It requires mention and deduction of a reason. And because what is left unsaid here is considered more deserving of a ruling than what is stated. And whoever calls it analogy acknowledges that it is definitive, and there is no dispute over names. So, whoever considers analogy to be a type of inclusion that encompasses this and the expression.

And if some of the Usulis from the Hanafis and Shafi'is consider this indication of the text to be analogy, even if it is mere inclusion as Al-Ghazali mentioned, then most Usulis do not consider it so. Ala al-Din al-Bukhari explained this by saying that in analogy, the origin (i.e., including the unsaid with the stated) is not a part of the branch by consensus. The text's indication is that what is considered an origin is part of what is considered a branch. For example, if a master says to his slave: "Do not give Zayd a dirham," it indicates his prohibition of giving more than a dirham. Even though the mentioned dirham is included in it, and he added to it. Likewise, this type was established before the legislation of analogy, so it is known to be from linguistic indications and not analogy.

Ibn Hazm also strongly rejected this method, whether it was considered a type of analogy or a type of textual indication, following his principle of limiting words to their direct meanings and adhering to their apparent meanings, which sometimes aligns with the obviousness of reason. For example, in his criticism of the example of saying "uff" (a sound of annoyance), he said: "We seek refuge in Allah the Great from saying that the Prophet of Allah, may He be glorified, forbade saying 'uff' to parents, and from this is understood the prohibition of hitting, killing, or slandering. For there is no doubt to anyone who has knowledge of the Arabic language that killing, hitting, and slandering are not called 'uff'." So, undoubtedly, everyone with intellect knows that the prohibition of saying "uff" is not a prohibition of all of these.

And he said in Al-Mustasfa by Al-Ghazali: The second: "They differed in naming it analogy." Same source: Ala al-Din al-Bukhari, Kashf al-Asrar: Ibn Hazm, Al-Ahkam fi Usul al-Ahkam: