The debate on the Prophet’s parents’ (abawayn al-Rasūl) religious status and their position in the hereafter goes back to several narrations from the Prophet himself. This subject, which can principally be considered part of the problem of the religious status of ahl al-fatrah, seems to be raised by the Shīʿah as an issue of creed in line with their understanding of imamate. Abū Ḥanīfah’s (d. 150/767) statement in his al-Fiqh al-akbar that “Prophet’s parents passed away on kufr/jāhiliyyah” is seen as (...) a Sunnī reaction to this earlier position and led to a new area of discussion shaping the approach of several scholars to the issue. The earliest treatises dedicated to this issue are attributed to al-Ghazzālī (d. 505/1111) and Abū Bakr Ibn al-ʿArabī (d. 543/1148), but these works did not survive to this day. The earliest examples available today are the six epistles that al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505) penned. Literature on the Prophet’s parents flourished during the Ottoman times after the introduction of al-Fiqh al-akbar to the Ottoman scholarship. Starting with the first examples that belong to Ibrāhīm al-Ḥalabī (d. 956/1549), Ibn al-Khaṭīb al-Amāsī (d. 940/1534), and Kamālpashazādah (d. 940/1534), the treatises in question were mostly written in Arabic in the Ottoman scholarly milieu. Consequently, it seems that Rawḍat al-ṣafā fī wāliday al-Muṣṭafá is the first treatise dedicated to the issue in Ottoman Turkish. In the library catalogue records, some bio-bibliographical sources, and consequently in some modern studies on the issue of abawayn al-Rasūl, Rawḍat al-ṣafā wrongly attributed to a certain Wajdī Aḥmad Efendī (in Turkish: Vecdî Ahmed Efendi). This is probably due to the author’s presentation of himself in the introduction as just “Wajdī,” without making further description. Besides the data in Bursalı Meḥmed Ṭāhir’s Osmanlı Müʾellifleri, no more information could be provided about the identity of Wajdī Aḥmad Efendī who is shown as the author of the treatise. Intra-textual signs such as the author’s words about the reason and process of writing the work, the way he handled the subject and the evidence he put forward indicate that the treatise belongs to Nūḥ ibn Muṣṭafá al-Qūnawī (d. 1070/1660). Indeed, it overlaps with the fact that Nūḥ ibn Muṣṭafá presented himself as Wajdī in many of his other works. Seemingly the fact that Nūḥ ibn Muṣṭafá defends the view that the parents of the Prophet are among the people of salvation (ahl al-najāh), and while doing this, he was mainly based on the view that they were resurrected after death and that their souls are recaptured after they believed in the Prophet, stem from various reasons such as the view that attributed to Abū Ḥanīfah, Nūḥ’s Sufi identity to the extent that he was initiated to the Khalwatiyyah/Gulshaniyyah along with the ever-growing Sufi influences and the consequent idea of nūr-i Muḥammadī in the public sphere, the authority of the narrations attributed to the Prophet, and perception about the Prophet Muḥammed in the public imagination. (shrink)

The pandemic reminds us that, with the catastrophes to which biodiversity is subjected, with the disruption of ecosystems, much more dangerous and fatal viruses can appear. Also, disturbed in its quietude and reminded of its own mortality, the human being knows the same anguishes which were those of all the victims of the epidemics which formerly devastated the populations and of which the literature was able to account in multiple occasions. Daniel Defoe’s Diary of the Plague, which is very rich (...) in lessons, bears witness to the similarities in attitude between the centuries: disruption of the economy, unemployment, famine, rumors, the search for false remedies, confinement, transgressions. Conjuring up confinement through writing is a remedy that tempts some. With the sound diary of the writer Wajdi Mouawad it is from the inside that the experience of confinement is given to understand. (shrink)

Given the increasing complexity of living in a global village, countries and regions that are parts of larger political entities frequently have considered the option of separating or seceding an ideal solution to their problems with a larger center of power. Isolation, a form of “freedom from,” has the potential of offering them free rein or “freedom to” manage their affairs for their own sake. Francophone playwrights and filmmakers have found the dialectical interplay between “freedom from” and “freedom to” fertile (...) dramatic soil for plays and films. Some of them work in both of these and other genres. These works seem to ask the same question: Is it desirable or possible to achieve both, even in ideal isolation, without suffering cultural stagnation or repeating the abuse of power on the part of the political center that led to the separation? This article explores the answers to this question given in the plays of Aimée Césaire, Anne Hébert, and Wajdi Mouawad within the greater context for this issue found in J. M. Coetzee’s Waiting for the Barbarians and Azouz Begag’s Un Mouton dans la baignoire and in francophone films by Raoul Peck, Bertrand Tavernier, Claire Denis, Rachid Bouchareb, Ousmane Sembène, Michael Haneke, and Mathieu Kasovitz. (shrink)