—the fourth—for it is indeed true that a syllogism consisting of two premises yields a conclusion.
However, Muslim thinkers, in their discussions of this Greek logic attributed to Aristotle, have shown that the syllogistic forms and content these logicians set out offer no benefit in attaining knowledge, despite the immense effort involved. Everything that can be known through their syllogism can be known without it. Their syllogism therefore imparts no knowledge of anything unknown that could not be known without it, and there is no need for something that can be dispensed with in acquiring knowledge. Thus, its presence or absence makes no difference to the attainment of knowledge. Moreover, it involves much exhausting prolixity. Besides contributing nothing to knowledge, it tires the mind, wastes time, and entails much nonsensical rambling. Yet the purpose of arguments and demonstrations is to elucidate knowledge and explain the paths leading to it.
They said: This does not yield the knowledge sought; rather, it may actually impede its attainment because of the considerable mental fatigue it entails. It is like someone wishing to travel to Mecca or another city. If he follows the familiar, direct road, he arrives in a short time with moderate effort. But if someone happens to lead him along roundabout routes—‘asf in Arabic means proceeding off the path, so that the guide leads him round in circles and takes him along paths that veer off course—he will suffer great fatigue before reaching the direct road, if he ever reaches it. Otherwise, he may arrive somewhere other than his intended destination, and thus come to hold false beliefs. He may also be unable to continue because of