By definition, compound logical fallacies are built upon the foundations of simple logical fallacies, as historically documented in classical philosophical and formal logic texts. Over time, however, the study of logical fallacies (Logical Fallacies) evolved into a modern philosophical discipline within logic, consolidated as an independent topic under the broader domain of informal logic—a branch of contemporary philosophy that emerged around the 1970s. This development was spearheaded by Ralph Johnson and Anthony Blair, who established a dedicated journal titled Informal Logic[1]. Later, the rise of new media began generating ever-more complex compound fallacies layered upon one another.
The Origins of Logical Fallacies
This field, in its modern form, is derived from the arts of dialectics and classical formal logic, tailored to daily human interaction in the fast-paced world shaped by industrialization and the digitization of life.
Historically, logical fallacies were discussed individually in the writings of early Roman and Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, and later by Muslim logicians and scholars of legal theory, including al-Fārābī, Ibn Sīnā, al-Rāzī, al-Ṭūsī, Ibn Rushd, al-Ghazālī, among others. The tradition continued into European thought with philosophers such as John Locke, Richard Whately, Arthur Schopenhauer, John Stuart Mill, and Jeremy Bentham[2].
In Islamic theology (ʿilm al-kalām) and the science of legal theory (uṣūl al-fiqh), logical fallacies appear in different chapters and contexts—for example, in discussions of ʿilla (effective cause), its conditions, indications, conflicts, and more broadly in argumentation theory concerning evidence, its reliability, interpretation, and contradiction.
Illustrative examples include: begging the question, arguing from the disputed premise, circular reasoning, and invalid division—all of which are now independently addressed under contemporary terminologies that either match or approximate these classical forms[3].
Prominent Contemporary Logical Fallacies
1. Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
Example: “Jihad is no longer legitimate in our era because the United Nations criminalizes it.”
Or: “The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization because the Mufti said so.”
2. Appeal to Popularity (Argumentum ad Populum)
Example: “Most Qataris drink Karak tea; therefore, it must be the best drink in the world.”
Or: “Since most Qataris enjoy Karak, and you don’t, your Qatari identity must be questionable.”
But what if I prefer camel milk?
3. False Dichotomy (Invalid Division)
Known in classical Islamic jurisprudence as fasād al-taqseem (corrupt division) or qādiḥ al-taqseem (a fallacy undermining division)[4].
Example: “If you are not with the homeland, then you must be with the terrorists who oppose it.”
Let us first define the concept of homeland and patriotism, then re-examine the categorization.
4. Straw Man Fallacy
This fallacy occurs when one subtly distorts an opponent’s position into a weaker form or an unrelated objection, then attacks that version.
Example: An Islamist political supporter of authoritarianism says: “You call for freedom and democracy? Look at Western freedom—it’s atheism and moral degradation. Do you support sexual liberty?”
Or: Recasting democracy as merely “rule by the people instead of divine law.”
5. Red Herring Fallacy
Named after the old practice of training hunting dogs by distracting them with strong-smelling red herring.
This fallacy diverts attention from the central issue by raising an emotionally charged but irrelevant topic.
Example: “The Quartet countries during the Gulf crisis didn’t harm Qatar; they merely severed relations. You keep calling it a ‘siege’—it’s just a boycott. Is it a siege or a boycott? Answer me now.”
But what of the core issue—the harm inflicted upon Qatar and its people and the impact of the blockade? Even if we call it an “embrace,” the effects remain.
Dan Brown cleverly employed this fallacy in The Da Vinci Code, naming the misdirection figure “Bishop Aringarosa”—Italian for “red herring.”
6. Faulty Comparison Fallacy
Example: “If a different group had committed this crime, no one would have reacted.”
Or: “ISIS is an American creation. Why does it fight Arab regimes but not Israel?”
Or: “Iran and Zionists are two sides of the same coin. Why hasn’t Hezbollah liberated Palestine?”
Media’s Role in the Spread of Fallacies
Media, often called the “fourth estate,” shapes public awareness, molding or distorting it. While authoritarian regimes previously controlled media through direct suppression, today’s digital platforms have largely evaded such control. Yet an invisible form of influence persists—suggesting a coordinated or conspiratorial attempt to steer global media narratives across dominant platforms and key influencers.
Modern manipulation is no longer based on iron-fisted censorship. Instead, the dominant mainstream absorbs and dilutes dissenting voices under the guise of free speech.
New media thus becomes an invisible mechanism of mental conditioning.
As we saw earlier, appeal to authority is a classical fallacy. When a fallacious idea gains traction simply because it is validated by mainstream media, we are faced with a compound logical fallacy—error multiplied by repetition.
Selected Examples of Compound Logical Fallacies
In the era of new media, misinformation and fallacies proliferate with increasing complexity, like swarms of locusts. Directed propaganda (proactive information flooding) has become a stand-alone generator of compound fallacies. Consider the following examples:
1. Expanding the Definition of Pedophilia
Pedophilia—defined as sexual abuse of minors—is universally condemned. Yet the key question remains: Who is a minor?
Most contemporary legal systems use 18 as the threshold. However, Islamic law defines maturity by puberty, not age. Upon reaching puberty, the individual assumes full religious and legal responsibility, regardless of whether they are 18 or not.
This difference has fueled media-driven opposition to early marriage in Muslim societies, labeling it pedophilia.
Accusations have even targeted the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, who married ʿĀʾishah at six and consummated the marriage at nine[5].
Consequently, anyone defending the legitimacy of marrying a 13- or 14-year-old post-puberty girl is accused—especially by feminist and liberal rights activists—of being a deviant pedophile.
Why? Because the media has saturated public discourse with the vilification of pedophilia, conflating all cultural or legal variations under a single frame.
2. The Demagoguery of “Terrorism”
The “war on terror,” “counter-terrorism,” and efforts to avoid being labeled as “terrorist” have all been contaminated by media distortion.
Since the very concept of terrorism lacks a universally accepted definition, resistance movements such as Hamas are often labeled terrorist by default—despite their legitimate defensive actions.
This extends to Islamic appearances and speech: political Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood, revivalist movements, public moral advocacy, beards, or even religious sermons—are all framed as indicators of terrorism.
If a major power like the U.S. designates a group as “terrorist,” then platforms like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook algorithmically suppress content challenging that narrative—just as they did with dissenting COVID-19 information that contradicted WHO guidelines.
Such control suggests a deliberate conspiracy against political Islam in all its forms.
3. Women’s Employment
The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights introduced a secular rights framework. While largely beneficial, some provisions—particularly those advocating full gender equality—clash with Islamic teachings.
The 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) intensified this trend, framing employment as an unconditional right equal to the right to life.
However, a sound legal analysis requires deconstructing the phrase women’s work:
What kind of work? How long? Where? Is there a need for it?
And regarding the woman herself: What is her social status? Is her departure from home lawful? What are the conditions and boundaries?
To hastily accept the notion and promote it through media repetition is itself a compound logical fallacy.
Incidentally, my Master’s thesis was titled: The Impact of the Wife’s Employment on Her Legal Rights and Duties, where I analyzed this issue extensively.
Final Note on Compound Fallacies
Compound logical fallacies are too numerous to catalog. Readers are encouraged to identify others not listed here.
A notable example occurred in a televised debate on same-sex relations. After heated arguments, both guests were shown shaking hands and smiling. The caption read: “Yes, we disagree, but we remain friends.”
Such framing trivializes the gravity of the issue. Homosexuality is religiously, morally, and ethically condemned across many civilizations.
Portraying this debate as a matter of personal taste—as if the disagreement were over pasta with vegetables or chicken—represents a subtle compound fallacy promoted by media under the guise of tolerance and civility.
Footnotes
[1] ʿĀdil Muṣṭafā, Al-Mughālātāt al-Manṭiqiyyah, p. 12.
[2] Yūsuf Buṭrus Karam, Tārīkh al-Falsafah al-Ḥadīthah [The History of Modern Philosophy].
[3] Aḥmad Daʿdūsh, Al-Mughālātāt al-Manṭiqiyyah fī Wasāʾil al-Iʿlām, p. 10.
[4] Al-Namlah, Al-Muhadhdhab fī ʿIlm Uṣūl al-Fiqh al-Muqāran, vol. 5, p. 2207.
[5] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.
