| dc.identifier.citation | A.J. Arberry, 1965. Revelation and Reason in Islam, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London. A.S. Tritton. 1965. Arabic and Islamic Studies in Honor of Hamilton Gibb, ed. by George Makdisi, Leiden, A.J.Brill. Abrahamov, “Ibn Taymiyyah On the Agreement of Reason with Tradition” dalam The Muslim World, vol. LXXXII, No. 3-4, 1992, 265. al-Faqi, Muhammad Hamid (ed). 1951. Naqd al-Mantiq, Cairo: Matba‘ah al- Sunnah al-Muhammadiyyah. PROFETIKA, Jurnal Studi Islam, Vol. 9, No. 1, Januari 2007: 18-32 32 Bello, Iysa A. 1989. Medieval Islamic Controversy Between Philosophy and Orthodoxy.Leiden, E.J.Brill, D.B. MacDonald, “The Doctrine of Revelation in Islam” Muslim World, vol. VII, January, 1977, no.2, 113-117. G.Hourani, 1976. Averoes On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy, London: Luzac & Co. Hourani, George F, 1985. Reason and Tradition in Islamic Ethic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Ibn Rushd. 1960. Bidayat al-Mujtahid wa Nihayat al-Muqtasid, Cairo: al-Halabi, third edition. Ibn Taymiyyah, 1966.Majmu‘at al-Fatawa, Cairo: Matba ‘ah al-Hukumah. ____________. 1981. Dar’ Ta’arud, vol.I,ed. M. Rishad Salim, Cairo: Dar al- Kutub. ____________. 1993. al-Radd ‘ala al-Mantiqiyyin, ed. Rafiq al-‘Ajam, Beirut: Dar al-Fikr al-Lubnani. Ibnrahim ‘Uqaili, 1981. Takamul al-Manhaj al-Ma’rifi ‘inda Ibn Taymiyyah, al- Ma’had al-Alami li-l-Fikri al-Islami. | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | The relation problem of thinking and message is very interesting topic for
debating among Mutakallimun and Muslim philosophers dealing with their own
tendency. Among them, there is rational extreme; therefore, the truth barometer is
in thinking ability, on the contrary, there is traditional extreme which refused that
thinking is as the only resources of religion. This writing will study the effort of
integrity for both of the extremes that had mentioned above. By observing the effort
of two greatest thinkers in Islam History those are; Ibnu Rusyd and Ibnu
Taimiyyah.
The effort of Ibnu Rusyd for connecting between thinking and message is
very systematic, but the meaning limitation of thinking on the ability to think
demonstrative that only owned by philosophers invited varied questions. He seems
outrageous in valuing the thinking ability and demonstration method, but he didn’t
carry out ta’wil without based on Al Burhan in discussing the philosophy issues. He
gave more authority to the philosophers for interpreting the message than the other.
He has preferred thinking than message and this can be decreased the absolutely of
the message.
Ibnu Tamiyyah has the contrary view, mainly by giving priority to message
but didn’t ignore thinking at all. The rightly thinking will never cross over with the
message. Thinking for Ibnu Tamiyyah has not got independence status as Ibnu Rusyd
view. | en_US |
