เกรงใจทุกท่านมากและต้องขอโทษที่ทำให้กระทู้ดีๆ ตกไป
พอดี บทความเป็นภาษาอังกฤษ อยากทราบกล่าวโดยสรุปในบทความนี้
ขอบคุณมากๆๆๆ
Having surveyed the meaning of the philosophy through the eyes of its supporters a few words must now be said about the different forms of “opposition” to it, before turning to its role and function in Islam. It must, however, be remembered that “opposition” in the context of a traditional civilization is very different from the opposition of contending philosophical schools which have no principles in common. In Islam there has often been a tension between the various components and dimensions of the tradition but a tension that has been almost always creative and has never destroyed the unity of Islam and its civilization. With this reserve in mind it can be said that “opposition” to falsafah in Islam came mainly from three groups, but for different reaspns: The purely religious scholars dealing with fiqh and usul, the theologians (mutakallimun), especially of the Asy’arite school and certain of the Sufis.
Some of the scholars of religious sciences criticized falsafah simply because it stood outside of the domain of the syari’ah with which they were solely concerned. Some like Ibn Taymiyyah in Sunnism and Mulla Baqir Majlisi in Shi’ism wrote specifically against the falsafah and in the case of the former against logic, although he himself made use of logical discourse. Their opposition to falsafah is related to their mission to preserve the purely transmitted sciences on the exoteric level. Thus they refused to be concerned with either the intellectual sciences or the esoteric dimension of Islam which alone could integrate these sciences, and chief among them philosophy, into the Islamic perspective.
As for the theologians, the opposition of the Ash’arites to falsafah was of course much greater than that of the Mu’tazilites, while in the Shi’ite world, Isma’ill kalam was always close to Isma’ill philosophy and Shi’ite kalam became closely wed to falsafah with the Tajrid of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi. In fact later falsafah or al-hikmah al-ilahiyyah in Shi’ism itself claimed to fulfill the true role of theology and in reality contains much that in Western terms would be considered as theology. The well-known attack of (al-Ghazali) against falsafah was not simply a negative act of demolishing falsafah. First of all it attacked only Peripatetic philosophy and moreover the rationalistic tendencies within it. Secondly the criticism was of such a positive nature that it changed the direction of the flow of Islamic intellectual life rather than put an end to it. The background which made possible the spread of the sapiential teachings of Suhrawardi and Ibn ‘Arabi owes much to al-Ghazali, while the later revival of Peripatetic philosophy by al-Tusi is related closely to the criticism of Ibn Sina by another Ash’arite critic of falsafah, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi.
ขอความช่วยเหลือ
พอดี บทความเป็นภาษาอังกฤษ อยากทราบกล่าวโดยสรุปในบทความนี้
ขอบคุณมากๆๆๆ
Having surveyed the meaning of the philosophy through the eyes of its supporters a few words must now be said about the different forms of “opposition” to it, before turning to its role and function in Islam. It must, however, be remembered that “opposition” in the context of a traditional civilization is very different from the opposition of contending philosophical schools which have no principles in common. In Islam there has often been a tension between the various components and dimensions of the tradition but a tension that has been almost always creative and has never destroyed the unity of Islam and its civilization. With this reserve in mind it can be said that “opposition” to falsafah in Islam came mainly from three groups, but for different reaspns: The purely religious scholars dealing with fiqh and usul, the theologians (mutakallimun), especially of the Asy’arite school and certain of the Sufis.
Some of the scholars of religious sciences criticized falsafah simply because it stood outside of the domain of the syari’ah with which they were solely concerned. Some like Ibn Taymiyyah in Sunnism and Mulla Baqir Majlisi in Shi’ism wrote specifically against the falsafah and in the case of the former against logic, although he himself made use of logical discourse. Their opposition to falsafah is related to their mission to preserve the purely transmitted sciences on the exoteric level. Thus they refused to be concerned with either the intellectual sciences or the esoteric dimension of Islam which alone could integrate these sciences, and chief among them philosophy, into the Islamic perspective.
As for the theologians, the opposition of the Ash’arites to falsafah was of course much greater than that of the Mu’tazilites, while in the Shi’ite world, Isma’ill kalam was always close to Isma’ill philosophy and Shi’ite kalam became closely wed to falsafah with the Tajrid of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi. In fact later falsafah or al-hikmah al-ilahiyyah in Shi’ism itself claimed to fulfill the true role of theology and in reality contains much that in Western terms would be considered as theology. The well-known attack of (al-Ghazali) against falsafah was not simply a negative act of demolishing falsafah. First of all it attacked only Peripatetic philosophy and moreover the rationalistic tendencies within it. Secondly the criticism was of such a positive nature that it changed the direction of the flow of Islamic intellectual life rather than put an end to it. The background which made possible the spread of the sapiential teachings of Suhrawardi and Ibn ‘Arabi owes much to al-Ghazali, while the later revival of Peripatetic philosophy by al-Tusi is related closely to the criticism of Ibn Sina by another Ash’arite critic of falsafah, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi.