logic & epistemology

Logic is that science, as prehistoric as the human mind, which prevents a person from making a mistake when he is defining a thing or when he is using it as an evidence; its purpose is to correct one's thinking and contemplating.

As a system of rules and guidelines regarding correct thinking, logic covers such topics as how to make proper definitions (al-ḥadd) and propositions (al-qaḍīyah) and how to construct correct arguments in the form of syllogisms (al-qiyās).

 What are the underlying premises of a provided argument—how is it conceptualized (taṣawwur)?
We also need to verify (taṣdīq) this conceptualization—are correct definitions and propositions being used?
Do we know exactly what we mean when we speak of a term? Are we speaking about the same thing?

Logic as a system for proper reasoning and eliminating unwarranted beliefs, hasty conjectures, or fallacious arguments can provide rational guidance in our modern world of fake news and misinformation.
Logic is, in fact, part of a larger toolkit in the Islamic tradition for “thinking straight” (i.e., proper reasoning) in all intellectual endeavors.

This toolkit includes, besides logic,
the sciences of dialectics (ʿilm al-baḥth wa-al-munāẓarah),
rhetoric (ʿilm al-balāghah),
and semantics (ʿilm al-waḍʿ).

Together, these are called the “instrumental sciences” (ʿulūm al-ālah), which were fundamental prerequisite studies for the student of sacred knowledge (ṭālib al-ʿilm) to master before moving on to the so-called “higher sciences” (ʿulūm al-ʿāliyah),
such as Islamic law (fiqh), legal philosophy (uṣūl al-fiqh), Qur’anic exegesis (tafsīr), or philosophical theology (kalām).

Epistemology is the technical term for the theory of human knowledge, its nature, origin, and limits. It is in a sense the first science of all other sciences.
What is knowing, and how do we know?

Greek philosophy understood it to be part of the discussion on psychology, the human mind, and this is also how it came to be studied within Islamic philosophy and its wider intellectual history.
The question of how we can know things has a deep significance for theology as well.
How can we know God, that He exists, what He wants from us, and that He communicates to us?

Classical epistemology is therefore discussed both in works on dogma and philosophical theology (ʿaqīdah and ʿilm al-kalām) and philosophy of law (uṣūl al-fiqh), wherein they were labeled “causes of knowledge” (asbāb al-ʿilm) or “sources of knowing” (maṣādir al-maʿrifa).

These causes are summarized in the famous 13th-century Māturīdī creedal tract ʿAqāʾid al-Nasafī as:

(1.) sound sense perception (al-ḥawāss al-salīmah),
(2.) reliable reports (al-khabar al-ṣādiq),
(3.) intellect/reasoning (al-ʿaql).

So, theologians started to divide up different forms and causes of knowledge.
The physical world and its physical workings are observable with the senses (ḥiss),
understandable through the intellect (ʿaql) which is aided by the imagination, the heart, and the primordial nature (fiṭrah),
which all together can direct us towards truth and goodness.

These constitute empirical, rational, and deductive knowledge (al-ʿilm al-naẓarī wa-al-istidlālī).
Humans also create knowledge, customs, and technology; i.e., cultural knowledge.
Some natural and cultural knowledge is continually generated anew (“innovation”), other forms are lost but, in general, there is a form of knowledge accumulation within cultures that is shared through “reports,” i.e., related or transmitted knowledge (al-ʿilm al-naqlī).

Some reports are doubtful, others trustworthy. So, there are grades of trustworthiness of related knowledge, in the same way prophetic traditions (ḥadīth) were graded and the people relating them were judged on reliability (the science of ʿilm al-rijāl), whereby unknown and lying persons were not accepted.
You can have general reports which generate speculative or possible knowledge (ẓannī), and undeniable or certain knowledge (al-ʿilm al-ḍarūrī)—for example, knowledge of the existence of a major city like London or a major historical figure such as Alexander the Great.
 So, we have constant newly generated knowledge about the world around us and shared accumulated knowledge, both of which provide us several possibilities for how to explain the world.
But does this provide us with a total explanation of the world?
Is there existence beyond the physical? How do we attain certain knowledge about the non-physical world? Is there a purpose to the world and can we know its end? Kalām theologians believed a certain ‘minimal’ theology and ethics were knowable to humans through senses, intellect, and shared knowledge without the assistance of revelation.
But to fully know our ethical responsibility, what God expects from us, how to be in this world, we need help. We need prophets!

But how do we know what information is truly from God? Many people claim prophethood. There are many religions. To know who is sent by God, to know his information is truly from God, we need signs of authenticity only God could generate. Miracles, supernatural events, could only be generated by the Controller of the World.
How do we recognize them and know about these signs? We end up again with our human limitations of senses (observe miracles),
intellect (recognize true from false and think about their meaning),
and shared knowledge (we tell others about them).

Also, prophets bring information, i.e., revelation, which we need to maximize our theology.

So, we also then need to distinguish possible from certain knowledge in relation to the shared knowledge going around about prophets and their revelations.
We need to check if they fit with our minimal theology and we need to grade the shared reports. The shared reports need to be graded from unreliable to possible to certain knowledge as different aspects of our lives demand different levels of certainty.
If a certain act must be punished with the death penalty, we want to have maximum certainty God said this and meant this.
So, the level of certainty required of the attained knowledge is equal to the impact it has on our lives.
So minimal theology is dependent on empiricism, historicity, reason, and logic, and so does maximal theology also depend on them.

We therefore need to use these three sources of knowledge in all things and use them critically as we are responsible for what we accept as knowledge, especially knowledge that is the basis of our acts.
We therefore also need to know how we can critically examine the contents of both the shared knowledge and the reasoning applied to it.

Here again, the Islamic tradition has provided us with a lifeline.

And now we return to where we started.
Information on Islam, world politics, or the coronavirus can have immense impact on our lives. It therefore requires high reliability before this type of information is accepted, applied, and shared around with others.

...

We have both the right and obligation to be informed, to understand what is going on, and to know how to act in the best fashion so we can avoid harm.
This requires a critical engagement with information as has been taught by our intellectual tradition for centuries. The Islamic tradition has provided us with powerful tools to assess the information coming to us at multiple levels of analysis. We observe them through our senses almost unwillingly, so we need to judge them critically.

Where is this information from, what is its source, and what is its chain of transmission (isnād)?
How did it reach me?
Who said it, and are they reliable and qualified to discuss these matters?
What is the background of this information?
Is it reasonable, logical, and can it be confirmed and corroborated by other information out there?
What is the majority opinion or consensus on this?
Does it have sound premises?
Does this information help me avoid harm to myself and others?