Analysis of Dabûsî’s Claim That Mâlik b. Anas Preferred Analogical Reasoning to Khabar

In the history of Islamic science, the scholars were sometimes applauded or criticised by both their contemporaries and later scholars for their different views with a scientific perspective. One of them is Dabûsî, from ahl al-ray, who criticized Imam Mâlik for choosing analogical reasoning over khabar in thirteen subjects. In this study, it was examined how Mâlik b. Anas and the Mâlikites discussed these claims and related issues. In the khabars accepted as evidence, Mâlik b. Anas stipulated authenticity besides conformity with the nass and the practices of the scholars of Medina. Therefore, Imam Mâlik attached greater importance to the authenticity of khabar than analogical reasoning in the issue of preferring khabar and analogical reasoning. As a result, we can say that while Dabûsî was right in terms of two of the thirteen subjects for which he criticized Imam Malik as he had preferred analogical reasoning to khabar al-wahid because they contradicted his cardinal principles, he was generally unjust in his criticisms. In two of the remaining eleven examples, he made the khabar accepted in terms of adjudication with verses and established tradition; and in four, he did not adduce it as evidence on the grounds of the thought that it was canard, infirm, mudraj, and contradicted the practices of the scholars of Madina. In five examples, he interpreted khabar according to Quran and Sunnah and adduced it as evidence. In this respect, Imam Malik's procedural differences in the accepting the news, refutes Debûsî’s claim that Imam Malik preferred analogical reasoning to khabar.