110 ANALOGY, SYSTEMATIC REASONING,

qiyās, but claims that it is “reasonable” (maʿqūl). In Tr. III, 11, the Iraqians look for the element common to both the original and the assimilated case, which justifies the use of analogy, but they do not use ʿilla, which is the later term for it.

The Iraqians base their doctrine on qiyās and systematic reasoning rather than on traditions, and they use qiyās as an instrument in criticizing traditions.² The Iraqian opponent states in Ikh. 117 f. that no qiyās is valid against a binding tradition (khabar lāzim), but the word “binding” is operative,³ and how this rule works in practice appears from Ris. 75, where the Iraqian opponent follows the opinion of Ibn Masʿūd, which reflects the Iraqian doctrine, against an analogy drawn from traditions from the Prophet.

Qiyās of individual Iraqians

Ibn Abī Lailā. Tr. I, 171 (a): Ibn Abī Lailā uses analogical reasoning and expresses it by saying: “This is the same as...” (hādhā… bi-manzilat…), without using the term qiyās.

§ 216: he gives general systematic reasoning, based on an analogy, but does not use the term qiyās.

Abū Ḥanīfa. Ibid., 107: Abū Ḥanīfa gives a systematically consistent decision, and Shāfiʿī calls it qiyās.

§ 200: Abū Ḥanīfa acknowledges the implication of a tradition, and Shāfiʿī, who draws the same conclusion, calls it qiyās.

§ 219: a conclusion a maiore ad minus.

§ 229: an analogical conclusion from the Qurʾān.

Tr. IX, 15: Shāfiʿī calls Abū Ḥanīfa’s reasoning qiyās. Abū Ḥanīfa does not use the term qiyās in any of these cases.

Abū Yūsuf. Tr. I, 27: Abū Yūsuf draws an analogy but calls it mithl (“the same as…”).

§ 71: he draws a conclusion from the doctrine of Ibn Abī Lailā and calls it qiyās qawlih (“a consequence of his doctrine”).

Tr. IX, 2: Abū Yūsuf has two arguments a maiore ad minus; only Shāfiʿī calls this qiyās.

§ 38: Abū Yūsuf gives analogical reasoning, without using the term qiyās.

Shaibānī. Tr. VIII, 1: Shāfiʿī calls Shaibānī’s wider systematic reasoning qiyās.