Kwa sasa Uislamu unapatikana na kujifunzwa kupitia mbinu hizi, na kwa asili yake ni dhahiri kwamba mbinu hizi haziwezi kujenga fikra yoyote ya Kiislamu. Matokeo yake, kuenea kwa mbinu hizi kumesababisha uvivu wa kufikiri, pamoja na fikra za juujuu na zenye hisia kutawala fikra za sasa za Waislamu, licha ya idadi kubwa ya Waislamu wanaosoma Uislamu katika vyuo vikuu, misikiti na taasisi mbalimbali, na licha ya ongezeko la idadi ya Mashaykh. Mbinu hizi kwa kawaida huzaa hali kama hii kwa sababu Uislamu hauonekani tena kama itikadi inayounda mtazamo wa mtu kuhusu maisha. Badala yake, Uislamu unachukuliwa either kama taarifa kali zisizobadilika, au kama hadithi za kuridhisha hisia. Ifuatayo ni baadhi ya sifa za fikra za sasa za Ummah wa Kiislamu ambazo zimeibuka kama matokeo ya kupata Uislamu kupitia mbinu hizi.

Islam today is acquired and studied through these methods, and it is obvious by their nature that they cannot establish any Islamic thinking. As a result of their prevalance, idleness in thinking, and superficial and emotional thinking are encompassing the current thinking of Muslims in spite of the tremendous number of Muslims studying Islam in universities, masjids, and institutions, and the increasing number of Shaykhs. These methods naturally lead to such a situation because Islam is no longer viewed as an ideology that shapes the point of view towards life. Rather, Islam is taken either as rigid or static information, or as stories to appease the emotions. Following are some characteristics of the current thinking of the Muslim Ummah that have emerged as a result of acquiring Islam through these methods.

Tafakari inaweza kuainishwa kuwa ya juujuu, ya kina, au ya kuangazwa. Fikra ya juujuu hutokana na kukosekana kwa uchunguzi wa kina na wa kina kamili wa hali fulani, na mtu anayeitumia huridhika kuangalia uso tu wa tukio au hali yoyote. Fikra hii ya juujuu inaonekana katika fikra za kisiasa za sasa za Waislamu. Waislamu wanapoangalia nchi zilizopo katika ulimwengu wa Kiislamu, wanafikiri kwamba nchi hizi ni huru na kwamba watawala wana mapenzi yao wenyewe, kwa sababu tu kila nchi ina mipaka yake, bendera yake, katiba yake, na uanachama wake katika mashirika ya kimataifa. Hata hivyo, mtu yule yule anayefikia hitimisho hili, endapo angetumia muda kujifunza hali halisi ya nchi hizi, jinsi zilivyoendelezwa, na uhusiano wake na Magharibi, asingehitimisha kwamba nchi hizi ni huru.

Thinking can be characterized as either superficial, profound, or enlightened. The superficial thinking results from a lack of deep and comprehensive study of the situation, and the individual who resorts to this thinking is content with looking at the surface of any event or situation. This superficial though reflects in the current political thinking of the Muslims. When Muslims look to the existing states in the Muslim world, they think that these states are independent and that the rulers have their own will simply because they each have their own borders, flag, constitution, and membership in international organizations. However, if the same person who reaches this conclusion would spend time studying the reality of these states, how they were developed, and their relationship with the West, he would not conclude that these states are independent.

Mfano mwingine wa fikra za juu juu ni kudai kwamba Demokrasia inafanana na Shura ambayo Uislamu unaihimiza, kwa msingi tu wa kwamba Uislamu unapendekeza kushauriana na unaipa Ummah haki ya kumchagua Khalifah. Hata hivyo, kuchunguza kwa kina msingi wa kiitikadi wa Demokrasia kutaonyesha kwamba Demokrasia ni mfumo mahususi unaotegemea dhana kwamba binadamu ana haki ya kutunga sheria zake mwenyewe na kuamua mwenyewe viwango vyake vya haki na batili. Dhana hii inapingana na msingi wa mfumo wa Kiislamu, ambao unasema kwamba ni Allah (SWT) pekee

Another example of superficial thinking is claiming that Democracy parallels the Shura that Islam calls for based solely upon the fact that Islam recommends consultation and gives the Ummah the right to choose the Khalifah. However, closely examining the ideological basis of Democracy in a profound way will reveal that Democracy is a specific system based on the notion that the human being has the right to make his own laws and decide for himself his own standards of right and wrong. This notion contradicts the basis of the Islamic system, which states that only Allah (swt)

Ash-Shaari' (Mwenye sheria) ndiye mwenye haki ya kutunga sheria na kuamua lipi ni halali na lipi ni haramu, wakati binadamu ana haki ya kufahamu sheria hizi na kuzitekeleza tu. Mifumo ya Kidemokrasia na ya Kiislamu hutofautiana si tu katika chanzo cha sheria zao, bali pia katika mchakato wa kutoa sheria kutoka katika vyanzo vya kisheria.

Wakati kiwango cha fikra kinapopungua, mtu binafsi hataweza kufanya utafiti wowote wa asili peke yake. Katika hali hii, mtu huyo atakubali mawazo yaliyokwisha kuanzishwa na wengine anapokabiliwa na jambo lolote au suala lolote linalohitaji aina yoyote ya fikra au utafiti wa asili. Iwe ni masuala ya kisiasa, kisheria, au mengineyo, mtu wa namna hii atawageukia wengine ili wampe majibu. Na baada ya kupokea jibu au maoni kutoka kwa wengine, atayatetea na kuyathibitisha maoni hayo kana kwamba ni yake mwenyewe, bila kuchunguza ushahidi unaohusiana nayo, kwa sababu tu ya imani yake kwa yule aliyeyaanzisha maoni hayo.

When the thinking level declines, the individual will be unable to conduct any original research on his own. In this situation, the individual will adopt already-existing ideas established by others when faced with any case or issue that requires any type of original thought or research. Whether in political, legal, or any other issues, such a person will turn to others to provide him with the answers. And after taking the answer or opinion from others, he will defend and justify this opinion as if it was his own without researching the related evidences, only because of his trust in the one who established the opinion.

Aina hii ya kufikiri imeenea miongoni mwa Waislamu licha ya idadi yao kubwa, ilhali kiasi cha fikra asilia ni karibu hakipo. Taqleed (kuiga) kama hii inakubalika katika fiqh kwa wale wasioweza kufanya ijtihad, na pia inakubalika kwa mujtahid pale ambapo hahitaji kutumia ijtihad yake mwenyewe. Hata hivyo, aina hii ya kufikiri hairuhusiwi katika Aqeedah, kwani inajulikana vizuri kwamba Waislamu wamekatazwa kuchukua Aqeedah yao kwa njia ya taqleed. Mtazamo wa aina hii kuhusu Aqeedah ulianzia kwa wasiokuwa Waislamu, ambao hufuata tu mababu zao bila kuanzisha aina yoyote ya fikra au utafiti kuhusu imani zao. Zaidi ya hayo, ufafanuzi wa Iman hauacha nafasi yoyote kwa taqleed katika Aqeedah, kwa sababu Iman inafafanuliwa kuwa ni imani thabiti inayolingana na uhalisia na inayotegemea ushahidi thabiti. Taqleed haiwezi kuanzisha Iman ya namna hiyo, kwa kuwa inahitaji kufikiri juu ya jambo hilo na kujenga hoja ya mtu kwa kutegemea daleel zinazothibitisha imani thabiti. Kwa hiyo, si sahihi kwa mtu yeyote kusema "Ninamwamini Allah na Mtume" kwa sababu tu baba yake au shaykh wake amesema hivyo.

This type of thinking is widespread among Muslims in spite of their large numbers, whereas the amount of original thinking is almost non-existent. Such taqleed (imitation) is acceptable in fiqh for those unable to conduct ijtihad and is also acceptable for the mujtahid is some where he does not have to exercise his own ijtihad. However, this type of thinking is not allowed in the Aqeedah, as it is well known that Muslims are prohibited from adopting their Aqeedah through taqleed. Such an approach towards the Aqeedah originated from the non-Muslims who simply follow their ancestors without initiating any type of thinking or research into their beliefs. Furthermore, the definition of Iman leaves no room for the taqleed in the Aqeedah because Iman is defined as the conclusive belief that agrees with the reality and is based on conclusive evidences. Taqleed cannot establish such an Iman because it requires thinking about the issue and building one’s case based on daleels that establish the conclusive belief. Therefore, it is incorrect for anyone to say "I believe in Allah and the Messenger" because his father or shaykh said so.

Katika maisha ya kila siku, kuna maeneo yanayohitaji fikra za kina na pana, kama vile matukio ya kisiasa, au kufanya utafiti maabara, au kutafuta ushahidi katika shauri la kisheria. Pia, kuna hali zinazohitaji kushughulikiwa kwa kutumia fikra, kama vile jinsi ya kukabiliana na shambulio na mikakati na hatua mahsusi za kuchukua. Tukio kama hilo lilionyeshwa na Mtume ﷺ wakati wa Vita vya Al-Khandaq, ambapo Mtume ﷺ alianzisha mbinu nyingi ambazo zilihitaji fikra za kina kuhusu hali hiyo ili kukabiliana kwa ufanisi na shambulio dhidi ya Madina.

In everyday life, there are areas that require deep and comprehensive thinking, such as political events or conducting research in the lab, or searching for the evidence in a legal matter. In addition, there are situations that need to be addressed by thinking, such as how to deal with an attack and what specific strategies and measures to undertake. Such an incident was demonstrated by the Prophet (saaw) during the Battle of Al-Khandaq, in which the Prophet (saaw) initiated numerous tactics which required extensive thinking about the situation in order to effectively counter the attack upon Medina.

Kwa upande mwingine, kuna hali na mambo ambayo hayahitaji kufikiri kwa kina. Mtu hahitaji kufanya majaribio marefu wala kufanya utafiti wa kina ili kuthibitisha kwamba maji yanakidhi mahitaji ya mtu mwenye kiu, au kuthibitisha kwamba taifa lolote lazima lijilinde dhidi ya maadui zake. Mambo kama haya yako wazi kabisa kutokana na uzoefu wa kila siku. Vilevile, Muislamu anaposikia Adhana, hahitaji kufikiri jinsi ya kutawadha, kwa sababu kitendo hiki kinamfahamu sana hadi anakifanya kiotomatiki bila haja ya kufikiri kuhusu miondoko yake. Ingawa Muislamu mpya huenda akahitaji maonyesho machache ya wudhu mwanzoni, hahitaji kufalsafisha wudhu kila anapohitaji kuutekeleza.

On the other hand, there are situations and issues which do not require thinking. One does not need to conduct lengthy experiments and engage in extensive study to prove that water fulfills the need of a thirsty person or to prove that any nation must protect itself against its enemies. Such issues are plainly obvious from everyday experience. Also, when a Muslim hears the Adhan, he does not need to think about how to perform the wudu because this action is so well-known to him that he automatically does it without any need to think about the movements. While a new Muslim may initially require a few demonstrations of the wudu, he does not need to philosophize the wudu every time he needs to perform it.

Hata hivyo, Waislamu walipoteza mstari huu mzuri unaotenganisha yale yanayohitaji kufikiri na yale yasiyohitaji kufikiri. Matokeo yake, Waislamu walianza kujadili kwa urefu na kwa undani mkubwa mambo ambayo hayahitaji undani wa namna hiyo. Shaykh mmoja angetumia mwaka mzima kuwafafanulia watu kanuni za wudhuu, ilhali mambo machache ya vitendo yangetosha. Zaidi ya hayo, watu wengine waliandika vitabu vingi kwa wingi kuhusu wudhuu, twahara, harakati za swala, na mambo mengine kama hayo.

Ili kushughulikia suala hili, mtu lazima atambue kwamba mchakato wa kufikiri unahitaji mtu binafsi ahisi na kuelewa suala lililopo. Hakuna mtu anayeweza kufikiri juu ya masuala yaliyo nje ya upeo wa hisia zake isipokuwa ikiwa ushahidi halisi kuhusu masuala hayo unatoka kwenye chanzo ambacho akili tayari imekithibitisha kuwa cha kuaminika. Katika muktadha huu, Waislamu wanaamini katika Jini, Malaika, Siku ya Hukumu, Peponi na Motoni, pamoja na mambo mengine ya Ghaib. Imani katika hakika hizo imejengwa juu ya ushahidi thabiti unaothibitishwa kupitia akili, tofauti na metafizikia, ambayo inategemea dhana tupu.

In order to address this issue, one must realize that the thinking process requires that the individual sense and comprehend the issue at hand. No one can think about issues that are beyond the scope of their senses unless an authentic evidence regarding such issues comes from a source that the rationale has already established as credible. Within this context, Muslims believe in the Jinn, the Angels, the Day of Judgment, Paradise and Hell-fire, and other aspects of the Ghaib. The belief in such realities is built upon the conclusive evidence that is established through the intellect, to be distinguished from metaphysics, which is based upon pure speculation.

Hivi karibuni, fikra za kimetafizikia zimeingia kwenye mchakato wa kufikiri wa Waislamu.

Recently, the metaphysical thinking has seeped into the thinking process of the Muslims.

Siku hizi, Waislamu wanadhihirisha fikra za kimetafizikia kwa njia mbili:

Nowadays, the Muslims manifest the metaphysical thinking in two aspects:

Kushindwa kuelewa mipaka ya mchakato wa kufikiri na ya akili ya binadamu kumesababisha Waislamu kujadili masuala yanayohusu Ghaib kwa kutumia akili zao wenyewe na hisia zao. Matokeo yake, masuala kama majini yamechukua nafasi kubwa sana katika fikra za Waislamu, kiasi kwamba baadhi yao hata wanadai kwamba wanaweza kuwasiliana na majini. Mfano mwingine wa suala la aina hii ni mjadala unaozunguka Sifa za Allah na kama ni sehemu ya Dhati Yake au la. Ingawa Waislamu lazima waamini kuwepo kwa hakika kama hizo, imani hii lazima ibaki ndani ya maandiko ya dalili na haiwezi kwenda zaidi ya hapo, kwa sababu mchakato wa kufikiri unahitaji hisia ili uweze kutokea. Kujaribu kuanzisha mchakato wa kufikiri juu ya hakika ambazo akili ya binadamu haiwezi kuzielewa wala kuzihisi kutasababisha mawazo ya kubuni yasiyo na msingi wowote wa kifikra.

Failure to understand the limits of the thinking process and the human mind has resulted in Muslims discussing issues related to the Ghaib using their own mind and senses. As a result, issues such as the jinn occupy a very large space in the thinking of Muslims, to the extent that some even claim that they can communicate with the jinn. Another example of such an issue is the discussion that revolves around the Attributes of Allah and whether or not they are part of His Entity. Although Muslims must believe in the existence of such realities, this belief must be limited to the text of the evidence and cannot venture beyond it because the thinking process requires sensation in order to occur. Attempting to initiate the thinking process upon realities that the human mind cannot comprehend or sense will result in speculative imagination devoid of any thought.

Sababu nyingi zilichangia kiwango kama hiki cha fikra. Moja ya sababu muhimu ni kwamba kujadili hali ya sasa ya Ummah wa Kiislamu kunaweza kusababisha matatizo kwa tabaka tawala. Matokeo yake, watu wangeelekea kwenye masuala kama hayo kwa sababu huenda yasiwe na madhara kwa mamlaka zilizopo. Kwa kweli, tabaka tawala linaweza hata kuhimiza aina hii ya fikra ili kuwavuruga Waislamu kutoka kwenye masuala halisi yanayowakabili. Sababu nyingine ni kwamba kiwango cha chini cha fikra kilichopo miongoni mwa Waislamu kinaweza kuwasukuma watu kujadili masuala kama hayo, kwa sababu falsafa ya mambo ya kimaumbile (metafizikia) haihitaji fikra za kina, ambazo ni vigumu kwa watu wengi kuanzisha. Yote ambayo fikra za kimetafizikia zinahitaji ni kuleta hadithi na kuachilia mawazo bila haja ya kuweka ushahidi halisi wa kujenga hoja au hoja, jambo ambalo mtu yeyote anaweza kulifanya kwa urahisi na faraja.

Many reasons contributed to such a level of thinking. One important reason is that discussing the current situation of the Muslim Ummah may lead to some problems with the ruling elite. As a result, people would shift towards such issues because they may not be problematic to the ruling establishments. In fact, the ruling elite may even encourage this type of thinking to distract the Muslims from the real issues facing them. Another reason is that the low level of thinking that exists among Muslims may push the individuals to discuss such issues because metaphysics does not require serious thinking, which is difficult for many people to initiate. All that metaphysical thinking requires is bringing stories and unleashing the imagination without the need to establish any concrete evidence to build a case or argument, which is something that anyone can do with relative ease and comfort.

Qadriyya Ghaibiyya inamaanisha kuhamisha uhusiano wa vitendo kutoka kwenye Hukm Sharii kwenda kwenye kile ambacho mtu anaweza kudhani kuwa ni Ujuzi wa Allah. Mifano ya mtazamo kama huo ni kudai kwamba kurudi nyuma na kudorora kwa Waislamu hivi sasa ni hatima yao ambayo haiwezi kushughulikiwa wala kubadilishwa, au kutumia Du'a kama njia pekee ya kubadilisha hali ya Waislamu bila kuchukua hatua yoyote, au kudai kwamba majini na mashetani ndio sababu ya baadhi ya magonjwa na kwamba njia ya kuponya ugonjwa huo ni kuwasiliana nao.

Qadriyya Ghaibiyya refers to shifting the connection of the actions from the Hukm Sharii to what someone may imagine as the Knowledge of Allah. Examples of such a mentality are claiming that the current backwardness and decline of the Muslims is their destiny that cannot be addressed or changed, or using the Du’a as the only means of changing the situation of Muslims without initiating any action, or claiming that the jinn and the shayateen are the cause of some diseases and that the way to cure the disease is to communicate with them.

Waislamu lazima waamini kwamba Sababu na Matokeo ni sheria ya kiasili ambayo Allah (SWT) ameiweka katika ulimwengu huu.

Muslims must believe that Cause-and-Effect is a natural law that Allah (swt) set in this universe.

Athari hutokea tu pale sababu yake inapokuwepo. Kwa mfano, ushindi hauwezi kupatikana isipokuwa sababu zake zipo, kama vile imani thabiti ya jeshi juu ya malengo yake, busara ya viongozi, na kiwango cha maandalizi na mipango. Pia, kutibu ugonjwa kuna sababu yake, ambayo ni dawa sahihi. Mtume ﷺ alisema: "Ee mja wa Allah! Tafuta matibabu, kwani Allah ameumba ugonjwa pamoja na dawa." Katika tukio moja, mtu mmoja alimjia Mtume ﷺ akimwomba amwombee dua ngamia wake apone ugonjwa wa ngozi. Mtume ﷺ alimwambia yule mtu: "Ongeza katika dua yako lami," akionyesha kwamba dua peke yake haitimizi lengo. Katika tukio jingine, Mtume ﷺ alimwambia mtu aliyetaka kumwachia huru ngamia wake huku akitegemea tawakkul kumlinda: "Mfungie kwanza, kisha tawakkul." Vivyo hivyo, kuwainua Waislamu kutoka hali yao ya sasa hakutatokea kwa dua na ibada pekee, bali kwa kuanzisha mabadiliko na kufanya kazi ili kuleta mwamko huo. Allah (SWT)

The effect will occur only if the cause exists. For example, victory cannot materialize unless its causes exist, such as the army’s firm conviction in its objectives, the shrewdness of the leaders, and the level of preparation and planning. Also, curing a disease has a cause, which is the correct medication. The Prophet (saaw) said, "O servant of Allah! Seek medical treatment since Allah created the disease and the medication." In one incident, a man came to the Prophet (saaw) asking him to make Du’a to his camel to cure her from a skin disease. The Prophet (saaw) told the man, "Add to your Du’a some tar," indicating that the Du’a by itself will not accomplish the objective. In another incident, the Prophet (saaw) told a man who wanted to unleash his camel while depending on the tawakul to protect her, "Leash her, and then have the tawakul." By the same token, reviving the Muslims from their current status quo will occur not by Du’a and ibadah alone but through initiating the change and working towards creating the revival. Allah (swt)

Kama ilivyotajwa awali, mfumo wa kufikiri kwa akili ni mchakato unaohusisha uhalisia, akili timamu ya binadamu, hisi zinazopeleka uhalisia kwenye akili kama hisia, na taarifa za awali ambazo akili huziunganisha na hisia hiyo ili kutoa fikra. Kwa hiyo, mbinu ya kiakili inamaanisha kufikiri juu ya uhalisia uliopo au suala lenyewe kama lilivyo. Hata hivyo, mbinu ya kisayansi inategemea kufanya majaribio na kufikia hitimisho kulingana na data iliyokusanywa. Utafiti wowote wa kisayansi hautegemei hali au uhalisia kama ulivyo, bali unahitaji kuweka kitu kinachochunguzwa katika mazingira tofauti na mazingira yake ya asili, kisha kuangalia athari za hali hizi zilizowekwa juu ya kitu hicho. Mchakato huu unaitwa jaribio la kisayansi, ambalo ndilo msingi mkuu wa mbinu ya kisayansi ya kufikiri.

As previously mentioned, the intellectual way of thinking is a process which involves the reality, a sound human mind, senses which transfer the reality to the mind as a sensation, and previous information which the mind links to the sensation to produce a thought. Thus, the intellectual method entails thinking about the reality at hand or the issue as it is. However, the scientific method is based upon performing experiments and reaching a conclusion based on the data collected. Any kind of scientific research does not depend on the situation or the reality as is but necessitates subjecting the material under scrutiny to an environment different than its natural environment and then observing the impact of these imposed conditions on the material. This process is referred to as the scientific experiment, which constitutes the cornerstone of the scientific method of thinking.

Mbinu ya kisayansi ni tawi la mbinu ya kiakili kwa sababu, kama mbinu ya kiakili, mchakato wa kisayansi unahitaji uhalisia, hisia za kuutambua uhalisia huo, na ubongo wa binadamu ili kufanya utafiti na uchambuzi na kufikia hitimisho.

The scientific method is a branch of the rational method because, like the rational method, the scientific process requires a reality, senses in order to perceive the reality, and a human brain in order to perform the research and analysis to arrive at a conclusion.

Hata hivyo, tofauti hiyo inatokana na aina ya uhalisia unaohusika, na kwa sababu hiyo aina ya utafiti na uchambuzi unaofanywa katika mchakato wa kisayansi itatofautiana na ule wa mchakato wa kiakili. Mbinu ya kisayansi haiwezi kutumika katika taaluma zote kwa sababu si kila kitu kinaweza kufanyiwa majaribio. Ingawa maeneo ya maarifa kama fizikia, biolojia, na uhandisi yanaweza kujadiliwa kwa kutegemea majaribio, maeneo ya maarifa kama falsafa, historia, uchumi, sheria, na mafundisho ya imani hayawezi kujadiliwa kwa kutumia mbinu ya kisayansi kwa sababu taaluma hizo si vitu vya kimaumbile vinavyoweza kufanyiwa majaribio na vipimo. Kwa mfano, kujaribu kisayansi athari ya itikadi katika maendeleo ya taifa kungehitaji kulazimisha taifa moja kufuata itikadi fulani na kuondoa itikadi hiyo kwa taifa jingine ili kubaini kama itikadi husika ina matokeo ya maendeleo. Utafiti wa aina hiyo uko nje ya upeo wa mbinu ya majaribio kwa sababu hakuna mtu anayeweza kuyalazimisha mataifa, watu binafsi, au jamii kuwekwa katika hali kama hizo. Hata hivyo, mtu anaweza kuchunguza mataifa au watu binafsi jinsi walivyo au katika historia yote, kisha kufikia hitimisho la kiakili kwamba itikadi husika huleta maendeleo kwa taifa. Tofauti nyingine muhimu kati ya mbinu ya kisayansi na ya kiakili ipo katika aina ya ukweli au hitimisho linalofikiwa kwa aina hizo mbili za kufikiri. Mbinu ya kisayansi huleta kuanzisha ukweli wa kiasi na si ukweli kamili, kwa sababu inategemea vipimo vya kiasi.

Aina hii ya kufikiri inaweza kujidhihirisha katika mambo mawili.

This type of thinking can manifest in two aspects:

1. Kufikiri kwa Matamanio: Mtu anapokuwa na mwelekeo wa kihisia kuelekea hitimisho fulani mahsusi, hutamani matukio yaelekee katika matokeo hayo. Kwa sababu hiyo, huanza kutafsiri kila kitu kwa kuzingatia matamanio hayo. Nafasi ya akili katika aina hii ya kufikiri ni kuhalalisha matokeo yanayotamaniwa na kujaribu kuthibitisha hoja yake. Kwa mfano, baadhi ya watu wana uaminifu fulani kwa utawala fulani, na kutokana na mshikamano huu wa kihisia, hutamani kwamba utawala huo ni mfumo wa haki. Kwa msingi wa matamanio hayo, hufikia hitimisho kwamba utawala fulani ni wa haki, na huhalalisha vitendo vya utawala huo ili viendane na hitimisho hilo, hata kama uhalalishaji huo unamaanisha kukataa ukweliulio wazi kabisa.

1. Wishful Thinking: When a person possesses an emotional inclination to reach a specific conclusion, he wishes the events to lead to this result. As a result, he would start interpreting everything based upon this wish. The intellect’s role in this type of thinking is to justify the wished for result and attempt to prove its case. For example, some people have a certain loyalty to a regime, and based upon this emotional attachment, they would wish that this regime is a just system. Based upon this wish, they would conclude that a certain regime is just, and they would justify the actions of this regime in order to fit this conclusion, even if this justification amounted to denying clear facts altogether.

Fikra hii ya kutamani pia hudhihirika katika matakwa ya Waislamu wengi kwamba nchi fulani iwe Dola ya Kiislamu. Kuishi chini ya Mfumo wa Kiislamu ndiyo hamu ya kila Muslim, lakini kwa baadhi, hamu hii inaweza kuwasukuma kuiita serikali yoyote kuwa ya Kiislamu kwa msingi wa kuwepo kwa baadhi ya alama za Uislamu.

The wishful thinking also manifests in the wish of many Muslims for a certain state to be an Islamic State. Living under the Islamic System is the wish of every Muslim, but for some, this wish may incline them to label any regime as Islamic based upon the presence of certain symbols of Islam.

Watu kama hao wangetumia kuwepo kwa alama hizi kudai kwamba nchi fulani ni ya Kiislamu.

Such people would then use the existence of these symbols to claim that a particular state is Islamic.

Na ikiwa dola inayohusika kwa kweli ni dola ya kikafiri, watu kama hao wangejaribu kulihalalisha hili ili kuunga mkono hitimisho lao wanalolitaka, kwamba dola hiyo ni ya Kiislamu.

And if the state in question is in reality a Kufr state, such individuals would try to justify this in order to support their wished-for conclusion that the state is Islamic.

Ufinyu wa kufikiri hurejelea kushindwa kufanya utafiti wa kina katika masuala mbalimbali. Hali hii inaweza kutokana na kushikamana sana na hali iliyopo, au kwa kupunguza mjadala kwenye hali iliyopo, au kwa ukosefu wa taarifa au vyanzo vya maarifa kwa mtu binafsi.

Narrowness in thinking refers to the inability in conducting comprehensive research in different issues. It could either result from the strong attachment to the status quo or from limiting the discussion to the status quo, or the lack of information or sources of knowledge to the individual.

Masharti kama haya hatimaye humgeuza mtu kuwa mtu aliyejitenga, anayefunga upeo wa fikra zake ndani ya hali iliyopo. Kwa kweli, aina hii ya kufikiri inafanana na fikra za juu juu, na huenda ikawa mojawapo ya sababu za fikra za juu juu. Aina hii ya kufikiri ni tofauti na kubobea katika eneo moja, kwa sababu kubobea maana yake ni kuelekeza nguvu katika kipengele kimoja ili kukuza ubunifu katika fani mahususi. Mtu wa namna hiyo hana upeo finyu wa fikra, bali amejikita katika jambo moja. Lakini mwenye fikra finyu hawezi kufikiri katika suala lolote, la jumla au mahususi, na upeo wa fikra zake ni mdogo, kwa kawaida hauvuki zaidi ya kufikiri juu ya riziki yake na mambo yanayohusiana nayo. Kwa mfano, mfanyabiashara anaweza kuwajua wateja wake wote na mahitaji yao, pamoja na maelezo ya bidhaa zake. Hata hivyo, mtu huyo huyo, akiwa na fikra finyu, angeepuka mjadala wowote wa kiakili. Akishiriki katika mjadala wa aina hiyo, ushiriki wake utakuwa wa juu juu na kwa madhumuni pekee ya kuonyesha kwamba yeye pia ana cha kusema.

Such constraints eventually shift the individual into an isolated person who restricts the scope of his thinking to the status quo. In fact, this type of thinking is similar to the superficial thinking, and it could be one of the reasons behind the superficial thinking. This type of thinking is distinct from being specialized in one area because specialization means to focus in one aspect in order to develop creativity in a specific field. Such a person is not narrow in the scope of his thinking but is focused in one aspect. However, the narrow thinker cannot think in any issue, general or specific, and the scope of his thinking is limited and usually does not extend beyond thinking in his livelihood and related matters. For example, a merchant may know all of his customers and their needs, as well as the details of his merchandise. However, the same person, if narrow in his thinking, would avoid any intellectual discussion. If he participates in any such type of discussion, his participation will be superficial and for the sole purpose of showing that he has something to say.

Wakoloni wa Enzi za Ukoloni waliwahimiza Waislamu kufuata mwelekeo huu, na watawala waliowatawala watu kwa niaba ya Wakoloni walitekeleza sheria kali zilizozuia watu kujadili kwa uzito masuala fulani, kama vile siasa, uchumi, na mfumo wa sheria.

Mantiki (Logic) ni fani ya kale ya Kigiriki, iliyowekwa na wanafalsafa wa Ugiriki wa kale. Walaitumia kwa kila kipengele, iwe kinahusiana na mambo yaliyo ndani ya hisia au yaliyo nje ya hisia. Waliitumia katika kujadili Mungu, Sifa Zake, na Dhati Yake, pamoja na masuala mengine kama vile maumbile na haki. Mtindo huu wa kufikiri umejengwa juu ya mpangilio maalum wa kifalsafa unaomwongoza mtu kufikia matokeo maalum. Muundo mahususi unaotofautisha mantiki unajumuisha majengo mawili: Dai kuu (major premise), linalotaja kanuni ya jumla au jambo la kimaumbile, na dai dogo (minor premise), ambalo linaweza kuwa wazo mahususi au suala ambalo mtu lazima alifikirie. Kwa kuzingatia uhusiano kati ya majengo hayo mawili, mwanamantiki hufikia hitimisho.

Logic is an old Greek discipline set by the classical Greek philosophers. They applied it to any aspect, whether they relate to things within or beyond the senses. They employed it in discussing God, His Attributes, and His Essence, in addition to other issues such as nature and justice. This way of thinking is built upon a specific philosophical order that leads a person to reach specific results. The specific format which characterizes logic consists of two premises: The major premise, which states a general rule or natural phenomenon, and the minor premise, which could be a specific idea or issue that the person must think about. Based on the relationship between the two premises, the logician reaches a conclusion.

Wanamantiki hawasisitizi usahihi wa kweli wa majengo yoyote kati ya haya au uchambuzi wa kimantiki. Badala yake, msisitizo uko kwenye umbo rasmi. Katika Ibn Taymiyya Against the Greek Logicians, cha Hallaq, anasema: "Asili ya ndani ya silojizimu inaifanya kuwa bora kidogo tu kuliko qiyas (analojia), kwa sababu hata iwe sahihi kiasi gani, silojizimu haiwezi, kwa umbo pekee, kutoa hitimisho lenye hakika."

Logicians do not emphasize the soundness or correctness of any of these premises or logical analysis. Rather, the emphasis is on the formality. In Ibn Taymiyya Against the Greek Logicians, by Hallaq, he states: "The inherent nature in Syllogism renders it hardly superior to analogy, because however valid the syllogism may be, it cannot, by virtue of form alone, lead to a certain conclusion.

Ni maudhui ya hoja, si umbo lake, ndiyo yanayoamua ukweli wa hitimisho…Njia ya kimantiki ya kisilojizimu haitoi hitimisho lenye uhakika kwa sababu ya umbo pekee."

It is the subject matter of the argument, not its form, that determines the truth of the conclusion…A syllogistic mode of reasoning will not result in a certain conclusion by virtue of form alone."