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)

_This mirror for princes sheds light on the relationship between spiritual and political authority in early modern Egypt_ This guide to political behavior and expediency offers advice to Sufi shaykhs, or spiritual guides, on how to interact and negotiate with powerful secular officials, judges, and treasurers, or emirs. Translated into English for the first time, it is a unique account of the relationship between spiritual and political authority in late medieval / early modern Islamic society.

Bu çalışma hicrî birinci asrın ikinci yarısında Basra’da hadis ve fıkıh sahasındaki ilmî hareketliliği konu edinir. İlgili dönemde, orada yaşayan sahâbenin en meşhuru ve Hz. Peygamber’le en uzun süre birlikteliğe sahip olması hasebiyle, Enes b. Mâlik’in Basra’daki etkisi özel olarak ele alınır. Bu amaçla Enes b. Mâlik’le ilgili birçok rivayet tahlil edilir ve onun hem Basra’da hem de diğer şehirlerde yaşayan sahâbe ve tâbiûnla arasındaki ilmî ilişkileri üzerinde durulur. Çalışma mezkûr zaman diliminde Basra’da hadis faaliyetlerinin fazla, fıkıh faaliyetlerinin ise az (...) olduğunun tezahürlerini gösterir. Enes’in öğrencileri üzerindeki etkisi; öğrencilerinin fakih mi yoksa muhaddis mi olduğu araştırılır. Enes’in tabiûnla ilişkileri, kendisine yapılan rihleler, başka şehirlerde yaşayan fakih tabiûnun ondan rivayeti, İbn Ebî Şeybe’nin Musannef’i çerçevesinde onun fıkhî şahsiyeti ve başka meseleler incelenir. Böylece onun fıkhî melekesinin İbn Abbas ve İbn Ömer’le aynı derecede olmadığı ve benzer şekilde Basra’nın sahabenin fakihlerinden tabiûnun fakihlerine nakledilen “amel-i mütevâres”e önem veren Medine ve Kufe gibi bir fıkıh şehri olmadığı sonucuna ulaşılır. Basra, müksirûndan olan sahabî Enes b. Malik sayesinde hadislerin rivayetine, yayılmasına ve onlarla amel edilmesine önem verilen bir şehirdi. Ancak bu hadislerin yayılması aynı dönemde Mekke’de İbn Abbas’ın faaliyetleri ile kıyaslanabilecek bir fıkhî faaliyeti de beraberinde getirmedi. Dolayısıyla Basra sahabe döneminde fıkıh ilmî açısından geri kalırken hadis sahasında hareketliydi. Bu nedenle ona fıkıh ve “amel-i mütevâres” değil rivayet şehri denilmesini hak etmektedir. (shrink)

Averroës,1126-1198; criticism and interpretation; Ibn Taymīyah, Aḥmad ibn ʻAbd al-Ḥalīm,1263-1328.

Logic; Islamic philosophy; Islam--doctrines.

Qurʼan; hermeneutics; criticism, textual; criticism, interpretation, etc.

: ‘Alā’ al-Dawla al-Simnānī (d. 736/1336) was a Kubrawī sheikh lived in Simnān one hundred years after Ibn al-Arabī (d. 638/1240). He authored around ninety works in Arabic and Persian on various fields within Sūfism, raised many disciples. His contribution to the sūfī tradition mainly come to forefront regarding problems like unity, latāif (subtle organs), rijāl al-ghaib (men of the unseen), wāqia (dream-like mystical experiences) and tajallī (manifestation). Simnānī’s understanding of the unity influenced subsequent sūfī’s and specifically Ahmad Sirhindī (d. (...) 1034/1624) and his sheikh Bāqībillah’s (d. 1012/1603) views of the unity overlap with Simnānī’s one. In Maktūbāt, Sirhindī who developed the idea of unity of the seen against the unity of the existence expresses that his understanding of being is the same with Simnānī’s one. Simnānī is also known as the first critic of Ibn al-Arabī’s conception of the unity among sūfī’s. Such that, whenever his name is mentioned the first thing comes to one’s mind has been his criticism against Ibn al-Arabī. However, his criticism against Ibn al-Arabī was not studied as a whole looking at his ouvre. Studying Simnānī’s works, it is seen that his criticism is concentrated on two main problems. First is Ibn al-Arabī’s employing the concept wujūd al-mutlaq (absolute being) for God. He maintains that it is not convenient to use this concept for al-Haq. His second criticism is against a sentence mentioned in al-Futūhāt: “سبحان من أظهر الأشياء وهو عينها”. In this article, causes for Simnānī’s critiques will be discussed and both sūfī’s conceptions of wujūd al-mutlaq and ‘ayn (quintessence) will be studied.Summary: One of the famous names in the Kubrawī tradition, ‘Alā’ al-Dawla al-Simnānī is a sheikh who lived in the city of Simnān in the contemporary Iran between 659-736/1261-1336. In his youth, he served in the service of Arghūn Khan (r. 1284-1291) in the Īlkhānid Palace; and later, after a spiritual experience, he left the palace and turned to a Ṣūfī life. For a certain period, he continued worshipping and riyādhat (spiritual fight against the evil commanding self) on his own, and looked for a guide convenient to his character. Eventually, he became the disciple of the Kubrawī sheikh in Baghdad, Nūr al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Isfarāyīnī (d. 717/1317), and obtained ijāzah (permission) for irshād (guidance). After that, with the instruction of his sheikh, he went back to Simnān; and spent rest of his life with guiding his disciples and writing scholarly works. He authored around ninety works in Arabic and Persian on various fields within Sūfism. His contribution to the sūfī tradition mainly comes to forefront regarding problems like unity, latāif, rijāl al-ghaib, wāqia and tajallī; and influenced subsequent sūfī’s. Simnani’s influences can best be seen on the founder of the Mujaddidiyya branch of Naqshbandiyya, Ahmad Sirhindī (d. 1034/1624), and Sirhindī’s sheikh Bāqībillah (d. 1012/1603). In a letter Bāqībillah wrote to Sirhindī, he mentions certain differences between Simnānī’s understanding of unity and unity of the existence by stating that Simnānī’s path is not that of unity of the existence, and that his shuhūd (seen) is the most perfect shuhūd. Also in the Maktūbāt, Sirhindī expresses that his understanding of being is the same with that of Simnānī’s. Simnānī is also known as the first critic of Ibn al-Arabī’s conception of being and unity among sūfī’s. It would not be incorrect to say that he is more famous for this critique so much so that whenever his name is mentioned the first thing comes to one’s mind has been his criticism against Ibn al-Arabī. The main reason for this is that a letter Simnānī wrote to one of the followers of Ibn al-Arabī, ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Kāshānī (d. 736/1335) in which Simnānī criticizes Ibn al-Arabī’s conception of unity, was included in the famous work of Abd al-Raḥmān Jāmī (d. 898/1492), Nafakhāt al-uns. This letter’s presence in the Nafakhāt played a vital role in its publicity. For this reason, it can be said that Nafakhāt made Simnānī famous. Yet, it should also be said that the fame stemming from Nafakhāt is incomplete and it is just about one aspect of Simnānī, a scholar who authored dozens of books on the Sūfism. Moreover, it is not correct to defend that Simnānī’s statements in that letter reflects a full picture of his opinion about Ibn al-Arabī. Hence, to have a better understanding of his criticism and thoughts about Ibn al-Arabī, one should explore other works of Simnānī as well. Studying Simnānī’s works, it is seen that his criticism is concentrated on two main problems. First is Ibn al-Arabī’s employing the concept wujūd al-mutlaq for God. His second criticism is against a sentence mentioned in al-Futūhāt: “سبحان من أظهر الأشياء وهو عينها”. To understand the first criticism, one needs to know the meaning both sūfī’s attribute to the concept of wujūd al-mutlaq; and for the second the meaning they attribute to the concept of ‘ayn. First, it should be known that Ibn al-Arabī did not think of being as a form category the members of which are beings. To the contrary, he uses wujūd exclusively for the Eternal, and refrains from using the concept of wujūd for the creation; and calls them mawjūd. In other words, Ibn al-Arabī differentiates between being and existence; and limits the concept of being only for the al-Haqq. Ibn al-Arabī states this view repeatedly in statements such as “al-Haqq (the Truth) is being; things, however, are attributes of being.” What Ibn al-Arabī means by wujūd al-mutlaq is al-Haqq who is wajib al-wujūd (the Necessary Being) and free from all restrictions. Thus, in a certain sense wujūd al-mutlaq means wajib al-wujūd. By writing that “Wujūd al-Haqq is the essence of wajib al-wujūd who is qualified with the perfect attributes of eternity and infinity. Absolute Being is the actions emanating from these attributes. Wujūd al-Muqayyad (the Limited Being) is the outcome that comes into existence as a result of these actions”, Simnānī explicitly states that for him Absolute Being is the actions of al-Haqq. What one can understand from the statements of both sūfī’s is that while by wujūd al-mutlaq Ibn al-Arabī refers to wajib al-wujūd (i.e. the essence of al-Haqq), for the same term Simnānī refers to actions of al-Haqq. Since in criticizing Ibn al-Arabī, Simnānī takes into account his own definition of the term Wujūd al-Mutlaq as the actions of al-Haqq, his criticisms are not valid. In fact, both exonerate al-Haqq from all the conditions. However, while Ibn al-Arabī chooses to verbalize the existence of God with the concept of “Absolute Being”, Simnānī only approves to express the existence of God with the concepts of wājib al-wujūd and al-Wujūd al-Haqq and differing from Ibn al-Arabī attributes the meaning of the actions of God to the concept of Absolute Being.Simnānī’s second critique against Ibn al-Arabī is related to this sentence: “سبحان من أظهر الأشياء وهو عينها”. An annotation that is written by Simnānī on a page which is out of his gloss on al-Futūhāt is highly harsh reads as follows: “O, followers of the most deviant leader! If you hear that one says that your sheikh is identical with his beard, put the claim that he is identical with his rejectomenta aside, should you accept this and tolerate him?” It is understood from these sentences that Simnānī considers the concept “al-ayn” as the essence of that thing. Though, the word “al-ayn” is one of the most multi-meaning word in the Arabic language and in Ibn al-Arabī’s works it is used with various meanings such as eye, the quintessence, spring, water source, tangible being of a thing, the essence of a thing and so on. The usage as “the essence of a thing” is very much common in Ibn al-Arabī’s works. It is interesting that while this word has so many meanings, Simnānī takes one meaning as base and blaspheme against Ibn al-Arabī. It is obvious that the main cause for Simnānī’s critique against Ibn al-Arabī in both problems is his attribution to the concepts different meanings than Ibn al-Arabī and then judging him in the context of his attributes. (shrink)

صدر عن المركز العربي للأبحاث ودراسة السياسات كتاب الكشف والبيان عن أوصاف خصال شرار أهل الزمان الذي ألّفه محمد الحافظ بن حسين الصيداوي النجار وحقّقه مهند مبيضين. ويُعدّ هذا الكتاب من أدب المواعظ والأخلاق والتاريخ، وقد جمع فيه صاحبه ثقافة أدبية ودينية واسعة مكّنته من صوغ النص بلغة محكمة منضبطة، وبطريقة منظمة. يأخذنا المؤلف في كتابه إلى دمشق خلال النصف الأول من القرن الثامن عشر، ويصلنا بها حتى عام 1172هـ (1758م). ويُعدّ كلٌّ من الناس والمدينة مدارَ التأليف في هذا الكتاب (...) الذي يبحث فيه مؤلفه عن المجتمع الأمثل والزمان الخالي من الفساد. لكنّ البحث عن شكل أفضل للمجتمع ليس دافع التأليف الوحيد بالنسبة إلى المؤلف؛ فدمشق تستحق زمانًا أفضل مما كانت عليه في عصره الذي جعل الناس سبب سوئه، وهي عنده الظرف والناس هم المظروف، فإنْ صلح المظروف صلح زمان المدينة؛ لذلك نجده يذكّر بدمشق وفضلها وفضائلها. (shrink)

This study focuses on the life, works, scholarly personality and place of Abu Bakr Ahmad, one of the pioneers of the science of Qiraat in the Ottoman Empire. Abū Bakr Aḥmad was the son of Ibn al-Jazari, one of the authoritative figures in the science of Qiraat, and the author is called Ibn al-Nāzim after his father. Abū Bakr Aḥmad is an important figure who came to the forefront in the field of Qiraat by being educated by the leading scholars (...) of the period, especially Ibn al-Jazari, and wrote qualified works. Abu Bakr Ahmad distinguished himself among Ibn al-Jazari's other children. Abū Bakr Aḥmad served as a muderris in various madrasas in Damascus, such as the Great Ādiliyya, Atabekiyya and Umayyad mosques, and taught many students throughout his life. Among his students were the children of Bayezid Yildirim. After Ibn al-Jazari came to Bursa, Abu Bakr Ahmad took many books with him and taught what he learned from him to many people, especially the sultan's children. The works written by Abū Bakr Aḥmad also reveal his knowledge of scientific subjects. As a matter of fact, Ibn al-Jazari said that he liked his son Abū Bakr Aḥmad's commentary on Tayyibah very much, “...Although he did not even have a copy of my previous commentary on the same work, he commented it very well. Before that, he had also commented on two poems of mine very well...”. Apart from this commentary, which was praised by Ibn al-Jazari, he also wrote other works. Considering the works of Abū Bakr Aḥmad, it can be said that he was a commentator. This is because most of his works have the quality of a commentary. It is reported that when Ibn al-Nāzim was a professor in the madrasas in Damascus, the chief qadi of the period and many scholars attended his lectures. Ibn al-Nāzim was also the first commentator of Tayyibat al-Nashr, which is used as the main source of Qiraat education both in our country and in other Islamic countries and on which dozens of commentaries have been written. All this reflects the author's knowledge in the field of qiraat.While Abu Bakr Ahmad's personal effort, perseverance and intelligence played an important role in his reaching such a position, the fact that he was the son of a father like Ibn al-Jazari, who left his mark on the history of Qiraat and is considered an authority in his field, was undoubtedly effective. As a matter of fact, Ibn al-Jazari is a valuable figure who came to the forefront among his contemporaries in the shar'i sciences in general and in the field of Qiraat in particular. Aside from the words of praise uttered about him by scholars, the great works he penned and the vibrant community of students he left behind demonstrate this in the best way possible. Abu Bakr Ahmad was one of the first among the students who grew up under the tutelage of such an important scholar. When the studies on the life of Abū Bakr Aḥmad were examined, it was seen that there was no extensive and satisfactory information about the author. In fact, when the sources and documents that directly or indirectly mention the life of the commentator since his time are examined, it is seen that the information in the aforementioned sources is a repetition of what is given in Ibn al-Jazari's Ghāyat al-nihāya and sometimes contains contradictions within itself. For example, many issues such as the date of Abu Bakr Ahmad's death, the number and identity of his siblings, his position as imam-hatip of the Ulucamii, the name of one of his students, Ashraf Musa, the catalog information of some of his works or their attribution to the author are either erroneous or controversial. Nevertheless, sources such as manuscript library catalogs, archival records, and works on the life of Abū Bakr Ahmad such as tabāqat, terājim, and qiraat, academic, modern, or encyclopedic works have been searched, and the information obtained has been compiled and presented in this study. At the same time, the information about his life, which is assumed to be erroneous, has been identified and corrected by going to the main sources, and finally, the correct or close to the truth has been tried to be revealed. The general opinion formed by us as a result of our research on the life of Abu Bakr Ahmad led us to such a study. The main theme of the article is the life of Abū Bakr Ahmad and it is aimed to make a humble contribution to the literature through this study. (shrink)

Good and evil; religious aspects; Islam.

Education; Islamic ethics; Arab countries.