Qiyās al-ʿIlla: al-Shīrāzī’s System of Correlational Inferences of the Occasioning Factor

  • Shahid Rahman
  • Muhammad Iqbal
  • Youcef Soufi
Part of the Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning book series (LARI, volume 19)


One of the epistemological results emerging from the present study is that the different forms of correlational inference, known in the Islamic jurisprudence as qiyās, represent an innovative and sophisticated form of reasoning that not only provides new epistemological insights into legal reasoning in general but also furnishes a fine-grained pattern for parallel reasoning which can be deployed in a wide range of problem-solving contexts and does not seem to reduce to the standard forms of analogical argumentation studied in contemporary philosophy of science.


  1. Al-Baṣrī, Abū al-Ḥusayn. (1964). Kitāb al-qiyās al-sharʿī. In idem, Kitāb al-muʿtamad fī uṣūl al-fiqh. Vol. 2. (Muḥammad Ḥamīd Allāh, Muḥammad Bakīr, and Ḥasan Ḥanafī, Eds.). Damascus: al-Maʿhad al-ʿIlmī al-Faransī li’l-Dirāsāt al-ʿArabiyya bi-Dimash.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Juwaynī, ʻAbd al-Malik ibn ʻAbd Allāh. (1979). In F. Ḥ. Maḥmūd (Ed.), Al-Kāfiya fī al-jadal. Cairo: Maṭba‘at ‘Īsā al Bābi al-Ḥalabī.Google Scholar
  3. Al-Namla, ‘Abd al-Karīm b. ‘Alī b. Muḥammad. (1999). Al-Muhadhdhab fī ‘ilm uṣūl al-fiqh al-muqārin. Riyadh: Maktabat al-Rushd.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Al-Shīrāzī, Abū Isḥāq. (2003). Al-Lumaʿ fī uṣūl al-fiqh. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyah.Google Scholar
  6. Al-Shīrāzī, Abū Isḥāq. (2016). Mulakhkhaṣ fī al-jadal. Retrieved February 1, 2016 fromالملخص_في_الجدل_خ.pdf.Google Scholar
  7. Aristotle (1984). The complete works of Aristotle. The revised Oxford translation. (J. Barnes, Trans. & Ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bartha, P. F. A. (2010). By parallel reasoning. The construction and evaluation of analogical arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castelnérac, B., & Marion, M. (2009). Arguing for inconsistency: Dialectical games in the academy. In G. Primiero & S. Rahman (Eds.), Acts of knowledge: History, philosophy and logic (pp. 37–76). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Cellucci, C. (2013). Rethinking logic: Logic in relation to mathematics, evolution and method. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clerbout, N. (2014a). First-order dialogical games and tableaux. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43(4), 785–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clerbout, N. (2014b). La Semantiques Dialogiques. Notions Fondamentaux et Éléments de Metathéorie. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Clerbout, N., & Rahman, S. (2015). Linking game-theoretical approaches with constructive type theory: Dialogical strategies as CTT-demonstrations. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crubellier, M., McConaughey, M., Marion M., & Rahman, S. (2019). Dialectic, the Dictum de omni and Ecthesis. History and Philosophy of Logic. In print.Google Scholar
  15. David, J. (2010). Legal comparability and cultural identity: The case of legal reasoning in Jewish and Islamic traditions. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 14.1,
  16. David, J. (2014). Jurisprudence and theology. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davidson, D. (1980). Essays on actions and events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  18. Duthil-Novaes, C. (2007). Formalizing medieval logical theories. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Gili, L. (2015). Alexander of Aphrodisias and the Heterdox dictum de omni et de nullo. History and Philosophy of Logic, 36(2), 114–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ginzburg, J. (2012). The interactive stance. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Granström, J. G. (2011). Treatise on intuitionistic type theory. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hallaq, W. (1985). The logic of legal reasoning in religious and non-religious cultures: The case of Islamic law and common law. Cleveland State Law Review, 34, 79–96.Google Scholar
  24. Hallaq, W. (1987a). A tenth-eleventh century treatise on juridical dialectic. The Muslim World, 77(3–4), 151–282.Google Scholar
  25. Hallaq, W. (1987b). The development of logical structure in Islamic legal theory. Der Islam, 64/1, pp. 42–67.Google Scholar
  26. Hallaq, W. (1993). Ibn Taymiyya against the Greek logicians. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hallaq, W. (1997). A history of Islamic legal theories: An introduction to Sunnī Uṣūl al-Fiqh. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hallaq, W. (2004). Continuity and change in Islamic law. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge U. Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hallaq, W. (2009a). The origins and evolution of Islamic law. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hallaq, W. (2009b). Sharīʿa: Theory, practice, transformation. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hodges, W. (1998). The laws of distribution for syllogisms. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 39(2), 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keiff, L. (2009). Dialogical logic. In Edward, N (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Zalta. URL
  33. Klev, A. M. (2018). A brief introduction to constructive type theory. In S. Rahman, Z. McConaughey, A. Klev and N. Clerbout (2018, chapter II).Google Scholar
  34. Krabbe, E. C. (2006). Dialogue Logic. In D. M. Gabbay & J. Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the history of logic (Vol. 7, pp. 665–704). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  35. Lorenz, K. (2000). Sinnbestimmung und Geltungssicherung. First published under the title “Ein Beitrag zur Sprachlogik”. In G.-L. Lueken (Ed.), Formen der Argumentation (pp. 87–106). Leipzig: Akademisches Verlag.Google Scholar
  36. Lorenz, K. (2010a). Logic, language and method: On polarities in human experience. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  37. Lorenz, K. (2010b). Philosophische Variationen: Gesammelte Aufsätze unter Einschluss gemeinsam mit Jürgen Mittelstraß geschriebener Arbeiten zu Platon und Leibniz. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  38. Lorenzen, P., & Lorenz, K. (1978). Dialogische logik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  39. Marion, M., & Rückert, H. (2015). Aristotle on universal quantification: A study from the perspective of game semantics. History and Philosophy of Logic, 37(3), 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin-Löf, P. (1984). Intuitionistic type theory. Notes by Giovanni Sambin of a series of lectures given in Padua, June 1980. Naples: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
  41. Martin-Löf, P. (1996). On the meanings of the logical constants and the justifications of the logical laws. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic, 1, 11–60.Google Scholar
  42. Martin-Löf, P. (2012). Aristotle’s distinction between apophansis and protasis in the light of the distinction between assertion and proposition in contemporary logic. Workshop “Sciences et Savoirs de l’Antiquité à l’Age classique”. Lecture held at the laboratory SPHERE–CHSPAM, Paris VII. Seminar organized by Ahmed Hasnaoui.
  43. Martin-Löf, P. (2015). Is logic part of normative ethics?. Lecture held at the research unit Sciences, normes, décision (FRE 3593), Paris, May 2015. Transcription by Amsten Klev.Google Scholar
  44. Miller, L. B. (1984). Islamic disputation theory: A study of the development of dialectic in Islam from the tenth through fourteenth centuries. Princeton: Princeton University. (Unpublished dissertation).Google Scholar
  45. Nordström, B., Petersson, K., & Smith, J. M. (1990). Programming in Martin-Löf’s type theory: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Nordström, B., Petersson, K., & Smith, J. M. (2000). Martin-Löf’s type theory. In S. Abramsky, D. Gabbay, & T. S. E. Maibaum (Eds.), Handbook of logic in computer science. Volume 5: Logic and algebraic methods (pp. 1–37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Parsons, T. (2014). Articulating medieval logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Peregrin, J. (2014). Inferentialism. Why rules matter. New York: Plagrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  49. Plato. (1997). Plato. Complete works. (Jhon M. Cooper, Tans. & Ed.). Indianapolis IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
  50. Popek, A. (2012). Logical dialogues from middle ages. In C. B. Gómez, S. Magnier, & F. J. Salguero (Eds.), Logic of knowledge. Theory and applications (pp. 223–244). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  51. Primiero, G. (2008). Information and knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rahman, S., & Iqbal, M. (2018). Unfolding parallel reasoning in Islamic jurisprudence. Epistemic and dialectical meaning within Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī’s system of co-relational inferences of the occasioning factor. Cambridge Journal for Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 28, 67–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rahman, S., & Keiff, L. (2005). On how to be a dialogician. In D. Vanderveken (Ed.), Logic, thought and action (pp. 359–408). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rahman, S., & Rückert, H. (2001). Dialogical connexive logic. Synthese, 125(1–2), 105–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rahman, S., & Tulenheimo, T. (2009). From games to dialogues and back: Towards a general frame for validity. Games: Unifying logic, language and philosophy. O. Majer, A. Pietarinen T. Tulenheimo. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 153–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rahman, S., Clerbout, N., & Redmond, J. (2017). Interaction and equality. The dialogical interprepretation of CTT (In Spanish). Critica.Google Scholar
  57. Rahman, S., McConaughey, Z., Klev, A., & Clerbout, N. (2018). Immanent reasoning. A plaidoyer for the play level. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ranta, A. (1988). Propositions as games as types. Synthese, 76, 377–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ranta, A. (1994). Type-theoretical grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  60. Rückert, H. (2011). Dialogues as a dynamic framework for logic. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  61. Sundholm, G. (2009). A century of judgement and inference, 1837–1936: Some strands in the development of logic. In L. Haaparanta (Ed.), The development of modern logic (pp. 263–317). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sundholm, G. (2012). “Inference versus consequence” revisited: Inference, conditional, implication. Synthese, 187, 943–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sundholm, G. (2013). Inference and consequence in an interpeted language. Talk at the Workshop Proof theory and Philosophy, Groningen, December 3–5, 2013.Google Scholar
  64. Tahiri, H. (2008). The birth of scientific controversies: The dynamic of the Arabic tradition and its impact on the development of science: Ibn al-Haytham’s challenge of Ptolemy’s Almagest. The Unity of science in the Arabic tradition. Ed. S. Rahman, T. Street and H. Tahiri. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 183–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tahiri, H. (2014). Al Kindi and the universalization of knowledge through mathematics. Revista de Humanidades de Valparaíso, (4), 81–90.Google Scholar
  66. Tahiri, H. (2015). Mathematics and the mind. An introduction to Ibn Sīnā's theory of knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  67. Tahiri, H. (2018). When the present misunderstands the past. How a modern Arab intellectual reclaimed his own heritage. Cambridge Journal for Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 28(1), 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Weiss, B. G. (1992). Search for God’s law, Islamic jurisprudence in the writings of Sayf al-din al-Amidi. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
  69. Weiss, B. G. (1998). The Spirit of Islamic law. Athens/London: The University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  70. Young, W. E. (2017). The dialectical forge. Juridical disputation and the evolution of Islamic law. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shahid Rahman
    • 1
  • Muhammad Iqbal
    • 1
  • Youcef Soufi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of philosophyUniversité de LilleLilleFrance
  2. 2.Department of Classical, Near Eastern, and Religious StudiesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations