Assuming Islam followers believe that they are truly reading/following the word of Muhammad and not a collection of fictional works/stories.

Assuming it is accurate to assume that every Muslim in the world is trusting what other people has told them is the truth [Islam] and that they don't criticize neither the source of the information or the information in itself, if it comes from the Quran.

If so, why is this a logical approach to life, and why should we not tolerate each other exactly as we are without enforcing religion and strict rules upon everyone? Why is violence in the name of unverifiable information a more logical approach to life as opposed to peace and tolerance?

I come to you as an anti-prohibitionist, as I think most societies overall have too many ridiculous rules and too little freedom. I don't seek to attack you or your religion.

Edit: To clarify, among Swedish immigrant Muslims this [violent, forcing others to adhere] model of Islam seemed to be the most prevalent with the ones I have spoken to. Which is too small of a group to make accurate statements about Islam as a whole. However I'd like Muslims with these opinions in general to answer this question so that I can grasp their point of view. It's not about defending yourself, but about providing me with the logic behind your reasoning or simply denouncing logic in favor of religion.

Edit once again: I'm not looking to scandalize Islam or say that Muslims are second class human beings. I respect you and admire your dedication. I'm looking for where Islam and logic do not refute each other, which does not imply that a Muslim needs to defend themselves, but only explain how Islam fits into the definition of the word "Logic".


  • 1
    As logic is part of the training of Muslim scholars islamic religion is indeed based on logic.
    – Medi1Saif
    Jan 9, 2017 at 12:28
  • 2
    @t0k3 Your notion and use of "logic" lends much semblance to the central claim of the obsolete, refuted ideology of Logical Positivism which nonetheless still exerts powerful influence over the mainstream and popular scientific mindset (that by its nature always lags behind the philosophical discourse). Truth of doctrines are more dependent on their foundational axioms about the nature of man and the world, than whether or not they use logic in their arguments. Therefore you will find many "irrational" doctrines using logical reasoning.
    – infatuated
    Jan 22, 2017 at 11:20
  • 3
    @You didn't yet get the point. Logic is all about following the correct rules for formal consistency of the arguments. It says nothing about the validity of the content of the arguments, that is, the premises, and says nothing on its own about, say, the validity of the particular epistemological approach one may adhere to which indicates which sources of knowledge you choose as valid: sense experience, rational intuition, spiritual vision, religious experience? Logic says nothing about any of these questions, beyond setting some basic rules of inference.
    – infatuated
    Jan 23, 2017 at 3:48
  • 1
    I see what you mean. However, since Islam is so open for interpretation and there is actually more philosophy than blatant rules in the Quran, it is not logical to say that "This philosophy is what should forcibly govern our society" [Saudi-Arabia, Dubai etc.], just because the individuals who rule the country feel that way because of experience, intuition, "spiritual vision, religious experience". There is simply no way for anyone of these people to know whether they have simply been more or less hypnotized into believing these things and hence not logical to force such rules.. Jan 24, 2017 at 13:05
  • 1
    I agree with your general point. However I object to the common misconception that many so-called Islamic countries are really putting Islam above everything else. Often times the harsh policies are motivated by political interests of the ruling class but masked under religious pretensions, especially when these countries fail to manifest anything that can be a manifestation of Islam's notion of mercy and compassion, a notion that is manifestly reminded at the opening of each chapter of Quran. And there's also the question of biased coverage of many Islamic countries in the West and so on...
    – infatuated
    Jan 24, 2017 at 13:24

6 Answers 6


I'll answer as I understood your question, though it was a little confusing.

Some errors to touch upon briefly:

  • It's incorrect for you to accuse Muslims of giving preference to 'violence over peace' when we have our Creator (ﷻ) telling Muslims in the Qur'an to 'incline to peace' and a Prophet (ﷺ) who said "do not desire an encounter with the enemy" (Muslim [1741]) meaning we prefer peace over violence and try to avoid violence as much as possible. And also, when majority of Muslims are peace-loving and peace-going.

  • It's also incorrect to assume that every Muslim in the world is blindly following. Blatantly setting up a false premise/assumption like this will of course lead to false conclusions; if you direct the question to those who do just blindly follow then it would make sense and moreover.. even we (fellow Muslims) are one step ahead of you and already advising each other to seek knowledge (ilm) and understanding (fahm). There is no religion which stresses individuals using their reason and intelligence more than Islam. [This blog article I wrote gives examples/evidences of Allah (ﷻ) encouraging rational thought, if you want to read more: Contemplation: A Step Forward ].

  • It's incorrect to claim Muslims enforce rules on everyone. They enforce Islamic laws over their own Muslim populations who want Islamic laws to rule over them. They do not enforce them over non-Muslim populations, esp. those that are tolerant to Islam.

► Now to the question: "Why enforce (relatively) strict Islamic laws over 'liberal laws' that afford more freedoms?" - To the premise that Islam is not/cannot be confirmed, reality is that Islam is confirmed in many ways [the rejection/acceptance of people not withstanding]. Alhamdulillah. Thereby, it's the only logical system to implement. But that's a topic for another post.

It suffices your question [alongside its false premise] for me to point out that Islam covers both aspects of the Seen and Unseen Matters. Divine Islamic Laws cover the Seen matters, whereby you can see real world application and real world results that can be 'measured'. This way you can see the superiority of Islamic laws and why it is logical to implement them over other 'laws.'

All that Islam bans (eg, alcohol, porn, etc) is proven, time and time again by science/evidence/statistics, to be detrimental to the individual and society as a whole (causing degradation or illness or death). Islam is therefore protecting/preserving human life, upholding human dignity and establishing order. On the other hand, your liberal laws/pro-freedom stance pave the way for humanity to strangle itself. A system which saves lives is superior to one that risks/takes lives.. so that logic (among others) is what makes Muslims opt for God's Islamic laws, superior and the best for humanity. Their implementation makes more sense than the implementation of anything else.

  • I obviously had some false premise. However I explained in the edits that this was about a very specific group of Muslims. You rephrased my question in a way that it was easier for you to answer it, you did not capture the essence of the question. You are also implying that we have tried every possible system and that there is no system that can ever measure better than an Islam-regulated one, and that every single citizen wants Islam to rule. This answer is not relevant because of the obvious bias, and I'm not going to accept it as it is not satisfactory to the question posed. Jan 15, 2017 at 2:23
  • You don’t have to like my answer but it definitely does answer the essence of your question which was why logically Islam should be implemented. I laid out why. Now, IF you claim that there is a system better than Islam then the burden of proof is on you to show us the system/model. I see no evidence of a better system than Islam.
    – Muslimah
    Jan 15, 2017 at 14:07
  • 1
    You take too much for granted. You are nowhere near correct when you speak about how I think regarding this answer (another unconfirmable 'fact' you lay on me). I want a Muslim to explain the logical reason behind implementing Islam. It is not logical to say that Islam can be confirmed, that it is the best system we have (provide proof for this claim otherwise). If you say that every Muslim is going to give me the same answer, then I will derive the answer out of that and say that Logic and Islam has broken their relation. Jan 16, 2017 at 0:38
  • 1
    Islam is a religion which is entirely based on faith.I wonder how can you believe that Allah exists if you cannot see him.And if you believe someone then u do not need the logic behind it.And this faith comes inside anybody only by the wish of Allah.I know that u don't believe in Islam now but it will not even take a second for you to believe if Allah wills.And a day will come when you will know that Islam was truth.And maybe that day will be after you die.
    – user21196
    Feb 16, 2017 at 19:47
  • 1
    For example you can see this islam.stackexchange.com/questions/37683/…. I don't think anybody can explain the logic behind this.In order to believe in such things you need faith in Allah and his messenger
    – user21196
    Feb 16, 2017 at 20:09

As a believer in divine revelation (I am a Christian) and a professional practitioner of logic (I have been a competitive debate coach for many years) hopefully I can offer some perspective on the relation of logic to religion. In a way you may consider this essay a "critique of pure logic".

(1) Logic is ultimately content neutral.

Three forms of reasoning typically are considered 'logical': deductive reasoning (internal consistency), inductive reasoning (determining probability), and abductive reasoning (rough heuristics for understanding). Each of these systems of logic has their own strengths, but if you are searching for truth, or certainty, none of them provide a source of absolute truth on which to base your life.

(a) Deductive reasoning works from broad and known (certain) assumptions and from those derives whatever else may be known. However, it is content neutral in that you must always begin with potentially unverified'assumptions' being considered absolutely true. In religion, the content of revelation often serves as the source of content which is assumed to be true and from which other truths (i.e. laws and other applications) may be logically derived.

(b) Inductive reasoning works from specific observations and from those suggests the most probable explanation. The scientific method is an inductive process. However, when it comes to absolute truth it is content neutral in that it never offers the promise of certainty. A conclusion based on three examples may be overturned by a fourth example, and it seems to objectively accept content from observations but that means it's claim to 'truth' is only as good as the (always finite) sample size). Furthermore, (i) it doesn't ever logically propose to provide absolute truths (i.e. never claims to describe reality as it is), (ii) inherently biases sensory data at the expense of other potential sources of information, and (iii) ignores psychological data that suggests that all observations are biased by our perspective and experience - content not derived from inductive observation.

(c) Abductive reasoning looks not at specific data but rather broad sets and from that set tries to propose rough systems for interpreting that set. However, it is content neutral in that it is not really looking for absolute truth but only a system that works pragmatically. Abductive reasoning, like inductive reasoning, must ultimately depend on limited observations, and since it leans more heavily into the assumptions of the observer, doesn't usually require that the conclusions be true in every instance. This is the way imperfect humans live their lives, but not a path to truth.

Therefore, logic is useful for analyzing the world, but can never produce true content.

(2) We all exist in-the-world.

Thankfully we all have content on which the tools of logic can be turned. We grow up breathing before we speak, and speaking before we think, and believing before we can prove. Religions that depend on revelation take the content which they believe is delivered to them by God to be the source of absolute assumptions from which they may reason deductively, to guide their inductive observations, and to scaffold their ways of understanding the world at large.

(3) The proper use of logic is analytical not productive.

Therefore, logic may be useful for analyzing and critiquing our own knowledge but it can never produce knowledge, and so never properly undermines revelation for believers in revelation. To allow logic to trump religion if you are a believer is an inappropriate application of logic.


Islam is not a logical way of life, it's a religious way of life. This is why the Prophet said that we keep to our way of life, as you keep to yours.

Kalam, is the rational or logical defence of Islam which does not on the whole interest many Muslims. From what I've said above, you would be right to say it doesn't interest me. Although I have been interested in logic. But it may be what you are looking for.

The notion of secular first arose in Europe during the disputes between various religious factions. Today, its another way of life for some although it has no book, so to speak. Moreover, its basically the civic religion of Europe. This virtue of toleration that you speak of does not come from nowhere and has a history.

As good Europeans we keep to their, or rather, our laws, as we are Europeans. And we also keep to our customs as the abiding by one's religion as a way of life, is one way to the good life, which Europe wisely approves of.


See my answer here. It's an in depth answer about having a rational approach in Islam.

About your assumptions:

truly reading/following the word of Muhammad No Muslim should assume such. There are a gazzilion disputes among Muslim scholars about many verses, many aspects of Prophet Muhammad's life or its application to today's world.

they don't criticize neither the source of the information or the information in itself

We do criticize, we should be critical of what comes to us. Read my linked answer.

why should we not tolerate each other exactly as we are

We shouldn't force them:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. https://quran.com/2/256

Let them have their religion—if they don't want to listen (don't force them, let them enjoy their own ignorance)

For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.https://quran.com/109/6

That shouldn't be the case

providing me with the logic behind your reasoning or simply denouncing logic in favor of religion.

A group of Muslims just follow leaders (good or bad, unintellectual or intellectual, pious or evil). I'm sure a group of atheist, Christians, Jews, Hindus just follow people. People are people. Muslims aren't from Mars or anywhere.

The other group that are intellectual, don't just follow they are critical

So basically to answer this part: The group who just follow, may just have leaders who evil, have an agenda or are simply very unintellectual, which I highly doubt. I mean what kind of a person would prefer violence?!

The other group who are intellectual denounce violence completely.

But why violence can be interpreted by mistake?

  • Because the prophet himself was attacked on numerous occasions. There were many assassination attempts against him. Why? Well imagine there was tyrant who has been killing people for years. Have control over all the economics. Suddenly a humble, loving leader rises and people find hope in following him. Well what does the tyrant do at this moment? He's going to bribe him at first. Then he's going to threaten. Then's he's going to attempt to assassinate him. If none of that works then he will go at war against him. If the tyrant can't take this loving person of the surface of earth, then he's doomed. All the people will go away from him and he will lose his position and wealth.

    Because of this turbulent time, there were harsh verses against these people. Some of them even wrote peace treaties with Prophet Muhammad then broke those treaties by killing some Muslims. Then a verse came and said, kill them where you find them.

    Imagine if America was having a war with N.Korea and then they wrote a peace treaty. Then a few days later N.Korea soldiers kill some Americans in S.Korea. They are basically peace breakers and never to be trusted again. But just as an example see what America did against the middle east after 9/11. They literally put the entire region in chaos.

  • Another reason was that in the early centuries after the death of the prophet, many Muslims were merely just followers of the prophet. They were only following Islam for their own benefit. Islam was in power and many people joined it. It's like a new revolution where there's a power shift. These followers brought fear to the Muslims.

    So 1. applying the verses of the prophet's situation to this time and era is a mistake 2. applying the wrongdoings of other Muslims is another mistake.

  • But really that's not the problem. The problem stems from their lack of collective understanding of the life of prophet.

    Did the prophet participate in wars? Yes in a defending manner. But more than anything he's known as a prophet of mercy. He pardoned and freed many of those who fought against him before in the Conquest of Medina. He took control of a city without any bloodshed from battle.

They forget that the prophet said: “I was sent to perfect honourable morals. انی بعثت لاتمم مکارم الاخلاق

and instead think that he has just came to bring everyone to Islam by force.

  • Thank you for the effort put into this answer. However, it is not satisfactory to the question posed. Again, I'm asking for the logical reasoning behind this. So far, nobody has produced any logically irrefutable proof that what they're preaching and what they've been told isn't just a load of bullshit with some positive but even worse negative side-effects. And no, people don't necessarily follow other people as you state in your answer. Especially not when it comes to my body or my life choices. Feb 18, 2017 at 10:21
  • 1
    "Did the prophet participate in wars? Yes in a defending manner." A defensive manner does not make you ruler over Arabia within 9 years, nor does it make your successors ruler over an empire stretching from China to Spain within 120 years after you. "let them enjoy their own ignorance" Quite offensive. The rest of the answer is apologism and irrelevant to the question.
    – G. Bach
    Mar 16, 2017 at 21:14
  • Prophet( pubh) became the ruler of Arabia within 9 years and he did not expand his ruling area in first 5-7 years of his ruling era!!! And he had no power to rule in 1st 12 years of his Prophethood!!! Just think more. You had better not to be concerned with Islamic expansion that happened fighting with militants and not with general innocent people.
    – GyL 209
    Aug 12, 2020 at 5:33
  • To answer G.Bach. "A defensive manner does not make you ruler over Arabia within 9 years" If you can only increase to your territory by war, then you're correct. But the premise needs evidence. People had rough times the years before. Mohammad came. Had answers to questions and needs. The rich didn't like it. They bribed him. It didn't work. They Muslims under financial stress. It didn't work. So they attacked him. That failed too. So they lost lands to those they were oppressing.
    – Thaqalain
    Aug 12, 2020 at 15:30

What you are missing is that Islam does not seek to fit into other people's way of life. It seems you assume that the prevalent way of life emanating from secular capitalism should be the norm. This is where your enquiry went south, sir.

"Islam is a deen which translates to a "way of life" or "lifeway", a "discursive tradition" intimately fused with power where Muslims are expected to socially and territorially embody Islam (dar al-Islam) - acknowledging, submitting, and serving Allah. Islam thus comprises an environment derived from the fusion of revelation with power, where every individual chooses their way of life and freely lives by it..." (Source)

Islamic beliefs, which are the creedal foundations of all the teachings that emanate from it, are proven with evidences. The most fundamental of them are rationally proven:

  1. Does God Exist
  2. What is the proof the Quran was revealed to Muhammad

In addition, Islam requires its own environment to manifest completely. Muslims follow the Deen not because they are bigots but are convinced of it. As for your logic of tolerance, that is nothing but a way of avoiding the truth of reality. Liberalism, or whatever is it you follow, claims that it accommodates all sorts of beliefs when in truth it does so only to those that do not pose threat to its shenanigans.


There are different forms of logic. Islam is quite logical with logic based on inductive reasoning, whereas may be illogical when using logic based on deductive reasoning. This was pointed out by Al-Ghazali over a millennia ago, and so he discouraged logic based on deductive reasoning.

"Inductive reasoning formulates a general principle or principles from detailed facts, or from the specific to the general, connecting these throughout by making inferences and predictions based on some kind of pattern or association" (Corzo 95)[3]. So, we have these observed facts that we are here in this world and that most likely all of this did not just happen per chance. Thus there must be a creator and sustainer. This creator and sustainer must be one and not plural since there would be chaos and disorder otherwise. Morality must be absolute, otherwise we have observed how moral relativism leads to conflict and social collapse. Every injustice must be corrected, every victim to injustice must eventually have their day in court, if not in this lifetime, then the next. Otherwise, we have to accept that evil and tyranny are justified, crime pays, the ends justify the means, etc.

"Opposite from inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning begins with a general statement or hypothesis and then goes on to deduce specifics." The premise general statement must be as sound as possible in order for the deduced arguments to be credible and valid (Corzo 98) [3]. This formulation of a hypothesis and subsequent conducting of experiments to collect results and data supporting the hypothesis encapsulates the scientific method.

While deductive reasoning and the scientific method may be acceptable for investigating the observable physical world, it is problematic when getting into metaphysical and religious-philosophical realms. A hypothesis is nothing but an educated guess and if unverifiable by data, a guess is what it remains.

Quran 6:116 - "And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying." وَ‌إِ‌نْ تُ‍‍طِ‍‍عْ ‌أَكْثَ‍رَ‌ مَ‍‌‍نْ فِي ‌الأَ‌رْ‍ضِ يُ‍‍ضِ‍‍لّ‍‍ُ‍وكَ عَ‍‌‍نْ سَب‍‍ِ‍ي‍‍لِ ‌اللَّ‍‍هِ ۚ ‌إِ‌نْ يَتَّبِع‍‍ُ‍ونَ ‌إِلاَّ‌ ‌ال‍‍‍ظَّ‍‍‍نَّ ‌وَ‌إِ‌نْ هُمْ ‌إِلاَّ‌ يَ‍‍خْ‍‍رُ‍صُ‍‍و

Al-Ghazali saw danger in the hypotheses made by certain "philosophers that suggested that God was not all-knowing or even non-existent" (Wikipedia).

Also, there are fallacies in your points when presenting your question. For example, your experience with the Muslim minority in Sweden cannot be generalized for a critique or conclusion about Islam. This fallacy is known as "Ad Hominem", focusing on a person or persons (some Swedish Muslims) instead of the subject (Islam).

[3]: Corzo, Aimee. Essential Skills for Composing Effectively 2nd Ed., Kendall Hunt, 2015

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .