بررسی وتحلیل مغالطات اهل ضلالت در قرآن کریم، در پرتو تفاسیر فریقین

Cognitive errors and logical fallacies are among the principal causes of error in belief and ethical conduct. Examining these errors in light of the verses of the Holy Qur’an can clarify the path toward rational decision-making and behavioral reform. Throughout history, exegetes from both the Shi‘i and Sunni traditions have adopted different approaches to analyzing the reactions and arguments of disbelievers, polytheists, and hypocrites in response to revelation. Drawing on authoritative exegetical sources from both traditions, as well as concepts from cognitive psychology and informal logic, this study adopts a comparative-exegetical approach to identify and classify these errors. It employs an analytical-inferential method, combining qualitative content analysis of the relevant verses with a comparison of the views of exegetes from the two schools. The findings indicate that, from a methodological perspective, Sunni exegetes have generally formulated and explained fallacious techniques by drawing on detailed historical evidence, whereas Shi‘i exegetes, particularly ʿAllāmah al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī, have sought to highlight the tactics employed by those who have gone astray through [an incomplete phrase in the Persian source]. Among the techniques examined, demagoguery intended to obstruct understanding occurs most frequently in Sunni commentaries. Fallacies such as reductionism, analogy with an act of the self, assigning primacy to tradition and wealth, insult, distortion, incomplete quotation, spurious correlation, erroneous interpretation, and appeals to emotion are among the principal strategies employed by opponents of revelation and have received attention in the commentaries of both traditions. A comparative analysis of the views of the two traditions not only provides a more comprehensive account of the structure of these fallacies but also highlights the Qur’an’s discursive capacity to critique intellectual deviations within the exegetical traditions. It further lays the groundwork for future interdisciplinary research connecting Qur’anic studies, cognitive sciences, and critical thinking.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Human reasoning is continually influenced by various cognitive, emotional, and social factors, which may at times hinder the accurate evaluation of evidence and the formation of rational judgments. Contemporary research in cognitive psychology has demonstrated that many false beliefs arise not from a lack of intelligence but from systematic distortions in information processing. Informal logic, moreover, has shown that many apparently persuasive arguments are, in fact, based on logical fallacies and flawed methods of reasoning. These issues now occupy an important place in contemporary studies of critical thinking, education, communication, and decision-making.
A careful examination of the verses of the Holy Qur’an reveals that this divine scripture addressed human cognitive and reasoning processes with remarkable depth centuries ago. Throughout the Qur’an, the divine prophets encounter opponents who, despite being presented with clear evidence, refuse to accept the truth and resort to logically and epistemologically flawed arguments to justify their positions. The Holy Qur’an not only reports these arguments but also critiques them, thereby exposing the mechanisms through which human thought and judgment become distorted. The Qur’an may therefore be regarded not only as a book of guidance but also as a valuable source for understanding the relationship among human cognition, reasoning, and behavior.
Literature Review and Research Methodology
Previous studies of Qur’anic argumentation have focused primarily on its theological and rhetorical dimensions or on the methods of argumentation employed in the Qur’an. Few studies have attempted to analyze these arguments in light of modern theories of informal logic and cognitive psychology. Furthermore, although Sunni and Shi‘i Qur’anic exegetes have identified the logical weaknesses in the arguments advanced by deniers when interpreting verses concerning the dialogues between the prophets and their opponents, relatively little research has systematically compared their views or examined them in relation to concepts such as logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and critical thinking. The present study therefore seeks to address this gap by adopting an interdisciplinary approach and revealing the epistemological potential of the Qur’an for analyzing human reasoning processes.
This study employs a descriptive-analytical method within a comparative framework. First, the verses reporting the arguments of disbelievers, polytheists, hypocrites, and other opponents of the prophets were collected and analyzed. The interpretations of prominent Sunni Qur’anic exegetes, including al-Ṭabarī, al-Zamakhsharī, and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, and those of Shi‘i exegetes, particularly ʿAllāmah al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī and Ayatollah Makārim Shīrāzī, were then examined and compared. In the next stage, the findings were evaluated in light of established classifications in informal logic and fundamental concepts in cognitive psychology to determine the extent to which Qur’anic analyses converge with contemporary theories of cognitive and reasoning errors. This methodology makes it possible to examine Qur’anic arguments not merely as historical accounts but as a transhistorical model for evaluating the soundness of reasoning and the integrity of epistemic conduct.
The originality of this study lies in its integration of three fields—Qur’anic studies, informal logic, and cognitive psychology—within a unified analytical framework. This interdisciplinary synthesis demonstrates that the Holy Qur’an not only presents doctrinal teachings but also provides enduring criteria for identifying deceptive arguments, cultivating intellectual responsibility, and strengthening evidence-based judgment. The findings of this study may therefore contribute not only to Qur’anic scholarship but also to the fields of critical-thinking education, the ethics of dialogue, communication, and discourse analysis.
Research Findings
An examination of the selected verses of the Holy Qur’an demonstrates that, rather than presenting logical, evidence-based arguments, the opponents of the divine prophets employed distinct and recurring patterns of fallacious reasoning. These fallacies were not merely rhetorical devices or historical phenomena; rather, they constituted cognitive strategies used to preserve prior beliefs, defend individual and social interests, and resist the transformative message of revelation. A comparative study of Shi‘i and Sunni Qur’anic exegeses further indicates that both exegetical traditions agree on the existence of these patterns of reasoning, although they emphasize different aspects when analyzing their causes and consequences.
The first category consists of fallacies based on distortion and the inversion of truth. This category includes reductionism, false causal explanations, incomplete quotation, textual distortion, and the arbitrary interpretation of verses. The Holy Qur’an repeatedly refers to individuals who remove the statements of the prophets from their original contexts or alter the meaning of revelation through erroneous interpretations. Shi‘i Qur’anic exegetes generally regard such conduct as evidence of deviation in epistemological foundations and disruption of cognitive processes, whereas Sunni exegetes often emphasize the historical, literary, and rhetorical dimensions of these distortions.
The second category comprises fallacies based on unsupported claims and the substitution of psychological influence for rational argumentation. This group includes poisoning the well, appeals to ignorance, shifting the burden of proof, appeals to false authority, emotional manipulation, intimidation and threats, wishful thinking, and argumentative traps. Rather than responding directly to the clear evidence presented by the prophets, their opponents relied on inherited traditions, social status, political power, or psychological pressure to persuade their audiences. The Holy Qur’an presents these methods as signs of logical weakness and an inability to offer sound proof, since persuasion in such cases rests not on evidence but on emotion, fear, prejudice, or apparent authority. Exegetes from both traditions identify these methods as major causes of intellectual deviation, although Shi‘i exegetes devote greater attention to their epistemological and psychological roots.
The third category consists of fallacies employed to prevent rational dialogue from taking place. The creation of ambiguity, diversion of the discussion, generation of mental confusion, interruption of logical communication, and disruption of the dialogical environment are among the principal examples in this category. In numerous instances, the Holy Qur’an reports that the opponents of the prophets prevented people from listening to the divine verses, created disturbances to obstruct the hearing of revelation, or diverted the discussion by raising irrelevant or mocking questions. Classical exegetes regarded such conduct as evidence that the opponents were unable to respond to the prophets’ clear arguments and therefore adopted strategies aimed at disrupting communication and dialogue rather than engaging in rational debate.
A comparative examination of the Qur’anic exegetes’ views demonstrates that, despite their methodological differences, both exegetical traditions agree on a fundamental principle: many instances of denial arise not from a lack of evidence but from disruptions in the processes of reasoning and judgment. In their view, factors such as arrogance, blind imitation, prejudice, attachment to worldly interests, and the dominance of emotion over reason create the conditions in which fallacies emerge. Under such circumstances, rather than adopting truth as the standard of judgment, individuals employ flawed arguments to preserve their prior beliefs and avoid accepting reality. Thus, logical fallacies in the Qur’an are not merely theoretical errors but also reflections of moral and cognitive disorders in human beings.
A comparison of these findings with contemporary theories of informal logic and cognitive psychology also reveals considerable conceptual convergence. Many of the patterns of reasoning condemned in the Qur’an correspond to concepts such as confirmation bias, authority bias, motivated reasoning, emotional reasoning, excessive simplification, and selective perception. This correspondence demonstrates that the Qur’anic analysis of the mechanisms of the human mind is not confined to the historical context of the period of revelation but can also explain many epistemological and communicative phenomena in the contemporary world. Accordingly, the Qur’an provides transhistorical criteria for distinguishing sound reasoning from intellectual deception and calls upon human beings to exercise evidence-based judgment, rational reflection, and ethical responsibility in the realm of thought.
Conclusion
The findings of this study demonstrate that, in recounting the dialogues between the prophets and their opponents, the Holy Qur’an does not confine itself to presenting doctrinal disagreements or reporting historical events. Rather, through a careful analysis of the methods of reasoning employed by deniers, it offers a comprehensive model for identifying logical errors and cognitive deviations. The comparative examination of Shi‘i and Sunni Qur’anic exegeses revealed that both exegetical traditions regard logical fallacies as among the principal means used by the opponents of revelation to resist the truth. Both traditions attribute these fallacies to such motives as prejudice, imitation, a sense of superiority, attachment to worldly interests, and the dominance of emotion over reason.
Nevertheless, clear differences between the approaches of the two exegetical schools also emerge. Sunni Qur’anic exegetes generally highlight the historical, literary, and rhetorical contexts of these arguments, whereas Shi‘i exegetes, particularly ʿAllāmah al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī, place greater emphasis on the epistemological foundations, cognitive processes, and psychological roots of these deviations. Taken together, these two approaches provide a more comprehensive account of the mechanisms through which human thought becomes distorted.
Furthermore, comparing the Qur’anic findings with developments in informal logic and cognitive psychology demonstrates that many of the fallacies discussed in the Qur’an correspond to established concepts such as confirmation bias, authority bias, motivated reasoning, emotional reasoning, selective perception, and cognitive simplification. This convergence reveals the considerable potential of Qur’anic epistemology for analyzing the intellectual and communicative issues of the contemporary world. It also demonstrates that Qur’anic teachings may be applied in such fields as critical-thinking education, media literacy, the ethics of dialogue, discourse analysis, and efforts to counter misinformation.
The Holy Qur’an is therefore not only a book of religious guidance but also a valuable source for explaining the principles of rational judgment, epistemic responsibility, and evidence-based dialogue. From this perspective, by integrating Qur’anic studies, comparative exegesis, informal logic, and cognitive psychology, the present study offers an interdisciplinary framework for a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of reasoning and intellectual deviation. It may also provide a foundation for future research in the fields of education, cognitive studies, and the philosophy of argumentation.
References
The Holy Qur’an

Beck, Aaron T. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders.
Ellis, Albert. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy.
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar. Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb (al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr).
Khandān, Ḥasan. Mughālaṭāt.
Makārim Shīrāzī, Nāṣir, et al. Tafsīr-i Nemūneh.
Muṭahharī, Murtaḍā. Majmūʿah-yi Āthār.
Pohl, Walter. Fallacies and Argumentation.
Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn. Al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr al-Qurʾan.
Zamakhsharī, Maḥmūd ibn ʿUmar. Al-Kashshāf ʿan Ḥaqāʾiq al-Tanzīl.