Unmasking Fallacy

This essay below is an analysis on debate sessions between Farouk A Peru (a quranist) and Anti-Jihadist (islamophobic) in Malaysia-Today. See related links at the bottom of this page for the debate.

Unmasking Logical Fallacy

By Uzumaki Naruto

It is imperative for a culturally and religiously heterogenic plural society as in Malaysian society to have an open platform that provides free flow of diverse ideas engaging in all kind of subject matters that affect its society. This would familiarize the society with diversity of ideas and thoughts and most importantly would put ideas in which may be deemed ‘taboo’ or ‘sensitive’ by a large part of the society to be discussed out in the open. With that, it would prepare the society with the competency in handling diverse ideas effectively. This is a crucial ingredient for a social foundation of a well informed society that respects diversity in the truest sense.

It is important to note that no matter how notoriously wild this virtual land of Malaysia-Today is considered by some; Malaysian in general is fortunate to have such facility carrying out this vital task.

Recent debate in Malaysia-Today between Farouk A Peru of Jidal Society and Anti-Jihadist of Pedestrian Infidel Team must have been an attention grabbing debate to some M-T readers. This is due to the fact that it deals with such sensitive subject matter as faith and belief system. In addition to that, it was put at the center stage of M-T’s letters section.

Without doubt, the debate has shown a remarkable display of passionate exchange of wits, wisdoms and ideas between both sides. Alternatively, some might see this whole debate as a showdown of the minds.

This article would try to probe the technical aspect of the debate and would try to highlight technical fallacy of arguments from a logical point of view. By doing so, it would maintain its position on a neutral ground with the objective to yield better understanding and neutral analysis on the said debate. With that in mind, hopefully it would come across as neutral and without any prejudice or bias towards a certain side.

Delivering arguments and Strategy.

Farouk A Peru exhibits a pretty straight forward style in presenting his ideas. It is safe to say that he follows intellectual trend in scriptural hermeneutics of understanding Islam through the Quran in a holistic (meaningful and realistic) manner. He argues well (from ‘quranist’ viewpoint) that the teachings of the Quran upholds freedom of conscience and does not clash with the concept of embracing diversity in today’s complex socio-culture.

Anti-Jihadist on the other hand exhibits an impressive display of attack strategy. His technique of delivering blunt crude lines of convincing arguments demonstrates his striking well polished assault skill. He is well prepared and loaded with readily available ammo of facts and information.

Although the debate initially started off from Anti-Jihadist response to Farouk’s essay on Lina Joy, it is funny to note that they are both standing on the same position as far as the issue is concerned. However it is interesting to point out that the spark that light-up this debate into a fiery spin comes from comment made by Anti-Jihadist in his attempt to dismiss the credibility of Farouk’s ideas. This is done through releasing his (Anti-Jihadist) massive firepower of blatant attack arguments.

Ad Hominem attack and Logical fallacy.

Anti-Jihadist makes an excellent valid point in his remark (3/06 The Anti-Jihadist responds to Mr. Farouk) to Farouk whereby he mentions;

“Usually, the accusations of being a ‘Nazi’ or ‘fascist’ follow almost immediately before or after we’re called ‘racists.’ It’s all part of the script when Muslims respond to any attacks on their beliefs. And here, Mr. Farouk does not disappoint. Ad hominem attacks do not an argument make. But what else can we expect from the self-appointed defenders of Islam?”

It is true that Ad Hominem attack is a fallacy in which its argument focuses on the person (opposing side) in defending or countering an idea. The possible motive for this attack mode is character assassination. This is done mainly with the objectives of convincing the audience to stop listening to the opposing arguments.

However, it may come as quite a huge surprise that while Anti-Jihadist acknowledges the fact that Ad Hominem attack is a fallacy; Anti-Jihadist himself employs Ad Hominem attack through out the debate. In actuality, there are many forms of Ad Hominem attack and Anti-Jihadist arguments specifically fall under the subtype - Circumstantial Ad Hominem.

Technically speaking, it is obvious that Anti-Jihadist himself dismisses his own attack argument since his attack is also Ad Hominem attack. Anti-Jihadist actually goes against his own statement. This is a clear proof that Anti-Jihadist action is self-contradictory. The fact of the matter is, his own statement, can be a decisive justification that his attacks throughout the debate are fallacious arguments.

This grand scale of naivety of self-contradicting act on Anti-Jihadist part is absurdly baffling that calls for serious question; is he aware of his self inflicting majestic blunder? Only he has the answer for that.

To get better understanding on Anti-Jihadist’s logical fallacy, let’s briefly go into details on this type of fallacy - Circumstantial Ad Hominem.

A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is a fallacy because it involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.) rather than on the assertions made. Essentially, it constitutes an attack on the bias of a person in trying to dismiss an argument by attacking an entire class of people. Another reason that this is fallacious is that person’s circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the assertion being made.

In this case the fallacy has the following form:

1. Person A makes assertion X.

2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.

3. Therefore X has no credibility or false.

Obviously, Anti-Jihadist’s circumstantial Ad Hominem attack is a fallacy. His attack arguments have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made by the opposing side (Farouk). Nevertheless, the idea that Anti-Jihadist applies the same attack that he himself admits its fallacy is hilariously absurd. To put it in simple words, in his debate with Farouk, he ignorantly shoots himself in the head with a double barrel shotgun.

Demo on circumstantial Ad Hominem.

In order to give a clear picture on this type of logical fallacy, this article would try to demonstrate Anti-Jihadist technique but from a different perspective. Please note that this is just a demo.

1. Have some famous hate quotes.

Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue. August 8, 1995

“When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed.”

James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Rondald Reagan. May 24, 1981.

“My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.”

Randall Terry: The News Sentinel, (Fort Wayne, Indiana), August 16, 1993.

“I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism.”

Gary North: The Myth of Pluralism (1989)

“The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.”

Anti-Jihadist: Malaysia-Today, 31/05/2007 02:18:30

“The arch oppressor of all humans everywhere is alive and well. It isn't some mythical being called Firaun. It's Islam.”

2. Put on some violent incidents into the picture;

a) Russia: Christian Extremists Attack Hindu Festival - About 200 people with icons and slogans have attacked the opening of Vedic culture festival in the South Russian resort of Anapa. The attackers carried slogans saying ‘Vedic Culture Is Hitlers Culture’ and ‘We Will Clean Anapa of Devil Kin’. Some of them turned over a book stall, trampled down a portrait of a Krishnaite saint, tore down festival posters.

b) On December 4th, 2000, Christians converts under the direction of Missionaries, desecrated an ashram (Hindu religious retreat) set up by murdered Hindu leader Shanti Kumar Tripura. . They desecrated Hindu idols and destroyed photos of the slain religious leader revered by both Hindu tribals and Bengalis. The Christian converts also raped two female devotees and brutally attacked two men who had come to the ashram for puja (religious rituals).

c) The Baptist Church of Tripura was initially set up by Missionaries from New Zealand in the 1940’s. Despite their efforts, even until 1980, only a few thousand people in Tripura had converted to Christianity. Realizing this, the Church used one of its most efficient and time-tested weapons of evangelization - creating racial and ethnic divide among the people. In the aftermath of one of the worst ethnic riots, engineered by the Church, the NLFT was born in 1989 -- but not without the midwife role of the Baptist Church. From its very inception, the NLFT has been advancing the cause of Christianity through armed compulsion. Every trace of indigenous culture and religion is being eliminated through violent means. Every resisting group is made to bleed its way to extinction.

3. Cut and Paste selected verses from holy book;

Deut 22: 23-24; “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones………….”

Deut 13: 6-9; “……………….you shall not yield to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him; but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.”

4. Finally, making up a conclusion with disparaging sweeping remarks to the believers of the belief-system, its holy book and the belief system.

What we have here in the conclusion is obviously a logical fallacy. In which adverse pre-select information in relation to the belief system as a whole is presented in an attempt of projecting unfavorable view. This pre-emptive smear tactic of ‘poisoning the well’ is also a subtype of Ad Hominem logical fallacy.

Only a narrow minded bigot would come to such absurd conclusion. However, it is important to note that, in a whole, this is a basic structure of an effective hate message.

Conclusions.

1. Religious extremists come in many colors. They are all similar but not the same. Inciting hate is a trademark of religious extremists.

2. Anti-Jihadist has the same stand with Farouk on Lina Joy’s issue. Rather than be supportive as simple as not putting down any comment, Anti-Jihadist goes all out inciting hate. There is no other reason for this except for pure hatred.

End of article.

Resource:

* S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin's, 1994)

* Alan Brinton, "The Ad Hominem" in Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, edited by Hans V. Hanson and Robert C. Pinto (Penn State Press, 1995)

* Frans H. Van Eemeren & Rob Grootendoorst, "Argumentum Ad Hominem: A Pragma-Dialectical Case in Point" in Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, edited by Hans V. Hanson & Robert C. Pinto (Penn State Press, 1995)

* Douglas N. Walton, Arguer's Position: A Pragmatic Study of Ad Hominem Attack, Criticism, Refutation, and Fallacy

* Hurley, Patrick (2000). A Concise Introduction to Logic, Seventh Edition. Wadsworth, a division of Thompson Learning, 125-128, 182. ISBN 0534520065.

Related links:

1. Farouk A Peru 30/05: Lina Joy - 'Save' one, lose a million.

2. Farouk A Peru 31/05: How Fascist anti-Islamists wants Islam to be the Barbaric Other

3. Anti-Jihadist 03/06: The Anti-Jihadist Responds to Mr. Farouk

4. Farouk A Peru: 04/06: How to respect your fellow Man'

5. Anti-Jihadist 05/06: Respect works both ways

6. Farouk A Peru 06/06: Don't go to butchers to learn veterinary medicine

7. Anti-Jihadist 07/06: When butchery masquerades as a religion

8. Farouk A Peru 07/06: The basic art of answering questions

9. Anti-Jihadist 10/06: Calling a Spade a Spade

This article can be viewed at Malaysia-Today



.