There are two main approaches in Islamic legal theory to the classification of a meaning as explicit or implicit. The two approaches—i.e. the Šāfiʿite and the Ḥanafite—differ with regard to their underlying hermeneutic paradigms. It is sometimes assumed that the “standard” Šāfiʿite approach corresponds to that of Āmidī (d. 631/1233). However, as this paper argues, there were two other authors who had a major impact on the evolution of the Šāfiʿite approach: the post-Avicennian polymath and Šāfiʿī jurist Faḫr ad-dīn ar-Rāzī (d. 606/1210); and the Mālikite jurist Ibn al-Ḥāǧib (d. 646/1249) who creates his own classification—on the basis of both Āmidī’s approach and the Ḥanafite paradigm. Aḍud ad-dīn al-Īǧī (d. 756/1355) eventually modified Ibn al-Ḥāǧib’s classification using Rāzī’s framework—and this is the version which is nowadays referred to as the Šāfiʿite approach.
Bernand, Marie. “Controverses Médiévales sur le Dalīl al-Ḫiṭāb”. Arabica, vol. 33, no. 3 (Nov. 1986): pp. 269–94.
Endress, Gerhard. “Reading Avicenna in the Madrasa: Intellectual Genealogies and Chains of Transmission of Philosophy and the Sciences in the Islamic East”. In Arabic Theology, Arabic Philosophy. From the Many to the One: Essays in Celebration of Richard M. Frank, ed. by James E. Montgomery, pp. 371–422. Leuven: Peeters, 2006.
van Ess, Josef. Die Träume der Schulweisheit. Leben und Werk des ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Ǧurǧānī (gest. 816/1413). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2013.
Gutas, Dimitri. “The Heritage of Avicenna: The Golden Age of Arabic Philosophy, 1000–ca 1350”. In Avicenna and his Heritage, ed. by Jules Janssens and Daniel De Smet, pp. 81–97. Leuven: University Press, 2002.
Gutas, Dimitri. “Avicenna’s philosophical project”. In Interpreting Avicenna: Critical Essays, ed. by Peter Adamson, pp. 28–47. Cambridge: University Press, 2013.
al-Ǧuwaynī, Imām al-Ḥaramayn. al-Burhān fī uṣūl al-fiqh. Ed. Ṣāliḥ b. Muḥammad b. ʿUwayḍa. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿilmiyya, 1997.
Gwynne, Rosalind. “The A Fortiori Argument in Fiqh, Naḥw and Kalām”. In Studies in the History of Arabic Grammar II. Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on the History of Arabic Grammar, Nijmwegen, 27. April–1. May 1987, ed. by Kees Versteegh and Michael G. Carter, pp. 165–77. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1990.
Hallaq, Wael B. “Non-Analogical Arguments in Sunni Juridical Qiyās”. Arabica, vol. 36 (1989): pp. 286–306.
Hallaq, Wael B. A History of Islamic Legal Theories: An Introduction to Sunnī uṣūl al-fiqh. Cambridge: University Press, 1997.
Hasan, Ahmad. “Finding the Cause of a Legal Injunction in Islamic Jurisprudence”. Islamic Studies, vol. 25, no. 1 (1986): pp. 11–44.
Holtzmann, Livnat. “The Dhimmi’s Question on Predetermination and the Ulama’s Six Responses: The Dynamics of Composing Polemical Didactic Poems in Mamluk Cairo and Damascus”. Mamluk Studies Review, vol. 16 (2012): pp. 1–54.
Jackson, Sherman A. Islamic Law and the State: The Constitutional Jurisprudence of Shihāb Al-Dīn al-Qarāfī. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Kalbarczyk, Nora. Sprachphilosophie in der islamischen Rechtstheorie. Die avicennische Klassifikation der Bezeichnung bei Faḫr ad-dīn ar-Rāzī, forthcoming, Leiden: Brill, 2018.
Kalbarczyk, Nora. “The Threefold Classification of Signification: Aspects of the Origins of muṭābaqa, taḍammun and iltizām in al-Fārābī’s and Ibn Sīnā’s Treatises on De Interpretatione and the Predicables”, forthcoming.
Kamali, Mohammad H. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 32013.
Stewart, Devin J. Islamic Legal Orthodoxy: Twelver Shiite Responses to the Sunni Legal System. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1998.
Street, Tony. “Faḫraddīn ar-Rāzī’s Critique of Avicennan Logic”. In Logik und Theologie. Das Organon im Arabischen und im Lateinischen Mittelalter, ed. by Dominik Perler and Ulrich Rudolph, pp. 99–116. Leiden: Brill, 2005.