The Ādāb Al-Baḥth

Miller, Larry Benjamin

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-45012-0_5

Larry Benjamin Miller³⁰

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

173 Accesses

Abstract

Out of the traditions of juristic and philosophical dialectics there arose a new theory of dialectics or disputation, the ādāb al-baḥth or general theory of disputation. In this chapter, we shall discuss the ādāb al-baḥth and relate it to the traditions from which it took its inspiration. In this chapter, I try to show how ādāb al-baḥth emerged as an independent intellectual discipline and literary genre by adopting concepts from Aristotelean logic and philosophy as well as rules formulated in the context of both juridical and theological dialectics. Al-Samarqandī’s combined these traditions principally by his application of Aristotle’s epistemology to the rules of debate.

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.
The correct date is provided in Sheshen, “Tawqīʿāt Athīr al-Dīn al-Abharī wa-Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī ”, in Yūsuf Zaydān (ed.), al-Makhṭūṭāt al-Muwaqqaʿa (al-Iskandariyya, 2008), 151 correcting Miller, “al-Samarḳandī, Shams al-Dīn,” EI².
2.
For other information about his biography and dates, see Sellheim, Arabische Handschriften: Materialen zur Arabischen Literaturgeschichte, 162–3. Ismail Pasha Baghdatli claims that he saw a copy of al-Samarqandī ’s commentary on al-Nasafī’s Muqaddima that was finished in the year 690 [A.H] in Baghdatli, Hadīyat al-Ārifīn, ed. Bilge and Inal, 106. For further bibliographical information, cf.: Al-Sāwī, al-Tabṣira ya-dū risāla-i dīgar dar manṭiq, 14–15 and Dilgan, “Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī,” Encyclopedia of Men of Science . Anawati, Muʽallafāt Ibn Sīnā, 11. Ḥājji Khalīfa, Kashf al-Zunūn, 2:1803, line 16 ff. claims that al-Samarqandī taught in Mārdin. See also Al-Kaḥḥāla, Muʽjam al-muʾallifīn, 9:63. ʽAbd al-Razzāq, Talkhīṣ majmaʽ al-ādāb fī muʽjam al-alqāb, 4, pt. 2: 719 mentions the dedicatee of al-Samarqandī’s Sharḥ al-Qusṭās , ʽImād al-Dīn al-Khidr b. Ibrāhīm al-Muʾminī as the dedicatee of Sirāj al-Dīn al-Urmawī’s Sharḥ k. al—Qusṭās [!]. For information on al-Samarqandī ’s scientific activity, cf. Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, 5: 99, 114 and 6: 94.
3.
Al-Samarqandī , al-Risāla al-Samarqandīya fī ādāb al–baḥth . It is uncertain whether this was the title that al-Samarqandī gave to this treatise. There exists a copy of another treatise that is probably the same as this one in the MS collection in Sana’a, Yemen. Cf. ʽ Isawī and al-M āliḥ, eds., Fihris al-makhṭūṭāt al-Maktaba al-Gharbīya bil-Jāmiʽ al-Kabīr bil-Ṣanʽā’ s.v. “al-Munya wal-amal.”
4.
Ḥājji Khalīfa, Kashf, 1:39, line 12 ff.
5.
Al-Samarqandī , Sharḥ al-Muqadimma al-Burhānīya, fol.4a: 17. Although Arberry lists this as an anonymous commentary in The Chester Beatty Library: A Handlist of the Arabic Manuscripts, 5 q.v. no. 4396, the internal evidence shows that it was written by al-Samarqandī . At fol.9a: 3–4, he refers to his treatment of talāzum in the Qusṭās . So, too, the commentators on the Risāla, such as at-Bihishtī al-Isfarāʾinī (d. ca, 1494), cite al-Samarqandī’s definition from his commentary on al-Nasafī’s Muqaddima and it is the same as in our text. He also repeats his teaching on ādāb al-baḥth within the commentary, fol.4a: 5 ff. Further confirmation for this attribution comes from MS.438 (Fiqh Taimūr), Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣrīya, which contains another slightly mutilated copy of al-Samarqandī ’s commentary with the same incipit: “Basmala al-ḥamdu lil-lāh rabb al-ʽālamīn…wa-baʽdu, fa-inna al-saʽādāt l-ʽājila wal-karāmāt al-ājila manūṭa bi-iktisāb al-ʽilm wa-huwa immā taṣauwur au ḥukm wal-taṣauwur….” As for the works he cites, all but the last can be identified and survive. For the Muʽtaqadāt, there is one copy from the year 743 in the ʽĀrif Ḥikmat library in Medina, Majāmīʽ, no.206, 35 fols. Cf. RIMA 23, fasc. 2 (1977) p. 21 entry 254.
6.
Al-Samarqandī , Qusṭās al-Afkār, MS.3399. Cf. Fihris al-Makhṭūṭāt al-Muṣauwara, ed. F. Saiyid, vol. 1. Incipit: “wa-baʽdu fa-hādhā al-kitāb jāmiʽ li-qawānin al-manṭiq auradnā fīhī jumalan wāfiyatan wa-uṣūlan kāfiyatan…wa-samaināhū Qusṭās al-afkār fī taḥrīr al-asrār.” This MS is the earliest copy of the Qusṭās that I know of. It was written in Ramaḍān of the year 690 A.H. The 0“wa-baʽdu fa-inna ḥuṣūl al-saʽādāt al-abadīya wal-ladhāt al-sarmadīya innamā yatawaqqaʽu bi-iktisāb al-kāmālāt al-ʽilmīya wa-iqtinā’ al-faḍā’il al-ʽamalīya wa-dhālika mauqūf ʽalā saḥīḥ al-naẓar ….wa-qad ṣanaftu fīmā maḍḍā kitāb al-Qusṭās fī al-manṭiq mushtamilan ʽalā khulāṣat arā’ al-mutaqaddimīn wal-muta’akhkhirīn maʽa abḥāth badīʽa wa-shukūk manīʽa lā maḥīṣa li-ṭālib al-ḥaqq ʽan taʽallumihā. …”; a downloadable copy of the Sharḥ al-Qusṭās , Landberg 1035, Ahlwardt 5166 [Digitalisierte Sammlungen der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (Preußischer Kulturbesizt): Werkansicht - PPN741370395] is now available online at http:// digital.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de. The section on the ādāb al-baḥth begins at 40v 11 lines from the bottom of the page. For a list of the commentaries on al-Samarqandī ’s work see Wisnovsky, “The nature and scope of Arabic philosophical commentary in post-classical (ca. 1100–1900 AD) Islamic intellectual history: Some preliminary observations,” 169–70.
7.
al-Samarqandī , Qusṭās , fo1.59a: 1 ff
8.
Ibid, fol.59a: 2 ff.
9.
Walzer , Greek into Arabic, 239 ff. Al-Farabi’s Commentary and Short Treatise on Aristotle’s De Interpretatione, xxii. While the tradition was Aristotelian, the model seems to have been Avicenna’s al-Ish ārāt wal-tanbīhāt, an extremely popular and much commented upon summary of the whole of Aristotle’s logic. For commentaries, cf. Anawati, Mu’allafāt, 9 ff.
10.
M. b. Namwār Al-Khunajī, Kashf al-asrār ʽan ghawāmiḍ al-afkār, cf. GAL I 607; SI, 838. His dates are 1194–1249. Al- Samarqandī refers to al-Khunajī’s work throughout his Sharh al-Qusṭās . He also refers to al-Rāzī’s Mulakhkhaṣ fī al-manṭiq wal-ḥikma , Arab League MS.376 (manṭiq). For al-Urmawī, ċf. GAL I 614; Sl, 848: Al-Urmawī wrote a treatise on juristic dialectics, al-Wasā’i1 ilā taḥqīq al-dalā’i1, MS.2304/1, fol.lb-45b. Cf. Sheshen, Nawādir al-makhṭūṭāt al-ʽarabīya fī maktabāt Turkiyā, 84, Number 830.
11.
Avicenna, al-Ishārāt wal-tanbīhāt, 1: 510 ff. Al-Urmawī, Maṭāliʽ al-Anwār, 349.
12.
See preceding chapter on juristic dialectics.
13.
Ibn Ḥazm, al-Taqrīb li-ḥadd al-manṭiq wal-madkhal ilaihī, ed. I. ʽAbbās (Beirut: Dār al-ʽIbād, 1959), p. 185, line 20 ff.
14.
Badawi , Manṭiq Arisṭū, 2: 492, note 7; Arist. Top.101b2-3.
15.
Ibn Ḥazm, Taqrīb 182, line 9; cf. 198, lines 15–17. At 182, line 10, I read tadhākur instead of tadhakkur of the text relying on Makdisi, The Rise of Colleges, 103–4, where he explains the practice of mudhākara. Whatever the reading, the meaning is clear. The passage that Makdisi cites indicates that the practice of mudhākara derives from or is parallel to a Jewish traditional practice—recalling the exodus from Egypt (sipūr bi-yeẓi’at Miẓrayim). In the Passover Haggadah we learn that four Rabbis were so deeply engaged in this “recalling” that they passed the entire night doing so until someone came reminding them that it was already time for the morning prayer (zeman li-qirī’at ha-Shema). In al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī’s account, people discuss problems of the law until someone calls and reminds them that it is time for the morning prayer (al-fajr): Kasher, ed., Israel Passover Haggadah, 54. Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, K. al-Faqīh wal-muṭafaqqih, 2: 128–9.
16.
Van Ess, Die Erkenntnislehre des ʽAḍudaddīn al-Īcī, 239 and index s.v. naẓar . Cf. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, 2812b.
17.
al-Samarqandī , Qusṭās , fo1.59a: 8 ff. Cf. Aristotle, De Int.16al-4 with Zimmermann, Farabi, 10ff.
18.
al-Samarqandī , Qusṭās , fol.59a: 12 ff. Aristotle, Topics 101a5. The order of this classification is unique. The only list that resembles it is that of Ibn Khaldūn (d. 1406). Cf. Anawati and Gardet, Introduction à la théologie musulmane, 94 ff. and 123 as well as Anawati, “Classification des sciences et structure des summae chez les auteurs musulmans,” 61 ff.
19.
al-Ṣaḥā’if al-ilāhīya, ed. al-Sharīf.; al-Maʽārif fī al-Ṣaḥā’if.” Cf: GAL 1: 850.
20.
Cf. n. 2, 3
21.
Al-Samarqandī , Qusṭās , fol.59a21 ff.
22.
Aristotle, APo. 90a6 ff.
23.
On these terms cf. Van Ess, Īcī, 371. Al-Fārābī, Kitāb al-Alfāẓ al-mustaʽmala fī al-manṭiq, 78, lines 23 ff.
24.
Al-Samarqandī , Qusṭās , fol.59b: 6 ff. Al-Samarqandī refers to other defects in definition “that are detailed in (our) logic,” but they are apparently brought in one of the two “types” of objection: Ibid., fol.59b:1 ff.
25.
This definition is found in the earliest commentary on the al-Risāla al-Samarqandīya by M. b. A. al-Bihishtīal-Isfarā’inī (d. 1348). Cf. Mach, Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts (Yahuda Section) in the Garrett Collection, MS.3482, fol.25a: 25 “li-anna al-manʽ ṭalab al-</Emphasis>dalīl wa-kull mā lam yakun ʽalaihī dalīl lā yatawajjah ʽalaihī al-manʽ.”
26.
Al-Samarqandī , Sharḥ al-Qusṭās , fol.165a: 3 ff., MS.4767
27.
Ibid., fol.165a: 7 ff.
28.
al-Juwainī, al-Kāfīya fī al-jadal , 67, line 15. Cf. Chap. 4, supra, on manʽ in juristic dialectics.
29.
Cf. Chap. 4, supra, on naqḍ in juristic dialectics.
30.
al-Samarqandī , Qusṭās , fo1.59b: 15ff.
31.
Madhāhib can refer to the opinions of any school of thought; but it is generally used to refer to the interpretations of the Shariʽa of any of the legal schools.
32.
See infra.
33.
Ibid., fol. 59b: 22 ff.
34.
That is, statements that are either true or false.
35.
Ibid., fol. 59b: 20.
36.
al-Samarqandī , Sharḥ al-Muqaddima, fol.2b: 3 ff.
37.
al-Samarqandī, Risāla, p. 126, lines 8–9.
38.
al-Nasafī, al-Muqaddima al-Burhāniya, MS.4396 at the top of al-Samarqandī’s commentary, fol. 2a: 2.
39.
al-Samarqandī: Qusṭās , fol.60a: 6 ff.; al-Risāla, 126, line 14; Sharḥ al-Muqaddima, fol,4a: 8–9. The terms mustanad and sanad were both used. Cf. Al-Ahmadnagarī, Dustūr al-ʿulūm, 2:187, line 1.
40.
al-Samarqandī : Qusṭās , fol.60a: 7; Sharḥ al-Qusṭās, fol.166a: 10–12; al-Risāla, p. 126, line 15–17.
41.
al-Samarqandī : Qusṭās , fol.59b: −1 ff.; Sharḥ al-Muqaddima, fol.4a: p. 126, line 17.
42.
al-Samarqandī: Qusṭās , fol.60a: 1 ff.; Sharḥ al-Qusṭās , fol.166a: 5 ‘ff.; Sharḥ al-Muqaddima, fol.4a: 8; 2b: 16 ff.; al-Risāla, p. 126, lines 18–19. On the concept of randomness (khabṭ ) cf. van Ess, Īcī, pp. 37, 40.
43.
Cf. note 37.
44.
Ḥukm is a notoriously difficult word to translate. In logic it means “judgment” or in the terminology of modern logic “statement.” But in our case it appears that he is using ḥukm in its juristic sense, legal qualification. The matter is made even more difficult because in theology it is often used in the sense of quality or attribute: cf. Frank, Beings and their Attributes, index s.v. ḥukm.
45.
al-Samarqandī : Qusṭās ,” fol. 608: 9–11; Sharḥ al–Qusṭās , fol.166a 13–15; al-Risāla, p. 126, lines 21–2; Sharḥ al-Muqaddima, fol,4a: 10–1.
46.
Cf. n. 40.
47.
Aristotle Topics 161a25 ff. The usual word to express this in Greek is duskolainein or duskolia (literally dyspeptic or ill-temperedness), which in Aristotle describes “a psychological state arising in oral dialectic, and results from the humiliation of being publicly trapped in absurdity,” on which see Allen, “Zeno, Aristotle, the Racetrack and Achilles: A Historical Philosophical Investigation,” 29. The word is translated into Arabic as follows: ṣaʽʽaba Top. 112a12; taṣaʽʽaba SE 174a33, 175b35 (Y.); ṣaʽūba SE 180b5; iʽtāṣa Top. 156b34–6, 161 b 9; maḥaka Top. 160b4, 11; mumāḥaka Top. 160b6; taʽassafa Top. 160b3; taʽassara SE 174a33, 175b35 (bZ); mushākasa Top. 161a23; shaghab SE 174a33, 175b35.
48.
See our discussion in Chap. 2 on the “signs of defeat” of the theologians.
49.
al-Samarqandī: Qusṭās , fol.60a: 11 ff.; Sharḥ al-Qusṭās, fol. 166a: 16 ff.; Sharḥ al-Samarqandī, fol. 4a: 11 ff.; al-Risāla, p. 126, line 22 ff. al-Samarqandī: Qusṭās , fol.60a: 11 ff.; Sharḥ al-Qusṭās, fol. 166a: 16 ff.; Sharḥ al-Samarqandī, fol. 4a: 11 ff.; al-Risāla, p. 126, line 22 ff. al-Samarqandī : Qusṭās , fol.60a: 11 ff.; Sharḥ al-Qusṭās, fol. 166a: 16 ff.; Sharḥ al-Samarqandī, fol. 4a: 11 ff.; al-Risāla, p. 126, line 22 ff.
50.
See our discussion in Chap. 4.
51.
al-Samarqandī : Qusṭās , fol.60a: 15 ff.; Sharḥ al-Qusṭās, fol.166a: 20 ff.; al-Risāla, p. 126, line-1 ff.
52.
See our discussion on al-Nasafī’s Muqaddima, supra.
53.
al-Samarqandī: Qusṭās , fol.60b: 5 ff.; Sharḥ al-Qusṭās, fol.166b: 11 ff. Cf. al-Baghdādī, K. al-Faqīh, 2: 32, line 9.
54.
al-Samarqandī : Qusṭās ,” fol.60a: 21. Sharḥ al-Qusṭās, fol.166b: 1 ff.; al-Risāla, p.127, line 18 ff.
55.
al-Samarqandī: Qusṭās, fol.60b: 15; Sharḥ al-Qusṭās, fol.166b: 21 ff.
56.
al-Samarqandī: Qusṭās, fol.60b: 18 ff.; Sharḥ al-Qusṭās, fol.166b: 2 ff.
57.
al-Samarqandī: Qusṭās , fol.60b: 18 ff.; Sharḥ al-Qusṭās, fol.166b: 2 ff.
58.
Cf. note 52 Cf. note 52.
59.
al-Samarqandī : Qusṭās , fol.61a: 4 ff.; Sharḥ al-Qusṭās, fol.167a: 7 ff.
60.
Al-Jurjānī , Taʽrīfāt, 44.
61.
al-Samarqandī : Qusṭās , fol.60a: 1 ff.; Sharḥ al-Qusṭās , fol.166b: 4 ff.; al-Risāla, p.127, line 11 ff. On the equivalence of mabda’ and ʽilla here, see below our discussion of the maqāṭiʽ. On the confusion of ontology and causation associated with dalīl , see S. van den Bergh, EI², s.v. “Dalīl”.
62.
Aristotle Topics 161a9–11.
63.
al-Samarqandī : Qusṭās , fol.61a: ff. Cf. Sharḥ al-Qusṭās, fol.167a: −2 ff.
64.
al-Samarqandī, Qusṭās , fol.61a: 19 ff.
65.
Ibid., fol.61a: 22–3. Ibid., fol.61a: 22–3.
66.
Ibid., fol.61a: 23 ff.
67.
Ibid., fol.61b: 3–5.
68.
Avicenna, al-Ishārāt wal-tanbīhāt, 78, line 10 ff. Citation from Goichon, Lexique de la langue philosophique d’ibn Sina, 32 ff.
69.
al-Samarqandī , Qusṭās , fol.61b: 6 ff.
70.
Ibid., fol,61b: 9 ff.
71.
Ibid., fol.61b: 10–11.
72.
al-Samarqandī, Sharḥ al-Qusṭās , fol.168a: 4ff. Cf; Avicenna, K. al-Jadal , 6:313, line 15 ff.
73.
al-Samarqandī , Qusṭās , fol.61b: 22 ff.
74.
On the term “warrants” see Toulmin, The Uses of Argument, 98 ff.
75.
al-Samarqandī, Qusṭās , fol.62a: 1 ff.
76.
Ibid., fol.62a: 12 ff. Cf. Sharḥ al-Qusṭās , fol.169a: 10 ff.
77.
Aristotle APo . 72b18 ff.
78.
See Chap. 2, supra.
79.
See Chap. 3, supra.
80.
al-Samarqandī , Sharḥ al-Muqaddima, fol.4b: 16–17.
81.
Ibid., fol.5a: 4ff.
82.
Gethmann , Protologik, 34–5; O stands for Opponent.
83.
Ibid., p. 37–38.
84.
Ibid., pp. 40–1. Ibid., pp. 40–1.
85.
Lorenz , “Arithmetik and Logik als Spiele,” 28.
86.
Alexy , Theorie der juristischen Argumentation.
87.
Al-Samarqandī , Qusṭās , fol.63a: 10 ff.
88.
Literally, “questions” but it also takes on the meaning of questions or problems (Gr. problemata) about which there is no one generally accepted view; cf. Arist. Top. 101b28 ff.
89.
al-Samarqandī, al-Risāla, 125, lines 12–4.
90.
Cf. notes 32–35 for details.
91.
al-Samarqandī , al-Risāla, p. 125, lines 16–9. On al-Nasafī see the discussion in the chapter on juristic dialectics, supra.
92.
Al-Shirwānī al-Rūmī, Sharḥ ʽalā al-Risāla al-Samarqandīya, fol.3a: 8 ff., MS.4253. Cf. al-Bihishtī al-Isfarā’īnī, Sharh ʽalā al-Risāla al-Samarqandīya, fol.16a: 21ff., MS.3482. Al-Kīlānī, Sharh ʽalā al-Risāla al-Samarqandīya, fol.4a: 4 ff., MS.724.
93.
Ibid., fol.4b: 7 ff.
94.
Al-Kāshī, Qara Ḥāshīya, fol.46b: 9–10, MS.3482.
95.
Al-Kīlānī, Sharḥ, fol.5a: 2 ff.
96.
al-Samarqandī , al-Risāla, p. 126, lines 3–6.
97.
Al-Samarqandī, Sharḥ, fol. 19 b ff.
98.
Al-Kīlānī, Sharḥ, fol. 9b: 13 ff.; cf. 9a: 8–10.
99.
Ibid., fol. 8b: 12–3; −2 ff.
100.
Al-Samarqandī , al-Risāla, p. 125, line −1 ff. At 126, line 2 read tarattub for tartīb .
101.
See section in Chap. 4 on Nasafī, supra.
102.
al-Samarqandī , Sharḥ al-Muqadimma, fol.5a: −3.
103.
See text accompanying footnote 82, supra.
104.
Ibid., fol. 17a: 13 ff.; cf. al-Isfarā’īnī, Sharḥ, fol.22a: 10–11.
105.
al-Samarqandī , al-Risāla, p. 126, lines 3–6.
106.
Ibid., p. 127, line 21 ff.
107.
Ibid., p. 130, line 7.
108.
Ibid., p. 130, line 22 ff.
109.
110 Ibid., p. 131, line 16 ff.
110.
See Chap. 4.

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

Additional information

Special thanks to the late David Eisenberg and Walter Edward Young for assistance in adding additional references and assisting me with updating the chapter. I am responsible for whatever faults have crept in or remain in this newer version. Recent literature discussing Samarqandī and the ādāb al-baḥth include: Dominique “Scientific Controversies; the foregoing is a translation “Al-Samarqandī . Un précurseur de l’analyse des controverse scientifiques”; Karabela, “The Development of Dialectic and Argumentation Theory in Post-Classical Islamic Intellectual History” (Karabela argues for a more substantial contribution to the genre by Samarqandī’s successors); it also contains an edition of Samarqandī ’s Risāla; Pehlivan and Ceylan, “Ādābu’l-Baḥs Devrimine Doğru Son Evrim: Burhānuddīn en-Nesefī’nin el-Fuṣūl’ü” (this article includes an edition of Nasafī’s Fuṣūl).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Miller, L.B. (2020). The Ādāb Al-Baḥth. In: Islamic Disputation Theory. Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning, vol 21. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45012-0_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45012-0_5
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