Genel olarak İslam düşüncesini özel olarak da fıkıh düşüncesini derinden etkileyen isimlerden biri de hiç şüphesiz Kâdî Abdülcebbâr’dır (öl. 415/1025). Hayatının çoğu hicrî 4./11. yüzyılda geçen ve Basra Mu’tezilesi’nin Cübbâî’lerden sonra en önemli temsilcisi olan Abdülcebbâr, hem kelam hem de fıkıh usûlü alanındaki eserleriyle sadece Mu’tezilî çevrelerde değil Sünnî muhitlerde de çığır açıcı bir âlim olarak görülmüştür. Birçok Sünnî usûlcünün ortak kanaatine göre İmam Şâfiî’den sonra fıkıh usulü alanındaki en önemli isimlerden biri Abdülcebbâr’dır. Teoloji ve metodoloji alanlarında bu denli (...) etkili olan Kâdî Abdülcebbâr’ın amelî hayatını hangi sistematik çerçevede sürdürdüğü ve öğrenciliği sırasında benimsemiş olduğu Şâfiî mezhebine bağlılığını devam ettirip ettirmediği merak konusu olmuştur. İlgili literatürde Kâdî Abdülcebbâr’ın hayatı boyunca Şâfiî mezhebini benimsediği iddiası çokça dillendirilmiştir. Öyle ki Şâfiî fakihlerin tanıtıldığı tabakât eserlerinde Abdülcebbâr’a bir Şâfiî olarak yer verilmiştir. Günümüze kadar devam eden bu anlayış akademik çalışmalarda da devam eden bir kabul halini almıştır. Acaba gerçek böyle midir? Bu sorunun peşine düşen elinizdeki araştırma, şu adımlarla konuyu incelemiştir: Önce Kâdî Abdülcebbâr’ın fıkıhta takip ettiği yol ile ilgili olarak literatürde zikredilen iddialar sergilenmiş, ardından Abdülcebbâr’ın Mu‘tezile usûlündeki konumu ortaya konmuştur. Mu’tezilî bir âlimin benimsediği iddia edilen mezhebin kurucu imamının yani Şâfiî’nin (öl. 204/820) Mu‘tezile’ye olan mesafesi ve hatta onunla mücadelesine değinildikten sonra Kâdî Abdülcebbâr’ın İmam Şâfiî’nin meşhur usûl görüşlerine muhalif tavırları tespit edilmiştir. Abdülcebbâr’ın usûl görüşlerini İmam Şâfiî’nin usûl görüşleriyle mukayese ederek ilerleyen işbu araştırma, onun amelî sahada Şâfiî mezhebini benimsemiş olduğu iddiasının çok isabetli olmadığı sonucuna ulaşmıştır. Mukayeseyi, Şâfiî usûl düşüncesinin en ayırt edici 6 (altı) meselesi üzerinden yürüten araştırma Abdülcebbâr’ın İmam Şâfiî’ye ve Şâfiî usûlcülere açıkça muhalefet ettiğini göstermektedir. İslam hukuk metodolojisinin en önemli tartışma konuları arasında yer alan bu altı mesele şunlardır: Kur’ân ve Sünnet’in birbirilerini nesh edip edemeyeceği, Peygamber’den nakledilen söz ve fiillerin kabulünün ön şartı olarak bunların Kur’an’a arzı yani delil olabilmesi için Kur’an’ın ilgili düzenlemesiyle uyumlu olup olmadığının tespiti hususu, kıyas sonucu ulaşılan hükmü bir gerekçeye dayanarak terk edip başka bir hüküm koymak demek olan istihsân, çözüm bekleyen yeni meselenin iki veya daha fazla asla/makîsün aleyhe birden benzemesi halinde birçok açıdan en çok benzediği düşünülen aslı dikkate alarak söz konusu yeni meseleye bu aslın hükmünü vermek demek olan şebeh kıyası, mefhûmu’l-muhâlefenin yani bir sözün ters anlamının o sözdeki meselenin tam tersi olup hükmü belirtilmeyen meseleye aktarımı anlamına gelen karşıt kavram kanıtının sahih bir istidlal sayılıp sayılmaması ve emir kipinin hangi anlama geleceği konusu. (shrink)

One of the prevalent inference methods the mutakallimūn uses is qiyās al-ghaib ‘ala al-shahid (analogy from the visible world to the invisible world). Mu‘tazila, who accepts this method as an absolute criterion in the divine attributes, rejects the possibility of difference between shahid and ghaib about the reality of attributes. By rejecting the concept of kalām nafsī adopted by Ahl al-Sunnah, they mention the divine speech in the category of actual attributes and claim that kalāmullāh (God’s speech), like human speech, (...) is an accident consisting of words and sounds. Mu‘tazila, who defines mutakallim as the agent of kalām, claims that God is also the agent of the word. In this regard, Mu‘tazila, who defends the origin of the kalāmullāh and the createdness of the Qur’ān, focuses on the explanation of the nature of the kalām at the beginning of these theological subjects. As an extension of the issue of whether the ḥikāyah and maḥkī are the same or not, which is the subject of discussion in the context of the possibility of creating something similar to the Qur’ān, Mu‘tazila, who disagree on whether kalām (word) is a kind of sound (ṣawt) or not, examine the problem of the nature of the word by expanding it to include sounds. Although they agree that sounds are accidents created by humans through tawlīd, they propound different theories about the physical formation of sound and kalām. These theories are differentiated according to discussions about the essential factors for the formation of sounds. Some scholars claim that i‘timād generates sounds, and the substrate (maḥall) is enough to form the sounds. In contrast, others claim the necessity of a specific structure (binya), movement (ḥaraka), and air added to the substrate. In this regard, this study will deal with the effect of these factors mentioned above to the formation of the sounds and the physical examples which every group mentioned to prove its opinions rightfulness. The most detailed explanations about this topic are seen in the works of Baṣrian Mu‘tazila. Therefore, this study will examine the opinions about the production of sounds, which argued around metaphysical issues in the context of the createdness of the Qur’ān and the attribute of kalām, which are submitted by Abū ‘Alī al-Jubbā'ī (d. 303/916), Abū Hāshim al-Jubbā'ī (d. 321/933), and their followers Qāḍī ‘Abd al-Jabbār (d. 415/1025), Abū Rashīd al-Nīsābūrī (d. first half of the 5./11. century), and Ibn Mattawayh (d. first half of the 5./11. century), the representatives of Baṣrian Mu‘tazila, who adopt atomic universe understanding. The study aimed to form an opinion about the theologians’ way of discussing a particular physical phenomenon to constitute a basis for solving metaphysical problems. To clarify the problem, first, it will deal with the essence of sounds in the Baṣrian Mu‘tazilites tradition, and then it will tackle the discussions about the formation of the sounds. (shrink)

Muʻtazilite thinkers put forward the first systematic ideas for the relationship of essence and attributes, one of the most fundamental and complicated issues of Islamic theology, and comprehensive explanations to the question of God’s names. Although almost all the thinkers agreed on uṣūl al-khamsa, they differed in their approach to the principle of unity (tawḥīd). ‘Abbād b. Sulaymān, who lived in the period when these approaches emerged, is a scholar who reveals his distinctive view of God’s names and attributes in (...) which heslightly differs from his contemporaries such as Abu al-Hudhayl al-‘Allāf, Mu‘ammar b. ‘Abbād al-Sulamī and Ibrāhīm b. Sayyār al-Naẓẓām from the Basran Muʻtazila, by his extreme opinions on the Muʻtazilite principle of tawḥīd. He is one of thefour principle thinkers who presented original opinions in the early Basran Muʻtazila. Also he is the only known student of Hishâm al-Fuwaṭī and constitutes the last major circle of this tradition of knowledge that ended after him. This article aims to reveal the relationship between essence and attributes, the names and attributes of God in a holistic and systematic way in the thought of ‘Abbād b. Sulaymān. Unfortunately, his works have not survived to the present day and has not received the attention he deserves. Since his views were scattered in the classic books, our study was focused primarily on these classical sources. The modern literature was not ignored, either. The relevant records, analysis and criticism were re-contextualized. According to ‘Abbād b. Sulaymān, the view that “Allah is a thing” is the same with the view that “Allah is other (ghayr)”, he draws attention to a definite distinction between Allah and human beings. In his thought about the relationship between Allah and space, he rejects the idea that God could be related to space or anything spatial in order to refrain from an anthropomorphic conception of God. In the case of visibility (ru’ya) of Allah, he radically opposes the idea of “seeing Allah with the heart,” which was adopted by the majority of the Muʻtazila. He tries to solve the issue in his own terms by avoiding the terms essence (dhāt) and nafs in the relationship between God’s essence and His attributes. He reveals a unique classification of names and thus adopts the method of analogy. He does not accept essential attributes as the majority of the Mu’tazila did. On the other hand, he tacitly accepts that Allah’s names have their own meanings in a way that they are not merely words (aqvāl). By a true comparison or perfect analogy (fī ḥaqīqati’l-qıyās), while he rejects that God is ālim, qadīr etc., he tries to ground that human beings is ālim, qadīr etc. He does not admit that God is eternally samʻi and baṣīr. Without interpreting samʻi as His knowledge or baṣīr as His power, he accepts that each name has a distinctive functionality. He rejects the assumption that God knows conditionally. Regarding the issue of whether living beings are in the knowledge of Allah before they exist, it makes a dual distinction: “a direction that can be subject to the eternal knowledge” and “the direction in which it actually came to existence”. Because of his view of non-existent and creatures, Ibn al-Rāwandī and modern resources refer the view of the eternity of objects to him. However, when the relevant records are examined, it is seen that this claim is not valid. According to ‘Abbād, Allah is capable of creating possible things that he knows, although He does not create impossible things that he knows, even though He is capable of creating them potentially (bi-al-quwwa). Allah has not created evil, neither literally nor figuratively; so much so that He created only man, not faith and unbelief. It is not possible to talk about any good that he did not create. He defends the createdness of the Qur’an (Khalq al-Qur’ān) by saying that the Qur’ān was created of accidents. About God’s names, he states that God has the names indicating His relationship to the universe. He does not accept that in eternity He is a willing agent, creator etc. However, he also does not accept the otherwise. He emphasizes that creation is reserved only for Allah. On the other hand, according to him, Allah creates without secondary causes and thus does not create things for a specific purpose. Regarding the revealed attributes (or informative attributes, khabarī), he recites these expressions only when reading of the Quran.He states that these expressions should not be used for Allah under any circumstances. He avoids naming Allah as wakīl, kafīl, laṭīf, kā’in, fard and mutakallim as he says that the name wāḥid should be used only for praising Him. (shrink)

Bu makalede Basra Muʿtezilesi kelâmcılarından Kādî Abdülcebbâr’ın “Tanrı’yı bilmeye götüren nazar vâciptir” önermesine ilişkin sunduğu epistemolojik çerçeve ele alınacaktır. Kādî Abdülcebbâr’ı bu sorunu tartışmaya iten şey, bir taraftan Tanrı’yı bilmenin bütün dinî hükümlerin dayanağı olması ve bu nedenle kelâmın kurucu ilkesi olması, öte yandan ashâbü’l-maʿârif olarak bilinen Câhız, Ali el-Esvârî, Sümâme b. Eşres gibi Muʿtezile kelâm geleneğine bağlı bazı düşünürlerin Tanrı’yı biliş tarzımızın zorunlu olduğunu ileri sürmeleri ve Ebü’l-Kāsım el-Belhî el-Kaʿbî’nin Tanrı’nın bu dünyada olduğu gibi ahirette de istidlâlî olarak (...) bilineceğini iddia etmesidir. Kādî Abdülcebbâr el-Muğnî külliyatının on ikinci cildi olan en-Nazar ve’l-meʿârif’i bu soruna ayırmış, buradaki düşünceleri öğrencisi Mankdîm tarafından Talik alâ Şerhi’l-Usûli’l-hamse’nin giriş bölümünde yeniden sunulmuştur. Kādî Abdülcebbâr Allah’ın kişiye yüklediği ilk sorumluluğun O’nu bilmeye götüren akıl yürütme olduğunu yazar. Bu önerme iki hususu içermektedir: Birincisi akıl yürütmenin gerekliliği, ikincisi ise Tanrı’yı biliş tarzımızın nazarî oluşu. Kādî Abdülcebbâr ilk olarak Tanrı’yı bilmenin neden gerekli olduğunu temellendirmeye girişir ve bunun için öncelikle vâcibi tanımlar ve kısımlarını açıklar. Ona göre akıl yürütmenin gerekliliği, Tanrı’yı bilmenin akıl yürütme dışında başka bir yolu olmamasından kaynaklanmaktadır. Gerçekte kişinin bilmesi gereken ilk şey Tanrı’dır. Dolayısıyla asl olan Tanrı’yı bilmektir. Bunun nedeni Tanrı’yı bilmenin dışında kalan konuların, Tanrı’yı bilmeye dayanmasıdır. Kādî Abdülcebbâr bunu, söz ve fiil türünden bütün dinî hükümlerin (şerâiʿ), ancak Tanrı’yı bildikten sonra hasen olacağını dile getirerek izah eder. Tanrı’yı bilmek, kendisini ihlal etmenin caiz olmadığı vâciplerdendir. Çünkü Tanrı’yı bilmeyi terk etmek kötüdür. Kötü olan şeylerden sakınmanın gerekliliği aklen sabittir. O hâlde Tanrı’yı bilmeyi terk etme kötülüğünden sakınmak, Tanrı’yı bilmekle mümkün olacağı için Tanrı’yı bilmek gereklidir. Tanrı’yı bilmek akıl yürütmeyle gerçekleştiği için de akıl yürütme, Tanrı’nın bilinmesi gereken ilk şey oluşundan bir pay alarak ilk konuma yükselmektedir. Buradan çıkan ilk sonuç, kişinin mükellef olduğu ilk şeyin Tanrı’yı bilmeye götüren akıl yürütme olduğudur. Kādî Abdülcebbâr, Tanrı’ya ilişkin bilginin nazarîliğini ise Tanrı’nın ne zarurî olarak ne de müşahede ile bilinemeyeceğini göstererek temellendirmeye çalışmaktadır. Bu bağlamda o bilginin neliğini ve türlerini tartışmaya açar. Kādî Abdülcebbâr’ın farklı kelâm eserlerinde yaptığı bilgi tanımlarında ortak olan şey, bilginin “gerekçelendirilmiş doğru inanç” şeklindeki tanımıdır. Bilginin inanç türünden olduğunu düşünen Kādî Abdülcebbâr, aynı zamanda bu inancın doğru olması gerektiğini ve kişinin bu inancına yönelik nefsinin sâkin olması gerektiğini ifade eder. Ardından zorunlu bilgi ve zorunlu bilginin türlerini ele alan Kādî Abdülcebbâr, burada insanın bilme imkanlarıyla uyumlu olarak onun biliş tarzları üzerinden Tanrı’yı bilmenin neden nazarla mümkün olduğunu, bilgilerimizin bütün türlerini ya da biliş tarzlarımızın tamamını söz konusu ederek Tanrı’yı bilmenin bunlardan hangisine dâhil olacağını soruşturur. Zorunlu bilginin ardından müşahede bilgisine yer veren Kādî Abdülcebbâr’a göre Tanrı’ya ilişkin bilgi ne zorunlu bilgiler türüne ne de müşahedeye dayalı bilgiler türüne girmemektedir. Kādî Abdülcebbâr son olarak Tanrı’nın nasıl bilineceği ya da Tanrı’ya ilişkin bilginin hangi bilgi türüne dahil edileceği meselesinin kelâmcılar arasında tartışmalı bir konu olduğunu ve Tanrı’nın teklif devam ederken bu dünyada zarurî olarak bilinmeyeceğini ifade eder. Ancak bu hususta Muʿtezile içerisinden biri Câhız ve Ali el-Esvârî gibi ashâbü’l-maârifin, diğeri Ebü’l-Kāsım el-Belhî el-Kaʿbî’nin muhalefetine yer vererek her iki yaklaşımı sırasıyla hem Tanrı’ya ilişkin bilginin neden zorunlu olamayacağını hem de Tanrı’nın ahirette neden istidlâlî olarak bilinmeyeceğini göstererek yanıtlar. İşte bu makalede Kādî Abdülcebbâr’ın Tanrı’yı biliş tarzımızın epistemolojik statüsüne ilişkin söz konusu görüşlerini analiz ederek, onun Tanrı’ya ilişkin bilginin çıkarımsallığı görüşünün dayandığı epistemolojik temeli ortaya koymaya çalışacağız. (shrink)

The theory of the tab' in the physics of Mu 'tazila has a distinct place. It is necessary to distinguish the scholars from the atheist naturalists who adopt the idea of nature. Tab ' theory is a problem with the essence of the entity. This theory is related to the structure of living and inanimate beings. When it comes to the habit and tempering of man, we use the word tab'; it is used the term of nature when it comes (...) to the structure of objects. In particular, the Basra School of Muʿtazila has given the emphasis on tab' theory emphasizing the freedom of man. They have implemented the tab ' theory to a number of topics related to knowledge, action, metaphysical, moral and Spiritual life. The nature, which is defended by Muʻtezile, is a force that Allah places in the nature of man and body. Nature, which is in the essence of both living and inanimate substances, is not independent of Allah. It has caused some problems defending some scholars, such as Muammer and Câhız from Basra School of Muʿtazila the idea of compulsory natural causality in the interpretation of some metaphysical subjects. In this regard, The scholars of Muʿtazila such as Nazzâm and Kâdî Abdülcebbâr, have acted more carefully. While Nazzâm does not see the theory of natural nature independently of divine power, he prefers to use the word "itimat" instead of the tab ' theory ', which he sees as part of pagan culture. (shrink)

Muʽtazilah is one of the kalām schools in which intellectual freedom is seen the most and therefore divergences within the sect are the most common. Although al-usûl al-ḥamsa/five principles constitute the main framework on which Muʽtazilah has agreed, opposing ideas have emerged within the sect on the principles of ʽadl (divine justice) and al-manzilah bayna al-manzilatayn and on the issues of nature and imamah. As a matter of fact, Muʽtâzilī scholars wrote many refutations to each other on the disputed issues. (...) One of those who have opposing views within the Muʽtazilah is Muḥammad b. Shabīb al-Baṣrī (d. mid 3rd/9th century), who lived between the end of 2nd and the middle of the 3rd century of hijra. Ibn Shabīb is one of the students of Ibrāhīm Ibn Sayyār al-Naẓẓām (d. 231/845), who was one of the leading scholars of Muʽtazilah. He initially opposed the principle of al-manzilah bayna al-manzilatayn, while he was Muʽtezilî, and accepted the Murji’ah approach on this issue. However, after he accepted the idea of irjā’, he continued his loyalty to Muʽtazilah with regard to the principles of tawhīd (divine unity) and ʽadl. Ibn Shabīb, who had a theological assembly of his own and is respected by the people in Baṣra, was an important scholar who stands out with his comprehensive knowledge of religious and philosophical schools of his time. In the doxographical tradition, his adoption of Murjī’ ideas is generally emphasized, except that he has not been referred to much. However, when the sources of kalām are examined meticulously, it is understood that he influenced many Muslim theologians with his works and views and that he was a source for them regarding many topics. The most important reason for this is that he was one of the first scholars to defend the Islamic belief against various philosophical and religious movements. Naturally, this situation provided him with a wide knowledge of religious and philosophical trends. Considering the quotations made from him, it is understood that he recorded this accumulation in a doxographical work. Another remarkable feature of Ibn Shabīb is that he was one of the first scholars to write in the genre of Kitāb al-Tawhīd. It is possible to see both contextual and methodological effects of this work in the quotations and narratives of Al-Māturīdī's book with the same name. What makes him different is that he adopts Muʽtazilī and Murjī’ ideas at the same time and develops a unique discourse on the subjects of grave sins and waʽīd (divine warning). Although he was raised in a strong tradition of thought such as Muʽtazilah, his ability to oppose his sect and his teacher Al-Naẓẓām and also to develop a different definition of faith despite accepting the doctrine of irjā’, makes him stand out as an original and intellectual personality. His different definition of faith is important in that it represents a more moderate approach to the issue of takfīr. For, he drew an encompassing framework based on the Quran and the Sunnah regarding the definition of faith and the conditions of takfīr, thus, he tried to preserve the unity of Muslims. He did not consider the denial of controversial issues that are not explicitly included in the Quran and Sunnah as a reason for takfīr. With this attitude, Ibn Shabīb took an important approach in ensuring social peace and free thought. In this article, all the information contained in Muʽtazilī sources, and doxographical works related to the life, scientific personality and theological views of Ibn Shabīb are gathered and analyzed, and then his theological thought is reconstructed based on these data. From this point of view, identifications and evaluations have been made regarding the issues that make him different and unique in the history of Muslim thought. (shrink)

Mu'tazila and Shīʿa (Zaydiyya-Imāmiyya) have common views on many theological issues except the imamate. This issue has been generally accepted by other Islamic scholars rather than Shīʿa and by Western researchers. That in this interaction between the Mu‘tazila and the Shīʿa, the Shīʿa is the side mostly affected. However, it is an issue that should not be overlooked that the Shīʿa partially influenced the Mu'tazila in ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, over the other Companions. In this context, some persons from the (...) Baghdad Mu’tazila School such as Bishr b. al-Muʿtamir (d. 210/825), Jaʿfar b. Mubashir (d. 234/848), Jaʿfar b. Harb (d. 236/850) and al-Iskāfī (d. 240/854) argued that the imamate of Abū Bakr, who was less virtuous, was permissible although they considered ʿAlī as the most virtuous person after the Prophet. In addition, al-ʿAllāf (d. 235/849-850), al-Naẓẓām (d. 231/845), Abū Abdullah al-Basrī (d. 369/979-80) and Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār (d. 415/1025) along with Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī (d. 303/916), one of the chiefs of the Basra Mu'tazila School, and Abū Hāshim al-Jubbāʾī (d. 321/933) did not accept the order of caliphate as the order of virtue. This study focuses on the issue of whether the aforementioned affinity between Mu'tazila and Shīʿa affected Mu'tazila, especially in the interpretation of the verses associated with ʿAlī. In the study, the aforementioned problem was examined through the tafsīr al-Kashshāf of the Muʿtazilī mufassir al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144). In addition to the importance of tafsīr, the fact that al-Zamakhsharī took lessons from Shīʿīte/Zaydī persons and he wrote the tafsīr with the support of Zaydī leader al-Wahhās (d. 506/1112) is effective in handling this issue through al-Kashshāf's tafsīr. In the first part of the study, first of all, the interaction between Imāmiyya and Zaydism, which are the two most important branches of Mu‘tazila and Shīʿa, is briefly mentioned. Then, Mu'tazila’s and Al-Zamakhsharī’s view on ʿAlī's position among other caliphs is emphasized. Al-Zamakhsharī, who is from the Basra school of the Mu'tazila, does not consider ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib superior to Abū Bakr, unlike al-ʿAllāf, Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī, Abū Hāshim al-Jubbāʾī and Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār, who are the leading figures of this school. In fact, the fact that he always observed the order of the caliphate while talking about the merits of the four caliphs supports the possibility that, unlike his predecessors, he accepted the order of the caliphate as the order of virtue. In the second part, it is questioned whether the narrations that al-Zamakhsharī included in his tafsīr of the verses associated with ʿAlī are similar to the narrations of the Shīʿīte/Zaydī/Imāmī tradition and whether he interpreted the verses in parallel with these narrations. In this respect, the tafsīr al-Kashshāf has been examined comparatively with the Sunni and Shiite tafsīrs prior to it. Eventually, while interpreting these verses associated with the Ahl al-bayt (members of the Prophet’s household), al-Zamakhsharī highlights the narrations that appreciate the virtues of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and his child. However, he also refrains from making comments that would be in line with the Shīʿa's belief in imamate. In particular, his tafsīr of the verse al-Aḥzāb 33/33 in the context of the Prophet’s wives is the greatest indicator of this situation. It has been determined that while al-Zamakhsharī includes the narrations highlighting the virtue of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and his children, he mostly follows the Sunni commentator al-Thaʿlabī. In particular, it has been seen that al-Zamakhsharī transferred the narration material in the interpretation of the relevant verses from al-Thaʿlabī's commentary almost in the same way. However, it is noteworthy that al-Zamakhsharī differs from him in some details such as linguistically supporting these narrations in some verses such as ʾĀli ʿImrān 3/61 and al-Māʾidah 5/55. An indirect influence can be mentioned because al-Thaʿlabī frequently narrates the narrations supporting the Shīʿītes in places where there is a Sunni-Shīʿīte conflict. Therefore, although there is no evidence that al-Zamakhsharī took these narrations from Shīʿīte sources, it is seen that he brought ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib-based narrations in Sunni sources into the fore. Even in the commentary of al-Ḥākim al-D̲h̲us̲h̲amī, al-Zamakhsharī's teacher in the line of Zaydi/Mu'tazili, the lack of Ali emphasis in the interpretation of the aforementioned verses supports our view. (shrink)

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)

This article descriptively discusses the divine purpose in the creation of the world and especially the human being, and the value analysis of the concepts, expressing this purpose in the light of the views of Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār (d. 415/1024), who was from the Basra School, and systemized the five doctrinal principles of the Mu'tazila. Accordingly, it answers the question why God created the human on the basis of the purpose/aim in divine actions and examines the qualitative value of (...) the non-compulsory cause (dā’ī) that motivates God to create. In addition, the article shows that 'beneficence', the central concept in the purpose of the creation, is formulized as ‘tafaḍḍul’ (disinterested or gratuitous beneficence) with the title of wisdom before the creation and as ‘thawāb’ (reward) and ‘iwaḍ (compensation) with the title of wājib (necessary or obligatory) in the resurrection. It also emphasizes that ‘iqāb (punishment) is not a value for the beginning of creation, and therefore it is 'legal good' required by the resurrection. It also touches on that the concepts, expressing all this purposefulness are based on the values of 'benefit and good' (maṣlaḥa and ḥusn). This article concludes that while the main purpose of the beginning of creation is beneficence and its actual value is tafaḍḍul; the main purpose of re-creation is benefit and good, and the actual value is wājib. (shrink)

Muammar b. Abbād al-Sulamī (d.215/830) was one of the most influential figures of his time in terms of recognizing things and making sense of the changes in the universe, which occupies an important place in Islamic thought. Muammar, who was a Basra Mu'tazilite, appears especially with his naturalistic ideas. What makes him stand out is that he also embraced atomism. Although the atomist conception was of foreign origin, the theologians revised it according to their theological views. This view was (...) also presented as a proof of God’s constant activity in the universe. Muammar, who also defined substance, body and accident, which are the basic concepts of kalam cosmology, influenced other theologians, especially with his definition of body. For Muammar, things have a nature. The body creates its accidents as a result of its own nature. Ultimately, in his thought, it is God who gives this nature to the body. Therefore, he accepts that the functioning of the universe takes place within the framework of the laws that God has set in the universe. This idea of Muammar’s about the nature of bodies is actually to demonstrate that the universe functions in a tremendous way in this way. The concept of māna, which is based on Muammar’s thought, occupies an important place at this point. With this concept, which is identified with the understanding of nature, he aimed to exclude the essence of God from the beings. In his view, this concept is also active when it comes to God’s attributes. For him, that’s why God is the wise and the powerful by means of the knowledge and the power that He possesses through the māna. According to Muammar, māna means cause. He argues that the separation of a moving object from an immobile object is the result of a māna. Therefore, objects are also differentiated from each other through a māna. A māna can exist with a māna, which brings forth the idea of the infinity of māna. However, the infinity of māna does not mean the infinity of things. Muammar’s most criticized point is the nature of objects and the fact that they undergo change as a result of this nature, that is, they create their accidents. In this case, the concept of continuous re-creation, which is generally accepted in theology, does not fit Muammar’s system. For Muammar, there is a system based on cause and effect. Although there are criticisms that this relationship he defended belongs to a strict determinist approach, in fact, it can be said that he was concerned with excluding God from situations that take place on the plane of time and space, such as movement and change. Compared to other contemporary theologians who held naturalistic views like him, Muammar’s justification of nature on the basis of māna sets him apart from the others. (shrink)

The Inquisition of al-Maʾmūn was a serious attempt to establish the caliph as arbiter of Islamic orthodoxy. It was actively prosecuted by the succeeding two caliphs, and finally abolished by his nephew, the caliph al-Mutawakkil, in 237/852. The most information we have about it by far is how it was carried out in Baghdad. Various sources, mostly biographical, also tell us something of its prosecution in Basra, Kufa, Damascus, Isfahan, Old Cairo, and Qayrawan, surveyed here. These scattered data confirm (...) that it was largely about bringing the emerging scholarly class under control. They may also indicate that the Inquisition was instituted not in 218 but already in 217/832-3. (shrink)

Khalīfa b. Khayyāt(d. 240/854-855) was an historian- muḥaddith in the ʿAbbāsid’s period. There are references in sources to his competence in history and lineage rather than Ḥadīth. Two works of him have survived. The first one is al-Ṭabaḳāt which is about study of men and the second one is al-Taʾrīkhwhich chronologically narratesthe events in the history of Islam until 232 AH. The latter is the most significant work to be applied for the historiography of ibnKhayyāt. In this article, Khalīfa b. (...) Khayyāt’s methodology in historiography is examined. In this study, the early period of Islamic histography is handled and the subject is discussed comparatively. The main characteristics of his historiography are his adoption of a chronological style that facilitates the follow-up of the book, his knowledge for the lineage of those who died in wars and the details about the wars. Also, among the charactersitics are his application of isnād to his history book as a muḥaddith, his knowledge for the previous resources via his teachers who belong to the schools of al-Madīna and ʿIrāḳ and when required, his usage of ayah, ḥadīth and poems. These issues are dealed in the artcile with examples. Besides, a study in the West about Khalīfa b. Khayyātasserts that he was a follower of Umayyad dynasty and so this affected his historiography. In this article, this assertion is tackled by analyzing the whole book and it concludes that it is not valid because of some narrations against this assertion.SummaryKhalīfa b. Khayyāt (d. 240 / 854-55), who grew up in Basra, one of the most important centers of scholarship of the time and the meeting point of scholars, and he continued his scholarly works in this city. Since his grandfather and father are engaged in the field of Ḥadīth, Khalīfa b. Khayyāt started his scholarly adventure at an early age and he took his first education in the field of Ḥadīth.Scholars, in the early periods, continued their studies in the fields of sciences related to each other. Khalīfa b. Khayyāt’s studies are also in this kind. Although there are references in sources to his accumulation of Ḥadīth, Khalīfa b. Khayyāt ’s main area of ​​expertise is history and nasab/genealogy. The fact that his works and references to him in later sources are largely related to historical events, knowledge of the nasab/genealogy, and wafayāt (death dates of Ḥadīth scholars and narrators) reveals his considerable knowledge on these issues. Khalīfa b. Khayyāt lived in the period of ʿAbbāsid caliphs al-Maʾmūn (813-833) and al-Muʿtaṣim (833-842). This period is important because of the fact that the al-Mihna incident took place and the pressure on the Ḥadīth scholars increased. Although Khalīfa b. Khayyāt is not one of the direct opponents of Muʿtazila, his participation in a debate against them provides clues about the place where he stands. The scholarly atmosphere of Basra, enabled Khalīfa b. Khayyāt to benefit from a wide range of teacher-student network. In addition to his professors from whom he benefitted in the field of Ḥadīth, he had the opportunity to obtain the knowledge and understanding of the history of that time through his teachers who are important historians of the period in his field. Two works related to Khalīfa b. Khayyāt whose reliability is confirmed by djarh wa l tadil scholars reached to our time. One of the oldest Ṭabaḳāt works in the history of Islam is al-Ṭabaḳāt; the other one is the book, al-Taʾrīkh, which provides a new method for Islamic historiography.This study deals with the principles of the method of historiography, which can be put forward through Khalīfa b. Khayyāt 's al-Taʾrīkh. al-Taʾrīkhis important in terms of being the first example of chronological writing type in Islamic historiography and has not been subject to any independent study to date. There are two ongoing M.A. thesis about Khalīfa b. Khayyāt, however, no study has been identified that directly deals with its methodology of history. On the other hand, based on some riwāyats/narrations in al-Taʾrīkh, there is a work that claims that Khalīfa b. Khayyāt had sympathy towards Umayyads. The study named “Khalīfa b. Khayyāt’s History on the Umayyad Dynasty (660-750), prepared by Carl Wurtzel as his PhD. Dissertation, examined the life of Khalīfa, partly the historiography and the religious-political narrations in the work. On the case of Muʿāwiya’s (d. 60/680) request of the allegiance to Yazīd (d. 64/683), Wurtzel compared an event that took place between the envoy of Ibn al-Zubayr (d. 73/692) and Muʿāwiya with al-Balādhurī’s (d. 279/892-93) narrative and concluded that Khalīfa was an Umayyad sympathizer. However, Khalīfa b. Khayyāt’s exclusion of an event such as al-Mihna which was against the ʿAbbāsid and changed the course of history in his book, shouldn’t be considered as a symptom of sympathy; It would be more appropriate to accept it as a feature of history writing.At the top of Khalīfa b. Khayyāt's principles of historiography, adopting chronological method comes first. Accordingly, Khalīfa b. Khayyāt, gives a brief history about the siyar of the Prophet Muhammad at the introduction of the book. Then, by beginning from the first hijri year, he gives the important events, wars and deaths by the years. Sometimes, he refers to the people assigned by the caliphs of the period by referring to the Amîrs (Administrators) of the Hajj. He gives lists of those who died on both sides of the wars. The importance of mentioning the tribes of the deceased shows his competence in the knowledge of nasab. One of the highlights of his historiography is that he sometimes does not touch upon some of the events and situations that are considered to be turning points in Islamic history; and sometimes he does not go down into detail but just gives relevant narratives. For example, he doesn’t mention any narrations about the selection of the Caliph which perhaps the most fundamental point of separation between Ahl al-Sunnah and Shīʿa in the history of Islam.Although he gave detailed information about The Battle of The Camel (36/656) and Ṣiffīn cases (37/657), it is not possible to determine his views on this subject. In addition, he never mentioned the al-Mihna incident, which deeply influenced society and the scholarly environment during the ʿAbbāsid period. Isnād is also holds an important place in the methodology of history of Khalīfa who was a muḥaddith at the same time. In many of the narrations he used the words haddathanā and ahbaranā.In our study, the siyar section of al-Taʾrīkhwas examined in order to determine the sources of the Khalīfa’s historiography and has been seen that the works of Ibn Isḥāḳ (d. 151/768) and Ibn Hishām (d. 218/833) were the main sources of this chapter. Considering Khalīfa b. Khayyāt’s emphasize to isnād and his reach to Ibn Isḥāḳ 's work through the mediation of Bekr b. Suleiman, it can be said that he was dominant in historiography on the sources before him. Khalīfa b. Khayyāt rarely refers to Qur’anic verses and hadiths when describing events. He referred to the verses in only two places and hadiths in only five places. One of them, and perhaps the most remarkable one in the book is the Ḥadīth of the Prophet Muḥammad: “I am the guardian of whom; ‘Alī is his guardian” This narration is used in the letter of Caliph Mahdī (d. 169/785) of the ʿAbbāsid to khārijī (outer) Abd al-Salām b. Hishām who rebelled. The study is based on the principles outlined above. At the end of the study it is also considered that Khalīfa b. Khayyāt ’s works should be the subject of graduate studies which should be prepared with deep readings. (shrink)

One of the most important issues that distinguishes the Baghdādī branch of the Muʿtazila from the Baṣran branch is their view on ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 40/661). Basra branch accepts the order of virtue of the first four caliphs as their order of coming to office, while the Baghdad branch considers the first three caliphs legitimate, but considers Ali more virtuous than them. The Baghdādī Muʿtazilīs who outspokenly defended this idea were Abū Jaʿfar al-Iskāfī (d. 240/854), Abū al-Qāsim (...) al-Kaʿbī (d. 319/931) and Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd (d. 656/1258). Among them, Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd was renowned as “the greatest scholar of the Muʿtazila” and was considered one of the last representatives of this school. He ardently defended ʿAlī's superiority in his commentary on Nahj al-Balāgha, the famous collection of Ali’s sermons, letters and wisdom sayings. In his defense, he rebutted some criticisms about ʿAlī’s political decisions from his school’s point of view. Many items of Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd’s rebuttal are worthy of analysis in terms of their content, style and approach. This article aims to present a detailed account of Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd’s aforementioned refutations. In addition to the descriptive method, the interpretative method was also employed in the article. Although Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd did not consider Ali's infallibility necessary (wājib), unlike Imamiyya, he accepted it. Therefore, he responded to the criticisms directed at Ali, starting from the point of Ali's innocence. According to Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd: (a) After the death of the Prophet, ʿAlī insisted on becoming the new leader of the Muslim community. He did not act hastily to assume the caliphate because he was not expecting any opposition to that. However, when the events took a different turn, he did not escalate the situation, rather accepted the status quo. (b) ʿAlī also did the right thing by participating in ʿUmar b. Al-Khaṭṭāb’s (d. 23/644) electoral shūrā. This was an opportunity for him to become the next caliph, and reinstitute a system in accordance with the Qurʿānic principles and sunna of the Prophet. (c) It was also not an error when ʿAlī decided to stay in Medina during the events of ʿUthmān’s murder (d. 35/656). He played an active role in dissuading the rebels from their attempt to kill ʿUthmān, but he was in no position to know that his activity would be used against him later by the Umayyads who accused ʿAlī of being complicit in ʿUthmāns’s murder. (d) ʿAlī took the caliphate after ʿUthmān because of his popularity among the people. In this way, he managed to prevent an unqualified person to occupy the seat of the caliphate. (e) When the Battle of Camel broke out, those who demanded justice and opposed ʿAlī were in error. (f) When ʿAlī became the new caliph, his decision to remove Muʿāwīya (d. 60/680) from the governorship of Syria was correct. This is because Muʿāwīya would have refused to accept ʿAlī’s leadership even had he stayed in office as a governor. ʿAlī understood that the conflict would end only through fighting, so he did not lose time in marching against Muʿāwīya. (g) During the battle he abided by the sharīʿa and allowed the Syrian army to access water. (h) It was not ʿAlī, but those defectors in his army who obliged him to end the fighting through arbitration. (i) When ʿAlī agreed to sign the Ṣiffīn ceasefire agreement and did not use his title amīr al-muʾminīn, he followed the Prophet's example since the latter also refrained from using his title during the Ḥudaybiyya agreement. (j) ʿAlī also cannot be blamed for those among his supporters, such as the poet al-Najāshī, who defected and joined the ranks of Muʿāwīya. The motivations for the defectors were either to attain worldly gains or to escape from punishment for the crimes which they had committed. (k) When Muʿāwīya managed to conquer Egypt, ʿAlī’s governors of the province, Qays b. Saʿd (d. 60/680) or Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr (d. 38/658), did nothing for which they could be blamed. (l) And finally, ʿAlī never had guards to protect him because he was never afraid of being assassinated. Although Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd took Ali's innocence as a basis while presenting these views, he did not make inconsistent comments in general and did not say things contrary to historical facts. Therefore, it is necessary to acknowledge historical value of his views in question. (shrink)

Prof. Dr. Mustafa Demirci's monograph "Black Rage: The Rebellion of Negro Slaves in the Medieval Islamic World (869-883)" on the 'Zanj rebellion' that took place between 869-883 A.D., during the Abbasid period, and was led by the Ali b. Muhammad, is one of the most important studies both in terms of its subject matter and the author's approach and perspective on the subject. The study, which was prepared with a rich academic literature using basic sources and modern research on the (...) subject, deals with issues such as the geography of the event, the causes and spread of the rebellion, the wars and warfare techniques to suppress the rebellion, the short and long-term effects of the damage left behind by the rebellion from an academic perspective in chronological order. The Zanj revolt started in the marshes of Basra in 869 as a result of Ali b. Muhammad (d. 883), who was originally white and claimed to be a descendant of Ali, organizing black slaves working under difficult conditions in the large farms in and around Basra, and the rebellion grew and spread in a short time. Muwaffak Billāh (843-891), the brother of the Abbasid Caliph Mu’temid Alallâh (843-892), who was assigned to suppress the revolt, was victorious against the rebels after tough struggles, and the revolt ended with the killing of the leader of the rebellion, Ali b. Muhammad, in 883. (shrink)

Guidelines for an ideal Islamic society and the responsibilities of Muslim according to Islamic teachings.

Maudoodi, Syed Abul ʻAla, 1903-1979; philisophy.

Logical thinking; criticism and interpretation; Arab philosophers.

Bourdieu carved out a distinctive analytical niche for his reflexive sociology. His epistemological tool of field analysis, sometimes coupled with statistical correspondence analysis, is particular...

2. Saebyŏngnyŏk chʻodang esŏ on pʻyŏnji.

Anhand von zwei zentralen Schriften Hans Blumenbergs - den Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie (1960) und der Arbeit am Mythos (1979) - widmet sich der Band einer Relekture der ausgefeilten gedanklichen wie sprachlichen Verfahrensweisen, die der Philosoph zumeist unkommentiert zum Einsatz bringt. GEfragt wird damit nicht nur nach den spezifischen Darstellungsmitteln der Texte und dem Verhaltnis, das diese zu den verhandelten Themenkomplexen unterhalten, sondern auch, inwiefern deren reichhaltiges Arsenal an Denk- und Ausdrucksweisen gegenwartig Anschlussmoglichkeiten fur kulturanalytische Fragestellungen bereithalt. Die Beitrage stammen (...) von: Thomas Ballhausen, Eckhardt Kohn, Sebastian Lederle, Oliver Muller, Wolfgang Muller-Funk, Mauro Ponzi, Vahidin Preljevic, Matthias Schmidt, Tanja Veverka, Luca Viglialoro und Rudiger Zill. (shrink)

A comprehensive biography which covers Adorno's life, work and times: from childhood, through to his student years, his years in emigration, his return to post-war Germany, his time in Frankfurt, his role as a public intellectual, and his ...

Islamic modernism; Islamic philosophy; 20th century.

Was genau sind eigentlich Emotionen und wie unterscheiden sie sich voneinander und von nichtemotionalen Zuständen? Wie entstehen Emotionen? Setzen sie Kognitionen, insbesondere Überzeugungen oder Gedanken, voraus und wenn ja, welche? Gibt es auch nichtkognitive Wege der Emotionsentstehung und wenn ja, welche Bedeutung haben sie? Gibt es unbewusste Emotionen? Welche Funktionen haben die Emotionen – wozu sind sie gut, welche Rolle spielen sie im psychischen System? Wie kann die Erlebensqualität von unterschiedlichen Emotionen, zum Beispiel Freude und Furcht, erklärt werden? Sind die (...) Emotionsmechanismen in der Evolution entstanden oder sind zumindest einige davon oder bestimmte Komponenten davon erlernt? Wie sieht der angeborene Teil des emotionalen Systems genau aus? Was ist der Unterschied zwischen emotionalen Reaktionen auf reale und fiktive Ereignisse, zwischen »Realemotionen« und »Fantasieemotionen«? Wie verhalten sich Emotionen zur Sprache? Wie ist die Beziehung zwischen dem Alltagsverständnis von Emotionen und wissenschaftlichen Emotionstheorien, zwischen Alltagspsychologie und der wissenschaftlichen Psychologie bzw. Philosophie? Dies sind einige der Fragen, die in diesem Band aus philosophischer und psychologisch-kognitionswissenschaftlicher Sicht erörtert werden. Dabei findet sich eine überraschend hohe Übereinstimmung zwischen den Autoren. Einig sind sie sich auch darin, dass die Fragen der Emotionsforschung am besten in interdisziplinärer Zusammenarbeit gelöst werden können. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

Maḥmūd, Zakī Najīb, 1905-; philosophers; Egypt; biography; interview.

Faith and reason--Islam; Human beings--philosophy; Faith--philosophy; Islamic philosophy.

A speed-accuracy trade-off (SAT) in behavioural decisions is known to occur in a wide range of vertebrate and invertebrate taxa. Accurate decisions often take longer for a given condition, while fast decisions can be inaccurate in some tasks. Speed-accuracy tactics are known to vary consistently among individuals, and show a degree of flexibility during colour discrimination tasks in bees. Such individual flexibility in speed-accuracy tactics is likely to be advantageous for animals exposed to fluctuating environments, such as changes in predation (...) threat. We therefore test whether individual speed-accuracy tactics are fixed or flexible under different levels of predation threat in a model invertebrate, the bumblebee Bombus terrestris. The flexibility of speed-accuracy tactics in a foraging context was tested in the laboratory using a ‘meadow’ of artificial flowers harbouring ‘robotic’ crab spider predators. We found that while the ranking of bees along the speed and accuracy continuums was consistent across two levels of predation threat, there was some flexibility in the tactics used by individual bees – most bees became less accurate at colour discrimination when exposed to predation threat when flower types were rewarding. The relationship between decision speed and accuracy was influenced by predator detectability and the risk associated with making incorrect choices during the colour discrimination task. Predator crypsis resulted in a breakdown in the relationship between speed and accuracy, especially when making an incorrect floral choice incurred a distasteful quinine punishment. No single speed-accuracy tactic was found to be optimal in terms of foraging efficiency under either predation threat situation. However, bees that made faster decisions achieved higher nectar collection rates in predator free situations, while accurate bees achieved higher foraging rates under predation threat. Our findings show that while individual bees remain relatively consistent in terms of whether they place greater emphasis on speed or accuracy under predation threat, they can respond flexibly to the additional time costs of detecting predators. (shrink)