Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
janali

Mantiq (logic)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

thanks for the first hadees:; I was comfused about nafi and isbat for a while.

About imam reza asws's debate regarding Allah azwj's will being eternal or hadis(created/non eternal). Yes, that's true however ilm has always been there in the zaath of Allah azwj. Mashiya, irada comes in to picture when there is shahada. Not every non eternal thing can be called created and not every non eternal is innovated. There is a difference between created and innovated. There are two Azal's; one is Azal and the other is Subh Azal. Allah azwj is neither stationery nor moving whereas His Will and Volition are innovated and arranged; His will is not Him but He has wills and wishes and He does what He wills.

You still don't get it. Logic (manteq) is akin to a plumb-line or spirit-level used by a builder - a tool. It doesn't concern itself with the bricks. For example, logic says "if A is B, and B is C, then A is also C". It doesn't deal with the substance of the proposition, definition, or proof - what A, B & C actually are. Whether it is the eternity of Allah [sWT], or the boiling point of water, it is irrelevant to logic. For this reason, I am not going to engage you in tangent points more than necessary..

If u look carefully in to the answers to Imran as Sabee in uyoon just after the debate u mentioned u will realise that there exists few things between eternity and non eternity. So reliance should be on the overall essence not one or two ahadees .

Wow, so much for "Logic of AhlulBayt [AS]" and all that pretend zeal. So after all that rhetoric about being such a devout follower of the Imams [AS], you directly reject his two absolutely unequivocal statements in favour of logical excuses..

For example: if something is created then it can't be creator.

Don't make up absolutely random BS and attribute it to your opposition! Nowhere did anyone say that. The correct contradiction of created would be non-created, not creator..

And wow, it's amazing to what extent malangs will go to uphold their ghuluw beliefs - even directly against the Imam [AS] first, and now against the Qur`an. Yes, that is an ayah you just mocked:

Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
52:35

Secondly, if you think that is wrong

A very logical law indeed but when imam Sadiq asws was asked if Quran is created or creator. He asws said neither of the two. It is Kalam Allah.
#

According to who? What you fantasise about logic? Your imaginary friend? :lol:..

Yeah, I don't understand aristotle's logic and i don't think Allah azwj is going to ask me why I didn't learn this logic??

I never said He will. Please argue against points I actually make.

All the best

With Regards

If we make a fallible logic which is gullible and has critics in itself then with these set of rules people will try to understand Quran and/or ahadees. And if it is not put against Quran or ahadees then it is surely against logic to learn such a logic which can't be logical applied in understanding Quran.

I already told you logic is not something you can posit against the Qur`an.

And brother shah himself mentioned In his first post that at a stage mantiq can be self destructive contradicting himself.

Keyword: Can be. Can be for the inept. If you studied logic, you might have been more likely to understand that. Oh wait :squeez: ..

Ok, enough said. Don't know why I gave in to mud-wrangling with a malang in the first place when the issue is clear for everyone anyways. Tempting as always, but a waste of time. If anyone else has any sane, non-repetetive doubts/concerns/questions/comments, I would be more than happy to discuss..

please make the way you speak about me friendly next time so i make the way I speak about you as friendly as you have done.

[side moral point]

Actually, the Qur`an commands goodness to those who wrong you (assuming that I did), the lowest incentive of which is that you will be forgiven too..

"Although the just requital for an injustice is an equivalent retribution, those who pardon and maintain righteousness are rewarded by God"
42:40
..

[/side moral point]..

Edited by The Persian Shah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

u r right brother,

set of rules which tell u the right way of thinking are the ways of thinking of Allah azwj, His prophet saww, aimma masomeen asws.

If we make a fallible logic which is gullible and has critics in itself then with these set of rules people will try to understand Quran and/or ahadees. And if it is not put against Quran or ahadees then it is surely against logic to learn such a logic which can't be logical applied in understanding Quran.

And brother shah himself mentioned In his first post that at a stage mantiq can be self destructive contradicting himself.

Ya Ali Madad

Yes but I understand what our brother is trying to say is that Logic has its own distinctive meaning from (personal opinion) which many people consider to be Logic as long as they find it settling within their hearts.

[side moral point]

Actually, the Qur`an commands goodness to those who wrong you (assuming that I did), the lowest incentive of which is that you will be forgiven too..

"Although the just requital for an injustice is an equivalent retribution, those who pardon and maintain righteousness are rewarded by God"
42:40
..

[/side moral point]..

I was not disturbed that I might have been wronged and I don't mind if you were wronging me if I really was and I would prefer you teach me about what is true and I learn it rather than I defend myself for being wrong but I don't know what you may have meant by attributing me to the plebs since it is considered as an insult when we attribute someone to the plebs in my society and please excuse me if I was wrong but I still encourage you to be more friendly in the way you talk about me since I wouldn't expect the Imams to ever talk about someone that was questioning what was going on within a discussion in the way you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still don't get it. Logic (manteq) is akin to a plumb-line or spirit-level used by a builder - a tool. It doesn't concern itself with the bricks. For example, logic says "if A is B, and B is C, then A is also C". It doesn't deal with the substance of the proposition, definition, or proof - what A, B & C actually are. Whether it is the eternity of Allah [sWT], or the boiling point of water, it is irrelevant to logic. For this reason, I am not going to engage you in tangent points more than necessary..

Wow, so much for "Logic of AhlulBayt [AS]" and all that pretend zeal. So after all that rhetoric about being such a devout follower of the Imams [AS], you directly reject his two absolutely unequivocal statements in favour of logical excuses..

Don't make up absolutely random BS and attribute it to your opposition! Nowhere did anyone say that. The correct contradiction of created would be non-created, not creator..

And wow, it's amazing to what extent malangs will go to uphold their ghuluw beliefs - even directly against the Imam [AS] first, and now against the Qur`an. Yes, that is an ayah you just mocked:

Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
52:35

Secondly, if you think that is wrong

#

According to who? What you fantasise about logic? Your imaginary friend? :lol:..

I never said He will. Please argue against points I actually make.

With Regards

I already told you logic is not something you can posit against the Qur`an.

Keyword: Can be. Can be for the inept. If you studied logic, you might have been more likely to understand that. Oh wait :squeez: ..

Ok, enough said. Don't know why I gave in to mud-wrangling with a malang in the first place when the issue is clear for everyone anyways. Tempting as always, but a waste of time. If anyone else has any sane, non-repetetive doubts/concerns/questions/comments, I would be more than happy to discuss..

[side moral point]

Actually, the Qur`an commands goodness to those who wrong you (assuming that I did), the lowest incentive of which is that you will be forgiven too..

"Although the just requital for an injustice is an equivalent retribution, those who pardon and maintain righteousness are rewarded by God"
42:40
..

[/side moral point]..

Salam

actually I don't make fallible logic the plumb line or sprit level rather it is the imam ajf that I rely on for every support in understanding Quran or ahadees. And I did not deny the statement of imam a.s but requested u to see the answers to Imran as sabee regarding will and volition. U Agree that logic Is not posited against Quran but u used random verses from quran to make ur point? And I quoted hadees from imam Sadiq asws that Quran is kalam Allah not a fallible logic.

I rest my case that we have different platforms and I make rasool Allah saww a judge between us.

Ya Ali Madad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Principle of Non-Contradiction in the Traditions

Al-Kulainī and al-Sadūq narrate from Imam Ja‛far al- Sādiq, Divine blessings be with him, that after proving the existence of Almighty God, the Imam said, “There is no distance between affirmation and negation.” This statement reflects the impossibility of negation of contradictories (istehāla irtefā’ al-naqīdhain).1 In his Al-Tawhīd, Al-Shaykh al-Sadūq narrates a conversation between Imam al-Redhā, peace be with him, and Sulayman al-Marwazī, a mutakellim from Khurāsān regarding the hudūth2 and eternity of the Divine Will (al- Irāda). In this tradition, the Imam explains the corollaries of both hudūth and eternity of the Divine Will and says, “Choose one of the two paths, surely if a thing is not eternal, it is hādith3; and if it is not hādith, it is eternal.”4 The Imam, peace be with him, says further, “Don’t you know that something that has always been cannot be hādith and eternal at the same time?”5 That is, ahādith is temporally preceded by nonexistence, and an eternal entity is not preceded by nonexistence, and the instantiation of both amounts to conjunction of contradictories (ijtemā‛ al- naqīdhain).

The first bit in bold seems to be appealing to the law of excluded middle rather than the law of non-contradiction, which is what the second bit in bold is appealing to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first bit in bold seems to be appealing to the law of excluded middle rather than the law of non-contradiction, which is what the second bit in bold is appealing to.

Not sure I agree. That which the logicians and philosophers call "the principle of contradiction" (asl al-tanaqus), is defined as "imtina` ijtima` naqhidhain wa imtina irtefa` naqhidhain" (the impossibility of conjunction and negation of two contradictories). In any case, even if we call it that, it is derived from the principle of contradiction..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I agree. That which the logicians and philosophers call "the principle of contradiction" (asl al-tanaqus), is defined as "imtina` ijtima` naqhidhain wa imtina irtefa` naqhidhain" (the impossibility of conjunction and negation of two contradictories). In any case, even if we call it that, it is derived from the principle of contradiction..

The translation begins with 'The law of non-contradiction in traditions' rather than the 'principle of contradiction'. Presumably this is a translation error? The law of non-contradiction says 'not (A and not-A)' and this is different to the law of excluded middle 'either A or not-A'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a difference between "law of contradiction", "law of non-contradiction", "principle of contradiction", "principle of non-contradiction"? They are all used (loosely) synonymously as far as I know (except for example in the context of discussions with dialectics). Maybe from this aspect the jump from principle of contradiction to law of non-contradiction was justified. Although you are right, I always use the former in translations, because there is a clear difference in technical definition (ijtima wa irtefa), which encompasses both law of non-contradiction (ijtima) and law of excluded middle (irtefa)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro The Persian Shah,

Can we say for certain that whether we realize it or not, we're always using laws of logic if we want to correctly understanding something?

Let's say we read in an authentic hadith, Imam Ja'far (as) ordered us to do X.

So, what's going on in our mind is this:

1. Whatever Imam commanded us must be obeyed.

2. Imam Ja'far commanded us to do X.

3. Therefore, we must obey him & do X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bro The Persian Shah,

Can we say for certain that whether we realize it or not, we're always using laws of logic if we want to correctly understanding something?

Let's say we read in an authentic hadith, Imam Ja'far ordered us to do X.

So, what's going on in our mind is this:

1. Whatever Imam commanded us must be obeyed.

2. Imam Ja'far commanded us to do X.

3. Therefore, we must obey him & do X

Of course, well noted. As was pointed out by more knowledgeable brothers previously, the laws of logic are a Divine blessing inherent in everybody's mind. Aristotle was only the first (known) to attempt to codify them (i.e. wrote them down), he didn't "invent" them - people were using their brains before him too. So then, what is the point of learning it if we already know it? The answer is that we use them subconsciously and since we don't pay much attention to them we commit mistakes in our thinking. By paying more attention and being really precise, we can "prevent errors in our thought" which is exactly what is noted under the chapter heading "the benefit of logic". Even sometimes great logicians who wrote the textbooks made simple logical mistakes in some of their comments. Which is why Shaykh Al-Ra`is, Ibn Sina, (and many others) says to learn it and practice it fully for two years until it becomes a malakah (permanent state) for you..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very logical law indeed but when imam Sadiq asws was asked if Quran is created or creator. He asws said neither of the two. It is Kalam Allah.

The Quran is undoubtedly created. There are many ahadith about this. I believe it is some of the 'ammah who believe it is not created but their evidences are weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without logic, programs would not run, neither would any sentence make sense. When you speak language, you automatically using logic. Language is built on axioms. Learning logic doesn't bring anything new, it just fine tunes your understanding and use of it. In computer science, it's transferred to set theories in which you learn to deal with sets.

There is no harm in learning logic, it only benefits. There is no dangers as people say there is. There is only benefit in learning logic. You learn common fallacies and how to arrange arguments and analyze language propositions as well as mathematical propositions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a difference between "law of contradiction", "law of non-contradiction", "principle of contradiction", "principle of non-contradiction"? They are all used (loosely) synonymously as far as I know (except for example in the context of discussions with dialectics).

Well 'non' is a negation of what follows, in this case the negation of (the possibility of) a contradiction. And that's negating the possibility of [A and not-A]. If you google law of non-contradiction you'll only get the 'not [A and not-A]' rule, not the law of the excluded middle. I didn't know until I read your post that in Islamic philosophy (and probably Aristotelian philosophy) both these rules come under the umbrella of 'principle of contradiction'. I guess the reason classical philosophers grouped them under the same heading is that they both dealt with contradictions, one rule denying the possibility of both contradictories being true, and the other denying the possibility of both being false. It's worth mentioning that whilst the latter is equivalent to the law of excluded middle, strictly speaking it states : 'not not (A or not-A)', rather than (A or not-A). It's also worth mentioning that there is a small contingent of philosophers who deny the universal applicability of excluded middle whilst affirming the law of non contradiction, and that's another reason keep them separate in discussions.

Edited by .InshAllah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's worth mentioning that whilst the latter is equivalent to the law of excluded middle, strictly speaking it states : 'not not (A or not-A)', rather than (A or not-A).

Well spotted.

It's also worth mentioning that there is a small contingent of philosophers who deny the universal applicability of excluded middle whilst affirming the law of non contradiction, and that's another reason keep them separate in discussions.

What is their argument exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro The Persian Shah,

Can we say for certain that whether we realize it or not, we're always using laws of logic if we want to correctly understanding something?

Let's say we read in an authentic hadith, Imam Ja'far (as) ordered us to do X.

So, what's going on in our mind is this:

1. Whatever Imam commanded us must be obeyed.

2. Imam Ja'far commanded us to do X.

3. Therefore, we must obey him & do X

Since this question is related (in one perspective) to the third aforementioned argument against the legitimacy of using logic, it would be appropriate to provide the refutation of that argument and elucidate the truth.

Argument #3:

The textual/narrative evidences (Qurʾān and ḥadīth) are the only legitimate means to follow. Whenever something contradicts with the textual evidences, the textual evidences are given higher authority.

Reply:

Overview

The true reason behind the stance that ahlul ḥadīth (the people of ḥadīth) have taken against logic relates back to their view concerning epistemology in Islam. They believe that the only way to "reach reality/truth" is through the Divine revelations, which include:

1) The Qurʾānic text, or

2) Aḥādīth from the Prophet and Ahlul-Bayt (as) - the latter negated by our Sunnī brothers.

Therefore, we pose the following questions:

What is/are the correct mean(s) to reach the truth/reality? and which epistemological view should one adopt in Islam?

There are numerous prevalent worldviews:

1. Experimental/Scientific: Acquired through the bodily senses and experiments.

2. Religious: Acquired solely through the Qurʾān and Sunnah whereby they dominate and govern the intellect.

3. Mystical/intuitive: Acquired through spiritual realizations.

4. Intellectual: (self-explanatory) - The intellect governs all other sciences.

There is no need, at the current moment, to dwell into each worldview and discuss its details. However, it is not difficult to prove that the fourth worldview is the correct and most accurate one to follow. The simplest proof is that when deciding which worldview you want to adopt, undoubtedly you do it through working your intellect. So, by definition, you need to use your intellect on a primary level.

For further elaboration and discussion, refer to the book of Āyatullah Mesbāḥ al-Yazdī titled, 'Theological Instructions.' (the book can be found here: <http://www.scribd.com/doc/20748186/BOOK-Theological-Instructions-%C4%80m%C5%ABzish-e-%E2%80%9BAq% C4%81-id-223-pp>, page 29-30)

Also, refer to the book of Āyatullah Muṭahharī (which I'd like to give my dear brother MAHFJ the credit for pointing this out to me) titled 'Fundamentals of Islamic Thought', p. 68 and onwards, p. 146 and onwards).

For those who know Arabic, refer to Āyatullah Sayyed Kamāl al-Ḥaydarī's book titled 'madkhal ʾila manāej al-maʿrifa ʿind al-Islamiyyīn - An introduction to the epistemological views in Islam. He (dt) does a great job at discussing all these worldviews (even more than the mentioned above) in detail. The book is available on his website.

Āyatullah Jawādī Āmulī states:

"The only scale for the sciences is what has been aforementioned regarding the necessary/axiomatic knowledge or what relates back to it. This is acquired through the intellect and not the senses, experiments, narrations or traditions. Therefore, the true knowledge revolves around the pure intellect ( ... ) where the Imām (as) said in a reply to Ibn al-Sikkīt when he asked him (as):

What is the proof (ḥujjah) upon the people today?" The Imam relied, 'It is the intellect (al-ʿaql). Through the intellect one recognizes those who speak the truth from Allah, thus, one acknowledges their truthfulness and those who lie about Allah, thus, one denies/rejects him." Ibn al-Sikkīt then said, "This by Allah is the answer" (al-kāfī, v. 1, chapter of al-ʿaql wal-jahl, ḥadīth 20), because knowing the Prophet truthful to Allah and the one who claims Prophethood [thus] lying to Allah does not occur but with knowing Allah and His names (...) and this knowledge does not occur but with the pure intellect ...

(source: ʿAlī bin Mūsa al-Riḍā (as) and Divine philosophy, p. 22)

It is noteworthy that Āyatullah Jawādī Āmulī in his book presents many narrations that are supported by the logical and philosophical principles.

Rebuttal

1. Since it has become evident that the ḥujjiyah (proof/authority) of believing in God, Prophethood, Imamate, resurrection, etc only occurs through the intellect, we conclude that the intellect governs all other beliefs. We only believe in God because intellect proves to us that a God exists, and that us, as creations, must obey that God. It also proves to us that God must be Just, and it is because of His Justice that He sends messengers and prophets to humanity to guide them on the path towards Him. Imamate and resurrection are proved in a similar manner.

Therefore, it is correct to say that if a narration, even if it was the most authentic narration we have, contradicts with a conclusive logical principle, then the logical principle is given priority over the narration.

Why? again, because it is the intellect that led us to accepting narrations from the Divine and His messengers. Therefore the intellect has authority over the Qurʾān and Sunnah.

Example: If an authentic narration explicitly mentions that God has a physical body with hands, legs, etc we automatically reject that narration since it contradicts with a conclusive/decisive logical principle which states that God is not physical and cannot be limited or defined.

2. The Qurʾān and narrations clearly established the authority of the intellect. An example of the narrations is given above. As for the Qurʾān, there is an abundant amount of verses that support this fact, examples are, but not limited to, the following:

a. Have they not traveled over the land so that they may have hearts by which they may apply reason, or ears by which they may hear? [22:46]

b. And if you ask them, 'Who sends down water from the sky, with which He revives the earth after its death?' They will surely say, 'Allah.' Say, 'All praise belongs to Allah!' But most of them do not apply reason. [29:63]

c. Indeed in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, and the ships that sail at sea with profit to men, and the water that Allah sends down from the sky &mdashwith which He revives the earth after its death, and scatters therein every kind of animal— and the changing of the winds, and the clouds disposed between the sky and the earth, are surely signs for a people who apply reason. [2:164]

3. We conclude from the aforementioned verses that the method that leads us to believing in God is through applying reason (i.e. via the intellect). Therefore, nothing that comes from the Divine must conflict with the intellect. For how can they defy the tool/means that led us to believing in them.

Insha'Allah this clarifies the confusion. I would like to apologize for the lack of clarity, which is due to the limit of my understanding, along with other factors of insufficient time and energy, etc.

Wasalam

Edited by Imami_ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

^ Jazakallah for that post

I was thinking about this whole issue, and to me it seems obvious that the intellect is essential, especially in matters of religion. How is one to determine that Islam is the true religion if not by intellect?

I would like to ask, what is Islam's position on using the intellect in deriving the laws of Allah (swt) - the shari`a?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

^ Jazakallah for that post

I was thinking about this whole issue, and to me it seems obvious that the intellect is essential, especially in matters of religion. How is one to determine that Islam is the true religion if not by intellect?

I would like to ask, what is Islam's position on using the intellect in deriving the laws of Allah (swt) - the shari`a?

It depends what you mean by intellect. Brother Imami ali's post was informative but he didn't clarify what he meant by 'intellect'. Intellect in the sense of formal logical reasoning is necessary to derive laws of Allah swt, and without it no laws could be derived. If a hadith commands x or a verse commands y, how do we turn that hadith/verse into an obligatory law? By applying something like this:

1. If God commands something then that thing is wajib

2. God commands x

therefore

3. x is wajib

Or, for example, applying the laws of the sharia to individual cases:

1. If the drink is wine then the drink is haraam (law of sharia)

2. This particular drink infront of me is wine

therefore

3. This drink is haraam

In symbols:

1. If p then q

2. p

therefore

3. q

This syllogism is known as 'modus ponens'. This is why people who deny the necessity of logic dont know what theyre talking about. So, as I said, 'intellect' in the sense of knowing the principles that govern logical reasoning (like modus ponens) is necessary. But that isn't sufficient to derive laws - we need more than that. We need 'intellect' in a broader sense that includes basic principles other than formal logical reasoning. An uncontroversial intellectual principle that would fall under this broader sense of 'intellect' would be what the fuqaha refer to as hujayyit althuhur (authoritativeness of apparent meaning) in its general sense: If a hadith says do xyz then we take it on its apparent meaning unless we have good reasons to the contrary. For example, if we are told to wash our faces before salaat then we should actually physically wash our faces, not interpret the command in a metaphorical or spiritual way against the apparent meaning, unless we have good reasons for doing so.

Someone might argue that hujayyit althuhur is proven from the ahadith, but that wouldnt work, as a prerequisite to understanding these very same ahadith is applying thuhur, so the argument would be circular.

Beyond this it gets more controversial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(wasalam)

This is a good topic of discussion and i wanted to add my view point which inshalla i hope some of you find conductive.

Mantiq is a crucial neccessity as an individual progress’s through life which in turn develops through ones experiences, knowledge and their intellect. The laws of mantiq are applied in nearly every instance of an individual’s life which drive’s them to act and to conclude in a certain way within the boundaries of their beliefs. Ones belief itself is the conclusion of their understanding and acceptance through logical means.

Using mantiq in our daily life’s and to apply mantiq to conclude a finding are two separate issues. Great thinkers and intellects of past and present apply the laws of mantiq to much greater boundaries which are sometimes beyond their capable capacity in which Allah created them in. Now to what extent can one apply the laws of mantiq to conclude a finding before it becomes controversial is the issue I believe.

To apply the laws of logic and to inturperate and to conclude the sharia can be dangerous regardless of the depth and capacity of the individuals understanding on the particular matter. The Masoomeen were appointed as Allah’s Wilayat Ul Mutliqah and through them Allah commanded the sharia. The Masoomeen even with their great level of insight never used their own logical reasoning to drive a particular law but rather taught us that which has been commanded by Allah.

Now to apply the laws of logic and to drive further rulings from the sharia which then becomes part of the sharia is a serious issue. Even though the intent may be pure the consequences of such verdicts can be harmful as:

1) a non infallible surely cannot conclude that which Allah desires

2) different Alims will differ with their rulings and understanding of the sharia

3) the sharia eventually becomes a battlefield of conflicting verdicts

This is evident through various rulings of learnered Alims who differ drastically with their conclusions. Mantiq is a crucial factor and a great tool for self advancement but should be concentrated within its boundaries and not be used by tampering with the divine laws of Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

^ when you say that we shouldn't use mantiq to derive Islamic laws, what do you mean?

Is it in the sense that for example someone says, "I think that because this song isn't saying anything bad, it is halal"

Plz clarify

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

It depends what you mean by intellect. Brother Imami ali's post was informative but he didn't clarify what he meant by 'intellect'. Intellect in the sense of formal logical reasoning is necessary to derive laws of Allah swt, and without it no laws could be derived. If a hadith commands x or a verse commands y, how do we turn that hadith/verse into an obligatory law? By applying something like this:

1. If God commands something then that thing is wajib

2. God commands x

therefore

3. x is wajib

Or, for example, applying the laws of the sharia to individual cases:

1. If the drink is wine then the drink is haraam (law of sharia)

2. This particular drink infront of me is wine

therefore

3. This drink is haraam

In symbols:

1. If p then q

2. p

therefore

3. q

This syllogism is known as 'modus ponens'. This is why people who deny the necessity of logic dont know what theyre talking about. So, as I said, 'intellect' in the sense of knowing the principles that govern logical reasoning (like modus ponens) is necessary. But that isn't sufficient to derive laws - we need more than that. We need 'intellect' in a broader sense that includes basic principles other than formal logical reasoning. An uncontroversial intellectual principle that would fall under this broader sense of 'intellect' would be what the fuqaha refer to as hujayyit althuhur (authoritativeness of apparent meaning) in its general sense: If a hadith says do xyz then we take it on its apparent meaning unless we have good reasons to the contrary. For example, if we are told to wash our faces before salaat then we should actually physically wash our faces, not interpret the command in a metaphorical or spiritual way against the apparent meaning, unless we have good reasons for doing so.

Someone might argue that hujayyit althuhur is proven from the ahadith, but that wouldnt work, as a prerequisite to understanding these very same ahadith is applying thuhur, so the argument would be circular.

Beyond this it gets more controversial.

All the examples that you are giving are biased towards a specific religious view. What this means is that the axioms and rules that you are using is only true/valid for Islamic religion. For e.g, here are some examples that is not based on Islam

- According to doctors, drinking red wine moderately is healthy for the body

- According to medical opinions, masturbation is a natural way for people to relieve tension

- According to certain society standard, marriage is not a pre-requisite for sexual intercourse.

These are very simple examples. I can think of many other examples that will contradict the Islamic teaching.

Like I said earlier, logic is interesting and useful. Logic is based mostly on axioms and rules. You use these rules to come to a conclusion.

I don’t usually use the word logic or illogical to describe Islam. What may be logical to one person may be completely illogical to another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you talk you use logic. When you read a hadith, you use logic to understand what it means. Logic is essential to understanding. Some hadiths need deep analysis of logic like hadiths dealing with the oneness of God and the oneness of his names. I don't know what people have against studying logic. We use it all the time intuitively, what's the harm of studying something that is used. Some additional rulers, like implications being translated to "this or not this", have there uses, and can be applied to set theory and used in computer programming.

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what you mean by intellect. Brother Imami ali's post was informative but he didn't clarify what he meant by 'intellect'. Intellect in the sense of formal logical reasoning is necessary to derive laws of Allah swt, and without it no laws could be derived. If a hadith commands x or a verse commands y, how do we turn that hadith/verse into an obligatory law? By applying something like this:

1. If God commands something then that thing is wajib

2. God commands x

therefore

3. x is wajib

Or, for example, applying the laws of the sharia to individual cases:

1. If the drink is wine then the drink is haraam (law of sharia)

2. This particular drink infront of me is wine

therefore

3. This drink is haraam

In symbols:

1. If p then q

2. p

therefore

3. q

This syllogism is known as 'modus ponens'. This is why people who deny the necessity of logic dont know what theyre talking about. So, as I said, 'intellect' in the sense of knowing the principles that govern logical reasoning (like modus ponens) is necessary. But that isn't sufficient to derive laws - we need more than that. We need 'intellect' in a broader sense that includes basic principles other than formal logical reasoning. An uncontroversial intellectual principle that would fall under this broader sense of 'intellect' would be what the fuqaha refer to as hujayyit althuhur (authoritativeness of apparent meaning) in its general sense: If a hadith says do xyz then we take it on its apparent meaning unless we have good reasons to the contrary. For example, if we are told to wash our faces before salaat then we should actually physically wash our faces, not interpret the command in a metaphorical or spiritual way against the apparent meaning, unless we have good reasons for doing so.

Someone might argue that hujayyit althuhur is proven from the ahadith, but that wouldnt work, as a prerequisite to understanding these very same ahadith is applying thuhur, so the argument would be circular.

Beyond this it gets more controversial.

It's easier to use this syllogism for laws that are already stated clearly.

But, it'll get trickier to construct the correct major premise for unclear laws, such as salat times in Mars

(salam)

All the examples that you are giving are biased towards a specific religious view. What this means is that the axioms and rules that you are using is only true/valid for Islamic religion. For e.g, here are some examples that is not based on Islam

- According to doctors, drinking red wine moderately is healthy for the body

- According to medical opinions, masturbation is a natural way for people to relieve tension

- According to certain society standard, marriage is not a pre-requisite for sexual intercourse.

These are very simple examples. I can think of many other examples that will contradict the Islamic teaching.

Like I said earlier, logic is interesting and useful. Logic is based mostly on axioms and rules. You use these rules to come to a conclusion.

I don’t usually use the word logic or illogical to describe Islam. What may be logical to one person may be completely illogical to another.

Sis Zareen,

Major premise is very important here. If we take the major premise that GOD's command must be obeyed, then for laws that are clearly stated such as wine, masturbation, & pre-marriage intercourse, it's clear that the conclusions are they are all forbidden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I would like to ask, what is Islam's position on using the intellect in deriving the laws of Allah (swt) - the shari`a?

Kafi

ãÍãÏ Èä íÍíì¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ¡ Úä ÇáæÔÇÁ¡ Úä ãËäì ÇáÍäÇØ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÈÕíÑ ÞÇá: ÞáÊ áÇÈí ÚÈÏÇááå (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã): ÊÑÏ ÚáíäÇ ÃÔíÇÁ áíÓ äÚÑÝåÇ Ýí ßÊÇÈ Çááå æáÇ ÓäÉ ÝääÙÑ ÝíåÇ¿ ÝÞÇá: áÇ¡ ÃãÇ Åäß Åä ÃÕÈÊ áã ÊÄÌÑ¡ æÅä ÃÎØÃÊ ßÐÈÊ Úáì Çááå ÚÒ æÌá

Muhammd b.Yahya, from Ahmad b.Muhammad, from al Washa', from Muthnal Hanaat, from Abi Baseer said: (I) said to Abi Abdullah(as) "Sometimes we are asked things (religious questions) we can not find in book of Allah (swt) or sunnah so we look(through logic and common sense) into it (for answer). (Imam(as)) said "No, if you're right you'll get no reward, and if you made mistake then you lied upon Allah (swt)."

http://realtashayyu.blogspot.com/2011/02/logic-and-common-sense-in-islam.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ibn al-Sikkīt when he asked him (as):

What is the proof (ḥujjah) upon the people today?" The Imam relied, 'It is the intellect (al-ʿaql). Through the intellect one recognizes those who speak the truth from Allah, thus, one acknowledges their truthfulness and those who lie about Allah, thus, one denies/rejects him."

Ibn al-Sikkīt then said, "This by Allah is the answer" (al-kāfī, v. 1, chapter of al-ʿaql wal-jahl, ḥadīth 20)

So, it is proven that Aql is Hujjah. Nobody can deny this point but when Aql leads to those who speak truth from Allah swt i.e., the Masoomeen asws and to whom you submit and you should always acknowledge their ahadees(see 1) and stay away from those who lie about Allah azwj (see 2)

1. Sheik Sadooq a.r. quoted in his book Al-Iteqadat that Imam Jafar as-Sãdiq a.s. said: "The speculative theologians (ahlu 'l-kalãm) will perish, and those who accept the faith without question will be saved".

2. Muhammd b.Yahya, from Ahmad b.Muhammad, from al Washa', from Muthnal Hanaat, from Abi Baseer said: (I) said to Abi Abdullah(as) "Sometimes we are asked things (religious questions) we can not find in book of Allah (swt) or sunnah so we look(through logic and common sense) into it (for answer). (Imam(as)) said "No, if you're right you'll get no reward, and if you made mistake then you lied upon Allah (swt)."

But what can I say about those who still want to use their aql is further derivation without knowing that they are lying upon Allah azwj or not and deriving His azwj's deen through comparisions?

ÃóãöíÑö ÇáúãõÄúãöäíäóþ Úóáóíúåöãõ ÇáÓøóáÇóãõ ÞÇáó: ÞÇáó ÑóÓõæáó Çááøóåöþ Õóáøóì Çááåõ Úóáóíúåö æóÂáöåö: ÞÇáó Çááøóå Ìóáøó ÌóáÇáõåõ: ãÇ Âãóäó Èí ãóä ÝóÓøóÑó ÈöÑóÃíöåö ßóáÇãöí¡ æóãÇ ÚóÑóÝóäöí ãöä ÔóÈøóåóäöí ÈöÎóáÞöí¡ æóãÇ Úóáóì Ïöíäöí ãóäö ÇÓÊóÚãóáó ÇáÞöíÇÓó Ýöí Ïöíäöí

11-4 Muhammad ibn Musa ibn al-Mutawakkil - may God be pleased with him - narrated that Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Hashem quoted on the authority of his father, on the authority of al-Rayyan ibn al-Salt, on the authority

of Ali ibn Musa Al-Reza (s), on the authority of his father (s), on the authority of his forefathers (s), on the authority of the Commander of the Faithful (s) that God’s Prophet (s) said, “God - the Exalted the Magnificent - said, “Whoever interprets My Words according to his own viewpoint has no faith in Me. And whoever considers Me to be similar to My creatures does not recognize Me. And whoever makes comparisons in my religion does not believe in My religion.”

Uyoon Akhbaar Reza

It has been narrated from Muhammad Bin Ali Al Husayn from his father from Al Hassan Bin Ahmad Al Maaliki from his father from Ibrahim Bin Abu Muhammad from the Holy Imam Ali Ridha (a.s.) in a long Hadeeth that: ‘My father has narrated to me from his ancestors that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said: ‘Whoever inclines towards a speaker has worshipped him. For instance, if the speaker is speaking from Allah (s.w.t.) then he has worshipped Allah (s.w.t.) and if the speaker is speaking from Iblees then he has worshipped Iblees.’’

Wasail Us-Shia, Volume 27 H 33394

Al-Husayn ibn Muhammad has narrated from Mu'alla ibn Muhammad from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah from Ali ibn Ja’far who has said the following: “I heard abu al-Hassan, recipient of divine supreme covenant, saying, ‘Not everyone who speaks of our Wilayah (Divine Authority) is a believer. They, however, are made to serve as boasting morals of the believing people.’”

Usool Al Kafi H 2314, CH 96, h 7

The Holy Imam Ali (a.s.) said: ‘The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said: ‘My nation will divide into seventy three Sects, only one of which will achieve salvation whilst the rest will be destroyed. The successful will be the ones who will adhere to your Mastership (Wilayah) and quote from your knowledge(ahadees), and they will not act according to their opinion. They are the ones on the right Path.

Bihar Ul Anwaar– V. 36

It is narrated from Muhammad ibn Ali from Abu ‘Abdallahas who has said the following: ‘Beware of the branched-out lies.’ They asked the Imam as, "What are branched-out lies?" The Imam as replied, "It is when you narrate a Hadith of an Imam as without mentioning Imam as’s name’"

Usool Al Kafi H 149, Ch. 17, h 12

Ya Ali Madad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

All the examples that you are giving are biased towards a specific religious view. What this means is that the axioms and rules that you are using is only true/valid for Islamic religion. For e.g, here are some examples that is not based on Islam

- According to doctors, drinking red wine moderately is healthy for the body

- According to medical opinions, masturbation is a natural way for people to relieve tension

- According to certain society standard, marriage is not a pre-requisite for sexual intercourse.

These are very simple examples. I can think of many other examples that will contradict the Islamic teaching.

Like I said earlier, logic is interesting and useful. Logic is based mostly on axioms and rules. You use these rules to come to a conclusion.

I don’t usually use the word logic or illogical to describe Islam. What may be logical to one person may be completely illogical to another.

Like many people in this thread you're not clear on what logic is. Logic is not concerned with the contents of premises. It is only concerned with the relations between premises and the conclusion. It's concerned with the form of the argument, not what the argument actually says. Logic asks 'Does the conclusion follow from the premises?'. It doesn't ask 'Are the premises true?'. So the examples you give completely miss the point (and I reject them anyway). An example of a rule of logic that I gave was modus ponens:

if p then q

p

therefore q

The point of using letters is to show that this rule applies regardless of what is in place of the letters. P and q can be anything, e.g.

If the sun is made of cheese then I'm rich

The sun is made of cheese

therefore I'm rich

This argument is logically valid ie the conclusion follows from the premises. Of course, the premises are completely false, so the argument is unsound. But from a purely logical point of view, there is nothing wrong with the arguments structure, and that's what logic is concerned with.

Edited by .InshAllah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the sun is made of cheese then I'm rich

The sun is made of cheese

therefore I'm rich

This argument is logically valid ie the conclusion follows from the premises. Of course, the premises are completely false, so the argument is unsound. But from a purely logical point of view, there is nothing wrong with the arguments structure, and that's what logic is concerned with.

Are you sure you know what you are speaking here. This is a classic example of a fallacy.

1. If P, then Q.

2. Q.

3. Therefore, P.

An argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false).

The name affirming the consequent derives from the premise Q, which affirms the "then" clause of the conditional premise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Logic is not concerned with the contents of premises. It is only concerned with the relations between premises and the conclusion.[...]

This is only half correct. For what you've said is what Minor Logic (i.e. formal logic) does; but then there's also Major Logic (i.e. material logic). The first, as you said, only concerns the form of reasoning, but the second, generally, concerns the matter of reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is only half correct. For what you've said is what Minor Logic (i.e. formal logic) does; but then there's also Major Logic (i.e. material logic). The first, as you said, only concerns the form of reasoning, but the second, generally, concerns the matter of reasoning.

Where did you get this minor/major logic from? .InshAllah. is correct, that which is concerned with the substance of the premises is the relevant division of science. There isn't (and can't really be) a single science which investigates the veracity of premises.

For example, basic example:

Premise 1: Water boils at 100 degrees celsius

Premise 2: A particular jug of water is boiled to 200 degrees celsius

Conclusion: Therefore, the water boils

It is the duty of [formal] logic (mantiq) to point out that the middle term (hadd al-wasat) may not repeat here, but regarding the actual first clause, that is for the science of chemistry to deal with..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2018 at 5:40 PM, Mohammed-Mehdi said:

 

if used in ones thoughts it will immunize the thoughts from error.

Edited by Rohani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...