A Brief Comparative Study Of Ghamidi’S Tafsir “Al-Bayan” – Jahangir Hanif
The argument commits a logical fallacy by confusing possibility with necessity.The logical flaw is this: Just because two different methods CAN reach the same conclusions doesn’t mean they always WILL, or that one method adds no value.Here’s why this reasoning is flawed: Possibility vs. Consistency: The claim states that traditional exegesis and Ghamidi’s principles “can” reach the same conclusions – meaning it’s possible, not guaranteed. But inconsistent agreement doesn’t prove equivalence. False conclusion about value: Even if two methods sometimes agree, the second method could still add value through: 1) Greater consistency in application 2)Clearer methodology 3)Better handling of difficult cases 4)More systematic approach 5)Different insights on the same conclusions Ignored scenarios: The argument completely ignores cases where the two approaches might reach different conclusions. If Ghamidi’s principles sometimes lead to different (and potentially better) interpretations, that would clearly demonstrate their value. Analogy: This is like saying “Both a calculator and mental math can give the same answer to 2+2=4, therefore calculators add no value.” This ignores that calculators might be more reliable for complex problems, faster, or less prone to error. The logical structure should be: “If Ghamidi’s principles ALWAYS reach identical conclusions to traditional exegesis AND offer no methodological improvements, THEN they might add limited value.” But that’s not what the original claim demonstrates.