Qiyās al-Dalāla and Qiyās al-Shabah: al-Shīrāzī’s System of Correlational Inferences by Indication and Resemblance

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


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.


  1. Al-Baghdādī, al-Khaṭīb. (1421H). Al-Faqīh wa al-mutafaqqih. (Abū ‘Abd al-Raḥmān, Ed.). Saudi: Dār ibn Jauzī.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Al-Shīrāzī, Abū Isḥāq. (1988). Sharḥ al-luma‘. (Abd al-Majīd Turkī, Ed.). Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-‘Islāmī.Google Scholar
  4. Al-Shīrāzī, Abū Isḥāq. (2003). Al-Lumaʿ fī uṣūl al-fiqh. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyah.Google Scholar
  5. Al-Shīrāzī, Abū Isḥāq. (2016). Mulakhkhaṣ fī al-jadal. Retrieved February 1, 2019 from Scholar
  6. Bartha, P. F. A. (2010). By parallel reasoning. The construction and evaluation of analogical arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bou Akl, Z. (2019). Averroes on juridical reasoning. In P. Adamson & M. Di Giovanni (Eds.), Interpreting averroes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clerbout, N. (2014a). First-order dialogical games and tableaux. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43(4), 785–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clerbout, N. (2014b). La Semantiques dialogiques. Notions Fondamentaux et Éléments de Metathéorie. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Clerbout, N., & Rahman, S. (2015). Linking game-theoretical approaches with constructive type theory: Dialogical strategies as CTT-demonstrations. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Fyzee, A. A. A. (1964). Outlines of Muhammadan law (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Ibn Ḥazm. (1926–1930). Al-Iḥkām fī Uṣūl al-Aḥkām. 8 vols. (Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākir, Ed.). Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Saʿāda.Google Scholar
  15. Keiff, L. (2009). “Dialogical Logic”. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Ed. Edward Zalta, N. URL
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Lorenz, K. (2010a). Logic, language and method: On polarities in human experience. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Lorenzen, P., & Lorenz, K. (1978). Dialogische Logik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rahman, S., & Keiff, L. (2005). On how to be a dialogician. In D. Vanderveken (Ed.), Logic, thought and action (pp. 359–408). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rahman, S., Clerbout, N., & Redmond, J. (2017). Interaction and equality. The dialogical interpretation of CTT (In Spanish). Critica. In print.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Rahman, S., McConaughey, Z., Klev, A., & Clerbout, N. (2018). Immanent reasoning. A plaidoyer for the play level. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. Rückert, H. (2011). Dialogues as a dynamic framework for logic. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Young, W. E. (2017). The dialectical forge. Juridical disputation and the evolution of Islamic law. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Zysow, A. (2013). The economy of certainty: An introduction to the typology of Islamic legal theory. Atlanta: Lockwood Press.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