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 Mongols’ invasion of the territories of the Islamic world, especially Baghdad, the seat of the Islamic Caliphate, had great consequences, including the fall of Baghdad and the Bani Abbas Caliphate, the killing of the Caliph, and extensive destruction in the geography of their invasion. About half a century after the invasion of the Mongols, Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328), regardless of historical documents, accused Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, a prominent thinker, of collusion and cooperation with Hulagu Khan. After Ibn Taymiyyah Harrani, these (...) accusations were followed and disseminated in religious, historical, rijal (the study of hadith narrators and their personality), and even moral books by his students, such as Ibn Qayyim al Jawziyya (1292-1350). This article is an attempt to deny these accusations. Relying on the earliest historical documents, it tries to describe the historical event as it happened. In this regard, the article first provides the text of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi’s short treatise “On the Baghdad Incident”, included in Aladdin Atamalik Juveyni’s “Tarikh-i Jahangusha”, and then presents its descriptive interpretation separately. Although this treatise is short, it contains all the important points, from Hulagu Khan’s decision to go to war to the conquest of Baghdad and the analysis of the internal factors of the fall of the caliphate. This treatise, above all, is a very solid argument. For its author first of all was the witness of the Baghdad events. Secondly, in this writing, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi examines the Mongols’ attack on Baghdad but does not mention his own activity or role in the attack on Baghdad. Thirdly, if he had an activity and a role in this incident, or if he had an intention to take revenge on his religious opponents considering the situation, he should at least have hinted and expressed his approval, which is not the case at all. (shrink)

RésuméDans les Sphériques, Ménélaüs ne démontre pas l'importante proposition III.5, mais propose seulement une esquisse de démonstration. Une fois le livre des Sphériques traduit en arabe, les mathématiciens, à partir de la fin du IXe siècle, ont voulu en donner une démonstration complète. Le développement de la géométrie sphérique a permis à Ibn ʿIrāq de parvenir au but. Un premier article a été consacré à sa contribution. Deux mathématiciens du XIIIe siècle – Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī et Ibn Abī Jarrāda – (...) ont repris la démonstration de cette même proposition, à partir de Ménélaüs et des acquis d'Ibn ʿIrāq. C'est le sujet du présent article. (shrink)

This study discusses the classifications of sects in a treatise named Firqa-ye Nājīye, written in Persian by a Shiite scholar in 982/1574. In this treatise, which is in the Merkez-i İḥyâʾi Heritage Library and has no other copy as far as we know, it has been tried to prove that the Twelver Shiʿa is the saved sect (firqa-yi nājiya) through seventy-three sects classification. The author summarized the seven doubts raised by the devil, the first events that caused the Muslim community (...) (umma) to disagree, and the general information about the sects from al-Milal wa-l-niḥal, the classifications of the sects from Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, but reconstructed the data in these texts according to the Shiite understanding. On the other hand, the main reason for writing this treatise is to respond to Jalāl al-Dīn Davānī’s claims rather than the classification of sects. Nasīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī determined a method for the identification of the saved sect as "differentiating from all sects in matters of theology". He claimed that the Twelver Shīʿīsm differed from the other sects in all matters of theology and was therefore the saved sect. Davānī stated that Twelver Shīʿīsm differed from other sects only with the belief in imamate, which is not the subject of creed, and that it generally agrees with Mu'tazila in other creeds, thus claiming that Tusi's claim is baseless. He also said that, when considered through the same method, Ashʿarīsm is more worthy of being the saved sect, because this sect differs from all sects in matters related to the creeds. Contrary to Davānī's claim, the author of Firqa-ye Nājīye stated that imamate was one of the most important principles of religion and also claimed that the Twelver Shīʿīsm differed from other sects in matters of creed other than imamate. However, he failed to provide sufficient data to justify this claim. (shrink)

RésuméLes mathématiciens et les philosophes arabophones, comme leurs prédécesseurs grecs, ont soulevé plusieurs questions épistémologiques fondamentales. Parmi ces questions figure celle qui porte sur le concept d’égalité et sur celui de congruence des grandeurs géométriques. Mais qu'entendait-on par de tels concepts? quelle était leur relation à l'idée de mouvement? Comme les réponses à ces questions combinaient souvent des éléments métriques et d'autres, philosophiques, j'ai choisi d’étudier celles d'un mathématicien, d'un philosophe et d'un mathématicien-philosophe.

To say ‘mysticism versus philosophy’ in the context of Islamic civilization means something far different from what it has come to signify in the West, where many philosophers have looked upon mysticism as the abandonment of any attempt to reconcile religious data with intelligent thought. Certainly the Muslim mystics and philosophers sometimes display a certain mutual opposition and antagonism, but never does their relationship even approach incompatibility.

Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad, 1201-127 ; Risālah-i is̲bāt al-ʻaql - Criticism and interpretation.

The standard interpretation of Avicenna's correspondence theory of truth posits that propositions either correspond to what exists extramentally or otherwise their truthmaker is mental existence. An influential post-Avicennian philosopher, Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī (d. 1274) points to the insufficiency of the above division of propositions and their respective truthmakers. He mentions the possibility of conceiving false propositions, such as ‘One is not half of two’ and postulates the necessity of the existence of another truthmaking domain for their true counterparts which he (...) calls nafs al-amr. It is where objective and timeless entities, such as mathematical propositions, are located. While some claim that Ṭūsī's identification of this domain with the first Separate Intellect is a testimony to his Avicennian convictions, Ṭūsī's solution is a conspicuous departure from Avicenna that not only helps him remedy the insufficiency of Avicenna's theory of truth but is consistent with his critique of Avicenna's theory of God’s knowledge. (shrink)

The Nasirean Ethics is the best known ethical digest to be composed in medieval Persia, if not in all mediaeval Islam. It appeared initially in 633/1235 when Tūsī was already a celebrated scholar, scientist, politico-religious propagandist. The work has a special significance as being composed by an outstanding figure at a crucial time in the history he was himself helping to shape: some twenty years later Tūsī was to cross the greatest psychological watershed in Islamic civilization, playing a leading part (...) in the capture of Baghdad and the extinction of the generally acknowledged Caliphate there. In this work the author is primarily concerned with the criteria of human behaviour: first in terms of space and priority allotted, at the individual level, secondly, at the economic level and thirdly at the political level. (shrink)

The standard interpretation of Avicenna's correspondence theory of truth posits that propositions either correspond to what exists extramentally or otherwise their truthmaker is mental existence. An influential post-Avicennian philosopher, Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī (d. 1274) points to the insufficiency of the above division of propositions and their respective truthmakers. He mentions the possibility of conceiving false propositions, such as ‘One is not half of two’ and postulates the necessity of the existence of another truthmaking domain for their true counterparts which he (...) calls nafs al-amr. It is where objective and timeless entities, such as mathematical propositions, are located. While some claim that Ṭūsī's identification of this domain with the first Separate Intellect is a testimony to his Avicennian convictions, Ṭūsī's solution is a conspicuous departure from Avicenna that not only helps him remedy the insufficiency of Avicenna's theory of truth but is consistent with his critique of Avicenna's theory of God’s knowledge. (shrink)

AbstractṢadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī (d. 1498) has proposed a solution to the liar paradox according to which the liar sentence is a self-referential sentence in which the predicate ‘false’ is iterated. Discussing the conditions for the truth-aptness of the sentences with nested and iterated instances of the predicates ‘true’ and/or ‘false’, Dashtakī argued that the liar sentence is not truth-apt at all. In the tradition of Arabic logic, the central elements of Dashtakī's solution—the self-referentiality of the liar sentence and the implicit (...) iteration of the predicate ‘false’—were initially highlighted in two earlier solutions proposed by Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (d. 1274) and Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī (d. 1322), respectively. Here I investigate all three solutions and show that Dashtakī's solution can be taken as a synthesis of the other two. None of these solutions seems to be convincing at the end of the day. Nevertheless, all of them include significant logical and philosophical insights. In particular, although Dashtakī's solution is not itself compelling, it is only a few steps away from a promising solution. The appendix to this paper includes translations of the relevant passages. (shrink)

AbstractṢadr al-Dīn al-Dashtakī (d. 1498) has proposed a solution to the liar paradox according to which the liar sentence is a self-referential sentence in which the predicate ‘false’ is iterated. Discussing the conditions for the truth-aptness of the sentences with nested and iterated instances of the predicates ‘true’ and/or ‘false’, Dashtakī argued that the liar sentence is not truth-apt at all. In the tradition of Arabic logic, the central elements of Dashtakī's solution—the self-referentiality of the liar sentence and the implicit (...) iteration of the predicate ‘false’—were initially highlighted in two earlier solutions proposed by Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (d. 1274) and Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī (d. 1322), respectively. Here I investigate all three solutions and show that Dashtakī's solution can be taken as a synthesis of the other two. None of these solutions seems to be convincing at the end of the day. Nevertheless, all of them include significant logical and philosophical insights. In particular, although Dashtakī's solution is not itself compelling, it is only a few steps away from a promising solution. The appendix to this paper includes translations of the relevant passages. (shrink)

Özet Şii-İmamiyye’nin usûlde Mu’tezilenin etkisinde kaldığı iddiaları, hicri dördüncü asırdan itibaren dile getirilmektedir. Buna karşılık usûlî düşüncenin ilk mümessili sayılan Şeyh Müfîd’den itibaren mezhep içinden yükselen sesler bu iddiaları şiddetle reddetmişlerdir. Biz bu çalışmada Mu’tezile kelamına sistematik hüviyet kazandıran ve yazdığı eserlerle Mu’tezile kelamının bugüne ulaşmasında büyük pay sahibi olan Kâdî Abdülcebbâr ile İmamiyye’nin kelam düşüncesinin istikrar bulmasında ve Şeyh Müfîd’le başlatılan usûlî yaklaşımın benimsenip yaygınlaşmasında büyük bir yeri olan Ebû Ca’fer et-Tûsî arasında adalet ilkesi üzerinden bir karşılaştırma yaparak, söz (...) konusu iddiaların ne kadar sübut bulduğunu tespit etmeye çalıştık. Kısmi farklı izahları bir kenara bırakırsak, adalet ilkesinin ispat ve yorumlanmasında iki kelamcı arasında kayda değer bir farklılığın olmadığı görülmektedir. Abstract The claim that the Shi’i Imamite thought is heavily influenced by the Mu’tazilite outlook has been alleged since the fouth century of hijra. However, beginning with Shaikh Mufid, the first representative of the Usuli branch of Shi’a, the Shi’is vehemently denied this allegation. In this article, this issue is dealt with by making a comparison between the idea of Qadi Abd al-Jabbar, the prominent Mu’tazilite scholar who made a major contribution to the consolidation of the schools’ theaching and that of al-Tusi, who also made a contrubitued to the integration of the Shi’ite kalam and the spreading of the usuli approach initiated by Shaikh Mufid. Leaving aside the differences in deatil, it seems that there is no noteworthy difference between their approcah to the issue of justice. Key Words: Qâdî Abd al-Jabbâr, Abû Ja’far al-Tûsî, Husn-Qubh, Divine Justice, Free Will. (shrink)

Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī’s _Nasirean Ethics_ is the single most important work on philosophical ethics in the history of Islam. A fine example of medieval Persian-to-Arabic translation technique, this first edition carefully reproduces Middle Arabic elements that can be found throughout the text.

The volume D'al-Khwārizmī à Descartes is a monumental contribution to the world history of mathematical sciences, showing clearly that Arabic mathematics was an indispensable predecessor of early modern European mathematics. Roshdi Rashed is known, first of all, as an editor of classical mathematical writings in Arabic by such authors as al-Khwārizmī, Thābit ibn Qurra, Ibrāhīm ibn Sinān, Ibn al-Haytham, al-Khayyām, Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, as well as of the Arabic versions of Apollonius' Conics , Diophantus' Arithmetica , and Diocles' Burning Mirrors (...) . As the volume under review shows, he is also a historian of mathematics of the first class who has transformed historiography. This book is, in a sense, a manifesto of Prof. Rashed's entire œuvre. (shrink)

Extensive scientific, philosophical and artistic activities were carried out in the Islamic World’s various science and civilization centers during the early Middle Ages. In these centers, noteworthy works of mathematics, astronomy, geography, medicine, pharmacology, optics, botany, chemistry and other fields of science, which would later determine improvement paths for these fields, were created. Abu al-Izz Ismail ibn al-Razzaz al-Jazari (12th-13th centuries), was a magnificent Muslim scientist known for his work named The Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices (Kitab fi (...) ma‘rifati’l-hiyal al-handasiyya) and he was born in geography where many scientists were trained. He contributed to the development of science and civilization, the joint legacy of humanity and demonstrated his true capability and success in the field of ilm al-hiyal (the scientific field which addresses the information and practices regarding mechanical technology and engineering in Islamic science history). From this perspective, it is evident that al-Jazari had a wide field of interest, made his mark in the age he lived in with his brave and innovative ideas, and was a wise engineer. al-Jazari’s detailed descriptions and explanations of water clocks, oil lamp clocks and water pumping machines, as well as their construction, were astounding. In addition, al-Jazari’s studies on metal casting techniques, cone valves, wheel balance and the real-world use of aspiration tubes are important in contemporary engineering studies. When all these are considered, it becomes clear that his designation as the “Leonardo da Vinci of the Islamic World” is not a coincidence. Many studies on al-Jazari’s scientific legacy have been conducted in various parts of the world. There are various manuscripts of his aforementioned book. Based on these manuscripts, the work has been -fully or partially- translated into many languages, including Turkish. The German and English translations served as a basis for studies on al-Jazari in other languages. In recent years, studies conducted on al-Jazari in Türkiye (books, articles, domestic and international symposiums, congresses etc.) have demonstrated his brilliance and competence as a scientist. Furthermore, studies on al-Jazari are still ongoing in Türkiye. As for Russia, the scientific legacy of the scientists raised in the Islamic World such as Avicenna, al-Farabi, Abu Bakr al-Razi, Abu Rayhan al-Biruni, Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, al-Battani, al-Kashi, Abd al-Rahman al-Khazini, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi was researched within the scope of a special plan and program. Depending on the relevant studies, al-Jazari and his work drew attention as well. A small portion of the aforementioned Russian studies is known in Türkiye. It is safe to assume that al-Jazari studies in Russia are virtually unknown in Türkiye. The present study primarily aims to contribute to the literature on the scientific legacy of al-Jazari, a Middle Age Islamic scientist best known for his famous work in the mechanical field. More specifically, the present study aims to: 1) to identify the studies on al-Jazari in Russia, and in the former USSR countries, where academic studies are still in Russian after the Soviet Union period, to create a chronological biography and to set forth their compilation; in other words, to create a bibliography which includes Russian studies on al-Jazari; 2) to provide information on the structure and content of the studies in question, to detect the methodological issues encountered in these works, and make solution recommendations to solve these issues; 3) to contribute to continuing and future studies in Türkiye on al-Jazari in terms of source and material index. In conclusion, it should be stated that comparative reading was conducted centered on The Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices (Kitab fi ma‘rifati’l-hiyal al-handasiyya). It should also be noted that Russian popular internet publications (which are not based on academic research and are created/reproduced for commercial and personal purposes) were excluded from the assessment. (shrink)

Philosophy in Iran finds its own way after Avicenna’s death in 1037 and goes it until the late 17th century AD. The article looks at the period following his death and pays special attention to Naṣîr ad-Dîn aṭ-Ṭûsî, and Ibn al-Muqaffa̔ are influential in Ṭûsî’s thought.

Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi's life spanned the last two thirds of the seventh/thirteenth centuries. A student of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, he was involved in the revival of Peripatetic philosophy and science that occurred at Maraghah under his influence. He was significant as a transitional figure, combining Suhrawardi's Illuminative philosophy with the revived Avicennism of his teacher. His commentary on Suhrawardi's Philosophy of Illumination was the main vehicle through which this work was studied by later Iranian philosophers. He was also associated with (...) Ibn Arabi's most important student, Sadr al-Din al-Qunawi. ;Suhrawardi's Philosophy of Illumination contained a new "Science of Light", expressed largely in symbols, intended to provide a reformed basis for physics and metaphysics. Qutb al-Din frequently translated these views into Peripatetic terminology so as to make the relationships between the two systems clearer. Qutb al-Din's Pearly Crown is a popular account of philosophy, incorporating and elaborating much of Suhrawardi's philosophy but omitting or disguising the most controversial and esoteric aspects--especially those related to the World of Image, the Afterlife, and reincarnation. ;Qutb al-Din developed further the notion of the "World of Image." This "fourth world" served both philosophical and religious purposes. His ideas on reincarnation and the cyclical nature of time were especially distinctive and were developed beyond the views found in The Philosophy of Illumination. ;Also included in this dissertation are an annotated bibliography of Qutb al-Din's works and their known manuscripts and an edition and translation of his "Epistle Ascertaining the Reality of the World of Image" {Risalah fi Tahqiq )Alam al-Mithal}. (shrink)

This translation of Ibn-al-Tayyib’s work on Porphyry’s Eisagoge brings to the English readers a significant book in Near Eastern logic that has been discussed and excerpted by major philosophers such as Tusi, Averroes, and Avicenna. It has also been the source of philosophical discussions on topics of logic by Boethius, Abelard, Ockham and others. Gyekye has clarified the Arabic link between Greek and Latin traditions with his translation, detailed explanations and text analysis of this 11th century philosopher’s commentary on the (...) Eisagoge, a work which is itself based on Aristotle’s Categories and Metaphysics. (shrink)

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

The importance of the Treatise on equations by Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī has been brought to our attention by R. Rashed, who underlined the analytical aspects of this essentially algebraic work. Following Rashed, this article concentrates on one of these analytical concepts, namely the maximum of a polynomial expression f of degree 3. The purpose is to clarify the techniques that led al-Ṭūsī, when computing the maximum of f, to systematically display algebraic equations equivalent to f = 0. By demonstrating that (...) al-Ṭūsī's essentially algebraic proofs were also based on analytical procedures, we show that the presence of these equations was not fortuitous, but resulted from a correct understanding of the maximum of f. The accompanying geometrical representations were primarily for illustration. L'importance du Traité des équations de Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, a été mise en évidence par les travaux de R. Rashed, qui ont souligné les aspects analytiques de cette œuvre essentiellement algébrique. Parmi les notions analytiques qui figurent dans le Traité d'al-Ṭūsī, nous évoquerons uniquement celle du maximum d'une expression polynomiale du 3 e degré, f. La présente étude pourrait apporter une contribution à une problématique posée par R. Rashed: élucider les moyens et les techniques qui, lors du calcul du maximum, auraient conduit al-Ṭūsī à mettre systématiquement en valeur des équations équivalentes à fʹ = 0. Notre étude confirme que la présence de telles expressions n'est pas fortuite; elle découle d'une conception correcte du maximum de f. À cet effet, nous montrons que si les démonstrations utilisées par al-Ṭūsī sont essentiellement algébriques, elles s'appuient sur des procédés analytiques; les représentations géométriques qui les accompagnent constituent surtout des moyens de visualisation. (shrink)

Following the formation of disciplines/sciences in different fields of Islamic thought, the specific concepts and terminologies of these disciplines/sciences began to emerge. Then the special meaning and the area of utilization for every concept in each discipline/science were further clarified by compiling specific epistles of definition (ḥudūd), which would contribute to this process of conceptualization. For the terminological meaning of the used concept to be determined primarily and thus for the followed theological/sectarian affiliation to be supported, works belonging to this (...) genre have been written specifically for the field of theology. Especially, the Muʿtazilī theologians undoubtedly made the greatest contribution. Thusly, specific treatises containing theological concepts were compiled by names such as al-Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār (d. 415/1025), and his students Abū Rashīd al-Nīsābūrī (d. after 420/1029) and Ibn Sharwīn (fl. first half of the Vth/XIth century). Zaydī theologian and jurist Abū’l-Qāsim al-Bustī’s (d. 420/1029) Tahdhīb al-ḥudūd, which has no available copy, is also contemporary to the mentioned works. This tradition found its reflection in the Imāmī-Muʿtazilī line in Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭūsī’s (d. 460/1067) al-Muqaddimah fī l-madkhal ilá ṣināʿat ʿilm al-kalām, which could be seen as a concise theological work in terms of its construct and the explanations which it comprises, and in the work called al-Ḥudūd wa-l-ḥaqāʾiq, which is attributed to al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍá (d. 436/1044). Abū Jaʿfar al-Muqrī al-Nīsābūrī’s (d. mid-VIth/XIIth century [?]) al-Ḥudūd stands out as the most voluminous example in this tradition. The most important work belonging to this genre in the Muʿtazilī tradition, as it is the first among the available works, is the Ḥudūd al-alfāẓ of al-Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār, which is found together with some other important Zaydī-Muʿtazilī works in a compilation discovered by us and thought to be lost until recently. In this treatise, which generally includes theological concepts and partially includes the concepts of Islamic law and the history of sects, al-Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār has put forward a language-based definition theory. His approach here is in line with the views he put forward on definition in his al-Mughnī. Accordingly, instead of definition (ḥadd) and description (rasm) carried out over five universals in classical logic, he adopted a method of lexical definition based on wording that agrees with the meaning of the concept in question and is clearer than it, and consequently gave a brief definition and explanation of the concept he deals with. This clearly shows that the previous Muʿtazilī theologians’ approach of language-based definition, which was used as an alternative to the conception of Aristotelian definition due to their distanced stance to philosophy was also inherited by al-Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār. The approach seen in some sources in the period following al-Qāḍī, such as Abū Rashīd al-Nīsābūrī’s al-Ḥudūd, also indicates his influence. (shrink)

Sadr al-Sharīʿah (d. 747/1346) is one of the theologians representing the later period of the Māturīdī kalām. He based his system of thought on his criticisms of Avicenna, al-Rāzī, and Ṭūsī. His criticism of these names stems from his own understanding of being. He thinks differently from the theologians of the later period on issues such as the essence-existence division, the superaddition of existence to essence, and the acceptance of mental being, which are accepted by the majority of theologians of (...) the later period. His understanding of being in question also influenced his analysis of the idea of the wahdat al-wujūd. In the study, some aspects of the framework proposed by Muhammed Bedirhan will be given first. Then, in order to make sense of Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s criticism of wahdat al-wujūd, the major understandings of wahdat al-wujūd will be summarized briefly, and finally, Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s analysis of wahdat al-wujūd will be examined and clarified using Bedirhan’s framework. Although the framework has subheadings, it classifies criticisms into two categories: rationally-based and sharʻī-based objections. Rational objections are directed from the traditions of kalām and philosophy, while sharʻī-based objections come from Salafi thinkers, faqihs, and sufis. The framework is comprehensive in classifying criticisms against the theory of wahdat al-wujūd. This framework will clarify Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s approach, and the source of his criticisms should be identified. According to Bedirhan, the sufis’ theory is in conflict with the members of other schools in two aspects, practical and theoretical. While the first one considers sufism a religious state (ḥal), the second one is the point that shapes the view of other intellectual groups on sufism in terms of the fact that sufism is also a science. Bedirhan has based the theoretical conflict part of his framework on the triple classification of al-Jābiri: burhān, beyān and irfān. According to al-Jābiri’s classification, sufism, which is included under the title of irfān, deals with the previous two traditions mentioned. However, burhan and beyan traditions also offer their criticisms of the epistemological and ontological acceptances of the irfān tradition. Behind the criticism of the traditions of thought towards each other is the claim that the metaphysical theory of the opposite group is insufficient. According to the presented framework Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s criticisms can be considered within not only the kalām tradition but also the sufi tradition, because he is a sufi who accepts ittihād as one of the “sayr sulūk” degrees. Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s explains two proofs by which sufis defend their metaphysical theory, and also presents a counter-proof based on the verbal commonality of sense knowledge and being. He also aims to point out the weakness of the metaphysical theory of sufis with the view that the idea of ittihād is unique to a certain degree. By mentioning Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s criticisms and explanations of wahdat al- wujūd, the study identifies Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s stance on the rational and sharʻī-based objections. (shrink)

The "Text" and the "Commentary" mentioned in the title of this essay are, respectively, the "Kitāb al-Manāẓir", or "Optics", of al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham, composed in the first half of the fifth/eleventh century, and the "Tanqīḥ al-Manāẓir li-dhawī l-abṣār wa l-baṣā'ir", written by Abū l-Ḥasan (or al-Ḥasan) Kamāl al-Dīn al-Fārisī in the second half of the seventh/thirteenth century. It is known that, so far, only the first five of the seven "maqālāt"/Books that make up the Arabic text of IH's "Optics" have (...) been published, and that the "Tanqīḥ" was published in two volumes. I shall be concerned with certain episodes in the lives of these two works, my aim being to shed light on their transmission within the Islamic Arabic and Persian worlds. -/- . (shrink)

This paper shall look briefly into the treatment of some topics related to scepticism in general in works by Barhebraeus, the famous Syrian Orthodox polymath and theologian (1226–1286). He addresses scepticism both directly by a discussion of sensory and intellectual fallacies or sceptical scenarios as well as indirectly by the definition of knowledge and the role of intuitive knowledge regarding primary notions and logical principles, which have an impact on establishing secure knowledge. Despite writing in Syriac, his dealing with the (...) matter is heavily indebted to Arabic sources, primarily contemporary post‐Avicennan authors, and here especially Fakhr al‐Dīn al‐Rāzī (1149–1209) and Naṣīr al‐Dīn al‐Tūṣī (1201–1274) but also Avicenna (980–1037) himself, although Barhebraeus adds a decisively Christian note in some instances. The Syriac tradition, therefore, should not be neglected when dealing with medieval scepticism. (shrink)

In the study of the history of Islamic philosophy, most researchers have focused on certain distinguished figures and/or periods during which some highly remarkable developments took place. It is probably for this reason that until very recently the period between Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī (597/1201–672/1274) and Mullā Ṣadrā (ca. 79/1571–1045/1636 or 1050/1640) attracted relatively little attention — it was almost commonly believed that, due to certain unfavorable historical circumstances, philosophical thought made few, if any, major breakthroughs during these three centuries. I (...) will not say that this opinion is absolutely wrong — after all, it is evident that this period did not produce any thinker comparable in status .. (shrink)

This book is a comparative study of two major Shīʿī thinkers Ḥamīd al-Dīn Kirmānī from the Fatimid Egypt and Mullā Ṣadrā from the Safavid Iran, demonstrating the mutual empowerment of discourses on knowledge formation and religio-political authority in certain Ismaʿili and Twelver contexts. The book investigates concepts, narratives, and arguments that have contributed to the generation and development of the discourse on the absolute authority of the imam and his representatives. To demonstrate this, key passages from primary texts in Arabic (...) and Persian are translated and closely analyzed to highlight the synthesis of philosophical, Sufi, theological, and scriptural discourses. The book also discusses the discursive influence of Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī as a key to the transmission of Ismaʿili narratives of knowledge and authority to later Shīʿī philosophy and its continuation to modern and contemporary times particularly in the narrative of the guardianship of the jurist in the Islamic Republic of Iran. (shrink)

al-Tabarsī is one of the glossators in the Shī‘ah gloss tradition in the second middle period or first sagacity period. al-Tabarsī who had a wide knowledge in the various knowledge branches was mentioned as a glossator, narrator of Mohammad’s all sayings, deeds and approvals and scribe. One of compilations that al-Tabarsī wrote it in the field of gloss is Macmau-l-bayān fī tafsīri-l-Qur’ān. The glossator who widely included the recitations in this work used some evidence related to their averment while he (...) was reporting the recitations, and he made the recitations’ justification in the framework. The averment is a science which determines the correct recitations as distinguishing the correct one of recitation’s differences from the deficient one, and which founds an aspect of the correct category with all the other transferred and linguistic arguments of recitation in the predilection besides the imputation, the formal Qur’ān. Al-Tabarsī first mentioned the recitations under the subtitle of recitation related to the verses in each sura and then transferred the argument of recitations with the term of argument. So the glossator applied to give evidence on them with the linguistic and transferred arguments in each of the parts that the recitations were nearly mentioned. He mentioned the imputation, the Qur’ān lettering, verse, hadith, companion and natural people’s readings. He used Arabic poetry, Arabic idiom, dialect, grammar and syntax rules for the linguistic arguments. In this study, the evidences which were used in the recitations’ averment are reviewed in the sample of al-Tabarsī’s gloss in the name of Majmau-l-bayān. Summary: Full name of al-Tabarsī who was one of the leading scholar of Shī‘a is Fadl b. Hasan b Fadl al-Tabarsī. He was born in Thabaristan. According to some narration he was born in village named Tafrish which is between Kashan and Isfahan. He was called al-Tabarsī by reference to his hometown Thabaristan, according to another opinion he was called al-Tabarsī which comes from his birth place known as Tafrish located between Kashan and Isfahan. Tafrish was translated into Arabic as Tabars. Also, the commentator was known with nicknames such as Amīnü’l-islām, Amīnü’d-dīn and Umdatü’l-Mufassīrīn. He was called Sebzevarī due to the place where he died and named Maşhadī and Ṭūsī because of the place where he was buried. Although he is proficient in many fields, he has been described in the sources as commentator, muhaddīth and faqīh. Mufassīr has written many works in Islamic sciences. one of his works written in the field of commentary is Mujmau-l-bayān fī tafsīri-l-Qurʾān. Mufassīr stated that he wrote this commentary by taking advantage of Ṭūsī 's (d. 460/1067) al-Tibyān by saying “It is a guide from which I benefited from Tibiān light, and I write the subjects on the basis of his method”. The author started to write this work with the encouragement of some of his friends after he had aged quite a bit and his hair turned white. and he saw a gap in this area. He spent a lot of effort to fill that gap. This commentary, written during the first dirayet of the Shī‘a exegesis, is more moderate than the previous periods of Shī‘a commentators. The most basic indicator of this is the definitive rejection of the falsification of the Qurʾān in this period. The second important indicator is that insults and degrading expressions about the first three of the hulafā-i rashid and some of the companions are not accepted. The third important indicator is that most of the verses have been interpreted in a manner that corresponds to the views of the Ahl al-Sunnah school in linguistic analyses and proved by appealing to Arabic poems and sayings. al-Tabarsī mentioned recitation almost in all verses as a subtopic. He performed this in the surah by using subtopics. Then he has used “hujjatuhu” (its evidence) expression to narrate the evident of qirāʾāt. By doing so, commentator grounded qirāʾāts by using their evidences utilizing linguistic and narrative evidences in nearly every mentioned qirāʾāts. İhtijaj is a science that determines the authentic readings by distinguishing authentic readings from the weak ones, and that grounds the reading in the choice of an angle, which is mentioned in the authentic category, with isnād, Mushaf script and all other narrative and linguistic evidences. There are two types of ihtijaj which are ihtijaj bi-l-qirāʾāt ve ihtijaj li-l-qirāʾāt. İhtijaj li-l-qirāʾāt uses the linguistic evidences such as isnād, Mushaf line, Arabic language, consumables-nahiv pedestals, polish differences and the narrative evidences such as verses, hadith, qirāʾāt, Arabic words and poetry in determination and preference of a reading aspect. ihtijaj bi-l-qirāʾāt is the use of kıraa as evidence for any matter of science. al-Tabarsī has also mentioned detection proofs which reveal the authentic ways of qirāʾāt like isnād and rasm al-mushaf. Isnād is attribution to whom take the qirāʾāt from previous persons. This proportion reaches up to the Prophet. The persons in the chain of isnād constitute this chain. al-Tabarsī has given in preface the names of the recitors and narrators, which are famous in the cities, based on the fact that an authentic attribute is the basic element in the determination of the qirāʾāh. Thus he passed on the chains of isnād that reached up to the Prophet. Another thing that al-Tabarsī used in the determination proof of qirāʾāh is rasm al-mushaf. The commentator has used the spelling of al-mushaf scripture as evidence by saying “written in al-mushaf like this”. al-Tabarsī, also mentioned preferable evidences about ways of qirāʾā’s proof. Preferred proofs, are evidence to make choosing between qirāʾāh whose authenticity is defined by means of determination proofs. These evidences are divided into two parts which are determination proofs-based and special. Special evidence has not relation with the determination proofs. It contains evidence categories used to prefer one of the two authentic qirāʾāh as special. These categories are divided into four parts: linguistic, transplant, mental and private. al-Tabarsī has evidenced with verses of narrative proofs in the preferred evidence category. The commentator has mentioned about this method for qirāʾā evidence extensively. He has grounded qirāʾāh by using verses. al-Tabarsī also has evidenced these matters by using words of the Prophet from narrative proofs in the preferred evidence category. In this method commentator has evidenced from hadith after mentioning qirāʾāh ways. al-Tabarsī evidences from narrative proofs with qirāʾāh preferred evidence category. In this context, the commentator mentioned recitation of companion and followers by saying his qirāʾāh after reporting qirāʾāh. Moreover, the commentator has sometimes mentioned recitations which is related with reading seven of the recitation and reading ten of the recitation sciences qurra recitation and sometimes mentioned recitations which are known as shadhdh. Then, he has examined these recitations with the qirāʾāh of companions and followers. al-Tabarsī has benefited from narrative evidences, Arabic poetry and phrase in the preferred evidence category extensively. Another evidence used for examination of qirāʾāh is linguistic evidences. Qirāʾāh are related with Arabic language because it has connection with Qur’ānic wording which revelated in Arabic. al-Tabarsī has benefited from some things such as Arabic grammar rules and dialectic differences extensively. The commentator has benefited from Arabic grammar by emphasizing the meaning of the words with the literary features. He has explained grammar statement related with qirāʾāh aspects. He has also explained linguistic rules which are about aspects. (shrink)

This article analyzes the position of Ibn Hilāl, who is regarded as nāsıbī and ghālī, in the science of Shia rijāl, his reports and the validity of the accusations against him. It is found that narrators are criticized for various reasons in the science of Shiʻa rijāl. Some of them are the Shiite followers that the imams cursed and wanted to be kept away from their adherence. It is seen that the narrations reported by some of the narrators are included (...) in the main sources of Shiite hadith, albeit these narrators were cursed by the innocent imams. Ahmed Ibn Hilāl (d. 267/880) is one of these narrators cursed by the imams and his name is found in the report (the isnād) of many early narrations. Ibn Hilāl, one of the close companions of Shia's 10th imam Ali b. Muḥammed al-Hādī (d. 254/868) and 11th imam Ḥasan al-ʻAskarī (d. 260/874), was first cursed by the letter of al-Askarī allegedly sent, and the Shiite followers were ordered to move away from him. Ibn Hilāl refused to accept the ambassadoriality of Muḥammed b. Osman (d. 305/918), the ambassador of the 12th Imam. Thus, he was cursed by Muḥammad al-Mahdī as well. In later periods, Ibn Hilāl was accused of being nāsıbī and ghālī. However, there are also some Shiite scholars who supported (tavthîk) Ibn Hilāl. In the Shi'a tradition, Nāsibism indicated the meaning of hating ʻAli and Ahl al-bayt or feeling anger towards them. Later on, this meaning has been changed into a meaning including the haters of ʻAli and then the Shiʻa Nāsibism is regarded as a position towards Shiʻa outside of Shiʻa. Ghulāt is a form of a belief generally found in the Shi'a tradition. In the belief of Ghulāt, holiness is attributed to the imams. When the Shiite sources are examined, it can be seeb that Ibn Hilāl represents neither a ghālī nor a nāsıbī position. In the Shiʻa, when the narrator leaves his sect, his narrations are evaluated differently. Therefore, among Ibn Hilāl's narrations only those which narrated before he left can be accepted. The likely reason for this attitude can be those narrators such as Ibn Hilāl brought in many narrations to the Shiite hadith literature. Ibn Bābeveyh and Sheikh Sadūk reported many narrations that includes Ibn Hilāl in their report chain (the isnad). Among these narrations, they criticized only one. Again, in the 4th century of Hijrī, Numānī, al-Hazzāz, Ibn Qavlaveyh and Mufīd reported many narrations transmitted by Ibn Hilāl. However, none of them mentioned about the negative perception on Ibn Hilāl in any of these narrations. This shows that Ibn Hilāl was not regarded as nāsıbī or ghālī in the eyes of the these scholars. As regards to, Tūsī, in the 5th century after Hijra, claimed that Ibn Hilāl was a ghālī and he was accused of being an adherent to this religion. He narrated in sum fifty narrations that included Ibn Hilāl in the report chain, but Tūsī criticized only three of them because of including Ibn Hilāl. The reason why Ibn Hilāl was accused of being nāsıbī and ghālī, which Shiʻa deemed the worst, was probably related to the political conditions of that period. On the other hand, there is no report that Ibn Hilāl shared a nāsıbī and ghālī thought or had a tendency towards them. It is obvious that if Ibn Hilâl, who has an important place in the eyes of the Shiite community, does not accept the second ambassador of al-Mahdī, and that this would cause discord among the followers. This complex situation was tried to be remedied by letters alleged to have been written by the imams, cursing Ibn Hilâl and ordering them to stay away from him. Later, Ibn Hilāl was accused of being a nāsıbî or ghālī who expressed the attitudes and thoughts that Shiʻa saw the most distant from him. Sadūk first reported the narration that Ibn Hilāl was Nāsıbî. Tūsī, on the other hand, described Ibn Hilāl as ghālī in the 5th century (after hijra). This study tries to reveal that there is no explicit evidence that proves Ibn Hilāl’s nāsıbī or ghālī position. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Heart of Islamic Philosophy: The Quest for Self-Knowledge in the Teachings of Afdal al-Din KashaniKiki Kennedy-DayThe Heart of Islamic Philosophy: The Quest for Self-Knowledge in the Teachings of Afdal al-Din Kashani. By William C. Chittick. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Pp. 360. Hardcover.Are you tired of feeling that the scientifically quantifiable world is not all there is, but that most books about philosophy are airy-fairy or (...) pie-in-the-sky? Then The Heart of Islamic Philosophy: The Quest for Self-Knowledge in the Teachings of Afdal al-Din Kashani by William C. Chittick has something to say to you. Chittick succinctly analyzes the limitations of scientism in his preview of the ends of Islamic philosophy (especially pp. 34-37). One could not make a better argument for exploring the Real beyond appearances than Chittick does.As we look around ourselves in the wreckage of the world-abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, "ghost" prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, tens of thousands of refugees at Darfur-we may feel that the world could use more philosophy. Since traveling in our current direction is leading to spiritual bankruptcy in our souls, perhaps a solid spiritual understanding of the universe would help?The author's stated goals are to introduce the major themes of Islamic philosophy and to introduce the Persian philosopher Afdal al-Din Kashani in English translation. The book consists of two parts: part 1 an overview of Islamic philosophy and part 2 the writings of Baba Afdal. In part 1 Chittick moves from the particular to the general, here from Afdal al-Din Muhammad ibn Hasan Kashani (d. A.H. 610 / A.D. 1213-1214) to the perspective of Islamic philosophy and the perspectives of philosophy in general. Chittick sketches al-Kashani's life, moving from his tomb in Maraq, Iran, to recalling highlights of the philosopher's life. When one considers the near-contemporaries of al-Kashani they are so illustrious as to make one's head spin: Ibn Rushd, Ibn al-'Arabi, and Nasir al-Din Tusi. More than any other details, these scholars place al-Kashani in the intellectual major leagues. Chittick also mentions that al-Kashani believes in philosophy as a praxis, a way of life to be implemented as well as an exercise of reasoning. He sees philosophy as training the soul with the knowledge of the mind.Chapter 2 forms an excellent introduction to Islamic philosophy for the curious reader. He begins by nailing some of the current problems in studying Islamic thought. He mentions everything from considering the dogmas of religion beneath [End Page 180] study to the refusal to accept what philosophers say at face value. Basically it is our own prejudices and views that prevent us from being able to understand their perspectives. The specific issues of Islamic philosophers that Chittick discusses are understanding God, the meaning of prophecy, and the "Origin and Return"-how the world came to be and our return to God after death.Chittick also provides a much-needed antidote to the tendency of many modern scholars to over-Hellenize Islamic philosophy, while at the same time, failing to refer to either the Qur'an or Islamic civil society. He locates the problem with modern thought in an inability to grasp any notion that refers to quality rather than quantity. (This can be seen even more vividly in recent attempts by American economists to give a dollar value to happiness on the success chart.) While quantification is necessary in analytic science, it stifles thought in symbolic, metaphorical, or religious discovery.In part 2, the Writings section actually begins with relevant background texts, including Aristotle, pseudo-Aristotle (The Treatise on the Apple), Hermes, and Ghazali (The Alchemy of Felicity). Then we move on to the Baba Afdal's own writings, including quatrains, essays, letters, and others. These writings show the range of Afdal al-Din Kashani's interests: moving from the practical (chapter 5) to the theoretical (chapter 6). Among the writings in chapter 5 we find his letter to Majd al-Din. It shows al-Kashani's clear-sighted understanding of human nature when he says... (shrink)

In the tradition of Islamic philosophy, mas̲h̲s̲h̲āʾiyyūn have been subjected to serious criticism in G̲h̲azālī’s (d. 1111) work Tahāfut al-Falāsifa, with the claim that their philosophical views are incoherent. Tahāfut, which pioneered the structural transformation of Islamic philosophy, is also the source of the tradition of Tahāfut in Islamic thought. Islamic philosophy in the Ottoman period presents a multidisciplinary structure in which the disciplines of ilm al-kalām, philosophy and taṣawwuf converge in terms of subject, purpose, and method. Besides, it is (...) the continuation of a tradition in which G̲h̲azālī’s thought is dominant in general. philosophy gained momentum with a competition for a work that Fatih Sultan Mehmed wanted to be written on G̲h̲azālī’s Tahāfut. In this competition, K̲hōd̲j̲ā-Zāde’s (d. 1488) Tahāfut al-Falāsifa and Alāʾ al-Dīn ʿAlī al-Ṭūsī’s (d. 1482) Kitāb al-Zuhr competed and K̲hōd̲j̲ā-Zāde’s work won the competition with major praise. This work of K̲hōd̲j̲ā-Zāde entitled Tahāfut al-Falāsifa has an exceptional place in terms of its contribution to both the Islamic philosophy tradition and the tradition of tahāfut. This work, in terms of its theoretical approach, which has a feature that offers insight and method of addressing the issues systematically, is a typical example to the Islamic philosophy of the Ottoman period and gained a considerable reputation at that time. The original name of K̲hōd̲j̲ā-Zāde’s work is Kitâb al-Tahāfut fi'l-Muhākama Bayna'l G̲h̲azālī wa'l Falāsifa. The work consists of twenty philosophical issues. K̲hōd̲j̲ā-Zāde explained his views on all philosophical issues in these twenty-two issues, and also discussed the issues on which G̲h̲azālī conflicted with the philosophers. Three issues that have become important in the tradition of thought after al-G̲h̲azālī denounced the philosophers constitute the main subject of the work. The instructions and annotations written on this work made a great contribution to the development of philosophy in the tradition of Ottoman thought, and moreover, in a sense, it provided the revival of the dusty volume of tahâfut discussions. In this article, by using literature and data analysis methods, the tradition of tahāfut reflecting the course of Islamic philosophy in the Ottoman period and the place and importance of K̲hōd̲j̲ā-Zāde’s tahāfut in this tradition will be revealed. Another aim of this study is the possible relations between K̲hōd̲j̲ā-Zāde's intellectual personality and the structural features of the Ottoman thought tradition. (shrink)

Türk ve İslam tarihinin kırılma noktalarından birisi 1040 yılında Selçuklular ile Gazneliler arasında cereyan eden Dandanakan Savaşı’dır. Savaşın ardından Selçuklular hızlı bir yükselişle özellikle Sünnî İslam coğrafyasında etkin ve belirleyici güç haline gelmiştir. Göçebe kültürden gelen ve bir oba hüviyetinde iken çok kısa bir sürede önlenemez bir şekilde hâkimiyet alanını Türkistan coğrafyasından Anadolu içlerine kadar genişleten Büyük Selçuklu Devleti, kurumsal olarak da olgunlaşmaya başlamıştır. Bu noktada hem merkezi yönetimde hem de vilayetlerde ortaya çıkan yetişmiş eleman ihtiyacını birçoğu daha önce Gazneli (...) devlet teşkilatında görev yapmış Fars asıllı devlet adamları karşılamıştır. Bu isimlerden birisi de ileride Nizâmülmülk adıyla şöhret bulacak ve namı isminin önüne geçecek olan Hasan b. Alî b. İshâk et-Tûsî’dir. Nizâmülmülk, devlet gücünün askeri alanda elde edilen zaferlere endekslendiği bir dönemde askerî, idarî, ilmî ve ekonomik alanda attığı adımlar ve aldığı tedbirlerle Büyük Selçuklu Devleti’nin kurumsallaşmasında son derece etkin bir isim olmuştur. Bu etkinlik neticesinde hem halk hem de devlet adamları nezdinde saygın bir yer edinmiştir. Bu çalışma çerçevesinde Nizâmülmülk’ün devlet bürokrasisi içerisindeki konumuna, hükümdar ve hanedan üyeleri ile olan ilişkilerine ve vezirlik sürecinde attığı adımların Selçuklu tarihine yansımalarına değinilecektir. Özet: Devlet kademesinde görev almaya Gazneliler Devleti’nin Horasan Valisi Ebü’l-Fazl Sûrî’nin yanında başlayan Nizâmülmülk, Horasan Bölgesi’nin Selçukluların kontrolüne geçmesiyle birlikte hizmetlerine Selçuklu Devleti’nde devam etmiştir. Çağrı Bey’in hizmetinde rüştünü ispat eden Nizâmülmülk, Çağrı Bey’in en güvendiği isimlerden biri haline gelmiştir. Öyle ki, Çağrı Bey ileride önce Horasan’ın sonrasında tüm Selçuklu yurdunun yönetimini üstlenecek olan oğlu Alparslan’ı Nizâmülmülk’e emanet etmiş, oğluna da Nizâmülmülk’ü bir baba olarak kabul etmesini, ona muhalefet etmemesini öğütlemiştir. Alparslan, babasının tavsiyeleri ve üvey kardeşi Süleyman ile giriştiği taht mücadelesinde gösterdiği yararlılık münasebetiyle devletin en önemli idari görevi olan vezirlik makamını Nizâmülmülk’e tevdi etmiştir. Bu dönemden itibaren vefatına kadar, yaklaşık 30 yıl kesintisiz bir süreyle Büyük Selçuklu Devleti’nin vezirliğini yapmış ve V./XI. yy.’ın ikinci yarısından itibaren Büyük Selçuklu siyasetinin en etkin figürü haline gelmiştir. Melikşah’ın tahta geçebilmesinin Nizâmülmülk ile ilişkilendirilmesi, onun döneminde elde edilen başarıların ve devlet sisteminin düzenlenmesi, şehirlerin imarı, ekonominin güçlenmesi gibi ülke içerisinde yaşanan olumlu gelişmelerin Nizâmülmülk’ün marifetiyle gerçekleştirildiğinin dillendirilmesi, Tanrı tarafından yeryüzünü yönetmek ve inşa etmek için seçildiği düşünülen bir sultan varken bir vezirin devlet için nimet olarak gösterilmesi sultanın vezirine bakışını etkilemiştir. Bu noktada üzerinde durulması gereken hususlardan birisi de Nizâmülmülk’ün kendisini nasıl gördüğü ve devlet içerisinde kendini nerede konumlandırdığıdır. Nizâmülmülk’ün Sultan Melikşah’a verdiği bir cevapta devletin geldiği noktayı ve sultanın mevcudiyetini kendi varlığıyla eşleştirmesi, tarihinin gördüğü en yetenekli vezirlerden biri olan Nizâmülmülk’ün özgüveninin son derece yüksek ve kendisini kudret sahibi olarak gördüğüne işaret etmektedir. Bu anlamlandırma halk nezdinde herhangi bir kutsiyeti bulunmayan vezirlik makamındaki bir kişinin, toplum nezdinde Allah tarafından seçildiğine inanılan kutlu kişiye meydan okutan gücü kendisinde hissetmesinin kaynağını sorgulatmaktadır. Aranan cevap Nizâmülmülk’ün vezirlik sürecinin çeşitli başlıklar altında ve bu başlıklara dair verilecek örneklerle incelenmesi neticesinde onun devletin iç işleyişine etkisinin tespitinde ve farklı kesimlerle kurduğu ilişkide saklıdır. Nizâmülmülk, Selçuklu tahtına karşı sıkı bir bağlılık göstermiştir. Bu bağlılığını lüzumu halinde savaş meydanında göğüs göğüse çarpışarak sergilemiş, gerekli olduğunda kıvrak zekâsı ile sorunları devlet için tehlikeli boyuta gelmeden çözmüş, siyasi öngörüsü ile aldığı tedbirler sayesinde devletin büyümesine katkı sağlamıştır. Onun bu sadakati ve samimiyeti, Selçuklu sultanları tarafından karşılık bırakılmamış, Alparslan vezirinin fikirlerine büyük önem verip tercihlerini bu doğrultuda şekillendirirken, aleyhine söylenen sözlerin hiçbirine kulak asmamıştır. Melikşah da, bir anlamda kendisine Selçuklu tahtını veren Nizâmülmülk’e gerekli hürmeti göstererek bütün devlet işlerinin yürütülmesini ona tevdi etmiş ve kendisini bir “baba” gibi gördüğünü ifade etmiştir. İlaveten Selçuklu tarihinde bir ilk olmak üzere Melikşah, Nizâmülmülk’e atabeg (el-emîrü’l-vâlid) unvanını vermiştir. Melikşah, Büyük Selçuklu tahtındaki ilk yıllarını, gençliğin etkisiyle, polo oynayıp, büyük av partileri düzenlemekle geçirmiş ve bundan dolayı devlet içerisinde bütün güç Nizâmülmülk’ün eline geçmiştir. Ortaya çıkan bu durum da “ülke resmen ve ismen sultanın olmakla birlikte gerçekte ‘Nizam’ına kavuştu.” ifadesiyle açıklanmıştır. Ayrıca Melikşah’ın saltanatı döneminde elde edilen askerî, siyasî ve ekonomik başarılar Nizâmülmülk’ün yeteneği ve devlet işlerinde attığı adımlara bağlanmıştır. Nizâmülmülk, hanedan ile kurduğu ilişkinin yanı sıra devlet kademesinde görev alan farklı zümrelerle de güven üzerine dayalı yakın bir ilişki biçimi geliştirmiştir. Örneğin, Nizâmülmülk’ün katıldığı askerî seferlerde bir nefer gibi askerlerin içerisinde savaşa katılması ordu içerisinde kendisine saygı duyulmasına yol açmıştır. Ayrıca, Melikşah ile Kirman Hâkimi Kavurd Bey arasındaki taht mücadelesinde Melikşah’ın safında yer almakla birlikte Kavurd Bey’i destekleyen bazı isimlerin yazdıkları destek mektuplarının ortaya çıkmasına engel olarak hem emirlerin korkularını yatıştırırmış hem de itibarını artırmıştır. Nizâmülmülk’ün yakın ilişki içerisinde olduğu bir diğer grup ilmiye sınıfı olmuştur. Bilge vezir, Tuğrul Bey döneminde Amidülmülk Kündürî tarafından takibata uğrayan ve baskılara maruz kalan ilim adamlarının yurtlarına dönebilmelerine imkân sağlamıştır. Bu ilim adamları da yurtlarına dönüşlerini sağlayan isme zihinlerinde ve gönüllerinde her zaman özel bir yer ayırmışlardır. Birçok âlimin çalışmalarını Nizâmülmülk’e ithaf etmesi, diğer saiklerle birlikte, bunun bir göstergesidir. Nizâmülmülk bir adım daha atarak, Sultan Alparslan ve Melikşah’ın müsaadeleriyle, bu ilim adamları için hâkim olunan coğrafyanın her tarafında ilimle iştigal edebilecekleri medreseler inşa etmiştir. Nizâmülmülk’ün adına nispetle Nizamiye Medreseleri olarak isimlendirilen bu medreselerde hem eğitim-öğretim kadrosuna hem de öğrenim süresi boyunca ve de mezun olduktan sonra öğrencilere sunulan imkânlar, insanların medreselere olan ilgisini arttırıyordu. Medreseler eliyle bir taraftan önceki dönemde yerlerinden edilen ve baskıya maruz kalan ilim adamlarına bir borç ödenip iade-i itibar sağlanırken diğer taraftan da Büyük Selçuklu Devleti’nin idari ve adli sisteminin ihtiyaç duyduğu yetişmiş insan gücü inşa edilmiştir. Nizâmülmülk, toplum lehine attığı adımlar ve sorunların çözümüne verdiği önem ile halkın desteğini sağlamıştır. Öyle ki insanların hayatları boyunca ona minnettar kaldığı vurgulanmıştır. Nizâmülmülk halkın sorunlarının çözümüne önem göstermiş ve onlarla yakından ilgilenmiştir. Nizâmülmülk’ün verdiği güven duygusu halkın hoşuna gitmiş ve toplum içerisinde kabul görmesine vesile olmuştur. Nizâmülmülk’ün bir diğer hasleti de fakirlere sofrasını açmasıdır. Böylece onlarla diyalog kurmuş ve gönüllerini kazanmıştır. Her yönüyle eksiksiz bir devlet adamı olan Nizâmülmülk, toplumun her türlü ihtiyacının çözümünü düşünmüş ve bu yönde adımlar atmıştır. Nizâmülmülk’ün toplumun her kesimi ile kurduğu samimi ve yakın ilişki o kadar büyük bir takdir ve beğeni toplamıştır ki bu durum Nizâmülmülk’ün toplum nezdinde sultan itibarı görmesine sebep olmuştur. İlaveten Selçuklu coğrafyasının her yerinden ve toplumun her kesiminden insanın kendisine yönelmesi hasebiyle Kâbe’ye benzetilmiştir. Nizâmülmülk, devlet kademesinde görev alan aile bireyleri, ilişki içerisinde olduğu âlimler, kendi ordusu ve emirleri ile bir güç odağı haline gelmiştir. Bunun sonucunda Nizâmülmülk, 11. yüzyılın son çeyreğinde rakipsiz bir şekilde Büyük Selçuklu siyasetinin en etkin figürü, Selçuklu yönetimini ve politikalarını belirleyen isim ve Selçuklu tarihinin en önemli olaylarında karar mercii olmuş ve sonuçta Selçuklu tarihine damga vurmuştur. İbnü’l-Esîr, Fatımî veziri Bedr el-Cemalî’nin kendisi için kullandığı sayısız lakabı kaydettikten sonra sadece Mısır’a hâkim olan bir devletin veziri bu kadar lakap kullanıyorsa Nizâmülmülk’ün “ilah”lık iddiasında bulunması gerekirdi diyerek hem Selçuklunun azametini hem de Selçuklu devletinde Nizâmülmülk’ün yerini göstermektedir. (shrink)

The traditions about isrāʾīliyyāt that were seen almost in all the types of Islamic sciences appeared in the sources of tafsīr from early periods. These traditions that were generally used to explain the Qurʾān were seen problem and critisized by some exegetical specialists. Even though corresponding to a relative later period in the classical era, an approach was tried to put forward in view of the traditions about isrāʾīliyyāt. This methodological concern for isrāʾīliyyāt in classical period has increased and been (...) influential for many researchers from east and west to work on this issue in modern times. There has been reached to important results about the issues of the definition of isrāʾīliyyāt, the source of it, its spread in Islamic sciences, its aim of usage, the progress of these positive-negative attitudes against these traditions in historical process. But it is important to discuss some evaluations and analysis again that put forward in this process when different cases about the issue are taken into consideration. According to this, a series of problem, such as how the isrāʾīliyyāt can be defined in tafsīr, when the criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt started, whether Biqāʿī was the first exegete who made reference to Bible or not will be discussed considering relevant resources in this article.Summary: Since the early periods, isrā’īliyyāt narratives were used as a source of information in tafsīrs. These narratives, which are transmitted in various tafsīrs of the Qur’ān, one of the main sources of Islamic religion, have also taken the methodological interests of some exegete since the early periods. This interest continued in the modern period, and both Western and Eastern researchers made research on isrā’īliyyāt. Some of the findings, analyses, and claims available in researches on this subject will be reexamined in this article. The first of these is the problem of the definition of isrā’īliyyāt. In contemporary research, inclusive definitions are made for isrā’īliyyāt, seen in all sources. These definitions do not allow for a refined description of isrā’īliyyāt which is handled in terms of different intentions in the sources of each different field and which varies in terms of the issues it covers, leading to the underestimation of some of its aspects in relevant fields. In the definitions, it is stated that isrā’īliyyāt is mostly learned from the Ahl al-Kitāb, (the People of the Book) it became widespread along with Islām and it included narratives about caliphs, dynasties, and Mahdī, as well. Another issue is to be emphasized that they are fictive or mythological. In classical tafsīrs, isrā’īliyyāt is observed to be related mainly with the history of the Ahl al-Kitāb or with the subjects they know about. In the modern era, the narratives about the ancestors of the Arabs have been identified as isrā’īliyyāt. If some of the isrā’īliyyāt narratives are related to the history of Arabs, then their resource should be the historical-cultural memory of Arabs. However, as almost all Qur’ānic stories were somewhat known before the revelation period and relations with the Ahl al-Kitāb dated back to times long before the Islamic period, the claim that these narratives became widespread along with Islām should be revised. It is also problematic to emphasize the legendary nature of some of the isrā’īliyyāt and to make that as a reason to reject all. Such emphasis also leads to the underestimation of the functions of narratives in tafsīrs. In isrā’īliyyāt, tafsīr was used for i) interpreting the ambiguous words in the stories, ii) to bring evidence to the Ahl al-Kitāb, and ii) tarhīb-targhīb (encouragement-warning). These narratives can be used as a source in tafsīr unless they are explicitly falsified by the data of fields such as history, history of religions and archaeology as well as the Qur’ān and the true Sunnah. The first criticisms of isrā’īliyyāt are claimed to belong to exegete like Ibn al-‘Arabī (d. 543/148) or Ibn ‘Aṭīyah (d. 541/1147). However, criticism of isrā’īliyyāt is also observed in the tafsīrs of earlier exegete, such as al-Māturīdī (d. 333/944), al-Māwardī (d. 450/1058) or al-Ṭūsī (d. 460/1067). They do not necessarily have to use the term isrā’īliyyāt explicitly in their criticism like the later ones. If the narratives they criticize and the reasons for their criticism are the same as those of the later exegete, it will be necessary to date the criticism of isrā’īliyyāt back to the 4th Century of the Hegira. The understanding that "the expression in the story is sufficient, it is unnecessary to deal with the ambiguities; instead, it is necessary to deal with the lesson and wisdom in the story" is one of the criteria that Muḥammad ‘Abduh (d. 1905), who is deemed to be the pioneer of the strict criticism of isrā’īliyyāt in the modern period, took as basis in this criticism, is valid for the exegete of the classical period, as well. Although exegete, such as al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), al-Māturīdī, al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210), and Abū Ḥayyān (d. 745/1344) who had this understanding, gave place to isrā’īliyyāt, these people recognized that "these narratives were not final, binding or necessary”, indeed. The understanding that such expression in the story is sufficient, which is one of the reasons for such awareness in the classical period, seems to have turned into a strict rejection in the modern period. Another issue is the claim that Biqā‘ī (d. 885/1480) was the first exegete to systematically benefit from the Bible in tafsīr in the classical period. However, al-Daylamī (d. 593/1197) before Biqā‘ī, is also observed to have used the Old Testament systematically in tafsīr. He cited the Tanakh in his period in two ways. He either directly quoted from the translation of Tanakh or the Hebrew text written in Arabic letters. Another exegete who used the Tanakh as a source in his tafsīr was al-Ṣafadī (d. 696/1296). He enriched his tafsīr with systematic quotations from the Tanakh. Therefore, the use of the Bible as a source of interpretation in the classical period should not be started with Biqā‘ī. The reason why the pioneer exegete of the classical period did not directly use the Bible is claimed to be the fact that they falsified it and deemed the isrā’īliyyāt narrated from the predecessors to be more reliable. However, it is known that a significant portion of the isrā’īliyyāt, which was orally transferred from the predecessors, is based on written sources, particularly including the apocryphal texts. So just like the Bible, isrā’īliyyāt, which was orally transferred from the predecessors, is problematic in terms of authenticity. This allows us to argue that classical exegete have an inconsistent attitude, indeed. On the other hand, when we take into account the fact that classical exegetes criticize these narratives from time to time and believe that they are not final or binding, the problem of potential inconsistency disappears. Accordingly, they did not deem chain transmission of these narratives from the predecessors by reliable transmitters to be a sufficient reason for their acceptance and adoption for good and all. (shrink)

İbn Sînâ, Yeter Sebep İlkesi’ni (YSİ), yani her şeyin bir sebebi olduğu ve sebepsiz hiçbir varlığın var olamayacağı iddiasını savunan modern dönem öncesi filozoflarından biridir. YSİ’nin sonuçlarından biri de zorunlulukçuluktur (necessitarianism); yani gerçekte var olan her şeyin aynı zamanda zorunlu olarak var olduğu iddiasıdır. Bu fikre göre sebepler zincirinin her bir üyesi kendinden önceki sebepler tarafından belirlenir. Dolayısıyla YSİ, olayların başka türlü de olabileceğini telkin eden insan sezgisine karşı çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışmadaki amacım, İbn Sînâ sonrası yazarların insan iradesini dışlamak suretiyle (...) YSİ’nin zorunlulukçu sonuçlarını hafifletmeye çalışıp çalışmadıklarını araştırmaktır. Nasîrüddin Tûsî’nin (ö. 672/1274) Cebr ve Kader adlı Farsça risalesi ile Tecrîdü’l-i‘tikâd adlı kelâm kitabı arasında bir karşılaştırma yapmaya odaklanacağım. Bu konuyu seçmemin öncelikli sebebi, insanların eylemlerinin bağımsız fâilleri olduklarını sezgisel olarak bildiklerine dair Tûsî’nin iddialarıdır ki bu, YSİ‘nin evrensel uygulanabilirliği ile çelişiyor gibi görünmektedir. Tûsî’nin özgür irade konusunda, metinlerin karakterine ve yazıldıkları döneme bağlı olarak, bazen İbn Sînâ ile tutarlılık arzeden bazen de Mu‘tezile’ye angaje olan farklı görüşler benimsediğini savunacağım. Tûsî’nin, bazen nedensel olarak etkin olmamasına rağmen insan özgürlüğüne nasıl yer bıraktığını göstereceğim. O, insan özgürlüğünü, insanın karşı karşıya kaldığı fiziksel veya ilahî diğer belirlenim türlerinden bağımsız olarak hareket edebilen farklı bir belirlenim türü olarak anlar. Genel olarak bu mesele, Tûsî’nin İbn Sînâ felsefesine ya da Şiî kelâmına bağlılığını test etmekte ve hatta onu bazı eserlerinde İbn Sînâ’nın bilgi görüşüne karşı bir duruş sergilemeye zorlamaktadır. (shrink)

This study provides the historical background to, and analysis and translations of, two seminal texts from the medieval Islamic world concerning the univocity of being/existence and a theory of “ambiguous predication” (tashkīk), which is similar to the Thomistic theory of analogy. The disputants are Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (1149–1210), who defended a theory of the univocity of being, and Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (1201–1274), who defended the theory of ambiguous predication. While the purported issue is whether a quiddity can cause its own (...) existence, the debate extends further. Rāzī draws on several arguments that “existence” must be predicated univocally of God and creature and then concludes that, given the univocity of “existence,” God cannot be simple, but is a composite of the divine quiddity and distinct attributes. In contrast, Ṭūsī denies that “existence” is said univocally of God and creature and rather is predicated ambiguously/analogously, and then defends divine simplicity. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Against the Greek LogiciansCharles E. ButterworthIbn Taimiyya. Against the Greek Logicians. Translated with an introduction and notes by Wael B. Hallaq. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Pp. lviii + 204. $55.00.Wael Hallaq's most readable translation of Ibn Taimiyya's famous work is complemented by a masterful introduction and intelligent, relevant footnotes. In addition, he has taken care to help the reader in many ways, adding, for example, a list of (...) the emendations he has made to the Arabic text as well as a table that details the correspondence between the paragraphs of his translation and the pages and lines within the more standard Arabic texts.The editor-translator's introduction sets forth Ibn Taimiyya's teaching in a clear and well-argued manner, something that is necessary given the repetitiveness and confusing arguments that characterize the original. Though Hallaq tends to reveal himself to be something of a partisan of Ibn Taimiyya's doctrines and thus to overstate the case for his author, this is a minor flaw. The strength of the Introduction is such that the student of logic or philosophy is compelled to indicate the problems in Hallaq's presentation, that is, to identify the reasons for not being persuaded by his exposition. [End Page 273] To do so, however, is merely a means of carrying the argument a step further and thus a compliment of sorts to Hallaq.As I see it, there are five areas where one might take issue with the editor-translator's presentation of Ibn Taimiyya's teaching. First, because he follows his author too closely, Hallaq relies too much on Avicenna and on Avicenna's commentators to present the position of the philosophers. He seems to ignore that the teaching of Avicenna—he whom Averroes would identify only as "that man"-—is problematic even for the philosophers. Second, Hallaq relies too much on secondary literature in order to present the history of philosophy. He would have been far better advised to trace the history of philosophy for himself, especially the history of medieval Islamic philosophy. By relying on others, especially those whose interpretations are open to major objections, he weakens his own presentation. This tendency becomes especially evident in what I take as a third point of criticism, namely, Hallaq's too ready conflation of the history of philosophy and consequent willingness to blame ancient and medieval philosophers for the folly of modern philosophers (see xxx, n. 98 and xviii:17-18). Worse, Hallaq eventually becomes so carried away with the desire to refute the ancient and medieval philosophers that he no longer cares about the evil consequences of modern philosophy (see xviii:8-xlix:20, esp. xlviii:8-29). Indeed, and this is the fourth criticism, so intent is Hallaq on confirming that Ibn Taimiyya has refuted the philosophers that he is content to call anyone a philosopher, even al-Suhrawardī, al-Baghdādī, al-Tūsī, and, wonder of wonders, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (see xliv:4). Though he has good guidance for this from Ibn Taimiyya, one would hope for more objectivity from the critical scholar than from the engaged defender of the faith. Finally, Hallaq actually introduces Ibn Taimiyya's wider teaching rather than the argument of this book, thereby neglecting the primary function of an introduction to a book. Thus, of 91 notes in the Introduction that refer to Ibn Taimiyya's works, only slightly more than half (52) cite this work. The other 39 are to Ibn Taimiyya's other writings. Moreover, many of the 52 notes to this work also refer to other writings by Ibn Taimiyya.Thankful as we must be to Hallaq for this translation, it is most unfortunate that he chose not to be consistent in his translation of Arabic terms. Apparently, he thought he could make more sense of Ibn Taimiyya's argument by translating terms in accordance with what he took to be the sense of what Ibn Taimiyya wished to say rather than in accordance with what he actually says. Consequently, tasdīq (a term I would translate as "assent") is rendered as "judgment"; but so is hukm (see ¶¶ 5 and... (shrink)