Abstract

This is a study of dialectic and systematic disputation as described in the theoretical writings of Islamic theologians, jurists, and philosophers. An attempt is made to reconstruct the contents of the earliest systematic treatment of the subject by b. al-Riwandi. The theological understanding of dialectic is then contrasted with the teachings of the Arab Aristotelians--al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on dialectic. It is then shown how jurists took over the theological method of dialectic and applied it to problems peculiar to jurisprudence. Although the earliest writings on dialectic are fairly free of direct Aristotelian influence, there are coincidences of themes and treatment. But after jurisprudence had assimilated the techniques of theological dialectic, its own theory became increasingly influenced by logical terminology and techniques. ;At the end of the thirteenth century there arose a new discipline, the adab al-bahth, that considered the general rules of disputation per se. It was thus shown to be applicable to disputations on theology, jurisprudence, and philosophy. In form and substance, the adab al-bahth is comparable to modern theories of argument and disputation. The roles of proponent and respondent are sharply defined and a proof that all debate must be finite is brought forward. While the theoretical underpinnings of the new system are Aristotelian, the terminology and order of debate place it firmly in the Islamic tradition of disputation