Averroës' Takfir of al-Ghazālī: Ta'wīl and Causal Kufr, 2021
By: Saja Parvizian
Title Averroës' Takfir of al-Ghazālī: Ta'wīl and Causal Kufr
Type Article
Language English
Date 2021
Journal American journal of Islam and society
Volume 38
Issue 1/2
Pages 60-92
Categories al-Ġazālī, Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Theology
Author(s) Saja Parvizian
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)
Al-Ghazālı̄ famously claims in the Incoherence of the Philosophers that al-Fārābī and Avicenna are unbelievers because they hold philosophical positions that conflict with Islam. What is less well-known, however, is that Averroës claims in the Decisive Treatise that al-Fārābī and Avicenna are not unbelievers; rather, al-Ghazālı̄ is the true unbeliever for writing the Incoherence of the Philosophers. In this paper, my aim is to present a sustained reconstruction of Averroës’ legal and philosophical argument for why al-Ghazālı̄ is an unbeliever. The crux of Averroës’ argument is that al-Ghazālı̄ has expressed false allegorical interpretations of scripture to unqualified persons, which has caused them to fall into unbelief. By being causally responsible for other people’s unbelief, al-Ghazālı̄ is an unbeliever as well.

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5566","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5566,"authors_free":[{"id":6460,"entry_id":5566,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Saja Parvizian","free_first_name":"Saja ","free_last_name":"Parvizian","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}}],"entry_title":"Averro\u00ebs' Takfir of al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b: Ta'w\u012bl and Causal Kufr","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Averro\u00ebs' Takfir of al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b: Ta'w\u012bl and Causal Kufr"},"abstract":"Al-Ghaza\u0304l\u0131\u0304 famously claims in the Incoherence of the Philosophers that al-Fa\u0304ra\u0304bi\u0304 and Avicenna are unbelievers because they hold philosophical positions that conflict with Islam. What is less well-known, however, is that Averroe\u0308s claims in the Decisive Treatise that al-Fa\u0304ra\u0304bi\u0304 and Avicenna are not unbelievers; rather, al-Ghaza\u0304l\u0131\u0304 is the true unbeliever for writing the Incoherence of the Philosophers. In this paper, my aim is to present a sustained reconstruction of Averroe\u0308s\u2019 legal and philosophical argument for why al-Ghaza\u0304l\u0131\u0304 is an unbeliever. The crux of Averroe\u0308s\u2019 argument is that al-Ghaza\u0304l\u0131\u0304 has expressed false allegorical interpretations of scripture to unqualified persons, which has caused them to fall into unbelief. By being causally responsible for other people\u2019s unbelief, al-Ghaza\u0304l\u0131\u0304 is an unbeliever as well.","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.35632\/ajis.v38i1-2.735","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":14,"category_name":"al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b"},{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5566,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"American journal of Islam and society","volume":"38","issue":"1\/2","pages":"60-92"}},"sort":[2021]}

La vérité dans l'épistémè islamique post-averroecien. La théorie de la vérité chez Averroès pourra-t-elle contribuer au dialogue interculturel contemporain?, 2021
By: Mounia Aît Kabboura
Title La vérité dans l'épistémè islamique post-averroecien. La théorie de la vérité chez Averroès pourra-t-elle contribuer au dialogue interculturel contemporain?
Type Article
Language English
Date 2021
Journal Science et Esprit, Revue de philosophie et de théologie
Volume 73
Issue 1-2
Pages 177-196
Categories Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Epistemology
Author(s) Mounia Aît Kabboura
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)
Averroes (Ibn Rushd 1126-1198), philosopher and magistrate, came into conflict with the 'Maliki' jurists and the 'Ash'rite Salafist' theologians of his time who held to the traditionalist and literalist thought according to which the truth is explicit in the revealed text so that it does not require interpretation. Averroes developed a new conception of truth whose goal was to reconcile two different orders of truth. These are variously described as revelation and reason, or faith and the faculty of human judgment, or the truth through others rather than the truth through oneself. By deepening the rationalism of Aristotle, he brought to light the new intellectual conditions that Maimonides, among the Jews, and Thomas Aquinas, among the Catholics, took advantage of to develop new theological systems. All medieval thought was marked by the following duality: revelation versus rationality (hermeneutical and philosophical), or in other words by a desire to harmonise the given revealed according to the necessary constraints of reason. Can the theory of truth in Averroes contribute to better, flexible, and peaceful integration of Muslims in plural societies? This text proposes to examine theory of truth of Averroes presented in 'Fasl al-Maqâl' ('The Decisive Treaty') and 'Tahâfut al tahafut' ('The Incoherence of Inconsistency'), and then to examine the conditions of the abandonment of this theory in the post-Averroes Islamic episteme that retained only the truth of revelation. Finally, this text will show that Averroes's conception of truth is fundamentally a philosophy of recognition driven by three universal principles: (1) understanding the others in their own system of reference, (2) understanding freedom as a responsibility in the search for truth, (3) recognising the right to be different through respect for others. (edited)

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5570","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5570,"authors_free":[{"id":6464,"entry_id":5570,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mounia A\u00eet Kabboura","free_first_name":"Mounia A\u00eet","free_last_name":"Kabboura","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}}],"entry_title":"La v\u00e9rit\u00e9 dans l'\u00e9pist\u00e9m\u00e8 islamique post-averroecien. La th\u00e9orie de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 chez Averro\u00e8s pourra-t-elle contribuer au dialogue interculturel contemporain?","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"La v\u00e9rit\u00e9 dans l'\u00e9pist\u00e9m\u00e8 islamique post-averroecien. La th\u00e9orie de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 chez Averro\u00e8s pourra-t-elle contribuer au dialogue interculturel contemporain?"},"abstract":"Averroes (Ibn Rushd 1126-1198), philosopher and magistrate, came into conflict with the 'Maliki' jurists and the 'Ash'rite Salafist' theologians of his time who held to the traditionalist and literalist thought according to which the truth is explicit in the revealed text so that it does not require interpretation. Averroes developed a new conception of truth whose goal was to reconcile two different orders of truth. These are variously described as revelation and reason, or faith and the faculty of human judgment, or the truth through others rather than the truth through oneself. By deepening the rationalism of Aristotle, he brought to light the new intellectual conditions that Maimonides, among the Jews, and Thomas Aquinas, among the Catholics, took advantage of to develop new theological systems. All medieval thought was marked by the following duality: revelation versus rationality (hermeneutical and philosophical), or in other words by a desire to harmonise the given revealed according to the necessary constraints of reason. Can the theory of truth in Averroes contribute to better, flexible, and peaceful integration of Muslims in plural societies? This text proposes to examine theory of truth of Averroes presented in 'Fasl al-Maq\u00e2l' ('The Decisive Treaty') and 'Tah\u00e2fut al tahafut' ('The Incoherence of Inconsistency'), and then to examine the conditions of the abandonment of this theory in the post-Averroes Islamic episteme that retained only the truth of revelation. Finally, this text will show that Averroes's conception of truth is fundamentally a philosophy of recognition driven by three universal principles: (1) understanding the others in their own system of reference, (2) understanding freedom as a responsibility in the search for truth, (3) recognising the right to be different through respect for others. (edited)","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":73,"category_name":"Epistemology","link":"bib?categories[]=Epistemology"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5570,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Science et Esprit, Revue de philosophie et de th\u00e9ologie","volume":"73","issue":" 1-2","pages":"177-196"}},"sort":[2021]}

Akılsal Zorunluluk ve Dinî Meşruiyet Bağlamında İbn Rüşd’ün Felsefe Savunusu, 2021
By: Rafiz Manafov, Adem Akman
Title Akılsal Zorunluluk ve Dinî Meşruiyet Bağlamında İbn Rüşd’ün Felsefe Savunusu
Translation The Defense of Philosophy According to Averroes in the Context of Rational Necessity and Religious Legitimacy
Type Article
Language Turkish
Date 2021
Journal Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi
Volume 9 (İDEKTA)
Pages 131-139
Categories Relation between Philosophy and Theology
Author(s) Rafiz Manafov , Adem Akman
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)
İbn Rüşd İslam düşüncesinin akli temellerinin ve felsefi düşüncenin gerilemeye yüz tuttuğu bir dönemin filozofudur. O, felsefi açıdan dinin konumunu gerekli gördüğü kadar, din açısından da felsefenin kaçınılmazlığına inanır. Çalışmamızın özünü ve amacını İbn Rüşd’ün felsefesindeki temel kavram ve düşünceler oluşturmaktadır. Makalede felsefenin İbn Rüşd açısından akli zorunluluk ve dinsel meşruiyeti sorgulanmakta, felsefi ve dini veriler ışığında değerlendirilmektedir. Dinsel veriler ve rasyonel gereklilik bağlamında İbn Rüşd’ün felsefe savunusunun özellikleri ortaya konmakta ve önemi vurgulanmaktadır. Averroes is a philosopher of an era in which the rational foundations of Islamic thought weakening, and the philosophical mind was on the verge of decline. He regards the position of religion as possible and necessary in terms of philosophy, he sees philosophical activity necessary in terms of religion. The purpose and essence of our study based on the main principles and defenses of philosophy of Averroes. It discusses the rational necessity and religious legitimacy of philosophy in the context of Averroes’ defense of philosophy. It focuses on importance of philosophy in the eyes of Averroes and how he legitimize philosophy in terms of religion.

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5578","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5578,"authors_free":[{"id":6474,"entry_id":5578,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rafiz Manafov","free_first_name":"Rafiz ","free_last_name":"Manafov","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}},{"id":6475,"entry_id":5578,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Adem Akman","free_first_name":"Adem ","free_last_name":"Akman","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}}],"entry_title":"Ak\u0131lsal Zorunluluk ve Din\u00ee Me\u015fruiyet Ba\u011flam\u0131nda \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Felsefe Savunusu","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"The Defense of Philosophy According to Averroes in the Context of Rational Necessity and Religious Legitimacy","main_title":{"title":"Ak\u0131lsal Zorunluluk ve Din\u00ee Me\u015fruiyet Ba\u011flam\u0131nda \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Felsefe Savunusu"},"abstract":"\u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd \u0130slam d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinin akli temellerinin ve felsefi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin gerilemeye y\u00fcz tuttu\u011fu bir d\u00f6nemin filozofudur. O, felsefi a\u00e7\u0131dan dinin konumunu gerekli g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kadar, din a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan da felsefenin ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131na inan\u0131r. \u00c7al\u0131\u015fmam\u0131z\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fc ve amac\u0131n\u0131 \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn felsefesindeki temel kavram ve d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceler olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r. Makalede felsefenin \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan akli zorunluluk ve dinsel me\u015fruiyeti sorgulanmakta, felsefi ve dini veriler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmektedir. Dinsel veriler ve rasyonel gereklilik ba\u011flam\u0131nda \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn felsefe savunusunun \u00f6zellikleri ortaya konmakta ve \u00f6nemi vurgulanmaktad\u0131r.\r\n\r\nAverroes is a philosopher of an era in which the rational foundations of Islamic thought weakening, and the philosophical mind was on the verge of decline. He regards the position of religion as possible and necessary in terms of philosophy, he sees philosophical activity necessary in terms of religion. The purpose and essence of our study based on the main principles and defenses of philosophy of Averroes. It discusses the rational necessity and religious legitimacy of philosophy in the context of Averroes\u2019 defense of philosophy. It focuses on importance of philosophy in the eyes of Averroes and how he legitimize philosophy in terms of religion.","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"Turkish","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.18506\/anemon.906725","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1},{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5578,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Anemon Mu\u015f Alparslan \u00dcniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi ","volume":" 9 (\u0130DEKTA)","issue":"","pages":"131-139"}},"sort":[2021]}

İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonuçları, 2021
By: Fevzi Yiğit
Title İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonuçları
Translation The reasons for and the consequences of Averroes’ saying essence to God
Type Article
Language Turkish
Date 2021
Journal Turkish Academic Research Review
Volume 6
Issue 3
Pages 1035-1052
Categories Metaphysics, Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Cosmology
Author(s) Fevzi Yiğit
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)
Bu makalede, İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin görece neden ve sonuçları konu edilmektedir. Böylece İbn Rüşd örneğinden hareketle, filozofların Tanrı telakkilerinin aslında metafiziğin konusuyla doğrudan bağlantılı olduğu gösterilmek istenmektedir. Makalede bilkuvve-bilfiil, cevher-araz, varlık-mâhiyet, madde-sûret ve teşkîk gibi güçlü felsefî ayrımlara ihtiyaç duyuldukça başvurulacaktır. İbn Rüşd’e göre mevcut/var olan araştırması temelde bir cevher araştırmasıdır. Mevcut kavramı cevherin üstünde yer alan daha üst bir varlık seviyesini temsil etmese de kapsamının genişliği yüzünden cevherden daha üst bir kavramdır. Oysaki İbn Sînâ’ya göre mevcut, cevherden daha üst bir varlık seviyesini karşılar ve bu yüzden mevcut araştırması sadece cevher araştırmasına hasredilemez. Dolayısıyla ona göre metafiziğin konusu cevher olması açısından cevher değildir. İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin muhtemel nedenleri şunlardır: Birincisi, Tanrı bütün mevcudat içerisinde cevher tanımına en uygun olandır. İkincisi onun mevcut kavramını -diğer anlamlarını akılda tutmak kaydıyla- dış dünyada gerçekliği olmayan zihinsel bir kavram yani cins olarak kabul etmesi dolayısıyla sadece cevhere gerçeklik tanımış olmasıdır. Üçüncüsü, göksel cisimlerin sonsuz bir biçimde hareket ettiği düşüncesidir. Dördüncüsü tümeller ve ayrık mevcutlar ile hissedilir ferdi cevherler arasındaki ilişkiye dair görüşüdür. İbn Rüşd Aristoteles’i takiben tümellerin ve ideaların ferdi cevherlerin varoluşunda katkısı olmadığını düşünür. İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin muhtemel sonuçlarıysa şunlardır: Birincisi onun din felsefe ilişkisine dair yazdığı Faslü’l-makâl ve el-Keşf an menâhicü’ledille kitaplarında Tanrı hakkında takındığı Hanbeli tavırdır. İkincisi aslında yukarıda sebep olarak zikredilen burada ise sonuç olarak dile getirilebilecek döngüsel bir şeydir. Yani gök cisimleri ve âlemi ezeli olarak kabul etmek Tanrı’ya cevher denmesine sebep olurken Tanrı’ya cevher denmesi de âlemin Tanrı’nın etkisiyle ancak O’ndan ayrı ve kopuk olarak mevcut olması fikrini sonuç vermektedir. Üçüncüsü sudûr ve yoktan yaratma doktrinlerini reddetmesidir. Yoktan yaratmayı reddi ise -antik filozofların da açıkça dile getirdiği üzere- “salt yokluğun varlığın kaynağı olamayacağı “şeklindeki genel bir ontolojik ilkeye dayanmaktadır. This article deals with the relative reasons and consequences of Averroes’ saying God the essence. Thus, based on the example of Averroes, it is desired to show that the philosophers’ conception of God is actually directly related to the subject of metaphysics. The distinctions between potential and actual, being-essence and matter-form, which are thought to have strong forms of explanation, will be applied when needed. According to Averroes, his research of being is basically an investigation of essence. Although the concept of being/existence does not represent a higher level of being above the substance, it takes place in metaphysics as a higher concept with different meanings. However, according to Ibn Avicenna, the existing meets a higher level of being than the substance, and therefore its inquiry cannot be only the one for substance. Therefore, according to him, the subject of metaphysics is not a substance qua substance. In short, the possible reasons for Averroes to call God essence are as follows: First, God is the most suitable for the definition of essence in all existence. The second is that, keeping other meanings of being in mind, he accepted the concept of “mawjūd” as a mental concept that has no reality in the external world, that is, as a genus, and therefore only recognized the substance as reality. The third is the idea that the celestial bodies move endlessly. The fourth is his view on the relationship between universals and discrete entities and tangible individual essences. Following Aristotle, Averroes thinks that universals and ideas do not contribute to the existence of individual essences. The possible consequences of Averroes’ calling God a substance are as follows: The first is his Hanbalī attitude towards God in his books Fasl al-maqāl and al-Kashf an manāhij al-adilla, which he wrote on the relationship between religion and philosophy. Secondly, what was mentioned above as a cause, is a cyclical thing that can be expressed as a result here. In other words, while accepting the celestial bodies and the universe as eternal, causes God to be called essence, calling God essence results in the idea that the universe exists only apart and disconnected from him under the influence of God. The third is his rejection of the doctrines of creation out of nothing and sudūr (emanation). The refusal to create out of nothing is based on a general ontological principle -as the ancient philosophers openly expressed- “absolute absence cannot be the source of existence”.

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5582","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5582,"authors_free":[{"id":6480,"entry_id":5582,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fevzi Yi\u011fit","free_first_name":"Fevzi","free_last_name":"Yi\u011fit","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}}],"entry_title":"\u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"The reasons for and the consequences of Averroes\u2019 saying essence to God","main_title":{"title":"\u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131"},"abstract":"Bu makalede, \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin g\u00f6rece neden ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 konu edilmektedir. B\u00f6ylece \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd \u00f6rne\u011finden hareketle, filozoflar\u0131n Tanr\u0131 telakkilerinin asl\u0131nda metafizi\u011fin konusuyla do\u011frudan ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu g\u00f6sterilmek istenmektedir. Makalede bilkuvve-bilfiil, cevher-araz, varl\u0131k-m\u00e2hiyet, madde-s\u00fbret ve te\u015fk\u00eek gibi g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc felsef\u00ee ayr\u0131mlara ihtiya\u00e7 duyulduk\u00e7a ba\u015fvurulacakt\u0131r. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019e g\u00f6re mevcut\/var olan ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 temelde bir cevher ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131d\u0131r. Mevcut kavram\u0131 cevherin \u00fcst\u00fcnde yer alan daha \u00fcst bir varl\u0131k seviyesini temsil etmese de kapsam\u0131n\u0131n geni\u015fli\u011fi y\u00fcz\u00fcnden cevherden daha \u00fcst bir kavramd\u0131r. Oysaki \u0130bn S\u00een\u00e2\u2019ya g\u00f6re mevcut, cevherden daha \u00fcst bir varl\u0131k seviyesini kar\u015f\u0131lar ve bu y\u00fczden mevcut ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 sadece cevher ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131na hasredilemez. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ona g\u00f6re metafizi\u011fin konusu cevher olmas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan cevher de\u011fildir. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin muhtemel nedenleri \u015funlard\u0131r: Birincisi, Tanr\u0131 b\u00fct\u00fcn mevcudat i\u00e7erisinde cevher tan\u0131m\u0131na en uygun oland\u0131r. \u0130kincisi onun mevcut kavram\u0131n\u0131 -di\u011fer anlamlar\u0131n\u0131 ak\u0131lda tutmak kayd\u0131yla- d\u0131\u015f d\u00fcnyada ger\u00e7ekli\u011fi olmayan zihinsel bir kavram yani cins olarak kabul etmesi dolay\u0131s\u0131yla sadece cevhere ger\u00e7eklik tan\u0131m\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131d\u0131r. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc, g\u00f6ksel cisimlerin sonsuz bir bi\u00e7imde hareket etti\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesidir. D\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc t\u00fcmeller ve ayr\u0131k mevcutlar ile hissedilir ferdi cevherler aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkiye dair g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcd\u00fcr. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd Aristoteles\u2019i takiben t\u00fcmellerin ve idealar\u0131n ferdi cevherlerin varolu\u015funda katk\u0131s\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin muhtemel sonu\u00e7lar\u0131ysa \u015funlard\u0131r: Birincisi onun din felsefe ili\u015fkisine dair yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 Fasl\u00fc\u2019l-mak\u00e2l ve el-Ke\u015ff an men\u00e2hic\u00fc\u2019ledille kitaplar\u0131nda Tanr\u0131 hakk\u0131nda tak\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 Hanbeli tav\u0131rd\u0131r. \u0130kincisi asl\u0131nda yukar\u0131da sebep olarak zikredilen burada ise sonu\u00e7 olarak dile getirilebilecek d\u00f6ng\u00fcsel bir \u015feydir. Yani g\u00f6k cisimleri ve \u00e2lemi ezeli olarak kabul etmek Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher denmesine sebep olurken Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher denmesi de \u00e2lemin Tanr\u0131\u2019n\u0131n etkisiyle ancak O\u2019ndan ayr\u0131 ve kopuk olarak mevcut olmas\u0131 fikrini sonu\u00e7 vermektedir. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc sud\u00fbr ve yoktan yaratma doktrinlerini reddetmesidir. Yoktan yaratmay\u0131 reddi ise -antik filozoflar\u0131n da a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dile getirdi\u011fi \u00fczere- \u201csalt yoklu\u011fun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n kayna\u011f\u0131 olamayaca\u011f\u0131 \u201c\u015feklindeki genel bir ontolojik ilkeye dayanmaktad\u0131r.\r\n \r\nThis article deals with the relative reasons and consequences of Averroes\u2019 saying God the essence. Thus, based on the example of Averroes, it is desired to show that the philosophers\u2019 conception of God is actually directly related to the subject of metaphysics. The distinctions between potential and actual, being-essence and matter-form, which are thought to have strong forms of explanation, will be applied when needed. According to Averroes, his research of being is basically an investigation of essence. Although the concept of being\/existence does not represent a higher level of being above the substance, it takes place in metaphysics as a higher concept with different meanings. However, according to Ibn Avicenna, the existing meets a higher level of being than the substance, and therefore its inquiry cannot be only the one for substance. Therefore, according to him, the subject of metaphysics is not a substance qua substance. In short, the possible reasons for Averroes to call God essence are as follows: First, God is the most suitable for the definition of essence in all existence. The second is that, keeping other meanings of being in mind, he accepted the concept of \u201cmawj\u016bd\u201d as a mental concept that has no reality in the external world, that is, as a genus, and therefore only recognized the substance as reality. The third is the idea that the celestial bodies move endlessly. The fourth is his view on the relationship between universals and discrete entities and tangible individual essences. Following Aristotle, Averroes thinks that universals and ideas do not contribute to the existence of individual essences. The possible consequences of Averroes\u2019 calling God a substance are as follows: The first is his Hanbal\u012b attitude towards God in his books Fasl al-maq\u0101l and al-Kashf an man\u0101hij al-adilla, which he wrote on the relationship between religion and philosophy. Secondly, what was mentioned above as a cause, is a cyclical thing that can be expressed as a result here. In other words, while accepting the celestial bodies and the universe as eternal, causes God to be called essence, calling God essence results in the idea that the universe exists only apart and disconnected from him under the influence of God. The third is his rejection of the doctrines of creation out of nothing and sud\u016br (emanation). The refusal to create out of nothing is based on a general ontological principle -as the ancient philosophers openly expressed- \u201cabsolute absence cannot be the source of existence\u201d.","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"Turkish","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/20.500.11787\/6522","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":19,"category_name":"Cosmology","link":"bib?categories[]=Cosmology"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5582,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Turkish Academic Research Review","volume":"6","issue":"3","pages":"1035-1052"}},"sort":[2021]}

Ibn Rushd on reconciliation: between philosophy and religion, 2006
By: Khawaja Muhammad Saeed
Title Ibn Rushd on reconciliation: between philosophy and religion
Type Article
Language English
Date 2006
Journal Aligarh journal of Islamic philosophy
Volume 12
Pages 13-30
Categories Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Theology
Author(s) Khawaja Muhammad Saeed
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5555","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5555,"authors_free":[{"id":6449,"entry_id":5555,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Khawaja Muhammad Saeed","free_first_name":"Khawaja","free_last_name":"Muhammad Saeed","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}}],"entry_title":"Ibn Rushd on reconciliation: between philosophy and religion","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Ibn Rushd on reconciliation: between philosophy and religion"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5555,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Aligarh journal of Islamic philosophy","volume":"12","issue":"","pages":"13-30"}},"sort":[2006]}

Akılsal Zorunluluk ve Dinî Meşruiyet Bağlamında İbn Rüşd’ün Felsefe Savunusu, 2021
By: Rafiz Manafov, Adem Akman
Title Akılsal Zorunluluk ve Dinî Meşruiyet Bağlamında İbn Rüşd’ün Felsefe Savunusu
Translation The Defense of Philosophy According to Averroes in the Context of Rational Necessity and Religious Legitimacy
Type Article
Language Turkish
Date 2021
Journal Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi
Volume 9 (İDEKTA)
Pages 131-139
Categories Relation between Philosophy and Theology
Author(s) Rafiz Manafov , Adem Akman
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)
İbn Rüşd İslam düşüncesinin akli temellerinin ve felsefi düşüncenin gerilemeye yüz tuttuğu bir dönemin filozofudur. O, felsefi açıdan dinin konumunu gerekli gördüğü kadar, din açısından da felsefenin kaçınılmazlığına inanır. Çalışmamızın özünü ve amacını İbn Rüşd’ün felsefesindeki temel kavram ve düşünceler oluşturmaktadır. Makalede felsefenin İbn Rüşd açısından akli zorunluluk ve dinsel meşruiyeti sorgulanmakta, felsefi ve dini veriler ışığında değerlendirilmektedir. Dinsel veriler ve rasyonel gereklilik bağlamında İbn Rüşd’ün felsefe savunusunun özellikleri ortaya konmakta ve önemi vurgulanmaktadır. Averroes is a philosopher of an era in which the rational foundations of Islamic thought weakening, and the philosophical mind was on the verge of decline. He regards the position of religion as possible and necessary in terms of philosophy, he sees philosophical activity necessary in terms of religion. The purpose and essence of our study based on the main principles and defenses of philosophy of Averroes. It discusses the rational necessity and religious legitimacy of philosophy in the context of Averroes’ defense of philosophy. It focuses on importance of philosophy in the eyes of Averroes and how he legitimize philosophy in terms of religion.

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5578","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5578,"authors_free":[{"id":6474,"entry_id":5578,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rafiz Manafov","free_first_name":"Rafiz ","free_last_name":"Manafov","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}},{"id":6475,"entry_id":5578,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Adem Akman","free_first_name":"Adem ","free_last_name":"Akman","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}}],"entry_title":"Ak\u0131lsal Zorunluluk ve Din\u00ee Me\u015fruiyet Ba\u011flam\u0131nda \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Felsefe Savunusu","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"The Defense of Philosophy According to Averroes in the Context of Rational Necessity and Religious Legitimacy","main_title":{"title":"Ak\u0131lsal Zorunluluk ve Din\u00ee Me\u015fruiyet Ba\u011flam\u0131nda \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Felsefe Savunusu"},"abstract":"\u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd \u0130slam d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinin akli temellerinin ve felsefi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin gerilemeye y\u00fcz tuttu\u011fu bir d\u00f6nemin filozofudur. O, felsefi a\u00e7\u0131dan dinin konumunu gerekli g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kadar, din a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan da felsefenin ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131na inan\u0131r. \u00c7al\u0131\u015fmam\u0131z\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fc ve amac\u0131n\u0131 \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn felsefesindeki temel kavram ve d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceler olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r. Makalede felsefenin \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan akli zorunluluk ve dinsel me\u015fruiyeti sorgulanmakta, felsefi ve dini veriler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmektedir. Dinsel veriler ve rasyonel gereklilik ba\u011flam\u0131nda \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn felsefe savunusunun \u00f6zellikleri ortaya konmakta ve \u00f6nemi vurgulanmaktad\u0131r.\r\n\r\nAverroes is a philosopher of an era in which the rational foundations of Islamic thought weakening, and the philosophical mind was on the verge of decline. He regards the position of religion as possible and necessary in terms of philosophy, he sees philosophical activity necessary in terms of religion. The purpose and essence of our study based on the main principles and defenses of philosophy of Averroes. It discusses the rational necessity and religious legitimacy of philosophy in the context of Averroes\u2019 defense of philosophy. It focuses on importance of philosophy in the eyes of Averroes and how he legitimize philosophy in terms of religion.","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"Turkish","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.18506\/anemon.906725","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1},{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5578,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Anemon Mu\u015f Alparslan \u00dcniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi ","volume":" 9 (\u0130DEKTA)","issue":"","pages":"131-139"}},"sort":["Ak\u0131lsal Zorunluluk ve Din\u00ee Me\u015fruiyet Ba\u011flam\u0131nda \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Felsefe Savunusu"]}

Averroës' Takfir of al-Ghazālī: Ta'wīl and Causal Kufr, 2021
By: Saja Parvizian
Title Averroës' Takfir of al-Ghazālī: Ta'wīl and Causal Kufr
Type Article
Language English
Date 2021
Journal American journal of Islam and society
Volume 38
Issue 1/2
Pages 60-92
Categories al-Ġazālī, Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Theology
Author(s) Saja Parvizian
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)
Al-Ghazālı̄ famously claims in the Incoherence of the Philosophers that al-Fārābī and Avicenna are unbelievers because they hold philosophical positions that conflict with Islam. What is less well-known, however, is that Averroës claims in the Decisive Treatise that al-Fārābī and Avicenna are not unbelievers; rather, al-Ghazālı̄ is the true unbeliever for writing the Incoherence of the Philosophers. In this paper, my aim is to present a sustained reconstruction of Averroës’ legal and philosophical argument for why al-Ghazālı̄ is an unbeliever. The crux of Averroës’ argument is that al-Ghazālı̄ has expressed false allegorical interpretations of scripture to unqualified persons, which has caused them to fall into unbelief. By being causally responsible for other people’s unbelief, al-Ghazālı̄ is an unbeliever as well.

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5566","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5566,"authors_free":[{"id":6460,"entry_id":5566,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Saja Parvizian","free_first_name":"Saja ","free_last_name":"Parvizian","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}}],"entry_title":"Averro\u00ebs' Takfir of al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b: Ta'w\u012bl and Causal Kufr","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Averro\u00ebs' Takfir of al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b: Ta'w\u012bl and Causal Kufr"},"abstract":"Al-Ghaza\u0304l\u0131\u0304 famously claims in the Incoherence of the Philosophers that al-Fa\u0304ra\u0304bi\u0304 and Avicenna are unbelievers because they hold philosophical positions that conflict with Islam. What is less well-known, however, is that Averroe\u0308s claims in the Decisive Treatise that al-Fa\u0304ra\u0304bi\u0304 and Avicenna are not unbelievers; rather, al-Ghaza\u0304l\u0131\u0304 is the true unbeliever for writing the Incoherence of the Philosophers. In this paper, my aim is to present a sustained reconstruction of Averroe\u0308s\u2019 legal and philosophical argument for why al-Ghaza\u0304l\u0131\u0304 is an unbeliever. The crux of Averroe\u0308s\u2019 argument is that al-Ghaza\u0304l\u0131\u0304 has expressed false allegorical interpretations of scripture to unqualified persons, which has caused them to fall into unbelief. By being causally responsible for other people\u2019s unbelief, al-Ghaza\u0304l\u0131\u0304 is an unbeliever as well.","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.35632\/ajis.v38i1-2.735","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":14,"category_name":"al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b"},{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5566,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"American journal of Islam and society","volume":"38","issue":"1\/2","pages":"60-92"}},"sort":["Averro\u00ebs' Takfir of al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b: Ta'w\u012bl and Causal Kufr"]}

Ibn Rushd on reconciliation: between philosophy and religion, 2006
By: Khawaja Muhammad Saeed
Title Ibn Rushd on reconciliation: between philosophy and religion
Type Article
Language English
Date 2006
Journal Aligarh journal of Islamic philosophy
Volume 12
Pages 13-30
Categories Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Theology
Author(s) Khawaja Muhammad Saeed
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5555","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5555,"authors_free":[{"id":6449,"entry_id":5555,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Khawaja Muhammad Saeed","free_first_name":"Khawaja","free_last_name":"Muhammad Saeed","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}}],"entry_title":"Ibn Rushd on reconciliation: between philosophy and religion","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Ibn Rushd on reconciliation: between philosophy and religion"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5555,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Aligarh journal of Islamic philosophy","volume":"12","issue":"","pages":"13-30"}},"sort":["Ibn Rushd on reconciliation: between philosophy and religion"]}

La vérité dans l'épistémè islamique post-averroecien. La théorie de la vérité chez Averroès pourra-t-elle contribuer au dialogue interculturel contemporain?, 2021
By: Mounia Aît Kabboura
Title La vérité dans l'épistémè islamique post-averroecien. La théorie de la vérité chez Averroès pourra-t-elle contribuer au dialogue interculturel contemporain?
Type Article
Language English
Date 2021
Journal Science et Esprit, Revue de philosophie et de théologie
Volume 73
Issue 1-2
Pages 177-196
Categories Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Epistemology
Author(s) Mounia Aît Kabboura
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)
Averroes (Ibn Rushd 1126-1198), philosopher and magistrate, came into conflict with the 'Maliki' jurists and the 'Ash'rite Salafist' theologians of his time who held to the traditionalist and literalist thought according to which the truth is explicit in the revealed text so that it does not require interpretation. Averroes developed a new conception of truth whose goal was to reconcile two different orders of truth. These are variously described as revelation and reason, or faith and the faculty of human judgment, or the truth through others rather than the truth through oneself. By deepening the rationalism of Aristotle, he brought to light the new intellectual conditions that Maimonides, among the Jews, and Thomas Aquinas, among the Catholics, took advantage of to develop new theological systems. All medieval thought was marked by the following duality: revelation versus rationality (hermeneutical and philosophical), or in other words by a desire to harmonise the given revealed according to the necessary constraints of reason. Can the theory of truth in Averroes contribute to better, flexible, and peaceful integration of Muslims in plural societies? This text proposes to examine theory of truth of Averroes presented in 'Fasl al-Maqâl' ('The Decisive Treaty') and 'Tahâfut al tahafut' ('The Incoherence of Inconsistency'), and then to examine the conditions of the abandonment of this theory in the post-Averroes Islamic episteme that retained only the truth of revelation. Finally, this text will show that Averroes's conception of truth is fundamentally a philosophy of recognition driven by three universal principles: (1) understanding the others in their own system of reference, (2) understanding freedom as a responsibility in the search for truth, (3) recognising the right to be different through respect for others. (edited)

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5570","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5570,"authors_free":[{"id":6464,"entry_id":5570,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mounia A\u00eet Kabboura","free_first_name":"Mounia A\u00eet","free_last_name":"Kabboura","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}}],"entry_title":"La v\u00e9rit\u00e9 dans l'\u00e9pist\u00e9m\u00e8 islamique post-averroecien. La th\u00e9orie de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 chez Averro\u00e8s pourra-t-elle contribuer au dialogue interculturel contemporain?","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"La v\u00e9rit\u00e9 dans l'\u00e9pist\u00e9m\u00e8 islamique post-averroecien. La th\u00e9orie de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 chez Averro\u00e8s pourra-t-elle contribuer au dialogue interculturel contemporain?"},"abstract":"Averroes (Ibn Rushd 1126-1198), philosopher and magistrate, came into conflict with the 'Maliki' jurists and the 'Ash'rite Salafist' theologians of his time who held to the traditionalist and literalist thought according to which the truth is explicit in the revealed text so that it does not require interpretation. Averroes developed a new conception of truth whose goal was to reconcile two different orders of truth. These are variously described as revelation and reason, or faith and the faculty of human judgment, or the truth through others rather than the truth through oneself. By deepening the rationalism of Aristotle, he brought to light the new intellectual conditions that Maimonides, among the Jews, and Thomas Aquinas, among the Catholics, took advantage of to develop new theological systems. All medieval thought was marked by the following duality: revelation versus rationality (hermeneutical and philosophical), or in other words by a desire to harmonise the given revealed according to the necessary constraints of reason. Can the theory of truth in Averroes contribute to better, flexible, and peaceful integration of Muslims in plural societies? This text proposes to examine theory of truth of Averroes presented in 'Fasl al-Maq\u00e2l' ('The Decisive Treaty') and 'Tah\u00e2fut al tahafut' ('The Incoherence of Inconsistency'), and then to examine the conditions of the abandonment of this theory in the post-Averroes Islamic episteme that retained only the truth of revelation. Finally, this text will show that Averroes's conception of truth is fundamentally a philosophy of recognition driven by three universal principles: (1) understanding the others in their own system of reference, (2) understanding freedom as a responsibility in the search for truth, (3) recognising the right to be different through respect for others. (edited)","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":73,"category_name":"Epistemology","link":"bib?categories[]=Epistemology"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5570,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Science et Esprit, Revue de philosophie et de th\u00e9ologie","volume":"73","issue":" 1-2","pages":"177-196"}},"sort":["La v\u00e9rit\u00e9 dans l'\u00e9pist\u00e9m\u00e8 islamique post-averroecien. La th\u00e9orie de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 chez Averro\u00e8s pourra-t-elle contribuer au dialogue interculturel contemporain?"]}

İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonuçları, 2021
By: Fevzi Yiğit
Title İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonuçları
Translation The reasons for and the consequences of Averroes’ saying essence to God
Type Article
Language Turkish
Date 2021
Journal Turkish Academic Research Review
Volume 6
Issue 3
Pages 1035-1052
Categories Metaphysics, Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Cosmology
Author(s) Fevzi Yiğit
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)
Bu makalede, İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin görece neden ve sonuçları konu edilmektedir. Böylece İbn Rüşd örneğinden hareketle, filozofların Tanrı telakkilerinin aslında metafiziğin konusuyla doğrudan bağlantılı olduğu gösterilmek istenmektedir. Makalede bilkuvve-bilfiil, cevher-araz, varlık-mâhiyet, madde-sûret ve teşkîk gibi güçlü felsefî ayrımlara ihtiyaç duyuldukça başvurulacaktır. İbn Rüşd’e göre mevcut/var olan araştırması temelde bir cevher araştırmasıdır. Mevcut kavramı cevherin üstünde yer alan daha üst bir varlık seviyesini temsil etmese de kapsamının genişliği yüzünden cevherden daha üst bir kavramdır. Oysaki İbn Sînâ’ya göre mevcut, cevherden daha üst bir varlık seviyesini karşılar ve bu yüzden mevcut araştırması sadece cevher araştırmasına hasredilemez. Dolayısıyla ona göre metafiziğin konusu cevher olması açısından cevher değildir. İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin muhtemel nedenleri şunlardır: Birincisi, Tanrı bütün mevcudat içerisinde cevher tanımına en uygun olandır. İkincisi onun mevcut kavramını -diğer anlamlarını akılda tutmak kaydıyla- dış dünyada gerçekliği olmayan zihinsel bir kavram yani cins olarak kabul etmesi dolayısıyla sadece cevhere gerçeklik tanımış olmasıdır. Üçüncüsü, göksel cisimlerin sonsuz bir biçimde hareket ettiği düşüncesidir. Dördüncüsü tümeller ve ayrık mevcutlar ile hissedilir ferdi cevherler arasındaki ilişkiye dair görüşüdür. İbn Rüşd Aristoteles’i takiben tümellerin ve ideaların ferdi cevherlerin varoluşunda katkısı olmadığını düşünür. İbn Rüşd’ün Tanrı’ya cevher demesinin muhtemel sonuçlarıysa şunlardır: Birincisi onun din felsefe ilişkisine dair yazdığı Faslü’l-makâl ve el-Keşf an menâhicü’ledille kitaplarında Tanrı hakkında takındığı Hanbeli tavırdır. İkincisi aslında yukarıda sebep olarak zikredilen burada ise sonuç olarak dile getirilebilecek döngüsel bir şeydir. Yani gök cisimleri ve âlemi ezeli olarak kabul etmek Tanrı’ya cevher denmesine sebep olurken Tanrı’ya cevher denmesi de âlemin Tanrı’nın etkisiyle ancak O’ndan ayrı ve kopuk olarak mevcut olması fikrini sonuç vermektedir. Üçüncüsü sudûr ve yoktan yaratma doktrinlerini reddetmesidir. Yoktan yaratmayı reddi ise -antik filozofların da açıkça dile getirdiği üzere- “salt yokluğun varlığın kaynağı olamayacağı “şeklindeki genel bir ontolojik ilkeye dayanmaktadır. This article deals with the relative reasons and consequences of Averroes’ saying God the essence. Thus, based on the example of Averroes, it is desired to show that the philosophers’ conception of God is actually directly related to the subject of metaphysics. The distinctions between potential and actual, being-essence and matter-form, which are thought to have strong forms of explanation, will be applied when needed. According to Averroes, his research of being is basically an investigation of essence. Although the concept of being/existence does not represent a higher level of being above the substance, it takes place in metaphysics as a higher concept with different meanings. However, according to Ibn Avicenna, the existing meets a higher level of being than the substance, and therefore its inquiry cannot be only the one for substance. Therefore, according to him, the subject of metaphysics is not a substance qua substance. In short, the possible reasons for Averroes to call God essence are as follows: First, God is the most suitable for the definition of essence in all existence. The second is that, keeping other meanings of being in mind, he accepted the concept of “mawjūd” as a mental concept that has no reality in the external world, that is, as a genus, and therefore only recognized the substance as reality. The third is the idea that the celestial bodies move endlessly. The fourth is his view on the relationship between universals and discrete entities and tangible individual essences. Following Aristotle, Averroes thinks that universals and ideas do not contribute to the existence of individual essences. The possible consequences of Averroes’ calling God a substance are as follows: The first is his Hanbalī attitude towards God in his books Fasl al-maqāl and al-Kashf an manāhij al-adilla, which he wrote on the relationship between religion and philosophy. Secondly, what was mentioned above as a cause, is a cyclical thing that can be expressed as a result here. In other words, while accepting the celestial bodies and the universe as eternal, causes God to be called essence, calling God essence results in the idea that the universe exists only apart and disconnected from him under the influence of God. The third is his rejection of the doctrines of creation out of nothing and sudūr (emanation). The refusal to create out of nothing is based on a general ontological principle -as the ancient philosophers openly expressed- “absolute absence cannot be the source of existence”.

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5582","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5582,"authors_free":[{"id":6480,"entry_id":5582,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":903,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fevzi Yi\u011fit","free_first_name":"Fevzi","free_last_name":"Yi\u011fit","norm_person":{"id":903,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]="}}],"entry_title":"\u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"The reasons for and the consequences of Averroes\u2019 saying essence to God","main_title":{"title":"\u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131"},"abstract":"Bu makalede, \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin g\u00f6rece neden ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 konu edilmektedir. B\u00f6ylece \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd \u00f6rne\u011finden hareketle, filozoflar\u0131n Tanr\u0131 telakkilerinin asl\u0131nda metafizi\u011fin konusuyla do\u011frudan ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu g\u00f6sterilmek istenmektedir. Makalede bilkuvve-bilfiil, cevher-araz, varl\u0131k-m\u00e2hiyet, madde-s\u00fbret ve te\u015fk\u00eek gibi g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc felsef\u00ee ayr\u0131mlara ihtiya\u00e7 duyulduk\u00e7a ba\u015fvurulacakt\u0131r. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019e g\u00f6re mevcut\/var olan ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 temelde bir cevher ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131d\u0131r. Mevcut kavram\u0131 cevherin \u00fcst\u00fcnde yer alan daha \u00fcst bir varl\u0131k seviyesini temsil etmese de kapsam\u0131n\u0131n geni\u015fli\u011fi y\u00fcz\u00fcnden cevherden daha \u00fcst bir kavramd\u0131r. Oysaki \u0130bn S\u00een\u00e2\u2019ya g\u00f6re mevcut, cevherden daha \u00fcst bir varl\u0131k seviyesini kar\u015f\u0131lar ve bu y\u00fczden mevcut ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131 sadece cevher ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131na hasredilemez. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ona g\u00f6re metafizi\u011fin konusu cevher olmas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan cevher de\u011fildir. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin muhtemel nedenleri \u015funlard\u0131r: Birincisi, Tanr\u0131 b\u00fct\u00fcn mevcudat i\u00e7erisinde cevher tan\u0131m\u0131na en uygun oland\u0131r. \u0130kincisi onun mevcut kavram\u0131n\u0131 -di\u011fer anlamlar\u0131n\u0131 ak\u0131lda tutmak kayd\u0131yla- d\u0131\u015f d\u00fcnyada ger\u00e7ekli\u011fi olmayan zihinsel bir kavram yani cins olarak kabul etmesi dolay\u0131s\u0131yla sadece cevhere ger\u00e7eklik tan\u0131m\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131d\u0131r. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc, g\u00f6ksel cisimlerin sonsuz bir bi\u00e7imde hareket etti\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesidir. D\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc t\u00fcmeller ve ayr\u0131k mevcutlar ile hissedilir ferdi cevherler aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkiye dair g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcd\u00fcr. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd Aristoteles\u2019i takiben t\u00fcmellerin ve idealar\u0131n ferdi cevherlerin varolu\u015funda katk\u0131s\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr. \u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin muhtemel sonu\u00e7lar\u0131ysa \u015funlard\u0131r: Birincisi onun din felsefe ili\u015fkisine dair yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 Fasl\u00fc\u2019l-mak\u00e2l ve el-Ke\u015ff an men\u00e2hic\u00fc\u2019ledille kitaplar\u0131nda Tanr\u0131 hakk\u0131nda tak\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 Hanbeli tav\u0131rd\u0131r. \u0130kincisi asl\u0131nda yukar\u0131da sebep olarak zikredilen burada ise sonu\u00e7 olarak dile getirilebilecek d\u00f6ng\u00fcsel bir \u015feydir. Yani g\u00f6k cisimleri ve \u00e2lemi ezeli olarak kabul etmek Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher denmesine sebep olurken Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher denmesi de \u00e2lemin Tanr\u0131\u2019n\u0131n etkisiyle ancak O\u2019ndan ayr\u0131 ve kopuk olarak mevcut olmas\u0131 fikrini sonu\u00e7 vermektedir. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc sud\u00fbr ve yoktan yaratma doktrinlerini reddetmesidir. Yoktan yaratmay\u0131 reddi ise -antik filozoflar\u0131n da a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dile getirdi\u011fi \u00fczere- \u201csalt yoklu\u011fun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n kayna\u011f\u0131 olamayaca\u011f\u0131 \u201c\u015feklindeki genel bir ontolojik ilkeye dayanmaktad\u0131r.\r\n \r\nThis article deals with the relative reasons and consequences of Averroes\u2019 saying God the essence. Thus, based on the example of Averroes, it is desired to show that the philosophers\u2019 conception of God is actually directly related to the subject of metaphysics. The distinctions between potential and actual, being-essence and matter-form, which are thought to have strong forms of explanation, will be applied when needed. According to Averroes, his research of being is basically an investigation of essence. Although the concept of being\/existence does not represent a higher level of being above the substance, it takes place in metaphysics as a higher concept with different meanings. However, according to Ibn Avicenna, the existing meets a higher level of being than the substance, and therefore its inquiry cannot be only the one for substance. Therefore, according to him, the subject of metaphysics is not a substance qua substance. In short, the possible reasons for Averroes to call God essence are as follows: First, God is the most suitable for the definition of essence in all existence. The second is that, keeping other meanings of being in mind, he accepted the concept of \u201cmawj\u016bd\u201d as a mental concept that has no reality in the external world, that is, as a genus, and therefore only recognized the substance as reality. The third is the idea that the celestial bodies move endlessly. The fourth is his view on the relationship between universals and discrete entities and tangible individual essences. Following Aristotle, Averroes thinks that universals and ideas do not contribute to the existence of individual essences. The possible consequences of Averroes\u2019 calling God a substance are as follows: The first is his Hanbal\u012b attitude towards God in his books Fasl al-maq\u0101l and al-Kashf an man\u0101hij al-adilla, which he wrote on the relationship between religion and philosophy. Secondly, what was mentioned above as a cause, is a cyclical thing that can be expressed as a result here. In other words, while accepting the celestial bodies and the universe as eternal, causes God to be called essence, calling God essence results in the idea that the universe exists only apart and disconnected from him under the influence of God. The third is his rejection of the doctrines of creation out of nothing and sud\u016br (emanation). The refusal to create out of nothing is based on a general ontological principle -as the ancient philosophers openly expressed- \u201cabsolute absence cannot be the source of existence\u201d.","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"Turkish","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/20.500.11787\/6522","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":31,"category_name":"Metaphysics","link":"bib?categories[]=Metaphysics"},{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":19,"category_name":"Cosmology","link":"bib?categories[]=Cosmology"}],"authors":[{"id":903,"full_name":"","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5582,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Turkish Academic Research Review","volume":"6","issue":"3","pages":"1035-1052"}},"sort":["\u0130bn R\u00fc\u015fd\u2019\u00fcn Tanr\u0131\u2019ya cevher demesinin neden ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1