Sequencing Critical Moves for Ethical Argumentation Practice: Munāẓara and the Interdependence of Procedure and Agent
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v43i1.7073Keywords:
sequencing, critical moves, values of argumentation, munāẓara, argumentative virtues and vicesAbstract
The aim of this paper is to highlight an interdependence between procedural and agential norms that undermines their neat separation when appraising argumentation. Drawing on the munāẓara tradition, we carve a space for sequencing in argumentation scholarship. Focusing on the antagonist’s sequencing of critical moves, we identify each sequence’s corresponding values of argumentation: coalescence, reliability, and efficacy. These values arise through the mediation of virtues and simultaneously underpin procedural as well as agential norms. Consequently, an ambiguity between procedure and agent becomes apparent. This ambiguity hints at the potential for a virtue theory of argumentation that draws on procedural norms.
References
Aberdein, Andrew. 2010. Virtue in argument. Argumentation 24(2): 165-79.
Aberdein, Andrew. 2014. In defence of virtue: The legitimacy of agent-based argu-ment appraisal. Informal Logic 34(1): 77-93.
Aberdein, Andrew and Daniel H. Cohen. 2016. Introduction: Virtues and arguments. Topoi 35(2): 339-43.
al-Āmidī, ʿAbd al-Wahhāb. 1900. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ʿalā al-Waladiyyah. Is-tanbul: Dersaadet.
al-Dabūsī, ʻAbdallāh Ibn-ʻUmar. 2001. Taqwīm al-adilla fī uṣūl al-fiqh. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmīya.
al-Jaunpūrī, ’Abd al-Ras̲ḥīd. 2006. Sharḥ al Rasḥīdīya. Maktabat al-Īmān.
al-Samarqandī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad. 1934. Risāla fī Ādāb al-Baḥth. In Al-Badr al-ʿIllāt, ed. Maḥmūd al-Imām al-Manṣūrī. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Saʿāda.
al-Samarqandī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad. 2014. Qisṭās al-Afkār fī Taḥqīq al-Asrār. Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Yayınları.
Arif, Syamsuddin. 2020. The art of debate in Islam: Textual analysis and translation of Ṭaşköprüzade’s Ādāb al-Baḥth wa al-Munāẓarah. Jurnal Akidah & Pemikiran Islam 22(1): 187-216.
Belhaj, Abdessamad. 2016. Ādāb al-Baḥth wa-al-Munāẓara: The neglected art of disputation in later medieval Islam. Arabic Sciences and Philoso-phy 26(2): 291-307.
Biro, John and Harvey Siegel. 2006. In defense of the objective epistemic approach to argumentation. Informal Logic 26(1): 91-101.
Blair, J. Anthony. 1998. The limits of the dialogue model of argument. Argumentation. 12(2): 325-339.
Cevdet Paşa, Ahmet. 1998. Miyâr-ı Sedâd. In Mantık Metinleri 2, ed. Kudred Büyükcoşkun. İstanbul: Ravza.
Cohen, Daniel H. and George Miller. 2016. What virtue argumentation theory misses: The case of compathetic argumentation. Topoi 35(2): 451-60.
Dutilh Novaes, Catarina. 2021. Who’s afraid of adversariality? Conflict and cooperation in argumentation. Topoi 40(5): 873-86.
Eemeren, Frans van and Rob Grootendorst. 2003. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press.
Faytre, Leonard Jean Charles. 2018. “Münazara” and the internal dimen-sion of argumentation ethics: A translation and commentary on Ahmed Cevdet’s Adab-i Sedad in the light of Sufism and western argumentation theories. Ibn Haldun University.
El-Rouayheb, Khaled. 2015. Islamic intellectual history in the seventeenth century: Scholarly currents in the Ottoman Empire and the Maghreb. Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, Ralph H. 2003. The dialectical tier revisited. In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, eds. Frans H. Van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, Charles A. Willard and A. Francis-ca Snoeck Henkemans. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands
Johnson, Ralph H. 2012. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Routledge.
Johnson, Ralph Henry and J. Anthony Blair. 2006. Logical self-defense. Idea. (Original work published 1977)
Garssen, Bart and Jan Albert van Laar. 2010. A pragma-dialectical re-sponse to objectivist epistemic challenges. Informal Logic 30(2): 122-41.
Gelenbevī, Ismā‘īl. 1934. Gelenbevī alā Ādāb me’ā Ḥāshiyat. Matbaat al-Saʿāda.
Godden, David. 2016. On the priority of agent-based argumentative norms. Topoi 35(2): 345-57.
Güney, Adem. 2010. Critical edition of Kemâl al-din Masud b. Husain al-Shirwani’s work titled Sharh Âdâb al-Samarqandi. Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 51.
Krabbe, Erik C. W. and Jan Albert van Laar. 2011. The ways of criticism. Argumentation 25(2): 199-227.
Laar, Jan Albert van and Erik C. W. Krabbe. 2013. The burden of criti-cism: Consequences of taking a critical stance. Argumentation 27(2): 201-24.
Laar, Jan Albert van. 2001. Ambiguity in a dialectical perspective. Infor-mal Logic 21(3).
Lumer, Christoph. 1988. The disputation—a special type of cooperative argumentative dialogue. Argumentation 2(4): 441-64.
Lumer, Christoph. 2005a. The epistemological theory of argument–how and why? Informal Logic 25(3): 213-243.
Lumer, Christoph. 2005b. Introduction: The epistemological approach to argumenta-tion–A map. Informal Logic 25(3): 189-212.
Mullā Ḥanafī, Muḥammad. 2014. Sharḥ al-Mullā Ḥanafī. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmīyah.
Pehlivan, Necmettin and Hadi Ensar Ceylan. 2015. Ādābu’l-Bahs Devrimine Doğru Son Evrim: Burhānuddīn en-Nesefī’nin el-Fusūl’ü. Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 56(2): 1-76.
Ṣabbān, Muḥammad. 2014. Ḥāshiya ʿAllāma Ṣabbān. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmīyah.
Stevens, Katharina and Daniel Cohen. 2019. The attraction of the ideal has no traction on the real: On adversariality and roles in argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 55(1): 1-23.
Stevens, Katharina and Daniel H. Cohen. 2020. Angelic devil’s advocates and the forms of adversariality. Topoi. 1-14.
Taiai, Maria and Rahmi Oruç. 2021. Uses, motives, functions, and virtues of silence in argumentation in light of Jadal and Ādāb al-Baḥth wa al-Munāẓarah. Afkar-Jurnal Akidah & Pemikiran Islam 23(2): 225-248.
Ṭāshkubrīzāde. 2012. Risāla al-Ādāb fī Ādāb al-Baḥth wa al-Munāẓarah. Quwait: Dār al-Ẓāhiriyyah.
Üzelgün, Mehmet Ali, Maria Fernandes-Jesus and Önder Küçükural. 2022. Reception of climate activist messages by low-carbon transition actors: Argument evasion in the carbon offsetting debate. Argumentation and Advocacy 58(2): 102-22.
Young, Walter Edward. 2017. The dialectical forge, vol. 9. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Young, Walter Edward. 2018. Al-Samarqandī’s third Masʾala: Juridical dialectic governed by the Ādāb al-Baḥth. Oriens 46(1-2): 62-128.
