On Islam and state, and Islamic philosophy.

One of the most important issues that distinguishes the Baghdādī branch of the Muʿtazila from the Baṣran branch is their view on ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 40/661). Basra branch accepts the order of virtue of the first four caliphs as their order of coming to office, while the Baghdad branch considers the first three caliphs legitimate, but considers Ali more virtuous than them. The Baghdādī Muʿtazilīs who outspokenly defended this idea were Abū Jaʿfar al-Iskāfī (d. 240/854), Abū al-Qāsim al-Kaʿbī (...) (d. 319/931) and Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd (d. 656/1258). Among them, Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd was renowned as “the greatest scholar of the Muʿtazila” and was considered one of the last representatives of this school. He ardently defended ʿAlī's superiority in his commentary on Nahj al-Balāgha, the famous collection of Ali’s sermons, letters and wisdom sayings. In his defense, he rebutted some criticisms about ʿAlī’s political decisions from his school’s point of view. Many items of Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd’s rebuttal are worthy of analysis in terms of their content, style and approach. This article aims to present a detailed account of Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd’s aforementioned refutations. In addition to the descriptive method, the interpretative method was also employed in the article. Although Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd did not consider Ali's infallibility necessary (wājib), unlike Imamiyya, he accepted it. Therefore, he responded to the criticisms directed at Ali, starting from the point of Ali's innocence. According to Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd: (a) After the death of the Prophet, ʿAlī insisted on becoming the new leader of the Muslim community. He did not act hastily to assume the caliphate because he was not expecting any opposition to that. However, when the events took a different turn, he did not escalate the situation, rather accepted the status quo. (b) ʿAlī also did the right thing by participating in ʿUmar b. Al-Khaṭṭāb’s (d. 23/644) electoral shūrā. This was an opportunity for him to become the next caliph, and reinstitute a system in accordance with the Qurʿānic principles and sunna of the Prophet. (c) It was also not an error when ʿAlī decided to stay in Medina during the events of ʿUthmān’s murder (d. 35/656). He played an active role in dissuading the rebels from their attempt to kill ʿUthmān, but he was in no position to know that his activity would be used against him later by the Umayyads who accused ʿAlī of being complicit in ʿUthmāns’s murder. (d) ʿAlī took the caliphate after ʿUthmān because of his popularity among the people. In this way, he managed to prevent an unqualified person to occupy the seat of the caliphate. (e) When the Battle of Camel broke out, those who demanded justice and opposed ʿAlī were in error. (f) When ʿAlī became the new caliph, his decision to remove Muʿāwīya (d. 60/680) from the governorship of Syria was correct. This is because Muʿāwīya would have refused to accept ʿAlī’s leadership even had he stayed in office as a governor. ʿAlī understood that the conflict would end only through fighting, so he did not lose time in marching against Muʿāwīya. (g) During the battle he abided by the sharīʿa and allowed the Syrian army to access water. (h) It was not ʿAlī, but those defectors in his army who obliged him to end the fighting through arbitration. (i) When ʿAlī agreed to sign the Ṣiffīn ceasefire agreement and did not use his title amīr al-muʾminīn, he followed the Prophet's example since the latter also refrained from using his title during the Ḥudaybiyya agreement. (j) ʿAlī also cannot be blamed for those among his supporters, such as the poet al-Najāshī, who defected and joined the ranks of Muʿāwīya. The motivations for the defectors were either to attain worldly gains or to escape from punishment for the crimes which they had committed. (k) When Muʿāwīya managed to conquer Egypt, ʿAlī’s governors of the province, Qays b. Saʿd (d. 60/680) or Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr (d. 38/658), did nothing for which they could be blamed. (l) And finally, ʿAlī never had guards to protect him because he was never afraid of being assassinated. Although Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd took Ali's innocence as a basis while presenting these views, he did not make inconsistent comments in general and did not say things contrary to historical facts. Therefore, it is necessary to acknowledge historical value of his views in question. (shrink)

Critical study of Asfār al-arbaʻah fī al-ḥikmah, written by Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm Ṣadr al-Dīn Shīrāzī on Islamic philosophy.

The issue of wiping over socks is part of the more general issue of wiping over leather socks (khuffayn) for ablution (wuḍū’). Washing feet or wiping over them is a debate whose sides bases their claims on the verses of the Qur’an and supports these claims with narrations. When performing ablution, if shoes or socks are on the feet, whether one can wipe over them without taking these off and the qualities that these clothes should have is a debate based (...) on hadith narrations. Most Muslims except for the Ja’farite are of the opinion that either washing the feet or wiping over a khuff or similar clothing that was put on while a person already had ablution can be done during ablution, while the Ja’farite think that wiping over bare feet is enough but wiping over khuff is not. There is a consensus that shoes, boots, buskins and other leather footwear qualify as khuff. However, there is disagreement over whether clothing from materials like cotton, linen, wool, and felt -usually referred to as socks- qualify as khuff. For this reason, some Muslims of the world wipe over socks while others do not. There are contemporary fatwas (legal opinion) that are supportive of either of the positions. However, there are those who treat this issue beyond choosing a side in an ijtihad (process of juristic legal reasoning) and some who wipe on socks are censured strongly. In this research based on an examination of the fiqh heritage, the goal is to contribute to making this issue better understood and its fiqh ruling clearer.Summary: The sixth verse of Surah Ma’idah in the Qur’an clearly states that wuḍū’ requires washing the face, arms up until elbows, and wiping over the head. However, when it comes to the fourth element of wuḍū’, the feet, there has been disagreement about whether it should be wiped or washed. Arabic grammar rules and narrations have been interpreted in ways that support both views; in general Sunni sects, Zaydis, and Kharijites argue the feet should be washed while Shia Ja’farites are in favor of wiping over bare feet. There have also been efforts among faqihs (jurists) to reconcile washing and wiping; washing slightly; choosing the better one between the two; washing when not covered, wiping when covered; washing if there is dirt, wiping if it is clean; viewing at least wiping as fard (obligatory), washing as a Sunna (recommended) that includes the fard as a way to unify the two approaches have also been proposed.According to widely accepted narrations, the prophet and his companions washed their feet when performing wuḍū’ and once they put on their shoes having had wuḍū’, the next time they only wiped over the shoes without taking them off. In less commonly accepted narrations, which some hadith authorities regard as authentic, the Prophet is said to have wiped over his socks. In narration sources, it has been narrated that about fifteen faqih companions, among them ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, ʿAbdallāh Ibn Masʿūd, ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAbbās, ʿAbdallāh b. ʿUmar, saw wiping over socks as appropriate. However, there are no narrations about the companions disapproving of wiping over socks. Among those who approved of wiping over socks are tābiʿūn (successors) faqihs like Saʿīd b. D̲j̲ubayr, Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī, ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabāḥ, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī ve al-Aʿmash, and Mujtahid Imams like Zufar, Sufyan al-Thawri, al-Ḥasan b. Ṣāliḥ, Ibn al-Mubārak, Abū Yūsuf, Muḥammad al-Shaybānī, Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Isḥāq b. Rāhawayh. Considering their most prominent positions, we can say that Ḥanafis and Shafis allow wiping over socks that are thick and opaque, Hanbalis allow it over socks that cover the foot even if thin, while Mālikīs do not allow wiping over socks at all.As far as it is understood from narrations from the Prophet’s time, due to both climate conditions and weaving possibilities, socks were used only rarely. Also, footwear like shoes or slippers made of leather were very hard to find and narrations suggest that prayers were performed at houses and the masjids over soil base on either bare foot or with shoes. For these reasons, the issue of wiping over socks did not arise at the time and at later periods different opinions on the issue led to disagreements. When carpets were placed on the ground at later periods, performing the prayer with shoes was abandoned and a second layer of shoes (khuff) was placed inside the shoes as khuff. Since removing the shoes would invalidate wuḍū’ performed over that shoe, those who wanted to avoid the difficulty of having to wash their feet each time they needed wuḍū’ have instead wiped over this second layer once they put them on after performing wuḍū’.Ḥanafīs and Shāfiʿīs, who tend to approach the issue of wiping over socks with hesitation and make this conditional on some strict rules, emphasize that the socks to be wiped over should be similar to shoes in terms of thickness, based on the idea that it is certain that the Prophet has wiped over shoes made of leather but his wiping over socks is weaker and that the qualities of those socks are not clear. Among the thickness criteria expressed for the socks are being waterproof, the ability to walk for at least a league with it, and its ability to hold on to feet without being tied at the wrists. Due to these criteria, which have been developed to protect the wuḍū’ and whose boundaries are not well specified, especially among Ḥanafis the idea that wiping over socks is not allowed has gained popularity. As opposed to this, in circles dominated by Ḥanbalīs opinions allowing wiping over any type of socks have been expressed.At times when the Prophet had his shoes on and did not want to take off his shoes, he used to wipe over the shoes. The equivalent of this act today is to wipe over socks since prayer with shoes on is not common any more. While nowadays wiping over socks is an ease for everybody when performing wuḍū’, it is something that is especially needed under certain circumstances. Cold weather and the lack of drying possibilities for the feet leading catching cold and illness, socks that are put on when feet are wet leading to bad smell and fungus on feet, the hardship of elevating the feet high enough to the sink and of changing socks on one foot when there are no special wuḍū’ places, the fact that at societies distant from Islamic culture it is seen against the etiquette to wash feet in the sink are among the reasons why this need arises. Because most of the time we are not in a position to determine the circumstances of our work and travels at modern times, it can be said that today this need is more than it was in the past.Some scholars of today use a precautionary principle and argue that the Qur’an commands to wash the feet, and the only narration powerful enough to make an exception to this rule is about masts made of leather, and extending this to include socks would go against the precaution principle and some other principles of uṣūl al-fiqh (Islamic legal theory). However, some other scholars who use the ease in religion principle argue that the permission to wipe over masts also include wiping over socks and that they are of the same nature, that there are authentic narrations that show wiping over socks are allowed and that one can even talk of an ijmāʿ (consensus) among the companions on this issue, and that seeking additional qualities socks on which one is to wipe over, such as thickness, ability to walk with it, its ability to hold on to the feet, being waterproof, have no merit in the sharīʿa. Jamaleddīn Qāsimī, who wrote a special research book on the topic, and scholars like Abū l-Aʿlā Mawdūdī, Yūsuf al-Qaradāwī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Bāz, Ibn al Uthaymeen think that one can wipe over daily socks that do not show the skin beneath it, while scholars predominantly of the Ḥanafi opinion hold that one cannot wipe over the thin daily socks. (shrink)

Islamic philosophy - 16th century; Jurjānī, ʻAlī ibn Muḥammad, al- Sayyid al- Sharīf.

Tras una rápida revisión de los escasos datos conocidos sobre la vida y la obra de Ibn Abī l-Riŷāl , se analiza el contenido de su Urŷūza fī aḥkām al-nuŷūm comparándola con su célebre al-Kitāb al- Barī‘ fī aḥkām al-nuŷūm concluyéndose que se trata de dos obras independientes y que la Urŷūza no es un resumen del Barī‘. El trabajo continúa con datos biobibliográficos del historiador, matemático y astrólogo Ibn Qunfuḏ al-Qusanṭīnī , autor de un comentario a la Urŷūza de (...) Ibn Abī l-Riŷāl dedicado a Abū Bakr b. Abī Muŷāhid Gazī Ibn al-Kās, visir de los sultanes meriníes Abū Fāris y Abū Zayyān . La obra parece haber sido redactada durante el breve reinado de este último y antes de la deportación del dedicatario a Mallorca en 1375. Se analiza el contenido del comentario, las fuentes citadas en el mismo, las técnicas astrológicas utilizadas tanto por Ibn Qunfuuḏ como por Ibn Abī l-Riŷāl y el uso, por parte del comentarista de un zīŷ derivado del de Ibn Isḥāq. El artículo termina con un comentario detallado de los horóscopos contenidos en la obra de los que uno corresponde al equinoccio vernal del año 571 de JC, en el que se produjo una conjunción de Saturno y Júpiter que anunció el advenimiento del Islam, mientras que los once restantes constituyen una historia astrológica del Marruecos meriní entre 1348 y 1366. Dos de ellos habían sido publicados en un artículo anterior. En lo que respecta a los nueve restantes, en seis de ellos se identifica el sujeto o acontecimiento al que aluden, quedando tres por identificar. (shrink)

In this study, after a short introductory information on the etymology, origin, and transition of botanical knowledge in Medieval Islamic Civilisation, we made a comparison of illustrated botanical works in Maghreb and Masriq through two illustrated books. We studied on randomly selected illustrations from Kitab al- Hashaish at-Tibb li-Diskuridus al-Aynzarbi translated by Istefan ibn Basil & Hunayn ibn Ishaq from Dioscorides’ Materia Medica, and Kitab al-Adwiyat al-Mufradat of Abu Ja’far Ahmad al-Ghafiqi, the Andalusian physician, pharmacist, and herbalist. We made comparisons (...) on the illustrations of nine plants and one lichen, chosen from Codex Osler of al-Ghafiqi, and Codices Ayasofya of Istefan-Hunayn, with real photos of plants and lichen, via the methods used currently in the science-art of botanical illustration. With this «botanical illustrative method», we conclude that in the same century, the work of al-Ghafiqi has been copied in a more accurate way than that of Istefan-Hunayn translation. -/- تخصص هذه الدراسة - بعد تقديم معلومات تمهيدية موجزة عن علم أصل الكلمات، وأصول وتطور المعرفة النباتية في الحضارة الإسلامية في العصور الوسطى - للتحليل المقارن للمؤلفات في علم النبات المصور في المغرب والمشرق، من خلال كتابين مصورين. و لهذه الغاية، قمنا بتحليل سلسلة من الرسوم، إختيرت بشكل تلقائي، أُخذت من كتاب النباتات الطبية لصاحبه دِيُسوفُورِيدس، و من ترجمة ابن استيفان ابن باسل و حنين ابن إسحاق لدراسة المادة الطبية لديسوفوريدس، و من كتاب الأدوية البسيطة لأبو جعفر أحمد الغافقي، و هو طبيب و صيدلي و عشاب أندلسي. لقد أجرينا مقارنات لرسوم تسعة نباتات و أشنة وقع الإختيار عليها من كتاب أوسلر للغافقي و من كتب أياصوفيا لإستيفان و حنين، مع صور حقيقية لعينات من هذه الأنواع، باستخدام الطرق المطبقة في وقتنا الراهن في فن وعلم الرسوم النباتية. و بعد تطبيق هذا المنهج التصويري النباتي، نستطيع أن نخلص إلى أنه، و على الرغم من إنتاجها في نفس القرن، فإن نسخ رسوم الغافقي النباتية كانت أكثر دقة من تلك الموجودة في ترجمة استيفان - حنين. الكلمات المفتاحية دِيُسوفُورِيدس، الغافقي، تاريخ علم النبات، الأندلس -/- Este estudio –tras una breve información introductoria sobre etimología, orígenes y evolución del conocimiento botánico en la civilización islámica medieval– está dedicado a un análisis comparativo de los tratados botánicos ilustrados en el Magreb y en el Máshreq, a través de dos libros ilustrados. Para ello, hemos analizado una serie de ilustraciones, elegidas al azar, extraídas del Libro de plantas medicinales de Dioscórides por Anazarba, traducción de Istefan ibn Basil y Hunayn ibn Ishaq del tratado De materia medica de Dioscórides, y del Libro de los medicamentos simples de Abu Ya'far Ahmad al-Gafiqi, médico, farmacéutico y herbolario andalusí. Hemos llevado a cabo comparaciones de las ilustraciones de nueve plantas y un liquen, escogidos del códice Osler de al-Gafiqi y de los códices Ayasofya de Istefan-Hunayn, con fotografías reales de especímenes de dichas especies, acudiendo a los métodos aplicados actualmente en el arte y ciencia de la ilustración botánica. Tras este «método ilustrativo botánico», podemos concluir que, aunque llevadas a cabo en el mismo siglo, las copias de ilustraciones de al-Gafiqi han resultado más precisas que las de la traducción de Istefan-Hunayn. (shrink)

Rāzī, Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Zakarīyā,865?-925?; criticism and interpretation.

Classical work on Islamic ethics and early Islamic history; Shiite viewpoint.

bakhsh-i 1. Majmūʻah-i 874, shāmil-i 6 risālah -- bakhsh-i 2. Majmūʻah-i 855, shāmil-i 3 risālah.

Mu'tazila and Shīʿa (Zaydiyya-Imāmiyya) have common views on many theological issues except the imamate. This issue has been generally accepted by other Islamic scholars rather than Shīʿa and by Western researchers. That in this interaction between the Mu‘tazila and the Shīʿa, the Shīʿa is the side mostly affected. However, it is an issue that should not be overlooked that the Shīʿa partially influenced the Mu'tazila in ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, over the other Companions. In this context, some persons from the (...) Baghdad Mu’tazila School such as Bishr b. al-Muʿtamir (d. 210/825), Jaʿfar b. Mubashir (d. 234/848), Jaʿfar b. Harb (d. 236/850) and al-Iskāfī (d. 240/854) argued that the imamate of Abū Bakr, who was less virtuous, was permissible although they considered ʿAlī as the most virtuous person after the Prophet. In addition, al-ʿAllāf (d. 235/849-850), al-Naẓẓām (d. 231/845), Abū Abdullah al-Basrī (d. 369/979-80) and Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār (d. 415/1025) along with Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī (d. 303/916), one of the chiefs of the Basra Mu'tazila School, and Abū Hāshim al-Jubbāʾī (d. 321/933) did not accept the order of caliphate as the order of virtue. This study focuses on the issue of whether the aforementioned affinity between Mu'tazila and Shīʿa affected Mu'tazila, especially in the interpretation of the verses associated with ʿAlī. In the study, the aforementioned problem was examined through the tafsīr al-Kashshāf of the Muʿtazilī mufassir al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144). In addition to the importance of tafsīr, the fact that al-Zamakhsharī took lessons from Shīʿīte/Zaydī persons and he wrote the tafsīr with the support of Zaydī leader al-Wahhās (d. 506/1112) is effective in handling this issue through al-Kashshāf's tafsīr. In the first part of the study, first of all, the interaction between Imāmiyya and Zaydism, which are the two most important branches of Mu‘tazila and Shīʿa, is briefly mentioned. Then, Mu'tazila’s and Al-Zamakhsharī’s view on ʿAlī's position among other caliphs is emphasized. Al-Zamakhsharī, who is from the Basra school of the Mu'tazila, does not consider ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib superior to Abū Bakr, unlike al-ʿAllāf, Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī, Abū Hāshim al-Jubbāʾī and Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār, who are the leading figures of this school. In fact, the fact that he always observed the order of the caliphate while talking about the merits of the four caliphs supports the possibility that, unlike his predecessors, he accepted the order of the caliphate as the order of virtue. In the second part, it is questioned whether the narrations that al-Zamakhsharī included in his tafsīr of the verses associated with ʿAlī are similar to the narrations of the Shīʿīte/Zaydī/Imāmī tradition and whether he interpreted the verses in parallel with these narrations. In this respect, the tafsīr al-Kashshāf has been examined comparatively with the Sunni and Shiite tafsīrs prior to it. Eventually, while interpreting these verses associated with the Ahl al-bayt (members of the Prophet’s household), al-Zamakhsharī highlights the narrations that appreciate the virtues of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and his child. However, he also refrains from making comments that would be in line with the Shīʿa's belief in imamate. In particular, his tafsīr of the verse al-Aḥzāb 33/33 in the context of the Prophet’s wives is the greatest indicator of this situation. It has been determined that while al-Zamakhsharī includes the narrations highlighting the virtue of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and his children, he mostly follows the Sunni commentator al-Thaʿlabī. In particular, it has been seen that al-Zamakhsharī transferred the narration material in the interpretation of the relevant verses from al-Thaʿlabī's commentary almost in the same way. However, it is noteworthy that al-Zamakhsharī differs from him in some details such as linguistically supporting these narrations in some verses such as ʾĀli ʿImrān 3/61 and al-Māʾidah 5/55. An indirect influence can be mentioned because al-Thaʿlabī frequently narrates the narrations supporting the Shīʿītes in places where there is a Sunni-Shīʿīte conflict. Therefore, although there is no evidence that al-Zamakhsharī took these narrations from Shīʿīte sources, it is seen that he brought ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib-based narrations in Sunni sources into the fore. Even in the commentary of al-Ḥākim al-D̲h̲us̲h̲amī, al-Zamakhsharī's teacher in the line of Zaydi/Mu'tazili, the lack of Ali emphasis in the interpretation of the aforementioned verses supports our view. (shrink)

Philosophy, Arab Philosophy; 20th century.

The school of separation accepts the existence of pre-existence world based on such foundations as inclusiveness of real sciences in revealed sciences, the authenticity of appearances, non-detachment of spirit, priority of creation of spirit over creation of body, separation between intellect and essence of spirit, and existence of worlds before this world. The pre-existence world is of great importance in this school due to its relation with natural cognition of monotheism, the reason of prophets’ mission, and the criterion of personality’s (...) identity. The theorists of this school provide transmitted reasons for the existence of pre-existence world, among which the tradition used in the commentary of verse 172, Chapter 7 is of special significance. This school provides solutions to those problems raised on the existence of pre-existence world. These problems are divided into two groups, one claiming that the existence of this world is impossible and the other one holding that the reasons provided for the realization of this world are not sufficient. There are five main problems is group one and two in group two. The answers provided for these two groups by theorists of this school are based on their principles, which are centered on transmitted reasons and criticism of foundations of each problem. (shrink)