LessonsEight Objections to Legal Analogy and How They Are AnsweredQuiz

الفرق، والنقض، والمعارضة
Material distinction, counterinstance, and opposing proof.

Farq: Showing a legally relevant difference between the original and new case.
Naqḍ: Presenting a counterinstance in which the alleged cause exists but the claimed ruling does not, thereby challenging the proposed generalization.
Muʿāraḍah: Advancing competing evidence or a cause with sufficient legal force to oppose the proposed inference.

All three require a legally meaningful connection to the original case, new case, or cause. A different example by itself is insufficient unless it supplies a material distinction, a counterinstance, or an opposing proof.

Opening interactive controls...

Farq, naqḍ and muʿāraḍah

Eight Objections to Legal Analogy and How They Are Answered

الفرق، والنقض، والمعارضة
Material distinction, counterinstance, and opposing proof.

Farq: Showing a legally relevant difference between the original and new case.
Naqḍ: Presenting a counterinstance in which the alleged cause exists but the claimed ruling does not, thereby challenging the proposed generalization.
Muʿāraḍah: Advancing competing evidence or a cause with sufficient legal force to oppose the proposed inference.

All three require a legally meaningful connection to the original case, new case, or cause. A different example by itself is insufficient unless it supplies a material distinction, a counterinstance, or an opposing proof.