This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Islamic philosophy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
(inserted for readability Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 08:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC))
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:
We definitely need a convention for beginners' versus advanced articles.
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
ALso, Ghazali's birth is listed here as 1005, but under his biograpgy it is 1058. Could someone clarify/rectify please?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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":
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Text "
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011433/Avicenna" ignored (
help)
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)
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)
—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
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)
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)
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)
Someone made an addition in the intro, that I reverted, and that properly belong to here:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Islamic philosophy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
(inserted for readability Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 08:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC))
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:
We definitely need a convention for beginners' versus advanced articles.
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
ALso, Ghazali's birth is listed here as 1005, but under his biograpgy it is 1058. Could someone clarify/rectify please?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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":
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Text "
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011433/Avicenna" ignored (
help)
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)
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)
—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
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)
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)
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)
Someone made an addition in the intro, that I reverted, and that properly belong to here:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)