Faculty/Course : Ushuluddin/IAT SMT II UIN SUKA
NIM : 15530004
Instructor : Prof. Dr. H. Fauzan Naif, M.A.
Islamic Philosophy Assignment
The resume of the book: “Critical Method of Ibn Rusyd-from Ibn Rusyd’s Book; Tahafut al-Tahafut". -just part of this book-
image source: www.satujam.com
image source: www.twitter.com
“The Critical of Ibn Rusyd to Ibn Sina’s Philosophy”
This book explain how critical method of Ibn Rusyd, and this book try to explain the book of Ibn Rusyd tahafut at-tahafut and compare with the Ghazali’s book tahafut al-falasifah. In Ibn Rusyd’s book, there so many criticize from Ibn Rusyd to another philosopher include Ibn Sina.
1. The Reason Ibn Rusyd Criticize to Ibn Sina
Ibn Rusyd have a reason which not directly why he criticize to Ibn sina. He known as a philosopher and a critic of philosophy in a Muslim. Many philosopher and sect in Islam were critical by Ibn Rusyd in philosophy’s argument include Ibn Sina. His book (tahafut al-tahafut) that created for oppose the book of Imam Ghazali (tahafut al-falasifah), but in fact, Ibn Rusyd, in his book also many criticize to other philosopher like Ibn sina.
Ibn Sina is a philosopher to be focus in a critical by Al-Ghazali. In Ghazali’s book (tahafut al-falasifah), Ghazali criticize to philosopher, but Ghazali give his critical just focus to Ibn Sina and he generalize to all philosopher. As an example, when Ghazali write the arguments of the Philosopher in his book (tahafut al-falasifah). Before he attack and criticize their arguments, he write a lot of Ibn Sina’s argument.
According to Ibn Rusyd, Ghazali was make a mistake here, Ghazali’s book should not named Tahafut al-Falasifah but exactly named Tahafut al-Farabi or Tahafut Ibn Sina.
According to Ibn Rusyd, Ghazali make a mistake too when he take some argument from Ibn Sina and generalize to another philosopher include Aristoteles. Ibn Rusyd get some reason to criticize the argument of Ibn Sina which different with him, until at least he can differentiate between Aristoteles’s philosophy in one side and Philosophy of Ibn Sina in other side. Ibn Rusyd very understand that Ibn Sina not understand so directly some of part in Aristoteles’s philosophy, Ibn Sina not understand deeply what should he understand and he not know a part of dimension Aristoteles’s philosophy.
In several Ibn Sina’s book, Ibn Sina mix up between two philosophy’s sect that is Aristoteles’s philosophy and Plato’s philosophy. And Ibn Sina accuse of several argument to Aristoteles which never said by Aristoteles. That is some of reason why Ibn Rusyd criticize to Ibn Sina. Shortly, Ibn Rusyd observe that Ghazali so many accuse of his critical to Ibn Sina for generalize to all philosopher, so Ibn Rusyd want to clarified by the basis which used by Ghazali, his basis is Ibn Sina.
2. Ibn Sina’s Philosophy and Critical Ibn Rusyd
Ibn Rusyd is a philosopher that his philosophy basis to Aristoteles’s philosophy, he philosophize with exactly pure or he philosophize really use mind as a basis principle to philosophize. He become a critic of philosophy because he was found so many mistake from a philosopher who was mix up between philosophy and theology which that is not exactly philosophy because not use mind as a basis principle in philosophize. He found a awkwards from philosopher, until he criticize the philosopher and correct what shloud he do, but he still criticize fairly. He criticize just what he think need to criticize and he will say agree if the philosopher (who critic by Ibn Rusyd) said some true.
This is several Ibn Sina’s philosophy and critical Ibn Rusyd to him:
A. The Argumentation of Mumkin and Wajib
According to Ibn Sina about the argumentation existence of Allah, he refer to two basis principle, that is argumentation Mumkin and Wajib. In his book An-Najah page 224-225 cited by M. Atif al-Iroqi, he explain that wajibul wujud is a form if nothing, it be impossible, and mumkinul wujud is something if estimate nothing or being (maujud), then should not be impossible or it is possible. Wajibul wujud is a form should be and mumkinul wujud is possibility being. Then wajibul wujud sometime being through his essence, and sometime being through other subtance. The wajibul wujud which through his essence, then the wujud is wajib because of his essence not through other. And the wajibul wujud which through other subtance is something if given something through other subtance, then it be wajibul wujud, for example, number four is wajibul wujud because not from it essence but because can surely existence from number two and three.
According to Ibn Rusyd, source of mistake from Ibn Sina, it be found in Ibn Sina’s argument that wajibul wujud which through other essence, is mumkinul wujud through essence itself, and mumkinul wujud need wajibul wujud. According to Ibn Rusyd this argument is a wrong argument, because wajib certainly nothing mumkin inside. There is nothing have behavior then that behavior have two character inside, that is mumkin and in other side wajib, it is impossible.
The wajib inside, there is nothing mumkin, because mumkin is a antonym of wajib. But, mumkin is something of wajib view in other behavior. Because from illat, something impossible to be other form is a central definition in silogisme (qiyas) and make a conclusion. If that central definition include mumkin behavior, it means that also a part of mumkin behavior. If the central definition include certainly behavior, then that also a part of certainly behavior.
B. Theory of Emanation or Sources
According Ibn Sina, from the first (al-awwal) never be produce except one. The reason is, if from the first can produce two, then this belief will be consequence to acknowledgement/confession that the sources is two different, because two of action will be result two in actor. The first actor called one, because there is not reason for saying directly that the excessively resulted from the one/first.
After we sure that the one cannot result except just one, according to Ibn Sina firstly resulted of Allah is the first mind, then spirit, then object of the sky, then the four of materials. Ibn Sina says that: “the first mind-is firstly resulted of Allah- have three mind; the first mind thinking about his Creator, the second mind thinking about his essence as a obigation to the first, and the third mind thinking about his existence as a mumkin through essence of himself.
Then, the three process of thinking result three thing, that is; mind, spirit, and jism (form), until the tenth mind which result nature kaun and nature fasad (it was broke), material nature, and from this four unsure (water, air, fire, and earth) result mineral nature (not alive), tree nature, animal nature, and human nature (that alive).
According to Ibn Rusyd, argument of Ibn Sina that from the first actor just result “one”, be in contradiction with his argument that the result from one of the first actor is something contains “much” inside, as a consequence from should result one of the one, except Ibn Sina said that “much” in the first result (ma’lul), everything one from that, is the first. Although that, it will be Ibn Sina say that the firstly is “much”.
C. The Basis Principle of the Physics Science
Ibn Sina Said that the people who specialist in physics science not necessary to argument about the basis of principle but the metaphysical is responsibility to explain the basis of principle physics science. On the contrary, according to Ibn Rusyd the physics science is responsibility to explain itself about the basis of principle physics science.
For example, material and form, in perspective of physics science look as the basis principle for existence of change, while the first philosophy (filsafah al-aula) look both as the basis principle of substance, with what the substance can be subtance.
According to Ibn Rusyd, the argument of the philosopher, al-Farabi and Ibn Sina, about the theory of the basis principle source, between a part of one and other, never known by the philosopher before. Because everything purpose by the first philosopher, that is this basis principle, began the first, have a premises known, which the perfectly in related between the basis principle. This is result one and other and all of this come from the first basis and that it can’t be understand by the actor and act, Creator and created, except in this definition. Also related of existence every maujud with the One.
D. Potential of Wahm (intuition)
According to Ibn Sina –he different with Aristoteles- in philosophy any potentials of wahm work for know means of something except the object can be look in the object of particular (al-Isyarat wa al-tambihat-Ibn Sina page 354). Ibn Rusyd criticize Ibn Sina, Ibn Rusyd said that there is nothing potentials of wahm in sect of philosophy before, and every argument of Ibn Sina use potential of wahm, just a fantasy. Because of that, there is not reason for linked to other new potential.
و الحمد لله رب العالمين
