Verbal indications prevent the extension of the indication to what contains a report, or what is acted upon, or what is similar.

And through the definition that Ibn Tumart defined what he called analogy, and through these conditions that he set for it, it becomes clear that he only meant ways of understanding the indication of the text that rely on extending the ruling according to the linguistic indication from a meaning that the word carries verbally to a meaning that it does not carry verbally. This is what the Usuliyyun included in linguistic discussions and dealt with in the indication of words, as we have seen. Therefore, we can say with reassurance that Ibn Tumart was among the deniers of Usuli analogy, who attacked it as a principle of rulings, because it is based on conjecture. And that he limits himself to texts as a source of legal ruling, and the consensus to which he refers. And that he was in this regard in agreement with Ibn Hazm. And if he benefited from him in this field, he benefited from the general principle, and did not benefit from his penetrating style in deduction and refutation. This may be due to the fact that Ibn Hazm was in a position of authorship and debate, while Ibn Tumart was in a position of advocacy.

The invalidation of the principle of the solitary report. A solitary report is any report that has not reached the degree of widespread transmission. If it is narrated by one person, it is called ghareeb. If two or three share in its narration, it is called 'aziz. If a group narrates it, it is called mashhoor.

Most of the Usuliyyun have gone to the extent that a solitary report does not yield certainty, but rather yields only conjecture. This is because what is transmitted by one person or a small group does not go beyond...

Brunschvig relied on the apparent statement of the Mahdi regarding analogy to conclude that he did not reject Usuli analogy, but rather said something of it. And consequently, to show his lack of connection with Ibn Hazm (see: Brunschvig, The Doctrine of Ibn Tumart: and return to the doctrine of Ibn Tumart: 141, 142). This is incorrect, because what the Mahdi called analogy is, in reality, not analogy according to the terminology of the Usuliyyun, as we have explained. The agreement remains between Ibn Hazm and the Mahdi on the rejection of analogy, except that Ibn Hazm further rejects the indication that the Mahdi called analogy, in accordance with his principle of limiting the text to its apparent meaning.

Completed. Ahmad Muhammad Shakir, in what he called diligent research, see: Ibn Kathir, Mukhtasar 'Ulum al-Hadith: 140-141 (81). Dar al-Turath, Cairo, 1979. 3509.