Abstracts
Abstract
Islamic dialogue theory, developed through the Munāẓara tradition, introduces a distinct model of argumentation and a unique type of dialogue not yet captured by existing typologies. While pragma-dialectics upholds a single, idealized normative framework, and dialogue theory distributes norms across multiple types, Stevens (2026) argues that both neglect the ethical responsibilities built into argumentative practice. Building on her account, I show that in munāẓara, argumentative roles are procedurally indeterminate and inherently negotiable. Decisions about sequencing, burden of proof, what counts as a move, and how one flavors a role involve a continuous negotiation of the rights and obligations of each party.
Keywords:
- applied role ethics,
- dialogue theory,
- flavor,
- munāẓara
Résumé
La théorie du dialogue islamique, développée à travers la tradition Munāẓara, introduit un modèle d'argumentation distinct et un type de dialogue unique qui n'est pas encore pris en compte par les typologies existantes. Alors que la pragma-dialectique privilégie un cadre normatif unique et idéalisé, et que la théorie du dialogue répartit les normes entre différents types d'échanges, Stevens (2026) soutient que ces deux approches négligent les responsabilités éthiques inhérentes à la pratique argumentative. En m’appuyant sur son analyse, je démontre que dans le munāẓara, les rôles argumentatifs sont procéduralement indéterminés et intrinsèquement négociables. Les décisions relatives à l'enchaînement des interventions, à la charge de la preuve, à ce qui constitue une manoeuvre et à la manière de nuancer un rôle impliquent une négociation constante des droits et des obligations de chaque partie.
Download the article in PDF to read it. Download
Appendices
Bibliography
- al-Āmidī, ʿA. A.W. (1900). ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ʿalā l-Waladiyya. Dersaadet.
- al-Jaunpūrī, ʿA. A. R. (2006). Sharḥ al-Rashīdiyya. Maktabat al-Īmān.
- Çelik, M. (2022). Âdâbu’l-baḥs̱ ve’l-munâẓaranın kaynağı ve eserleri (14–20. yy.). Tahkik İslami İlimler Araştırma ve Neşir Dergisi, 5(2), 207–249. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7400779
- Faytre, L. (2018). Münazara and the internal dimension of argumentation ethics: A translation and commentary on Ahmed Cevdet’s Adab-ı Sedad in the light of Sufism and Western argumentation theories (Publication No. 513179) [Master’s thesis. Ibn Haldun University]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi
- van Eemeren, F. H. (2012). The pragma-dialectical theory under discussion. Argumentation 26(4), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9274-7
- van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2012a). Effectiveness through reasonableness: Preliminary steps to pragma-dialectical effectiveness research. Argumentation, 26(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9234-7
- van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2012b). The extended pragma-dialectical argumentation theory empirically interpreted. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical themes in argumentation theory, (Vol. 22, pp. 323–343). Springer Netherlands.
- van Eemeren, F. H. & Houtlosser, P. (2007). The contextuality of fallacies. Informal Logic, 27(1): 59–68. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v27i1.464
- Güney, A. (2010). Critical edition of Kemâl al-dīn Masʿūd b. Ḥusain al-Shirwānī’s work titled Sharḥ Ādāb al-Samarqandī. Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 51. https://doi.org/10.17335/suifd.13936
- Gelenbevī, I. (1934). Gelenbevī ʿalā Ādāb al-baḥth maʿa al-ḥawāshī. Maṭbaʿat al-Saʿāda.
- Hatim, B. (1990). A model of argumentation from Arabic rhetoric: Insights for a theory of text types. Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies), 17(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/13530199008705505
- Lumer, C. (1988). The disputation—a special type of cooperative argumentative dialogue. Argumentation, 2(4), 441–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128986
- Mullā Ḥanafī, M. (2014). Sharḥ al-Mullā Ḥanafī. Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmīyah.
- Öztop, A. (2018). Analysis, critical edition and translation of Dāwud al-Qarsī’s Sharḥ al-Waladiyya al-Jadīda (Publication No. 518496) [Master’s thesis, Yalova University]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi
- Oruç, R. (2025). Munāẓara and Islamic traditions of argument. In S. Aikin, J. Casey and K. Stevens (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of argumentation theory. Routledge.
- Oruç, R., Sadek K., & Küçükural, Ö. (2023b). The virtuous arguer as a virtuous sequencer. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 28(3), 417–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-023-10394-0
- Oruç, R., Üzelgün, M. A., & Sadek, K. (2023a). Sequencing critical moves for ethical argumentation practice: Munāẓara and the interdependence of procedure and agent. Informal Logic, 43(1), 113–137. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v43i1.7073
- Oruç, R., Onur, Z., Eyüpoğlu, A., Bensaid, H., Saetgaraeva, A., Üzelgün, M. A., & Küçükural, Ö. (2023c). Status report on munāẓara literature. Research report. Istanbul: Ibn Haldun University.
- Rahman, S. & Young, E. W. (2022). Argumentation and Arabic philosophy of language: Introduction. Methodos. Savoirs et Textes, 22. https://doi.org/10.4000/methodos.8833
- Ṣācāqlīzāda. (1872). Taqrīr al-qawānīn.
- Sadek, K. (2023). Self-transformation in the anthropocene. Constellations, 30(2), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12684
- Stevens, K. (2016). The virtuous arguer: One person, four roles. Topoi, 35(2), 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-015-9309-4
- Stevens, K. (2019). The roles we make others take: Thoughts on the ethics of arguing. Topoi, 38(4), 693–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-019-09659-0
- Stevens, K. (2026). The ethics of argumentation. Routledge.
- Tindale, C. W. (2021). Mere dispositions: Durability and the teaching of values. In T. Suzuki, T. Tateyama, T. Kato, & J. Eckstein (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tokyo Conference on Argumentation (Vol. 6, pp. 23–40). Japan Debate Association.
- Walton, D. (1992). Commitment, types of dialogue and fallacies. Informal Logic, 14(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v14i2.2532
- Walton, D. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. University of Toronto Press.
- Walton, D. (2007). Dialog theory for critical argumentation. John Benjamins.
- Walton, D. (2010). Burden of proof in deliberation dialogs. In P. McBurney, I. Rahwan, S. Parsons and N. Maudet (Eds.), ArgMAS 2009, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 6057, pp. 1–22). Springer.
- Walton, D. & Macagno, F. (2016). Types of dialogue and burdens of proof. Informal Logic, 36(4): 523–562. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v36i4.4586
- Walton, D. & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. SUNY Press.
- Young, W. E. (2015). On the protocols for dialectical inquiry (Ādāb al-baḥth): A critical edition and parallel translation of the Sharḥ al-Risāla al-Samarqandiyya by Quṭb al-Dīn al-Kīlānī, prefaced by a critical edition and parallel translation of its Grundtext, the Risāla fī Ādāb al-baḥth by Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī. [Unpublished manuscript]. Oriental Institute, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.