Ḥanafī jurist Burhān al-Dīn al-Nasafī is one of the most prominent names in the history of the ʿilm al-naẓar’ (Islamic Disputation Theory) particularly due to his seminal work entitled al-Fuṣūl. We have located a manuscript which we will call an Opponent-al-Fuṣūl written by a Shāfiʿī scholar. This manuscript is titled al-Risāla fī qawāʿid ʿilm al-naẓar and it highlights the importance of al-Nasafī’s al-Fuṣūl. The scribe of the manuscript attributes this Opponent-al-Fuṣūl to the famous logician Najm al-Dīn (...) al-Kātibī. Although no mention of such a book belonging to al-Kātibī has been discovered thus far, in this article we will try to demonstrate that the book does indeed belong to him. In addition, we will undertake a comparison of both works, al-Fuṣūl and the Opponent-al-Fuṣūl, with a particular focus on the concepts of talāzum (implication), tanāfī (incompatibility) and dawarān (concomitance). A critical edition of the Opponent-al-Fuṣūl is appended to the article. (shrink)

Ḥanafī jurist Burhān al-Dīn al-Nasafī is one of the most prominent names in the history of the ʿilm al-naẓar’ particularly due to his seminal work entitled al-Fuṣūl. We have located a manuscript which we will call an Opponent-al-Fuṣūl written by a Shāfiʿī scholar. This manuscript is titled al-Risāla fī qawāʿid ʿilm al-naẓar and it highlights the importance of al-Nasafī’s al-Fuṣūl. The scribe of the manuscript attributes this Opponent-al-Fuṣūl to the famous logician Najm al-Dīn al-Kātibī. Although no (...) mention of such a book belonging to al-Kātibī has been discovered thus far, in this article we will try to demonstrate that the book does indeed belong to him. In addition, we will undertake a comparison of both works, al-Fuṣūl and the Opponent-al-Fuṣūl, with a particular focus on the concepts of talāzum, tanāfī and dawarān. A critical edition of the Opponent-al-Fuṣūl is appended to the article. (shrink)

Al-Jaṣṣāsis a pioneering scholar who wrote the first work of methodology according to the Hanafi/fuqaha method and influenced the fiqh and hadīth scholars who came after him with his methodology work. The theory of khabar comes first among the subjects that al-Jaṣṣās dealt with theoretically and practically in his work al-Fuṣūl fi al-uṣūl and influenced the methodologists who came after him. In his theory of khabar, khabar al-wāhid, which is in the interest of both jurists hadīthists, has a special (...) importance. Al-Jaṣṣās explains the khabar al- wāhid in practice, independently of the theoretical framework, under the title of “specification of general utterances by khabar al- wāhid”. Under this title, al-Jaṣṣās mentions an important feature with the notion of acceptance, which affects the value of khabar al-wāhid and raises it to the level of mutawātir. In this study, it is aimed to reveal the value of the meaning that al-Jaṣṣās attributed to the concept of acceptance in terms of kahbar and the place of the phenomenon of acceptance in the methodology of hadīth. İn the research, firstly, the concepts of as-sunne as-sābite, mutawātir khabar and āhād khabar that al-Jaṣṣās used in relation to khabar were examined. Then, issues such as the understanding of acceptance, which affects the view of the khabar at the level of tawātur; within the framework of this understanding, the information value of the khabar al-wāhid, the examples of the khabar al-wāhid; who is meant by the concept of “people/ummah” in the expression of “تَلَقِّي ‌الْأُمّةِ/الناس بِالْقَبُولِ” and the concept of accepted khabar according to hadīth methodologists are discussed. (shrink)

Al-ʽĀmirī’s Chapters on Metaphysical Topics are an impressive example of the fusing of Greek Neoplatonism with Islamic Theology. Being a paraphrase of the Proclean Elements of Theology , they provide a better understanding of the tradition of the Liber de Causis in Arabic.

The law of responsibility (compensation), which was formed around the concept of the ḍamān and was developed by the scholars within the system of furû‘ al-fiqh (substantive law) over time, constitutes one of the important parts of Islamic law. Although compensation law (ḍamān) was not addressed as a private subject in the first period fiqh literature, it is seen that the literature on this specific area started to emerge after the early period. It is the Hanafi jurists who first brought (...) together these issues that are scattered in the classical books of fiqh that are related to the law of responsibility. Compensation law took its classical form in the texts of the early periods and was shaped around the views of the founding imams of the Ḥanafī school (madhab). It has later been expanded with the fatwā and interpretations of the Sheikhs (mesāikh) of Hanafi in the type of waqi'at works. These works were a product of the need for the law to adapt to the new conditions. These issues, which are related to the compensation law in the Hanafi school have been covered as a special section (chapter) in the studies that are classified as waqi'at, such as Usrūshanī’s al-Fuṣūl fī al-muʿāmalat (Fuṣūl al-Usrūshanī), ʿImād al-Dīn al-Marginānī’s Fuṣūl al-iḥkām fī uṣūl al-aḥkām and Shaykh Badr al-Dīn’s Jāmiʿal-Fuṣūlāyn. Later, the topics discussed in these works were developed and continued, and ultimately separate works related to this field have been copyrighted. In this study, the kinds of development and expansion which are in the literature and related subjects will be discussed by examining the above-mentioned works. Therefore; first of all, the first examples of Hanafi jurists related the compensation will be analysed comparatively. Afterwards, the place of ad-Ḍamānāt fī al-furūʻ al-Ḥanafīyyah of Fuḍayl Chalābī (d. 991/1583), one of the Zenbillizade’s, will be addressed.Summary: The core idea of the law of responsibility, which constitutes one of the important parts of Islamic law, was stated in the Qur'an and Hadith, and then have accumulated by the contributions of the jurists (fuqaha), as they developed the idea of the law of responsibility within the furû‘ al-fiqh in relation to the systematic of the legal school (madhab) that they belonged to.These issues, which constitute one of the important parts of the law, were addressed by sprinkling among the topics in almost every part of classical fiqh books. In other words, the subject of ḍamān (responsibility) was not considered as a separate subject in the fiqh works of the first period. In this way, it is seen that the literature on compensation law started to emerge in the following periods, and at first several independent sections on this subject, and then separate works specific to this field, albeit limited in number, were written.It is the Ḥanafī jurists who first brought together these issues that are scattered in the classical fiqh books related to the law of responsibility. Compensation law, which took its classical form in the texts from early periods, shaped around the views of the pioneering imams of the Ḥanafī school, has been expanded with the fatwā and interpretations of the Sheikhs (mesāikh) of Ḥanafī in the waqi'at works, which is a product of the need for the law to adapt to new conditions. Firstly, one of the Ḥanafī jurists, Majd al-Dīn al-Usrūshanī (d. 637/1240) dealt with the responsibilities arising from the contract and unfair acts in the 29th section of his book named al-Fuṣūl fī al-muʿāmalat under the title “Types of Compensation Required to be Paid and Their Situation”. The method and system that Usrūshanī started in this work, the Ḥanafī jurisits ʿImād al-Dīn al-Marginānī in the Fuṣūl al-iḥkām fī uṣūl al-aḥkām and Shaykh Badr al-Dīn Ibn Qāḍī Samāwnā in the Jāmiʿ al-Fuṣūlāyn continued to develop the compensation section in their books. Afterwards Fuḍayl Chalābī (d. 991/1583), one of the members of Zenbillizade’s family, enriched these issues and made it an individual work, named ad-Ḍamānāt fī al-furūʻ al-Ḥanafīyyah. Marginānī titled the issues that Usrūshanī had handled in the compensation section and systemised it even more by gathering the fatwās on the related issues under one heading. It is noteworthy to mention that when the compensation sections of both works are compared, the way the subjects handled are exactly the same. But unlike Usrūshanī, Marginānī added the compensation for damages to the fetus in the womb and the responsibility of the person who brought back the fleeing slave at the end of the chapter. On the other hand, unlike them, Shaykh Badr al-Dīn added only the responsibility of the person who found the lost item. Considering that almost all of the topics in the compensation section of Sheikh Badr al-Dīn existed exactly in the compensation section of Marginānī, and that most of them were stated in Usrūshanī’s al-Fuṣūl, it is necessary to say that all of these discussions are based on Usrūshanī as the main backbone of this particular subject and that his work has a unique place in the Islamic legal literature. Chalābī’s ad-Ḍamānāt, is the first work that was written as a separate book in the field of compensation law. Even though in some modern works claim that the work Ghānim al-Baghdādī’s (d. 1030/1620) book named Majma‘ al-ḍamānāt fī madhhab al-Imām al-A'zam Abī Ḥanīfa al-Nu'mān was the first written book in this field; it is known that Chalābī's ad-Ḍamānāt had been written before Baghdādī’s Majma‘ al-ḍamānāt. As a matter of fact, the work of Chalābī had been completed in 984 Hijra, and the Baghdādī’s Majma‘ al-ḍamānāt was completed in 1027 Hijra. Although the subject sequence in Baghdādī’s work is different; this work is regarded as a continuation of the same tradition.An examination of the systematic and the content of the work reveals that Chalabi’s ad-Ḍamānāt is the continuation of the type of writing that Usrūshanī started and developed by Marginānī and Shaykh Badr al-Dīn. When compared with the compensation sections of these works before him, Chalābī has added new compensation issues to his book that are not addressed in these three works; such as partnership, mudaraba, suretyship (kafāla) transfer (ḥawāla), peace, legal disability (hajr), freedom of trade (idhn) and testament. Among the works mentioned above, works out of Shaykh Badr al-Dīn’s Jāmiʿ al-Fuṣūlāyn and Baghdādī’s Majma‘ al-ḍamānāt are available as manuscripts in the libraries. Therefore, these works have not been used much in modern studies on compensation. In addition, the Chalābī's ad-Ḍamānāt is almost unknown. Although there is little information about this work in some bibliographic studies, it is noteworthy to state that this work is not used as a source in contemporary studies written in Arabic on compensation law. The fact that this work is available as manuscripts in Istanbul libraries is probably the reason for this outcome. It is also very difficult to say that this work is known and used sufficiently in studies written in Turkish.Usrūshanī’s al-Fuṣūl fī al-muʿāmalat and Marginānī’s Fuṣūl al-iḥkām are currently in the form of manuscripts, so there is no comprehensive study on the whole work and the compensation section. It is possible to see the compensation issues discussed in the work, since Shaykh Badr al-Dīn’s Jāmiʿ al-Fuṣūlāyn, which has been published as printed, was translated into Turkish by an editorial group under the presidency of H. Yunus Apaydın. In addition, Kemal Yıldız, who translated the compensation section in this translation, published this section in Jāmiʿal-Fuṣūlāyn as a separate book with the name of “Sources of the Jāmiʿ al-Fuṣūlāyn and Compensation in the Practice of Ḥanafī School”. Yıldız, first introduced the sources of the Jāmiʿ al-Fuṣūlāyn in the first part of this work and then translated the compensation section from beginning to end by adding his own explanations and evaluations around the subject during the second part. Even though some introductory information about the books of Usrūshanī and Marginānī is presented in Yıldız’s study, the absence of information on the contents of the compensation sections of these books does not allow the opportunity for the researchers to evaluate on the subject wholly. (shrink)

Résumé On associe généralement la figure de Satan à une signification indigente ou mesquine. Dans la Philosophie de la révélation, Schelling tente au contraire d’en donner une interprétation différente, selon laquelle la « mauvaiseté positive » de Satan n’est pas seulement assumée, mais également revalorisée. Cependant, le rôle de Satan demeure ambigu, incarnant à la fois le tentateur universel et le maillon nécessaire à la révélation de Dieu lui-même. Dans cette étude, il s’agit donc de montrer à la fois la (...) nature amphibolique du Diable, et de rendre compte des multiples endossements qu’il recouvre. Une tâche qui implique précisément la mise en évidence du rôle incontournable de Satan dans la victoire finale du bien, et qui se manifeste, en termes schellingiens, par l’incompatibilité de l’homme avec le feu dévorant du principe de lumière, laquelle nécessite un principe obscur qui hâte la séparation, pressent le mal et le provoque. (shrink)

Haber-i vâhidin delil değeri problemi, 2. (8.) yüzyıldan itibaren kelamcılar (:Mutezile), fıkıhçılar ve hadisçiler arasında tartışılan ve hakkında kayda değer bir literatür ortaya çıkan usûlî konuların başında gelmektedir. Şeybânî (ö. 189/805), Şâfiî (ö. 204/820), İsâ b. Ebân (ö. 221/836) ve Buhârî (ö. 256/870) gibi sünnî ekolün tanınmış fıkıh ve hadis alimlerinin haber-i vâhid lehine ortaya koydukları çalışmalar bu noktada oldukça etkili olmuştur. Bu etkinin bir sonucu olarak başlangıçta haber-i vâhidi toptancı bir yaklaşımla reddeden Mutezili isimler, yerini zamanla Ebû Ali el-Cübbâî (...) (ö. 303/916) gibi başka bir delille desteklenmesi şartıyla kabul eden alimlere bırakmıştır. Cübbâî, muhtemelen Kitâbü’l-ahbâr isimli günümüze ulaşmayan çalışmasında, hem tek kişinin haberi anlamındaki haber-i vâhidin hücciyet delillerini tenkit etmiş hem de çeşitli delillerle kendi kişisel görüşünü temellendirmeye çalışmıştır. Onun bu tenkit ve görüşleri, 4. (10.) yüzyılın önemli Hanefi fakih ve usulcüsü Cessâs (ö. 370/981) tarafından usul ilminin kurucu metinlerinden el Fusûl’de üstü kapalı bir şekilde nakledilmiş ve eleştirel bir değerlendirmeye tabi tutulmuştur. Araştırmamızda Cübbâî’nin, haber-i vâhidin delil değeri, kabul şartları konusundaki eleştiri ve görüşleri ile Cessâs’ın ona verdiği cevaplar ve karşı eleştirileri ele alınmıştır. (shrink)

RésuméLe présent article propose la liste des œuvres médicales composées par Ibn Bājja, donne une présentation synthétique de celles qui nous ont été transmises et étudie le métacommentaire au commentaire de Galien sur lesAphorismesd'Hippocrate (Sharḥ fī al-Fuṣūl). Ce texte montre une influence profonde d'al- Fārābī, en particulier dans sa conception de l'expérience médicale, qui remonte à la façon dont ce dernier construit l'expérience (tajriba) comme le procédé inductif, décrit par Aristote dans lesSeconds Analytiques, produisant les prémisses de la démonstration. (...) Sur cette base, Ibn Bājja défend la pertinence d'une médecine moins scolastique et plus empirique, une position dont Ibn Rushd se fera l'écho. Des similitudes entre le texte d'Ibn Bājja et leK. al-Kulliyyāt fī al-ṭibbd'Ibn Rushd suggèrent que celui-ci avait lu leSharḥ fī al-Fuṣūl. Cette œuvre, en outre, pourrait bien attester que la dissection humaine était pratiquée à l'époque d'Ibn Bājja. (shrink)

Bibliography of work by and on al-Fārabī, classical Muslim scholar.

Islamic philosophy; Muslim philosophers; biography.

Medical laws and legislation; comparative study.

En relisant la première Lettre de Clément, on peut s’interroger sur les enjeux véritables du conflit de Corinthe à la fin du premier siècle. Le texte (I Clém 40-44) parle d’une « querelle à propos de l’épiskopè » ; le conflit est donc interne et institutionnel. Clément de Rome, pour tenter d’apaiser le conflit, recourt à des figures vétéro-testamentaires et sa Lettre témoigne d’une nouvelle compréhension de l’Ekklèsia, désormais élargie aux dimensions de l’oikouménè. À travers ces analyses, l’article invite à (...) une relecture critique des thèses défendues par W. Bauer dans sa célèbre étude, Orthodoxie et hérésie aux débuts du christianisme. (shrink)

Nous posons à Aristote une question bien claire : en quoi consiste l'autonomie de la Raison pratique? Cette autonomie ne sera pas assuree par la Raison kantienne et sa prétention à l'universalité mais par une " perception morale " (aisthesis), par la phronésis. Notre entreprise fait avancer la question d'un pas supplémentaire. Elle prétend imprimer à la réponse aristotelicienne une orientation précise, étant donné qu'elle fait dépendre cette autonomie de la possibilite d'une ontologie (c'est-à-dire, d'une phénoménologie) de l'action morale. Notre (...) position peut donc s'annoncer ainsi : la phronésis, en tant qu'accès aux principes de la prakis, constitue la condition de possibilite de toute action morale. La fonction de la phronésis se trouvera éclairée à travers l'analyse du problème de l'altérité, de la reconnaissance de l'autre. Cet autre " en chair et en os ", nous le rechercherons dans l'ami aristotélicien. La structure de l'amitié sera déterminée dans son opposition par rapport aux modèles de la techné et de la Sophia, ce qui conduira finalement à l'autonomie de la sphère pratique. Si cette description de la praxis s'avère être effectivement en adéquation avec les phénomènes eux-mêmes, nous aurons ouvert une voie destinée à faire apparaitre une coïncidence de l'ontologie et de la morale, auquel cas l'ontologie de la praxis reflétera les principes du " bien agir " lui-même. (shrink)