Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary defines polemics as an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another and apologetics as systematic

argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine). Put simply, polemics is attacking the views of others and apologetics is defending ones own. A person utterly convinced of a certain point of view is not likely to examine carefully the arguments presented for his convictions (the apologetics). In fact, should he start to do so, he is very likely to be viewed with suspicion by others who share his conviction. Similarly, if he decides to scrutinize the arguments presented in refutation of a rival point of view (the polemics), he is quite likely to be viewed as a traitor by those of his companions who do not appreciate critical thinking and are afraid of what they might discover should they start to scrutinize. I myself once criticized an argument that an acquaintance had put forth against Qadiyanis, with the result that my acquaintance paused and asked me why I was trying to defend them! I still try to carefully examine the arguments, both apologetics and polemics, of my belief system, but am much more selective about who I discuss them with. What happened to that acquaintance of mine happens to most of us, myself included. What we often dont realize is not all arguments presented in favor of the truth have to be correct, and not all premises advanced in favor of falsehood have to be false. People usually passionately defend all arguments that have the truth as their conclusion, and vehemently oppose all the premises that, when combined, lead to a false conclusion. Having been brought up in a traditional (read: non-Salafi) Sunni household and inspired by the orthodox (read: muqallid) ulama of the Indian subcontinent, I felt obliged to defend whatever arguments were put forth in favor of taqlid and in refutation of Salafis. It took me some time to realize that just as a math student may accidentally arrive at the right answer by using the wrong formula, so may a person arrive at the right conclusion using faulty premises. His argument (an argument is composed of premises and a conclusion) would be considered flawed, even though one part of the argument, namely the conclusion, would actually be true. This last sentence contains an important point: criticizing an argument doesnt necessarily entail holding the conclusion contained in it to be false. With that caveat, I shall examine one of the most popular arguments presented in favor of taqlid or, more precisely, taqlid shakhsi. We start by expressing the argument formally: 1. If a person does not do taqlid shakhsi he will pick and choose between different madhhabs on different masalahs (issues). 2. A person picks and chooses between different opinions on a masalah based either on the strength of the dalils or on which opinion is the easiest and most convenient. 3. A layman is not capable of evaluation of dalils. 4. Therefore, he will pick the easiest opinion on each masalah. 5. To do what is easy and convenient and to avoid inconvenience and hardship is to follow ones desires.

6. Following ones desires is impermissible. 7. Therefore, not doing taqlid shakhsi is impermissible for the layman. (the conclusion) To understand this argument we need to examine the statements or propositions contained in it one by one. A proposition is either the conclusion contained in the argument or a premise that supports the conclusion. Proposition 7, therefore, is the conclusion; the rest are premises. Although much can be said about the validity of some of the other premises, we shall focus on 6, which is by far the most interesting. Since we will not be examining premises 1-5 in detail, we shall compress them into one premise and leave premise 6 and the conclusion as they are: 1. Not doing taqlid shakhsi will lead the layman to follow his desires. 2. Following ones desires is impermissible. 3. Therefore, not doing taqlid shakhsi is impermissible for the layman. (the conclusion) I asked a friend of mine who, like me, was a proponent of taqlid shakhsi, the following question: what proof do you have that following ones desires is not permissible (premise 2)? He quoted the following ayah: Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him? (25:43) I asked him if it would be impermissible for me to have biryani today and karahi tomorrow since I would be following my desires if I did. He replied that following ones desires was only reprehensible when it was done in matters of religion. I then asked him if it would be impermissible for me to say my Zuhr prayers in Dar-ul-Uloom (the name of a madrasah) and my Asr prayers in Masjid Tayyibah, since I would thereby be following my desires in an matter of religion. Before he could reply I suggested he qualify the premise following ones desires is impermissible to following ones desires is impermissible when it results in an infraction of the Shariah. He assented to the modification, which resulted in: 1. Not doing taqlid shakhsi will lead the layman to follow his desires. 2. Following ones desires is impermissible when it results in an infraction of the Shariah. I pointed out that in order to keep the argument coherent, we would need to qualify the first premise as well. Hence: 1. Not doing taqlid shakhsi will lead the layman to follow his desires, and his following his desires will, in this case, result in an infraction of the Shariah. 2. Following ones desires is impermissible when it results in an infraction of the Shariah. 3. Therefore, not doing taqlid shakhsi is impermissible for the layman. (the conclusion) The only problem, as I pointed out to my friend, is that premise 1 is built on the conclusion, since to say something will result in an infraction of the Shariah is identical to calling it impermissible. In other words, premise 1 is actually equivalent to: 1. Not doing taqlid shakhsi will lead the layman to follow his desires, and his following his desires is, in this case, impermissible. (identical to the conclusion)

Now when a premise contains the very conclusion it is supposed to be supporting, theres something wrong. An argument in which the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises is called petitio principii (or for those who have studied logic in the Muslim tradition). Needless to say, petitio principii renders the argument invalid. Paraphrasing and the use of synonyms helps hide petitio principii. As one professor of logic put it:
.... seldom is anyone going to simply place the conclusion word-for-word into the premises .... Rather, an arguer might use phraseology that conceals the fact that the conclusion is masquerading as a premise. The conclusion is rephrased to look different and is then placed in the premises.

Another professor gave the following example:

Whatever is less dense than water will float, because whatever is less dense than water will float sounds stupid, but Whatever is less dense than water will float, because such objects won't sink in water might pass.

But careful examination and analysis uncovers petitio principii regardless of the verbal gymnastics employed. Little wonder that the salaf placed so much emphasis on mantiq (logic).