Search

This article analyzes two treatises written from philosophical and Sufi perspectives as interpretations of the Light Verse (ayat al-nür) (Q.24:35), namely Risala fi Ithbat al-Nubuwwat and Mishkat al-Anwar. They were authored by Ibn Sina (d.428/1037) and Abü Hamid al-Ghazali (d.505/1111) respectively, two exceptional authoritative scholarly figures of Islamic sciences with a very high representative power with their writings in diverse dimensions of philosophical and Sufi studies. The article examines the epistemological implications of the philosophical and Sufi ontological designs expressed in the treatises and compares their contents concerning the origin and beginning of existence and the relationship between God and all other beings. The article particularly concentrates on the interpretations regarding the following fundamental questions addressed in the treatises: What is the origin and reality of existence? What kind of ontological and epistemological relationships are there between different kinds of beings? Moreover, what kind of ontological and epistemological connections are there between God and man? Ibn Sina presents masterful examples of philosophical and religious symbolism in his treatise. The central intellectual theme of this work is the possibility and necessity of prophecy. He presents expositions on this subject-matter in his other works too, but we do not witness in his other books another example of him discussing the issue in full detail by focusing on a single qur'anic verse. The semantic horizons of his expressions in the treatise go far beyond the conventional peripatetic formulations centered on logic: he speaks of spiritual pleasures and happiness, worship, acts of worship, ascetic practices, and spiritual purification. Al-Ghazali also wrote an independent commentary on the Light Verse. His interpretations of the verse seem to be mostly following the Sufi tradition. However, as the article illustrates with multiple examples, al-Ghazali's statements closely resemble Ibn Sina's formulations in both the structure and arrangement of his explanations and their content. Therefore, the relationship between these two treatises appears to be one of complementarity, offering two interrelated perspectives rather than presenting opposing or contradictory ontological and epistemological theories. This study aims to make a modest contribution to the relevant academic studies in Islamic philosophy and Sufism by analyzing the philosophical and Sufi contexts and implications of the statements in these two treatises concerning the Light Verse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines Sami M. Najm’s claim that Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī’s (1058-1111) and Descartes’ (1596-1650) skeptical arguments are similar in the following respect: (1) the process of doubt that depends on the distrust of sense perception and reason, (2) the motivation to arrive at certainty, (3) the nature of doubt being methodological and philosophical at the same time, and (4) their solution to doubt. I argue that while Najm’s first and second claim are to the point, Najm’s third and fourth points are not correct. This is because while al-Ghazālī’s skepticism was philosophical, Descartes’s doubt was methodological. It is true that their solution to doubt depends on intuition, but the character of their intuition is different because for al-Ghazālī it is a divine intuition whereas for Descartes it has a mental character. Although Descartes as a theist might ground the intuition on God, this does not change its mental character.

This article examines the conceptions of divine revelation held by two prominent figures in Islamic thought, Ibn Sīnā and Al-Ghazālī, through a comparative lens within the context of metaphysical and epistemological processes. Ibn Sīnā views divine revelation as a metaphysical process occurring at the highest level of intellect. According to him, divine revelation is an abstract reflection of divine knowledge transmitted to the prophet's imaginative faculty through the Active Intellect. This process, explained within a philosophical framework, is grounded in the development of human intellectual capacity. In contrast, Ghazālī defines divine revelation as a mystical experience and considers it a divine encounter beyond the limits of human reason. For Ghazālī, divine revelation manifests as an expression of God's attribute of speech and occurs solely by divine will. Moreover, this experience cannot be fully comprehended by reason. Ghazālī's approach, imbued with Sufi depth, regards divine revelation as an integral part of spiritual growth. This article explores the fundamental similarities and differences between these two thinkers' understandings of divine revelation and metaphysics. By analyzing how Ibn Sīnā's reason-based approach intersects and diverges from Ghazālī's intuition and inspiration-based Sufi approach, this study provides an in-depth examination of how the concept of divine revelation has been shaped within Islamic theology and philosophy, highlighting the contributions of both thinkers to the discourse on divine revelation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of the Faculty of Divinity of Ankara University / Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Ankara Universitesi Ilahiyat Fakultesi Dergisi and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Throughout his correspondence and writings, Leibniz made a number of passing references to the religion of the Mohammadans (Islam) and to several Islamic commentators. Recent literature on these references has placed them in the context of Leibniz's political and historical interests that largely reflect his Eurocentric prejudices. The purpose of this paper is to extract a more detailed and systematic view of Leibniz's knowledge of and interest in the religion, through Leibniz's remarks on Islam in relation to Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and the Incarnation, through the commentary of Maimonides and the Christian Averroists, and through a (partly speculative) comparison of three types of theodicy. The paper concludes that while Leibniz knew very little about Islam's actual doctrines, and that he was subject to the prejudicial views of his time, he understood Islam, as he did Christianity, as largely in conformity with natural (rational) religion. At the same time, his interest in its specific doctrines was primarily instrumental, that is, as correctives to certain abusive practices and misunderstandings persisting within Christianity, which could then explain for him why Islam prevailed in the East. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medieval philosophy has often been stereotypically characterized as rigidly reliant on authority and lacking originality. However, the present research challenges this perception by unveiling the lively debates among medieval philosophers in the Islamic World regarding the autonomy of thought for both esteemed scholars and everyday individuals. Rather than passively accepting authoritative doctrines, these philosophers contemplated the extent to which independent reflection should play a role. Surprisingly, their reflections resonate in the contemporary world as we grapple with parallel questions about the balance between authority and individual inquiry in our society. The first part of the paper introduces a timeless challenge faced by medieval Islamic philosophers: the formation of beliefs. This predicament persists today – how much should we rely on authority without critical examination, and when should we subject our beliefs to scrutiny? The paper introduces an Islamic classical tradition followed by Muslim jurists, theologians, and philosophers: the nuanced distinction between Taqlid (following authority) and Ijtihad (independent reasoning) to address this. The perspective of Al-Ghazali, a prominent representative of this tradition, is thoroughly examined, highlighting its contributions and challenges. In its methodological approach, this paper rigorously analyzes primary and secondary sources relevant to Al-Ghazali’s views in Arabic and English. This comprehensive analysis aims to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the intricate interplay between authority and independent reasoning in the context of medieval Islamic philosophy.

Sufism and Zen share a number of theories and practices, including a concern with lived experience. This article analyses the basis of their teachings, namely, the idea of the self, in texts by two important figures in the respective traditions, Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn ("The Revival of the Religious Sciences") by Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111) for Sufism, and Shōbōgenzō 正法眼蔵 ("The Treasury of the True Dharma-Eye") by Dōgen 道元 (d. 1253) for Zen. Al-Ghazālī emphasises the necessity of disciplining the self (nafs) in order for the heart to remember God only, while Dōgen famously asserts the importance of learning and forgetting the self (jiko 自己) in the way of the Buddha. This study first examines al-Ghazālī's and Dōgen's views of the self, and then compares their teachings. The juxtaposition of the two masterpieces reveals striking similarities as well as fundamental differences at both doctrinal and practical levels. Despite these similarities, although al-Ghazālī and Dōgen have been contrasted with thinkers outside their own tradition, they have yet to be compared directly. Without denying the philosophical depth of the thought of the two authors, this study also highlights the importance of faith in both the Iḥyāʾ and Shōbōgenzō. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Philosophy, Culture & Political Science is the property of Al-Farabi Kazakh National University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this article, we suggest that one important if neglected way through which we can make sense of political theories is by understanding their philosophical position on death. Comparative political theory analysis has been made for this purpose, and the history of political thought is read backwards. Focus has been made on Islamism to interpret its position on death and, through this, to see how Islamism approaches political institutions and critiques a modern justice tradition. The utility of such comparative history of political thought is that it shows how death and justice interconnect in political thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study, investigation and analysis of the scholarly heritage produced in the history of Islamic thought has many difficulties in itself. Because in the past, writing and printing techniques were not as developed as they are today, and not all works were recorded by official authorities, which has caused doubts about the authenticity of some works today. Such doubts often prevent a correct understanding of the scholarly heritage and cause major distortions that can damage scholarly traditions. One of the scholars who has been subjected to such misunderstandings and the criticisms arising from them is al-Ghazālī, one of the cornerstones of the history of Islamic thought. Due to his influential position in Islamic thought, many ideas and works have been attributed to al-Ghazālī, sometimes by his opponents and sometimes by his followers, in an attempt to find a ground of legitimacy. The fact that al-Ghazālī has written in many different scientific fields and he has gone some intellectual changes facilitated the attribution of some ideas and works to him, although they did not belong to him. One of the works that is subject to the issues we mentioned is Ma‘ārij al-quds fī madārij ma‘rifat al-nafs, which is frequently used to determine al-Ghazālī's views in contemporary studies in the fields of kalām, Sufism, and philosophy. The fact that this work is frequently used by researchers in their studies shows that there is a general acceptance about its attribution to al-Ghazālī. However, with the exception of some parts of the work, its content and basic thought differ from the most fundamental views that al-Ghazālī defended in his other books, and even contain obvious contradictions to them. In addition, the negative interaction created by this work has caused al-Ghazālī to be subjected to many unfair criticisms and has caused dilemmas in the identification of his views. As far as I have been able to determine as a result of the literature review, there has not been a comprehensive study in Turkey, the Arab world and the Western world about the attribution of the work to al-Ghazālī. This has necessitated an independent study of the work in order to analyze the scholarly heritage properly. Since the historical data of the past periods was used to determine the work's belonging, due to the difficulties involved, I have focused on the the analysis of classical works, tabakat works and manuscripts and also the analysis of the opinions and references mentioned in the work. As a result of the examinations and analyses, many authors of classical Tabaqat works have been identified who have given al-Ghazālī's biography in their works. None of these works attributed Ma‘ārij al-quds to al-Ghazālī. As a matter of fact, there is no reference to alGhazālī's Ma‘ārij al-quds from his own works, nor is there any reference to any of his works from this work. Moreover, although there are many scholars in the postGhazālī period who criticized al-Ghazālī for his works, there is no reference to Ma‘ārij al-quds in these criticisms. In Ma‘ārij al-quds, there is a different style that we have not encountered in any of al-Ghazālī's works. In this work, there are pages of verbatim quotations without any scholarly critique. As is well known, al-Ghazālī took a stand against information that was not filtered and obtained only through imitation, and severely criticized those who had such a style. In Ma‘ārij al-quds, pages of verbatim quotations from the works of Ibn Sīnā (d. 428/1037), Imam al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111), and Rāghib al-Isfahānī (d. 502/1108) were identified. In order to better demonstrate that these quotations are verbatim, the quotations are given in comparison with the works from which the quotations are taken. In addition to all these, this work has been compared with the methodology and basic thought of al-Ghazālī’s works that are certain to belong to him, considering its content. As a result, based on the incompatibility of the content of the work with al-Ghazālī's basic thought and methodology and the presence of pages of quotations in the work, as well as other evidence obtained, it is concluded that this work does not belong to him. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ebū Ḥāmid el-Ġazālī’nin (ö. 505/1111) Tehāfutu’l-Felāsife adlı eserinin birinci meselesi âlemin ḳıdemi hakkındadır. Bu mesele, felāsifenin âlemin ḳadīm olduğunu savunduğu dört delil ve bu delillere dair münazaradan oluşmaktadır. Zaman delili olarak adlandırdığımız ikinci delilin hususiyeti âlemin kadîm olduğu sonucuna ulaşmak için zaman kavramından yola çıkılmış olmasıdır. Tehāfutu’l-Felāsife’de, bu delilin iki ayrı şekline yer verilmektedir. Zaman delilinin ikinci şeklinde, imkân ve zaman ilişkisi gündeme gelmekte, âlemin var olma imkânına dayanarak zamanın kadîm olduğu sonucuna varılmaktadır. El-Ġazālī tarafından felāsife ile bir münazara olarak kurgulanan bu tartışmada felāsife, ḥādis bir âlemden önce başka âlemlerin var olmasının imkânının âlemden önce zamanın varlığına yol açacağını iddia etmektedir. Buna karşı el-Ġazālī, bu imkânın varlığının zamanın varlığını gerektirmediğini ileri süren muhtemel itirazları ileri sürmektedir. Bu makalede, Tehāfutu’l-Felāsife’de zaman delilinin ikinci şekline yöneltilen eleştirilerin delilin sağlamlığı konusunda şüphe oluşturacak verileri sağladığı ve delilin âlemin kıdemini ispatlama konusunda yetersiz kaldığı neticesine ulaşılmaktadır.

Pentingnya menjelajahi pendekatan pendidikan nilai dalam filsafat Islam tergambar jelas dalam analisis kontribusi Imam Al-Ghazali dan Ibnu Sina. Penelitian ini menganalisis kontribusi dua tokoh besar filsafat Islam, yaitu Imam Al-Ghazali dan Ibnu Sina, dalam memperkaya konsep pendidikan nilai dalam Islam. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode studi literatur dengan mengkaji karya-karya utama kedua tokoh tersebut serta referensi terkait lainnya, dan dalam menganalisi data menggunakan pendekatan hermeneutik untuk menafsirkan teks-teks klasik dengan memperhatikan konteks historis dan filosofisnya. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Al-Ghazali menyoroti pendekatan spiritual dan tasawuf dalam pendidikan nilai, sementara Ibnu Sina lebih menekankan pendekatan rasional dan logika. Meskipun berbeda dalam pendekatan, keduanya tidak saling berseberangan, melainkan saling melengkapi. Al-Ghazali menawarkan dimensi spiritual dan nilai-nilai murni Islam, sementara Ibnu Sina menambahkan dimensi rasionalitas dan kecerdasan. Keduanya sepakat tentang pentingnya peran guru sebagai teladan moral dan spiritual. Implikasi penelitian ini menekankan perlunya memperkaya praktik pendidikan nilai dengan mengintegrasikan aspek spiritual dan nilai-nilai murni Islam yang dianjurkan oleh Al-Ghazali, serta mengadopsi konsep Ibnu Sina tentang pengembangan rasionalitas, keterampilan berpikir kritis, dan integrasi antara aspek intelektual dan spiritual. Dengan demikian, praktik pendidikan nilai berbasis Islam akan menjadi lebih holistik, menghasilkan generasi muda yang berkarakter, berakhlak mulia, dan seimbang secara intelektual, spiritual, dan moral. Saran untuk penelitian selanjutnya mencakup ekspansi literatur, penekanan pada konteks historis dan filosofis, eksplorasi implementasi konsep dalam pendidikan formal dan non-formal, serta adaptasi dalam berbagai konteks budaya dan penerapan teknologi. Hal ini akan memberikan wawasan lebih mendalam tentang kontribusi Al-Ghazali dan Ibnu Sina dalam pendidikan nilai Islam dan relevansinya dalam pendidikan modern.

The dialogue between Imam Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd is one of the most monumental stories in the study of Islamic philosophy, in which his criticism of Al-Ghazali is refuted by Ibn Rushd with his various arguments. The purpose of this article is to strengthen Imam Al-Ghazali's criticism of the philosophical eschatological paradigm. The research method used is descriptive qualitative. The results of this study indicate that (1) Imam Al-Ghazali sentenced the philosophers to be disbelievers who held this view of nature as eternality, God does not know the details, and the resurrection of the soul on the Day of Judgment. (2) However, this verdict was criticized by Ibn Rushd. That nature is eternal, because its existence coincides with the beginning of time. Then this knowledge of God has nothing to do with a detailed or global model of knowledge, because God is the substance that causes an object to exist. Then this religious text is metaphorical in nature, so it is not certain that it is the body that is resurrected. (3) It's just that, the majority of scholars' from Sunni circles support Imam Al-Ghazali's statement. They based it on religious texts QS. Al-Hadid verse 3 about the eternality of nature, QS Al-An'am verse 28 regarding the knowledge of God, and QS Al-Kahf verse 47 and Al-Anbiya '104 regarding the resurrection of the body.

Gazzâlî’nin âdetullah ve sünnetullah kavramlarına yüklediği anlamlar ve Tehâfütü’l-felâsife adlı eserinde nedensellik konusunda söyledikleri ile İhyâ ve diğer bazı kitaplarındaki ifadeleri arasında çelişki olduğu izlenimi uyanmaktadır. Makalede öncelikle âdetullah ve sünnetullah kavramlarının anlamları izah edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Gazzâlî’den önceki dönemlerde yaşamış kelâm ve tefsir âlimlerinin bu kavramlara yüklediği manalar araştırılmıştır. Sünnetullah kavramının Kur’ân’daki anlamları kısaca ele alınmıştır. Daha sonra Gazzâlî’nin eserlerinde âdetullah ve sünnetullah kavramlarına yüklediği anlamlar gruplandırılarak tahlil edilmiştir. Sebep ile sonuç arasındaki ilişki ile mutlak nedensellik ve sünnetullahın değişmezliği konusundaki düşünceleri aktarılmıştır. Gazzâlî’nin nedensellik konusundaki fikirleri hakkında yapılan çalışmalar incelenmiş ve bu çalışmaların onun Tehâfütü’l-felâsife’de söyledikleri üzerinde yoğunlaştığı, İhyâ’daki ifadelerine nadiren değindiği görülmüştür. Bu nedenle bu araştırmada yazarın bütün eserleri dikkate alınmıştır. Gazzâlî’nin, filozoflarla girdiği tartışmanın odağında bulunan mucize konusundaki düşünceleri aktarılmıştır. Yapılan çalışma sonucunda “sünnetullah” tabirinin Kur’ân’da sosyal yasalar ile fıtrat kanunlarını ifade etmek üzere zikredildiği anlaşılmıştır. Taberî, Tirmizî, Mâtürîdî, Bâkillânî ve Cüveynî gibi Gazzâlî’den önceki bazı âlimlerin de âdetullah ve sünnetullah tabirlerini tabiat kanunları ile sosyal yasalar manasında kullandıkları görülmüştür. Gazzâlî’nin ise eserlerinde âdetullah ve sünnetullah kavramları arasına fark gözetmeden fizik ve tabiat kanunları ile insanın fıtratı ve toplum düzeniyle ilgili kanunlar manasında kullandığı tespit edilmiştir. Onun sebep ile sonuç arasında bir ilişki olduğunu kabul ettiği ancak filozofların aksine belli sebeplerin belli sonuçları doğurmasını zorunlu görmediği anlaşılmıştır. Bunun yanında sonuçların sebepsiz ortaya çıkamayacağını, insanların bunlara uygun davranması ve rızık araması gerektiğini, yasalara aykırı davranışın tevekkül sayılamayacağını savunduğu belirlenmiştir.

Copyright of Anales del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofía is the property of Universidad Complutense de Madrid and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

All religions should develop convincing responses to emerging bioethical problems stemming from medical and technological advancements. Additionally, believers need to know their faiths' interpretations of bioethical issues to be able to make medical decisions in line with their religious values. Therefore, Islamic bioethics should provide Muslims with conclusive and credible answers regarding newly rising problems in health care by revisiting the religious norms and decrees. However, the diversity in the Islamic denominations, the traditionalist aspect of the Sunni jurisprudence demanding strict compliance with the scriptural texts, the lack of unanimously accepted authority, and the limited number of academic works in Islamic bioethics (at least in English) complicate exploring new standards or rules for new ethical matters. In this view, the present paper aims to delineate two primary Islamic theological schools and propose al-Ghazali's maslaha as a general framework to analyze bioethical issues in the Sunni tradition. Maslaha allows exercising discretion in light of the protection of five fundamental values: religion, life, reason, lineage, and property. Maslaha has the potential to enable Sunni Muslims to appraise contemporary ethical questions, concerns, and dilemmas through an Islamic view and make more autonomous decisions by having religious guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses five historical missives written by the great theologian Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī to three Seljuq viziers, and datable to the years 490/1097 to 504/1110 f. The first four of these letters form a progressive series complaining of governmental corruption in Ṭūs during the Seljuq civil war around the turn of the sixth/twelfth century, and thus provide the sole extant eyewitness testimony from Khurāsān during the last five years of the Seljuq civil war period. They also reveal al-Ghazālī's vision of just rule far more concretely than do al-Ghazālī's numerous theoretical writings on the subject. The fifth letter, written after the civil war had ended, explores the problem of intra-Sunni madhhab-based religious partisanship (taʿaṣṣub), and also incidentally reveals important biographical information about al-Ghazālī. All five of these letters constitute unique eyewitness testimony to some of the major political and social problems of the Seljuq period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Eskiyeni is the property of Anadolu Ilahiyat Akademisi and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

AbstractExamining the opinions of Al-Ghazali and Mullā Sadrā on the issue of individual unity of existence shows that despite the differences in their foundations, they agree on the results. Mullā Sadrā has referred to Al-Ghazali's views on this issue in various positions of his works and has considered Al-Ghazali's viewpoint as supporting the combination of rational and religious methods in this subject. In his analysis, Mullā Sadrā has referred to Al-Ghazali's views in several stages, including: 1. Multiplicity of contingents, according to which believing in the individual unity of existence does not imply denying the existence of contingents; 2. The real existence of God and the metaphorical existence of contingents, according to which the existence of God Almighty and His Face is the only real existence and, others enjoy a metaphorical existence. The main question is, 'What uses did Mullā Sadrā make of Al-Ghazali's opinions on the issue of individual unity of existence and what results did he achieve by referring to them?' This article has benefited from the rational and, where needed, scriptural method and has referred to the verses of the Quran. Based on his philosophical foundations and using Al-Ghazali's ideas in this matter, Mullā Sadrā has solved some philosophical and theological problems such as: 'proving knowledge for all beings', 'explaining the way of the righteous' and 'the relation between particular monotheism and the servants' free will'; However, he considered the main purpose of these references to be the compatibility of reason and religion. As a result, the two thinkers' intellectual discourses show close affinities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the author examines the role of moral philosophy and its significance within the philosophical-theological thought of Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali (Arabic: الغزالي محمد بن محمد حامد أبو). Al-Ghazali is regarded as one of the most important figures in the Muslim intellectual tradition, leaving behind a rich body of work. The author demonstrates how ethics plays a central role in Al-Ghazali's philosophy, which evolves into a synthesis of philosophical-theological thought and, in his later years, mystically oriented thinking. Through works such as Ihya Ulum al-Din, Tahafut al-Falasifa, and Al-Munqidh min al-Dalal, Al-Ghazali integrates Sufism with Sharia law, critiques Peripatetic philosophy, and describes his spiritual journey. Al-Ghazali's interpretation of moral issues will have a significant influence on the development of later philosophical-theological thought in Islam, laying the groundwork for the harmonization of Sufism with orthodox Islam and influencing Muslim and European intellectual currents.

يعتبر منهج الشك من أبرز مباحث الفلسفة بمختلف نواحيه، وكما يمكن له أن يكون عملية عشوائية أقرب للسفسطة، فهو قادر على أن يكون عملية منظمة يقوم بها الفرد أملاً في الوصول لمعرفة صحيحة خالية من الشبهة والريب. ويعد الشك المنهجي الذي ينافي الشك المطلق مبحثًا لا غنى لأي مفكر عن معرفته واستعماله للوصول للحقيقة وإدراك اليقين. وإن كان الشك بمعناه العام مذموماً وغير مجدياً في الفلسفة والفكر، ولا يؤدي لمعرفة مفيدة حقيقية، إلا أن نموذج الشك القائم على المنهجية قد شكل المثال الأبرز للأداة المحَّاصة للمعارف والسالكة سبيل الوصول للحقيقة، وتتجلى هذا المنهجية في مضمون الكثير من العلوم والمعارف التي وصل إليها العلماء والفلاسفة. وفي هذا البحث سنتطرق باختصار لمفهوم الشك وأوجهه في الفلسفة، كما سنركز الحديث على الشك المنهجي الذي هو في واقع الأمر رفض وصدّ لأنواع الشك الأخرى. وأملا في فهم هذا المنهج سنتعرف على الإمام أبي حامد الغزالي الذي يعد أحد أهم علماء الحضارة الإسلامية وفلاسفتها في القرن العاشر الميلادي. ويحوز الغزالي مكانة كبيرة في مختلف العلوم والبيئات لما قدمه من تراث ثري في شتى العلوم من الفلسفة والمنطق والتصوف والفقه الإسلامي وغيرها. ويعتبر العالم والفيلسوف المسلم الغزالي من أبرز من تبنى المنهج الشكي ومضى على منواله، إذ نرى تجليات ذلك في كتابه "المنقذ من الضلال" الذي لخص فيه تجربته مع الشك ورحلة معاناته بين المعارف والمسالك راجياً الحقيقة الصحيحة والطريق المستقيم. وبعد خمسة قرون تقريبًا من وفاة الغزالي برز هذا المنهج من جديد على يد الفيلسوف الفرنسي رينيه ديكارت، أحد أعلام الفلسفة الفرنسية وروادها، والذي كان له أيضاً حضور في العلوم الرياضية والطبيعية والطب. وقد تبنى ديكارت هذا المنهج في ظل النهضة الفكرية الأوروبية، في خضم انتشار الشك المطلق لدى الكثيرين من أقرانه. ويتراءى لنا استعمال ديكارت لمنهج الشك المنهجي من خلال كتابه "مقال عن المنهاج" الذي يشبه في أسلوبه وتناوله لهذا الموضوع كتاب المنقذ للغزالي. ويأتي هذا البحث كي يحدد معالم الشك المنهجي لدى كلاً من الغزالي وديكارت، ويتفحص طريقتهما في التعامل مع المعارف وصولاً للحقيقة، كما يتناول موقفهما وآرائهما من المعارف التقليدية والعقلية والحسية، بالإضافة للقواعد المعرفية التي جعلوها الوسيلة الأمثل للوصول للمعرفة الحقيقة. ونعتمد في ذلك على مطالعة كتابيهما المنقذ والمقال وتحليلهما، مستفيدين من تجربتهما ورحلتهما المعرفية في تحديد معالم الشك المنهجي وتطبيقاته لديهما. وفي نهاية ورقتنا نشير إلى إمكانية تأثر ديكارت بالغزالي في هذا السياق، كما نتطرق لأوجه الشبه بين آرائهما.

The emergence of Islamic orthodoxy and philosophy created contestation between the two. The figure who directly confronted Muslim philosophers was Al-Ghazali. He criticized Muslim critics on several issues. Next, Ibnu Rushd appeared to answer Al-Ghazali criticism. Contestation between the two occurred in the 11th-12th century AD, but the discourse of both ideas is still widely studied today. This article analyzes the contestation of Islamic orthodoxy and philosophy in the 11th-12th centuries AD. The method used is qualitative with the type of library research. The research source comes from the works of Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd and was analyzed using descriptive analysis. This research shows that the contestation between orthodoxy and philosophy has been going on for a long time. As an orthodox person, Al-Ghazali tried to criticize philosophers through several issues related to philosophers' views, such as the eternity of nature, the knowledge of God, and physical resurrection, which Ibnu Rushd then answered as a philosopher. The contest between the two has experienced a long history of debate and debate. It is also necessary to understand these differences because both are an integral part of Islamic intellectual history. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages, giving rise to dialogue and discussions relevant to the contemporary Islamic era. It should also be noted that both have a role in completing the understanding of Islam.

Cilacap Regency, Central Java, has experienced a significant increase in divorce cases and is ranked the highest in the region. In response to this trend, the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Cilacap launched a marriage certification program to counteract the spike in divorce rates. Using a qualitative research design, this study used primary data from interviews and secondary data from an information review involving KUA officers and certification counselors in Cilacap Regency. Data validation used the triangulation method, and analysis interpreted the information thematically through al-Ghazālī maṣlaḥah theory. This study aims to examine the application of al-Ghazālī maṣlaḥah theory in the implementation of the marriage certification program in Cilacap Regency. The findings of this study highlight the program’s alignment with al-Ghazālī maṣlaḥah theory, categorizing it as maṣlaḥah ḍarūriyyah (primary), which requires an immediate implementation to uphold the objectives of Sharia: safeguarding religion, mind, soul, property, and offspring.

Abraham Ibn Daud is known as the philosopher who in his Ha-Emunah ha-Ramah (written originally in Arabic c. 1160) transplanted the Aristotelianism of the Muslim falāsifah al-Farabi and Avicenna to Jewish soil. Some 250 years later, Ḥasdai Crescas subjected this system to a severe criticism in his Or Ha-Shem (c. 1410). In his introduction Crescas classifies Ibn Daud as an Aristotelian philosopher but does not refer to him any further. Drawing on previous research by other scholars the paper examines the question to what extent Ibn Daud’s work was relevant for Crescas. Exact literary parallels that point to a unique influence of Ibn Daud on Crescas regarding philosophical doctrines are hard to uncover because Ibn Daud’s philosophical sources are the same as Crescas’s. Moreover, Ibn Daud’s thought displays many similarities to that of Maimonides and also to Gersonides whose views Crescas criticizes. The area of Biblical exegesis yields more results: Crescas can be shown to have drawn on Ibn Daud’s use of certain Biblical verses. Ibn Daud’s interpretation of Psalm 139 in relation to the key problem of God’s knowledge as well as his use of the light metaphor is likely to have inspired Crescas to ponder the question of the relation between philosophy and religion.

Asnaf Faqir refers to a group of indigent people who have no source of income, possess neither property or material of their own, and they earn less than 50 percent of their own and their dependents’ basic necessities in life. This study was conducted to identify the indicators that can be used to steadily empower destitute people based on Imam Al-Ghazali’s thoughts and views. The subsequent findings produced a basic framework for the formation of Asnaf Faqir’s career path, based on the concept of spirituality. This qualitative study used library methods for the data collection. The data for this study were collected through various documents and manuscripts, including the Holy Quran, Books of Hadith, Al-Ghazali’s works, journal articles, and others. The data for this study were analyzed deductively and inductively to extract basic spiritual principles related to career paths, as suggested by Al-Ghazali. This study shows that the elements of al-Ruh, al-Insan, al-‘Aql, al-Qalb and al-Jasad of humans are important in shaping the career path of Asnaf Faqir. These five elements were found to be critical factors in fulfilling the planning, exploration, gathering of information, and determination of the career path of Asnaf Faqir as entrepreneurs or skilled workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conversations regarding fate are not a recent development, they have been deliberated upon since the era of Prophet Muḥammad PBUH. However, the philosophy of fate in today’s world has been mixed with the secular and liberalshaped values and ideas that are the challenge of thought born of Western civilization. The understanding of the concept of destiny has been influenced by various ideologies of thought and culture, especially from Western philosophy. One of them is the philosophy of fatalism which talks about the fate and destiny of the individual. The understanding of destiny for Muslims is crucial since it is a component related to the Islamic Creed (Aqidah) and part of the pillars of faith. Therefore, this article’s objective is to identify the distinctions between the fatalism and destiny ideologies by Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Ghazālī (w. 505 H). This article uses a qualitative design by analyzing the content of al-Qur’ān thematically based on themes, as well as documents and writings of Western studies. However, the results of the study showed that the Qur’ān documents the debate surrounding the ideology of fatalism and that there are distinctions between fatalism’s ideology and Islam’s view of destiny. This article’s implication is to present a thorough comprehension of both philosophies to prevent misconceptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Al-Ghazālī's engagement with scepticism in the Deliverance from Error has received much attention in recent literature, often in the context of comparing him with Descartes. However, there is one curious text that has gone largely unnoticed by commentators. In his account of how he overcame scepticism vis-à-vis a divine light cast unto his heart, al-Ghazālī makes a cryptic claim that suggests that primary truths are inherent to the mind, and that said cognitive status of primary truths is related to his overcoming of scepticism. Although this one text does not straightforwardly prove that al-Ghazālī is a nativist, I argue that there are other texts that plausibly reveal his nativism. As such, I argue that al-Ghazālī can be read as a nativist, and I reconstruct a way in which his nativism helps explain how he overcomes scepticism. In doing so, I defend the (standard) strong divine interventionist reading of al-Ghazālī's response to scepticism, against Hadisi's recent weak divine interventionist reading. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The encounter of the medieval Muslims with Greek philosophy undeniably shaped the course of their philosophical and theological thought. This encounter led to the complex and contentious issue of 'philosophy versus theology'. Medieval Muslim thinkers needed to develop a response to the issue of philosophy versus theology. The present article will first highlight the response of the Islamic theologians to their encounter with Greek philosophy in the form of three major trends in medieval Islamic theology: (1) strong opposition to the application of reason and rationalist approach to Islamic doctrines, and strict adherence to the actual text of the Qur'an and the Hadith, (2) the adoption of Greek philosophy, and the application of reason and rationalist approach to explain and defend Islamic religion and (3) acknowledging the significance of reason in exploring the matters related to the natural world but, at the same time, stressing the subordination of reason to revelation. This article will discuss Atharism, Muʿtazilism and Ashʿarism as the representatives of the first, second and third trends, respectively. The response of the medieval Islamic theologians to the issue of philosophy versus theology serves as a context in which medieval Muslim philosophers carried out their philosophy–theology debate. The article will proceed to show that some medieval Muslim philosophers, such as Abu Bakr Al-Razi, subordinated religion or revelation to philosophy or reason. Other medieval Muslim philosophers, such as Al-Ghazali, subordinated philosophy to theology. The third group of medieval Islamic philosophers represented by Alfarabi argued for the reconciliation and harmonious co-existence of philosophy and religion. Contribution: This article highlights the response of medieval Islamic theologians and philosophers to the issue of philosophy versus theology that was caused by their encounter with Greek philosophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the first installment in a three‐part series on the Qurʾān and science, this article begins with the author's personal and scholarly experiences to demonstrate the importance of the twin trends of Qurʾānic scientific interpretation and Qurʾānic scientific miraculousness, including how both serve as Muslims theological tools. It then touches upon the close relationship between theology and scientific knowledge in the history of Islam. The main focus concerns how science is situated and defined in Islamic literature, with particular references to traditional Muslim commentaries and treatises. It also concerns the way Muslim exegetical figures and traditionalists are encouraged or discouraged from taking science into account based on the Qurʾān and prophetic traditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hadith methodologists have not dealt with the issue of al-akhbar al-mutavatira in depth because it contains certain information. On the other hand, scholars of fiqh methodology have discussed the issue of al-akhbar al-mutavatira in all its scientific details. The reason why hadith scholars do not give enough space to this issue is because they do not see the subject of mutawatir as a subject of hadith methodology. However, the fact that scholars of fiqh methodology, whose aim was to obtain rules from evidence, focused on the epistemological value of logy works. In this sense, among the scholars who gave by these scholars, who were among the famous methodology of fiqh scholars of the period, became important sources for the studies of later scholars. As a matter of fact, the work called al-Mabsût, one of the most famous al-akhbar al-mutavatira in detail from the early period, caused the methodology of hadith scholars of the later period to partially focus on this issue in their methodoextensive and important discussions on the knowledge and practical value of mutawatir hadith are the Hanafi methodologist Sarakhsî (d. 483/1090 [?]) and the Shafi'i methodologist Ghazâlî (d. 505/1111). The works written works in Hanafi furû fiqh, was written by Sarakhsî. Ghazali, a Shafi'i methodologist, was able to influence many scholars with his views by being an Ash'arite theologian and writing important works in the field of fiqh methodology. In this study, the approaches of Hanafi and Shafi'i scholars of fiqh methodology towards al-akhbar al-mutavatira will be discussed comparatively on the axis of Sarakhsi and Ghazali. The reason why these two scholars were chosen is based on their reputation both within their own sect and among other scholars in general. Although there are some differences between these scholars' approaches to al-akhbar al-mutavatira, it has been determined that sectarian motives are not effective in these scholars' evaluations of the subject, on the contrary, their understanding of news is very similar to each other, and they benefit from the same arguments when discussing the issues. Based on this, it can be said that the approaches of the important representatives of the two Sunni sects towards mutawatir news are largely the same and are fed by the same sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ethical management is a crucial component of any organisation. While Western scholars have extensively explored the theory of ethical management in organisations, there have been limited contributions from Islamic scholars, serving as a major guideline. This article aims to shed light on al-Ghazali’s perspective on organisational management theory. According to al Ghazali, ethical management within an organisation entails a fundamental principle: placing the concept of Tawhid at the forefront. This means ensuring that the organisation's actions and decisions are aligned with the unity and oneness of God. Next, the organisation should focus on implementing the four main aspects of management: planning (al-Takhtit), organisation (al-Tanzim), supervision (al-Wiqayah) and leadership (al-Qiyadah). Incorporating these practices can significantly impact the overall culture of the organisation, promoting an ethical and harmonious environment by making religion as the foundation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Atebe is the property of Social Sciences University of Ankara and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Eş‘arî kelâm tarihinde bilinen yaygın dönemlendirme İbn Haldûn’un Gazzâlî üzerinden yaptığı mütekaddim ve müteahhir kelâmcılar ayırımıdır. Kimileri bunu yapay ve gerçeği yansıtmayan bir dönemlendirme olarak değerlendirse de biz bunun böyle olduğunu düşünmüyoruz. Bu dönemleri tam olarak birbirinden ayıran şeylerin neler olduğu, yeni dönemde ne türden büyük farklılıklar ve değişikliklerin yaşandığı bilinmeden dönemlendirmenin mantığını ve gereğini anlamak ve anlamlandırmak pek mümkün görünmüyor. İki dönemin kelâm faaliyetini ayrıştıran en önemli faktör kuşkusuz ikinci döneme damgasını vuran felsefedir. Felsefenin müteahhir dönem üzerinde çok ciddi etkilerinin olduğu muhakkaktır. Müteahhir dönem Eş‘arî kelâmcıların felsefeyle kurduğu doğrudan ilişki kelâmda yaşanan pek çok değişikliğe kaynaklık etmiştir. Bu değişiklikler kelâmda yöntem anlayışından tanım teorisine, delil kullanımından doğa, akıl ve nefis teorilerine, en önemlisi de fâil-i muhtar Tanrı tasavvurundan imkan-vücup metafiziğine, cevher-arazdan metafiziğin başat konusu umûr-i âmmeye kadar pek çok alanda kendini göstermiştir. En nihayet Gazzâlî ile başlayan ve Fahreddin er-Râzî ile tekâmül eden süreçte yaşanan değişiklikler kelâmı felsefîleşmenin eşiğine getirmiş, süreç sonunda kelâm tümel (metafizik) bir disipline dönüşmüştür. Bu durum doğal olarak metafizik düşünce ile kelâmî düşüncenin iç içe geçmesine sebebiyet vermiştir. Kelâmın en şerefli, en yüce ilim olduğundan bahsetmek başka, onun tümel olduğunu ortaya koymak daha başkadır. Gazzâlî bu bağlamda kelâm ilmini ilk defa dinî tümel bir disiplin olarak ilan ve ikame etmiştir. Bu ikame aslında felsefî/metafiziksel bir anlam ve mesajı barındırır. Gazzâlî’nin kelâmı tümel olarak nitelemesi, kelâm için disipliner anlamda kuşatıcılığı ve önceliğiyle hem ait olduğu alanın ilimlerine hem de kendi dışındaki ilimlere karşı bir meydan okuma olarak yorumlanabilir. Unutulmamalıdır ki kelâm bir yandan felsefeyle, metafizikle yüzleşip hesaplaşırken, inceleme alanına aldığı konularla tümelleşirken bir yandan da ait olduğu ve temsil ettiği dinî karakterini muhafaza etmekle yükümlüdür. Kelâmın felsefe karşısındaki konumunu felsefede varlıktan bilgiye, mebdeden meâda, âlemden Tanrı’ya nüfuz alanı alabildiğine geniş ve etkin olan, zaman zaman haricî/aynî varlığın önüne geçen zihnî varlık düşüncesinin gücünü ve etkisini kırmaya yönelik bir direnç olarak tanımlamak mümkündür. Son tahlilde kelâm genelde dışa dönük bir hakikate sahip tüm varlıkların, özelde Tanrı ve insanın zihnî varlık kategorisine indirgenmesine karşı çıkmakta ve varlıkların zihin dışındaki ontolojik bütünlüklerini, gerçeklik ve etkinlik alanlarını korumaya çalışmaktadır. Kelâmın felsefeyle kurduğu yoğun temas aslında varlığı bir bütün halinde görme ve değerlendirme çabasının, inanç sistemiyle düşünce sistemi arasında bir muvafakat kurma kaygısının sonucudur.

In Indonesia, Tasawwuf is not a new phenomenon. Religious practices that purifying the heart have been deeply rooted in religious traditions, from academics, Islamic boarding schools, and universities. However, lately, demands to disband the authority of Tasawwuf from Islamic teachings have come from reformist groups fronted by Salafi Jihadi, where the basis of their argument is based on the prevalence of Sufi practices that are too far-fetched, irrational, and even tend to injure the theological aspects. Amid the vortex of debate dialogue between reformists and traditionalists in the area of tasawwuf, a community emerged which they called “wasatiyyah” or moderate, where the main focus of their mission was to bring together different points of view in a wiser portion in responding to them. This article closely examines the contribution of Muslim intellectual “Tasawwuf Moderation” through Abū Hāmid Al-Ghazālī (who died in the 5th century) and its implications for Indonesian society’s culture in general to the discourse of socio-religious movements of intellectuals in higher education.

This book symposium begins with a concise historical overview of the emerging dialogue of Islam and Science. Against this, we trace the historical developments and pertinent discussion of Islam and Evolution, culminating in the release of Islam and Evolution: Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm. For those unfamiliar with the subject, the introduction provides a breakdown of the monograph and its core thesis. The final section contains a summative review of all the articles – ten in total – featured in this special issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ʿĀmm [general] expressions are discussed in the linguistic sections of legal theory. In early periods, discussions on ʿāmm expressions involved their definition, presence, and signification (madlūl). After al-Ghazālī, however universals as one of the subjects of classical logic also began occurring in these discussions. This article discusses whether or not ʿāmm expressions denote universal meanings and also analyzes the theoretical explanations of usulists [legal theorists] in the post-classical era regarding the relation between universals and ʿāmm expressions. The article argued that al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111) as the first scholar to argue ʿāmm expressions to denote universals and to attribute them to the language being assigned (wadʿ) to mental images (al-~ūra al-dhiniyya). al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210) and the later period usulists argued ʿāmm expressions to not denote universal but to instead only have universal meanings among their individuals. al-Qarāfī (d. 684/1285), al-I~fahānī (d. 688/1289), and al-Subkī (d. 771/1370) continued the same idea and considered ʿāmm expressions as universal propositions under the influence of Avicenna (d. 428/1037), whereas al-Taftāzānī (d. 792/1390) had considered them to be both whole (kull) and universal through the concept of signification (~ulūh). The usulists are shown to have written commentaries and glosses on Jam‘ al-jawāmi‘, synthesized the teachings of both different understandings, and argued ʿāmm expressions to have three different denotations: whole, universal, and universal proposition.

Araştırmanın amacı, felsefe eleştirilerinin Gazzâlî sonrası nasıl seyrettiğini Şihâbeddîn Ömer Sühreverdî’nin (öl. 632/1234) Reşfü’n-neṣâʾiḥi’l-îmâniyye ve keşfü’l-feżâʾiḥi’l-Yûnâniyye adlı eseri üzerinden değerlendirmeye çalışmaktır. Genellikle Sühreverdî el-Maktûl (öl. 587/1191) ile karıştırılabilen müellif, sûfî kimliği ile bilinir ve Sühreverdîyye tarikatının kurucusudur. Sühreverdî eserini on beş bölüme ayırmış, Gazzâlî’nin (öl. 505/1111) konu seçimine benzer bir biçimde konuları ele almış, yöntem ve üslup açısından ise kendisinden birçok yönde ayrılmıştır. Sühreverdî felsefe eleştirisinde Gazzâlî’yi takip ederek onun ele aldığı konulara yoğunlaşır. Öyle ki Sühreverdî, filozofların Allah’ın cüzileri bilmediği, sudur inancı ve yeniden yaratılışın ruhânî olacağı hakkında görüşlerini eleştirir. Araştırma Gazzâlî sonrası felsefe eleştirilerini seyrini anlamak için Sühreverdî üzerinden bir okuma yapmayı teklif eder. Bununla beraber Gazzâlî sonrası felsefe eleştirilerini anlamak için Gazzâlî’nin Tehâfütü’l-Felâsife’si ile birlikte Şehristânî’nin (öl. 548/1153) Muṣâraʿatü’l-felâsife kitabı Sühreverdî’nin eseri ile yöntem ve muhteva açısından karşılaştırılmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu yolla üç eserin birbirine benzer ve ayrılan yönleri ortaya konmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu hedefle çalışmamızda öncelikle Sühreverdî’nin felsefe eleştirisinde yöntemini ve filozofları eleştirdiği konuları serdetmeye gayret ettik. Bundan sonra üç ismin eserlerini yöntem, içerik ve eserlerin telifine neden olan sosyal ve siyasi sebepleri kapsayacak şekilde mukayese etmeye çalıştık. Araştırmanın sonucunda Sühreverdî’nin konu seçimi anlamında Gazzâlî ile büyük oranda benzeştiği, yöntem anlamında ise Sühreverdî’nin Gazzâlî’den farklı olarak daha çok nasslara dayandığına eriştik. Çalışmamıza konu olan Şehristânî ise diğer iki isme nazaran daha çok felsefe içerisinde kalarak eleştirilerini yöneltmiştir. Gazzâlî’nin kendisinden sonra yaşayan her iki isme de eleştirilecek konuları belirlerken ki etkisi çalışma boyunca gözlemlenmiştir. Bununla beraber Gazzâlî ve Sühreverdî filozofların tekfirine kanaat getirirken, Şehristânî bu iki isimden ayrılmıştır. Üç ismin eserlerini neden telif ettiğine dair yaptığımız araştırmada ise; Gazzâlî ve Sühreverdî’nin döneminde kendilerine bu eserleri yazmaya sevk edecek kadar yoğun bir felsefî hareketlilik olmadığını gözlemledik. Bununla beraber iki müellifin dönemin siyasi şahsiyetleri ile olan yakın ilişkilerine binaen eserlerini belirli siyasi yönlendirmeler ve sosyal gereklilikler nedeniyle ele almaları mümkün gözükmektedir. Şehristânî’nin eseri ise daha ziyade felsefî bir tartışmanın ürünü olarak görünmektedir.

As it is well-known in theology, performing miracles is the main way prophets used to show that they are honest in their claims and are the true messengers of God. In contrast to this famous opinion, some theologians have not considered miracles as proof of the truth of prophecy. Muslim thinkers such as Mullah Sadra, al-Ghazali, Averroes, ‘Abd al-Razzaq Lahiji, and Hiji Mulla Hadi Sabzavari believe that a true believer does not base his faith and certainty on seeing a miracle from a prophet, and the religion which is the result of a miracle is the religion of ordinary people. According to them, miracles cannot bring about intellectual certainty; moreover, it is difficult to distinguish them from magic. In this article, after considering the objections in Islamic intellectual tradition, some other critiques in terms of the role of miracles in proving prophecy are introduced: the reports of miracles are not adequately sequential and multiple; the miracles are exclusively reported by the believers; there is no practical criterion for identifying miracles; the claim that miracles are related to the dominant art and techniques of the prophet’s time cannot be proved, and miracles can be explained in a completely natural –and not supernatural– way. Accordingly, it has been demonstrated that miracles narrated in religions do not serve theological functions desired by theologians. However, the best way for knowing a true prophet is investigating his teachings and experiencing his spiritual aura.

Pemikiran merupakan suatu yang badīhī (asas) atau kejelasan semata-mata, dan kerana kejelasannya maka tidak perlu dicari dalil dan pembuktianya. Pemikiran adalah modal dan alat yang penting di dalam kehidupan umat manusia, tetapi pemikiran haruslah ada yang menuntunnya agar sentiasa berada di jalan yang benar. Penuntun yang dimaksud adalah Al Qur'ān Al-Karīm, kerana merupakan wahyu daripada Allāh Subhānahū wata’ālā. Jadi, pemikiran adalah pemberian daripada Allāh Subhānahū wata’ālā untuk manusia sebagai alat untuk berfikir. Oleh kerana itu, pemikiran haruslah sentiasa sejalan dengan Al-Qur’ān Al-Karīm kerana tanpa petunjuk Al Qur'ān Al-Karīm, maka manusia akan sesat. Jadi, Islam adalah agama fikiran, dengan erti bahawa mengakui pemikiran sebagai asasnya dan sebagai alat untuk membela kebenaran. Imām Al-Ghazālī merupakan tokoh pendidikan Islam yang sudah tak diragukan lagi kemampuannya dalam bidang kependidikan Islam. Menurutnya, pendidikan merupakan proses memanusiakan manusia sampai akhir hayatnya menuju pendekatan diri kepada Allāh Subhānahū wata’ālā sehingga menjadi manusia sempurna. Tujuan pendidikan menurut Imām Al-Ghazālī adalah membentuk manusia ṣālih. Di dalam artikel ini, penulis mengetengahkan tokoh agung ini tentang Pemikiran Imām Al-Ghazālī tentang Pendidikan Islam. Tokoh agung yang dimaksud adalah Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhamad bin Ahmad Al-Ghazālī.

The objective of this manuscript is to reveal that the challenge in understanding the ethical consequences of a post-human condition characterizing trans-humanist ontology is linked to postmodern epistemology lacking any metaphysical and theological essence. The introductory section provides an overview of trans-humanist thought and the concerns deliberated against it at the recent conference titled A.I Ethics: An Abrahamic Commitment to the Rome Call, charting a path ensuring that technological innovations do not undermine the ethical, spiritual, and moral values animating the telos of the human being. The second section traces the philosophical genealogy of trans-humanism from the Age of Reason (i.e., modern epistemology) to our current Age of Feeling (i.e., postmodern epistemology). This section also stresses that the ontology accenting both periods—the death of God and the death of human—is latent in trans-humanist ideology, which seeks to extinguish the quest of knowing God with an ateleological state that crucifies the human in pursuit of worshipping technology. The third section scrutinizes the conceptual framework of trans-humanism by deconstructing concepts structuring its worldview such as Singularity, Artificial Super Intelligence, and the pseudo-religion known as Dataism. Additionally, this section examines how trans-humanist proponents—while adhering to postmodern philosophy—alter the definitions of sacred concepts that exclusively animate a human state of being, such as consciousness, intelligence, and awareness, by anthropomorphizing AI. The final section recalls the wisdom of the Nicomachean Ethics and the Alchemy of Happiness, composed—respectively—by Aristotle and Al-Ghazali. It highlights the immoral significances of choosing to ignore the implications of Dataism and its techno-scientific objectives, which obscure the use of techne in a virtuous manner attaining eudaimonia and the essence of humanness seeking a path—using God-given sensoria—knowledge of Divine Beauty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors analyze two historical types of philosophical culture—the classical Eastern Patristics and Arab–Muslim medieval thought. They are united by the religious doctrine of man, which allows considering the intercultural and inter-theological nature of these traditions. In more particular terms, the article examines the understanding of the human being of the thinkers of Nicaea and post-Nicaea periods of Eastern patristics—Athanasius of Alexandria and Maximus the Confessor—and Abu Hamid al-Ghazali as the most profound representative of the Sufi philosophical–theological system of the Middle Ages. The authors highlight the philosophical, intercultural, and interreligious significance of the mentioned anthropological concepts. The article focuses on the comparability and consistency of the ideas of the Church Fathers and al-Ghazali. Particular attention is paid to Islam's theoretical image of man as a caliph—a successor—of the Creator on the Earth. Comparative studies reveal the patristic vision of man, containing in himself the fullness of Divinity and humanity. The main points of the dyophysite Christian understanding of the God Incarnate in contrast to the monophysite currents of Apollinarianism are revealed. The depth of the Christological views of Athanasius of Alexandria and Maximus the Confessor is presented. Al-Ghazali's doctrine of man is substantiated as a conceptual understanding of man's place in the system of the world created by God, which is seen as a holistic and systematized doctrine of humanity in Muslim philosophy. Conclusions are made about the comparability and the presence of intersections between Eastern Christian, Byzantine, and Muslim types of thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Applying spiritual support practices for the mental problems people experience has been rapidly spreading in our country in recent years, both in academic and other studies. In the Western world, new methods keep emerging every passing day in this field and these affect the practices in our country. However, there is a need for studies in this field that exist in our own resources and traditions. For this reason, Islamic scholars have developed various solutions to solve people's spiritual problems. Imam al-Ghazali is one of the Islamic scholars who wrote about the source of the problems that people have experienced spiritually and to solve them. According to the author, who named his work Kimiya al-Sa'adat, which means the alchemy of happiness, when a person obeys the points indicated here, they will reach happiness in this world and in the Hereafter. In this study, the hadiths mentioned by al-Ghazali in his four titles will be discussed, and the four pillars and forty main principles will be referred to other studies. Here, how the author interprets the hadiths and their relationship with moral support will be determined, and the authenticity of the hadiths will be evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a missionary with the Church Missionary Society, Claud Field lived and worked in Peshawar between the years of 1892 and 1903. At the time, Peshawar was a geopolitically sensitive and missionally strategic city, and subsequent to Field's missionary years there, he began writing and translating publications relating to the history of mission, the Afghan people and culture, notable figures of Islamic history, and Christian-Muslim relations. However, Field is little known today. This research introduces Field and a historical puzzle regarding his shift in tone, reviews his first five published books, analyses the import of the books for his time, offers an explanation to the historical puzzle, and concludes with a call for further research into Field's life and publications. These findings help to begin filling the gap of historical research and literary criticism of Field's corpus of works. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of ULUM Journal of Religious Inquiries is the property of ULUM Journal of Religious Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of IUG Journal of Islamic Studies is the property of Islamic University of Gaza and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article contributes to discussions around a post-secular anthropology that seek to engage seriously with religious traditions and theology. Conversations in Morocco with Muslims who experienced possession by jinn spirits point to the importance of recognition. To understand those experiences risks translating them into my concepts. Recognizing them accepts that what the other says has significance. They call me to visit the broader Islamic tradition that they creatively draw on in an effort to decenter my own thinking and to open up to possibility. This space for possibility and the limits of understanding are explored by putting into dialogue Maurice Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology as critique of Descartes's dualism of mind and world, with a discussion in the Islamic tradition, between al-Ghazālī and Ibn Sīnā. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]