DIALOG ERISTIS DAN FALASI LOGIS (Analisis Dialog Musa as dan Firaun dalam Surat al-Syua'rā [26]: 16-29)

Asep Muharam

Abstract


This article aims to list the defects of Pharaonic logic in dialogue with Moses and Aaron and categorize the types of pharaonic dialogue in The Theory of John Woods and Douglas Walton. The method used is the study of literature with the approach of philosophy of logic. As for the discussion is the interpretation of scholars to surat Al-Syua'rā [26] verses 16-29. The conclusion in this study that the dialogue of Pharaoh with Moses and his brother eristic dialogue type. While Pharaoh's logic defects in arguing include: Argumentum ad Populum, Argumentum ad Consequentiam, Norm of Reciprocity, Argument by Emotive Language, historian's Fallacy, Fallacies of False Analogy, Negating Antecedent and consequence, Red Hearing, Moving the Goalposts, Special Pleading, Stereotyping, Invincible Ignorance Fallacy, Argumentum ad Hominem and Argumentum ad Baculum


Keywords


Falasi Fira'un

References


Abādi, A.-F. (n.d.). Tanwīr al-Miqbas min Tafsīr Ibn ‘Abbās. Dar al-Kitab ’Ilmiyyah.

Abdel-Maguid, T. E., & Abdel-Halim, R. E. (2015). The Qur′an and The Development of ٌRational Thinking. Urology Annals, 7(2), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.152926

Al-Abyari. (1984). al-Mausū’ah al-Qur’aniyyah. Mu’sasah Sijl al-‘Arab.

Al-Asykari, H. (2007). al-Wujûh wa al-Nadhāi’r li Abī Hilāl al-’Askari. Maktabah al-Tsaqafah al-Diniyyah.

Al-Baghawî, A. M. al-H. b. M. b. M. b. al-F. (1999). Ma’âlim at-Tanzîl fî Tafsîr al-Qur’ân. Dār Ihyāu’ at-Turāts al-‘Arabī.

Al-Barzazji, T. (2007). Shahīh wa Dha’īf Tārīkh al-Thabari. Dar Ibn Katsir.

Al-Māturīdī, A. M. (2005). Tafsīr al-Māturīdī /Ta’wīlāt Ahl as-Sunnah. Dār al-Kitab al-‘Ilmiyyah.

Al-Mâwaridî. (2010). Tafsîr al-Mâwaridî. Dār al-Kitab al-‘Ilmiyyah.

Al-Mudhahirī, M. T. (1992). al-Tafsīr al-Mudhahiri. Maktabah al-Rasyad.

Al-Nahas, A. J. (2000). I’rāb al-Qur’ān. , Mansyurat Muhammad ‘Ali Baidhun.

Al-Nasafī, A. al-B. ‘Abdullāh A. b. M. H. (1988). Tafsīr Madārik Al-Tanzīl wa Haqāiq Al-Ta’wīl. Dār al-Kalam al-Thayyib.

Al-Razaq, ‘Abd Bakr ‘Abd. (1998). Tafsīr al-Razāq. Dār al-Kitab al-‘Ilmiyyah.

Al-Sam’ānī. (1997). Tafsīr al-Qur’ān. Dār al-Wathan.

Al-Samarqindî. (2010). Bahrul al-‘Ulûm. ‘Imâdat al-Bahtsi al-‘Ilmî bi-Jâmi’at al-Islâmiyyah.

Al-Tamimi, K. (2021). Syarh al-Tadmiriyyah li Syaikh al-Islām Ibn Taimiyyah. Dar Ilaf.

Al-Thabarī, A. J. (1967). Tārīkh al-Thabarī. Dâr at-Turâts.

Al-Zuhaili, W. (2016). Tafsir alL-Munir. Dar al-Fikr Muashirah.

Alahmari, A. (2021). Radiology Role in Archaeology: Moses’ Pharaoh as a Case. International Journal of Forensic Research, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.33140/ijfr.02.04.01

Ali, J. (2001). Al-Mufashil fī Tārīkh al-‘Arab qabla al-Islām. Dar al-Saqi.

Ar-Razi, F. (2000). Mafâtih al-Ghaib. Dār Ihyā al-Turāts al-‘Arabī.

Arapov, S. (2020). The Pharaoh of the Exodus and his advisor Haman finally revealed.

Assenova, D. (2010). Spoken vs. Written or Dialogue vs. Non-Dialogue?: Frequency Analysis of Verbs, Nouns and Prepositional Phrases in Bulgarian. Slovo: Journal of Slavic Languages and Literatures, 51, 115–127. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:384373

Bauer, K. (2017). Emotion in the Qur’an: An overview. Journal of Qur’anic Studies, 19(2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.3366/jqs.2017.0282

Bennett, B. (2012). Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies. In eBookIt.com.

Bernstein, A. (2001). Reciprocity, Utility, and the Law of Aggression. Vanderbilt Law Review, 54(1), 1–X.

Biren A. Nagda, P. G. (2009). Intergroup Dialogue: A Critical Dialogic Approach to Learning About Difference, Inequality, and Social Justice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 119, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl

Brennan, S. E. (2021). Conversation and Dialogue. Studying English Literature and Language, 269–272. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203718179-43

Crespo, R. F. (2008). Reciprocity and practical comparability. International Review of Economics, 55(1–2), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-007-0028-z

Doob, L. W. (2019). Goebbels’ principles of propaganda. Public Opinion Quarterly, 14(3), 419–442. https://doi.org/10.1086/266211

Faris, I. (2002). Mu’jam Maqayis al-Lughah. Ittihâd al-Kitâb.

Fischer, D. H. (1970). HISTORIANS’ FALLACIES: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. BARPI.R TORCHBOOK.

Geoffrey, R. (2003). The Definition of Dialogue. In An Imprint of Prometheus Books (Vol. 5, Issue 8). Humanity Books.

Goebbels, J. (2015). The Big Lie Theory and Human Behaviour. 13–16.

Goodsell, T. W. (2016). Identifying Moses As A Pharaoh of Egypt Revealed Viewpoint. Travis Wayne Goodsell.

Górzna, S. (2014). Martin Buber Father of The Philosophy of Dialogue. European Journal of Science and Theology, 10(5), 45–53.

Greco, S., & Greco, S. (2016). Argumentative dialogue Argumentative Dialogue. Center for Intercultural Dialogue, March.

Hamston, J. (2006). Bakhtin’s Theory of Dialogue: A Construct for Pedagogy, Methodology and Analysis. Australian Educational Researcher, 33(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03246281

Hamusy, M. (2007). al-Tafsīr al-Ma’mūn ‘ala Mihaz al-Tanzīl al-Shahīh al-Masnūn. Muwafiqh.

Hasyimi. (2009). al-Muhbar. Dairah Mu’arif Usmaniyyah.

Hātim, I. A. (1988). Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘Adhīm li ibn Abī Hātim. Maktabah Nazār Mushthafa al-Bāz.

Ibrahim Mushthafa, D. (2009). al-Mu’jam al-Wasīth. Dar al-Da’wah.

Jason, G. (2016). The nature of the Argumentum ad Baculum. Philosophia, 17(4), 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02381067

Jenlink, P. M., & Banathy, B. H. (2005). Dialogue as a Means of Vollective Communication. In Dialogue as a Means of Collective Communication (Issue September 2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/b110207

Kakas, A., Toni, F., & Mancarella, P. (2014). Argumentation Logic. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 266(January 2016), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-436-7-345

Katsîr. (1986). al-Bidâyah wa an-Nihâyah,. Dār al-Fikr.

Katsir, I. (2011). Tafsir Ibnu Katsir. Dar al-Kitab ’Ilmiyyah.

Kay, D., & Kay, D. (2006). The Big Lie : 9/11 and the Government’s Complicity in Mass Murder.

Khazin. (2014). Lubâb at-Ta’wîl fî Ma’ânî at-Tanzîl. Dār al-Kitab al-‘Ilmiyyah.

Koszowy, M. (2015). On the Concepts of Logical Fallacy and Logical Error. Catholic University of Lublin, 0–10.

Krabbe, E. C. W., & Van Laar, J. A. (2008). About Old and New Dialectic: Dialogues, Fallacies, and Strategies. Informal Logic, 27(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v27i1.463

Lister, A. (2011). Justice as Fairness and Reciprocity. 2011, 93–112.

Macagno, F. (2012). The Argumentative Uses of Emotive Language. Sistemi Intelligenti, 24(3), 433–454. https://doi.org/10.1422/38984

Marzuki. (2020). Gagalnya Pemahaman Fir‟un (X) Dalam Perspektif Kajian Sain Alamtologi Pada Menerima Pesan Komunikasi. Jurnal Peurawi:Media Kajian Komunikasi Islam, 3(2), 46–60.

McInerny, D. Q. (2004). Being Logical Guide to A Good Thinking. Random House.

Mujahid. (1989). Tafsīr Mujāhid. Dār al-Fikr.

Muqâtil bin Sulaimân. (2002). Tafsīr Muqātil bin Sulaimān. Dār Ihyāu’ at-Turāts al-‘Arabī.

Naisaburi. (2009). al-Tafsīr al-Basīth. ‘Imādah al-Bahts al-‘Ilmī.

Nasafi. (2019). al-Taisir al-Tafasir. Dar Lubab.

Oyeshile, O. A. (2016). Arguments and Fallacies (Issue January 2009). University of Ibadan.

Petric, D. (2020). Logical Fallacies. Simple Formal Logic, 298–336. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203874523-9

Petrovich, D. (2006). AMENHOTEPII AND THE HISTORICITY OF THE EXODUS-PHARAOH. 1(Spring), 81–110.

Pieniążek, M. (2018). Rhetoric of Violence. On Eristic Methods Used by Stalinist Courts in The Perspective of Chaïm Perelman’s Theory. Filozofia Publiczna i Edukacja Demokratyczna, 6(2), 7–48. https://doi.org/10.14746/fped.2017.6.2.14

Qayyim, I. (2019). Bidāi’l al-Fawāi’d. Dar ’Ithaa’t al-Ilm.

Qurthubi, S. (2003). al-Jami’ al-Ahkam al-Qur’an. Dâr ’Âlm al-Kitâb.

Qutaibah. (1978). Gharīb al-Qur’ān. Dar al-Kitab ’Ilmiyyah.

Ramasamy, S. (2011). Informal Reasoning Fallacy and Critical Thinking Dispositions: A Univariate Study of Demographic Characteristics among Malaysian Undergraduates. Asia e University, 1–21.

Ramee, N. (2003). Logic and Legal Reasoning: a Guide for Law Students. 244(1994), 89–93. http://www.unc.edu/~ramckinn/Documents/NealRameeGuide.pdf

Razak. (1999). Tafsīr al-Razāq. Dār al-Kitab al-‘Ilmiyyah.

Razi, A. Q. (1999). Mukhtār al-Shihāh. al-Maktabah al-‘Ashriyyah.

Reed, M. S. (2015). Understanding Arguments. In Teaching Philosophy (Vol. 3, Issue 3). Cengage Learning. https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil19803318

Rodgers, N. (2011). Logical Reasoning. In Learning to Reason. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118165690.ch1

Sajastani, D. (1999). Naqd al-Imam Abi Sa’id. Maktabah ar-Rasyad.

Shalih, A. A. (2011). al-Syirq al-A’dzna al-Qadīm fī Mish wa al-’Irāq. Maktabah Dar al-Zaman.

Svacinova, I. (2016). Argument of Reciprocity. Bakó, Rozália Klára; Horváth, Gizela (Eds.): Argumentor 4: Mens Sana: Rethinking the Role of Emotions, 33–62.

Syaqafi. (2011). Mausûa’ah al-Farq al-Munasabah li al-Islām. Mawaq al-Darar.

Syaukani. (1993). Fath al-Qadir. Dar Ibn Katsir.

Taimiyyah, I. (1986). Mihāz al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah fī Naqdhi Kalām al-Syi’ah al-Qadariyyah. Saudi Jamiah Imam Muhammad Su’ud.

Thabari. (2000). Jâmi’ al-Bayân fî Ta’wîl al-Qur’ân. Dâr at-Turâts.

Thiyar, S. (2017). Mau’su’ah al-Tafsīr al-Ma’tsūr. Dar ibn Hazm.

Tindale, C. W. (2018). FALLACIES AND ARGUMENT APPRAISAL. Cambridge University Press.

Tsa’labah, Y. bin S. bin A. (2004). Tafsīr Yahyā bin Salām. Dār al-Kitab al-‘Ilmiyyah.

Tsalabi. (2015). al-Kasyf wa al-Bayān ‘an Tafsīr al-Qur’ān. Dar al-Tafsir.

Tuncer, A. M. (2022). Logical Fallacy in Education; False Dilemma and Quantal Sociology. OALib, 09(08), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1109131

Utsaimin. (2015). Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-Karīm. Mausu’ah al-Syeikh Shalih al-Utsaimin.

Vallverdú, J. (2008). The False Dilemma: Bayesian vs. Frequentist. May. http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0486

vander Nat, A. (2020). Logical Fallacies. Simple Formal Logic, February, 298–336. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203874523-9

Wahab, M. A. (2020). Logic and Islam. Aspekt Publishers.

Wahidi, A. (1994). Al-Wasīth fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-Majīd. Dār al-Kitab al-‘Ilmi.

Walton, D. (2002). Historical Origins of Argumentum ad Consequentiam. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 103(3), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1023/A

Walton, D. (2010). Types of Dialogue and Burdens of Proof. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 216, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-619-5-13

Walton, D. (2020). How can logic best be applied to arguments? Logic Journal of IGPL, 5(4), 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/5.4.603

Walton, D., & MacAgno, F. (2007). The fallaciousness of threats: Character and Ad Baculum. Argumentation, 21(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9018-7

Weston, A. (2008). A Rule Book for Arguments. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 97, Issue 1). Hackett Publishing Company.

Woods, J., & Walton, D. (2019). Why is the Ad Populum a Fallacy? Fallacies, January 1980, 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110816082-018

Zakaria. (2000). al-Syirk fī al-Qadīm wa al-Hadīts. Maktabah al-Rasyad.

Zamanin. (2002). Tafsir al-Qur’ān al-’Azīz. al-Faruq al-Haditisyyah.

Zegarelli, M. (2007). Logic For Dummies. In Production. Wiley Publishing, Inc.


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30868/at.v7i02.3249 <

Article metrics

Abstract views : 0 | views : 0

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Al-Tadabbur: Jurnal Ilmu Al-Qur'an dan Tafsir

Jl. Raya Dramaga KM. 7

Kelurahan Margajaya, Kecamatan Bogor Barat

Kota Bogor

Telp: 0251-8625187
HP: 0812 2220 2006
email: admin@staiabogor.ac.id

 

Lisensi Creative Commons
Ciptaan disebarluaskan di bawah Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-NonKomersial 4.0 Internasional.