One of the issues covered by Muʿtazila’s idea of justice is the subject of the imposition of moral obligation (taklīf). The concept of the obligation (taklīf), which expresses that God imposes some difficult acts on His servants and asks them to fulfill them, is important because it explains God’s justice for His servants and His wisdom in creating them. For this reason, the main emphasis in the matter of imposition has been on the veneration of the servants and rendering benefits (...) to them in return for imposition. As a matter of fact, God offers His servants such a reward that it is not possible to achieve with anything other than obligation. This article presents examples of hypothetical obligations emphasizing the same issue. Al-taklīf al-zāid is an additional imposition period meaning that God does not end the life that he determines for the morally obliged (mukallaf), but prolongs the life of the servant in such a way that changes the result of his imposition. In Muʿtazilite thought, the issue of the additional imposition basically takes place in the form of two separate discussions about unbeliever and believer. While the additional imposition of the unbeliever deals with the situation of the unbeliever who is known to believe when his imposition (or life) is prolonged; the additional imposition of believer deals with the situation of the believer who is known to disbelieve when his imposition (or life) is prolonged. Abū ʿAli thinks that it is obligatory (wajib) for God to keep this unbeliever alive when it is known that he would come to believe if He did not kill him and his imposition had been prolonged. His argument in this regard is his thought that the additional imposition is a favour (lutf) for the unbeliever to believe. Abū Hāshim, on the other hand, says that it is not obligatory for God to prolong the imposition of unbeliever in such a situation, and that it would be good (hasan) to kill the unbeliever, even though it is known that he would have believed if his imposition had been prolonged. Because, according to Abū Hāshim, God already gave the unbeliever the opportunity to attain rewards in his first imposition. The unbeliever reached this end because he made a wrong choice in his imposition and it cannot be obligatory for God to re-present the circumstances that will change this outcome. According to him, the additional imposition of an unbeliever is not a favour (lutf), but it is like the enabling to act (tamkīn) and is not obligatory. As for the additional imposition of a believer, Abū ʿAli, Abū Hāshim and the Bahshamites agree that it is good to prolong the imposition of the believer who is known to be an unbeliever if his imposition was prolonged. The reason for their view is that God has endowed the servant with a reward, which would otherwise be unattainable, in return for the prolonged imposition. However, the Husaynites believe that prolonging the imposition of believer in this situation would not be good. Because the believer deserves a reward for his first imposition and in this case, his additional imposition will be a corruption (mafsada) for him. As a result of these different views, when we look generally, it is seen that the main concern in Muʿtazilite thought is to make the most appropriate decision for the benefit of the servant in all the impositions that God has imposed and is likely to impose. The Bahshamites have always prioritized offering more rewards to the servant. However, Abū ʿAli regarding the additional imposition of the unbeliever, and the Husaynites regarding the additional imposition of believer, prioritized the imposition’s resulting in belief, and they thought that it was more suitable for the benefit of the servant. Since the purpose of the imposition in Muʿtazilite thought is to provide the opportunity to attain the degrees that it could never been reached in any other way, regardless of the outcome, it should be said that the views of the Bahshamites on both additional obligations are more consistent within the general system of Muʿtazila. (shrink)

The Sufyānī narration, which is also referred in some studies carried out today, is mentioned in the early Shiite and Sunnī sources. The anticipated savior perception of the period has an important place in understanding the Sufyānī narrations in the emergence process of which political and sectarian events were effective. Narrations stating that the Mahdī named Muḥammad, one of the descendants of the Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh), would appear in the end of times and establish justice by bringing order to the (...) world where oppression, injustice and inequity have spread, were effective in the political and social life after the Prophet (pbuh). The emergence of the Sufyānī narrations, whose intellectual infrastructure was constituted by the expected Mahdī perception that is effective in the society, was the result of the political conflicts of the period. The death of Muʻāwiya ibn Yazīd (d. 64/684), the third Caliph of the Umayyad State, without leaving a crown behind caused a political crisis. The cousin of the Muʻāwiya II, Marwān bin al-Ḥakam, the experienced politician who turned this moment of crisis into an opportunity and who was from the same dynasty but from a different family, took over the administration and thus the sultanate continued. Although the reign continued from the sons of Umayyad, the administration passed from sons of Sufyān to the sons of Marwān, who were from the same dynasty. This situation caused discomfort in Sufyānīs. Thus, Muʻāwiya II's brother Khālid ibn Yazīd, whose right of administration was seized from him, with the intention of gaining his lost reputation in the society and turning the pessimism towards his family into hope and desire, has been claimed to spread the savior Sufyānī narrations expected from the sons of Sufyān, parallel to the Mahdī narrations expected from the sons of Alī, which was influential in the society. Thus, the Sufyānī came to be expected like the expected Mahdī, who was influential in society and exploited by the Shiite sects in their own belief systems. The rebellions carried out by the sons of Sufyān against the administration in the 2nd century hijrī and afterwards were conceived as the appearance of the Sufyānī expected by the society and the person who led the rebellion was described as Sufyānī. The most important of these rebellions is the revolt of ʻAlī ibn Abdullah ibn Khālid nicknamed Abū ʻAmayṭar, formed by the coalition of sons of ʻAlī and sons of Sufyān who descend from the sons of Umayya. Abū ʻAmayṭar, who is considered to be the Sufyānī and some sections of whose life constitute a source for many narrations on the Sufyānī, declared his caliphate during the period of Abbasī Caliph al-Amīn (d. 198/813) and called for allegiance to himself. The announcement of his caliphate was considered by his supporters as the expected savior. The period of Abū ʻAmayṭar and the sayings about him are extremely important in terms of presenting the expected savior perception in the society, the Sufyānī understanding and the date of his emergence. Sections from Abū ʻAmayṭar's life reflected in the narrations about the Sufyānī in many Shiite and Sunnī sources. In this article, it is tried to examine the emergence of the Sufyānī narrations, its development and particularly its transformation within the Shiite sect, in a detailed manner and especially based on political and sectarian events of the early period. (shrink)

This article analyzes the position of Ibn Hilāl, who is regarded as nāsıbī and ghālī, in the science of Shia rijāl, his reports and the validity of the accusations against him. It is found that narrators are criticized for various reasons in the science of Shiʻa rijāl. Some of them are the Shiite followers that the imams cursed and wanted to be kept away from their adherence. It is seen that the narrations reported by some of the narrators are included (...) in the main sources of Shiite hadith, albeit these narrators were cursed by the innocent imams. Ahmed Ibn Hilāl (d. 267/880) is one of these narrators cursed by the imams and his name is found in the report (the isnād) of many early narrations. Ibn Hilāl, one of the close companions of Shia's 10th imam Ali b. Muḥammed al-Hādī (d. 254/868) and 11th imam Ḥasan al-ʻAskarī (d. 260/874), was first cursed by the letter of al-Askarī allegedly sent, and the Shiite followers were ordered to move away from him. Ibn Hilāl refused to accept the ambassadoriality of Muḥammed b. Osman (d. 305/918), the ambassador of the 12th Imam. Thus, he was cursed by Muḥammad al-Mahdī as well. In later periods, Ibn Hilāl was accused of being nāsıbī and ghālī. However, there are also some Shiite scholars who supported (tavthîk) Ibn Hilāl. In the Shi'a tradition, Nāsibism indicated the meaning of hating ʻAli and Ahl al-bayt or feeling anger towards them. Later on, this meaning has been changed into a meaning including the haters of ʻAli and then the Shiʻa Nāsibism is regarded as a position towards Shiʻa outside of Shiʻa. Ghulāt is a form of a belief generally found in the Shi'a tradition. In the belief of Ghulāt, holiness is attributed to the imams. When the Shiite sources are examined, it can be seeb that Ibn Hilāl represents neither a ghālī nor a nāsıbī position. In the Shiʻa, when the narrator leaves his sect, his narrations are evaluated differently. Therefore, among Ibn Hilāl's narrations only those which narrated before he left can be accepted. The likely reason for this attitude can be those narrators such as Ibn Hilāl brought in many narrations to the Shiite hadith literature. Ibn Bābeveyh and Sheikh Sadūk reported many narrations that includes Ibn Hilāl in their report chain (the isnad). Among these narrations, they criticized only one. Again, in the 4th century of Hijrī, Numānī, al-Hazzāz, Ibn Qavlaveyh and Mufīd reported many narrations transmitted by Ibn Hilāl. However, none of them mentioned about the negative perception on Ibn Hilāl in any of these narrations. This shows that Ibn Hilāl was not regarded as nāsıbī or ghālī in the eyes of the these scholars. As regards to, Tūsī, in the 5th century after Hijra, claimed that Ibn Hilāl was a ghālī and he was accused of being an adherent to this religion. He narrated in sum fifty narrations that included Ibn Hilāl in the report chain, but Tūsī criticized only three of them because of including Ibn Hilāl. The reason why Ibn Hilāl was accused of being nāsıbī and ghālī, which Shiʻa deemed the worst, was probably related to the political conditions of that period. On the other hand, there is no report that Ibn Hilāl shared a nāsıbī and ghālī thought or had a tendency towards them. It is obvious that if Ibn Hilâl, who has an important place in the eyes of the Shiite community, does not accept the second ambassador of al-Mahdī, and that this would cause discord among the followers. This complex situation was tried to be remedied by letters alleged to have been written by the imams, cursing Ibn Hilâl and ordering them to stay away from him. Later, Ibn Hilāl was accused of being a nāsıbî or ghālī who expressed the attitudes and thoughts that Shiʻa saw the most distant from him. Sadūk first reported the narration that Ibn Hilāl was Nāsıbî. Tūsī, on the other hand, described Ibn Hilāl as ghālī in the 5th century (after hijra). This study tries to reveal that there is no explicit evidence that proves Ibn Hilāl’s nāsıbī or ghālī position. (shrink)

Tercümeler hem dili, düşünceyi hem de felsefeyi besler. Aynı şekilde dil felsefeyi, felsefe de dili besler. Bu makale, Türk-İslam düşüncesi çerçevesinde dil, tercüme ve felsefe arasındaki bağlantıya yoğunlaşmaktadır. Ancak bu yoğunlaşma modern Türk düşünürlerinden birkaçı üzerinden nesneleştirilecektir. Türk-İslam düşüncesi ve felsefesi çoğulcu düşüncenin ürünüdür. O, bir anlamda bir tercüme medeniyeti, bir anlamda kendi özüyle bağlantılı özgün bir medeniyet yaratma çabasıdır. Her iki kabul de olguya dayanır. Bu olgu da dil üzerinden felsefenin yeni yurt ve yurttaşlarını tanımlar. Felsefenin kendini nesneleştirdiği enstrüman (...) dil iken, dil de insan olabilmenin enstrümanlardan biridir. Dil, düşünceyi var eder, düşünce de dili çoğulcu bir yapıya doğru olan serüvene dahil eder. Buradaki akış karşılıklıdır ve durağı yoktur. Bu akışta dil düşünceyi zenginleştirir, düşünce de dili zenginleştirir. (shrink)

Bu çalışmamızdaki amacımız, Türk filozof Yunus Emre’de en çok karşılaştığımız kavramlardan biri olan Gönül kavramının felsefi bir kavram olarak ne olduğunu sorgulayarak Yunus Emre’nin genel olarak hakikat anlayışını bu kavram çerçevesinde ortaya koymaktır. Böyle bir çalışmanın ortaya çıkışında en temel etmen, ‘Gönül kavramı neden felsefi bir kavramdır?’ sorusudur. Bu soruyu felsefi bilinçle birlikte entelektüel ve kültürel kökenimizde izi sürülen felsefenin en zengin örneklerden biri olan Yunus Emre’de ele almaya çalışacağız.

Bu çalışmamızdaki amacımız, din felsefesinde tartışılan temel bir problem olan kötülük probleminin ne felsefedeki öyküsünü vermektir ne de Türk filozof Yunus Emre’de tüm ayrıntısıyla tartışmaktır. Amacımız, Türk filozof Yunus Emre’nin “gönül yıkma” ve “gönül yapma” ifadelerinin kötülük problemi açısından felsefedeki anlamını sorgulamak ve felsefi anlamlarını ortaya koymaktır.

There are serious concerns about the commercialization of healthcare and adoption of the business approach in medicine. As market dynamics endanger established professional values, healthcare workers face more complicated ethical dilemmas in their daily practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the willingness of medical students to accept the assertions of commercialized healthcare and the factors affecting their level of agreement, factors which could influence their moral stance when market demands conflict with professional values. A cross-sectional study was (...) conducted in three medical schools in Turkey. The study population consisted of first-, third-, and sixth-year students, and 1,781 students participated in total. Students were asked to state if they agreed with the assertions of commercialized healthcare. Of all students, 87.2 per cent agreed with at least one of the assertions, and one-fifth of them agreed with more than half of the assertions. First-year students significantly agreed more with some assertions than third- and sixth-year students. Being female, having mid-level family income, choosing medicine due to idealistic reasons, and being in the third or sixth years of medical study increased the probability of disagreement. Also, studying in a medical school that included integrated lectures on health policies, rights related to health, and health inequities, along with early field visits, increased the probability of disagreement. This study suggests that agreement with the assertions of commercialized healthcare might be prevalent among students at a considerable level. We argue that this level of agreement is not compatible with best practice in professional ethics and indicates the need for an educational intervention in order to have physicians who give priority to patients’ best interests in the face of market demands. (shrink)

Heidegger, Varlık sorusu temelinde Batı metafiziğini eleştirirken Varlık’ın bu gelenekte nasıl aşama aşama unutulduğunu göstermekle kalmayıp aynı zamanda Batı metafizik geleneğinin onto-teolojik yapısını da açığa çıkarmaya çalışır. Ona göre Batı metafiziğinin onto-teolojik yapısı içinde Tanrı kavramı metafizik sistemler için kurucu rolü üstlenir. Tanrı kavramına verilen bu rol Causa Sui’dir. Ancak Heidegger’e göre Tanrı Causa sui olarak, ilahi Tanrı’dan uzaklaşmıştır.

İ‘câzü’l-Kur’ân literatürüne bakıldığında ilim adamlarının i‘câzın ne anlama geldiği, tehaddînin mâhiyeti ve bu olgunun ne şekilde tahakkuk ettiği konusunda birtakım çözüm yolları bulmaya çalıştıkları; bu konuyu nazm, fesâhat ve belâgatla ilişkilendirerek çok sayıda teori ortaya koydukları görülmektedir. Bu bağlamda Kur’ân metninin ne kadarının mu‘ciz olduğu, muârızlarına müteveccih tehaddînin asgari miktarı meselesinde serdedilen görüşlerden biri, Kur’ân’ın iç düzenin en küçük birimi olan âyetle tehaddîdir. İslâm düşünce tarihinin klasik ve modern dönemlerinde savunucusu bulunan bu yaklaşıma göre Kur’ân’ın en küçük birimi olan âyet (...) veya âyet eczâsı, mu‘ciz olmakta ve muarızlara bunlarla meydan okunmaktadır. Konuya ilişkin daha önce bir çalışmanın yapılmamış olmasından hareketle i‘câzü’l-Kur’ân literatürüne katkı sunmayı amaçlayan bu çalışmada, tehaddînin âyetle tahakkuk ettiğini belirten ilim adamlarının istidlâl yöntemleri önce deskriptif bir üslupla aktarılmakta, akabinde bunlar analitik bir bakış açısıyla irdelenmektedir. Son olarak da âyetle tehaddî teorisinin Kur’ân’ın bütünlüğüne riayet ilkesine uyup uymadığı test edilmekte ve bu bağlamda i‘câz olgusunun mâhiyeti incelenmektedir. Sonuç olarak mezkûr ilke esas alındığında fesâhat ve belâgat yönlerinin her âyette eşit düzeyde tahakkuk ettiğini söylemek mümkün gözükmemektedir. Zira Kur’ân’da iki harften ya da tek kelimeden oluşan âyetlerin tehaddîye veya mu‘cizeye konu olduğunu aklen ileri sürmek mümkün değildir. Bu durumda tehaddînin kısa veya uzun olmasına bakılmaksızın âyet veya âyet parçacıklarında değil de her bir sûrenin bütünlüğünde gerçekleştiğini savunmanın daha isabetli bir yaklaşım olduğu kanaatine ulaşılmaktadır. (shrink)

Mühendishâne-i Berrî-i Hümâyûn hocalarından Masdariyecizâde Hüseyin Efendi 1238/1822’de doksan dereceden küçük bir açının Eukleides geometrisi yöntemleriyle üç eşit parçaya bölünmesine dair antik prob- lem hakkında bir risale kaleme alır. Risale, köklerini Antik Yunan’da bulan bu meşhur problemin Eukleides geometrisinin araçları olan çizgilik (işaretsiz cetvel) ve pergel kullanılarak ulaşıldığı düşünülen çözümünü içerir. Ayrıca, sunulan ispat Mühendishâne eğitim kadrosunun her birinin onayını gösteren imzalarla kayıt altına alınmıştır. Akademik literatürde bu risaleye dair yapılan değerlendirmelere bakıldığında, çözümde kullanımı sınırlandırılmış araçlarla bir sonuca ulaşılamayacağının Hüseyin (...) Efendi’nin risalesini yayınladığı tarihte çoktan ispatlanmış olduğu iddiasına dayanarak eser, müellif ve dönemin ilim çevresi ile seviyesi hak- kında tahkir eden genelleştirilmiş yorumlar görülür. Tüm bu güncel yayınlar, tek bir kaynaktan, Salih Zeki Bey’in konuya dair yaklaşık bir asır önce kaleme aldığı ve içerik itibariyle doğruluğu tartışılır makalelerinden neşet etmiştir. Bu çalışma bu güncel yayınların ortak kaynağının iddialarını inceler ve problemin çözümü- nün tarihine odaklanır. Böylece verilen hatalı bilgilerin tashihini sunar. (shrink)