From the earliest times when sects have started to form, there has been debate on whether or not "istihsan (moving away from the implications of an analogy to an analogy that has a stronger evidence from the Qur.an, Sunnah or ijma.)" is a method of istidlal (inference). At the basis of these discussions, the effect of the arbitrariness/subjectivity implied by the term isti.san, which has not yet completed its conceptualization process, is far too much. Therefore, those who adopted isti.san as a method were subjected to serious accusations. Hanafi jurists are at the forefront among those who adopted istihsan. So much so that the istihsan method has become known by the Hanafi sect. However, we have come across with two opposing arguments about the approach of Zufar ibn Hudhayl, who is one of the leading representatives of the sect, prominent with his analogical reasoning, to istihsan. As a result of our research, it is seen that neither of the claims is right; in addition to the skill of the Zufar to make analogies, he is in favor of analogical reasoning to the full extent on the issue of having recourse to istihsan; but in cases where analogies are inadequate in producing solutions to the issues or do not give correct outcomes, as a necessity for not to leave the issue without any verdict, he had recourse to istihsan. As a result, it can be said that being bound to the Hanafi method in general terms, Zufar ibn Hudhayl has narrowed the framework for using istihsan as a method of istidlal; on the issue of having recourse to analogies, on the other hand, he tried to broaden the boundaries as much as possible.