Doktrin Predestinasi dan Determinisme: Antara Muktazilah dan Asy’ariyah

Fadlili Munawwar Manshur, N. Herlina, Ahmad Nabil Atoillah
{"title":"Doktrin Predestinasi dan Determinisme: Antara Muktazilah dan Asy’ariyah","authors":"Fadlili Munawwar Manshur, N. Herlina, Ahmad Nabil Atoillah","doi":"10.36667/tajdid.v29i2.501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In classical Islamic thought, ‘divine predestination’ (qada’ wa’l-qadar) versus ‘human free will’ (ikhtiyar) is one of the most hotly contested topics. This article critically analyses the contribution made to this discourse by the two prominent schools of Islamic theology, the Asharites and the Mu’tazilites, by focusing on a topic that is crucial to the philosophy and theology of theology. This article seeks to properly understand Islamic intellectual history and culture by arguing that the treatment of the two schools of Islamic theology on the issue of qada’ wa’l-qadar and ikhtiyar is innovative, influential, and fundamentally more complex than previously acknowledged. On the subject of free will versus fate, the study’s findings indicate that the Mu’tazilah and Ash’ariyah have made compromises between philosophical, theological (kalam), and esoteric (sûfi) perspectives. Given that the subject matter and methodology of kalam, falsafah, and tasawwûf are frequently considered to be very different or even contradictory, this attitude of accommodation is plainly exceptional.","PeriodicalId":8646,"journal":{"name":"At-Tajdid: Jurnal Ilmu Tarbiyah","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"At-Tajdid: Jurnal Ilmu Tarbiyah","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36667/tajdid.v29i2.501","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In classical Islamic thought, ‘divine predestination’ (qada’ wa’l-qadar) versus ‘human free will’ (ikhtiyar) is one of the most hotly contested topics. This article critically analyses the contribution made to this discourse by the two prominent schools of Islamic theology, the Asharites and the Mu’tazilites, by focusing on a topic that is crucial to the philosophy and theology of theology. This article seeks to properly understand Islamic intellectual history and culture by arguing that the treatment of the two schools of Islamic theology on the issue of qada’ wa’l-qadar and ikhtiyar is innovative, influential, and fundamentally more complex than previously acknowledged. On the subject of free will versus fate, the study’s findings indicate that the Mu’tazilah and Ash’ariyah have made compromises between philosophical, theological (kalam), and esoteric (sûfi) perspectives. Given that the subject matter and methodology of kalam, falsafah, and tasawwûf are frequently considered to be very different or even contradictory, this attitude of accommodation is plainly exceptional.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在古典伊斯兰思想中,“神的宿命”(qada’wa’-qadar)与“人类的自由意志”(ikhtiyar)是争论最激烈的话题之一。本文通过关注一个对神学的哲学和神学至关重要的话题,批判性地分析了伊斯兰神学的两个著名学派——阿沙里派和穆塔齐利派——对这一话语的贡献。本文试图正确理解伊斯兰思想史和文化,论证了伊斯兰神学的两个学派对卡达瓦卡达尔和伊赫提亚问题的处理是创新的、有影响力的,而且从根本上比以前承认的更复杂。在自由意志与命运的问题上,研究结果表明,Mu 'tazilah和Ash 'ariyah在哲学、神学(kalam)和深奥(s fi)观点之间做出了妥协。考虑到kalam, falsafah和tasaww的主题和方法经常被认为是非常不同甚至是矛盾的,这种迁就的态度显然是例外的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pendidikan Perempuan: Kajian Historis Timur Tengah dan Indonesia pada Masa Awal Islam dan Pra Kemerdekaan The Reality of Mut'ah Marriage in Indonesia: Reinterpretation of the Opinion of Shia Scholars Upaya Menjaga Kemurnian dan Validitas Hadis Nabi: Kajian terhadap Sejarah Kodifikasi Hadis Doktrin Predestinasi dan Determinisme: Antara Muktazilah dan Asy’ariyah Human Rights and The New Normal Challenges: A Sharia Perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1