Cet ouvrage est une réédition numérique d’un livre paru au XXe siècle, désormais indisponible dans son format d’origine.

1. köt. A Marx előtti filozófia története.--2. köt. Marxtól Lening.--3. köt. Lenintől napjainkig.

Commentary, with text, on the Yogasūtra by Patañjali, basic aphoristic text of Yoga; with Hindi exposition based on the commentary ascribed to Śaṅkarācārya.

Contributed research papers on Vedic literature and Hindu philosophy.

Explanation of the philosophical position (siddhānta) of the Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Yogācārya, and Mādhyamika schools of Buddhism.

Comparative study of Vaiśeshikasūtrāvr̥tti of Candrānanda on Vaiśeshikasūtra of Kaṇāda and Yuktidīpikā commentary on Sāṅkhyakārikā of Iśvarakr̥shṇa, works on the fundamentals of Vaiśeshika and Sāṅkhya philosophy.

Hicrî IV (X). asrın Bağdat asıllıönemli muhaddislerinden biri olan İbnü’s-Seken hadis tarihinin geç dönemlerinde ve günümüzde hak ettiği oranda ve layık olduğu şekilde değerlendirilememiş bir âlimdir. Bunun en önemli nedenlerinden biri, kaleme aldığı ve her biri alanında önemli sayılan eserlerinin sonraki dönemlere ulaşmamış olmasıdır. İbnü’s-Seken, genç yaşında başladığı ilmî seyahatlerini tamamladıktan sonra Mısır’a yerleşmiş, okuduğu eserleri ve kendisine has senedlerle derlediği hadisleri burada rivayet etmiş, ayrıca sahih hadislerden oluşan es-Sünenü’s-sıhâh el-me’sûra, sahâbe tabakâtı alanında ilk ve temel kaynaklardan biri olan el-Hurûf (...) fî es-mâi’s-sahâbe ve zayıf râviler konusuna dair ed-Duafâ ve’l-metrûkîn isimli eserlerini kaleme almıştır. İbnü’s-Seken, eserleri hicrî VI (XII). asır sonrasına intikal etmediği için adeta unutulmuş, günümüzde yeterli ilmî araştırma ve çalışmaya konu olmamıştır. Araştırmamız, klasik kaynaklardaki kısa biyografik bilgiler dışında onun hakkında doğuda, batıda ve ülkemizde ilmî anlamda sınırlı birkaç çalışma yapıldığını ortaya koymuştur. Türkçede hakkında kaleme alınan en önemli ilmî yazı Diyanet İslâm Ansiklopedisi’nin yaklaşık 300 kelimeden oluşan “İbnü’s-Seken” maddesidir. İbnü’s-Seken’in ilmî bir şekilde ele alınmamış olması kendisi ve eserleri hakkında bir dizi hataya düşülmesine neden olmuştur. Kütüphanelerde yer alan bazı yazmaların kendisine ait olmadıkları halde ona aitmiş gibi gösterilmesi ve bunun halen tekrar ediliyor olması, eserleri günümüze ulaşmadığı halde bazı kütüphanelerin yazma kaydı verilerek günümüze ulaştığının belirtilmesi, eseri es-Sünenü’s-sıhâh el-me’sûra isnadlı bir eser olduğu halde, senedleri hazfedilmiş ilk eser olarak takdim edilmesi bu hatalardan bir kaçıdır. Bu hatalar Arapça ve Farsça İslâm Ansiklopedisi ile Diyanet İslâm Ansiklopedisi’nin “İbnü’s-Seken” maddesinde aynen tekrar edilmiştir. İbnü’s-Seken ve eseri es-Sünenü’s-sıhâh el-me’sûra’ya dair yeterli araştırma yapılmamış olmasından kaynaklanan bu ve benzeri bir dizi hata, kütüphane kayıtları ve kaynaklar yeniden gözden geçirilerek kaleme aldığımız bu makale ile tashih edilmiş, ayrıca tarihte kalan ve araştırılmayı bekleyen İbnü’s-Seken gün yüzüne çıkarılmış, eserleri de içerikleri ve özellikleri itibariyle bilinir hale gelmiştir. (shrink)

Bu çalışmanın amacı İbn Kesîr’in (öl. 774/1373) el-Bidâye ve’n-nihâye isimli tarih çalışmasının siyer bölümünde Sahîhayn hadislerini muhteva açısından tenkidinin araştırılması ve tahlilidir. Çalışmamızın konusu ise İbn Kesîr’in mezkûr eserinde yirmi Sahihayn hadisini Kur’ân-ı Kerîm (3 hadis), akıl (1 hadis), icmâ (1 hadis), sahih hadisler (7 hadis) ve sağlam târihî bilgilere (8 hadis) uygunluk/aykırılık kıstaslarını kullanarak tenkidi ve on dört hadiste izah getiremediği yanlışların birer hata olduğunu kaydetmesidir. İbn Kesîr’in incelenen hadislerin muhteva tenkidine müsait bir hâle gelmesine yol açan râvi tasarruflarına (...) dair verdiği bilgiler ayrıca kıymetlidir. Bu çalışmanın kapsamını oluşturan hadislerden yedi tanesi hem Sahîh-i Buhârî hem Sahîh-i Müslim, altı tanesi sadece Sahîh-i Buhârî, yedi tanesi de sadece Sahîh-i Müslim’de yer almaktadır. Hem Sahîh-i Buhârî hem Sahîh-i Müslim’de yer alan hadisler Hayber’de müt‘a nikahının yasaklanışı, Rasulullah’ın (s.a.v.) umre ve hacca niyeti, Hz. Peygamber’in gümüş yüzüğü atması, kıblenin değişimi haberinin Kubâ’ya ertesi sabah ulaşması, namazda konuşma yasağının zamanı, ye’cûc ve me’cûc’un seddinin delinmesi ve Hz. Peygamber’in (s.a.v.) miras bırakmaması konulu hadislerdir. Sadece Sahîh-i Buhârî’de geçen hadisler isranın vahiy gelmesinden önce vukuu, Hamrâülesed seferine katılanların sayısı, Sa‘d b. Ebî Vakkas’ın İslam’a girişi, Hz. Ali’nin Hz. Ebû Bekir’e biatı, Recî‘ vak‘asıyla ilgili bazı bilgiler ve mirac hadisinde Beyt-i Makdis’e yolculuğun zikredilmemesi konulu hadislerdir. Son olarak, sadece Sahîh-i Müslim’de yer alan hadisler ise Huneyn savaşında müslümanların sayısı ve Taif kuşatmasının müddeti, yeryüzünün yedi günde yaratılışı, Amr b. Abese’nin İslam’a girişi, Bedir için Sa‘d b. Ubâde ile istişâre, sahâbînin sıcak kumlardan şikâyeti, Ümmü Habîbe ile evlilik ve kurban bayramında öğle namazının yeri konulu hadislerdir. Araştırmamızın yöntemi kaynak taraması ve sonuçların diğer şarihlerinkiyle mukayeseli tahlilidir. Araştırmamızın sonucunda eleştirilen hadislerin büyük bir kısmında İbn Kesîr’in değerlendirmelerinin İbn Hacer ve Nevevî gibi muhaddislerinkinden farklı olduğu görülmüştür. Çalışmamızın önemi İbn Kesîr’in tenkitlerinin muhaddislerin senedin sıhhatinin metnin sıhhatini temin etmeyeceğine dair tespitlerinin uygulamadaki somut delillerini oluşturmasıdır. Kısaca İbn Kesîr’in, eserine güçlü tenkit zihniyetini, özgün görüşlerini ve geniş ilmî birikimini başarıyla yansıttığı görülmektedir. (shrink)

This article tries to show that Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, one of Ash‘arī theologians of the contracting period, showed a Mu‘tazila tendency regarding the ontic value of divine attributes and his successors followed him in this regard. The problem of divine attributes, a heated discussion area of theology, has been interpreted differently by the theological sects over centuries. Mu‘tazila scholars before Abu Hāshim al-Jubbāī regarded those attributes as nominally attributed to God. For the first time, with Abu Hāshim, this relation was (...) approached with a realistic attitude: Although divine attributes are not accepted as particular realities, they are viewed as states/ahwāl, the universal model of kalam atomism. The pre-Gazzālī Ash‘arī theologians, on the other hand, ascribed real existence to divine attributes as particular properties, whether they adopted this universal model or not. According to Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī, the founder of Ashʿarism, which does not include the universal category in any way, the attributes carried by God’s essence consist of particular qualities. al-Bāqillānī and al-Juwaynī, who, like Abu Hāshim, made room for universals under the name of states, accepted particular qualities that led to universal attributes in a system compatible with Ashʿarism. Muta’akhkhirūn Ash‘arī theologians, building their thought system within the framework of the particular-universal dichotomy, felt the need to apply the theories of universals and predication to overcome the paradox caused by the famous motto “Attributes are neither Him nor other than Him”. On the basis of universal properties that have a lower degree of existence compared to particular properties, Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī’s theory of particular attributes is intended to be associated with Abu Hāshim’s theory of universal (state). In this context, the value of divine attributes discussed on the ontic ground by the mutaqaddimūn theologians was drawn to the epistemic ground in the muta’akhkhirūn period. From the first kalām works of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī to the last kalām works, he was distant from the ontic value of divine attributes. The statement that the derived word “knower”, which is appropriate for being a predicate in the propositional structure, and the infinitive “knowledge”, which is not appropriate for being a predicate, meet the same purpose, and that divine attributes are considered divine essence are the most important indications of this distance. Reviewing the works of prominent theologians, scholars of the time such as Fakhr al- Dīn al-Rāzī, Aḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī, Sa‘d al-dīn al-Taftāzānī, al-Jurjānī, and al-Dawānī, this article aims to demonstrate that Abu Hāshim’s view of the divine attributes in the ontic context was welcomed and that the evaluation of divine attributes shifted from particular realities to universal ones in the ontic context. The meaning of “God is knower” proposition according to the pre-Mu‘tazila in the ontic context will be analyzed. Then, its meaning according to Ash‘arite theologians from their framework of universals, will be investigated. (shrink)

Māturīdism is an Ottoman identity and this identity was not limited, as is commonly believed, to the last period of the Empire. It maintained its formal existence throughout the Ottoman history. Nevertheless, the context in which the Māturīdism was located or with which it was associated changed in the course of time. In the early period when the eclectic way of thinking was dominant, Māturīdism as a creed was apparent mainly in the jurists whose ascetic identity was prominent and partly (...) in the mystical currents that were essentially continuations of Yasawiyya. At this point, the Bukhara-centered Ḥanafī legal literature played a distinctive role. At the time of Meḥmed II and in the following period during which the philosophical kalām dominated the scene, the Māturīdism was relatively passive and was in search of a position against the Ash‘arism. The new Rāzian paradigm of thought that began to be felt strongly in the Ottoman lands with Meḥmed II as an attempt of integration into the global circulation of knowledge prevented to a certain extent the visibility of Māturīdism. However, even in this period, Māturīdism was remarkably reflected in the muqaddimāt-i arba‘a literature which was directly sponsored by Meḥmed II. The tradition of philosophical kalām in the Ottoman scholarship, just when it was about to yield significant results, was interrupted due to the struggle against the Ṣafawids. Transformation of this political tension, at the same time, into a fight against Shiism also brought about a constriction in the religious thought of the Ottomans. Shiism and its all other variants were bitterly attacked under the main heading of Rāfiḍa. Unfortunately such a refutational approach proved a boomerang and returned in time striking the Ottoman Ṣūfīs who stood near the line of the Ardabil Shrine before its Shiitization. Ḥanafī fatwā literature was used extensively in the refutation texts against Ṣafawids. This brought to the fore at first the Ḥanafite and then the Māturīdite identity. This paper attempts to analyze this changing emphasis on Māturīdism in the Ottoman period and the political and intellectual factors that supported and nourished it. -/- SUMMARY It can be argued that the debates around Ash‘arism and Māturīdism in the Ottoman period and the resulting meant more than attempts of the members of the two sides to understand each other and that Māturīdism, particularly from the 16th century onwards, was gradually brought fore as the identity of Ottomans. In fact, this identity was not limited, as is commonly believed, to the last period of the Empire; it maintained, in form, its existence throughout the Ottoman history. Nevertheless, the context in which the Māturīdism was located or with which it was associated changed in the course of time. In the early period when the eclectic way of thinking was dominant, Māturīdism as a creed was apparent mainly in the jurists whose ascetic identity was prominent and partly in the mystical currents that were essentially continuations of Yasawiyya. At this point, the Bukhara-centered Ḥanafī legal literature played a distinctive role. At the time of Meḥmed II and in the following period during which the philosophical kalām dominated the scene, the Māturīdism was relatively passive and was in search of a position against the Ash‘arism. In this period, Ottoman scholars still embraced the Māturīdī-Ḥanafī line in their theological views. Ḫiḍir Beg’s al-Qaṣīda al-Nūniyya, and al-Khayālī’s commentary upon it, and the commentary written by Aḥmad b. Oġuz Dānishmand al-Aḳshahrī on al-I‘timād of Abū al-Barakāt al-Nasafī were the most noticeable Māturīdite texts from that time. Besides, al-Khayālī’s supercommentary (ḥāshiya) upon the commentary of al-Taftāzānī written on al-‘Aqā’id of Najm al-Dīn ‘Umar al-Nasafī was also of central importance. However, the new Rāzian paradigm of thought that began to be felt strongly in the Ottoman lands with Meḥmed II as an attempt of integration into the global circulation of knowledge prevented to a certain extent the visibility of Māturīdism. But, this should not be taken to mean that Māturīdism lost its ground of existence. That the Ash‘arite works produced in this new paradigm were transferred to and fully integrated in the madrasa curriculum was not because they were Ash‘arite texts but because they were the most original and highest achievements of the philosophical theology. These texts that aimed at combining all fields of knowledge on a single platform, despite the Ash‘arism they included, constituted the peak of the Islamic thought of the time. In the preference of these texts, the fact that the Māturīdī tradition generally stood, in course of time, distant to the philosophy and chose to continue the kalām in the classical line also played a role. Māturīdī theologians Muḥammad b. Ashraf al-Samarqandī, partly, but Ṣadr al-Sharī‘a al-Maḥbūbī, to a greater extent, were notable exceptions to this general Māturīdī tendency. These figures were theologically Māturīdite, but their framework of producing discourse was the combination of philosophy and kalām as with their Ash‘arī counterparts. Therefore, Ṣadr al-Sharī‘a’s criticism of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, and through him, of against the Ash‘arism in the context of muqaddimāt arba‘a was wholeheartedly supported by the Ottoman ulama. Even it was Meḥmed II who sponsored the debates regarding muqaddimāt arba‘a. The works written by such scholars as Muṣliḥ al-Dīn al-Kastallī, al-Ṣamṣūnī, ‘Alā’ al-Dīn al-‘Arabī, Mollā ‘Arab al-Anṭākī, Khaṭībzāde, Sa‘dī Chalabī during his and his son Bāyazid II’s reigns were the supercommentaries written upon the related chapter of al-Talwīḥ, al-Taftāzānī’s commentary on Ṣadr al-Sharī‘a’s al-Tawḍīḥ where the former responded to the criticism of the latter from an Ash‘arī point of view. The Ottoman ulama, in their workswere forced to choose between the two scholars and they mostly supported Ṣadr al-Sharī‘a and Māturīdism. The tradition of philosophical kalām in the Ottoman scholarship, just when it was about to yield significant results, was interrupted due to the struggle against the Ṣafawids. Transformation of this political tension, at the same time, into a fight against Shiism also brought about a constriction in the religious thought of the Ottomans. The reflex of of identifying oneself through ‘the other’ made, to a certain extent, the theological and philosophical debates regarding faith meaningless, and gradually gave the Ottoman Sunnism a doctrinal and political tone. In such a context, the Ottomans’ paradigm of producing thought in line with the philosophical kalām began to lose its function, and, the focus of scholarhsip shifted; Shiism with its all variants were began to be bitterly attacked under the main heading of Rāfiḍa. When the refutation texts composed from the reign of Bāyazid II onward to criticize the Ṣafawids are chronologically analyzed, it is seen that the contents of the texts evolved from criticism of Rāfiḍa to criticism of Sūfism. Ḥanafī fatwā literature was used extensively in these refutations. So the fatwās issued against Rāfiḍa and Ṣūfīs in malāmatī line in earlier centuries in different contexts for different reasons were employed to criticize the new opponents. This caused two important results: First, such an approach proved a boomerang and returned in time striking the Ottoman Ṣūfīs who stood near the line of the Ardabil Shrine before its Shiitization. Ḫalwatīs, Bayrāmīs, Gulshanīs, Baktāshīs and Mawlawīs were the sufi groups influenced by this situation in varying degrees. Second, Sunnism was exposed to the narrowization and centered around the fiqh, particularly Ḥanafī fiqh, in the context of Ḳāḍīzādelīs who were the main adversaries of above mentioned groups. The culture of catechism (‘ilm-i ḥāl) that came to the fore through the efforts of Ḳāḍīzādelīs was a crystallization and was mainly fuelled from this tension. Such a crystallization led the Ṣūfīs, the opponents of Ḳāḍīzādelīs, to a higher level of discourse deemphasizing the Ḥanafī aspect: They underscored the discourse of Ahl al-Sunna and four madhhabs, and mostly turned towards the Shāfiʿī and Ash‘arī traditions to look for support fortheir views. This process during which the emphasis of sharī‘a and tradition began to come to the fore once again paved the way for the zuhd and fiqh-centered religious thought that was maintained from the time of the Seljukids in Anatolia and was influential until Meḥmed II’ reign. Therefore in the Ottomans, particularly starting with the reign of Suleymān I, an intensive emphasis on Abū Ḥanīfa was witnessed. Abū Ḥanīfa was at the very center of the debates revolving around zuhd and fiqh which came about in the same period and in which the sharī‘a sensitivity was a determining factor. Al-Māturīdī, whose name was overshadowed for a long time by the name of Abū Ḥanīfa, but who became prominent in the tradition with Abū al-Mu‘īn al-Nasafī, had to transfer his gains for a period of time to Abū Ḥanīfa. Emphasis on Abū Ḥanīfa looks like a rope that when pulled, all the tradition comes with it. When the topics began to be discussed in a manner that would also include the theological context, the contribution of the works ascribed to Abū Ḥanīfa, namely al-Fiqh al-Akbar, al-Waṣiyya and al-‘Ālim wa al-Muta‘allim to the discussions would be limited. For this reason, the need to refer to al-Māturīdī or to the theological formation bearing his name was inevitable. So, the literature on the points of disagreements between the Ash‘arism and the Māturīdism developed both vertically and horizontally in the 18th century and, corollary to that, the debates of free will as a corolloary to that, once again brought Māturīdism to the fore. (shrink)

Study with text and commentary on Mīmāṃsānyāyaprakāśa, a classical digest on Mimamsa philosophy by Āpadeva.

On divine reincarnations (avatars) in Hindu mythology.

Contribution of Rāhula Sāṅkr̥tyāyana, 1893-1963, Hindi to Buddhist philosophy and literature; includes description of his travel to various places.

Values and ethics in Yogavāsiṣṭha; a study with complete text with Hindi translation.

Commentary on the Sāṅkhyakārikā of Īśvarakr̥ṣṇa, compendium of the Sāṅkhya school in Hindu philosophy.

On Hindu ethics and religious life of India as depicted in Nirukta of Yāska, 7th century commentary on Nighaṇṭu, thesaurus of Vedic synonyms.

On epistemology of Rāmānuja, 1017-1137, Hindu philosophers; a study.

Study on the concept of delusion (Moha) and Mokṣa in Indic philosophy.

Comprehensive work with Hindi and Sanskrit commentaries on fundamentals of Sankhya philosophy.

On views of five Buddhist Nyāya philosophers on Buddhist logic; includes brief biographical sketches and a list of their works.

Articles chiefly on the life of some Buddhist philosophers, who were disciples of Gautama Buddha; includes critical essays on Buddhist literature.

Classical commentary, with supercommentaries, on Jaimini's Mīmāṃsāsūtra, basic work of the Mīmāṃsā school in Hindu philosophy.

Root text and autocommentary on Buddhist logic.

Study on modern linguistics, works of Indic linguists, and Hindi language.

Study of Pramāṇamañjarī, treatise on the fundamentals of Vaiśeṣika school in Hindu philosophy by Sarvadeva.

Contributed seminar papers presented at Seminar on the subject of Siddhantavada, organized by Department of Nyayavaisheshika, Shri Lalbahadur Shastri Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, New Delhi in 2016.

Study on the philosophy of semantics in Tantric texts and Sanskrit grammar.

Work extolling the virtues of Sikh philosophy.

Dr. Sašo Dolenc je nedvomno med našimi najuspešnejšimi avtorji na področju poljudne znanosti, saj mu uspeva zapletene znanstvene dosežke razložiti širši javnosti na jasen in zanimiv način s tem, da ostane pri tej razlagi natančen in znanstven. Serija njegovih člankov je izredno pomembna, saj pokriva vsa področja moderne znanosti na nevsiljiv, skorajda lahkoten način, zato je prav, da jo imamo tudi v knjižni obliki. Na področju moderne poljudne znanosti smo v Sloveniji šibki, saj se naši znanstveniki v glavnem ne lotevajo (...) takega dela, drugi pa niso usposobljeni zanj. Zato delo dr. Dolenca zasluži vso pohvalo in spoštovanje. Ali znanost misli? Na to vprašanje je svojčas Heidegger odgovoril z odločnim ne. Zapisi o sodobni znanosti spod vešče roke Saše Dolenca, te male zgodbe o velikih zgodbah, nas hitro prepričajo o nasprotnem. Ne le, da znanost misli na stotero nepričakovanih načinov, njeni miselni izzivi in vpogledi so obenem neizčrpni vir vzpodbud in zabave. Jasna misel in prijazen slog naredita knjigo dostopno vsakomur: v najboljši tradiciji populariziranja znanstvene vednosti, njenih dosežkov, dilem in zagat. (shrink)