristics between 2 things but it does not cooperate between the ila and hukm then you must reevaluate.

Condition for the hukm

Is that it must be like the ila following upon it in rejection and confirmation and existence and nonexistence It should following along in it if you find the ila you find the hukm. The hukm should match up exactly with the ila if there a reason a reason for the absence of a case there is reason for the absence of a hukm for example the prohibition of alcohol is attributed to intoxication so wherever one finds it you will find it (intoxication) the ruling wherever does not find it (intoxication) does not find it prohibition.  The hukm can appear in difference places without the illa such as apostasy or zina the punishment its execution the Hukm is the same but the Ila is not the same despite the Hukm being the same. The common characteristic beings about the hukm it is the cause for the hukm it is a suitable attribute to be built on such as take care of the poor is appropriate ila as the zakat. The ruling is brought about by the Ila the Hukm is caused by the ila, the proper response is applied to the common characteristic.