such as rational inference in logic—syllogistic reasoning, analogical reasoning, and the like—for both forms are called qiyās (inferential reasoning).

People have differed over the term qiyās. Does it apply literally to analogical reasoning and figuratively to syllogistic reasoning, as Abū Hāmid al-Ghazālī, Abū Muhammad al-Maqdisī, and others maintain? Or does it apply literally to syllogistic reasoning and figuratively to analogical reasoning, as Abū Muhammad ibn Hazm and others maintain? Or does it apply literally to both, as the majority maintain? These are the three positions.

They also disagree over the two forms themselves: which leads to knowledge? Many adherents of Greek logic and others like them claim that syllogistic reasoning alone leads to knowledge, whereas analogical reasoning does not. Many speculative theologians favor analogical reasoning, saying:

“Their logical inference—syllogistic reasoning—is of little or no benefit.”

The truth is that the two forms of reasoning necessarily entail one another: every syllogism incorporates an analogy, and every analogy incorporates a syllogism. For someone reasoning by analogy must connect the ruling to the shared attribute. Thus, if he says:

“Intoxicating nabīdh (an infused drink) is forbidden because it intoxicates; it is therefore forbidden, like grape wine,”

then he has linked