They illustrated the point with examples drawn from kalām, seeking thereby to show that the dialectical theologians argue against us by means of probabilistic syllogisms. One of their illustrations was the theologians’ claim that because the celestial sphere is a body—or a composite—it must be originated, by analogy with man and other generated beings. They subsequently set about undermining this analogy, but they did so only on account of the weakness of its content. The proof advanced by the Jahmiyyah, the Qadariyyah, and those Ashʿarīs and others who side with them for the createdness of bodies is feeble because of its material premises, not because its logical form is merely conjectural. For this reason there is no difference whether they cast it in the mold of analogy or of a universal syllogism.
Al-Āmidī and the like—writers with philosophical leanings who dislike such examples because they deem them disparaging to the theologians—therefore choose an illustration on which all would ostensibly agree, such as his statement: “The world exists; therefore it is eternal, like the Creator.” Yet no intelligent person would infer the world’s pre-eternity from its sheer existence; if that were valid, every existent thing would have to be eternal, a conclusion no rational mind would accept.
Refutation of the claim that dawran (concomitance) and division yield only conjecture
Their contention that the analogical syllogism rests on dawran or on division, and that both afford nothing beyond probability, is erroneous; the very same objection would have to be leveled against the universal syllogism.
As for division, they themselves concede that it yields certainty when it is exhaustive. Granted that, one can restrict the shared attribute to a set of alternatives that cannot be exceeded, then invalidate the attribution of the effective cause to each of them save one. If such exhaustiveness cannot be achieved, that common attribute cannot function as the middle term, and certainty will not be attained—even if the argument is reformulated as a universal syllogism.
Reply to their objection concerning al-sabr wa’l-taqsīm (analysis and division)
As for their statement, “It is possible that the ruling applies to the original case by virtue of the case itself; otherwise an infinite regress would ensue,” we answer: an infinite regress follows only if the ruling can never be established except by recourse to something external. But if at times it is established due to an external factor and at other times without one, no infinite regress ensues, and in that event it is not impossible that