Abu Muhammad Ali b. Ahmed b. Hazm al-Andalusi (d. 456/1064), the greatest exponent of the Ẓahiriyya school, was a scholar producing important works with his identity as a jurist, hadith scholar, historian, literary man, and poet. He also persistently defended the understanding of Ahl as-Sunna against the sects that emerged within Islamic thought as he defended the superiority of Islam against other religions. In his works, he covered almost every topic of the kalam science; in this context, he was especially (...) interested in topics related to the possibility of prophethood, the prophethood of Muhammad and his being the last representative of the prophethood chain. Therefore, this study, based mainly on his works such as al-Fasl, al-Usul wa'l-Furu, ad-Durr fi ma Yecibu i'tikaduhu and Ilm al-Kalam ala Mazhab Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jama'a, deals with the topics of the possibility of prophecy, the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad, and the role and importance of miracles in proving it in the view of Ibn Hazm. Almost all Islamic scholars have based their systems for recognizing prophets on the evidence of miracles. According to them, a person who claims to be a prophet must bring extraordinary evidence to confirm his claim, and it is necessary for him to do so in order to make his opponents religiously responsible. For an event to be considered evidence that confirms the prophet's claim and to be called a miracle, it must have some characteristics, such as: it must be a divine act; it must appear in an extraordinary manner; it must occur together with the claim of prophecy and challenge; and it must occur immediately after the claim of the prophet. Therefore, it is believed that evidence that possesses these characteristics can prove the correctness of the claimant without needing any other evidence. The kalam scholars only call those events as miracles, which have the characteristic of challenging the dozens of evidences that prove the prophet's truthfulness. Therefore, it is without a doubt that the concept of miracle is a special concept invented by kalam scholars. When looking at Ibn Hazm’s views on the subject, which form the backbone of the study, it is necessary to state the following: Firstly, Ibn Hazm explains that prophecy is possible, that God chooses and sends messengers among the people, and that there is no difference among the prophets in terms of belief principles. Ibn Hazm emphasizes the role of miracles in identifying prophets and bases his system on this principle. However, he does not show much care in using the term "miracles" in the way that Kalam scholars accept it and does not aim to explain or list the characteristics or attributes of miracles as seen in Kalam books. He uses the term "miracles," which have been conceptualized over a long period of time, for every extraordinary event that belongs to the prophets, without considering these sensitivities. The most striking aspect of Ibn Hazm's understanding of miracles is that he does not consider the attribute of challenge, which is defined as a condition of a miracle, as necessary. He criticizes those who accept the attribute of a challenge as an essential part of miracles and argues that such an understanding would limit the miracles of the Prophet Muhammad. If the attribute of the challenge is accepted as a condition, then extraordinary events such as the blessing of food and drink, the moaning of wood in the mosque, and some animals coming and expressing their complaints would be excluded from the scope of miracles. This would mean limiting the evidence of Prophet Muhammad's prophecy. According to him, the creator of extraordinary events is God, and He creates them only to confirm His messengers. The events that occur in the hands of a person who claims to be a prophet should be considered a miracle. Therefore, he has named every event that occurred through the prophets as a miracle, regardless of its context and nature. In conclusion, according to Ibn Hazm, there are two types of events that occur in nature: Normal events and miraculous events. He refers to the latter as miracles and limits them to only occurring in the hands of prophets. He believes that events that occur in the hands of prophets, whether they possess the characteristic of tahaddî or not, should be referred to as miracles. Events that occur in the hands of people other than prophets do not possess the characteristics of miraculous events. If such events are claimed to be miraculous, the evidence of the prophets will be damaged. Therefore, Allah creates these events only for His messengers. Therefore, in the view of Ibn Hazm, concepts such as miracles of saints (karamat), magic, and divine help (maunat) do not have a counterpart. In fact, his attitude coincides with the Mu'tazilite tradition. He tries to prevent criticism that can be directed at miracles by assigning miraculous events only to prophets. (shrink)

Due to the impression that Bruno Latour rejects epistemology, his thought is often considered as part of postmodernism and relativism. This essays will show that this impression is misleading. The target of Latour's critique is the modern paradigm that dichotomizes absolutely between ontology and epistemology, as in subject—object and nature—society. Latour succeeded in showing that modern epistemology is not absolute. To do so, he included a two-dimensional variable in one-dimensional insertions, with the example of a generic scheme created by a (...) variant of the SSK school. The consequence is a priori ontological postponement, with various models of possible scales of values on the schema. For this reason, the principle of symmetry and the use of neutral language that can include (suspend) various ontologies so that epistemic knowledge can be obtained in reality (such as the alignment of humans—non-humans, and actors—actants), becomes important in scientific practice. This essay draws a conclusion with some critical notes and provides a kind of offer as a further consequence of the examination of Bruno Latour’s epistemology Abstrak Kesan bahwa Bruno Latour menolak epistemologi telah membuat pemikirannya kerap dimasukkan ke kategori pascamodernisme dan relativisme. Tulisan ini hendak menunjukkan bahwa kesan tersebut keliru. Sebetulnya sasaran kritik Latour adalah paradigma modern yang mendikotomikan secara absolut antara ontologi dan epistemologi, seperti pada subjek–objek dan alam–masyarakat. Latour memperlihatkan bahwa epistemologi modern itu tidaklah absolut. Caranya, ia memasukkan variabel dua dimensi pada pengutuban satu dimensi, dengan contoh skema generik yang dibuat oleh varian dari mazhab SSK. Konsekuensinya adalah penundaan apriori ontologis, dengan beraneka model kemungkinan skala nilai pada skema. Untuk itu, prinsip simetri dan penggunaan bahasa netral yang dapat mencakupi (penangguhan) pelbagai ontologi agar pengetahuan epistemik dapat diperoleh senyata-nyatanya (seperti kesejajaran manusia—non-manusia, dan aktor—aktan) menjadi penting dalam praktik keilmuan. Di akhir tulisan, penulis memberikan beberapa catatan kritis, serta semacam tawaran sebagai konsekuensi lebih jauh atas pemeriksaan epistemologi Bruno Latour. Kata-kata kunci: epistmeologi, paradigma non-modern, epistemologi moluska, prinsip simetri, meta-modern, aktor-aktan. (shrink)

Rationalities is being have sufficient as the new god of modern humans. Being the fuel of spirit, they try to negate “Being” or metaphysical. The impact of it they alienate the social crisis and spiritual crisis. The extremely spiritual crisis generates atheism or at least agnostic. They leaned on the knowledges and technologist which have suspected them as the driving force of modernization process have resulted the higher degree of modern humans’ rationality. Instead of losing the beliefs is precisely created (...) the public sphere. The humans modern try to find the spiritual leaned by the Sufism way. One of the interesting Sufism figures to be studied is Ibn Atha`illah. This paper studies about the Ibn Atha`illah’s view in the modern of philosophical Sufism. Practically he was more emphasize the Sufism’s value in ma’rifat view. He is also the main figure of Sufism but his activities or influences was only in it. Ibn Atha`illah was known as the master of Islamic laws in mazhab Maliki and akidah, the competence which as a rule of religious exoteric. (shrink)

Islam Nusantara is not a new religion, a rival of Islam, sect, or a usual mazhab, but actually is a character of thoughtful mazhab or manhaj Islam. Islam Nusantara is just an approach in practicing Islamic teachings, namely cultural approaches. This Islam has the most prominent character which is called as wasathiyah that is reflected in some attitude such as, inclusive, tolerant, friendly, respect other parties, friendly with diverse cultures and religions, tasamuh, tawazun, and i’tidal. Islam Nusantara sees (...) local cultures as “oxygen”; filters and then respect good culture and tradition so it can have a dialogue with the environment around it positively. This cultural approach has been successfully used by the Walisongo in preaching using tembang, Wayang Kulit, socializing key terms, and so on. In the faith, Islam Nusantara is manifested in some rituals, tahlilan, istighasah, haul akbar, and selametan. Furthermore, in fiqh it’s such as imsak, zakat, halal-bihalal, marriage registration, marriage book, and the reading of ta’liq talaq. Islam Nusantara successfully consolidate Islam with nationalism so both of them are harmonious, and bring the tradition together with modernization through slogan a l-muhafadzah ‘ala al-qadîm al-salih wa al-akhdz bi al-jadîdal-aslah [keep the old good tradition and take a new and better tradition]. (shrink)

The Nahdlatul Ulama are important parts that greatly value the inheritance of the classical Islamic treasures contained in the work of the Imam Mazhab. Its wealth of sources of understanding, NU has its own uniqueway of responding to reform, while maintaining harmony in tradition and cultural heritage, moderate, tolerant, not extreme, as well as promoting goodness and preventing badness. This paper examines the positioning of NU and its relation to Ahlussunnah wa al-Jama‘ah based on the social context that accompanies (...) it and the actors involved in it. There are three locus, places, or cultural fields that have important significance because they are a source of discourse, ideas and practices of mazhab in contemporary NU communities: Pesantren, Islamic College and Non-Governmental Organization. This paper uses three approaches: Thomas Kuhn’s Shifting Paradigm, Karl Manheim’s Sociology of Knowledge and Abed al-Jabiri’s Epistemology are used to study knowledge that is not only the result of theory, but also part of the process of sociology and epistemology. The results show that the majority of Pesantren when understanding and interpreting Aswaja An-Nahdliyyah are heavier and dominant based on Bayani and Irfani. Whereas the scholar of NU and NGOs that had been Bayani and Irfani shifted to Burhani’s epistemological model. In other words, methodologically they want a change in understanding Aswaja from qauli to manhaji, Bayani-Irfani to Burhani,monolithic-dichotomic to integrative-progressive. (shrink)