_This mirror for princes sheds light on the relationship between spiritual and political authority in early modern Egypt_ This guide to political behavior and expediency offers advice to Sufi shaykhs, or spiritual guides, on how to interact and negotiate with powerful secular officials, judges, and treasurers, or emirs. Translated into English for the first time, it is a unique account of the relationship between spiritual and political authority in late medieval / early modern Islamic society.

This article studies Ibn al-Haytham’s treatment of the common notions from Euclid’s Elements (usually referred to today as the axioms). We argue that Ibn al-Haytham initiated a new approach with regard to these foundational statements, rejecting their qualification as innate, self-evident, or primary. We suggest that Ibn al-Haytham’s engagement with experimental science, especially optics, led him to revise the framing of Euclidean common notions in a way that would fit his experimental approach.

The Liber de compositione alchemiae or the The Book of the Composition of Alchemy is believed to have been the first book on alchemy that was translated from Arabic into Latin. The translator was the Englishman Robert of Chester who was one of the earliest translators to flock to Spain to learn Arabic and to translate some of the Arabic works. He completed his translation on 11 February, 1144.

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

The article discusses the novel 2025. An-Nida al-Akhir [2025. The Last Call] written by a young Egyptian journalist and writer born in 1982 - Mustafa al-Husayni. The novel was published in early 2011, between the fall of Zayn al-Abidin Ibn Ali in Tunisia and of Husni Mubarak in Egypt. It describes a revolution against the regime of Jamal al-Mubarak, son of Husni, spurred by a group of young Egyptians. The story takes place in 2025 and anticipates the development of the (...) political situation in Egypt and the Middle East between 2011 and 2025 in a utopian/dystopian manner. Alongside Utopia by Ahmad Khalid Tawfik and the poetry of Usama al-Abnubi and Abd ar-Rahman al-Abnudi, al-Husayni’s book is considered to be a forecast of the Arab Spring in Egypt. (shrink)

This research aims to describe and analyze Ibn Taymiyyah’s philosophical-constructive critique of Ibn ‘Arabī’s waḥdat al-wujūd thought. The method used in this research is descriptive-analytical. The primary data used in this research are the works of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ‘Arabī. Meanwhile, secondary data in this research are books, journal articles, and other websites that discuss the thoughts of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ‘Arabī. The research results show that Ibn Taymiyyah rejected thinking of waḥdat al-wujūd, because of his understanding of (...) the doctrine of waḥdat al-wujūd This is different from the understanding of Ibn ‘Arabī and his followers. According to Ibn Taymiyyah, waḥdat al-wujūd is the equating of God with nature. In modern terms synonymous with pantheism. Ibn Taymiyyah said those who adhere to waḥdat al-wujūd say that existence is one, and wajib al-wujūd what God has is the same as possible waḥdat al-wujūd that a creature has. Ibn Taymiyyah’s criticism emerged because he only saw aspects of tashabbuh (equation of God with his creatures) from understanding waḥdat al-wujūd, and did not see aspects of tanzīh (purification of God from the likeness of his creatures) from the same understanding. These two aspects are combined into one in the teachings of Ibn ‘Arabī. Even according to Ibn Taymiyyah, the understanding that considers God’s existence to be united with the existence of His creatures is a form of disbelief for God, a form of disbelief and shirk in Him. (shrink)

Según las fuentes hanbalíes, el imám Ibn Hanbal (m. en 855) no capituló ante inquisición `abbásí. En tiempos recientes, sin embargo, se tiende a pensar que sí debió capitular porque si no, nunca habría sido liberado. Sin embargo, una comparación del proceso de Ibn Hanbal con el de Hunayn b. Isháq (m. 873), indica que los califas `abbá-síes, cuando tenían que juzgar a un sospechoso de herejía, lo hacían más bien basados en razones de estado que en motivos dogmáticos. En (...) este contexto, en la narración del proceso recogido por Hanbal b. Isháq, puede leerse una explicación plausible de por qué el califa al-Mu'tasim puede haber liberado a Ibn Hanbal a pesar de que éste desafiara a la Inquisición. = According to Hanbali sources, the imam (d. 855) did not capitulate to the `Abbásid Inquisition. In modem times, a persuasive argument has been made that he must Nave done so; otherwise, he would never Nave been released. Yet a comparison of Ibn Hanbal's trial with that of Hunayn b. Isháq (d. 873) suggests that the `Abbásid caliphs, when asked to judge suspected heretics, made their decisions based on reasons of state rather than dogmatic grounds. Against this background, the trial report of Hanbal b. Isháq can be read as a plausible account of why the caliph al-Mu'tasim might Nave released Ibn Hanbal despite the latter's defiance of the Inquisition. (shrink)

Ibn Taymīyah, Aḥmad ibn ʻAbd al-Ḥalīm, 1263-1328; views on philosophy, Islamic; Muslim philosophers; history; apologetic work; editor's Ph.D. dissertation.

This study focuses on the life, works, scholarly personality and place of Abu Bakr Ahmad, one of the pioneers of the science of Qiraat in the Ottoman Empire. Abū Bakr Aḥmad was the son of Ibn al-Jazari, one of the authoritative figures in the science of Qiraat, and the author is called Ibn al-Nāzim after his father. Abū Bakr Aḥmad is an important figure who came to the forefront in the field of Qiraat by being educated by the leading scholars (...) of the period, especially Ibn al-Jazari, and wrote qualified works. Abu Bakr Ahmad distinguished himself among Ibn al-Jazari's other children. Abū Bakr Aḥmad served as a muderris in various madrasas in Damascus, such as the Great Ādiliyya, Atabekiyya and Umayyad mosques, and taught many students throughout his life. Among his students were the children of Bayezid Yildirim. After Ibn al-Jazari came to Bursa, Abu Bakr Ahmad took many books with him and taught what he learned from him to many people, especially the sultan's children. The works written by Abū Bakr Aḥmad also reveal his knowledge of scientific subjects. As a matter of fact, Ibn al-Jazari said that he liked his son Abū Bakr Aḥmad's commentary on Tayyibah very much, “...Although he did not even have a copy of my previous commentary on the same work, he commented it very well. Before that, he had also commented on two poems of mine very well...”. Apart from this commentary, which was praised by Ibn al-Jazari, he also wrote other works. Considering the works of Abū Bakr Aḥmad, it can be said that he was a commentator. This is because most of his works have the quality of a commentary. It is reported that when Ibn al-Nāzim was a professor in the madrasas in Damascus, the chief qadi of the period and many scholars attended his lectures. Ibn al-Nāzim was also the first commentator of Tayyibat al-Nashr, which is used as the main source of Qiraat education both in our country and in other Islamic countries and on which dozens of commentaries have been written. All this reflects the author's knowledge in the field of qiraat.While Abu Bakr Ahmad's personal effort, perseverance and intelligence played an important role in his reaching such a position, the fact that he was the son of a father like Ibn al-Jazari, who left his mark on the history of Qiraat and is considered an authority in his field, was undoubtedly effective. As a matter of fact, Ibn al-Jazari is a valuable figure who came to the forefront among his contemporaries in the shar'i sciences in general and in the field of Qiraat in particular. Aside from the words of praise uttered about him by scholars, the great works he penned and the vibrant community of students he left behind demonstrate this in the best way possible. Abu Bakr Ahmad was one of the first among the students who grew up under the tutelage of such an important scholar. When the studies on the life of Abū Bakr Aḥmad were examined, it was seen that there was no extensive and satisfactory information about the author. In fact, when the sources and documents that directly or indirectly mention the life of the commentator since his time are examined, it is seen that the information in the aforementioned sources is a repetition of what is given in Ibn al-Jazari's Ghāyat al-nihāya and sometimes contains contradictions within itself. For example, many issues such as the date of Abu Bakr Ahmad's death, the number and identity of his siblings, his position as imam-hatip of the Ulucamii, the name of one of his students, Ashraf Musa, the catalog information of some of his works or their attribution to the author are either erroneous or controversial. Nevertheless, sources such as manuscript library catalogs, archival records, and works on the life of Abū Bakr Ahmad such as tabāqat, terājim, and qiraat, academic, modern, or encyclopedic works have been searched, and the information obtained has been compiled and presented in this study. At the same time, the information about his life, which is assumed to be erroneous, has been identified and corrected by going to the main sources, and finally, the correct or close to the truth has been tried to be revealed. The general opinion formed by us as a result of our research on the life of Abu Bakr Ahmad led us to such a study. The main theme of the article is the life of Abū Bakr Ahmad and it is aimed to make a humble contribution to the literature through this study. (shrink)

En este artículo se lleva a cabo una descripción detallada del ms. 80 de la Zāwiya Ḥamzawīya. Es un maŷmū‛ recopilado, en su mayor parte, por un mismo copista del que desconocemos su nombre completo, aunque no el de su padre: ‛Umar b. Aḥmad b. Abī-l-Qāsim al-Šarīf. El maŷmu‛ contiene 427 folios con textos de variado contenido, predominando los de carácter astronómico. Entre otras obras, incluye una copia del Kitāb fī-l-‛amal bi-l-asturlāb de Abū-l-Ṣalt de Denia; el Kitāb min ‛ilm al-awqāt (...) bi-l-ḥisāb de Ibn al-Bannā de Marrākuš; el Tanbīh al-anām ‛alà mā yaḥduṯu fī ayyām al-‛ām de al-Ŷādīrī, así como su Urŷuza Rawḍat al-Azhār; y la única copia del Kitāb al-nuŷūm de ‛Abd. al-Mālik b. Ḥabīb. (shrink)

Abū al-Ḥusayn Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā Ibn al-Rāwandī(815–860 or 910), perhaps one of the most controversial figures in early Islamic history, is frequently called the “arch-heretic” (zindīq or mulḥid) of Islam. He was born in Khurasan around 815 CE. but flourished among intellectuals in ninth century in Baghdad. Around the year 854, he left Baghdad to escape political persecution and died either in 860 or in 910, according to some sources. The details of his early life are unknown, and documentation of (...) Ibn al-Rāwandī began to surface once he became an intellectual enemy of his fellow Muʿtazilites, the rationalist thinkers of Islamic thought at the time. Information on Ibn al-Rāwandī is gathered mostly from the writings of his opponents. From these sources, we learn that both Muslims and non-Muslims (especially Jews) wrote polemics against Ibn al-Rāwandī in which they acknowledged the serious threat his work posed not only to Islam, but also to Judaism and all Abrahamic religions. (shrink)

This is an analytical examination of Ibn Khaldun's epistemology, centred on Chapter Six of the Muqaddima. In this chapter, entitled The Book of Knowledge (Kitab al'Ilm), Ibn Khaldun sketched his general ideas about knowledge and science and its relationship with human social organisation and the establishment of a civilisation.

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)

Averroës,1126-1198; criticism and interpretation; Ibn Taymīyah, Aḥmad ibn ʻAbd al-Ḥalīm,1263-1328.

: ‘Alā’ al-Dawla al-Simnānī (d. 736/1336) was a Kubrawī sheikh lived in Simnān one hundred years after Ibn al-Arabī (d. 638/1240). He authored around ninety works in Arabic and Persian on various fields within Sūfism, raised many disciples. His contribution to the sūfī tradition mainly come to forefront regarding problems like unity, latāif (subtle organs), rijāl al-ghaib (men of the unseen), wāqia (dream-like mystical experiences) and tajallī (manifestation). Simnānī’s understanding of the unity influenced subsequent sūfī’s and specifically Ahmad Sirhindī (d. (...) 1034/1624) and his sheikh Bāqībillah’s (d. 1012/1603) views of the unity overlap with Simnānī’s one. In Maktūbāt, Sirhindī who developed the idea of unity of the seen against the unity of the existence expresses that his understanding of being is the same with Simnānī’s one. Simnānī is also known as the first critic of Ibn al-Arabī’s conception of the unity among sūfī’s. Such that, whenever his name is mentioned the first thing comes to one’s mind has been his criticism against Ibn al-Arabī. However, his criticism against Ibn al-Arabī was not studied as a whole looking at his ouvre. Studying Simnānī’s works, it is seen that his criticism is concentrated on two main problems. First is Ibn al-Arabī’s employing the concept wujūd al-mutlaq (absolute being) for God. He maintains that it is not convenient to use this concept for al-Haq. His second criticism is against a sentence mentioned in al-Futūhāt: “سبحان من أظهر الأشياء وهو عينها”. In this article, causes for Simnānī’s critiques will be discussed and both sūfī’s conceptions of wujūd al-mutlaq and ‘ayn (quintessence) will be studied.Summary: One of the famous names in the Kubrawī tradition, ‘Alā’ al-Dawla al-Simnānī is a sheikh who lived in the city of Simnān in the contemporary Iran between 659-736/1261-1336. In his youth, he served in the service of Arghūn Khan (r. 1284-1291) in the Īlkhānid Palace; and later, after a spiritual experience, he left the palace and turned to a Ṣūfī life. For a certain period, he continued worshipping and riyādhat (spiritual fight against the evil commanding self) on his own, and looked for a guide convenient to his character. Eventually, he became the disciple of the Kubrawī sheikh in Baghdad, Nūr al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Isfarāyīnī (d. 717/1317), and obtained ijāzah (permission) for irshād (guidance). After that, with the instruction of his sheikh, he went back to Simnān; and spent rest of his life with guiding his disciples and writing scholarly works. He authored around ninety works in Arabic and Persian on various fields within Sūfism. His contribution to the sūfī tradition mainly comes to forefront regarding problems like unity, latāif, rijāl al-ghaib, wāqia and tajallī; and influenced subsequent sūfī’s. Simnani’s influences can best be seen on the founder of the Mujaddidiyya branch of Naqshbandiyya, Ahmad Sirhindī (d. 1034/1624), and Sirhindī’s sheikh Bāqībillah (d. 1012/1603). In a letter Bāqībillah wrote to Sirhindī, he mentions certain differences between Simnānī’s understanding of unity and unity of the existence by stating that Simnānī’s path is not that of unity of the existence, and that his shuhūd (seen) is the most perfect shuhūd. Also in the Maktūbāt, Sirhindī expresses that his understanding of being is the same with that of Simnānī’s. Simnānī is also known as the first critic of Ibn al-Arabī’s conception of being and unity among sūfī’s. It would not be incorrect to say that he is more famous for this critique so much so that whenever his name is mentioned the first thing comes to one’s mind has been his criticism against Ibn al-Arabī. The main reason for this is that a letter Simnānī wrote to one of the followers of Ibn al-Arabī, ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Kāshānī (d. 736/1335) in which Simnānī criticizes Ibn al-Arabī’s conception of unity, was included in the famous work of Abd al-Raḥmān Jāmī (d. 898/1492), Nafakhāt al-uns. This letter’s presence in the Nafakhāt played a vital role in its publicity. For this reason, it can be said that Nafakhāt made Simnānī famous. Yet, it should also be said that the fame stemming from Nafakhāt is incomplete and it is just about one aspect of Simnānī, a scholar who authored dozens of books on the Sūfism. Moreover, it is not correct to defend that Simnānī’s statements in that letter reflects a full picture of his opinion about Ibn al-Arabī. Hence, to have a better understanding of his criticism and thoughts about Ibn al-Arabī, one should explore other works of Simnānī as well. Studying Simnānī’s works, it is seen that his criticism is concentrated on two main problems. First is Ibn al-Arabī’s employing the concept wujūd al-mutlaq for God. His second criticism is against a sentence mentioned in al-Futūhāt: “سبحان من أظهر الأشياء وهو عينها”. To understand the first criticism, one needs to know the meaning both sūfī’s attribute to the concept of wujūd al-mutlaq; and for the second the meaning they attribute to the concept of ‘ayn. First, it should be known that Ibn al-Arabī did not think of being as a form category the members of which are beings. To the contrary, he uses wujūd exclusively for the Eternal, and refrains from using the concept of wujūd for the creation; and calls them mawjūd. In other words, Ibn al-Arabī differentiates between being and existence; and limits the concept of being only for the al-Haqq. Ibn al-Arabī states this view repeatedly in statements such as “al-Haqq (the Truth) is being; things, however, are attributes of being.” What Ibn al-Arabī means by wujūd al-mutlaq is al-Haqq who is wajib al-wujūd (the Necessary Being) and free from all restrictions. Thus, in a certain sense wujūd al-mutlaq means wajib al-wujūd. By writing that “Wujūd al-Haqq is the essence of wajib al-wujūd who is qualified with the perfect attributes of eternity and infinity. Absolute Being is the actions emanating from these attributes. Wujūd al-Muqayyad (the Limited Being) is the outcome that comes into existence as a result of these actions”, Simnānī explicitly states that for him Absolute Being is the actions of al-Haqq. What one can understand from the statements of both sūfī’s is that while by wujūd al-mutlaq Ibn al-Arabī refers to wajib al-wujūd (i.e. the essence of al-Haqq), for the same term Simnānī refers to actions of al-Haqq. Since in criticizing Ibn al-Arabī, Simnānī takes into account his own definition of the term Wujūd al-Mutlaq as the actions of al-Haqq, his criticisms are not valid. In fact, both exonerate al-Haqq from all the conditions. However, while Ibn al-Arabī chooses to verbalize the existence of God with the concept of “Absolute Being”, Simnānī only approves to express the existence of God with the concepts of wājib al-wujūd and al-Wujūd al-Haqq and differing from Ibn al-Arabī attributes the meaning of the actions of God to the concept of Absolute Being.Simnānī’s second critique against Ibn al-Arabī is related to this sentence: “سبحان من أظهر الأشياء وهو عينها”. An annotation that is written by Simnānī on a page which is out of his gloss on al-Futūhāt is highly harsh reads as follows: “O, followers of the most deviant leader! If you hear that one says that your sheikh is identical with his beard, put the claim that he is identical with his rejectomenta aside, should you accept this and tolerate him?” It is understood from these sentences that Simnānī considers the concept “al-ayn” as the essence of that thing. Though, the word “al-ayn” is one of the most multi-meaning word in the Arabic language and in Ibn al-Arabī’s works it is used with various meanings such as eye, the quintessence, spring, water source, tangible being of a thing, the essence of a thing and so on. The usage as “the essence of a thing” is very much common in Ibn al-Arabī’s works. It is interesting that while this word has so many meanings, Simnānī takes one meaning as base and blaspheme against Ibn al-Arabī. It is obvious that the main cause for Simnānī’s critique against Ibn al-Arabī in both problems is his attribution to the concepts different meanings than Ibn al-Arabī and then judging him in the context of his attributes. (shrink)

Cet article analyse un bref texte arabe qui propose une division des catégories d’Aristote, en catégories simples et catégories composées ; ce fragment est attribué à Aḥmad Ibn al-Ṭayyib al-Saraḫsī, philosophe du neuvième siècle et disciple majeur d’al-Kindī, le « premier philosophe des Arabes ». L’article montre que la division d’al-Saraḫsī trouve son origine dans la tradition alexandrine des commentateurs aristotéliciens. Le fragment est replacé dans le contexte de la philosophie arabe en analysant différentes divisions des catégories avancées, respectivement, par (...) Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ, al-Kindī, les Frères de la Pureté et Abū l-Faraǧ ibn al-Ṭayyib. Des collections de définitions et de divisions philosophiques en grec et en syriaque constituent très probablement le mode de transmission de la division au monde de l’islam. Le fragment illustre également que, pour ce qui concerne la philosophie aristotélicienne, al-Saraḫsī ne suit pas toujours l’exemple de son maître al-Kindī. (shrink)

It is well-known that Ibn al-Salāh al-Shahrazūrī (d. 643/1245) has an important place in the field of hadith methodology. In this context, it is possible to see Ibn-al Salah’s influence in a large proportion of the hadith terminology. The fact that the term ḥasan was not substantially included in the hadith method studies before Ibn-al Salah and that this concept became widely known in the field after him led to study the contributions of al Salah on the subject of ḥasan (...) hadith and in this regard, his effect on the term ḥasan. As result it was found that authorities such as Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820), ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī (d. 234/848-49), Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 241/855) used the concept of ḥasan in various meanings before al-Tirmidhī (d. 279/892) who, according to general acceptance, made the term ḥasan famous for its terminological use. However, it is possible to say that ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī was the first to use the terminological meaning of the concept ḥasan. Actually, the fact that Shafii’ used the term ḥasan isnād for an authentic hadith that al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870) and Muslim b. Ḥajjāj (d. 261/875) would later unanimously narrate, and Ahmad b. Hanbal used ḥasan as gharib, is evidence for the unsystematic use of the term in the early periods. Even though, thanks to al-Tirmidhī, an important place was opened for the concept in riwāya literature, there was no serious mention of the term in later hadith methodology. Therefore, it has been seen that hadith scholars considered the term ḥasan within the scope of ṣaḥīḥ or ḍaʻīf hadith, since they accepted the term as an intermediate concept, and for this reason they did not include the term ḥasan among the subjects of hadith methodology until Ibn al-Salāh. An examination of the argument, that one can act upon a ḍaʻīf hadith, would show that ḥasan hadith might have been interpreted within the scope of ḍaʻīf hadith. On the other hand, the fact that some scholars such as Mughulṭāy b. Qilīj (d. 762/1361) state that a hadith would be called ṣaḥīḥ if it is maqbūl with any presumption, and that there is no point in calling such a hadith ḥasan shows that the ḥasan hadith is considered within the scope of ṣaḥīḥ hadith. The fact that hadith methodology scholars did not mention ḥasan hadith before Ibn al-Salāh stems from the ambiguity of the subject. Contrary to his predecessors, Ibn al-Salāh tried to save the term ḥasan from its ambiguity by combining the different specifications put forward by al-Tirmidhī, al-Khaṭṭābī (d. 388/998), and Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597/1201). The specifications and interpretations of the term presented by Ibn al-Salāh via his meticulous efforts, have also been adopted by his successors. The term ḥasan hadith has gained an important place in the literature of hadith methodology thanks to the views and definitions built on the descriptions and interpretations of Ibn al-Salāh. In this context, while there are those who agree with Ibn al-Salāh’s descriptions and evaluations of the term, there are also those who criticize his remarks on the subject. However, it has been seen that those who criticize Ibn al-Salāh, along with those who follow him, criticized him by following the path drawn by Ibn al-Salāh. Based on this and similar situations, it was concluded that not only the descriptions and comments that Ibn al-Salāh made, but also his style and methods of handling the subject gave direction to the studies on hadith methodology. In addition, it has been observed that the most compact description of the term ḥasan is put forward by Ibn Hajar and today’s studies are predicated on his description. Within this framework, after emphasizing that there are four degrees of maqbūl hadiths, Ibn Hajar defined the two fields, which were covered by two different descriptions of Ibn al-Salāh, as ḥasan li-zatih and lighairih by Ibn al-Ḥajar. (d. 852/1449) By doing so Ibn al-Ḥajar gave the final shape to the ḥasan hadith terms. He also captured the fundamental point where ḥasan hadith differs from the ṣaḥīḥ hadith because the basic point in question, which was not directly stated before, is a slight flaw in the narrator’s grip. At the end of the study, it was concluded that -as al-Dhahabi (d. 748/1348) also stated- it does not seem possible to determine a comprehensive rule that gathers ḥasan hadiths under a single description. Considering the historical context of the term ḥasan, it has been observed that the most effective description of the ḥasan hadith are the terms ḥasan li-zatih and ḥasan lighairih, which were put forward by Ibn Hajar by transforming the dual division mentioned by Ibn al-Salāh into a more understandable form. (shrink)

Bu çalışma hicrî birinci asrın ikinci yarısında Basra’da hadis ve fıkıh sahasındaki ilmî hareketliliği konu edinir. İlgili dönemde, orada yaşayan sahâbenin en meşhuru ve Hz. Peygamber’le en uzun süre birlikteliğe sahip olması hasebiyle, Enes b. Mâlik’in Basra’daki etkisi özel olarak ele alınır. Bu amaçla Enes b. Mâlik’le ilgili birçok rivayet tahlil edilir ve onun hem Basra’da hem de diğer şehirlerde yaşayan sahâbe ve tâbiûnla arasındaki ilmî ilişkileri üzerinde durulur. Çalışma mezkûr zaman diliminde Basra’da hadis faaliyetlerinin fazla, fıkıh faaliyetlerinin ise az (...) olduğunun tezahürlerini gösterir. Enes’in öğrencileri üzerindeki etkisi; öğrencilerinin fakih mi yoksa muhaddis mi olduğu araştırılır. Enes’in tabiûnla ilişkileri, kendisine yapılan rihleler, başka şehirlerde yaşayan fakih tabiûnun ondan rivayeti, İbn Ebî Şeybe’nin Musannef’i çerçevesinde onun fıkhî şahsiyeti ve başka meseleler incelenir. Böylece onun fıkhî melekesinin İbn Abbas ve İbn Ömer’le aynı derecede olmadığı ve benzer şekilde Basra’nın sahabenin fakihlerinden tabiûnun fakihlerine nakledilen “amel-i mütevâres”e önem veren Medine ve Kufe gibi bir fıkıh şehri olmadığı sonucuna ulaşılır. Basra, müksirûndan olan sahabî Enes b. Malik sayesinde hadislerin rivayetine, yayılmasına ve onlarla amel edilmesine önem verilen bir şehirdi. Ancak bu hadislerin yayılması aynı dönemde Mekke’de İbn Abbas’ın faaliyetleri ile kıyaslanabilecek bir fıkhî faaliyeti de beraberinde getirmedi. Dolayısıyla Basra sahabe döneminde fıkıh ilmî açısından geri kalırken hadis sahasında hareketliydi. Bu nedenle ona fıkıh ve “amel-i mütevâres” değil rivayet şehri denilmesini hak etmektedir. (shrink)

La Mihna (218-234 H) fue un acontecimiento definitorio de la autoridad espiri-tual islámica. Su importancia fue evidente para sus contemporáneos, tanto los inqui-sidores como sus víctimas, y ambos lados recogieron los acontecimientos producidos. Este artículo compara estas narraciones. Se concentra en tres elementos que aparecen en ambos relatos: cómo cada lado contó la historia a un público amplio; cómo perci-bieron la tortura de Ibn Hanbal; cómo describieron y comprendieron el diálogo entre Ibn Hanbal y sus inquisidores. Es interesante señalar que (...) los relatos de ambos lados de estos acontecimientos tienen un gran parecido. El objeto de este estudio es detec-tar de qué modo las descripciones de hechos comunes acaban apoyando ideologías opuestas. = The mihna (218-234 H.) was a defining event of Islamic spiritual authority. Its importance was evident to contemporaries, the inquisitors and their victims, and each side recorded the events. This study compares these accounts. It concentrates on three components that appear in both narratives: how each side told the story to the wide public; how they perceived the torture of Ibn Hanbal; how they described and understood the dialogue between Ibn Hanbal and his inquisitors. Interestingly, the depictions of these events bear a strong resemblance. The aim of this study is to trace how shared factual descriptions end up promoting opposing ideologies. (shrink)

This article revisits the controversy between Abū Bakr al-Rāzī and Abū al-Qāsim al-Balḫī. Based on the testimony of the Kitāb taṯbīt dalāʾil al-nubuwwa of the Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Ǧabbār, it is shown that the two philosophers must have clashed at the court of Aḥmad b. Sahl al-Marwazī, governor of Balḫ, during the 910s, and that the virulence of the tone of their exchange can be explained above all by this context of professional rivalry. In terms of content, their conversation must have (...) focused on the question of divine justice and on the best way to give an account of prophecy and Qurʾanic wisdom. We then turn to the study of chap. VIII, 4 of Faḫr al-Dīn al-Rāzī's Al-maṭālib al-ʿāliya and show that, contrary to a recently held view, this chapter constitutes an echo not of Abū Bakr al-Rāzī, but of the first argument of Ibn al-Rāwandī's Kitāb al-zumurrud, which contrasted the autonomy of reason with the necessity of prophecy in order to conclude from the former to the negation of the latter. Finally, it is suggested that Abū Bakr al-Rāzī's doctrine of prophecy, like that of the great theologians of his time, both Muʿtazilites and Ašʿarites, aims to escape the dilemma set up by Ibn al-Rāwandī a few decades earlier. (shrink)

Ibn Taymīyah, Aḥmad ibn ʻAbd al-Ḥalīm, 1263-1328; criticism and interpretation; Islamic philosophy.

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

The type of ‘Al-isnād al-āli’ (higher chain of authority) which has great importance for the science of ḥadīths that constitutes the second best source of the Islam, expresses the value in terms of its proximity to the period of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). If ḥadīth has ‘al-isnād al-āli’ in the works of the scholars provides us with assurance on the intend of the ḥadīth. For this reason, the values of the works of those authors who have constructed (...) their works with al-isnād al-āli undoubted in the science of ḥadīth. However the work of Abu al-Jahm al-Bāhilī’s (d. 228/842) named al-Juz‘ had that kind of ḥadīth, it has not appreciated by scholars, he could not get enough attention in his period and after it. His work contains famous scholar al-Layth Ibn Sa‘d’s (d. 175/791) narrative who claimed by ḥadīth scholars that his students neglected and omitted his ḥadīths and knowledge. Al-Layth Ibn Sa‘d was known doing transmission by written copies. The similarity of al-Layth Ibn Sa‘d narrations in al-Juz‘ with al-Layth narrations, which are also found in other sources, strengthens the claims of the existence of a narrative process based on the written texts in the early periods. In this study, these transfers of Abu al-Jahm reflected on other works will be examined and tried to build narrations of his teacher al-Layth Ibn Sa‘d. country, we can say that the article will contribute to the studies of the history of religions.Summary: Ḥadīth works written in the third century of hijri are the most distinguished sources. The most fundamental works in the science of ḥadīth were written in this time. In the following period, numerous studies have been committed to paper on them. One of the eminent works is the named al-Juz’, which belongs to Abu al-Jahm al-Bāhilī (d. 228/842). The author was not a person that was taken into consideration much during his time. It is possible to that he has been criticized about his scientific proficiency (al-Jarh). Nevertheless, al-Juz’ attracts attention due to the fact that it contains the type of ‘al-Isnād al-āli’ (higher chain of authority). Al-Isnād al-āli, which means access with the least number of narration from the author to the Prophet has very major role to determining of being dependable and certainty of the ḥadīths. The work of Abu al-Jahm which contains the ‘al-Isnād al-āli’ did not attract enough attention. However, another value of the al-Juz‘ is that its been included the narration of famous muhaddith Al-Layth Ibn Sa'd (d. 175/791). He is one of the valued mujtahid imams who have played an active and important role in second century of hijri. Al-Layth's narrations have been available insufficient amount present day. At this point the al-Juz‘ of Abu al-Jahm has great important because it contains many narrations of his shaykh Al-Layth Ibn Sa'd.The Juz‘ seems to has attracted the attention of the ḥadīths scholars in the following period. Indeed, various authors had the get authorization to narrate al-Juz‘. Furthermore, it is also known that some scholar in his period utilized his narration in their own study. For in¬stance, it was declared by Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852/1449) that al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870) had a narra¬tion belonging to Abu al-Jahm in his work ‘al-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī’ with a muʻallaq chain (Omit¬ting his name). In the following periods, we come across famous muhaddith such as Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241/855), al-Ṭabaranī (d. 360/971), Abū Bakr al-Marwazī (d. 292/905), al-Dāraquṭnī (d.385/995) and al-Bayhaqī (d. 458/1066) who received qualify of Juz's narra¬tion. Although the narrations of Abu al-Jahm are included in the prominent works of schol¬ars, it is clearly seems that the Juz‘ had not enough value except being procure as a written text. As far as we determined there are eleven narration of Abu al-Jahm in the main ḥadīth sources. In addition, we detected that some studies which contain some ḥadīth of al-Juz’ are list them in the same layout and order. This situation indicates that al-Juz’ is owned by these people as a duplicated edition and they narrated by not only orally transmitted but also spread by writing copy. This inference strengthens the theory which conceived by Modern researcher Fuad Sezgin (1924-2018) that ḥadīth transmission had conducted not only through oral transfer but also through written copies.Even though he lived in a very active time of oral transmission of ḥadīth and the time of specific journey for learning and pursuing ḥadīth, it is seen that Abu al-Jahm formed his Juz‘ from the ḥadīths that he procured only from his six shaykhs. That was quite less amount in that period. Juz‘, has an ʿAlāʾ al-Rijāl classification (ranked according to narrators) as ex¬pected in his period method. Abu al-Jahm began his study with his shaykh Al-Layth Ibn Sa'd’s narration, then completed with Sufyān ibn ʿUyayna’s. Juz‘ includes 112 ḥadīths. Ex¬cept two muʻallaq isnāds (omitting one or more narrators), all of ḥadīth has muttaṣil isnāds (narrators in the chain connected each other without omitting). Al-Juz‘ available nowadays in a published form. It seems that some of ḥadīth datas included in the Juz‘ have content against Islamic juris-prudential judgements. For example, the Prophet’s sayings ‘One or two swallow of breast milk does not make haram’ and ‘Nobody can fast or pilgrimage for the benefit of someone else’; allowing to Subay‘a al-Aslamī to marry without waiting her ‘iddah (waiting period of a woman after the death of her husband or divorce); when she gave birth, ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān’s permission to al-Rubay‘a bint Mu‘avvidh not to wait her ‘iddah; when ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿUmar has nasal bleeding he leaves the prayer, goes to wash, then back and continue where he leave off, without taking ablution; and describing marriage with polytheist women as for¬bidden (ḥarām). Of course, all this information must be examined within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence. However, Abu al-Jahm stands alone (tafarrūd) in such issues, it can be seen as the reasons to be recognized as a censured person (majrūḥ).Al-Juz‘ included 66 isnāds of Al-Layth Ibn Sa'd’s narration. Therefore it leaves behind all the works that compile the narration of Ibn Sa'd. That is why, we hypothesize that Juz‘ is a form of Al-Layth’s study that has survived to the present days. As a matter of fact, the muhaddiths who included the narrations of Al-Layth in their works, especially Ibn ḳuṭlūbughā could not ignore the Juz‘ of Abu al-Jahm; on the contrary, they took it as reference. In this case, it should be said that Abu al-Jahm al-Bāhilī is a loyal follower of Al-Layth and the word at¬tributed to Imām Shāfi‘ī and characterizing Al-Layth’s followers with disloyalty is invalid. (shrink)