وأما العكس فمعناه أن يتمسك السائل بأصل المعلل على وجه يكون المعلل مضطراً إلى وجه المفارقة بين الأصل والفرع
ʿAks means that the respondent invokes the proponent’s own original case in such a way that the proponent must explain a distinction between the original and the new case.
Rather than introducing an entirely new precedent, the respondent probes the precedent already relied upon. If the proponent's own reasoning could support another result, the proponent must establish a legally relevant difference.
This is especially effective where the analogy relies on a broad customary similarity but ignores differences in the subject matter of the ruling.