As in every religious issue, the two main resources of Islām which are the Qur’ān and the Sunnah/ḥadīths are the first reference sources for deciding the things that are forbidden by Islam. There is no evidence in the Qur’ān that suggests specific types of animals are forbidden to eat except pork. Other than pork, only the animals which are slaughtered without the name of Allah, their blood and their carcass are forbidden to consume. Except these restricted ill-gotten meats, in the (...) Qur’ānic verses there are no other limitations referring to different animals. However, in Ḥadīth sources there are some narratives referring to the Prophet Muḥammad, implying that He named some other forbidden animals beside the ones specified in the Qur’ān. Collecting the narratives and evaluating them as a whole will contribute for a better understanding of the rules and principles of prohibitions that the Prophet Muḥammad imposed on this issue. Moreover, it will help to identify whether those rulings on some animals are unconditional and world-wide or cause-related and thus changeable according to the conditions. Furthermore, in this matter, although some animals‘ meat are not mentioned as forbidden in the Qur’ān, they are banned by the Prophet Muḥammad. This brings the need to highlight the importance of the capacity of the Prophet Muḥammad on deciding what is permissible (ḥalāl) and forbidden (ḥarām) in the religion.SummaryWhile the authority for determining what is ḥalāl (lawful) and what is ḥarām(forbidden) belongs essentially to Allah, the Prophet Muḥammad is also authorized to appoint what is ḥalāl-ḥarām by Allah.Authority of the Prophet Muḥammadrelated to the issue is not absolute and stems from the Qur’ān. Ḥalāland ḥarāmin the Qur’ān prescribed by Allah can be included in the concepts of maʿrūf (right) - munkar (wrong) andṭayyibāt (clean) - hkabāis (filthy). It is understood that the Prophet Muḥammadgrounded his commands in the concept of hkabāis.Prohibitions related to animal meats in the Qur’ānare limited to four: carcass, blood, pork and animals, which are not slaughtered in the name of Allah. However, in the Ḥadīth resources there are some narratives about the Prophet’s prohibition on consuming some types of animals other than the forbidden animals specified in the verses. These narratives can be classified in three titles:1. Animals, which are prohibited to be eaten 2. Animals, which are prohibited because of the way they are fed and slaughtered3. The matter of prohibition of the animals, which are commanded or forbidden to be slaughtered by the Prophet Muḥammad.At the end of the studies conducted based upon ḥadīth resources, in particular Kutūb al-Sittah (the well-known six ḥadīth books), it has been discovered that the animals, which are mentioned as not being permissible in the narratives, they are limited to domesticated donkey and the species of “predatory animals, predatory birds”, namely wolf, fox and cat. Even though the narratives about hyena imply as eatable, hyena is included in this article as it’s a predatory animal.The narratives regarding the prohibition of meat of domesticated donkey were transferred by approximately twenty Companions in respect to the time of the Battle of Khyber. This prohibition is generally stated in the ḥadīthresources as: “We were having dire hunger at the nights of Khyber. When the day for Khyber came, we encountered domesticated donkeys. We immediately slaughtered them. When we put the meat in the pot and started to boil it, crier of the Prophet Muḥammadcalled “Knock over the pots and don’t eat any of the donkey meat”. Regarding the issue there are such statements of some Companions like “we were banned from eating domesticated donkey”, “The Prophet banned the meat of domesticated donkey” among the narratives about the ban. In addition to a large number of narratives about the prohibition of domesticated donkey meat, there are two narratives related to permission of the Prophet for eating domesticated donkey and a narrative that Ibn ‘Abbās did not accept the ban. One of the said narratives is not among the narratives in the Kutūb al-Sittah while the other one is stated solely in the Sunanof Abū Dāwūd and thought to be acceptable by the traditionists. Even though this narrative’s authenticity is accepted, it is understood that there is an implication for the permission based on a necessity. According to the narrative, Ibn ʿAbbās referred to 145thverse of the surah al-An’am as a proof to his view saying “What ḥalālis what Allah allowed, what ḥaramis what Allah forbidden and the things about which there is no judgement of Allah are mubāḥ (permissible)”. As for us, the fact that Ibn ʿAbbās did not accepted the prohibition implies that he did not recognize the Prophet’s command related to the prohibition as an absolute prohibition. The conveyances of many Companions, which are consistent with each other, about the Prophet’s prohibition on eating domesticated donkey during the Battle of Khyber, proved that the prohibition was applied. Even though there is no dispute about prohibiting domesticated donkey, it is controversial whether the prohibition is absolute, constant or provisional based on certain reasons. It is more reasonable to accept that this prohibition was provisional and it was based on certain reasons. Because there are many narratives bearing information that this prohibition was due to several reasons and this is a situation which needs to be considered. Accordingly, there are three reasons, nearly all of which are attributed to judgement of the Companions. These were the facts that domesticated donkey was used in transportation; it used to eat filth and it was slaughtered/consumed without distributing booty/paying taxes. The seeking of the Companions for any reason for this prohibition indicates that they needed to comprehend this prohibition and that the prohibition is not absolute and constant.There is no explanation neither in the resources where the narratives are included nor in the annotation about when, where, why and in which context the prohibition regarding the predatory animals was realized. It is highly possible to assume that the Prophet prohibited these animal as they eat carcass. Another interesting issue within this regard is the fact that there are narratives and views indicating permissibility of eating hyena, which is a predatory, while predatory animals are forbidden in the narratives. Statements of the Prophet related to permissibility of eating hyena, which are considered authentic by traditionists and information about the Arabs who used to eat hyena and some of the Companions who praised eating hyena indicate that urf (custom) has a primary and decisive role about permissibility of eating meats. Regarding this matter about the hyenas, the narratives pointing out some Companions like ʿĀʾisha bint Abī Bakr and Ibn ‘Abbās who viewed prohibition of animals other than the prohibited animals in the Qur’an as inapplicable and other issues referring to the dispute indicate that prohibition of the Prophet Muḥammadfor predators can not be accepted as an absolute and unquestionable prohibition. Some of the prohibitions mentioned in ḥadīth narratives, except these animals, stem from the way of feeding and slaughtering of some animals. It is understood that consuming meat and milk of the animals that eat filth is prohibited in order to abstain from the things harming human health and mujassam (killing an animal with an arrow, etc. by fastening it as a target) is prohibited as carcass is banned and it is not permissible to torture and harm animals. Some of the prohibitions are related to the some animals, which were allowed and banned to slaughter by the Prophet. As the Prophet commanded some animals to be slaughtered and some animals not, meat of these animals was considered as forbidden. There is a dispute among the scholars, whilst there is not any statement of the Prophet about whether the animals included in this group can be eaten or not. It is seen that the Prophet ordered to slaughter some of the animals and prohibited to slaughter some other animals based on several reasons. (shrink)

Osmanlı Devleti, Avrupa’daki gelişmeleri takip edip değişen dünya düzenine ayak uydurma noktasında yetersizliğini XVII. yüzyılda hissetmeye başlamıştır. Osmanlı Devleti’nin ihtişamlı yıllarının akabinde devlet nizamındaki çözülmeler, halkın içinde bulunduğu durum ve sebepleri üzerine çeşitli çevrelerden çözüm reçeteleri sunulmuştur. Bunların bilinen ilki iki farklı ve ardıl padişaha sunulan Koçi Bey Risaleleridir. XVII. yüzyılda tarihi seyrin değişmekte olduğunu ön gören ve bu öngörü ile daha önce benzeri Osmanlı Devleti’nde görülmemiş olan ilmî-siyasî-askerî-sosyal içeriklere sahip bir risale/rapor hazırlayan Koçi Bey risalelerini IV. Murat ve kardeşi (...) I. İbrahim’e takdim etmiştir. Koçi Bey risalelerinin tarihi değeri ve önemi üzerine çok sayıda çalışma yapılmış olmakla birlikte biz bu makalemizde, Koçi Bey risalelerinin arasındaki farkları çok yönlü olarak ele almaya çalıştık. İki farklı karakterdeki padişaha sunulan risalelerin; üslup, muhteva ve amaç bakımlarından farklılıklarını ortaya koymayı amaçladık. Metin kritik yöntemi ile iki risaleyi karşılaştırdığımızda, birbirinden çok farklı iki ayrı risale tarzının ve muhtevasının varlığına şahit olduk. Koçi Bey zamanın ve muhatabının gerektirdiği şekilde; devletin ihtiyaçları, milletin selameti noktasında farklılıkları bariz bir şekilde görünen risaleleri üzerinden bir döneme bizleri şahit kılmıştır. Çalışmamız bu şahitliğin iki risalenin kıyaslanması yöntemi ile bariz hale gelmesini sağlamayı hedeflemektedir. (shrink)

Nübüvvet mührü; (hâtemü’n-nübüvve) siyer, şemâil, hasâis, delâil türü İslâm Tarihi kaynaklarında yer almış, kimilerince Peygamberimizin nübüvvetinin tasdikinde delil sayılmıştır. Nübüvvet mührü bir alamet olarak Ehl-i kitap mensuplarının kaynaklarında da yer almıştır. Ehl-i kitaba göre, son peygamberin nübüvvet alameti omzu üzerinde, kürek kemikleri arasındadır. Ancak bu alametin mahiyetine dair herhangi başka bir rivayet mevcut değildir. Ehl-i kitap üzerinden aktarılan rivayetlerin nübüvvet mührüne mucizevî bir anlam yüklediğini görmek mümkündür. Rivayetler muvacehesinde Ehl-i kitap mensuplarından bazıları son Peygamberde bu alameti araştırmış ve bu vesile (...) ile İslâm’la tanışmıştır. Nübüvvet mührüne dair rivayetler hadis kaynaklarımızda da yer almıştır. Bu rivayetlerin bir kısmı peygamberlik öncesi döneme, bir kısmı ise nübüvvet sonrası döneme aittir. Rivayetlerin nübüvvet sonrasına dair olanlarında, Peygamberimizin çevresinde bulunan ashabınca nübüvvet mührünün bizzat görüldüğü yönünde ifadelere de rastlanmaktadır. İslâm tarihi kaynaklarından İbn Saʿd, İbn İshak ve Taberî gibi müellifler nübüvvet mührü rivayetlerine yer vermişlerdir. Nübüvvet mührüne dair rivayetleri kaynaklarımızda; Peygamberimizin doğum hadisesi bölümünde, şakk-ı sadr hadisesi bağlamında, Bedü’l-vahy bâbında, İsrâ ve mi‘râc olaylarında Cebrâil ile ilişkilendirilerek ve Peygamberimizin vefatı başlığı altında Esmâ binti Umeys hadisi vasıtası ile bulmamız mümkün olmuştur. Nübüvvet mührünün özelliklerine dair rivayetlerde dikkat çeken husus Peygamberimizin sırtında iki kürek kemiği arasında irice bir et beninin olduğu vurgusudur. Rivayetlerdeki müşterek nokta burasıdır. Nübüvvet mührünün mahiyeti, ne zaman vurulduğu, neye benzediği konuları da kaynaklarımızda farklı rivayetler doğrultusunda yorumlanmış ve değerlendirilmiştir. Bu bağlamda nübüvvet mührü, İslâm tarihi meseleleri içinde varlığı ve gerçekliği bakımından tartışmalı bir mesele olarak incelenmeyi hak etmektedir. Öte yandan Peygamberimizin ağzından, sırtındaki bu ben hakkında olağanüstülüğüne dair açık ifadeler bugüne ulaşmamıştır. Bu konuya dair sahih rivayetler ise sadece nübüvvet mührünün çeşitli tasvirlerini bize aktarmaktadır. Bu tasvirler, görenlerin algısına dayandığı için farklılık arz etse de aşağı yukarı tevhid edilebilecek bir tarif bugün için elimizde mevcuttur. Bu mührü normal bir ben gibi görenlerin yanında mucizevî özellikler atfedenler de vardır. İslâm tarihi içerisinde farklı kabullere ve görüşlere açık bir şekilde değerlendirilmiş olan nübüvvet mührünü, Peygamberimiz hakkında diğer insanlardan farklı mümeyyiz/ayırt edici bir vasıf olarak ele almak; nübüvvet alameti şeklinde ancak fiziksel olarak tabiî bir tarzda kabul etmek gerekir. Kitap ehlinin bu konudaki bekleyişi, gerek hadis gerekse siyer kaynaklarındaki nübüvvet mührü ifadeleri bizi bu noktaya sevk etmiştir. (shrink)