ABSTRACT
Throughout the second and third centuries A.H., an argument raged over the use and limits of human reason in Islamic sciences. One of the central arenas of this debate was jurisprudence. Islamic jurists ranged from those who felt free to offer their personal opinions when faced with a lacuna in the sanctified texts to jurists who rejected any use ofpersonal opinion whatsoever. Between these extreme positions were a spectrum of approaches that adopted different ways to use human reason in legal decision-making. The most important contribution to this struggle over jurisprudential orientation was al-Shafi'I's articulation of the technique and constraints in using human reason. 1 Al-Shafi'I suggested that there was only one way to use human rational faculties in legal decision making - analogical reasoning (qiyas). He argued that when the sanctified sources, Qur'an and prophetic sunna, do not furnish a clear legal prescription, one can employ analogical reasoning, i.e., identify a similar case that appears in the sanctified sources and implement its prescription.
