| Title | The Importance of History and Perspective in Understanding Mediæval Philosophy: The Case of Maimonides’ Response to the Question of Eternity |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2023 |
| Journal | The Maghreb Review |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 289-307 |
| Categories | Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Maimonides, al-Ġazālī |
| Author(s) | S. M. Hadi Gerami |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The study aims to show how taking history and perspective into consideration could help in understanding mediæval philosophy. To that end, in spite of a philosophical assumption which usually considers that there is no connection between eternity and creation, the paper assumes that Maimonides planned to establish a distinct response which was neither creation nor eternity. Investigating Maimonides’ perspective will be approached in two ways. Firstly, through the distinction between Maimonides, on one hand and theologians and philosophers on the other will be discussed from an intellectual point of view. Al-Ghazālī will be compared to Maimonides to show that, despite initial impressions, they differ substantially from each other on this issue. It will also be shown how Maimonides differentiated his discourse from that of the Greek philosophers. It will firstly be shown here that Maimonides’ response to the question of eternity adopts a different position from that of the classical theologians and the ancient philosophers. Secondly, the historicity of Maimonides’ discourse, or whether anyone else shared Maimonides’ conciliatory approach, will be examined. It will be shown that Averroes has the highest affinity with Maimonides in this regard. This will result in recognition of the fact that Maimonides’ “conciliatory approach” was shared with some other mediæval philosophers such as Averroes. Ultimately, it will be explained how Maimonides’ complicated concept of eternity can be better understood and justified if one takes perspective and historical discourse into consideration, showing that he was someone who tried to incorporate “conciliatory discourse” into mediæval philosophy. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5604","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5604,"authors_free":[{"id":6505,"entry_id":5604,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"S. M. Hadi Gerami","free_first_name":"S. M. Hadi ","free_last_name":" Gerami","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"The Importance of History and Perspective in Understanding Medi\u00e6val Philosophy: The Case of Maimonides\u2019 Response to the Question of Eternity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"The Importance of History and Perspective in Understanding Medi\u00e6val Philosophy: The Case of Maimonides\u2019 Response to the Question of Eternity"},"abstract":"The study aims to show how taking history and perspective into consideration could help in understanding medi\u00e6val philosophy. To that end, in spite of a philosophical assumption which usually considers that there is no connection between eternity and creation, the paper assumes that Maimonides planned to establish a distinct response which was neither creation nor eternity. Investigating Maimonides\u2019 perspective will be approached in two ways. Firstly, through the distinction between Maimonides, on one hand and theologians and philosophers on the other will be discussed from an intellectual point of view. Al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b will be compared to Maimonides to show that, despite initial impressions, they differ substantially from each other on this issue. It will also be shown how Maimonides differentiated his discourse from that of the Greek philosophers. It will firstly be shown here that Maimonides\u2019 response to the question of eternity adopts a different position from that of the classical theologians and the ancient philosophers. Secondly, the historicity of Maimonides\u2019 discourse, or whether anyone else shared Maimonides\u2019 conciliatory approach, will be examined. It will be shown that Averroes has the highest affinity with Maimonides in this regard. This will result in recognition of the fact that Maimonides\u2019 \u201cconciliatory approach\u201d was shared with some other medi\u00e6val philosophers such as Averroes. Ultimately, it will be explained how Maimonides\u2019 complicated concept of eternity can be better understood and justified if one takes perspective and historical discourse into consideration, showing that he was someone who tried to incorporate \u201cconciliatory discourse\u201d into medi\u00e6val philosophy.","btype":3,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"10.1353\/tmr.2015.0029","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":9,"category_name":"Maimonides","link":"bib?categories[]=Maimonides"},{"id":14,"category_name":"al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5604,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Maghreb Review","volume":"40","issue":"3","pages":"289-307"}},"sort":[2023]}
| Title | Investigating the Influence of Ibn Rushd from Ghazali on the Issue of Interpretation of Religious Texts |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Arabic |
| Date | 2022 |
| Journal | Comparative Theology |
| Volume | 13 |
| Issue | 27 |
| Pages | 1-16 |
| Categories | al-Ġazālī, Influence, Relation between Philosophy and Theology |
| Author(s) | Abuzar Rajabi , Morsal Azizi |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Islamic thinkers do not think alike about understanding similar verses and the issue of the appearance and interiority of verses, and sometimes there are fundamental differences between them. Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd are in favor of using the method of interpretation in understanding similar verses and considering the way of escaping from the challenge and conflict of appearance and the inner self using the approach of interpretation. Ibn Rushd was famous for opposing Al-Ghazali and writing the book Tahaft Al-Tahaft in his critique of Tahaft al-Ghazali philosophers. Despite the criticisms, he is influenced by Al-Ghazali in some cases, and especially in the matter of interpretation. Al-Ghazali has two approaches encountering the problem of interpretation in two intellectual periods, in both of which he has been able to provide a new model by presenting a special approach in interpretation so that others can take a step in this direction and achieve a methodical understanding of religious texts. He has benefited a lot from this research model in understanding Ibn Rushd's text. According to the research findings, Ibn Rushd was influenced by Ghazali both in the nature of interpretation and in the reasoning and necessity of accepting it, as well as in the means of approaching interpretation. In the present descriptive-analytical study, the influence of Ibn Rushd from Ghazali on the issue of interpretation has been investigated.Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd are both advocates of using the method of interpretation in understanding the text. Although Ghazali is one of the Ash'arite theologians, in the matter of interpretation in both intellectual periods, he distances himself from thinkers such as Abul Hassan Ash'ari, Baqalani, and Jovini and accepts the methodical interpretation in understanding many verses of the Holy Qur'an. Methodology and adherence to a disciplined mechanism in interpretation are the characteristics of using this method by Al-Ghazali.Ibn Al-Rushd, like Al-Ghazali, does not see a conflict between the outward and inward meaning of the verses of the Holy Qur'an. Interpretation is a method that philosophers have the right to use in understanding the Holy Qur'an. Although this method raised serious objections to Al-Ghazali, it is influenced by Al-Ghazali’s interpretation. Ibn Al-Rushd mentions Al-Ghazali in many cases and considers Ghazali's method in this regard to be correct. He speaks about the nature of interpretation, the necessity of paying attention to it, its types and varieties, the division of the audience of revelation, and the permission and impermissibility of interpretation like Al-Ghazali. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5766","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5766,"authors_free":[{"id":6678,"entry_id":5766,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Abuzar Rajabi","free_first_name":"Abuzar ","free_last_name":"Rajabi","norm_person":null},{"id":6679,"entry_id":5766,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Morsal Azizi","free_first_name":"Morsal ","free_last_name":"Azizi","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Investigating the Influence of Ibn Rushd from Ghazali on the Issue of Interpretation of Religious Texts","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Investigating the Influence of Ibn Rushd from Ghazali on the Issue of Interpretation of Religious Texts"},"abstract":"Islamic thinkers do not think alike about understanding similar verses and the issue of the appearance and interiority of verses, and sometimes there are fundamental differences between them. Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd are in favor of using the method of interpretation in understanding similar verses and considering the way of escaping from the challenge and conflict of appearance and the inner self using the approach of interpretation. Ibn Rushd was famous for opposing Al-Ghazali and writing the book Tahaft Al-Tahaft in his critique of Tahaft al-Ghazali philosophers. Despite the criticisms, he is influenced by Al-Ghazali in some cases, and especially in the matter of interpretation. Al-Ghazali has two approaches encountering the problem of interpretation in two intellectual periods, in both of which he has been able to provide a new model by presenting a special approach in interpretation so that others can take a step in this direction and achieve a methodical understanding of religious texts. He has benefited a lot from this research model in understanding Ibn Rushd's text. According to the research findings, Ibn Rushd was influenced by Ghazali both in the nature of interpretation and in the reasoning and necessity of accepting it, as well as in the means of approaching interpretation. In the present descriptive-analytical study, the influence of Ibn Rushd from Ghazali on the issue of interpretation has been investigated.Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd are both advocates of using the method of interpretation in understanding the text. Although Ghazali is one of the Ash'arite theologians, in the matter of interpretation in both intellectual periods, he distances himself from thinkers such as Abul Hassan Ash'ari, Baqalani, and Jovini and accepts the methodical interpretation in understanding many verses of the Holy Qur'an. Methodology and adherence to a disciplined mechanism in interpretation are the characteristics of using this method by Al-Ghazali.Ibn Al-Rushd, like Al-Ghazali, does not see a conflict between the outward and inward meaning of the verses of the Holy Qur'an. Interpretation is a method that philosophers have the right to use in understanding the Holy Qur'an. Although this method raised serious objections to Al-Ghazali, it is influenced by Al-Ghazali\u2019s interpretation. Ibn Al-Rushd mentions Al-Ghazali in many cases and considers Ghazali's method in this regard to be correct. He speaks about the nature of interpretation, the necessity of paying attention to it, its types and varieties, the division of the audience of revelation, and the permission and impermissibility of interpretation like Al-Ghazali.","btype":3,"date":"2022","language":"Arabic","online_url":"","doi_url":"10.22108\/coth.2022.131221.1658","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":14,"category_name":"al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b"},{"id":24,"category_name":"Influence","link":"bib?categories[]=Influence"},{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5766,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Comparative Theology","volume":"13","issue":"27","pages":"1-16"}},"sort":[2022]}
| 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]}
| Title | Al-Miklātī, a Twelfth Century Aš’arite Reader of Averroes |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2012 |
| Journal | Arabic Sciences and Philosophy |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 155–197 |
| Categories | Proceedings, Relation between Philosophy and Theology, al-Ġazālī |
| Author(s) | Yamina Adouhane , Yamina Adouhane |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The aim of this article is to present a new witness of Averroes' reception in the Muslim world, in the years that immediately followed his death. Indeed Abū al-Ḥağğāğ al-Miklātī (d. 1237) is an Ašʿarite theologian, who was born in Fez. He is the author of a Quintessence of the Intellects in Response to Philosophers on the Science of Principles in which he aims at refuting the Peripatetic philosophers in their own field, using their own weapons. This article will first attempt to draw the portrait of this atypical theologian. It will then focus on showing that al-Miklātī – although he never mentions his name – is a reader of Averroes and in particular, of his Tahāfut al-Tahāfut, of which he makes various and unexpected uses. A close look at these uses will enable us to better define the nature of al-Miklātī's work. More importantly, this article will try to prove that al-Miklātī provides us with a key passage of Averroes' lost treatise On the Prime Mover. At the heart of the Rushdian criticism of Avicenna's “metaphysical” proof, this passage should throw new light on Averroes' precise understanding of this proof. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"1757","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1757,"authors_free":[{"id":2027,"entry_id":1757,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1489,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Yamina Adouhane","free_first_name":"Yamina","free_last_name":"Adouhane","norm_person":{"id":1489,"first_name":"Yamina","last_name":"Adouhane","full_name":"Yamina Adouhane","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"http:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/458146284502615332481","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Yamina Adouhane"}},{"id":2028,"entry_id":1757,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1489,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Yamina Adouhane","free_first_name":"Yamina","free_last_name":"Adouhane","norm_person":{"id":1489,"first_name":"Yamina","last_name":"Adouhane","full_name":"Yamina Adouhane","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"http:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/458146284502615332481","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Yamina Adouhane"}}],"entry_title":"Al-Mikl\u0101t\u012b, a Twelfth Century A\u0161\u2019arite Reader of Averroes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Al-Mikl\u0101t\u012b, a Twelfth Century A\u0161\u2019arite Reader of Averroes"},"abstract":"The aim of this article is to present a new witness of Averroes' reception in the Muslim world, in the years that immediately followed his death. Indeed Ab\u016b al-\u1e24a\u011f\u011f\u0101\u011f al-Mikl\u0101t\u012b (d. 1237) is an A\u0161\u02bfarite theologian, who was born in Fez. He is the author of a Quintessence of the Intellects in Response to Philosophers on the Science of Principles in which he aims at refuting the Peripatetic philosophers in their own field, using their own weapons. This article will first attempt to draw the portrait of this atypical theologian. It will then focus on showing that al-Mikl\u0101t\u012b \u2013 although he never mentions his name \u2013 is a reader of Averroes and in particular, of his Tah\u0101fut al-Tah\u0101fut, of which he makes various and unexpected uses. A close look at these uses will enable us to better define the nature of al-Mikl\u0101t\u012b's work. More importantly, this article will try to prove that al-Mikl\u0101t\u012b provides us with a key passage of Averroes' lost treatise On the Prime Mover. At the heart of the Rushdian criticism of Avicenna's \u201cmetaphysical\u201d proof, this passage should throw new light on Averroes' precise understanding of this proof.","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/S095742391200001X","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":45,"category_name":"Proceedings","link":"bib?categories[]=Proceedings"},{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":14,"category_name":"al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b"}],"authors":[{"id":1489,"full_name":"Yamina Adouhane","role":1},{"id":1489,"full_name":"Yamina Adouhane","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1757,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"22","issue":"2","pages":"155\u2013197"}},"sort":[2012]}
| Title | Ibn Rushd and his Criticism for Esh’arism |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2010 |
| Journal | Journal of Islamic Research |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 82-97 |
| Categories | al-Ġazālī, Theology, Relation between Philosophy and Theology |
| Author(s) | Orhan Atalay |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5335","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5335,"authors_free":[{"id":6181,"entry_id":5335,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Orhan Atalay","free_first_name":"Orhan ","free_last_name":"Atalay","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Ibn Rushd and his Criticism for Esh\u2019arism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Ibn Rushd and his Criticism for Esh\u2019arism"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":14,"category_name":"al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b"},{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"},{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5335,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of Islamic Research","volume":"3","issue":"2 ","pages":" 82-97"}},"sort":[2010]}
| Title | Revisiting the Conflict between Religion and Philosophy in Islam: al- Ghazâlî’s Diagnosis of Onto-Theology |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2008 |
| Journal | Journal of Islamic Research |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 5–22 |
| Categories | Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Ontology, Theology, al-Ġazālī |
| Author(s) | Fehrullah Terkan |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5378","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5378,"authors_free":[{"id":6230,"entry_id":5378,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fehrullah Terkan","free_first_name":"Fehrullah","free_last_name":"Terkan","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Revisiting the Conflict between Religion and Philosophy in Islam: al- Ghaz\u00e2l\u00ee\u2019s Diagnosis of Onto-Theology","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Revisiting the Conflict between Religion and Philosophy in Islam: al- Ghaz\u00e2l\u00ee\u2019s Diagnosis of Onto-Theology"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2008","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":65,"category_name":"Ontology","link":"bib?categories[]=Ontology"},{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"},{"id":14,"category_name":"al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5378,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of Islamic Research","volume":"1","issue":"2","pages":"5\u201322"}},"sort":[2008]}
| Title | Al-Miklātī, a Twelfth Century Aš’arite Reader of Averroes |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2012 |
| Journal | Arabic Sciences and Philosophy |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 155–197 |
| Categories | Proceedings, Relation between Philosophy and Theology, al-Ġazālī |
| Author(s) | Yamina Adouhane , Yamina Adouhane |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The aim of this article is to present a new witness of Averroes' reception in the Muslim world, in the years that immediately followed his death. Indeed Abū al-Ḥağğāğ al-Miklātī (d. 1237) is an Ašʿarite theologian, who was born in Fez. He is the author of a Quintessence of the Intellects in Response to Philosophers on the Science of Principles in which he aims at refuting the Peripatetic philosophers in their own field, using their own weapons. This article will first attempt to draw the portrait of this atypical theologian. It will then focus on showing that al-Miklātī – although he never mentions his name – is a reader of Averroes and in particular, of his Tahāfut al-Tahāfut, of which he makes various and unexpected uses. A close look at these uses will enable us to better define the nature of al-Miklātī's work. More importantly, this article will try to prove that al-Miklātī provides us with a key passage of Averroes' lost treatise On the Prime Mover. At the heart of the Rushdian criticism of Avicenna's “metaphysical” proof, this passage should throw new light on Averroes' precise understanding of this proof. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"1757","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1757,"authors_free":[{"id":2027,"entry_id":1757,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1489,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Yamina Adouhane","free_first_name":"Yamina","free_last_name":"Adouhane","norm_person":{"id":1489,"first_name":"Yamina","last_name":"Adouhane","full_name":"Yamina Adouhane","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"http:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/458146284502615332481","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Yamina Adouhane"}},{"id":2028,"entry_id":1757,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1489,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Yamina Adouhane","free_first_name":"Yamina","free_last_name":"Adouhane","norm_person":{"id":1489,"first_name":"Yamina","last_name":"Adouhane","full_name":"Yamina Adouhane","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"http:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/458146284502615332481","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Yamina Adouhane"}}],"entry_title":"Al-Mikl\u0101t\u012b, a Twelfth Century A\u0161\u2019arite Reader of Averroes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Al-Mikl\u0101t\u012b, a Twelfth Century A\u0161\u2019arite Reader of Averroes"},"abstract":"The aim of this article is to present a new witness of Averroes' reception in the Muslim world, in the years that immediately followed his death. Indeed Ab\u016b al-\u1e24a\u011f\u011f\u0101\u011f al-Mikl\u0101t\u012b (d. 1237) is an A\u0161\u02bfarite theologian, who was born in Fez. He is the author of a Quintessence of the Intellects in Response to Philosophers on the Science of Principles in which he aims at refuting the Peripatetic philosophers in their own field, using their own weapons. This article will first attempt to draw the portrait of this atypical theologian. It will then focus on showing that al-Mikl\u0101t\u012b \u2013 although he never mentions his name \u2013 is a reader of Averroes and in particular, of his Tah\u0101fut al-Tah\u0101fut, of which he makes various and unexpected uses. A close look at these uses will enable us to better define the nature of al-Mikl\u0101t\u012b's work. More importantly, this article will try to prove that al-Mikl\u0101t\u012b provides us with a key passage of Averroes' lost treatise On the Prime Mover. At the heart of the Rushdian criticism of Avicenna's \u201cmetaphysical\u201d proof, this passage should throw new light on Averroes' precise understanding of this proof.","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/S095742391200001X","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":45,"category_name":"Proceedings","link":"bib?categories[]=Proceedings"},{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":14,"category_name":"al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b"}],"authors":[{"id":1489,"full_name":"Yamina Adouhane","role":1},{"id":1489,"full_name":"Yamina Adouhane","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1757,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"22","issue":"2","pages":"155\u2013197"}},"sort":["Al-Mikl\u0101t\u012b, a Twelfth Century A\u0161\u2019arite Reader of Averroes"]}
| 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"]}
| Title | Ibn Rushd and his Criticism for Esh’arism |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2010 |
| Journal | Journal of Islamic Research |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 82-97 |
| Categories | al-Ġazālī, Theology, Relation between Philosophy and Theology |
| Author(s) | Orhan Atalay |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5335","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5335,"authors_free":[{"id":6181,"entry_id":5335,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Orhan Atalay","free_first_name":"Orhan ","free_last_name":"Atalay","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Ibn Rushd and his Criticism for Esh\u2019arism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Ibn Rushd and his Criticism for Esh\u2019arism"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":14,"category_name":"al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b"},{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"},{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5335,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of Islamic Research","volume":"3","issue":"2 ","pages":" 82-97"}},"sort":["Ibn Rushd and his Criticism for Esh\u2019arism"]}
| Title | Investigating the Influence of Ibn Rushd from Ghazali on the Issue of Interpretation of Religious Texts |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Arabic |
| Date | 2022 |
| Journal | Comparative Theology |
| Volume | 13 |
| Issue | 27 |
| Pages | 1-16 |
| Categories | al-Ġazālī, Influence, Relation between Philosophy and Theology |
| Author(s) | Abuzar Rajabi , Morsal Azizi |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Islamic thinkers do not think alike about understanding similar verses and the issue of the appearance and interiority of verses, and sometimes there are fundamental differences between them. Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd are in favor of using the method of interpretation in understanding similar verses and considering the way of escaping from the challenge and conflict of appearance and the inner self using the approach of interpretation. Ibn Rushd was famous for opposing Al-Ghazali and writing the book Tahaft Al-Tahaft in his critique of Tahaft al-Ghazali philosophers. Despite the criticisms, he is influenced by Al-Ghazali in some cases, and especially in the matter of interpretation. Al-Ghazali has two approaches encountering the problem of interpretation in two intellectual periods, in both of which he has been able to provide a new model by presenting a special approach in interpretation so that others can take a step in this direction and achieve a methodical understanding of religious texts. He has benefited a lot from this research model in understanding Ibn Rushd's text. According to the research findings, Ibn Rushd was influenced by Ghazali both in the nature of interpretation and in the reasoning and necessity of accepting it, as well as in the means of approaching interpretation. In the present descriptive-analytical study, the influence of Ibn Rushd from Ghazali on the issue of interpretation has been investigated.Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd are both advocates of using the method of interpretation in understanding the text. Although Ghazali is one of the Ash'arite theologians, in the matter of interpretation in both intellectual periods, he distances himself from thinkers such as Abul Hassan Ash'ari, Baqalani, and Jovini and accepts the methodical interpretation in understanding many verses of the Holy Qur'an. Methodology and adherence to a disciplined mechanism in interpretation are the characteristics of using this method by Al-Ghazali.Ibn Al-Rushd, like Al-Ghazali, does not see a conflict between the outward and inward meaning of the verses of the Holy Qur'an. Interpretation is a method that philosophers have the right to use in understanding the Holy Qur'an. Although this method raised serious objections to Al-Ghazali, it is influenced by Al-Ghazali’s interpretation. Ibn Al-Rushd mentions Al-Ghazali in many cases and considers Ghazali's method in this regard to be correct. He speaks about the nature of interpretation, the necessity of paying attention to it, its types and varieties, the division of the audience of revelation, and the permission and impermissibility of interpretation like Al-Ghazali. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5766","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5766,"authors_free":[{"id":6678,"entry_id":5766,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Abuzar Rajabi","free_first_name":"Abuzar ","free_last_name":"Rajabi","norm_person":null},{"id":6679,"entry_id":5766,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Morsal Azizi","free_first_name":"Morsal ","free_last_name":"Azizi","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Investigating the Influence of Ibn Rushd from Ghazali on the Issue of Interpretation of Religious Texts","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Investigating the Influence of Ibn Rushd from Ghazali on the Issue of Interpretation of Religious Texts"},"abstract":"Islamic thinkers do not think alike about understanding similar verses and the issue of the appearance and interiority of verses, and sometimes there are fundamental differences between them. Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd are in favor of using the method of interpretation in understanding similar verses and considering the way of escaping from the challenge and conflict of appearance and the inner self using the approach of interpretation. Ibn Rushd was famous for opposing Al-Ghazali and writing the book Tahaft Al-Tahaft in his critique of Tahaft al-Ghazali philosophers. Despite the criticisms, he is influenced by Al-Ghazali in some cases, and especially in the matter of interpretation. Al-Ghazali has two approaches encountering the problem of interpretation in two intellectual periods, in both of which he has been able to provide a new model by presenting a special approach in interpretation so that others can take a step in this direction and achieve a methodical understanding of religious texts. He has benefited a lot from this research model in understanding Ibn Rushd's text. According to the research findings, Ibn Rushd was influenced by Ghazali both in the nature of interpretation and in the reasoning and necessity of accepting it, as well as in the means of approaching interpretation. In the present descriptive-analytical study, the influence of Ibn Rushd from Ghazali on the issue of interpretation has been investigated.Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd are both advocates of using the method of interpretation in understanding the text. Although Ghazali is one of the Ash'arite theologians, in the matter of interpretation in both intellectual periods, he distances himself from thinkers such as Abul Hassan Ash'ari, Baqalani, and Jovini and accepts the methodical interpretation in understanding many verses of the Holy Qur'an. Methodology and adherence to a disciplined mechanism in interpretation are the characteristics of using this method by Al-Ghazali.Ibn Al-Rushd, like Al-Ghazali, does not see a conflict between the outward and inward meaning of the verses of the Holy Qur'an. Interpretation is a method that philosophers have the right to use in understanding the Holy Qur'an. Although this method raised serious objections to Al-Ghazali, it is influenced by Al-Ghazali\u2019s interpretation. Ibn Al-Rushd mentions Al-Ghazali in many cases and considers Ghazali's method in this regard to be correct. He speaks about the nature of interpretation, the necessity of paying attention to it, its types and varieties, the division of the audience of revelation, and the permission and impermissibility of interpretation like Al-Ghazali.","btype":3,"date":"2022","language":"Arabic","online_url":"","doi_url":"10.22108\/coth.2022.131221.1658","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":14,"category_name":"al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b"},{"id":24,"category_name":"Influence","link":"bib?categories[]=Influence"},{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5766,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Comparative Theology","volume":"13","issue":"27","pages":"1-16"}},"sort":["Investigating the Influence of Ibn Rushd from Ghazali on the Issue of Interpretation of Religious Texts"]}
| Title | Revisiting the Conflict between Religion and Philosophy in Islam: al- Ghazâlî’s Diagnosis of Onto-Theology |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2008 |
| Journal | Journal of Islamic Research |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 5–22 |
| Categories | Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Ontology, Theology, al-Ġazālī |
| Author(s) | Fehrullah Terkan |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5378","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5378,"authors_free":[{"id":6230,"entry_id":5378,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fehrullah Terkan","free_first_name":"Fehrullah","free_last_name":"Terkan","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Revisiting the Conflict between Religion and Philosophy in Islam: al- Ghaz\u00e2l\u00ee\u2019s Diagnosis of Onto-Theology","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Revisiting the Conflict between Religion and Philosophy in Islam: al- Ghaz\u00e2l\u00ee\u2019s Diagnosis of Onto-Theology"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2008","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":65,"category_name":"Ontology","link":"bib?categories[]=Ontology"},{"id":39,"category_name":"Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Theology"},{"id":14,"category_name":"al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5378,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of Islamic Research","volume":"1","issue":"2","pages":"5\u201322"}},"sort":["Revisiting the Conflict between Religion and Philosophy in Islam: al- Ghaz\u00e2l\u00ee\u2019s Diagnosis of Onto-Theology"]}
| Title | The Importance of History and Perspective in Understanding Mediæval Philosophy: The Case of Maimonides’ Response to the Question of Eternity |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2023 |
| Journal | The Maghreb Review |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 289-307 |
| Categories | Relation between Philosophy and Theology, Maimonides, al-Ġazālī |
| Author(s) | S. M. Hadi Gerami |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The study aims to show how taking history and perspective into consideration could help in understanding mediæval philosophy. To that end, in spite of a philosophical assumption which usually considers that there is no connection between eternity and creation, the paper assumes that Maimonides planned to establish a distinct response which was neither creation nor eternity. Investigating Maimonides’ perspective will be approached in two ways. Firstly, through the distinction between Maimonides, on one hand and theologians and philosophers on the other will be discussed from an intellectual point of view. Al-Ghazālī will be compared to Maimonides to show that, despite initial impressions, they differ substantially from each other on this issue. It will also be shown how Maimonides differentiated his discourse from that of the Greek philosophers. It will firstly be shown here that Maimonides’ response to the question of eternity adopts a different position from that of the classical theologians and the ancient philosophers. Secondly, the historicity of Maimonides’ discourse, or whether anyone else shared Maimonides’ conciliatory approach, will be examined. It will be shown that Averroes has the highest affinity with Maimonides in this regard. This will result in recognition of the fact that Maimonides’ “conciliatory approach” was shared with some other mediæval philosophers such as Averroes. Ultimately, it will be explained how Maimonides’ complicated concept of eternity can be better understood and justified if one takes perspective and historical discourse into consideration, showing that he was someone who tried to incorporate “conciliatory discourse” into mediæval philosophy. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5604","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5604,"authors_free":[{"id":6505,"entry_id":5604,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"S. M. Hadi Gerami","free_first_name":"S. M. Hadi ","free_last_name":" Gerami","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"The Importance of History and Perspective in Understanding Medi\u00e6val Philosophy: The Case of Maimonides\u2019 Response to the Question of Eternity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"The Importance of History and Perspective in Understanding Medi\u00e6val Philosophy: The Case of Maimonides\u2019 Response to the Question of Eternity"},"abstract":"The study aims to show how taking history and perspective into consideration could help in understanding medi\u00e6val philosophy. To that end, in spite of a philosophical assumption which usually considers that there is no connection between eternity and creation, the paper assumes that Maimonides planned to establish a distinct response which was neither creation nor eternity. Investigating Maimonides\u2019 perspective will be approached in two ways. Firstly, through the distinction between Maimonides, on one hand and theologians and philosophers on the other will be discussed from an intellectual point of view. Al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b will be compared to Maimonides to show that, despite initial impressions, they differ substantially from each other on this issue. It will also be shown how Maimonides differentiated his discourse from that of the Greek philosophers. It will firstly be shown here that Maimonides\u2019 response to the question of eternity adopts a different position from that of the classical theologians and the ancient philosophers. Secondly, the historicity of Maimonides\u2019 discourse, or whether anyone else shared Maimonides\u2019 conciliatory approach, will be examined. It will be shown that Averroes has the highest affinity with Maimonides in this regard. This will result in recognition of the fact that Maimonides\u2019 \u201cconciliatory approach\u201d was shared with some other medi\u00e6val philosophers such as Averroes. Ultimately, it will be explained how Maimonides\u2019 complicated concept of eternity can be better understood and justified if one takes perspective and historical discourse into consideration, showing that he was someone who tried to incorporate \u201cconciliatory discourse\u201d into medi\u00e6val philosophy.","btype":3,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"10.1353\/tmr.2015.0029","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":47,"category_name":"Relation between Philosophy and Theology","link":"bib?categories[]=Relation between Philosophy and Theology"},{"id":9,"category_name":"Maimonides","link":"bib?categories[]=Maimonides"},{"id":14,"category_name":"al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b","link":"bib?categories[]=al-\u0120az\u0101l\u012b"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5604,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Maghreb Review","volume":"40","issue":"3","pages":"289-307"}},"sort":["The Importance of History and Perspective in Understanding Medi\u00e6val Philosophy: The Case of Maimonides\u2019 Response to the Question of Eternity"]}