One should know that any matter that is subject to rational deliberation, namely any belief, rational idea, or claim, whose correctness is asserted, in terms of it being correspondent to external reality, can be rendered in the form of a logical statement (a syllogism) [1], which is composed of premises and a conclusion [2], as has been detailed in the discipline of formal logic.

For example, one may wish to establish that: “This universe has a cause”:

1. The universe is originated (Minor Premise)
2. Every originated thing has a cause that has originated it (Major Premise)
C. The universe has a cause (Conclusion)

This matter is of foundational importance. To evaluate any idea proposed in the realm of ideas, convictions, beliefs, philosophies, religions, and sects—which all claim their own correctness and the incorrectness of others—any of these claims whose validity you wish to seriously assess must be articulated in the form of premises and a conclusion. This approach provides the following benefits:

1- It will clarify to the receiver of the idea, its scope, its boundaries and its goal, that what one wishes to establish or what they do not wish to establish, and that is because many of the arguments that are put forward are ambiguous in their goals until they are formulated in a precise manner. For example: Some people may imagine that: Since the Muslims prostrate in front of the Honourable Kaʿba = They must worship the Kaʿba. Whilst it is the case that this is nothing but an error, since the Muslims do not deem the Kaʿba to be anything other than a mere direction that God has determined for the body parts to be oriented towards when engaging in some ritual acts of worship, neither to they glorify it except for the fact that God has glorified it. As for the act of worship itself, then that is directed only and only to the One and only God, and there is a clear difference between the direction one’s body parts are oriented towards, where prayer is directed towards, and worshipping that very thing.

And it is in such a manner that a specific claim is incorrectly generalised, where a foreign claim is linked to a specific one fallaciously, due to either misunderstanding its nature, or due to the lack of a differentiation between two different subjects that may seem similar, or due to assuming false necessary relationships that are related to the subject matter, and other fallacies.

2- It will ease the evaluation and process of precise assessment for the receiver of the idea, so that they may determine its correctness or incorrectness, and that is through the detailing of every single premise, and to thoroughly debate each one, so that one may then proceed to the premise that follows, and so if there was a premise that was faulty or its correctness is not entirely assured, then the conclusion will naturally be faulty or at the very least be one whose correctness cannot entirely be assured, because a conclusion follows from its premises, and it is through this means that the delineation of the matter that is up for debate is made easy to identify between two individuals that disagree with each other. For example if one person says to another: “I dispute Premise A that you have proposed, and not Premise B, or I dispute both Premise A and B”, and so the discussion follows a coherent structure, from where the premise is debated in depth, and then the discussion continues onto the next one, and so on and so forth.

If this matter has become clear, then we will through the strength of God begin to try and answer the question that was posed, and so we say: Irrespective of the details, segways and different types of arguments that can be categorised, which the logicians have gone to great lengths in discussing, we can summarise all of this into the following, namely: Ensuring the correctness of one’s argument can be done after being able to identify two things:

1- Identifying the Correctness of the Form of the Syllogism: 

Meaning that the premises of the syllogism are formulated in a specific way, and organised in a distinct form, and these forms and formulations have been discussed in depth in the investigations of the types of arguments in the discipline of logic, especially the subject of syllogisms, which is a form of argument. Because it is not apt to lengthen this response too much, we will only represent the first form, which is the categorical syllogism [3], because it is the most important of the syllogisms and most familiar and natural to the human mind. We will also mention the four manners it can be formulated, so that one may acquaint themselves with it—or so that one may attempt to memorise it—and we will leave the details for a longer piece, and so here are the four manners of the first type of syllogism, which is the categorical syllogism [4]:

If this has become clear, then we say: The origins of error regarding the form of a syllogism usually return to the lack of practice in formulating arguments in accordance to formal logic, but if the reader masters it and becomes accustomed to it, then this will God-Willing, ensure the lack of an error when formulating the form of a syllogism.

An example of an incorrect formulation is for one to say: 

-        The sky is blue

-        The sky is large

-        Every blue thing is large!

This syllogism is an example of an error when it comes to the form of a syllogism. Its premises are not connected, and its composition is not harmonious, and it is due to this that we immediately recognise there is an error in this form of reasoning when reading it.

Note: A syllogism may be composed for more than two premises and more than a singular conclusion. This takes place when more than one syllogism is adjoined within a singular syllogism. Akin to the following: 

-        That which is not devoid of originated things is itself originated

-        The universe is not devoid of originated things

-        Conclusion 1: The universe is originated.

-        Every originated thing has a cause

-        Conclusion 2: The universe has a cause.

2- Identifying the Correctness of the Syllogism’s Contents: 

One must determine the correctness of the contents and purport of every premise which is utilised in the reasoning that is adduced, it is incumbent for one to know that the causes for error in the contents of a syllogism are many. Some of them have been mentioned under the section of fallacies in the books of logic, in addition to the fact that independent books have been authored which outline the most recurring rational and logical fallacies that people fall into when it comes to the contents of these syllogisms, these books are usually termed: “Logical Fallacies.” [5] 

In order for one to ensure that the contents of their syllogism are correct, then their syllogism must fall under one of the following three matters: 

The First: Is that the syllogism must be composed of premises that are self-evident (meaning that they are accepted as true without the need to evidence them so that we can be sure of their truth, and the rational faculty accepts them as being true by virtue of merely understanding them and being aware of them), for example: 

-        Oppression is immoral (Self-Evident Premise)

-        Anyone who engages in an immoral act is worthy of disparagement (Self-Evident Premise)

-        Thus, anyone who engages in oppression is worthy of disparagement. (Conclusion) 

The Second: Or that it is composed of premises that are self-evident, whilst other premises are investigative, but they have been previously established. By investigative we mean that they require prior establishing for the current syllogism, and the precise result of the previous argument are related in the current syllogism, and these can be unpacked and reversed into matters which are self-evident to any rational person by virtue of merely understanding them and being aware of them. For example: 

-        The universe is originated (Investigative Premise)

-        Every originated thing has a cause that originated it (Self-Evident Premise)

-        Thus, the universe has a cause that originated it. (Conclusion) 

The Third: Or that it is composed of premises that are all investigative, but they have already been established priorly, and all of them can be returned to matters which are self-evident that do not require prior proofing so that their correctness can be asserted, for example: 

-        Providing a miracle is evidence of the Prophethood of its claimant (Investigative Premise)

-        Muḥammad {s} provided a miracle (Investigative Premise)

-        Muḥammad {s} is a Prophet. (Conclusion) 

To summarise what has been said: Every syllogistic form of reasoning must be returned to matters that are self-evident—which are called primary propositions (awaliyyāt) in the discipline of logic—and these are accepted as true by virtue of their nature and do not require proofing so that they may be asserted. Their characteristic feature is that the rational person concedes them and acknowledges them as being true by the mere expression of it, and by the mere understanding of it and comprehending its boundaries, in addition to pondering over its applications, and its intuitive nature in one’s self. And so, these self-evident matters are the foundation upon which everything else rests on when it comes to any rational ideas.

Important Notes Regarding the Formulation of Logical Syllogisms: 

In addition to what has been stated, these notes are fundamental and a student of knowledge must be aware of them so that they do not fall into errors that may cause them to incorrectly imagine that an argument is correct: 

1- Failure to seriously ponder over one of the premises of the argument: This leads to not noticing its invalidity in itself, and then believing in the correctness of the false conclusion that was built on that false premise, all due to the failure of the observer to carefully contemplate and scrutinise it. 

2- Misunderstanding a specific concept or term in the premises of the argument: Every argument contains certain terms, such as (Incident, Universe, Prophethood, Miracle, Imamate, Moral, Immoral, Right and Rights, Humanity, etc.), and the observer should precisely understand their intended meaning and seek to define them to ensure their correct understanding and comprehension. They should not be overly confident in their understanding if they feel unclear about a specific concept mentioned in the premises and should inquire about every term mentioned in the argument to ensure their proper comprehension of it. 

3- Inconsistency in the use of a single concept within the premises: Some arguments may be thought by the observer to be valid proofs, while they are actually purely logical fallacies. This is due to the inconsistent use of the terms mentioned in the premises with different meanings. For example, using the term ‘World’ in the first premise to mean the observable material world, and then using it in the second premise to mean everything other than God, which includes the material observable world and the unseen! One of the conditions for producing a valid syllogism is that the repeated terms must be intended to have one unified meaning. 

4- Lack of scrutiny of the limits of the conclusion of the argument: Every inferential conclusion has a specific purpose, specific implications, and specific consequences that do not extend beyond other claims that were not intended. Therefore, the observer should scrutinise the purpose of what any argument proves to avoid making claims outside the intended scope of the argument. 

5- Failure to ponder over the invalid necessary concomitants of one of the premises which as a consequence reveal its invalidity: Every claim has certain rational concomitants that are inseparable from it, some of which are noticeable and obvious, and others are distant and realised through contemplation, thinking, broad-mindedness, and after striking many examples. The more a person understands the necessary concomitants of their statement and claim, the clearer its correctness or error becomes. Some of these necessary concomitants are correct, and some of them are incorrectly imagined, whilst in reality they are false necessary concomitants that are mistakenly believed to be necessary, when in fact they have no relation with reality. The criterion for distinguishing between the correct necessary concomitants and others is to contemplate the claim itself, its implications, and its boundaries.

------------------------------

[1] Even if the understanding of this argument is based on induction or analogy, which are counterparts to deduction under the broader category of methods of reasoning, it is known that any argument, even if not a logical deduction, can be reduced to a logical deduction.

[2] There is a detailed explanation on how to arrange them.

[3] The definition of the first form of categorical syllogism is: Where the middle term is the predicate in the minor premise and the subject in the major premise. This is not the place to analyse the definition.

[4] al-Muẓaffar, al-Manṭiq, Ed: Dār al-Taʿāruf, pg. 214-217

[5] They are many, we will mention some of them: “Logical Fallacies” by ʿĀdil Muṣṭafā, which is the most important, “Straw Man” by Yūsuf Abū Ḥāyik, “Thinking from A to Z” by Nigel Warburton, “The Art of Thinking Clearly” by Rolf Dobelli, and “The Duck That Won the Lottery: and 99 Other Bad Arguments” by Julian Baggini et. al. It should be noted that these books themselves may be subject to scrutiny, as they are not infallible in all their claims of fallacies and may err in some issues and examples, so one should be cautious of that.