Bismillah,
Last autumn, a dear brother gifted me with Sh. Sa ‘id’ Fawdah’s book ‘Tad’im al-Mantiq’ , which could be translated as: ‘In Support of Logic‘. In this unique work, Sh. Sa’id tackled Ibn Taymiyya’s infamous book against the logicians; a book that takes up one whole volume (last time I checked). This section that I have translated here is just one section of chapter two. In it, he responds to what could be called Ibn Taymiyya’s summary view concerning logic. I’m going to be posting this in parts so keep and eye out. This is part one only.
*UPDATE: I slightly edited this post to make it more reader friendly on the web. I had initially transferred it from a word document with all of the hats and dots (transliteration marks) on the Arabic words intact. It turns out that many people were unable to read those words, seeing instead question marks, dingbats, etc.
Ibn Taymiyya said:
As for the books of logic, they do not contain knowledge that is commanded in the Sacred Law-even if the independent reasoning [ ijtihad ] of some people have led them [to the view] that it [learning logic] is communally obligatory [ fard kifaya ]. Some people have stated that the sciences are not established save with it-as was stated by Abū āmid [al-Ghazalī]-and this is an gross error both rationally [ 'aqlan ] and legally [ shar'an ].
As for [it being a gross error] rationally, then all of the people of intellect [ 'uqala' ] among the children of Adam from all factions that speak regarding knowledge have formulated their sciences without Greek logic. As for [it being a gross error] legally, then it is known by necessity from the religion of Islam that Allah has not obligated upon the people of knowledge and faith that they learn this Greek logic.
As for it in itself, some of it is truth and some of it is false. Much or most of the truth found within it is not needed, and the amount within it that is needed; most sound dispositions [ fiṭra ] possess it independently [ tastaqillu bihi ]. The dolt does not benefit from it and the intelligent one does not need it. Its harms for the one who is not well acquainted with the sciences of the Prophets is greater than its benefit, for it contains of such negative principles [ qawa'id salbIyya] that found an audience with many virtuous people and was a cause for their hypocrisy and the corruption of their knowledge. The statement of he who said that all of it is true is false speech. On the contrary, their words regarding ‘term’ [ hadd ], attributes of self [ al-sifat al-dhatiyya ] and accidents, and the categories of analogy and argument and its modes, contain such corruption that we have clarified in other works besides this; and this was clarified by the scholars of the Muslims
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
1. Ibn Taymiyya’s claim that the books of logic do not contain knowledge that is commanded in the Sacred Law
Ibn Taymiyya claimed that the books of logic do not contain knowledge that is commanded in the Sacred Law. The context of his words indicates generality. We know that the Sacred Law commands with everything that contains benefit and interest for man-either in his creed or works. If we assume for arguments sake that the science of logic does not contain knowledge that is commanded with in the Sacred Law at all, then this means that there is absolutely nothing in logic that can be of benefit for people in their worldly and religious life. This conclusion is inferred from his [Ibn Taymiyya's] expression, and it is false for the following reasons:
A. His agreement with analogy:
Ibn Taymiyya himself said elsewhere: “As for the mode of argument [ al-burhan ], then its conception is a correct conception. If its propositions are correct, there is no doubt that it benefits knowledge.” Here, he explicitly stated that the formulation of syllogisms mentioned in the science of logic is correct, and that if its propositions are correct, then there is no doubt that analogy benefits sound knowledge. It is known rationally and in the Sacred Law that whatever serves as a path to correct knowledge is itself legally commanded or at the very least allowed, so it is not permissible to say that some correct paths that lead to knowledge are not commanded with in the Sacred Law or that they are not allowed.
So, what is observed here is that Ibn Taymiyya contradicted himself. In reality, the fact that analogy is completely valid is something agreed upon by all people of intellect. For that reason, they agreed with it and encouraged others to teach it so as to take benefit from it. The only reason we have presented the words of Ibn Taymiyya here is in order to illustrate his invalid premises that he mentioned in opposition to the science of logic
B. His own admittance to the validity of most of what the logicians have established:
Ibn Taymiyya said elsewhere in his critique of logic and the works of logic: “This is a subject that a believer must be certain in and know; that these people and others only went astray predominantly because of what they negated and denied; not because of what they affirmed and knew.”[ Majmu'a al-Fatawa: 9/261]
Here, we see that Ibn Taymiyya admitted that what is mentioned in the books of logic are two matters: what the logicians affirmed and established, and what they negated. He testified that most of what they affirmed was in fact correct, however he opposed them and claimed that they were in error concerning what they negated. That being said, then according to him, some of what is mentioned in the books of logic is correct and some is incorrect. If this is the case, how was it then possible for him to claim that the books of logic do not contain knowledge that is commanded with in the Sacred Law, whereas we know that we have been commanded in the Sacred Law to know the correct means of reaching knowledge?
