The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; none of the 60 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Jadal and Qiyās in the Fifth/Eleventh Century: Two Debates between al-Juwaynī and al-Shīrāzī
Open accessAbstract
In an exchange preserved in al-Subkī's (d. 771/1370) Ṭabaqāt al-shāfʿiyya, the jurists al-Juwaynī (d. 478/1085) and al-Shīrāzī (d. 476/1083) debate equating prayer time to prayer direction in regard to the validity of prayer, and the adult virgin to the adult nonvirgin in regard to consent. While the dispute between the two scholars is on seemingly innocuous legal issues, it reveals that despite adherence to the same Shāfʿī legal school, the two hold contrasting positions on the specifics of analogical reasoning (qiyās). By examining the differences in their doctrines on qiyās and their approaches to dialectics (jadal), this article demonstrates that al-Juwaynī is more willing to use qiyās, especially its weaker forms, and make nontextual legal arguments, while al-Shīrāzī is more wary in his use of qiyās, leading him to reject its weaker forms and nontextual arguments. By tracing the differences in their qiyās doctrines through their works on jadal and exploring the differing dialectics used in the two debates, this article examines the connection between qiyās and jadal, intra-school jadal, and the various approaches to qiyās in the fifth/eleventh century.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
55 Sources not found · 50 Own interpretation · 30 Own result · 19 Not checked yet · 1 No basis given
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in the following debates between al-Juwaynī and al-Shīrāzī analogy-oriented arguments dominate .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“However, it is important to note that in both al-Shīrāzī's discussion of qiyās and his discussion of jadal, he is keen to maintain a hierarchy between sources of law and within each source of law .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [40]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is exemplified by al-Shīrāzī's al-Maʿūna and al-Juwaynī's al-Kāfiya, where the lengthiest sections are devoted to counter-arguments for cases involving qiyās .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Not unlike his discussion in al-Burhān, he creates a hierarchy between the types of qiyās based on their relative strength .65”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [65]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Al-Juwaynī's argument for excluding qiyās al-dalāla (al-Shīrāzī's preferred division) as a stand-alone category is that it can be subsumed under qiyās al-shabah, as we will see shortly .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [48]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
23 more claims
Create a free account to see all 155 claims and every source verdict.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 113
- It may state two separate claims as one. 56
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
Citations
Cited by
Muzakki, M. H., Rozi, M., Yusuf, Y., & Lubis, A. A. A. M. R. (2026) · ULUMUNA · doi:10.20414/ujis.v29i2.1185 · Cited by 8
Arab-Islamic or Greek Dialectics? Revisiting the Origins and Development of Jadal
Widigdo, M. S. A. (2021) · Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations · doi:10.1080/09596410.2021.1904692 · Cited by 4
JIDAL ILMIAH : DEBAT AL-GHAZALI DAN IBNU RUSYD TENTANG FILSAFAT
Rahman, A. (2024) · Bidayah Studi Ilmu-Ilmu Keislaman · doi:10.47498/bidayah.v15i1.2681 · Cited by 4
“Disanalah Imam al-Ghazali memiliki banyak kesempatan untuk mengajarkan dan mendiskusikan keilmuannya misalnya melalui perdebatan dengan tokoh-tokoh lain (Siddiqui, 2019).”
BackgroundQiyas Method of the National Sharia Board Fatwas and the Contemporary Islamic Economic Problems
Nuraeni, N., & Abdullah, M. N. (2024) · JURNAL HUKUM ISLAM · doi:10.28918/jhi.v22i2.02 · Cited by 2
Abdul-Jabbar, W. K. (2026) · Language Culture and Curriculum · doi:10.1080/07908318.2026.2718873
Metadata
- Authors
- Siddiqui, S.
- Corresponding author
- Siddiqui, Sohaira
- ORCID
- Siddiqui, Sohaira
- Venue
- Journal of the American Oriental Society
- Publisher
- American Oriental Society
- Published
- 2021-09-19
- Volume
- 139
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 0003-0279 (ISSN-L)
- 2169-2289
- OpenAlex
- W2996456095
- Semantic Scholar
- 74addd588554570cab6fa6b8059caaf7ac25db6a
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 2.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the American Oriental Society (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Qur’anic Interpretation Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Islamic Thought and Society Studies
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Islamic Studies and History
- Keywords
- qiyas, analogical reasoning, dialectics, al-Juwaynī, al-Shirazi, validity of prayer
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Jadal and Qiyās in the Fifth/Eleventh Century: Two Debates between al-Juwaynī and al-Shīrāzī. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7817/jameroriesoci.139.4.0923
- The paper
- Siddiqui, S. (2021). Jadal and Qiyās in the Fifth/Eleventh Century: Two Debates between al-Juwaynī and al-Shīrāzī. Journal of the American Oriental Society. https://doi.org/10.7817/jameroriesoci.139.4.0923
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
