The second problem is that some people, after independently viewing the laws of the Qur’an and Hadith (with their limited analogy), will begin to deduce underlying factors (‘ilal) upon which rulings are based. Thereafter, they will abrogate many laws of Deen on the basis that the underlying cause that they deduced no more exists.
For instance, consider the law of performing wudhu before every Salaah. In this time and age, a group of modernists hold the view that there is no need to perform wudhu before every Salaah, since our limbs are mostly covered and do not get dirty. They contend that the law of wudhu was most relevant to the Sahaabah (Radiyallahu Anhum). Many of the Sahaabah (Radiyallahu Anhum) were shepherds or worked on the fields and in other outdoor occupations. As a result, their bodies became soiled in dust and dirt. Therefore, they were required to make wudhu for every Salaah. Hence, this group of modernists subjected the law of wudhu to their flawed analogy.
A similar example is that of the law of appointing witnesses at the time of nikaah. Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) has declared:
لا نكاح إلا بشهود
There is no nikaah without witnesses. (Bayhaqi 7/111)
Based on this and other Ahaadith, the scholars have unanimously stated that the nikaah must be witnessed by at least two people, otherwise it will not be valid.
Yet, some modernists opine that nikaah is valid regardless of whether witnesses are present or not. They comment upon the aforementioned Hadith that witnesses were only deemed necessary in the Hadith in order to alleviate any misunderstanding or denial if they cropped up later on during the nikaah. However, they claim that nowadays the nikaah is properly recorded and signed by both parties. Therefore, witnesses are not necessary. Thus, on the basis of their flawed deduction of the reason for having witnesses in a nikaah, they cast aside this fundamental shar’ee requirement.