Migraine is a chronic and idiopathic disorder leading to cognitive and affective problems. However, the neural basis of migraine without aura is still unclear. In this study, dynamic amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations analyses were performed in 21 patients with migraine without aura and 21 gender- and age-matched healthy controls to identify the voxel-level abnormal functional dynamics. Significantly decreased dALFF in the bilateral anterior insula, bilateral lateral orbitofrontal cortex, bilateral medial prefrontal cortex, bilateral anterior cingulate cortex, and left middle frontal cortex (...) were found in patients with migraine without aura. The dALFF values in the anterior cingulate cortex were negatively correlated with pain intensity, i.e., visual analog scale. Finally, support vector machine was used to classify patients with migraine without aura from healthy controls and achieved an accuracy of 83.33%, sensitivity of 90.48%, and specificity of 76.19%. Our findings provide the evidence that migraine influences the brain functional activity dynamics and reveal the neural basis for migraine, which could facilitate understanding the neuropathology of migraine and future treatment. (shrink)

‘Jürgen Habermas’, wrote the American philosopher Ronald Dworkin on the occasion of the great European thinker’s eightieth birthday, ‘is not only the world’s most famous living philosopher. Even his fame is famous.’ Now, after many years of intensive research and in-depth conversations with contemporaries, colleagues and Habermas himself, Stefan Müller-Doohm presents the first comprehensive biography of one of the most important public intellectuals of our time. From his political and philosophical awakening in West Germany to the formative relationships with Adorno (...) and Horkheimer, Müller-Doohm masterfully traces the major forces that shaped Habermas’s intellectual development. He shows how Habermas’s life and work were conditioned by the possibilities offered to his generation in the unique circumstances of regained freedom that characterized postwar Germany. And yet Habermas’s career is fascinating precisely because it amounts to more than a corpus of scholarly work, however original and influential that may be. For here is someone who continually left the protective space of the university in order to assume the role of a participant in controversial public debates Ð from the significance of the Holocaust to the future of Europe Ð and in this way sought to influence the development of social and political life in an arena much broader than the academy. The significance and virtuosity of Habermas’s many writings over the years are also fully and expertly documented, ranging from his early work on the public sphere to his more recent writings on communicative action, cosmopolitanism and the postnational condition. What emerges from this biography is a vivid portrait of one of the great public intellectuals of our time Ð a unique thinker who has made an immense and lasting philosophical contribution but who, when he perceives that society is not living up to its potential for creating free and just conditions for all, becomes one of its most rigorous and persistent critics. (shrink)

This book investigates how it is possible for us to know what is metaphysically possible. The author discusses the key empiricist and rationalist propositions advanced by Chalmers, Williamson, and others since Kripke's Naming and necessity. He demonstrates that only an anti-realist understanding of modality opens up epistemic access to this question while at the same time depriving it of philosophical relevance.

Excerpt from Eine Philosophie des Schönen in Natur und Kunst Qbort Gefühl hat eine hreifache $beheutnng: '. Uian her= fteht harnnter oft mißbräuchlicherweife hen 'zaftfinn, ron hem hier offenbar nicht hie Siehe ift, 2. Hie i8irfung her äußeren unh her inneren Ginhriicfe auf hie (c)e_cle alß Saft ober 11nlnft. Ibieö ift her eingig berechtigte Gebrauch heß %orteß. 3. Gefühl begeichnet auch oft verworrene Grfenntnié, eine 9lrt fl)2ittelhing 5wifchen Grfennen unh ßegehren, nicht flieht, nicht E)iacht, fonbern Dämmerung tmh biefem swiefchlächtigen qbortfinn (...) herhanfen wir hie äfthetifche Gefühlßtheorie. Sinn ift bei her RunftanaAbout the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works. (shrink)

The current volume of the Parmenides Series "On Thinking" addresses our deepest and most personal experience of the world, the experience of "the present," from a modern perspective combining physics and philosophy. Many prominent researchers have contributed articles to the volume, in which they present models and express their opinions on and, in some cases, also their skepticism about the subject and how it may be (or may not be) addressed, as well as which aspects they consider most relevant in (...) this context. While Einstein might have once hoped that "the present" would find its place in the theory of general relativity, in a later discussion with Carnap he expressed his disappointment that he was never able to achieve this goal. This collection of articles provides a unique overview of different modern approaches, representing not only a valuable summary for experts, but also a nearly inexhaustible source of profound and novel ideas for those who are simply interested in this question. (shrink)

This book reflects on the significant and highly original scientific contributions of Hans Primas. A professor of chemistry at ETH Zurich from 1962 to 1995, Primas continued his research activities until his death in 2014. Over these 50 years and more, he worked on the foundations of nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, contributed to a number of significant issues in theoretical chemistry, helped to clarify central topics in quantum theory and the philosophy of physics, suggested innovative ways of addressing interlevel relations (...) in the philosophy of science, and introduced cutting-edge approaches in the flourishing young field of scientific studies of consciousness. His work in these areas of research and its continuing impact is described by noted experts, colleagues, and collaborators of Primas. All authors contextualize their contributions to facilitate the mutual dialog between these fields. (shrink)

Al-Mu'jam Al-muḫtaṣ of Murtadā Al-Zabīdī (d. 1205/1791) in which a scholar recorded his teachers, the books that he obtained the right to narrate during his education life and the chain of transmission from his teachers to the author, is one of the important representatives of the mu'jam genres in 12th/18th century. It can be said that the mu'jam that Zabīdī wrote to record the important people in his life, goes beyond the standard mu'jam with its compilation style, sources, diversity of (...) biographers and anecdotes about the writing activity of the period. Based on Zabīdī's teachers, students and contemporaries, their origins, specialization and profession, the dates of their deaths, the dates of his encounters with them, the extent of his friendships, the dated rihle route, the lecture places and the books he taught, a panorama about the mu'jam will be drawn. The mu’jam, which includes 635 biographies, has a wide range of written and oral sources, especially ijazat and samā sources. Zabīdī's correspondence with scholars from different regions, taqrīz/appreciation written for his famous books and poems belonging to scholars of the period are among these sources. Numerous taqrīzs on his Tāj al-ʿArūs and Sharḥ Al-Iḥyā's point to their fame at that time, while Mu’jam, which has the appearance of an independent poetry anthology due to the poems that reach tens of pages, reveals his unknown poetic side. On the other hand, some couplets recorded in Persian and Turkish show his knowledge of these languages. Zabīdī is a versatile personality who lived in different geographies such as India, Yemen and Egypt and met many scholars there. Rihles in different regions of Yemen such as Zabid, Moravıa and Mocha, as well as inside Egypt, including Damietta, Raşıt, Fuwwah and Asyut, show that Zabīdī traveled frequently for the sake of knowledge. Egypt, where he went in 1167 (1753) with the advice of his teacher al-Aydarūs and spent thirty-eight years of his life, has an important place in his scientific adventure. Recording sufis, merchants and janitors as well as famous people from different fields such as poets, jurists and muhaddis in biographies reflects Zabīdī's extensive contact reaching various segments of society through the aforementioned rihles. While Zabīdī was obtaining knowledge through both these journeys and ijazat, he also gave ratification/ijazat to the students who came to him. While he prefers ijazat of al-musalsal bil awwaliyyah and Al-Awail Ṣaḥīḥ/al-Kutub al-Sittah for those who come to him for short periods of time on the occasion of pilgrimage, but on the other hand he gaves ijazat of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhari, Shamail Tirmidhi, Sharḥ Al-Iḥyā and Al-Amali for his long-term students. Lessons, both open to the public in mosques and with more private groups at home, were held in informal rather than systematic/formal style like in the madrasah. The books that Zabīdī received the right to transmit through his rihles are listed below under the "textbooks" heading. When a book is mentioned in whichever biography, it can be implicitly considered the person has the elevated chain of transmission of the book. Similarly, it can be revealed in which region and by whom tranmits the short chain of a book. This reveals the unknown aspects of regional and temporal writing style. On the other hand, it is possible to find other traces of the background of writing and representation/taqrir through the mu'jam. For instance, a book was sometimes typed as a result of the students' compilation of lecture notes of their masters, sometimes when a person obtained a book he needed and he abbreviated important parts and copied a special copy for himself or a student could only get permission for giving lectures after he had written a book. The mu’jam includes besides of Zabīdī's books, the books written by the biographers in the form of "he has many books" or by mentioning the name directly. Even the recording of details such as the reason for writing, date and content information reveals the unknown aspects of the book writing style of the period. Ultimately, the importance of mu’jam, which was written as the result of a life spent with learning, although it is not well known in terms of genre; is to mention the biographical information collected from many different secondary sources, compiled as a result of long effort, such as history and tabaqat-tarajim about the scientific life of the author together with their evidences. Therefore, these kinds of books, that are mostly written by the author himself or his close student, in which the teacher constitutes its main element, is a primary source in the determination of the biographical information of the author, as well as the book and isnad, deserve to be examined separately because of their potential to shed light on the unknown aspects of the hadith history and literature of the later period. (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)

Prophets are messengers in charge of communicating the orders and prohibitions they received from God. Throughout history, there are those who believe in these prophets as well as those who do not. While the thought rejecting prophethood sometimes manifested itself as a trend, sometimes it came out on a personal basis. For example, the "Berâhime", known to be of Indian origin, and the "Sümeniyya" movement, which has different rumors about its origin, can be given as examples. Again, it can be (...) said that the current of thought emerging under the name of “Deism” serves this purpose. On the other hand, personalities such as Abu Isa al-Verrâq, Ibn al-Rawendi and Abu Bakr ar-Razi, It is known that they objected to the prophethood of the Prophet. Although Ibn al-Rawendi was a scholar of Mu'tezile at first, he later left this idea and put forward mulhidish ideas. In addition to he tried to cancel the Hz Mohammed's prophethood. While Ibn al-Rawendi was doing this, sometimes he emphasized the miracles of the Prophet and sometimes claimed that there were some deficiencies and contradictions in the rhetoric of the Quran. According to Ibn al-Rawendi, there are many contradictory information in the Quran. According to him, unnecessary repetitions, unnecessary prolongation of the word in some places and the presence of non-Arabic origin words show that the Quran is not a miracle book and cannot be described as universal. Qâdî Abdulcabbâr, one of the scholars of Mu'tezile, handled these objections with great care and answered them. The number of such discussions in Kalam sources is quite high. For example, there are such polemics in Imam Mâturîdî's Kitâbü't-Tevhîd and in Bâkillânî's Kitâbü't-Temhîd. In this study, the discussion in the 16th volume of al-Muğnî of Qadi Abdulcabbâr will be discussed. In the aforementioned discussion, Qadı Abdulcabbâr firstly stated Ibn al-Rawendi's objection to the Qur'an, and then duly eliminated this objection. The most striking point here is that Ibn al-Rawendi ignored the features of the Arabic language, the integrity of the Quran and that it has a purpose while making these criticisms. For this reason, while presenting the criticisms, he severed the verses from their contexts, did not consider the before and after, and therefore did not understand or understand the message correctly. On the other hand, Qadı Abdulcabbâr gave convincing answers by linking the criticized verses with their contexts and revealing the real meaning. (shrink)

Isma‘īl b. ‘Ali, who is referred to as Abū Sa‘d as-Sammān, was born in Ray, Iran, between 981 and 983 and he devoted most of his life to educational travels, especially for hadith and he returned to his city of birth towards the end of his life and died there in 1053. Isma‘īl b. ‘Ali is well-known with the name of as- Sammān, meaning butter trader, because of he was grew up in a family of butter traders. The movables and (...) real estates in his inheretence show that he belongs to a wealthy family. As-Sammān, who seems to be in the twelfth generation of Muʻtazilite tradition, approve the thoughts of Abū Hāshim al-Jubbā’ī (ö. 321/933) and Abu'l-Ḥusayn al-Baṣrī (ö. 436/1044) and he was accepted as the leader of the Muʻtazila in his own period. He had education from scholars such as Abū Tāhir al-Muḫallis, Ibn Abū Nasr at-Tamīmī and Abkasī (ö. 405/1014-15) in the discipline of hadith. As-Sammān, was an authoritative figure both in the fiqh of Hanafi and disagreements between thoughts of Hanafism and Shafi'ism as well as in the fiqh of Zaydism. In addition, he educated himself in the topic of Qur’anic recitation, scholars of narrators, genealogy, law of inheritence and arithmetic. Among the works of as-Sammān, who are stated as many, only one record seem to be extant until today: “Kitāb al-Muvāfaqa bayn ahl al-bayt wa's-sahāba wa mā ravāhu kullu farīqin fī haqq al-āḫar”, which was written to point out the fondness and respect between the first three caliphs and ‘Ali. Thus, it is not possible for us to have a detailed knowledge about his thoughts in kalam and fiqh. However, Ibn al-‘Adīm (ö. 660/1262) gives us some ideas about thoughts of al-Sammān through his will narrates in his “Bughyat aṭ-Ṭalab fī tārīḫi Ḥalab”. As-Sammān states that his thoughts of kalam and fiqh are formed on the school of Ahl al-‘adl wa't-tawḥīd, in particular parallel with Muʻtazila-Zaydiyya and he designed his will, which he gave about two years before his death, according to the Muʻtazilite theological paradigm. In this context, according to as-Sammān, Allah is one and eternal. Attributes of Allah such as Power, Knowledge, Life, Hearing, Sight and Wealth are by virtue of His essence. Allah does not resemble anything, nor a body or an accident. All actions of Allah are good, and He never do evil. Allah does not wish for a sin nor have any consent to sin. Allah does not test people with what they cannot afford. Allah does not oppress people nor punish anyone with no justice. Allah is faithful to his promise that he will reward people who are good and will punish people who do evil. Voluntarily actions are created by people themselves. Revelation regarding the doomsday and the hereafter are true. Also, worships performed by the living on behalf of the dead such as hajj, ‘umrah, charity, reciting the the Qur'an and visiting the graves of them are useful for the dead. Repentance which is the forgiveness of sins is the decisiveness of not to commit it again with regret. As-Sammān has been criticized because of his Muʻtazilite thoughts, but his credibility, his intellectual effort and his abilities have been appreciated even by his opponents. The combative and dynamic nature of his life was reflected in his will are analysed in this work and it is concluded that he expressed his thoughts on belief and deeds in his will as a true Mu‘tazilite manifesto. (shrink)

The Zaydī-Muʿtazilī interaction, which dates back to the early periods, increased when The Būyid vizier al-Ṣāḥib b. ʿAbbād invited Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār to Rayy and many Caspian Zaydī scholars studied with Qāḍī. Ibn Sharwīn, who is mentioned among the students of Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār and accepted as one of the Zaydī- Muʿtazilī scholars, is one of these names. The works of Ibn Sharwīn, who had writings in the field of kalām and fiqh, did not remain within the borders of the (...) Caspian and reached the Zaydīs of Yemen; one of these works is Ḥaqāʾiq al-ashyāʾ. Considering that, unlike other theological schools, there are not many works on the definitions of theological concepts in Muʿtazilī literature and -as far as is known- did not reach today, this treatise helps to understand better especially the terms in Zaydī- Muʿtazilī theology and the effects of Bahshamiyya on Zaydī thought. This work, edited and translated based on the only extant manuscript only manuscript found in Yemen and a previous publication, on the one hand, is important in understanding the point of view of Zaydī- Muʿtazilī thought on the disciplines of theology, jurisprudence, debate, history of Islamic sects, on the other hand, it is a helpful resource for understanding the terms used in the theory of aḥwāl, which is still an intricate issue. Ibn Sharwīn in his Ḥaqāʾiq al-ashyāʾ; explains over 150 terms in relation to cosmology such as substance, accident, line, surface, space; to ontology such as existing, non-existence, originated (muḥdath); to epistemology such as knowledge, creed, ignorance, doubt, skepticism, obligatory and acquired knowledge; to methodology such as evidence, madlūl, debate, and disputation; to fiqh such as sunnah, farḍ, mandūb, cause, command-prohibition, general-particular (ʿumūm-ḫuṣūṣ); to the history of sects such as ʿadliyya, compulsionists (mujbira) and qadarī; to divinity such as the oneness of God (tawhīd); to justice such as promise and threat (al-waʿd wa-l-waʿīd), good and evil, necessary and acquired, grace, compensation, repentance, major and minor sins; to the theory of al-aḥwāl such as attribute of the essence, determinant (muḳtaḍī), entail (muḳtaḍā), muṣaḥḥiḥ, cause. Describing ḥadd that corresponds to “definition” and ḥaḳīḳat that he used together with it as collectively exhaustive, mutually exclusive, Ibn Sharwīn defines knowledge, power, living (ḥayy), speech (kalām), speaker (mutakallim), permanent (bāqī) etc. in a way that is true for both God and human beings. While making these definitions, he draws on poems, linguistic usages and verses and divides the nouns into three parts at the end of his work, namely linguistic, religious and conventional (sharʿī and waḍʿī); in particular, he gives detailed information about metaphors and parts of truth. Another striking aspect of the work is the explanation of the meanings of the imperative mood which is included in the subjects of the Methodology of Fiqh. (shrink)

This study is an attempt toexamine the critiques of Mu‘tazilites in general and Rukn al-Dīn Abū Ṭāhir al- Ṭuraythīthī in particular, of “ta’yēen by naṣṣ”(appointment by text or direct proclamation) which has long been discussedwithin the intellectual history of Islam. The concept of ta’yēen by nass is a case which has been attemptedto be grounded on the basis of Qur’ān and Ḥadith. Although it is thought to bepeculiar to the Shiite circles, it has also been expressed in some Sunnischools as (...) well. Despite the fact that it is generally discussed in regard tothe imamate of the fourth Caliph ‘Ali,some also argued that ta‘yēen by ṇass was to be the case for the imamateof Abū Bakr. Concerning this theory, Mu‘tazilalevelled a great number of essential critiques at the Shiites’ understanding ofmatter. Since it has been discussed in direct relation to the textual evidencesfrom the Qur’ān, a re-examination of the subject in the Qur’anic context is required. In this regard, themethodological approach of Mu‘tazilitescholar al-Ṭuraythīthī is an important component to take into consideration.Ṭāhir al- Ṭuraythīthīcriticizes the sects for their understandings of the notion of ta‘yēen by naṣṣ, in his prominent book “Mutashābihal-Qur’ān” inwhich he tries to understand the subject at stake within the boundaries of languageand reason. Moreover, he evaluates the assertions of both Imāmiyya and Bakriyyaand criticizes both sides relying on the contextual basis of Qur’ānic verses. (shrink)

This paper examines the construction of the poet Du Mu’s libertine image to illustrate how Chinese writers and readers of the ninth and tenth centuries validated the search for sensual pleasure by associating it with literary talent, unconventional character, and political disengagement. In doing so, they added indulgence in sensual pleasures to the repertoire of fengliu cultural ideals, a repertoire previously associated with reclusion and drinking. Because sensual pleasure was traditionally viewed as trivial and/or disruptive to social order, ninth-century writers (...) approached the new ideal with considerable ambivalence. Although Du Mu had fashioned a libertine poetic self-image as a young man, he attempted to shed this image later in life. I argue that it was Du Mu’s readers who, by creatively reading his poems and writing anecdotes about his sexual adventures, re-imagined the poet as a figure of fascination and thus created one of the most enduring fengliu characters in Chinese history. (shrink)

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

The promise and the threat (al-wa’d wa al-wa‘īd) issue, which has been debated among theological sects, is primarily related to the problem of grave sin. This critical issue discussed in the framework of the problem of grave sin and in the context of the faith-action relationship has been shaped based on the definitions of faith of the emerging sects. Through examining the Qur’ān verses about al-wa’d and al-wa‘īd, answers to such questions whether the Qur’ān verses about to indicate generality (‘umūm) (...) or specification (khusūs) and whether divine promise and threat can change have been sought. In the beginning, the disputations occurring between Murji’ah and Mu‘tazilah, afterward, have become one of the essential matters of debate among Māturīdīs and the Mu‘tazilī scholars. Even though Imām Māturīdī expresses common criticisms against Khawārij and Mu‘tazilah, he mainly condemns the Mu‘tazilī doctrine. Mu‘tazilah treats the principle in question based on the idea that, by force of divine justice, it is necessary for God to reward the faithful and punish the disobedient. According to them, because a grave sin that is not repented requires to stay permanently in the hell, intercession (shafā‘ah) is not possible for such a person. However, Māturīdī argues that a claim of this kind cannot be valid from the point of justice by emphasizing that faith, which is a state of constant assent, prevents the punishment. In this essay, Māturīdī’s criticisms have been discussed with regard to directly related issues such as justice, grave sin, and intercession. (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 tradition of Lughz and muʿammā in Arab poetry has an important place. Ibn al-Fāriḍ (d. 632/1235) is a divine love poet that lived in the Ayyubids period. He is an important point in the process of change and transformation of Arabic poetry language. This research aims to carry out a theoretical and anecdotal examination of the Lughzes in Ibn al-Fāriḍ’s Dīwān. The work explains, firstly, the concept of Lughz in terms of conceptual content and theoretical structure and summarizes its (...) own method to be applied in solving and evaluating Lughzes in ten articles. The paper indicates whether the Lughzes in Dīwānhave a theoretical structure or not. In this context, it distinguishes the Lughzes from the number of layers, simple and compound structure maintenance. It examines the theoretical and functional contributions of the tahsīl, takmīl, tashīland tazyīlmethods, the stages of the establishment and the solution of the Lughzes.Abstract: Abū Hafs Sharafuddīn Omar b. Ali al-Hamavī al-Mısrī (d. 632/1235) known as the king of lovers, and called Ibn al-Fārid, is a divine love poet that lived in Egypt during the Ayyubids period (1171-1462). He is an important figure in the process of change and transformation of poetry language in Arabic literature. The lughz and muʿammā (enigma, enigmetic speech, allusion, inversion riddle, poetry puzzle, synecdoche and metaphoric language) means a word pointing to a name or something by symbol and sign. Numerous books have been written about lughzes. These include Arabic poetry, Persian poetry, Classical Turkish poetry, Arabic grammar, Islamic law, hadith, mathematics and inheritance law. The lughz and muʿammā have some linguistic features related to phonetics, statistical linguistics, morphology, lexicology, grammar, syntax, semantics and prosody. This tradition has an important place in Arabic poetry. The research aims to carry out a theoretical and anecdotal examination of the lughzes and muʿammās in Ibn al-Fārız’s Dīwān. The paper explains, firstly, the concept of lughz in terms of conceptual content and theoretical structure. The article summarizes its own method to be applied in analyzing and evaluating lughzes within ten items. The research examines the series of lughzes in Dīwānand divides them into parts according to the original question in the riddles. This work examines the secondary lughzes given in the details of poems in solution parts. The paper indicates whether the lughzes in Dīwānhave a theoretical structure or not. In this context, the research examines lughzes in terms of language and structure, especially in terms of the processes of establishment and solution. This paper categorizes the lughzes according to the number of layers and to whether they have a simple or compound structure. This paper examines the theoretical and functional contributions of the amal al-tahsīlī, amal al-takmīlī, amal al-tashīlī and amal al-tazyīlī methods in the stages of the establishment and the solution of the lughzes. The work applies the theoretical perspectives of these methods to each lughz. The research also examines the contribution of these four methods to the lughzes.There are many lughzes in Ibn al-Fārid’s poems. In Ibn al-Fārid’s Dīwān, in general, fifty-four things are asked. Fifty-one of them are words. Three of them are verbs. One of the verbs is in the order structure and two in the past tense. His lughzes have a theoretical and methodical structure. In terms of organizational structure, lughzes are generally multi-layered, intricate, compound and integrated. Composite lughzes are multi-layered, simple poems are single-layered. Approximately twenty words are asked in the lughzes. These words are always in the first layer of lughz, whether simple or compound. Thirty-seven words in the lughz are secondary lughz with an auxiliary and complementary nature. They are located between the second and sixth layers. Seventeen of the lughzes asked in the auxiliary nature are located in the second layer, thirteen in the third layer, five in the fourth layer, one in the fifth layer and one in the sixth layer. One of the lughzes is six-layered, one of them are five-layered, four of them are four-layered, eight are three-layered, four are double-layered and three are single-layered. According to this, the majority of lughzes in Ibn al-Fārid’s poems are in the unified form and multilayered.The lughzes are formed in terms of word, composition, phrase, grammar and meaning levels. The lughzes have both lexical and semantic characteristics. Ibn al-Fārid uses the configuration (amal al-tahsīlī), completion (amal al-takmīlī), facilitation (amal al-tashīlī) and addition (amal al-tazyīlī) methods to design the lughzes. The structure in the lughzes is shaped by these methods. The words in his lughzes constitute eleven categories, consisting of names, acts and noun verbs. The answers of the questions asked in the poems consist in general of prophet names, surah names, tribal names, administrator’s surnames, letters, cities, animals, food and drink names, attributes and actions. Verbs are in the past time or order form. Some of the lughzes in Ibn al-Fārid’s poems are built in an extraordinary style beyond being interesting. Not all the sentences used in couplets are part of the lughzes. These elements are mentioned in order to complete the lughzes in terms of rhythm and meaning. To be able to solve the lughzes of Ibn al-Fārid, one must be knowledgeable about the language and narrative features of Arabic and Islamic culture, as well as subjects such as the Quran, Sufism, abjad calculation, mathematics, geometry, geography, biology, botany and zoology. His poems contributes to the development and transformation of Arabic poetry. (shrink)

In Volume i of his Systematic Theology , Paul Tillich says, ‘Being precedes nonbeing in ontological validity, as the word “nonbeing” itself indicates’ . He also says elsewhere, ‘Being “embraces” itself and nonbeing’, and ‘Nonbeing is dependent on the being it negates. “Dependent”—points first of all to the ontological priority of being over nonbeing’ . Tillich makes these statements in connection with a tendency among some Christian thinkers to take God as Being itself. The same understanding of the relation of (...) being and non-being can be discerned in major strands of Greek philosophy through the ideas of to on and me on . Although Greek philosophy and the Christian movement have different starting points in time, in geographical locale, in conceptual orientation, Tillich's statements demonstrate the manner in which the two strands have, to a significant degree, merged, and his comments reflect a basic under standing of being and nonbeing in the West. (shrink)

Abstract Qadi `Abdul-Jabbar, although has come to be Known as a Mu`tazili theologian, can be certainly mentioned as a moral philosopher by attention to his ethical views in the theological books. The paper is going to present his ethical opinions concerning normative ethics and Meta-ethics. It shows that `Abdul-Jabbar is a rationalist moral philosopher, who considers reason as the origin of moral obligations, and as the means of evaluating the rightness and wrongfulness of actions. Moreover, he is an essentialist, that (...) is, he regards the nature of actions as the source of rightness or wrongfulness of actions, rather than the external factors. Furthermore, he is a rule-deontologist, who holds human beings must act in accordance with rules and duties. In addition to these, he is an ethical intuitionist and foundationalist; that is to say, he believes that there exist basic moral propositions that can be intellectually intuitionable. These propositions expressing moral principles are evident and necessary ones, and determinant foundations of other duties, whether theoretical or practical. (shrink)

While Qian Mu intentionally avoided systematic philosophical arguments, his references to memory, language, and emotions, as expressed in a book he wrote in 1948, were suggestive of new interpretations of traditional Chinese, and especially Confucian, ideas such as human autonomy, mind, human nature, morality, immortality, and spirituality. The foremost contribution of Qian’s humanist synthesis rests in its articulation of the idea of the person. Across the context of memory, language, and emotions, the tiyong dynamics of mind and human nature recreate, (...) in modern terms, the traditional Chinese concept of the person who is individually unique and simultaneously interrelated. Avoiding the extreme polarities of individualism and collectivism, he stresses rather their coexistence. His synthesis explains to the Chinese people something about who they are, the meaning in life in the framework of their culture, and how their (revitalized) way of life is at its best in the most important area, that of human relations. (shrink)

The paper discusses al-Kindī's response to doctrines held by contemporary theologians of the Mu‘tazilite school: divine attributes, creation, and freedom. In the first section it is argued that, despite his broadly negative theology, al-Kindī recognizes a special kind of “essential” positive attribute belonging to God. The second section argues that al-Kindī agreed with the Mu‘tazila in holding that something may not yet exist but still be an object of God's knowledge and power. Also it presents a new parallel between al-Kindī (...) and John Philoponus. The third section gives an interpretation of al-Kindī as a compatibilist, in other words as holding that humans may be free even though their actions are necessitated. In all three cases, it is argued, al-Kindī is close to the Mu‘tazilite point of view, though he departs from them in the arguments he gives for that point of view. (shrink)

Must good deeds be rewarded and wrongdoers punished? Would God be unjust if He failed to punish and reward? And what is it about good or evil actions and moral identity that might generate such necessities? These were some of the vital religious and philosophical questions that eighth- and ninth-century Mu'tazilite theologians and their sophisticated successors attempted to answer, giving rise to a distinctive ethical position and one of the most prominent and controversial intellectual trends in medieval Islam. The Mu'tazilites (...) developed a view of ethics whose distinguishing features were its austere moral objectivism and the crucial role it assigned to reason in the knowledge of moral truths. Central to this ethical vision was the notion of moral desert, and of the good and evil consequences--reward or punishment--deserved through a person's acts. Moral Agents and Their Deserts is the first book-length study of this central theme in Mu'tazilite ethics, and an attempt to grapple with the philosophical questions it raises. At the same time, it is a bid to question the ways in which modern readers, coming to medieval Islamic thought with a philosophical interest, seek to read and converse with Mu'tazilite theology. Moral Agents and Their Deserts tracks the challenges and rewards involved in the pursuit of the right conversation at the seams between modern and medieval concerns. (shrink)

This article tries to show that Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, one of Ash‘arī theologians of the contracting period, showed a Mu‘tazila tendency regarding the ontic value of divine attributes and his successors followed him in this regard. The problem of divine attributes, a heated discussion area of theology, has been interpreted differently by the theological sects over centuries. Mu‘tazila scholars before Abu Hāshim al-Jubbāī regarded those attributes as nominally attributed to God. For the first time, with Abu Hāshim, this relation was (...) approached with a realistic attitude: Although divine attributes are not accepted as particular realities, they are viewed as states/ahwāl, the universal model of kalam atomism. The pre-Gazzālī Ash‘arī theologians, on the other hand, ascribed real existence to divine attributes as particular properties, whether they adopted this universal model or not. According to Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī, the founder of Ashʿarism, which does not include the universal category in any way, the attributes carried by God’s essence consist of particular qualities. al-Bāqillānī and al-Juwaynī, who, like Abu Hāshim, made room for universals under the name of states, accepted particular qualities that led to universal attributes in a system compatible with Ashʿarism. Muta’akhkhirūn Ash‘arī theologians, building their thought system within the framework of the particular-universal dichotomy, felt the need to apply the theories of universals and predication to overcome the paradox caused by the famous motto “Attributes are neither Him nor other than Him”. On the basis of universal properties that have a lower degree of existence compared to particular properties, Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī’s theory of particular attributes is intended to be associated with Abu Hāshim’s theory of universal (state). In this context, the value of divine attributes discussed on the ontic ground by the mutaqaddimūn theologians was drawn to the epistemic ground in the muta’akhkhirūn period. From the first kalām works of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī to the last kalām works, he was distant from the ontic value of divine attributes. The statement that the derived word “knower”, which is appropriate for being a predicate in the propositional structure, and the infinitive “knowledge”, which is not appropriate for being a predicate, meet the same purpose, and that divine attributes are considered divine essence are the most important indications of this distance. Reviewing the works of prominent theologians, scholars of the time such as Fakhr al- Dīn al-Rāzī, Aḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī, Sa‘d al-dīn al-Taftāzānī, al-Jurjānī, and al-Dawānī, this article aims to demonstrate that Abu Hāshim’s view of the divine attributes in the ontic context was welcomed and that the evaluation of divine attributes shifted from particular realities to universal ones in the ontic context. The meaning of “God is knower” proposition according to the pre-Mu‘tazila in the ontic context will be analyzed. Then, its meaning according to Ash‘arite theologians from their framework of universals, will be investigated. (shrink)

One of the issues covered by Muʿtazila’s idea of justice is the subject of the imposition of moral obligation (taklīf). The concept of the obligation (taklīf), which expresses that God imposes some difficult acts on His servants and asks them to fulfill them, is important because it explains God’s justice for His servants and His wisdom in creating them. For this reason, the main emphasis in the matter of imposition has been on the veneration of the servants and rendering benefits (...) to them in return for imposition. As a matter of fact, God offers His servants such a reward that it is not possible to achieve with anything other than obligation. This article presents examples of hypothetical obligations emphasizing the same issue. Al-taklīf al-zāid is an additional imposition period meaning that God does not end the life that he determines for the morally obliged (mukallaf), but prolongs the life of the servant in such a way that changes the result of his imposition. In Muʿtazilite thought, the issue of the additional imposition basically takes place in the form of two separate discussions about unbeliever and believer. While the additional imposition of the unbeliever deals with the situation of the unbeliever who is known to believe when his imposition (or life) is prolonged; the additional imposition of believer deals with the situation of the believer who is known to disbelieve when his imposition (or life) is prolonged. Abū ʿAli thinks that it is obligatory (wajib) for God to keep this unbeliever alive when it is known that he would come to believe if He did not kill him and his imposition had been prolonged. His argument in this regard is his thought that the additional imposition is a favour (lutf) for the unbeliever to believe. Abū Hāshim, on the other hand, says that it is not obligatory for God to prolong the imposition of unbeliever in such a situation, and that it would be good (hasan) to kill the unbeliever, even though it is known that he would have believed if his imposition had been prolonged. Because, according to Abū Hāshim, God already gave the unbeliever the opportunity to attain rewards in his first imposition. The unbeliever reached this end because he made a wrong choice in his imposition and it cannot be obligatory for God to re-present the circumstances that will change this outcome. According to him, the additional imposition of an unbeliever is not a favour (lutf), but it is like the enabling to act (tamkīn) and is not obligatory. As for the additional imposition of a believer, Abū ʿAli, Abū Hāshim and the Bahshamites agree that it is good to prolong the imposition of the believer who is known to be an unbeliever if his imposition was prolonged. The reason for their view is that God has endowed the servant with a reward, which would otherwise be unattainable, in return for the prolonged imposition. However, the Husaynites believe that prolonging the imposition of believer in this situation would not be good. Because the believer deserves a reward for his first imposition and in this case, his additional imposition will be a corruption (mafsada) for him. As a result of these different views, when we look generally, it is seen that the main concern in Muʿtazilite thought is to make the most appropriate decision for the benefit of the servant in all the impositions that God has imposed and is likely to impose. The Bahshamites have always prioritized offering more rewards to the servant. However, Abū ʿAli regarding the additional imposition of the unbeliever, and the Husaynites regarding the additional imposition of believer, prioritized the imposition’s resulting in belief, and they thought that it was more suitable for the benefit of the servant. Since the purpose of the imposition in Muʿtazilite thought is to provide the opportunity to attain the degrees that it could never been reached in any other way, regardless of the outcome, it should be said that the views of the Bahshamites on both additional obligations are more consistent within the general system of Muʿtazila. (shrink)

One of the issues of discussion between Ahl al-Sunnah and the Mu‛tazila, who differ in many issues, is the relationship between divine command and divine will. Among those who express their opinion on is the Ash‛arī theologian Salmān al-Nīsābūrī. The author, who first cites his sect’s approach on this issue and then explains that Mu‛tazila’s contrary view, adopted the view that the belief, which follows as worship and good deeds commanded by Allah will be the same from his servants. In (...) this matter he basically elaborates three arguments the Mu‛tazila. He states that they build the first of these proofs on the impossibility of the commandment and the will being in a separate direction, and secondly on the fact that the desire for evil is bad. Finally, he adds that they bring evidence from the verses which translates as Allah desires the good of his servants and doesn’t intend his evil deeds. Nīsābūrī, doesn’t pass on these Mu‛tazilite proofs with an immediate answer, but also puts on his agenda possible other objections to those answers that he is giving. He makes the debate very comprehensive, especially on the first evidence he attributes to them. In this sense, he tries to refute the Mu‛tazila argument that the ruler cannot have a will contrary to what he ordered, based on some other rulers who would not want their orders to be fulfilled. Nīsābūrī, who cites some other objections on this issue, states that while there are claims regarding the necessity of order-will harmony, it isn’t consistent that these claimants develop their objections to the examples that show the opposite of their views. In other words, he says that these regarding cases invalidate Mu‛tazila’s claim of necessity. Nīsābūrī includes abrogation in the later stages of the debate and argues that abrogation, which means the abolition of a decree, hits a blow to their understanding of the necessity of order-will. The author also takes objections to his agenda and responds to them. He also examines Mu‛tazila’s approach on the content that if the will is contrary to the order, the rebel and the submissive will be confused, so they must be compatible. Since this claim confirms the meaning that the unbelievers obey Allah’s will with their blasphemy, he makes explanations that obedience will be achieved by order, not by will. On the other hand, the author tries to bind his interlocutors by emphasizing that there’s no room for discussion when it is seen at the relevant verses and seen that Allah doesn’t wish (some) unbelievers to believe. Nīsābūrī, also examines the argument made by Mu‛tazila as to the necessity of conformity between divine command and divine will, that wishing for evil is also evil. Nīsābūrī, who makes relatively more concise explanations on this subject, pointing to the source of this evidence and stating that it is reached from the realm of the perceptible (qiyas bi’l-shāhid). Then, he makes some explanations that the visible realm and the invisible realm cannot be evaluated in the same way and draws attention to the fact that Allah’s being unwise isn’t inferred from the worldly affairs that are happening against Muslims. Nīsābūrī also deals with Mu‛tazila’s evidence for the harmony of divine will and divine order through verses stating that Allah wouldn’t wish his servants to harm. At this stage, he makes comments that the relevant verses are suitable to be evaluated in another way. For this, sometimes makes linguistic explanations, sometimes refers to the content of other verses, and sometimes points to the meaning of the verse used as the evidence. In all of them, he ultimately tries to show that the verses raised by Mu‛tazila do not support their claim. While the author refutes those evidences, he also points out the problems that may arise if the view defended by Mu‛tazila would accepted. In this sense, Nīsābūrī points out that this view will also mean the occurrence of deeds that Allah does not want, and this would bring harm to the divine judgement. As a result, Nīsābūrī underlines that at least Allah’s order towards His servants, whom He knows won’t believe, isn’t in the same direction. (shrink)

The last four sections of the first book of Abū al-Barakāt al-Baghdādī’s summa, entitled Kitāb al-Mu‘tabar, deal with dialectics, sophistical refutations, rhetoric, and poetics in full line with Aristotle’s Organon. However, they are not so much based on Aristotle’s works, but on a work of the young Ibn Sīnā, namely al-Ḥikma al-‘Arūdiyya. Both texts have much in common not only in their structure, but also in their very wording. The article presents a basic survey of the correspondences for all four (...) sections and also highlights the most significant differences. However, important part of these differences has a counterpart in an logical text, which is present in the manuscript Nuruosmaniye 4894 and which is, in turn, very close to, albeit not identical, with Ibn Sīnā’s al-Ḥikma al-‘Arūdiyya as conserved in the unique manuscript Uppsala 364. Therefore, it is obvious that Abū al-Barakāt takes over many formulations and, at once, many ideas from Ibn Sīnā. However, he adds clearly personal elements that often seem to have been religiously inspired and, on occasion, consciously returns to Aristotle’s wording. (shrink)

Ben shu fen li shi yu wen hua nei han,Shan zong li shi yu wen hua,Dao jiao li shi yu wen hua,Tian ren he yi de si xiang nei han deng duo ge lan mu lai jie shao ru jia si xiang.

: The schools of fiqh applied different methods to eliminate contradictions between narrations. In fact, this difference in methodology directly led to fiqh disagreement. Thus, a school explains within the framework of its own procedural system which of the contradictory narratives it uses as evidence, the reason for using this narrative, how they interpret other narrations about the subject or the reason for not using these reports as evidence. This article aims to chronologically examine the theory that the Ḥanafī developed (...) about antithetical narratives based on ‘Īsā ibn Abān, al-Karkhī, al-Jaṣṣāṣ, al-Dabūsī, al-Pazdawī and al-Sarakhsī. Moreover, the criticisms and contributions made by the scholars of the principles of jurisprudence are determined. Frequently repeated approach in some research that the Hanafis first used the abrogation to fulfill the contradiction between the narrations is questioned within the framework of the aforementioned scholars’ viewpoints Summary: The theory of contradictory narratives, developed as part of the narration theory, has an important position in the sense of the school’s approach to the Sunnah. This is because the system that a school of jurisprudence implements to fulfill the contradiction between narrations has an important influence in scholars’ juridical opinion. In some studies carried out today, the system developed by the Ḥanafī to eliminate the contradiction between narratives is presented in two different ways as abrogation, preference, conciliation and not to use as evidence or abrogation, conciliation and applying principles. The common point of the two hierarchies of solution is placing abrogation in first rank. In order to test the accuracy of this information in this research, we studied the system that the Ḥanafi scholars who lived in the first five centuries of the Hijra followed to eliminate the contradiction between the narrations. The development of this theory in the five centuries of the Hijra was examined on the basis of the views of ‘Īsā ibn Abān, al-Karkhī, al-Jaṣṣāṣ, al-Dabūsī and al-Sarakhsī. It is an indisputable fact that the construction and development of a theory requires a process. In this context, the present study investigated when and on which principles the theory of contradictory narratives on Ḥanafīan theory of narrative/Sunnah is started to be instituted; who and for what reasons contributed to it during this evolution process and how; and how it is instituted the way of solution hierarchy in theearly period which makes a differentiation in comments between Ḥanafīan later. This theory was enriched by principles that were developed with different perspectives during a long process and its comprehensibility was boosted using new concepts and systematic expression. Ḥanafī legal theorists benefited from the opinions of masters of the jurisprudence school to enrich this theory in terms of principles. This suggests that the theory is a scientific effort aimed at discovering how masters of the jurisprudence school are following a method in the face of contradictory narratives. As far as known, Isā ibn Abān is the first theoretician to have detailed methodological explanations related to contradictory narratives between the Hanafi scholars. This shows that the theory related to contradictory narratives was established at the beginning of the third century of the hegira. 'Isā ibn Abān divides the opposite narratives into hadiths that are compatible with consensus and hadiths that are contrary to consensus on the basis of consensus. He accepts the hadith in the first group and he evaluates the hadith in the second group as the abrogated if it is authentic. It must be stated that this solution path which Isā ibn Abān put forth is of high practical value. There is no practical value in fıqh to eliminate the contradiction between the hadith which is compatible with the consensus and the hadith contrary to this consensus by the conciliation method. Moreover, giving an active role to the consensus in the determination of the abrogating and abrogated also prevents easy access to the method of abrogation. ‘Isā ibn Abān divides hadiths that are without consensus about their provisions into two: the appearance date is known and unknown. He first applied the conciliation method to fulfill the contradictions between the narrations in both groups. If the problem is not solved by the conciliation method, Isā applies the abrogation method for narrations whose the appearance date is known. The ones that the date is not known can be acceptable in accordance with the originals, and if this is not possible, he says that both narrations cannot be used as evidence. al-Jaṣṣāṣ, who is one of the people who convey mostly al-Karkhī's views on fiqh methodology, does not convey the views of al-Karkhī on contradictory narratives in integrity that we see in the transmission of 'Isā ibn Abān’s theory and its interpretation. It is understood that al-Jaṣṣāṣ benefited from the views of al-Karkhī to improve the system of Isā ibn Abān. This suggests that al-Karkhī basically accepted the system of contradictory narratives established by Isā ibn Abān. al-Jaṣṣāṣ 's most important role in the theory of contradictory narratives is based on the principles laid down by ‘Isā ibn Abān and al-Karkhī. The person who mostly contributed to this theory after al-Karkhī is al-Dabūsī. It is understood from al-Dabūsī’s accounts that he divides the contradiction into two parts, the truth and the apparent. al-Dabūsī stipulated for evaluating a contradiction as a real contradiction. These conditions are, in essence, solutions for the elimination of the contradiction. When it comes to al-Sarakhsī, he dealt with this issue more precisely with concepts such as “evidence”, “judgement”, “state”, “date is clear in the text”, “date is not clear in the text”. In the system of al-Sarakhsī, the last option is the abrogation to eliminate the contradiction. (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)

The author examines the critique of the epoch, which German philosopher of law and political theoretician Carl Schmitt worked out in the 1920s. Since this topic is present in most of Schmitt’s works from that period, author chose to discuss three, in which this subject isn’t considered on the margins, but on the foreground: a text concerning the poem by Theodor Däubler Nordlicht, Political Romanticism and Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations. While the latter is well known in Poland, the first (...) two – a little worse, as well as the whole reflection and biography of Carl Schmitt in that period. The consistency with which Schmitt engaged in the criticism of the times in which he lived, allows us to show how he was born as a political thinker: main ideas of his political theology have their source in the criticism of the era. In addition, the author presents criticism created by Schmitt on the background of that one developed by other thinkers, to point out the differences between this two approaches to the same epoch. The aim of the study is, first, to bring Polish reader closer to the not-so-well-studied period of Schmitt’s reflection and biography (by reaching beyond the above-mentioned works also to the journal of Carl Schmitt, as well as his youthful literary work Schattenrisse, written together with Fritz Eisler), secondly: to present Schmitt as an original thinker of his era. (shrink)

Based on the fact that Arabic words have roots from which they are derivated and their common meanings and there is a meaning relationship between words derivated from the same root Ibn Fāris tried to prove this theory in his dictionary. According to Ibn Fāris maqāyīs means the words that was derivated from a same root and have a common meaning. The purpose of writing this dictionary by Ibn Fāris is to determine the common meaning of words that was derivated (...) from a same root. This common meaning is called asl (origin) or miqyās (gauge). He tried to mention the most obvious expression of common meaning. Thus, the words with similar meanings can be gathered around the same expression. There are totally 4659 articles in al-Maqāyīs. Of these articles approximately 2175 articles have one common meaning, 355 articles have two common meanings, 68 articles have three common meanings and 15 articles have four common meanings. There are just 4 aricles they have five common meanings andonly one article has six common meanings. He characterized 222 articles with useyl. While explaning the articles he gaved a great importance to the testimony. He recorded in his dictionary approximately 5.000 poems and 858 rajazs. And there are 612 verses, 579 hadithes and nearly 390 proverbs in this work. While explaning these articles Ibn Fāris used some concepts. He generally recorded these concepts in the first line when he starts to explain an article. That’s why it’s not easy to understand the articles without understanding the recorded concepts in this work. This article was prepared to explain the concepts in al-Maqāyīs. In this way, it is aimed to understand this work better. In this article are explained 14 concepts and are given some articles in which these concepts are mentioned as examples. Ibn Fāris used the word of kalima wāhida (one word) in the meaning of meaning/content. The concept of binā is used in some articles in the meaning of root, in some articles in the meaning of meaning/content and somtimes is used in the meaning of common meaning. But the concept of harf (letter) is used for the roots which is given a little explanation. It is possible to say that this concept means word (kalima) and these articles are not suitable for common meaning. Also in some articles the author mentioned about the meaning inconsistency and the meaning distance between common meanings. He used terms like meaning dissimilarity (ademu inqiyās) and individual meaningful words for the roots which he could not find the common meanings. The author sometimes used the terms of difference (tafāwut), meaning similarity (taqārub) and interference (tadākhul) between origins and words. Although he accepts the existence of common words and auto-antonym (ezdād) in Arabic language, he states that there is a detail difference between the words which are considered to be synonym. The concept of muhmal means the neglected articles or the articles whose letters are incomatible. (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)

This article discusses Abū ʽUthmān al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 255/869) (one of the first Muʽtazilī scholars) Allah-world relationship, his understanding of custom, and his view on miracles. The Muʻtazilī thinkers examined the problem of miracles within their concept of prophethood. They divide miracles, which they accept as the only proof of prophethood, into two: those under the power of Allah and under the power of the created. Jāḥiẓ explains these two sorts of miracles with the order in the universe established by Allah (...) and people and expresses this order with the concept of custom (ʻāda). Jāḥiẓ divides custom into three. The first of these is the “qā’im (constant) custom”, which is based on the theory of kumūn-ẓuhūr and expresses the general rules that occur as a requirement of the general functioning in the universe. According to Jāḥiẓ “qā’im (constant) custom” is that knowledgeable people are aware of the custom of the universe. This custom is an order created by Allah in the eyes of intelligent and knowledgeable people, which is continuous and therefore cannot be interrupted, and in which there is no chaos. He states that this order is realized through the natures in the objects, which are knowable to everyone. But rarely a nature in this order can be interrupted due to a situation that takes it out of the natural flow and cannot be explained by natural causes. According to him, this is proof that nature, which has the defining feature of the object, is created by the creator, and maintains its continuity based on an arranged program. However, the creator can involve in this order when necessary. In this type of custom, God’s intervention occurs by breaking the qā’im custom that continues on a regular basis. The second of these is the “regional custom”, which is not known to everyone but only known to people living in a certain area. Jāḥiẓ states that the miracle in this type of custom occurred when Allah broke the custom known to the people in the region. The third of these is “social custom” which is established by people. For Jāḥiẓ, the miracles of this kind are under the power of people. He argues that the miracle in this type of custom occurs with sarfa, that is, by God’s intervention with human’s motive or knowledge. In this study, Jāḥiẓ’s view of miracles is discussed together with his theory of nature, his understanding of custom and sarfa. (shrink)

This article discusses Abū Isḥāq al-Naẓẓām’s (d. 231/845) (one of the first Muʽtazilī thinkers); understanding of Allah-world relationship, his theory of nature (tab‘) and his view on miracles. In a proposal form, Muʽtazilī scholars accept that the miracle, which is the actual confirmation, must occur, since it is not possible for Allah to confirm His messenger (prophet) in a way that everyone can hear and in a direct word. Since the Prophet's message can be authenticated only by a miracle, Muʽtazilī (...) thinkers paid great attention to this issue, organized and formed natural theories about the universe in a way that miracles can occur. Naẓẓām explains a kind of miracle that occurs under the power of Allah, by his theory of nature called latency and occurrence (kumūn-ẓuhūr). His view of miracles is rooted in the Muʽtazilī classification of miracles. Naẓẓām argues that in the theory of nature, things are infinitely divided. He also argues that all qualities considered accident (aʽrāḍ) by other Muslim theologians are different objects as only motion and rest are the only accidents. According to him, the universe consists of objects and accidents of motion only. In each object in the universe, an unlimited number of opposing objects (sub-components) that have different effects on each other is located in the same space. Those objects in the same space are intervened (tadākhul) with each other. Kumūn refers to sub-components that are located inside the object in a state of passing into each other, and a state of balancing each other through the push-pull motion (i‘timād). Ẓuhūr is an outward movement of the sub-component from where it is located when an impact imposed outside the object interacts with one of the sub-components contained in it. Naẓẓām says that too many opposing sub-components, such as heaviness-lightness, heat-coldness contained in the object, form an internal dynamic by providing balancing each other through inside the object with the push-pull motion. The state of balance inside the object is disrupted by an external factor affecting one of the sub-components. An external thing approaching the object interacts with one of the sub-components contained in the object. Then, the affected sub-component moves out of the object and thus the state of balance inside the object is disrupted. According to the theory of kumūn-ẓuhūr, change in objects occurs when the balance within the object is disturbed. The change in the balance also occurs not by the direct intervention of Allah and the creation of accidents, but by the disruption in the balance of natures within the object. Naẓẓām, who advocates the intrinsic natures in things, has been criticized for not leaving any room for Allah’s influence on objects at least through miracles. This criticism is not correct. Naẓẓām says that the nature of objects depends on God, and it is possible for God to intervene in them at any time. According to him, Allah can force opposing objects into a union that is not in their natures. In their natures, unification can separate those by applying pull and push. In this way, Naẓẓām sees the intervention of Allah as possible in the occurrence of a situation that is the opposite of what is present in the nature of objects. In Naẓẓām's theory of kumūn-ẓuhūr, there are suppressed natures and sub-components that are in a weak state inside the actual object. Furthermore, they cannot go out in any way from the actual object. One of these suppressed natures found in the object is removed from the nature of the object by the intervention of Allah when a miracle occurs in the hands of theProphet. In this case, the miracle is not something new that Allah has created, but that Allah has disclosed a hidden sub-component that is hidden in that thing that has never appeared before. Naẓẓām’s view of miracle is something occurring under the power of the created, which Muʽtazilī scholars accept in the classification of miracles in relation to, the theory of sarfa. He suggests that the Qur'an, which he accepts under the power of the created, would not be a miracle, if the Arabs could dispute it. However, according to him, the Qur'an is a miracle because Allah prevents them from the dispute. In his understanding of sarfa, the miracles occur directly as an act of God’s divine intervention with human beings. This study investigates Naẓẓām’s view of miracles along with his theory of nature and his understanding of sarfa. (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)

The problem of human freedom have been addressed by al-Mutakallimūn (Islamic theologians) in the context of human acts and discussed from the point of view its relation with the will and other elements. At this point, whether the human has will and power in his own act, the limits of his will and power, the role of human in the act and his responsibilities have prompted to different debates. The theory of tawlīd put forward by Mu‘tazila is very crucial in (...) terms of determining the scope and limits of the freedom of human in acts. Mu‘tazila’s tawlīd theory defenses based on two important reasons. The first is to present the nature and limits of the acts that man did them outside himself. The other is to explain the relationship of human with such acts with regards to moral responsibility. Because both issues are very important in the principle of justice of Mu‘tazila. The effort to put the cause-effect relationship of human with his acts in terms of tawhīd and justice on the rational and moral ground is the reason for emergence of the theory. In this respect, the purpose of this theory which enables establishing a causality relationship between the human act and nature is aimed at the justification of freedom and responsibility between agent (fā‘il) and act.In this study, firstly, the definition of the concept of tawlīd and its meaning area have been presented and tackled the discussions about the agent of indirect acts. And then it has been discoursed upon the criticisms of Ahl al-Sunna about the subject of tawlīd. The subject has been outlined in the context of the intellectual discussion between Ahl al-Sunna and Mu‘tazila which constitute the dominant part of theological dispute tradition. In this respect, the main purpose of the study is to reveal how the limits of indirect actions belonging to human by force of freedom and moral responsibility are drawn and understood.Although they did not have a uniform thought about the topic, Mu‘tazila theologians who accepted semi-determinism in the theory of tawlīd acknowledged the existence of natures in the substances. Those who admitted the reason as a means of the act did not approve this. By accepting the continuity of the accidents in the acts, they twisted together the voluntary acts and the natural acts, and accepted that directly acts were realized through the human will and the other according to the principle of necessity. According to Mu‘tazila, causes are only means. Hence, the act emerging as a result of the means is the act of the agent who used this means to reach the result, not the means. Therefore, man is the agent of engendered acts and responsible for all kinds of acts that arise as a reflection of the will and their consequences. While Ahl al-Sunna has directly associated the action of man and all its consequences with the power of Allah, Mu‘tazila has based these actions on the power of man, which Allah has created in man and has been the source of the acts. Contrary to Mu‘tazila, the continuance of power which are not a constant accident is not possible for a second act from the point of Ahl al-Sunna since they have accepted the idea that the accidents will not be continuous. In this respect, according to Ahl al-Sunna, there is no compulsory relationship between the agent that caused the formation of the acts and the result supervening from them. They did not accept the idea of tawlīd, which its meaning is that accident gives birth to accident, because it would oblige the relationship between cause and effect. Because this relationship, which Mu‘tazila gives the name of tawlīd in human acts, is made up for that Allah has created His laws right after the orientation of human to the cause. In this respect, Ahl al-Sunna thinkers rejected tawlīd because it would mean attributing an act to an inanimate being and require a mandatory relationship between cause and effect in the functioning of the universe. Although the result does not occur with his own act when the person applies to the cause, he is responsible for his act because it is related to the person who did it. Māturīdī tradition did not accept the acts that emerged as a result of tawlīd as the production of man, but they tried to establish a balance by holding the person responsible because he is the reason for the outcome that emerged. As for the Ash‘arites, they avoided giving a real effect of the will and power to the causes by considering that created will and power is only a locus in the emergence of the act. The person has no effect on his act except for directing his will to that act and his behavior which will make the person responsible is based on this will. (shrink)

The thought system of Qâdî ‘Abd al-Jabbâr, who is a productive intellectual worker in the Mu‘tazilî school, is established on the contingency (imkân) of obligation (taklîf) of the God upon people. In other words he has a universe and order of thought which is built around the term obligation. Therefore, the content of Qâdî’s aforementioned thought which has a very significant place in Mu‘tazilî thought is constituted of responsbilities of human beings. These responsibilities of the human beings are gathered under (...) the title of rational ones (aqliyyât) in terms of being held responsible by reason and the title sem‘iyyât which covers the things that fall under the category of responsibilities that can be only known by revelation (wahy) due to the imposibility of being assigned by the sole reason. In short, aqliyyât corrresponds to the rational field of obligation whereas se‘miyyât corresponds to the legal (shar’i) field of responsibility. The responsibilites under the title aqliyyât are such as tawhîd, justice, and other non-primary premises that serve as instruments for comrehending these two terms. The content of sem‘iyyât, on the other hand, is constituted of the issues that fall outside of the rational obligation (taklîf al-aqlî) and can only be known by means of sam‘ (revelation) such as the knowledge that adultry leads to moral corruption or the knowledge of juristic worships. We can observe that Qâdî ‘Abd al-Jabbâr, did make use of three different kinds of proofs in order to prove, found, and justify the aforementioned issues which lay the foundations for his thought. These are rational (aqlî), revelational (sam‘î) and linguistic (lugawi) proofs, respectively. For each of these kinds of proofs there is an idiosyncratic domain of coverage on which that kind of proof is considered as the unique authority. This research aims to elaborate the domain the only authority of which is the linguistic proofs and also aims to render it comprehensive. So to speak, the motivating factor of this research is to clarify the question of to what extent the language plays a role in Qâdî’s thought and its domain of influence in the simplest way. (shrink)

Sunnah is considered the second of the main sources of Islam. The reports, which are considered the carrier of the sunnah, have been conveyed by narrators at different levels. The reasons for the difference between the conveying narration levels were handled mainly as a subject of research and discussion by theologians and Muʿtazila scholars as well. One of these subjects is the factors affecting the conveying of the narration and what is preventing it from being conveyed. Qāḍī Abd Al-Jābbār (d. (...) 415/1025) is one of the scholars who has a different account on this subject. He developed a philosophical perspective on the Islamic narrative case, acting in line with the rationalist sectarian approach. Accordingly, the frequency of conveying narration, whether the report is religious, its effect on the interlocutor, it's becoming ordinary. Therefore, ın this study, the factors which affect conveying of the khabar are emphasized in line with the opinions of Qāḍī Abd Al-Jābbār. In other words, the factors that ensure that a report is voiced and repeated by the members of the society and the reasons that prevent the transfer of a word are emphasized. Qāḍī Abd Al-Jābbār dealt with the factors affecting the conveying or repetition of khabar with the social, psychological and belief aspects of human and tried to exemplify. These factors have a two-way effect. Some of factors require the conveying of the khabar, while others are considered to prevent and weaken it. Although these factors are related to the psychological aspect of the person in terms of source, they differ from the process of action. The first of these factors that require the conveying of the khabar was named by Qāḍī Abd Al-Jābbār as الداعي. The second one is the factors that prevent the communication of the khabar, and it was named as الصوارف. The “dāʿi” for doing or not taking an action can be more than one and also different in strength. The action of the person towards the conveying of the khabar is directly proportional to the force of the “dāʿi”. Strong actions motivate the person to perform it more, whereas the weakest influence lead less people to perform the action. Therefore, two khabar with the same “dāʿi” should be conveyed at the same rate. Because the main factor is named “dāʿi” that provides their conveying has the same force. Accordingly, it is not correct whether one of the two khabar items that share the same situation and are in the same time period is not posted and the other is. In other words, the transfer of something is devāʿī / الدواعي and in accordance with the strength of the need within the framework of the custom / العادة law. The conveying of the khabar status depends on the tendency to post it or the issues that prevent it. Among these factors, the issues that enable the conveying of the khabar and motivate people in this regard are also expressed in terms of issues and elements that prevent people from conveying. These are closely related to the psychological situation of the person who conveyed the khabar, the ordinariness of the khabar, the need for the khabar, the distance to the time of the khabar, the religious quality of the khabar and whether there is a fear situation surrounding the conveying. According to this, if there is a “dāʿi / motive” and " devāī / motives" related to the khabar, it is conveyed but if there is any "sārif/ inhibitor" about it, it is not conveyed. The “dā’i / motive” and "sārif/ inhibitor" of the khabar do not have the same strength. Accordingly, to obtain neccecity in knowledge, the correctnes of khabar depends on the “dāʿi” in the khabar. Therefore, since the “dāʿi” owned by the “khabar from single persons / ahad khaber” are weaker than the “dāʿi” owned by the mutawatir khabar. Therefore, it cannot be expected to be transmitted at the same level. (shrink)

_Mu__ḥ__ammad Ghazālī (d. 1111) influenced some of the key metaphysical teachings of Shia Safavid philosophers, most prominently, Mullā __Ṣ__adrā Shīrāzī (d. ca. 1636). In this paper, I argue that Mullā __Ṣ__adrā reads Ibn Sīnā (d. 1037) through the lens of Mu__ḥ__ammad Ghazālī’s Sufi Ash__ʿ__arism to offer a solution to the problem of freewill in the Islamic context. In his adaptation of causal necessity from Ibn S__ī__n__ā__, Mull__ā_ _Ṣ__adrā argues that “necessity” as a concept is co-extensional with “existence” because in reality (...) all that is the case is necessarily so. On the other hand, all things including voluntary actions and will are only relatively existent since the only independent existence is that of God. I demonstrate that like Ibn Sīnā, Mullā __Ṣ__adrā acknowledges the existence of a causal chain in which all intermediary causes including human freewill have causal power. But, similar to Ghazālī’s account, all human acts including voluntary ones are from God since in Mullā __Ṣ__adrā’s universe freewill is a lower degree of God’s Will. For Mullā __Ṣ__adrā, the acquisition of action by human beings in the case of voluntary actions, a notion that he adopts from Ghazālī, is the same as “acquiring” existence from God’s existence._. (shrink)

Ahmed Mâhir, who was born in Kastamonu in 1860-70, is one of the last period Ottoman scholars and is known by the penname "Ballıkızâde". He lived in the 19th century, during the Constitutional Monarchy period when the West progressed in many directions and the Ottoman Empire began to lose land alongside its reforms. After taking lessons from the scholar Ahmed Hicâbî, he also gave lectures and educated many students, and taught tafsir and theology for thirteen years at Daru'l-Fünûn Faculty of (...) Theology and Medresetü'l-Vâizîn. In addition to this, the scholar, who has served as a member of the Supreme Court, a judge, and a deputy, also appears as a political personality. Mâhir, who has four published works, is one of the important personalities that Kastamonu raised in religious, political, and literary fields. In this study, the Constitutional Era and the position of the science of tafsir in this period are discussed. Secondly, after transferring information about Ahmed Mâhir's life, his exegesis method on the works of "Mu'cizât-ı Kur'âniyye" and "al-Fâtiha fî Tefsîri'l-Fâtiha" was examined. The qualitative research method and document analysis technique wasused for this study. In addition, the data were analyzed with the help of description, sampling and association techniques. The fact that Ahmed Mâhir has both a political and religious personality and that we have four works about him today makes it important to research him. In this context, the study aims to reveal Ahmed Mâhir's exegesis based on his works. A doctoral thesis on him, in which his mystical aspect was emphasized, and an article by the same person, again, two master's theses were made about the work he wrote in the field of Sufism. Some sources provide concise information about his life and works, and brief information given in some biographical or literature studies. But his works named "Mu'cizât-ı Kur'âniyye" and "al-Fâtiha fî Tefsîri'l-Fâtiha" have not been studied academically. This situation made this study important. In addition, the existence of various interpretations on whether the author's interpretation of Surah Fâtiha is original or not has caused us to consider this issue as a problem. As a result of our analysis, Ahmed Mâhir has conveyed the negative political or religious situations of his period, especially in his work "Mu'cizât-ı Kur'âniyye". Based on the idea that the Qur'an is perfect and contains everything, he used the verses to correct these situations. His work "el-Fâtiha fî Tefsîri'l-Fâtiha" shows us both the traces of the Ottoman tafsir accumulation of that period and that this scholar has a scientific tradition on tafsir, hadith, and literature. (shrink)