A Review of the Nature and Application of Analogy (Qias) in Comparative Jurisprudence and Iranian Law

This research is designed to provide a new look at the analogy (Qias) and its application in Islamic law. An overview of empirical foundations suggests that most previous studies have emphasized the widespread disagreement between Shia and Sunni jurisprudents. It is often believed that there is no analogy between Shia and Sunni in the theoretical application of analogy. However, contrary to common beliefs, there is a broad resemblance to the use of analogy between jurisprudents of Imamiyyah and Sunni scholars. The jurisprudents of Imamiyyah, like the Sunni jurisprudents, use the analogy in many cases; but they use it with other titles, such as Tanqih-e Manat, etc. Thus, Shiites do not oppose the use of analogy in jurisprudential affairs; they do not accept the use of analogy in all affairs; whereas the Sunni jurisprudents do not have any reason to question analogy whenever there is no reason for a ruling in the Quran or narratives. They are convinced to use analogy because of the perception of the causes of Sharia Laws in issues related to everyday life of human, and also because of the inability to access to the true causes of all religious laws. In contrast, Shiites are skeptical about the use of analogy in all affairs, but practically, they use analogy in many cases and only in limited cases, they try to infer the laws with other means.