We came to know the uselessness of logic, though it contains some knowledge that can be acquired without it. Then we knew that if this the tool of logic was beneficial to acquire certain knowledge for certain people, this does not mean to generalize the concept and claim that is an obligation to take the path of logic to reach to that knowledge. This blatant claim is a claim without proof, and is certainly a lie. This is why the scholars of Islam –though some might have some kind of bidah (innovation)- have detailed refutation on such claims. See what Qadhi Abu Bakr al-Baqallani said in his book “Ad-Daqaaeq” [الدقائق] or “the Intricate Knowledge”.
The logicians often classify measurement into: arguments (which the subject agrees on the premises),Khitabi (statements) (premises are well known to general people), and Burhani (evidential) : when the premises are established facts that no one can deny. However, when one ponders on these classification, one will find that a certain logical argument could be Burhani (evidential) in terms of it’s absolute acceptance and truth, and at the same time Khitabi in terms of it’s publicity, and at the same time also Jadali (argumentive) in terms of submissive power of the argument.
These are the statements of those innovates among the Sabians who have never mentioned about the Prophets: neither affirmative nor negative. So, not following or believing in Prophets is an act of infidelity (Kufr) and deviation, although this person might not belie the prophets, because infidelity is more general than belying.
I am referring to the neo-Sabians, but among the original (old) Sabian were believers in Allah and the day of judgment. These are those who will neither fear nor grieve, as among the Jews and Christians before Prophet Muhammad –peace be upon him- were some deviated and some were adherent to the truth.
As for those authoring in Logic who say that: Khitabi arguments casts doubt and the Burhani arguments entails facts, are wrong and confused. Because, both Khitabi and Jadali could entail doubt, as the Burhani could be based on factual premises.
So the classification of subject or arguments occurred based on their acceptance. Sometimes, an argument is accepted because it is well known, and knowledge entails acceptance. But, if it is not known, then it’s acceptance is dependent on some other causes: sometimes, it is accepted because of it’s being famous (so now it is Khitabi) even though it does not entail knowledge nor doubt. It is Khitabi also if it is famous and does entail knowledge or doubt. Same applies to Jadali.
Those logicians site examples of those famous statement that are accepted though entails not knowledge like: knowledge is good, ignorance is bad, justice is good, injustice is bad, etc, and they claim that if we judge the reason purely, we find no conclusion. They might site the example of such knowledge as an existing entity must have isolation from another entity, or an entity must be on a specific direction, and they say about all these statements as judgment of delusion, not reason. These are all false, and many of these knowledge that those logicians attribute as non-reachable information, are in fact, intuitive facts that reasons prove more easily than many of the mathematical of physical facts. The validity of such factual statements are known from the actions coupled with such names. These actions are praised when a live creature gets benefit from them and fulfils his objectives and goals, and the opposite will be bad qualities. Thus, knowledge, speaking the truth, and treating with just are all required qualities by themselves because they lead to achieving good quality of life objectives and fulfils one’s goals.
This is why truth are describes by assertion or negation: so you say: this is truth (and thus exists and firm), and say this is false (meaning to negate), and also for actions, you say: this action is truth (meaning it fulfils objective and brings the goals) and you say:this action is false (meaning it is useless and brings no close to goals and objectives).
Those logicians also claim that: the in-built intuition might assert the validity of a certain entity which proves false by logical arguments. This claim is also false. Because, any logical claim must be based and founded on intuitive premises. So, if you doubt the correctness of intuitive premises, then you can not proceed further to prove the logical argument. So, why you falsify our intuitive findings and validate your intuitive premises. In fact, the error in those arguments that require intuition plus logic is more likely than the error on those knowledge that requires only intuition. Those logicians site as example of this type: the ascendance of Allah over His Throne and His Excellency of creation.
Do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be superior (in victory) if you are indeed (true) believers. [Quran aal-Imran (3):139]
Garden of Ibn Taymiyyah