Thus, any definition expressed in words is merely a definition of a term, akin to translation and explanation. Sometimes it is purely verbal, when the person addressed already knows what is being defined. At other times, its meaning needs to be explained and clarified, when the person addressed does not know what the term denotes. This is done by giving an example or combining descriptions. Yet this does not convey a conception of the thing’s essence to someone who has not conceived it through something other than words. Let this be understood. As for what they call defining a thing, defining it according to its essence, or defining essences, it distinguishes the thing only by mentioning some of its attributes, as explained above. It also contains confusion, some of which we have already pointed out.

As for “the question of syllogistic reasoning,” it is to be discussed in two respects. The first concerns syllogistic reasoning in general, which they have made the standard for the sciences and have precisely formulated in logic. The second concerns the kinds of syllogisms they employ in the sciences.

Regarding the first, we say: there is no dispute that when two premises are known to be true and are properly combined, this yields knowledge of the conclusion.

A narration in Sahīh Muslim, traced back to the Prophet, states:

“Every intoxicant is khamr, and every khamr is forbidden.”

However, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not say this to argue against an opponent disputing with him. Rather, the combination of statements here is like what he also said