المعنى الاصطلاحي

When analogy is used in an invalid way to draw a ruling therewith.

الشرح المختصر

"Fasād al-wad‘" (invalid analogy) occurs when an opponent demonstrates that analogy has not been made in a valid way to derive a ruling therewith. In other words, it is to prove that what the user of analogy has used as a cause for deriving a specific ruling actually indicates the opposite of the derived ruling. "Fasād al-wad‘" occurs in two cases: 1. When the common cause used in the analogy process is proven, through a religious text or scholarly consensus, to indicate the exact opposite of the derived ruling. For example, a person may say: Wiping over the hair is an act of wiping, and thus it is recommended to repeat it, being analogical with "istijmār " (cleaning the private parts with stones or so). An opponent may say: This analogy is invalid, for the very cause cited (to prove that repeating wiping over the head is recommended because it is an act of wiping) is proven to have been used to indicate the opposite of this ruling: repeating wiping over leather socks is not recommended, by consensus, even though it is an act of wiping. 2. When the person using analogy to prove a specific ruling arrives at a ruling that contradicts the intended meaning of the original ruling. For example: If someone opines that breaking the fast intentionally during the daytime in Ramadan does not require an expiation because it is analogical with breaking the fast during travel. An opponent may say: This analogy is invalid, for the appropriate action or meaning here is to toughen the punishment, not alleviate it.