|
Logic is an old Greek discipline set by the classical Greek
philosophers. They applied it to any aspect, whether they relate to
things within or beyond the senses. They employed it in discussing
God, His Attributes, and His Essence, in addition to other issues
such as nature and justice. This way of thinking is built upon a
specific philosophical order that leads a person to reach specific
results. The specific format which characterizes logic consists of
two premises: The major premise, which states a general rule or
natural phenomenon, and the minor premise, which could be a specific
idea or issue that the person must think about. Based on the
relationship between the two premises, the logician reaches a
conclusion.
Logicians do not emphasize the soundness or correctness of any of
these premises or logical analysis. Rather, the emphasis is on the
formality. In Ibn Taymiyya Against the Greek Logicians, by Hallaq,
he states: ''The inherent nature in Syllogism renders it hardly
superior to analogy, because however valid the syllogism may be, it
cannot, by virtue of form alone, lead to a certain conclusion. It is
the subject matter of the argument, not its form, that determines
the truth of the conclusion…A syllogistic mode of reasoning will not
result in a certain conclusion by virtue of form alone.''
Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Misapplication of Logic
This syllogism seems outwardly to be a very appealing mental
exercise, which may tempt many people to use it. Although it could
be applied in math, the logical approach cannot function in
jurisprudence, Aqeedah, and politics. A few examples will illustrate
misleading nature of logic if misapplied.
Logic in Jurisprudence One of the greatest disasters to befall the
world of Fiqh was the introduction of logic in understanding the
legal text. A simple example will demonstrate the inability of
reaching the correct conclusion using the logical approach. In life,
people borrow money for many things. Also, the Hajj is an important
thing that Muslims must perform. The logical conclusion is that
Muslims must borrow money for Hajj. This conclusion is false because
Hajj is obligatory only on those who are capable. The one who does
not have money does not need to borrow. The fallacy of this
conclusion came from the fallacy of the second argument, although it
seems correct. The correct argument is that Hajj is an important act
that Muslims must do if they are capable.
Logic in Aqeedah
Although it may seem otherwise, the use of logic in Aqeedah may lead
to erroneous conclusions. For example, one can establish as his
major premise that every creation is not eternal and will end and as
his minor premise that Jannah and the Hell-Fire are created, leading
to the logical conclusion that Jannah and Hell-Fire will end. This
conclusion is wrong because the major premise is wrong. The first
argument applies only to this life, but it cannot be generalized to
include the Hereafter. The Hereafter is a different situation which
is beyond the human sensation and comprehension. Therefore, the
rules of this life cannot be applied to it.
Logic in Political Thinking
One of the most dangerous pitfalls in the political thinking of the
Muslims nowadays results from the use of logic to arrive at
political conclusions. If, for instance, in formulating a political
opinion about the policies of Britain and the US towards the
European Union, one were to establish as his major premise that
America would try to prevent the unity of Europe and as his minor
premise that British policy is connected to the US policy, the
logical conclusion would be that Britain tries to prevent the unity
of Europe. The conclusion is not correct because Britain would be
very enthusiastic in achieving the European unity as long as it is
within its interests. If the British policy seems to oppose the
unity, this opposition is an attempt to steer the unity more towards
its interests or to attempt to influence the US policy in Europe and
not borne out of any lack of desire to achieve the European unity.
The fallacy of the conclusion in this analogy is due to the fallacy
of the second premise. Britain, as a sovereign nation and a former
superpower, would not accept to have its policy linked to the policy
of any other nation, even America. Although both of them belong to
the same Western Camp, a conflict of interest may emerge at times.
These three examples demonstrate that logic does not always lead
people to the correct conclusion. It is worthwhile to mention the
example of Ibn Taymiyyah to illustrate the misleading nature of
using logic out of its context. Ibn Taymiyyah viewed logic as ''the
flesh of a slaughtered camel found on the summit of a mountain; the
flesh is not good enough to warrant climbing the mountain, nor is
the road leading to it easy to follow'' (Hallaq, Ibn Taymiyya
Against the Greek Logicians).
The reason why logic does not lead to correct conclusions is because
it does not regard the reality nor does it attempt to analyze it.
Rather, it builds a conclusion based on the relationship between two
premises. The correct way of thinking necessitates understanding the
reality and then attempting to find the rule that could be applied
to the reality. Simply establishing certain premises and focusing on
the relationship between the premises and the form of the argument
will not result in any conclusion about the reality. The first
example discusses an Shariah matter, and the correct conclusion
regarding issues related to the Shariah is established by the
evidence from the legal text. The second argument fails to
acknowledge from the very beginning that the entire discussion is
beyond the intellect. And the third example does not build its case
based upon an understanding of the world order and the position of
both the leading nations and the competing nations, which must be
understood before attempting to comprehend the British policy in
Europe.
In addition, the logical way of thinking is wrong because of its use
of generalization. And because the essence of logic is based on a
sequence of premises and pays attention only to the form, it has the
potential to push a person away from the reality. A sound
Faqih(jurist) does not generalize based on apparent similarity.
Rather, he exerts his effort in understanding each issue or
situation independently and thoroughly, and then he searches for the
evidence from the legislative sources and applies the daleel to a
specific issue. It is not enough for him to refer to general ideas
such as interest or the objective of Shariah and then conclude a
result based on this.
And example of the erroneous conclusion that may result from
logical-based generalization is apparent in the following argument.
One can state, according to logic, that Islam does not overburden
the human being, which in itself is a generalization, and as a
second premise, that renting houses is burdensome. Because having
shelter is a basic need for the human being, then the logical
conclusion is that, by necessity, Islam allows buying houses by
taking loans from the bank which involve riba to avoid the burden of
renting. What this argument fails to address is that necessity (Darurah)
is not a general rule that applies to all situations but only to
specific situations mentioned in the Islamic text. Also, the concept
of Islam not overburdening the human being simply states a fact:
Whatever Allah (swt) did reveal as halal and haram lay within the
capability of the human being to apply without excessive burden.
However, the notion of burden nowadays is used through logic to
justify making halal what Islam made haram.
Such a logical thinking process is very common among Muslims,
particularly in jurisprudence. As a result, many people cite
''Logical justifications for Shariah rules'' such as claiming that
fasting purifies the brain from its metabolic wastes, or that prayer
helps discharge the electric charge from the head. Many others would
make such claims that Islam made the testimony of the woman less
than that of the man in certain issues because of her lack of
understanding and conclude that such a rule is no longer valid on
the premise that women today are educated. And yet others would link
the fasting to the sighting of the moon on the premise that Muslims
were illiterate, concluding as a result that the use of calculations
are allowed in determining the beginning and end of Ramadan on the
premise that Muslims are no longer illiterate. Furthermore, many
jurists generalize the concept of necessity (Darurah) and apply it
to all situations, whereas Islam applied necessity(Darurah) only in
specific situations. All of these erroneous arguments result from
the use of logical thinking taken out of context.
In order to address this way of thinking, Muslims must be trained to
understand the situation as it is rather than through this Sophistic
approach. The Muslims must realize that the processes involved in
establishing the Aqeedah, understanding the legal text, and
formulating political opinions are unique. And they must restrict
the application of logic to such areas as mathematics.
Related
Ideology
Confusion
about spirituality
Linking
the actions to the aqeedah
Archive
Series
of Thoughts
|
