Analogical Arguments in the Kalam Tradition: Abu l-Ma'ali al-Juwayni and Beyond

This article examines the development and critique of analogical arguments in the kalam tradition. There are two basic positions on analogical arguments: (i) one holds that if analogical arguments yield certainty, then they are analyzable as deductive inferences, rendering the analogy itself redundant. Proponents of this view thus hold that if the analogy is useful at all, it will never yield the certainty demanded in the rational sciences; (ii) another holds that the analogy remains useful even when the argument is deductively sound, either because the universal premise is epistemically dependent on the source case, or, because the source case is useful in dialectical contexts. The exploration of these themes will center around Juwayni's formalization and subsequent critique of analogical arguments in the kalam tradition.