Turkah, Muḥammad ibn Ḥabīb Allāh, active 14th century. Qawāʻid al-tawḥīd. - Criticism and interpretation ; Turkah Iṣfahānī, ʻAlī ibn Muḥammad, 1368 or 1369-1431 or 143; Tamhīd al-qawāʻid - Criticism and interpretation ; Sufism - Early works to.

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)

Bişr el-Merîsî taraftarları ile Osman ed-Dârimî arasında burada tartışma konusu yapılan hadisler haberî sıfatları konu alan ve müşkil nitelikte olan rivayetlerden oluşmaktadır. Bu rivayetleri genelde Bişr el-Merîsî ve taraftarlarının tecsîm ve teşbîh içerdiği iddiasıyla münker kabul ettikleri görülmektedir. Ehl-i re’y özellikleri taşımakla birlikte ilahî sıfatlar konusunda Mu’tezilî bir anlayışa sahip olduklarından tenzih anlayışları gereği sıfatları reddetmektedirler. Yaratılmışlara ait niteliklerin yaratıcıya nisbet edilmesini tenzîh anlayışlarına aykırı gördüklerinden bu tür müşkil rivayetleri ya kendi anlayışları doğrultusunda te’vîl ya da reddettikleri gözlenmektedir. Sert bir (...) ehl-i hadîs âlimi olan Osman ed-Dârimî ise, ayet ve hadislerde bildirilen ilahî sıfatlara iman edilmesi gerektiğini kabul etmektedir. Bu anlayışı sebebiyle bu rivayetlerde bildirilen haberî sıfatlara da te’vîl etmeksizin lafzî anlamıyla yaklaşmakta; kendi görüşü doğrultusunda Bişr el-Merîsî ve taraftarlarının yaptığı te’vîlleri reddetmekte, bu te’vîllerin ta’tîle yol açacağını ileri sürmektedir. Bu rivayetlerin lafzî (literal) anlamları doğrultusunda anlaşılması gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Bu hadisler üzerinde yapılan tartışmalar, temel hadis eserlerinin yazıldığı dönemde Ehl-i re’y ve Ehl-i hadîs ekollerine mensup âlimlerin hadislere yaklaşımlarını göstermesi bakımından önem arzetmektedir. Burada vermiş olduğumuz hadisler üzerindeki tartışmalar bu iki ekolün uluhiyet anlayışını, haberî sıfatlara yaklaşımlarını ortaya koyduğu gibi bunların genel anlamda hadis perspektifi hakkında bizlere bilgi vermektedir.ÖzetBu araştırma, temel hadis kitaplarının yazıldığı dönemde, yani III./IX asırda, haberî sıfatlar ihtiva eden bazı hadisler üzerinde yapılan tartışmaları ele almaktadır. Tartışma Osman ed-Dârimî (ö. 280/894) ile Bişr el-Merîsî’nin (ö. 218/833) taraftarları arasında geçmektedir. Hadisler üzerinde Ehl-i hadîs ile Ehl-i re’y mensubu âlimler arasında gerçekleşen bu tartışmalar bir yönüyle hadislerin anlaşılması ve yorumlanmasını ilgilendirmektedir. Tartışmanın, burada ele alınan hadislerin nasıl anlaşılması gerektiği; lafızların kelime anlamı mı (literal) yoksa bu lafızların ötesindeki muhtemel mecazî anlamları dikkate alınarak mı anlaşılması gerektiği noktasında odaklandığı söylenebilir. İnceleme konusu yapılan hadisleri tartışan tarafları kısaca tanıtmak yerinde olacaktır. Sözünü ettiğimiz rivayetlerle ilgili tartışmalar Bişr el-Merîsî taraftarları ile Osman ed-Dârimî arasında geçmektedir. Ehl-i hadîs’in önemli simalarından biri olan Osman ed-Dârimî, hadislerle ilgili bu tartışmaları içeren ayrı bir eser yazmıştır. Bu eser, Allah’ın sıfatları ve bazı hadis meseleleri konusunda Bişr el-Merîsî ve onun iki talebesinin görüşlerine reddiye olarak yazılmıştır. Bişr el-Merîsî, Ebû Yusuf’tan (ö. 182/798) fıkıh tahsil etmiş, önemli bir kelâmcı olarak tanınmıştır. O, kelâmla ilgili konularda aralarında İmâm Şâfiî’nin (ö. 204/820) de bulunduğu pek çok âlimle ilmî tartışmalar yapmış bir ehl-i re’y âlimdir. Halife Me’mûn’un (ö. 218/833) danışma meclisinde bulunmuş, Kur’ân’ın yaratılmışlığı (Halku’l-Kur’ân) görüşünün benimsenmesinde önemli payı olmuştur. Osman ed-Dârimî ise, Yahyâ b. Ma’în (ö. 233/848), Ali b. Medînî (ö. 234/848-49), İshâk b. Râhûye (ö. 238/853) ve Ahmed b. Hanbel (ö. 241/855) gibi döneminin otoritelerinden hadis öğrenmiş bir ehl-i hadîs âlimidir. Hadis tahsili için önemli bütün şehirleri dolaşarak hadis öğrenmiş ve rivayette bulunmuştur.Haberi sıfatları ispat ve bunlarla ilgili rivayetlerin teviline karşı çıkan anlayış ile, bu rivayetlerin tenzih anlayışına uygun biçimde tevilini savunan kesimler ilk dönemden itibaren eserler telif etmişlerdir. Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre, ehl-i hadîs’in eleştiri edebiyatının ortaya çıkmasında, Mu’tezile’nin ilahî sıfatları reddetmesi etkili olmuş ve pek çok müellif bu yönde eserler yazmışlardır. Ebû Hüreyre’den nakledilen bir rivayetle ilgili olarak muârız, bu rivayetin Allah için bildiğimiz göz ve kulak organlarından oluştuğu izlenimi verildiğini söyler. Osman ed-Dârimî, bu hadisin göz ve kulak organlarını değil görme ve işitmeyi ispat ettiğini söyler. Hiçbir konuda Allah’ın benzerinin bulunmadığını belirtir. Dolayısıyla Allah’ın organlardan oluştuğu iddiasını ehl-i hadîs’e nisbet etmek iftiradır. Ebû Dâvûd, bu hadis ile Allah için görme ve işitme sıfatlarının ispat edildiğini ve Cehmiyye’nin ilahî sıfatları inkar görüşüne reddiye olduğunu belirtir. Ebû Hüreyre’in Hz. Peygamber’e nispet ederek naklettiği: "İman Yemenlidir, hikmet Yemenlidir! Ben Rabbi’nizin nefesini Yemen tarafından hissediyorum!" rivayetini de muârız münker kabul etmiştir. Çünkü Bişr el-Merîsî ve ashâbına göre nefes ancak karın boşluğu olanlardan çıkar, Allah ise bundan münezzehtir. Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre, muârız yanlış anlamıştır. Burada kastedilen, Yemen tarafından esen ve insanı rahatlatan rüzgardır. Bu rivayet bağlamında bakıldığında, Bişr el-Merîsî taraftarlarının rivayeti literal değerlendirdiğini, Osman ed-Dârimî’nin ise rivayeti yorumladığını görmekteyiz. İbnü’s-Selcî, "Siz, Allah’a ondan çıkandan (Kur’ân’dan) daha faziletli bir şeyle yaklaşamazsınız!" rivayeti hakkında, Müşebbihe’nin bunu, karın boşluğu olan, kendisinden kelâm çıkan şeklinde anladıklarını belirtir. Allah boşluğu olmayan anlamında "samed" olduğundan bu anlayış geçersizdir. Bu hadisle, Kur’ân’ın Allah’tan değil O’nun katından çıkması kastedilmiştir. Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre, İbnü’s-Selcî’nin asıl maksadı Allah’ın kelâm sıfatını inkâr etmektir. Kur’ân’ın O’ndan çıktığında bir şüphe yoktur, bunu sadece kelâm sıfatını kabul etmeyenler inkâr etmektedir. İbn Abbâs’a atfedilen; "Rükn (Hacerülesved) yeryüzünde Allah’ın sağ elidir, halk ile onunla musafaha eder" rivayetinde geçen "yemînullah" (Allah’ın sağ eli) sözünün anlamı, İbnü’s-Selcî’ye göre bildiğimiz sağ el değil, Allah’ın nimeti ve ikrâmıdır. Hacerülesved ile elin kastedilmediğini kabul eden Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre, İbnü’s-Selcî’nin maksadı, geçersiz te’villerle Allah hakkında ayet ve hadislerde belirtilen iki eli inkar etmektir. İbn Abbâs’ın Hz. Peygamber’den naklettiği başka bir rivayeti İbnü’s-Selcî’nin eserine alıp nakletmesini eleştiren Osman ed-Dârimî, bu tür zayıf rivayetlerin yayılmaması gerektiğini söyler. Buna ilave olarak İbnü’s-Selcî’nin yaptığı yorumun da çirkin olduğunu belirtir ve eleştirir. Çünkü sözü edilen rivayette Allah, yeşil bir takım elbise giymiş kıvırcık saçlı bir genç olarak tasvir edilmektedir. Böyle bir rivayet Hz. Peygamber’den gelen sahih rivayetlerle çeliştiği için de güvenilmez bir rivayettir. Rivayetle ilgili bu değerlendirmeyi yapan Osman ed-Dârimî, rivayet hakkında muârızın yaptığı yorumları da reddeder. Muârıza göre, "Rabbimin yanına girdim" sözü, "Adn cennetinde Rabbimin huzuruna girdim" demektir. Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre bu gibi müşkil (problemli) hadisler re’y ile tefsir edilmemeli, rivayet edilip bırakılmalıdır. Hz. Peygamber’e dayandırılan ve Allah’ın kendisine geldiğinden bahisle cevabını bilemediği bazı sorulan sorduğundan, sonra Rabbinin elini sırtına koymasıyla parmaklarının serinliğini hissettiğinden ve her şeyi öğrendiğinden bahseden rivayetle ilgili olarak muarız şu değerlendirmede bulunur: Allah Resûlü’ne gelen Rabbi değil güzel suretli bir melekti, o melek Allah tarafından yönledrilmekteydi ve elini koyan da o melekti. Osman ed-Dârimî, muârızın bu yorumunu reddeder. Bu yorum aynı zamanda diğer sahih hadislere de aykırıdır. Osman ed-Dârimî, sözkonusu rivayet hakkında muârızın yorumunu reddettikten sonra zikrettiği sahih rivayetlere dayanarak buna güvenilemiyeceğini ifade etmiştir. İlahî sıfatlar hakkında konuşmak en zor konular arasında görüldüğünden, selef âlimleri bu konuda susmayı tercih etmişlerdir. Ancak sonraki nesiller bu konuda farklı yollar tutmuşlardır. İlahi sıfatları anlama konusundaki temel yaklaşımları tefvîz, teşbîh ve te’vîl şeklinde üç ana başlıkta toplamak mümkündür. Tefvîz, selef alimlerinin benimsediği yol olup, Allah’ın zâtı ve sıfatlarının mahiyetine ilişkin bilgiyi ilâhî ilme havale etmek demektir. Teşbîh, Allah’ı yaratılmışlara veya yaratılmışları Allah’a benzetmek anlamına gelir. Te’vil, Allah’ın yaratılmışlara benzediği izlenimini veren ayet ve hadisleri dil bilimi ve aklî bilgilerle yorumlamaktır. Sıfatları inkar edenlere Muattıla denilmiş, sıfatları ispat edenler Sıfâtiyye diye anılmıştır. Ehl-i re’y’e göre Allah’a atfedilen ve sözlük anlamı bakımından teşbîh ve tecsîm izlenimi veren sıfatları uygun biçimde te’vil etmek gerekir. İlâhî sıfatlarda Mu’tezile tenzihi öne çıkarmış, Eş’ariyye ve Mâtürîdiyye ise tenzihe uygun te’vili benimsemiştir. Müşebbihe, Vehhâbî-Selefî anlayış da ilahî sıfatlardaki lafızları zahiri anlamlarıyla almışlardır. Hadis ilminde en önemli temel eserlerin telif edildiği II./VIII. ve III./IX. asırda yaşamış olan âlimler arasında cereyan eden inceleme konusu yaptığımız tartışma, ilk döneme ait olması bakımından önemlidir. Bunun yanında tartışma, âyet ve hadislerden oluşan naslara yaklaşımda, iki temel yaklaşımı göstermesi bakımından da önemli bilgiler ihtiva etmektedir. Bu iki temel yaklaşımdan biri ehl-i re’y ekolünü, diğeri ise Ehl-i hadîs anlayışını temsil etmektedir. Osman ed-Dârimî genel olarak rivayetin lafzına bağlı kalmayı savunmakta, Bişr el-Merîsî ve ashâbı ise münker olduğu gerekçesiyle rivayeti eleştirmekte ya da te’vil etmektedir. Nadir de olsa Osman ed-Dârimî’nin rivayeti ret ya da te’vil ettiği, Bişr el-Merîsî ve ashâbının ise rivayeti savunduğu yerler de görülebilmektedir. Müteşâbih (problemli) rivayetler hakkında Bişr el-Merîsî’nin yaptığı te’viller sonraki âlimler üzerinde etkili olmuştur. Onun te’villeri, Cübbâî (ö. 303/916), Kādî Abdülcebbâr (ö. 415/1025), Ebü’l-Hüseyin el-Basrî (ö. 436/1044) gibi Mu’tezilî âlimlerin yanı sıra, İbn Fûrek, Gazâlî (ö.505/1111), İbn Akîl (ö. 513/1119), Fahreddîn er-Râzî (ö. 606/1210) gibi sünnî âlimler tarafından da iktibâs edilmiştir. Rivayete dayalı olan hadis ilminde hakikatin ortaya konulabilmesi, "rivayet" ve "re’y" seçeneklerinden birini tercih etmekle değil; bunların her ikisini de yerinde ve dengeli olarak kullanılmasına bağlı olduğunu hatırda tutmak gerekir. Hakikatin ortaya çıkarılmasında rivayet re’ye, re’y de rivayete muhtaçtır. Rivayet ve re’y birbirinin rakibi değil tamamlayıcı unsurları olarak görmek gerekir. (shrink)

The Sunnah has an important role in the correct understanding and the protection from wrong interpretations of the Qurʾān. Accordingly, ḥadīth played a crucial role in shaping the opinions of the mufassirs. In this article, the tafsir titled Kur’an Yolu written by a group of scholars and first published by the Presidency of the Religious Affairs in 2003 which is widely read in Tur-key is examined from ḥadīth usage point of view. The problems in ḥadīth usage are classified under headings (...) such as insufficiency/incorrectness in the explanation of verses due to insuffi-cient usage of ḥadīth, not including ḥadīth which corroborate the verse, wrong conclusions derived from ḥadīth, problems with citations, ḥadīth translation problems, wrong explanation of ḥadīth, problems with some issues related to Sunnah. Over fifty examples where there were wrong citations of ḥadīth, wrong conclusions were derived, there was mixing up of ḥadīth and translation errors leading to wrong meanings were determined and the most important ones were studied. Due to these problems regarding ḥadīth usage, it was seen that sometimes the unity of Qurʾān and Sunnah was violated and some wrong explanations were given. The article is important due to determination of these mistakes and attracting attention to care and pre-caution in ḥadīth usage in this kind of works. This study indicates the importance of Qurʾān-Sunnah unity and shows the important role that ḥadīths play in understanding the verses. It is observed that in case hadiths related to a verse are not given or given in an insufficient or in-correct manner the verse in question is understood or interpreted incorrectly. Therefore, the correct translation and explanation of the ḥadīth, avoiding citation mistakes and making use of primary sources are very important. The factors that lead to wrong conclusions are not evalu-ating a ḥadīth in its entirety (taking into account only the first part of the ḥadīth), not evaluat-ing the ḥadīths related to a subject in entirety (taking into account only certain ḥadīths), not making use of commentaries in order to understand a ḥadīth correctly and wrong citation of a ḥadīth. The fact that the ḥadīth which is about the gladness of Allah due to the repentance of a person has been confused with another ḥadīth and an additional error has been made in the text of this ḥadīth indicates that the authors have remembered this ḥadīth incorrectly and they have not verified this ḥadīth in its source. Given the material mistakes in many other examples under the citation errors title, it has been concluded that the wrong citation of ḥadīths in a way that affects the meaning constitutes a serious problem for the work under examination. As to the translation problems, it is observed that they arise from wrong citation of the ḥadīth from its sources (for instance omitting a word or adding expressions that are not found in the ḥadīth) or not making use of commentaries in understanding the ḥadīth. It is necessary that for the analysis of the ḥadīth the authors make use of the tafsir of Ibn Kathīr who is a ḥadīth schol-ar along with the works of other scholars who are not specialized in ḥadīth in order to correct-ly determine the accuracy level and meaning of the ḥadīth. It seems necessary that a commis-sion that includes ḥadīth scholars review this work in order to correct the mistakes that are found and to make use of the suggestions that are put forward. This step is important for cor-recting the mistakes found in this prestigious and widely used work. Furthermore, since many readers gain knowledge about Qurʾān using this work, consideration of issues raised in this study will contribute to the forthcoming edition of the work. It is surprising that despite pro-posed corrections since its initial publication, so many material mistakes still exist in this valu-able work which is a product of great effort. It is hoped that it will continue to become useful for people by making necessary corrections. (shrink)

Arabic translation Sayyid al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī'l letter on logic translated by the recipient, his son, Ibn al-Sharīf al-Jurjānī.

The Persian philosopher Ibn Sina (d. 1037), known in Europe as Avicenna, was arguably the greatest master of Aristotelian thought in the Muslim world. The symbolical 'Poem on the Soul' (Qasidat al-nafs), which portrays all earthly human souls as in temporary exile from heaven, is traditionally attributed to Avicenna, and was received with enthusiasm by its commentators. A highly significant commentary on the Qasida was written by?Ali b. Muhammad b. al-Walid (d. 1215 CE), a major early representative of the Tayyibi (...) Ismaili tradition, which emerged and flourished in medieval Yemen. In his view, the poem encapsulated Tayyibi beliefs, whose doctrines bear striking parallels with late antique Gnosticism. Avicenna's Allegory on the Soul presents the first edition of the Arabic text of Ibn al-Walid's commentary, 'The Useful Epistle' (al-Risala al-mufida), alongside an English translation and extended introduction. It offers invaluable insight into the intricacies of Muslim thought and a deeper understanding of Avicenna's substantial intellectual legacy. (shrink)

Basṭāmī, ʻAlī ibn Ṭayfūr, active 16th century-17th century. Akhlāq-i ḥusnaʹ ; Islamic ethics- Early works to 1800.

v. 1. Taʻlīqāt-i asfār -- v. 2. Rasāʼil va taʻlīqāt -- v. 3. Rasāʼil-i Fārsī, taqrīẓāt, qiṭaʻāt, taʻlīqāt-i naqlīyah, taqrīrāt va munāẓarāt.

Los Māsilik al-abṣār de Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-'Umarī incluyen un breve resumen de la Historia de los omeyas de al-Andalus. En este trabajo se analizan las relaciones textuales entre ese pasaje y el Muqtabis de Ibn Ḥayyān, crónica que resulta ser la fuente casi única utilizada por al-'Umarī para redactar ese capítulo.

Los Massalik al-absar de Ibn fadl Alláh al-Umari incluyen un breve resumen de la Historía de los omeyas en al-Andalus. En este trabajo se analizan las relaciones textuales entre ese pasaje y el Muqtabis de Ibn Hayyán, crónica que resulta ser la fuente casi única utilizada por al- Umari para redactar ese capitulo.

Abu Muhammad Ali b. Ahmed b. Hazm al-Andalusi (d. 456/1064), the greatest exponent of the Ẓahiriyya school, was a scholar producing important works with his identity as a jurist, hadith scholar, historian, literary man, and poet. He also persistently defended the understanding of Ahl as-Sunna against the sects that emerged within Islamic thought as he defended the superiority of Islam against other religions. In his works, he covered almost every topic of the kalam science; in this context, he was especially (...) interested in topics related to the possibility of prophethood, the prophethood of Muhammad and his being the last representative of the prophethood chain. Therefore, this study, based mainly on his works such as al-Fasl, al-Usul wa'l-Furu, ad-Durr fi ma Yecibu i'tikaduhu and Ilm al-Kalam ala Mazhab Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jama'a, deals with the topics of the possibility of prophecy, the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad, and the role and importance of miracles in proving it in the view of Ibn Hazm. Almost all Islamic scholars have based their systems for recognizing prophets on the evidence of miracles. According to them, a person who claims to be a prophet must bring extraordinary evidence to confirm his claim, and it is necessary for him to do so in order to make his opponents religiously responsible. For an event to be considered evidence that confirms the prophet's claim and to be called a miracle, it must have some characteristics, such as: it must be a divine act; it must appear in an extraordinary manner; it must occur together with the claim of prophecy and challenge; and it must occur immediately after the claim of the prophet. Therefore, it is believed that evidence that possesses these characteristics can prove the correctness of the claimant without needing any other evidence. The kalam scholars only call those events as miracles, which have the characteristic of challenging the dozens of evidences that prove the prophet's truthfulness. Therefore, it is without a doubt that the concept of miracle is a special concept invented by kalam scholars. When looking at Ibn Hazm’s views on the subject, which form the backbone of the study, it is necessary to state the following: Firstly, Ibn Hazm explains that prophecy is possible, that God chooses and sends messengers among the people, and that there is no difference among the prophets in terms of belief principles. Ibn Hazm emphasizes the role of miracles in identifying prophets and bases his system on this principle. However, he does not show much care in using the term "miracles" in the way that Kalam scholars accept it and does not aim to explain or list the characteristics or attributes of miracles as seen in Kalam books. He uses the term "miracles," which have been conceptualized over a long period of time, for every extraordinary event that belongs to the prophets, without considering these sensitivities. The most striking aspect of Ibn Hazm's understanding of miracles is that he does not consider the attribute of challenge, which is defined as a condition of a miracle, as necessary. He criticizes those who accept the attribute of a challenge as an essential part of miracles and argues that such an understanding would limit the miracles of the Prophet Muhammad. If the attribute of the challenge is accepted as a condition, then extraordinary events such as the blessing of food and drink, the moaning of wood in the mosque, and some animals coming and expressing their complaints would be excluded from the scope of miracles. This would mean limiting the evidence of Prophet Muhammad's prophecy. According to him, the creator of extraordinary events is God, and He creates them only to confirm His messengers. The events that occur in the hands of a person who claims to be a prophet should be considered a miracle. Therefore, he has named every event that occurred through the prophets as a miracle, regardless of its context and nature. In conclusion, according to Ibn Hazm, there are two types of events that occur in nature: Normal events and miraculous events. He refers to the latter as miracles and limits them to only occurring in the hands of prophets. He believes that events that occur in the hands of prophets, whether they possess the characteristic of tahaddî or not, should be referred to as miracles. Events that occur in the hands of people other than prophets do not possess the characteristics of miraculous events. If such events are claimed to be miraculous, the evidence of the prophets will be damaged. Therefore, Allah creates these events only for His messengers. Therefore, in the view of Ibn Hazm, concepts such as miracles of saints (karamat), magic, and divine help (maunat) do not have a counterpart. In fact, his attitude coincides with the Mu'tazilite tradition. He tries to prevent criticism that can be directed at miracles by assigning miraculous events only to prophets. (shrink)

Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad, 1201-1274's Tajrīd al-ʻaqāʼid; selections; philosophy, Islamic; early works to 1800.

Najm al-Din al-Katibi's al-Risalah al-Shamsiyyah is a scholarly edition and translation of The Canons of Logic, with additional commentary and notes. Composed by Najm al-Din al-Katibi, a scholar of the Shafi'i school of law, al-Risalah al-Shamsiyyah is the most widely read introduction to logic in the Arabic-speaking world. It has probably enjoyed a longer shelf-life than any other logic textbook ever written, having been in use by madrasa students from the early fourteenth century up until the present day. Building on (...) the theories of Avicenna, al-Razi, and other pioneers of logic, al-Katibi discusses the many pitfalls of building arguments and setting out unambiguous claims in natural language. The enduring nature of the text is a testament to al-Katibi and his impact on concepts of formal discourse and argument. (shrink)

Logic was revered in the thirteenth century, perhaps more highly than it has been revered before or since. In the Muslim East, logic was an integral part of the syllabus of schools and found to be especially helpful for legal studies. It was at this time that The Canons of Logic was composed by Najm al-Din al-Katibi, a scholar of the Shafi'i school of law. The Rules of Logic is the most widely read introduction to logic in the Arabic-speaking world. (...) It has probably enjoyed a longer shelf-life than any other logic textbook ever written, having been in use by madrasa students from the early fourteenth century up until the present day. Building on the theories of Avicenna, al-Razi, and other pioneers of logic, al-Katibi discusses the many pitfalls of building arguments and setting out unambiguous claims in natural language. The enduring nature of the text is a testament to al-Katibi and his impact on concepts of formal discourse and argument. This new translation of The Canons of Logic provides new life to an influential text that has shaped the work of scholars of logic for centuries. (shrink)

To determine the knowledge and ethical perception regarding organ donation amongst medical students in Karachi- Pakistan.

Ṣadr al-Dīn Shīrāzī, Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm, -1641. Asfār al-arbaʻah fī al-ḥikmah. ; Islamic philosophy -- Iran.