Does Qiyas Give Certainty?

Qiyas in this discourse is what is called Tamthil, Analogy in logic. The author in his works on logic has stated that of the logical forms of inference which do not give certainty one is analogy. Analogy may raise the degree of knowledge up to a probable level only. It is due to the simple fact that a simple resemblance between two instances or even several ones would not make it resemblance in all manners and aspects.

However, if the resemblance becomes strong between the original and the derivative from several aspects the probability becomes stronger and it even may rise up to the level of Zann and close to certainty. This is the case with Qiyafa, Astrology but none of such matters can replace the truth in any form or shape.

Except that if one would, in some way, learn that the resemblance, in fact, is the whole cause for the establishment of the rule of Shari’a according to the legislator and then learns that such a whole cause with all of its details is still existing in the derivative and branch then only one would have, in the form of certainty, an inference about such rule that is applicable to the derivative just as it is to the original. It is simply because of the fact that causes do not cause any thing other than their own effects.

In such a case it would serve as first grade syllogistic inference that give certainty.

The whole task ahead is how one would find the full causation relationship in the analogical process.

In different sections of the subject of the principles of jurisprudence it comes face to face that there is no way for human reason to learn the exact causes for many of the rules of Shari’a and that reason is not able go give any opinion about such reasons and causes.

The only way to learn such facts is hearing from the legislator or His representative.

That learning the causation relationship between the rule and the cause of and basis for the rules is beyond the reach of reason and that the only way to learn is to hear from the legislator is because of the fact that it depends upon the will of the legislator and it is not a natural phenomenon. What is beyond reason is the causation relationship not the existence of the cause.

It is true that intoxicating characteristics of a substance could be considered as basis for the prohibition but there is no way to learn if that is the whole cause according to the legislator also.

This is similar to the case of the words of the languages wherein the meaning depend upon the intention of the founder of the language with the exception of the existence of certain instances of correlative relationship that are comprehensible by reason.

Qiyas or analogical inference does not measure up to the level of yielding certainty, unlike the case with an inference that yields certainty through correlative relationships of the substance of the syllogism.

However, if there would exist a statement of the legislator that is indicative of the cause of the rule for a case that is used as the original, ‘asl in such a case only the rule could be carried to the derivative, Far’ under the following conditions:

  1. When it is certain that the stated cause is complete and the rule does not separate from the stated cause at all.
  2. The existence of the same cause in the derivative, Far’ must be certain.

To summarize it in other words it would be more clear to say that an inference in the form of Qiyas does not yield certainty about a rule of Shari’a because it does not undertake the task of proving correlative relationship between the rule for the original and derivative cases. To this there, however, is the exception of the case of the stated cause by the legislator with two aforementioned conditions.

In fact, the case of the stated cause case does not fall within the limits of the inference in the form of Qiyas.

To elaborate it more; after noting the existence of the following five possibilities about the inference in the form of Qiyas one will find out that there is no chance for the establishment of correlative relationship between the rule for the original and the derivative. The existence of such possibilities can not be removed without cause stating statement from the legislator. The following are those possibilities:

 
  1. There is the possibility that the cause for the rule of a case according to legislator would be quite different from what the operator of the inference in the form of Qiyas believes. As a matter of fact, the school or the supporters of Qiyas do not believe in the causation relationship between a rule and its applying to a case according to legislator, God. This is because they do not believe in any relationship between the laws of Shari’a and the virtue and or evil that may exist in the cases to which a rule would apply. This is of the distinct point in their belief system. If such would be the case then how would they be concerned about the existence of a causal relation between the original and the derivative cases or how could they base the results of their inference in the form of Qiyas as being based on causal relationships between the original and the derivative cases that they might have Zann to exists? How a Zann of this form would even come about for them in such a case?

    2.  

  2. There is the possibility that in addition to what seems to be the cause for the rule in the original there might be some other factors as part of the cause according to the legislator that the operator of Qiyas may not have noticed, supposing that he has been right in the discovery of the cause without the additional factor

 

 

(c) There is the possibility that the operator of Qiyas may have added some unwanted factors to the true cause and such addition would have no relation to the application of the rule to the original case.

 

(d) There is the possibility that what seems to be the cause according to the Zann of the operator of Qiyas- supposing such Zann as true- would not be the only condition. It is possible that the combination of the cause and its existence in the original case would be the whole reason for the rule due to a certain characteristic in the case besides the cause. For example:

One’s ignorance of the qualities of the merchandise may become the cause for the invalidity of a transaction. To draw an analogy between this transaction and a marriage contract in which the Mahr, (some property needed to be offered for validity of marriage contract), would not be known is not valid. If one would think that ignorance of the qualities of the merchandise on one side of the transaction is the cause for the nullification of the contract such is the case only in the buying and selling contracts not in general to include even marriage or settlement contracts.

 

(e) There is the possibility that the cause in the derivative would not have all the characteristics of the cause that exists in the original.

 All of the above are valid possibilities that need to be removed to reach a result with certainty and the only fact that can remove all such uncertainties is a statement of the legislator.

 It is said that all such possibilities could be removed by applying the excluded middle law, hasr. In this assumption one example is the case of unlawful interest in a transaction involving wheat. One may assume that it is because of the test, nutritional conditions or measurement of the commodity involved. Since it is known that it is not the test or nutritional conditions, therefore, it is the measurement. The problem is that this is not the way the law of excluded middle, that requires restricted conditions, is applied.

 In such a case, it is very unlikely to free the inference in the form of Qiyas from uncertainties.

 The supporters of the inference in the form of Qiyas who believe that the laws of causation do not apply to the legislation of the legislator of the rules of Islamic Shari’a have already shut the door to using the laws of Excluded Middle also. How would they through the application of such single out all the causes to only one cause when, in fact, according to his belief there is no cause behind the rule?

 All that this form of inference would yield is Zann. With this it is back to Zann which does not do any good at all. As a matter of fact the enthusiast of Qiyas also do not expect more than yielding of Zann from Qiyas which they consider to be valid and Hujjah.