Mirrors for princes, in general, give advices to the rulers about the subtleties of political art. Another aim of these books is to define and explain the administration of the state and the duties of rulers based on experience. In consequence of this they reflect the practical ethics of the period in which they were written. As such, they resemble practical handbooks written for rulers. Another point regarding the mirrors for princes works in which the political understanding of the era (...) can be observed is that they generally use sacred texts in order to prove the political legitimacy or invalidity of the power, as well as the rightfulness or the unlawfulness of the claims to the throne. Evidences from the Qurʾān and the ḥadīth literature was almost always used to support such advocated opinions. In fact, during the Middle Ages when religion and politics were considered coupled, it was unthinkable that religious elements should not be included in the works of state administration. The important point here is that the verses and ḥadīths were sometimes removed from their contexts and interpreted and explained in a way to support the ideology of the author or the ruler whom the author presented his work. In this study, we will try to reveal the subjects in which the verses and ḥadīths used in the mirrors for princes, which is a genre that has emerged within the Islamic culture and civilization. Thus, we aim to prepare a background for the future studies, which will focus on a specific verse or ḥadīth.Summary: The first political splits in Islamic history occurred immediately after the death of prophet Muḥammad. These differences were resolved by the agreement of the majority of Muslims on Abu Bakr's name. Until the second half of the rule of the third caliph ʿUthmān, Muslims came together around the unifying power of the idea of conquest. Nevertheless, substantially as a result of economically based problems the period of tranquility in Islamic society came to an end and was replaced by disputes. Disputes turned into conflict and ultimately seperation fused with the massacre of ʿUthmān in the capital Medina turned into a big fire with the Battles of the Camel and Ṣiffīn, the emergence of Khārijīs, the formation of the Shia and the deepening of the intellectual divisions after the all of these. Islamic history has witnessed a clash of different religious views and beliefs. along with deepening of intellectual disagreements as a result of political debatesIn the Islamic political thought, especially the first two centuries process was formed around the views of the jurists, muḥaddiths and theologians. The first sources used by those who tried to justify their opinion in the differences of opinion experienced during this period were the Qurʾān and ḥadīth literature which Muslims accepted as the determining factor in all their acts. The views based on the Qur'an and the hadiths, which are the two main sources of Islamic religion, had been used to influence the people, legitimize the actions and refute the claims of the opponents. On the other hand the sort who gave direction to political thought changed and political thought adhered a new path with Turks and Persians served as bureaucrats and soldiers and took an active position in the state. Especially Persians carried the culture of advice to Islamic thought, which is the product of both Greek and Hind civilization. Such books had brought in the İslamic society with translation movements began in the Umayyad period and peaked with the Bayt al-Ḥikma in the Abbasid period. Together with these books, the ideas of these civilizations on ideal state administration, politics and morality were recognized by Muslim scholars.These type of works, which are famous in terms of Islamic thought as mirrors for princes, have been written by Muslim scholars since the middle of the eighth century. Mirrors for princes are political, moral and religious content books that gives the rulers practical advice to maintain their power in accordance with the religious orders and prohibitions, and to the consent of Allāh’s who grant them this authority and people which appointed for their administration. Mirrors for princes are mostly theoretical books since they are mostly focused on what should be. In addition, since they are written for names that currently hold power, they are centered on how the rulers can maintain and increase their power and with which practices the state will maintain its existence for a longer period. The basic point of political thought and political interpretation are concepts and definitions. When the concept meaning of a word is mentioned, it is generally considered that there is a general definition. However, the concepts reflect the meaning that the user assigns to him in the context of his thoughts, perceptions, criticisms, explanations and analyzes. Concepts such as fair, honest, brave, hero, beautiful, rich, good and clean express what the person imposes on the meaning. In other words, everyone’s experience determines the content of the concept so far. The meaning of the concepts varies with the age and its user of that concept. Even concepts such as justice, merit and consultation can change meaning in different periods and geographies. The concepts, which are often used to facilitate understanding, are sometimes used to judge, to mold or mislead the interlocutor. In this context, it is imperative to enter the mind of the user in order to make concept analysis.In Islamic civilization, the principles of management are explained with concepts. The idiosyncrasies that Muslims expect from an ideal ruler are defined as justice, consultation, merit, trust and legitimacy and a broad corpus has been written about the concepts related to the administration, especially those mentioned. One type of this corpus is mirrors for princes.In Islamic history, there are many Mirrors for princes who are written in different time periods by names coming from different geographies and different backgrounds. Although the advice given in Mirrors for princes indicate a great similarity to each other, the preferred arguments and examples in the foundation of the counsel are different. While the persons in active politics mostly based their opinions on political arguments, scholars with scientific tradition supported their advices with religious arguments.Verses are the leading religious elements highlighted in Mirrors for princes. While explaining the concepts and emphasizing the importance of the advices, many verses have been exploited. Some verses are used only by one author, while some verses are the subject of their work by many authors. In the same way, ḥadīths and the sentences accepted as ḥadīths were also used to reinforce the emphasis and meaning. At this point, sometimes the context of the verses and ḥadīths were not taken care of. In this study, we aim to address the use of religious elements.In the literature, different opinions have emerged about who is ülü’l-emr and the limits of obedience to ülü’l-emr that used describe the names of senior executives and leaders of society. The reason for the difference is that each sect or religious school provides an interpretation on the basis of grounding its own views in explaining the verse. Justice is the most emphasized concept among the advices given to the rulers in mirrors for princes. Justice, which is shown as the most important feature of a sovereign, has been regarded as extremely important for the state to existences until the Doomsday. In addition, justice has been described as the most important condition for the maintenance of the state/sovereign authority. Consultation was important to make the right decision.Verses and ḥadīths were used in the explanations about the personal characteristics of the sovereign. Some features such as being compassionate, keeping promise, controlling anger, patience, honesty, blessing, extravagance, self-esteem, break a promise, revoke a promise and arrogance have become the subject of politics. When the mirrors for princes are considered as a whole, it is seen that religion and state are considered as inseparable twin brothers, taken one step further the understanding that accepts religion and the world as brothers especially is a product of the old Persian tradition. In this understanding, religion was accepted as the root and was given the duty of its patronage to political authority. It is seen that in the Mirrors for princes verses and ḥadīths hold a significant amount. As the reason for this can be said that along with religion takes place on the basis of morality, the authors of the Mirrors for princes, which put deep meanings on the relationship between religion and the state in the period that we are dealing with, consider both institutions to be complementary and integrative. (shrink)

The last four sections of the first book of Abū al-Barakāt al-Baghdādī’s summa, entitled Kitāb al-Mu‘tabar, deal with dialectics, sophistical refutations, rhetoric, and poetics in full line with Aristotle’s Organon. However, they are not so much based on Aristotle’s works, but on a work of the young Ibn Sīnā, namely al-Ḥikma al-‘Arūdiyya. Both texts have much in common not only in their structure, but also in their very wording. The article presents a basic survey of the correspondences for all (...) four sections and also highlights the most significant differences. However, important part of these differences has a counterpart in an logical text, which is present in the manuscript Nuruosmaniye 4894 and which is, in turn, very close to, albeit not identical, with Ibn Sīnā’s al-Ḥikma al-‘Arūdiyya as conserved in the unique manuscript Uppsala 364. Therefore, it is obvious that Abū al-Barakāt takes over many formulations and, at once, many ideas from Ibn Sīnā. However, he adds clearly personal elements that often seem to have been religiously inspired and, on occasion, consciously returns to Aristotle’s wording. (shrink)

The fourth/tenth-century Ṣiwān al-ḥikma is one of the most important doxographic and gnomologic texts in Arabic and was most instrumental in the transmission of philosophical knowledge from Greek into Arabic. Despite its importance, the original text has been lost and the book is known to us only in excerpts, one of which, Muntakhab Ṣiwān al-ḥikma, was so successful that it probably replaced the original. The identity of the Muntakhab’s compiler, who was also the author of Itmām Tatimmat Ṣiwān al-ḥikma, an (...) anthology of Arabic poetry written by philosophers of the Islamic period, is to date unknown. Following a suggestion made by Muḥammad Taqī Dānishpazhūh in 1959, this article produces strong evidence that it was Muʿīn al-Dīn Abū l-Aʿlā Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd al-Nīsābūrī al-Ghaznawī, and describes his life and works. (shrink)

In his book Visions of Politics, Quentin Skinner argued that a scholar's primary concern is to situate texts and terms within their intellectual contexts in order to make sense of their authors' meaning. Skinner also stressed the history of the uses to which moral terms have been put, and their meanings for the agent performing them. While admitting the difficulties of such method with early Muslim writings, Hikmet Yaman is to be congratulated on his thorough analysis of ḥikma, commonly (...) translated as 'wisdom,' one of the most important yet under-researched Islamic concepts. In his Prophetic Niche in the Virtuous City: The Concept of Ḥikma in Early Islamic Thought, Yaman follows Skinner's call and treats the .. (shrink)

Islamic ethics; Muslims; religious life; biography.

1. Uyun al-hikma, et l'opuscule d'Abu'l Faraj et la réfutation d'Ibn Sina, édité et annoté par H.Z. Ülken.--2. Les opuscules d'Ibn Sina, et Le livre de la différence entre l'esprit et l'âme, par Qosta b. Luqa; édité, étudié et onnoté [sic] par H.Z. Ülken.--3. Aşkın mâhiyeti hakkında risâle, neşreden ve Türkçeye çeviren A. Ateş.

Ibn al-Fa's Kitmin, the Book of the Delight of the Believer preserves, in the first part, in at least three of its 100 philosophical and theological problems, passages from the hitherto lost Arabic version of Philoponus' De Aeternitate mundi contra Proclum. All quotations are taken from the refutation of the first proof, one of them from the beginning which is also lost in Greek. For this latter passage a parallel is found in al-Isfiz who draws on the same Philoponus source (...) in his Kit Masil al-umhiyya (Book on Metaphysical Questions). A comparison of the other passages to the extant Greek text suggests that al-Ank's overall accurate use of sources can be gained from his quotations of the extant Arabic versions of the De Anima-paraphrase, Nemesius' De Natura hominis and b. Rabban al-'s Firdaws al-ḥikma (Paradise of Wisdom). (shrink)

Este artículo intenta demostrar que, al contrario de lo que mantienen varios estudiosos modernos, el término coránico al-Masyid al-Aqs.à denomina a la Jerusalén terrestre. La Jerusalén a la que se refiere es la ciudad santa cristiana, una ¿Nueva Jerusalén¿ que reemplazaba a aquella que había sido destruida por los pecados de los judíos. El viaje nocturno de Muhammad a este lugar constituye una visión semejante a la que experimentó Ezequiel. Las fuentes de tafsir más tempranas son unánimes en equiparar este (...) al-Masyid al-Aqsà del Corán con Jerusalén (Bayt al-Maqdis). Sólo algunas fuentes si'íes mantienen que al-Masyid al-Aqsà está en los cielos, lo que implica que Muhammad nunca estuvo en Jerusalén. Esta interpretación refleja la actitud si'í antiomeya, y tenía el objetivo de privar a Jerusalén de su carácter sagrado como centro de peregrinación. Esta interpretación se apoya en tradiciones que describen el viaje nocturno de Muh.ammad desde la Meca directamente a los cielos. Estas tradiciones, más tardías, pertenecen al ciclo de historias en torno a la primera revelación de Muhammad y no tienen nada que ver con su viaje nocturno a Jerusalén. (shrink)

According to the consencus of Muslim world, al-Aqsā Mosque is located in the land of al-Quds (Jerusalem). In this matter, especially the old Sunnite sources are in agreement with each other. However, there are recently some different views regarding the location of al-Aqsā Mosque. It has been argued that al-Aqsā Mosque most likley was built in a location differnet from Jerusalem. One of the defenders of this opinion is Muhammad Hamīdullah, who is a prominent scholar of Islamic studies and considered (...) to be a reliable authority among contemporary Islāmic historians. He claims that al-Aqsā Mosque, which was also mentioned in the Qur’ān, cannot be the Mosque that is present in Jerusalem. Rather, it must be searched in heavens. If this claim is accepted, then numerous reports informing that the mosque is located in Jerusalem and many interpretations based on these reports, will become problematic and controversial. Therefore, it is necessary to examine those claims and the relevant evidence in detail. Following this pueporse, we aim to examine and evaluate those views with a critical approach in this study. In this regard, we will argue that the comments and approaches that have been argued so far, are not consistent. Rather, relevant claims do not rely on strong evidence but only unsatisfactory interpretations. Summary: Muhammad Hamīdullah who is a prominent researcher and well-known for his studies on History of Islām, has individual opinions on some issues, different from classical scholars of Ahlu’s-Sunnah (branch of Islām that accepts the first four caliphs as rightful successors to Muhammad). One of his distinctive views is the original place of Masjid al-Aqsā (al-Aqsā Mosque). He claims that al-Aqsā Mosque was likely located, not in al-Quds (Jerusalem), but in heavens. In this article, our purpose is to examine this matter by evaluating his arguments regarding the place of al-Aqsā Mosque. Hamīdullah’s argument is based on several reasons which are as follows:Miʻrāc (The Ascension) is a journey from the earth to beyond the heavens. According to Hamīdullah, it is illogical to say that, in relation to such a magnificient occurrence, the Holy Qur’ān only mentions the journey from Mecca to Bayt al-Maqdis/al-Quds.Hamīdullah maintains that the expression “al-Masjid al-Aqsā” in the first verse of Sūrah al-Isrā means “the remotest Mosque.” However, the Palestinian lands are described as “Adna’l-Arḍ/Nearest Country” in the third verse of Sūrah ar-Rūm. Thus, “the remotest Mosque” should not be “the nearest country”; rather it should be a Mosque in heavens.He also argues that in some Hadith texts, the mosque in question is mentioned as “Masjid al-Aqsā”, but there is a grammatical difference between the phrases of “al-Masjid al-Aqsā” and “Masjid al-Aqsā”, which means that the mosque mentioned as “al-Masjid al-Aqsā” in the Qur’ānic verse does not have a connection with al-Quds (Jerusalem). In his opinion, the expression of “Masjid al-Aqsā” which appears in some Hadith texts is in the form of a noun clause, while the quranic expression “al-Masjid al-Aqsā” is in the form of an adjective clause. Accordingly, “Masjid al-Aqsā” and “al-Masjid al-Aqsā” refer to different places. The noun clause -as in the Hadith texts- of “Masjid al-Aqsā” must be in al-Quds, whereas the Qur’ānic expression in the form of an adjective clause of “al-Masjid al-Aqsā” must be a mosque in the heavens.According to his other claim, Abu’l-Yemān, the teacher of the teacher of Bukhārī, when narrating the hadith about mosques, he mentions this mosque, not as “al-Masjid al-Aqsā”, but as Īliyā’. That is, according to him, early sources of hadith do not mention the phrase of “al-Masjid al-Aqsā”, but instead, the phrase of Īliyā’ was used. Hamīdullah also states “... while narrating this hadith, Muslim does not use the phrases “Masjid al-Aqsā” or “al-Masjid al-Aqsā.” Instead, he uses the phrase Īliyā’.”He also states that the term al-masjid (the mosque) which appears in the seventh verse of Sūrah al-Isrā, was used to refer to that Īliyā’, not to refer to “al-Masjid al-Aqsā”. Likewise, the Umayyad Caliph Abdulmelik (26-86 h.c./646-705 g.c.) built the Dome of the Rock (Masjid al-Saḥra) in al-Quds and named it “Masjid al-Aqsā”. This name became so widespread at the times of Imam al-Bukhārī (194-256 h.c./810/870 g.c.) so that the old name Īliyā’ had been totally forgotten. Because of this reason, some hadith narrators were using this more common name “Masjid al-Aqsā” to express and describe this forgotten name.When we critically evaluate the information and approaches explained above, we come to the conclusion that they are not consistent. First of all, the claim that Masjid al-Aqsā is in the heavens, is in disagreement with the Qur’ānic verses implying that “Masjid al-Aqsā” is in al-Quds, and with many authentic hadith texts that indicate its existence on those lands. Also, the sources of Qur’ānic interpretations (exegeses) and historical narrations refute this claim. On the other hand, there is no Qur’ānic verse or tradition (hadith) that state that Masjid al-Aqsā is in the heavens.We argue that Hamīdullah’s claim “...It is illogical to say that, in relation to such a magnificient occurrence, the Holy Qur’ān only mentions the journey from Mecca to al-Aqsā Mosque in al-Quds” is not very appropriate. Because, it is beyond the human judgment to decide which part of this magnificient journey is more important or which part of it should take place in the Holy Qur’ān. Only Allah has the authority to decide for this. Moreover, we should remember that-as mentioned in the conveyed knowledge- the incident mentioned in the first verse of Sūrah al-Isrā is merely the magnificient journey from Mecca to Masjid al-Aqsā, which was clearly stated in the authentic hadith sources. As for the third verse of Sūrah al-Rūm, it is not correct to claim that Masjid al-Aqsā is not in al-Quds but in the heavens, by reading the text of the verse. Because, the phrase al-arḍ (the earth) has several meanings. Moreover, the phrase al-aqsā (the remotest) in the first verse of Sūrah al-Isrā, refers to distance between the two mosques, not between two countries.In some hadith texts, Masjid al-Aqsā was mentioned as “al-Masjid al-Aqsā” in the form of a noun clause, but this does not require that the masjid in question should be in the heavens. Because, many hadith texts mention it in the form of an adjective clause. Besides, some hadith texts mention Masjid al-Harām (Great Mosque of Mecca) in the form of a noun clause (Masjid al-Harām), not in the form of an adjective clause (al-Masjid al-Harām). If we consider Hamīdullah’s claim, we should look for the Masjid al-Harām in the heavens, but not on earth. So far, neither he nor anybody else made such a claim.Hamīdullah argues that Abu’l Yemān mentioned this mosque as Īliyā’, but not as al-Masjid al-Aqsā, and claimed that early religious sources do not use the term al-Masjid al-Aqsā. However, this is not a sound argument. Because, the authorities of hadith and history, who lived both before Abu’l Yemān and also at the same era, used the term “al-Masjid al-Aqsā” in their works and narrated that this term refers to al-Quds or Bayt al-Maqdis (Masjid al-Aqsā). Moreover, Hamīdullah’s claim that Muslim (a senior hadith scholar) did not use the terms “al-Masjid al-Aqsā” or “Masjid al-Aqsā” but instead he used the name “Īliyā’” is incorrect. Because, while narrating this hadith, the hadith scholar (Muslim) used all three names. As for the term “al-Masjid (the Mosque)” mentioned in Q 17.7, it is a groundless comment to claim that it does not refer to “al-Masjid al-Aqsā” in Q 17.1. Because the context of the verses and grammatical rules of Arabic language explicitly prove that the mosque mentioned in the seventh verse refers to “al-Masjid al-Aqsā” which is also mentioned in the first verse.His claim that “the Umayyads named the temple that they built in Jerusalem as “Masjid al-Aqsā” and following the era of Umayyads, in the period of Bukhārī, this naming became widespread” is highly vulnerable and disputable. Because in those times, the temple used to be named as “al-Masjid al-Jami (the Gathering Mosque)”, not as “al-Masjid al-Aqsā”. Nearly three centuries after the Umayyads reign, the naming of the said temple was first introduced to be as “al-Masjid al-Aqsā”. As for the expression of “al-Masjid al-Aqsā” appearing in the early sources of hadith, it was not used for the mosque built by the Umayyads, but was used to mean the entire haram (sacred, respected) region taking place in the south east corner of Jerusalem. In the light of arguments and explanations critically analysed above, we are in a position to argue that Muhammad Hamīdullah’s argument that “Masjid al-Aqsā is in the heavens”, does not rely on sound evidence, but rather, they are only some unsatisfactory interpretations. (shrink)

This paper is devoted to a fascinating passage in Faḫr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 1210), in which he argues that non-human animals have rational souls. It is found in his Mulaḫḫaṣ fī l-manṭiq wa-l-ḥikma (Epitome on Philosophy and Logic). Following a discussion of the afterlife, Faḫr al-Dīn suggests that animals should, like humans, be capable of grasping universals, and that they are aware of their own identity over time. Furthermore, animal behavior shows that they are capable of rational planning and (...) problem-solving. We contextualize these arguments with reference to Faḫr al-Dīn’s other philosophical works, and also compare the considerations he raises to ideas found in modern-day animal ethics, drawing here especially on the work of Mark Rowlands. The paper concludes with a translation of the passage. (shrink)

Al-Qadi al-Nu´man b. Muhammad es el más destacado y prolífico de los estudiosos fatimíes y el fundador de la jurisprudencia isma´ilí. En su epístola " La clarificación elocuente para la refutación de Ibn Qutayba", todavía en manuscrito, al-Nu,man se lanza a una polémica en contra de Ibn Qutayba, que había vivido un siglo antes. Es probable que la epístola fuera escrita en la época de al- Mu´izz a petición de un tutor anónimo de los hijos del califa. En ella, al-Nu´man (...) se propone refutar la afirmación de Ibn Qutaybba, incluida en la introducción de su famosa obra Adab al-Katib, según la cual era suficiente para la realización de sus tareas que los kuttab, o funcionarios del estado, memorizaran una serie de fórmulas legales simples, sin tener que aprenderse las largas disertaciones de los fuqaha' o doctores de la ley. Al-Qadi al-Nu´man, un faqih famoso, se dedica en la epístola a demostrar que sin estas disertaciones no se podía aplicar la ley correctamente. En su texto se refiere a cada fórmula legal mencionada por su rival en Adab al-Katib y demuestra cómo la ley se debería aplicar basándose en la autoridad de los imames del Ahl al-Bayt, la Familia del Profeta Muhammad. También refuta las distintas interpretaciones legales sunníes de estas mismas cuestiones. (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)

The present paper aims to explore the medieval philosopher Abū al-Barakāt al-Baghdādī’s (d. pre- 560 AH/1164-5) position concerning the problem of divine foreknowledge and human free will and argues Abū al-Barakāt to have considered the argument for compatibility between divine foreknowledge and human free will to be invalid. One can defend either divine foreknowledge or human free will; no other solution is available. By examining his accounts on this issue through the logic and metaphysics of his book al-Muʿtabar fi-l-ḥikma, (...) Abū al-Barakāt defense of human free will shall become evident. (shrink)

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

Although there are fundamental differences between Ahl al-Sunnah and Shī‘a on the issue of Mahdī, one of the controversial issues among Islamic sects, Shī‘a has attached much greater importance to the issue. In this study, after the information about Mahdiship in the primary sources of Islam is conveyed, the opinions of the Ahl al-Sunnah and Shī‘a will be given and an evaluation will be made about the evidence and opinions put forward by the two sects. The Shiites, who formed the (...) principles of belief based on the theory of imamate, explained the issue of Mahdism in the axis of imamate and gave it a religious dimension, but the Shi‘ī sects disagreed on the subject of Mahdī. Shi‘ī sources tried to show that the claim of Mahdiship is an important issue, which has preoccupied Muslims, by dating the claim of Mahdiship back to Ali ibn Abi Talib's son, Muhammad ibn Hanafiyah. In a very early period, it was claimed that Muhammad ibn Hanafiyya did not die but was still living on a mountain called Razva in Madinah, and he was the anticipated (muntaẓar) Mahdī. Most of the Zaydiyya did not consider the issue of Mahdiship an important fundamental basis of belief. Ismailiyya maintain that Muhammad ibn Ismail did not die and will come and amend the world one day. Imāmiyya believe that Hasan, whom they accept as the last imam, will reappear as the Mahdī in the latest days of the world, and in line with this belief, they have made great efforts to find proof from the Qur’ānic verses and hadiths and interpreted them. In this way, they attached more importance to the understanding of Mahdiship on the axis of imamate than the other Shi‘ī sects. According to Imāmiyya, since the world cannot be left without a prophet, an open, or a secret imam, Muhammad b. Hasan will remain hidden as long as he wants and appear as the Mahdī near the Doomsday. Based on the clear statement of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) that twelve caliphs would come after him, the Imāmiyya restricted the number of Imams from Ahl al-Bayt to twelve and claimed that the twelfth imam would come again as Mahdī. Although the Imāmiyya believe that the Mahdī will be from the Ahl al-Bayt, just like the other imams, they have not been able to provide valid evidence for the belief that the twelfth imam will be hidden and appear near Judgment Day. Although Imāmiya tried/have been trying to prove that it is possible for a person to live for centuries (more than a thousand years), which is called al-Ghaybat al-Kubrā by Imamiyya, it cannot be said that they have succeeded in doing so. (shrink)

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

Intense debates about who will lead the Muslims after the death of the Prophet Muḥammad (PBUH) occurred among the Aṣḥāb (companions of the Prophet Muhammad). A group of Aṣḥāb claimed that the caliphate was the right of Ḥaḍrat ʿAlī and his descendants. This movement, which emerged as political advocacy supporting Ḥaḍrat ʿAlī (d. 40/661) and his children, took on a sectarian identity called Shīʿa by time, was divided into groups, and then spread to different places in the Islamic World. One (...) of these groups is the Ismāʿīliyya which took its name from Ismāʿīl b. Ḏj̲aʿfar al-Ṣādiḳ (d. 138/755). Ismāʿīliyya had believed that the Umayyads and the ʿAbbāsids usurped the right of Ḥaḍrat ʿAlī and his descendants; therefore, they struggled against these dynasties secretly under the leadership of ʿUbayd Allāh al-Mahdī (d. 322/934) and by means of callers. After establishing their first state Fāṭimids in the North Africa with the Berbers, the Ismāʿīlīs carried out their activities openly and seized a region from Barqa to the Atlantic Ocean. The Fāṭimid State based on sectarianism aimed to follow the Shīʿa belief rather than controlling an area since its establishment. In this respect, the Fāṭimids, who differed from the ʿAbbāsid and Umayyad states, made great efforts to capture Egypt and Andalus by increasing their propagandas through callers (dāī) from the end of the third century. Because of this effort and successful policy of al-Muʿizz li-Din Allah the third, they conquered Egypt. The callers played a key role in the Egypt. As the Sunni-Maliki sect had taken root in Andalusia, Ismāʿīlīs could not achieve the same success, and a limited number of people embraced their doctrine. However, they managed to direct some famous intellectual and literary men to their side. Undoubtedly, one of the most important achievements was Ibn Hāniʾ al-Andalusi (d. 362/973). Ibn Hāniʾ, who had to leave Andalusia, as he was a Shiite, went to Maghrib and came under the patronage of the governors of Masila, which depended on Fāṭimid. His poems about governors spread his fame and made him known until al-Qayrawan, the capital of Fāṭimid. One of the methods used by many of the caliphs and amīrs (ruler) to consolidate their rule within the borders of the state and to spread their influence abroad since the Jahiliyya (pre-Islamic period) is that they included poets who praised themselves and the state policies, in other words, made their advertisements in the palace. Ibn Hāniʾ was one of the poets Caliph Muʿizz invited to his palace in al-Mansuriyya as soon as he heard of the poet’s fame. Ibn Hāniʾ came to the presence of Caliph in 350/962 and named as al-Mutanabbī of Maghreb as he became famous than poets such as Abu'l-Qasim al-Fazari and ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Iyadi. In time, Ibn Hāniʾ who became one of the sincerest friends of Muʿizz, used all his creative potential to defend the Caliph and deliver the views of Ismāʿīliyya in return for the value and generosity he received from the Caliph. Thus, the poet, who became the most powerful defender and propagandist of the Fāṭimids who pursued an expansionist policy in the East and the West, introduced an innovation to his style of praise contrary to his classical style. Accordingly, he gained great reputation thanks to his poems that praised the Fāṭimid Imāms, especially Muʿizz using expressions attributing him superhuman properties. Naturally, the successful politics followed by Muizz and the doctrine and terms of the Shiite-Ismāʿīliyya party, which the poet advocated, had a distinct reflection on his odes. Moreover, the issue of Ahl al-Bayt (the family of the Prophet Muḥammad) and injustices they suffered, affected the poet’s feelings deeply, and he did not hesitated to express these injustices in his poems without worrying about any danger. These odes reported to be the first written documents including information about the Fāṭimid creed and the traits, which Fāṭimid Imāms were supposed to have, are important resources for researchers. Fāṭimids believed that the imām was innocent, knew everything, and he would intercede his friends on Judgment Day. They even saw him as superhuman and attributed holiness and glory to him that would make him the spirit of God. Furthermore, they regarded that the imām was the reason of life. Similar themes were very common in Ibn Hāniʾ’s poetry. His poems went beyond the borders of the states in the North Africa, spread to a large region extending from Andalusia to Baghdad, and provided recognition of the doctrine of Ismāʿīliyya. This study consists of an introduction and two parts. The introduction part includes brief information about the history of the Shīʿa-Ismāʿīliyya and Ibn Hāniʾ’s life and poetry. The other parts discuss reflections of the Shīʿa-Ismāʿīliyya belief in the poet’s odes and analyses of these poems. Finally, poems having historical and political value related to Karbala, which has profound effects on Shiite literature, are analyzed. (shrink)

Abstract. Scholars have long debated the possibility of a mystical or illuminationist strain of thought in Ibn Sīnā 's body of writing. This debate has often focused on the meaning and contents of his partly lost work al-Mashriqiyyūn (The Easterners), also known as al-Ḥikma al-Mashriqiyya (EasternWisdom), mentioned by Ibn Sīnā himself as well as by numerous Western writers including Ibn Rushd and Ibn Ṭufayl. A handful of references to what is called Ibn Sīnā 's “Oriental Philosophy” are also found (...) in the Castilian and Hebrew works of the Castilian Jew Abner of Burgos (ca. 1270-ca.1347), known after his conversion to Christianity as Alfonso of Valladolid. Although the content of these citations has not been identified, it has been proposed that they may preserve otherwise unknown passages from Ibn Sīnā's lost work. This study considers the references to Ibn Sīnā 's so-called “Oriental Philosophy” within Abner's writings and concludes that rather than preserving lost passages from Ibn Sīnā's writing, Abner's references were drawn primarily from Ibn Ṭufayl and offer no support for the argument of a possible mystical or illuminationist strain in Ibn Sīnā 's thinking. -/- Résumé. Depuis longtemps, on a discuté de la possible présence d'une orientation mystique ou “illuminative” dans l'oeuvre d'Ibn Sīnā . Le sens et le contenu de son ouvrage (partiellement perdu) al-Mashriqiyyūn (Les Orientaux), également connu comme al-Ḥikma al-Mashriqiyya (La Sagesse orientale), mentionné par Ibn Sīnā lui-même et par des écrivains occidentaux comme Ibn Rushd et Ibn Ṭufayl, ont souvent été au centre de ce débat. On trouve aussi quelques références à ce qui est appelé la “philosophie orientale” d'Ibn Sīnā dans l'oeuvre du juif castillan Abner de Burgos (ca. 1270-ca. 1347) connu après sa conversion au christianisme sous le nom d'Alphonse de Valladolid. Sans avoir au préalable identifié le contenu de ces citations, on a fait l'hypothèse qu'elles auraient permis de conserver des passages, inconnus par ailleurs, de l'ouvrage perdu d'Ibn Sīnā. Cette étude porte sur les références à la “philosophie orientale” d'Ibn Sīnā dans l'oeuvre d'Abner de Burgos. Elle montre que les références d'Abner semblent avoir été essentiellement tirées d'Ibn Ṭufayl et ne renvoient donc pas aux passages perdus de l'ouvrage d'Ibn Sīnā. En conséquence elles ne peuvent servir d'argument pour confirmer la présence d'une orientation mystique ou “illuminative” dans l'oeuvre d'Ibn Sīnā. (shrink)

An alchemical Arabic treatise alternatively entitled Miftāḥ al-ḥikma, Miftāḥ jannāt al-khuld, Sirr al-asrār and Sirr al-sārr wa-sirr al-asrār is attributed in its manuscripts to two different authors: al-Iznīqī and Jābir b. Ḥayyān. In this article I briefly discuss some characteristic aspects of the treatise and its significance for the history of alchemy. These aspects include its ancient and important sources, such as the Muṣḥaf al-jamā‛a and the Kitāb al-Ḥabīb, and its connection with the tradition of the artists and the (...) activity of the workshop and laboratory, which first comes to the fore in Greek alchemy and later in Islamic alchemy. Furthermore, the work includes references to alchemical physical theories in which the influence of Islamic theology may perhaps be traced. This article, which summarises the results of investigations carried out over the last few years, could be considered as a kind of introduction to the edition and translation of the text currently in progress. (shrink)

Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Selections from The Comprehensive Exposition of the Interpretation of the Verses of the Qurʾān. Translated by Scott C. Lucas. 2 vols. Cambridge: The Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought and The Islamic Texts Society, 2017. Pp. xxxiv + 575; xxxii + 550. $32.95 each.

This article examines ḥikma as it was practiced by Ṣadr al-Dīn Shīrāzī, or Mullā Ṣadrā (d. 1640), in explaining the connection between the divine names and the attributes of God. This is done via a translation of the fourth part of his al-Maẓāhir al-ilāhiyya fī asrār al-ʿulūm al-kamāliyya [The loci of divine manifestations in the secrets of the knowledge of perfection]. Ḥikma, philosophy, as it is defined here, is the combination of rational demonstrations and spiritual unveiling. Shīrāzī’s philosophy (...) is a synthesis of Ibn ʿArabī’s school of metaphysical unveiling, the Ishrāqī school led by Suhrawardī, and the rational school of the Peripatetics. The text is translated here for the first time, and includes annotations. (shrink)

In this study, the distortion of claims on the text of the Qur’ān in Tafsīr al-Qummī which is one of the main sources of Shī‘a has been investigated. al- Qummī, the first scholar of the Shi’ite scholars, claims that in the account of the commentary are distorted in the text of the Qur’ān with various subtitles, such as the verses that are in the land of Allah's descendants and distorted verses. While interpreting the verses, he discloses this claim in detail (...) and sometimes gives the correct shapes of the revelations as the difference of interpretation, sometimes based on the narrations, and sometimes in the way of reading the verse. In this study, the verses alleged to be literally distorted in his commentary have been determined and this claim has been compared with other commentaries. The purpose of the article in this context is; in the case of al-Qummī exegesis, it is the examination of the verses allegedly distorted in the Qur’ān and the determination of the Shī‘ī commentators based on the doctrine of sects by changing the text of the Qur’ān. Summary: The Glorious the Qur’ān by almight Allah, it is a divine book that has been revealed to Muhammad (pbuh) through Gabriel. It has been preserved from all kinds of changing, transmutation and distortion, since the day the Qur’ān was revealed. “ إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ ” “We have, without doubt, sent down the message; and we will assuredly guard it (from corruption)”. This verse is the greatest proof that the Holy Qur’ān is under protection, and it has not been distorted or will not. Distortion (falsification) is the change of the sacred texts by adding or subtracting the original text, arbitrarily changing the meaning, or misinterpreting the actual text. This term is often used to describe Jews’ and Christians’ deliberately changing or misinterpreting their own sacred texts. However, this term is also used by the a few scholars of the Shī‘as Imamiyya sect for the Qur’ān. There are two schools who claims the distortion of the Qur’ān within the Imamiyya Shī‘ah. The first is the Akhbāris who claim that the Qur’ān has been distorted; and the second is the Usūlites who oppose this claim. Those who have Akhbārī thoughts do not only interpret the verses according to their sectarian teachings but go further and claim that these teachings are included in the text of the Qur’ān. As a matter of fact, one of those who have this idea is Qummī. The full name of Qummī, the first scholar of the Shi’ite scholars, is Abu’l-Hasan ‘Alī b. İbrāhīm b. Hāshim. It is mentioned that al-Qummī, who had no information about the date of his birth in the sources, died in 329 Hijri. He has written books in almost all of science such as Tafsīr, Hadith, Fiqh and History. Among the books of Qummi, only the book he wrote in the field of commentary has reached the present day. Shī‘a accepts this commentary as the main source. This work, which is classified under the category of tafsīr bil riwayah(narration commentary), is regarded as tafsīr bildirayah(acumen commentator) because he gives weight to his own opinions. Qummī, by trying to make the Qur’ān as book thats only support ʿAlī and his descendants, reflecting a complete ideology in the form of representation of political tafsīr in Shī‘a. It is seen in the issues mentioned in the preface of his tafsīr that he used the method that supports this ideology. As a matter of fact, that Qummī in the preface attempt to explain the doctrines of the sect such as the imāmate, prophecy and the seized of Ahl al-bayt rigt of caliphate in the context of the verses that are different from that which Allah has revealed, distorted verses and taqdim and ta’khir verses in the Qur’ān text. Briefly, Qummī in the preface to of his tafsīr gives examples of some verses that are literally distorted, and explains these distortions in detail when interpreting the verses in question. Qummī gives in the “distorted verses” section that there are deficiencies in some of the verses and claims that the verse is revealed in this way by adding words that are not actually found in the verse. According to Qummī, one of the words extracted from the text of the Qur’ān is “‘Alī” that version of this words in Arabic is “ علي ”. These words are usually in the verses as “ فى علي ” means that “about ‘Alī”, “ فى ولاية علي ” “guardian of ‘Alī”, “ فى حق علي ” “about ‘Alī’s right”. According to Qummī, another expression derived from the Qur’ānic text is “ آل محمد ” means that “family of Muhammad”. He sometimes bases his claim on the narrations that the verses revealed in that way and sometimes verse recited in that way among different recitations. Qummī says that some of the verses have been revealed as such by by adding various phrases to verses besides “ فى علي ” means that “about ‘Alī” and “ آل محمد ” “family of Muhammad”. Some of these words that added to verses are mentioned as the different style of recitation in other sources. In the other words this differentiate is related with how you are reciting. Qummī, another classification which he refers to regarding the allegation of distorting, is that some verses are different from those revealed. He gives examples of this issue in various forms. He sometimes claims that when someone reads a verse, he interrupts the recitation by saying that “the verse has been revealed in this way” base on the narratives; sometimes saying that the verse is revealed differently by indicating the verse is not appropriate in terms of meaning and sometimes without making any explanation claims that how the verse revealed. Qummī’s another distortion claim is that taqdim and ta’khir among the words constitute the verse. Qummī says that the verse is different from the one that was actually revealed, after he stated that it was taqdim and ta’khir among the words mentioned in the verses. Qummī proves the allegations of distortion on the text of the Qur’ān in various ways. One of the ways he follows in this context is that giving the expressions like “ هكذا نزلت ”/ “the verse was revealed in this way”, and “ نزل جبرائيل بهذه الآية هكذا ” “Gabriel sent down the verse in this way” by changing the the different kind of revealing of those verses. The second way Qummī follows is that mentioning the verse different from the fact that it is by changing the its originality. The third way he follows is that mentioning added words as the different kind of the recitation. However, Qummī did not use this method that much. Indeed, while Shī‘ī tafsīrs mention this kind of expressions as a different kind of recitation, Qummī mentions them as a different kind of revealing in his claim. Most of the verses alleged to have been distorted in the Qummī’s tafsīr are relate to the teachings of the Shī‘a sect. In this context, Qummī uses various expressions while explaining his claim that some verses in the Qur’ān has been distorted. By adding ‘Alī phrase, claims that “ فمحى اسمه من هذا الموضع ”/ “His name has deleted from this place”, and by adding “ آل محمد ”/ “Muhammad’s family”, claims that “ فأسقطوا آل محمد من الكتاب ”/ “Muhammad’s family has been reduced from the book”. Sometimes, making some changes on words such as changing the structure of the term “ أمة ”/ “ummah” as “ أئمة ” /“Imāmiyya”. Under the influence of the ideology of Shī‘a, Qummī asserts that Shī‘ah teachings such as prophethood, and Imāmiyya are not just the Qur’ānic interpretations but rather are the Qur’ānic teachings by adding words to the text of the Qur’ān and making some changes in the construction of the Qur’ān. (shrink)

This is a comprehensive study of the far-reaching changes that led to a re-shaping of the philosophical discourse in Islam during the sixth/twelfth century. Whereas earlier Western scholars thought that Islam's engagement with the tradition of Greek philosophy ended during that century, more recent analyses suggest its integration into the genre of rationalist Muslim theology (kalam). This book proposes a third view about the fate of philosophy in Islam. It argues that in addition to this integration, Muslim theologians picked up (...) the discourse of philosophy in Islam (falsafa) and began to produce books on philosophy. Written by the same authors, books in these two genres, kalām and philosophy, argue for opposing teachings on the nature of God, the world's creation, and on the afterlife. This study explains the emergence of a new genre of philosophical books called "hikma" that stand opposed to Islamic theology and at the same wishes to complement it. Offering a detailed history of philosophy in Iraq, Iran, and Central Asia during the sixth/twelfth century together with an analysis of the circumstances of practicing philosophy during this time, this study can show how reports of falsafa, written by major Muslim theologians such as al-Ghazali (d. 505/1111), developed step-by-step into critical assessments of philosophy that try to improve philosophical teachings, and eventually become fully fledged philosophical summas in the work of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606/1210). The book ends in a discussion of the different methods of kalam and hikma and the coherence and ambiguity of a Muslim post-classical philosopher's œuvre. (shrink)

Muhyiddin ibn Arabî, İslam'daki tartışmasız en etkili sufi teorisyendir. Kalıcı şekilde en popüler çalışması olan Fusûsül-hikem'de, Kur'an'da bir peygamber hakkında algımız ne olursa olsun, onunla ilişkilendirilen ve ondan türetilen hikmetin çok farklı olduğunu açıkça ve ısrarla göstermektedir. Bu, İbn Arabî'nin Kur'an'ın literal metnini inkar ettiği anlamına gelmez. Tam tersine, O sadece Kur'an'ı farklı algılama ve alımlama düzeylerinin olduğunu iddia eder: Kur'an'ın dış gerçekliği (zâhir) kitlesel tüketim içindir ve İbn Arabî'ye göre kişinin Kur'an'ın yüzeysel bir anlayışından elde ettiği bilgidir. Bununla birlikte, (...) Kuran'ın, ariflerin (arifûn) korumasında olan daha derin bir anlayışı vardır. İbn Arabî, dış gerçeğin ötesine geçen, ancak ona (dış gerçekliğe) ayrılmaz bir şekilde bağlı olan Kur’an’ı bu şekilde okumasıyla, Kur'an'ın tasavvufi tefsir geleneğini kendi tarzında sürdürür ve birincil amacını Fusûs’un her bölümünde uygular: Her ikisinin de meşruiyetini korurken, Kur'an'ın zâhir ve bâṭını arasındaki antitezi vurgulamak ve hatta bâṭına ancak ẓâhir yoluyla erişilebileceğini iddia edecek kadar ileri gitmek. Bu makale, bu karşılıklı bağımlı bilgi ('ilm)/hikmet (hikma) antitezinin en açık örneklerini bulduğumuz ve belirli nedenlerle seçilmiş Fusûs'un dört bölümünü detaylı şekilde incelemektedir: Adem bölümü, Fusûs'un ilk bölümü olduğu için seçilmiştir ve bu bölümde İbn Arabî'nin eserin tamamına yönelik amacı ve yaklaşımı net şekilde belirginleşir. Lût ve Hârûn bölümleri, Endülüs'ün ikili hermenötik ilkesinin en bariz örneklerini oluşturdukları için seçilmiştir. Son olarak, İbn Arabî metnin tahiriyle çelişiyor gibi görünse bile, aslında birincil zahiri modele dayanan daha gelişmiş bir yorum modelini açıkladığı için Nûh bölümü seçilmiştir. Âdem bölümünde İbn Arabi, Adem ile ilişkilendirilen en tutarlı Kur'anî betimlemenin insanlığın babası olduğu için onun insanlığının olduğunu öne sürer. Oysa onun hikmeti ilahi vasfıdır. Bunun nedeni, İlahi en katıksız ve tam ifadesini ancak insanda bulabilmesidir. Diğer taraftan, Nuh'un Kuranî sembolü ise kavminin büyük çoğunluğunun boğulduğu tufandır. Sufî’ye göre (İbn Arabî) onun hikmeti, şeyleri yüzdürmesidir- subbūḥiyya/sebūḥiyya hikmeti. İbn Arabî için boğulma bir ölüm nedeni olmaktan çok bir yaşam kaynağı olmuştur. Lut'un Kur'an'daki en kalıcı imgesi, kavminin günahını dizginlemedeki yetersizliğinden dolayı güçsüzlüğüdür. İbn Arabî, ama yine de onun hikmetinin güç olduğunu söylüyor. Son olarak, Hârûn, Kuran'da Mûsâ'ya itaat eden biri olarak tasvir edilir. Kardeşine yardım etmesi, yükünü taşımasına yardım etmesi için kendisine peygamberlik verildi. Mûsâ, Sina'ya gidip onu sorumlu bıraktığında bile, o sadece Mûsâ'nın yardımcısı rolünü yerine getirir ve ona tabidir. Oysa onun hikmeti itaatin, liderliğin antitezidir. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Formation of Post-Classical Philosophy in Islam by Frank GriffelRosabel AnsariFrank Griffel. The Formation of Post-Classical Philosophy in Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. Pp. x + 651. Hardback, $135.00.In this monumental work, Frank Griffel provides a wide-ranging and methodologically diverse investigation into the nature and formation of philosophy in the Eastern Islamic world in the twelfth century. Griffel explores institutionally, biographically, and [End Page 502] textually how (...) philosophy continued to be practiced in the century following the death of Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 1111), a time previously associated with the decline of philosophy in the Islamic world. The astonishing breadth of content is organized with great clarity into three principal sections: (1) “Post-classical philosophy in its Islamic context,” itself divided into three chapters covering the historical context, the meanings and conceptual frameworks of the two Arabic words for ‘philosophy’ (falsafa and ḥikma), and the relation of religious law to philosophy; (2) “Philosophers and philosophies: a biographical history of philosophy in the sixth/twelfth century Islamic East”; and (3) “The formation of ḥikma as a new philosophical genre,” which is subdivided into multiple chapters and subsections to examine key questions and methods of philosophy during this period. The book is encyclopedic in its scope. Researched over a ten-year period, it offers contributions to a vast array of issues, themes, and problematics that have been raised by modern and recent scholarship, both historical and philosophical. Instead of covering the book’s vast content in detail, this review will focus on one aspect of its argumentation.For this reviewer, the book’s most significant and exciting aspect is its metalevel discussions concerning the falsafa tradition (classical Arabic Aristotelianism) and its fate. From the outset, Griffel is careful to argue that philosophy in the Islamic world is much more than falsafa (10), and the reduction of the former to the latter is why Western scholars for so long thought philosophy found its demise after the fateful blow Ghazālī leveled against the practitioners of falsafa. The conflict was not, however, one of faith versus reason. Rather, Griffel surmises, it was a question of two competing perspectives concerning God’s relation to the world: an impersonal deity, or a creator-God. Both positions were philosophical, and both sides understood themselves to be grounded in an interpretation of the Quran (10–13).Moreover, Griffel goes on to demonstrate that falsafa would be conceptualized and discussed as a quasireligion with its own set of doctrines (80–94). It was not, therefore, synonymous with what we today call “philosophy,” but had the limited sense of one school of philosophy associated with Avicenna (d. 1037). The demise of self-identified practitioners of falsafa was not the demise of philosophers; it was the demise of a term that was associated with a particular school that had been discredited for its slavish imitation, as well as the moral shortcomings and impiety of its principal exponent, Avicenna.Yet Griffel’s principal thesis is that irrespective of the decline in use of the term ‘falsafa’ as a self-description, its approach to the nature of God and the relation of God to the world remained and continued to be discussed in the rebranded discipline of ḥikma (“philosophy,” or more broadly, “wisdom”). In fact, Griffel shows that numerous theologians and philosophers wrote and discussed contradictory positions under the guise of different disciplines, composing texts in both kalām (rational theology) and ḥikma, chief among whom was Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 1210). A large portion of the book is devoted to documenting and unpacking this phenomenon. The value of this investigation lies not only in uncovering the ḥikma tradition and its continuity with falsafa, but in Griffel’s insistence on presenting the two textual traditions of ḥikma and kalām side-by-side as counterparts to philosophical questions, such as the principle of sufficient reason (524–41). The approach is rich in its demonstration of the philosophical stakes in both positions concerning, for example, the status of God’s will.In its conclusion, the book returns to the question of what counts as philosophy. Griffel argues that while... (shrink)