Revelation and Tradition in Islam PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download Revelation and Tradition in Islam PDF full book. Access full book title Revelation and Tradition in Islam by Leslie Terebessy. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: Leslie Terebessy
Publisher: Independently Published
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 100
Get Book Here
Book Description
An impartial eyewitness would expect people to follow what brought them from adversity to prosperity. But in Islam, it appears that the believers ended up following tradition rather than revelation. How did this happen? Why did the believers begin to follow their predecessors rather than revelation? How did their predecessors become mediators in their universe? This was a faux pas that would affect the ummah in adverse ways. Revelation was replaced by temporal guidance. The believers began to follow traditional rather than revealed Islam. As a result, Muslims find themselves in the straitjacket of tradition, which transmuted into a fetish. Tradition is treated as an "equal," a "judge" and even "abrogator" of revelation. The elevation of tradition to revelation and even above revelation was an expression of paganism, as it entailed associating a partner with, and even postulating the existence of a being "greater" than God. But no one is "greater" than Allah. The word of man differs from the word of God. Tradition is different from revelation. Tradition is man-made. Revelation is divine. Tradition emerges from revelation and is neither "equal" nor "similar" to revelation. To be relevant and authentic, tradition is required to follow revelation. But it appears that revelation was expected to follow tradition. Tradition affected the knowledge of revelation through unwarranted practices, for example the teaching of abrogation. As a result, the substantive teaching of revelation differs from that of tradition. Tradition drifted from revelation in key aspects, even becoming "independent" of the law. How could this be when it was revelation that spawned tradition in the first place? It appears that the deterioration was triggered by a breakdown of reason. Reason was shunned aside, as unfit to appreciate revelation. But this was a fateful step. For reason is required not just to understand but also to apply revelation. The following error was the designation of tradition as revelation. The latter is rich, addressing all aspects of life. By contrast, tradition is truncated; essential parts of the teaching of revelation are absent. Revelation emphasises justice, ethics, and reason; but we find few books addressing justice, reason or ethics in the traditions. But there is a plethora of traditions explaining the way to pray. What explains this aberration? The elevation of tradition to revelation facilitated the fusion of tradition and revelation. The fusion brought confusion. Blurring the difference between tradition and revelation enabled traditions to "judge" and even "abrogate" revelation. However, abrogation did not take place without a corruption of the knowledge of revelation. Rational analysis requires recognising and being alert to differences. When reasoning atrophies, knowledge deteriorates. In Islam, using reason to understand revelation was associated with kufr or non-belief, based on a fabricated tradition. As a result, reasoning deteriorated to the point of producing a "crisis in the Muslim mind." The denigration of reasoning made it harder to understand and therefore to follow revelation. It tainted the knowledge of revelation and triggered the disintegration of an empire. Will any nation flourish without the use of reason? Reason is the key to knowledge. The attainment of knowledge requires the use of reason. To reject reason is to dispense with the key to knowledge, to fall back into darkness. The renewal of the Muslim civilization thus requires recovering the knowledge of revelation, which presupposes the rehabilitation and re-engagement of reason for the purpose of understanding and following revelation.
Author: Leslie Terebessy
Publisher: Independently Published
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 100
Get Book Here
Book Description
An impartial eyewitness would expect people to follow what brought them from adversity to prosperity. But in Islam, it appears that the believers ended up following tradition rather than revelation. How did this happen? Why did the believers begin to follow their predecessors rather than revelation? How did their predecessors become mediators in their universe? This was a faux pas that would affect the ummah in adverse ways. Revelation was replaced by temporal guidance. The believers began to follow traditional rather than revealed Islam. As a result, Muslims find themselves in the straitjacket of tradition, which transmuted into a fetish. Tradition is treated as an "equal," a "judge" and even "abrogator" of revelation. The elevation of tradition to revelation and even above revelation was an expression of paganism, as it entailed associating a partner with, and even postulating the existence of a being "greater" than God. But no one is "greater" than Allah. The word of man differs from the word of God. Tradition is different from revelation. Tradition is man-made. Revelation is divine. Tradition emerges from revelation and is neither "equal" nor "similar" to revelation. To be relevant and authentic, tradition is required to follow revelation. But it appears that revelation was expected to follow tradition. Tradition affected the knowledge of revelation through unwarranted practices, for example the teaching of abrogation. As a result, the substantive teaching of revelation differs from that of tradition. Tradition drifted from revelation in key aspects, even becoming "independent" of the law. How could this be when it was revelation that spawned tradition in the first place? It appears that the deterioration was triggered by a breakdown of reason. Reason was shunned aside, as unfit to appreciate revelation. But this was a fateful step. For reason is required not just to understand but also to apply revelation. The following error was the designation of tradition as revelation. The latter is rich, addressing all aspects of life. By contrast, tradition is truncated; essential parts of the teaching of revelation are absent. Revelation emphasises justice, ethics, and reason; but we find few books addressing justice, reason or ethics in the traditions. But there is a plethora of traditions explaining the way to pray. What explains this aberration? The elevation of tradition to revelation facilitated the fusion of tradition and revelation. The fusion brought confusion. Blurring the difference between tradition and revelation enabled traditions to "judge" and even "abrogate" revelation. However, abrogation did not take place without a corruption of the knowledge of revelation. Rational analysis requires recognising and being alert to differences. When reasoning atrophies, knowledge deteriorates. In Islam, using reason to understand revelation was associated with kufr or non-belief, based on a fabricated tradition. As a result, reasoning deteriorated to the point of producing a "crisis in the Muslim mind." The denigration of reasoning made it harder to understand and therefore to follow revelation. It tainted the knowledge of revelation and triggered the disintegration of an empire. Will any nation flourish without the use of reason? Reason is the key to knowledge. The attainment of knowledge requires the use of reason. To reject reason is to dispense with the key to knowledge, to fall back into darkness. The renewal of the Muslim civilization thus requires recovering the knowledge of revelation, which presupposes the rehabilitation and re-engagement of reason for the purpose of understanding and following revelation.
Author: Leslie Terebessy
Publisher: Independently Published
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Get Book Here
Book Description
Knowledge is the awareness of truth and the reverse of unawareness. Because we are free, we have the power to do right or wrong. Humanity should realize its potential for good; not for evil. Persons that think that the difference between good and evil is no longer relevant are separated from reality, wandering in an environment of their making. Thus, knowledge of right and wrong is key. For righteousness brings felicity but evil brings misery. Knowledge of revelation is essential for well-being. While reason provides partial knowledge of right and wrong, revelation provides a comprehensive understanding of ethics. Yet may we assume that tradition got everything right about tradition? It is acknowledged that the umma is not what it used to be. It has been defeated, colonised, and demoralised. Why? In the process of its evolution, Islam was stripped of essential attributes. As a result of tafsir and emphasis upon tradition, the emphasis upon revelation, reason, ethics, justice, and freedom all but vanished. There are no entries in Bukhari on reason, freedom, justice, or ethics. What we get is an emphasis on treason, relayed to as a tradition that prescribes, in defiance of the teaching of revelation, capital punishment for apostasy. We get political Islam or Islamism, a teaching of world conquest, based upon waging unlawful wars of aggression. For the Book of Allah prohibits aggression. But hawkish ulema made it lawful. They rendered lawful what Allah mad unlawful. We find no books on justice, ethics, reason or freedom in Bukhari, all key features in the Book of Allah. Rather, we find an excessive emphasis on ritual, for example, which foot to use when entering a bathroom. In different words, we encounter a trivialisation of religion. What were the reasons for the decline of the ummah? The neglect of the Book of Allah produced troubling effects. What were the factors responsible for the fall of the umma? The Book of Allah warns against the unquestioning following of the ways of the forefathers. We are exhorted to use reason. But as a result of enchantment with tradition, Muslims turned from revelation to follow their forefathers, the ways preserved in the books of traditions. Islam took a wrong turn when the umma returned to tradition and marginalized revelation. The turn from revelation to tradition was assisted by the disparagement of reason, and its repression by tradition, the subordination of 'aql to naql. Traditional ulema reinforce this perception by asserting that Islam has three roots: the Book of Allah, traditions of the prophet and ijma or the rulings of the ulema. The ulema assert that the tradition of the prophet is a "part of the Quran," and that the umma is expected to "revere" the alleged traditions of the prophet. As a result of a re-direction of the focus from Allah to the prophet, the umma turned from revelation to tradition. Muslims turned to and followed the forefathers, related in the books of traditions, rather than the Book of Allah. The prophet tried to prevent this disorientation from revelation to tradition. After all, the tradition of the prophet was to follow the Book of Allah. He did not follow any other books. Thus, whoever follows the Book of Allah is following the tradition of the prophet. By contrast, whoever follows different books, books that the messenger did not follow and did not even know about, is not following the tradition of the prophet. Nevertheless, people turned from the Book of Allah and subsequently even from the prophetic traditions. In this way, the believers drifted from revelation to tradition. Not everyone agreed with this. Rationalists wanted to approach revelation and use their reason. The rationalists asserted that revelation should be understood by the faculty of knowledge or reason. Traditionists feel that revelation should be understood in the "light" of tradition.
Author: Leslie Terebessy
Publisher: Independently Published
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 52
Get Book Here
Book Description
This text explores the fabrication of revelation that appears to have taken place when tradition was elevated to the rank of revelation. Revelation in Islam at first did not encompass tradition. Subsequently, tradition was "added" to revelation as "explanatory" and "supplementary revelation." This implied that the revelation of the Quran was deficient. This contradicts the teaching of the perfection of the Quran. It is argued that the Quran does not include instructions on how to pray. It did not appear to occur to the supporters of "additional revelation" that the absence of instructions on how to pray could mean that there may be more than one way to pray. How did tradition become "revelation"? With time, Muslims became focused on the prophet together with Allah. This duality is reflected on the wall of many a place of prayer, where the prophet is referred to side by side with Allah as if they were "equals." But Allah has no "equals." What happened? Tradition became revelation in a process of partial reorientation from revelation to tradition. The imagination of Muslims was captured by the prophet. Islam was becoming prophet-centric to an extent. But this has troubling aftereffects. The elevation of tradition to revelation first "fused" and then "confused" tradition with revelation. The designation of the prophetic tradition as "sacred" in Islam was akin to the representation of Jesus as "divine" in Christianity. It produced analogous effects. The amalgamation of tradition and revelation broadened but also adulterated the meaning of revelation. For tradition is not as reliable as revelation. It does not yield "certainty" or yaqin. Moreover, revelation is transcendent, while tradition is earthly. As revelation is from Allah, the designation of tradition as revelation suggests that tradition is from Allah, too. But is it? In what way are traditions from Allah? Are traditions the words of Allah? Are they even the words of the prophet? In nations where reason is disparaged, believers appear willing to accept the perception that prophetic traditions are from Allah. Thoughtful persons, however, experience reservations. Would Allah require believers to do things that appear cruel as we encounter in a few traditions? Problematic traditions make Islam appear harsh and provide Muslims with reasons to drift from Islam. By their resolve to follow even weak traditions, and even against reason, traditionists perform a disservice to Islam; they discredit it. Hence it is necessary to be cautious with what is presented as tradition. In so far as the traditions are paraphrases, they are not the words of the prophet, let alone the words of Allah. They are the words of transmitters. Transmitters were persons who were not prophets. And the reports are not verbatim words of the prophet. If a tradition is not verbatim, how could it be classified as "authentic"? Does not the word "authentic" mean "genuine"? What is more, there is a tradition according to which the prophet said he received two revelations, the second being the hadiths. How could the prophet receive hadiths when they were recorded two hundred years after his death? Moreover, traditions are presented as "equal" to revelation. How may any tradition be "equal" to revelation when Allah is without "equals"? These assertions are problematic. For the equation of tradition with revelation could result in elevating the prophet to a partner of God. But God has no partners. Moreover, revelation prohibits judging by what God did not reveal. If tradition is not revelation, this presents a problem. For laws are also based on traditions. In different words, the perception that tradition is revelation, as well as relationship between revelation and tradition require rethinking, in both exegesis and jurisprudence.
Author: Leslie Terebessy
Publisher: Independently Published
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Get Book Here
Book Description
Islam is an Abrahamic religion. It reiterates the previous revelations. It rectifies a range of misunderstandings that proliferated regarding them. Islam is a monotheistic religion. However, the treatment of tradition as "revelation," as a "partner" and even "judge" of revelation, tainted the knowledge of Islam with shirk. Allah is the Lawgiver in religious matters. Persons are free to legislate in non-religious matters, for example regarding traffic laws. It is necessary to return to the Book of Allah from the bellicose teachings encountered in traditions and the writings of hawkish ulama. It is necessary to retrieve the defensive teaching of jihad, important to abandon the jihad al talab. It is also necessary to abandon the teaching of the alleged abrogation of the peace verses by the verse of the sword. The purification of religion requires freeing the sharia of extremists tendencies. It requires being brought in line with the teaching of the Quran. Attachment to militant misinterpretations of Islam places the umma at risk of retaliation for acts of aggression by a few extremists. The Muslim past is strewn with clashes. Political struggles between Muawiya and Ali, as well as between Yazid and Hussein, emerged with the passing of the prophet. The Battle of the Camel pitted Aisha against Ali while the Battle of Siffin pitted Muawiya against Ali. These were fratricidal wars. Up to fifteen thousand companions died in these two battles. There was also a war between Ali and the Kharijites. A range of alternative perceptions emerged during this turbulence. The Murjiates wished to remain neutral. Disagreements emerged not just regarding succession but also about the way to approach revelation. A few wanted to understand revelation with the assistance of reasoning. A different sect wanted to adhere to tradition, assuming that tradition encompassed revelation. The two sects were the rationalists and the traditionists. Traditionists accorded greater credence to following their predecessors, recorded in the prophetic traditions. The two groups comprised the Mutazilites and the ahl al-kalam on the one hand, and the traditionists or the ahl al-hadith on the other. The rationalists followed Abu Hanifa, while the ahl al-haith followed Malik, al-Shafi'i and ibn Hanbal. The rationalists asserted that understanding revelation required recourse to reason. Traditionists preferred to understand revelation through the lens of tradition. Traditionists became enchanted with the ways of their predecessors, while the rationalists were less prone to follow tradition. The encounters between the two groups reached a political expression in the mihna, launched by al-Mahdi in 780. Five thousand philosophers were killed by Musa al-Hadi, the son of al-Mahdi, in 786. After a brief reign of the rationalists from 809 to 849, al-Mutawakkil resumed the persecution of the rationalists. But the trauma of the umma is due to having strayed from the right path. This transpired because the umma misunderstood revelation as well as the tradition of the prophet. The misunderstanding is due to the reluctance to use reason and an infatuation with tradition. Traditions attributed to the prophet were treated as revelation. Following Bukhari was understood as following the traditions of the prophet. But the tradition of the prophet was to follow the Book of Allah, not books of traditions. By turning from the Book of Allah to the books of traditions, the umma drifted from the Book of Allah under the misapprehension that it was getting nearer to Allah by following books of traditions. This was a tragedy. It explains the state of the umma and highlights the need to return to the path of Allah.
Author: Leslie Terebessy
Publisher: Independently Published
ISBN:
Category : Education
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Get Book Here
Book Description
Practice should reflect the theory. Whenever we fail to live up to expectations, a chasm emerges between the theory and the practice. Exegesis is the process of understanding text. In Islam there was a separation between the exemplary and the actual. There was a break from revelation as well as the tradition of the prophet. This was partly due to the repression of reason. The repression of reason was due to the repression of the rationalists by the traditionists. The use of reason was associated with kufr. Thinking - in particular free thinking - became a crime, punishable by death. The repression of reason produced calamitous effects on the umma. It prevented Muslims from understanding and thus following revelation. Thus, they turned to tradition, to the ways of the forefathers. Traditionists misunderstood the purpose of reason. They postulated a "clash" between reason and revelation. Reason and revelation are not enemies; reason is required to understand and heed revelation. Anti-rationalism corrupted knowledge as well as the sharia. Bereft of reason, and in defiance of revelation, hawkish ulama treated terrorism as "martyrdom operations" permitted by God, and meriting reward in the hereafter. The hawkish rendition of revelation, buttressed with following traditions in preference to revelation, resulted in the fall of the umma. The renewal of the umma requires a return to revelation, a return to sanity. This should take place by the reengagement of reason. Refraining from reasoning resulted in the confusion of tradition with revelation, and the subordination of revelation to tradition. Treating tradition as a "part of" revelation, able to "judge," "abrogate" and even "replace" parts of revelation, unfortunately, is an expression of shirk. The turn from revelation to tradition, from the guidance of God to the guidance of men was spurred by efforts to enlarge the empire through wars of aggression. But wars of aggression are prohibited by revelation. The justification of waging wars of aggression, which entail the perpetration of war crimes, was achieved through a "reinterpretation" of the teaching of revelation. The justification of aggression required undermining verses that teach peace and reconciliation. This was achieved by recourse to the teaching of abrogation. By abrogating the verses of reconciliation, hawkish ulama transformed the religion of peace into a religion of war. The reinterpretation of Islam as a religion of war was buttressed by recourse to traditions. Rulers asked different persons to record the traditions. The requests to record traditions were made in defiance of the prohibition of "adding" to revelation by the Book of Allah and the prophet. In so far as traditions are records of the ways of the predecessors, the turn from revelation to tradition was an expression of secularisation. For traditions are "worldly." The reinterpretation of Islam as a religion of war embroiled the umma in unprovoked conflicts. The murder of Mongol traders and ambassadors brought destruction to the Abbasid empire. Assaults on Vienna brought an end to the Turkish empire. The expansion in France brought defeat. This was the toll the umma paid for drifting from the Book of Allah and following the teaching of hawkish ulama and warlike traditions, in preference to the Book of Allah. Reform requires rearticulating Islam as a religion of peace. This requires the rejection of militant exegesis as well as the assumptions on which it rests. Reform requires the reengagement of reason, and the affirmation of the preeminence of revelation in relation to all tradition and writings of exegetes and jurists. It requires a re-reading of the Book of Allah according to its teachings. It requires affirming that the Book of Allah is as it presents itself: "clear," complete," and "coherent."
Author: Leslie Terebessy
Publisher: Independently Published
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 68
Get Book Here
Book Description
The treatment of tradition as "revelation" flouts the pre-eminence of revelation in relation to tradition. The designation of tradition as revelation was an aberration in exegesis. It signalled a corruption of exegesis. It refocused attention upon tradition at the expense of revelation. For reports by persons attained a rank equal to the words of God. This was a relapse into polytheism. The designation of tradition as revelation resulted in the subordination of revelation to tradition. This was an additional aberration. The subordination of revelation to tradition was accelerated by the repression of reason. For had reason remained free, it could express its reservations and resisted this proposition. Reason was rejected on the grounds that recourse to reason in religion was disbelief. This tenet was based upon the perception that faith and reason are "mutually exclusive" or "incompatible." According to the perception that there is an irreconcilable antagonism between reason and revelation, a person may not be a thinker and a believer - at the same time. We are expected to follow reason or faith. But the alleged "incompatibility" of reason and revelation is a false dichotomy. For faith is rational. It is grounded in reason. We have faith in Allah not because we see Him, but because we perceive the signs of His existence. The alleged "conflict" between reason and revelation is at the root of the flaws of the "traditional approach." This "method" encompasses a range of practices and beliefs. The disenfranchisement of reason and the treatment of tradition as revelation produced a range of aberrations in exegesis and jurisprudence. It confused the umma and attributed traits to the methodology of Islam - exegesis and jurisprudence - that flouted tawhid. First, the traditional methodology is distinctly anti-intellectual. It treats reason as unsuitable for understanding revelation. Second, the traditional method subordinates reason to tradition. From this it follows that tradition is to be followed even against reason. These traits pave the way for a breakdown of reason and the advent of taqlid or the unquestioned adherence to tradition. The elevation of tradition to revelation was justified by reference to the verse where revelation says that: "He does not speak of his own desire. It is but a revelation revealed." From this verse traditional exegetes concluded that everything ever spoken by the prophet was revelation. Does this encompass all that he uttered in the forty years prior to the time he received revelation? No distinction is made between what Muhammad uttered as a prophet, and his role as a messenger. The assertion that all that the prophet uttered was revelation enabled the treatment of tradition as revelation. This resulted in a remarkable expansion of revelation. Unfortunately, it led to the corruption of the knowledge of revelation, too. For the prophetic traditions are not records of what the messenger uttered; they are records of what different transmitters reported, in their words. In different words, the books of the prophetic traditions are paraphrases of what the messenger allegedly uttered, not verbatim reports. Thus, on what grounds are they treated as "the words of the prophet"? The assumption that the prophetic traditions are flouts the teaching of tawhid. It suggests revelation and tradition are "equal." By extension, it suggests that Allah and Muhammad are likewise "equal." That Allah and the prophet are perceived as "equals" is reflected in references to Allah and the prophet we encounter in places of prayer. For they are treated there as if they were "equals." The tendency to treat Allah and the prophet as "equals" may also be perceived in references to the prophet as "holy," in references to the sunna as "divine," and in assertions that we "revere" the sunna.
Author:
Publisher: USCCB Publishing
ISBN: 9781574556308
Category : Religion
Languages : en
Pages : 68
Get Book Here
Book Description
Prefect introduction to Christianity and Islam through the fundamental topic of revelation.
Author: Leslie Terebessy
Publisher: Independently Published
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 230
Get Book Here
Book Description
This work explores the relationship between revelation, reason and tradition. It focuses on the way willing jurists re-interpreted the teaching of revelation to justify the expansionary aims of their rulers. The alleged abrogation of the verses counselling peace and reconciliation tainted the teaching of revelation. The teaching of abrogation transformed the religion of peace into a political agenda justifying wars of aggression, based on the misinterpretation of verses 9:29 and 9:05, within the alleged "clash" between the abode of peace (dar al-Islam) and the abode of non-belief (dar al-kufr). This misinterpretation accelerated the territorial expansion of Islam at first. It also accelerated its fall afterwards. The teaching of abrogation is not receiving the attention it merits. The repression of reason by tradition facilitated the militarisation of exegesis. The abandonment of reason facilitated the adoption of perceptions alien to revelation, aiming to serve the political agenda of the powers that be. The abandonment of reasoning triggered a sequence of juridical aberrations: the treatment of tradition as revelation, the reversal of the relationship between revelation and tradition, and the subordination of the teaching of revelation to the rulings of the ulema. A prominent example of an aberrant practice is the teaching of abrogation. Prominent among aberrant presuppositions are the perceptions that revelation is "incomplete," in parts "unclear," and that tradition is revelation which has the power to "judge," "abrogate," and even "replace" revelation, and that the rulings of jurists possess the power to "abrogate" and "replace" parts of revelation. The emergence of tradition and its engagement in "explaining" the Quran brought an alteration in the way revelation would be understood. The emergence of taqlid enabled the perception that all problems were solved, including any that might arise in the future. It appears it is time to return to the revelation-centric paradigm of Islam. For the tradition-centric approach ruled far too long. Which person would endorse assertions that brazenly flout the teaching of revelation? The "eclipse" of reason by tradition ensured that tradition would be followed in preference to reason. The de-emphasis on reason facilitated the entry of a range of unwarranted accretions and practices into the Muslim universe of discourse. The "eclipse" of revelation by tradition forced revelation under the auspices of tradition, in exegesis, jurisprudence, and in foreign affairs. The "eclipse' of tradition by the rulings of the ulema usurped the position of revelation and asserted the right of the jurists to abrogate revelation as well as tradition. In politics, ruling elites engaged in wars of aggression, the reprisals for which triggered the fall of Muslim empires. The Muslim past is a record of catastrophe after catastrophe. What to do? While revelation emphasises justice, ethics and reason, we are hard put to find a tradition, let alone a book on justice, ethics and rationality in the secondary literature. The anthologies of traditions attributed to the prophet represent a faint reflection of the teaching of revelation, akin to the faint light of the moon. Even in moonlight, we are largely in the dark. What happened? Bukhari features no entries on justice, ethics, or reason. What kind of Islam are we getting from "tradition"? Is it Islam without justice, ethics and reason? Is it the Islam of unquestioning following? Is it the Islam of revelation or the Islam of tradition? Have the practices of the predecessors eclipse the revealed word of God? Have Muslims turned from revelation to tradition? Has tradition eclipsed (replaced) revelation? Has tradition provided reliable knowledge to the Muslim umma? Does revelation expect us to follow tradition or revelation? Allah knows best.
Author: Peter Adamson
Publisher: OUP Oxford
ISBN: 0191506591
Category : Philosophy
Languages : en
Pages : 153
Get Book Here
Book Description
In the history of philosophy, few topics are so relevant to today's cultural and political landscape as philosophy in the Islamic world. Yet, this remains one of the lesser-known philosophical traditions. In this Very Short Introduction, Peter Adamson explores the history of philosophy among Muslims, Jews, and Christians living in Islamic lands, from its historical background to thinkers in the twentieth century. Introducing the main philosophical themes of the Islamic world, Adamson integrates ideas from the Islamic and Abrahamic faiths to consider the broad philosophical questions that continue to invite debate: What is the relationship between reason and religious belief? What is the possibility of proving God's existence? What is the nature of knowledge? Drawing on the most recent research in the field, this book challenges the assumption of the cultural decline of philosophy and science in the Islamic world by demonstrating its rich heritage and overlap with other faiths and philosophies.
Author: Leslie Terebessy
Publisher: Independently Published
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Get Book Here
Book Description
The rejection of reason accelerated the turn from revelation to tradition. The result is confusion and alienation from revelation. The turn from revelation to tradition was triggered by the rejection of reason. For the turn from the Book of Allah to follow books of manmade traditions rested upon flawed reasoning. It rests on a poor rendering of three verses in the Book of Allah. These verses encompass the verse saying that we have "a good example in the prophet," that "whatever the messenger gives you, take it," and that Allah exhorts us to "obey Allah and the messenger." But the Book of Allah also refers to Abraham as a good example. Besides, does it follow from the prophet being referred to as a "good example" that we should follow books of traditions? This is a non-sequitur. The verse that is rendered to suggest that we should take "whatever the messenger gives us" refers to the distribution of war booty, not his traditions. This is a further non-sequitur. The verse that renders heeding the messenger as meaning "following traditions" conflates "obeying the messenger" with "following traditions." This is another non-sequitur. All three reveal flawed knowledge of revelation based upon fallacies. This should not be a surprise as these "arguments" were proffered by persons that rejected reason. It is not surprising that their "arguments" are less than reasonable. Further errors followed. These errors enabled the transmutation of Islam into its traditional and Islamist forms. The errors encompass the teaching of predestination in traditional Islam and the teaching of jihad al-talab in militant Islam, as a sixth pillar of Islam. The first rendered Muslims passive at home, while the second encouraged a militant posture abroad. As a result, traditionists "equate" the revelations of Allah with texts reported in paraphrase by persons that were not prophets. This is tantamount to treating the books of traditions as "partners" of the Book of Allah. It is tantamount to "scriptural shirk." Is it possible to ascribe "partners" to the Book of Allah without ascribing a "partner" to Allah? Are these reports the words of God? Are they even the verbatim words of the prophet? The reason the umma is experiencing difficulties it turned from Allah to the prophet, from the Book of Allah to the books of traditions, to rituals. In brief, the umma became traditional. But Islam is not traditional, except in so far as it re-iterates the messages of the previous revelations, the Tawrat and the Injeel. The Book of Allah is revolutionary. It warns us not to follow traditions of the forefathers tainted by shirk. Not everyone listened. Accordingly, the umma is paying a price for its heedlessness. As a result of the turn from revelation to tradition, the umma is drifting. The transformation or re-invention of Islam as political Islam or Islamism was enabled by the conflation of terms that require being kept separate. There are no synonyms on Quranic Arabic. Words that were fused and confused encompass revelation and tradition, jihad in self-defense and aggressive jihad, sunna and hadith, wahy (inspiration) and tanzil (revelation), udwan (hostility) and qital (fighting) as well as nahy (discouragement) and tahrim (prohibition). The corruption of the knowledge of key words, enabled by the repression of reason, corrupted the knowledge of Islam. The intention was to make traditional" practices palatable and acceptable. The words whose meanings changed encompass: wahy, hikma, ibadat, salat, hawa, jihad, qalb, and mutashabihat.
