بازسازي تمدن نوين اسلامى (نگاهى انتقادى به عدم امكان‌سنجي صحيح آن)

Criticized to lack of proper feasibility to issue reconstruction of new Islamic civilization

در ميان متفكران مباحث تمدني ابن خلدون و دكتر سيد جواد طباطبايي با دو بيان متفاوت بر زوال تمدني و از جمله زوال تمدن اسلامي پاي مي فشرند. ابن خلدون حتميت شهرنشيني و ضرورت از دست رفتن عصبيت ناشي از مدنيت را عامل زوال تمدني مي داند و دكتر طباطبايي تهي بودن فلسفه اسلامي از معارف فلسفه يوناني و توفق دين اساطيري بر عقل يوناني و رواج عرفان و عرفان زدگي و ترويج عربيت را از عوامل زوال انديشه سياسي و تمدن سازي مي داند. وجود تناقض هاي دروني متعدد در اصول مطرح شده از سوي ابن خلدون انتقاد اصلي ما به اوست و نيز عدم شناخت مباني تمدن ساز دين مبين اسلام و خلط مولفه هاي دين مبين با اديان اساطيري و نيز عدم شناخت كافي از فلسفه اسلامي و يوناني زدگي بزرگ انتقاد ما به دكتر طباطبايي است. در اين مقاله در ضمن رد آراء و نظرات اين دو انديشمند، در مقام اثبات امكان بازسازي تمدن نوين اسلامي هستيم.

Among the thinkers that research on civilization, with two different expression, Ibn Khaldun and Doctor Sayyed Javad Tabatabai believe in decline of civilization, including Islamic civilization. Ibn Khaldun says urbanization, loss cooperation and tribal relations are factors that leads to fall of civilization. Also doctor Tabatabai says emptiness Islamic philosophy from education ancient Greek philosophy, predominance of mythological religion over Greek wisdom, promotion of mysticism and propound Arabism are causes that collapse Islamic civilization and lead to deterioration of political thought. There are a lot of internal contradictions that Ibn Khaldun considered as principles and this case is our main criticism to this thinker. Also lack of knowledge from foundations civilization of Islam and Islamic philosophy, confusing between true religion with mythological religions and belief in the superiority of Greek thought, are our important criticism to refusal theory. In this article we are opposed to opinion of these thinkers and we prove that reconstruction of new Islamic civilization is possible.