质疑伊本泰弥雅在汉八里学派中的地位和地位

Badrus Samsul Fata, Imam Malik Riduan
{"title":"质疑伊本泰弥雅在汉八里学派中的地位和地位","authors":"Badrus Samsul Fata, Imam Malik Riduan","doi":"10.22515/ajpif.v19i1.4933","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nFor centuries, polemic over Ibnu Taimiyyah (661-728H) has generated cross-generational tension among supporters and opponents. Those supporters believed Ibn Taimiyyah to be ma'shum,surpassed Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, and unilaterally ordained him as khatim al-mujtahidin. A claim which ignores Sunnis scholars’ epistemic criticism across the school of thought and generations, including a critical assessment of the internal Hanbali school of thought itself. Such as Ibn Rajab (736-795H); Ibn al-Mardawi (817-885H); Ibn Najjar (898-972H); al-Buhuti (1000-1051H); and al-Safaraini (1114-1188H). By employing the interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the primary sources, the result of the study revealed that one of the internal consensuses of the Hanbali school of thought is clear enough. When there is a dispute over the results of tarjihformulation in ushuland furu', the hierarchy of the referential authority is as the following; first,Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal; second, Ibnu Qudamah al-Maqdisi al-Hanbali; third,Al-Majd al-Din Abi al-Barakat al-Taimi; fourth,Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali; fifth,Ibnu Rajab al-Hanbali; sixth,Ibnu Hamdan al-Hanbali; seventh,Taqiyy al-Din Ibn Taimiyyah; and eighth,Ibn ‘Abdus al-Hanbali. Considering its various controversies, the leading scholars of the Hanbali school of thought positioned Ibn Taimiyyah in the seventh rank in the hierarchy of the school of thought's authority and emphasized that Ibn Taimiyyah was not the only one bearing the title of sheikh al-Islamwithin the Hanbali school of thought.\n","PeriodicalId":55670,"journal":{"name":"AlAraf Jurnal Pemikiran Islam dan Filsafat","volume":"82 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"QUESTIONING THE POSITION AND STATUS OF IBN TAIMIYYAH IN THE HANBALI SCHOOL OF THOUGHT\",\"authors\":\"Badrus Samsul Fata, Imam Malik Riduan\",\"doi\":\"10.22515/ajpif.v19i1.4933\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nFor centuries, polemic over Ibnu Taimiyyah (661-728H) has generated cross-generational tension among supporters and opponents. Those supporters believed Ibn Taimiyyah to be ma'shum,surpassed Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, and unilaterally ordained him as khatim al-mujtahidin. A claim which ignores Sunnis scholars’ epistemic criticism across the school of thought and generations, including a critical assessment of the internal Hanbali school of thought itself. Such as Ibn Rajab (736-795H); Ibn al-Mardawi (817-885H); Ibn Najjar (898-972H); al-Buhuti (1000-1051H); and al-Safaraini (1114-1188H). By employing the interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the primary sources, the result of the study revealed that one of the internal consensuses of the Hanbali school of thought is clear enough. When there is a dispute over the results of tarjihformulation in ushuland furu', the hierarchy of the referential authority is as the following; first,Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal; second, Ibnu Qudamah al-Maqdisi al-Hanbali; third,Al-Majd al-Din Abi al-Barakat al-Taimi; fourth,Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali; fifth,Ibnu Rajab al-Hanbali; sixth,Ibnu Hamdan al-Hanbali; seventh,Taqiyy al-Din Ibn Taimiyyah; and eighth,Ibn ‘Abdus al-Hanbali. Considering its various controversies, the leading scholars of the Hanbali school of thought positioned Ibn Taimiyyah in the seventh rank in the hierarchy of the school of thought's authority and emphasized that Ibn Taimiyyah was not the only one bearing the title of sheikh al-Islamwithin the Hanbali school of thought.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":55670,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AlAraf Jurnal Pemikiran Islam dan Filsafat\",\"volume\":\"82 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AlAraf Jurnal Pemikiran Islam dan Filsafat\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22515/ajpif.v19i1.4933\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AlAraf Jurnal Pemikiran Islam dan Filsafat","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22515/ajpif.v19i1.4933","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

几个世纪以来,关于Ibnu Taimiyyah (661-728H)的争论在支持者和反对者之间产生了跨代的紧张关系。这些支持者认为伊本·塔米耶是无上者,超越了伊玛目艾哈迈德·本·汉巴尔,并单方面任命他为圣战者。这种说法忽视了逊尼派学者跨越思想学派和几代人的认识论批评,包括对内部汉巴里思想学派本身的批判性评估。如Ibn Rajab (736-795H);伊本·马尔达维;伊本·纳贾尔(898-972H);al-Buhuti (1000 - 1051 h);和al-Safaraini (1114-1188H)。通过运用跨学科的方法对第一手资料进行分析,研究结果表明,汉八里学派的一个内部共识是足够明确的。当对《乌苏里江和福禄江》中药酒的配制结果有争议时,参考权威的等级如下:首先是伊玛目艾哈迈德·本·汉巴尔;第二,Ibnu Qudamah al-Maqdisi al-Hanbali;第三,Al-Majd al-Din Abi al-Barakat al-Taimi;第四,伊本·穆夫利·汉巴利;第五,Ibnu Rajab al-Hanbali;六是伊布·哈姆丹·汉巴利;第七是塔齐耶·丁·伊本·塔米耶;第八名是伊本·阿卜杜斯·汉巴利。考虑到其各种争议,汉巴利学派的主要学者将伊本·泰米耶定位在汉巴利学派权威等级的第七位,并强调伊本·泰米耶并不是汉巴利学派中唯一一个拥有伊斯兰教长头衔的人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
QUESTIONING THE POSITION AND STATUS OF IBN TAIMIYYAH IN THE HANBALI SCHOOL OF THOUGHT
For centuries, polemic over Ibnu Taimiyyah (661-728H) has generated cross-generational tension among supporters and opponents. Those supporters believed Ibn Taimiyyah to be ma'shum,surpassed Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, and unilaterally ordained him as khatim al-mujtahidin. A claim which ignores Sunnis scholars’ epistemic criticism across the school of thought and generations, including a critical assessment of the internal Hanbali school of thought itself. Such as Ibn Rajab (736-795H); Ibn al-Mardawi (817-885H); Ibn Najjar (898-972H); al-Buhuti (1000-1051H); and al-Safaraini (1114-1188H). By employing the interdisciplinary approach to analyzing the primary sources, the result of the study revealed that one of the internal consensuses of the Hanbali school of thought is clear enough. When there is a dispute over the results of tarjihformulation in ushuland furu', the hierarchy of the referential authority is as the following; first,Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal; second, Ibnu Qudamah al-Maqdisi al-Hanbali; third,Al-Majd al-Din Abi al-Barakat al-Taimi; fourth,Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali; fifth,Ibnu Rajab al-Hanbali; sixth,Ibnu Hamdan al-Hanbali; seventh,Taqiyy al-Din Ibn Taimiyyah; and eighth,Ibn ‘Abdus al-Hanbali. Considering its various controversies, the leading scholars of the Hanbali school of thought positioned Ibn Taimiyyah in the seventh rank in the hierarchy of the school of thought's authority and emphasized that Ibn Taimiyyah was not the only one bearing the title of sheikh al-Islamwithin the Hanbali school of thought.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Denise Ferreira da Silva. Toward a Global Idea of Race A Critical Inquiry into Jürgen Habermas’ Hermeneutical Reflection as a Methodology of Social Science Sebuah Apresiasi terhadap Perubahan Pasal Hukuman Mati Sensus Fidei Umat Katolik di Keuskupan Agung Jakarta terhadap Isu Homoseksualitas pada Tahun 2022 Deconstruction and Religion: Exploring Derrida’s View on Religion
×
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