This paper aims to analyze the deictic representations of person in the British and American media discourse, mostly focusing on such genres and subgenres as newspaper articles, interviews, letters to editors, opinions, headlines and advertisements. For this purpose, we wish to introduce a theoretical framework for the study and then we hope to present certain ways in which deictic expressions represent person. Theoretical framework for our study is based upon the socio-cognitive approach, which gives priority to individual practices and subjectivity (...) over social practices in discourse as well as the definition of discourse based on knowledge. The reason why we focus on the media discourse is obvious. The high degree of personalized conceptualization and contextualization dominated by a large number of subjective factors prevail in the above-mentioned genres and subgenres of media discourse. The deictic representations of person play the key role in this process. (shrink)

Some argue that republican freedom is impossible because since it is always possible that a person or a group of persons possesses arbitrary power to interfere with individuals, no one is free to do anything. To avoid this challenge, in their recent article, Sean Ingham and Frank Lovett invoke the notion of ignorability in terms of which they offer a moderate interpretation of republican freedom. On their view, B is free from A to φ if A’s possible types who prefer (...) to intervene with B’s φ-ing are ignorable. They also try to show that freedom is not determined by the probability of an intervention. However, we argue that they fail to do this and that freedom as non-domination is not entailed by ignorability. (shrink)

Ṣūfī people, as well as the ulema (ʿulemā), discussed the issue of how God (Ḥaḳḳ) surrounds the universe (ʿālem) and where the ʿarş (arsh / the ninth heaven) in which God ensconces himself exists. The Ṣūfī people supporting the unity of existence (Wahdat al-wujud) concept claim that God surrounds the universe by his own being and so that the ʿarş (arsh) is all the creation / created beings by God moreover they argued that people who rejected this idea could attribute (...) weakness or impotence to the power of God. On the other hand, commentators and scholastic theologians acknowledge the idea that God surrounds the universe not by his own being as Ṣūfīs claimed but God surrounds the universe by his knowledge (ʿilm) and power (ḳudret). They claimed that there was no physical connection of God with the universe. There-fore, this article discusses a couplet (beyit) written by Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī from Bayramī-Melāmī group in light of four different tracts (risāle). One of the four tracts was written by the author of the couplet Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī himself. The title of his tract is Wahdat-nameh (Vaḥdet-nāme). The other tract was written by Munīrī-yi Belgradī and the title of it is Şarḥ-i Qaṣīda-i Suleymān. The other two tracts analyzed in this article were written by Ṣalāḥ al-dīn-i ʿUşşāḳī. These two tracts try to explain how God surrounds the universe from the unity of existence (Wahdat al-wujud) perspective. Therefore, they may help in understanding the men-tioned couplet written by Lāmekānī. The outline of the article is as follows: the introduction has the text of the ghazal including the mentioned couplet and discusses how the characteris-tics of Bayramī-Melāmī people were reflected in their poems. This part also tries to determine who wrote the mentioned ghazal as there were two different pen manes / pseudonyms (mah-las) for the same ghazal in various resources. To determine the original writer of the ghazal is crucial for proper interpretation of the texts. The next part of the article discusses the accusa-tion that Lāmekānī was an heretic in the Şarḥ-i Qaṣīda-i Suleymān tract by Munīrī-yi Belgradī. This part also tries to outline Munīrī-yi Belgradī’s mode of thought to discuss the background of his criticism about the couplets. According to his way of thinking, though Munīrī had some tolerance to Ṣūfī people believing fenā fillāh, he ironically harshly criticized the Ṣūfī group supporting Wahdat al-wujud entitled as Fuṣūṣī. In the second section, based on his work named Wahdat-nameh (Vaḥdet-nāme), it is aimed to create a general portrait of Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī. In this context, it discusses how Wahdat al-wujud and Hurufism, which are generally big issues for Bayramī-Melāmī, influenced Lāmekānī. Therefore, the comparison between Oglan Sheikh İsmāʿil-i Maʿşūḳī who was clearly influenced by Wahdat al-mavjud (vaḥdet-i mevcūd) and Hurufism, and Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī is realized in this part. It was figured out that adoration of Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikem (Fuṣūṣīlik) was more influential in Bayramī-Melāmī Sheikh’s mode of thinking through the analysis of the effect of Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikem in Wahdat-nameh (Vaḥdet-nāme). It was suggested that the reason behind the allocation of Munīrī-yi Belgradī for Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī was the effect of Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikem which was salient for Melāmī Sheikh Lāmekānī. The final part of the article is about two tracts Miftāḥ al-vucūd and Zayl al-kitāb written by Ṣalāḥ al-dīn-i ʿUşşāḳī. The criticized couplet was read under the light of these tracts. These two tracts are significant as they explain how God surrounds the universe and where the ʿarş (arsh) is located by referring to the verses of Quran al-Fussilet 41/54, al-Nisā 4/126 and el-Tāhā 20/5 mentio-ned in the couplet by Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī. Ṣalāḥ al-dīn-i ʿUşşāḳī proposed a new argument about how God surrounds the universe in Zayl al-kitāb. According to this argument, in Miftāḥ al-vucūd Ṣalāḥ al-dīn-i ʿUşşāḳī tries to explain God’s surrounding potent through the or-ders/grades of the existence. In Zayl al-kitāb, he claims that there must be a center for God’s surroundings of the universe and this center must be Ḥaḳīḳat al-Muḥammediyye. Ṣalāḥ al-dīn-i ʿUşşāḳī stated that he did not acknowledge this information by himself but he acquired it from Ibn Arabī when he had a dream. Lastly, this part of the article discusses what Rahman settles in ʿarş (arsh) means in terms of circle (devir) theory. It was suggested that according to Ṣūfī people believing Wahdat (vaḥdetçi) God’s ʿarş (arsh) is the human being himself by drawing on the Kasf al-Gıtā (Keşfu’l-Gıtā) qasida written by Sunʿullāh-ı Gaybī who was a successor of Ḥuseyn-i Lāmekānī from the second generation. (shrink)

Şia anlayışında dördüncü imam olarak kabul edilen Ali b. Huseyn Zeynulabidîn’in yazdığı iddia edilen es-Sahifetu’s-Seccadiyye isimli dua konulu eser, Şia âleminde Kur’an-ı Kerîm ve Hz. Ali’ye atf edilen Nehcu’l-Belağa kitabından sonra gelen üçüncü önemli kitaptır. Toplam 54 dua metninden oluşan bu eser, sadece bir dua kitabı olarak ele alınmamış aynı zamanda ahlak, akide, fıkıh, sosyoloji, psikoloji ve edebiyat alanlarına da kaynaklık etmiştir. Eser üzerine onlarca şerh, haşiye, makale, akademik araştırmalar yapılmış ve eser, Türkçe, İngilizce, Farsça, Urduca gibi birçok dile (...) çevrilmiştir. Bu çalışmalar, eser etrafında önemli bir literatür oluşturmuştur. Biz bu çalışmamızda Tabakatu E‘lâmi’ş-Şî‘a, A‘yânu’ş-Şî‘a ve ansiklopedik tarzda yazılmış olan ez-Zerî‘a ilâ Tesânîfi'ş-Şî‘a isimli kaynak eserlerden aynı zamanda Mektebetu’l-Melik Fehd, Mektebetu’l-İskenderiye ve Mektebetu Mısrı’l-‘Âmme gibi yüzbinlerce kitabı içeren kütüphanelerden yararlanarak es-Sahîfetu’s-Seccâdiyye üzerine özellikle Arapça yapılmış çalışmaları incelemeye aldık ve eser etrafında gelişen literatürü tespit etmeyi amaçladık. (shrink)

17. yy. da Osmanlıların bir eyaleti olan Trablusgarb’da doğup büyüyen Ahmed b. Huseyn el-Behlûl, Mısır’ın önemli ilim adamlarından eğitim almış sonra memleketine dönmüştür. Osmanlı dönemi şairi Ahmed el-Behlûl, şairlik yönünün yanı sıra Akâid sahasında Durretu’l-‘Akâi’d, Fıkıh sahasında el-Mu‘ayyene ve el-‘Izziyye ve Arap Dili ve Edebiyatı sahasında el-Makâmetu’l-Vitriyye gibi eserleri telif ederek çeşitli sahalarla ilgilenmiş bir âlimdir. Behlûl, ed-Durru’l-Asfâ ve’z-Zebercedu’l-Musaffâ fî Medhi’l-Mustafâ ismiyle meşhur divânını tamamıyla Hz. Muhammed’i medhe tahsis etmiştir. Başta Libya olmak üzere Kuzey Afrika’da meşhur olan Divan, Kâdî (...) ‘İyâz’ın el-‘Iyâdiyye isimli manzumesine yazılmış bir tahmis olup Arap alfabesinin 29 harfinin her biriyle başlayıp beşlemelerin sonlarını da yine aynı harfle bitirdiği 29 kasideden oluşur. Şair, divanında Hz. Peygamber’in doğumu, nesebi, güzel ahlakı ve şemâili, mucizeleri, şirkin onunla ortadan kalktığı, şefaati, peygamberler arasındaki üstünlüğü, yaşadığı kutsal mekânlar, O’na duyulan özlem, O’na, Ehli Beytine ve Ashabına salavât getirmenin önemi, O’nun günah ve hatadan kurtarıcı olması ve ümmeti olmanın ayrıcalığı konularına değinmiştir. (shrink)

The Muhaddis have demonstrated their efforts for the identification and preservation of ḥadīths by compiling various types of works such as musnad, mucem, sunen, musannef, cami‘.‎ On the ṣaḥīḥs and Sunens in the golden age of classification, especially the works of Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870) and Ebu'l-Hüseyn Müslim b. al-Ḥad̲j̲d̲j̲ād̲j̲ (d. 261/875) some studies have been done.‎ Mustedrek, Mustakhraj, zawâid, aggregation, summary and commentary are studies on the main ḥadīth sources. From the third century on, in (...) ḥadīth studies, it is seen that the works of the ḥadīths, which the ḥadīths gave importance to, have been dealt with depending on the subject of the authentic ḥadīth and some of their benefits have been explained. Based on the definitions in the method works, istihraj is the determination of the tariks of the narrations in a ḥadīth book by another scholar. The ‎tariq and the ‎producer he reached are sometimes combined with the sheikh of the author of the work, or with a sheikh who is higher up, sometimes even with a companion. In these works, expressions such as al-Muharrec, al-Musnad, es-Ṣaḥīḥ, ‎es-Ṣaḥīḥu'l-Muharrec, al-Müsnedü's-ṣaḥīḥ and al-Müsnedü'l-Mustakhraj are sometimes used instead of the concept of mustahrec. The words "Mustakhrajat has a great value in the eyes of the people of ḥadīth" reveal its value in the eyes of ḥadīth scholars. Scholars valued the genre of mustahraj, which is thought to have contributed significantly to the science of ḥadīth, and they intensified their studies on Bukhari and Muslim, who are considered the basis of ḥadīth science (umdetu'l-ilm). According to the Muhaddis, in order to be able to pass judgment on any narration, it is necessary to have knowledge about the narration and its narrators. Considering the contributions it has made to the ʿulūm al-ḥadīth, to convey more than one narration on the same subject is an important issue. Because, in cases such as its determination, interpretation and preference, determining that the ḥadīth comes from different tariqs (chain) is accepted as a fact that strengthens the narration. The primary goal of the works of the mustahrec type is to obtain the ālī isnād, but it is seen that the copyrighted works contain a significant amount of ‎abuses to the original text as well as to the individual texts. Considering that excess affect the ruling, it is considered important to focus on the mustakhraj type works, which contain different tariks, in terms of the discovery of the meaning and its contribution to the change of the ruling. In this study, an evaluation has been made about the nature of the mustakhraj, its benefits, the value of the mustakhraj as a species, their contribution to the ʿulūm al-ḥadīth in terms of promissory sanad and texts, and what they contain. In the research, the comparison of the narrations selected from the works of the mustakhraj type with the originals and whether the narrations in these works were used in the annotations were investigated. In the study, besides the ḥadīth method works, especially in determining the examples, due to the fact that it is one of the early period works and its reputation, Abū ‘Awāna Ya'kup al-Isferâyînî's ‎‎(d. 316/929) “Musned ṣaḥīḥu'l-muharrec 'ala kitâbi Müslim” In the context of his work named, the concept of mustakhraj has been emphasized. As a result of the research, it can be said that being knowledgeable about the tariqs of the ḥadīths made important contributions to the sanad and text, and that the ḥadīthists referred to the tariqs in the aforementioned literature in the interpretation of the ḥadīth. In summary, in the context of narration and wisdom sciences such as gharib al-hadīth, ıkhtilaf al-hadīth, mushkil al-ḥadīth, ʿIlal al-ḥadīth, nâsiḫu’l-ḥadīth ve mensûḫuh, fiqh al-ḥadīth, it is seen that it makes significant contributions the determination and evaluation of the ḥadīth. Each item mentioned about the benefits of the works in question has a comprehensive study and research field in the science of ḥadīth. It can be said that the methods used/offered in the current researches in which studies on the holistic approach style are carried out are applied by the hadith scholars in the tradition of ḥadīth science (partly in the differences of isnad and commentaries). It is possible to say that the ḥadīthists refer to the tariks in the aforementioned literature in the interpretation of the ḥadīth. As a result of the research, it is understood that the narrations in the mustakhraj support the originals in terms of wording and meaning. In addition to the aim of increasing the prestige of the original, the differences in the isnad and texts show the necessity of evaluating the narrations independently of the original. This study on the mustakhraj shows that extensive research can be done on the place of the related literature in the ʿulūm al-ḥadīth. (shrink)

Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn al-Marwarrūdhī is one of the important representatives of Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School. Al-Ta‘līḳa is his famous work, which is one of the first commentaries of al-Muzanī’s Mukḫtaṣar. One of the important features of this work is the introduction to some of the subjects of ijtihād (process of juristic legal reasoning), taqlīd (acting upon the word of another without asking for specific proof), ijmā‘ (consensus of jurists) and view’s of the companions of the Prophet. The first systematic, complete and detailed (...) works of uṣūl al-fiqh (Islamic legal theory) that belonged to the Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School have reached to the present day belong to the second half of the V./XI. century. Making research on the studies which were done about uṣūl al-fiqh and formed the basis of this period is essential to follow the development of uṣūl al-fiqh of the Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School. Transfer of the uṣūl al-fiqh in al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn al-Marwarrūdhī’s al-Ta‘līḳa make it possible to determine the literatüre, which was formed in Khurāsān region in the period from the death of Shāfi‘ī to the first half of the V./XI. century until the first half of the Khurāsān region, which allows the determination of the uṣūl al-fiqh. In this study, on the basis of ijmā‘, al-Qāḍî Ḥusayn al-Marwarrūdhī’s method in al-Ta‘līḳa will be examined.Summary: Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn al-Marwarrūdhī is considered to be one of the most important representatives of the Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School. In addition to receiving fiqh education from al-Qaffāl al-Marwazī, who is accepted as the founder of the Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School in Shāfiʿī fiqh circles. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn, one of the most distinguished students of al-Qaffāl al-Marwazī, has become one of the important bearers of the fiqh heritage of Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School. The fact that the epithet “el-kāḍî” is used in the works of Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School to absolutely refer to al-Qāḍî Ḥusayn, is another issue that shows his being authority on fiqh. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn al-Marwarrūdhī has accomplished many works in the field of fiqh. The most famous and most important work of al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn is the al-Ta‘lîḳa, written according to the Mukḫtaṣar arrangement style of al-Muzanī. He is often cited as the author of the well-known work al-Ta‘lîḳa in the sect. Al-Ta‘lîḳa, commonly cited in fiqh studies to refer to the views of al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn, is one of the first commentary on Mukḫtaṣar by Muzanī. With these characteristics, al-Ta‘lîḳa is one of the outstanding manuscripts for exploring the fiqh legacy of the Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School. Another important feature of this text is that uṣūl al-fiqh issues such as ijtihād, taqlīd, ijmā‘ and view’s of the companions of the Prophet (qawl al-ṣaḥābah) have been covered in the introduction of the work. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn discusses the issues of evidentiality and types of ijmā‘ and ijmā‘ of ṣaḥābah in the chapter on ijmā‘ in al-Ta‘lîḳa. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn also handles the debates on view’s of the companions of the Prophet in the section on ijmā‘ of ṣaḥābah. It is also seen that the proofs proposed for evidentiality of ijmā since Shāfiʿī’s period became more versatile and differed. The fact that the arguments al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn cites in the chapter of the evidences of ijmā‘ were also mentioned by his contemporary, al-Māwardī, an Iraqi Shāfiʿī jurist, points out the accumulation of knowledge in terms of proofs of ijmā. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn makes two related distinctions that are fundamentally related to the types of ijmā. The first is the division between ijmā supporters, those who argue for knowability of ijmā, and their opponents. According to this, ijmā is divided into two parts as ‘āmm (general public) ijmā‘ and khāṣṣ (scholars) ijmā‘. Opposition to ‘āmm ijmā‘, such as fardhs (obligations) in prayer, rawātib sunnah (the practice that the Prophet regularly performed) and feast prayer requires kufr (blasphemy). Al-Qāḍî Ḥusayn, who considers issues such as ‘awl (a sharing method in Islamic inheritance law), mut‘a marriage (a type of temporary marriage) and riba’l-faḍl (interest in exchange or sale transactions) which are seen as controversial ijmā‘ issues in literature, as khāṣṣ ijmā‘ and evaluates opposition to this type of ijmā‘ as fisq (impiety). The second division al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn makes is between ijmā‘ based on the text and apparent comparison, and the ijmā‘ based on hidden comparison. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn thinks that the opposition to ijmā‘ that is based on ijtihād or the text in terms of sanad (chain of narrators), requires blasphemy. In a sense, this is to accept ijmā‘ as a provision on an equal basis and to reduce the distinctions of ijmā‘ to literary level. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn also discusses evidentiality of qawl al-ṣaḥābah in connection with the issues of ijmā‘. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn opposes the thesis that ijmā‘ is only limited to companions’ era and argues that it can be realized in any century after the Prophet. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn, who discusses ṣaḥābah’s ijmā‘ under two categories: the views of ṣaḥābah that have gained prevalence among other ṣaḥābahs and those that have not gained prevalence among other companions, argues for evidentiality of qawl al-ṣaḥābah, which have gained prevalence and known not to be opposed. He provides significant information on ijmā‘ discussion in Shāfi‘ī fiqh methods with regard to the evidentiality of this type of qawl al-ṣaḥābah, which is referred ijmā‘ al-suqūtī (consensus based on lack of opposition-silence). The knowledge al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn cites with regard to the evidentiality of qawl al-ṣaḥābah which have not gained prevalence among other ṣaḥābahs differs from Māwardī, one of his contemporary, and his predecessors. The fact that he cites Shāfi‘ī’s previous and latest views with regard to the state of such qawl al-ṣaḥābah in the face of qiyās (legal analogy) enables him to make comparison using uṣūl material available in his era. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn, who mentions debatable issues among ṣaḥābah, makes controversial narrations. While al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn reports that there is not any conflict on the argument that it is legitimate to express a third view with regard to issues on which ṣaḥābah is divided in two groups and fall into conflict, his contemporary al-Māwardī and other Shāfi‘ī jurists report that it is not legitimate to propose a third view on such an issue as there is ijmā‘ on these issues. (shrink)