This article explores the possibility of mutual legitimation between Sunni religious foundations and Abbasid political interests. The main argument centers on anecdotes that elevate the images of al-ʿAbbās as imam and of his son Ibn ʿAbbās as the expert of the science of hadith. It shows the overall relation between historical and religious anecdotes, and how the medieval reader could not accept the authority of hadith collections from their first student, Ibn ʿAbbās, without accepting the political primacy of the Abbasid (...) family from the early days of Islam. (shrink)

The subject of this study is the naḳīḍa (opposing) type of poetry competitions between the Meccan poet Ḍirār b. al-Khaṭṭāb (d. 12/633) and the Muslim poet Kaʿb b. Mālik (d. 50/670) from Medina during the Battle of Badr, when the Muslims and the polytheists confronted for the first time. The problem is the questioning of the approaches reflected in the naḳīḍa poems, which were used as a means of propaganda and psychological superiority by the Muslims and polytheists during the Battle (...) of Badr. Naḳīḍa poems, the subject of the study, are important for getting to know the two opposite understandings closely and forming an opinion about the naḳīḍa poems sung during the era of the Prophet Muhammad. Although there are some recent studies on naḳīḍa poems from the era of the Prophet, these studies lacked details and only mentioned general features. The interesting approaches and fine details reflected in the verses, such as Ḍirār b. al-Khaṭṭāb's claims aiming to distract attention and discredit the Muslims of Medina in the face of the unexpected defeat of the Meccan army at Badr that the Battle of Badr was a tribal war between the Meccans and the Medinans, makes this study prominent. On the other hand, Kaʿb b. Mālik's verses reflect the approaches bearing traces of the Islamic faith and draw attention to the fact that the battle was between faith and unbelief and the Muslims of Medina were proud of their support for the Messenger of Allah. Undoubtedly, Meccan immigrants participated in the Battle of Badr along with the Muslims of Medina. Even so, Kaʿb b. Mālik does not mention Muhājirs (immigrants) in his verses. This suggests that Kaʿb b. Mālik may have concentrated on responding to the allegations made by Ḍirār b. al-Khaṭṭāb. Document analysis, one of the qualitative method techniques, was used in the study. First, a literature review was conducted to better understand the subject, and the studies related to the field were briefly mentioned. Then, summary information about the concept and background of naḳīḍa is provided. Two call-and-response poems between the Jāhiliyyah period poet Imruʾ al-Qays (d. 545) and ʿAbīd b. al-Abraṣ (d. 555) are included as an example for the first phases of naḳīḍa poems. Then, brief information about the Meccan poet Ḍirār b. al-Khaṭṭāb and the Medinan poet Kaʿb b. Mālik are presented. After the background information, two naḳīḍa poems of both poets were examined and analyzed, and the differences in the Battle of Badr were pointed out. Concepts that are common in the eulogies of the Jāhiliyyah period, such as nobility, being a master warrior, and generosity, draw attention in Ḍirār b. al-Khaṭṭāb's verses. On the other hand, in his verses Ka'b b. Mālik uses terms and expressions brought by Islam such as the Messenger of Allah, there is no Lord but Allah, unbelievers, Hell, and hellfire. In the verses of both poets, there are clues about the commonly used battle orders and war equipment of the period. The opinions are summarised in the conclusion part of the study. (shrink)

One of the most important issues that distinguishes the Baghdādī branch of the Muʿtazila from the Baṣran branch is their view on ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 40/661). Basra branch accepts the order of virtue of the first four caliphs as their order of coming to office, while the Baghdad branch considers the first three caliphs legitimate, but considers Ali more virtuous than them. The Baghdādī Muʿtazilīs who outspokenly defended this idea were Abū Jaʿfar al-Iskāfī (d. 240/854), Abū al-Qāsim al-Kaʿbī (...) (d. 319/931) and Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd (d. 656/1258). Among them, Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd was renowned as “the greatest scholar of the Muʿtazila” and was considered one of the last representatives of this school. He ardently defended ʿAlī's superiority in his commentary on Nahj al-Balāgha, the famous collection of Ali’s sermons, letters and wisdom sayings. In his defense, he rebutted some criticisms about ʿAlī’s political decisions from his school’s point of view. Many items of Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd’s rebuttal are worthy of analysis in terms of their content, style and approach. This article aims to present a detailed account of Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd’s aforementioned refutations. In addition to the descriptive method, the interpretative method was also employed in the article. Although Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd did not consider Ali's infallibility necessary (wājib), unlike Imamiyya, he accepted it. Therefore, he responded to the criticisms directed at Ali, starting from the point of Ali's innocence. According to Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd: (a) After the death of the Prophet, ʿAlī insisted on becoming the new leader of the Muslim community. He did not act hastily to assume the caliphate because he was not expecting any opposition to that. However, when the events took a different turn, he did not escalate the situation, rather accepted the status quo. (b) ʿAlī also did the right thing by participating in ʿUmar b. Al-Khaṭṭāb’s (d. 23/644) electoral shūrā. This was an opportunity for him to become the next caliph, and reinstitute a system in accordance with the Qurʿānic principles and sunna of the Prophet. (c) It was also not an error when ʿAlī decided to stay in Medina during the events of ʿUthmān’s murder (d. 35/656). He played an active role in dissuading the rebels from their attempt to kill ʿUthmān, but he was in no position to know that his activity would be used against him later by the Umayyads who accused ʿAlī of being complicit in ʿUthmāns’s murder. (d) ʿAlī took the caliphate after ʿUthmān because of his popularity among the people. In this way, he managed to prevent an unqualified person to occupy the seat of the caliphate. (e) When the Battle of Camel broke out, those who demanded justice and opposed ʿAlī were in error. (f) When ʿAlī became the new caliph, his decision to remove Muʿāwīya (d. 60/680) from the governorship of Syria was correct. This is because Muʿāwīya would have refused to accept ʿAlī’s leadership even had he stayed in office as a governor. ʿAlī understood that the conflict would end only through fighting, so he did not lose time in marching against Muʿāwīya. (g) During the battle he abided by the sharīʿa and allowed the Syrian army to access water. (h) It was not ʿAlī, but those defectors in his army who obliged him to end the fighting through arbitration. (i) When ʿAlī agreed to sign the Ṣiffīn ceasefire agreement and did not use his title amīr al-muʾminīn, he followed the Prophet's example since the latter also refrained from using his title during the Ḥudaybiyya agreement. (j) ʿAlī also cannot be blamed for those among his supporters, such as the poet al-Najāshī, who defected and joined the ranks of Muʿāwīya. The motivations for the defectors were either to attain worldly gains or to escape from punishment for the crimes which they had committed. (k) When Muʿāwīya managed to conquer Egypt, ʿAlī’s governors of the province, Qays b. Saʿd (d. 60/680) or Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr (d. 38/658), did nothing for which they could be blamed. (l) And finally, ʿAlī never had guards to protect him because he was never afraid of being assassinated. Although Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd took Ali's innocence as a basis while presenting these views, he did not make inconsistent comments in general and did not say things contrary to historical facts. Therefore, it is necessary to acknowledge historical value of his views in question. (shrink)

Müksirûndan biri olan Abdullâh b. Abbâs 1660 hadis nakletmiş ve İslâmi ilimlerin farklı birçok alanlarıyla birlikte hadis ilmiyle temâyüz etmiştir. Kur’ân’daki incelikleri kavrayıp yorumlaması için Rasûlullah’ın özel duasına mazhar olan Abdullâh b. Abbâs, fetvaları oldukça meşhur fakih bir sahâbîdir. Rasûlullah’ın sünnetini anlamaya yönelik çabaları sahâbenin gözlemine bağlı olarak farklılık arz etmektedir. Ayrıca onların her birinin hadisleri anlayış ve kavrayışları aynı seviyede değildi. Bundan dolayı rivâyetler hususunda farklı anlayışlar, yorumlamalar, unutmalar ve yapılan hatalar sebebiyle sahâbe birbirini tenkit etmiştir. Büyük bir ilmi (...) birikime sahip olan İbn Abbâs sahâbeden mirasa dair nakledilen bazı rivâyetleri, uygulama ve fetvaları düzeltmiş ve onları tenkit etmiştir. İbn Abbâs’ın hayatına ve hadis, tefsir ve fıkıh ilmindeki konumuna dair çalışmalar yapılmıştır. Ancak onun ferâiz hususundaki istidrâkleri hadis ilmi açısından incelenmemiştir. Araştırmamızda onun hadis ilmi çerçevesinde Rasûlullah’ın sözlerinin ve uygulamasının doğru anlaşılması için mirasa dair yaptığı istidrâkleri ele alınmıştır. Abdullāh Ibn Abbās is one of the companions well known for his verdicts in the area of the Islamic law of inheritance and the abundance of his verdicts in jurisprudence. In this regard, the inheritance sections of the jurisprudence books often include Ibn Abbās's verdicts and applications. He approached the matters regarding jurisprudence from a different perspective, ruled differently from the companions, and provided corrections mainly in terms of the science of inheritance regarding the sayings narrated by the companions, applications and verdicts of the companions. In this regard, Ibn Abbās considered the jurisprudential aspects of the sayings and applications of Prophet Muhammad and made a ruling by interpreting the same narration by his wide understanding and knowledge and considering the meaning of the sayings. Ibn Abbās, who made different interpretations and evaluations in his corrections regarding the law of inheritance, objected to Umar Ibn Al-Khattab and Uthman Ibn Affan, criticized and corrected the narrations of Zayd Ibn Thabit. Ibn Abbās, who interpreted the matters regarding inheritance according to the principles of the Qur'ān, made rulings according to the apparent meanings of the related verses of the Qur'ān. (shrink)

The issue of wiping over socks is part of the more general issue of wiping over leather socks (khuffayn) for ablution (wuḍū’). Washing feet or wiping over them is a debate whose sides bases their claims on the verses of the Qur’an and supports these claims with narrations. When performing ablution, if shoes or socks are on the feet, whether one can wipe over them without taking these off and the qualities that these clothes should have is a debate based (...) on hadith narrations. Most Muslims except for the Ja’farite are of the opinion that either washing the feet or wiping over a khuff or similar clothing that was put on while a person already had ablution can be done during ablution, while the Ja’farite think that wiping over bare feet is enough but wiping over khuff is not. There is a consensus that shoes, boots, buskins and other leather footwear qualify as khuff. However, there is disagreement over whether clothing from materials like cotton, linen, wool, and felt -usually referred to as socks- qualify as khuff. For this reason, some Muslims of the world wipe over socks while others do not. There are contemporary fatwas (legal opinion) that are supportive of either of the positions. However, there are those who treat this issue beyond choosing a side in an ijtihad (process of juristic legal reasoning) and some who wipe on socks are censured strongly. In this research based on an examination of the fiqh heritage, the goal is to contribute to making this issue better understood and its fiqh ruling clearer.Summary: The sixth verse of Surah Ma’idah in the Qur’an clearly states that wuḍū’ requires washing the face, arms up until elbows, and wiping over the head. However, when it comes to the fourth element of wuḍū’, the feet, there has been disagreement about whether it should be wiped or washed. Arabic grammar rules and narrations have been interpreted in ways that support both views; in general Sunni sects, Zaydis, and Kharijites argue the feet should be washed while Shia Ja’farites are in favor of wiping over bare feet. There have also been efforts among faqihs (jurists) to reconcile washing and wiping; washing slightly; choosing the better one between the two; washing when not covered, wiping when covered; washing if there is dirt, wiping if it is clean; viewing at least wiping as fard (obligatory), washing as a Sunna (recommended) that includes the fard as a way to unify the two approaches have also been proposed.According to widely accepted narrations, the prophet and his companions washed their feet when performing wuḍū’ and once they put on their shoes having had wuḍū’, the next time they only wiped over the shoes without taking them off. In less commonly accepted narrations, which some hadith authorities regard as authentic, the Prophet is said to have wiped over his socks. In narration sources, it has been narrated that about fifteen faqih companions, among them ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, ʿAbdallāh Ibn Masʿūd, ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAbbās, ʿAbdallāh b. ʿUmar, saw wiping over socks as appropriate. However, there are no narrations about the companions disapproving of wiping over socks. Among those who approved of wiping over socks are tābiʿūn (successors) faqihs like Saʿīd b. D̲j̲ubayr, Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab, Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī, ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabāḥ, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī ve al-Aʿmash, and Mujtahid Imams like Zufar, Sufyan al-Thawri, al-Ḥasan b. Ṣāliḥ, Ibn al-Mubārak, Abū Yūsuf, Muḥammad al-Shaybānī, Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Isḥāq b. Rāhawayh. Considering their most prominent positions, we can say that Ḥanafis and Shafis allow wiping over socks that are thick and opaque, Hanbalis allow it over socks that cover the foot even if thin, while Mālikīs do not allow wiping over socks at all.As far as it is understood from narrations from the Prophet’s time, due to both climate conditions and weaving possibilities, socks were used only rarely. Also, footwear like shoes or slippers made of leather were very hard to find and narrations suggest that prayers were performed at houses and the masjids over soil base on either bare foot or with shoes. For these reasons, the issue of wiping over socks did not arise at the time and at later periods different opinions on the issue led to disagreements. When carpets were placed on the ground at later periods, performing the prayer with shoes was abandoned and a second layer of shoes (khuff) was placed inside the shoes as khuff. Since removing the shoes would invalidate wuḍū’ performed over that shoe, those who wanted to avoid the difficulty of having to wash their feet each time they needed wuḍū’ have instead wiped over this second layer once they put them on after performing wuḍū’.Ḥanafīs and Shāfiʿīs, who tend to approach the issue of wiping over socks with hesitation and make this conditional on some strict rules, emphasize that the socks to be wiped over should be similar to shoes in terms of thickness, based on the idea that it is certain that the Prophet has wiped over shoes made of leather but his wiping over socks is weaker and that the qualities of those socks are not clear. Among the thickness criteria expressed for the socks are being waterproof, the ability to walk for at least a league with it, and its ability to hold on to feet without being tied at the wrists. Due to these criteria, which have been developed to protect the wuḍū’ and whose boundaries are not well specified, especially among Ḥanafis the idea that wiping over socks is not allowed has gained popularity. As opposed to this, in circles dominated by Ḥanbalīs opinions allowing wiping over any type of socks have been expressed.At times when the Prophet had his shoes on and did not want to take off his shoes, he used to wipe over the shoes. The equivalent of this act today is to wipe over socks since prayer with shoes on is not common any more. While nowadays wiping over socks is an ease for everybody when performing wuḍū’, it is something that is especially needed under certain circumstances. Cold weather and the lack of drying possibilities for the feet leading catching cold and illness, socks that are put on when feet are wet leading to bad smell and fungus on feet, the hardship of elevating the feet high enough to the sink and of changing socks on one foot when there are no special wuḍū’ places, the fact that at societies distant from Islamic culture it is seen against the etiquette to wash feet in the sink are among the reasons why this need arises. Because most of the time we are not in a position to determine the circumstances of our work and travels at modern times, it can be said that today this need is more than it was in the past.Some scholars of today use a precautionary principle and argue that the Qur’an commands to wash the feet, and the only narration powerful enough to make an exception to this rule is about masts made of leather, and extending this to include socks would go against the precaution principle and some other principles of uṣūl al-fiqh (Islamic legal theory). However, some other scholars who use the ease in religion principle argue that the permission to wipe over masts also include wiping over socks and that they are of the same nature, that there are authentic narrations that show wiping over socks are allowed and that one can even talk of an ijmāʿ (consensus) among the companions on this issue, and that seeking additional qualities socks on which one is to wipe over, such as thickness, ability to walk with it, its ability to hold on to the feet, being waterproof, have no merit in the sharīʿa. Jamaleddīn Qāsimī, who wrote a special research book on the topic, and scholars like Abū l-Aʿlā Mawdūdī, Yūsuf al-Qaradāwī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Bāz, Ibn al Uthaymeen think that one can wipe over daily socks that do not show the skin beneath it, while scholars predominantly of the Ḥanafi opinion hold that one cannot wipe over the thin daily socks. (shrink)