Couple of years back, I had chance to study basic primers in classical mantiq such as mirqat, jawahir ul-mantiq, DI's nisab ul-mantiq etc. In certain sections, I was underwhelmed by the content, or rather overwhelmed by the minutiae. I felt that there was too much emphasis on concepts such as jauhar, jism, jins, naw, fasl etc. Examples used were abstract & abstruse, which didn't help comprehension for beginner like me. In my opinion (and with very limited knowledge), many of the mantiq topics can be simplified by use of venn diagrams, propositional logic, boolean algebra etc., rather than relying on finer & finer verbal definitions. When the mantiq subject was devised, it relied heavily on ancient greek logic texts (even though Muslim logicians/theologians significantly extended and enhanced the latter). While modern/mathematical logic evolved rapidly in 17th-19th century, mantiq remained stuck in past - bit like doing algebra without variables, symbols and equations (as it used to be done in medieval period, by mathematicians including the Arabs). Without symbolic expressions, algebra would never have become part of core school curriculum for masses. ---- I concur. The reason that Arabs/Muslims made huge advancement in science and technology between 10th-14th century was that these scientists/scholars/engineers/physicians etc. borrowed secular/scientific ideas/knowledge very freely and heavily from other civilisations/societies, assimilated them, and significantly enhanced these with original contribution of their own. These traits are hallmark of any society's scientific progress. European renaissance wouldn't have come about (after centuries of darkness) without borrowing heavily from Islamic science. Even ancient Greeks owed their achievements to Egyptians, Babylonians etc. While Indian and Chinese science/mathematical knowledge were original in parts (and within small pockets of individual brilliance), these insular societies couldn't make the same level of rapid progress as was witnessed during the glorious period of Islamic civilisation and renaissance. al Biruni made scathing assessment of Indian/hindu scientific/mathematical knowledge*, on the very account that this society thought too highly of itself and refused to exchange ideas. Without continuous introduction/assimilation of modern knowledge, dars-e-nizami curriculum was bound to become outdated/ossified on secular/rational science front. Is it any wonder that AlaHazrat rahimullah's wide-ranging, pioneering contributions (which haven't been replicated since) owe more to his individual genius than to his dars-e-nizami curricular education. ----- * The Hindus believe that there is no country but theirs, no nation like theirs, no kings like theirs, no religion like theirs, no science like theirs. They are haughty, foolishly vain, self-conceited, and stolid. They are by nature niggardly in communicating that which they know, and they take the greatest possible care to withhold it from men of another caste among their own people, still much more, of course, from any foreigner. According to their belief, there is no other country on earth but theirs, no other race of man but theirs, and no created beings besides them have any knowledge or science whatsoever...
initially, i had written that these mabahis are useless in a changed world. allamah @Noori pointed out that the terms are used in kalam and usul works, so they are not entirely useless. i concur with him and hence the altered statement.
https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/teach-these-in-madrasas.14992/#post-73641 caveat emptor: not saying you have to 'believe' in everything you read. it is the same as teaching greek philosophy. you read it and learn about it to KNOW what they are saying. so you can adapt your arguments to counter them where they contradict our religion.
this is an old project - some friends know about it, but i didn't get time to complete it due to being held hostage by the ruthless excuse of 'other priorities' and its younger sibling: 'not enough time'. there is a close cousin involved too: 'mired in other issues'. will keep you posted when i escape. do dua.
Shaykh With due respect, I feel you are doing a great injustice upon the sunni awaam by having such good knowledge on this subject matter. On a serious note, why can't you devise a syllabus your self for students who are keen to learn. I am aware you have recommended really good books and sources but they are scattered around the site. Can it not be possible to create a thread and devise a proper route for students of knowledge who have the zeal to acquire knowledge to benefit from that thread?
especially, students who speak/read english and/or not proficient in arabic - instead of trying to crack sharh sullam or mulla hasan, i suggest reading these books which are readily available in english and accessible: logic: https://collection.bccampus.ca/search/?q=logic&viewAllTextbooks=true philosophy: https://collection.bccampus.ca/search/?q=philosophy
i was listening to the shaykh al-allamah mufti sahib - hafizahullah. it is an interesting talk and hazrat as a veteran teacher has shared his experience as a teacher and methods of pedagogy. however, concerning dars nizami, i beg to differ with mawlana with utmost respect. hazrat is speaking from a different world. the dars nizami syllabus is outdated and needs a serious overhaul. especially in departments of rational sciences. we need lengthy chapters on human anatomy, economics, forms of world goverments, currencies and foreign exchange, financial systems, accounting systems, engineering and technology, modern tools and how to use them, how things work in general, space and astronomy and of course, world religions and cultures, history and geography. am not saying that one should become a master of all these. rather, an introduction (i think we discussed this in another post) will help enormously. ---- the logic of aristotle (in its organon and by extension, isagoge*) is now relegated to archives and merely a matter of academic interest in the west. personally, i do not think that anyone who gains expertise in logic of dars-nizami (and confined to aristotlean logic) can even crawl in a GMAT/SAT test. yes, you may need to know the terms to understand arguments in books of kalam or usul, but it is certainly not efficient to make someone an expert in logical reasoning. logic was introduced in the syllabus to train a student in the methods of reasoning, to train the mind to think logically - as in valid premises and logical conclusions. these 'tools' would be employed in deriving ahkam, refuting an argument, assessment of a proposition, critical reasoning. but aristotle is now a hundred years past expiry date. you will not be able to convince any modern atheist - or argue against dozens of modern philosophies merely by learning these medieval texts. perhaps i am mistaken, but please feel free to refute me. in today's world, we have far better and effective tools to achieve that objective - and in my opinion what was yesterday's expertise in isagoge and aristotlean logic, is today's ability to crack GMAT or a SAT test. --- the mathematics taught in alahazrat's time - which was deemed top of the line - spherical trigonometry, logarithms, euclidean geometry, quadratic equations etc, many of us could breeze through by grade 12. those of us who majored in math would be familiar with higher algebra and calculus. in today's world - teaching archaic arguments which modern atheism brushes off as irrelevant is practically useless. --- [isaghuji is arabized from isagoge, meaning "an introduction" by porphyry who lived around 245 CE. it was meant to be a general intro to logic and not an intro to aristotle's organon per se. for nearly a thousand years, and especially in islamic schools, it has been a standard textbook of logic.] Allah ta'ala knwos best
