Talk:Islamic philosophy

message: 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)
thread_title: Introduction

message: 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)
: "Muslim Philosophy" would suggest that it is the philosophy of Islam.  "Islamic" is preferred for denoting precisely the ambiguity you desire.  --RJC 1 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)
::Both terms (Muslim Philosophy and Islamic Philosoph) can be encountered in literature (as we see fe in Further reading section) User:abdullah_mk 
:If they were attempting philosophy from an Islamic perspective then it is Islamic even if it has been considered blaspemous by others.  In their times the Mu'tazila were respected but in time they became called blaspemous by the main groups... they are still Islamic. gren グレン 01:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: There are different ideas about this issue. Some scholars believe Ibn Sina and Al-Farabi just presented the Greek philosophy to the Muslim world or added a few problems or ideas to it but others like Hanry Corbin believe especial philosophy has originated from Islamic thought, Ibn Sina and Al-Farabi are affected by it and it's not equal with Kalam.  --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Error/Contradiction

message: 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)
replies: text: Due to the fact that "Post-classical Islamic philosophy" is a completely wrong title and classification is baseless, I remove "[edit] Later Islamic philosophy". Delete irrelevant and wrong information and merge rellevant parts in the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong classification in ''Later Islamic philosophy'' section

message: 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":
From Inventions in medieval Islam: "Gunpowder." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica 2008 Ultimate Reference Suite.  Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2008. check
From Avicenna: 
From Ibn Khaldun: Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th ed., vol. 9, p. 148.
From Iran: Encyclopædia Britannica23 January 2008
From God in Islam:  "Allah." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica 
From Qur'an: 
From Logic in Islamic philosophy: History of logic: Arabic logic, Encyclopædia Britannica.
From Ja'far al-Sadiq: "Ja'far ibn Muhammad." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
From Muhammad: 
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Islamic philosophy]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the title 

message: —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.An Introduction to Muslim Philosophy (Part 4) by Taqi Mesbah Yazdi Al-Tawhid vol XII, No 3(available at al-islam.org)  
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 have limited understanding of either, but to me the identification of Mulla Sadra with existentialism (and with theosophy for that matter) is dodgy. I wonder if there aren't some artefacts of translation to blame here. --192.75.48.150 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcendent school 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Joined up thinking on hyperlinking 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Abu Hanifa 

message: Someone made an addition in the intro, that I reverted, and that properly belong to here:
 
:[[[A Note, by Syed Hasan Shahid Bukhari.]]]
:I have only one comment to make regarding the Subject of this Paper and it Is, That "Philosophy is Considered Insanity, in the Lord's known Word ... Therefore, the very Premise, that there is anything like "Islamic Philosophy" in Islam, is False.
 
:What we do have, is the usual. In, that there have been Muslims in History, who in following Ibne Rusd, Sina and similar others, influenced by the Greeks, did adopt the Greek mode of Cognition, as the means of communicating in the distinct mode of Reason. The Qadiani, devised a totally new Interpretation of Islam, based on the Method of "Rational Interpretation of the Divine."
 
:(concluded)
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)
replies: text: I retract that standing point (for not reading you carefully enough, pardon!), and instead attain the standing point: I believe you're wrong because islam provides ittihad, enabling a kind of specific reasoning that created room for philosophy and science. "Islamic" in this context means, "of the islamic culture". Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Good-faith scribble in the intro

message: 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)
thread_title: Definition

message: 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)
thread_title: consistency

message: 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)
thread_title:  Division of Main Schools With Separate Systems 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927224948/http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090351.html to http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090351.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080206072116/http://www.islamset.com/isc/nafis/drroubi.html to http://www.islamset.com/isc/nafis/drroubi.html
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YFDTux7u?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rep.routledge.com%2Farticles%2Fislamic-philosophy%253bjsessionid%3DB31B033F077DD5E68E09CC9D35C02105 to http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/H057
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081128054613/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/scislam.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/scislam.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080626074150/http://www.unhas.ac.id/~rhiza/saintis/biruni.html to http://www.unhas.ac.id/~rhiza/saintis/biruni.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/islamic-philosophy%3bjsessionid=B31B033F077DD5E68E09CC9D35C02105
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304052618/http://www.iiitbd.org/ijit/ to http://www.iiitbd.org/ijit/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified