This pattern, which Ibn Tumart adopted as a basis for analogy, is not valid unless a set of conditions are met, which we summarize as follows: First: That there is no religious text that contradicts the ruling which is the result of the analogy. If there is a religious text, the analogy is void. An example of this is the ruling on washing a vessel after a dog drinks from it, which is based on purity, and not washing it by analogy with the ruling on animals.

Second: That the practice is not contrary to it. If the practice is contrary, the analogy is void. An example of this is the practice of not collecting Zakat on jewelry, which makes the ruling of collecting it void by analogy with gold and silver.

Third: That it falls within the scope of the clear texts. As for the ambiguous texts, analogy is not permissible in them, because they do not necessitate following them or acting upon them.

Fourth: That equality in the ruling between the two sides of the analogy is achieved, either by obligation, permissibility, or prohibition. If there is a difference, the analogy is void, because the difference leads to contradiction, and analogy is not permissible between contradictions.

These conditions are consistent with Ibn Tumart's concept of analogy, as they are more directed towards attaching a branch to an established origin. It is as if they are conditions and controls referring to the Prophet's saying: "If a dog drinks from the vessel of any of you, let him wash it seven times." Narrated by Al-Bukhari in the Book of Ablution.

See: Ibn Tumart, Risala fi anna al-Shari'ah la tathbut bil-'aql, pp. 174-175, 179. Ibid., pp. 179-180. Ibid., p. 176. Ibid., p. 174.