Nazariyat, Journal for the History of Islamic Philosophy and Sciences, issued twice a year in English and Turkish (Nazariyat İslam Felsefe ve Bilim Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi), is a refereed international journal. It publishes original studies, critical editions of classical texts and book reviews on Islamic philosophy, kalām, theoretical aspects of Sufism and the history of sciences. The goal of Nazariyat is to contribute to the discovery, examination and reinterpretation of the theoretical traditions in the history of Islamic thought, by giving (...) special attention to the post-classical period of it. **ISSN: 2148-8088 E-ISBN: 2547-9415**. (shrink)

Mamluks reigned in Egypt a long time is an era of Kipchak Turks that have influence management, and Kipchak Turks has been influential in a period in the administration there. During this period, that Turkish rulers do not know Arabic language well, Turkish language is spoken in the palace and also idea of being closer to Turkish manager screated an interest in learning. One of the famous scholars realizing that interest is Abū Ḥayyān al-Andalusī. Abū Ḥayyān by learning Turkish language (...) especially from Fakhr al-dīn Divrigi and analysing written previously works, wrote Kitāb al-Idrāk li-lisān al-Atrāk. This book has consisted of introduction, vocabulary and grammar section. We also aimed in our study to examine Kitāb al-Idrāk in terms of content and than in terms of lexicography of the linguistic branch. -/- SUMMARY Mamluks reigned in Egypt a long time and in its reign Kipchak Turks had influence in management. Because of the Turkish rulers who have military background did not know Arabic language well, Turkish language was spoken in the palace and also idea of being closer of scholars and notable people to Turkish rulers got brought an interest in learning Turkish. One of the famous scholars realizing that interest is Abū Ḥayyān al-Andalusī (d. 745/ 1344). The true name of Abū Ḥayyān is Muḥammed b. Yūsuf b. Ali b. Ḥayyān al-Tawḥīdī and he is an Andalusian linguist and exegete. Abū Ḥayyān who came from a Berber family born in the Matahsharesh village of Granada in 654/1256 and died in Cairo in 28th time 745 (11 July 1344). There is not much information about his family in the sources, but it is mentioned that he has a daughter whose name is Nada, a son named Hayyân in his name, and some grandchildren which are named Muḥammad and Ummu Ḥayyān. Abū Ḥayyān became a famous as Ethīr al-dīn and at the same time, he is also known as Naḥvī, Ghirnātī (Granadian), Ceyyānī, and Nafzī. He took lessons in Granada from great scholars such as Abd al-ḥaķ b. Ali al-Anṣarī, Abū Ḥasan al-Ubbezī, Abū Cafer Aḥmed b. Ibrahīm b. Zubair, Ibn Abū al-Ahvas and became a proficient scholar and teacher in matters such as morphology, syntax, language, commentary, hadith, methodology of Fiqh and Kalām. He wrote about 18 works in different sciences and if we mention some of that are al-Baḥr al-muhīt, al-Nahr al-mād, Tuhfat al-arīb bimā fī al-Qur'ān min al-gharīb and some of his works have reached to our time and some of those did not. Abū Ḥayyān left Andalus for various reasons and visited many centers of science and eventually continued his scientific activities in Cairo. Abū Hayyān, who is a great interest in learning languages, has learned Turkish language with the other popular languages ​​such as Persian, Amharic and Himyarite language and written books about these languages. His mainly works about Turkish language are the Kitāb al-Idrāk li-lisān al-Atrāk, Zehv al-mulk fi naḥv al-Turk, al-Af'al fi lisān al-Turk and al-Durret al-mudiyye fi lughat al-Turkiyye. These works did not reach to our days except Kitāb al-Idrak. Kitāb al-Idrāk consists of three sections, namely introduction, dictionary which includes 2200 words, and grammar that is composed of morphology and syntax and this book which is known as al-Idrāk is written in the Turkish which is spoken in XIV-XVI century tongue and named as Middle Turkish Period-Mamluk Kipchak Turkish. The first chapter begins with basmala and continues with detailed his genealogy, personal record, praise to Allah and salawat and salaam to Prophet Muhammad. After this introduction, it is explained the intention of writing this work. The second chapter is a dictionary which the words are explained in alphabetical order. Although Abū Ḥayyān speaks about 23 letters in the Kipchak alphabet, he does not explain the words related to all, but examines 19 items. In this dictionary, it does not take part some letters, that is letters sā, zāl, zā (letters of lips which is written in English th); letters dâd, ayn, fa (letters of throat) which Arabs use. In the third chapter, there is a part of the tasrif (knowledge of morphology) which is generally called knowledge of morphology today. In this section, it is dealt with about the types of words namely, name of diminutive, name of belonging name, plural, agent name, passive name, exaggerated factor name, infinitive, name indicating the location, name of device, arbitrary name, and idâd (which adds are derivation of noun from name like lık, lik at the end of the word) and then it comes to the end with shadda. Section of syntax which is called by the author as consisted of compound and is prepared according to systematic of Arabic grammar begins with the sentence structure in Kipchak language. After that it continues with definite-ambiguous names, verb (orders, past, imperfect verbs), subject-predicate in nominal sentence, nevāsiḫ (additional actions helped change the meaning of the noun phrase), Arabic leyte which express by the actual wish mold and the like, such as two mef'ūl area of ​​the heart of verbs in Arabic told (I think) were deaf ( Turkmen thinks he), acts like it yet scientists (verb phrase in), acts offender (verb-subject), the abutment of the verb nefiy prepositions, prepositions, the nehiy (ban), passive verbs and naib-i fail (so-called subject); other elements of the sentence, called the act müteallakat are: cognate accusativ, direct object, time period (time complement), the envelope space (located complement), state (envelope), causative object, the exception, the specification, conflict of laws, the annexation, the oat, the dependencies: adjective, conjunction, confirm, the apposition; conditional structure. After these, he mentions to letters of meanings (huruf al-maani), and concludes this chapter with information about the date, place, and name of the author of the book. Abū Hayyān used induction method in the book. Since he gave the forms of the words in double, then the triple, quadruple, quintet and other forms. He tried to teach the pronunciation of words by explaining the etymology of word sand the changes of the voices. He examined the words which are synonyms/ contrasted, synonym voice, singular/plural, and words that are passed by foreign languages into Turkish dialects then they are turned into Turkish word structure; brought out witnesses from proverbs and poetries. As a result, in this work, which consists of dictionary and grammar sections, it can be said that it is used predominantly in linguistic information - translation method . (shrink)

RésuméCet article traite d’une solution au tristement célèbre paradoxe du menteur, généralement connu dans la littérature arabe sous le nom de Maġlaṭat al-ǧaḏr al-aṣamm. La solution est donnée dans un traité ottoman du XVe siècle attribué, entre autres, à Ḫaṭībzāde Muḥyiddīn Efendī. L’article la compare également à la solution du philosophe persan contemporain, Ǧalāl al-Dīn al-Dawānī. Le court traité consacré au paradoxe est l’un des rares ouvrages des Ottomans sur le sujet et il aborde de manière exhaustive le paradoxe sous (...) ses deux formes. En tant qu’analyse de la solution offerte par le traité au paradoxe, l’article fait connaître à l’érudition contemporaine les discussions ottomanes sur le menteur, et il contribue à combler le vide évident dans la littérature sur le paradoxe dans la pensée islamique. (shrink)

This study deals with the sceptical arguments by one of the most important figures in the philosophical Sufi tradition (the Akbarian school) and the foremost disciple of Ibn ʿArabī, Ṣadr al‐Dīn al‐Qūnawī. Though not a sceptic in the strict sense, Qūnawī employs sceptical arguments from relativity of rational knowledge and disagreement among philosophers to prove inefficacy of reason and rational procedures of knowledge in terms of achieving certain knowledge of metaphysical matters, namely of God and the ultimate principles of things. (...) The paper questions Qūnawī's implicit assumption that, if there is disagreement on a proposition p, then p is relative and thus cannot provide certain knowledge. It aims to philosophically analyse and assess his scepticism as well as to shed light on the largely unknown terrain of scepticism in the mediaeval Islamic world. (shrink)

This article discusses the application of the Avicennan theory of demonstrative science on taṣawwuf, or the Divine Science (al-ʿilm al-ilāhī), by members of the Akbarian tradition, particularly Ibn ʿArabī’s (d. 1240) stepson and most influential disciple, Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī (d. 1274), and his commentators, among whom the most prominent was Mullā Muḥammad b. Ḥamza al-Fanārī (d. 1431). It aims to find out what kind of relationship was developed between Avicennan logic and Sufism by the two members of the Akbarian school (...) in the post-classical Islamic thought. It also seeks to show that the convergence between different currents of Islamic thought—Sufism and philosophy in this case—led to some adaptation problems and internal inconsistencies for these currents. (shrink)

İslâm teoloji/kelâm geleneğinin filizlenmeye başladığı dönem, yoğun siyasi gelişmelerin, iç savaşların, hilafet tartışmalarının yaşandığı bir evrenin yanısıra, kendisinden önce üretilen fizikî, felsefî ve dinsel anlamda yaşanan gelişmelerle paralel bir sülûk izlemiştir. Bu anlamda kelâm tartışmalarının siyasi olgu ve olaylar kadar, fikrî anlamda tarihsel bağlam etrafında incelenmesi gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmada, Müslüman kelâm geleneğinde Mu’tezile’nin; nasıl, hangi şartlarda ve nelere itiraz ederek ortaya çıktığı, teoloji anlayışlarında neleri slogan haline getirdiği incelenecektir. Buna istinaden Grek geleneğinde üretilen felsefî metinler bilhassa atomculuk tartışmaları, Hıristiyan ve (...) Zerdüşt teolojisi, Mu’tezile’nin tarihsel bağlamda nasıl tepkisini çekti ve apolojik anlamda ne tür karşı koyuşlara sebebiyet verdiği tafsilatlı olarak tartışılacaktır. Kelâm problemleri ya da tartışmaları sadece i’tikâd boyutunda ele alındığında gayet tabii eksik kalacaktır. Bu amaçla Mu’tezile’nin beş esasından biri sayılan tevhid anlayışının o dönemin bağlamında hangi tartışmalara karşı reddiye nitelikli olduğu, ayrıntılarıyla ve tarihsel süreçten kopmaksızın din ve düşüncelerin birbirleriyle olan ilişkisi nispetinde değerlendirilecektir. (shrink)

Yaygın din eğitimi örgün din eğitimin dışında bireylerin dini ihtiyaçlarını gidermek için resmi ya da özel kuruluşlar vasıtasıyla her bireye planlı ve amaçlı olarak verilen eğitimdir. Günümüzde yaygın din eğitimini şekillendiren temel kurum Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığıdır. Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı yaygın din eğitimini cami içi ve cami dışı olarak yerine getirmektedir. Cami içi yaygın din eğitimi ise; vaaz, hutbe ve kuran öğretimi ile yapılmaktadır. Bu eğitimlerden olan hutbe, Müslümanları ilgilendiren bütün konuları ele alarak topluma dini bilgileri öğretmek; insanlarda olumlu yönde davranış (...) değişikliği oluşturmak, hedef kitlenin iman, ahlak ve toplumsal farkındalık bakımından duyarlı hale gelmesini sağlamak için bireylere yardımcı olmaktır. Yaklaşık olarak aynı dönemlerde doğmuş, aynı dönemin özelliklerini paylaşmış, benzer sorumluluklara sahip bireyler aynı kuşak bireyleri olarak tanımlanır. 1990-2015 yılları arasında doğmuş büyümüş bireyler Z kuşağı bireyleri olarak adlandırılmaktadır. Bu kuşak bireyleri interneti kullanma, teknolojiyi sevme, görsele aşina, üretken ve eşitlikçi gibi özelliklere sahiptir. Bu durum Z kuşağının sosyalleşmesinde, yaşam alışkanlıklarında ve öğrenme sitillerinde farklıları beraberinde getirmiştir. Yaygın din eğitim nesiller arasındaki bu farklılıkları dikkate alarak bireylerin kendilerini geliştirmelerine ve bilgilerini güncellemelerine yardım etmelidir. Bu sebeple yaygın din eğitimi Z kuşağının ihtiyaçlarını dikkate alarak farklı metot ve etkinlikleri geliştirmesi gerekir. Bu bağlamda Z kuşağının gözüyle Cuma hutbelerinin nasıllığı önemli hale gelmektedir. Buradan hareketle Z kuşağının Cuma hutbelerine karşı tutumlarını incelemek için Cuma hutbeleri değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırmamız, Z kuşağının Cuma Hutbelerini algılamalarını incelemek amacıyla tanımlayıcı araştırma tasarımı ile yürütülmüştür. Araştırmanın evrenini Konya İli Seydişehir, Beyşehir ilçesinde 14-25 yaş aralığındaki 175 birey oluşturmaktadır. Veriler araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan ‘Birey Tanılama Formu’ ve ‘Cuma Hutbelerine İlişkin Bilgi Formu’ aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Araştırmada, verilerin analizinde IBM SPSS (IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences Corp.; Armonk, NY, ABD) 25.0 programı kullanılmıştır. Araştırma verileri değerlendirilirken kategorik değişkenler için frekans dağılımı (sayı, yüzde), sayısal değişkenler için tanımlayıcı istatistikler (ortalama, standart sapma) kullanılmıştır. Araştırmaya katılan katılımcıların yaş ortalamaları 17.04’dir. Katılımcıların çoğunluğunun lise öğrencisi olduğu görülmüştür. Araştırmada Z kuşağının Cuma hutbelerine katılım sağladığı, hutbelerden umut bekledikleri, olumlu yönden etkilendikleri görülmüştür. Ancak Cuma hutbelerindeki konuların yerel ve güncel konuları ele almadığı ifade ederek anlatılan konuların hatırlamadıkları, aynı konuların tekrar ettiği, gençlere yönelik olmadığına ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca hutbelerin sunumu, süresi ve imamların yaklaşımlarından dolayı problemler yaşandığı tespit edilmiştir. (shrink)

[1] al-Manṭiq. 1. al-Madkhal. 2. al-Maqūlāt. 3. al-ʻIbārah. 4. al-Qiyās. 5. al-Burhān. 6. al-Jadal. 7. al-Safsaṭah. 8. al-Khaṭābah. 9. al-Shiʻr (4 v.) -- [2] al-Ṭabīʻīyat. 2. al-Samāʼ wa-al-ʻālam. 3. al-Kawn wa-al-fasād. 4. al-Afʻāl wa-al-infiʻālāt. 5. al-Maʻādin wa-al-āthār al-ʻulwīyah. 6. al-Nafs. 7. al-Nabāt -- [3] al-Riyāḍīyāt. [1] Uṣūl al-handasah. 2. al-Ḥisāb. 3. Jawāmiʻ ʻilm al-mūsīqá. [4] al-Ilāhīyāt.

The interaction between Zaydism and Muʿtazilism, which is claimed to date back to the formation periods, took place when Zaydī scholars studied Muʿtazilite thought in Baghdad intensively and directly from the Mu'tazilite theologian Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Baṣrī as part of the curriculum, and especially the Basra school of Muʿtazila was influential in the theological thoughts of the Zaydis of Tabaristan/Hazar. In this process, Zaydī scholars such as al-Muʾayyad bi-llāh Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusayn al-Hārūnī and al-Nāṭiq bi-l-Ḥaqq Abū Ṭālib Yaḥyā b. al-Ḥusayn (...) took lessons from the Mu'tazilite theologian Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Baṣrī in Baghdad. In the same period among the Zaydī scholars who studied theology from Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Baṣrī and deliberated with him was Imam al-Mahdī li-Dīn Allāh Abū ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Dāʿī, who has been one of the important figures Zaydī-Muʿtazilī interaction can be pursued. Ibn al-Dāʾī, who has detailed information both his political life and scholarly activities in classical sources, wrote many works in the fields of theology and fiqh, but most of his studies have not survived to the presdent day or have been lost, except for the treatise al-Dāʿī, Ḥaqāʾiq al-Aʿrâḍ, which was identified and confirmed as belonging to Ibn al-Dāʾī, with the discovery of a collection of Zaydī-Muʿtazilite studies. In his only extant work, Ḥaqāʾiq al-Aʿrâḍ, Ibn al-Dāʾī classified the accidents on the basis of different criteria and dealt with their realities and states in accordance with the division and evaluation of accidents in later Muʿtazilite sources. This study is one of the rare studies known to have been written on the subject, which contains very detailed division of accident. The publication of this work is important both for the elucidation of the Zaydiyya-Muʿtazilite interaction in the relevant period and for a better understanding of the early theology's understanding of existence. This article will present an analysis of Ibn al-Dāʾī's treatise Ḥaqāʾiq al-Aʿrâḍ and its critical edition using three different manuscript copies. The publication of this study on accidents, one of the most fundamental topics of kalām, will contribute to the understanding of the holistic theological systems of Zaydiyya-Muʿtazila. With the publication of this work, it will be revealed that the interaction between Zaydiyya and Mu'tazila in the 4th/10th century on the subject of accidents was quite intense. (shrink)

Kamal al-Dīn al-Andijānī is one of the lesser-known Māturīdī theologians who lived in the eighth century. He has a work titled Sıdḳ al-kalam fi ilm al-kalam that has survived. In the work, which was written within the framework of usul al-salase, answers are given to those who have opinions other than the Ahl as-Sunnah, and the views of the Ahl as-Sunnah are tried to be proven. In the work, subjects related to jinns are also included, and the subject is explained (...) with different examples and events. In this article, Andijani's views on jinn are discussed, and these views are tried to be evaluated in the light of classical and current sources. Not many studies have been done on Andijani. Therefore, the scientific world does not know him well enough. In addition, his views on jinn are perhaps not known at all. In this respect, we believe that our study will fill this gap to some extent. Literature review, comparison, and concept analysis methods have been used in the study, and the subject has been limited to Andijani's Sıdḳ al-kalam. Considering Andijani's claim that he dealt with the views of Ahl al-Sunnah with solid evidence and concisely, it is clear that his views reflect the views of both the Māturīdis of the time and the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah in general. In order to evaluate Andijani's views in a correct way, first of all, the concept of jinn and the pre-Islamic jinn perception are mentioned in the article. The way in which the Qur'an deals with the subject of jinn and the determination of its purpose constitutes our most important pillar that gives the main perspective to our study. In this context, it can be said that the concept of jinn encompasses all beings that cannot be perceived by the five senses. It is seen that the pre-Islamic jinn perception affected people's lives in different layers, from fear to worship. Fear caused by lack of knowledge can either end with the elimination of incomplete knowledge or by taking shelter or worshiping the feared entity. In pre-Islamic societies, sheltering or worshiping the feared entity was preferred. This preference resulted in people seeing the jinn as superior to themselves, taking shelter in them or worshiping them. On the other hand, it is possible to say that the narratives in the Qur'an about jinn are aimed at creating a solid foundation of knowledge that removes people's fear of jinn. In this framework, when Andijani's views on jinn are evaluated, it can be determined that he focuses on two issues, namely the basic characteristics of jinn and their religious status. In Andjijani's understanding, it is seen that jinn are described as beings invisible to humans, able to enter human bodies, affect them, eat, drink and change shape. Andijani also announced opinions about the religious situation of the jinn. According to him, jinn can also belong to non-Islamic religions. In terms of belief and practice, they belong to many sects. Andijani expressed his views also on the situation of jinn in the hereafter. Even if sinful believers of the jinn die without repentance like humans, Allah can forgive them before or after punishment. According to Andijani, there is a difference of opinion among Hanafis and Māturīdis regarding the situation of the faithful believers of the jinn in the hereafter. Andijani includes the views of Abū Ḥanīfa, Abū Yusuf and Imam Muḥammad, who put forward opposing views, and explains the evidences of both sides. He ends the subject without expressing his own opinion. When Andijani's views are considered in terms of the purpose of the Qur'an in dealing with the jinn, it is understood that he accepted this information as a kind of news "fâide-i haber", which is only to provide information and the first time heard by the addressee. However, the news of the Qur'an about jinn is of the type of news "lâzım-ı fâide-i haber", which aims to teach another lesson on the information that the addressee was previously aware of. Therefore, the purpose of the expression in the news about jinn is important, not the apparent purpose, but revealing another situation. It can be said that Andijani made evaluations on the mythological jinn perceptions of the Arabs and remained at that level, the information and evaluations he gave did not include the main message that the Qur'an wanted to give, and left many areas to be explained. The message that the Qur'an wants to convey through the beliefs of the Jahiliyya Arabs about jinn is to reinforce tawhid, to emphasize that humans are stronger beings than jinn. While there are messages brought by the Prophet Muḥammad, there is no need for news that are thought to be stolen by vile creatures such as jinn. (shrink)

: Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Sanūsī, who was one of the theologian of later Muslim Asʿharī theologians, is one of the scholar came to the fore in Maghrib. Although al-Sanūsī shapes his thoughts within the Asʿharī’s kalam system, he presents new contributions to this system with his own unique perspective. In particular, his effort to give importance to reason in maʿrifat Allāh is remarkable. According to him, maʿrifat Allāh can only be reached with reflection. Also the reflection is waʿẓ or contexture (...) process done in the reason. When a method is followed, such an reflection leads to the maʿrifatullāh. In particular, the ruling wisdom adds a form to the functioning of the reason through its perceived and compassionate perceptions. For a believer to know the necessary, the permissible and the impossible is to use the reason. In this context al-Sanūsī imposes a central role in the concept of judgment. If the human can operates its reason in this way, necessarily will comprehend that he/she is created. In the process of acquiring the knowledge, al-Sanūsī draws attention to the heart as much as the reason and that shows that he is in the effort of combining these two. Summary: Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Sanūsī is a scholar raised at the Maghreb geography. Although al-Sanūsī, living in the 9th/15th century, gave a lot of work in different fields, his theologian identity became front-line. By standing against the innovation that he had seen during his era, he wrote many beliefs works. Among these works, the relation of maʿrifat Allāh-reason attracts attention. al-Sanūsī thinks that the most important means of delivering to maʿrifat Allāh is deduciton. According to him, the deduction is “to reveal the known to reach the desired thing or to arrange two or more works”. If we evaluate this definition in terms of Asʿharī tradition, we will see that al-Sanūsī is in the effort to emending the definition of his al-Qāḍī al-Bayḍāwī’s definition who is his contemporary. al-Bayḍāwī described deduction as ‘to organize things that are not known to be known’. al-Sanūsī made a contribution to this recognition. He has adopted the arrange part completely and also add the waʿẓ expression into that. The reason why al-Sanūsī goes to such a separation is the reason for trying to explain the functioning of the reason in a logical form. In the logical sense, the thought consists of envision and confirmation. From these concepts that constitute thought, envision refers to waʿẓ, and confirmation refers to arrange. If the definition of al-Bayḍāwī is accepted as valid, the envision in reason is incomplete. This shows the importance that al-Sanūsī gives to the functioning of the reason in terms of the achievement of the maʿrifat Allāh. The confirmation made without envision can lead a person to imitation. Therefore, the deduction made by waʿẓ must be taken into account. It can be imagined groundlessly that in the definition of deduciton which al-Sanūsī made, he had an understanding of reason that doesn’t base on Allah. However, al-Sanūsī has never broken the Asʿharī tradition in this matter. According to al-Sanūsī, both the deduction and the knowledge formed as a result of this, is Allah’s creation without means. There is no influence of deduction on knowledge and also the knowledge on deduction. Also, the human has no influence neither in inference nor knowledge. It seems to be contradictory to the definition of such a discourse. However, he made his interpretations within the framework of the understanding of the omnipotence that the Asʿharites had drawn. It is unthinkable that Allah, who created everything and even man’s actions, can’t be imagine that doesn’t create thought. Intellect produces knowledge, but Allah creates both intellect and the knowledge produced by intellect. al-Sanūsī, while describing deduction, said that it could be produced with waʿẓ in the sense of envision. However, there is another very important concept that creates a conception from his point of view, which is “judgment”. According to him, judgment is “the proof or negation of something”. The phrases “the universe is created” or “Allah is not created” are the examples of a proof or negation of an issue. See, this is a judgment. In this sense, envision is a road to judgment. That is, the information obtained by envision reaches a judgment in the forms of the reason. al-Sanūsī classify the judgment in to three: lawful, ordinary, intellectual. The lawful judgment is the salutation of Allah with the demand related to the actions of the amenable, not being good deed or sin or waʿẓ. Ordinary judgment is the link between the existence or absence of a state and the existence or absence of another state. The most important of these three judgments is the intellectual judgment. As for the intellectual judgment, it is the proof or the negation of a work without waʿẓ and repetition. It is separated from lawful judgment without being waʿẓ and separated from ordinary judgment with being not repeated. In this sense, if the mind needs the examination or repetition while deciding for a work’s certainty or negation, this kind of a judgment is not lawful or ordinary but it is intellectual judgment. The reason judges either a work’s certainty or absence together, or accepts only the certainty or accepts the negation. According to al-Sanūsī, having the right to comment on belief is pertain to intellectual judgment in the first place. al-Sanūsī takes the maʿrifat Allāh to the center in matters related to the place of reason and examines the relation of the maʿrifat Allāh with these three concepts. What al-Sanūsī tends in doing so is that to show that there is an inherent meaning of reason as well as having relevance of knowing some things. As a result, according to al-Sanūsī, knowing these three parts of the intellectual judgment is the reason itself. Anybody who does not know these, is the person without reason. al-Sanūsī thinks that it is necessary for the amenable to know the intellectual judgments and its parts. This necessity is to make the amenable separate the things about Allah or his prophets related to necessity, permissible and impossible attributes; but also, the things exist within the limits of intellectual judgment or not. The amenable who know these has evidence and thereby can defeat the doubts that may have formed or may will form in him. al-Sanūsī also emphasizes the deduction of reason to reach the maʿrifat Allāh with reason. According to him, it is the best deduction method in terms of the evidence that Allah exists is that the deduction from causing agent to cause and the deduction from one correlative to another The acceptance of the possible entity has agent who wills its existence, oppose to the Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, that this proposition is whether imperative or not. According to him, these propositions are not imperative, they need deduction. In this respect, deduction is necessary for the maʿrifat Allāh. The reason which is considered in the sense of logic in al-Sanūsī is not a structure which merely functions as a analogy and a deduction. On the contrary, according to al-Sanūsī, there is a direction going towards the heart from the point of reason and it seems that the heart is used in meaning of reason. This is an example of al-Sanūsī’s attempt to combine mystical knowledge with reason and legal injunction. This is a remediation project in terms of his time. (shrink)

The dominant approach to understanding Islamic Business Ethics has been based almost exclusively on either interpretations of the Qur’an and Sunna or influenced by Western understanding of Islam and ethics. However, there is a rich—largely ignored-tradition of ethical analysis conducted by Muslim philosophers which would broaden our understanding of Islamic ethics and hence IBE. We seek to correct this imbalance by examining works of Al-Ghazali, an early Muslim philosopher, scholar, and mystic. His approach to Sufism, combining an interpretation of revelation (...) with reason, can contribute to new developments in business ethics scholarship and practice especially in Muslim communities. His thought portrays a vibrant work ethic that, while based in Sufism, has important practical implications for business. We argue that including such historically and contextually recognized perspectives in our understanding of BE, both in theory and in practice, would work well with an audience that looks to Islam as a source of justice and proper moral conduct. (shrink)

Semantic relationships have an active role in textual study, as they are an essential tool through which the text is constructed, this is done through the sequence of sentences of saying, and these relationships lead to the growth and continuation of the subject of the text, and then linking speech, which in turn achieves textual harmony. The aim of this study is to highlight the importance of these relationships and to elaborate on them, this research dealt with two additional linkage (...) relationships: (equivalent additional relationship), and (different additional relationship), with a breakdown of each of them, and then the inclusion of poetic applications from the texts of the poet Hazem Rushak Al-Tamimi, showing the extent of the harmony, plot and coherence of these texts. (shrink)

Introduces young readers to Ibn Sina, telling his story as he might tell it himself. It provides a fascinating glimpse into the life of this philosopher, scientist and physician who was one of the greatest thinkers of his time.

In this work the Persian and English texts are edited and published together for the first time. This is Tusi’s major Ismaili work and the most important primary source on Ismaili doctrines during the Alamut period.

The square of opposition has never been drawn by classical Arabic logicians, such as al-Fārābī and Avicenna. However, in some later writings, we do find squares, which their authors call rather ‘tables’ (sing. _lawḥ_). These authors are Shihāb al-Dīn al-Suhrawardī and Muhammed b. Yūsuf al-Sanūsī. They do not pertain to the same geographic area, but they both provide squares of opposition. The aim of this paper is to analyse these two squares, to compare them with each other and with the (...) traditional square of opposition drawn by Apuleius and Boethius, with regard to their particular structure and their vertices and to evaluate their validity. We will show that both squares are different from each other and from the traditional square both with regard to their vertices, and to the arrangements of the oppositional relations. In addition, while al-Suhrawardī uses the notion of matter modalities to define the oppositions, al-Sanūsī relies rather on al-Rāzī’s and al-Khūnajī’s distinctions. Both authors agree, however, on the fact that affirmatives have an import while negatives do not. For this reason, their squares are valid from a logical viewpoint. As diagrams, these squares are nevertheless entirely original, due to the particular arrangements of their oppositional relations. Our analysis shows also that the later author does not seem to know the square drawn by the earlier one and that both authors do not seem to know Apuleius’ or Boethius’ squares. (shrink)

We argue that there is an incompatibility between the two basic principles of Molinism, i.e., God’s middle knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, and divine immutability. To this end, firstly, we set out the difference between strong and weak immutability: according to the latter only God’s essential attributes remain unchanged, while the former affirms that God cannot change in any way. Our next step is to argue that Molinism ascribes strong immutability to God. However, according to Molinism, some counterfactuals of (...) freedom need to be actualized by divine will. We argue that this claim does entail a change in God because it attributes a knowledge to God that involves moving from possibility to actuality through divine will. Therefore, claiming God knows counterfactuals of freedom leads us to reject the strong sense of divine immutability. Further, we argue that assuming God’s knowledge encompasses counterfactuals of freedom cannot be consistent even with weak immutability because, according to Molinism, a change in God’s knowledge requires a change in His essence. We conclude that Molinism is incoherent. (shrink)

Dâwûd al-Qarisî (Dâvûd al-Karsî) was a versatile and prolific 18th century Ottoman scholar who studied in İstanbul and Egypt and then taught for long years in various centers of learning like Egypt, Cyprus, Karaman, and İstanbul. He held high esteem for Mehmed Efendi of Birgi (Imâm Birgivî/Birgili, d.1573), out of respect for whom, towards the end of his life, Karsî, like Birgivî, occupied himself with teaching in the town of Birgi, where he died in 1756 and was buried next to (...) Birgivî. Better known for his following works on Arabic language and rhetoric and on the prophetic traditions (hadith): Sharḥu uṣûli’l-ḥadîth li’l-Birgivî; Sharḥu’l-Ḳaṣîdati’n-nûniyya (two commentaries, in Arabic and Turkish); Şarḥu’l-Emsileti’l-mukhtalifa fi’ṣ-ṣarf (two commentaries, in Arabic and Turkish); Sharḥu’l-Binâʾ; Sharḥu’l-ʿAvâmil; and Sharḥu İzhâri’l-asrâr, Karsî has actually composed textbooks in quite different fields. Hence the hundreds of manuscript copies of his works in world libraries. Many of his works were also recurrently printed in the Ottoman period. One of the neglected aspects of Karsî is his identity as a logician. Although he authored ambitious and potent works in the field of logic, this aspect of him has not been subject to modern studies. Even his bibliography has not been established so far (with scattered manuscript copies of his works and incomplete catalogue entries). This article primarily and in a long research based on manuscript copies and bibliographic sources, identifies twelve works on logic that Karsî has authored. We have clarified the works that are frequently mistaken for each other, and, especially, have definitively established his authorship of a voluminous commentary on al-Kâtibî’s al-Shamsiyya, of which commentary a second manuscript copy has been identified and described together with the other copy. Next is handled his most famous work of logic, the Sharhu Îsâghûcî, which constitutes an important and assertive ring in the tradition of commentaries on Îsâghûcî. We describe in detail the nine manuscript copies of this work that have been identified in various libraries. The critical text of Karsî’s Sharhu Îsâghûcî, whose composition was finished on 5 March 1745, has been prepared based on the following four manuscripts: (1) MS Kayseri Raşid Efendi Kütüphanesi, No. 857, ff.1v-3v, dated 1746, that is, only one year after the composition of the work; (2) MS Bursa İnebey Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Genel, No.794B, ff.96v-114v, dated 1755; (3) MS Millet Kütüphanesi, Ali Emiri Efendi Arapça, No. 1752, ff.48v-58r, dated 1760; (4) MS Beyazıt Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Beyazıt, No. 3129, ff.41v-55v, dated 8 March 1772. While preparing the critical text, we have applied the Center for Islamic Studies (İslam Araştırmaları Merkezi, İSAM)’s method of optional text choice. The critical text is preceded by a content analysis. Karsî is well aware of the preceding tradition of commentary on Îsâghûcî, and has composed his own commentary as a ‘simile’ or alternative to the commentary by Mollâ Fanârî which was famous and current in his own day. Karsî’s statement “the commentary in one day and one night” is a reference to Mollâ Fanârî who had stated that he started writing his commentary in the morning and finished it by the evening. Karsî, who spent long years in the Egyptian scholarly and cultural basin, adopted the religious-sciences-centered ‘instrumentalist’ understanding of logic that was dominant in the Egypt-Maghrib region. Therefore, no matter how famous they were, he criticized those theoretical, long, and detailed works of logic which mingled with philosophy; and defended and favored authoring functional and cogent logic texts that were beneficial, in terms of religious sciences, to the seekers of knowledge and the scholars. Therefore, in a manner not frequently encountered in other texts of its kind, he refers to the writings and views of Muhammad b. Yûsuf al-Sanûsî (d.1490), the great representative of this logical school in the Egyptian-Maghrib region. Where there is divergence between the views of the ‘earlier scholars’ (mutaqaddimûn) like Ibn Sînâ and his followers and the ‘later scholars’ (muta’akhkhirûn), i.e., post-Fakhr al-dîn al-Râzî logicians, Karsî is careful to distance himself from partisanship, preferring sometimes the views of the earliers, other times those of the laters. For instance, on the eight conditions proposed for the realization of contradiction, he finds truth to be with al-Fârâbî, who proposed “unity in the predicative attribution” as the single condition for the realization of contradiction. Similarly, on the subject matter of Logic, he tried to reconcile the mutaqaddimûn’s notion of ‘second intelligibles’ with the muta’akhkhirûn’s notion of ‘apprehensional and declarational knowledge,’ suggesting that not much difference exists between the two, on the grounds that both notions are limited to the aspect of ‘known things that lead to the knowledge of unknown things.’ Karsî asserts that established and commonly used metaphors have, according to the verifying scholars, signification by correspondence (dalâlat al-mutâbaqah), adding also that it should not be ignored that such metaphors may change from society to society and from time to time. Karsî also endorses the earlier scholars’ position concerning the impossibility of quiddity (mâhiyya) being composed of two co-extensive parts, and emphasizes that credit should not be given to later scholars’ position who see it possible. According to the verifying scholars (muhaqqîqûn), it is possible to make definition (hadd) by mentioning only difference (fasl), in which case it becomes an imperfect definition (hadd nâqis). He is of the opinion that the definition of the proposition (qadiyya) in al-Taftâzânî’s Tahdhîb is clearer and more complete: “a proposition is an expression that bears the possibility of being true or false”. He states that in the division of proposition according to quantity what is taken into consideration is the subject (mawdû‘) in categorical propositions, and the temporal aspect of the antecedent (muqaddam) in hypothetical propositions. As for the unquantified, indefinite proposition (qadiyya muhmalah), Karsî assumes that if it is not about the problems of the sciences, then it is virtually/potentially a particular proposition (qadiyya juz’iyyah); but if it is about the problems of the sciences, then it is virtually/potentially a universal proposition (qadiyya kulliyyah). This being the general rule about the ambiguous (muhmal) propositions, he nevertheless contends that, because its subject (mawdû‘) is negated, it is preferable to consider a negative ambiguous (sâliba muhmalah) proposition like “human (insân) is not standing” to be a virtually/potentially universal negative (sâliba kulliyyâh) proposition. He states that a disjunctive hypothetical proposition (shartiyya al-munfasila) that is composed of more than two parts/units is only seemingly so, and that in reality it cannot be composed of more than two units. Syllogism (qiyâs), according to Karsî, is the ultimate purpose (al-maqsad al-aqsâ) and the most valuable subject-matter of the science of Logic. For him, the entire range of topics that are handled before this one are only prolegomena to it. This approach of Karsî clearly reveals how much the ‘demonstration (burhân)-centered’ approach of the founding figures of the Muslim tradition of logic like al-Fârâbî and Ibn Sînâ has changed. al-Abharî, in his Îsâghûjî makes no mention of ‘conversion by contradiction’ (‘aks al-naqîd). Therefore, Karsî, too, in his commentary, does not touch upon the issue. However, in his Îsâghûjî al-jadîd Karsî does handle the conversion by contradiction and its rules. Following the method of Îsâghûjî, in his commentary Karsî shortly touches on the four figures (shakl) of conjuctive syllogism (qiyâs iqtirânî) and their conditions, after which he passes to the first figure (shakl), which is considered ‘the balance of the sciences’ (mi‘yâr al-‘ulûm), explaining the four moods (darb) of it. In his Îsâghûjî al-jadîd, however, Karsî handles all the four figures (shakl) with all their related moods (darb), where he speaks of fife moods (darb) of the fourth figure (shakl). The topic of ‘modal propositions’ (al-muwajjahât) and of ‘modal syllogism’ (al-mukhtalitât), both of which do not take place in the Îsâghûjî, are not mentioned by Karsî as well, either in his commentary on Îsâghûjî or in his Îsâghûjî al-jadîd. Karsî proposes that the certainties (yaqîniyyât), of which demonstration (burhân) is made, have seven, not six, divisions. After mentioning (1) axioms/first principles (awwaliyyât), (2) observata/sensuals (mushâhadât), (3) experta/empiricals (mujarrabât), (4) acumenalia (hadthiyyât), (5) testata (mutawâtirât), and (6) instictives (fitriyyât), that is, all the ‘propositions accompanied by their demonstrations,’ Karsî states that these six divisions, which do not need research and reflection (nazar), are called badîhiyyât (self-evidents), and constitute the foundations (usûl) of certainties (yaqîniyyât). As the seventh division he mentions (7) the nazariyyât (theoreticals), which are known via the badîhiyyât, end up in them, and therefore convey certainty (yaqîn). For Karsî, the nazariyyât/theoreticals, which constitute the seventh division of yaqîniyyât/certainties, are too numerous, and constitute the branches (far‘) of yaqîniyyât. Every time the concept of ‘Mughâlata’ (sophistry) comes forth in the traditional sections on the five arts usually appended to logic works, Karsî often gives examples from what he sees as extreme sûfî sayings, lamenting that these expressions are so widespread and held in esteem. He sometimes criticizes these expressions. However, it is observed that he does not reject tasawwuf in toto, but excludes from his criticism the mystical views and approaches of the truth-abiding (ahl al-haqq), shârî‘â-observant (mutasharri‘) leading sufis who have reached to the highest level of karâmah. (shrink)

: The corpus of fatwa named as Bostānu Shaqā’iq al-Nuʿmān, recorded in the Veliyuddin Efendi section under the number 1414 at Beyazıd State Library. It has been ignored so far. Because of its name, it may be thought that it is a part of Tashkoprulüzāde’s book Shaḳā’iḳ-i Nuʿmāniyya, but it is a nuqullu fatwa collection of Babakūshī ʿAbdurrahmān Efendi. In the famous Shaqā’iq appendix Atā’ī, which gives information about the biography of Abdurrahmān Efendi does not mention the book with this (...) name. Abdurrahman Efendi who was from a family in Plovdiv region worked in different positions in Istanbul and Edirne. Then, he was appointed as a mufti to Kefe, Crimea. He died in 983/1576. There is no information about his scholarly identity in ‛Aṭā‛ī except being the intern of Abū l-Suʿūd Efendi. In this essay, first of all, the place of Babakūshī in Ottoman Islamic Law tradition will be determined, and the features of the manuscripts and some notes on the postscript will be studied. In assessment section, especially because of the notes on the manuscripts, it has to be studied in terms of Islamic Law literature and its place should be figured out in fatwa literature. Summary: Nuqullu Fatwa collections that included citations were the books that were created for people to have access to the ruling on legal issues of scholars who were appointed as Muslim judges or muftis together with their sources and background. Although there are several studies in the literature about fatwa collections with citations Babakūshī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Efendi's book titled Bostânu Shaqā'iḳ al-Nuʿmān was not included in the literature. ‛Aṭā‛ī provides information about the life of Babakūshī Abdurrahman Efendi. Atâ'î explains that he climbed the stairs with the help of Baba Efendi and joined the special group of people with aptitude at the level of apprenticeship. Then he raised also to the level of being the intern of Abū l-Suʿūd Efendi. Later, Babakūshī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān started to teach. He taught as a teacher for three years in Istanbul and then became the Mufti of Kefe replacing Molla Akmal al-Dīn. Molla Ekmeleddin, who was better known as Ekmel Efendi, just like ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Efendi, was an apprentice of Abū l-Suʿūd Efendi and would later be transferred to Cyprus after the island was conquered. According to Aṭā‛ī, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Efendi remained in that position which he was appointed as Ṣahn teacher until his death and died in Zilqāda 983/February 1576. The highest position that Babakūshī took among the religious scholars organization in the Ottoman Empire was being the Mufti of Kefe. As stated by ‛Aṭā‛ī, he was appointed as the Mufti of Kefe with the title of Ṣahn teacher. Instead of giving information about his teachers, ‛Aṭā‛ī mostly concentrated on Baba Efendi who was one of his relatives. Therefore we do not have information about his mentors/teachers. We can say that he belonged to the Ottoman school of scholars since he was an apprentice of Abū l-Suʿūd Efendi. The copy which is the subject matter of this study is registered as Veliyüddin Efendi with number 1414 at Bāyezıd State Library. According to our research, the copy which has 237 sheets is the only copy of the book. From the expressions of Babakūshī in the preface, it is concluded that the book was written close to his death. There are several notes written with different pens as footnotes of the book. Here, four of them which are considered to be more important will be identified.First: Notes written with the same pen as the main text. These are generally citations from books such as Tatarkhāniyye, Hidāya, ‛İnâya, Kashf al-Asrâr Sharḥu Manār.Second: are 'maṭlabs' i.e. important matters. Third: are relatively inelaborate notes. These were written by someone who we thought was not a copyist/calligrapher when compared with the general style of the book. Fourth: Warning notes which included some questions. These are generally in Turkish. The preface of the book, provides sufficient information about who the author was and the nature of the book. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Efendi, with the intention of writing a collection, started to research taking into account imams' and shaykhs' nāsikh and mensūkh and he also considered sheikhs' explanations about what was definite and what needed caution and taqwa in practice. He recorded that this search lasted for 3 years and he referred especially to Fatāwa-yi Qādikhān and Fatāwa-yı Tatarkhāniyya within this period and additionally reviewed and studied Islamic Law books that he found in the Ottoman Empire. He described that he divided these into chapters and inserted subject matters in the footnotes. Then he described how he gave the title, Bostānu Shaqā'iḳ al-Nuʿmān to the book emphasizing especially bostan.This could be seen in the expression, Masīratan li'l-Qudāt. No reference was made to Shaqā'iḳ al-Nuʿmān in the title of the book. Probably he had his intentions due to the famous book titled Şeḳ' āiḳ-i Nuʿmaniye and his pupils). In the chapter which started with Fasl right after the preface the author said that fatwa would be issued based on the opinions of three imams, namely Abū Ḥanīfa, Abu Yūsuf and Imām Muhammed that their madhap was followed and their good morals were observed. Then, it was stated that the Mufti could issue fatwas according to the opinions of first, Abū Ḥanīfa, then Abu Yūsuf and finally Imam Muḥammed. It was also stated that if he could not find their opinions and had himself muctehid, he could give his ictihad. The Fatwa collection, Bostān, is an important work among the 16th century Ottoman books since it is an important scholar's book who had witnessed Islamic knowledge in the central Ottoman Empire and Crimean region. (shrink)

With the mobility and ease of connection, wireless sensor networks have played a significant role in communication over the last few years, making them a significant data carrier across networks. Additional security, lower latency, and dependable standards and communication capability are required for future-generation systems such as millimeter-wave LANs, broadband wireless access schemes, and 5G/6G networks, among other things. Effectual congestion control is regarded as of the essential aspects of 5G/6G technology. It permits operators to run many network illustrations on (...) a single organization while maintaining higher service quality. A sophisticated decision-making system for arriving network traffic is necessary to confirm load balancing, limit network slice letdown, and supply alternative slices in slice letdown or congestion. Because of the massive amount of data being generated, artificial intelligence and machine learning play a vital role in reconfiguring and improving a 5G/6G wireless network. In this research work, a hybrid deep learning method is being applied to forecast optimal congestion improvement in the wireless sensors of 5G/6G IoT networks. This proposed model is applied to a training dataset to govern the congestion in a 5G/6G network. The proposed approach provided promising results, with 0.933 accuracy, and 0.067 miss rate. (shrink)

Hadiths that have been discussed in this paper consist of narrations regarding divine attributes and having some problematic meanings between supporters of Bişr al-Marīsī and ʿUthmān al-Dārimī. These narrations were mostly accepted denounced (munkar) by Bişr al-Marīsī and his sopporters due to having an anthropormophist and corporealist content about God. They rejected divine attributes according to their understanding of God based on incomparability (tanzīh) which provided by Mutazilite approach towards divine attributes even though they conveyed some features of Ahl al-Ra’y. (...) They found contradicted of attributing human features to God based on their tanzīh understanding, therefore, they interpreted such this kind of narra-tions in terms of their approach or rejected at all. At the other hand, a hard Hadith scholar Uth-man al-Darimi believed that one should accept divine attributes as they are in the Qur’an and Sunna. According to his belief, he considered the explicit meanings of the narrations without interpretation of divine attributes, and based on his perpective he denied Bişr al-Marīsī and his supporters’ interpretations claiming they would cause divesting God of all attributes (ta‘tīl). He argues that these narrations should be taken into considerations based on their explicit mea-nings. The discussions on these hadiths are important due to showing different approaches of scholars from the schools of Ahl al-Ra’y and the ones from Ahl al-Hadith towards the hadith du-ring the period when the main Hadith works were collected. Discussions on the narrations stu-died in this paper reveal two schools’ understandings of divine issues, their approaches to divi-ne attributes, as well inform us their perspectives of hadith in general.Summary: The present paper examines the debates between ʿUthmān al-Dārimī (d. 280/894) and the supporters of Bishr al-Marīsī (d. 218/833) on the divine attributes mentioned in some hadiths in the period when the main hadith books were composed (i.e., III/IXth century). These debates that took place between the scholars of Ahl al-Hadith and Ahl al-Ra’y concern the un-derstanding and interpretation of the hadiths in a certain way.It could be stated that the debates focus on how the hadiths should be understood, or whether it is the explicit meaning of the words or the possible methaphorical meanings beyond them that should be considered.It is worth briefly introducing the parties who discussed the hadiths studied here. The aforementioned discussions about some hadith narrations are between the supporters of Bishr al-Marīsī and ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, one of the important figures of the Ahl al-Hadith who wrote a separate work on these hadiths. This work was written as a rejection of the views of Bishr al-Marīsī and his two students on the attributes of God and some issues regarding hadith.Bishr al-Marīsī was regarded as an important scholar of Kalam who received fiqh education from Abū Yūsuf (d. 182/798). He is a scholar of Ahl al-Ra’y who made scientific dis-cussions with many scholars including Imam al-Shafiʿī (d. 204/820). He was on the council of the Caliph Al-Mamūn (d. 218/833) and had a significant role in the adoption of the idea of the createdness of the Qurʾān (khalq al-Qurʾān).Uthmān al-Dārimī,on the other hand, was a scholar of Ahl al-Hadith who learned ha-dith from the authorities of his era such as Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn (d. 233/847), ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī (d. 234/848), Isḥāq b. Rāhawayh (d. 237/851), and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241/855). Having visited all the important cities for the training of hadith, he learned the hadiths and conveyed them.With the understanding of proving the divine attributes and the opposition of the misin-terpretation of the narratives related to them, the groups advocating the appropriation of these lines in accordance with the understanding of incomparability (tanzīh) have complied the works since the first period. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, the rejection of the divine attributes by Mu'tazila was influential in the emergence of the criticism literature of the Ahl al-Hadith and many authors wrote works in this direction.Regarding a narration by Abū Hurayra, an opponent reports that this narration gives the impression that God has the eyes and ears as we know. ʿUthmān al-Dārimī reports that this hadith proves sight and hearing not the eyes and ear organs. He indicates that God has no like by no means. Therefore, it is slanderous to refer the claim that Allah is made of organs to the Ahl al-Hadith. Abū Dāwūd states that with this hadith the attributes of sight and hearing for God are proved and Jahmiyya’s denial of the divine attributes are rejected.The opponent also considered Abū Hurayra's narration referring to the Prophet: "Faith is from Yemen, wisdom is from Yemen! I feel the breath of your Lord from Yemen!" as denounced (munkar). Because, according to Bishr al-Marīsī and his companions, breath can only come from those with an abdominal cavity, and Allah is free from it. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, the opponent misunderstood. What is meant here is the wind that blows from Yemen and comforts people. In the context of this narration, we see that supporters of Bishr al-Marīsī evaluate the narrative literally, while ʿUthmān al-Dārimī interpret the narrative.Regarding the narration, "You can not approach Allah with something more virtuous than what comes out of it (the Qur'ān)" Ibn al-Saljī reports that Mushabbiha understands this as one with an abdominal cavity and from whom speech comes out. This understanding is in-valid since God is "samad" in the sense that He has no void. With this hadith, it is meant that the Qur'ān comes out of Allah’s presence rather than Allah. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, the real aim of Ibn al-Saljī is to deny God's attribute of speech. There is no doubt that the Qur'ān comes from Him, and those who do not accept it merely deny His attribute of speech.Attributed to Ibn Abbas; The meaning of "yamīn Allah" (the right hand of Allah) in narration "Black Stone (al-ḥajar al-aswad) is the right hand of Allah on earth, handshakes with the people" is not the right hand that we know according to Ibn al-Saljī, it is blessing and grace of Allah. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, who acknowledges that Black Stone is not meant to be a hand, the purpose of Ibn al-Saljī is to deny the two hands mentioned in the verses and ha-diths about Allah with invalid interpretations.ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, who criticized that Ibn al-Saljī quoted from another narration which Ibn Abbās heard from the Prophet, says that such poor narrations should not be spread. In addition, he points out that Ibn al-Saljī's interpretation is ugly and he criticizes it. Because Allah who is mentioned in the narrative is depicted as a young man with curly hair in a green suit. Such a narration is also an untrustworthy narration as it contradicts the authentic narrations of the Prophet. ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, who made this assessment of the narration, rejects the com-ments that the opponent made about the narration. According to the opponent, the phrase "I have come to Allah" means "to come into the presence of Allah in the Garden of Eden." Accor-ding to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī’s understanding, such complicated hadiths should not be only narra-ted.About the narration that are based on the Prophet and he does not know the answer to what he has come to know of himself, then he feels the coolness of his fingers as he puts his hand on his back and learns everything, the opponent evaluates the following: He was not Allah who came to the Prophet, but a well-behaved angel who was being directed by Allah and he was the angel who put his hand. ʿUthmān al-Dārimī rejects this interpretation of that oppo-nent. This comment is also contrary to other authentic hadiths. After he refused to the com-ment of the opponent about relevant narration, ʿUthmān al-Dārimī stated that he could not trust this comment on the basis of the authentic narrations he mentioned.Salaf scholars have preferred to be silent in this regard, as it is seen among the most difficult subjects to talk about divine attributes. However, subsequent generations have held dif-ferent paths in this regard. The basic approaches to understanding the divine attributes can be summarized in three main titles: tafwīd, tashbīh, and ta’wīl. Tafwīd is the path adopted by the early salaf scholars and means to leaving the knowledge about Allah’s entity and attributes to His knowledge. Tashbīh means to compare Allah to the created or the created to Allah. Ta'wīl is to interpret the Qur'ānic verses and hadiths that give the impression that Allah is like the crea-tures with semantics and rational deduction. The ones who deny the adjectives are called as Muʿattila and those who prove their attributes are called as Sifatiyya. According to Ahl al-Ra’y, it is necessary to appropriately make interpretation (ta'wīl) of the attributes giving the impression of anthropomorphism in terms of the dictionary. In the divine attributes, Muʿtazila advoca-ted the incomparability (tanzīh), whereas Ashʿariyya and Māturīdiyya adopted interpretation in accordance with incomparability. Mushabbiha and the Wahhābī-Salafī understanding has also taken the expressions regarding divine attributes with their explicit meanings.The debate between the scholars who lived in the ages II/VIII and III/IX, when the most important works are composed in the science of hadith, is important in that it is the first turn. In addition to this, the debate also contains important information on the approach to the Qur'ānic verses and hadiths, in that it shows two basic approaches, one of which represents the school of Ahl al-Ra’y, and the other represents the school of Ahl al-Hadith.ʿUthmān al-Dārimī generally advocates adhering to the explicit meaning of the narra-tion, while Bishr al-Marīsī and his companions criticize the narration labeling it as denied (mun-kar) or making an interpretation. On rare occasions, the places where ʿUthmān al-Dārimī re-jects the narration and makes interpretation, or where Bishr al-Marīsī and his companions de-fend the narrative can be seen.Interpretations made by Bishr al-Marīsī on the problematic narratives have influenced on the next scholars. Alongside Muʿtazilite scholars such as al-Jubbāʾī (d. 303/916), Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār (d. 415/1024) and Abū l-Ḥusayn al-Baṣrī (d. 436/1044), his interpretations have been quoted by Sunni scholars such as al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111), Ibn ʿAqīl (d. 513/1119) and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210).The fact that the truth can be put forward in the science of hadith, which is based on the narration, does not favor one of the "narration" and "ra’y", it should be kept in mind that both of these depend on the proper and balanced use of both. To reveal the truth, the narration is in need of the opinion and the opinion (ra’y) is in need of the narration. Narration and opinion sho-uld be seen as complementary elements, not each other's opponents. (shrink)

Quʹest-ce que lʹêre? Cette question passe pour fonder la philosophie. Encore faut-il s'entendre sur le sens du mot "être ". L'essence des choses détermine-t-elle leur existence? Devons-nous affirmer, au contraire, que l'existence conditionne l'intensité d'être qui qualifie une certaine réalité? Molla Sadr Shirazi, dans ce traité écrit en Iran au siècle de Descartes et de Leibniz, médite ces questions qui sont encore les nôtres. Mais les solutions qu'il propose s'évadent hors de nos perspectives, après avoir opéré une révolution décisive dans (...) la métaphysique des Orientaux. Penseur shi'ite en butte à la persécution, Molla Sadra est la plus haute figure de la philosophie iranienne islamique au temps splendide de la cour safavide d'Ispahan. Sa doctrine du primat de l'existence, que le présent ouvrage expose complètement, ouvre sur une interprétation spirituelle de la résurrection des corps. Cette traduction par Henry Corbin, qui fut aussi l'éditeur du texte original, a fait événement : par son ample introduction, il situe la question de l'être et déploie une explication comparée de ce que l'Occident grec puis médiéval en ont fait, avec la tradition shi'iite. -- Back cover. (shrink)

The central issue in this work is self-knowledge. The human soul is created in the Image of God with a purpose.