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
janali

Mantiq (logic)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

"all the prophets from Adam to ISA and their wasis learnt ilm from rasool Allah saww. People distorted the pure knowledge by adding their jahl to it."

i do not agree to this completely . no doubt prophets had been divinely inspired , but other knowledge came from other people also.

for instance break through in medical science or genetic engineering

"When rasool Allah saww came to this world he taught the correct knowledge and Allah aZwj ordered us to take what he gives and stop from what he stops."

i do not disagree with it. where has prophet stopped us to learn what hasnt reached to us from him

"I am not an enemy of logic; I just say that a fallible logic is not the criteria for the logic behind Allah azwj's laws."

i am also saying that philosophy or logic must not be taken absolutely to provide all answers. they may be useful to varying extent

The knowledge taught by ahlulbayth asws is enough for me.

i dont see what do you mean by this.this is a general statement.i also believe that ahlebayt gave us knowledge , but i do not go against the philsophy ,science or any innovation (if it comes from non muslims)

Ya Ali Madad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear rabb Fatima

to be precise: If u have a hadees where imams have asked u to seek a type of knowledge then seek it. I do this

if imams have not said it and u want to seek it then go ahead la ikraha fid deen.

Ya Ali Madad

Looks like this thread has been attacked with the Qiyas warners

we are just informing that maroof is our imam and munkar is his enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear rabb Fatima

to be precise: If u have a hadees where imams have asked u to seek a type of knowledge then seek it. I do this

if imams have not said it and u want to seek it then go ahead la ikraha fid deen.

Ya Ali Madad

we are just informing that maroof is our imam and munkar is his enemy.

salam,

if imams have not said about some type of knowledge or thing , that doesn't mean it is forbidden , wrong or unworthy to be sought. what we have to make sure is that what we seek shall not be EXPLICITLY forbidden by imams.

in school textbooks , kids are taught social studies, national anthems, maths, science, english , regional languages etc

since these subjects are not EXPLICITLY advised to be sought by imams doesnt mean that it shall be banned , unsought or forbidden.

and if you get my point same goes for other things like humanities and social sciences , physical sciences and arts etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

The book means the Quran. I wasn't speaking about hadeeths here. And I was speaking about myself and not marjas.

(wasalam)

Well, I hope you know (and agree as well) that NO ONE (yes, even "if they spent 25 years in a hawza") has the right to interpret the Qur'an other than the infallibles(as). Although it's unfortunate that these days we have 'tafaseer' such as tafsir al mizan and tafseer namoona coming out which contain a lot of stuff not present in ahadith thereby making a good case of tafsir bir raay. BTW, the way you put your post "I don’t wanna start interpreting the book and derive my own fatwas." made it sound like you meant you don't want to interpret the book yourself but are content with the marajae doing it for you, thereby admitting that marajae themselves interpret the Qur'an.

What about you Bhooka, you've been posting strange fatwas yourself. Very recently you told someone that traffic laws are not mentioned in hadeeths (cleverly implying that no one should follow them) which prompted bro Jay to make this post.

Sister, I totally disagree. I didn't post any 'fatwa' (and definitely not what you're saying i.e. "traffic laws aren't mentioned in ahadith"), I posted a hadith to answer the specific question of "if it's haram to overtake cars in itself?", no more no less. If the question had been something like "should we just ignore ALL traffic laws?" then I would've posted different ahadith.

How about your other fatwas about women keeping locked in the inner corner of their home and not thought to read (being illiterate).

Again sister, I disagree, I didn't post any fatwas. I quoted ahadith. BTW, speaking of fatawa the hadith I quoted in this regard was actually from Man la yahdhuruhul faqih and guess what, it's a book in which Shaikh Sadooq(ra) compiled the ahadith by which he(ra) would give fatawa. He also quoted this hadith in al khisal and later scholars such as Baqir Majlisi also quoted it in their works. So anyway, what I did was to quote a hadith which was perfectly in line with Shaikh Sadooq's fatawa. As for other islamic issues as well I post ahadith, I don't give fatawa. In fact, if you wish you can visit my blog and verify for yourself that I've only quoted ahadith to state the position for various islamic issues. I seriously find it unfair when you start blaming me for "posting fatwas" while I don't do that, I post ahadith. I'm sorry but it seems like when you don't agree with the message(the ahadith I post), then you start attacking the medium (me).

I’ll take my chances with the marjas. Thank you for asking though.

So you mean to say that you're doing taqlid just because marajae are allowing you some liberty(by ignoring the ahadith about women's roles)?

BTW, since you're defending the clerics so much, what do you have to say about this. I would like to see your (since you're a fierce pro usooli) response on this (see the below links).

http://realtashayyu.blogspot.com/2011/02/amama-of-scholars.html

http://realtashayyu.blogspot.com/2011/02/uniform-of-clerics.html

http://realtashayyu.blogspot.com/2011/02/black-clothes-and-caps.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salam,

if imams have not said about some type of knowledge or thing , that doesn't mean it is forbidden , wrong or unworthy to be sought. what we have to make sure is that what we seek shall not be EXPLICITLY forbidden by imams.

in school textbooks , kids are taught social studies, national anthems, maths, science, english , regional languages etc

since these subjects are not EXPLICITLY advised to be sought by imams doesnt mean that it shall be banned , unsought or forbidden.

and if you get my point same goes for other things like humanities and social sciences , physical sciences and arts etc

unfortunately schooling system has taken us away from Islam, I.e., 14 masoomeen, quran and ahadees. I am personall. A victim of such a system. Not knowing what I wanted to study I studied whatever family wanted. My dad wanted me to study commerce abd business so I did bachelors and masters in them. Mom wanted me to study literature so I did my masters in English literature. My favorite uncle being an architect asked me to do quantity estimation so I did that shuffling between daytime jobs and night time study I had very less chance to study religion. Then at age 23 I found my real love; love for ahadees and the first hadees I read I felt I have wasted 23 years of my life and what I learnt in 23 years was nothing and this one hadees became dearer to me than anything else.

We have such profound subjects in ahadees which are applicable in this world and the hereafter but the other sciences will die here in this world not beneficial for the hereafter.

I am not an authority to issue a fatwa against any science however I only seek knowledge from ahlebayth asws as other worldly science have atheist elements in them so I decided to drink pure water from pure sources.

U are free to do what you want and I have the right to say what is from Allah azwj and what is not because u can never understand ahadees from these science nor u can I crease aql with it. As imam reza asws said: if u seek to increase ur aql through learning u will go on decreasing it because aql is a gift from Allah azwj. Aql is that which leads u to imam. Quran is that which leads u to imam and imam leads u to Allah azwj.

Ya Ali Madad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

BTW, the way you put your post "I don’t wanna start interpreting the book and derive my own fatwas." made it sound like you meant you don't want to interpret the book yourself but are content with the marajae doing it for you, thereby admitting that marajae themselves interpret the Qur'an.

I was speaking about myself not about anyone else. You do like to jump to a conclusion.

Sister, I totally disagree. I didn't post any 'fatwa' (and definitely not what you're saying i.e. "traffic laws aren't mentioned in ahadith"), I posted a hadith to answer the specific question of "if it's haram to overtake cars in itself?", no more no less. If the question had been something like "should we just ignore ALL traffic laws?" then I would've posted different ahadith.

So it was a problem with semantic..eh?

You are just blindly answering him based on your ignorance. You are teaching people to disrespect the law of land (the traffic law). Driving is not a joke. People do get in accidents due to improper lane change. But you don’t care do you.

Again sister, I disagree, I didn't post any fatwas. I quoted ahadith. BTW, speaking of fatawa the hadith I quoted in this regard was actually from Man la yahdhuruhul faqih and guess what, it's a book in which Shaikh Sadooq(ra) compiled the ahadith by which he(ra) would give fatawa. He also quoted this hadith in al khisal and later scholars such as Baqir Majlisi also quoted it in their works. So anyway, what I did was to quote a hadith which was perfectly in line with Shaikh Sadooq's fatawa. As for other islamic issues as well I post ahadith, I don't give fatawa. In fact, if you wish you can visit my blog and verify for yourself that I've only quoted ahadith to state the position for various islamic issues. I seriously find it unfair when you start blaming me for "posting fatwas" while I don't do that, I post ahadith. I'm sorry but it seems like when you don't agree with the message(the ahadith I post), then you start attacking the medium (me).

And how many years of night studying did you do to become an expert on hadeeths?

BTW, Can you do yourself a favor and find hadeeths that speak about people who mislead others.

How about you post hadeeths about people who give wrong Islamic ruling. Then you do us a favor and read these hadeeths yourself.

Someone should tell you what happens to people who take upon themselves to misguide people.

So you mean to say that you're doing taqlid just because marajae are allowing you some liberty(by ignoring the ahadith about women's roles)?

Some of your hadeeths (specifically about locking women in the inner corner of the house) don’t really make sense because we have examples of women (from the ahlul bayt and their family) not following them. It has been pointed out to you on a number of occasions.

BTW, since you're defending the clerics so much, what do you have to say about this. I would like to see your (since you're a fierce pro usooli) response on this (see the below links).

http://realtashayyu.blogspot.com/2011/02/amama-of-scholars.html

http://realtashayyu.blogspot.com/2011/02/uniform-of-clerics.html

http://realtashayyu.blogspot.com/2011/02/black-clothes-and-caps.html

Send them to my marja at Sistani.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the OP: Here is a more informed answer..

My advice is to just read the first chapter on any logic book, and it will answer these questions (titles like "the need for manteq", "the benefit of manteq", etc are frequent in most intro's). I'll give you a freestyle summary: Logic (manteq) is described as the science (`ilm) which gives you the "rules for the correct way of thinking". What is thinking, that this gives the correct rules of it for? "Thinking" (fikr) - means to obtain unknowns (majhoolat) from knowns (ma`lum). That is, to arrange objects of knowledge in your mind already, to discover and obtain new facts. Logic tells you how to do this process correctly to reach a valid conclusion with certainty (yaqeen). Knowledge according to one classification is of two types of: "ideas" (tassawurat) and "affirmations" (tasdiqat) - I will not explain fully the meaning of these two for brevity's sake, but will just say that, that which governs the former is "definitions" (hadd/rasm) and the latter is governed by "proofs" (burhan/qiyas) - so essentially, logic tells you the correct way how to "define" something, and the correct way to "prove" something. I can go further than this, but it would be lengthy..

To mac: On the whole, I agree with Br. mac. After taking out a decent amount of time to study logic, I can understand and share his sentiments about the futility of some aspects of logic. I will add that it can even be a trap for some (i.e. hijab al-akbar), as there are _alot_ of terms and technical names. If you are a anti-reason malang/akhbari (siraatoaliyinhaqqun, Bhooka_Bhairiya, macisaac), who basically is convinced at the most lowest lexical level (and does not contemplate deeper) of the strengthness of their religion by just reading ahadith like the following:

From him from his father from Hammad b. `Isa from Rab`i b. `Abdullah from the one who narrated to him from Abu Ja`far Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã that he said: Whoever this affair [wilaya] characterizes will never taste the Fire. (al-Mahasin)

Then yes, don't bother with logic (even though you need it the most - because this is compound ignorance - i.e. when you are ignorant and you don't know it). Even logic would tell you: Yaqeen (certitude) is of two types: logical and psychological. In either case you may not have an epsilon of doubt (you are "certain" - yaqeen), but only in the former case do you have a valid reason (the latter is determined by other factors, like social, environmental, upbringing, self-deceit, peers, etc). However, for the rest of the sane population, logic, overall, is definitely an unavoidable must - a necessary - it helps you greatly analyse and breakdown clearly any argument. An invaluable and precious tool I wish I picked up earlier. For example, just going over Ayatullah Jawadi's presentation of burhan as-siddiqn (the most noble and firm proof of God), I've just realised how much detail I missed out on..

I only took a cursory look at this thread, but a few comments I picked up I'll reply to quickly:

If one had the capacity and time to learn every bit of knowledge in the world, fine and good, but since we don't the time spent in formal study should focus on what is actually relevant and important.

A - How long are you planning on living?

B - How long do you think it takes to study logic?

lol..

Logic in itself (fi nafsihi), is not worth anything (i.e the collection of terms and complicated concepts [like, `aks mustawi etc] themselves). It's value is only in being used as an applied tool in other sciences, whatever that science may be - fiqh, falsafa, quantum physics or `irfan..

even though it would now largely be considered obsolete by modern logic (i.e. symbolic logic)

Again, a classical demonstration by mac for his need to present his superficial knowledge of irrelevant facts/figures/dates.

I've yet to see any reference to such study in the works of such greats as Mufid, Murtada and Tusi and the mutaqaddimeen `ulama.

Their works are not devoid of mentioning certain logical [and deep philosophical] principles - just you don't understand them. See Ayatullah Jawadi's Amuli Asfar lecture 7/8..

Also, this point pervades all your posts (not only in this thread, been meaning to ask you properly for a long time): Why do you like to big up the "mutaqaddimeen" so much? I am interested to know. Not that I bring them down in anyway. But to the extent that they even become the only valid religious authority? I disagree with this. Their state was not the most perfect. There is no necessity to being chronologically proximate to the ma`sum, and being closest to the Truth. Please prove otherwise. I can pre-empt that any argument you bring forth will be akin to the low-level sunni's who grade the companions, where even one who "sees" the Prophet is at a higher grade than one who doesn't. But we know this isn't the case..

Back to the OP: The best book on logic (imho) is the one by Shahid Mutahhari [QS], Introduction to Logic - it will be published in English soon insha`Allah..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

And how many years of night studying did you do to become an expert on hadeeths?

(wasalam)

Although this is completely irrelevant (because you make it sound as if ahadith are the domain of experts just as dawoodi bohris, nusayris/alevis etc keep their masses in check by hiding religious knowledge from them, even though ahadith in itself are the peak of ilm), but anyhow, due to my righteous parents(unfortunately they're usooli, lol :( ) from childhood I've been very interested in religious/islamic studies and have been studying Qur'an, ahadith etc for a long time (literally speaking, I do that at night because in daytime I've to study/work, so hopefully you're satisfied).

Anyhow, coming back to point, as per ahadith there's no such concept of 'expert of hadith' rather anyone can narrate ahadith as long as he follows the right procedure recommended by the Imams(as).

Kafi

Úáí Èä ÅÈÑÇåíã¡ Úä ÃÈíå¡ æÚä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ¡ Úä ÇáäæÝáí¡ Úä ÇáÓßæäí¡ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) ÞÇá: ÞÇá ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) ÅÐÇ ÍÏËÊã ÈÍÏíË ÝÃÓäÏæå Åáì ÇáÐí ÍÏËßã ÝÅä ßÇä ÍÞÇ Ýáßã æÅä ßÇä ßÐÈÇ ÝÚáíå

...............Ali(as) said "When you people narrate hadith then mention the sanad till whom you heard it from so that if it's true it(the reward is for) you people and if false then (the sin is upon) him(from whom you heard the hadith)."

Úáí Èä ÅÈÑÇåíã¡ Úä ÃÈíå¡ Úä ÇÈä ÃÈí ÚãíÑ¡ Úä ãäÕæÑ Èä íæäÓ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÈÕíÑ ÞÇá: ÞáÊ áÇÈí ÚÈÏÇááå (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) Þæá Çááå Ìá ËäÇÄå: " ÇáÐíä íÓÊãÚæä ÇáÞæá ÝíÊÈÚæä ÃÍÓäå (1) "¿ ÞÇá: åæ ÇáÑÌá íÓãÚ ÇáÍÏíË ÝíÍÏË Èå ßãÇ ÓãÚå áÇ íÒíÏ Ýíå æáÇ íäÞÕ ãäå

............Narrator asked Imam al Sadiq(as) about the ayat "Who hear advice and follow the best thereof. Such are those whom Allah guideth, and such are men of understanding." Imam(as) said "He's the man who hears hadith then tells it as he heard it without adding in it or deleting from it."

BTW, Can you do yourself a favor and find hadeeths that speak about people who mislead others.

How about you post hadeeths about people who give wrong Islamic ruling. Then you do us a favor and read these hadeeths yourself.

Someone should tell you what happens to people who take upon themselves to misguide people.

OK, here's one of them. Marajae might find it interesting since they seem to issue fatawa based on ijtehad.

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

Some of your hadeeths (specifically about locking women in the inner corner of the house) don’t really make sense because we have examples of women (from the ahlul bayt and their family) not following them. It has been pointed out to you on a number of occasions.

First of all we should show some respect to our Imams(as) by not judging ahadith as per our tastes('sense'). There are ahadith which strongly forbid us from rejecting ahadith even if they sound odd.

Basaer ad darajat

ÍÏËäÇ ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚãÑæ Úä ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÌäÏÈ Úä ÓÝíÇä Èä ÇáÓíØ ÞÇá ÞáÊ áÇÈí ÚÈÏ Çááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÌÚáÊ ÝÏÇß Çä ÇáÑÌá áíÃÊíäÇ ãä ÞÈáß ÝíÎÈÑäÇ Úäß ÈÇáÚÙíã ãä ÇáÇãÑ ÝíÖíÞ ÈÐáß ÕÏæÑäÇ ÍÊì äßÐÈå ÞÇá ÝÞÇá ÃÈæ ÚÈÏ Çááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÇáíÓ Úäì íÍÏËßã ÞÇá ÞáÊ Èáì ÞÇá ÝíÞæá ááíá Çäå

äåÇÑ æááäåÇÑ Çäå áíá ÞÇá ÝÞáÊ áå áÇ ÞÇá ÝÞÇá ÑÏå ÇáíäÇ ÝÇäß Çä ßÐÈÊ ÝÇäãÇ ÊßÐÈäÇ

Imam Sadiq(AS) was asked that if a man comes to us and narrates a great/big amr from you which causes tightness in our chest(doubt/suspicion) then can we reject it. Imam(AS) asked does he narrate it on our authority. I answered yes. Imam(AS) asked does he call the day night and the night day? I answered no. Imam(AS) said then ask us first otherwise if you ouright reject it then you rejected us.

http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m012/09/no0974.html

Secondly, the 'examples' that were pointed out to me I've already answered them numerous times. It's a SHAME that shia women always try their level best to reject explicit ahadith by cooking up flimsy excuses just because they want to keep going out of their homes. Why can't they stay inside??!!!!

Send them to my marja at Sistani.org

I did. I received their acknowledgment assuring me that they'll reply soon (although I'm sure that 'soon' won't come in my lifetime because it never came when I used to be their muqallid).

æÕáÊäÇ ÑÓÇáÊßã ÇáãæÞÑÉ æÓäÑÓá áßã ÇáÅÌÇÈÉ ÞÑíÈÇð Åä ÔÇÁ Çááå

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding tasawwurat and tasdiqat:

imam Ali asws said: Al Islamo huat tasleem, huat tasleemo huat tasdeeq, wa huat tasdeeqo hual yaqeen.

And imam sajjad asws said: Islam is not a religion which u can understand with tasavurat.

So the first stage is tasleem and then tasdeeq however in logic u do not accept(tasleem) until tasdeeq. And after tasdeeq is yaqeen and after yaqeen is amal.

Logic failed in the very first stage but a non Muslim would benefit because he won't accept(tasleem) without tasdeeq but a Muslim has to accept first then tasdeeq so on...

I can go in to lengths about it but at the end u will take ur logic over the saying of masoom.

Imam Sadiq asws said: yaqeen is the highest level but humans have it the least.

So the burhan/qiyas/logic won't help unless there is tasleem first and then tasdeeq then yaqeen and if there is no Amal after this then imam ali asws said: knowledge stays where there is Amal

Ya Ali Madad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al-salamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

The question asked previously served as a pretext to the following arguments that prove the legitimacy and necessity for studying logic (mantiq). However, before immediately going into the argument, it would be beneficial to summarize the misconceptions raised by those who oppose this science.

Overview

People in this regard are separated into three:

1) Those who believe that logic is necessary to reach certainty in other sciences.

2) Those who oppose the usage of logic.

3) Those who neither support nor reject the usage of logic.

Our concern is with the first two categories.

Arguments

Those who oppose the usage of logic:

1) Logic is not an Islamic science. It stems from non-Islamic roots, mainly the Greeks.

So the argument is as follows:

- Every non Islamic science is rejected and impermissible to study.

- Logic is a non-Islamic science since it came to us from the Greeks.

- Therefore, logic is rejected and impermissible to study.

Evidence: Through historical and empirical data.

2) Logic is extracted from the fallible mind, and not that of the infallible/inerrant (maʿṣūm).

So the argument is as follows:

- What is fallible cannot be used to reach the truth (certitude).

- Logic is extracted from the fallible mind.

- Therefore, logic cannot reach the truth (certitude).

Evidence: The proof for the fallibility of the science of logic is the contradictions and differences between the logicians themselves.

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.

Refutations:

These will be presented in the next post insha'Allah.

Wasalam

Edited by Imami_ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Such a long rant, and not a touch of it related to manteq. Is the off-side off-topic rule really that hard to understand?

Dear brother The Persian Shah,

I didn't see your participation in this thread until I posted.

Allow me to send you my warm and sincere salams. I ask Allah (swt) to grant you the best of health and faith,

If you want to continue from the points I mentioned and provide the refutations, then do so. You will relieve me from the responsibility and do a better job at presenting the arguments.

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam bro Imami_ali,

Very interesting post bro & thank you for starting it

Please continue

Anyway, to be comprehensive, I think it's better to also address the 3rd category (Those who neither support nor reject the usage of logic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to continue from the points I mentioned and provide the refutations, then do so. You will relieve me from the responsibility and do a better job at presenting the arguments.

Salam Imami_ali,

Even though you had asked the Persian Shah, I hope that you don't mind my having taken the liberty of responding to the arguments instead. I deemed it good adab to relieve both you and him from the task given its naivety...

Also, if you see fit, please do make any necessary corrections or approach the matter from a view point different than mine.

Regarding the first,

1) Logic is not an Islamic science. It stems from non-Islamic roots, mainly the Greeks.

So the argument is as follows:

Every non Islamic science is rejected and impermissible to study.

Logic is a non-Islamic science since it came to us from the Greeks.

Therefore, logic is rejected and impermissible to study.

Evidence: Through historical and empirical data.

I maintain that this sort of argument can be shown to be false in two ways; (1) either by considering its premises individually, or (2) taking the argument (assuming it to be true) as a whole. For the sake of brevity, the second way seems more apt; and it consists of reducing the argument to an absurdity (i.e. a reductio ad absurdum). That is to say, that logic be rejected and not studied on the grounds of not being an Islamic science, it would follow that every other science which came from the Greeks (or anyone other than the Muslims in general) should be rejected also. For historical and empirical fact shows that a whole array of sciences entered the Islamic educational curriculum from the (influence) of the Greeks, Indians, and etc. But this is obviously absurd. Therefore the conclusion is false.

Regarding the second,

2) Logic is extracted from the fallible mind, and not that of the infallible/inerrant (maʿṣūm).

So the argument is as follows:

What is fallible cannot be used to reach the truth (certitude).

Logic is extracted from the fallible mind.

Therefore, logic cannot reach the truth (certitude).

Evidence: The proof for the fallibility of the science of logic is the contradictions and differences between the logicians themselves.

I'm content to simply:

(1) Distinguish the major: that what is fallible cannot be used to reach the truth in its totality (i.e. truth as such), I affirm. But that what is fallible cannot be used to reach any truth whatsoever, I deny.

(2) Concede the minor.

(3) Contradistinguish the conclusion: that logic cannot reach the truth in its totality (i.e. truth as such), I affirm. But that logic cannot reach any truth whatsoever, I deny.

Ba salam,

Ishraq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al-salamu alaikum,

Brother "rotten_coconut", thank you for your kind words. Insha'Allah, upon request, I will continue the post. As for your request: It will become evident, insha'Allah, after refuting the three arguments that the third approach (i.e. Those who neither support nor reject the usage of logic ) is baseless.

Brother "Ishraq" (May Allah (swt) illuminate our minds and souls with His Divine Mercy), thank you for contributing to the discussion, and you are welcome to add whatever seems coherent and assertive to the discussion.

The rebuttal to the first argument is valid and sound, but one can argue on the basis that the certitude that one must reach in the realm of Islamic creed must be directly from the infallible. As for other sciences borrowed/acquired or "imported" from the Greeks, such as biology and chemistry (or let's say: all the sciences related to the "physics") are accepted since they have no relevance to the "metaphysics." Our main concern is using logic as a tool to yield certitude in regards to the attributes of God, the hereafter, prophethood, Islamic laws, etc.

Of course, the first argument you provided refutes argument #1. However, there will still be a ground which they can argue against what you mentioned.

Before reading your post I had already written a rebuttal to the first argument but using a different approach, allow me to add it to make the discussion more fruitful.

Please continue adding to the discussion so that the arguments (in support of logic) become stronger.

As for your second argument, I will comment on it, Insha'Allah, in the next post.

-----------------------

Refutations:

1) Argument: Logic is not an Islamic science. It stems from non-Islamic roots, mainly the Greeks.

Reply: The science of logic is a collection of laws that exist within the nature of existence. In other words, when Allah (swt) created existence He created an order within it, i.e. it was created with the embodiment of these laws. An example of these laws is the principle of contradiction. Aristotle states:

"For it is impossible for any one to believe the same thing to be and not to be at the same time" (The Complete Works of Aristotle, Oxford translation, v. 2, p. 1586-1589)

This law is self evident. No one denies it but the dialectics (and they still haven't provided any proofs to disprove it.)

We then say that Aristotle is not the inventor of this law, but he, like every sane person, discovered the law (which exists in the order and nature of existence.)

Therefore, we can say that the laws of logic already exist in the order of existence, and the mind only discovers them, not invents them.

An example to elucidate the aforementioned:

When you are in a room that is void of any light, there exists objects and walls, yet you cannot see them. When you switch the lights on, the objects appear before you. Can we say, in this instance, that the light brought the objects and walls into existence? Did the light invent the objects and walls? Or were they already existing, but the light only "discovered" and "illuminated" them? Evidently the latter is correct.

In conclusion, we say that the laws of logic were not invented by the Greeks. Rather, they exist within the order and nature of existence, and the role of the mind is to discover and illuminate them. Aristotle only noted down these laws in a systematic manner. Hence, the argument that these laws were taken from the Greeks carries no weight due to its irrelevance.

To elaborate further, we say that every human being, whenever he utters anything, is in fact speaking with some sort of logic. Any argument one wants to make involves logic. An example was pointed out in an earlier post. Even those who argue against logic use logic. The following is the quotation of the previous post:

siraatoaliyinhaqqun said:

islAm although a logical religion has no place for fallible logic. And fallible cannot comprehend the logic of Allah aZwj.

So, worthless it is.

The reply was:

1) Islam has no place for fallible logic.

2) fallible cannot comprehend the logic of Allah

3) So, worthless it is (logic).

Congratulations, you just used logic to disprove logic !

Your post resembled the Aristotelian structure of logical arguments.

Summary

1) Logical laws exist in the order and nature of existence.

2) Aristotle only noted down these laws in a systematic form.

3) Logic is necessary for all sciences and that "thinking logically" is an inherent quality in every rational being.

4) The argument that the science of logic has been "imported" from non-Islamic roots carries no weight.

----------

The refutations of the second and third argument will follow insha'Allah.

Wasalam.

Edited by Imami_ali

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.


×
×
  • Create New...