Jump to content

Talk:Islamic philosophy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Choij759 (talk | contribs)
50 edits
Update Introduction to Islam assignment details
Line 22: Line 22:
|bot=LivingBot
|bot=LivingBot
}}
}}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/The_New_School/Introduction_to_Islam_(Fall_2019) | assignments = [[User:Choij759|Choij759]] | start_date = 2019-08-27 | end_date = 2019-12-16 }}


==(random heading)==
==(random heading)==

Revision as of 17:27, 4 November 2019

See also: Talk:Early Islamic philosophy

Template:Vital article

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Choij759 (article contribs).

(random heading)

(inserted for readability Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

umm u forgot to mention sayid muhamad baqir al sadr, or do you not consider him a philosopher

This article is excellent as far as it goes, but:

  • the vocabulary is intense
  • it's impossible for an historian or student to read without understanding all the philosophy
  • it lacks links to specific figures or concepts that are now in the wikipedia, e.g. Ibn Sina
  • It's using variant spellings, e.g. for Mutazilite
  • there seems to be no clue it exists in the article on general philosophy.
  • the term "Islamic" is hard to justify as not all this thought was strictly within the frame of Islam. It was carried out by Muslims, however, thus it can neutrally be called "Muslim philosophy" or more strictly "early Muslim philosophy. There is already an article there that's easy for beginners and takes an historical perspective rather than looking at the exact influences on Islam, undersatnding of Aristotle.
  • there are modern Islamic philosophers, like Ismail al-Faruqi and Nasr, who have specific modern programs, e.g. the Islamization of knowledge. If this article is to retain it's title, it would have to deal with those modern movements, and everything in between.
  • the title implies Islamic philosophy is some kind of dead end given what's in the article. Would we have an article on Christian philosophy and include everything said by Christians, whether it was about Christ or not?

We definitely need a convention for beginners' versus advanced articles.

I agree with every one of your comments and suggestions. What is here is only intended to be a "seed"; I hope that over time it can develop into a better article. It definately needs to be rewritten so that it is accessible to newcomers and beginners. It would be too much to do all of this at once, so perhaps it would be best to start by (A) standardizing the spelling to match other Wikipedia articles; (b) making the proper links to related Wikipedia articles, (C) writing a very general introduction. Then anyone can work on improving the rest of the article one paragraph at a time. RK

Where did this article originally come from? Is it original work or is it from a book? It might be nice to see a reference or two unless it is completely original work (i.e. you wrote it without referring to any other text). Is it the same situation as in Talk:Islam and Judaism? Silver Maple

The author is likely gone, or else it might be copied from somewhere, as there is little evidence of this style of writing anywhere else in any article on Islam. As a general reference it would be better for us to adopt more like the historical style of articles like Asharite, early Muslim philosophy or the reference style of list of Islamic terms in Arabic, or the newsy style of modern Islamic philosophy or Islamic world. Vocabulary reall should not be allowed to become a barrier to understanding, particularly on this much-misunderstood subject of Islam. We need many more biographies of key figures in scientific history who HAPPEN TO BE Muslims, as these people really did create the scientific method and what we now call "history" as a social science. It's shameful to treat Islamic philosophy as a dead subject, also, see modern Islamic philosophy. I'd say that alone makes this one here not NPOV.

The current structure of articles about Islamic philosophy leaves a gap between 12th and 20th century. I refuse to beleieve nobody wrote anything philosophical in a large part of the world for seven centuries - but unfortunately I'm unable to fill the gap. Also, there seems to be nothing on local and language-based traditions like Arabian, Persian etc philosophy. :( --Oop 13:32, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)


Put the bulk of the article in the classical period. Added the sections, "Formative Influences" and "Later Islamic Philosophy. It is difficuly to demark "Later Islamic Philosophy since some people include Ibn Khaldun in it also hence a rough demarcation can be eitehr 1200 or 1400 depedning upon the author. The modern period can ssafely be said to have started roughly from mid 1800 or so.--Vonaurum 00:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction of this article is muddled and misrepresents Arabic philosophy by spending most of its time discussing whether or not it is is 'compatible'. Religion and philosophy outside of the western context, i.e. alive and well inside the Islamic world, is certainly a synthesis, and as such 'arabic philosophy' is not the same as 'analytic philosophy'. The two should not try and be reconciled in this article (at least in the intro) for there is a rich history of Arabic philosophy that is more crucial to the Islamic tradition, Arabic history, and the history of philosophy as well (more context is needed of how Plato and Aristotle's texts made their way into the Arabic world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pole to Pole (talk • contribs) 19:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's not only out of place, it's terribly misleading. --18:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)benoît —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quodvolat (talk • contribs)

Am I mistaken or does this make very little sense? :

"Islamic philosophy is a generic term that can be defined and used in different ways, it is the perception of Islam, so that philosophy is derived from the Islamic texts used in the creation of the universe and the life of the Creator-term vision can be offered. But there are other facts or wider Islamic religious texts without the need to be linked to the legitimacy of the Islamic empire, the shadow of the Arab-Islamic culture and Islamic civilization and philosophical concepts discussed in the context involves the use of all the work. Sometimes all the philosophical works of Muslim philosophers in the progress of Islamic philosophy. Islamic civilization has been under article onions and endeavor to provide a comprehensive view of all that philosophy, all of these studies when considering the difficulty of distinguishing between." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.2.99 (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Err

The article says "Driven from the Islamic schools, Islamic philosophy found a refuge with the Jews, to whom belongs the honor of having transmitted it to the Christian world", which is a gross oversimplification, and largely inaccurate. It doesnt even mention Scot, who was not "the jews", nor was he Jewish (A catholic priest is what he was), yet Scot is unquestionably the most important figure in bringing the developing Islamic philosophy to the christian west (Granted.. he travelled would have been travelling east, but you know what I mean). I'm going to try and split it into sub-sections on the varying philosophies, and varying philosophers and their teachings and writings, Feel free to correct any omissions or inacuracies, but please if you do not like it, do not revert it without letting me know firstly! Cheers. --Irishpunktom\talk 19:47, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Move

Would this be better under the heading "Philosophy in Islam", or "Muslim Philosophy", because of a lot of the works of the Muslim Philosophers was considered non-islamic, even blasphemous. Just a thought that struck me. --Irishpunktom\talk 23:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

"Muslim Philosophy" would suggest that it is the philosophy of Islam. "Islamic" is preferred for denoting precisely the ambiguity you desire. --RJC 1 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)
Both terms (Muslim Philosophy and Islamic Philosoph) can be encountered in literature (as we see fe in Further reading section) User:abdullah_mk
If they were attempting philosophy from an Islamic perspective then it is Islamic even if it has been considered blaspemous by others. In their times the Mu'tazila were respected but in time they became called blaspemous by the main groups... they are still Islamic. gren グレン 01:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


ALso, Ghazali's birth is listed here as 1005, but under his biograpgy it is 1058. Could someone clarify/rectify please?

Merge

There were and are non-Muslim Arabs and Muslim non-Arabs (Iqbal) .... I think a merge would be a horrible idea, we just need to keep the articles clean gren グレン 01:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikify

I did a brief wikify/cleanup, but the links are not specific to the Islamic sections. Furthering wikification is required. freestylefrappe 23:42, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Shortcomings

  • This article has considerable gaps even in clasical period. It almost completly lacks any reference to mysthical thought and post-Mutazalit Kalam thought (notably Ashari). Also description of Ghazali is rather scetchy and Ibn Taymyah is somehow missing. It likes any reference to clasical muslim political thought (like Nizam al-Mulk or Al-Mawardi) and Fiqh. The impact of Muslim philosophy on Western one could be more extensievly described too.
  • I don't understend sentence "Aristotle attempted to demonstrate the unity of God; but from the view which he maintained, that matter was eternal, it followed that God could not be the Creator of the world". Shouldn't it be rather "Aristotelian muslim thinkers ...."?
  • Section "Later Islamic philosophy" deals almost exclusivly with Iranian/Shia thought (Also in other paraghraphs some Iranian/Shia bias may be noticed, but at this point it is not serious problem)
  • Article lack any reference to Afghani, Abduh or Rashi Riza (and whole Hahda) or Seyd Ahmad Khan.
  • Shouldn't the terminology of this article be harmonized with that of the article Early Islamic philosophyor mayby both articles can be merged? I think in the latter one "Early" means "not-contemopary" ie. Classical and pre-classical

User:abdullah_mk

Error/Contradiction

Just briefly I would like to remind that that Ibn Sina, Al-Farabi, Ibn Rushd and others presented the Greek philosophy to the Muslim world. They did not brought up or did not contribute in a philosophy compatible with the Islamic beliefs and faith. The first attempts to the Islamic philosophy was Ilm-ul Kalam, as it is already mentioned in the article. But the main and early scholars who wrote on Islamic philosophy were Al-Ghazali, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi and some other scholars of Asharite school.Ariana310 12:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are different ideas about this issue. Some scholars believe Ibn Sina and Al-Farabi just presented the Greek philosophy to the Muslim world or added a few problems or ideas to it[1] but others like Hanry Corbin believe especial philosophy has originated from Islamic thought, Ibn Sina and Al-Farabi are affected by it and it's not equal with Kalam. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Islamic philosophy: I deleted the statement "*In Southern/South East Europe the teachings of the skeptic Al-Ibn Theodorakis have found considerable favour.", because an Al-Ibn Theodorakis simply doesn`t exist. 91.61.199.103 (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong classification in Later Islamic philosophy section

Please pay attention to Later Islamic philosophy. There is written Post-classical Islamic philosophers are usually divided into two main categories according to their affiliation with the Sunni and Shia denominations. Of course, there are many contemporary philosophers and thinkers such as Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Imam Musa Sadr who do not accept the importance of this classification. But there is a consensus that we can categorize this era according to the two main approaches. Where is the reliable source which supports the claimed consensus.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the fact that "Post-classical Islamic philosophy" is a completely wrong title and classification is baseless, I remove "[edit] Later Islamic philosophy". Delete irrelevant and wrong information and merge rellevant parts in the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Islamic philosophy

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islamic philosophy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Britannica":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the title

i suggest changing the title "islamic philosophy" to "philosophy in/of medieval Islam". the adjective "islamic" does not make sense for the same reason that "islamic mathematics, science, medicine,..." do not make any (linguistic and philosophical) sense.--Xashaiar (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendent school

—The discussion regarding Mulla Sadra's existentialism is beset by a rather prevalent misconception. The principality of existence does not mean that "existence precedes essence". Rather the question of princilpality refers to the question of which of the two, essence or existence, is real with the other being derivatory. So, when Mulla Sadra postulates the principality of existence, he does not state that there is a reality by the name of existence which comes into existence first (pardon the tautological expression) and then spawns another reality by the name of essence. Instead, essence is merely a mental construct, or more properly a mental abstraction (انتزاع) from the existential limits of the given existent. The mind, or the soul, abstracts the essence as it is affected by the existential limits of the existent. Existence is real. Essence is derivatory. The issue can be illustrated by an analogy: consider two men, one old and the other young. When you consider their relation by blood, you call them father and son. When you consider their relation in terms of learning and education, you might call them teacher and student. When you consider them in terms of their finanicial relationship, you might call one the provider and the other dependant. It isn't that there is a reality of the two men, the reality of the father and the son, the reality of the teacher and the student and the reality of the provider and the dependant. These are not separate realities albeit one preceding the other. There is only one reality (speaking on the level of the analogy): the two men. The other appellations are merely considerations of the different relations and limitations of the two men, which the mind abstracts from the simple reality of the two men. This is an issue widely understood in the circles where Islamic philosophy is still practiced.[1] I hope this error is rectified since it lies at the core of all transcendent philosophy, and unless properly understood turns the whole edifice of the grand philosophical system of Mulla Sadra on its head. I might also add that we must be very cautious in our dealings with Islamic philosophy. It has hidden treasures which may still have a lot to offer for the modern man. But we must guard against allowing our studies in western philosophy (though they are worthy in their own right) to shroud the Islamic discourse in alien concepts. European existentialism, according to my limited understanding and studies, have very little to do with Mulla Sadra's conception of principality of existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QaziFaizan (talk • contribs) 21:37, 28 September 2009

Joined up thinking on hyperlinking

I would hope that there are many people that may wish to track down source materials related to issues such as philosophy and yet many of these people may, like me, have a rotten memory for names. Things get especially difficult when people who are featured in artlcles may be known by multiple names. To make things easier on folk like myself I have altered links in the Islamic Philosophy Article to read: Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroës) and further name references to read Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroës).

I thought about presenting the links Ibn Sina ('Avicenna') and Ibn Rushd ('Averroës') or even as Ibn Sina ("Avicenna") and Ibn Rushd ("Averroës"). My personal view is that the addition of the quotation marks might potentially pave the way for a "see what they have done to the names of our people" type reaction but now, looking at the single quotation mark result, it doesn't seem so bad to me. Its your religion and your philosophy and you can do as you think best. My suggestion is that a convention may be agreed upon and followed in respect to the use of all hyperlinks related to all relevant Wikipedia articles and that this is done with respect to all relevant languages.

I hope these thoughts are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregkaye (talk • contribs) 07:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References that by necessity require the use of the western name might read: 'Avicenna' (Ibn Sina) - 'Avicenna' (Ibn Sina)

Gregkaye (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Hanifa

There is a disputed quotation from "Abu Hanifa" in "Criticism" section. The statement claims that Abu Hanifa said this:

"these are the statements of philosophers. Stick to the athaar (narrations) and the path of the Salaf, and beware of all newly invented affairs, for verily they are innovations."

This quotation from a source called "Dhammul-Kalaam" is no way neutral. Abu Hanifa himself uses logic for developing his school of thought and advises to use mind to inquire and learn. It's impossible for Abu Hanifa to voice such a bigotted comment. It's apparently an attack on the reputation of Abu Hanifa. It's not neutral nor the source is reliable. It's an opinion about Abu Hanifa which perverts facts and ridicules the reader.

should be removed.

--78.162.183.110 (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good-faith scribble in the intro

Someone made an addition in the intro, that I reverted, and that properly belong to here:

[[[A Note, by Syed Hasan Shahid Bukhari.]]]
I have only one comment to make regarding the Subject of this Paper and it Is, That "Philosophy is Considered Insanity, in the Lord's known Word ... Therefore, the very Premise, that there is anything like "Islamic Philosophy" in Islam, is False.
What we do have, is the usual. In, that there have been Muslims in History, who in following Ibne Rusd, Sina and similar others, influenced by the Greeks, did adopt the Greek mode of Cognition, as the means of communicating in the distinct mode of Reason. The Qadiani, devised a totally new Interpretation of Islam, based on the Method of "Rational Interpretation of the Divine."
(concluded)

Syed Hasan Shahid Bukhari: I believe you're wrong for the simple reason that western philosophers claim they have borrowed heavily from islamic philosophers. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I retract that standing point (for not reading you carefully enough, pardon!), and instead attain the standing point: I believe you're wrong because islam provides ittihad, enabling a kind of specific reasoning that created room for philosophy and science. "Islamic" in this context means, "of the islamic culture". Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

First paragraph in section Definition needs a total rewrite. It defines an outside-of-religion context. It is philosophically flawed, since it seemingly presumes that philosophy is a thought tradition independent of religion and culture. The real reality is that there are always clashes and frictions between various thought traditions in a culture, but at the same time they cross-fertilize each other. Natural science is, from a cultural perspective, just another thought traditions, except it is an extraordinarily thought productive one, since it's purpose is thought production, where the thoughts are usable. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

consistency

Either use 'Ibn Sina' or 'Avicenna' but not both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.143.139 (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Division of Main Schools With Separate Systems

Whilst the articles exist separately for the Mutazali, Ashari, and Maturidi philosophies should we not have some basic information in the Early Islamic philosophy section and then reference the articles for further information?

Also Kalam, and Falsifa should not be under Early Islamic philosophy but should rather be under some heading like "Elements of Islamic Philosophy" etc etc, because they are categories of IP and not IP itself.

I also think the school of Abu Hanifa should be mentioned since it builds on the principles of Istihsan and reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al-Fakhr (talk • contribs) 07:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims opposed to philosophy

Added the following to the introduction section as something should be said about opposition to philosophy:

On the other hand, according to IslamQA.info (supervised by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid of Saudi Arabia)

The terminology of Islamic philosophy did not emerge as a branch of knowledge that is taught in the curriculum of Islamic studies until it was introduced by Shaykh Mustafa ‘Abd al-Razzaaq – the Shaykh of al-Azhar – as a reaction to western attacks on Islam based on the idea that Islam has no philosophy. But the fact of the matter is that philosophy is an alien entity in the body of Islam. ... The majority of fuqaha’ [experts in fiqh] have stated that it is haraam to study philosophy.[2]

(The fatwa seems a little ambiguous to me as to what exactly the philosophy is that it is condemning. It starts out saying there are four branches of philosophy including Geometry and Mathematics, Logic, Natural sciences, but it is not clear that some of these are halal and some haram. But whatever its lack of clarity, the source, IslamQA is very heavily used and shouldn't be ignored IMHO. ) --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

  1. ^ An Introduction to Muslim Philosophy (Part 4) by Taqi Mesbah Yazdi Al-Tawhid vol XII, No 3(available at al-islam.org)
  2. ^ Shaykh Saalih al-Munajjid, Muhammad (General Supervisor) (2006 December 6). "88184: Ruling on studying philosophy. What is the ruling on studying philosophy? Please note that studying it is compulsory for us in Algeria". Islam Question and Answer. Retrieved 27 November 2016. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Will add more from IslamQA.info to the article later. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of ambiguity here. Opposition to philosophy could mean any of the following:
  1. Opposition to raising any philosophical issues at all, on the ground that one should obey and not question
  2. Opposition to the medieval school of falsafa: Aristotle as commented on by Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes et al, on the ground that it is right to ask the questions but they got the answer wrong
  3. Opposition to the teaching of modern Western philosophy, on the ground that it leads to atheism and scepticism.
An Ash'ari, for example, is clearly opposed to "philosophy" in sense 2, but the issues he discusses are clearly philosophical. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Islamic philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Islamic philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_philosophy&oldid=924570134"