كليدواژه :
ابنتيميه , تعريف عبادت , غايت خضوع , غايت حب
چكيده فارسي :
در نگاه ابنتيميه، مفهوم عبادت يعني غايت خضوع كه با غايت حب همراه باشد. اين نگاه به عبادت، ملاك تعيين كفر يا اسلام اشخاص گرديده است. با اينكه چنين تعريفي، خلاف مباني سلف‌‌گرايانه و ظاهرگرايانه ابنتيميه بوده و نه در سلف چنين تعريفي وجود دارد و نه ظاهر اين كلمه با تعريف بيان شده هم‌‌خواني دارد؛ اما متاسفانه دچار اشكالات متعدد ديگري از قبيل خروج مصاديقي كه قطعا عبادت هستند، ورود مصاديقي كه قطعا عبادت نيستند، عدم دليل بر صحت تعريف، مخالفت با قرآن‌‌كريم، مخالفت با عبادات قطعيه، مخالفت با رجحان عمل عبادي و مخالفت با تعاريف بزرگان اهل سنت مي‌‌باشد. در عين حال، بر فرض عدم ورود هيچ‌‌يك از اشكالات و صحت تعريف، بازهم صلاحيت اثبات شرك و ملاك كفر بودن را نخواهد داشت؛ زيرا اين نوع از عبادت براي احدي قابل احراز نيست تا بتوان كسي را متهم به عبادت غير خدا كرد؛ چراكه حب صفتي دروني است و اثبات همراه بودن غايت حب با خضوع، تنها از كسي بر مي‌‌آيد كه عالم به احوال قلوب افراد باشد و چه كسي مي‌تواند چنين ادعايي بكند؟ با وجود اين اشكالات كه شبهات متعددي را نسبت به تشخيص عمل عبادي دنبال خواهد داشت، و با توجه به اينكه حدود الهي به‌‌واسطه شبهات ساقط مي‌‌شود، اشكال ديگري نيز به مبناي تكفير وارد خواهد بود كه چگونه، حكم به قتل داده مي‌‌شود و هيچ‌‌كدام از شبهات مطرح شده، مانع اقامه اين حد الهي نمي‌‌گردد؟ مسائل مطرح شده در اين چند سطر كه در واقع جواب‌‌هاي نقضي به تعريف ابنتيميه است، موضوع اين تحقيق مي‌‌باشد.
چكيده لاتين :
According to Ibn Taymiyyah, 'ibadah (lit. worship)
means extreme humbleness twixt with love. This
perspective of worship has become a yardstick for
determining and differentiating Islam from disbelief
and heresy. However, unfortunately, in spite of this
definition being against Ibn Taymiyyah's salafist and literalist foundations – because there is no trace of this
definition in the words of his predecessors nor is the
outward meaning of this word in harmony with the
above definition – there are multiple other problems
with this definition since it is not inclusive and
exclusive. That is, there are acts excluded which are
certainly acts of worship and there are acts included
which are not acts of worship, not to mention the fact
that there is no reason to prove that the definition is
correct. Furthermore, it runs counter to the Holy Quran,
opposes some established acts of worship, counters the
preference of the acts of worship as well as some
definitions offered by prominent Sunni scholars. In
fact, even if none of the criticisms is supposedly in
place and the definition is presumed to be correct, it is
still not qualified to prove shirk and the said practices
cannot be labeled as disbelief because such kinds of
worship cannot be established and ascertained by
anyone and therefore no one can be accused or
worshipping someone other than God. That is because
love is an inward characteristic, and to prove the
purpose of love with humbleness is possible only for
those who are well aware of the hearts and minds of
other people. Who can make such a claim? Keeping in
view these problems which entail multiple misgivings
and doubts about establishing the acts of worship and
considering that the divine rules are rendered null by
these doubts, another question would arise as to the
basis of excommunication as to how someone is
sentenced to death and none of the said problems
prevent the implementation of any of these divine rules.
The issues raised in these few passages which, in fact,
provide counter-response to Ibn Taymiyyah's definition
constitute the subject of this research.
