Justifying and answering premise criticism: An epistemic model
The epistemic status of a challenge to an interlocutor’s premise is central to any dialectical tradition, yet its underlying logic is rarely made explicit. Classical Islamic disputation theory offers a systematic, but largely unexamined, treatment of this problem. This article investigates the normative justification and critical resolution of premise criticism within Ādāb al-Baḥth wa al-Munāẓara (ABM), the classical Islamic tradition of legal and philosophical dialectics. Within classical ABM, premise criticism is bifurcated into epistemically warranted and unwarranted classes. This paper proposes that the five seminal concepts used to define dialectical justification (sanad/mustanad), namely, support (taqwiya), basis (mabnī ʿalayh), correction (muṣaḥḥiḥ), confirmation/corroboration (taʾyīd/taʾkīd), and the sole sufficient reason (malzūm musāwī), delineate a highly structured hierarchy of epistemic warrant. Integrating classical Islamic disputation theory with modern analytic epistemology, I map these five categories onto the distinction between subjective and objective justification, as well as inductive (probabilistic) and deductive (certain) rationales. I show that while support and basis represent purely subjective epistemic stances, correction and confirmation operate as objective-probabilistic (inductive) warrants. In contrast, the sole sufficient reason delivers objective-certain (deductive) entailment. Finally, I model the strategic dialogue game from the proponent’s perspective, detailing the conditions under which a critic’s challenge must be answered through independent justification, a dilemma-based reductio, or structural argument revision (taġyīr al-ʿilla). The study concludes that classical ABM yields a robust, formalized epistemic model with profound implications for contemporary argumentation theory and dialectical logic.
Alshomary, M., Syed, S., Dhar, A., Potthast, M., & Wachsmuth, H. (2021). Argument undermining: Counter-argument generation by attacking weak premises (Version 3). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2105.11752
Başdemir, H. Y. (2010). Gerekçelendirme, Epistemik Seviyeler ve Kesin Bilgi: Farabî ve Chisholm Karşılaştırması [Justification, epistemic levels and certain knowledge: A comparison of Al-Farabi and Chisholm]. Hitit Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(17), 39–65.
Bahashtī, A. M. (n.d.). el-Meʾâb fî Şerḥi'l-Âdâb [The destination in the commentary on disputation rules] [Manuscript]. Afyon Gedik Ahmet Paşa İl Halk Kütüphanesi Collection (03 Gedik 17661/7, fols. 179b–225a), National Library (Milli Kütüphane), Ankara, Türkiye.
Baypazārī, M. b. İ. (n.d.). el-Mebâḥis̱ü'l-Ḫayriyye fî Şerḥi Âdâbi'l-ʿUlûmi'n-Naẓariyye [The auspicious discussions in the commentary on the rules of theoretical sciences] [Manuscript]. Carullah Collection (No. 1869), Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Brennan, A. (2024). Necessary and sufficient conditions. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Accessed January 18, 2026. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/necessary-sufficient/
Brody, B. A. (1968). Confirmation and explanation. The Journal of Philosophy, 65(10), 282–299. https://doi.org/10.2307/2024079
Bulghārī, B. İ. (n.d.). Şerḥu Risāleti Ādābi'l-Baḥs̱ li's-Semerḳandī [Commentary on al-Samarqandi's treatise on disputation rules] [Manuscript]. Şehid Ali Paşa Collection (No. 2305), Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Cenedî, A. Ḫ. (n.d.). eş-Şerḥ ʿalâ Risâle fî Âdâbi'l-ʿAḍudiyye [Commentary on al-Adudiyya's treatise on disputation rules] [Manuscript]. Nuruosmaniye Collection (No. 4494), Süleymaniye Manuscript Library, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Chisholm, R. M. (1982). The foundations of knowing. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Crupi, V. (2025). Confirmation. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Accessed January 18, 2026. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/confirmation/
Çelik, M. (2022). Âdâbu'l-Baḥs̱ ve'l-Munâẓaranın Kaynağı ve Eserleri (14-20. yy.) [The origin and scope of Ādabu al-Baḥth wa al-Munāẓara (14th–20th c.)]. Tahkik İslami İlimler Araştırma ve Neşir Dergisi, 5(2), 207–249. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7400779
Çelik, M. (2023). Osmanlı Ulemasının Eleştirel Düşünme Konusuna İlgisi [The interest of Ottoman scholars in critical thinking]. İslami Araştırmalar, 34(3), 648–660.
de Pierris, G. (1989). Subjective justification. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 19(3), 363–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1989.10716485
Dutilh Novaes, C. (2022). Argument and argumentation. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Accessed January 18, 2026. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/argument/
Frank, R. M. (1978). Beings and their attributes: The teaching of the Basrian School of the Mu'tazila in the classical period. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Ḥabūshānī, M. (n.d.). eş-Şerḥ ʿalâ Risâle fî Âdâbi'l-Baḥs̱ li's-Semerḳandî [Commentary on al-Samarqandi's treatise on disputation rules] [Manuscript]. Damad İbrahim Paşa Collection (No. 1049), Süleymaniye Manuscript Library, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Kīlānī, M. Ķ. (n.d.). eş-Şerḥ ʿalâ Risâle fî Âdâbi'l-Baḥs̱ li's-Semerḳandî [Commentary on al-Samarqandi's treatise on disputation rules] [Manuscript]. Fatih Collection (No. 4709), Süleymaniye Manuscript Library, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Köz, İ. (2003). Modal Mantık'ta "Strict Implication-Material Implication" (Sıkı Gerektirme-Maddi Gerektirme) Teorisi [Strict implication vs. material implication theory in modal logic]. Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 44(1), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1501/Ilhfak_0000000136
Krabbe, E. C. W., & van Laar, J. A. (2011). The ways of criticism. Argumentation, 25(2), 199–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9209-8
Kvanvig, J. L. (1984). Subjective justification. Mind, 93(369), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XCIII.369.71
Mīr Maybudī, E. Ḥ. (n.d.). Şerḥu Ādābi'l-Baḥs̱ [Commentary on disputation rules] [Manuscript]. Veliyüddin Efendi Collection (No. 2181), Beyazıt Manuscript Library, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Nasr, S. H., & Aminrazavi, M. (Eds.). (2014). An anthology of philosophy in Persia: Vol. 5. From the School of Shiraz to the twentieth century. Bloomsbury Publishing, London, United Kingdom.
Nickerson, R. S. (2020). Argumentation: The art of persuasion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108892032
Pehlivan, N. (2022). Âdâbü'l-Bahs ve'l-Münâzara Geleneğinde "İkinci Yeni": Hüseyin Şah el-Adanavî'nin Hüseyniyye'si ve Tahkiki [The "second new" in the tradition of disputation rules: Hüseyin Şah el-Adanavî's Hüseyniyye and its critical edition]. In M. Özturan, Y. Daşdemir, & F. Kayacan (Eds.), Osmanlı'da İlm-i Mantık ve Münazara (pp. 321–428). İsar Yayınları, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Pehlivan, N., & Çelik, M. (2018). Zamanı Olsaydı Daha Kısa Yazacaktı: Birgīvī Meḥmed Efendī (Ö. 981/1573)'nin Risāle Fi'l-Ādāb'ı [If he had had time, he would have written shorter: Birgīvī Meḥmed Efendī's (d. 981/1573) Risāle Fi'l-Ādāb]. In M. Bayyiğit, M. Özkan, A. A. Çanakcı, & A. H. Abdelghany (Eds.), Balıkesirli Bir İslam Alimi İmam Birgivi (pp. 412–456). Balıkesir Büyükşehir Belediyesi, Balıkesir, Türkiye.
Popper, K. R. (1954). Degree of confirmation. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 5(18), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/V.18.143
Shāshī, Ḥ. (n.d.). eş-Şerḥ ʿalâ Risâle fî Âdâbi'l-Baḥs̱ li's-Semerḳandî [Commentary on al-Samarqandi's treatise on disputation rules] [Manuscript]. Harput Collection (No. 213), Süleymaniye Manuscript Library, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Shirvānī, K. M. (2010). Şerḥu Ādābi'l-Baḥs̱ (A. Güney, critical ed.). In A. Güney, Kemāluddīn Mesʿūd b. Huseyn eş-Şirvānī’nin Şerḥu Ādābi’s-Semerḳandī adlı eserinin tahkiki ve değerlendirmesi. Master’s thesis, (Original work composed ca. 15th century). Sakarya University, Sakarya, Türkiye.
Taftāzānī, M. (n.d.). eş-Şerḥ ʿalâ Risâle fî Âdâbi'l-Baḥs̱ li's-Semerḳandî [Commentary on al-Samarqandi's treatise on disputation rules] [Manuscript]. Carullah Collection (No. 1861), Süleymaniye Manuscript Library, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005
Walton, D. (2013). Methods of argumentation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139600187
Yılmaz, H. (2019). Caliphate redefined: The mystical turn in Ottoman political thought. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Young, W. E. (2022). The formal evolution of Islamic juridical dialectic: A brief glimpse. In S. Rahman, M. Armgardt, & H. C. N. Kvernenes (Eds.), New developments in legal reasoning and logic: From ancient law to modern legal systems (pp. 83–113). Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70084-3_4