What is the validity of the rule "An exception to an analogy cannot be used to form another analogy" and is it consistently applicable?

The jurists have differed considerably on the rule "What is established contrary to analogy (qiyas) cannot be analogized to." Some Hanbalis, along with Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, held the view that rulings can indeed be established contrary to analogy, while the majority of scholars disagreed with them.

Ibn Badran clarified that "contrary to analogy" means deviating from similar cases for a more specific interest, not a complete disregard for considering interests. For example, forward contracts (salam) and leasing (ijarah) were permitted even though analogy would dictate against selling what is non-existent.

Al-Zarqa mentioned that there are many rulings established contrary to analogy, including Hudud punishments, leasing, sharecropping (muzara'ah), irrigation partnerships (musaqat), mutual oaths (tahalluf), forward contracts (salam), manufacturing contracts (istisna'), and bequests (wasaya). He stated that in these rulings, one must restrict oneself to the specific text and not analogize other matters to them.

As for Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, he explained that rulings said to be contrary to analogy are of two types: those agreed upon and those disputed. He clarified that the correct view is that what is said to be contrary to analogy must have a characteristic that distinguishes it from the matters it contradicts. If something else shares this characteristic, then its ruling is the same as that ruling.