Mfano huu wa silojizi unaonekana kwa nje kuwa zoezi la kiakili lenye mvuto mkubwa, jambo ambalo linaweza kuwavutia watu wengi kulitumia. Ingawa linaweza kutumika katika hisabati, mbinu ya kimantiki haiwezi kufanya kazi katika fiqhi, Aqeedah, na siasa. Mifano michache itaonyesha upotoshaji wa mantiki iwapo itatumiwa vibaya.

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.

Mantiki katika Fiqhi Moja ya majanga makubwa yaliyoikumba dunia ya Fiqhi ni kuanzishwa kwa mantiki katika kuelewa maandiko ya kisheria. Mfano rahisi utaonyesha jinsi mbinu ya kimantiki isivyoweza kufikia hitimisho sahihi. Maishani, watu hukopa fedha kwa mambo mengi. Pia, Hijja ni jambo muhimu ambalo Waislamu lazima waitekeleze. Hitimisho la kimantiki ni kwamba Waislamu lazima wakope fedha kwa ajili ya Hijja. Hitimisho hili si sahihi kwa sababu Hijja ni wajibu kwa wale tu wenye uwezo. Asiye na fedha hana haja ya kukopa. Kosa la hitimisho hili linatokana na kosa lililomo katika hoja ya pili, ingawa linaonekana kuwa sahihi. Hoja sahihi ni kwamba Hijja ni tendo muhimu ambalo Waislamu lazima walitekeleze endapo wana uwezo.

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.

Mantiki katika Aqidah Ingawa inaweza kuonekana vinginevyo, matumizi ya mantiki katika Aqidah yanaweza kupelekea hitimisho potofu. Kwa mfano, mtu anaweza kuweka kama dhana yake kuu (major premise) kwamba kila kiumbe si cha milele na kitaisha, na kama dhana yake ndogo (minor premise) kwamba Jannah na Moto wa Jahannam vimeumbwa, kisha kufikia hitimisho la kimantiki kwamba Jannah na Moto wa Jahannam vitaisha. Hitimisho hili ni potofu kwa sababu dhana kuu ni potofu. Hoja hiyo ya kwanza inatumika kwa maisha haya pekee, lakini haiwezi kujumuishwa kwa Akhera. Akhera ni hali tofauti ambayo iko nje ya uwezo wa hisia na ufahamu wa binadamu. Kwa hiyo, kanuni za maisha haya haziwezi kutumika kwake.

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.

Mantiki katika Fikra za Kisiasa Moja ya mitego hatari zaidi katika fikra za kisiasa za Waislamu siku hizi hutokana na matumizi ya mantiki ili kufikia hitimisho la kisiasa. Kwa mfano, iwapo mtu, katika kuunda maoni ya kisiasa kuhusu sera za Uingereza na Marekani kuelekea Umoja wa Ulaya, angeweka kama dhana yake kuu kwamba Amerika itajaribu kuzuia umoja wa Ulaya, na kama dhana yake ndogo kwamba sera ya Uingereza imeunganishwa na sera ya Marekani, hitimisho la kimantiki lingekuwa kwamba Uingereza inajaribu kuzuia umoja wa Ulaya.

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.

Hitimisho hili si sahihi kwa sababu Uingereza ingekuwa na shauku kubwa ya kufikia umoja wa Ulaya mradi tu uko ndani ya maslahi yake. Ikiwa sera ya Uingereza inaonekana kupinga umoja huo, upinzani huu ni jaribio la kuuelekeza umoja huo kuelekea maslahi yake, au la kujaribu kushawishi sera ya Marekani barani Ulaya, na haitokani na ukosefu wowote wa hamu ya kufikia umoja wa Ulaya. Kosa la hitimisho katika mlinganisho huu linatokana na kosa la dhana ya pili. Uingereza, kama taifa huru na dola kuu la zamani, haingekubali kuunganisha sera yake na sera ya taifa lolote jingine, hata Marekani. Ingawa mataifa yote mawili yako katika Kambi moja ya Magharibi, mgongano wa maslahi unaweza kujitokeza wakati mwingine.

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.

Mifano hii mitatu inaonyesha kwamba mantiki haiwaongoi watu daima kwenye hitimisho sahihi.

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

Inafaa kutaja mfano wa Ibn Taymiyyah ili kuonyesha upotoshaji unaotokana na kutumia mantiki nje ya muktadha wake. Ibn Taymiyyah aliona mantiki kuwa ni "nyama ya ngamia aliyechinjwa iliyoonekana kileleni mwa mlima; nyama hiyo si nzuri kiasi cha kustahili kupanda mlima huo, wala njia inayoelekea huko si rahisi kufuatwa" (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).

Sababu ya mantiki kutofikia hitimisho sahihi ni kwamba haizingatii uhalisia wala kujaribu kuuchambua. Badala yake, hujenga hitimisho kulingana na uhusiano uliopo kati ya majengo mawili. Njia sahihi ya kufikiri inahitaji kwanza kuelewa uhalisia, kisha kujaribu kutafuta kanuni inayoweza kutumika katika uhalisia huo. Kuweka tu majengo fulani na kuzingatia uhusiano kati ya majengo hayo na umbo la hoja hakutazaa hitimisho lolote kuhusu uhalisia. Mfano wa kwanza unahusu jambo la Shariah, na hitimisho sahihi kuhusu masuala yanayohusiana na Shariah hupatikana kwa ushahidi kutoka kwenye maandiko ya kisheria.

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.

Hoja ya pili inashindwa kukiri tangu mwanzo kabisa kwamba mjadala wote huu uko nje ya uwezo wa akili. Na mfano wa tatu haujengi hoja yake juu ya uelewa wa mpangilio wa dunia na nafasi za mataifa yanayoongoza pamoja na yale yanayoshindana, ambayo lazima yaeleweke kabla ya kujaribu kuelewa sera ya Uingereza barani Ulaya.

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.

Zaidi, mantiki ya kimantiki ni potofu kwa sababu inatumia uainishaji wa jumla. Na kwa kuwa msingi wa mantiki ni mfuatano wa hoja (premises) na inazingatia umbo tu, ina uwezo wa kumsukuma mtu mbali na uhalisia. Faqihi makini hafanyi jumla kwa msingi wa mfanano wa juu juu. Badala yake, hujitahidi kuelewa kila suala au hali kivyake na kwa kina, kisha hutafuta ushahidi kutoka vyanzo vya sheria na kuutumia dalili (daleel) kwenye suala mahsusi. Haitoshi kwake kurejelea mawazo ya jumla kama maslahi (maslaha) au lengo la Shariah kisha kuhitimisha matokeo kwa msingi huo.

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.

Mfano wa hitimisho lisilo sahihi linalotokana na jumla inayotegemea mantiki unaonekana katika hoja ifuatayo. Mtu anaweza kusema, kwa kutumia mantiki, kwamba Uislamu hauwatwishi binadamu mzigo mzito, na hiyo yenyewe ni jumla, kisha kama hoja ya pili, kwamba kupanga nyumba ni mzigo. Kwa kuwa kuwa na makazi ni hitaji la msingi la binadamu, basi hitimisho la kimantiki ni kwamba, kwa lazima, Uislamu unaruhusu kununua nyumba kwa kuchukua mikopo kutoka benki ambayo inahusisha riba ili kuepuka mzigo wa kupanga. Hoja hii haizingatii kwamba lazima (Darurah) si kanuni ya jumla inayotumika katika kila hali, bali inahusu tu hali maalum zilizotajwa katika maandiko ya Kiislamu. Pia, dhana ya kwamba Uislamu hauwatwishi binadamu mzigo ni kauli ya ukweli tu: kila kitu ambacho Allah (SWT) ameteremsha kuwa halali na haramu kiko ndani ya uwezo wa binadamu kukitekeleza bila mzigo mkubwa. Hata hivyo, dhana ya mzigo siku hizi inatumiwa kupitia mantiki ili kuhalalisha kufanya halali kile ambacho Uislamu umekifanya haramu.

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.

Mchakato kama huu wa kufikiri kwa mantiki ni wa kawaida sana miongoni mwa Waislamu, hasa katika fiqhi. Kwa sababu hiyo, watu wengi huwataja "Hoja za kimantiki kwa hukumu za Shariah", kama kudai kwamba saumu (kufunga) inasafisha ubongo na taka zake za kimetaboliki, au kwamba sujud husaidia kutoa chaji ya umeme kutoka kichwani. Wengine wengi hudai kwamba Uislamu ulifanya ushahidi wa mwanamke kuwa dhaifu kuliko wa mwanamume katika masuala fulani kwa sababu ya ukosefu wake wa ufahamu, kisha wanahitimisha kwamba hukumu hiyo si halali tena kwa msingi kwamba wanawake wa leo wana elimu. Na wengine huunganisha kufunga na kuonekana kwa mwezi kwa msingi kwamba Waislamu walikuwa hawajui kusoma na kuandika, kisha wanahitimisha kwamba matumizi ya hesabu yanaruhusiwa katika kubainisha mwanzo na mwisho wa Ramadhani kwa msingi kwamba Waislamu si wasiojua kusoma na kuandika tena.

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.

Zaidi ya hayo, wanazuoni wengi wa fiqh huujumlisha dhana ya dharura (Darurah) na kuitumia katika hali zote, ilhali Uislamu uliitumia dharura katika hali maalum tu. Hoja zote hizi potofu hutokana na matumizi ya fikra za kimantiki zilizotolewa nje ya muktadha wake.

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.

Ili kukabiliana na namna hii ya kufikiri, Waislamu lazima wafundishwe kuelewa hali halisi badala ya kupitia mbinu hii ya kisofista. Waislamu lazima watambue kwamba michakato inayohusika katika kuanzisha Aqeedah, kuelewa maandishi ya kisheria, na kuunda maoni ya kisiasa ni ya kipekee. Na wanapaswa kuweka mipaka ya matumizi ya mantiki katika maeneo kama vile hesabu.

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.

Njia sahihi ya kufikiri inamtaka kila mtu kuanza kuchunguza jambo lolote kwa kusoma hali ilivyo kwa usahihi, kisha kuiunganisha na taarifa zilizotangulia ili kufikia hitimisho. Kwa masuala ya Shari'ah, utafiti lazima ujengwe juu ya dalili sahihi za Shari'ah. Kwa masuala mengine yote, dalili inayofaa inahitajika ili kuthibitisha utafiti huo. Katika hali zote mbili, mahali pa kuanzia kwa utafiti wowote ni kusoma hali, huku hitimisho likiwa ndilo kituo cha mwisho.

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.

Hata hivyo, kutokana na mawazo ya juujuu, hali imegeuka kinyume miongoni mwa Waislamu. Wao huanza na hitimisho lililokwisha amuliwa, kisha utafiti wote hupangwa kwa namna ya kuthibitisha hitimisho ambalo tayari lilikwisha kuamuliwa. Aina hii ya kufikiri ni mbinu potofu inayoharibu lengo zima la kufikiri na kubatilisha dhamira ya mfikiriaji.

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.

Mawazo ya juu juu na uigaji, vyote viwili, husababisha kwa kawaida njia hii ya kufikiri, kwa sababu anayeitumia mara nyingi hukubali matokeo au hitimisho kwa msingi wa matamanio ya moyo, au kwa sababu ya haja ya kujichanganya na umati. Mojawapo ya dhihirisho la kufikiri huku ni kuhalalisha matendo na maamuzi ya watawala, maafisa, mashaykh, wanazuoni, na wanafikra mashuhuri. Utafiti mzima huanza kwa hitimisho lililoamuliwa kabla, kwamba uamuzi au tendo lolote linalofanywa na watu kama hao ni sahihi kwa chaguo-msingi. Baada ya hapo, kufikiri kunakuwa kumezuiwa kwenye kutafuta sababu na maelezo ya kuhalalisha maamuzi au matendo haya.

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.