The debate on the Prophet’s parents’ (abawayn al-Rasūl) religious status and their position in the hereafter goes back to several narrations from the Prophet himself. This subject, which can principally be considered part of the problem of the religious status of ahl al-fatrah, seems to be raised by the Shīʿah as an issue of creed in line with their understanding of imamate. Abū Ḥanīfah’s (d. 150/767) statement in his al-Fiqh al-akbar that “Prophet’s parents passed away on kufr/jāhiliyyah” is seen as (...) a Sunnī reaction to this earlier position and led to a new area of discussion shaping the approach of several scholars to the issue. The earliest treatises dedicated to this issue are attributed to al-Ghazzālī (d. 505/1111) and Abū Bakr Ibn al-ʿArabī (d. 543/1148), but these works did not survive to this day. The earliest examples available today are the six epistles that al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505) penned. Literature on the Prophet’s parents flourished during the Ottoman times after the introduction of al-Fiqh al-akbar to the Ottoman scholarship. Starting with the first examples that belong to Ibrāhīm al-Ḥalabī (d. 956/1549), Ibn al-Khaṭīb al-Amāsī (d. 940/1534), and Kamālpashazādah (d. 940/1534), the treatises in question were mostly written in Arabic in the Ottoman scholarly milieu. Consequently, it seems that Rawḍat al-ṣafā fī wāliday al-Muṣṭafá is the first treatise dedicated to the issue in Ottoman Turkish. In the library catalogue records, some bio-bibliographical sources, and consequently in some modern studies on the issue of abawayn al-Rasūl, Rawḍat al-ṣafā wrongly attributed to a certain Wajdī Aḥmad Efendī (in Turkish: Vecdî Ahmed Efendi). This is probably due to the author’s presentation of himself in the introduction as just “Wajdī,” without making further description. Besides the data in Bursalı Meḥmed Ṭāhir’s Osmanlı Müʾellifleri, no more information could be provided about the identity of Wajdī Aḥmad Efendī who is shown as the author of the treatise. Intra-textual signs such as the author’s words about the reason and process of writing the work, the way he handled the subject and the evidence he put forward indicate that the treatise belongs to Nūḥ ibn Muṣṭafá al-Qūnawī (d. 1070/1660). Indeed, it overlaps with the fact that Nūḥ ibn Muṣṭafá presented himself as Wajdī in many of his other works. Seemingly the fact that Nūḥ ibn Muṣṭafá defends the view that the parents of the Prophet are among the people of salvation (ahl al-najāh), and while doing this, he was mainly based on the view that they were resurrected after death and that their souls are recaptured after they believed in the Prophet, stem from various reasons such as the view that attributed to Abū Ḥanīfah, Nūḥ’s Sufi identity to the extent that he was initiated to the Khalwatiyyah/Gulshaniyyah along with the ever-growing Sufi influences and the consequent idea of nūr-i Muḥammadī in the public sphere, the authority of the narrations attributed to the Prophet, and perception about the Prophet Muḥammed in the public imagination. (shrink)

This volume is the first collection focusing on the claim that we cannot but account for emotions if we are to understand the processes and evaluations related to empirical knowledge.

It seems natural to think that one of the businesses of the philosophy of language is to provide an explanation of the understanding of language. It is the aim of the present essay to show that and why this is not so. Instead, I shall hold that both meaning and understanding go beyond the scope of traditional philosophy of language. Philosophers widely agree today that the meaning of linguistic expressions is to be explained by recourse to the use of words (...) and sentences; an explanation of this use does not only take recourse to linguistic but to any kind of human practices, and according to Wittgenstein these in turn can neither be fully described from outside these practices nor can they be theoretically captured once and for all. On the account suggested here a model of understanding in general yields a model of the content of linguistic expressions. Such a model of understanding calls for a renewal of philosophy as well as a recasting of philosophical argument and procedure. To sketch this project I shall review Putnam's struggle for an adequate theory of meaning and reference. In trying to disconnect understanding from meaning as far as psychological aspects are concerned, Putnam catches a "problem of reference." A comparable problem finds reflection in Kripke's influential reading of Wittgenstein on rules and private language. In both cases the problem grows from an inadequate use of two central notions, namely objectivity and subjectivity. An alternative reading of Wittgenstein along the lines of McDowell and later Putnam allows a new, pragmatic view on understanding, its subjects, and its objects. (shrink)

When are the meanings of two utterances the same? And how, if at all, could we determine this sameness? In this paper I take a look at the contextualist answer of Hilary Putnam and Charles Travis. One characteristic trait of Hilary Putnam's conception of meaning is what he calls 'semantic externalism' and what I shall label 'public semantics' to avoid confusion with the topological or what I call 'locational' connotation of externalism in other contexts:1 the meaning of a word and (...) the full meaning/sense of a sentence or utterance are not determined by some private mental state(s) of the speaker but are determined by the use of words on an occasion or in a saying. According to Hilary Putnam and Charles Travis (both elaborating on Wittgenstein's discussions in his Philosophical Investigations), the varieties of such situational uses or occasions, the varieties of public semantics, can themselves not be described or determined once and for all. It is therefore not possible to reduce or absorb each and every pragmatic aspect into semantics. That means that semantics is essentially open and questions as to the sameness of meaning or sense of utterances cannot be answered independently of a pragmatic approach. Travis extends this diagnosis in his most recent book {Unshadowed Thought) to thought, beliefs and attitudes: no one thought, attitude or belief can be individuated independently of relevant situational aspects, these including, among others, acts in accord with, say, an attitude on some occasion or other. The approach pursued here claims that pragmatics is in either of these areas unavoidable and genuine. It cannot be explained away or be re-absorbed into semantics or epistemology.2 This has important consequences for what it means to do philosophy, as can be seen in Putnam's arguments as to the unintelligibility of various philosophical positions. (shrink)

When are the meanings of two utterances the same? And how, if at all, could we determine this sameness? In this paper I take a look at the contextualist answer of Hilary Putnam and Charles Travis. One characteristic trait of Hilary Putnam's conception of meaning is what he calls 'semantic externalism' and what I shall label 'public semantics' to avoid confusion with the topological or what I call 'locational' connotation of externalism in other contexts:1 the meaning of a word and (...) the full meaning/sense of a sentence or utterance are not determined by some private mental state(s) of the speaker but are determined by the use of words on an occasion or in a saying. According to Hilary Putnam and Charles Travis (both elaborating on Wittgenstein's discussions in his Philosophical Investigations), the varieties of such situational uses or occasions, the varieties of public semantics, can themselves not be described or determined once and for all. It is therefore not possible to reduce or absorb each and every pragmatic aspect into semantics. That means that semantics is essentially open and questions as to the sameness of meaning or sense of utterances cannot be answered independently of a pragmatic approach. Travis extends this diagnosis in his most recent book {Unshadowed Thought) to thought, beliefs and attitudes: no one thought, attitude or belief can be individuated independently of relevant situational aspects, these including, among others, acts in accord with, say, an attitude on some occasion or other. The approach pursued here claims that pragmatics is in either of these areas unavoidable and genuine. It cannot be explained away or be re-absorbed into semantics or epistemology.2 This has important consequences for what it means to do philosophy, as can be seen in Putnam's arguments as to the unintelligibility of various philosophical positions. (shrink)

Among the problems C. D. Bailey has questioned in a recent paper (Ref. 1) are a precise and general formulation of Hamilton's variational principle and the establishment of a sufficiency criterion for this to be a minimum principle. In this paper, we will try to answer these questions using the geometric theory of classical mechanics.

The first examples of the novel genre in modern Arabic literature emer-ged with the innovation movements initiated in this country after Napoleon's invasion of Egypt. In terms of technique and fiction, the Arab novel's reaching the desired standards and the first novel examples in the literary sense were made possible by the contributions of many writers who came to the fore with their different identities from writing novels. One of these writers, better known as a critic, is Ibrāhīm ʽAbd al-Qādir (...) al-Māzinī. Māzinī, who has written works in many fields of literature, is a master writer who has mostly written psychological novels. The aim of this study is to examine the themes that Māzinī, one of the important names of Arabic literature, included in his novels. In our study, Māzinī's novels Ibrāhīm al-Kātib, Ibrāhīm al-Thānī and Thalāthat Rigâl wa’mra’ah were examined and in these novels, mainly love, affection, pressure of tradition, despair, pessimism, disappointment, sadness, fear, delusion, jealousy and stinginess were examined. It has been determined that themes such as While many different themes were seen in the novels of many writers of his time, it is seen that the themes in Māzinī's novels are mostly psychological themes that reflect the inner world of man. In this respect, Māzinī differs from many other Arab novelists. (shrink)

Following the formation of disciplines/sciences in different fields of Islamic thought, the specific concepts and terminologies of these disciplines/sciences began to emerge. Then the special meaning and the area of utilization for every concept in each discipline/science were further clarified by compiling specific epistles of definition (ḥudūd), which would contribute to this process of conceptualization. For the terminological meaning of the used concept to be determined primarily and thus for the followed theological/sectarian affiliation to be supported, works belonging to this (...) genre have been written specifically for the field of theology. Especially, the Muʿtazilī theologians undoubtedly made the greatest contribution. Thusly, specific treatises containing theological concepts were compiled by names such as al-Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār (d. 415/1025), and his students Abū Rashīd al-Nīsābūrī (d. after 420/1029) and Ibn Sharwīn (fl. first half of the Vth/XIth century). Zaydī theologian and jurist Abū’l-Qāsim al-Bustī’s (d. 420/1029) Tahdhīb al-ḥudūd, which has no available copy, is also contemporary to the mentioned works. This tradition found its reflection in the Imāmī-Muʿtazilī line in Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭūsī’s (d. 460/1067) al-Muqaddimah fī l-madkhal ilá ṣināʿat ʿilm al-kalām, which could be seen as a concise theological work in terms of its construct and the explanations which it comprises, and in the work called al-Ḥudūd wa-l-ḥaqāʾiq, which is attributed to al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍá (d. 436/1044). Abū Jaʿfar al-Muqrī al-Nīsābūrī’s (d. mid-VIth/XIIth century [?]) al-Ḥudūd stands out as the most voluminous example in this tradition. The most important work belonging to this genre in the Muʿtazilī tradition, as it is the first among the available works, is the Ḥudūd al-alfāẓ of al-Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār, which is found together with some other important Zaydī-Muʿtazilī works in a compilation discovered by us and thought to be lost until recently. In this treatise, which generally includes theological concepts and partially includes the concepts of Islamic law and the history of sects, al-Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār has put forward a language-based definition theory. His approach here is in line with the views he put forward on definition in his al-Mughnī. Accordingly, instead of definition (ḥadd) and description (rasm) carried out over five universals in classical logic, he adopted a method of lexical definition based on wording that agrees with the meaning of the concept in question and is clearer than it, and consequently gave a brief definition and explanation of the concept he deals with. This clearly shows that the previous Muʿtazilī theologians’ approach of language-based definition, which was used as an alternative to the conception of Aristotelian definition due to their distanced stance to philosophy was also inherited by al-Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār. The approach seen in some sources in the period following al-Qāḍī, such as Abū Rashīd al-Nīsābūrī’s al-Ḥudūd, also indicates his influence. (shrink)

In this research, firstly, the related literature of cyberbullying/victimization, problematic internet usage and religiosity and correlations among religiosity, cyberbullying/victimization and problematic internet use were tried to be revealed. Subsequently, the differences between the gender groups on cyberbullying/victimization, problematic internet use and religiosity were examined. Moreover, the differences among the age groups on cyberbullying/victimization, problematic internet use and religiosity were analyzed. The study was conducted with 1130 participants between 16-55 years old. In the study, Personal Information Form, Revised CyberBullying Inventory, Generalized (...) Problematic Internet Use Scale 2 (GPIUS2) and two different Religiosity Scales were utilized. Personal Information Form was arranged by researchers. Two items of the Personal Information Form are derived from the Bapint Scale who developed by Öğel and et al. Revised CyberBullying Inventory was developed by Topçu and Erdur-Baker. Generalized Problematic Internet Use Scale 2 (GPIUS2) was developed by Caplan in 2010. The first religiosity scale was developed by Veysel and this version edited by Ayten was used. The second religiosity scale was developed by Ayten. According to the results of the study, it was seen that there was a statistically significant difference in the cyber bullying variable according to the sex. However, according to sex, cyber victimization, problematic internet use and religiosity variables were found not to be significantly differentiated. There is a significant difference in the cyberbullying, problematic internet use and religiosity according to the age variable. It has been found that there is no significant difference in the cyber victimization variable. According to the correlation which have been obtained, the significant negative relationship between religiosity, cyber bullying/victimization and problematic internet use were found. It is possible to say that as the religiousness increases, cyberbullying, cyber victimization and problematic internet usage decrease. (shrink)

Why did philosophy and the sciences in the East lose their momentum and enthusiasm in the 12th century, leaving the West to take the most importantprogressive steps from the 17th century up to the present day? Can these two intellectual traditions be separated from each other to such an extent as to justify today's theses of conflict? If they cannot be separated, how can the historical events that place these theses on the agenda can be explained? The aim of this (...) short study is to try to find answers to the above questions within the context of two representative philosophers, and to reveal the extent to which the easternand western traditions are implicated with each other, contrary to some claims, by examining the 17th century, which as a turning point is a very important historical period. (shrink)

Why did philosophy and the sciences in the East lose their momentum and enthusiasm in the 12th century, leaving the West to take the most importantprogressive steps from the 17th century up to the present day? Can these two intellectual traditions be separated from each other to such an extent as to justify today's theses of conflict? If they cannot be separated, how can the historical events that place these theses on the agenda can be explained? The aim of this (...) short study is to try to find answers to the above questions within the context of two representative philosophers, and to reveal the extent to which the easternand western traditions are implicated with each other, contrary to some claims, by examining the 17th century, which as a turning point is a very important historical period. (shrink)

We use a sequential voluntary contribution game to compare the relative impact of a first-mover’s non-binding announcement versus binding commitment on cooperation. We find that a non-binding announcement and a binding commitment increase individual contributions to a similar extent. Since announced contributions systematically exceed commitments, in sessions with a non-binding announcement, second-movers tend to contribute more to the group activity than in sessions with a binding commitment. Yet, second-movers appear to be more motivated towards achieving a social optimum when the (...) first-mover uses commitment. We also find that a non-binding announcement has a higher impact on individual propensity to cooperate than the ex post contribution of the first-mover. However, the failure to make announced contributions decreases cooperation even though the first-mover is reassigned in every period. (shrink)

This article exposes criterial bases of the development of social quality in the USSR and Russia. The causes of the increased volatility of the state-monopoly capitalism emerging in Russia from the 1990s and in the first decade of the twenty-first century are analyzed. Characteristics of social quality such as a high proportion of low-paid employees, a low standard of living and a high economic inequality are considered. The impact of the precarity of employment on these processes is demonstrated. Risk factors (...) of precarity of employment such as type of labor contract, form of employment, working conditions and wages (in particular, volatility and discreteness of payments) are analyzed. The evaluation of scale of the precarity of employment in the formal sector in Russia is made; the distribution of workers in precarity of employment by kinds of economic activity and the deviation of their average wages are introduced. Overcoming the instability of development is linked to the transition to a society of people-humanistic socialism. (shrink)

The law of varying action and Hamilton's principle of classical mechanics are discussed. It is now clear that the law of varying action, introduced by Hamilton in his papers of 1834 and 1935, was never recognized by either the mathematicians or other scientists who followed him. Why this occurred is discussed in this paper.