Abstract
The present chapter examines al-Shīrāzī’s classification of correlational inferences by indication (qiyās al-dalāla) and resemblance (qiyās al-shabah) based on pinpointing specific relevant parallelisms between rulings or resemblances between properties. These forms of inferences, sometimes broadly referred to as arguments by analogy (or better by the Latin denomination arguments a pari) are put into action when there is absence of knowledge of the occasioning factor grounding the application of a given ruling. These forms of correlational inferences should make the process of transferring the relevant juridical ruling from the root-case to the branch-case plausible. The plausibility of a conclusion attained by parallelism between rulings (qiyās al-dalāla) is considered to be of a higher epistemic degree than the conclusion obtained by resemblances based on sharing properties (qiyās al-shabah). Conclusions obtained by either qiyās al-dalāla or qiyās al-shabah have a lower degree of epistemic plausibility than conclusions inferred by the deployment of qiyās al-‘illa.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See al-Shīrāzī (2016), Mulakhkhaṣ fī al-jadal, fol. 5a.
- 2.
Cf. Young (2017, p. 109).
- 3.
Some other jurists also called it qiyās al-shabah. However, for al-Shirazi qiyās al-shabah denominates a subtype of qiyās al-dalāla. Moreover, as we discuss further on, al-Shirazi seems to be inclined to consider qiyās al-shabah as a separate form of qiyās.
- 4.
See al-Shīrāzī, Mulakhkhaṣ fī al-jadal, fol. 5a.
- 5.
Cf. Young (2017, p. 115).
- 6.
Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī (2003, pp. 99-101).
- 7.
For the dialectical structure of qiyās al-‘illa, see the chapter II of the present book and Rahman/Iqbal (2018).
- 8.
Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī (1988, p. 806). Notice that this strategy deploys a comparison.
- 9.
Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī (1987, p. 37).
- 10.
Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī (1988, pp. 809-810).
- 11.
- 12.
Al-Shīrāzī (1988, p. 860).
- 13.
In plain words, ruling ℋ∗ is dependent upon ruling ℋ which applies to cases of the type A. See the explanation of hypotheticals with multiple hypotheses in the appendix to the present book.
- 14.
Recall that, as mentioned in Sect. 2.3.1.2, the expression “right∨(x)” stands for the operator that selects the right proof-object of a disjunction.
- 15.
This move can be seen as related to Averroes’ notion of ibdāl or substitution of the general by the particular (see Bou Akl (2019, pp. 50–62). However, as discussed in our preface, al-Shīrāzī’s general conception of qiyās (not only of the kind al-dalāla) goes the other way round: while examining the form of the substituted instance, the general substitutional form comes to the fore.
- 16.
An alternative reconstruction would stress the fact that both the root- and the branch-case are identical in relation to the rulings, and then conclude by substitution. However, this option makes the distinction between qiyas al-dalāla and qiyas al-shabah less clear-cut.
- 17.
Recall that the injection right∨(b): 𝒞(f)∨𝒞°(f) yields b: 𝒞(f).
- 18.
However, in other parts of Young’s book there is a discussion of this point but not in relation to that example, such as Young (2017, pp. 94–95 and p. 105).
- 19.
al-Shīrāzī (2003, p. 100).
- 20.
See al-Shīrāzī, Mulakhkhaṣ fī al-jadal, fol. 5a.
- 21.
In fact, like the term khaṣīṣa in the first type, al-Shīrāzī does not employ the term naẓīr in the Mulakhkhaṣ, however, he does use it in the Ma‘ūna and in the al-Luma‘.
- 22.
This again involves the process of grasping the universal by examining the particular
- 23.
See Fyzee (1964, p. 154).
- 24.
Dhimmī is a historical term referring to non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state.
- 25.
See the explanation of hypotheticals with multiple hypotheses in the appendix to the present book.
- 26.
Notice that in the case of khaṣīṣa both steps have the same objective, namely establishing a formation rule that makes it apparent that one of the rulings is a specification of the other.
- 27.
al-Shīrāzī, Mulakhkhaṣ fī al-jadal, fol. 5a.
- 28.
- 29.
It looks as if this type of qiyās is very close to Aristotle’s argument from likeness (homoiotes).
- 30.
Cf. Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī, al-Lumaʿ fī uṣūl al-fiqh, p. 101.
- 31.
This is different to the main conceptions of analogy nowadays where the properties on both sides (the target case and the known case) might be similar rather than exactly the same – see e.g. Bartha (2010) – we come back to this issue at the end chapter of the present book.
- 32.
More precisely, within the framework of CTT real definitions establish what something is in relation to some canonical element of the set, and thus if two entities are definitionally equal a true proposition establishing the identity of both can be asserted. However, the inverse is not assured – see Ranta (1994, p. 52).
- 33.
See al-Shīrāzī, Mulakhkhaṣ fī al-jadal, fol. 5a, cf. Young (2017, p. 118).
- 34.
In the following sections we present only a simplified and adapted form of the Dialogical Framework, called Immanent Reasoning – see Rahman/McConaughey /Klev /Clerbout (2018). For a more complete presentation see the chapter IV of the present book. The main original papers are collected in Lorenzen/Lorenz (1978) – see too Lorenz (2010a, b), Felscher (1985), Krabbe (2006). For an account of recent developments see Rahman/Keiff (2005), Keiff (2009), Rahman/Tulenheimo (2009), Rückert (2011), Clerbout (2014a, b). The most recent work links dialogical logic and Constructive Type Theory, see Clerbout/Rahman (2015) and Rahman/Clerbout/Redmond (2017).
- 35.
Cf. Rahman/Rückert (2001, pp. 113–116).
- 36.
- 37.
This last clause is known as the Last Duty First condition, and is the clause which makes dialogical games suitable for Intuitionistic Logic, hence the name of this rule.
- 38.
This rule is one of the most salient characteristics of dialogical logic – see structural rules in the chapter IV of the present work.
- 39.
For some illuminating paragraphs on this point see Zysow (2013, p. 197).
References
Al-Baghdādī, al-Khaṭīb. (1421H). Al-Faqīh wa al-mutafaqqih. (Abū ‘Abd al-Raḥmān, Ed.). Saudi: Dār ibn Jauzī.
Al-Shīrāzī, Abū Isḥāq. (1987). Al-Maʿūna fī al-jadal. (ʻAlī b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-ʿUmayrīnī. Al-Safāh, Ed.). Kuwait: Manshūrāt Markaz al-Makhṭūṭāt wa-al-Turāth.
Al-Shīrāzī, Abū Isḥāq. (1988). Sharḥ al-luma‘. (Abd al-Majīd Turkī, Ed.). Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-‘Islāmī.
Al-Shīrāzī, Abū Isḥāq. (2003). Al-Lumaʿ fī uṣūl al-fiqh. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyah.
Al-Shīrāzī, Abū Isḥāq. (2016). Mulakhkhaṣ fī al-jadal. Retrieved February 1, 2019 from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikisource/ar/e/ea/.pdf.
Bartha, P. F. A. (2010). By parallel reasoning. The construction and evaluation of analogical arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bou Akl, Z. (2019). Averroes on juridical reasoning. In P. Adamson & M. Di Giovanni (Eds.), Interpreting averroes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clerbout, N. (2014a). First-order dialogical games and tableaux. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43(4), 785–801.
Clerbout, N. (2014b). La Semantiques dialogiques. Notions Fondamentaux et Éléments de Metathéorie. London: College Publications.
Clerbout, N., & Rahman, S. (2015). Linking game-theoretical approaches with constructive type theory: Dialogical strategies as CTT-demonstrations. Dordrecht: Springer.
Felscher, W. (1985). Dialogues as a foundation for intuitionistic logic. In D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 3, pp. 341–372). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Fyzee, A. A. A. (1964). Outlines of Muhammadan law (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ibn Ḥazm. (1959). Kitāb al-Taqrīb li-Ḥadd al-Manṭiq wa-l-Mudkhal ilayhi bi-l-alfāẓ al-ʿĀmmiyya wa-l-Amthila al-Fiqhiyya. (Iḥsān ʿAbbās, Ed.). Beirut: Dār Maktabat al-Ḥayāt.
Ibn Ḥazm. (1926–1930). Al-Iḥkām fī Uṣūl al-Aḥkām. 8 vols. (Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākir, Ed.). Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Saʿāda.
Keiff, L. (2009). “Dialogical Logic”. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Ed. Edward Zalta, N. URL https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-dialogical.
Krabbe, E. C. (2006). Dialogue logic. In D. Gabbay & J. Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the history of logic (Vol. 7, pp. 665–704). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lorenz, K. (2010a). Logic, language and method: On polarities in human experience. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
Lorenz, K. (2010b). Philosophische Variationen: Gesammelte Aufsätze unter Einschluss gemeinsam mit Jürgen Mittelstraß geschriebener Arbeiten zu Platon und Leibniz. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
Lorenzen, P., & Lorenz, K. (1978). Dialogische Logik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Rahman, S., & Iqbal, M. (2018). Unfolding parallel reasoning in Islamic jurisprudence. Epistemic and dialectical meaning within Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī’s system of correlational inferences of the occasioning factor. Cambridge Journal for Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 28, 67–132.
Rahman, S., & Keiff, L. (2005). On how to be a dialogician. In D. Vanderveken (Ed.), Logic, thought and action (pp. 359–408). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rahman, S., & Tulenheimo, T. (2009). From games to dialogues and Back: Towards a general frame for validity. In O. Majer, A. Pietarinen, & T. Tulenheimo (Eds.), Games: Unifying logic, language and philosophy (pp. 153–208). Dordrecht: Springer.
Rahman, S., Clerbout, N., & Redmond, J. (2017). Interaction and equality. The dialogical interpretation of CTT (In Spanish). Critica. In print.
Rahman, S., Granström, J. G., & Farjami, A. (2019) legal reasoning and some logic after all. The lessons of the elders. In D. Gabbay, L. Magnani, W. Park and A-V. Pietarinen (eds.), Natural arguments. A tribute to john woods. In print.
Rahman, S., McConaughey, Z., Klev, A., & Clerbout, N. (2018). Immanent reasoning. A plaidoyer for the play level. Dordrecht: Springer.
Rahman, S., Zidani, F., & Young, W. E. (2019). Ibn Hazm on heteronomous imperative. Landmark in the history of the logical analysis of legal norms. In Armgardt, M. et al (eds.), Legal reasoning contemporary and ancient perspectives. Springer. Forthcoming.
Rückert, H. (2011). Dialogues as a dynamic framework for logic. London: College Publications.
Young, W. E. (2017). The dialectical forge. Juridical disputation and the evolution of Islamic law. Dordrecht: Springer.
Zysow, A. (2013). The economy of certainty: An introduction to the typology of Islamic legal theory. Atlanta: Lockwood Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rahman, S., Iqbal, M., Soufi, Y. (2019). Qiyās al-Dalāla and Qiyās al-Shabah: al-Shīrāzī’s System of Correlational Inferences by Indication and Resemblance. In: Inferences by Parallel Reasoning in Islamic Jurisprudence. Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22382-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22382-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22381-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-22382-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)