I was just wondering if someone could explain the difference between istislah and qiyas to me and perhaps provide some examples for me. They both seem to involve the use of deductive reasoning and the use of ones' ijtihad and I just wanted to clarify any misconceptions I may have.

In Usool-al-Fiqh Shia uses Aql or intellect as a source of legislation as mentioned in this answer- - http://islam.stackexchange.com And the Sunni uses Qiyas or analogy in Fiqh. In my understanding, both are related with reasoning. How do they differ?

Is it haram to follow the fatwas of contexualist/modernist scholars? Is contexualisation allowed when interpreting verses? One example is Khaled Abou El Fadl who issued a fatwa some years ago saying that Muslim women in the West do not have to wear the hijab. Is he being sinful, or can you follow this? If you follow this, are you being sinful? But would you regard him as a scholar, does he have the ability to say stuff like this? I've seen stuff that mentions contexualisation. Like the Sword Verse (9:5). Groups like ISIS take the literal meaning to commit such acts, but we know that this is meant for the Arabs at the time? There also have been fatwas issued for European Muslims during Ramadan when the number of fasting hours have been quite long, that they may break their fast earlier. But some people within these communities disagree and fast for the all of the long hours. I am asking whether or not it is haram to follow such fatwas, as I am unsure about the validity of such things. Some scholars agree, lots of scholars disagree. As normal people we don't have the ability to interpret these kind of things correctly, so when two different groups of 'scholars' issue fatwas that are contradictory, it leads to a state of confusion. They can both be compelling but which one is correct? This is why I'm asking the question.

> Analogical reasoning (Qiyas), was likewise rejected as a valid source of law by Ibn Hanbal himself, with a near-unanimous majority of later Hanbalite jurists not only accepting analogical reasoning as valid but also borrowing from the works of Shafi'ite jurists on the subject. -- Hanbali , Wikipedia This seems surprising---the founder of Hanbali school held that qiyas were invalid, yet there's a subsequent "near-unanimous majority" accepting qiyas. **Question**: Does the Hanbali school of thought accept qiyas despite Ibn Hanbal rejecting it, and if so why? I'm wondering if this is accurate, and if it is accurate, how these two pieces of information fit together. In https://islam.stackexchange.com/q/35293/17163 , we have > Qiyas: in the hanbali madhab is only used in case of necessity. -- Medi1Saif which makes me think the Wikipedia passage is misleading.

From Wikipedia: > In Islamic jurisprudence, qiyas is the process of deductive analogy in which the teachings of the Hadith are compared and contrasted with those of the Qur'an, in order to apply a known injunction (nass) to a new circumstance and create a new injunction. > > In Islam, bid'ah refers to innovation in religious matters. Linguistically the term means "innovation, novelty, heretical doctrine, heresy". The scholars who produce online fatawa seem to use qiyas liberally. Some seem to just go by their gut as to what is true, relying on their past experiences and familiarity with the Qur'an and Sunnah. Particularly in cases when there cannot be precedent in the Qur'an and Sunnah (e.g. software, flights), it's sometimes hard to tell if scholars are simply making stuff up, i.e., bid'ah (instead of saying "I don't know"). **Question**: When does qiyas (deductive analogy) become bid'ah (innovation)? In cases where scholars verge on bid'ah, I feel I should be careful following the instructions. But it's hard to distinguish between what is an inseparable part of Islam and what is a gut feeling of a scholar. Hence this question. There might not be a clear-cut boundary, but some guidelines for identifying bid'ah would be helpful.