Berikut ini ada sebuah tulisan yang memuat perbandingan antara beberapa mazhab filsafat dan aqidah (keyakinan) dalam Islam.
Sumber:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31788108/Background-Information-for-the-Study-of-Islamic-Theology
Background Information
To better understand the theological differences between Muslims, it
is necessary to understand their different attitudes regarding three
sources of knowledge: reason (aql), revelation (naql), and inspiration
(kashf).
|
Revelation (naql) |
Reason (aql) |
Inspiration (kasyf) |
| Peripatetic Philosophers |
Source of guidance for the uninitiated. Unnecessary for rational people and unimportant to the philosopher. |
The exclusive source of all fundamental truth. |
No value whatsoever. |
| Al-Mu`tazilah |
Confirms reason. If there is contradiction between the two,
revelation must be reinterpreted. All contradictions between the two
are only apparent, actual contradiction between reason and revelation
being impossible. (Revelation, though, is the exclusive source for
knowing secondary religious matters such as the number of rak`ahs in
the Afternoon Prayer, and that fasting is in Ramadan, etc.) |
Source of determining all fundamental truth. |
Little or no value. |
| Al-Maturidiyyah |
Fundamental truth is determined by reason, but only in
harmony with revelation. If there is contradiction between the two,
reason must be re-evaluated. All contradictions between the two are
only apparent, actual contradiction between reason and revelation
being impossible. |
Provides guidance in applying religious matters only on a very
personal and individual basis. If there is any conflict between
revelation and inspiration, inspiration is to be rejected. |
| Al-Asha`irah and Athariyyah al-Hanabilah |
Source of all fundamental truth. |
Provides the correct basis for understanding revelation in the
proper context, but only in accordance with the general framework set
out by revelation. All contradictions between the two are only
apparent, actual contradiction between reason and revelation being
impossible. |
Provides guidance in applying religious matters only on a very
personal and individual basis. If there is any conflict between
revelation and inspiration, inspiration is to be rejected. |
| Extreme Gnostics: |
Source of guidance for the uninitiated. Truly understood only by the Gnostics. |
Little or no value. |
Source of all fundamental truth and the exclusive domain of the saints. |
| Moderate Gnostics: |
Source of all fundamental knowledge. Subject to interpretation by inspiration. |
Has limited utility in understanding revelation, not in appraising or moderating inspiration. |
Source of knowledge for the saints. Has the ability to clarify, interpret, and qualify revelation. |
| Extreme Hashwiyyah |
Exclusive source of all religious knowledge. |
No value whatsoever. |
No value whatsoever. |
| Moderate Hashwiyyah |
Exclusive source of all religious knowledge. |
Little or no utility in understanding revelation. Revelation is
never to be understood, re-interpreted or re-evaluated in light of
reason, though theoretically all contradictions between reason and
revelation are only apparent, actual contradiction between the two being
impossible. |
Provides guidance in applying religious matters only on a very
personal and individual basis. If there is any conflict between
revelation and inspiration, inspiration is to be rejected. |
The Maturidiyyah, the Asha`irah, and Athariyyah al-Hanabilah
represent the spectrum of thought found in Orthodox Islam. They are on
the practice of the Salaf and include the rightly guided Sufis on the
path of Junayd and `Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani. The only real difference
between the Athriyyah and the Asha'irah is that the former violently
reject ta'wil and delving into difficult theological matters, while the
latter, to a greater or lesser extent, allow it. The Athariyyah
include Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Bukhari, Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi, and
al-Dhahabi (though a Shafi`i in fiqh) in his later days. The Maturidi
approach is first seen in the person of Abu Hanifa, then codified in
the works of al-Maturidi and developed by scholars such as al-Nasafi,
al-Lamishi, and al-Taftazani. The Ash`ari approach is witnessed in the
views of al- Hasan al-Basri, crystalising in the ideas of al-Ash`ari and
his contemporaries Ibn Jarir al-Tabari and al-Tahawi (who, almost
simultaneously, independently codified the same methodology). It was
then developed by scholars like al-Baqillani, al-Bayhaqi, Imam
al-Haramayn, Ibn al-Jawzi, and al-Ghazali.
The peripatetic philosophers are those who follow,
to a greater or lesser degree, the teachings of Aristotle, Plato, and
Plotinus. Their numbers include al-Kindi, al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, and to a
lesser degree Ibn Rushd al-Hafid. The peripatetic philosophers are
considered disbelievers with the exception of Ibn Rushd and his
followers, due to the fact that his views, though still false, are more
moderate.
The Mu`tazilah are known for their belief that the
Qur'an is created, that man creates his own evil deeds, that Allah is
obligated to prescribe what is best for His creation, and that it is
impossible for Allah to ever be seen by man. Their numbers include many
famous scholars such as al-Jahiz, Al-Qadi `Abd al-Jabbar, Abu al-Husayn
al-Basri, and al-Zamakhshari.
The extreme Gnostics include the Batiniyyah and the
Sufi extremists who reject the guidance of Islamic Law. They are the
only other above-mentioned categories who are indisputably disbelievers.
The moderate Gnostics are the Sufi extremists who
give lip service to the authority of the Qur'an and Sunnah but are prone
to innovations and false ideologies. They unfortunately include the
majority of Sufis living today. The extreme Hashwis include the
Mushabbihah, the early Hanbali Mujassimah like Abu Ya'la al-Farra', Ibn
Mandah, and Ibn Battah, and many of the contemporary Salafis.
The moderate Hashwis include Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn
Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Ibn Abu al-`Izz, al- Dhahabi in his early days, and
some of the more moderate and better informed contemporary Salafis.
THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF ASH`ARI THOUGHT
It may seem surprising that I mentioned Ibn al-Jawzi among the most
important Ash`ari scholars, but when one understands the Ash`ari
mindset, this becomes far less surprising. The Ash`aris are the
theological manifestation of the `aqidah of the hadith scholars, being
the forerunners in placing reason at the service of revelation, where
as the Maturidis are the theological expression of Ahl al-Ra'i. The
Atharis, on the other hand, though adhering to the views of Ahl
al-Hadith, never developed a comprehensive theology, being averse to
such an enterprise. It is the closeness to the hadith while presenting a
fully developed theology that gives the Ash`aris their unique
character.
The works of al-Baqillani, Imam al-Haramayn, and finally al-Ghazali,
show the development of the rational character of Ash`ari thought.
Their works collectively form the rational pillar of Ash`ari theology.
Everyone that comes after them, like al-Razi, al-Iji, and al-Sanusi,
only add some finer details and carry out the role of tahqiq.
The writings of al-Bayhaqi and Ibn al-Jawzi are the works which give
full expression to the Ash`ari approach to hadith. Their respective
works, Kitab al-Asma' wa al-Sifat and Daf` Shubah al-Tashbih, are the
definitive sources for all later Ash`ari discussions of the
mutashabihat. Al-Bayhaqi's work is by far the more extensive and is most
authoritative in terms of hadith methodology, wheras Ibn al-Jawzi's
work is the more aggressive and combative, being written specifically
as a refutation of the Hanbali mujassim Abu Ya'ala al- Farra'. The two
books taken together form the second indespensible pillar of Ash'ari
thought. Historically, we see that Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari (d. 330) had
many students, among the most important being al-Ta'i and al-Bahili.
Among the students of al-Bahili were al-Isfarayini (d. 418), Ibn Furaq,
and al-Baqillani (d. 402). Al-Baqillani was also a student of al-Ta'i;
in fact, al-Ta'i was his main teacher in matters of `aqidah, not
al-Bahili. Ibn Furaq and al-Isfarayini went to Khurasan (in Iran),
where they spread the Ash`ari creed primarily to adherents of the
Shafi'i madhhab, forming the "Khurasani school" of Ash'ari thought which
was characterised by a strong partiality for textual evidence.
Al-Baqillani stayed in Iraq and was more inclined to the rational
approach, probably due to the influence of al-Ta'i, forming what we
could call the "Iraqi school" of Ash`ari thought. His most important
`aqidah works are Kitab Tamhid al-Awa'il and al-Insaf. He was a Maliki
in fiqh, and was responsible for spreading the `Ash`ari creed among
many Malikis and Hanbalis in Iraq and as a consequence, in the rest of
the Arab world. As the Ash`ari creed spread to Syria and Egypt, it
quickly won favour and acceptance with the Hanafis there who were
already under the influence of the nearly identical teachings of
al-Tahawi, who hailed from Egypt.
In Khorasan, the scholarly tradition spread from generation to
generation, producing many eminent scholars, among them al-Bayhaqi (d.
458) and Imam al-Haramayn (d. 478). Al- Bayhaqi's book entitled
al-I`tiqad wa al-Hidayah is probably the best `aqidah work of
the"Khorasani school" and is probably the most faithful representation
of the ideological mindset of the Khurasani Ash`aris. Imam al-Haramayn,
however, departed from this approach, having extensively studied the
works of al-Baqillani. He brought the Khurasanis to Baqilani's more
rational approach. His most important work in `aqidah is Kitab
al-Irshad. Al-Ghazali (d. 505) was his student and continued on this
rational line in his own works such as al-Iqtisad fi al- I`tiqad,
Qawa'id al-Aqa'id (from the Ihya'), and Tahafut al-Falasafah. He returns
to a more"Khurasani" attitude in his Iljam al-`Awam an `Ilm al-Kalam,
though such a tendency is already evident in Qawa'id al-Aqa'id.
Historians have often puzzled over why the Ash`ari creed was never
embraced by the Hanafi denizens of Khorasan, but, was in fact often met
with open hatred and hostility, whereas it had been accepted by the
Hanafis of the Arab world, who never developed a separate "Tahawi"
creed.
Many reasons are given for this. The first is that Imam al-Ash`ari
concentrated his efforts on attacking the Mu`tazilah and destroying
their madh'hab. During his time, the majority of the Hanafi scholars of
Khurasan were in fact Mu`tazilis or at least sympathetic to their views.
They, consequently, had been ideologically at war with al-Ash`ari. Even
after the Mu`tazili creed fell out of favour and the majority of
scholars began to distance themselves from Mu`tazili ideas and embrace
those of Ahl al-Sunnah, the hatred and animosity that existed for
al-Ash`ari was carried over, making it impossible for them to embrace an
"Ash`ari" creed.
Al-Ash`ari was a Shafi'i, and the Ash`ari creed, after being swiftly
and overwhelmingly embraced by the Shafi`is of Khorasan, became
specifically associated with them. (This did not happen in the Arab
world, as we have seen). To say the least, Shafi`i-Hanafi relations in
Khorasan were far from cordial. This is another possible reason why the
Khorasani Hanafis would want to look elsewhere for there `aqidah.
Al-Ashari openly declared his affiliation with Ahl al-Hadith, the
scholars of hadith, and specifically Ahmad b. Hanbal. Al-Ash`ari makes
it quite clear in his writings that the creed of Ahmad b. Hanbal is the
true belief of Ahl al-Sunnah. This was no way for him to endear himself
to the Hanafis. On the fiqh level, Ahmad and the students of Abu Hanifa,
though grudgingly respecting each other, were ideologically polarised.
After Ahmad's death, the severe additude and bad conduct of some
Hanbalis widened the gap between them and the Hanafis. (Actually these
"Hanbalis" included the nascent Hanbali Mujassimah who carried out a
fitnah in Iraq almost as bad as the Mu`tazili mihnah of a generation
before. No Hanafi or Shafi'i was spared their wrath.) This is another
reason why the Khurasani Hanafis would be cool towards alAsh`ari and his
creed.
The Hanafis, instead, embraced the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah under a
different guise, that of the eminent and illustrious scholar of
Transoxiana, al-Maturidi.
THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF MATURIDI THOUGHT
Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi (d. 368) was a prominent Hanafi figure in
Transoxiana. He was instrumental in the development of Hanafi Usul
al-Fiqh. He was a defender of the `aqidah of Ahl al-Sunnah and a
contemporary of al-Ash`ari. The ideological climate in Transoxiana was
different from that of al-Ash`ari's Iraq. Transoxiana had been spared
the brunt of the Mu`tazili mihnah, and was consequently less polarised
when it came to the relationship between reason and revelation. The
Hanafi fiqh, as well, was already more accepting of taking recourse to
reason than was the fiqh of the other three madhhabs.
This produced an approach to Sunni theology that was more rationally
inclined and less antagonistic to Mu`tazili thought. This would lead
Hanafi scholars from the Arab world, like Ibn al-Humam, to accuse their
"brothers from across the river" of agreeing with the Mu`tazilah on more
than one occasion.
On the other hand, al-Kawthari sees this as their strength. He says,
after mentioning what he considers to be an imbalance in the thought of
al-Ash`ari with respect to reason and revelation, "This did not occur
with his (al-Ash`ari's) contemporary, the Imam of guidance, Abu Mansur
al-Maturidi, the Shaykh of the Sunnah in Transoxiana, due to the
absolute preponderance of the Sunnah in that region over the different
innovative sects, a preponderance which prevented any conflict from
surfacing between them. This made it possible for al-Maturidi to take a
completely balanced course, giving both revelation and reason their just
due." (Muqaddimah al-Kawthari ala al-Tabyin, 19) Actually, we have seen
that both the Ash'aris and Maturidis maintain this balanced course, it
is just a minor question of degree.
Where we could say that the Ash'ari creed, after a series of
independent scholarly works, came to its culmination with the writings
of al-Ghazali (d. 505), the Maturidi literature developed mainly as a
series of commentaries on Abu Hanifa's al-Fiqh al-Akbar – a precedent
set by alMaturidi himself – and occasionally on the Tahawiyyah.
The most significant development in the Maturidi literature came with
al-Nasafi (d. 508), a contemporary of al-Ghazali. He wrote many
important works in theology including the superb Tabsirah al-Adillah. He
also wrote his famous al-Aqidah al-Nasafiyyah, which would henceforth
be the focus of most Maturidi scholarly efforts.
It might be said that Maturidi thought came to its culmination with
al-Taftazani (753), who wrote his landmark Sharh al-Maqasid, a heavily
philosophical work corresponding to alMawaqif of al-Iji in the Ash`ari
literature. Al-Taftazani also wrote the authoritative commentary on
al-`Aqidah al-Nasafiyyah upon which numerous commentaries have been
written.
Geographically, Maturidi influence first predominated in Central
Asia, gaining favor among the Hanafis of Khorasan as well for reasons
previously discussed. The Maturidi creed spread from Central Asia into
India. It also traveled with the Turks to Anatolia (Modern Turkey) and
Eastern Europe. It is estimated that about two-thirds of the adherents
of the Hanafi madhhab are Maturidi. The other third, mainly in the Arab
world, are Ash`ari.
Catatan
Berikut ini adalah tokoh-tokoh yang terlibat dalam pergulatan antara aqidah Islam dan filsafat
http://waskita-adijarto.blogspot.com/2015/01/tokoh-pergulatan-aqidah-islam-filsafat-yunani-aristoteles.html 
