چکیده:
Abstract: This survey, with a comparative approach, deals with criticism of Reynold Nicholson(1868-1945) and William C.Chittick chr('39')s (1943- ) methodology in Sufism (with emphasis on Rumi and Ibn Arabi). The purpose of the methodology review of these western mysticists is not only the better cognition the rules and criterias of religious studies and specially sufism, but also to investigate the intellectual background and origin of the two scholarschr('39') viewpoints and to pave the way to discovery of subtleties of thought and their differences and points of view. The present article, in a descriptive-analytic method, has attempted to plug the gap of existing such approach, as much as possible. Analyzing the methodology of these two scholars in the field of Islamic mysticism reveals different information sources and distinct conclusions. In an analytical-critical approach, to Nicholsonchr('39')s idea, Chittick emphasizes the in-text analysis of the works of these mystics and in fact understands the intellectual angles of thinkers such as Ibn Arabi and Rumi in understanding theire world-view through their works and taking full advantage of their words and imaginary forms knows, though neglecting to some of Nicholsonchr('39')s works and perhaps the inconsistency of his views, has made Chittick a incorrect judgment.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Chittick, with an analytical-critical method towards Nicholson's views, emphasizes the intra-textual analysis of the works of these mystics; in fact, he considers the understanding of the intellectual dimensions of thinkers like Ibn Arabi and Rumi to be contingent upon understanding their world-view through their works and making full use of their words and imaginary forms, although the lack of attention to some of Nicholson's works and perhaps the contradiction in his views has led Chittick into a judgment that is not entirely correct.
Abstract: Keywords: Methodology, Nicholson, Chittick, Ibn Arabi, Rumi, History of Sufism * PhD student in Islamic Sufism and Mysticism, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Science, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
By examining two of Nicholson's works on Ibn - Arabi and Rumi, William Chittick believes that the lack of understanding of Ibn Arabi's worldview and his thoughts in the Futuhat al-Makkiyya has led this English Orientalist to generalizations, and he has prioritized the scientific concerns of his own era over what the Sheikh actually intended.
To pathologize and analyze the ambiguous points in Nicholson's views regarding the intellectual trajectory of Ibn Arabi and the influence it had on Rumi's thought, this article employs a descriptive-analytical method and, by gathering information from library resources, addresses Chittick's opinions and draws conclusions regarding these two subjects.
(
, 
, 
)
