The Muʿtazilī theologians, particularly the later Imāmī ones, developed numerous interesting arguments against divine command theory. The arguments, however, have not received the attention they deserve. Some of the arguments have been discussed in passing, and some have not been discussed at all. In this article, I aim to present and analyse the arguments. To that end, I first distinguish between different semantic, ontological, epistemological, and theological theses that were often conflated in the debate, and examine the logical relation among (...) them. Then I go over the Muʿtazila's arguments determining, among other things, which of the theses was targeted by each argument. In presenting the arguments, I focus mainly on the late kalām period, the period falling roughly between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries of the common era, as the arguments were at their most sophisticated level by this time. (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)

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)

One of the prevalent inference methods the mutakallimūn uses is qiyās al-ghaib ‘ala al-shahid (analogy from the visible world to the invisible world). Mu‘tazila, who accepts this method as an absolute criterion in the divine attributes, rejects the possibility of difference between shahid and ghaib about the reality of attributes. By rejecting the concept of kalām nafsī adopted by Ahl al-Sunnah, they mention the divine speech in the category of actual attributes and claim that kalāmullāh (God’s speech), like human speech, (...) is an accident consisting of words and sounds. Mu‘tazila, who defines mutakallim as the agent of kalām, claims that God is also the agent of the word. In this regard, Mu‘tazila, who defends the origin of the kalāmullāh and the createdness of the Qur’ān, focuses on the explanation of the nature of the kalām at the beginning of these theological subjects. As an extension of the issue of whether the ḥikāyah and maḥkī are the same or not, which is the subject of discussion in the context of the possibility of creating something similar to the Qur’ān, Mu‘tazila, who disagree on whether kalām (word) is a kind of sound (ṣawt) or not, examine the problem of the nature of the word by expanding it to include sounds. Although they agree that sounds are accidents created by humans through tawlīd, they propound different theories about the physical formation of sound and kalām. These theories are differentiated according to discussions about the essential factors for the formation of sounds. Some scholars claim that i‘timād generates sounds, and the substrate (maḥall) is enough to form the sounds. In contrast, others claim the necessity of a specific structure (binya), movement (ḥaraka), and air added to the substrate. In this regard, this study will deal with the effect of these factors mentioned above to the formation of the sounds and the physical examples which every group mentioned to prove its opinions rightfulness. The most detailed explanations about this topic are seen in the works of Baṣrian Mu‘tazila. Therefore, this study will examine the opinions about the production of sounds, which argued around metaphysical issues in the context of the createdness of the Qur’ān and the attribute of kalām, which are submitted by Abū ‘Alī al-Jubbā'ī (d. 303/916), Abū Hāshim al-Jubbā'ī (d. 321/933), and their followers Qāḍī ‘Abd al-Jabbār (d. 415/1025), Abū Rashīd al-Nīsābūrī (d. first half of the 5./11. century), and Ibn Mattawayh (d. first half of the 5./11. century), the representatives of Baṣrian Mu‘tazila, who adopt atomic universe understanding. The study aimed to form an opinion about the theologians’ way of discussing a particular physical phenomenon to constitute a basis for solving metaphysical problems. To clarify the problem, first, it will deal with the essence of sounds in the Baṣrian Mu‘tazilites tradition, and then it will tackle the discussions about the formation of the sounds. (shrink)

This article descriptively discusses the divine purpose in the creation of the world and especially the human being, and the value analysis of the concepts, expressing this purpose in the light of the views of Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār (d. 415/1024), who was from the Basra School, and systemized the five doctrinal principles of the Mu'tazila. Accordingly, it answers the question why God created the human on the basis of the purpose/aim in divine actions and examines the qualitative value of the (...) non-compulsory cause (dā’ī) that motivates God to create. In addition, the article shows that 'beneficence', the central concept in the purpose of the creation, is formulized as ‘tafaḍḍul’ (disinterested or gratuitous beneficence) with the title of wisdom before the creation and as ‘thawāb’ (reward) and ‘iwaḍ (compensation) with the title of wājib (necessary or obligatory) in the resurrection. It also emphasizes that ‘iqāb (punishment) is not a value for the beginning of creation, and therefore it is 'legal good' required by the resurrection. It also touches on that the concepts, expressing all this purposefulness are based on the values of 'benefit and good' (maṣlaḥa and ḥusn). This article concludes that while the main purpose of the beginning of creation is beneficence and its actual value is tafaḍḍul; the main purpose of re-creation is benefit and good, and the actual value is wājib. (shrink)

We can find the origins of the notion of void in the Kalām tradition’s recognition of atomism. However, the main debates on the subject appeared after the Greek philosophical heritage transitioned to the Islamic world in the 3 rd century of Hijra. The literature of Kalām, just as in the metaphysical tradition, has two main types for this void being discussed. The first one is the external void (extracosmic) in which the cosmos floats. In the sources of Kalām, the question (...) of whether such a type of void exists is debated around the questions of whether anyone who might look beyond the cosmos can see anything or whether someone who stretches their hand outside the cosmos can move it. The second type of void, which occupies more of the mutakallimūn (Muslim theologians) agenda, is the internal void (intercosmic), assumed to be within the cosmos and between the body-forming atoms. This kind of void is discussed around the question of “Whether separating the two atoms is possible so that a third one can be inserted between them?” An ongoing discussion on the intercosmic void is found between the Baṣran and Baghdād Schools of Mu’tazila. Ibn Mattawayh and al-Nīsābūrī narrated the evidence presented in these discussions in their original form. The current essay discusses the debates between the two Schools and assesses the theoretical and experimental arguments both Schools present to justify their viewpoints, considering their philosophical origins. (shrink)

The paper discusses al-Kindī's response to doctrines held by contemporary theologians of the Mu‘tazilite school: divine attributes, creation, and freedom. In the first section it is argued that, despite his broadly negative theology, al-Kindī recognizes a special kind of “essential” positive attribute belonging to God. The second section argues that al-Kindī agreed with the Mu‘tazila in holding that something may not yet exist but still be an object of God's knowledge and power. Also it presents a new parallel between al-Kindī (...) and John Philoponus. The third section gives an interpretation of al-Kindī as a compatibilist, in other words as holding that humans may be free even though their actions are necessitated. In all three cases, it is argued, al-Kindī is close to the Mu‘tazilite point of view, though he departs from them in the arguments he gives for that point of view. (shrink)

The theory of the tab' in the physics of Mu 'tazila has a distinct place. It is necessary to distinguish the scholars from the atheist naturalists who adopt the idea of nature. Tab ' theory is a problem with the essence of the entity. This theory is related to the structure of living and inanimate beings. When it comes to the habit and tempering of man, we use the word tab'; it is used the term of nature when it comes (...) to the structure of objects. In particular, the Basra School of Muʿtazila has given the emphasis on tab' theory emphasizing the freedom of man. They have implemented the tab ' theory to a number of topics related to knowledge, action, metaphysical, moral and Spiritual life. The nature, which is defended by Muʻtezile, is a force that Allah places in the nature of man and body. Nature, which is in the essence of both living and inanimate substances, is not independent of Allah. It has caused some problems defending some scholars, such as Muammer and Câhız from Basra School of Muʿtazila the idea of compulsory natural causality in the interpretation of some metaphysical subjects. In this regard, The scholars of Muʿtazila such as Nazzâm and Kâdî Abdülcebbâr, have acted more carefully. While Nazzâm does not see the theory of natural nature independently of divine power, he prefers to use the word "itimat" instead of the tab ' theory ', which he sees as part of pagan culture. (shrink)

This article is focused on the theory of nature (ṭabʽ) advocated by some of the early Muʽtazilī scholars such as Muʻammar b. ʽAbbād al-Sulamī (d. 215/830), Abū Isḥāq al-Naẓẓām (d. 231/845), Abū ʽUthmān al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 255/869) and Abū al-Qāsim al-Kaʽbī (d. 319/931) and its consequences about causality and miracle. The supporters of the ṭabʽ theory argue that Allah creates all beings with innate and permanent natures and these natures determine all movements and events in universe, and that necessary causal relationships (...) based on it prevail in the universe. But this understanding was criticized and rejected by the majority of Muslim theologians. The focal point of the criticism is God’s agency and His relationship with the universe. The acceptance of such necessary causality in the universe would make it impossible for God to intervene in nature, that is to create a miracle. So, miracles will be the work of the place where it occurs like all other acts when the concept of nature is accepted. In this case, it will not be possible to prove the omnipotence of God and belief in prophethood, which forms the basis of two principles of Islamic belief. This study deals with the dimensions of compulsory causality in the thought of naturalist Muslim theologians by addressing two questions: how the issue of miracle is grounded, and whether a divine intervention in nature of entities is possible. (shrink)

İnsanın özgür iradesinin ispatı problemine yönelik çözüm denemelerinden biri Tanrı’nın kendisini gönüllü olarak sınırlaması anlamına gelen ilahi kendini sınırlama (divine self-limitation) yaklaşımıdır. Yahudi ve Hıristiyan teolojilerinde görülen bu perspektifle modern dönemde Süreç ve Kuantum felsefelerinde karşılaşılır. Bu çalışmada ilgili düşünce biçimi, Mu‘tezilî bilincin düşünce biçimiyle kıyaslanmıştır. Öncelikle Tanrı’nın kendini sınırlamasının imkânı, sınır teorisi varsayımıyla sorgulanmıştır. Buna göre ‘sınır’ evrene ve insana ‘yasa’ olarak içkindir. Evren de insan da fiziksel, kimyasal, biyolojik vd. yasalara/sınırlara tâbidir. Bu yasaların yaratıcısı olarak Tanrı da sorumluluğun (...) kaynağı akıl da insanı sınırlar ve sınır demek kavram, anlam, amaç, sistem ve düzen/kozmos demektir. Bu düzenin toplumsal hali ise zaman ve mekân ile sınırlı insanın teklif sahibi kılınarak eylemlerinin de sınırlandırılmasıdır. Peki, akla sınırlama fonksiyonu veren Tanrı’nın da kendi iradesini, ilmindeki tasarımının bir sonucu olarak sınırladığı varsayılabilir mi? Yahudi teolojisinde bu sınırlama, onların inançlarıyla ilişkili yaşadıkları ıstıraplara karşı Tanrı’nın müdahale etmemesinin bir nedeni olarak görülmekle beraber sınırlı âlemlerin var olabilmesi için Tanrı’nın sonsuz ışığını daraltması ve geri çekilmesi olarak da anlaşılmıştır. Hıristiyan teolojisinde ise sonsuzluğun evreni yaratmasının keyfiyeti, Tanrı’nın Mesih ile enkarnasyonu, kötülük ve özgür irade problemlerini çözmek için bu teoriye başvurulmuştur. Tanrı’nın, vahiy aracılığıyla bildirdiği teklif, aynı zamanda insana akıllı, sorumlu, dolayısıyla özgür olduğunu da hatırlatmaktadır. Muhammed İkbal (öl. 1928) bu özgürlüğün insana ilahi kendini sınırlama teorisiyle verilebileceği kanaatindedir. Bu görüşle Mu‘tezilî bilincin Tanrı tasavvurunda sezilen sınırın birlikte düşünülmesi mümkün müdür? Zira tekliften doğan özgürlüğün gereği, Mu‘tezile’ye Tanrı’nın iradesinin ezeli olmadığını, tercihlerinin yaratıcısının insanın kendisi olduğunu düşündürmüştür. Yine tanrısal adaletin bir gereği olarak, insana kudretin fiilden önce verilmesi, nübüvvet ile va‘d ve vaidin gerçekleşmesi gibi teklife dair meseleler Tanrı hakkında zorunlu kabul edilmiştir. Bu bilinçte aklın sınırlama fonksiyonu Tanrı’ya taşınmış görünür. Tanrı insanın eylemlerinde etkin değildir, kötülüğü de yaratmaz. Hatta bazı isimlere göre kötülüğe güç dahi yetiremez. Tanrı’nın malumatının ve makduratının da bir sınırı vardır. Mu‘tezile’deki bu sınırlı Tanrı tasavvuru, söz konusu ‘özgür irade’ olduğunda ilgili teoriyle yeniden ifade edilirse, adil ve hakim olan Tanrı’nın, ilmindeki bilinçli/akıl sahibi/sorumlu/özgür insan tasarımının gerektirmesiyle gönüllü olarak kendi özgürlüğünü sınırladığı söylenebilecektir. Bu söylem, varoluşsal amaçlılık anlamında insanın neden özgür olduğunun değil, Tanrı’nın vahyettiğine inanılan bir evrende nasıl özgür olabildiğinin muhtemel cevaplarından biridir. (shrink)

INTRODUCTION By way of introduction I wish to indicate briefly something of the scope and aim of this study and to make a few remarks on the perspective ...

Isma‘īl b. ‘Ali, who is referred to as Abū Sa‘d as-Sammān, was born in Ray, Iran, between 981 and 983 and he devoted most of his life to educational travels, especially for hadith and he returned to his city of birth towards the end of his life and died there in 1053. Isma‘īl b. ‘Ali is well-known with the name of as- Sammān, meaning butter trader, because of he was grew up in a family of butter traders. The movables and (...) real estates in his inheretence show that he belongs to a wealthy family. As-Sammān, who seems to be in the twelfth generation of Muʻtazilite tradition, approve the thoughts of Abū Hāshim al-Jubbā’ī (ö. 321/933) and Abu'l-Ḥusayn al-Baṣrī (ö. 436/1044) and he was accepted as the leader of the Muʻtazila in his own period. He had education from scholars such as Abū Tāhir al-Muḫallis, Ibn Abū Nasr at-Tamīmī and Abkasī (ö. 405/1014-15) in the discipline of hadith. As-Sammān, was an authoritative figure both in the fiqh of Hanafi and disagreements between thoughts of Hanafism and Shafi'ism as well as in the fiqh of Zaydism. In addition, he educated himself in the topic of Qur’anic recitation, scholars of narrators, genealogy, law of inheritence and arithmetic. Among the works of as-Sammān, who are stated as many, only one record seem to be extant until today: “Kitāb al-Muvāfaqa bayn ahl al-bayt wa's-sahāba wa mā ravāhu kullu farīqin fī haqq al-āḫar”, which was written to point out the fondness and respect between the first three caliphs and ‘Ali. Thus, it is not possible for us to have a detailed knowledge about his thoughts in kalam and fiqh. However, Ibn al-‘Adīm (ö. 660/1262) gives us some ideas about thoughts of al-Sammān through his will narrates in his “Bughyat aṭ-Ṭalab fī tārīḫi Ḥalab”. As-Sammān states that his thoughts of kalam and fiqh are formed on the school of Ahl al-‘adl wa't-tawḥīd, in particular parallel with Muʻtazila-Zaydiyya and he designed his will, which he gave about two years before his death, according to the Muʻtazilite theological paradigm. In this context, according to as-Sammān, Allah is one and eternal. Attributes of Allah such as Power, Knowledge, Life, Hearing, Sight and Wealth are by virtue of His essence. Allah does not resemble anything, nor a body or an accident. All actions of Allah are good, and He never do evil. Allah does not wish for a sin nor have any consent to sin. Allah does not test people with what they cannot afford. Allah does not oppress people nor punish anyone with no justice. Allah is faithful to his promise that he will reward people who are good and will punish people who do evil. Voluntarily actions are created by people themselves. Revelation regarding the doomsday and the hereafter are true. Also, worships performed by the living on behalf of the dead such as hajj, ‘umrah, charity, reciting the the Qur'an and visiting the graves of them are useful for the dead. Repentance which is the forgiveness of sins is the decisiveness of not to commit it again with regret. As-Sammān has been criticized because of his Muʻtazilite thoughts, but his credibility, his intellectual effort and his abilities have been appreciated even by his opponents. The combative and dynamic nature of his life was reflected in his will are analysed in this work and it is concluded that he expressed his thoughts on belief and deeds in his will as a true Mu‘tazilite manifesto. (shrink)

This book examines the modern Arab rediscovery of the Mu tazila through a critical assessment of the concept of Neo-Mu tazilism" and by concentrating on the various intentions and contexts of the use of Mu tazilite ideas.The main part of ...

A study of the opinions of a prominent tenth-century scholar pertaining to different aspects of pain, including his theological explanation of the existence of human suffering as well as a historical survey of his Bahšamiyya Mu‘tazila school.

One of the issues of discussion between Ahl al-Sunnah and the Mu‛tazila, who differ in many issues, is the relationship between divine command and divine will. Among those who express their opinion on is the Ash‛arī theologian Salmān al-Nīsābūrī. The author, who first cites his sect’s approach on this issue and then explains that Mu‛tazila’s contrary view, adopted the view that the belief, which follows as worship and good deeds commanded by Allah will be the same from his servants. In (...) this matter he basically elaborates three arguments the Mu‛tazila. He states that they build the first of these proofs on the impossibility of the commandment and the will being in a separate direction, and secondly on the fact that the desire for evil is bad. Finally, he adds that they bring evidence from the verses which translates as Allah desires the good of his servants and doesn’t intend his evil deeds. Nīsābūrī, doesn’t pass on these Mu‛tazilite proofs with an immediate answer, but also puts on his agenda possible other objections to those answers that he is giving. He makes the debate very comprehensive, especially on the first evidence he attributes to them. In this sense, he tries to refute the Mu‛tazila argument that the ruler cannot have a will contrary to what he ordered, based on some other rulers who would not want their orders to be fulfilled. Nīsābūrī, who cites some other objections on this issue, states that while there are claims regarding the necessity of order-will harmony, it isn’t consistent that these claimants develop their objections to the examples that show the opposite of their views. In other words, he says that these regarding cases invalidate Mu‛tazila’s claim of necessity. Nīsābūrī includes abrogation in the later stages of the debate and argues that abrogation, which means the abolition of a decree, hits a blow to their understanding of the necessity of order-will. The author also takes objections to his agenda and responds to them. He also examines Mu‛tazila’s approach on the content that if the will is contrary to the order, the rebel and the submissive will be confused, so they must be compatible. Since this claim confirms the meaning that the unbelievers obey Allah’s will with their blasphemy, he makes explanations that obedience will be achieved by order, not by will. On the other hand, the author tries to bind his interlocutors by emphasizing that there’s no room for discussion when it is seen at the relevant verses and seen that Allah doesn’t wish (some) unbelievers to believe. Nīsābūrī, also examines the argument made by Mu‛tazila as to the necessity of conformity between divine command and divine will, that wishing for evil is also evil. Nīsābūrī, who makes relatively more concise explanations on this subject, pointing to the source of this evidence and stating that it is reached from the realm of the perceptible (qiyas bi’l-shāhid). Then, he makes some explanations that the visible realm and the invisible realm cannot be evaluated in the same way and draws attention to the fact that Allah’s being unwise isn’t inferred from the worldly affairs that are happening against Muslims. Nīsābūrī also deals with Mu‛tazila’s evidence for the harmony of divine will and divine order through verses stating that Allah wouldn’t wish his servants to harm. At this stage, he makes comments that the relevant verses are suitable to be evaluated in another way. For this, sometimes makes linguistic explanations, sometimes refers to the content of other verses, and sometimes points to the meaning of the verse used as the evidence. In all of them, he ultimately tries to show that the verses raised by Mu‛tazila do not support their claim. While the author refutes those evidences, he also points out the problems that may arise if the view defended by Mu‛tazila would accepted. In this sense, Nīsābūrī points out that this view will also mean the occurrence of deeds that Allah does not want, and this would bring harm to the divine judgement. As a result, Nīsābūrī underlines that at least Allah’s order towards His servants, whom He knows won’t believe, isn’t in the same direction. (shrink)

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)

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)

With this study, it is aimed to clarify some ambiguities about the origin of the manuscripts that the edition of Kitāb al-Tahrīsh and Kitāb al-Maqālāt, which we published recently, rest on. Those editions which we expect to open new horizons in terms of the history of Islamic theology and hadith criticism, have reached today via Yemeni libraries, like other Muʿtazila cultural heritage items. Due to the political instability caused by the long-term civil wars in the country, a detailed inventory (...) of private or official libraries in Yemen, which has rich collections of manuscripts on Islamic culture, has not been made until now. Although some of these manuscripts were collected in the Sanaa Library (Maktabat al-Awqāf), most of them are still preserved in mosques’ libraries or private collections under inappropriate conditions. Since there are no reliable records or indexes of these manuscripts, it is not possible to give reliable information about the origin of each item especially the status of those found in private collections or family libraries as called Buyūt alʿilm. Today, most of the Yemeni manuscripts found in the libraries of Europe, America and Islamic countries have been purchased by manuscript collectors, merchants, foreign researchers, or other illegal ways. The ones that have been published so far are either based on these manuscripts or similarly on copies from Yemen. This ambiguity about the origin of the manuscripts can sometimes lead to unjust accusations that target the editors of them, as if they used illegal copies on purpose. In this article, we tried to clarify the ambiguities and controversial points related to those manuscripts which our edition is based on by giving information about the obtaining manuscripts and edition processes. (shrink)

Muʻtazilite thinkers put forward the first systematic ideas for the relationship of essence and attributes, one of the most fundamental and complicated issues of Islamic theology, and comprehensive explanations to the question of God’s names. Although almost all the thinkers agreed on uṣūl al-khamsa, they differed in their approach to the principle of unity (tawḥīd). ‘Abbād b. Sulaymān, who lived in the period when these approaches emerged, is a scholar who reveals his distinctive view of God’s names and attributes in (...) which heslightly differs from his contemporaries such as Abu al-Hudhayl al-‘Allāf, Mu‘ammar b. ‘Abbād al-Sulamī and Ibrāhīm b. Sayyār al-Naẓẓām from the Basran Muʻtazila, by his extreme opinions on the Muʻtazilite principle of tawḥīd. He is one of thefour principle thinkers who presented original opinions in the early Basran Muʻtazila. Also he is the only known student of Hishâm al-Fuwaṭī and constitutes the last major circle of this tradition of knowledge that ended after him. This article aims to reveal the relationship between essence and attributes, the names and attributes of God in a holistic and systematic way in the thought of ‘Abbād b. Sulaymān. Unfortunately, his works have not survived to the present day and has not received the attention he deserves. Since his views were scattered in the classic books, our study was focused primarily on these classical sources. The modern literature was not ignored, either. The relevant records, analysis and criticism were re-contextualized. According to ‘Abbād b. Sulaymān, the view that “Allah is a thing” is the same with the view that “Allah is other (ghayr)”, he draws attention to a definite distinction between Allah and human beings. In his thought about the relationship between Allah and space, he rejects the idea that God could be related to space or anything spatial in order to refrain from an anthropomorphic conception of God. In the case of visibility (ru’ya) of Allah, he radically opposes the idea of “seeing Allah with the heart,” which was adopted by the majority of the Muʻtazila. He tries to solve the issue in his own terms by avoiding the terms essence (dhāt) and nafs in the relationship between God’s essence and His attributes. He reveals a unique classification of names and thus adopts the method of analogy. He does not accept essential attributes as the majority of the Mu’tazila did. On the other hand, he tacitly accepts that Allah’s names have their own meanings in a way that they are not merely words (aqvāl). By a true comparison or perfect analogy (fī ḥaqīqati’l-qıyās), while he rejects that God is ālim, qadīr etc., he tries to ground that human beings is ālim, qadīr etc. He does not admit that God is eternally samʻi and baṣīr. Without interpreting samʻi as His knowledge or baṣīr as His power, he accepts that each name has a distinctive functionality. He rejects the assumption that God knows conditionally. Regarding the issue of whether living beings are in the knowledge of Allah before they exist, it makes a dual distinction: “a direction that can be subject to the eternal knowledge” and “the direction in which it actually came to existence”. Because of his view of non-existent and creatures, Ibn al-Rāwandī and modern resources refer the view of the eternity of objects to him. However, when the relevant records are examined, it is seen that this claim is not valid. According to ‘Abbād, Allah is capable of creating possible things that he knows, although He does not create impossible things that he knows, even though He is capable of creating them potentially (bi-al-quwwa). Allah has not created evil, neither literally nor figuratively; so much so that He created only man, not faith and unbelief. It is not possible to talk about any good that he did not create. He defends the createdness of the Qur’an (Khalq al-Qur’ān) by saying that the Qur’ān was created of accidents. About God’s names, he states that God has the names indicating His relationship to the universe. He does not accept that in eternity He is a willing agent, creator etc. However, he also does not accept the otherwise. He emphasizes that creation is reserved only for Allah. On the other hand, according to him, Allah creates without secondary causes and thus does not create things for a specific purpose. Regarding the revealed attributes (or informative attributes, khabarī), he recites these expressions only when reading of the Quran.He states that these expressions should not be used for Allah under any circumstances. He avoids naming Allah as wakīl, kafīl, laṭīf, kā’in, fard and mutakallim as he says that the name wāḥid should be used only for praising Him. (shrink)

The problem of human freedom have been addressed by al-Mutakallimūn (Islamic theologians) in the context of human acts and discussed from the point of view its relation with the will and other elements. At this point, whether the human has will and power in his own act, the limits of his will and power, the role of human in the act and his responsibilities have prompted to different debates. The theory of tawlīd put forward by Mu‘tazila is very crucial in (...) terms of determining the scope and limits of the freedom of human in acts. Mu‘tazila’s tawlīd theory defenses based on two important reasons. The first is to present the nature and limits of the acts that man did them outside himself. The other is to explain the relationship of human with such acts with regards to moral responsibility. Because both issues are very important in the principle of justice of Mu‘tazila. The effort to put the cause-effect relationship of human with his acts in terms of tawhīd and justice on the rational and moral ground is the reason for emergence of the theory. In this respect, the purpose of this theory which enables establishing a causality relationship between the human act and nature is aimed at the justification of freedom and responsibility between agent (fā‘il) and act.In this study, firstly, the definition of the concept of tawlīd and its meaning area have been presented and tackled the discussions about the agent of indirect acts. And then it has been discoursed upon the criticisms of Ahl al-Sunna about the subject of tawlīd. The subject has been outlined in the context of the intellectual discussion between Ahl al-Sunna and Mu‘tazila which constitute the dominant part of theological dispute tradition. In this respect, the main purpose of the study is to reveal how the limits of indirect actions belonging to human by force of freedom and moral responsibility are drawn and understood.Although they did not have a uniform thought about the topic, Mu‘tazila theologians who accepted semi-determinism in the theory of tawlīd acknowledged the existence of natures in the substances. Those who admitted the reason as a means of the act did not approve this. By accepting the continuity of the accidents in the acts, they twisted together the voluntary acts and the natural acts, and accepted that directly acts were realized through the human will and the other according to the principle of necessity. According to Mu‘tazila, causes are only means. Hence, the act emerging as a result of the means is the act of the agent who used this means to reach the result, not the means. Therefore, man is the agent of engendered acts and responsible for all kinds of acts that arise as a reflection of the will and their consequences. While Ahl al-Sunna has directly associated the action of man and all its consequences with the power of Allah, Mu‘tazila has based these actions on the power of man, which Allah has created in man and has been the source of the acts. Contrary to Mu‘tazila, the continuance of power which are not a constant accident is not possible for a second act from the point of Ahl al-Sunna since they have accepted the idea that the accidents will not be continuous. In this respect, according to Ahl al-Sunna, there is no compulsory relationship between the agent that caused the formation of the acts and the result supervening from them. They did not accept the idea of tawlīd, which its meaning is that accident gives birth to accident, because it would oblige the relationship between cause and effect. Because this relationship, which Mu‘tazila gives the name of tawlīd in human acts, is made up for that Allah has created His laws right after the orientation of human to the cause. In this respect, Ahl al-Sunna thinkers rejected tawlīd because it would mean attributing an act to an inanimate being and require a mandatory relationship between cause and effect in the functioning of the universe. Although the result does not occur with his own act when the person applies to the cause, he is responsible for his act because it is related to the person who did it. Māturīdī tradition did not accept the acts that emerged as a result of tawlīd as the production of man, but they tried to establish a balance by holding the person responsible because he is the reason for the outcome that emerged. As for the Ash‘arites, they avoided giving a real effect of the will and power to the causes by considering that created will and power is only a locus in the emergence of the act. The person has no effect on his act except for directing his will to that act and his behavior which will make the person responsible is based on this will. (shrink)

Sunnah is considered the second of the main sources of Islam. The reports, which are considered the carrier of the sunnah, have been conveyed by narrators at different levels. The reasons for the difference between the conveying narration levels were handled mainly as a subject of research and discussion by theologians and Muʿtazila scholars as well. One of these subjects is the factors affecting the conveying of the narration and what is preventing it from being conveyed. Qāḍī Abd Al-Jābbār (...) (d. 415/1025) is one of the scholars who has a different account on this subject. He developed a philosophical perspective on the Islamic narrative case, acting in line with the rationalist sectarian approach. Accordingly, the frequency of conveying narration, whether the report is religious, its effect on the interlocutor, it's becoming ordinary. Therefore, ın this study, the factors which affect conveying of the khabar are emphasized in line with the opinions of Qāḍī Abd Al-Jābbār. In other words, the factors that ensure that a report is voiced and repeated by the members of the society and the reasons that prevent the transfer of a word are emphasized. Qāḍī Abd Al-Jābbār dealt with the factors affecting the conveying or repetition of khabar with the social, psychological and belief aspects of human and tried to exemplify. These factors have a two-way effect. Some of factors require the conveying of the khabar, while others are considered to prevent and weaken it. Although these factors are related to the psychological aspect of the person in terms of source, they differ from the process of action. The first of these factors that require the conveying of the khabar was named by Qāḍī Abd Al-Jābbār as الداعي. The second one is the factors that prevent the communication of the khabar, and it was named as الصوارف. The “dāʿi” for doing or not taking an action can be more than one and also different in strength. The action of the person towards the conveying of the khabar is directly proportional to the force of the “dāʿi”. Strong actions motivate the person to perform it more, whereas the weakest influence lead less people to perform the action. Therefore, two khabar with the same “dāʿi” should be conveyed at the same rate. Because the main factor is named “dāʿi” that provides their conveying has the same force. Accordingly, it is not correct whether one of the two khabar items that share the same situation and are in the same time period is not posted and the other is. In other words, the transfer of something is devāʿī / الدواعي and in accordance with the strength of the need within the framework of the custom / العادة law. The conveying of the khabar status depends on the tendency to post it or the issues that prevent it. Among these factors, the issues that enable the conveying of the khabar and motivate people in this regard are also expressed in terms of issues and elements that prevent people from conveying. These are closely related to the psychological situation of the person who conveyed the khabar, the ordinariness of the khabar, the need for the khabar, the distance to the time of the khabar, the religious quality of the khabar and whether there is a fear situation surrounding the conveying. According to this, if there is a “dāʿi / motive” and " devāī / motives" related to the khabar, it is conveyed but if there is any "sārif/ inhibitor" about it, it is not conveyed. The “dā’i / motive” and "sārif/ inhibitor" of the khabar do not have the same strength. Accordingly, to obtain neccecity in knowledge, the correctnes of khabar depends on the “dāʿi” in the khabar. Therefore, since the “dāʿi” owned by the “khabar from single persons / ahad khaber” are weaker than the “dāʿi” owned by the mutawatir khabar. Therefore, it cannot be expected to be transmitted at the same level. (shrink)

The subject of human acts has been one of the controversial topics of kalām since the first centuries of Islam. A lot of concerning human acts –from divine attributes to divine decree and destiny, from the issue of good and evil (ḥusn and Qubḥ) to the boundaries of the reasoning, from the accountability with impossible things to the rational accountability, from the topics of substance and accident to causality- has been said and written in the history of Islamic tought. In (...) this study, the subject was discussed especially within the scope of man’s on his own action in connection with the divine knowledge, will, and power. On this issue, the Muʻtazila argues that human beings are independent in doing their good and evil acts with the power that God has given to them because of His will and wisdom, and that the evil actions that they have done cannot be associated with the divine attributes in any way. Sunnī theologians assert that God creates human actions through man’s orginated power. They also arguethat evil acts are not independent of the Divine Creation although human beings are the reason of evil in terms of thier acquisition (kasb) and will (irāda). Nevertheless, the representetives of the Sunnī kalām (Asharites and Māturīdis) differ on their account of acquisition, which expresses man’s agency in his acts. In contrary to the Mātūrīdiya, the Ashʻariya holds that acquisition is a created act of God. On the other hand, the Mashshai (peripatetic) philosophers, who are opposed by teologians on some issues such as divine attributes and the working of activity/acts in nature, consider human’s actions part of the eternal chain of cause-effect that emanate (al fayḍ) from the First Principle. However, according to them, every link of this chain is formed by the divine providence (al-ināyah). They also attribute morally evil acts not to the First Principle which is complete (tām) and full good (hayr), but to agents in the cause-effect chain. In summary, according to both teologians and philosophers, the ultimate source of human acts is the divine will and power. The acts that are morally or religiously evil, are not independent of man’s will. Thus, human beings are accountable for their actions. Philosophers and teologians, who agree on these issues, have explained their views and build their opinions on different concepts and principles. They have shown a very different attitude in their discourse and secondary principles, while all of them basically try to express the same idea. This difference has revealed within the frame of the following questions: Is man’s accountability for his actions because of his created power or will? Can evil actions, which are willed by human beings and therefore created by God, attributed to Him? Does the fact that the world emanates from God, the First Principle, due to His knowledge and essence, necessitate Him to be a willless and ineffective agent, and therefore to be a cause cause that has no effect on man's actions?Although teologians and philosophers have put forward different views in the context of the answers to these questions, they agree on the issues we have mentioned above. As this study shows, there is actually a common purpose in this subject, man’s actions, which causes deep divisions between theologians and philosophers in Islamic history. Primary sources of the study are the basic texts of the schools mentioned above. Additionally, the study were limited to the subject the effect of human on acts. It consists of two parts: the main part and the conclusion part. In the main section, the approaches of schools were examined from two aspects, in in terms of divine attribute and human effectiveness, and in the conclusion section, the common purposes behind the discussions were determined. (shrink)

The present article discusses the Department of Kalam, its foundation, academic structuring, philosophy, and contribution to religious thought at the national and international level since the establishment of Ankara University Faculty of Divinity. The process regarding the field of Kalam since the establishment of Ankara University Faculty of Divinity in 1949 has been studied over two historical periods. The first is the period from its being taught as a course under the Chair of the History of Islam and Sects during (...) the establishment of the Faculty of Divinity to 1974 when it turned into an independent chair, and the second is the process from 1974 to the present. Higher religious education was continued in the Faculty of Theology, established under the Istanbul Dārulfunūn, which was constructed in the western style instead of the madrasahs that were closed in accordance with the Law of Unification of Education (Tawhid Tadrisāt) adopted on March 3, 1924.The faculty in question was closed in 1933 due to the shortage of students. Until Ankara University Faculty of Theology, which started its teaching activities in November 1949, was opened, there was no higher religious education for 16 years in Turkey. During this time, the need for experts trained in the field of religion emerged. In order to meet this need, Ankara University Faculty of Theology was opened. In the newly opened faculty, it is aimed to train theologians with versatile knowledge and perspective by teaching philosophy, psychology, sociology, foreign languages, as well as teaching disciplines related to the field of theology. One of the chairs in the faculty’s academic structure opened for this purpose was the chair of History of Islam and Sects. In Ankara University Faculty of Theology, where the academic structuring was organized according to the chair system, the science of Kalam was taught as a course within the Chair of the History of Islam and Sects until 1974. Within this chair, the teachings of Principles of Islam, the history of Islamic sects, and Kalam lessons were carried out. The first instructor of the chair was Prof. Yusuf ZiyaYörükân. Although there were changes in the academic staff during the process, one of the important names that contributed to the field of kalam until 1974 was Muhammad Tavît al-Tanji. These scholars not only made significant contributions to the field of Kalam in terms of method and content with their own studies but also taught scholars to work in this field after them.The doctoral advisor of HüseyinAtay, who is the founder of the Kalam Chair/Department, is M. Tavît al-Tancî. In 1974, when HüseyinAtay became a professor, the Kalam course was separated from the Chair of Islam and Sects and gained the status of an independent chair. HüseyinAtay is the architect of the transformation of Kalam from a lecture to a chair.As a result of Atay’s efforts, being a theologian in Turkey has turned into an identity rather than being a member of an academic discipline. In the studies carried out by Yörükân, Tancî, Atay and the academicians taught by them in Ankara University Faculty of Theology Department of Kalam, the emphasis on the Quran and reason, the importance of critical thinking in the field of theology, the human-centered theological thought, the effort to find solutions to current problems, the researches on Mu‘tazila and Maturidism, the study and translation activities that are carried out to bring the classical theology to the present day come to the fore. In the essence of academic studies conducted within this framework, the importance of correctly determining the distinction between the divine and human in the analysis of religious thought is emphasized. In addition, it is aimed to give a perspective on the meaning and value of human life. In the Department of Kalam, where the human-centered understanding of kalam is systematically dealt with on the basis of individual, responsibility, and morality, the science of kalam is structured not only as a system of thought consisting of abstract fictions but a discipline that has the function of developing and gaining a perspective on what is happening around us and in the World. (shrink)

Al-Taftāzānī introduces the Liar Paradox, in a commentary on al-Rāzī, in a short passage that is part of a polemic against the ethical rationalism of the Muʿtazila. In this essay, we consider his remarks and their place in the history of the Liar Paradox in Arabic Logic. In the passage, al-Taftāzānī introduces Liar Cycles into the tradition, gives the paradox a puzzling name—the fallacy of the “irrational root” —which became standard, and suggests a connection between the paradox and what (...) it tells us about truth and falsehood, and arguments for divine voluntarism and what they tell us about the nature of goodness and badness. On this last point, we also discuss a passage from al-Rāzī, which suggests similar connections. (shrink)

Nous invitons ici à une véritable promenade intellectuelle qui nous conduit à creuser l'histoire de la pensée et du penser en Islam pour y retrouver des rationalistes invétérés et endurcis dont le souci fut de défendre la raison au prix de leur foi : ce sont les rationalistes qu'on appelle communément " Mu'tazila ". Très tôt, ce mouvement prit une dimension rationnelle en développant au sein de l'Islam les thèses critiques et philosophiques les plus inattendues d'une religion. Cette histoire des (...) idées que nous voulons parcourir nous mènera au " siècle des lumières en Islam " même si l'expression est quelque peu contestée par certains intellectuels musulmans qui pensent à un manque de considération pour les nouveaux penseurs de l'Islam comme si le moment de la bonne pensée n'est pas le leur. On peut leur donner raison. L'histoire ne bégaie pas toujours. Elle est parfois infidèle. Telle est malheureusement l'histoire de l'Islam. Une histoire d'hybridation et parfois d'infidélité au texte. Apparue comme une religion de salut et de raison, son image est ternie aujourd'hui par ceux qui, au prix du glaive, substituent la modernisation de la pensée islamique à une islamisation violente de la modernité. (shrink)

It is necessary to take into account the data of science in the theoretical debates conducted by scientists contributing ontological theories in order to develop new approaches to theological issues in Islamic thought. Even, Kalam scholars with the duty of defending and basing the principles of Islam in the classical sense have established a theological understanding intertwined with science in understanding both existence philosophically and the Script theologically. With its discoveries and theories in the last century, it can be argued (...) that modern science has made a serious progress compared to the past. Maintaining its own methodology and paradigm, every scientific discipline has the opportunity to benefit from the methods and data of other disciplines. Consequently, it is possible to assert that Kalam can enjoy the same opportunity too, as long as staying in its own problem area. According to modern science, the motion system is the unity of structures that enable living things to move. Moreover, Bones and joints, which are the structures of the skeletal system, are passive elements of the movement system. Muscles, on the other hand, are the active elements of the movement system and provide the movement of the body by affecting the bones and joints. Muscle tissue shapes the body by adhering to the bones, besides enabling movement activity to occur. One of the most important systems that provide movement is the nervous system. Because for a person to have movement, the muscles must contract, and the muscles must be stimulated for the contraction of the muscles. The system that enables this contraction to occur is the nervous system. Energy is also required for contraction to occur in the human body. Muscles create energy for movement by first providing their energy from the ATP molecule present in the muscle cells. Considering the movement theories of classical theology scholars, it is seen that they shaped the occurrence of human actions through the concept of potency. While the scholars classify power as spiritual/mental and physical strength in terms of its structure, they have characterized it as accident in terms of its nature. In this context, we can say that the equivalent of the power, which is regarded as necessary for the formation of human acts by the theologians, is the movement system in today's science. The spirit/mental that scholars regard as a structure of power for the occurrence of human action can be regarded as the electrical activity that activates muscles when considered within the framework of the movement system of today's science. It is seen that Kalam scholars emphasize physical competence in their definitions of power as well. At this point, Ash'arians defined the power as the soundness of organs, Mu’tazila expressed it as the presence of organs and their being away from disasters, and the Mâturîdîs stated it as the organs being healthy. With these definitions, Kalam scholars mean that a person should also be physically competent to make a movement. The structures scientifically accepted as biological and physical competence in the movement system are the skeletal system, muscles and nervous system. Therefore, we can say that the strength of the physical fitness/well-being emphasized in the definition of power by theologians corresponds scientifically to the skeletal system, muscles and nervous system. One of the issues that Kalam scholars discuss about power is the issue of the accident of power. The reason why they describe power as an accident is to emphasize its impermanence and to show that it was created by Allah. So, in modern science, electrical activity must occur in the brain in order for human organs to move. The occurrence of this electrical activity is independent of the human being. The fact that electrical activity occurs independently from human beings shows that it conforms to Kalam scholars’ definition of the accident. As a result, we can say that the theory of power created by scholars for human movement has a counterpart in the movement system put forward by today's science. (shrink)

It was widely believed among post-classical thinkers that the classical Mutakallimūn held that the cause of dependence of an effect on a cause was its origination, or a combination of origination and contingency, or its contingency on condition of its origination. Some post-classical thinkers, led by al-Sayyid al-Sharif al-Jurjānī, went further by interpreting Abu’l-Hasan al-Ashʿarī’s denial of the persistence of accidents was a consequence of his view that origination was the cause of dependence. This is because the origination view entailed (...) that the world was no longer in need of the Creator after its origination, and thus, him and his followers sought to deflect this consequence by holding that accidents do not persist, and since the persistence of substances was dependent on those accidents, and accidents do not persist more than one moment, those substances remained in need of the Creator for those accidents after their origination. This article seeks to investigate this analysis of the Shaykh al-Ashʿarī’s view, alongside the leading scholars of his school. After examining the original sources of classical Ashʿarī thinkers, along with the Baṣran Mu’tazila, and the texts of Ibn Sina, it becomes clear that the Ashꜥarīs did not hold that accidents did not persist in order to deflect that purported consequence. Indeed, it becomes clear that they did not hold that origination was the cause of dependence, but rather, that it was contingency. As for the Mu’tazila, they are explicit that the cause of dependence is origination, and that is based on their view on the reality of the nonexistent. Since essences are real in their state of nonexistence, they are not in need of a cause; and everything that obtains for those essences after they come into exist are entailments of that essence; thus, they only stand in need of a cause in their origination, that is, going from nonexistence into existence. Indeed, they are also explicit that effects do not need the Creator after their origination, and they clarified this through a comparison with a builder and a building. Indeed, the classical Ashꜥarīs criticized them for this, just as Ibn Sina did in the Ishārāt wa’l-tanbīhāt, al-Najāt, and al-Shifā. Thus, those post-classical scholars generalized the statement that origination is the cause of dependence to all classical mutakallimūn, and then they interpreted Ashʿarī’s motivation behind the denial of the persistence of accidents in accordance with that. The truth, however, is that his view on accidents is based on contingency, and that is because a substance is possible of persistence and possible of non-persistence, and therefore, it stands in need of cause to determine its state in the subsequent moment. That determination must entail something additional to the substance itself, otherwise, the effect is redundant. That additional property must be an accident, and since it is impossible for an accident to subsist in an accident, it is not possible for an accident to persist, because it is not receptive to the property which entails persistence; meanwhile, it is possible for substances, because they can sustain accidents. (shrink)

Human actions have been one of the most discussed topics in the science of kalām since the first centuries of Hijra. Many scholars from different schools of kalām have tried to solve this problem. Efforts to solve the problem have brought different views. In this framework, three main views emerged Jabrī, Qadarī/Muʿtazilī and Salafī/Sunnī. The views of Islamic philosophers were added to these and this number was increased to four. Nevertheless, Sunnī scholars, who agree on the basic propositions, disagreed on (...) the nature of kasb. While there are differences of opinion between Ashʿarī and Māturīdī schools, there are also those who put forward different views among scholars belonging to the same school. Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī (d. 403/1013), Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāyīnī (d. 418/1027) and Juwaynī (d. 478/1085), Sadr al- Shrīʿa (d. 747/1346) and Ibn al-Humām (d. 861/1457) are the most obvious examples of this. These views on human actions have been mentioned in their works by scholars of kalām. One of these scholars is Gelenbevî Ismāʿil (d. 1205/1791). In this article, the views on human actions will be examined in the context of Gelenbevî’s work named Ḥāshiya ʿalā Sharḥ al ʿAqāʾid al ʿAḍudiyya. Gelenbevî makes concise or detailed explanations about the views mentioned in his work with the exception of Ibn al-Humām. In addition, he also mentions the views of al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111). While Gelenbevî mentions these views and the discussions that took place around them, He makes use of his works Ījī’s (d. 756/1355) named Mawāqif, Taftāzānī’s (d. 792/1390) Sharḥ al Maqāṣ̣ıd and Jurjānī’s (d. 816/1413) Sharḥ al - Mawāqif. Gelenbevî states that Ashʿari’s view is middle jabr (jabr al muṭavaṣṣıṭ) and even he is accused of being pure jabr (jabr al- maḫẓ). Based on the concept of partial will (al-irādah al-juzʾiyyah), he says that the views of Bāqillānī and Māturīdī school are the same and states that this view is more successful than Ashʿari’s in explaining human responsibility. This thought indicates that he is closer to the Māturīdī view of human actions than to Ashʿarī. He points out that Isfarāyīnī’s views are open to criticism in some respects. He implicitly states that he does not agree with the idea that Juwayni agrees with the Islamic philosophers. Rather than Muʿtazila’s views, it focuses on whether their views and the views of Islamic philosophers are the same. (shrink)

Koronavirüs olarak bilinen Covid-19 -salgını neredeyse iki yıldır hayatımızda. Salgının başlangıç aşamalarında kapsamlı bir çözüm bulunamadığı için âdeta şok yaşayan dünya, salgının yayılmasını önlemek için bir çözüm olarak tamamen karantinaya kapanmak zorunda kaldı. Uzun süren kapanmadan dolayı dünyanın her yerinde insanlar, psikolojik olarak bunalımlı bir dönem geçirmekteler. Hemen hemen herkes, bu bunalımdan bir çıkış yolu aramaktadır. Öte yandan, mezkûr bunalımlı dönemin toplumsal ve dinî açılardan da belirli yankıları olduğu söylenebilir. Örneğin boşanma ve intihar vakalarının artması bunlar arasında gösterilebilir. Dinî açıdan (...) bakıldığında ise, salgının yol açtığı psikolojik yükü hafifletmek için, pek çok bireyin manevi ibadetlere başvurduğu görülmektedir. Böylece, bu psikolojik bunalım hâlinin, temel olarak dinî ilgilendiren birçok soruyu da beraberinde getirdiği dikkat çekmektedir. Kelâm açısından bakıldığında, insan ve Tanrı arasındaki ilişkinin mahiyetine yönelik sorularla karşılaştığımız söylenebilir. Hiç şüphe yok ki Korona, herkes için ağır felaketlere yol açan ve insanların pek haz etmedikleri durumlar arasında kabul edilmekte. Her geçen gün duyduğumuz artan ölüm vakaları; Çin, İran ve Amerika'da karşılaşılan yoğun bakım hastalarının korkunç manzaraları, sıradanlaşır hale geldi. Ancak bireylere sorulduğunda, herkes bu virüsün özü itibariyle oldukça kötü bir durum olduğunu söylemektedir. Konu teolojik açıdan ele alındığında, şu sorular karşımıza çıkmaktadır: eğer Korona bir kötülük olarak görülürse, bu durumun Tanrı’dan gelmesi mümkün müdür? Eğer Tanrı’dan geldiği iddia edilirse, Tanrı’nın bu derece bir eyleme sebep olması nasıl anlaşılmalıdır? Tanrı kötü bir fiille nitelendirilebilir mi? Bu sorular doğal olarak günlük hayatımıza yansıdığı için, pek çok Müslüman belirli açmazlarla karşı karşıya kalmaktadır. Bu çalışmada salgın hastalıklar ve veba konusu, kelâm açısından tartışılarak, üç temel noktaya ışık tutulmaya çalışılacaktır. Birincisi: ağrı ve acı problemi ve bu problemin kelâm kitaplarında nasıl geçtiği ve hangi açılardan tartışıldığı. İkinci olarak ise: “Salgın ve veba meseleleri Allah'ın hükmünden midir, değil midir?” meselesi. Son olarak ise: "Salgınların Allah'ın hükmünden olduğunu söylemek, kulun tedbir almayı bırakmasını mı gerektirir?" sorusudur. Araştırma, Mu'tezile, Eş'ariler, Mâtüridiler ve Ehl-i Hadis gibi ekollerinönde gelen kelamcılarından (Mütekellimûn) bazılarını seçerek; ve mümkün olduğunca onların bakış açılarını yansıtmaya çalışarak bir perspektif sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Makalede, tüm İslam kelâm ekollerinden kelamcıların görüşlerine yer vermiş ve bunların her birinin Kur'an, Sünnet ve hadislerden delillerini zikredilip karşılaştırmalı bir yaklaşımla el aldığımız konuda bir sonuca varmaya çalışılmıştır. (shrink)

Discussions on the concept of Marifatullah as the foundation of belief hold a significant place in theology. There are different opinions among schools of theology regarding whether those who do not receive divine messages must know God. The majority of scholars belonging to the Mu'tazila and Māturīdī schools, including Imam Māturīdī, state that human beings must know God. Although al-Ashʿarī accepts that the most prominent obligatory duties are the methods of reasoning that lead to marifatullah, he states that responsibility in (...) this matter is formed by transmission. However, we can say that whether the human mind is sufficient to reach the knowledge of God, the method of reasoning has reached a different dimension today from the sciences of psychology, genetics, and neurobiology. This study explored whether individuals can achieve marifatullah from a holistic perspective. Whether human beings can be held responsible for this issue has been evaluated through the sciences of psychology, genetics, and neurobiology, and the opinions of schools of theology on this issue have been criticized. When we think in terms of Marifatullah, we can say that man’s psychological sense of obligation to adapt to society leaves him intellectually under the influence of society. In terms of genetic determinism, human personality, behavior, and intellectual adventure are completely determined by genes. Therefore, it is impossible for men to reach marifatullah in the context of their mental abilities. From an epigenetic perspective, we see that human thought structure, behavior, and personality are formed as a result of interactions with the environment. Serious hesitation arises in this idea in terms of intellect being a source of responsibility. Humans are genetically influenced by the environment and society, and they have a suitable nature for this, revealing that their genetic structure is open to environmental influences. In terms of brain plasticity, factors such as the society, environment, and family in which people live can change their brains and enable them to live accordingly. Although life adventures appear to be within the framework of social harmony, there must also be intellectual and religious harmony within social harmony. This reinforces the idea that individuals tend to align more with the thoughts and beliefs instilled by culture given the adaptable nature of the human brain influenced by cultural factors. When the views of the schools of theology are considered considering these evaluations, it becomes clear that the Mu'tazilites and Māturīdīs' belief that the source of the wujūb of marifatullah is intellect is at a point that needs to be reconsidered in terms of human biology and psychology. Although the Asharites emphasize human beings attaining knowledge of God through intellect, their focus on prophethood indicates that a revelation offer appears more accurate concerning human nature in the context of Marifatullah. (shrink)

The science of Kalâm, expressed as Uṣûlü'd-dîn in Islamic thought, is a constructional science. This means that the science of Kalâm has a dynamic structure in social life as well as a theoretical beginning. Kalâm has played an important role in the implementation of the idea of tawhid and the justice-based life that will accompany it by taking into account the historical and geographical heritage of Muslim communities on how to understand the hopes of religion. It is known that the (...) political and social events that took place in Muslim society also took place in the history of Islamic thought as a theological sect in the later historical process. Muslims, part of a geography that has historically been the source of ancient cultures and thoughts, tried to protect the basic hopes of the religion they belonged to while also responding to the accusations of members of different faiths against Islam. Like other Islamic sciences, the science of Kalâm was formed later as a discipline. Depending on the method followed in understanding religious thought, theological sects were formed. Two basic approaches are dominant in the historical process and the general practice of the Muslim society. There is a rational trend that tends to use ta'wil to understand the verse based on nass and those qualified as Ahl-i hadith that do not accept ta'wil except for narration. The supporters of this method will later be described as Mu'tazila. There are dozens of theological sects shaped around these two basic ideas. This historical use of kalâm is rife with contradictions. They take a serious attitude towards those who use the kalâm method of the Ahl-i hadith. Although this is the case, the science of Kalâm as a discipline has played a very fundamental role in the Muslim society from the very beginning to the present. Unfortunately, the constructive function of the Science of Kalâm historically has not been continuous. As in other Islamic sciences, the Science of Kalâm became after a certain time a form of repetition or interpretation of what was written in the past, with commentaries and annotations instead of original copyright works. This naturally caused the Muslim community to imitate the past in every aspect of life and thus not be able to build a future. Muslim scholars have tried to address this over time and across geographies. A part of this early effort was the necessity of reinterpreting Islamic sciences. In the modern period (19th-20th century), a search for innovation has been made in all Islamic sciences. The main purpose of these efforts was the re-evaluation of Islamic sciences in accordance with the conditions of the age. One of those who was a part of this important and meaningful struggle is Fazlur Rahman (d.1988). He criticizes the science of Kalâm as well as other Islamic sciences and make suggestions to make Kalâm gain a dynamic structure. While Fazlur Rahman's criticism of Kalâm is included, the early period criticism of Kalâm will also be briefly mentioned in order to provide a better understanding of the subject. A comparison will be made between the thoughts of those who criticized Kalâm in the early period and those of Fazlur Rahman in the modern period. While there is an opposition to Kalâm in the form of the rejection of the science of Kalâm as a discipline, especially in the thought of Ahl al-Hadith, the science of Kalâm was considered as a constructional science in Fazlur Rahman. In addition to arguing that the Science of Kalâm should be reorganized as a discipline in terms of the method and content, Fazlur Rahman emphasizes the necessity of considering the past as an experience that must be understood according to the conditions of the day. For Fazlur Rahman, one of the reasons made Muslim thought inert is because the discipline of Kalâm does not consider present social life. In the 20th century, with modernism, theological debates gained a new dimension, and developments in all areas of social life gave birth to a brand new culture very different from the past. As a result of this, new value judgments have been formed to revisit and criticize the culture and values of the past. (shrink)

This work deals with Mollā Gūrānı̄’s critique (d. 813/1488) of Qāḍı̄ al-Bayḍawı̄ (d. 596/1200) and Zamakhsharı̄ (d. 538/1144). The Fātiḥ̣a and Baqara sūras in his manuscript tafsı̄r “Ghāyat al-Amānı̄” are chosen as the texts to examplify Mollā Gūrānı̄’s critique. His criticism is mostly related to language, qirāʾa (recitation and vocalization of Qur’ānic text), conceptual meaning and disagreement in interpretations of the Qur’ānic verses in question. Gūrānı̄ primarly criticisez Qāḍı̄ due to his reputation among Ottoman scholars. Guranı̄ has not only criticized (...) Kādı̄ and Zamahsharı̄ in the commentary of the surahs Fātiḥ̣a and Baqara but also Taftāzānı̄ and Kavāshı̄. This clearly shows thah he is a well-versed scholar in researching especially in comperative analysis. In this study, our investigation is limited to, however, Zemakhsharı̄ and Qāḍı̄. This stuyd shows that Zemakhsharı̄ is strictly bound to Ahl al-Sunnah. Moreover, the hadith reports are considerably important for him in understanding and interpreting the Qur’ānic verses. He closely follows the interpretive traditions of early Muslim scholars, especially on the matters that Muslim scholars had an argeemnet.Summary: This study discusses the criticism of Mollā Gūrānı̄ (d. 813/1488), one of the Ottoman commentary scholars, against Qāḍı̄ al-Bayḍāwı̄ (d. 685/1286) and Zamakhsharı̄ (d. 538/1144). The two Qur’ānic Surahs Fātiḥ̣a and Baqara are chosen from his critiques in a manuscript of his commentary called Ghāyat al-Amānı̄. Mollā Gūrānı̄’s manuscript is registered in Sulaymāniye Library, Dāmād Ibrāhı̄m Pasha Section at number 146 and consists of 352 pages in total. This copy is one of the oldest among other its existent copies. The main reason of our preference of this copy is that it is both legible and at the end of the book (the farāgh part), it writes that it was proofread by his author himself and that handwriting notes at the margins of the pages belonged to the author. We have examined this copy by comparing another copy which is again in the Sulaymāniye Library, Haji Maḥmūd Efendı̄ section at number 162, consisting of 484 pages in total, comparatively. We have examined critiques of 41 verses in total from Fātiḥ̣a and Baqara surahs.Gūrānī’s critiques of Zamakhsharı̄ and Qāḍı̄ are too wide to be discussed within the limits of an article. Therefore, we have tried to briefly introduce these critiques. While presenting the commentators views, we tried to make their inexplicit expressions clear and furthermore elaborate their purposes by making use of some other resources. We have to say that we also used bracketed explanatory statements while giving commentators opinions.Most of the critiques of Gūrānı̄ are aimed at Qāḍı̄ since the latter’s commentary was one of the favourite ones among Ottoman intellectual circles. Therefore, in writing his commentary manuscript, Gūrānı̄ ambivalently both followed and criticized Qāḍı̄’s commentary. When Fātiḥ̣a and Baqara surahs are used as a base, it is evident that Gūrānı̄’s commentary Ghāyat al-Amānı̄ is a reason-based (dirāyah) in line with those of Zamakhsharı̄ and Qāḍı̄ as commentary methodology. Gūrānı̄ modelled himself so much on Qāḍı̄ in this commentary of his that it seems as an abridged copy of Qāḍı̄’s. Ghāyat al-Amānı̄ as a commentary example of Ottoman era shows that the commentary methodology of the time did not change even four hundred years after Zamakhsharı̄.It is possible to say that Gūrānı̄ criticized Zamakhsharı̄ and Qāḍı̄ in this commentary in a meticulous manner. Although many of his critiques are disputable, his rigorous approach to texts and his courage of critique, instead of imitative attitude, of Qāḍı̄’s commentary, which was held in high esteem in madrasahs of the time, and of commentary of Zamakhsharı̄, who was competent in Arabic language, is of great significance. Gūrānı̄ used a comparative scientific methodology and was a prominent. When his commentary manuscript examined it can be seen that it was not only Zamakhsharı̄ and Qāḍı̄ but also Taftāzānı̄ (d. 792/1390) and Kavāshı̄ (d. 680/1281) who got their shares from his critiques. Most of Gūrānı̄’s critiques were on the subtleties of Arabic language. He sometimes expressed his criticism using Arabic grammar rules and sometimes rhetoric requirements. His other critiques involved topics such as, conceptual meaning, verses integrity, recitation and some interpretations of verses that he disagreed with. His critical method was based on the integrity of the Qurʾān, interpretive traditions, Salaf’s views and logical contradictions. We ought to mention that Gūrānı̄ showed his strong commitment to his predecessors and scholars for matters on which they had consensus. We comprehend this commitment on occasions when he rejected the claim that, for instance, a given form of qirā’a from Salaf was wrong according to Arabic grammar in favour of Salafı̄ reciter. The aim of this study is to give an idea about commentary understandings and methods of commentators in Ottoman era and to make contribution to introducing Gūrānı̄, who criticized Zamakhsharı̄ and Qāḍı̄, two prominent commentators competent in their field, to researchers in terms of his attribute as a critic. An earlier study on his critiques made in this commentary of Gūrānı̄ only covered his critiques of Qāḍı̄ for some of his interpretations in Fātiḥ̣a and Baqara surahs. Therefore, another important factor leading to this study was to cover all critiques he made against the views and comments of both Zamakhsharı̄ and those shared by Zamakhsharı̄ and Qāḍı̄. Hence, this study aims to contribute to the fiedl as an analytical study or a translation made by researchers on this concise and handwritten manuscript.Some conspicuous features are seen in Gūrānı̄’s critiques. As he pointed out in his reviews, in case of subjects with availability of narratives (rivāyah) and of suitability of the literal meaning of verses, he did not prefer allegorical interpretation. He gives the impression that he based his reviews on Ahl al-Sunnah, and he took pains to follow Ashaʿrı̄te school of thought. Although Gūrānı̄, did not see harm in sharing the same things with Zamakhsharı̄, opposing Qāḍı̄ as regards Arabic language, he was always in opposition with Zamakhsharı̄ in relation to commitment to sectarian view and Ḥadı̄ths. It can also be said that Gūrānı̄ did not favour esoteric-allusive commentary style.It can also be said that Gūrānı̄ had sound and deep knowledge in the field of Kalām. This can be deduced from his considering Qāḍı̄’s arguments to criticize Muʿtazila as insubstantial and sometimes from his criticism of Qāḍı̄ for his careless selection of phrases he used in theological issues. Meanwhile, Gūrānı̄ criticized some views which did not belong to Qāḍı̄. For example, it is seen that he criticized Qāḍı̄ for his citation of an opinion through the phrase “it is said that” as if it was his own view by writing an annotation on the margin that it was Qāḍı̄ who said it. In our opinion, the most important thing that the critique of Gūrānı̄ shows is his scholarly identity and his outspoken character of enunciating of what he believed scholarly and conscientiously. This, also, shows the existence of critical thinking in Ottoman scholarship tradition. (shrink)

In this paper I will discuss the main approaches of moral epistemology in the major sects of Islamic theology; the Mu’tazilah and Shi‘ite, who formulated rationalistic ethical system between the eighth and tenth centuries, and the Ash‘arites, who developed a voluntaristic system of morality. At first the answer of Mu’tazila and Shi‘ite to the main question of moral epistemology namely the justification of moral beliefs will be discussed and compared with the intuitionism of Western ethics. Secondly the voluntarism of Ash‘arite (...) concerning the moral knowledge will be discussed and rejected. (shrink)

Kleine Schriften, written by the eminent German scholar of Islamic Studies Josef van Ess, is a unique collection of Van Ess' widely scattered short writings, journal articles, encyclopaedia entries, (autobiographical) essays, reviews and lectures, in (mainly) German, English and French, some of which are published here for the first time. It includes a full bibliography of the author's work, in addition to two indexes of classical authors and works, which aim to make accessible the remarkable riches that these Kleine Schriften (...) have to offer. The three-volume collection, carefully selected by the author himself, offers over 150 texts organized primarily along Van Ess' own biography and the history of the discipline. It is divided into twelve parts, beginning with Tübingen where his career began in 1968, and ending with Retrospects and Postscripts for the future, with the thematic complexes Islam and its first options and Muʿtazila as centre pieces. All parts are introduced by brief accounts of the historical context in which each of the assembled texts was written and which course subsequent scholarship may have taken. (shrink)

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)

The need for renewal felt in various fields with the Tanẓīmat, and the changes and modernization activities realized in accordance with it, and the nature and boundaries of these activities are important issues that determine the period's intellectual agenda. Some of the proposals for a solution to save the state are related to the renewal of religious thought. The bad situation in the Ottoman Empire stems from the way religion is understood, not from religion itself, and one of the names (...) that produce ideas about the necessity of changing this way of thinking is Ḥüseyin Kāẓım Kadri. He believes that Fiqh and Exegeticsshould be based on the work of updating the content of Islamic Sciences within the framework of contemporary needs. Claiming that the basic need of society is not Science of Kalām but Catechism, Kadri claims that the attempt of the science of Kalām, regulated to respond to the needs of the age will not result in even will cause religious conflict among people. In this article, Ḥüseyin Kāẓım Kadri'sintellectual background, his suggestions for the renewal of religious thought and his objection to the new Science of Kalām are discussed.Summary: What defines the history of late Ottoman period is the concept called change. There have been reform attempts in order to canalise the military, economic, socio-cultural change and transformation due to political turmoil starting from the end of the 16th century and beginning of the 17th century. Basic argument regarding these reforms finds its base on Qanūn al-Qadīm and the idea of returning to Sharia. Along with the Declaration of the Imperial Edict of Reorganization (Edict of Gulhane) the previous reforms which were made earlier changed dimension and westernization became a government policy. During the ongoing process, the change in terms of Westernization became a current issue within every segment of Ottoman society. Need for innovation in various areas, and therefore the change and modernization movements and accordingly these movements’ nature and boundries set the intellectual agenda of the era. Some of the suggestions are associated with renewal of the religious thought which are to keep the State from difficult situation it is in. Solutions proposed in this context creates a rich intellectual discussion environment within Western, Islamist, and Turkist intellectuals. Islamists in general terms are of the opinion that the difficult situation Ottoman is in does not stem from the religion itself but the way of understanding religion; and they are of the opinion that this way of thinking should be altered; when they bring about their suggestions, it is seen that the way of thinking is their starting point. What causes the Islamists fall apart within themselves is the nature of renawal. Islamist intellectuals, supporting the idea which is the content of islamic knowledge should be updated according the needs of era, suggest various ideas in terms of which dicipline should be in charge for the needs in question. While some intellectuals are of the opinion Kalām should be prioritised, some are of the opinion Fiqh and Exegetics should be prioritised. Ḥüseyin Kāẓım Kadri, who wrote under the pseudonym of Shaykh Muḥsin-i Fānῑ ez-Ẓāhirῑ, is one of these intellectuals coming up with an idea. Kadri suggests a renawal in thinking based upon Fiqh and ExegeticsḤüseyin Kāẓım Kadriis one of the most prominent intellectuals of Constitutional Period. Working as a governor of an Ottoman province, deputy, and minister and engaging in journalism, Kadri compiles a series of work in religion, language and agriculture. All of his efforts are to find ways of saving Ottoman from its difficult situations. Thus, Kadri questions the quality of the knowledge which was brought about in religious thinking and proposes solutions. What lies under his solution is the need for a dicipline for society’ s practical problems. He bases his opinion on opposition to new theology movement. According to Kadri, ever since Kalām was codified, it has never been useful to Muslims, on the contrary it has impaired the Muslims. Renowation of Kalām creates nothing but problem. In his opinion, due to using Greek philosophy content and method, Kalām is not a dicipline authentic to Muslims, besides it is a harmful dicipline which aims to damage the essence of Islam.One of the reasons why Kalām is out of Islamic thinking tradition is because of the Mu'tazila wises are the founders of this dicipline. Kadri is of the opinion that the wises/intellectuals belonging to this school and their theories regarding to understand the existence do not contribute to the field of faith. Admitting the function of Ahl-al Sunnah school generated after the Mihna Period, Kadri states the insufficient side of that function. To him, hence the subjects such as substance (cevher) –accident (araz), hudûth-eternality, wujud (vücûd)-nothingness (adem) etc have been discussed but at that time the subject in question could not be renovated in regard to needs. Another criticism of Kadri raised against Kalām is he considers this field the reason why Muslims are divided. Especially during the times when Muslims need to be in unity and solidarity, Kadri is worried about new discursion which will occur due to the renovation of Kalām attempts. This concern of Kadri causes him to object Kalām with a pragmatic motive.Kalām which is called Usulu'd-Din is another reason why Ḥüseyin Kāẓım Kadriis against Kalām. In his opinion, theologians complicates the subjects such as amalgation and adjectives of Allah instead of making it clear with ijtihad. Kadri who considers offering proof in terms of faith as faithlessness is of the opinion that faith is not a matter of reason but a matter of sense which has no doubt among people. Criticising the struggle for the enquiry of faith, Kadri puts an emphasis on the significance of the reinterpretation of the principles, for example in the field of Fiqh which deals with the practical area and says it is the most prominent religious duty. He also criticises the imitation of the past and remarks the importance of reason in Fiqh. As an alternative to Ilm-i Kalām, he claims a new Catechism and adds, it is going to provide the religious knowledge people need. It is an ideological contrast of Ḥüseyin Kāẓım Kadrito think Kalām is the reason for all the misfortune Muslims encountered. This opposition causes him to ignore all the accumulation in Kalām field. Moreover, it is the reason why he makes emotional deductions conflicting with historical facts. Kalām plays a role just like the other fields who could not contribute to Islamic Thinking and its renovation process in accordance with the needs of time. However, it is not realistic and reasonable to think Kalām is the only one responsible. (shrink)

Such questions that may it be essential, necessary, recommended, or free to believe in some matters will be addressed in the article. It is concluded that such an approach is possible for Māturīdis and Ash'arīs. In the study, it was thought that the following two problems should be solved first. The first problem is how can a definitive confirmation be made with speculative information (zannī). Second, if it is a contradiction that the ulema of the relevant school construct the subject (...) of belief with an āḥād report (khabar) even though they explain the true report as mutawātir in the works of Kalām? In the article, three different solutions are proposed for the first problem, and the second problem is tried to be solved with the proposition that tawātur is compulsory for the universal or essential subjects of theology. Then, by giving two examples for each decree (hukm), it was tried to determine what this idea means in practice. It has been determined that the main controversial issues between the Ahl al-sunnah and the Mu'tazila arise in the category of wājib to be believed. It has been determined that the scholars of the aforementioned sects fall into dispute among themselves in matters presented as sunnah to be believed. As a result, in terms of the principles set forth by the Ahl al-Sunnah, it has been deemed possible to implement ʾafʿālu al-mukallafīn (deeds of those obligated) to theological issues. (shrink)

Khalīfa b. Khayyāt(d. 240/854-855) was an historian- muḥaddith in the ʿAbbāsid’s period. There are references in sources to his competence in history and lineage rather than Ḥadīth. Two works of him have survived. The first one is al-Ṭabaḳāt which is about study of men and the second one is al-Taʾrīkhwhich chronologically narratesthe events in the history of Islam until 232 AH. The latter is the most significant work to be applied for the historiography of ibnKhayyāt. In this article, Khalīfa b. (...) Khayyāt’s methodology in historiography is examined. In this study, the early period of Islamic histography is handled and the subject is discussed comparatively. The main characteristics of his historiography are his adoption of a chronological style that facilitates the follow-up of the book, his knowledge for the lineage of those who died in wars and the details about the wars. Also, among the charactersitics are his application of isnād to his history book as a muḥaddith, his knowledge for the previous resources via his teachers who belong to the schools of al-Madīna and ʿIrāḳ and when required, his usage of ayah, ḥadīth and poems. These issues are dealed in the artcile with examples. Besides, a study in the West about Khalīfa b. Khayyātasserts that he was a follower of Umayyad dynasty and so this affected his historiography. In this article, this assertion is tackled by analyzing the whole book and it concludes that it is not valid because of some narrations against this assertion.SummaryKhalīfa b. Khayyāt (d. 240 / 854-55), who grew up in Basra, one of the most important centers of scholarship of the time and the meeting point of scholars, and he continued his scholarly works in this city. Since his grandfather and father are engaged in the field of Ḥadīth, Khalīfa b. Khayyāt started his scholarly adventure at an early age and he took his first education in the field of Ḥadīth.Scholars, in the early periods, continued their studies in the fields of sciences related to each other. Khalīfa b. Khayyāt’s studies are also in this kind. Although there are references in sources to his accumulation of Ḥadīth, Khalīfa b. Khayyāt ’s main area of ​​expertise is history and nasab/genealogy. The fact that his works and references to him in later sources are largely related to historical events, knowledge of the nasab/genealogy, and wafayāt (death dates of Ḥadīth scholars and narrators) reveals his considerable knowledge on these issues. Khalīfa b. Khayyāt lived in the period of ʿAbbāsid caliphs al-Maʾmūn (813-833) and al-Muʿtaṣim (833-842). This period is important because of the fact that the al-Mihna incident took place and the pressure on the Ḥadīth scholars increased. Although Khalīfa b. Khayyāt is not one of the direct opponents of Muʿtazila, his participation in a debate against them provides clues about the place where he stands. The scholarly atmosphere of Basra, enabled Khalīfa b. Khayyāt to benefit from a wide range of teacher-student network. In addition to his professors from whom he benefitted in the field of Ḥadīth, he had the opportunity to obtain the knowledge and understanding of the history of that time through his teachers who are important historians of the period in his field. Two works related to Khalīfa b. Khayyāt whose reliability is confirmed by djarh wa l tadil scholars reached to our time. One of the oldest Ṭabaḳāt works in the history of Islam is al-Ṭabaḳāt; the other one is the book, al-Taʾrīkh, which provides a new method for Islamic historiography.This study deals with the principles of the method of historiography, which can be put forward through Khalīfa b. Khayyāt 's al-Taʾrīkh. al-Taʾrīkhis important in terms of being the first example of chronological writing type in Islamic historiography and has not been subject to any independent study to date. There are two ongoing M.A. thesis about Khalīfa b. Khayyāt, however, no study has been identified that directly deals with its methodology of history. On the other hand, based on some riwāyats/narrations in al-Taʾrīkh, there is a work that claims that Khalīfa b. Khayyāt had sympathy towards Umayyads. The study named “Khalīfa b. Khayyāt’s History on the Umayyad Dynasty (660-750), prepared by Carl Wurtzel as his PhD. Dissertation, examined the life of Khalīfa, partly the historiography and the religious-political narrations in the work. On the case of Muʿāwiya’s (d. 60/680) request of the allegiance to Yazīd (d. 64/683), Wurtzel compared an event that took place between the envoy of Ibn al-Zubayr (d. 73/692) and Muʿāwiya with al-Balādhurī’s (d. 279/892-93) narrative and concluded that Khalīfa was an Umayyad sympathizer. However, Khalīfa b. Khayyāt’s exclusion of an event such as al-Mihna which was against the ʿAbbāsid and changed the course of history in his book, shouldn’t be considered as a symptom of sympathy; It would be more appropriate to accept it as a feature of history writing.At the top of Khalīfa b. Khayyāt's principles of historiography, adopting chronological method comes first. Accordingly, Khalīfa b. Khayyāt, gives a brief history about the siyar of the Prophet Muhammad at the introduction of the book. Then, by beginning from the first hijri year, he gives the important events, wars and deaths by the years. Sometimes, he refers to the people assigned by the caliphs of the period by referring to the Amîrs (Administrators) of the Hajj. He gives lists of those who died on both sides of the wars. The importance of mentioning the tribes of the deceased shows his competence in the knowledge of nasab. One of the highlights of his historiography is that he sometimes does not touch upon some of the events and situations that are considered to be turning points in Islamic history; and sometimes he does not go down into detail but just gives relevant narratives. For example, he doesn’t mention any narrations about the selection of the Caliph which perhaps the most fundamental point of separation between Ahl al-Sunnah and Shīʿa in the history of Islam.Although he gave detailed information about The Battle of The Camel (36/656) and Ṣiffīn cases (37/657), it is not possible to determine his views on this subject. In addition, he never mentioned the al-Mihna incident, which deeply influenced society and the scholarly environment during the ʿAbbāsid period. Isnād is also holds an important place in the methodology of history of Khalīfa who was a muḥaddith at the same time. In many of the narrations he used the words haddathanā and ahbaranā.In our study, the siyar section of al-Taʾrīkhwas examined in order to determine the sources of the Khalīfa’s historiography and has been seen that the works of Ibn Isḥāḳ (d. 151/768) and Ibn Hishām (d. 218/833) were the main sources of this chapter. Considering Khalīfa b. Khayyāt’s emphasize to isnād and his reach to Ibn Isḥāḳ 's work through the mediation of Bekr b. Suleiman, it can be said that he was dominant in historiography on the sources before him. Khalīfa b. Khayyāt rarely refers to Qur’anic verses and hadiths when describing events. He referred to the verses in only two places and hadiths in only five places. One of them, and perhaps the most remarkable one in the book is the Ḥadīth of the Prophet Muḥammad: “I am the guardian of whom; ‘Alī is his guardian” This narration is used in the letter of Caliph Mahdī (d. 169/785) of the ʿAbbāsid to khārijī (outer) Abd al-Salām b. Hishām who rebelled. The study is based on the principles outlined above. At the end of the study it is also considered that Khalīfa b. Khayyāt ’s works should be the subject of graduate studies which should be prepared with deep readings. (shrink)

The issue of power has been addressed as part of human actions, which form the basis of the discussions of destiny in Islamic theology. Various schools of kalām have extensively discussed the issue of power throughout history. The locus of power is also one of the critical concerns that have been emphasized within these discussions. The schools of the Mu'tazila, al-Ashʿarī and al-Māturīdī have put forward different perspectives on whether the locus of power exists or not and where it exists (...) if it does so. Mutazilites are known to be in agreement with the view that te human body is the substrate of power. On the other hand, However, they hold different views, not only on the exact locus of power in the body but also on its type. While some argue that the locus of power in the body is the organs, others claim that it is not the organs. The schools of al-Ashʿarī and al-Māturīdī accept that there is no locus for power and emphasize that power is created by Allah the moment it would initiate action. When these views of the kalām schools are considered within the framework of the data from the modern science of anatomy, it is seen that what modern science has to say on this issue concurs well with the Mu'tazilite view that the locus of power is the body and that it creates the action by managing the organs from a single center. This is because, when considered from the lens of anatomy, what is meant by the schools of kalām with “power” is electrical activity (stimulus) that activates the muscles. Therefore, scientifically considered, for any movement to occur, an electrical activity must first begin in the brain and be transmitted to the muscles via motor nerves. If there were no electrical activity in the brain, the muscles and energy that make up the human movement system would not be active, so movement would hardly take locus. Therefore, the claim made some of the Mu'tazili scholars that the power is in the organs is scientifically not valid. As for the debates on whether the power in different organs is the same or different in terms of its type, the views of the scholars who argue that they are the same genus are apparently correct. This is because the electrical activity, which we accept as power, spreads to the organs after it is formed in the brain. This implies that the power which activates the organs is of the same type. However, it can be said that Mu'tazila’s idea of the constant presence of power in its locus conflicts with modern scientific data. The views of al-Ash'arite and al-Maturidite schools that power is free from being in a constant location are compatible with the findings of recent experiments on brain activities. That is, some experimental studies have indicated that the electrical activity that creates an act occurs in the brain before the act itself and outside the will of the human. In brief, the view of Ash'arite and Maturidite scholars that power is not constantly present in the body and that it is created by Allah each time it is needed is compatible with the creation of power, which we define as electrical activity. (shrink)

In the history of Islamic thought, it is prominent to examine the sects according to certain facts. In this research, it is aimed to read the development of the sect through aqāid works by taking the aqāid texts into the center. By centering Ash'ariyyah, we determine the aqāid literature of this sect in general terms and center two Ash‛ari aqāid works. These two aqāid texts that we have examined are the works identified with the Seljuk and Ottoman madrasahs. Al-Juwaynī’s al-Aqīda (...) an-Nizamiyyāh and al-Ījī’s al-Aqāid al-adudiyya hare extremely valuable identity texts in terms of Ash‛arī aqāid tradition. As a product of the Seljuk world of thought, al-Juwaynī’s work deals with aqāid issues with much broader titles and explanations. Al-Juwaynī lists his criticisms by targeting Mu‛tazila on most issues. Al-Ījī’s al-Aqāid al-adudiyya is one of the basic books of Ottoman madrasahs. In al-Ījī’s work, on the other hand, plain narration and a concise aqāid presentation attract attention. When we look at the work, it draws attention that the audience has changed and the opposition to the Mu‛tazilite is not too dominant. In addition, while a political interpretation over the imamate/caliphate issue is included in the creed in al-Ījī’s text, virtuousness, which is the perception of the Sunni companions, is also emphasized. The aqāid works of al-Juwaynī and al-Ījī bear the traces of the historical development of Ash‛arism, depending on their addressees, the period in which they were written, and many other reasons. (shrink)

Özİrâde, Kelâm’da, ilimden sonra üzerinde en çok tartışılan konulardan biridir. İrâdenin mâhiyeti hakkında, Mu‘tezilî bilgin Ebû’l-Kāsım el-Kâ‘bî el-Belhî’nin görüşleri dikkate şayandır. Kâ‘bî, oluşturduğu epistemolojik sistemde, irâdeye alışılagelenden farklı bir anlam alanı açmaya çalışmaktadır. Kâ‘bî’ye göre irâde, fiilî bir sıfattır. Ona göre Allah’ın irâdesi hâdistir. İrâde, Tanrı hakkında kullanıldığında, Tevhîd ve tenzih kaygısına; insan hakkında kullanıldığında ise özgürlük, imtihan ve sorumluluk kaygısına dayalı bir şekilde ele alınmaktadır. Kâ‘bî, bu iki kullanım arasında dikkatli ve kesin bir ayrım yaratmaya özen göstermektedir. O, irâde (...) hakkındaki görüşleriyle, Mu‘tezilî düşünce içinde de farklılaşmıştır. Kâ‘bî’nin Nazzâm’ın görüşleriyle uyum gösteren irâde anlayışı, insana otonomi sağlaması açısından önemlidir. Kâ‘bî’ye göre, Allah li-zâtihî mürîd olmadığı gibi O’nun irâdesi, hakîkî anlamda da kullanılmamaktadır. Ona göre irâde, Allah ve insan arasında ortak bir lafız olmasına rağmen, Allah mecazî anlamda mürîddir. Kâ’bî, Allah açısından İlâhî irâdeyi yaratma (tekvîn) insan açısından ise Allah’ın emretmesi olarak ele alır. Bu bağlamda onun epistemolojisinde irâde, Allah-âlem ilişkisine güçlü bir zemin oluşturmaktadır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Kelâm, Mu‘tezile, İlâhî İrâde, Ebû’l-Kāsım el-Belhî, el-Kâ‘bî, Nazzâm, Sıfatlar, Bağdat Mu‘tezilesiTHE WİLL ACCORDİNG TO ABŪ L-QĀSİM AL-KAʿBĪ AL-BALKHĪ AbstractAfter the problem of divine knowledge (‘ılm), divine will/volition (irāda) is one of the most debated issues in Kalām. In regard of divine will and volition Mu’tazilī scholar Abū al-Qāsim al-Ka’bī al-Balkhī’s opinions are of distinctive value. In his epistemology, al-Ka’bī tries to comprehend it in quite an unusual manner. For al-Ka’bī divine will (irāda) is one of the attributes of act. This means that divine will is an accident (hâdis). The term volition when used in relation to God it shall carry the apprehension of divine unity (tawhīd) and transcendence (tenzīh). Whereas in relation to man will implies freedom of action and responsibility of consequences thereby. al-Ka’bī put serious emphasis in differentiating meaning of volition in realm of man and of transcendence. Showing profound similarities with his prior Mu’tazilī al-Nazzam, al-Ka’bī undertakes the problem of divine volition in such a way that does not supersede both, realm of man and of transcendence. Showing similarities with the opinions of his prior Mu’tazilī al-Nazzām, his understanding on will is significant for attributing full authority to man. According to al-Ka’bī, transcendental being (Allah) does not have volition per se (لا هو مريد لذاته). His volition is not used in literal meaning of the word either. He believes that although volition is a common term between God and man, God wills (مرید) in truly metaphorical and figurative sense. al-Ka’bī states that the volition form God’s position is His creation (takwīn) whereas in regard of man, divine volition shall be understood as Allah’s orders. Within this context, term of volition in al-Ka’bī’s epistemology carries the ground for relational foundations of Allah and His creation.Keywords: Divine Will, Abū l-Qāsim al-Balkhī, al-Kaʿbī, God's Attributes, Mu‘tazila, Baghdādī School. (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)

The Sciences of the Qurʾān contain information about the process of Qurʾān and its structural characteristics, language and stylistic features, as well as statistical data on the content of the Qurʾān. This information, which contributes significantly to the understanding of the Qurʾān, is generally classified within the relevant narratives and the classifications are sometimes associated with verses. In this context, the way in which the Sciences of the Qurʾān explain the verses, which do not act solely on methodical premises, differs (...) from the Qurʾānic exegesis books. In the Sciences of the Qurʾān, the subject of revelation forms are classified within the frame of the narrations, and the 51st verse of the Sūrat al-Shūrā is frequently referred to. In other words, the related classifications are matched with the 51st verse of the Sūrat al-Shūrā. In the exegesis, this verse is handled more comprehensively considering its context and the literal possibilities. There are two remarkable comments about this verse in terms of its reflection in the revelation classifications. However, on the contrary, it is possible to encounter examples where the verse is subject to specific discussions. One of them belongs to Jār Allāh al-Zamakhsharī (d.538/1144) and the other to Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Bayḍāwī (d. 685/1286). When the exegesis of al-Zamakhsharī and al-Bayḍāwī are examined, it is seen that this verse is the subject of ru’yat Allah (seeing Allah) discussion between Muʿtazila and Ahl al-Sunnah and the classifications are made in this context. However, it is interesting to note that the classification of al-Zamakhsharī is more suitable for the perspective of the Sciences of the Qurʾān. In this study, the codes of the determinations made by al-Zamakhsharī and al-Bayḍāwī related to the 51st verse of Sūrat al-Shūrā was read on the commentaries. While al-Zamakhsharī explains this verse as a proof for the argument that God cannot be seen, al-Bayḍāwī develops an example of reactionary interpretation upon Zamakhsharī’s view. The Sciences of the Qurʾān (as a discipline), which opens a separate title to the ways of revelation, uses this verse as a template and takes it away from the discussion. In the study, the subjective dimensions of the discussion and classifications made in the context of this verse were evaluated. As a result, it is concluded that a classification similar to classification of al-Zamakhsharī has been made in the literature of the Sciences of the Qurʾān as it provides more comprehensive framework. Summary: During the period of revelation of the Holy Qurʾān not only the sunnah and actions of the Prophet which explained the Holy Qurʾān, but also various sources of information based on language and consultation, were used in order to understand the Holy Qurʾān. The first people introduced to the revelation used their own language/oratory skills, which were natural them, to understand the Qurʾān and were also able to observe the events and problems that brought about the revelation of the verses. These elements, used by those first people for understanding the Qurʾān, were readily available in their society. Therefore, understanding of the Qurʾān while the Prophet was still alive did not require a codification of those resources or treatment of the matter on a theoretical level. Subsequent generations mostly compensated the lack of those advantages by the use of the Sciences of the Qurʾān books penned individually after 2nd Century (A.H.), and those written systematically under the collective name "the Sciences of the Qurʾān" starting from the 6th century (A.H.). These works covered many subjects such as the beginning of the revelation, the accentuation of the Qurʾān, the physical development process of the Qurʾānic text, information based on observation as well as the tone and content of the Qurʾān and provided information details for Qurʾānic interpretations. Over time, this information was classified in the Sciences of the Qurʾān literature, organized under various relevant titles and enhanced with examples, numerical and qualitative information. One of the main topics of the Sciences of the Qurʾān is the subject of “revelation and its forms”. In the literature of the Sciences of the Qurʾān, the classifications made under this topic are generally associated with the verse 51 of Sūrat al-Shūrā. In this verse, the forms of communication between Allah (Jalla Jalaluhu) and the servant/prophet are categorized. The context of the verse 51 of the Sūrat al-Shūrā in the tafsīr literature is different from the context in the Sciences of the Qurʾān literature. As a matter of fact, while this verse is examined in detail with respect to the context, concept analysis, and the possibilities of i‘rāb (classical Arabic grammar), it is merely referred to in the Sciences of the Qurʾān. This is due to the fact that the determinations and classifications made in the Sciences of the Qurʾān are shaped mostly in the light of the historical context and narrations of the subject.It is also possible to encounter examples of tafsīr where the 51st verse is made the topic of detailed discussions. There are two remarkable comments about this verse in terms of its reflection in the revelation classifications. One of them belongs to Jār Allāh al-Zamakhsharī (d.538/1144) and the other belongs to Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Bayḍāwī (d. 685/1286). The tafsīr s of al-Zamakhsharī and al-Bayḍāwī make it clear that this verse is the subject of ru’yat Allah discussion between the Muʿtazila and Ahl al-Sunnah and the classifications are made accordingly. The fact that i‘rāb examinations of the two authors are similar and both took into account other linguistic possibilities despite their preferences, which also prove that the points of conflict are not literal. Al-Zamakhsharī thinks that this verse determines the way Allah speaks not only with his prophets but also with all people. According to al-Zamakhsharī, the 51st verse refers to the three forms of communication that takes place between God and any of His servants. Allah communicates with His servants; a) through inspiration, inspiration to heart or through dreams, b) by making His words heard through certain channels, c) by sending one of his angels as a messenger. In the verse, the first is expressed as revelation, the second is to speak behind a veil, and the third is to send a messenger. According to al-Zamakhsharī, Allah's inspiration to the mother of Moses, the dream that He showed to Abraham regarding the sacrificing of his son and inspiration of Psalms to David, all relate to the revelation concept mentioned in the first option. Al-Zamakhsharī believes that revelation from behind a veil is an adage. This adage can be compared to a king speaking with one of those at his service behind a veil/curtain, where the person hears the voice of the king but cannot see him. Allah only spoke to Moses and angels in that manner, and sent angels to speak to His other servants/prophets.As a response to al-Zamakhsharī, al-Bayḍāwī interpreted the verse concisely explaining the 'revelation' (وحيا) as a secret word that is quickly understood. Because, in terms of its nature, revelation is not a word made up of sound waves that come one after another to make words. In the verse, this word refers both to the Night Journey (Mi‘rāj) and the talk mentioned in the hadiths regarding the ru’yat Allah, and Allah speaking to Moses without Moses seeing Allah. However, in the verse min verâi ḥicâb/attributed to the word 'revelation 'من وراء حجاب makes it clear that the expression refers to a form of speech in which Allah is heard but not seen. Therefore, the word 'revelation' refers to a mutual talk and according to al-Bayḍāwī, this is proof that ru’yat Allah is possible. The fact that the classifications made in the Sciences of the Qurʾān literature agrees with the classification of al-Zamakhsharī, not al-Bayḍāwī. This result is closely related to the structural features of the Sciences of the Qurʾān in which authors strive to make general explanations that are beyond sectarian preferences and views. Understanding the verse as a conversation between Allah and man, and not between Allah and His prophet, provides a more comprehensive classification in terms of the use of revelations (not only the use of the word revelation) in the Qurʾān. Thus, the address that was made to Abraham in his dream, the revelation of to Moses' mother, and inspiration to our holy Prophet and other people can be interpreted according to this verse. In addition, the ru’yat Allah debate was excluded from the subject in the classifications made in the Sciences of the Qurʾān and implication of the verse was limited to the talks made in a worldly manner. (shrink)

Undoubtedly, the most important issue that the Qur'an focuses on regarding divinity has been the creed of tawhid. While the Qur'an was constructing a vision of God in this direction in the minds of its first interlocutors, there was no problem in understanding the relevant verses. However, as a result of the encounter of Islamic thought with ancient cultures and civilizations with the conquests, religious texts have been addressed with different perspectives. On the one hand, a viewpoint based on discontinuity (...) in the relationship between God and man has been displayed by interpreting the expressions in religious texts that describe God with the characteristics of creatures. On the other hand, an understanding has emerged that opposes interpretation by understanding the expressions of the related texts as they are. Both understandings, which try to understand the mutashabih and khabari attributes in the Qur'an on the axis of tanzih-tashbih, constituted two opposite poles. Proponents of tanzih sometimes took the matter into obscurity regarding the nature of Almighty Allah. Proponents of tashbihhave on the other hand, has opened the door to anthropomorphist god conceptions, since it Paves the waytowards a conviction based on continuity in the God-human relationship. However, no sect has openly advocated such an idea. Therefore, this perception about them was mostly based on the claims and accusations of their opponents. In general, it is possible to examine the sects accused of anthropomorphist god understanding in three categories in the historical process. The first of these is the extremist branches of the Shī‘a, and they have developed some discourses in order to strengthen their political ideas rather than having a theoretical idea of divinity. It is understood that the religion and belief systems that existed in the region before Islam had an impact on their understanding. Another sect accused of the anthropomorphic God concept is the Karramiyya sect, which stands out with its tajseem view. Members of this sect, described by their opponents as Mujassema because they used the word "body" for God, tried to prove that they byusingthatword, were pointing to the existence of God rather than an anthropormorphist understanding of God. Another denomination accused in this regard is the Hashwiyya. This understanding, which is against interpretation in religious texts in general, maintained the same attitude for mutashabih and khabariattributes. Mu’tazila’s understanding of divinity based on interpretation was effective in their attitudes. The Hashwiyya school, which basically did not have an anthropomorphic understanding of divinity, naturally faced such an accusation because they did not question their purpose when accepting the expressions in religious texts as they were. In this article, after discussing the concept of anthropomorphism in terms of religion and philosophy, all three understandings will be examined in the context of anthropomorphism based on their own sources. It will be tried to reach a conclusion by comparing the views of the relevant sects with the discourses of their opponents.In this context, it is claimed by the opponents that they have a belief in God that is incompatible with the belief of tawhid. However, the understandings of divinity of the sects, which seem to be influenced by pre-Islamic and post-Islamic social, cultural and religious factors, will be tried to be understood in their own context and in an impartial way. (shrink)

This study discusses the classifications of sects in a treatise named Firqa-ye Nājīye, written in Persian by a Shiite scholar in 982/1574. In this treatise, which is in the Merkez-i İḥyâʾi Heritage Library and has no other copy as far as we know, it has been tried to prove that the Twelver Shiʿa is the saved sect (firqa-yi nājiya) through seventy-three sects classification. The author summarized the seven doubts raised by the devil, the first events that caused the Muslim community (...) (umma) to disagree, and the general information about the sects from al-Milal wa-l-niḥal, the classifications of the sects from Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, but reconstructed the data in these texts according to the Shiite understanding. On the other hand, the main reason for writing this treatise is to respond to Jalāl al-Dīn Davānī’s claims rather than the classification of sects. Nasīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī determined a method for the identification of the saved sect as "differentiating from all sects in matters of theology". He claimed that the Twelver Shīʿīsm differed from the other sects in all matters of theology and was therefore the saved sect. Davānī stated that Twelver Shīʿīsm differed from other sects only with the belief in imamate, which is not the subject of creed, and that it generally agrees with Mu'tazila in other creeds, thus claiming that Tusi's claim is baseless. He also said that, when considered through the same method, Ashʿarīsm is more worthy of being the saved sect, because this sect differs from all sects in matters related to the creeds. Contrary to Davānī's claim, the author of Firqa-ye Nājīye stated that imamate was one of the most important principles of religion and also claimed that the Twelver Shīʿīsm differed from other sects in matters of creed other than imamate. However, he failed to provide sufficient data to justify this claim. (shrink)