and analogical inference. It is impossible to enumerate all the cases to which these narratives apply, since everyone has some share in one of the situations they describe. Thus, it is said of them:

“Indeed, in their stories there is a lesson for people of understanding.”

And after recounting them, it is said:

“So take heed, O people of insight.”

And He says:

“There has already been a sign for you in the two forces that met,”

through to His words:

“Indeed, in that is a lesson for people of insight.”

Drawing such inferences is precisely analogical reasoning. Thus, when Ibn ‘Abbās was asked about the compensation payable for fingers, he said: “It is the same for all of them. Compare them in this respect to the teeth.” That is, reason by analogy with the teeth: compensation for teeth is equal despite their differing functions, and the same applies to fingers. One also says, “I assessed the dirhams against the standard weight,” meaning that one measured them by it.

“The Second Type”

Universal likenesses. People have found it difficult to understand why these are called likenesses, just as they have found it difficult to understand why they are called forms of inference. Some have even objected to His saying:

“O mankind, a likeness is presented, so listen to it,”

asking: “Where is the likeness being presented?”

Likewise, when they hear His saying:

“We have certainly presented to mankind in this Quran every kind of likeness,”

they remain bewildered, not knowing what these likenesses are, having counted only forty-odd specific likenesses in it.

These “likenesses” are sometimes descriptions and sometimes syllogisms. When they are syllogisms, they must contain two statements, constituting two propositions and two judgments, one of which must be universal. For statements, which are propositions, are divided into singular, unquantified, universal, and particular, and each of these is further divided into statements of affirmation