Clear all

Qiyās - an inductive reasoning  

Coffee + Hatred

Qiyās is an inductive reasoning, that is, whilst the premise may be true (as is the case with Qiyās al-Jalī, or analogy based on a known 'illah (or the reason behind a ruling)) the conclusion may or may not be correct.

Whilst Qiyās al-Jalī may be the strongest form of Qiyās, if compared to Qiyās al-Khafī (where the 'illah is not explicitly mentioned and is assumed), it, nonetheless, still falls under inductive reasoning - the conclusion cannot be guaranteed!

When we apply the Dhāhir - an argument would be simply shown like this:

A (specified) is prohibited - therefore, A (specified) is prohibited.

A (general) is prohibited - therefore, anything that falls under A is prohibited.

Sticking to the Dhāhir of the Texts, with the correct linguistic understanding, will lead to a guaranteed conclusion. Whilst guaranteed conclusions can be proven with concrete premises, differences in linguistic understanding may still appear and therefore may lead to contradictory conclusions. An example would be of the well-known Hadīth of praying the 'Asr prayer on the way to Banū Quraydhah. However, this approach does remove speculative premises and conclusions. Having contradictory conclusions, doesn't take away that the conclusion is still supported by solid premises (in our case the Qur'ān and the Sunnah).

Where as Qiyās al-Jalī would be formulated as such:

A (specified) is prohibited, it is 1 (specified 'illah) - therefore, A (specified), B (specified), C (specified) ... are prohibited, they are 1 (specified 'illah).

Whilst, A (specified) can be guaranteed as it was clearly prohibited, B and C are speculative conclusions. Are they prohibited? Maybe or maybe not, but to say they are prohibited would be based on speculations and cannot be guaranteed.

An even more problematic formula would be Qiyās al-Khafī:

A (specified) is prohibited, it is maybe 1 (speculative 'illah) - therefore, A (specified), B (specified), C (specified) ... are prohibited, they are maybe 1 (speculative 'illah) 

Again, A (specified) can be guaranteed and a concrete premise can prove it, however, the 'illah is not guaranteed. Then B and C are prohibited based on a speculative reason.

What we can see, however, is that where A (specified) was clearly prohibited (the Dhāhir) no one disagrees and it is guaranteed. Unlike B and C which are speculative.

The Messenger of Allāh صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

إِنَّ الْحَلاَلَ بَيِّنٌ وَإِنَّ الْحَرَامَ بَيِّنٌ

What is lawful is evident and what is unlawful is evident


Topic starter Posted : 03/10/2020 11:45 am
Still heart . . .

Jazak Allahu khairan, brother. Can you offer some clarification on the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning as it pertains to Qiyas --- why it is the the former, and not the latter, etc...

"[I fight] only for something deep in my heart . . .", — Captain Harlock.

Maktabat Madrasat Al-Qur'an Wal-Hadith Li Dirasat Al-Qur'an Wal-Hadith Wal-'Amal Bihima. (Established in my heart: Rajab 9, 1435.)

Posted : 03/10/2020 3:26 pm
Coffee + Hatred

@qalbi1435 wa iyyāk, with the little understanding I have...

Deductive reasoning is a reasoning where the conclusion is guaranteed (as true), and for it to be true the premises are to be true as well (having a false premise may lead to a false conclusion). E.g. "All lions are carnivorous, this is a lion, therefore it is carnivorous"

The premises "all lions are carnivorous" and "this is a lion", if both the premises are true, then the conclusion "it is a carnivorous" would be true and guaranteed.

Inductive reasoning, even if the premises are true, the conclusion may or may not be true, the conclusion cannot be guaranteed to be true. E.g. "my last test was easy, the next test will be easy".

The premise "last test was easy" is true, the conclusion "next test will be easy" may or may not be true.

On the examples above, A (specified), "the Dhāhir", was explicitly prohibited (regardless if the 'illah was mentioned or not).

Whereas B (specified) and C (specified) were not explicitly prohibited and are based on assumptions and conjectures like the test example I gave above. They simply cannot be guaranteed.

Of course, this would be the case if people are to agree that Qiyās has no basis from the Qur'ān and Sunnah, because someone who does believe it has a basis will then say there is a premise(s) to allow Qiyās and therefore it can be used.

The formula would then be something like this for Qiyās al-Jalī:

A (specified) is prohibited, it is  a 1 ('illah), as shown in X (the premise to it's prohibition e.g. Qur'ān and Sunnah) and Qiyās is a source of Legislation, as shown in Y (the allowance from the Qur'ān and Sunnah).

Thereare 2 claims/conclusions, A (specified) is prohibited and that Qiyās is source of Legislation. There are also 2 premises X and Y (which are then to be proven true, e.g. where in the Qur'ān and Sunnah does it show A (specified) is prohibited and where does it show Qiyās is source of legislation? If they cannot be proven then the argument is invalid).

Therefore, B (specified) and C (specified) are prohibited because they are also 1 ('illah) and because Qiyās is a source of Legislation.

Based on the previous formula, we now have 2 new conclusions: B (specified) and C (specified) are prohibited. And their premises are A (specified) is prohibited it was 1 ('illah), they are both 1 ('illah), and because Qiyās is a source of Legislation.

If X and Y are proven from the Qur'ān and the Sunnah, then they would be the Dhāhir of the Qur'ān and Sunnah (because you can't prove that Qiyās is a source of Legislation by doing Qiyās to allow it, therefore you'd have to rely on the Dhāhir) which are the framework we work with (and assuming we don't have to prove that the Qur'ān and Sunnah are sources of Legislation).


I hope that make sense.

Topic starter Posted : 03/10/2020 6:56 pm
Still heart . . .



"[I fight] only for something deep in my heart . . .", — Captain Harlock.

Maktabat Madrasat Al-Qur'an Wal-Hadith Li Dirasat Al-Qur'an Wal-Hadith Wal-'Amal Bihima. (Established in my heart: Rajab 9, 1435.)

Posted : 04/10/2020 1:11 am
d_dhahiri liked