A widely held belief about the Qur’ān is that it makes its
basic appeal to emotions and not to reason. Among the advocates of this view
were the Muslim philosophers of early centuries who used a theory of
intellectual classes to support it. According to this theory, people have
different levels of understanding: some are capable of grasping truth in its
theoretical, abstract form (these are the philosophers, the most gifted
intellectually), some are capable of rational thought but only within a closed
system of belief (theologians make up this category), but most people have a
humdrum intelligence that can comprehend truth only in its gross, material from
(these are the masses, the great unwashed). Since scripture addresses the vast
majority of mankind, the argument runs, it must cater to the needs of the
largest of the three groups, that of the commoners, who can understand truth
only when it is presented to them in material terms, for example through the use
of similes and metaphors which pictorialize truth. It follows that, as a rule,
one should not expect scripture to argue logically that is to say, with the aim
of convincing the philosophers --- but only to appeal to emotion, for that is
the only way to persuade and sway the ordinary people.
This view, however, reckons without the Quran, for
numerous verses of the Book make it explicit that it addresses human reason,
that it faculty of reason. That is not all. The Quran, as several modern Muslim
scholars have endeavoured to show, offers sound logic and reasoning to support
its fundamental teachings. The Egyptian scholar Muhammad Abu Zakrah in his "I`jaz-ul-Quran"
(Egypt: Dar-ul-Fikr Al `Arabi, [Introduction 1970], Part Two, pp. 364-388)
discusses several aspect of Qur’ānic jadal (argumentation). The Pakistani
scholar Amin Ahsan Islahi in his Urdu commentary of the Quran, "Tadabbur-i-Quran"
(Lahore, 1967-1980) repeatedly draws attention to the Qur’ānic modes of
reasoning. In the following paragraphs, we have attempted to isolate another
aspect of Qur’ānic logic: fallaciousness of reasoning noted by the Qur’ān in the
arguments of disbelievers, whether of Islamic or early times. Under headings
familiar to students of logic, we shall cite, and briefly explain, a few
instances of such fallaciousness. Needless to say, the following account is not
exhaustive. The translation of the Qur’ānic verses cited is my own.
A few prefatory remarks should be made. First, all the
fallacies cited occur in the statements of disbelievers, typically in statements
made by the opponents of the Prophets when the latter invite them to reflect on
the message they had brought and believe in it because this was the right and
rational thing to do. The Qur’ān thus underscores the fact that while the
Prophets asked their nations to think, ponder and exercise reason, the nations,
unable to respond with sound arguments, argued fallaciously. Second, a number of
fallacies can be identified quite easily, but some only after a close study of
the verses or passages in question. The Qur’ān since it is not a textbook of
logic, is not concerned to preserve the exact form of an argument. While
reconstructing the form of a fallacy noted by the Quran, for example, one has to
keep in mind, on the one hand, such linguistic features of Classical Arabic as
ellipsis, and, on the other, the Qur’ānic methods of presentation, like the
method of citing a counter-example. Considerable effort may thus be needed in
discovering the structure of a fallacy. Cases in point are the fallacies
mentioned under ignoratio elenchi and petitio principii. Finally, although I
have not provided any example of it, I believe that sometimes several fallacies
are stated together in a single Qur’ānic ayah (43:57-58, cited under ignoraio
elenchi, would seem to exemplify the fallacy of argumentum ad populum as well).
A logician with a keen sense of the Qur’ānic language and method can expect to
reap a rich harvest.
1. ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM
The Latin word baculum means "stick." An argumentum ad
baculum (or argumentum baculinam), therefore is one that appeals to the stick
--- or force. Force does not have to be used actually; the threat of its use
would suffice to generate the fallacy. Several nations mentioned in the Qur’ān
responded to their Prophets by issuing threats to them. For example, in Sūrah
Hood we find the people of Shu`aib saying:
"They said: `Shu`aib, we do not understand much of what
you say. We see that you are weak. Had it not been for your tribe, we would have
stoned you, for you are not too difficult for us to handle'." (11:92)
In Sūrah Shu`araa, Pharaoh threatens Moses with
imprisonment if the latter were to take anyone other than him as a deity.
Already (vs. 19) Pharaoh has given a veiled threat to Moses by alluding to the
manslaughter Moses committed earlier: `And you committed the act that you did
commit'. Abraham is not only threatened, he is actually thrown into a fire:
`They said, `Burn him up, and come to the aid of your deities, if you wish to do
something' (21:68). This happened only after Abraham had routed in debate the
people in general (6:74-83), the king (2:258), and the custodians of the temple
(21:51-71; 37:85-98). Noah is threatened by his people with stoning (26:116),
Lot, by his people, with exile (26:167).
2. ARUGMENTUM AD HOMINEM
The fallacy consists in an attempt to refute someone by
making disparaging remarks about him rather than by responding to his argument.
In other words, not the argument but the man (L. homo, "man") behind the
argument is attacked. The nobles of the people of Noah rejected him and
criticized his followers on the following grounds:
"We see that you are just a human being like us. We see
that only those people have followed you who are quite obviously the lowliest
among us. And we see the you are in no way superior to us. In fact, we suspect
that you are liars." (11:27)
In other words: Noah'a message must be rejected because
his followers happen to be such - and - such people (see also 26:11). 21:36 says
that the Quraysh start making fun of Muhammad the moment they catch sight of
him, and pay no attention to his message.
For other examples of this fallacy, see 23:47 (Pharaoh and
courtiers/Moses and Aaron), 26:27 (Pharaoh/Moses), 26:153-154 (Thamud/Prophet
Salih), 26:185 (Madyanites/Shu`aib), 43:52 (Pharaoh/Moses).
3. ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM
In this fallacy one makes an appeal to the crowd, trying
to play on their feelings. In the following verse, Pharaoh, unable to deny the
miracles shown by Moses in his court, turns to his courtiers and tries to
provoke them by suggesting that Moses intends to occupy their land and banish
them from it:
"He said to the courtiers around him: `This one here is a
sophisticated magician. He intends to expel you from your land by means of his
magic'..." (26:34-35)
Another example, again involving Pharaoh and his noblemen
on the one hand and Moses and Aaron on the other, is found in 20:63-64, where
the common Egyptians are told that Moses and Aaron are magicians who intend to
expel them from Egypt and, at the same time, destroy their superior culture, and
that they, the Egyptians must do their best to counter their magic.
4. ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM
This is an appeal to one's sense of modesty, so that the
addressee would find it hard to make a response without being indecorous or
indirect. In Sūrah Shu`araa, Pharaoh, faced with Moses demand to allow the
Israelites to leave Egypt, says: `Did we not bring you up when you were a child?
And did you not stay with us for many years of your life?' (26:18). Pharaoh
thus tries to force Moses into a situation from which the latter would find it
hard to escape without offending against such values as gratitude and reverence.
Appeal to distinguished names is also subsumed under the
argumentum ad verecundiam. Several nations, when reproached by their Prophets
for idolatry, justified their conduct by appealing to prestigious names in their
past history. Here, for example is the dialogue between Abraham and his people:
"When he said to his father and his people: `What are
these images you are so attached to?' They said, `We have found our forefathers
worshipping them'."(21:52-53)
5. PETITIO PRINCIPII
In Sūrah Zukhruf, there is an example of the fallacy of
"begging the question". Upon the mention of Jesus in the Quran, the leaders of
the Quraish tried to mislead their people by saying, first that the Qur’ān
speaks of Jesus as a deity, and second, that the Qur’ān holds Jesus-as-deity to
be superior to their own deities, the angels. Having made this statement, they
asked their people as to who was better --- the angels, whom they worshipped or
Jesus? Now the conclusion drawn by the Quraish, namely, that the Qur’ān
considered Jesus-as-deity superior to angels-as-deities was as baseless as the
premise on which this statement was based, namely, that the Qur’ān spoke of
Jesus as a deity. Here are the two relevant verses of the Sūrah:
"And no sooner is the son of Marry is cited as an example
than your people start raising a hue and cry about him. They say: `Are our
deities better or he?' They say this to you only for polemics sake. The fact is
that they are a contentious lot." (43:57-58)
The Qur’ān comments by saying (vss. 59 ff.) that the
Quraish leaders know quite well that Jesus is not presented in the Qur’ān as a
deity but as a human being who was sent to the Israelites as a Prophet.
6. IGNORATIO ELENCHI
This is the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. If a person
is asked to prove or disprove something and he proves or disproves something
that is not at issue, he would be committing this fallacy. The following verse
alludes to this fallacy:
"The case of Jesus in the eyes of God is like that of
Adam: He created him from earth and then said to him, `Be!' and he comes into
existence." (3:59)
Christians regard Jesus as the son of God because, they
argue, he was born without a father. To the Quran, however, the conclusion is
not warranted, for otherwise Adam, who was born without any parent at all, would
have a greater claim to deity.
|