Stance 151: Speaking of Musa and Khadir, Allah said: “May I follow You on condition that You teach me some of the right guidance you have been taught?” [Surat al-Kahf, 66]. Know, the spiritual aspirant will not benefit from the knowledge and spiritual states of his Shaykh until he submits and follows him wholeheartedly, stays within the realms of what he commands and forbids, while at the same time, believing that he is the most complete and virtuous of Shaykhs.

Neither of these two matters suffices without the other—unlike the state of some people who believe that a Shaykh is the most completed of people, and believe that this is all that is needed for one to reach his goal and fulfill his need, all the while, he is not complying with the orders the Shaykh gives him, nor abstaining from the Shaykh’s prohibitions…

…The perfection of the Shaykh benefits only insofar as it is a signpost helping one to reach the goal. Otherwise, the Shaykh can not give the spiritual aspirant anything more than his own self is prepared to take. His preparation is conditioned upon his soul and his actions—just as the skilled physician is with the sick patient. If the doctor orders the patient to take a certain medicine yet the patient refuses, how can the skills of the physician benefit the patient? That the patient refuses to comply with the physician’s orders is proof that Allah does not wish for him to get healed of his illness, for when Allah desires something, He makes ready its means. It is only obligatory for the spiritual aspirant to seek out the most complete and perfect of Shaykhs, in order that he does not surrender his reigns to the hand of one ignorant of the path who will take him away from his goal, and falling, as a consequence, into the path of destruction. [al-Mawaqif: 1/305]

The claim of some that all of it is true

As for his words that some claim that all of it is true, if the alleged speaker of those words meant logic in and of itself—as we mentioned earlier—then he is correct. The sum of his statement would thus be: ‘Every correct principle used in the process of thinking is itself true.’ If, on the other hand, this alleged speaker meant that everything found in the books of logic is correct, then this is false. Up till now, I know of no one who has ever said this. When Ibn Taymiyya refuted the one who allegedly said that, it seemed to imply that some people have actually said it. If that was the case, it was his—or one of his followers—responsibility to clarify who that person was, otherwise, his words are nothing more than claims without proof.

The corruption that results from logic

As for Ibn Taymiyya’s claim that corruption results from logic, this is incorrect. On the contrary, it is possible that someone call fall into many errors no matter who they are—not just because they studied logic. Nay, many errors came from those who were closer to the science of Hadith. Many of them carried beliefs of anthropomorphism and possessed corrupt creed. It is not to be said that the reason they fell into those errors was because of their study of Hadith, rather, it is because of their own weak thoughts and simple minded understanding of its meanings. So, having said this, if those who specialize in the science of logic fall into errors, it is not to be said that their knowledge of logic is the cause of this. The reasons for such errors are their own weakness in using its principles.

The dolt does not benefit from it and the intelligent one does not need it

Ibn Taymiyya said: “…and the amount within it that is needed; most sound dispositions [ fitra ] possess it independently [ tastaqillu bihi ]. The dolt does not benefit from it and the intelligent one does not need it.” This is fallacious reasoning as we shall explain.

…If he meant that the sound dispositions are in no need of learning logic from the books, we respond by saying that the logical principles written in the books are not to be called logic in itself—as we explained earlier—rather, they are a written form and expression of logic. In itself, logic is the collection of principles that man uses during his thought process; not restricted to their presence in books or in man’s memory. So how can Ibn Taymiyya claim that the sound dispositions independently possess it?

If Ibn Taymiyya meant that when thinking, the disposition [fitra]does not rely upon the principles mentioned in the books of logic, then the majority of intelligent people would contradict that claim. As for his claim that: “The dolt does not benefit from it and the intelligent one does not need it”, this is not completely accepted, for if a dolt were to apply himself and repeat it within his self, logic would become entrenched within him and he would be able to bring it to mind and benefit from it. This is what scholars call ‘acquired intelligence’. If we say that these principles are true in and of themselves, it is not allowed to claim that the dolt will not benefit from them if he takes to learning them.

In addition to this, it is not allowed to say that the intelligent one does not need it, for this would imply that the an intelligent person never makes a mistake. There is not to be found any intelligent person who has never made a mistake—much less numerous mistakes. No one besides the Prophets are immune from error, and the Prophets were made immune by Allah, the Exalted. So, if we agree that there is no intelligent person, save that he makes mistakes, how then can this intelligent person be shown his mistakes without following general principles by which he may ascertain the meanings of what he says and thinks and employ those principles to discipline his thoughts? These principles are taken from his sound mind and are in themselves logic.

This implies therefore, that both the intelligent and the dolt are in need of the science of logic, not to mention the various grades of people in between the two. This invalidates the words of Ibn Taymiyya.

For the intelligent to be in no need of these principles implies that he is either not in need of the necessary qualities of his inner disposition [fitra]—at least according to Ibn Taymiyya’s belief—or that he is not in need of a portion of it. Nay, this belief implies that the intelligent person has no need for any principles whatsoever, and this is incorrect.

Among the many things that Allah has bestowed upon me of His favor, is the patience I have observed with my envious enemies who fabricated words in my books that go against the outward Sacred Law.

After this, they began to seek legal verdicts against me based upon these lies and slanders, and they also began to write letters to the government against me, and other such things. Oh brother! You should know that the first tribulation I faced in Egypt was from this. When I performed the pilgrimage in the year 947, a group of people falsified against me a piece of writing that violated the consensus of the four Imāms. This writing (attributed to me) stated that I delivered a legal verdict to some people allowing them to pray their prayers ahead of the proper time if there was a need. This was spread about during the Hajj and some enemies in al-Jabal wrote to people in Egypt about this. When I returned to Egypt, there was great shock, so much so that news of this reached the northern and western regions, including Sa’id and some of the prominent government officials.

My companions encountered a great deal of harm. I did not return to Egypt save that I found most of the people scattered and dispersed away from me. I said to myself: ‘What is wrong with these people?’ So they informed me of the letters they received from Mecca. No one knows how many people slandered me behind my back or detracted from my honor but Allah, the Exalted and Sublime
Afterwards, when I authored the book al-Bahr al-Mawrud fi al-Mawathiq wa al-‘Uhud, and scholars from the four juridical schools in Egypt wrote commendations for it, the people hastened to copy its transcript, so they initially wrote out approximately forty copies. After this, the envious ones became jealous and tricked one of the gullible ones among my companions, borrowing his copy and making several of their own. In their copies, they added matters that contain deviance in creed, issues that violate the consensus of the Muslims, and foolish stories of Juha and Ibn al-Rawandi. They cast all of these things here and there interspersed throughout the book in many places, as if they were its author. Afterwards, they took these copies and sent them to the book market on the day the market was open—and it was placed in an area in which students of Sacred knowledge gather. So some saw these copies with my name on them, and some who do not fear Allah purchased them and took them to the scholars of al-Azhar; to both those who had written commendations for the book and those who did not, and this caused a great tumult. People were tarnishing my honor in the Masjids, market places, and in the houses of the rulers for over one year whilst I was completely unaware. During that time, Shaykh Nasir al-Din al-Laqqani aided me in my absence, as did Shaykh al-Islam al-Hanbali and Shayh Shihab al-Din b. al-Jalabi .Soon after, one of my admirers at al-Azhar University sent me a letter informing me of all the details, so I sent to them my original copy of the of the book that contained the signatures of the Azhari scholars and they looked into it and found nothing of those interpolations fabricated by the envious ones. So, they rebuked those who did that—and this is a well known story.
I know of some groups of reckless folk who have bad thoughts about me even up until this day. That is because of what they heard initially from the envious ones. Furthermore, some envious people gathered together all of those interpolations that were fabricated and put them in one collection. Each time one of them would hear someone who hated me, he would say to him: “I have some issues related to so and so, if you are in need of any of that, I will let you read it.” Afterwards, these issues would be spread from one envious person to another even up until today. They would seek legal verdicts against me whilst I was unaware. After I would come to know of the situation, I would send a letter to the scholars of al-Azhar informing them that I am the one intended in such legal queries, and these issues are fabrications against me, so they would refuse to respond to such queries. [Lata'if al-Minan wa al-Akhlaq: 1/190-191]

The falsehood found in the books of logic

Ibn Taymiyya outlined the falsehood in the books of logic saying that it is almost all to be found in negation. So [according to this] most of what the logicians established is sound, yet some of what they negated is false. This is the reality of Ibn Taymiyya’s view, however he says here that “Much or most of the truth found within it is not needed.” This view of his is not completely accepted like this. If he intended that that most of the people—which includes the commonality—in their pursuit of knowledge, do not need the majority of the details found in logic, then this might be accepted from him. On the other hand, if he intended that most of the people do not need the universals of logic, then this is false. If he intended that most of the people do not need logic the majority of the time, then this view is in need of some detail. The specialists in rational sciences are always in need of it and its details. As for others among the commonality, it is possible that they only need some of its universals. On the other hand, if we were to investigate the reality, we might find that the commonality use logical principles all the time, without them having studied it in any books.

Kufi tip to mereislam. This article should remind us all of the power of language. May Allah deal with these people with His Divine Justice.

Logic; some of it is sound and some of it is false

Ibn Taymiyya said that in itself, logic contains both truth and falsehood: “As for it in itself, some of it is truth and some of it is false.” The meaning of this phrase “it in itself” refers to its reality and essence [ mahiya ] by which it is what it is. The reality of logic is that it is a collection of principles and rules that, if followed, enable a person to avoid mistakes in his thought process. This is the meaning of logic “in itself”, so this being the case, it is in no way allowed to say that some of it is sound and some of it is false in itself. On the contrary, whatever is like that “in itself”, then it is completely valid and is in complete accordance with the Sacred Law and is completely legal.

That is with regards to logic in itself. As for logic insomuch as it is a collection of principles recorded in books, or with reference to a particular book of logic, then we are not able to say that everything in it is sound. It is possible that it might contain errors, but this is not what we call “logic in itself”. For example, if you said: “Islam in itself is the truth”, you would be completely correct. If, on the other hand, some scholars wrote on Islam, you are not able to say that all of what they wrote is completely correct because it is possible that it doesn’t express Islam “in itself”.

May Allah guide this man and make things easy for him. A true example of Futuwwa.

Continuing from part I

Ibn Taymiyya’s objection to Imām al-Ghazali’s statement that logic is the basis for all sciences

Ibn Taymiyya objected to Imām al-Ghazali’s statement that logic is the basis of all sciences. Ibn Taymiyya claimed that this statement is known to be false both rationally and legally…here we shall analyze his own logical and legal inference establishing this, and then we shall critique it:

A. Ibn Taymiyya’s logical inference proving the incorrectness of al-Ghazali’s words

The sum of this inference is his claim that all of the people of intellect have formulated their sciences without Greek logic. This—if correct—implies that there is no real need for logic. This claim is a gross error for the following reasons:

- Aristotle was from the people of intellect and he formulated his sciences based upon the logic that he developed.

- Ibn Taymiyya himself admitted in his own books that many of the theologians were influenced by Greek logic and that they formulated the contents of their books based upon it, such as: al-Abhuri, al-Razi, al-Katibi, al-Amidi, and others. If that was not the case, then why did Ibn Taymiyya expend so much effort in refuting the science of logic, and why did he expend so much in explaining the errors that one may fall into if he relies upon it? If there was no one who formulated their science based upon logic then what motivated all the refutations?

- It is known that many of the philosophers such as Ibn Sina, al-Farābi, and Ibn Mulk formulated their sciences and philosophies based upon logic.

- Ibn Taymiyya claimed that some people said that all of logic is true. If his citation is in fact true, then it establishes that they relied upon logic in formulating the contents of their books

If Ibn Taymiyya meant that the people of intellect did not study the exact same books of logic authored by the Greeks, and that despite this, they were able to formulate their sciences, then it should be known that we do not intend those exact same books…we are only speaking about the principles of logic; be they mentioned in the books or not. It is known that the Muslims wrote a large collection of books on logic and it is known by necessity that a huge number of people have relied upon these books in learning the sciences. We do not need— and nor was it needed in Ibn Taymiyya’s time for that matter—to read the exact same books of the Greeks in order to become acquainted with the principles of logic. We are able to suffice ourselves with perusing and reading the books formulated by the scholars of the Muslims on that topic. For this reason, we are able to debate and critique the sciences of others based upon the same principles of logic without needing to refer back to the ancient works of the Greeks.

If Ibn Taymiyya meant that all of the people of intellect were free of needing the principles of logic mentioned by the scholars in their books, and that along with this, they were able to formulate their sciences, then this is false by necessity. The falsehood of this can be proven by referring back to Ibn Taymiyya’s own words in which he said that some of what is contained in the book of logic is completely correct.

B. Ibn Taymiyya’s legal inference supporting his stance: claiming that learning the science of logic was not commanded by Allah, the Exalted

This itself is a type of fallacious reasoning that Ibn Taymiyya would have been unable to write, were it not that he relied upon the modes of fallacious reasoning mentioned and warned against by the logicians. To clarify this:

- If Ibn Taymiyya intended that Allah did not textually state that it is obligatory to learn Greek logic, and because of this, it is therefore unlawful and learning it is false because there is no Divine text to support it, then this is completely false because it is well known that the point of contention is not in reading the actual works of the Greeks, rather it is in the benefit found in the principles mentioned in the books of logic—be they found in the words of the Greeks or other than them. It is not permissible to declare something unlawful or impermissible merely because there is no explicit Divine text stating that it is obligatory and naming it by its name and particular. Its legality may be inferred from the generality of evidence or an analogy between it and something similar to it; it is not necessary that there be an explicit detailed text for it.

- If Ibn Taymiyya was of the belief that it is not obligatory or allowed to learn something unless there is an explicit Divine text stating so and calling it by its name, then this is also completely false. Such a belief entails cancellation of the commands of the Sacred Law and its generalities as well as an invalidation of analogy. The sum of Ibn Taymiyya’s inference here is [as if he is saying]: ‘I do not believe in the legality of learning Greek logic unless there is an explicit text in the Islamic Sacred Law saying: ‘Learning Greek logic is allowed’. Since there is no such text in the Sacred Law, learning Greek logic is not allowed.’ This is false because it is known that focus is placed not upon the name ‘logic’ or that it is attributed to the Greeks or others, rather focus is placed on whether or not these principles mentioned in the books of logic benefit knowledge or not.

- Ibn Taymiyya’s words are fallacious because he said: “Allah did not obligate learning this Greek logic…” In other words, his view was that since the Sacred Law did not command the learning of Greek logic, then it follows that it did not command the learning of logic at all. This is a clear fallacy. Not a single scholar claimed that in the Sacred Law, learning logic is commanded because it is Greek logic. Anyone who makes such a claim is a liar and fabricator against the Sacred Law. I know of no one who has claimed this, and the fact that Ibn Taymiyya negates this makes it seem as if there are some who actually believe that.

- If Ibn Taymiyya agrees with us—at the very least—that some of the principles mentioned in logic are sound and lead to sound knowledge, then it is not permissible for him to oppose us in saying that learning its principles are—at the very least—allowed. For him to oppose this is to oppose the Sacred Law itself. The apparent meaning of his words indicates that he believes that there is nothing correct in the science of logic that is commanded in the Sacred Law.

PART THREE: Logic; some of it is sound and some of it is false