Selami Varlik

Cet article examine la façon dont l’imagination de l’innocence chez Ricœur entre en résonance avec la notion islamique de fitra. Deux écarts majeurs sont d’abord relevés : là où Ricœur hérite d'une vision chrétienne du mal comme scandale originaire, la fitra désigne la disposition naturelle de l’humain au bien ; et là où la faute ricœurienne résiste à toute démonstration de Dieu, la fitra – notamment chez al-Māturīdī – fonde la capacité rationnelle à reconnaître Dieu. Pourtant, une convergence émerge : chez Ricœur la Chute n’est pensable qu’à partir d’une bonté et d’une innocence plus originaires, qui persistent en surimpression. L’enjeu ici n’est pas d’établir un consensus entre les deux approches, mais de penser la possibilité d’un décentrement mutuel articulé autour d'une double logique du en dépit de : imaginer le bien malgré le mal chez Ricœur, imaginer la faute malgré la primauté du bien dans la pensée islamique, de façon à ce que chaque tradition intellectuelle puisse revivifier ses propres catégories au contact de l’autre.

Heidegger contrasts meditative thinking, which allows detachment from beings, with calculative thinking, which maintains an instrumental and interested relationship with them. In his view, the principle of reason is the main tool for dominating available things. He also embeds the Medieval essence-existence duality within this framework of causality geared towards manipulating beings, judging that the religious notion of creation failed to distance this duality from Greek essentialism. Now, by appropriating the Islamic notion of creation ex nihilo, Avicenna places an ontological indigence at the heart of the created world. He believes that a being necessary by something other than itself remains contingent in itself, even after being caused. Thus, knowledge of the cause doesn’t grant dominance over the thing but fosters detachment from contingent being, recognizing its dependence on an upstream otherness. Moreover, Meister Eckhart, who according to Heidegger perfectly illustrates meditative thought, is indebted precisely to this ontological poverty established by Avicenna. In addition to describing this possible objection from Avicenna to Heidegger, the more general aim of this study is to explore the possibility of an ethical and disinterested use of the principle of reason.

Heidegger, şeylere bağlanmamaya izin veren meditatif düşünme ile onlarla araçsal ve çıkarcı bir ilişki kuran hesaplayıcı düşünme arasında bir ayrım yapar. Ona göre yeter neden ilkesi, mevcut şeylere hükmetmenin temel yoludur. O, metafiziğin varlık-mahiyet ayrımını da hazır varlık fikrine hizmet eden bu nedensellik paradigmasına indirger; zira Hristiyanlık’ın yaratma kuramı bu ayrımı Yunan felsefesinden uzaklaştıramamıştır. İbn Sînâ ise, İslâm’ın yoktan yaratma kuramını sahiplenerek, yaratılmış dünyanın özüne ontolojik bir fakirlik yerleştirir, zira her şey varlığını kendinde zorunlu varlığa borçludur. Kendinden başkasıyla zorunlu varlık, var edildikten sonra bile kendinde mümkün olma halini korur. Böylece, nedenin bilgisi, bir şey üzerinde hakimiyet kurmak yerine, onun varlığının bizatihi zorunlu varlığa bağımlı olduğunu anlayıp, ona kayıtsız ve ilgisiz kalmayı sağlar. Heidegger’in tersine, nedensel bilgi bir ontolojik yoksulluğun bilgisine dönüşür. Üstelik Heidegger’in meditatif düşünme için referans olarak sunduğu Meister Eckhart, varlık-mahiyet ayrımının sağladığı ontolojik yoksulluk fikrini İbn Sînâ sayesinde geliştirmiştir. İbn Sînâ’nın Heidegger’e yapabileceği bu itirazı ele almakla birlikte, amacımız, nedensellik ilkesinin ve genel olarak aklın etik ve çıkarsız bir şekilde kullanımının imkânını incelemektir.

L’herméneutique coranique de Fazlur Rahman (1919-1988) repose sur la recherche méthodique du sens objectif du texte. Inspiré par l’herméneutique romantique, telle qu’on peut la trouver chez E. Betti et qui nécessite pour le lecteur d’établir un lien intérieur avec l’esprit de l’auteur, Rahman considère que c’est l’intention divine qui est garante de l’objectivité du sens du Coran. L’empathie avec l’auteur est rendue possible par une conception historique de la révélation, selon laquelle la parole, qui est amenée par un Esprit intérieur et immatériel, passe par le filtre de la conscience prophétique. La méthode historiciste d’interprétation de Rahman, qu’il appelle herméneutique du « double mouvement », repose sur les deux critères d’objectivité que sont le contexte historique de la révélation et la prise en compte de la totalité du livre sacré. Ainsi, l’interprète doit, dans un premier temps, aller à la période de révélation pour, à partir des circonstances particulières, comprendre les finalités objectives du texte, identifiées à l’intention divine. Puis, il doit appliquer ces principes, qui sont moraux et non juridiques, au présent en s’éloignant du sens littéral. Rahman illustre son propos en essayant de montrer que le souci de l’intention divine permet de voir que le Coran s’oppose à la polygamie et à l’esclavage, qui vont contre le principe moral d’une société juste et égalitaire

The koranic hermeneutics of Fazlur Rahman is based on the methodical research of the objective meaning of the text. Inspired by the romantic hermeneutics, as it can be found in E. Betti’s philosophy, and which requires for the reader to establish an internal link with the inner mind of the author, Rahman considers that it is the divine intention that guarantees the objectivity of the meaning of the Koran. Empathy with the author is made possible by a particular conception of revelation, according to which the word, which is brought by an internal and immaterial Spirit, pass through the filter of prophetic consciousness. So, the role played by Muhammad in the process of revelation gives a historical dimension to the Word of God. The historicist method of interpretation of Fazlur Rahman, which he calls “double-movement” theory, rests on both criteria of objectivity that are the historical context of revelation and consideration of the totality of the sacred book. The first of these two movements consist of two steps. Firstly, the interpreter must examine the particular circumstances of the historical situation of revelation to understand the problems to which the Koran was a “divine response”. This study should be completed by the knowledge of the macro situation at that time. In the second step of the first movement, he generalizes specific answers to understand the objective purposes of the text, identified with the divine intention. This understanding requires to read the Koran as a whole, to form a coherent system from specific laws, which may even seem to be contradicting one another. This reading of the book as a totality allows to see the meaning behind the letter.Rahman proceeds to a double contextualization of koranic verses: historical and textual. In the second movement, the interpret has to apply this general principles, which are essentially moral and not legal, in the present situation, by moving away from the literal meaning. Like Betti and contrary to Gadamer, Rahman dissociates therefore the objective understanding phase and the subjective application phase. Moreover, the relationship between the two movements is also circular as if the result of the application is not conclusive interpreter can rethink the conclusions of the first movement. Rahman illustrates his method by trying to show that taking in account the divine intention allow to see that the Koran is opposed to polygamy and slavery, which go against the moral principle of a just and egalitarian society. The moral principle of equality between creatures is a direct consequence of the uniqueness and transcendence of the Creator. It is precisely because God is infinitely superior to all human beings, that they can only be equal.