Department of Philosophy

Permanent URI for this community

http://repository.uop.edu.pk/123456789/26

Browse

Browsing Department of Philosophy by Issue Date

Filter results by year or month
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    A Comparative Study of Allama Iqbal and Dr. Fazlur Rahman on Islamic Modernity
    (Department Of Philosophy, University Of Peshawar, 2009) Malik Mohammad Tariq; Supervised by Professor Dr. Khurshid Anwar
    The present study aims to examine the comparison between Allama Iqbal and Dr Fazlur Rahman on Islamic Modernity. The main attempt of Islamic intellectual tradition has been to define the nature of knowledge and beingitself as given by the authority of revelation and the view of God’s omnipotentiality over the Universe. However, with the development of modern society along with the political and economic changes in the West, it brought new scientific and philosophical visions. Those revolved around the themes of man as a subject and the abstraction of nature. As a thinker deeply involved in these issues, Iqbal and Dr. Fazlur Rahman represents an effort that tries to transform Islamic intellectual tradition into the language of modern world. They stand out as an original thinker having a modernist attitude of Muslim intellectuals or “oppositional” to the traditional Ulama. Inthis study, it will also argue that transformation of the language ofIslamic intellectual tradition to that of modernity is how much necessary, if we want to evaluate Islam and Modernity in a non-reductionist way. The present study will also help to prevent the mutual misunderstanding between the two Worlds; Islam and the West.It will also present the contribution of Iqbal and Fazlur Rahman to opening the doors for a possible dialogue between two different intellectual traditions and the phenomenon of intellectual interaction between Islamic and Western philosophical and theological traditions. The present study titled “A Comparative Study of Allama Iqbal and Dr Fazlur Rahman on Islamic Modernity” consists of Five Chapters. 1 is of Islamic Modernity. In this chapter the background of Islamic Modernity, the meaning of modernity, moderation and modernism has been discussed. In Islamic Modernity, the need of Jjtihad, Islam is not opposed to modernism, has been discussed. Modernism cannot be separated from change. In fact, Islam, like many other religions, was a product of fundamental social and economic changes, which were occurring, in the Arab society. Islam laid great emphasis on these values while welcoming the change-taking place in the society. In Chapter 2 Islamic Modernist thinker Jamal al-Din Al-Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Ali Shariati, Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan, and Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi views has been discussed. Afghani is considered to be the founding father of Islamic Modernism.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Language and Logic of War with Special Refrence to War on Terror in Afghanistan Appearance and Reality
    (Department Of Philosophy, University Of Peshawar, 2010-08) Shuja Ahmad; Supervised by Prof. Dr. Sarfraz Khan
    Philosophy attempts to differentiate appearance from reality and helps in thinking clearly and critically. In the context of war, people at the helm ofaffairs (leaders/politicians) make it difficult for public to differentiate appearance from reality, using ambiguous and vague words, persuasive definitions, metaphors, framing/reframing, and also by forwardingfallacious arguments. Employing language and logic of war as tools of war they attempt to make peoplefeel, think, argue, and act the way, they want them to. Moreover, language and logic of war also attempt to block rational/critical and clear thinking, andsilence criticism. Introduction of this work, comprising eight sections, discusses: language and logic of war; specific aims of work; methodology; research questions; justifications, plan of work and literature review. Chapter two, comprising four sections, reveals the way language: shapes judgments, perceptions and actions; block rational/critical thinking and silence criticism. It briefly discusses: theories of language; role of context in language; functions of language; intentions of speaker; ambiguity; vagueness; definitions; emotive words and persuasive definitions. Fourth section of this chapter elaborates Lakoff and Johnson’s methodology of analysis of metaphors. It focuses on framing and reframing too, as explained by Lakoff and other scholars, to develop a methodology to understand the way language can be instrumental in the context of war. Chapter three, comprising two sections, introduces key terms suchas: logic; argument; fallacy; deductive and inductive arguments; formal and informal logic; formal and informal fallacies. Explaining informal fallacies, it establishes that fallacious arguments may shape judgment, blockrational/critical thinking andsilence critics. It also establishes that an informal fallacy may be committed owingto its content, context, or both. Some major fallacies and their types have been discussed. This chapter delineates a methodology to detect informalfallacies in discourse. Chapter four demonstrates that language used in the context of war i.<., language of war, is ambiguous, vague, metaphorical, frames and reframes war discourse and forwards persuasive definitions. Leaders/politicians use this languageto manipulate public judgments, perceptions, actions; to block rational thinking and silencecritics. This chapter establishes that use of the word, ‘War’, has been incorrect 4 in the context of 9/11, since no war till 10/7 actually occurred. However, using language of war, politicians/ leaders misled many people that terrorist acts of 9/11 were acts of war. Moreover, it demonstrates that using language of war politicians/leaders evoke metaphors and frames such as: good versus evil; believers versus infidel; hero versus villain; Faroon versus Musa (Pharaoh versus Muses) and loss versus gain, to manipulate public opinion. Chapter five establishes that logic of war used by leaders/politicians as a tool of war, has been instrumental in blockingrational/critical and clear thinking, silencing policy criticism and in shaping judgments, perceptions and behavior of people, in war in general and War on Terrorin particular. This work concludes that in the context of war, leaders/politicians use language and logic of war as tools of war making it difficult for public to differentiate appearance of war from reality. Using language and logic of war, they attempt to make people think, argue, and act the way, they want them to. Moreover, they use language and logic of war to block rational thinking and silence criticism.