Dialectic (Jadal) in Jurisprudence

Miller, Larry Benjamin

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-45012-0_4

Larry Benjamin Miller³⁰

Part of the book series: Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning ((LARI,volume 21))

178 Accesses

Abstract

The method of jadal that was originally applied to exclusively theological subjects later became used in jurisprudence. This is not surprising in itself, given the long and close association between theology and jurisprudence from the very beginning of Islamic thought. What is surprising is the way in which jadal took hold of jurisprudence and became an integral part of it. During the tenth century, there arose two genres of juristic literature, both of which were the products of the incursion of jadal in jurisprudence: works with the jadal method devoted to the uṣūl al-fiqh (Islamic legal philosophy or principles of law) and works devoted to the furūʽ (or case law). The former usually had the word jadal somewhere in their title while the latter were generally called ṭarīqa “method.” In what follows, we shall discuss works written on juristic jadal. The study is divided into three periods. The earliest preserved books on juristic jadal compose the first group; the second group is represented by assorted texts from approximately a century or so later when logic first became mated to jurisprudence; the third group is basically the group that shows the transition from strictly legal debate to the universal theory of debate represented by the R. al-Samarqandīya.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

eBook: USD 16.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 16.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 99.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
[Fīrūzabādī] al-Shīrāzī, Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm ibn ʻAlī ibn Yūsuf. “Ma‛ūnat al-mubtadi’īn wa-tadhkirat al-muntahīn fī al-jadal.” MS.867 Garrett Collection, Princeton University Library, Princeton. On al-Shīrāzī, see Encyclopedia Iranica , s.v. “‛Abū Esḥāq,” by W. Madelung.Cf. Abū Is̟ḥāq al-Shīrāzī,K. Tabaqat al-fuqahā’, ed. I. ‛Abbās, 2nd ed. (Beirut: Dār al-Rā‛id, 1981), introduction pp. 5 ff.
2.
Abū l-Walīd al-Bājī , Kitāb al-Jadal ‛alā ṭarīqat al-fuqahā’, ed. G. Makdisi with an introduction “Le livre de la dialectique d‛ibn ‛Aqīl,” Bulletin d‛Études Orientales 20 (1967): 119 ff. On b. ^ʽAqīl, see EI², s.v.”Ibn ‛Ak̟īl,” by G. Makdisi, and G. Makdisi, Ibn ‛Aqīl et la resurgence de l‛Islam traditionalist au XI^e siecle. (Damascus:Institut Francais de Damas, 1963). On al-Bājī, see EI², s.v. “al-Bādjī,” by D. Dunlop. C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur (GAL), 5 vols (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1949) I,p. 534. SI, pp. 743–4. A. M. Turki, Polémiques entre Ibn Ḥazm et al-Bājī sur les principes de la loi musulmane, essai sur le littéralisme zahirite et la finalité malikite (Algiers: Societe Nationale d’Édition et de Diffusion, 1976).
3.
Imām al-Haramayn Abu al-Ma‛āli ‛Abd al-Malik al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya fī al-jadal ed. F. Ḥusain Maḥmūd (Cairo: Maṭba‛at ^ʽĪsā Ḥalabī, 1978). On al-Juwaynī , see EI² s.v. “al-Djuwaynī ,” by C. Brockelmann [and L. Gardet]. Brockelmann, GAL I, pp. 486 ff., SI, pp. 667–8.
4.
Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī , “al-Mulakhkhaṣ fī al-jadal,” MS.39 (uṣūl al-fiqh), Maktabat al-Jāmi‛ al-Kabīr bi-Ṣan‛ā‛, Sana (Yemen),76 fols. Cf. “al-Makhṭūṭāt allatī ṣauwarahā ba‛athat al-Ma‛had ilā al-Jumhūrīya al-Yamanīya,” RIMA, 22, fasc. 1 (May 1976): 47, number 295. A. ‛Īsawī and M. al-Māliḥ, eds., Fihris al-Makhṭūṭāt al-Maktaba al-Gharbīya bil-Jāmi‛ al-Kabīr bi-San‛ā‛ (Cairo: Maṭba‛at Aṭlas, 1978?), p.345. The incipit shows that the work began with definitions of the termini technii; while the explicit shows that it included a chapter on the adab al-jadal and most probably contained another chapter on the signs of defeat.
5.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, pp. 144, 248, 307–8, 362, 409, 609 note 56.
6.
al-Bājī , Minhāj cites b. al-Qaṣṣār, al-Karkhī, Abū ‛Alī al-Ṭabarī and many others Cf. 255 ff. (index). Ibn ‛Aqīl al-Jadal , cites Abū Ya‛lā b. al-Farrā, Abū ‛Alī al-Ṭabarī, al-Karkhī, and others pp. 126–7 (index).
7.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, read kal-su’āl, p. 77, line −1.
8.
Ibid., p. 77, line 8 ff.
9.
Ibn ‛Aqīl, al-Jadal , p. 42, par. 219–20. al-Bājī, Minhāj, p. 34, par.= 64.
10.
Cf. Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), p. 146.
11.
Cf. Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959) p. 263. Van Ess, Das Kitāb an-Nakth des Naẓẓām (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972).
12.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p. 34, par. 65.
13.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 80, line 3 ff.
14.
al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Kitāb al-faqīh wal-mutafaqqih, ed. I. al-Anṣārī, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‛Ilmīya, 1981), vol. 2, p. 51, line 13 ff.
15.
Qur‛ān, 26/71. Cf. Isḥāq b. Ibrāhīm al-Kātib , Kitāb al-burhān fī wujūh al-bayān, ed. A. Maṭlūb and Kh. Ḥadīthī (Baghdad: Jāmi‛at Baghdād, 1967), p. 222, line 12 ff.
16.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p. 35, par. 67.
17.
Ibid., 36, line 4 ff.
18.
al-Karkhī, al-Uṣūl allatī ‛alaihā madār kutub asḥābinā (Cairo: al-Maṭba‛a al-Adabīya, 1320), p. 86, line 3 ff. On al-Karkhī, see F. Sezgin, Geschichte des Arabischen Schrifttums (GAS), (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967) 1: 444.
19.
Aristotle Topics 160a17 ff.
20.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 99,line 8 ff. Cf. Qur‛ān, 2/185.
21.
al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, al-Faqīh, vol. 2, p. 52, line 9 ff.
22.
Cf. Our treatment of the four questions of theological jadal .
23.
Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, al-Luma‛ fi uṣūl al-fiqh (Cairo: M. B. Ḥalabī, 1957), p. 3, line 20. al-Bājī, Minhāj, p. 11, lines 11–2. al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, pp. 46 ff., 48, line 10 ff. On the concepts of sound reasoning and dalīl , see J. van Ess, Die Erkenntnislehre des ‛Aḍudadīn al-Īcī (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1966) pp. 364 ff. Van Ess shows that al-Shīrāzī’s definition is probably of mu‛tazilite origins.
24.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, par. 19. Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, “Ma‛ūnat,” fol.1b: 8 ff.
25.
Ibid., fol.3a: 11. The word ma‛nā occurs in the writings of al-Shafi‛i in the meaning of common characteristic accoring to R. Brunschvig, Études d‛Islamologie, ed. A. Turki, 2 vols. (Paris:G. P. Maisonneuve et Larose, 1976) 2:357.
26.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, pp. 9, line 7 ff.; 148, line -5, et alia.
27.
Ibn ‛Aqīl, al-Jadal , p. 159, par.236. al-Bājī, Minhāj, p. 177, par. 389. Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, “Ma‛ūnat,” fol. 17b: 10ff.
28.
On al-Naẓẓām, see van Ess, Kitāb al-Nakth. al-Juwaynī , al-Burhān fī uṣūl al-fiqh , ed. ‛A. al-Dīb, 2 vols. (Cairo: Dār al-Anṣār, 1980), vol. 2, p. 750. Ibn ‛Aqīl, al-Jadal , p. 191, par. 68.
29.
al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, al-Faqīh, vol. 2, p. 23, line -2 ff.
30.
Abū l-Ḥusain Muḥammad al-Baṣrī, Kitāb al-mu‛tamad fī uṣūl al-fiqh , ed. M. Hamīdullāh, 2 vols. (Damascus: Imprimerie Catholique, 1963), vol. 2, pp. 987–8 ff. On the relation of this work to ‛Abd al-Jabbār’s al-‛Umad, see Sezgin, GAS I: 625 ff.
31.
Some of al-Shāfi‛ī’s ikhtilāf works are printed in his Kitāb al-Umm, 7 vols. (Cairo: Bula^āq, 1321–26), vol. 7. On that see Sezgin, GAS, 1: 487. For al-Ṭabarī’s work, see, Sezgin GAS, 1: 328. al-Qāḍī al-Nu‛mān, Kitāb ikhtilāf uṣūl al-madhāhib, ed. S.T. Lokhandwalla (Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1974). Cf. The review of the latter by J. van Ess, Der Islam 51 (1974): 300–1. Sezgin, GAS, 1: 456. R. Brunschvig, “La Theorie du qiyās juridique chez le Hanafite al-Dabūsī,” Orientalia Hispanica sive studia F. M. Pareja octogenaria dicata. Ed. J. M. Barral (Lugduni Batavorum: E. J. Brill, 1974), pp. 150–4.
32.
Abū Ja‛far Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Kitāb Ikhtilāf al-fuqahā’, ed. F. Kern, 2 vols. (Beirut: n.p., n.d.), vol. 2, pp. 25ff.; p. 46, line -8 ff.
33.
Abū Isḥāq, al-Shīrāzī, “Ma‛ūnat,” fol.1b: 2 ff.
34.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p. 7, par. 2.
35.
al-Juwaynī , Kāfiya, p. 89, line -3 ff.; p. 130,line -1 ff.
36.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p. 37, par. 71.
37.
Ibid., p. 38, lines 5–6: “wa-‛ajaza ‛an bulūgh mā qaṣadahū, fa-ḥukima ‛alayhī bil-inqitā‛.” On the signs of defeat, see below.
38.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p. 38, line 10 ff. Cf. al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, al-Faqīh,vol. 2, p. 41, line -5 ff. Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, “Ma‛ūnat,” fol.11b: 1.
39.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p. 39, line 7.
40.
Ibid., 39, lines 8–9.
41.
Ibid., p. 39, par. 76; cf. Ibn ‛Aqīl, al-Jadal , p. 163, par. 219.
42.
Cf. van Ess, Īcī, pp. 358 ff. al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, al-Faqīh, vol. 2, p. 43, line 1 ff.; Ibn ʿAqīl, p. 42, par. 220; Shīrāzī, Mulakhkhaṣ 123b3ff.
43.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 79, line -3 ff.
44.
Cf. above our chapter on theological jadal .
45.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p. 40, line -3 ff.: “al-su‛āl ‛alā wajh al-qadḥ fī al-dalīl .” Cf. al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, al-Faqīh, vol. 2, p. 40, line 8.
46.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p10.. 79, line 10.
47.
Ibid., p. 79, line 10: al-Juwaynī uses the term ṭard which is a later equivalent of the old jarayān al-‛illa fī ma‛lūlātihā. Cf. our chapter on theological jadal .
48.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p.40, line -2.
49.
Ibid., p.40, line -1 ff.
50.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 67, line 15.
51.
Ibid., p. 68, line -9.
52.
Ibid., p. 68, line 4 ff.
53.
Ibid., p. 77, line 13.
54.
Ibid., p. 79, lines 15–17.
55.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p. 41, line 3.
56.
Ibid., pp. 148–9. al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 67 line 13 ff.
57.
Ibid., p. 67, lines 3–6.
58.
Ibid., p. 67, line 8.
59.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p. 41, line 6, p. 14, lines 7–8.
60.
Ibid., p. 41, line 6 ff.
61.
al-Juwaynī , al-Burhān, p. 1050, par. 1053 ff.
62.
Ibid., p. 1053, line 2 ff.
63.
al-Juwaynī , al-Burhān, p. 1050, par. 1053 ff.
64.
Ibid., p. 67, par. 159.
65.
Ibid,. p.131, lines 10–12. Ibn ‛Aqīl, al-Jadal , p. 158, par. 240.
66.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 140, lines 1–5. El² s.v. “Idjāra”.
67.
The example is based upon van Ess, Ici, p. 321.
68.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p. 163, par 349. Ibn ‛Aqīl, al-Jadal , p. 158/par. 245. Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, “Ma‛ūnat,” fol. 12a: 8–12.
69.
Ibid., fol.12a: 4 ff.
70.
Ibn ‛Aqīl, al-Jadal , p. 47, par. 240 ff.
71.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 68, lines 10–12.
72.
Ibid., p. 155.
73.
Abū Isḥaq al-Shīrazī, “Ma‛ūnat,” fol.15b: 16–17. al-Bājī, Minhāj, p. 178, line 10.
74.
Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, “Ma‛unat,” fol.15b: 16 ff. Cf. E. Gräf, Jagdbeute und Schlachttier im islamischen Recht (Bonn: Selbstverlag des Orientalischen Seminars der Universität Bonn, 1959), pp. 132–137.
75.
R. Volkmann, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer (Leipzig: Teubner, 1874), p. 243. Cf. Our remarks on mu‛āraḍa in our chapter on theological jadal .
76.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p. 178, par. 392.
77.
Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, “Ma‛ūnat,” fol.16b: 3–4.
78.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 68, line 13 ff.
79.
Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, “Ma‛ūnat,” fol.13a: 11.
80.
See note 46, supra, and text thereto.
81.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 9, line 5 ff.
82.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p. 195, par. 443.
83.
Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, “Ma‛ūnat,” fol.13a: l ff.
84.
al-Bāqillānī provides a nice example of qalb at Tamhīd. p. 156, lines 6–10. He notes that the Jews, Christians, and Magians object to the Muslim claim that Muhammad challenged the Arabs to bring forth verses on the same level of the Qur‛an, saying “How do you know that he actually challenged them?” The Muslim reply is to turn [qalb ] the question against them by saying “How do you know that Jesus and Moses and Zarathustra challenged their people to emulate their deeds?”
85.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 68, line -1: “Musāwāt al-khaṣm khaṣmahū fī mā yūriduhū ‛alā al-tanāfī.”
86.
Ibid., p. 217, line 3.
87.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p. 14, line 7.
88.
Cf. Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, “Ma‛ūnat,” fol.17a: 15–6. Ibn ‛Aqīl, al-Jadal, p. 143, par. 295. al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 225, line 14. al-Juwaynī attributes this view to Shāfi‛ites.
89.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p. 174, par. 385.
90.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 233, line -2 ff; cf. p. 253, par. 396. J. van Ess, “The Logical structure of Islamic theology,” Logic in Classical Islamic Culture, ed. G.E. von Grunebaum (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1970): 41.
91.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 217.
92.
Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, “Ma‛unat,” fol.17a: 17 ff. Cf. Ibn ‛Aqīl, al-Jadal , p. 143, par .297. al-Bājī, Minhāj, p. 176, par 388. There, at p.176, line 19, read al-taswīya for al-sawīya.
93.
The reference is to the practice of tayammum, using a substitute for water to perform the ritual ablution.
94.
Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, “Ma‛ūnat,” 17a: 17 ff. Cf. al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 238.
95.
Ibid., p. 238, lines 16–8.
96.
Ibid., p. 240, line 10 ff.
97.
Ibid., p. 241, par. 379.
98.
Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, “Ma‛ūnat,” fol.17a: 9 ff.
99.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 236, line 14 ff. Cf. EI² s. v. “Ḥādjdj.
100.
al-Juwaynī , al-Burhān, vol. 2, par. 1041.
101.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 69, line 1 ff. Cf. al-Juwaynī , al-Burhān, vol. 2, p. 977, lines 11–12. He defends it there as “the absence (takhāluf ) of the ḥukm with the presence of P’s alleged ‛illa. Cf. Abū Ish^.āq al-Shīrāzī, “Ma‛ūnat,” fol.14a: l ff. al-Bājī, Minhāj, p. 185, par. 412; p. 14, line 6.
102.
al-Juwaynī , al-Burhān, vol. 2, p. 977, line -2 ff.
103.
Cf. note 46, supra, and text thereto. Van Ess, Īcī, pp. 384 ff.
104.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 67, line -2.
105.
Ibid., pp. 67, line -2; 69, line 1; 132, line -2; 172 ff.; 133, line 3 ff.
106.
Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, “Ma‛ūnat,” fol.14b: 18 ff. al-Bājī, Minhāj, p. 191, line 3 ff. Ibn ‛Aqīl, al-Jadal , p. 140, par. 305 ff.
107.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, 212, line 5 ff.; cf. p. 264.
108.
Ibid. p. 213, line 11 ff.
109.
Ibid. p. 212, line 5 f.
110.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p. 173, par. 381 ff. Cf. Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, “Ma‛ūnat,” fol.15a: 4 ff.
111.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 69, line 5; cf. 161, line 4 ff.
112.
Ibid., p. 162, par. 258. Cf. El² s.v. “I‛tiḳāf.”
113.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 162, line 14.
114.
Ibid., p. 69, lines 7–8.
115.
Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, “Ma‛ūnat,” fol.18a: l ff. al-Bājī, Minhāj, p. 201, par. 456 ff.
116.
Ibid., par. 456.
117.
On this term, cf. van Ess, Īcī, p. 322.
118.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p. 202, par. 457.
119.
Ibid., p. 202, lines 3–4. Cf. al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 307, line 9 where the Ustādh Abū Isḥāq is probably al-Shīrāzī and not al-Isfarā’inī.
120.
Ibid., p. 69, lines 11–2. “Mumāna‛at al-khaṣm bi-da‛wā al-musāwā au musāwāt al-khaṣm fī da‛wā al-dalāla.”
121.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p. 14, line 7.
122.
Ibid., p. 213, par 343; p. 418, par. 604. Cf. above in our chapter on theological jadal .
123.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, pp. 412, line 9; 413, line 4; 413, line 6 ff.
124.
Ibid., 419, lines 2–5; of. p. 412, line 14.
125.
Ibid., p. 70, lines 17–8.
126.
Ibid., p. 131, line 6 ff.
127.
Ibid., p. 66, par. 59.
128.
Ibid., p. 132, line 8 ff.
129.
Cf. A. Badawi , Mu’allafāt al-Ghazzālī (Cairo: Dār al-Qalam, 1961) p. 32.
130.
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, “Kitāb al-Jadal,” fol.139a: 14 ff. MS.519/3 Köprülü, [Arab Leaugue (Tauḥīd wal-milal wal-niḥal) MS.191 Fihris al-Makhṭūṭāt al-Muṣauwara, ed. F. Saiyid (Cairo: Dār al-Riyāḍ, 1954),p. 135.] In the latter the passage occurs at 17a: 14 ff.
131.
Abū Manṣūr Muhammad b. Muḥammad al-Barawī al-Shāfi‛ī, “al-Muqtaraḥ fī al-muṣṭalaḥ,” fols. 30b: 1 ff; 46a: 2 ff; 51b: 6 ff.; 53b: 17 ff. MS.693 Escurial. His work is contained in a commentary on it by Taqī al-Dīn Muẓaffar b. A. al-‛Izz al-Shāfi‛ī, known under the nick-name of al-Muqṭaraḥ. For details, see van Ess, Īcī, p. 51–2.
132.
al-Rāzī, “al-Jadal,” 18a: 10 ff. [=140a: 10 Arab League microfilm.]
133.
Ibid., fol.18a: 14 ff. [=140 a: 14 ff. Arab League microfilm.]
134.
Ibn al-Ḥājib, Muntahā al-wuṣūl wal-amal fī ‛ilmai al-uṣul wal-jadal ed. M. Ḥalabī (Cairo: Maṭba‛at al-Sa‛āda, 1326), p. 141, line -3 ff. al-Rāzī’s fourth question is the “ineffective cause.” On b. al-Ḥājib, cf. Brockelmann, GAL I pp. 367 ff., SI pp. 531 ff.
135.
Ibid., p. 150, line 3 ff.
136.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 131, line 3 ff.
137.
Cf. above our chapter on the signs of defeat of the theologians. On good and bad digression cf. Ibn ‛Aqīl, K. al-Jadal, p. 133, par. 332; al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 551, par. 820 ff.
138.
al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, al-Faqīh, vol. 2, p. 57; al-Ju- wainī, al-Kāfiya, p. 553, lines 15 ff. Ibn Ḥaẓm, al-Taqrīb li-ḥadd al-manṭiq wal-madkhal ilaihī, ed. I. ‛Abbās (Beirut: Dār al-‛Ibād, 1959) p. 197, line 9.
139.
Ibn ‛Aqīl, K. al-Jadal, par. 335; Ibn Ḥaẓm, Taqrīb, p. 188, line 1 for this and the following note.
140.
Ibn ‛Aqīl, K. al-Jadal , par. 331, 336.
141.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 557, line 9 ff; p. 558, line 13 ff.
142.
Ibid., p. 556, linr -1 ff. Cf. Aristotle SE 161a26 ff.
143.
Ibn Ḥaẓm, Taqrīb, p. 196, line 5 ff.
144.
al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 558, line -3 ff.
145.
Ibid., p. 539, line 8 ff.
146.
Ibn Khaldūn, al-Muqaddima, ed. M. Quatremère, 3 vols. (Paris: Institut Imperial de France, 1858), vol. 3, p. 23, line -7 ff.; p. 24, line -6 ff. This has been translated by F. Rosenthal, The Muqaddimah (New York: Pantheon, 1958), pp. 30–34.
147.
Cf. Saiyid, Fihris, p. 253, Number 109. G. Makdisi, “Le Livre de la dialectique d‛Ibn ‛Aqīl,” BEO 20 (1967), pp. 119–20. al-Bājī, Minhāj, intro. by Turki, pp. 9 ff. Turki, Polémiques, pp. 32 ff.
148.
Brockelmann , GAL I, p. 568, SI, p. 785–6. G. Makdisi, The Rise of Colleges (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981), p. 109.
149.
Brockelmann, GAL SI p. 669, identifies him as al-Ḥu. M. b. A. al-Marwarrūdhī, but on MS.1523 (Fiqh Shāfi‛ī) Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣrīya, “Ṭarīqat al-khilāf baina al-Shāfi‛īya wal-Ḥanafīya ma‛a dhikr al-adilla li-kull minhumā,” he is identified as al-Ḥasan b. Shu‛aib al-Marwazī. Cf. Makdisi, Colleges, p. 120 and note 199.
150.
M. b. M. Raḍī al-Dīn al-Sarakhsī, “al-Ṭarīqa al-Raḍawīya,” MS.239 (Fiqh Ḥanafī), Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣrīya. Cf. Brockelmann, GAL I, p. 463, SI, p. 641. Makdisi, Colleges, pp. 108 ff., 118 ff.
151.
al-Marwazī, “Ṭarīqat,” fol.43b: 13, 46b: 16.
152.
al-Sarakhsī, “al-Ṭarīqa,” fol.4b: -3 ff.
153.
Ibid., “ammā qauluhū... qulnā lā nusallim” (fol.5b: 9–11); “la’in sallamnā... wa-lākin lima qultum....” (fol. 6a: 1–5).
154.
Ibid., “mā dhakartum min al-dalīl wa-in dalla ‛alā... wa-lākin hāhunā dalīl ākhar yadullu ‛alā l-musāwa bainahumā …” (fol.9b: 17 ff.).; cf. fol.13b: 10. This is an example of mu‛āraḍa in its classic formulation.
155.
Cf. al-‛Amīdī, “al-Ṭarīqa al-‛Amīdīya fī al-khilāf wal-jadal,” MS.236 (Fiqh Ḥanafī), Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣrīya.
156.
G. Makdisi, “The Scholastic Method in Medieval Education: An Inquiry into its Origins in Law and Theology,” Speculum 49 (1974): 650. Makdisi, Colleges, pp. 117 ff.
157.
The first book on purely juristic jadal was written by al-Qaffāl al-Shāshī (d. 976), student of Abū l-‛Abbās b. Suraij (d. 336/9). See, Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, Ṭabaqāt al-fuqahā’, p. 112. Makdisi, Colleges, pp. 108, 147. Sezgin, GAS I pp. 497–8.
158.
Makdisi , “Scholasticism,” p. 653.
159.
al-Bājī , Minhāj, p. 173, lines 5–6; 174, line −1; cf. 191, line 3: “al-kasr su‛āl ḥasan.”
160.
Rukn al-Dīn al-‛Amīdī, “al-Irshād,” fol.15b:2 ff., MS.650 Escurial. Copies of his “Ṭarīqa” reveal it to be a work on the furū‛ written in the style of the other ṭarīqas that we mentioned. On dawarān see van Ess, Īcī, pp. 384 ff. J. Mill, A System of Logic, ed. J. Robson, Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, vol. 7–8 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1973–4), vol. 7, p. 388. ‛A. al-Nashshār, Manāhij al-baḥth ‛inda mufakkirī l-islām 4th ed.(Cairo: Dār al-Ma‛ārif, 1978), p. 95. L. Jacobs, Studies in Talmudic Logic and Methodology (London: Valentine, 1961), p.12, where he relates this method to Rabbinic binyan ab.
161.
See The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy (CHMP), ed. N. Kretzmann, A. Kenny, J. Pinborg (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 300. In the vocabulary of Abelard, these are called consequentia. W. and M. Kneale, The Development of Logic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), pp. 216, 290, 292.
162.
Burhān al-Dīn al-Nasafī, “al-Muqaddima al-Burhānīya,” fol.44b:8 ff. MS.5168 (Lbg. 72), Staatsbibliothek, Berlin.
163.
See below.
164.
The example is taken from Aristotle APr. 25a14 ff. Cf. al-Fārābī, Kitāb al-qiyās al-saghīr, ed. M. Türker, in Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Cografya Dergisi 16 (1958), p. 271, line 11 ff. Avicenna, K. al-Maqūlāt, ed. G. Anawati et al., al-Shifā’:al-Manṭiq gen. ed. I. Madkour, vol. 2 (Cairo: Organisation Generale des Imprimeries Gouvermentales, 1959) p. 150, line 17. Idem, K. al-Qiyās, ed. S. Zā‛yid, al-Shifā’: al-Manṭiq vol. 4 (Cairo: Imprimerie Nationale, 1958), pp. 361 ff.
165.
I. Boh, “Consequences,” CHMP, p. 312 note 48, “In omni consequentia bona, quae non est syllogistica, ex opposito consequentis contradictorie sequitur oppositum antecedentis,” from Walter Burley.
166.
Nu‛mān al-Khwārizmī , “Sharḥ fuṣūl al-Nasafī,” fol.10b: 5 ff., MS.5167 (Mq.55), Staatsbibliothek, Berlin “know that an implication may be true in reality if it is between two true propositions or two false ones, or two propositions whose truth and falsehood is not known (i.e., future contingents) or between a false implicans and a true implicate; but not vice versa for this is impossible (muḥāl) due to the impossibility of what is false attaching itself as an implicate to what is true since it would necessarily follow from the “truth of what is false” the “falsity of what is true” (i.e., P –> Q and Q is false; therefore -Q –> -P). Since the truth of the implicans implicates the truth of the ‛implicate that is false,‛ and the falsehood of the implicate implicates the falsehood of the ‘implicans that is true’.”
167.
al-Nasafī, “al-Muqaddima,” 45b: 6 ff.
168.
In logic, the normal terms for antecedent and consequent are al-muqaddam and al-tālī.
169.
Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī , “Sharḥ al-Muqaddima al-Burhānīya,” fol.5b: 1 ff, MS.4396 Chester Beatty Library, Dublin. [For the proper identification of this MS, see below Chapter IV. Nu‛mān al-Khwārizmī offers another definition: implication expresses the impossibility of the realization of a thing except when another thing is realized and the first is called the implicans and the second the implicate (in al-Khwārizmī, “Sharḥ,” fol.9a: 11–12).
170.
On dhihnī cf. van Ess, Īcī, pp. 87,202.
171.
Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī , “Sharḥ,” fol.6a: 12 ff.
172.
Ibid., fol.6b: 15, “qad yakūnu idhā kāna al-ḥayawān maujūdan fal-insān maujūd .”
173.
Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī , “‛Ain al-naẓar fī al-manṭiq fī ‛ilm al-jadal,” fol. 1b: 15 ff. MS.1124 V (Or. 3730), British Museum Supplement, London. Another copy of this MS is probably contained in MS.6 (majmū‛), al-Maktaba al-Gharbīya bil-Jāmi‛ al-Kabīr, Sana, Yemen. There the title is listed as “Ghaib al-naẓar,” which is obviously a misprint. Cf. ‛Īsawī and Mālīḥ, Fihris, s.v. Ghaib al-naẓar .
174.
al-Nasafī, “al-Muqaddima,” fol.51a: 11 ff.
175.
al-‛Amīdī, “al-Irshād,” fol.19b: 11 ff.
176.
al-Nasafī, “al-Muqaddima,” fol.54a: 11 ff.
177.
Ibid., fol.54b: 1 ff.
178.
This fact could be equally derived from the Irshād’s being a short treatise on juristic jadal . We know from a short report from Hājjī Khalīfa that al-‛Amīdī produced another work on jadal —al-Nafā‛is (fī al-jadal), Kashf al-ẓunūn, Sh. Yaltkaya and R. Bilge, eds., 2 vols. (Istanbul: Maarif Matbaasi, 1941–3) vol. 2, p. 1966. A commentary on this work has survived. Cf. Brockelmann GAL S I p. 786, and Saiyid, Fihris, p. 332, no. 36.
179.
al-‛Amīdī, “al-Irshād,” fol.16a: 30 ff; al-Nasafī, ibid., also discusses the non-specific madār.
180.
al-Nasafī, “al-Muqaddima,” fol.50b: 13 ff.
181.
al-‛Amīdī, “al-Irshād,” fol.16a: 30 ff.
182.
Ibid., fol.16a: 5.
183.
Ibid., fol.17b: 3.
184.
Ibid., fol.17b: 9, “Lahu wujūh min al-taujīh.” Taujīh is a technical term for “formulating a reply or objection in debate.”
185.
Ibid., fol.20b: 6,32-3, “wa-wajhuhū an naqūla.” Wajhuhū is here synonymous with taujīhuhū.
186.
Ibid., fol.18a: 1 “in mana‛a.” 18 a 11, “lau mana‛a.”
187.
Ibid., fol.20b: 18, “lau kābara wa-mana‛a.” On mukābara see our chapter on the signs of defeat in theological jadal .
188.
al-‛Amīdī, “al-Irshād,” fol.17a: 28ff: “mā dhakartum min al-dalīl wa-in dalla ‛alā mā dhakartum min al-ḥukm fī ṣūrat al-nizā‛, fa-hāhunā dalīl ākhar yadullu ‛alā mā dhakarnā min al-ḥukm fi ṣūrat al-niza‛; fol.21a: 27, “mā dhakartum min al-dalīl in dalla ‛alā thubūt aḥad al-majmu‛ain, fa-ma‛anā dalīl ākhar yadullu ‛alā ghair...” Cf. fol.17b: 2, 25; 18a: 21.
189.
See above.
190.
See above.
191.
Taqī al-Dīn Abū al-‛Izz al-Muqtaraḥ, “al-Muqtaraḥ fī al-muṣṭalaḥ,” MS.693 Escurial. For more details, see van Ess, Īcī, pp. 51–2.
192.
al-Muqtaraḥ, ““al-Muṣṭalaḥ,”” fol.62b: 12 ff.
193.
Ibid., fol.64a: 9 ff.
194.
Avicenna, K. al-Qiyās , p. 234, line 18 ff., and N. Shehaby, The Propositional Logic of Avicenna (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1973), pp. 226–28.
195.
al-Muqtaraḥ, “al-Muṣṭalaḥ,” fol.60a: 12 ff.
196.
Ibid., fol.73a: 9 ff.
197.
al-Muqtaraḥ, “al-Muṣṭalaḥ,” fol.21b: 4 ff. On the vocalization sibr , cf. ‛Abd al-Nabī al-Ahmadnagarī, Dustūr al-‛ulūm, ed. M. al-Haidarābādī, 4 vols. (Hyderabad: Dā‛irat al-ma‛ārif al-Niẓāmīya, 1911–13), vol. 2, p. 161, line 3.
198.
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.125b: 1 ff. [= 3b: 5 ff., Arab League]. For details on this work see text related to note 87, infra.
199.
al-Muqtaraḥ, “al-Muṣṭalaḥ,” fol.74b: 15 ff. See supra, p. at note 4.
200.
Cf. van Ess, “Disputationspraxis,” p. 25, where he compares it to a modern political debate.
201.
al-Muqtaraḥ, “al-Muṣṭalaḥ,” fol.3b: 1. Although a similar remark is made by al-Juwaynī the idea has little effect upon his understanding of jadal and his formulation of its rules. Jadal is as it ever was an encounter between precisely two people. The increase in the number on participants in a debate indicates a rethinking about the meaning of debate and a consequent emphasis on its truth-theoretical (naẓarī) goals as opposed to practical-dialectical (jadalī) considerations.
202.
Eg., al-Juwaynī , al-Kāfiya, p. 547, par. 813.
203.
We have indirect confirmation from Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s disputations in F. Kholeif, A Study on Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī and His Controversies in Transoxiana (Beirut: Dar el-Machreq, 1966) where he says, “fa-qāla ba‛ḍu al-ḥadirīn ‛alā sabīl al-dakhl” (p. 11, line 5).
204.
Muhyī al-Dīn Jamāl al-Islām A. M.’s “al-Mukhtaṣar fī ‛ilm al-naẓar,” MS.1864 Feyzullah Efendi, Istanbul. Cf. R. Sheshen, Nawādir al-makhṭūṭāt al-‛arabīya fī maktabāt Turkiyā, 2 vols. at present (Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-Jadīd, 1975-), p. 408, Number 1328.
205.
Ibn Mi‛mār, “al-Mukhtaṣar fī ‛ilm al-jadal,” MS.2421, Atif Efendi, Istanbul. Cf. Sheshen, Nawādir, p. 183.
206.
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, “Kitāb al-jadal,” MS.519 Köprülü. Cf. Sheshen, Nawādir, p. 283, Number 1132. Brockelmann, GAL I pp. 666–9, SI pp. 920–4. Saiyid, Fihris, p. 135. F. Kholeif, Disputations of al-Rāzī, p. 9 and p. 203 Number 111 where he cites from al-Qifṭī a work entitled al-Ṭarīqa fī al-jadal .
207.
Ibn Mi‛mār, “al-Mukhtaṣar,” fol.1b, “ammā al-muqaddima, fa-tashtamilu ‛alā qismain, al-auwal fī ḥaqīqat al-jadal wal-munāẓara wa-fā‛idat dhālika wa-aqsāmihī wa-aḥkāmihī.”
208.
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, “Kitāb al-jadal,” fol.1b: 4. “al-faṣl al-auwal fī bayān ma‛nā al-jadal;” 2b: 14 ff, “al-faṣl al-thānī fī bayān fā‛idat al-jadal wa-ādāb ihī.”
209.
Avicenna, al-Jadal , p. 7. K. al-Jadal, ed. F. al- Ahwānī, al-Shifā’: al-Manṭiq, gen. ed. I. Madkour, vol. 6 (Cairo, Organisme General des Imprimeries Gouvermentales, 1965) “al-faṣal al-auwal fī ma‛rifat al-qiyās al-jadalī wa-manfa‛atihī;” p. 15, “al-faṣl al-thānī fī al-sabab alladhī yusammā lahū hādha al-ḍarb min al-maqāyīs jadalīya.”
210.
Ibn Mi‛mār, “al-Mukhtaṣar,” fol.3b: 1. “fa-qīla huwa tafāwuḍ baina mutanāzi‛ain fa-ṣā‛idan li-taḥqīq ḥaqq au li-ibṭāl bāṭil au li-taghlīb ẓann.”
211.
Ibn Mi‛mār, “al-Mukhtaṣar,” fol.3b: -1 ff.
212.
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, “Kitāb al-jadal,” fol.1b: 10–11 [= 123b:10–11 Arab League], “fa-qad aurada al-Ghazzālī fī al-Muntakhal annahū tafāwuḍ yajrī baina mutanāzi‛ain li-taḥqīq ḥaqq au li-ibṭāl bāṭil au li-taghlīb ẓann;” for other uses of the root, cf. F. Jabre, Essai sur le lexique de Ghazali (Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1970), pp. 47–9.
213.
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, “Kitāb al-jadal,” fol.1b: 14–15 [= 123b:14–15 Arab League].
214.
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, “Kitāb al-jadal,” fol.124a: 12 [= 2a: 12 Arab League], “...min haithu al-nakar wal-‛inād wa-ikhfā‛ al-ḥaqq. al-Rāzī previously gave the meaning of jadal as “tabyīn mā yustaqbaḥ min al-mutanāẓirain fī sharī‛at al-jadal min haithu al-īrād” at fol.124a: 6–7 [= 2a: 6–7 Arab League].
215.
Aristotle Top. 161a37 ff. (trans. from Loeb).
216.
Muḥyī al-Dīn, “Mukhtaṣar,” fol.2b ff.
217.
Ibn Mi‛mār, “al-Mukhtaṣar,” fol.4a ff.
218.
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, “Kitāb al-jadal,” fol.124b: 17 ff. [= 2b: 17 ff. Arab League].
219.
M. Mahdi, “Language and Logic in Classical Islam,” G. von Grunebaum, ed., Logic in Classical Islamic Culture (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1970), pp. 62, 64.
220.
Avicenna, al-Madkhal, ed. G. Anawati, al-Shifā’: al-Manṭiq, gen ed. I. Madkour, vol. 1 (Cairo: Imprimerie Nationale, 1956), p. 20, line 13 ff.
221.
Muḥyī al-Dīn, “Mukhtaṣar,” fol.5a: 3 ff.
222.
Ibid., fol.5b ff. Cf. Vajda, “Autour de la théorie de la connaissance chez Saadia,” REJ 126 (1967): 286 ff.
223.
Ibn Mi‛mār, “al-Mukhtaṣar,” fol.5a ff, 37a ff., 51b ff.
224.
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, “Kitāb al-jadal,” fol.126b: 12 ff [= 4b: 12 ff. Arab League].
225.
Muḥyī al-Dīn, “Mukhtaṣar,” fol.16a: 3 ff.
226.
Ibid., fol.16b ff.
227.
Ibn Mi‛mār, “al-Mukhtaṣar,” fol.156b: 3 ff.
228.
Ibid., fol.69a ff.
229.
Ibid., fol.69a: 3 ff.
230.
Aristotle SE 166a24-6.
231.
On al-Nasafī’s biography cf. Brockelmann GAL I p. 467 SI p. 849; Kh. Kaḥḥāla, Mu‛jam al-mu‛allifīn,15 vols. (Damascus: Maṭba‛at al-Taraqqī, 1957–61), vol. 11, p. 297. Hājji Khalīfa, Kashf, p. 1798, line -1; p. 1272, line 5; cf. Saiyid, Fihris p. 222, no. 223. R. Sellheim, Arabische Handschriften. Materialen zur arabischen Literatturgeschichte, vol. 1 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1976), p. 163. al-Nasafī’s importance for the history of dialectic has been noted by G. Makdisi in “Le Livre de Dialectique,” p. 109; and “The Tanbīh of Ibn Taimīya on Dialectic,” Medieval and Middle Eastern Studies in Honor of A. S. Atiya, ed. S. Hanna (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972).
232.
As Ḥājji Khalīfa points out, they are the same work, cf. preceding note.
233.
That he was at one time al-Nasafī’s student becomes clear from the remark which he makes in the commentary “wa-sami‛tu al-muṣannif ajāba ‛an hādha bi-wajhain” (Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī , “Sharḥ,” fol.5b: 10–11). If we are right in presuming that al-Samarqandī was born and raised in Samarqand, it would not be surprising that he studied in Nasaf, a town not so distant from Samarqand.
234.
Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī , “Sharḥ,” fol.1b ff.
235.
See our discussion in the beginning of this Chapter on “Question and Answer”.
236.
Cf. above on theological mu‛āraḍa.
237.
al-Nasafī, “al-Muqaddima,” fol.43a: 10 ff.
238.
Aristotle Topics 163b6; SE 169b27.
239.
al-Khwārizmī, “Sharḥ,” fol.5a: 12–14.
240.
al-Aḥmadnagarī, Dustūr, vol. 3, pp. 337–8.
241.
al-Nasafī, “al-Muqaddima,” 43b: 17 ff.
242.
al-Nasafī, “al-Muqaddima,” fol.43a: 17 ff.
243.
al-‛Amīdī, “Irshād,” fol.19a: 28–9.
244.
Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī , “Sharḥ,” fol.3b: 1, al-Khwārizmī, “Sharḥ,” fol.6a: 14 ff.
245.
Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī , “Sharḥ,” fol.3a: 5 ff.
246.
al-Nasafī, “al-Muqaddima,” fol.42b: 12 ff.
247.
Ibid., fol.43a: 4 ff.
248.
Burhān al-Dīn al-Nasafī, “al-Muqaddima al-Burhānīya,” fol.1b, MS.2246 (Yahuda Collection), Princeton University Library, Princeton, N.J. (Henceforth, “al-Muqaddima [Yahuda].)”
249.
Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī , “Sharḥ,” fol.2b: 3–4.
250.
Burhān al-Dīn al-Nasafī, “al-Muqaddima [Yahuda],” fol.1b.
251.
Burhān al-Dīn al-Nasafī, “al-Muqaddima [Yahuda],” fol.1b: 8 ff.
252.
Ibid., fol.1b: 11 ff.
253.
Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī , “Sharḥ,” fol.4a. Cf. al-Nasafī, “al-Muqaddima,” fol.44a: 6 ff. “huwa alladhī yalzam min al-‛ilm bihī al-‛ilm bi-wujūd al-madlūl .”
254.
Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī, Sharḥ, fol.4a: 18 ff, “huwa alladhī yalzam min al-‛ilm bihī al-‛ilm bi-shai’in ākhar.”
255.
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Muḥaṣṣal afkār al-mutaqaddimīn wal-muta’akhkhirīn, ed. T. Sa‛ad (Cairo, Maktabat al-Kulliyāt al-Azharīya, n.d.), p. 50, line 12 ff.
256.
‛Alī b. Muḥammad al-Jurjānī, Ta‛rīfāt (Istanbul: Maṭba‛at Aḥmad Kāmil, 1327), s.v. dalīl .
257.
al-Nasafī, “al-Muqaddima,” fol.44b: 1 ff; cf. Īcī, p. 359.
258.
Eustratius, In Analyticorum posteriorum librum secundum commentarium, ed. M. Hayduck, CAG, vol. 21,1 (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1907), p. 3, line 34. John Philoponus, In Analytica posteriora commentaria, ed. M. Wallies, CAG, vol. 13,3 (Berlin,: G. Reimer, 1909), p. 334, line 20.
259.
Aristotle APo . Book II.1.
260.
al-Khwārizmī, “Sharḥ,” fol.7b: 9 f.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Queens, NY, USA
Larry Benjamin Miller

Authors

Larry Benjamin Miller
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Miller, L.B. (2020). Dialectic (Jadal) in Jurisprudence. In: Islamic Disputation Theory. Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning, vol 21. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45012-0_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45012-0_4
Published: 14 July 2020
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-45011-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-45012-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics