这种三段论从表面上看是一种非常吸引人的思维练习，可能诱使许多人去使用它。尽管它可以应用于数学，但在教法学（fiqh）、信仰（aqeedah）和政治中，这种逻辑方法无法发挥作用。几个例子将说明，如果误用逻辑，它会带来怎样的误导。

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.

伊斯兰教法学中的逻辑 伊斯兰教法学界所遭受的最大灾难之一，便是将逻辑引入对法律文本的理解之中。一个简单的例子就能说明，使用逻辑方法无法得出正确的结论。 在生活中，人们因为许多事情而借钱。另外，朝觐是穆斯林必须履行的一项重要功课。由此逻辑上的结论是：穆斯林必须为朝觐而借钱。这一结论是错误的，因为朝觐只对有能力的人是义务的，没有钱的人无需借钱。这一结论的谬误，源于第二个前提的谬误，尽管它看起来是正确的。正确的前提是：朝觐是穆斯林若有能力就必须履行的一项重要功修。

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.

Aqeedah中的逻辑 虽然看似并非如此，但在Aqeedah中运用逻辑，可能导致错误的结论。例如，有人可以把大前提设为"一切受造之物都不是永恒的，终将消逝"，把小前提设为"天堂和火狱是受造的"，从而得出逻辑结论：天堂和火狱终将消逝。这一结论是错误的，因为大前提本身有误。第一个论证只适用于今世，不能推广到后世。后世是一种不同的境况，超出了人的感官和理解范围，因此今世的规则不能应用于后世。

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.

政治思维中的逻辑 当代穆斯林政治思维中最危险的陷阱之一,在于用逻辑推理得出政治结论。比如,在形成对英国和美国对欧洲联盟政策的政治看法时,如果一个人把"美国会阻止欧洲的统一"作为大前提,把"英国的政策与美国的政策相关联"作为小前提,那么逻辑上的结论便是:英国也在阻止欧洲的统一。

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.

结论并不正确，因为只要符合英国的利益，英国就会热衷于实现欧洲统一。如果英国的政策看似反对统一，这种反对是为了使统一更符合其利益，或是为了影响美国在欧洲的政策，而并非出于缺乏实现欧洲统一的愿望。这一类比中结论的谬误，源于第二前提的谬误。英国作为一个主权国家和前超级大国，不会接受其政策与任何其他国家的政策挂钩，即使是美国也不例外。尽管两国同属西方阵营，但利益冲突有时仍可能出现。

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.

这三个例子表明，逻辑并不总是能引导人们得出正确的结论。

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

值得提及伊本·泰米叶的例子，以说明脱离语境地运用逻辑所具有的误导性。伊本·泰米叶把逻辑比作"山顶上发现的一头宰杀的骆驼的肉：这肉不足以值得人去攀登这座山，通往山顶的路也不好走"（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).

之所以逻辑推理不能得出正确的结论，是因为它既不关注现实，也不尝试去分析现实。相反，它只是依据两个前提之间的关系来构建结论。正确的思维方式则要求先理解现实，然后努力找出可以应用于该现实的规则。仅仅设定某些前提，并专注于前提之间的关系以及论证的形式，是无法得出关于现实的任何结论的。第一个例子讨论的是一个伊斯兰教法（Shariah）问题，而关于教法相关事务的正确结论，是由法律文本中的证据确立的。

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.

第二个论据从一开始就未能承认，整个讨论超出了理智的范畴。第三个例子则没有基于对世界秩序的理解，也没有基于对主导国家与竞争国家各自地位的认识来构建论证；而这些恰恰是理解英国欧洲政策之前必须先弄清楚的。

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.

此外，逻辑式的思维方式是错误的，因为它依赖于概括。逻辑的本质建立在一系列前提之上，只关注形式，因而有可能使人远离现实。一位健全的法学家不会基于表面的相似性进行概括。相反，他会努力独立、透彻地理解每一个问题或情况，然后从立法渊源中寻找证据，并将证据应用于具体问题。仅仅引用诸如利益或沙里亚目标之类的一般性概念，再据此得出结论，是不够的。

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.

一个由基于逻辑的泛化而导致错误结论的例子，在下面的论证中十分明显。有人可以依据逻辑断言，伊斯兰教不会使人负担过重，这本身就是一种泛化；再以租房是一种负担作为第二个前提。由于拥有住所是人的基本需要，于是逻辑上的结论便是：出于必要，伊斯兰教允许通过向银行贷款来购房，而这种贷款涉及利息（ribā），以此避免租房的负担。这一论证没有注意到的是：必要性（Darurah）并不是适用于所有情况的普遍原则，而只适用于伊斯兰经文中所提及的特定情形。另外，伊斯兰教不使人负担过重这一概念，只是陈述了一个事实：安拉（SWT）所颁布的一切合法与非法之事，都在人能够遵行的范围之内，不会造成过度的负担。然而，如今人们借助逻辑来运用"负担"这一概念，以此为把伊斯兰教所禁止之事变为合法提供理由。

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.

这种富有逻辑的思维方式在穆斯林中非常普遍，尤其是在教法学（fiqh）领域。因此，许多人援引“伊斯兰教法规的理性依据”，例如声称斋戒能净化大脑中的新陈代谢废物，或声称叩头（sujood）有助于释放头部的电荷。也有许多人主张，伊斯兰教在某些事务上使女性的证言少于男性，是因为她们缺乏理解力，并由此断定，由于今天的女性都受过教育，这一规定已不再有效。还有另一些人将斋戒与看见新月联系起来，理由是穆斯林当年是文盲，因此得出结论：既然穆斯林如今已不再是文盲，那么在确定斋月的开始和结束时使用天文计算便是允许的。

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.

此外，许多法学家将"必需"（Darurah）的概念泛化，并将其适用于一切情形，而伊斯兰教只在特定情形下才适用"必需"。所有这些错误的论证，都源于脱离语境地运用逻辑思维。

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.

为了纠正这种思维方式,穆斯林必须接受训练,以如实的方式理解现实,而不是通过这种诡辩式的方法。穆斯林必须认识到,确立阿qeedah(信条)、理解法律文本以及形成政治见解的过程是各不相同的。同时,他们必须把逻辑的运用限制在数学等领域。

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.

正确的思维方式要求任何人在探究任何问题时，首先正确地研究所处的情况，然后将其与已有的信息相联系，从而得出结论。对于涉及沙里尔（教法）的问题，研究必须建立在有效的沙里尔证据之上。对于其他所有问题，则需要恰当的证据来支持研究。无论哪种情况，任何研究的起点都是研究情况，而结论则是最终的归宿。

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.

然而,由于思维肤浅,穆斯林中的情况却颠倒了过来。他们先预设一个结论,然后整个研究都被量身定做,只为证明那个早已确定的结论。这种思维方式是一种扭曲的做法,它破坏了思考的全部目的,也取消了思考者的使命。

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.

无论是肤浅的思考还是盲目模仿，自然都会导致这种思维方式，因为使用者通常会基于一厢情愿的想法，或出于与众人保持一致的需要，而接受某个结论。这种思维的表现之一，就是为统治者、官员、学者、宗师以及杰出思想家的言行和决定辩护。整个研究一开始就预设了一个结论：这些人所作的任何决定或行为默认都是正确的。此后，思考便被局限于寻找理由和解释，来为这些决定或行为辩护。

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.

这种思维的另一种表现，是为人的错误寻找借口。许多人犯了错，并且意识到了，但他们不愿承认，而是继续为其辩解：或是出于固执，或是担心在他人眼中失去信誉，或是出于个人利益。

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.

这种思维方式在当今穆斯林中非常普遍。他们在政治、教法、信仰（aqeedah）或科学方面的大多数思考，不过是为谢赫、政治领袖和知识分子预先设定的结论寻找辩护。大众紧紧追随这些人，并盲目地模仿他们。因此，乌玛中的思想者和知识分子寥寥无几。

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.