It is rather vexing to encounter people making sweeping statements like "Ibn Taymiyyah opposed logic" without clarifying precisely what Ibn Taymiyyah opposed.
very very eye opening. But would you agree that atharis (apart from ibn taymiyya) generally were much stricter against kalam and mantiq and as a result had less contribution in field comparetive religion or what i call apolegetic intelectual contributions to islam? in other creedal school we find al Ghazali, baqillani, a razi, ibn hazm, juwayni
Despite not being completely detached, Kalam and Mantiq should be viewed separately. They should also be defined clearly before determining whether a certain scholar was against or for it. Ibn Taymiyyah was certainly unique in the Athari school in terms of how he defended and fleshed out already established positions. A lot can be said. I have a friend who's currently writing up on this topic and should be publishing it in the near future inshallah.
very very eye opening. But would you agree that atharis (apart from ibn taymiyya) generally were much stricter against kalam and mantiq and as a result had less contribution in field comparetive religion or what i call apolegetic intelectual contributions to islam? in other creedal school we find al Ghazali, baqillani, a razi, ibn hazm, juwayni
Despite not being completely detached, Kalam and Mantiq should be viewed separately. They should also be defined clearly before determining whether a certain scholar was against or for it. Ibn Taymiyyah was certainly unique in the Athari school in terms of how he defended and fleshed out already established positions. A lot can be said. I have a friend who's currently writing up on this topic and should be publishing it in the near future inshallah.