Logic

Suhrawardi’s logic of the Hikmat al-Ishraqis basically modal. So to understand his modal logic one first has to know the non-modal part upon which his modal logic is built. In my previous paper ‘Suhrawardi on Syllogisms’(3) I discussed the former in detail. The present paper is an exposition of his treatment of modal syllogisms. On the basis of some reasonable existential presuppositions and a number of controversial metaphysical theses, and also by confining his theory to alethic modality, Suhrawardi makes his modal syllogism simple in a way that is without precedent

The "logical problem of evil" is one kind of the "problem of evil." It is claimed that there is a logical inconsistency between belief in the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good God and belief in the existence of evil. Alvin Plantinga argued by his "free will defense" that they are consistent. In this paper I present his argument. Then three objections against his argument are mentioned. They are based on compatibilism, God's omnipotence, and God's knowledge of counterfactuals of freedom. Plantinga's responses to these come next. They are based on a counterexample, Leibniz's lapse, and transworld depravity. It is nearly accepted by all parties that Plantinga's defense is successful. Now the problem is the evidential one. For this problem to be solved, there must be a theodicy. And Plantinga gives one. But this is not successful at all. Muslims have to pay attention to this neglected area.

This paper is an examination of Bochenski’s conception of an acceptable methodology for research in philosophy. Generally methodology refers to the building of scientific knowledge, methods are the how for building knowledge. it is the how, why method we have elected to reflect on the method of doing philosophy. This reflection proceeds from a preliminary discourse on the various methods that have been deployed in doing philosophy in the past to a discourse on the lessons from Josef Maria Bochenski’s thought. The paper, found out that such methods as the phenomenological method, the analytical method, the dialectical method, the hermeneutical method amongst others have been used in doing philosophy, past and present. We have argued in this paper that while it is true that real progress in philosophy can only be guaranteed by an adequate method that is grounded in logic and semantics, there is no single universally accepted method of doing philosophy. However, the conclusion that is reached in this paper, drawing from a reflection on Bochenski’s thought and insights from an intercultural perspective is that, an authentic philosophical method that rest on the phenomenological analysis and proceeds through analysis. Finally, whichever method one elects to use in doing philosophy, it must be guided by logic, and it must be complementary and not confrontational.

Al-Farabi has discussed language in his philosophical discussions, albeit here and there. His discussions are especially about syntax and logic. Most existing studies have dealt only with the connection between this syntax and logic, and with the conventionality or naturalness of language in al-Farabi’s thought. The question of this article is what are the political implications of al-Farabi's discussions on language? The results of the study, based on the method of content analysis of al-Farabi’s works, indicate that Farabi specifically related the logic and logical crafts to his political thought; In such a way he expects the realization of the virtuous city on the basis of demonstration (Alborhan); And explains the existence of non-virtuous cities with crafts such as rhetoric, dialectic, poetry and sophistry. In other words, it is the expression which forms the city. These findings help us to analyze al-Farabi's thought in our own time and ask ourselves what does al-Farabi's thought has for us? By trying to come closer to the answer of this question I conclude the article with this claim that al-Farabi's idea of non-virtuous cities is relevant to us today. What remains is our retainment.

Knowledge of logic includes the rules that govern the way of thinking and reasoning. Muslims became familiar with this science in the third century by translating Aristotle's books and immediately faced the challenge of what does this science have to do with Islam? Should Muslims use the same method as Aristotle in their religious sciences or avoid paying attention to this science? The present research, by searching the books of Muslim jurists and theologians, shows that each of these two assumptions had supporters, and of course, the number of opponents of the science of logic was more than its supporters. And those opponents used violence against the proponents of the science of logic and brought arguments to ban the science of logic and tried to show that God is not pleased with this knowledge.This article also tries to bring these two views closer together. The final result of this research is that most of the arguments of the opponen of the logic are a warning for those who may not use this knowledge correctly or are involved in the thoughts of philosophers who have distanced themselves from religion.