For the judgment to be certain: 3. The analogy in all circumstances and situations.

Equality was not clarified either, and perhaps he meant by it the realization of similarity in the case of the similar, and resemblance in the case of difference, thereby repelling the divergence that reaches the level of contradiction or lack of resemblance. If these conditions are met, the analogy becomes correct and leads to the truth. Then we can use one of its two types: analogy of reality, and analogy of genus.

Analogy of genus: It is the affirmation of a ruling for something that has been established for another due to their sharing in the genus, if it is in general rulings. Analogy is used to establish general rulings that are shared by members of the genus, not those specific rulings that distinguish individuals. An example of this is affirming movement for a horse by analogy with its affirmation for a human due to their agreement in genus. However, it is not possible to affirm speech for it, because it is a ruling specific to humans. It is clear that these two types of correct analogy are necessitated by the definition of their scope that we have seen. Analogy of reality is used in similarities, and analogy of genus is used in differences that have resemblance.

Invalid analogy: Al-Mahdi presented types of invalid analogies and explained the reasons for their invalidity. These reasons relate to the disruption of some of the previously mentioned conditions. He took this as an opportunity to criticize the doctrinal claims that used these analogies to establish them, thus mixing the criticism of the method with the criticism of the content. These invalid analogies are as follows: And what follows. 165 These conditions are mentioned in the same source: (40) 164 See the same source: (41) We note that what Al-Mahdi considered analogy does not produce a new result, as movement in the horse is established by virtue of its inclusion in the genus of animal, not by virtue of its affirmation for humans. 1/5