DIALOG ERISTIS DAN FALASI LOGIS (Analisis Dialog Musa as dan Firaun dalam Surat al-Syua'rÄ [26]: 16-29)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30868/at.v7i02.3249Keywords:
Falasi Fira'unAbstract
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'rÄ [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
References
AbÄdi, A.-F. (n.d.). TanwÄ«r al-Miqbas min TafsÄ«r Ibn ‘AbbÄs. 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-NadhÄi’r li AbÄ« HilÄl 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. DÄr IhyÄu’ at-TurÄts al-‘ArabÄ«.
Al-Barzazji, T. (2007). ShahÄ«h wa Dha’īf TÄrÄ«kh al-Thabari. Dar Ibn Katsir.
Al-MÄturÄ«dÄ«, A. M. (2005). TafsÄ«r al-MÄturÄ«dÄ« /Ta’wÄ«lÄt Ahl as-Sunnah. DÄr al-Kitab al-‘Ilmiyyah.
Al-Mâwaridî. (2010). Tafsîr al-Mâwaridî. DÄr al-Kitab al-‘Ilmiyyah.
Al-Mudhahirī, M. T. (1992). al-Tafsīr al-Mudhahiri. Maktabah al-Rasyad.
Al-Nahas, A. J. (2000). I’rÄb al-Qur’Än. , Mansyurat Muhammad ‘Ali Baidhun.
Al-NasafÄ«, A. al-B. ‘AbdullÄh A. b. M. H. (1988). TafsÄ«r MadÄrik Al-TanzÄ«l wa HaqÄiq Al-Ta’wÄ«l. DÄr al-Kalam al-Thayyib.
Al-Razaq, ‘Abd Bakr ‘Abd. (1998). TafsÄ«r al-RazÄq. DÄr al-Kitab al-‘Ilmiyyah.
Al-Sam’ÄnÄ«. (1997). TafsÄ«r al-Qur’Än. DÄr 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-IslÄm Ibn Taimiyyah. Dar Ilaf.
Al-ThabarÄ«, A. J. (1967). TÄrÄ«kh al-ThabarÄ«. 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 fÄ« TÄrÄ«kh al-‘Arab qabla al-IslÄm. Dar al-Saqi.
Ar-Razi, F. (2000). Mafâtih al-Ghaib. DÄr IhyÄ al-TurÄts al-‘ArabÄ«.
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.
HÄtim, I. A. (1988). TafsÄ«r al-Qur’Än al-‘AdhÄ«m li ibn AbÄ« HÄtim. Maktabah NazÄr Mushthafa al-BÄz.
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,. DÄr 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. DÄr 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). TafsÄ«r MujÄhid. DÄr al-Fikr.
Muqâtil bin Sulaimân. (2002). TafsÄ«r MuqÄtil bin SulaimÄn. DÄr IhyÄu’ at-TurÄts al-‘ArabÄ«.
Naisaburi. (2009). al-TafsÄ«r al-BasÄ«th. ‘ImÄdah al-Bahts al-‘IlmÄ«.
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). BidÄi’l al-FawÄi’d. Dar ’Ithaa’t al-Ilm.
Qurthubi, S. (2003). al-Jami’ al-Ahkam al-Qur’an. Dâr ’Âlm al-Kitâb.
Qutaibah. (1978). GharÄ«b al-Qur’Än. 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). TafsÄ«r al-RazÄq. DÄr al-Kitab al-‘Ilmiyyah.
Razi, A. Q. (1999). MukhtÄr al-ShihÄh. 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-QadÄ«m fÄ« Mish wa al-’IrÄq. 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-IslÄm. Mawaq al-Darar.
Syaukani. (1993). Fath al-Qadir. Dar Ibn Katsir.
Taimiyyah, I. (1986). MihÄz al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah fÄ« Naqdhi KalÄm 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). TafsÄ«r YahyÄ bin SalÄm. DÄr al-Kitab al-‘Ilmiyyah.
Tsalabi. (2015). al-Kasyf wa al-BayÄn ‘an TafsÄ«r al-Qur’Än. 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). TafsÄ«r al-Qur’Än al-KarÄ«m. 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-WasÄ«th fÄ« TafsÄ«r al-Qur’Än al-MajÄ«d. DÄr 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’Än al-’AzÄ«z. al-Faruq al-Haditisyyah.
Zegarelli, M. (2007). Logic For Dummies. In Production. Wiley Publishing, Inc.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
