Impairment of Invalid Reasoning: An Applied Foundational Study of Imam Ibn Hagar’s Book Fatḥ al-Bārī (d. 852 AH)

Abstract

This study aims to elucidate the concept of invalid reasoning impairment, analyze a series of analogical inferences critiqued by Imam Ibn Ḥajar as invalid, and address responses to them. The study comprises an introduction and two sections. Section one defines the impairment of invalid reasoning, its evidentiary basis, and rebuttals to it. Section two examines its jurisprudential applications within Fatḥ al-Bārī. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology, the study evaluates examples of analogical reasoning challenged by Ibn Ḥajar, presenting arguments and evidence to clarify this impairment nature and its impact on juristic disagreement. The study key findings showed that the scholarly reasoning of eminent jurists remains tethered to the sacred text. Whenever textual evidence became apparent to them, they adhered to it and abandoned speculative reasoning. It was confirmed that many contested analogies, upon scrutiny, reveal reliance on supplementary transmitted evidence. In such cases, analogical reasoning is reinforced by textual proofs. If these supporting evidences are valid, the analogy is strengthened, neutralizing objections. Conversely, if the evidence is unsound, in authenticity or interpretation, the analogy is invalidated, as it cannot stand alone against the authority of the sacred text.