The Formal Evolution of Islamic Juridical Dialectic: a Brief Glimpse (postprint version) (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Dialectical Forge: Juridical Disputation and the Evolution of Islamic Law (postprint version)
The Dialectical Forge identifies dialectical disputation (jadal) as a primary formative dynamic in the evolution of pre-modern Islamic legal systems, promoting dialectic from relative obscurity to a more appropriate position at the forefront of Islamic legal studies. The author introduces and develops a dialectics-based analytical method for the study of pre-modern Islamic legal argumentation, examines parallels and divergences between Aristotelian dialectic and early juridical jadal-theory, and proposes a multi-component paradigm—the Dialectical Forge Model—to account for the power of jadal in shaping Islamic law and legal theory. In addition to overviews of current evolutionary narratives for Islamic legal theory and dialectic, and expositions on key texts, this work shines an analytical light upon the considerably sophisticated “proto-system” of juridical dialectical teaching and practice evident in Islam’s second century, several generations before the first “full-system” treatises of legal and dialectical theory were composed. This proto-system is revealed from analyses of dialectical sequences in the 2nd/8th century Kitāb Ikhtilāf al-'Irāqiyyīn / 'Irāqiyyayn (the “subject-text”) through a lens molded from 5th/11th century jadal-theory treatises (the “lens-texts”). Specific features thus uncovered inform the elaboration of a Dialectical Forge Model, whose more general components and functions are explored in closing chapters.
Handbook for Islamic Legal Genres: Form, Function and Historical Development
For Islamic legal studies, one cannot overstate the importance of the juristic sciences of dialectical theory known as jadal (dialectic) and khilāf (disagreement). Particularly in Sunnī traditions, they comprise the venue in which the very logic of discovering God’s Law is posited, debated, and refined. Inseparably intertwined with legal theory, jadal / khilāf both fed into and were fed by continually evolving methodologies of uṣūl al-fiqh, as well as the living practice of dialectical disputation itself. The genres of jadal and khilāf represent the critical argumentation theory of premodern Islamic Law. They are the analytical lenses through which we can better understand Muslim jurists’ justifications and critiques. They allow us to see clearly the argumentative underpinnings suffusing distinct corpora of law and legal theory, binding them in a larger and coherent system. And they are rich with insights and potential solutions for modern logicians and legal theorists. Despite this, the modern study of Islamicate dialectics, including juristic jadal and khilāf, is still in its infancy. This introductory article will therefore proceed from definitions to a brief historical overview, before summarizing the contents of three jadal and khilāf texts which may be considered representative of distinct moments or trends in the developmental history of these genres, namely: the Taʾsīs al-Naẓar of Abū Zayd al-Dabūsī (4th/10th century khilāf), the Mulakhkhaṣ fī l-Jadal of Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī (5th/11th century jadal), and the Fuṣūl of Burhān al-Dīn al-Nasafī (7th/13th century jadal/khilāf, or “proto-ādāb al-baḥth”). Illustrative samples from each text’s prescribed method will give a taste of these premodern juristic argumentation theories in action, and the reader should be left with an overall impression not only of the form, function and historical development of these genres of juristic dialectic, but of their considerable sophistication.
Methodos, 2022
The post-classical (or post-Avicennan, post-Rāzian) genre of the “protocols for dialectical inquiry and disputation” (ādāb al-baḥth wa-l-munāẓara) has its more proximate origins in the famed Risāla of Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī (d. 722/1322). The greater part of his conceptions and methodology, however, consists in a streamlining and universalizing of the more strictly juristic dialectic (jadal / khilāf) of his teacher Burhān al-Dīn al-Nasafī (d. 687/1288); and this in turn draws on the highly logicized dialectic of Rukn al-Dīn al-ʿAmīdī (d. 615/1218) and his teacher Raḍī al-Dīn al-Nīsābūrī (d. 617/1220). At the heart of methods in this lineage, and carried forward by al-Samarqandī into the universal ādāb al-baḥth, are three truth-preserving logical relationships critical to the truth-seeking enterprise of dialectic: entailment (talāzum / mulāzama), mutual negation or exclusion (tanāfin / munāfā), and causal concomitance (dawarān). The practical elaboration of these relations reveals a logic in action—a premodern dialogical logic for living disputation praxis. In fact, so critical were these to the dialectical enterprise that al-Samarqandī devoted a specialized treatise entirely to summarizing their defining features and rules, aptly naming it the ʿAyn al-Naẓar, or “Wellspring of Rational Investigation.” In this article, and drawing upon a recently published digital critical edition, I will present an analytical outline of these core logical relations as presented in the ʿAyn al-Naẓar. Then I will address a number of points of interest in this text, grouped under six themes: the potential for cross-disciplinary advancement; notions in discursive development; significant or uniquely contributive formulations; peculiarities of content; signs of an evolving, universalist agenda; and evidence that the ʿAyn al-Naẓar was designed as an aide-mémoire for the active disputant. Le genre post-classique (ou post-Avicennien, post-Rāzien) des « protocoles pour l'enquête et la discussion dialectiques » (ādāb al-baḥth wa-l-munāẓara) détient ses origines plus proches dans la célèbre Risāla de Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī (m. 722/1322). L'essentiel de ses conceptions et de sa méthodologie consiste cependant à rationaliser et à universaliser la dialectique plus strictement juridique (jadal / khilāf) de son maître Burhān al-Dīn al-Nasafī (m. 687/1288) ; et s'appuie à son tour, sur la dialectique hautement logicisée de Rukn al-Dīn al-ʿAmīdī (m. 615/1218) et de son maître Raḍī al-Dīn al-Nīsābūrī (m. 617/1220). Au cœur des méthodes de cette lignée, et reportées par al-Samarqandī dans l'ādāb al-baḥth universel, se trouvent trois relations logiques préservant la vérité, essentielles à l'entreprise dialectique de recherche de la vérité : l'implication (talāzum / mulāzama), la négation mutuelle ou exclusion (tanāfin / munāfā), et la concomitance causale (dawarān). L'élaboration pratique de ces relations révèle une logique en action, ou une logique dialogique prémoderne pour vivre la praxis de la dispute. En réalité, ces relations étaient si critiques pour l'entreprise dialectique qu'al-Samarqandī a consacré tout un traité spécialisé à résumer leurs caractéristiques et règles déterminantes, le nommant à juste titre ʿAyn al-Naẓar, ou « puits de l'investigation rationnelle ». Dans cet article, et en m'appuyant sur une édition critique numérique récemment publiée, je présenterai un aperçu analytique de ces relations logiques fondamentales telles que présentées dans le ʿAyn al-Naẓar. Par la suite, j'aborderai un certain nombre de points d'intérêt dans ce texte, regroupés sous six thèmes : le potentiel d'avancement transdisciplinaire ; les notions en développement discursif ; les formulations significatives ou uniquement contributives ; particularités du contenu ; les signes d'un agenda universaliste en évolution ; et la preuve que le ʿAyn al-Naẓar a été conçu comme un aide-mémoire pour le contestataire actif.
The development of dialectic and argumentation theory in post-classical Islamic intellectual history, PhD dissertation, McGill University, 2010
This dissertation is an analysis of the development of dialectic and argumentation theory in post-classical Islamic intellectual history. The central concerns of the thesis are; treatises on the theoretical understanding of the concept of dialectic and argumentation theory, and how, in practice, the concept of dialectic, as expressed in the Greek classical tradition, was received and used by five communities in the Islamic intellectual camp. It shows how dialectic as an argumentative discourse diffused into five communities (theologicians, poets, grammarians, philosophers and jurists) and how these local dialectics that the individual communities developed fused into a single system to form a general argumentation theory (adab al-bahth) applicable to all fields. I evaluate a treatise by Shams al-Din Samarqandi (d.702/1302), the founder of this general theory, and the treatises that were written after him as a result of his work. I concentrate specifically on work by 'Adud al-Din al-Iji (d.756/1355), Sayyid Sharif al-Jurjani (d.816/1413), Taşköprüzâde (d.968/1561), Saçaklızâde (d.1150/1737) and Gelenbevî (d.1205/1791) and analyze how each writer (from Samarqandi to Gelenbevî) altered the shape of argumentative discourse and how later intellectuals in the post-classical Islamic world responded to that discourse bequeathed by their predecessors. What is striking about the period that this dissertation investigates (from 1300-1800) is the persistence of what could be called the linguistic turn in argumentation theory. After a centuries-long run, the jadal-based dialectic of the classical period was displaced by a new argumentation theory, which was dominantly linguistic in character. This linguistic turn in argumentation dates from the final quarter of the fourteenth century in Iji's impressively prescient work on 'ilm al-wad'. This idea, which finally surfaced in the post-classical period, that argumentation is about definition and that, therefore, defining is the business of language—even perhaps, that language is the only available medium for understanding and being understood—affected the way that argumentation theory was processed throughout most of the period in question.The argumentative discourse that started with Ibn al-Rawandi in the third/ninth century left a permanent imprint on Islamic intellectual history, which was then full of concepts, terminology and objectives from this discourse up until the late nineteenth century. From this perspective, Islamic intellectual history can be read as the tension between two languages: the "language of dialectic" (jadal) and the "language of demonstration" (burhan), each of which refer not only to a significant feature of that history, but also to a feature that could dramatically alter the interpretation of that history. . . . French Abstract: Cette dissertation est une analyse de l'évolution de la théorie dialectique et d'argumentation dans l'histoire intellectuelle islamique post-classique. Les préoccupations centrales de la thèse sont les suivantes: les traités sur la compréhension théorique de la notion de la théorie dialectique (de logique) et d'argumentation, et comment, en pratique, la notion dialectique, tel qu'elle est exprimée dans la tradition grecque classique, a été reçue et utilisée par les cinq collectivités du camp intellectuel islamique. Cette étude démontre comment la notion dialectique en tant que discours argumentatif a été diffusée dans cinq collectivités (théologiens, poètes, grammairiens, philosophes et juristes) et comment ces notions logiques locales, développées dans les différentes communautés, se sont fusionnées en un seul système pour former une théorie d'argumentation générale (adab al-bahth) applicable à tous les domaines. J'évalue un traité de Shams al-Din Samarqandi (d.702/1302), le fondateur de cette théorie générale, et les traités qui ont été écrits après lui en tant que succession de son travail. Je me concentre spécifiquement sur les travaux de 'Adud al-Din al-Iji (d.756/1355), Sayyid Sharif al-Jurjani (d.816/1413), Taşköprüzâde (d.968/1561), Saçaklızâde (d.1150/1737) et Gelenbevî (d.1205/1791) et analyse comment chaque auteur (de Samarqandi à Gelenbevî) a modifié la forme du discours argumentatif et comment les intellectuels, venus par après dans le monde post-islamique classique, ont répondu à ce discours transmis par leurs prédécesseurs.Ce qui est frappant, de la période que cette thèse étudie (de 1300-1800), est la persistance de ce qu'on pourrait appeler le tournant linguistique dans la théorie de l'argumentation. Après plusieurs siècles, la notion dialectique de la période classique basée sur jadal fût remplacée par une nouvelle théorie d'argumentation qui était principalement de caractère linguistique. Ce tournant linguistique dans l'argumentation est daté du dernier quart du quatorzième siècle dans le travail sur 'ilm al-wad' impressionnant et prémonitoire d'al-Iji. Cette idée, qui est finalement émergée dans la période post-classique, disant que l'argumentation décrit une définition et que, par conséquent, la définition est l'utilité du langage —et même peut-être, que le langage est le seul moyen disponible pour comprendre et être compris— a influencé la façon dont la théorie d'argumentation a été formulée dans la majeure partie de la période en question.Le discours argumentatif qui a commencé avec Ibn al-Rawandi au troisième/neuvième siècle a laissé une empreinte permanente dans l'histoire intellectuelle islamique qui s'est remplie de concepts, de terminologie et d'objectifs de ce discours jusqu'à la fin du dix-neuvième siècle. Selon cette perspective, l'histoire intellectuelle islamique peut être lue comme une divergence entre deux langues: le "langage dialectique" (jadal) et le "langage démonstratif" (burhan), dont chacun se réfère non seulement à une caractéristique importante de cette histoire, mais à une caractéristique qui pourrait changer radicalement l'interprétation de cette histoire.
Argumentation et dialectique en Islam: Formes et séquences de la munāẓara, by Abdessamad Belhaj
Ilahiyat Studies, 2013
First paragraph: The book under review fits within the literature on the history of dialectics and the art of disputation in the Islamic civilization, as reflected by the title Argumentation et dialectique en Islam. As the author Abdessamad Belhaj affirms in his introduction, the scope of this work is to undertake a reconstruction of the development of the ʿilm al-jadal and the art of munāẓara as argumentative processes in both fiqh and kalām traditions. Belhaj states that his project is to draw the historical development of jadal and munāẓara by taking into account the gaps of the major secondary literature. Put differently, this filling-in-the-gaps project seeks to provide a tableau of the way the notions of jadal and munāẓara have been used and developed in different milieus of the classical Islamic world.
This paper will examine an important group of illegitimate moves involving causal properties as identified by Medieval Muslim jurists in the intertwined domains of legal theory (uṣūl al-fiqh) and dialectic (jadal). More precisely, we will focus on discussions around the dialectical objection called kasr, or “breaking,” which deliberate the proper and improper paths to challenging and defending a correlational argument (qiyās) in which the ratio legis (ʿilla) of the source-case’s ruling is a compound of two or more properties. In the present study, we will therefore restrict our analyses to the relevant discussions of two 11th century CE theorists: the renowned Shāfiʿī jurist Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī (d. 1083) and his equally prominent one-time pupil, the Mālikī jurist Abū al-Walīd al-Bājī (d. 1081), who each elaborated two main pathways to “breaking” an opponent’s compound ʿilla. Moreover, we will confront the fallacious modes they denounce with forms of deontic paradoxes and puzzles which we group under the name logical extrapolation fallacy. Our primary claim is that whereas logical extrapolation produces fallacies or paradoxes by unsafely applying inference rules of standard alethic and/or logical necessity to the deontic realm, the fallacies generated by invalid modes of kasr in Islamic legal theory (wherein logical rules are expressed dialectically) constitute a genuine source for reflecting on what patterns of reasoning should be endorsed for determining causality in Law—and, perhaps, more generally, also for establishing causality in certain natural (as opposed to normative) epistemological contexts. Translations of the original Arabic sources relevant to this study are included in an appendix. Ultimately, the current paper is the first step towards a larger study of kasr, which will encompass both a comparison between kasr and other dialectical objections and analyses of critical discourses from later Muslim legal theorists and dialecticians.
2018
In Oriens 46.1-2; Special Issue, “Rationalist Disciplines and Postclassical Islamic Legal Theories,” eds. Asad Q. Ahmed and Robert Gleave. This article presents, analyzes, and attempts to explain what is probably the most difficult of three problem-questions (masāʾil) contrived by Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī in the closing section of his Risāla fī Ādāb al-Baḥth. The “third masʾala,” from the science of juridical disagreement (khilāf), argues the Shāfiʿī position for the father’s right to guardianship of compulsion (wilāyat al-ijbār) over the virgin major. And in so doing it offers a sophisticated model of a post-classical juristic dialectic articulated in streamlined modes of objection and response, replete with variant species of dilemmatic syllogisms and reductios, and interwoven with logical-philosophical axioms.
ᶜIlm al-Ikhtilāf in Modern Western and Muslim Studies of Juristic Disagreement: A Critical Analysis
Journal Article, 2024
The acknowledgment of juristic disagreement (ᶜilm al-ikhtilāf) as an independent field of Islamic law by Western historians of Fiqh and Uṣūl is over a century and a half old. Yet, there is still much ambiguity and confusion about this legal subarea, its history, its theories and methods, and its place in the emergence and development of Islamic law. This paper provides a critical reading of modern Western studies of ᶜilm al-ikhtilāf. It analyzes the ways in which Western scholars have conceived of this sub-science and visits key unresolved issues with a focus on the conceptual and methodological undertaking of ᶜilm al-ikhtilāf. Through its critical reading of modern Western studies of ᶜilm al-ikhtilāf, this paper mends two gaps in the examined scholarship: the conceptual confusion of the concepts of 'ikhtilāf' and 'khilāf' on the one hand, and the confusion of the genres of "ikhtilāf fiqhī" (juristic disagreement) and "jadal fiqhī" (juristic dialectics) on the other. The methodology employed in this study comprises a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach, which bridges the realms of pre-modern and modern sources. It hinges on a meticulous analysis of both Muslim and Western studies of Islamic law, deliberately interweaving these two dimensions to provide a more holistic and nuanced perspective on the questions undertaken within this research. After close examination, it is observed that key distinctions made with regard to the science of ᶜilm al-ikhtilāf, such as between the concepts of 'khilāf' and 'ikhtilāf', are a modern invention that has no lexical precedent. According to this study, distinction is to be made between Fiqh-based, practical disagreements and Uṣūlbased, theoretical disagreements. This study contributes the first source reading of Western scholarship on the science of juristic disagreement. In addition, classifying ᶜilm al-ikhtilāf in terms of practical (Fiqhbased) and theoretical (Uṣūl-based) studies is an original reading.
Analisa: Journal of Social Science and Religion
This article examines Imām al-Ḥaramayn al-Juwaynī’s application of jadal theory in both his legal and theological work by analyzing critically his major writings, namely: Kitāb al-Irshād (1950), al-Kāfīya fī al-jadal (1979), al-Burhān fī uṣūl al-fiqh (1980), al-Durrah al-Muḍīyah fī mā waqaʿa fīhi al-khilāf bayn al-Shāfiʿīyah wa al-Ḥanafīyah (1986), and Tafḍīl madhhab al-Shāfiʿī ʿalā sā’ir al-madhāhib (2013). Through a hermeneutical reading of these books, I find that Imām al-Ḥaramayn’s application of jadal renders the integration of kalām and fiqh. At first, Imām al-Ḥaramayn aims to obtain knowledge with a certain level of certainty (in the forms of ʿilm or ghalabat al-ẓann) in law and theology by applying jadal in both disciplines. Then, this scholarly attempt of obtaining certainty interestingly provides an epistemological ground for the integration of kalām and fiqh. He inserts theological elements in his legal scholarship and incorporates a juridical perspective in his theologi...