A Critique of the View of Certain Claimants to Religious Enlightenment

(Based on Deductive and Inductive Reasoning)

Author: Abdul Basir Sohaib Siddiqi
Translation by: Tahleel Team
Publication Date: 10.11.2025

In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate

A Critique of the View of Certain Claimants to Religious Enlightenment

(Based on Deductive and Inductive Reasoning)

Translation, abridgment, and synthesis by: Abdul Basir Sohaib Siddiqi.

Sources and references:
History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell (Philosophie des Abendlandes von Bertrand Russell), and Philosophische Grundbegriffe by Rafael Ferber.

Section: One (First)

Important Note

This discussion—titled “The View of Certain Claimants to Religious Enlightenment”—is framed on the basis of deductive and inductive reasoning, using material from Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy (Philosophie des Abendlandes von Bertrand Russell) and Rafael Ferber’s Philosophische Grundbegriffe.

To critique a certain kind of view among some claimants to religious enlightenment—who criticize some revealed teachings of the Noble Qur’an while taking scientific knowledge into account, even though their critique itself conflicts with scientific knowledge and scientific data, and ultimately conflicts with scientific logic or inductive reasoning—it becomes necessary to focus on the logic of science, i.e., the inductive argument; one must know the logic of science or inductive argument, which is the logic of induction.

Focusing on inductive logic or the inductive argument also requires that deductive propositions be placed at the center of attention.

It is better to begin with deduction or the deductive argument.

Deductive Argument

In this regard, and based on the explanations in Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy, we should briefly focus.

The deductive argument in the history of ancient Greece goes back to the intellectual and logical works of Aristotle (Aristoteles), who for the first time is prominent and outstanding in this connection.

The deductive argument is noteworthy within formal logic with Aristotle, because it was this formal logic that influenced the knowledge of his time and later eras, while Plato (Platon) reserved prominence for himself in metaphysics (metaphisics).

In the course and development of thought after Plato until the Renaissance (Renaissance), in addition to formal logic, Aristotle also held a superior position in metaphysics; that is, after the Renaissance he lost this position he had in metaphysics, yet in formal logic his position remained without rival for a long time.

The deductive argument, which is discussed within the fabric of formal logic, is also named the syllogism (Syllogism, Syllogismus). That is: Syllogism = Deductive Argument = استدلال قیاسی.

A deductive argument has three essential parts:

Major premise (Obersatz).
Minor premise (Untersatz).
Conclusion (Schluss, conclusion).

The deductive argument is known in a typological variety; its various kinds are known, and the most famous of them are:

Barbara (Barbara) is renowned among all types of deductive argument and has a special prominence. The argument is as follows:
- Major premise: All humans are mortal.
- Minor premise: Socrates is a human.
- Conclusion: Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Alle Menschen sind sterblich. = Obersatz
Sokarates ist ein Mensch. = Untersatz
Also ist Sokarates sterblich. = Schluss
The Celaren deductive argument (Celaren).
The Darri deductive argument (Darri).
The Ferio deductive argument (Ferio).

The history of the syllogism or deductive argument shows that various results come from a single premise; the details of this are accessible in Aristotle’s formal logic and are emphasized in logic books.

The deductive argument was defined as that which protects the mind from error.

But later, in logical efforts, objections were raised against the deductive argument, namely:

Formal defect (formal) in the internal fabric of the deductive system.

In this case, the logical distinction between the major premise and the minor premise has not been made according to formal standards.

For example: “The proposition that Socrates is a human” and “All Greeks are human.”

The proposition or premise “All Greeks are human” contains a hidden, implicit meaning—namely, that Greeks exist—and without taking this implicit meaning into account, Aristotle’s syllogisms are condemned to falsehood.

Another example in which, if the hidden meaning is not considered, the deductive argument is futile (while the internal fabric of the deductive argument does not make it explicit) is the following:

“All Greeks are human,” and “All Greeks are white,” therefore “Some humans are white.”

The correctness and truth of this deductive argument depend on the existence of Greeks; that is, if Greeks do not exist, this deductive argument loses its soundness and correctness.

Another deductive argument can be shaped as follows, while the conclusion does not correspond to reality and is merely a mental matter:

“Every golden mountain is a mountain.” “Every golden mountain is gold.” Therefore, “Some mountains are gold.”

With careful logical attention, the proposition “Every Greek is human” can be analyzed into two other propositions; that is, this proposition is made up of two other propositions: (1) “Greeks exist,” and (2) “What is being predicated of is Greek.” It has a conditional form, that is, “If something is, it is Greek.” In the conditional mode, this proposition—being fully conditional—lacks the capacity to guarantee the establishment of there being Greeks.

Another Precise Look at the Deductive Argument

Major proposition: “All humans are mortal.”
Minor proposition: “All philosophers are human.”
Conclusion: “All philosophers are mortal.”

Concerning the deductive argument, these points must be attended to:

a. The truth of the propositions according to the rules and regulations is reflected in the result; that is, the conclusion is also correct and sound.

b. A correct and valid conclusion or inference in a deductive argument reflects the truth of the propositions; that is, the conclusion or inference indicates the truth of the propositions or premises.

Once again, for clear understanding, reference is made to this deductive argument:

“All philosophers are mortal.” As an inference and conclusion, this reflects the truth of the propositions “All humans are mortal” and “All philosophers are human.”

Finally, in a precise and expanded understanding, it can be said that the truth of the conclusion and inference depends on the truth of the propositions, even though the two are distinguishable.

In a deductive argument, at the first stage, validity depends on the truth of the propositions, which in turn carries the truth of the conclusion or inference in its wake.

A deductive argument is valid when affirming the premises and denying the conclusion produces a logical contradiction between the premises and the conclusion.

A logical contradiction is related to the negation of a proposition.

The logical contradiction between the propositions and the inference or conclusion is prominent and evident in this example of a deductive argument:

“All humans are mortal.” “All philosophers are human.” and, as a result, “All philosophers are not mortal.”

The proposition “All philosophers are mortal” and “All philosophers are not mortal” connects a proposition to the negation of that proposition. This constitutes a logical contradiction.

If it becomes manifest that “Not all humans are mortal but some are immortal,” or “Not all philosophers are human but some philosophers are non-human,” then the argument would also be valid if it is claimed that all philosophers are not mortal.

Thus, it is a clear and evident matter that the logical validity of a deductive argument depends on the logical relation between propositions and inference or conclusion, and does not depend on truth.

The contradiction between the propositions and the lack of truth and absence of truth in the inference is explicit in this deductive argument:

“Not all humans are mortal,” “All philosophers are human,” therefore “All philosophers are immortal.”

In the above deductive argument the premises or propositions and the conclusion are unreal.

It is not necessary that a valid deductive argument be composed of two propositions; it is possible that a single proposition carries an inference or conclusion behind it.

An example may be presented from this case:

“It does not matter that some humans are not immortal,” consequently: “All humans are mortal.”

Taking into account the possible possibilities in deductive logic or the deductive argument, an argument is valid and possesses validity when the truth of the propositions is necessarily reflected in the conclusion or inference and becomes manifest.

According to the data and findings of logical research regarding the deductive argument, it is a clear and evident matter that the inference or conclusion is not necessarily a conveyor or reflector of truth; in other words, the inference or conclusion is not a guardian of truth.

In a deductive argument, even the truth of the propositions can carry in its wake an inference devoid of truth or lacking validity.

The following example is prominent in this regard:

“If a philosopher possessed all the gold of a treasure, he would be wealthy.” “No philosopher possesses all the gold of the treasure.” Consequently, “No philosopher is wealthy.”

In another precise mode it is discovered that in a deductive argument, even with real (true) propositions, it can still lack validity—that is, when the truth of the propositions is denied in the conclusion or inference.

A deductive argument lacks validity when the affirmation of the premises is denied in the inference, and the argumentative system is free of contradiction.

The negation “No philosopher is wealthy” corresponds to “It is not true that no philosopher is wealthy.”

The result is that “Some philosophers are wealthy.”

In this deductive argument, the absence of logical contradiction is understood, yet it still lacks validity:

“No philosopher possesses all the gold of the treasure,” “Some philosophers are wealthy.”

This means that other possible reasons may cause philosophers to become wealthy and be considered wealthy.

The possibility of other reasons for philosophers’ becoming wealthy renders this deductive argument invalid.

A Broader Look at the Deductive Argument: Key Points

A deductive argument is either valid or invalid. This means that relative degrees in the soundness or unsoundness of a deductive argument have no place; i.e., a deductive argument is either valid or invalid.
The content of the conclusion is not already open and explicit in the premises or propositions.
The knowledge obtained through the conclusion is only its uncovering and opening in the conclusion.
The uncovering of knowledge depends on a valid deductive argument.
The inference or conclusion in a deductive argument also has the ability to teach new things.
In addition to formal logic, deductive results have wide application in arithmetic and geometry.
In another expression, when propositions are called Lehrsätze = Theoreme,
Grundsätze = Axiome are the principles,
Forderungen = Postulate are the requirements.

Axiome und Postulate sind die Prämissen und die Theoreme sind Konklusionen.

The method of proof is that the theorems are taken according to specified rules of inference.