POSSIBILITY OF EQUATION BETWEEN REASON AND REVELATION: WAS IBN SĪNĀ A DEIST?

Tanrı tasavvuru ile ilgili olarak din felsefesinde yapılan bir ayırım filozofların tanrısı ve dinin Tanrısı şeklindedir. Bununla ilişkili başka bir ayırım da akıl dini ve vahiy dini yahut da vahye dayanan din şeklindedir. Tanrı’nın ne olduğuna ve doğru dinî öğretilerin tamamen akılla bilinebileceğine, aklî bilginin dışında ve ötesinde vahye dayanan öğretilerin bir yeri olmadığına inanmak deist bir anlayışı temsil etmektedir. Bu makalede ben, Gazâlî’nin bazı görüşlerini dikkate alarak küfürle suçladığı ortaçağdaki Müslüman filozoflardan İbn Sînâ’nın Tanrı ve dini öğretiler hakkındaki mevzisinin deist bir yaklaşım sayılıp sayılamayacağını ele alacağım. İbn Sînâ’nın deist sayılıp sayılamayacağı sorusuna cevap vermek için, onun vahiy ve dinî öğretilerin hususiyeti hakkında görüşlerini ifade ettikten sonra, onun görüşlerini kelam ulemasının bu meseleye bakışı ile ilişkilendireceğim. İbn Sînâ’nın meseleye bakışında kelamcıların bakışından önemli bir farklılık olsa da, onun mevzisinin deizm olarak görülmesinin yanıltıcı olacağını göstermeye çalışacağım

With reference to the conception of God, in philosophy of religion scholars make a distinction between the God of philosophers and the God of religion. A similar distinction is made between rational religion and religion based on revelation. In conformity with these distinctions, it is a deistic position to believe that we may know what God is and what the true religious beliefs are on the basis of reason alone, and to believe that revelation does not add anything further to our rational knowledge in this regard. In this article, I am going to discuss if Ibn Sīnā, who was charged with infidelity for some of his ideas about God and the nature of religious beliefs by al-Ghazālī, could be considered as a deist. To answer the question if Ibn Sīnā was a deist, I am going to discuss his theories regarding the nature of revelation and religious teachings. Then I am going to relate his theories to the position of medieval Muslim theologians. I am going to defend that even though there are important differences between Avicenna’s position and that of Muslim theologians on these issues, it would be misleading to consider his position as a deistic position.

Keywords:

Deism, Ibn Sīnā, Avicenna, al-Ghazālī, Rational Religion Theism,

PDF

___

Acar, Rahim. “A Naturalistic Explanation of Miracles: The Case of Ibn Sīnā,” Toronto Journal of Theology, Supplement 1 (2017).

Al-Ghazālī. Fayṣal al-Tafriqa bayna al-Islām wa al-Zandaqa, ed. Maḥmūd Bījū (Damascus: Maḥmūd Bījū, 1413/1993).

Alper, Hülya. “İmam Mâturîdî’de Akıl-Vahiy İlişkisi: Aklın Önceliği ve Vahyin Gerekliliği,” Milel ve Nihal, vol.7, issue 2 (2010).

Bunnin, Nicholas and Yu, Jiyuan. The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004).

Davidson, Herbert A. Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes on Intellect: Their Cosmologies, Theo- ries of the Active Intellect, and Theories of Human Intellect (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1992).

Frank, Richard M. “Currents and countercurrents,” in Peter Rifel and Tony Street (eds.), Is- lam: Essays on Scripture Thought and Society (Leiden, 1997).

Germann, Nadja. “Natural and Revealed Religion,” in Richard Taylor & Luis Xavier Lopez-Far- jeat (eds.), Routledge Companion to Islamic Philosophy (London & New York: Routledge, 2016).

Griffel, Frank. “Al-Gazali’s Concept of Prophecy: the Introduction of Avicennan Psychology into As ‘Arite Theology,” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, vol. 14 (2004).

Ibn Khaldun. Muqadddimah: An Introduction to History, tr. Franz Rosenthal, abridged and edited N. J. Dawood (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987).

Ibn Sīnā. al-Tafsīr al-Qur’ānī wa al-Lugha al-Sūfiyyah fī Falsafa Ibn Sīnā, Ed. Ḥasan ʿĀṣī (Beirut: al-Muʾassasa al-Jāmiʿiyya li al-Dirāsāt wa al-Nashr wa al-Tawzīʿ, 1983).

Ibn Sīnā. Kitāb al-Najāt fī al-Ḥikma al-Manṭiqiyya wa al-Ṭabī‘iyya wa al–Ilāhiyya, ed. Majid Fakhry, (Beirut: Dār al-Āfāqi al-Jadīda, 1985).

Ibn Sīnā. The Metaphysics of the Healing (Kitāb al-Shifā’: al-Ilāhīyyāt), A Parallel English-Ara- bic Text, translated, introduced, and annotated by Michael E. Marmura (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 2005).

Işık, Aydın. Bir Felsefî Problem Olarak Vahiy ve Mucize (Ankara: Elis Yayınları, 2006).

Kâdî Abdülcebbâr. Şerhu’l-Usûli’l-Hamse (Mu‘tezile’nin Beş İlkesi), (Türkiye Yazma Eserler Ku- rumu Başkanlığı: İstanbul, 2013).

Kant, Immanuel. Vorlesungen über die philosophische Religionslehre (hrsg. Politz) 2. Ausgabe (Leipzig: Taubert, 1830).

Kaya, M. Cüneyt “Prophetic Legislation: Avicenna’s View of Practical Philosophy Revisited,” in Philosophy and Abrahamic Religions ed. Torrence Kirby, Rahim Acar and Bilal Baş (Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013).

Marmura, Michael E. “Avicenna’s Theory of Prophecy in the Light of Ash'arite Theology,” in his Probing in Islamic Philosophy: Studies in the Philosophies of Ibn Sina, al-Ghazali and Other Major Muslim Thinkers (New York: Global Academic Publishing, 2005).

Rahman, Fazlur (ed.). Avicenna’s De Anima (Arabic Text), being the Psychological Part of Kitâb al-Shifāʾ (London: Oxford University Press 1959).

Rahman, Fazlur. Prophecy in Islam: Philosophy and Orthodoxy (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1958).

Shihadeh, Ayman. “Theories of Value in Kalām: A New Interpretation,” in The Oxford Hand- book of Islamic Theology, ed. Sabine Schmidtke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).

Taliaferro, Charles and Marty, Elsa J. A Dictionary of Philosophy of Religion (New York, NY: Continuum:2010).

Wood, Allen. “Kant’s Deism,” in Kant's Philosophy of Religion Reconsidered, Philip J. Rossi and Michael Wreen (eds.), (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991).

Yavuz, Yusuf Şevki “Vahiy,” TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 42 (İstanbul: TDV, 2012).