نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
In the 7th and 8th centuries AH, Ibn Taymiyyah provoked widespread opposition among Islamic scholars from various schools of thought by introducing novel theological and jurisprudential views. This research conducts a comparative analysis of the perspectives of two of his most prominent critics: Taqi al-Din al-Subki, a Sunni scholar, and Allamah al-Hilli, a leading Imami scholar, focusing on the issue of grave visitation. The study aims to explore the historical context of this intellectual confrontation and elucidate the foundations, reasons, and methodologies employed by these two thinkers in their critiques. The primary objective is to comprehensively explain the reasons and methods of opposing Ibn Taymiyyah from two distinct intellectual perspectives, while identifying points of convergence and divergence in their critical approaches. The research adopts a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library research and a comparative examination of primary sources. In addressing the main research question—identifying the most significant reasons, commonalities, and differences in the critiques—the findings reveal that, despite their shared defense of grave visitation and the use of similar argumentative methods, their motivations and focal points of criticism were distinctly different. Al-Subki’s critiques were motivated by a desire to preserve the unity of the Muslim community and the dominant jurisprudential-hadith tradition, whereas Allamah al-Hilli adopted a theological-historical approach aimed at defending the Imamate and the doctrinal identity of Shiism. This study clearly demonstrates how this intellectual confrontation reflects the diversity and complexity within the civilizational framework of the Islamic world.
کلیدواژهها English
