Analogy

The Legal History of Analogy (QiyAŠs) in Islamic Law

This section provides an overview of Analogy (QiyAŠs) in Islamic Law

Related Issues

Rhetoric

Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the Western tradition.

Argument from analogy

Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed. Analogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings attempt to understand the world and make decisions. When a person has a bad experience with a product and decides not to buy anything further from the producer, this is often a case of analogical reasoning.

Closing argument

A closing argument, summation, or summing up is the concluding statement of each party’s counsel (often called an attorney in the United States) reiterating the important arguments for the trier of fact, often the jury, in a court case. A closing argument occurs after the presentation of evidence. A closing argument may not contain any new information and may only use evidence introduced at trial. It is not customary to raise objections during closing arguments, except for egregious behavior.

Rhetorical device

In rhetoric, a rhetorical device or resource of language is a technique that an author or speaker uses to convey to the listener or reader a meaning with the goal of persuading him or her towards considering a topic from a different perspective.

Premise

A premise is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. In other words: a premise is an assumption that something is true. In logic, an argument requires a set of two declarative sentences known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or “proposition”) known as the conclusion. This structure of two premises and one conclusion forms the basic argumentative structure.

Argument

In philosophy and logic, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons or evidence for accepting a particular conclusion. The general structure of an argument in a natural language is that of premises in support of a claim: the conclusion. Many arguments can also be formulated in a formal language. An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of the natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations.

Persuasion

Persuasion is the influence of beliefs, attitudes, intentions, motivations, or behaviors. Persuasion is a process aimed at changing a person’s (or a group’s) attitude or behavior toward some event, idea, object, or other person(s), by using written or spoken words to convey information, feelings, or reasoning, or a combination of them.

Evidence (law)

The law of evidence encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence can be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision and, sometimes, the weight that may be given to that evidence. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation.

Resources

See Also

• Legal Biography
• Legal Traditions
• Historical Laws
• History of Law

Further Reading

• Analogy (QiyAŠs) in Islamic Law in the Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History (Oxford University Press)
• Vincent A. W. M. M. Aleven, Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 1997
• Ashley K (1988) Arguing by analogy in law: a case-based model. In: Helman DH (ed) Analogical reasoning. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 205-224.
• Ashley K (2006) Case-based reasoning. In: Lodder AR, Oskamp A (eds) Information technology and lawyers. Springer, Berlin, pp 23-60.
• Bex F (2011) Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: a formal hybrid theory. Springer, Dordrecht.
• L. Karl Branting, A reduction-graph model of precedent in legal analysis, Artificial Intelligence, v.150 n.1-2, p.59-95, November 2003
• Brewer S (1996) Exemplary reasoning: semantics, pragmatics and the rational force of legal argument by analogy, Harv Law Rev 109:923-1038.
• Gentner D (1983) Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cogn Sci 7(2):155-170.
• Goldman A (1970) A theory of human action. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
• Gordon TF, Walton D (2009) Proof burdens and standards. In: Rahwan I, Simari G (eds) Argumentation and artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 239-260.
• Guarini Marcello (2004) A defense of non-deductive reconstructions of analogical arguments. Informal Log 24:153-168.
• Guarini M, Butchart A, Simard Smith P, Moldovan A (2009) Resources for research on analogy: a multidisciplinary guide. Informal Log 29(2):84-197.
• Lief MS, Caldwell M, Bryce B (1998) Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: greatest closing arguments in modern law. Scribner, New York.
• Meyer PN (2002) Making the narrative move: observations based upon reading Gerry Spence’s closing argument in the estate of Karen Silkwood v. Kerr-Mcgee, Inc. New York University School of Law. Clin Law Rev 9(1):229-292.
• Pennington N, Hastie R (1992) Explaining the evidence: tests of the story model for juror decision-making. J Pers Soc Psychol 62(2):189-206.
• Pennington N, Hastie R (1993) The story model for Juror decision making. In: Hastie R (ed) Inside the Juror: the psychology of Juror decision making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 192-221.
• Prakken H, Sartor G (2009) A logical analysis of burdens of proof. In: Kaptein H, Prakken H, Verheij B (eds) Legal evidence and burden of proof. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 223-253.
• Wagenaar WA, van Koppen PJ, Crombag HFM (1993) Anchored narratives: the psychology of criminal evidence. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire.
• Douglas Walton, Similarity, precedent and argument from analogy, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.18 n.3, p.217-246, September 2010
• Weinreb LL (2005) Legal reason: the use of analogy in legal argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

• The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Political and Legal History (Oxford University Press)
• Analogy (QiyAŠs) in Islamic Law in the Dictionary of Concepts in History, by Harry Ritter
• A Short History of Western Legal Theory, by John Kelly