scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Qurrotul Aini

Bio: Qurrotul Aini is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Philosophical methodology & Orthodoxy. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 6 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
28 Sep 2016
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss al-Gazālī's critiques in his Tahifut al-Falásifah against the Muslim and show that his critical thought should be viewed as his attempt as a Muslim scholar to accept and adapt Greek philosophical tradition into the framework of Islamic thought, instead of questioning the validity of logic on philosophical reasoning and methodology.
Abstract: This article discusses al-Gazālī’s critiques in his Tahāfut al-Falāsifah against the Muslim It answers two main questions: First, what is the purpose of al-Gazālī in writing Tahāfut al-Falāsifah? Second, is it true that this work represent the conflict between philosophy and dogma, between revelation and the ratio, or between orthodoxy and hetherodoxy? Content analysis and historical method are used to elucidate the criticism of al-Gazālī against the Muslim philosophers in Tahāfut al-Falāsifah This study shows that instead of questioning the validity of logic on philosophical reasoning and methodology, al-Gazālī wrote Tahāfut al-Falāsifah in order to contest epistemological philosophical superiority claims advanced by Muslim philosophers The critism of al-Gazālī cannot be seen as a reaction, or let alone rejection, of orthodoxy or dogma against the philosophy Rather, his critical thought should be viewed as his attempt as a Muslim scholar to accept and adapt Greek philosophical tradition into the framework of Islamic thought

6 citations


Cited by
More filters
01 Jan 2011
TL;DR: Al-Ghazālī as discussed by the authors did not choose to write his Tahāfut alFalásifa of his own accord, but was commissioned to do so by the Ottoman sultan Mehmed II (r. 893/1488) and when commissioned by the sultan, scholars normally obliged.
Abstract: Khojazāda (d. 893/1488) did not choose to write his Tahāfut alFalāsifa of his own accord. He was commissioned to do so by the Ottoman sultan Mehmed II (r. 848/1444-850/1446 and 855/1451886/1481), and when commissioned by the sultan, scholars normally obliged. Neither the theme, “the floundering of the philosophers”, nor al-Ghazālī’s four-centuries-old text, are starting points that the author himself would have elected for a book project. He was much more interested in refining the philosophico-theological system of later Ashʿarism set out in highly developed expositions in al-Iṣfahānī’s (d. 749/1348) Maṭāliʿ al-Anẓār, a commentary on al-Bayḍāwī’s (d. 716/1316) Ṭawāliʿ alAnwār, al-Jurjānī’s (d. 816/1413) commentary on al-Ījī’s (d. 756/1355) Mawāqif, and al-Taftāzānī’s (d. 793/1390) Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid, on the first two of which he wrote incomplete glosses. Anachronistic though it may be, the choice was perfectly consonant with what many patrons of scholarship were after: stimulating debates involving diametrically-opposed opponents, much like duels. Al-Ghazālī’s book was chosen, not because the contents were of outstanding philosophical interest for ninth/fifteenth-century thinkers – as we will see, the contrary appears to be the case – but because this work written by this highly respected figure had an almost legendary status. It originated from the dawn of neo-Ashʿarism, at a time when philosophers were still philosophers and kalām theologians still theologians. For once, a later Ashʿarī philosophertheologian had to abandon his hair-splitting niceties, so utterly boring and

2 citations