His opinions upon his journey to Andalusia or upon his settlement in Sus. He tried to refute conjecture and make it an independent subject of research, based on firm proofs, but he fell into much ambiguity and contradiction, as we have explained.

Refutation of the origins of analogy: We have previously presented Ibn Tumart's position on analogical reasoning and the objections he raised against the methods used in this reasoning by him, and the foundations upon which analogical reasoning is based as he sees it. We have already discussed this, considering analogical reasoning as a method of general knowledge.

Just as Al-Mahdi discussed analogical reasoning, he also discussed legal analogy in the same context, considering legal analogy to be a method of knowledge. However, it is a method specific to legal rulings.

He included this discussion in his introductions and conclusions within the general methodology he adopted for himself in this field, which is the methodology of establishing principles. Therefore, his opinions on legal analogy are consistent with his opinions on establishing principles.

At first glance, it appears that Ibn Tumart's position on legal analogy is not clearly established by the jurists of his time, whether it is based on acceptance or rejection. This is because we find him sometimes stating what implies his rejection of analogy, as indicated by his saying: See, regarding conjecture in Ibn Tumart and his comparison with Ibn Hazm. And the school of Ibn Tumart and Al-Ghazali. He concluded with a general judgment that Al-Mahdi, in his fundamental opinions, followed the Ash'aris of the Shafi'i school more than he followed Ibn Hazm. This judgment contains some erroneous generalization, because Al-Mahdi, in many fundamental issues, clearly shows the influence of Ibn Hazm, as is the case with this issue and the issue of analogy, as we shall see.

Analogy has been defined by multiple definitions, including Al-Ghazali's statement in Al-Mustasfa: "It is to carry a known thing to another known thing in establishing a ruling for it or negating it from them by a common factor between them."

A sharp debate arose concerning the validity of analogy between those who affirmed it and those who denied it. The Shi'ites, except for the Zaydis, and Al-Nizam from the Mu'tazila, and the Zahiris, denied it. See in this regard: Ibn Hazm, Al-Ahkam fi Usul Al-Ahkam. And onwards. Al-Ghazali, Al-Mustasfa. And onwards. Al-Bazdawi and Al-Bukhari, Usul and its explanation, Kashf Al-Asrar. And onwards. Fadil Abd al-Wahid Abd al-Rahman, Al-Namudhaj fi Usul Al-Fiqh.