Wannan tsarin hujja (syllogism) da alama a zahiri motsa hankali ne mai daukar hankali sosai, wanda zai iya jarabtar mutane da yawa su yi amfani da shi. Ko da yake ana iya amfani da shi a lissafi, hanyar hankali (logic) ba za ta iya aiki a cikin fiqhu, aqida, da siyasa ba. Wasu misalai kadan za su bayyana yadda hankali yake yaudara idan aka yi amfani da shi ba daidai ba.

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.

Dabaru a Fiqhu Ɗaya daga cikin manyan bala'o'in da suka faɗa wa duniyar Fiqhu shi ne shigar da ilimin ma'ana (logic) wajen fahimtar nassin shari'a. Misali mai sauƙi zai nuna rashin iyawar hanyar ma'ana wajen isa ga matsaya daidai. A rayuwa, mutane sukan aro kuɗi saboda abubuwa da dama. Haka kuma, Hajji wani muhimmin aiki ne da dole ne Musulmi ya yi. Matsayar ma'ana a nan ita ce Musulmi dole ne ya aro kuɗi don Hajji. Wannan matsaya ba daidai ba ce, domin Hajji wajibi ne ga wanda yake da iko kawai. Wanda ba shi da kuɗi ba ya buƙatar aro. Kuskuren wannan matsaya ya fito ne daga kuskuren hujja ta biyu, duk kuwa da cewa tana da kamar daidai. Madaidaiciyar hujja ita ce Hajji aiki ne mai muhimmanci da Musulmi dole ne ya yi idan yana da iko.

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.

Dalili a cikin Aqeedah Ko da yake yana iya zama kamar haka ba, amfani da dalili (logic) a cikin Aqeedah na iya kai mutum ga kammala da ba daidai ba. Misali, mutum zai iya kafa a matsayin babban ginshiki (major premise) cewa kowace halitta ba ta dawwama kuma za ta ƙare, sannan ya kafa a matsayin ƙaramin ginshiki (minor premise) cewa Aljanna da Wutar Jahannama halitta ce, wanda hakan zai kai ga kammalawa cewa Aljanna da Wutar Jahannama za su ƙare. Wannan kammalawa ba daidai ba ce, domin babban ginshiki ba daidai ba ne. Wannan hujja ta farko tana aiki ne kawai ga wannan rayuwa, amma ba za a iya yada ta zuwa Lahira ba. Lahira yanayi ne daban wanda ya wuce ji da fahimtar ɗan Adam. Saboda haka, dokokin wannan rayuwa ba za a iya amfani da su a kanta ba.

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.

Tunani Mai Ma'ana a Tunanin Siyasa Ɗaya daga cikin manyan matsalolin da ke cikin tunanin siyasa na Musulmi a yau shi ne amfani da hankali na ma'ana (logic) wajen kai ga matsaya ta siyasa. Misali, idan mutum yana son samar da ra'ayin siyasa game da manufofin Birtaniya da Amurka kan Tarayyar Turai, sai ya kafa babbar hujja (major premise) cewa Amurka tana neman hana haɗin kan Turai, sannan ya kafa ƙaramar hujja (minor premise) cewa manufar Birtaniya tana da alaƙa da manufar Amurka, to, matsayar ma'ana da zai kai ita ce Birtaniya tana neman hana haɗin kan Turai.

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.

Matsayin da aka cimma ba daidai ba ne, domin Birtaniya za ta yi matukar sha'awar cimma haɗin kan Turai matuƙar hakan yana cikin muradunta. Idan manufar Birtaniya ta bayyana kamar tana adawa da haɗin kan, wannan adawa tana da nufin karkatar da haɗin kan zuwa ga muradunta ko kuma yunƙurin yin tasiri a kan manufar Amurka a Turai, ba don rashin son cimma haɗin kan Turai ba. Kuskuren matsayin a cikin wannan kwatancen yana samo asali ne daga kuskuren hujja ta biyu. Birtaniya, a matsayinta na ƙasa mai cikakken 'yanci kuma tsohuwar babbar ƙasa, ba za ta amince a haɗa manufarta da manufar kowace ƙasa ba, har ma da Amurka. Duk da cewa dukansu suna cikin Sansanin Yamma ɗaya, rikicin muradu na iya tasowa a wasu lokuta.

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.

Waɗannan misalai uku sun nuna cewa hankali ba koyaushe yake kai mutane ga daidai matsaya ba.

These three examples demonstrate that logic does not always lead people to the correct conclusion.

Yana da kyau a ambaci misalin Ibn Taymiyyah domin a nuna yadda amfani da ilimin dabaru (logic) ba tare da mahallinsa ba yake iya ɓatarwa. Ibn Taymiyyah ya kwatanta ilimin dabaru da "naman raƙumin da aka yanka wanda aka samu a kan kolin dutse; naman ba shi da kyau har ya cancanci hawan dutsen, kuma hanyar da take kai wa can ba ta da sauƙin bi" (Hallaq, Ibn Taymiyya Against the Greek Logicians).

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).

Dalilin da ya sa tunanin lissafi (logic) ba ya kaiwa ga daidaitattun matsaya shi ne cewa ba ya duban hakikanin abu, kuma ba ya ƙoƙarin nazarinsa. Maimakon haka, yana gina matsaya ne bisa dangantakar da ke tsakanin mahalli biyu (premises). Hanyar tunani daidai tana bukatar fara fahimtar hakikanin abin, sannan a yi ƙoƙarin neman hukuncin da za a iya yi wa wannan hakikanin abin. Kawai kafa wasu mahalli da mayar da hankali kan dangantakar da ke tsakanin mahallan da kuma tsarin hujjar ba zai kai ga wata matsaya game da hakikanin abu ba. Misali na farko yana magana ne a kan wani al'amari na Shari'a, kuma daidaitacciyar matsaya game da al'amuran da suka shafi Shari'a ana kafa ta ne ta hanyar dalili daga nassin shari'a.

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.

Hujja ta biyu ta kasa amincewa tun farkon farko cewa dukkan wannan muhawara tana bayan iyakar hankali. Misali na uku kuma bai gina hujjarsa bisa fahimtar tsarin duniya ba, da matsayin manyan kasashe da kasashe masu gogayya, abin da dole ne a fahimta kafin a yi kokarin fahimtar manufar Burtaniya a Turai.

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.

Bugu da ƙari, tunani irin na hankali (na ma'auni) yana da kuskure saboda yana amfani da janar-janar (ƙididdigar gaba ɗaya). Kuma tunda jigon ilimin hankali (mantiq) yana dogara ne akan jerin hujjoji (premises) kuma yana kula da tsari kawai, yana iya kai mutum nesa da hakikanin abubuwa. Faqihi mai kyau ba ya yin janar-janar bisa kamanni na zahiri. Maimakon haka, yana kashe ƙoƙarinsa wajen fahimtar kowace mas'ala ko yanayi daban-daban da kansa, sosai kuma sosai, sannan ya nemi dalili daga madogaran shari'a, ya kuma yi amfani da daleel ɗin a kan takamaiman mas'alar. Bai isa a gare shi ya koma ga manyan ra'ayoyi kamar maslaha ko manufar Shari'a sannan ya cire hukunci bisa hakan ba.

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.

Misali na kuskuren ƙarshe da za a iya kaiwa ta hanyar gama-gari bisa hankali yana bayyana a cikin wannan hujja. Ana iya cewa, bisa hankali, Musulunci ba ya ɗora wa mutum nauyi fiye da kima, wanda hakan kansa gama-gari ne, kuma a matsayin hujja ta biyu, cewa haya ta gidaje nauyi ne. Domin samun matsuguni bukata ce ta asali ga mutum, sai ƙarshen hankali ya zama cewa, dole ne, Musulunci yana halatta sayen gidaje ta hanyar karɓar rance daga banki wanda ya ƙunshi riba, don kauce wa nauyin haya. Abin da wannan hujja ba ta yi la'akari da shi ba shi ne cewa larura (Darurah) ba ƙa'ida ce ta gama-gari da ke aiki a dukkan yanayi ba, illa a takamaiman yanayi kawai da nassin Musulunci ya ambata. Haka kuma, ra'ayin cewa Musulunci ba ya ɗora wa mutum nauyi kawai yana bayyana gaskiya ce: duk abin da Allah (SWT) ya saukar da shi a matsayin halal da haram yana cikin ikon mutum ya aiwatar da shi ba tare da nauyi fiye da kima ba. Sai dai a yau, ma'anar nauyi tana ana amfani da ita ta hanyar hankali don barata mayar da abin da Musulunci ya haramta zuwa halal.

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.

Irin wannan tunani mai dalili yana da yawa a tsakanin Musulmi, musamman a fannin fiqhu. Saboda haka, mutane da yawa suna ambaton "Dalilai na hankali ga hukunce-hukuncen Shari'a", kamar da'awar cewa azumi (siyam) yana tsarkake kwakwalwa daga sharar sinadaran jiki, ko kuma cewa sujada tana fitar da wutar lantarki daga kai. Wasu da yawa kuma suna yin irin wadannan da'awar cewa Musulunci ya sanya shaidar mace ta zama kasa da ta namiji a wasu al'amura saboda rashin fahimtarta, sannan su kammala cewa wannan hukunci ba ya aiki yanzu saboda mata a yau suna da ilimi. Wasu kuma suna danganta azumi da ganin watan, bisa tushen cewa Musulmi ba su iya karatu da rubutu ba a da, sannan su kammala cewa an halatta yin lissafi wajen tantance farkon da karshen Ramadan saboda Musulmi ba su zama marasa karatu ba.

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.

Bugu da ƙari, malaman shari'a da yawa suna faɗaɗa ma'anar larura (Darurah) su yi amfani da ita a kan dukan al'amura, alhali Musulunci ya yi amfani da Darurah ne kawai a wasu takamaiman yanayi. Duk waɗannan hujjoji na kuskure suna samuwa ne daga amfani da tunani na hankali wanda aka ɗauke shi daga mahallinsa.

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.

Domin magance wannan hanyar tunani, dole ne a horar da Musulmi su fahimci al'amura yadda suke a zahiri, ba ta hanyar wannan tsarin ruɗarwa irin na masu Sophistanci ba. Musulmi dole ne su fahimci cewa hanyoyin da ake bi wajen kafa Aqeedah, fahimtar nassin shari'a, da samar da ra'ayoyin siyasa suna da nasu kebantattun halaye. Kuma dole ne su takaita amfani da hankali (logic) ga fannoni kamar lissafi.

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.

Hanyar tunani daidai tana buƙatar kowane mutum ya fara bincike kan kowace matsala ta hanyar nazarin yanayin lamarin yadda ya kamata, sannan ya haɗa shi da bayanan da suka gabata domin ya cimma matsaya. Ga al'amuran Shari'a, binciken dole ne a gina shi bisa hujjojin Shari'a ingantattu. Ga sauran al'amura, ana buƙatar hujja da ta dace domin tabbatar da binciken. A kowane hali, mafarin kowane bincike shi ne nazarin yanayin lamarin, kuma matsaya ita ce inda binciken ke ƙarewa.

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.

Sai dai, saboda tunani mara zurfi, lamarin ya juya a tsakanin Musulmi. Suna farawa da matsaya da aka riga aka tsara, sannan dukkan bincike sai a daidaita shi don tabbatar da matsayar da aka riga aka yanke. Irin wannan tunani karkatacce ne, kuma yana kayar da manufar tunani gaba ɗaya, yana soke aikin mai tunani.

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.

Duka tunanin ƙasa-ƙasa da kwaikwaya suna haifar da wannan hanyar tunani ta halitta, domin mai amfani da ita yakan karɓi sakamako ko matsaya ko dai saboda sha'awa da burin zuciya, ko kuma saboda son dacewa da taron jama'a. Ɗaya daga cikin alamomin wannan tunani shi ne kare ayyuka da shawarwarin shugabanni, jami'ai, shaikhai, malamai, da fitattun masu tunani. Dukkan bincike yana farawa ne da matsaya da aka riga aka ƙayyade cewa duk wani hukunci ko aiki da irin waɗannan mutane suka yi daidai ne ta tsohon tsari. Bayan haka, tunani yana takaitawa ga neman dalilai da bayanai don tabbatar da waɗannan hukunce-hukunce ko ayyuka.

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.