who were Magians.

These two sources are also those of the esoteric Qarmatians and those who have joined or continue to join their ranks, including the Ismāʿīlīs, the Nusayrīs, and others like them. They are among those encompassed by the Prophet’s words, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in the authentic hadith:

“You will surely follow the ways of the nations before you, handspan by handspan and cubit by cubit, so that even if they entered a lizard’s hole, you would enter it.” They asked, “The Persians and the Romans?” He replied, “Who else?”

The point is that these remarks of al-Suhrawardī concern an analogy he proposed: the heaven came into existence, by analogy with a house, because both share the feature of being composed of parts. He must therefore establish that composition is the cause of the building’s coming into existence and that it is also present in the case being compared with it.

The truth is that “analogical reasoning” is more effective in yielding knowledge and certainty than the “logical syllogism.” Although the knowledge yielded by the logical syllogism is more extensive, that yielded by analogy is greater. Analogical reasoning stands within rational inference as sight does within sensory knowledge, whereas the logical syllogism stands as hearing does within sensory knowledge.

There is no doubt that sight is greater and more complete, while hearing is wider and more comprehensive. Analogical reasoning is thus like sight, as in the saying: “One who compares what he has not seen with what he has seen” (1). The logical syllogism resembles hearing in its general scope. Furthermore, whether either form of reasoning yields certainty or probability depends on its premises.