جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « غزالی » در نشریات گروه « فلسفه و کلام »

The question of whether the universe is eternal and without beginning or created by God from nothing and thus temporally originated has long preoccupied philosophers and theologians. This debate has given rise to extensive discussions in philosophical and theological writings under the topic of "origination and eternity." Most philosophers have regarded the universe as eternal, while most theologians have considered it temporally originated. The conflicts and rebuttals between supporters of these two camps were to be expected. Imam Muhammad Ghazali's book The Incoherence of the Philosophers is one of the well-known rebuttals written against Ibn Sina and his belief in the eternity of the world. This paper, after summarizing the historical debate on this issue, reexamines the conflict and aims to provide a new interpretation. Essentially, the debate over origination and eternity can be understood as appearing to address the nature of the universe, but in reality, each side had theological preconceptions, and the underlying issue was shaped by different theological perspectives.

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

There are various viewpoints on the levels of creation and issuing the plurality of unity in the history of Islamic thoughts. Among them, Abu Hamed Ghazali and Ain al-Quzat Hamedani, despite their discrepancies with Islamic Peripatetic Plotinus in the theory of Emanations and oneness (Al-Vahed) principle, keeping theoretical aspects, tried to solve the problem through illuminations perspectives and with the discussion on light and manifestation. The present study implemented a comparative-analytical methodology to investigate the ontological view of Ghazali and Ain al-Quzat in issuing the plurality of unity. The findings represent that the concept of the Great Soul in the ontological system of Ain al-Quzat has similarities with Mutaa in Abu Hamed Ghazali's view. The Great Soul and Mutaa refer to a divine order responsible for creation and world regulation. Both viewpoints are examples of Mohammad’s light which is the first manifestation of Nour al Anwar (light of lights). Ghazali focused on its true knowledge aspect and Ain al-Quzat on its ontology. Although Mutaa and Great Soul have similar nature to the First Intellect of Islamic Peripatetic since their relations to God is like the relation between light and the source of light, they lack true existence and agency. Therefore, rejecting the linear and sequential order of creation, both thinkers raised the view of stewardship or the coexistence of the creator with creatures.

The science of logic, with a history as long as human thought, was compiled by the Greek thinker Aristotle (322-384 BC) in separate books, and his early commentators divided it into nine parts under the title "Organon" and this work in the beginning of Islam was gradually translated into Arabic by Syriac Christians. Kennedy, Farabi and especially Avicenna converted Aristotle's nine-part logic into two parts with logical reasoning. By changing the position of chapters and content of logic based on scientific reasons, increasing and changing the topics related to categories, theorems, contradictions and reverse theorems, and dozens of other cases, they created a fundamental transformation in logic. Al-Ghazali is a follower of Ibn Sina in compiling his logic into two parts, but he is essentially an Islamic theologian and jurist, and he approaches logic with this attitude. In the interaction between Aristotelian logic and jurisprudence and Islamic principles, he presented logic with words, concepts, and practical examples of Islamic sciences and jurisprudence principles, and gave it a logical direction by reasoning and rationalizing the principles of jurisprudence, especially jurisprudence analogy. Gharali's logical and principled works are different from the works of the past, because in addition to using words in Islamic sciences that change logical concepts, he considers analogy and reasoning as the basis of logic, and he extracts analogy from the Qur'an and uses reasoning as the only means of understanding of the Qur'an. This article tries to describe this interaction with a descriptive-analytical method.

In the present paper, one of the most applied topics of philosophy, that is, wise living, which promises happiness, has been discussed. This issue is traced and investigated comparatively, especially in the thought of Ghazali and Schopenhauer. That humans have always been concerned about living well can be witnessed in ancient texts and advice from ancestors. In this regard, wisdom guides humans in a way that they can have happy and peaceful moments. Here, both Ghazali and Schopenhauer described self-knowledge as prior knowledge and necessary for happiness. They both believed that human wisdom could guide them to the blissful. However, there is a difference between Ghazali and Schopenhauer in that Ghazali emphasizes religious elements and proposes practical methods such as implementing Sharia’, seeking knowledge, and striving for a living. In contrast, Schopenhauer has paid attention to other issues like anthropology and understanding the nature of human life, based on which he described health and planning as useful methods.

Interpretation is one of the significant knowledge in Quranic sciences, especially in the field of interpretation of divine verses, which is known as hermeneutics among orientalists. This knowledge results in a deep and esoteric reading of the text of the Qur'an. Abu Hamid Ghazali, a thinker and thinker of Islamic sciences of the 5th century (450 A.H.), did not write an independent book in the field of Quranic sciences, but in his works, he frequently sought help from the verses of the Quran. This article aims to examine the numerous works of Ghazali Roubkard in his interpretation of the divine verses and to state some examples of their examples in the Qur'an. The approach adopted by Ghazali in the interpretation of verses has not been addressed by many commentators. The analysis of Ghazali's opinions and the review of the opinions of other commentators and thinkers are reviewed in selected verses. The most prominent interpretation of Ghazali is related to the verse of Noor, which is criticized by referring to the opinions of other commentators. The approach of the article is that Ghazali's understanding of the interpretation of divine verses is not based on Sufi knowledge and other knowledge.

Adopting a descriptive-analytical method, the present study deals with issuing action from Ghazali’s point of view. Consistent with his different perspectives that he assumes, research in the field of Ghazalian studies enjoys coherence and has the quality of opening different windows of insight into the stages of the process of issuing action. As examples, we can refer to involuntary promise and the lack of inconsistency between Ghazali’s topics of discussion with those of the intellectual pillars of psychology. He has stablished the infrastructure of the intellectual pillars of psychology and the structure of action in his early works. He has explained the apparent conflict of his theory of inaccessibility of the essence of things and the philosophical definition of man in Ma'arej al-Quds. The current structure of man, from the deep to the surface structure, is the scientific position of choosing the end, creating enthusiasm through the sensual powers and the power of anger (willful action), or through the power of knowledge (volitional action). Willful enthusiasm belongs to the animal stage and volitional enthusiasm to the stage of man. Its surface structure consists of motor muscles. The necessitas of actualization of choosing the end and non-volitional minds in both mystical and philosophical approaches is reaching the position of dogmatism according to the rank of each human being, which explains the apparent contradiction between opinion and action. Applying will to the structure of action indicates the role of will in performing optional and obligatory actions.

One of the viewpoints about bodily resurrection is Ghazali's theory, which believes in the alike of the otherworldly body and the worldly body. On the other hand, Mulla Sadra explained the physical resurrection according to the principles of his philosophical system and concluded that the soul and the body will be the same. Mulla Sadra criticizes Ghazali's theory; He considers the most important criticism of Ghazali's theory to be that it is not compatible with rational principles and that his opinion requires reincarnation. In this article, we have examined Mulla Sadra's criticisms of Ghazali on the issue of physical resurrection, and following that, we have stated the similarities and differences between the theories of these two thinkers. The similarities and differences between these two theories can be found through the method of intellectual analysis and through the analysis of Mulla Sadra's discussion on Ghazali. Similarities can be seen between the theory of these two thinkers regarding the survival of the soul after death and the intellectual celibacy of the soul, although these two theories are distinct and different from each other in their approach to the nature of the human soul and the relationship between the soul and the body. Therefore, in the quality of the afterlife body, they interpreted it as the similarity or objectivity of the afterlife body with the worldly body, but this difference is in the interpretation, and in fact, the meaning of these two thinkers is the same thing, and that is that the identity between the person in the afterlife and the world is established.

One of the important topics in contemporary philosophy of religion is religious epistemology. This issue is predominantly discussed with an analytical approach. Of course, attempts have been made to infer the views of philosophers regarding this matter by referring to continental philosophies. Similarly, insights from thinkers in the Iranian-Islamic tradition have been utilized to gain a better understanding of this topic. In this article, I will discuss the doctrine of education, which is considered one of the most crucial foundations of Ismaili Shia religious epistemology. There is a notable difference between Ismailiyyah (Batinyyah, didacticism) and Imamiyyah. However, they share an opinion in one of the most important beliefs, i.e., believing in the infallible Imam and obeying him. Analyzing the theory of education and the criticisms included in it can help to better understand the theory of Imamate among the Imams. Moreover, understanding the doctrine of education is of fundamental importance in comprehending the religious epistemology of Ismailia. The problem addressed in this research is the analysis of Ghazali's criticism of the doctrine of education.

From Ghazali's point of view, the basic strategy for moral education of human beings is "acting against the opposite". But can such a solution help the moral education of humans in all scientific and practical dimensions? The purpose of this research is to find the answer to this question in Ghazali's moral opinions and evaluate its success rate. For this purpose, Ghazali's moral works and the criticisms made on him were examined with the documentary method and the descriptive, analytical and critical method. The results of the research show that the scope of the mentioned solution, in addition to getting rid of vices, also includes acquiring and strengthening virtues.Also, it is both the internal and external aspects of human being, and besides external methods such as imitation and imposing on the self, it also has an opinion on internal methods such as learning and increasing knowledge. The most important criticisms of Ghazali's method in moral education are: the imposition of his method, disregard for the teachings of Ahl al-Bayt, along with attention to the ancient Greek heritage and trust in Sufi teachings.

Gazali’s perspectives on gnosis and knowledge are so important, because he has known much different knowledge in his era. In this paper, the difference between revealed gnosis, as a particular knowledge that belongs to the Prophets and human knowledge specifically the terrestrial world, has been explained. He has divided the sciences based on the object of knowledge, and its method, and aims to show that revelation is the most transcendent one. He believed that the revelation can be called a gnosis. The value of revealed gnosis has two aspects: firstly, it is a piece of certain knowledge, and second, without it achieving felicity can’t be possible. Never the other sciences can replace it but he has not wanted to humiliate the other sciences. He has applied philosophical and mystical notions to explain the revelation, but has explicitly expressed the revealed gnosis can’t be considered the same as another knowledge.

One of the fundamental issues in the course of human perfection is the acquisition of knowledge. The higher level of the human knowledge is, the closer its soul would be to its perfection. This important issue has made many thinkers represent their ideas. Throughout history, thinkers have presented different methods in this regard. The basic difference between these methods is the usage of religion or faith (revelation). As a result, some of these methods have an intellectual basis and some have a faithful (revelatory) basis. Among the most influential people in this process is Imam Mohammad Ghazali. The main goal of the current research is to investigate the effect of Ghazali's epistemological method on the course of philosophy by an analytical-descriptive method. This research seeks to find the answers to these questions, which epistemic method is Ghazali's statements based on? What effects has his method had on the course of philosophy, especially Mulla Sadra's thoughts? Ghazali's dealings with philosophers have brought different perceptions in a way that even some people consider him to be an anti-rational person. But his exact position deserves a more comprehensive and clear investigation. In fact, with his statements, Ghazali established a new mode of moderate rationalism among thinkers. This influence can be found in course of rationalism in philosophy and specifically in Mulla Sadra. He, in agreement with Ghazali, finds philosophical reason unable to provide opinions in all fields and considers benefiting from revelation along with relation to be the most reliable epistemological method.

Ghazali is one of the Islamic scholars with research works in the field of jurisprudence, ethics, theology and philosophy. Despite his alleged opposition to philosophy and philosophical thinking, his works shows, especially in topics related to psychology, that he is a rationalist thinker who has benefited from the methods and approaches of Islamic philosophers. In the present article, using a descriptive-analytical method, we have surveyed Ghazali's views on logic and philosophy and their application in psychology and we have come to the conclusion that, contrary to the opinion of some researchers who have considered Ghazali a strict anti-philosophy theologian, he  should be considered a rationalist theologian who, in all stages of his life, even when he turned to Sufism, remained loyal to rational principles and methods and considered reason to be the most important criterion for the validity of any kind of knowledge. In psychology, he is totally influenced by peripatetic philosophy, and due to his strong attachment to Ibn Sina's philosophical method in psychology, he sometimes borrow words from his books to support his own views. He adheres to logical arguments and considers reason as the criterion for testing the validity of other means of knowledge, that is, tradition, experience and intuition. According to some of Ghazali's theoretical foundations such as the negation of causality between phenomena, it seems that, by replacing causality with the theory of habit of Allah, he has managed to solve some of the requirements of the negation of causality in psychology. But such a theory is not free of ambiguities and problems.

This study compares Ahmad Ghazali and Jean-Luc Marion's thoughts about love using a descriptive-analytical method. Despite the differences between these two thinkers in terms of thought and time, the content of their thoughts is similar in some ways. In writing Savaneh al-Oshshaq, Ghazali uses the method of esoteric commentary to discover the mysteries of Sufi, and Marion uses Heidegger's phenomenology to explain the hidden angles of the love phenomenon. According to the fact that orientalists like Henry Corbin consider the method of phenomenology in the occident tradition to be in line with the esoteric commentary (Revelation of the Veiled or Kashf al-Mahjoub of Muslim mystics), the comparison of Marion's phenomenological approach and Ghazali's interpretation seems logical in a way. These two thinkers talk about the univocality of the concept of love and do not divide love into metaphorical and real aspects. Therefore, Ghazali and Marion consider love to have the same meaning, whether in human relationships or in connection with God. Marion's main goal is to refute the metaphysical dominance over theology and negate the conceptual and like idol attitude about God, and Ghazali interprets the lived experience of mystics, crosses the narrow fence of philosophical concepts, and uses the language of allegory and mystification to explain love.

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

The subject of teaching ethics is one of the fundamental and important issues of ethical knowledge. How the teacher treats students has important implications for well-being and educational issues. Ragheb Isfahani, the author of Al-Dari'ah al-Makarem al-Shari'ah, is one of the Muslim thinkers who has paid attention to the moral duties of the teacher in the course of the educational and moral issues of this book. Although the general structure of Ragheb Esfahani's moral theory in this book has been influenced by Greek philosophers, but its general content is religious and Qur'anic, in which philosophical and Qur'anic ethics are mixed. Since Ghazali's statements about teaching ethics in the Mizan-alamlal are influenced by Ragheb Isfahani's expressions, it can be acknowledged that there are similarities between these two books. Ragheb Esfahani in Al-Dari'ah talks about five duties for the teacher, but Ghazali talks about eight duties. Compassion, indirect deterrence, being a factor in speech and behavior, setting an example for the Prophet (PBUH) and addressing the learners according to their level of understanding, are among the most important tasks that both Ragheb Isfahani and Ghazali, but Ghazali from within, Some of these tasks take on other implications and provide a broader explanation of teaching ethics.