RKUD 3331 - LOGIC FOR ISLAMIC STUDIES

IBN TAYMIYYAH's
VIEWS ON LOGIC

Iman Zikry Mohd Helmy (2018349)

Muhammad Syamim Bin Mohd Yusof (2019725)
Amer Syahmi Bin Zamri (2012019)
Muhammad Izham Farhan bin Ramli (2019737)
 CONTENT
Ibn Taymiyyah's Background
General Views on Logic
Criticism on Aristotelian Definition
Criticism on Aristotelian Syllogism
IBN TAYMIYYAH'S
BACKGROUND
Ibn Taymiyyah's Life and Death
Ibn Taymiyyah's Education
Ibn Taymiyyah's Works
IBN TAYMIYYAH'S LIFE AND
DEATH
Ibn Taymiyyah is Taqiy al-Din Abu al-'Abbās Ahmad Ibn
Syihäb al-Din Abi al-Mahäsin 'Abd al-Halim Ibn Majd al-Din
Abi al-Barakät Abd al-Saläm Ibn Abi Muhammad Abdullah
Ibn Abi al-Qäsim al-Khadr Ibn Muhammad Ibn al-Khadr Ibn
Ali Ibn Abdullah Ibn Taimiyyah, al-Harräni, al-Damsyiki, al-
Hanbali.
He is a prominent Islamic scholar (Sheikhul Islam) and
theologian.
He was born on Monday the 10th of Rabee' Al-Awwal 66l
A.H./22nd of January 1263 A.C in Harran in Iraq.
His family fled to Damascus in the year 667 A.H.
Ibn Taymiyyah died in jail in Damascus on Sunday night 20th
Thul-Qi'dah 728 H./26-27 September 1328 A.C.
IBN TAYMIYYAH'S EDUCATION
Ibn Taymiyyah is known for his extensive knowledge of
Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), theology ('aqidah), and
Islamic philosophy.
Ibn Taymiyyah received all his early education and
schooling in the Sukriyyah Madrasa, Damascus.
He became a Hafidh of the Quran in his early teens. He
learned Fiqh and Usul Fiqh from his father.
He studied the works of Imam Hanbal.
He studied under more than 200 scholars, he also studied
the Arabic language and grammar under at-Tuft and
mastered the book of Arabic Grammar (Nahu) by
Sibawayh, and studied Math, Algebra, calligraphy,
theology, philosophy, and history.
 IBN TAYMIYYAH'S WORKS
Ibn Taymiyyah wrote his first book at age 29, after
completing Hajj, called ‘Manasik al-Hajj’.
He wrote his second book, ‘as-Sarim al-Maslul ‘ala
Shatim ar-Rasul’ in prison.
Some of his works in Logic are: Ar-Rad 'ala al-
Mantiqiyyin & Naqd Al-Mantiq.
Most of his works were written while he was held in
prison.
Ibn Taymiyyah general views on Logic

In his book Al-Radd 'Ala Mantiqiyyin, stated that logic is a

knowledge that did not benefit the smartest person nor a stupid
person.
Human being does not need logic or Ilm Mantiq because of the
innate knowledge that has been given by Allah SWT
That gift from Allah has enable the human being to know the truth
without learning Logic.
In Naqd al Mantiq, he rejected those who claims that logic is fardhu
kifayah & whoever did not learn about it, then his knowledge
cannot be trusted.
Ibn Taymiyyah general views on Logic

He also claimed that the person who said to be good in the science of
Logic actually does not follow the rules of Logic because the debate is
too long and drags on.
The rejection of Ibn Taymiyyah was followed by his diciples Ibn Qayyim
who also stated that Logic will never benefit the people, plus it caused
chaos.
He also criticised few aspect of Logic introduced by Aristotle especially
the in relation with the Definiton & Syllogism.
 Basically, Ibn Taimiyyah's criticism of
Aristotelian logic concentrated on two
theories: The Aristotelian theory of
Syllogism(Nadhariyat al-Qiyas) and the
Aristotelian theory of definition(Nadhariyat al-
Hadd).
The Criticism on Aristotelian Definition

Ibn Taimiyyah considered logic as a fundamental part of philosophy

and not as a tool that must be learned before philosophy and applied in
philosophization

He noticed that there is an error in logic. In his book Jahd al-Qariha fi Tajrid
al-Nasiha stated that:"But it has become clear to me that much in their
views on logic is the source of their errors in metaphysics, such as their
theory of quiddities being composed of attributes they call essential; their
discourse about confining the means of acquiring knowledge to the
definitions, syllogism, and demonstration they have expounded; their theory
of definition by means of which concepts are formed; and their theory of
forms of the syllogism and their apodictic subject-matter.
 CONT.

Criticize the doctrine that: "No concepts can be formed except by means of
definition."
This is a negative proposition with the negation: 'no concepts...'.

This proposition is not clear or an axiom and requires proof and supportive
evidence. A negative statement without evidence is meaningless. It seems
that the philosophers postulated it without evidence. Ibn Taimiyyah thinks
that id the first thing they establish is a statement without evidence, then
how it can e the basis of the criterion of knowledge.
 CONT.

Ibn Taimiyyah thinks that the real definition is either impossible or it is

difficult to obtain.

Example: The apprehension of the definiendum in a statement such as water

is H20.
 THE CRITIQUE OF ARISTOTELIAN SYLLOGISM
Ibn Taymiyya criticized the definition of Aristotelian's syllogism.
(An argument consisting of premises and a conclusion; the conclusion must be true if the premises true.
Futhermore, their doctrine, "that an inference must contain two and only two premises")

Ibn Taymiyya thinks that there is nothing clear in this definition to make the syllogism consists only a
conclusion and two premises.
(He says, "if they make syllogism consists of statement which are propositions, then this does not mean
"two statements because the word statements or premises can mean two or three or more.")

Ibn Taymiyya said that a conclusion can be derived from more or less than two premises because of
people differ in their ability to understanding which some may need two premises, others may need
three and more.
(He said that only one premises is necessary but more that one might be required depending upon
recipient)

The additional premise or premises exist only to explain the original premise.
 THE CRITIQUE OF ARISTOTELIAN SYLLOGISM

Example from Ibn Taymiyya:

"Alcohol is forbidden"

This premise is enough for Ibn Taymiyya to draw a conclusion

This kind of drink, let us call A which is intoxicant, is forbidden.

Some people need to know that A makes people drunk, and anything causing drunkness is alcoholic,

Since alcoholic is forbidden,

Therefore, A is forbidden too

 THE CRITIQUE OF ARISTOTELIAN SYLLOGISM

The Middle Term in Aristotelian Syllogism

Ibn Taymiyya criticized in the Aristotelian logic is the logical terms used in syllogism, especially the
middle term and how it functions as the axis of any syllogism.

Ibn Taymiyya thinks that what we call sound reasoning is not limited to this form. In other words, we can
think correctly without middle term. As he says, "Some concepts can be visualized with both extremes
well enough and grasped without depending on medial terms."

The reason for this again is based on the differences in the mental ability of people. He said, "It is clear
that there is a difference among the mental ability of people in that some of them can know and imagine
both sides of any issue directly and in a clear way that helps them to see the conclusion without middle
term, but some people cannot."

He referring to those people wo believe in intuitive knowledge, which does not depend upon premises
and conclusion and it is not the result of logical argument.
 The critique of Aristotelian syllogism

Aristotelian Syllogism is Futile as Tautological

Ibn Taymiyya consider the Aristotelian Syllogism to be a futile or useless argument.

Ibn Taymiyya said what they mentioned about syllogism, does not have any scientific
use, for what ever can be known by their syllogism is possible to know without their
logical syllogism and vice versa.

For this reason, the syllogism has no effect to our knowledge.

Ibn Taymiyya added that it does not help us to acquire new knowledge and not using
it will not cause us any loss of what we already know. It is just an unjustifiable
anticipation. It has no use in science, other that wasting time.
 The critique of Aristotelian syllogism

The Problem Of Universals

Another point of his criticized towards syllogism which does not give new knowledge about
particulas or natural or metaphysical things.

Ibn Taymiyya also denies that we can know universals by the syllogism. He said that "We
can know all the aspects of the universal in an easier way than their syllogism. There is
nothing universal that can be known by their syllogism unless the knowledge about it
particulars or individuals is possible without their syllogism and this may be easier
because knowing the particulars is clearer than knowing the universals."

It can be seen that Ibn Taymiyya criticism is focusing here on the principle of syllogism
itself. In syllogism, they go from universal judgement to the particular or to more specific
judgement, which means that they apply to the particular what is already applied to the
universal. This is contradiction because the truth-value of the universals depends on the
truth-value of the particulars.
 The critique of Aristotelian syllogism
The Problem Of Universals

Ibn Taymiyya thinks that the syllogism as an argumentation or deduction by the universal
about its particular is a contradictory deduction because our knowledge about what exists in
the external world (particular) is a clear and obvious knowledge, while our knowledge about
the universals only exists in mind, not in the external world as facts.

He also added that "what exists in the eternal world is not universal primarily, and there is
nothing in the external world unless particular and specific. So if the universal exists in the
external world it means it has a relation with particular or individuals entities. In this case
shows that there is only the particular and specific, the universals is means to be in the mind
only.

Lastly, Ibn Taymiyya concludes that the particular (specific and clear) is use in order to know
the universals and this exactly contradicts to syllogism which according to Ibn Taymiyyah is
totally false.
Qiyas Al- Awla
he actually rejected Qiyas Al-Mantiqi and only
accepted Qiyas Al-Awla
a method of Qiyas which makes the ruling/hukm that
is issued is more than what is mentioned by the dalil.
He claims that this method of Qiyas has been used
many times in the Quran including the issue of creed.
Qiyas Al- Awla
Example :
‫َب َل‬ ‫َل‬ ‫َي ْخ ُل َق‬ ‫َأ‬ ‫َأْل‬ ‫َل‬ ‫َّل‬ ‫َل‬ ‫َأ‬
‫َو ُه َو‬ ‫ْث ُه‬ ‫َو ْر َض َق‬ ‫َو‬ ‫َم‬ ‫َّس‬ ‫َخ َق‬ ‫َو ْي َس‬
ۚ‫م‬ ‫ِم‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ا‬
‫ِب ِد‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ِت‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ال‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ْل‬
‫ِذ‬ ‫ا‬ ‫اَّل‬ ‫ْل‬
‫ٰى‬ ‫ٰىَلَع‬ ‫ٍر‬ ‫ُمي‬ ‫َع‬ ‫ُق‬ ‫َخ‬
﴾٨١﴿‎ ‫ا ِل‬ ‫ا‬

Is not He who created the heavens and the earth Able to

create the likes of them? Yes, [it is so]; and He is the
Knowing Creator.
 Conclusion
There many opinions regarding whether Ibn Taymiyyah really
rejected Logic or just criticised it9. Hence, rejecting and
punishing the Logic as illegal, heretical or polytheistic with the
sole reason that it comes from Greek is not enough. It should
be a rejection that must be based on the balance of truth by
bringing the argument that it deviates from Islamic
teachings, as al-Ghazali's rejection of philosophy.
 REFERENCES
Mashhad Al-Allaf, "The Logic of Uniqueness : Five Underlying Principles in Ibn Taymiyya's
Critique of Aristotelian Logic", International Journal of Arts and Science, 07(04). (2014): 499-
508.
file:///C:/Users/User/OneDrive/Documents/DEGREE%203RD%20YEAR%202022_2023%20(UIA)/2
ND%20SEM%20(3RDYEAR)/RKUD%203331/critics%20aristotelian%20logic.pdf
Wahab, Muhammad Rashidi, and Mohd Fauzi Hamat. “Kedudukan Ilmu Mantik Dalam
Pemikiran Islam.” Jurnal Akidah & Pemikiran Islam 22, no. 2 (2020): 1–42.
https://doi.org/10.22452/afkar.vol22no2.1.
Wahab, Muhammad Rashidi, Mohd Fauzi Hamat, and Mohd Faizul Azmi. “Konsep Al-Qiyas al-
Usuli Dan al-Qiyas al-Mantiqi Dalam Pendalilan Akidah.” Jurnal Akidah & Pemikiran Islam 20,
no. 2 (2018): 53–92. https://doi.org/10.22452/afkar.vol20no2.2.
"Pengenalan Ibn Taymiyyah dan Kitab Al-Khilafah Wa Al-Mulk",
http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/302/6/BAB_3.pdf