Badawī, ʻAbd al-Raḥmān; Arab philosophers; biography.

The Buyide wezir Abū I-Faḍl Ibn al-‘Amīd became famous as a poet and expert in epistolary literature, but also as a scholar and scientist. His letters, published here together with translation, commentary and complete glossary, inform us on questions of meteorology, physics, mechanics and psychology.

United Nations; new world order; controversy work.

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)

Kitāb al-Mabādiʼ wa-al-ghāyāt fi-̄mā tataḍammanah ḥurūf al-muʻjam min al-ʻajāʼib al-āyāt -- Kitāb Mīm wa-al-wāw wa-al-nūn -- Kitāb al-Alif, wa-huwa kitāb al-aḥadīyah -- Kitāb al-bāʼ, wa-huwa Kitāb al-ḥaqāʼiq al-ilahīyah -- Risālat al-ḥarf wa-al-maʻná, wa-huwa tafhīm maʻānī al-ḥurūf -- Kitāb al-yāʼ, wa-huwa Kitāb al-hūw -- Risālat al-kalām fi ̄ḥurūf al-muʻjam wa-maʻānīhā -- Risālat al-ʻiqd al-manẓūm fī khawāṣṣ al-ḥurūf.

The Prophet, whom Allah sent the whole universe and humanity as mercy, produced not only many judicial rules and practices regarding the relations of a person with Allah and other people in Islam but also uttered sentences about the explanation of holy book, Qur’an, and about how this book can be put into practice. The issue whether and how much these sentences of the prophet (hadith) and acts of the prophet (Sunnah) are binding have been discussed by both hadith methodologists (...) and fiqh methodologists; accordingly, a great many studies were produced. In hadith methodology, the discussions about Sunnah of the Prophet had their reflections in the studies of fiqh methodology; and especially Hanafi jurists propounded considerations about this issue. Hussein b. Ali al-Saymerî (d. 436/1045) one of these jurists, is the student of Muhammad b. Mûsa al-Khwârizmî (d. 403/1012), who is the student of Abû Bakr al-Jassâs (d. 370/980), who is an authority in Hanafi methodology. al-Saymerî, who adopted the method of al-Jassâs in fiqh methodology, systematically categorized several fundamental issues which were discussed and were related to fiqh methodology during his time; and he defended the views of Hanafi scholars about these issues primarily against Shâfiʿîs and several fiqh and kalam schools. While presenting the views and evidences of Hanafis, al-Saymerî initially applied for the views of founder imams of Hanafi sect such as Abû Hanîfa, Abû Yusuf and Muhammad al-Shaybânî; following these scholars, he greatly benefited from Hanafi scholars from Iraq region, such as Abu’l-Hasan al-Karkhî (d. 340/952) and his student, Abu Bakr al-Râzî al-Jassâs. When the relevant parts of his study is analysed, it is seen that the effect of al-Jassâs is especially noticeable. In this article, we will study the binding issue of the Sunnah of the Prophet within the context of al-Saymerî’s study, which has extant and is called Mesâilu’l-hilâf fi usûli’l-fiqh. We consider that the different attitude of al-Saymerî about the Sunnah of the Prophet from the other methodologists and hadith scholars and the underlying reasons of these differences are worth to be investigated and emphasized. (shrink)

The study will examine how the contradiction between the freedom of will of man and the principle that God is the creator of everything is resolved through the risālah of al-Ṣādıq al-Qayṣarī and the commentary written by ʿİzzad ʿÂrif al-Divrīkī on this risālah. In addition, it is aimed to contribute to the literature by making the critical edition and translation of the risālah. The subject of will and human actions, which had been discussed in a theological and moral context in (...) the first centuries, developed with the periods of successors mutakallims and predecessors mutakallims and gained a metaphysical character. Moreover, the subject, which is intertwined with creation and existence theories, has gained great importance and has undergone change and transformation in the process. Because the subject is related to the metaphysical basis of free will and action of the human being. Therefore, our study will try to reveal the original aspects and contributions of these works by examining the contents of these works dealing with the subject of will and action, and that are also concerned with the subjects of existence and creation. (shrink)

Hādī ilá al-ḥaqq, Yaḥyá ibn al-Ḥusayn, 859-910; view on Islamic philosophy; Islam; doctrines.

The book under study is "Kitāb al-Uṣūl" and its commentary "Sharḥ al-Uṣūl" written by Ibn Ḥallād al-Basrī, one of Abū Ḥāshim al-Jubbāʾī's leading students. This work is the result of the Mu'tazilite Manuscripts Project conducted by Sabine Schmidtke and D. E. Sklare, and has been published in an edited edition by Camilla Adang, Wilferd Madelung, and Sabine Schmidtke. The study, entitled "-A Critical Edition of the Ziyādāt Sharḥ al-uṣūl by the Zaydī Imām al-Nāṭiq bi-l-ḥaqq Abū Ṭālib Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn b. (...) Hārūn al-Buṭḥānī " begins with quotations from Ibn Ḥallād's Kitāb al-uṣūl or its incomplete commentary, Sharḥ al-uṣūl. This is followed by various quotations written in addition to Ibn Ḥallād's incomplete commentary, which are mostly from Kādī ʿAbd al-Jabbār's Sharḥ. Then the commentary of the Zaydī Imam Nāṭīq-Bilḥāq is added, and finally, the text is completed by the commentary of his student and annotator, Abū al-Ḳāsīm Aḥmad b. Mahdī al-Ḥasan. Although the text does not directly define the usūl al-hamsa, the reader can recognize this progression. Beginning with tawhid, the text moves on to justice, followed by va'd-va'id, and finally concludes with topics such as predestination, sustenance, accident, and fate. (shrink)

Avicenna, the most influential of Islamic philosophers, produced The Healing as his magnum opus on his religious and political philosophy. Now translated by Michael Marmura, The Metaphysics is the climactic conclusion to this towering work. Through Marmura’s skill as a translator and his extensive annotations, Avicenna’s touchstone of Islamic philosophy is more accessible than ever before. In The Metaphysics, Avicenna examines the idea of existence, and his investigation into the cause of all things leads him to a meditation on the (...) nature of God. From this discussion, Avicenna develops a theory of divine causation that synthesizes Neoplatonic, Aristotelian, and Islamic ideas. Within this emanative scheme, Avicenna establishes some of the basic ideas of his religious and political philosophy, as he discusses the divine attributes, divine providence, the hereafter, and the ideal “virtuous” city with its philosopher-prophet as the human link between the terrestrial and heavenly realms. With this edition, The Metaphysics can now be better seen as one of the most masterful works of classical Islamic philosophy. (shrink)

The history of Iraq in the twentieth century, and perhaps the Middle East more broadly, is punctuated by an intellectual shift that has, for the most part, escaped the attention of scholars. It might be characterized as a shift from a problem of representation introduced by the rise of left-wing politics, to a problem of experience created by its failure. This shift registers in the work of writers and artists, where the depiction of the social world gave way to an (...) exploration of states of being. The paradigm for that turn inward in modern art was set by the artist Kadhim Haidar, in a series of paintings exhibited at the National Museum of Modern Art in Baghdad, in 1965, under the title The Epic of the Martyr [Malḥamat al-shahīd]. The paintings reconstructed imagery from the mourning processions that annually commemorate the martyrdom of the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson, al-Husayn. This paper argues that the ritual imagery contains a grammar of experience, forged in the early history of Islam, that linked justice to a state of being, and that the transposition of the imagery into painting activated that grammar in the artwork. (shrink)

Ethics; Islamic philosophy; Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Abū al-Qāsim al-Ḥusayn ibn Muḥammad, d. 1108 or 9; criticism and interpretation.

This article tries to show that Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, one of Ash‘arī theologians of the contracting period, showed a Mu‘tazila tendency regarding the ontic value of divine attributes and his successors followed him in this regard. The problem of divine attributes, a heated discussion area of theology, has been interpreted differently by the theological sects over centuries. Mu‘tazila scholars before Abu Hāshim al-Jubbāī regarded those attributes as nominally attributed to God. For the first time, with Abu Hāshim, this relation was (...) approached with a realistic attitude: Although divine attributes are not accepted as particular realities, they are viewed as states/ahwāl, the universal model of kalam atomism. The pre-Gazzālī Ash‘arī theologians, on the other hand, ascribed real existence to divine attributes as particular properties, whether they adopted this universal model or not. According to Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī, the founder of Ashʿarism, which does not include the universal category in any way, the attributes carried by God’s essence consist of particular qualities. al-Bāqillānī and al-Juwaynī, who, like Abu Hāshim, made room for universals under the name of states, accepted particular qualities that led to universal attributes in a system compatible with Ashʿarism. Muta’akhkhirūn Ash‘arī theologians, building their thought system within the framework of the particular-universal dichotomy, felt the need to apply the theories of universals and predication to overcome the paradox caused by the famous motto “Attributes are neither Him nor other than Him”. On the basis of universal properties that have a lower degree of existence compared to particular properties, Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī’s theory of particular attributes is intended to be associated with Abu Hāshim’s theory of universal (state). In this context, the value of divine attributes discussed on the ontic ground by the mutaqaddimūn theologians was drawn to the epistemic ground in the muta’akhkhirūn period. From the first kalām works of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī to the last kalām works, he was distant from the ontic value of divine attributes. The statement that the derived word “knower”, which is appropriate for being a predicate in the propositional structure, and the infinitive “knowledge”, which is not appropriate for being a predicate, meet the same purpose, and that divine attributes are considered divine essence are the most important indications of this distance. Reviewing the works of prominent theologians, scholars of the time such as Fakhr al- Dīn al-Rāzī, Aḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī, Sa‘d al-dīn al-Taftāzānī, al-Jurjānī, and al-Dawānī, this article aims to demonstrate that Abu Hāshim’s view of the divine attributes in the ontic context was welcomed and that the evaluation of divine attributes shifted from particular realities to universal ones in the ontic context. The meaning of “God is knower” proposition according to the pre-Mu‘tazila in the ontic context will be analyzed. Then, its meaning according to Ash‘arite theologians from their framework of universals, will be investigated. (shrink)

Bu kitapta, Ebû İshâk es-Saffâr’ın (öl. 534/1139) kelâmî görüşleri, Telḫîṣü’l-edille li-ḳavâʿidi’t-tevḥîd adlı eserinde Allah’ın isimlerinin anlamlarını açıklarken yaptığı yorumlar çerçevesinde ele alınmaktadır. Ebû İshâk es-Saffâr, 6./12. yüzyıl Hanefî-Mâtürîdî âlimlerinden biridir. Kelâma dair Telḫîṣü’l-edille eserinde esmâ-i hüsnâ konusuna ayrıntılı olarak yer vermektedir. İki cilt hâlinde yayımlanan bu eserin yaklaşık üçte birlik bir kısmını esmâ-i hüsnâ konusu oluşturmaktadır. Bu kısım incelendiğinde, Saffâr’ın Allah’ın varlığı, birliği ve sıfatları ile ilgili konular başta olmak üzere pek çok konuyu 175 esmâ-i hüsnâya dayanarak izah ettiği görülmektedir. (...) O, esmâ-i hüsnâ bölümünde yer vermediği bazı isimlere ise müstakil başlıklar altında değinmektedir. Örneğin el-Mütekkelim ismi kelâm sıfatını bağlamında ve halku’l-Kur’ân ile icâz’ul-Kur’ân gibi konularla ilişkili bir şekilde ele almaktadır. Bu isimler de listeye dahil edildiğinde sayı 178’e ulaşmaktadır. Bu durumda eserin yarısını esmâ-i hüsnâ konusu teşkil etmektedir. -/- Saffâr, esmâ-i hüsnâ bölümünde alfabetik bir sıra içerisinde ele aldığı ilâhî isimleri öncelikle lugavî (semantik) yönden izah etmektedir. Sonrasında ise değerlendirdiği ilahî ismi, bir kelâm konusu ile bağlantı kurarak kelâmî perspektifle açıklamaktadır Esmâ-i hüsnâ temelinde ele alınan konuların hilâfet meselesi hariç diğer kelâm bahislerini kapsadığı görülmektedir. Saffâr öncesi Hanefî-Mâtürîdî kelâm literatürü içinde esmâ-i hüsnânın bu kadar kapsamlı ele alındığı başka bir eser bilinmemektedir. -/- Bu kitap; üç ana bölümden oluşmaktadır. “Metodolojik Çerçeve” başlıklı giriş bölümünde çalışmanın konusu, önemi, amacı, yöntemi ve kaynakları hakkında bilgi verilmiştir. Birinci bölümde Saffâr’ın yaşadığı sosyokültürel çevre olan Mâverâünnehir bölgesi ile Buhara ve Merv şehirlerinin siyasî, sosyal ve dinî durumu ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır. İkinci bölümde esmâ-i hüsna konusunun anlaşılmasına temel oluşturan isim, tesmiye, müsemmâ, sıfat ve vasf gibi kavramlar ile esmâ-i hüsnânın sayısı ve ihsâsı gibi kelâmî tartışmalara değinilmiştir. Sonrasında Saffâr öncesi dönemde kaleme alınan esmâ-i hüsnâ litaratürü hakkında bilgi verilmiştir. Bölüm sonuna Saffâr’ın rivayet ettiği 178 ilahî isme dair ayrıntılı bir tablo eklenmiştir. Üçüncü bölümde öncelikle, Saffâr’ın esmâ-i hüsnâyı izah ederken dikkate aldığı kelâmî ilkeler tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Sonrasında ise Saffâr’ın Telḫîṣü’l-edille’de ilâhî isimleri açıklarken ortaya koyduğu kelâmî görüş ve değerlendirmeler belirlenerek sistematik bir şekilde kategorize edilmiştir. Bu kapsamda ele alınan her konunun sonuna ilgili ilâhî isimleri ve bağlantılı olduğu tartışmaları içeren tablolar eklenmiştir. Sonuç bölümünde ise Saffâr’ın esmâ-i hüsnâ anlayışına dayanan kelâm yöntemine dair ulaştığımız sonuçlara yer verilmiştir. Bu kitapta onun, esmâ-i hüsnânın %75’inde kelâmî yorumlarda bulunduğu ve bilgi-varlık bahsinden âhiret hayatına kadar bütün kelâm konularını esmâ-i hüsnâ ile bağlantılı yorumladığı tespit edilmiştir. Ulaşılan bu sonuçlar, Saffâr’ın kelâm anlayışının ilâhî isimlerin yorumuna dayandığını ortaya koymaktadır. [his book discusses the theological views of Abū Isḥāq al-Ṣaffār d. 534/1139), within the framework of his comments on the meanings of Allah’s names, provided in his work titled Talkhīṣ al-adilla. Abū Isḥāq al-Ṣaffār is one of the Ḥanafite-Māturīdite scholars in the 6th/12th century. In his work titled Talkhīṣ al-adilla li-qawāʿid al-tawḥīd on kalām, he spared extensive space for al-asmāʾ al-husnā. Approximately one third of this work, published in two volumes, is devoted to al-asmāʾ al-husnā. An examination of the related section reveals that al-Ṣaffār explains many issues, particularly those related to the existence, unity and attributes of Allah, based on 175 al-asmāʾ al-husnā. He mentions some of the names that he does not include in the al-asmāʾ al-husnā section under separate headings. For example, the name al-Mutakallim is addressed within the context of the attribute of kalām and in relation to subjects, such as the khalq al-Qurʾān and i‘jaz al-Qurʾān. Upon the addition of these names to the list, the number names reaches 178. This means that half of the work deals with the subject of al-asmāʾ al-husnā. -/- al-Ṣaffār lists the divine names in alphabetical order and explains them semantically in the chapter of al-asmāʾ al-husnā. Then he goes on to clarify each divine name through a theological lens with a specific reference to the subject of kalām. In the pre-Saffar Ḥanafite-Māturīdite theological literature, there is no other work that addresses al-asmāʾ al-husnā in such an extensive way. -/- This book consists of three main sections. The first section titled “Methodological Framework”, elaborates on the focus, significance, purpose and method of the study, along with the sources used. The first part describes the political, social and religious status of Transoxiana (Mā-warāʾ al-Nahr) region and the cities of Bukhara and Marw, the sociocultural environment in which Saffar lived. The second chapter addresses various concepts, which promote the understanding of al-asmāʾ al-husnā, such as name, tasmiya, musammā, attribute and qualification in addition to the theological debates such as the number and iḥṣāʾ of al-asmāʾ al-husnā. Then, it provides information about the al-asmāʾ al-husnā literature produced in the pre- Ṣaffār period. The end of each chapter comes with a detailed table with the 178 divine names mentioned by al-Ṣaffār. In the third chapter, the author initially discusses the theological principles that al-Ṣaffār considered while explaining the essence of al-asmāʾ al-husnā. This section also determines and systematically categorizes the theological views and evaluations put forward by al-Ṣaffār while explaining the divine names in Talkhīṣ al-adilla. The tables with the divine names and the related discussions can be seen at the end of the discussion for each subject. The last section presents the conclusions reached, regarding the kalām method based on al-Ṣaffār’s understanding of the essence of al-asmāʾ al-husnā. The present study revealed that he made theological interpretations in 75% of the al-asmāʾ al-husnā and interpreted all theological issues ranging from the subjects of knowledge and existence to the Afterlife in connection with the al-asmāʾ al-husnā. These results indicate that al-Ṣaffār's understanding of kalām is based on the interpretation of the divine names.]. (shrink)

Makalede İlâhî vahyin insanın ontolojik gerçekliğini göz ardı etmediğini, ontolojik gerçekliği üzerinden insanlara mesaj verdiği konusu ele alınmıştır. Bu durum, rüya ve şeriatlerin farklılığıyla ispat edilmeye, bu fikre temayül gösteren ancak Kur’ân hakkında olumsuz bir argüman olarak kullanan Montgomery Watt gibi müsteşriklere de cevap verilmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu yapılırken ilk önce bilinçaltının anlaşılması hususunda bazı örnekler verilmiş sonra rüya sembollerinde baskın olan kültürel unsurlara temas edilmiştir. Rüyalardaki sembollerin şekillenmesinde mantıksal bağı irdeleyen İslam ulemasının açıklamalarına ve rüya tevillerine de yer verilmiştir. Bu (...) yorum ve tevillerden anlaşıldığı kadarıyla insanlarda ortak görülen sembollerin Jung’un arketip, İslam ulemasının ise zihinsel kalıp ve manaların elbisesi dediği bir nevi kültürün kodlarından oluşan bilinçaltı alfabesi tarafından formlaştığı anlaşılmaktadır. Dini değer ve ifadeler Müslüman kültürde en dominant öğeler olduğundan Müslüman yorumcular genelde rüya sembollerini Kur’an ve hadisteki sözler veya bu sembolleri çağrıştıran ifadelerle yorumlamaya çalışmışlardır. Bu mantıktan hareketle tefsirde büyük problem olarak görülen Hz. İbrahim’in, oğlu İsmail’i kurban etme olayı ele alınmış ve nasıl anlaşılmasının gerektiği üzerinde durulmuştur. Bunun, baskın kültür altında sembolleşen bir rüya olduğu ve İsrail Oğullarına ‘Bakar’ kesme emriyle toplumun yanlış algısının değiştirilmesinin amaçlanması gibi çocukların tanrılara kurban edildiği ortamdaki yanlışlığın giderilmesi, kurban ritüelini tebdil edilmesinin amaçlandığı ifade edilmiştir. Daha sonra şeriat-ontolojik gerçeklik ilişkisi irdelenmiş, dinde bütün insanların ortak fıtratının esas alındığı ve bundan dolayı dinin bütün insanlar için değişmeyen bir olgu, şeriatlerin ise kültürün baskın olduğu ve dolayısıyla bir yönüyle ilişki içinde olduğu toplumsal bilinçaltı olduğu vurgulanmıştır. Kur’ân’da, dinin temel prensipleri ve resullerin üzerine birleştikleri kapsamlı şeriat kanunları dile getirilmiştir. Genel hatlarıyla din, Allah’ın varlıkları üzerine yarattığı (insanın tabiatının kolektif değişmezliğine dayalı) ve bütün mahlûkata sevimli geleni, marufu emretmeyi, münkerden nehyi, temiz şeyleri helal eden, zararlı olan şeyleri haramı eden emirleri içermektedir. İslam ulemasına göre bütün semavi dinlerde esas olan Allah’a, meleklerine, resullerine, kitaplarına ve ahiret gününe iman etmek, insanın yaptığı takdirde Müslüman olacağı fiilleri işlemektir. Bu iman da doğal olarak dünyadan yüz çevirmeyi, ahirete yönelmeyi, güzel ahlakı edinmeyi ve kötü ahlaktan da kaçınmayı gerektirir. Ancak şeriatlar ise birbirinden farklılık gösterebilir. Çünkü şeriatlar dinin indiği toplumun hallerini ve maslahatlarını esas aldığından değişiklik arz eder. Şeriatların farklılaşmasında toplumsal bilinçaltının göz ardı edilmediğini göstermek bağlamında Kur’ân’dan örnekler verilmek suretiyle savunulan tez ispat edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Bunlardan birisi, Kur’ân’da Arapların ortak duygularının esas alınması, kültürel bazı unsurların kullanılması, bir diğeri de yabancı isimlerin Arapların ifade ettiği şekliyle, ümmi anlayışa uygun kullanılmasıdır. Ayrıca bu konuda bazı helal yiyeceklerin Yahudilere haram kılınması ve diğer şeriatlerde yer alan bazı farklılıklar üzerinde durulmuştur. Helal yiyeceklerin haram kılınması konusunda Hz. Yakub’un yakalandığı ağır hastalıktan iyileştiği takdirde sevdiği yiyecekleri yememeyi nezretmesi, buna bağlı olarak iyileşince deve eti ve sütünü yiyip içmemesi, daha sonra çocukları ve ümmetinin de bu yiyeceklerden uzak durması sonucunda Tevrat’ta bunların haram kılınması örneği üzerinde durulmuştur. Bu örnek, şeriatlerin farklılaşmasının nedeninin bir şeye karşı tavrın toplumsal bir alışkanlık halini almasının sonucu olduğu ifade edilmiştir. Nitekim teravih namazının Müslümanlarca toplu kılınması ve buna devam edilmesi durumunda farz kılınır endişesiyle evlerinde kılmalarını tavsiye eden Allah Resulünün endişesinin de bunu pekiştirdiği dile getirilmiştir. Diğer şeriatlerde bazı farklılıklar konusunda ise orucun öncekilere farz kılınmasına rağmen keyfiyetinin farklı olması üzerinde durulmuştur. Aynı şekilde namaz, zekât ve haccın semavî dinlerinin hepsinde olmasına rağmen keyfiyetinin değiştiği örneklerle izah edilmiştir. Bu doğrultuda milletlerin yaşam tarzlarının ve kültürünün dolayısıyla toplumsal bilinçaltı şeriatlerin farklılığında gözönüne alındığı ifade edilmiştir. Nitekim İsâ peygambere tabi olanların kendilerine emredilmemekle birlikte Allah’ın rızasını elde etmek için ruhbanlığı kendilerine farz kılmaları ve buna devam etmeleri karşısında Allah’ın buna itibar ederek, ruhbanlıkta bulunanlara ücretlerini verdiğini ifade etmesi de bu durumu pekiştirmektedir. Sonuç olarak din ve dine taalluk eden her şeyin insanlığın ortak fıtratını esas aldığını, şeriatten şeriate değişiklik gösteren unsurların da kültürel ve bir yönüyle toplumsal bilinçaltıyla ilgili olan hususlar olduğu ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır. (shrink)

In this article, I explore the response of the Ashʿarī theologian Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210) to what can be called “the problem of the efficacy of petitionary prayers” (PEPP), namely the effectiveness of making supplications to God that involve a request for something. The key text I examine is al-Rāzī’s highly dense philosophical work al-Maṭālib al-ʿāliya min al-ʿilm al-ilāhī, in which he outlines his core objections to the efficacy of petitionary prayer and then addresses them directly. In section 1, (...) I include a short historiography of specific English books on the topic of supplications (duʿāʾ) and consider the relevance of al-Rāzī’s response to the issue of their efficacy. In section 2, I outline the preliminaries necessary and relevant for understanding the discussion that follows. In section 3, I survey al-Rāzī’s view on personal prayers. In section 4, I exam­ine in detail al-Rāzī’s formulations of the arguments (from the Maṭālib) that constitute PEPP, with parallel discussions in his huge exegetical work Mafātīḥ al-ghayb. In section 5, I lay out al-Rāzī’s responses to PEPP from the Mafātīḥ in more depth, and draw on theological views from his other works to help support his arguments in the Maṭālib. In the conclu­sion, I evaluate al-Rāzī’s responses and the wider implications they have on a Muslim’s relation to and understanding of God. (shrink)

One of the most influential figures in the history of Islamic thought is Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210). The identities of mushakkik, which creates problems on many subjects, especially metaphysical and theological ones, the muhaqqiq who tries to solve the problems above the sects, and the jâmî who brings many different views together in the highest concepts, have seriously affected all the thinkers after him. Therefore, in the tradition, all schools had to inherit the philosophical and scientific dynamism that he (...) created and displayed an attitude about the problems he created and the solutions he offered. The real important motive that makes Râzî so indispensable and effective is his problematic identity (mushakkik), which carries the kalām to philosophy and philosophy to kalām, and criticizes philosophy on the basis of the kalām, and the kalām on the basis of philosophy. For this reason, when we look at the works of Râzî, who has been evaluated politically and sociologically within Ash'arism throughout his life, it is clearly seen that he is a thinker who is suitable to be embraced by different schools and to be interpreted in different ways. The fact that many Ahl as-sunnah theologians emphasized the works written by Râzî with a theological-Ash'ari theme, caused his supra-sectarian identity to be overshadowed. On the other hand, it is seen that some thinkers are making an effort to know and recognize Râzî as a philosopher-theologian and muhaqqiq. This effort is clearly seen especially in scientific figures who benefited from Kamaladdin Ibn Yûnus (d. 639/1242) in some way. Afḍal al-Dīn Khūnajī (d. 646/1248), Athir al-Din al-Abharî (d. 663/1265), Najm al-Din al-Qazwinî al-Kâtibî (d. 675/1277) can be given as examples. These personalities, on the one hand, played an active role in the spread of Râzî's scientific heritage and they were effective in bringing Râzî to the fore with his supra-sectarian identity on the other. Sirāj Al-Dīn Al-Urmawî (d. 682/1283), who inherited his scientific legacy, is among the important names who established his identity as a muhaqqiq who mostly solved supra-sectarian problems. Human actions are at the forefront of the issues in which this facility has clearly emerged. Urmawî tries to revise al-Arba'în's expressions, which seem to ignore the power and influence of human beings in terms of human actions as well as criticizing Razi's arguments very seriously. In his work Lübâb, on the one hand, he summarizes al-Erba'în of Razî he seriously criticizes Razi's Ash'ari attitude towards human actions on the other. He does this largely on the axis of the arguments that Râzî himself expressed from his encyclopedic works such as al-Matâlibu'l-'âliyya mina'l-'ilmi'l-ilâhi. It is clear that this is not an ordinary situation. Because human actions are at the forefront of the issues that determine the thinkers' conception of divinity and the relationship between God and man. In this study, Râzî's attitude on this issue and Urmavi's philosophical and theological criticisms will be tried to be determined. Thus, it is clearly seen that he is trying to establish Râzî as a muhaqqiq in the axis of human actions. (shrink)

ʿAbd al-Bāqī b. Qāniʿ was a traditionist and evaluator of transmitters, one of the founders of the genre of biographical dictionaries devoted to the Com- panions of the Prophet. Ibn Qāniʿ has not attracted much attention from scholars— only Khalīl Qūtlāy has authored a doctoral dissertation, now published in fifteen volumes, that comprises Ibn Qāniʿ’s Muʿjam al-ṣaḥāba. In this essay I argue that Ibn Qāniʿ and his contemporaries relied on the chains of hadith transmission to extract the names of many (...) Companions. My research also shows that in the eighth/ fourteenth century at least two presently lost biographical collections associated with Ibn Qāniʿ were in circulation: Kitāb al-Wafayāt, a catalogue of death dates of hadith transmitters, and Kitāb al-Tārīkh, an annalistic collection, which included many assessments of transmitter reliability. Ibn Qāniʿ’s unsophisticated methods of hadith criticism, although in line with third/ninth- and early fourth/tenth-century scholarly developments, incurred him some criticism from later hadith scholars. (shrink)

Qism 1. Muqaddimat al-maḥqūq. al-Manṭiq. 1960.--Qism 2. al-Ṭabīʻīyāt. al-Ṭabʻah 2, [1968].--Qism 3. al-Ilahīyāt. al-Ṭabʻah 2. 1966.--Qism 4. al-Taṣawwuf. al-Ṭabʻah 2. 1968.

The third century of the hegira represents an extremely important period in terms of the formation process of Islamic sciences and the acquirement of the identity of a systematic school of fiqh madhhabs. In terms of the Zaydiyya madhhab, this century has an identity that affects the next period in terms of both political and scientific studies. Because in this period, the scholars of the madhhab like Kāsim al-Rassî (d. 246/860), Ahmad b. Isā (d. 247/861) and Yahyā b. al-Husayn (d. (...) 298/911), who were in a leading position both in politics and in sciences such as kalām, hadith and fiqh, emerged. Kāsim al-Rassî, who was accepted as the star of the Ahl al-Bayt by Zaydî sources in the first period, was presented as the Plato of Muslims by orientalists in modern studies. The main reason why today's studies on him are mostly about the history of sects and theology, most of Rassî's works are about kalām. However, Kāsim al-Rassî is an important name in the science of fiqh and İslamic legal theory as well as in the science of kalām. According to Abī Tālib Nātik bi’l-Hakk (d. 424/1033), one of the important jurists of the Zaydiyya madhhab, Rassî was a scholar who came to the fore with his ability in fiqh issues; in order to see his ijtihād method, his skill in furû al-fiqh, his mastery in using hadiths and knowing the disagreements of scholars, ‘‘Masā’il al-Dja’far b. Muhammad and Abd Allah b. Hasan” should be consulted. Rassi's epistles named Kitab al-Nāsikh wa’l-Mansūkh, Kitab al-tahāra, Kitab al-salāt al-yevm ve al-Laylā and Kitab al-menāsik are important studies on fiqh that have survived to the present day. In addition, Mueyyed-Billah (d. 411/1021) compiled Kāsim al-Rassî’s and Yahya b. al-Husayn's views on fiqh in his work named al-Tecrîd. Kāsim al-Rassî's views on fiqh are also determinative in later fiqh books such as Tahrîr, al-Cāmi' al-Kāfi, al-Intisār and al-Azhar. In time, the emergence of a jurisprudence sect named Kāsimiyya in Zaydiyya, referring to his name, is also important in terms of revealing his position. Although Rassî's views on fiqh have been referred to a number of studies in our country, no independent study has been found that deals with his views on fiqh. However, considering both of his works on fiqh that have survived to the present day and the early works in which his views are compiled, it is obvious that Kāsim al-Rassî's views on fiqh deserve an independent works. The aim of this study is to reveal Ressî's position within the madhhabs and his perspective on fiqh in general. In this context, in the study, the period in which Ressî lived, his life and works were briefly mentioned, and then the basic views of the fiqh, especially in the field of worship, were discussed in outline. (shrink)

In Islamic theological writings, under the heading of sustenance, the focus is generally on issues such as who is the provider of sustenance, whether haram is considered sustenance, and whether Allah’s consent exists for haram sustenance. Another issue that can be found between the lines of the subject of sustenance is whether it is haram for a person to work for sustenance or not. In fact, the pursuit of means of livelihood in order to sustain one’s life is, according to (...) the general and predominant acceptance of Muslim scholars, permissible and, in cases of necessity, wajib. According to a record in Uṣūl al-niḥal, during the formative period of itizālī thought, there were Mu‘tazilite sufis (ṣūfiyyat al-Muʿtazila) such as Bishr b. al-Mu‘tamir’s disciple Abū Imrān Mūsā b. al-Raqqāshī, al-Naẓẓām’s apostate disciple Fadl al-Hadathī, and Husayn al-Kūfī, about whom no information is available. These names, who seem to have earned their livelihood through almsgiving, defended the forbiddenness (taḥrīm al-makāsib) of all kinds of endeavour for sustenance, contrary to the acceptance of Muslim thinkers. However, it should be noted that for them, the forbiddenness in making an effort for sustenance does not cover the definition of sustenance, which is ‘all the benefits’, but only the effort in obtaining sustenance through means such as trade and agriculture. It is interesting to find such an extreme tendency among the Mu‘tazilites, who came to the fore with their rationalist discourses. “How could a Mu‘tazilite defend tahrīm al-makāsib?”, the issue of abandonment of striving for sustenance (tark al-makāsib), from which the idea of tahrīm al-makāsib is thought to have evolved, is mentioned, and then the Mu‘tazilite sufis views on tahrīm al-makāsib are tried to be based mainly on Mu‘tazilite sources and the criticisms of Mu‘tazilite authors against them are included. It has been determined that Mu‘tazilite sufis justifications for defending tahrīm al-makāsib concentrate on three points: (i) the absence of a just order due to the absence of a just imam and the possibility of supporting the oppressors (rulers) intentionally or unintentionally, and as a result of this, some of them describe the land of Islam as dār al-kufr, (ii) again in relation to the issue of imamate, in an environment where there is no justice, i.e. legal/moral order, the halāl and harām are so intertwined that they cannot be separated from each other, and in order to protect oneself from harām, the things that are subject to sustenance can only be purified through charity and become halāl, and (iii) the fact that trust in Allah is obligatory and any effort to pursue sustenance is contrary to tawakkul. The Mu‘tazilite authors criticised the proponents of tahrīm al-makāsib on the grounds that it is permissible to trade while maintaining a rational and ethical attitude, that one’s intention and interest in trade are important, and that tawakkul cannot be built on the right ground. As a result, the proponents of tahrīm al-makāsib disappeared because they could not gain a foothold in the Mu‘tazilite intellectual climate due to their erroneous reasoning. (shrink)

Özet Şii-İmamiyye’nin usûlde Mu’tezilenin etkisinde kaldığı iddiaları, hicri dördüncü asırdan itibaren dile getirilmektedir. Buna karşılık usûlî düşüncenin ilk mümessili sayılan Şeyh Müfîd’den itibaren mezhep içinden yükselen sesler bu iddiaları şiddetle reddetmişlerdir. Biz bu çalışmada Mu’tezile kelamına sistematik hüviyet kazandıran ve yazdığı eserlerle Mu’tezile kelamının bugüne ulaşmasında büyük pay sahibi olan Kâdî Abdülcebbâr ile İmamiyye’nin kelam düşüncesinin istikrar bulmasında ve Şeyh Müfîd’le başlatılan usûlî yaklaşımın benimsenip yaygınlaşmasında büyük bir yeri olan Ebû Ca’fer et-Tûsî arasında adalet ilkesi üzerinden bir karşılaştırma yaparak, söz (...) konusu iddiaların ne kadar sübut bulduğunu tespit etmeye çalıştık. Kısmi farklı izahları bir kenara bırakırsak, adalet ilkesinin ispat ve yorumlanmasında iki kelamcı arasında kayda değer bir farklılığın olmadığı görülmektedir. Abstract The claim that the Shi’i Imamite thought is heavily influenced by the Mu’tazilite outlook has been alleged since the fouth century of hijra. However, beginning with Shaikh Mufid, the first representative of the Usuli branch of Shi’a, the Shi’is vehemently denied this allegation. In this article, this issue is dealt with by making a comparison between the idea of Qadi Abd al-Jabbar, the prominent Mu’tazilite scholar who made a major contribution to the consolidation of the schools’ theaching and that of al-Tusi, who also made a contrubitued to the integration of the Shi’ite kalam and the spreading of the usuli approach initiated by Shaikh Mufid. Leaving aside the differences in deatil, it seems that there is no noteworthy difference between their approcah to the issue of justice. Key Words: Qâdî Abd al-Jabbâr, Abû Ja’far al-Tûsî, Husn-Qubh, Divine Justice, Free Will. (shrink)

Abū al-Ḥusayn Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā Ibn al-Rāwandī(815–860 or 910), perhaps one of the most controversial figures in early Islamic history, is frequently called the “arch-heretic” (zindīq or mulḥid) of Islam. He was born in Khurasan around 815 CE. but flourished among intellectuals in ninth century in Baghdad. Around the year 854, he left Baghdad to escape political persecution and died either in 860 or in 910, according to some sources. The details of his early life are unknown, and documentation of (...) Ibn al-Rāwandī began to surface once he became an intellectual enemy of his fellow Muʿtazilites, the rationalist thinkers of Islamic thought at the time. Information on Ibn al-Rāwandī is gathered mostly from the writings of his opponents. From these sources, we learn that both Muslims and non-Muslims (especially Jews) wrote polemics against Ibn al-Rāwandī in which they acknowledged the serious threat his work posed not only to Islam, but also to Judaism and all Abrahamic religions. (shrink)

RésuméDepuis Ibn Mattawayh et Mānkdīm jusqu'à George Hourani et Marie Bernand, les spécialistes ont montré un intérêt constant pour la théorie de la connaissance d' ʿAbd al-Jabbār, intérêt plus grand encore depuis la parution des textes de Muʿtazilites tardifs comme leKitāb al-Muʿtamad fī Uṣūl al-Dīnd'Ibn al-Malāḥimī, et leKitāb Taṣaffuḥ al-Adillade son maître Abū al-Ḥusayn al-Baṣrī. Cet article examine la théorie de la connaissance immédiate d' ʿAbd al-Jabbār à partir de sonMughnī, ainsi que de textes écrits par ses élèves ou par (...) des Muʿtazilites tardifs. Est aussi étudié le rapport entre cette théorie et les arguments théologiques d'ʿAbd al-Jabbār. Ce travail est divisé en deux parties: en premier lieu, j'étudie la définition de la connaissance immédiate par ʿAbd al-Jabbār et les réactions de ses successeurs; en second lieu, j'analyse sa conception des types de connaissance immédiate étroitement liés à ses arguments théologiques. Et à partir de là, je montre comment le désaccord à propos du contenu de cette connaissance est à l'origine du débat opposant les théologiens musulmans (mutakallimūn) à propos de la validité de certains arguments théologiques. (shrink)

Hadiths that have been discussed in this paper consist of narrations regarding divine attributes and having some problematic meanings between supporters of Bişr al-Marīsī and ʿUthmān al-Dārimī. These narrations were mostly accepted denounced (munkar) by Bişr al-Marīsī and his sopporters due to having an anthropormophist and corporealist content about God. They rejected divine attributes according to their understanding of God based on incomparability (tanzīh) which provided by Mutazilite approach towards divine attributes even though they conveyed some features of Ahl al-Ra’y. (...) They found contradicted of attributing human features to God based on their tanzīh understanding, therefore, they interpreted such this kind of narra-tions in terms of their approach or rejected at all. At the other hand, a hard Hadith scholar Uth-man al-Darimi believed that one should accept divine attributes as they are in the Qur’an and Sunna. According to his belief, he considered the explicit meanings of the narrations without interpretation of divine attributes, and based on his perpective he denied Bişr al-Marīsī and his supporters’ interpretations claiming they would cause divesting God of all attributes (ta‘tīl). He argues that these narrations should be taken into considerations based on their explicit mea-nings. The discussions on these hadiths are important due to showing different approaches of scholars from the schools of Ahl al-Ra’y and the ones from Ahl al-Hadith towards the hadith du-ring the period when the main Hadith works were collected. Discussions on the narrations stu-died in this paper reveal two schools’ understandings of divine issues, their approaches to divi-ne attributes, as well inform us their perspectives of hadith in general.Summary: The present paper examines the debates between ʿUthmān al-Dārimī (d. 280/894) and the supporters of Bishr al-Marīsī (d. 218/833) on the divine attributes mentioned in some hadiths in the period when the main hadith books were composed (i.e., III/IXth century). These debates that took place between the scholars of Ahl al-Hadith and Ahl al-Ra’y concern the un-derstanding and interpretation of the hadiths in a certain way.It could be stated that the debates focus on how the hadiths should be understood, or whether it is the explicit meaning of the words or the possible methaphorical meanings beyond them that should be considered.It is worth briefly introducing the parties who discussed the hadiths studied here. The aforementioned discussions about some hadith narrations are between the supporters of Bishr al-Marīsī and ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, one of the important figures of the Ahl al-Hadith who wrote a separate work on these hadiths. This work was written as a rejection of the views of Bishr al-Marīsī and his two students on the attributes of God and some issues regarding hadith.Bishr al-Marīsī was regarded as an important scholar of Kalam who received fiqh education from Abū Yūsuf (d. 182/798). He is a scholar of Ahl al-Ra’y who made scientific dis-cussions with many scholars including Imam al-Shafiʿī (d. 204/820). He was on the council of the Caliph Al-Mamūn (d. 218/833) and had a significant role in the adoption of the idea of the createdness of the Qurʾān (khalq al-Qurʾān).Uthmān al-Dārimī,on the other hand, was a scholar of Ahl al-Hadith who learned ha-dith from the authorities of his era such as Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn (d. 233/847), ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī (d. 234/848), Isḥāq b. Rāhawayh (d. 237/851), and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241/855). Having visited all the important cities for the training of hadith, he learned the hadiths and conveyed them.With the understanding of proving the divine attributes and the opposition of the misin-terpretation of the narratives related to them, the groups advocating the appropriation of these lines in accordance with the understanding of incomparability (tanzīh) have complied the works since the first period. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, the rejection of the divine attributes by Mu'tazila was influential in the emergence of the criticism literature of the Ahl al-Hadith and many authors wrote works in this direction.Regarding a narration by Abū Hurayra, an opponent reports that this narration gives the impression that God has the eyes and ears as we know. ʿUthmān al-Dārimī reports that this hadith proves sight and hearing not the eyes and ear organs. He indicates that God has no like by no means. Therefore, it is slanderous to refer the claim that Allah is made of organs to the Ahl al-Hadith. Abū Dāwūd states that with this hadith the attributes of sight and hearing for God are proved and Jahmiyya’s denial of the divine attributes are rejected.The opponent also considered Abū Hurayra's narration referring to the Prophet: "Faith is from Yemen, wisdom is from Yemen! I feel the breath of your Lord from Yemen!" as denounced (munkar). Because, according to Bishr al-Marīsī and his companions, breath can only come from those with an abdominal cavity, and Allah is free from it. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, the opponent misunderstood. What is meant here is the wind that blows from Yemen and comforts people. In the context of this narration, we see that supporters of Bishr al-Marīsī evaluate the narrative literally, while ʿUthmān al-Dārimī interpret the narrative.Regarding the narration, "You can not approach Allah with something more virtuous than what comes out of it (the Qur'ān)" Ibn al-Saljī reports that Mushabbiha understands this as one with an abdominal cavity and from whom speech comes out. This understanding is in-valid since God is "samad" in the sense that He has no void. With this hadith, it is meant that the Qur'ān comes out of Allah’s presence rather than Allah. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, the real aim of Ibn al-Saljī is to deny God's attribute of speech. There is no doubt that the Qur'ān comes from Him, and those who do not accept it merely deny His attribute of speech.Attributed to Ibn Abbas; The meaning of "yamīn Allah" (the right hand of Allah) in narration "Black Stone (al-ḥajar al-aswad) is the right hand of Allah on earth, handshakes with the people" is not the right hand that we know according to Ibn al-Saljī, it is blessing and grace of Allah. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, who acknowledges that Black Stone is not meant to be a hand, the purpose of Ibn al-Saljī is to deny the two hands mentioned in the verses and ha-diths about Allah with invalid interpretations.ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, who criticized that Ibn al-Saljī quoted from another narration which Ibn Abbās heard from the Prophet, says that such poor narrations should not be spread. In addition, he points out that Ibn al-Saljī's interpretation is ugly and he criticizes it. Because Allah who is mentioned in the narrative is depicted as a young man with curly hair in a green suit. Such a narration is also an untrustworthy narration as it contradicts the authentic narrations of the Prophet. ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, who made this assessment of the narration, rejects the com-ments that the opponent made about the narration. According to the opponent, the phrase "I have come to Allah" means "to come into the presence of Allah in the Garden of Eden." Accor-ding to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī’s understanding, such complicated hadiths should not be only narra-ted.About the narration that are based on the Prophet and he does not know the answer to what he has come to know of himself, then he feels the coolness of his fingers as he puts his hand on his back and learns everything, the opponent evaluates the following: He was not Allah who came to the Prophet, but a well-behaved angel who was being directed by Allah and he was the angel who put his hand. ʿUthmān al-Dārimī rejects this interpretation of that oppo-nent. This comment is also contrary to other authentic hadiths. After he refused to the com-ment of the opponent about relevant narration, ʿUthmān al-Dārimī stated that he could not trust this comment on the basis of the authentic narrations he mentioned.Salaf scholars have preferred to be silent in this regard, as it is seen among the most difficult subjects to talk about divine attributes. However, subsequent generations have held dif-ferent paths in this regard. The basic approaches to understanding the divine attributes can be summarized in three main titles: tafwīd, tashbīh, and ta’wīl. Tafwīd is the path adopted by the early salaf scholars and means to leaving the knowledge about Allah’s entity and attributes to His knowledge. Tashbīh means to compare Allah to the created or the created to Allah. Ta'wīl is to interpret the Qur'ānic verses and hadiths that give the impression that Allah is like the crea-tures with semantics and rational deduction. The ones who deny the adjectives are called as Muʿattila and those who prove their attributes are called as Sifatiyya. According to Ahl al-Ra’y, it is necessary to appropriately make interpretation (ta'wīl) of the attributes giving the impression of anthropomorphism in terms of the dictionary. In the divine attributes, Muʿtazila advoca-ted the incomparability (tanzīh), whereas Ashʿariyya and Māturīdiyya adopted interpretation in accordance with incomparability. Mushabbiha and the Wahhābī-Salafī understanding has also taken the expressions regarding divine attributes with their explicit meanings.The debate between the scholars who lived in the ages II/VIII and III/IX, when the most important works are composed in the science of hadith, is important in that it is the first turn. In addition to this, the debate also contains important information on the approach to the Qur'ānic verses and hadiths, in that it shows two basic approaches, one of which represents the school of Ahl al-Ra’y, and the other represents the school of Ahl al-Hadith.ʿUthmān al-Dārimī generally advocates adhering to the explicit meaning of the narra-tion, while Bishr al-Marīsī and his companions criticize the narration labeling it as denied (mun-kar) or making an interpretation. On rare occasions, the places where ʿUthmān al-Dārimī re-jects the narration and makes interpretation, or where Bishr al-Marīsī and his companions de-fend the narrative can be seen.Interpretations made by Bishr al-Marīsī on the problematic narratives have influenced on the next scholars. Alongside Muʿtazilite scholars such as al-Jubbāʾī (d. 303/916), Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār (d. 415/1024) and Abū l-Ḥusayn al-Baṣrī (d. 436/1044), his interpretations have been quoted by Sunni scholars such as al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111), Ibn ʿAqīl (d. 513/1119) and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210).The fact that the truth can be put forward in the science of hadith, which is based on the narration, does not favor one of the "narration" and "ra’y", it should be kept in mind that both of these depend on the proper and balanced use of both. To reveal the truth, the narration is in need of the opinion and the opinion (ra’y) is in need of the narration. Narration and opinion sho-uld be seen as complementary elements, not each other's opponents. (shrink)

This article is about the place of kalām (theology) within the general structure of al-Fārābī's metaphysics. In this framework, the article consists of two parts. The first part examines the position of metaphysics within the framework of al-Fārābī's idea of perfection. In the second part, a close reading of al-Fārābī's al-Ibāna ʿan ġarażi Arisṭuṭālīs fī kitābi mā baʿda al-ṭabīʿa is made and al-Fārābī's approach to the theoretical aspect of theology within the theory of milla is analyzed. Since al-Fārābī's theories of (...) perfection and meaning are the theories that affect a major part of his philosophy, the article shows the effects of these two theories on al-Fārābī's analysis of metaphysics without examining their general position in al-Fārābī's philosophy. In this framework, the article examines the idea that al-Fārābī's metaphysics should be evaluated in view of the background of his theories of perfection and meaning, based on the secondary literature on the subject. As evidence for this claim, al-Fārābī's description of the philosophical sciences as the steps of intellectual perfection is shown in the article. The article emphasizes that al-Fārābī's evaluations of the relationship between kalām and metaphysics are based on the theory of perfection. A close reading of the relevant passages in Taḥṣīl al-saʿāda, Treatise on Intellect (Risāla fi-l ‘aql), and Kitāb al-Ḥurūf shows how al-Fārābī's theories of perfection and meaning form the background of his analysis of metaphysics through the philosopher's arguments. On the other hand, the article shows how al-Ibāna might be understood within al-Fārābī's metaphysical construct by showing the extensions of the theories of perfection and meaning in this work. For al-Fārābī, metaphysics, which constitutes the last step of intellectual perfection, is also the highest science. This process is indicated by the concept “al-naẓar al-ilāhī” (divine thinking/thought). In this framework, kalām cannot gain the title of metaphysics because it is a science that does not emerge in the course of intellectual perfection. In this article, this approach is justified by considering the relevant passages in al-Ibāna. Al-Fārābī's distinction between the science of divine oneness (tawḥīd) and metaphysics in this work has been a subject of debate among scholars. Regarding what al-Fārābī meant by the definition of universal knowledge, the article emphasizes that the relationship of metaphysics with the theories of perfection and meaning influenced al-Fārābī's approach to universal knowledge. In the last part of the article, al-Fārābī’s theory of milla is considered in the context of the theory of meaning. For this aim, the article suggests that al-Fārābī’s idea of milla as a copy or similitude of philosophy makes the science of kalām an intermediate science that acts between the verbal and the philosophical areas of meaning. (shrink)

In this study, the classification of Zaydī fuqahā’ that emerged in the mutaaḫḫirūn period of Zaydī fiqh and related terms are examined. The book named Bulūgh al-arab wa-kunūz al-dhahab fī-maʿrifat al-madhhab, which has great importance among the studies aiming to present the Zaydī fiqh accumulation as a uniform doctrinal structure was taken as a basis in the processing of the subject. After an introduction in which Zaydī fiqh studies are evaluated in their relationship with the subject, the issue is handled (...) under three main headings. In the first title, the author and his work are introduced, and in the second and third titles, the methods and terms used in the classification of the Zaydī fukahâ are examined. The author of the work is ʿAlī b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Shaharī (d. 1190/1776) who lived during the period of the Qāsimī dynasty (al-dawla al-Qāsimiyya) in Yemen. The most important feature of the work, which was prepared using many sources that were attributed importance among the Zaydī literature, is that it was the most comprehensive of all that had written on madhhab doctrine until then. The first part of the work explains that the right madhhab to be followed is Zaydiyya. In the second part, the classes of the Zaydī fuqahā’, which is the subject of our study, are explained. The fuqahā’ classes are primarily divided into two parts: al-salaf al-ṣāliḥīn and al-ḫalaf al-ṣāliḥīn. The first dates back to the beginning of the 3rd/10th century. This class is divided into two parts, as al-sābiqūn and al-mutaaḫḫirūn. The sābiqūn starts with ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, his two sons al-Ḥasan and Ḥusayn and ends with the sons of twelve imams who are their descendants. Zayd b. ʿAlī (d. 122/740) is one of the twelve imams. The most important of the faqīhs in the part of mutaaḫḫirūn, which started with al-Qāsim b. Ibrāhīm al-Rassī (d. 246/860), are the six imams called ahl-al-nuṣūṣ or aʾimma al-nuṣūṣ. The reason why they are named as such is that their words were taken as a basis in determining the views of the sect on the field of uṣūl and furūʿ l-fiqh. al-Qāsim al-Rassī is at a point where all the knowledge of the Prophet's family and the principles agreed upon by sābiqūn, reach him through many channels. al-Hādī Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn (d. 298/911), grandson of al-Qāsim, is the most important imam in terms of his position in the madhhab. The ḫalaf al-ṣāliḥīn is also divided into two parts as ahl l-taḥṣīl and ahl l-naẓar. The first part also referred to as muḥaṣṣilūn or aʾimma al-taḥṣīl, has no subcategories. The second part is divided into two sub-sections as ahl l-taqrīr and mudhākirūn. The muḥaṣṣilūn class starts with those who catch up with the last class of ahl al-nuṣūṣ and ends with ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥamza (d. 614/1217), one of the three important imams. Two other important imams of muḥaṣṣilūn are Aḥmad b. al-Huṣayn (d. 411/1020) and his brother Yahyā b. al-Husayn (d. 424/1032). It is the fiqh activity of the jurists of this class, called taḥṣīl l-madhhab, that brought Zaydī fiqh, which was fiqh of imams (madhāhib l-aʾimma) in its first period, into a single madhhab and to its classical form in the last period. Mudhākirūn jurists lived at the same time as the ahl-t-taqrīr. This period is about 700 years from the beginning of the 6th/12th century, which is the last century of the muḥaṣṣilūn class, to the end of the 12th/18th century, when Shaharī lived. The roles of the ahl al-taqrīr in the madhhab mostly consist of reviewing the works of the ahl-l tahṣīl, approving the correct ones, and correcting the wrong ones. That's why they are so named. The author of Kitāb l-Azhār, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā l-Murtaḍā (d. 840/1437), is one of the prominent jurists among the ahl l-taqrīr. The majority of Zaydi fuqahā’ belong to the muẕākirūn class. These are the lowest class of the ahl-al-naẓar. As an important result reached in the study, it is possible to express the following: There is a difference between some of the knowledge and opinions in modern Zaydī studies, which include the same subject as Shaharī's work, in terms of the classification of Zaydī fuqahā’ and the terms used. Therefore, the findings and conclusions based on this work should be confirmed by new studies on other Zaydī classics, and existing opinions on Zaydī jurisprudence should be reviewed. (shrink)