LIVING ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHY: Reflection on Mulyadhi Kartanegara's Thought

AlbAb


Introduction
This study will track Mulyadhi Kartanegara's position regarding the survival of the post-Ibn Rushd Islamic philosophical tradition primarily based on his travel notes in Iran in 2022. The study of Kartanegara's intellectual journey to Iran is relevant if it is linked to the scholarship of contemporary Islamic philosophy, which also explicitly seeks to challenge the thesis of the death of Islamic philosophy after Ibn Rushd (Gutas 2002, 6). We can say that this new trend in contemporary scholarship is part of a significant trend of revisionism in the study of Islamic philosophy, which questions the dominant old-orientalist narrative that once prevailed that Islamic philosophy stopped at the time of Ibn Rushd (Rouayheb & Schmidtke 2017, 1-3).
In the eyes of old orientalist scholars, even if there is a continuation of Islamic philosophy after Ibn Rushd, it is all about the appropriation of Ibn Rushd's ideas to Europe and gave birth to what is known as Latin Averroism (Nasr 2006, 154). In other words, Islamic intellectual tradition migrated from the Islamic world to Europe (Lassner 2012, 275). On the other hand, this migration also marks the total death of the Islamic UlUl AlbAb: Jurnal Studi Islam, Vol. 24, No.1, 2023 philosophical tradition in the Islamic world, which is said to have experienced a tremendous weakening due to the strengthening of religious orthodoxy, especially that driven by Al Ghazali (Gutas 2002, 6;Rouayheb & Schmidtke 2017, 1-3).
Although the old orientalist narrative that Islamic philosophy died after Ibn Rushd can be said to be no longer affirmed in contemporary scholarship -this can be seen from the various works that include/elaborate on the history and the names of the great philosophers after Ibn Rushd-, this does not mean that this narrative has been completely abandoned (Khatami 2013, 167). In several academic and popular works that specifically discuss Islamic philosophy, it is still easy to find claims of the old orientalist narrative of the death of Islamic philosophy (Ivry 2003, 50-51;Brown & Flores 2007, 104;Lowney 2005, 171-172).
From the explanation above, we can say that the old orientalist narratives that consider Islamic philosophy dead in the era of Ibn Rushd are still alive (Ghouz 2018, 9-10). However, it is undeniable that this old orientalist narrative is met with resistance from the academic community (Ghouz 2018, 11-13;Rouayheb & Schmidtke 2017, 1-3;Rizvi 2011, 11). We can say that contemporary academics have agreed that Islamic philosophy is still alive after Ibn Rushd (Rouayheb & Schmidtke 2017, 1-3). Although it cannot be denied, as Peter Adamson said, that the study of the development of philosophy after Ibn Rushd is still a kind of sketch, which means that there are still many parts that must be clarified by various further studies (Adamson 2016, 7).
Mulyadhi Kartanegara is part of this trend of historical revisionism, which questions claims of the death of Islamic philosophy after Ibn Rushd (Kartanegara 2006, 179). Referring to El-Rouayheb & Schmidtke's study, at least the criticism of the old Orientalist narrative can be divided into two generations (Rouayheb & Schmidtke 2017, 1-3). The first generation of revisionism was represented by Hossein Nasr, Henry Corbin, and Nicholas Rescher (Rouayheb & Schmidtke 2017, 1-3). Nasr and Corbin specifically pay attention to the development of Islamic philosophical traditions in Persian lands (Zamir 2015, 146-147). Both are credited with introducing the names of Suhrawardi and Mullâ Sadrâ to the broader public (Ravazi 2013, 7;Nasr 2008, 658).
After Nasr and Corbin, many academics affirmed the Illumination tradition as a different school within the Islamic philosophical tradition UlUl AlbAb: Jurnal Studi Islam, Vol. 24, No.1, 2023 that must be recognized apart from the Peripatetic tradition (Aristotelianism) (Rouayheb & Schmidtke 2017, 1-2). In contrast to Nasr and Corbin, who intensely focused on the land of Persia, Rescher tried to elaborate on the continuity of the philosophical tradition in the Arab world (El-Rouayheb 2010, 255-256). As a logician, Rescher found that the development of logic did not stop after Ibn Rushd's death and even continued to proliferate (El-Rouayheb 2010, 255-256).
After the first generation of revisionists paved the way, a second generation of revisionists emerged, led by Hossein Ziai and John Walbridge, who specifically studied Islamic philosophy in Persia, and Dimitri Gutas, A.I. Sabra, Ayman Shihadeh, and Rob Wisnovsky who conducted an intense study of Islamic philosophical traditions in the Sunni (non-Persian) world (Rouayheb & Schmidtke 2017, 2). Hossein Ziai and Walbridge contributed significantly to studying Islamic philosophy in Persia, especially in a new way of reading the Suhrawardi Illuminative tradition (Walbridge 2018, 14-15). Both seek to elaborate on the physical and logical dimensions of Suhrawardi's thought, where this theme is relatively unelaborated in the studies of Nasr and Corbin, which emphasize the mystical dimension (Walbridge 2018, 16).
Meanwhile, academics such as Dimitri Gutas, A.I. Sabra, Ayman Shihadeh, and Rob Wisnovsky attempt to do a critical reading of works in the post-Ibn Rushd Sunni kalam (Theology) tradition (Rouayheb & Schmidtke 2017, 2). They concluded that even though the Peripatetic philosophical tradition had declined, philosophical themes that used to be central in Peripatetic discussions were such as the nature of science, between essence and existence, soul, and body, the ten categories of Aristotle, discussions related to time, space, physics, and cosmology are present in the works of Sunni kalam (theological) tradition (Rouayheb & Schmidtke 2017, 2). These academics then concluded that the Islamic philosophical tradition did not die in the Sunni (non-Persian) world but developed in another form, namely the science of kalam (theology) (Ghouz 2018, 11-13).
Because Mulyadhi Kartanegara admits that Nasr heavily influenced him, it can be said that Kartanegara absorbed Nasr's revisionist scholarship, which questioned claims of the death of Islamic philosophy after Ibn Rushd (Kartanegara 2023b, 115;Kartanegara 2007a, 29). Like Nasr, Kartanegara also states that Islamic philosophical traditions live especially UlUl AlbAb: Jurnal Studi Islam, Vol. 24, No.1, 2023 in Persian (Kartanegara 20057a, 29). However, it is also necessary to emphasize that Kartanegara does not deny the survival of philosophy in the Sunni world (Kartanegara 2023b, 78-79). He adopts Ibn Khaldun's thesis that the mystic tradition is becoming increasingly philosophical so that it cannot be distinguished from philosophy (Kartanegara 2006, 55-56).
When Kartanegara's thinking is close to Nasr's position, in that case, the next question is whether he is more suitable to be categorized as an early (first-generation) revisionist along with Nasr, Corbin, and Rescher, or can he be classified as a second-generation revisionist which is now becoming a new trend in the contemporary academic world? This paper argues that Kartanegara can also be categorized as a second-generation revisionist. He was not satisfied with the old studies that focused on the major philosophers, namely Suhrawardi and Mullâ Sadrâ (Kartanegara 2006, 158-159). Kartanegara considers these studies to be insufficient because they have not been able to identify the intellectual developments that connected the two philosophers and how the tradition was continued when Sadra died (Kartanegara 2006, 158-159, Kartanegara 2023b. The study conducted by Kartanegara can be said to emphasize the study of minor philosophers who can explain how the continuity of the Islamic philosophical tradition in Iran has survived to this day (Kartanegara 2022, 12;Kartanegara 2023b, 86). When referring to the study of El-Rouayheb and Schmidtke, this kind of study aligns with the current research initiated by the second generation of revisionists (Rouayheb & Schmidtke 2017, 3). Interestingly, El-Rouayheb and Schmidtke stated that new studies focus on finding the intellectual bridge that connects Suhrawardi and Mullâ Sadrâ, separated by different eras (Rouayheb & Schmidtke 2017, 3).
Furthermore, Kartanegar is not only trying to emphasize that Islamic philosophy is still alive to date, especially in Iran (Kartanegara 2022, 11-12). However, Kartanegara also tries to emphasize that the classical Islamic philosophical tradition is relevant to unraveling the various problems of modern society (Kartanegara 2023b, 63-64). It can be said that studies that seek to build bridges between Islamic philosophical traditions and contemporary realities are not widely carried out by academics both globally and also in the Indonesian context (Warno 2022;Kartanegara 2007a, 28-29;Nielsen 2008, 81). At least, this kind of unique study was introduced and developed globally by Nasr and his students like Osman Bakar, known for his intense studies on the dialogue between Islam and science (Aslan 2004, 19;Bakar 2018;1617;Aljunied 2022, 3).
Mulyadhi Kartanegara also agreed with this kind of study. Through his intellectual journey in Iran, he seeks to disseminate his ideas specifically related to the urgency of reconstructing contemporary knowledge production, which he thinks problematic (Kartanegara 2023b, 63-64). Kartanegara feels that current knowledge production is problematic because adopting an anti-metaphysical foundation can cause an existential crisis, especially for religious people like himself (Kartanegara 2023b, 65). He believes that the Islamic philosophical tradition can play an important role in reconstructing contemporary knowledge, namely as a source of inspiration for both the development of epistemology and also the development of alternative theories (Kartanegara 2023a, 17-18;Kartanegara 2023b, 63).
Many studies have been conducted on the thoughts of Mulyadhi Kartanegara, a contemporary Muslim philosopher from Indonesia. However, most of these studies focus more on one aspect of Mulyadhi Kartanegara's view: the integration of knowledge (Matroni 2018, 181-182;Naim 2018, 372;Ridwan 2018, 7;Salam 2020, 9;Trisnani et al. 2023, 26). This tendency is quite reasonable, considering that Kartanegara is closely associated with the integration of knowledge among other figures, such as Amin Abdullah and Imam Suprayogo (Nata 2022, 236). Only a few academics have discussed different dimensions of Kartanegara's thought, such as his notion of nature as spiritual (Hidayat 2022, 119;Wita 2023, 552). This study seeks to break away from the general trend by examining one aspect of Mulyadhi Kartanegara's original thought, namely his notion of Islamic philosophy as a tradition that did not become extinct with the death of Ibn Rushd. Furthermore, according to Kartanegara, Islamic philosophy is a tradition that is relevant to addressing contemporary humanitarian problems.

Research Method
This is a qualitative study, particularly a case study aiming to uncover the thesis of Mulyadhi Kartanegara, who believes that Islamic philosophy is not dead after Ibn Rushd. Kartanegara believes that Persia (Iran) is one of the locations where Islamic philosophy can still survive (Kartanegara 2006, 180). Furthermore, he also believes that the Islamic philosophical tradition is not a tradition that has expired but it is relevant to addressing various contemporary human problems (Kartanegara 2005a, 61-62;Kartanegara 2007b, 67-68). In other words, this study wants to elaborate on Kartanegara's argument for placing Islamic philosophy as a living and relevant tradition.
This study uses Mulyadhi Kartanegara's travel notes while in Iran as a primary source. This note is still in the form of a manuscript entitled Rihlah Ilmiah di Negeri Para Mullah/Scientific Journey into the Land of the Mullahs (2023). In addition to this manuscript, the author also makes transcripts of Kartanegara's speeches in Iran, especially those relating to his presentation on the Islamization of knowledge and his criticism of Darwin's theory of evolution, as important references. These transcripts have also been compiled into one manuscript entitled Four Lectures in Iran (2023). This study also utilizes research reports written by Mulyadhi Kartanegara as academic accountability for his research in Iran. Compared to the manuscripts of travel diaries in Iran, this research report is shorter but arranged more systematically. This research report is named Filsafat Islam Pasca Ibnu Rusyd di Iran/ Post Ibn Rushd Islamic Philosophy in Iran: Characteristics, Chains, and Developments (2022). Apart from references that specifically contain information about Kartanegara's research in Iran, this study also uses various other works of Kartanegara that align with this study's mission.
Based on the information obtained from these various references, this research is then continued with data analysis, in which this study seeks to reconstruct Kartanegara's arguments in two broad, interrelated categories, namely Islamic philosophy as a living tradition as reflected in the Iranian context. On the other hand, this study also reconstructs Kartanegara's view that Islamic philosophy is a perennial tradition relevant to solving contemporary problems today. Apart from using contemporary Iranian philosophers as evidence, Kartanegara is also trying to develop his own project in which he makes Islamic philosophy the basis for reconstructing contemporary knowledge within the broad umbrella of Islamization of Knowledge.

Result and Discussion Living Islamic Philosophical Tradition & Its Relevance to Modern Civilization
Mulyadhi Kartanegara's intellectual journey to Iran, as a researcher and visiting professor simultaneously, produced two important arguments that are interrelated with the thesis that Islamic philosophy is a living and relevant tradition (or it can be called a perennial tradition). First, related to the argument that Islamic philosophy is a living tradition, Kartanegara conducted an in-depth study of the dynamics of the development of Islamic philosophy after Ibn Rushd in Iran, which according to him, was centered on the figure of Mullâ Sadrâ as the central thinker (Kartanegara 2022, 2-3). Kartanegara then explored the philosophical tradition that developed before and after Mullâ Sadrâ to the contemporary era (Kartanegara 2022, 11-12).
More systematically, Kartanegara attempts to identify not only the minor philosophers who paved the way for the emergence of Mullâ Sadrâ but also the philosophical schools that developed in Iran both before and after Mullâ Sadrâ (Kartanegara 2022, 11;Kartanegara 2023b, 87-88). This school refers to Isfahan School, which is associated with Mir Damad which is widely regarded as a figure who influenced Mullâ Sadrâ and the Tehran school, which is an essential infrastructure for the spread of the ideas of Mullâ Sadrâ in Iranian territory to this day (Kartanegara 2022, 11;Kartanegara 2023b, 87-88).
If reconstructed in such a way, the development and continuity of the philosophical tradition in Iran, as far as Kartanegara's research goes, can at least be divided into three different eras, namely the pre-Mullâ Sadrâ era, the Mullâ Sadrâ era, and the post-Mullâ Sadrâ era. The pre and post-Mullâ Sadrâ era can be divided into different phases, namely the pre-Isfahan school and the post-Isfahan school (in the case of the pre-Mullâ Sadrâ era) and the pre-Tehran school and the post-Tehran school (in the case of the post-Mullâ Sadrâ era). We can say that in each phase, there is a contribution from the minor philosophers with their characteristics.
The existence of the Islamic philosophical tradition in Iran has its continuity and distinctive dimensions with other regions in the Islamic world. This dimension is illustrated in the confession of the Iranian academic, Sharvani, who explained the level of Islamic philosophers according to Iranian intellectuals, namely first-class philosophers such as Farâbî, Ibn Sinâ, Suhrawardî, and Mullâ Sadrâ (Kartanegara 2023b, 82). Meanwhile, below him are philosophers of the second degree, such as Nâs{ ir al-Dîn al-T{ ûsî, Mir Damad, and Mullâ Hâdî Sabzawarî (Kartanegara 2023b, 82). Then there was a class of philosophers under him, such as Ibn Rushd (Kartanegara 2023b, 82). The continuity of the Islamic philosophical tradition outside the Iranian region is reflected in recognition of Farâbî and Avicenna, who represent the peripatetic tradition, and Suhrawardi, who represent the Illumination tradition. Meanwhile, the uniqueness of the Iranian school of philosophy is reflected in the placement of Mullâ Sadrâ on equal footing with the peripatetic and illumination philosophers.
The position of Ibn Rushd, who is not essential, and even classified as a philosopher under the second class, also proves that there is a specificity in the Iranian philosophical tradition that is different from that which developed in the Andalusian region, for example. Philosophy in Iran has its path, which can be said to be returning to the Avicennian (peripatetic) tradition and not leaving the Avicennian traditions as was done by Ibn Rushd with his criticism that peripatetic circles such as Avicenna had distorted Aristotle's views (Kartanegara 2023b, 82). Furthermore, this return to the Avicennian tradition also has its distinct version, as illustrated by the elevation of Suhrawardi to the ranks of significant philosophers.
The praise of Suhrawardi means that the Avicennian tradition that is trying to develop in Iran is Avicenian tradition which has a connection with mysticism (Sufism) and not the "original" peripatetic, which is more give credit to rationality and not intuition (Kartanegara 2006, 28-29). In other words, the reception of Suhrawardi gave a distinctive spirit to the Iranian philosophical traditions where philosophy could combine with different intellectual traditions such as Sufism but also with theological traditions (Kartanegara 2023b, 82-83).
In Kartanegara's study, Nashiruddin T{ ûsî is considered a minor philosopher who started the Islamic philosophical tradition in Iran uniquely (Kartanegara 2023b, 83). T{ ûsî, according to Kartanegara, is trying to revive the peripatetic tradition, especially that built by Ibn Sinâ (Kartanegara 2023b, 83). Interestingly, T{ ûsî wrote a commentary on Ibn Sinâ 's final work, Ishârât wa Tanbîhât (The Book of Directives and Remarks), which already has a strong Sufism dimension (Chittick 2001, 8 We cannot separate T{ ûsî's thought from his encounters with Suhrawardi's illuminative philosophy (Kartanegara 2023b, 3). However, according to Mulyadhi, Tusi did not pay much attention to efforts to synthesize peripatetic traditions and Sufism and focused more on synthesizing peripatetic and religious traditions (Kartanegara 2023b, 83). The reason can be traced from the conditions when T{ ûsî tried to criticize Razi. Razi was a theologian known for harshly criticizing Ibn Sinâ (McGinnis 2017, 328-329). Unsurprisingly, to revitalize Avicenna from Razi's theological attacks, T{ ûsî seriously dedicated his intellectual activity to synthesizing philosophy and religion (theology) (McGinnis 2017, 328-329).
This synthesis tradition did not stop at Tusi. Tusi could be the opening way to develop the pre-Isfahan school of Iranian philosophical tradition (Kartanegara 2022, 3). Two of T{ ûsî's students were Qut{ buddîn Shirâzî and allamah al Hillî (Kartanegara 2022, 3). Al Hillî continued the synthesis project initiated by his teacher, namely seeking reconciliation between philosophy and religion (Kartanegara 2022, 3). On the other hand, Shirâzî attempted to synthesize the peripatetic school with illumination, emphasizing reconstructing Suhrawardi's ideas in Avicenna's terms (Kartanegara 2022, 3).
Since it was pioneered by two of Tusi's students, it can be said that the trend of synthesis between peripatetic philosophy, Sufism, and theology (in this case, Shiite theology) has become something that has been pursued by various minor philosophers such as Haidar Amoli who attempted to synthesize Shia theology, peripatetic philosophy, and Sufism (especially with Ibn Arabî thought) (Kartanegara 2022, 4). Jalâl al-Dîn al-Dawwânî also tries to synthesize philosophy and Sufism (Kartanegara 2022, 4). Al-Dawwânî's ideas directly influenced many thinkers in the Isfahan school of thought, such as Mir Damad and Mir Findiriski (Kartanegara 2022, 4).
When the characteristic of the pre-Isfahan school of thought was the tendency to synthesize philosophical traditions with Sufism (especially Ibn Arabî thought) and with Shia theology, then we can say that this synthesis trend culminated with the development of the Isfahan school of thought in which Mullâ Sadrâ belonged to that school but was later considered a separate school due to the originality of his version of synthesis (Kartanegara 2006, 69;Rizvi 2012, 34 The Isfahan school was driven by prominent minor philosophers such as Mir Damad, Mir Findiriski, and Shaykh Baha'i (Kartanegara 2006, 69;Kartanegara 2023b, 87). Interestingly, although Mir Damad is classified as a second-class philosopher because of his position as Mullâ Sadrâ's philosophy teacher, Kartanegara's research proves that Mir Damad's role was insignificant for the formation of Mullâ Sadrâ 's thought (Kartanegara 2022, 93). Instead, Kartanegara concludes that it was Saikh Baha'i, who Mullâ Sadrâ openly affirmed as someone who shaped his thoughts (Kartanegara 2023b, 92). The reason is that Shaykh Baha'i has deep knowledge of Ibn Arabî, which is not apparent to Mir Damad (Kartanegara 2023b, 92).
After the Isfahan school of thought era, which also marked the end of the pre-Mullâ Sadrâ era, a new generation emerged in the development of Islamic philosophy on Persian soil, namely the Mullâ Sadrâ era. The synthesis that Mullâ Sadrâ successfully carried out included his expertise in reconstructing Suhwarardi's philosophy, which he considered had torn apart the building blocks of philosophical terminology pioneered by Ibn Sinâ (Kartanegara 2022, 7-8). Mullâ Sadrâ then tried to rebuild the Islamic philosophical tradition uniquely by involving four essential elements in it, namely the Peripatetic tradition, the Illumination tradition, the Sufism tradition (Ibnu Arabî), the Quran and the Hadith (especially the hadith collections recognized by the Shiites, namely Al-Kafi), and intellectual and spiritual practice (Kartanegara 2023b, 95;Ceylan 1990, 44).
It can be said that Mullâ Sadrâ has something in common with Suhrawardi, that philosophy must begin with a mystical experience (Kartanegara 2022, 9). It is only after experiencing a mystical experience (as Mullâ Sadrâ claims to have experienced it) that the experience must be discussed discursively following the guidelines that have been developed by Ibn Sinâ (peripatetic tradition) (Kartanegara 2022, 9). Besides intuition (mystical experience) and rationality, Mullâ Sadrâ also emphasized the importance of referring to the Quran and Sunnah (Kartanegara 2023b, 94-95). In other words, Mullâ Sadrâ saw intuition, reason, and the Scriptures as one unit (Kartanegara 2023b, 95). In contrast to Sadra, Suhrawardi does not provide a balanced portion of reason, especially at the practical level, even though theoretically, Suhrawardi already requires integration between intuition and rationality for this (Kartanegara 2023b, 95-97 Mullâ Sadrâ's influence is enormous on Iran's intellectual tradition (Kartanegara 2022, 9-10). In the Sufism tradition, for example, due to the emphasis on the integration of philosophy and Sufism, when talking about Sufism (especially Ibn Arabî thought), there is a distinctive style of philosophical interpretation that is influenced by Mullâ Sadrâ framework (Kartanegara 2022, 93). Mulyadhi concluded that the way Post Sadrian Iranian Scholars interpret Ibn Arabî's Sufism would be very different from interpreters outside Iran (Kartanegara 2023b, 93).
However, what is interesting is that the era of Mullâ Sadrâ was not necessarily marked by the spread of the philosopher's ideas throughout Iran (Kartanegara 2022, 10). Even Sadra's popularity can be said to have occurred long after his death (Kartanegara 2022, 10). We cannot separate the phenomenon from the opposition of the akhbarî (anti-rationalist theologians), who disagree with Mullâ Sadrâ's offer of a synthesis (Kartanegara 2022, 10). Likewise, the dominant philosophical trend in the Mullâ Sadrâ era was a more Avicennian tradition and not the Mullâ Sadrâ synthesis model (Rizvi, 2019). So, it is no exaggeration to say that even though Sadra was a big thinker, without the "help" of later minor philosophers, his ideas would not have expanded as they are today.
In Mulyadhi Kartanegara's study, the development of post-Mullâ Sadrâ philosophy can be divided into two phases: the pre-Tehran school phase and the post-Tehran school phase. In the preschool of the Tehran phase, there were at least three names of influential minor philosophers, Faiz Kasyani and Muhsin Lahiji, who were also the sons-in-law of Mullâ Sadrâ (Kartanegara 2022, 10). Both contributed to developing Sadra's philosophical tradition after the philosopher's death (Kartanegara 2022, 10).
However, even though Mullâ Sadrâ's ideas were preserved, their spread was minimal until about a hundred years after his death, only when a minor philosopher named Bidabadillah emerged (Kartanegara 2022, 10). Bidabadillah has been intensely trying to spread Sadra's ideas to the public (Kartanegara 2022, 10). One of his students inherited this tenacity, Mulla Ali Nuri (Kartanegara 2023, 10-11). Like his teacher, Ali Nuri was known to be intense in spreading Sadra's philosophical ideas (Kartanegara 2022, 10-11). Ali Nuri's struggles bore fruit when the ruler of the Qajar Dynasty, Ali Qajar, asked him to teach at the Khan Marvi Madrasa, Tehran (Kartanegara 2022, 11).
UlUl AlbAb: Jurnal Studi Islam, Vol. 24, No.1, 2023 Interestingly, Ali Nuri complied with Ali Qajar's request but sent his student, Abdullah Zunuzi, to fill the teaching position (Kartanegara 2022, 11). With Zunuzi officially becoming a teacher in Tehran, which also became a new center of scholarship under the Qajar dynasty, it was in this context that the Tehran school was born, which can be said to have a Sadrian style (Kartanegara 2022, 11). Although Ali Nuri did not fill this post, he is still considered the founder of the Tehran school because he was the one who sent his student Zunuzi to Tehran (Kartanegara 2022, 11). In other words, the services of the minor philosophers in the era of the pre-Tehran school were enormous because it was through their services that Mullâ Sadrâ's philosophy was well preserved and could be disseminated more widely in the scientific center of the Qajar empire.
The post-Tehran school era can be said to be a crucial period in addition to expanding the influence of Mullâ Sadrâ's philosophy throughout the kingdom but also being a bridge that ensures that Sadra's ideas can be transmitted to the modern (contemporary) era today (Kartanegara 2022, 11). We can trace the development of philosophy in post-Tehran schools to Muh{ ammad Reza Qumshashî, a student of Ali Nuri (Kartanegara 2022, 11). Qumshashi established a madrasa in Tehran named Madrasa Sadr, where he taught Sadra's ideas along with Ibn Arabî (Kartanegara 2022, 11). After Qumshashi, other big names emerged, such as Mirza Abu al-Hasan Isfahani (Jalvah), Muh{ ammad Ali Syah Abadi, and Mirza Javad Maliki (Kartanegara 2022, 11). The last two names are teachers of Khomeini, who is a philosopher and leader of the Iranian revolution (Kartanegara 2022, 11;Knysh 1992, 634). Khomeini himself had several students who continued to develop Mullâ Sadrâ's thoughts into the contemporary era, such as Morteza Mutahhari, Abdullah Javad Amoli, Muhammad Hoseini Behesyti, and Ali Khamenei (Kartanegara 2022, 11). From Table 1, it appears that the thesis by Kartanegara at the beginning of his research proved that the Islamic philosophical tradition in Iran is a living tradition (Kartanegara 2022, 11-12). The Iranian tradition inherited the intellectual traditions that had developed in the previous Islamic world, such as peripatetic, illumination, and Sufism. Then it synthesized them into a new tradition called transcendent theosophy or the Sadrian tradition (Kartanegara 2022, 2-3). This Sadrian tradition, up to the contemporary era, has had a significant influence in influencing the style of UlUl AlbAb: Jurnal Studi Islam, Vol. 24, No.1, 2023 Iranian philosophy, including, in this case, the interpretation of Ibn Arabî's idea of Sufism (Kartanegara 2022, 9-10).
Interestingly, Kartanegara sees that especially among contemporary Iranian "first-level" philosophers, both those who are still alive, such as Javad Amoli, as well as figures such as Ha'iri Yazdi and Muthahhari, are figures who also see the relevance of Islamic philosophy in today's contemporary era (Kartanegara 2005b, 107). Kartanegara, for example, highlights the figure of Muthahhari, who criticizes Marxist thinking based on the foundation of Islamic philosophy that he lives by (Kartanegara 2007b, 91-92). Other thinkers like Ha'iri Yazdi also provide a philosophical foundation for spiritual experiences that are considered hallucinations in the modern era (Kartanegara 2005b, 107).
Like contemporary Iran's "first class" philosopher, Kartanegara also wants to argue that the Islamic philosophical tradition is still alive and relevant to current situations (Kartanegara 2014b, xvii). So, Kartanegara raises the theme of the relevance of Islamic philosophy in reconstructing contemporary scientific traditions both at the epistemological level and the level of theory formulation in specific disciplines (specifically regarding the theistic theory of evolution). Kartanegara agreed with figures such as Ismail Raji Faruqi, Naquib Al Attas, and Hossein Nasr, who had been discussing the idea of Islamization of knowledge since the 1970s (Kartanegara 2009, 37-42;Kartanegara 2014a, 145). Kartanegara believes that by using the Islamic philosophical tradition as a source of inspiration, one can convincingly assert that the Islamization of knowledge is necessary and possible (Kartanegara 2014a, 142-143).
For Mulyadhi Kartanegara, the main problem of contemporary knowledge production is that it cuts off the metaphysical dimension of knowledge to leave a physical aspect (Kartanegara 2005a, 60;Maksum 2021, 122). In other words, the affirmation of the non-material parts disappears, and science affirms the physical world as the only actual reality (Kartanegara 2005a, 73-74). This situation has two implications; for religious groups, the current production of knowledge is vulnerable to making them atheists because all metaphysical realities, starting from God, angels, heaven, and even the human soul, are rejected (Kartanegara 2005a, 67). Second, Kartanegara agrees with Nasr that by reducing reality to physics alone, the meaning of life becomes narrower, and this creates an UlUl AlbAb: Jurnal Studi Islam, Vol. 24, No.1, 2023 existential crisis as well as an acute environmental crisis all over the world (Kartanegara 1994, 7-8;Rasmianto 2008, 10).
Western academics have affirmed Kartanegara's position on the problem of anti-metaphysical knowledge production with a philosophical background, such as Alex Rosenberg, who is a contemporary philosopher of science, and Alain Badiou, who is known as a leading French modern philosopher. Rosenberg agrees that today's knowledge production is secular because it no longer acknowledges reality's sacred dimension (Rosenberg 2012, 31). Furthermore, Alain Badiou also believes that without metaphysics, knowledge production today does not have an emancipatory dimension and will only become a "servant" of the dehumanization capitalist order (Badiou 2007, xii;Hewlett 2004, 336). So, then Badiou called for the return of metaphysics, especially in the study of political science (Badiou 2007, xii;Badiou & Toscano 2006, 40-41).
Like Badiou, Kartanegara stated that the integration of metaphysics and physics, as shown in the Islamic philosophical tradition, needs to be revived (Kartanegara 2005a, 73-74). Not that the meaning is the same as the formulations of Ibn Sinâ, Farâbî, Ibn Khaldun, or Muslim philosophers in the past, but the production of knowledge that they wrote about in their works can be a source of inspiration for reconstructing the building of contemporary science (Kartanegara 2015, xx-xxii). Kartanegara's position has resonance with Badiou's position also sees the classical philosophical tradition, especially Plato, as an essential source of inspiration for reconstructing contemporary science (Badiou 2005, 78-79;Badiou & Hallward 1998, 123-124).
In reconstructing contemporary knowledge based on Islamic philosophical traditions, Kartanegara specifically targets two things, namely epistemological and theoretical reconstruction (Kartanegara 2014a, 145-153). The epistemological reconstruction he discussed in Iran is whether science is neutral (Kartanegara 2023b, 62). Kartanegara emphasized that behind the claim of neutrality of science is hidden the scientist's subjectivity, which in this case is influenced by an anti-metaphysical philosophical framework (Kartanegara 2023b, 62). So, this has implications for building science, which is also anti-metaphysical, as shown in the works of Laplace, Darwin, Freud, Marx, and Durkheim (Kartanegara 2023b, 64). If this subjectivity is present, then it is also valid for Kartanegara or for Muslim scientists to produce scientific buildings within an affirmative  (Kartanegara 2023b, 62-63).
Furthermore, Kartanegara does not only stop at the epistemological level but at a more practical level, namely the theoretical level, which relates to specific scientific disciplines (Kartanegara 2014a, 146). He felt that Rumi's offer of evolutionary theory was more convincing than Darwin's because Rumi did not negate the metaphysical dimension of his explanation (Kartanegara 2014a, 147-148;Kartanegara 2016, 80-81). For information, Kartanegara emphasized that the term evolution in this context is more of his attempt to converse with contemporary science because the term evolution is not used by Rumi (Kartanegara 2023b, 119).
Unlike Darwin, who stated that evolution occurs randomly and without purpose, Rumi, and other Islamic philosophers like Ikhwan Al-Shafa (The Brethren of Purity) noted that the actual mechanism of evolution is divine love with the aim of getting closer to the Creator (Kartanegara 2023b, 119;Hady 2007, 136). So that in Rumi's conception, nature develops dynamically; that is, it continues to move up cosmically toward its creator (Kartanegara 2023b, 119). This conception of evolution has a high metaphysical dimension (Kartanegara 2014a, 147-148;Malik 2019, 512). Even Kartanegara emphasized that because the mechanism of evolution is love, without the presence of God, the ultimate being that is loved by all creatures, there will be no movement of evolution (Kartanegara 2023b, 120). So, for Kartanegara, unlike Darwin, who negated God, Rumi's theory of evolution affirmed the existence of God as the most vital part of the evolutionary process (Kartanegara 2014a, 148).
Kartanegara believes that changes at the theoretical level are as significant as changes at the epistemological level (Kartanegara 2014a, 147-148). He agrees with Iqbal that Darwin's anti-metaphysical theory of evolution also contributes to the spread of despair and anxiety among modern humans because the implications of Darwin's theory negate the cosmic meaning of humans and all of nature (Kartanegara 1994, 10). So that for Kartanegara, Rumi provides an optimistic view of the world rather than a pessimistic one (Kartanegara 1994, 7-8  Kartanegara emphasized the reconstruction of the theory of evolution to affirm the metaphysical dimension. He did this reconstruction by taking inspiration from the ideas of Muh{ ammad Iqbal and Rumi, who also proved the theory of evolution but within a theistic framework where evolution is driven by the divine love of creatures who want to move closer to God and not blind change as Darwin and his followers believed. In the theistic evolutionary scheme, as discussed by Kartanegara, metaphysically, the evolutionary process is characterized by the vertical movement of living things, namely increasing qualitatively towards their God. At the same time, in the Darwinist conception, evolution moves horizontally mindlessly and has no goal except survival.
One thing that also needs to be emphasized is that although Kartanegara personally tends to affirm theistic evolution, in his speech in Iran, he is also open to various other explanations about the nature of creation outside evolutionary framework (Kartanegara 2023b, 116-117). For Kartanegara, the most important thing is how these philosophical ideas can inspire contemporary Muslim scientists to produce theories that do not erase the metaphysical dimension in them (Kartanegara 2014a, 146). Rumi's theory of evolution is one of them but not the only one (Kartanegara 2023b, 116-117

Conclusion
This study concludes that Mulyadhi Kartanegara makes at least two important contributions to the development of Islamic philosophical traditions both in the Indonesian and global contexts. First, he demonstrated the role of a minor philosopher in maintaining the continuity of the Islamic philosophical tradition, especially in the context of the development of Islamic philosophy in Iran. The existence of minor philosophers paved the way for the emergence of major philosophers like Mullâ Sadrâ and, at the same time, also became a "bridge" that kept the ideas of these great philosophers awake until today's contemporary era. Second, Kartanegara also contributes to showing the practical-emancipatory dimension of Islamic philosophy in unraveling the problems of today's contemporary world. Concerning his intellectual journey in Iran, it can be said that Kartanegara places more emphasis on the relevance of Islamic philosophy to the reconstruction of contemporary knowledge production. This tendency is like what has been done by several prominent contemporary Western philosophers such as Ranciere, Derrida, Badiou, Levinas, to Alexander Dugin, who tried to contextualize Plato's classical thought to reconstruct contemporary knowledge production with their uniqueness.
This study also states that the two contributions made by Kartanegara to the study of Islamic philosophy also have limitations that require efforts to be refined with further study. First, in the Persian (Iranian) context, Kartanegara has succeeded in explaining the continuity of Islamic philosophical traditions, especially those with a Sadrian tradition, but has not elaborated further on the existence of nonmainstream philosophical traditions that have developed in Iran. Further studies are needed to reveal the development of non-Sadrian traditions, such as Suhrawardian or Avicennian. Second, regarding the relevance of Islamic philosophy to the contemporary era, it is necessary to look at how contemporary Iranian Islamic thinkers, such as Ali Shariati, also use the Islamic philosophical tradition that is developing outside Iranian soil. Furthermore, in the context of theory building, it can be said that there are still many opportunities to utilize the Islamic philosophical tradition both for various contemporary scientific disciplines, both in the natural sciences and social humanities. This research must be continuously encouraged to