كليدواژه :
ﻏﺰاﻟﯽ , ﭼﺎﻟﺶ ﻋﻘﻞ و اﯾﻤﺎن , اﯾﻤﺎن ﮔﺮاﯾﯽ , ﻋﻘﻞ ﮔﺮاﯾﯽ , ﺗﺄوﯾﻞ
چكيده فارسي :
ﻧﺰد ﻣﺘﻔﮑﺮان ﻣﺴﻠﻤﺎن ﭼﺎﻟﺶ ﺣﻘﯿﻘﯽ ﺑﯿﻦ ﻋﻘﻞ و اﯾﻤﺎن ﻧﯿﺴﺖ، در ﺣﺎﻟﯽ ﮐﻪ در ﻓﻠﺴﻔﮥ دﯾﻦ ﭘﺴﺎﮐﺎﻧﺘﯽ ﺗﺮدﯾﺪﻫﺎي ﺟـﺪي در ﻋﻘﻼﻧﯽ ﺑﻮدن آﻣﻮزه ﻫﺎي دﯾﻨﯽ ﭘﯿﺶ ﻣﯽ آﯾﺪ. اﯾﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ، ﮐﻪ ﺑﺎ روﯾﮑﺮد ﺑﺮون دﯾﻨﯽ و ﺑﺎ روش ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻠـﯽ- اﻧﺘﻘـﺎدي ﺑـﻪ ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ آﺛﺎر ﻏﺰاﻟﯽ ﭘﺮداﺧﺘﻪ، ﺑﻪ اﯾﻦ ﻧﺘﯿﺠﻪ ﮔﯿﺮي رﻫﻨﻤﻮن ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻏﺰاﻟﯽ دﻏﺪﻏﮥ اﯾﻤﺎن دارد، و ﻧﻪ ﻋﻘﻞ؛ زﯾﺮا او ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﺆﻣﻦ را ﺳﻌﺎدﺗﻤﻨﺪ و ﻧﺠﺎت ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪ از آﺗﺶ دوزخ ﻣﯽ داﻧﺪ. ﻋﻘﻼﻧﯿﺖ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ از ﺑﻨﺪﮔﯽ و دﯾﻦ ﺑﺮاي او ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﯿﺘﯽ ﻧـﺪارد. ﻏﺰاﻟﯽ ﻋﻘﻞ ﻓﯿﻠﺴﻮﻓﺎن را از دﺳﺘﯿﺎﺑﯽ ﺑﻪ ﺣﻘﺎﯾﻖ اﻣﻮر ﻗﺎﺻﺮ ﻣﯽ داﻧﺪ. وﻟﯽ ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪ اﺳﺖ ﻋﻘﻞ ﺻﻮﻓﯿﺎن و ﭘﯿﺎﻣﺒﺮان، ﮐـﻪ از آن ﺗﻌﺒﯿﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻗﻠﺐ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮد، ﻗﺎدر ﺑﻪ درك ﺣﻘﺎﯾﻖ اﺳﺖ و ﻫﯿﭻ ﺗﻌﺎرﺿﯽ ﺑﺎ اﯾﻤﺎن و دﯾﻦ ﻧﺪارد. ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﻘﻞ ﻧﺎﻗﺺ ﺑﺸـﺮي اﺳـﺖ ﮐﻪ اﺣﮑﺎﻣﯽ ﺻﺎدر ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﻣﻤﮑﻦ اﺳﺖ ﺑـﺎ آﻣﻮزه ﻫـﺎي دﯾﻨـﯽ ﻣﺘﻌـﺎرض ﺑﺎﺷـﺪ. در ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﻫـﺎي ﭘﯿﺸـﯿﻦ ﻏﺰاﻟـﯽ را اﯾﻤﺎن ﮔﺮا ﻧﺎﻣﯿﺪه اﻧﺪ. ﻧﻮآوري ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ در اﯾﻦ اﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻌﻤﻖ در آﺛﺎر او ﺷﻮاﻫﺪي از ﻋﻘﻞ ﮔﺮاﯾﯽ او ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪ اﺳـﺖ. ﺑﺎ اﯾﻦ ﺣﺎل ﻫﯿﭻ ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮي از ﻋﻘﻞ ﮔﺮاﯾﯽ ﻏﺰاﻟﯽ ﺧﺎم ﺗﺮ از اﯾﻦ ﻧﯿﺴﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻘﻞ ﮔﺮاﯾﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨـﺎي دﮐـﺎرﺗﯽ ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴـﻪ ﺷـﻮد. ﻏﺰاﻟﯽِ ﺻﻮﻓﯽ ﻫﻤﭽﻮن ﻓﯿﻠﺴﻮف ﺑﻪ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﮥ ﻋﻘﻞ و اﯾﻤﺎن ﻧﻨﮕﺮﯾﺴﺘﻪ و در ﻧﻬﺎﯾﺖ، ﺑﻪ دﻟﯿﻞ ﺧﺸـﯿﺖ از ﺧـﺪا، اﯾﻤـﺎن را ﺑـﺮ ﻋﻘﻞ ﻣﻘﺪم ﮐﺮده اﺳﺖ.
چكيده لاتين :
While there is no real tension between faith and reason for Muslim scholars, in post-
Kantian philosophy of religion there have been serious doubts about the rationality
of religious doctrines. It is noteworthy that Ghazali’s critiques of philosophical
reasoning are totally different from Kant’s. Ghazali denied the reliability of pure
reasoning without the help of faith, while Kant denied the access of reason to the
intangible world. By paying attention to Kant’s philosophy for understanding the
very difference of the faith/reason tension in Islamic tradition and contemporary
philosophy of religion and employing an extra-religious approach and an analyticalcritical
method, the present research has studied Ghazali’s corpus and concluded
what concerned Ghazali was faith, not reason; since he held that only a pious
believer could be saved from the hell. He was not concerned about reasoning
without revelation and religious belief. Ghazali maintained that philosophical
reasoning falls short of the truth of affairs. One could say, from a different point of
view, he was aware of the limits of reasoning in the same way as Kant was; but
unlike Kant, through faith, he arrived at matters which are far from the access of
reason. Finally, although in Kant’s thoughts, faith has lost its rational bases, Ghazali
was not in the same situation. He held that mystical, prophetical reasoning, which he
called “al-Qalb” (the Heart), could obtain the truth and has no conflict with faith and
revelation, and it is just human reasoning that makes judgments that could come in
conflict with religious beliefs. Previous research saw Ghazali as fideistic; although
thinking of him of rationalist or fideistic, could be easy based on his Ashʿari
commitment, but after enough reflection on his works, it turns out to be difficult to
do so because one could find both evidence for his rationality or fideism. Regarding
his prioritizing faith over reason, there is a lot of textual evidence in his corpus; his
tendency toward reason is not very explicit but can be perceived implicitly from his
works. Despite his efforts to emphasize revelation and faith, as well as left human
reasoning for revelation, what arises afterward, which has a kind of validity even for
him, is the same common reason. Ghazali interpreted the prima facie meaning of
Quranic verses which are impossible from a rational viewpoint, such as the
corporeality of God. There is no middle ground between faith and reason, and yet
Ghazali still stands in the very middle; thus, he could not be seen as just fideistic. If
he wanted to demarcate what could be interpreted, he would have taken the side of
reason. At the same time, comparing his rationality with Descartes’ is a naïve
position to hold. Mystic-minded Ghazali did not see the issue of faith and reason
like a philosopher and, ultimately, due to his obedience to God, as well as the fact
that his main concern is salvation, he prioritized faith over reason. It is not possible
to speak of tension or competence for a mystic-minded like him.
