Farkhan Farkhan, Kamsi Kamsi, Asmuni Asmuni
{"title":"Studi Komparatif Fikih Bencana Muhammadiyah dan Nahdlatul Ulama","authors":"Farkhan Farkhan, Kamsi Kamsi, Asmuni Asmuni","doi":"10.22515/AL-AHKAM.V5I2.3281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The background of the study is the existence of Fiqh Muhammadiyah and Fiqh Nahdlatul Ulama in coping with disaster, in response to the phenomenon of disasters happened in Indonesia, which has taken many victims and caused various losses. Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama are two largest Islamic community organizations in this country, so the way on managing the society is always interesting to study, including FIQH (ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE) of coping the disaster.\nBased on the reasons above, the backgrounds of the study are how do muhammadiyah and nahdhatul ulama apply their fiqh (islamic jurisprudence) to cope with disaster? and why do they apply their fiqh?\nThis study is library research using qualitative design and comparing between the two fiqhs from both Muhammadiyah and Nahdatul ulama. The researcher applies Philosophical approaches, through the term epistemilogi bayani, burhani dan irfani as instruments to clarify the content of both fiqhs to find the answer for both research problems above.\nThe findings are the guideline and methodhology used both Muhammadiyah and Nahdatul ulama covered in both fiqhs; there are several differences on the Basic conceptions related to beliefs and Aqida; ethical and moral formulations and practical things.\nMuhammadiyah Fiqh explained in details regarding with practical procedures and steps of worship in coping with disaster, while Nahdlatul Ulama Fiqh explained only practical guidelines in coping with disaster.\nThe other finding is related to the triple epistimology. The point of bayani on both fiqhs are relatively similar, same level and size. The point of burhani on Muhammadiyah fiqh gave deeper understanding than Nahdlatul Ulama fiqh. And the point of irfani neither muhammadiyah nor Nahdlatul Ulama seem to use it. The fact of the differences refers to the basic methodology from both organizations; Muhammadiyah refers from verse and hadith, while Nahdlatul Ulama refers from aqwal ulama, although both of them refer to the verse, hadith and the decree of classical ulama (preachers)","PeriodicalId":135077,"journal":{"name":"Al-Ahkam Jurnal Ilmu Syari’ah dan Hukum","volume":"102 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Al-Ahkam Jurnal Ilmu Syari’ah dan Hukum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22515/AL-AHKAM.V5I2.3281","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

研究的背景是Fiqh Muhammadiyah和Fiqh Nahdlatul Ulama在应对灾害方面的存在,以应对印度尼西亚发生的灾害现象,这些灾害造成了许多受害者和各种损失。Muhammadiyah和Nahdlatul Ulama是这个国家最大的两个伊斯兰社区组织,所以管理社会的方式总是值得研究的,包括应对灾难的FIQH(伊斯兰法学)。基于以上原因,本研究的背景是穆罕默迪亚和nahdhatul ulama如何运用他们的fiqh(伊斯兰法学)来应对灾难?他们为什么要申请他们的fiqh?本研究是图书馆研究,使用定性设计和比较穆罕默德迪亚和Nahdatul ulama的两幅图。研究人员运用哲学方法,通过术语认识论,burhani和irfani作为工具来澄清这两个fiqh的内容,以找到上述两个研究问题的答案。这些发现是穆罕默迪亚和Nahdatul ulama在两篇文章中使用的指导方针和方法;在与信仰和阿基达有关的基本概念上存在一些差异;伦理和道德的公式和实际的东西。穆罕默迪亚·菲qh详细解释了应对灾难的实际程序和崇拜步骤,而Nahdlatul Ulama Fiqh只解释了应对灾难的实际指导方针。另一个发现与三重认识论有关。两个fiqi上的bayani点是比较相似的,相同的水平和大小。burhani对Muhammadiyah fiqh的观点比Nahdlatul Ulama fiqh有更深的理解。而对于伊法尼的观点,穆罕默迪亚和Nahdlatul Ulama似乎都没有用它。这种差异指的是两个组织的基本方法论;默罕默迪亚指的是经文和圣训,而Nahdlatul Ulama指的是aqwal Ulama,尽管它们都指的是经文、圣训和经典乌拉玛(传教士)的命令。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Studi Komparatif Fikih Bencana Muhammadiyah dan Nahdlatul Ulama
The background of the study is the existence of Fiqh Muhammadiyah and Fiqh Nahdlatul Ulama in coping with disaster, in response to the phenomenon of disasters happened in Indonesia, which has taken many victims and caused various losses. Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama are two largest Islamic community organizations in this country, so the way on managing the society is always interesting to study, including FIQH (ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE) of coping the disaster. Based on the reasons above, the backgrounds of the study are how do muhammadiyah and nahdhatul ulama apply their fiqh (islamic jurisprudence) to cope with disaster? and why do they apply their fiqh? This study is library research using qualitative design and comparing between the two fiqhs from both Muhammadiyah and Nahdatul ulama. The researcher applies Philosophical approaches, through the term epistemilogi bayani, burhani dan irfani as instruments to clarify the content of both fiqhs to find the answer for both research problems above. The findings are the guideline and methodhology used both Muhammadiyah and Nahdatul ulama covered in both fiqhs; there are several differences on the Basic conceptions related to beliefs and Aqida; ethical and moral formulations and practical things. Muhammadiyah Fiqh explained in details regarding with practical procedures and steps of worship in coping with disaster, while Nahdlatul Ulama Fiqh explained only practical guidelines in coping with disaster. The other finding is related to the triple epistimology. The point of bayani on both fiqhs are relatively similar, same level and size. The point of burhani on Muhammadiyah fiqh gave deeper understanding than Nahdlatul Ulama fiqh. And the point of irfani neither muhammadiyah nor Nahdlatul Ulama seem to use it. The fact of the differences refers to the basic methodology from both organizations; Muhammadiyah refers from verse and hadith, while Nahdlatul Ulama refers from aqwal ulama, although both of them refer to the verse, hadith and the decree of classical ulama (preachers)
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信