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 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 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 siyam (fasting) purifies the brain from its metabolic wastes, or that sujood 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 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.

The correct way of thinking requires from any person to start searching any issue by studying the situation correctly and then linking it with previous information in order to reach a conclusion. For Sharii issues, the research must be constructed upon valid Sharii evidences. For all other issues, the appropriate evidence is required to substantiate the research. In either case, the starting point of any research is to study the situation, with the conclusion as the final destination.

However, due to the superficial thinking, the situation is reversed among Muslims. They begin with a pre-set conclusion, and the entire research is tailored to justify the conclusion that was already decided upon. This type of thinking is a twisted approach which defeats the entire purpose of thinking and cancels the mission of the thinker.

Both the superficial thinking as well as the imitation naturally result in this method of thinking because the one who utilizes it usually adopts the result or conclusion either based on, wishful thinking, or the need to blend with the crowd. One of the manifestations of this thinking is justifying the actions and decisions of the rulers, officials, shaykhs, scholars, and prominent thinkers. The entire research begins with the pre-determined conclusion that any decision or act made by such individuals is correct by default. Afterwards, the thinking is restricted to finding reasons and explanations to justify these decisions or actions.

Another manifestation of this thinking is justifying the human error. Many people will make a mistake and then realize it. But instead of admitting their mistake, they continue to justify it either out of stubbornness, fear of losing credibility in the eyes of the people, or out of personal interest.

This type of thinking is very common among Muslims nowadays. Most of their thinking, whether in politics, jurisprudence, Aqeedah, or science, amounts to nothing more than justifying pre-set results made by the shaykhs, political leaders, and intellectuals. The masses cling onto these individuals and try to imitate them blindly. As a result, the thinkers and intellectuals in the Ummah are very little in number.

The correct research requires setting aside any pre-set results or conclusions. However, it does not require abandoning previous information or the point of view of life because these components are essential to the thinking process. The previous information must be taken if it is correct because the thinking process cannot materialize without it. And the point of view cannot be put aside because it shapes the thinking of the person. And in the case of Muslims, Islam came to shape their thinking.

The thinking of the Ummah must rid itself of this obstacle to the correct thinking. Blind, imitation, superficial thinking are shackles that need to be disposed of. Also, we need to restore the trust of the individuals in themselves and in their capabilities to do their own independent research. Each individual must realize that he is accountable only for his decisions, and it is not correct to choose these shaykhs, leaders, and thinkers as "gods" by following them blindly and justifying their opinions and decisions. Allah (swt) mentions in the Qur’an that some of the sinners will try to claim that their mistakes were the result of the mistakes of their leaders, but this will not be accepted from them: "And they will say: ‘Our Lord! Verily, we obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they misled us from the (Right) Way.’" [] This ayah condemns the concept of justifying the mistakes of others. Regarding justifying personal mistakes, Islam considers this justification as a crime that can be much more than the original mistake. Therefore, it is mandatory upon Muslims to admit their mistakes without justifying them.