On actualization of Islam based on thoughts of A. Mustofa Bisri, a prominent ulama and muslim scholar In Indonesia; collected articles.

It is known that the relationship between word and meaning is one of the most controversial topics of ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato and Indian linguists. In fact, this issue has continued to be discussed with its definition and scope, and opinions about it have been expressed until today. When we review the subject in the Arabic language, we see that Arabic is a rich language with its words and meanings. Also, changes and developments in Arabic, which is (...) a deep-rooted language, has undergone in the historical process have brought changes of meaning in its words. Thus, it can be said that the Arabic language, that includes many branches of linguistics such as morphology, syntax and rhetoric, is also interrelated with semantics, what focuses on the relationship between word and meaning. Although semantics has emerged as a new branch of linguistics, many of today's semantic issues have been discussed in many classical sources and different disciplines, especially in the Arab world. In this study, semantics in general and the emergence of Arabic semantics as a science, its scope, description and its relations with other languages have been investigated. In addition, the works of Ahmed Muhtar Omar (1933-2003) who made great effort especially in the field of Arabic language and the modern Arab world, in the domain of Arabic and his contributions to this field, those include the main issue of this study, have been addressed. The general content of his book "Ilmu'd-dalâla", which includes almost all the topics related to semantics, and the important issues and views those it contains are also mentioned. Besides, presenting important issues in the work, especially Ahmed Muhtar Omar's prominent views and explanations are also mentioned. In the study, prominent works about semantics and Arabic semantics, written from the past to the present, were used. In particular, the life and scientific personality of Ahmed Muhtar has been tried to be presented on the basis of a few works written in the contemporary period. (shrink)

Bu makale, Adudüddin Îcî’nin Kitābü’l-Mevāḳıf adlı eserinde Seyfeddin Âmidî’ye hatalı bir şekilde isnat ettiği, kadîm eserin muhtâr fâile dayanabileceği görüşünü ele almaktadır. Îcî, kelâmcılar ile Meşşâî filozoflar arasında, mūcib bi’z-zāt tanrı düşüncesinin zorunlu olarak âlemin kıdemini, fâil-i muhtâr tanrı düşüncesinin ise zorunlu olarak âlemin hudûsunu gerektirdiği konusunda fikir birliği olduğunu iddia eder. Ancak Îcî, Âmidî’nin bu konuda aykırı bir görüş savunduğunu ve kadîm âlemin muhtâr bir Tanrı’ya dayanabileceğini ileri sürdüğünü belirtir. Makale, Îcî’nin bu iddiasının yanlış olduğunu, Âmidî’nin böyle bir görüş (...) savunmadığını ve fakat bu hatalı isnadın sonraki şerhlerde aktarıldığını göstermektedir. Îcî, Âmidî’nin kasıtla yaratmada eserin müessiri öncelemesinin zamansal değil, îcâb yoluyla yaratmadaki gibi zâtî öncelik tarzında olabileceğini düşündüğünü iddia etmektedir. Yaratıcı ile eser arasında zâtî öncelik-sonralık ilişkisi ise, kadîm bir eserin kasıtla yaratan bir müessirin eseri olabileceğini vurgulamaktadır. Âmidî’nin böyle bir görüşü savunup savunmadığını tespit etmek amacıyla, onun kasıtla yaratma ile îcâb yoluyla yaratma arasındaki temel farklardan biri olan, kastın vuku bulması için maksûdun yokluğunun şart olduğu ilkesini sürdürüp sürdürmediği soruşturuldu. Nitekim, maksûdun yokluğunun kastın bir şartı olduğu ilkesine göre, kasıtla yaratan bir fâilin kastettiği eserin, sadece zâtî değil, zamansal olarak da öncelik-sonralık ilişkisi içinde bulunması gerekir. Ancak Adudüddin Îcî’ye göre, Âmidî tam da bunun aksini mümkün görmüştür. Makale, Âmidî’nin bu ilkeyi koruduğunun gösterilmesi halinde, böyle bir görüşle itham edilemeyeceğini savunur. Bununla birlikte, Îcî’nin isnadına dayanak olabilecek bir başka noktaya işaret edilmektedir. Âmidî, âlemin yaratılmadan önceki yokluğunun ezelî bir maksûd olup olmadığı sorusunu gündeme getirmektedir. Bu çalışma, bu meselenin gündeme getirildiği pasaja dair bir yorum sunarak, Îcî’nin hatalı bir isnatta bulunduğuna dair gerekçeler sunmaktadır. Ayrıca makale, bu hatalı isnadın müteahhir dönem kelâm-felsefe ilişkisi bağlamındaki serencamını takip etmektedir. Burada temsil gücü yüksek müteahhir dönem kelâm eserlerinden verilen örneklerde, Âmidî’ye isnadın temelde Îcî’nin Kitābü’l-Mevāḳıf adlı eserindeki ifadelerinin aktarılması ve yorumlanmasından ibaret olduğu görülebilir. Bu çalışmada, Cürcânî’nin, Âmidî’nin pseudo-görüşünü destekleyen kişilerin bulunduğuna işaret ederken, aslında ön plana çıkması gereken kişinin Âmidî değil, muhtâr ve mûcibi uzlaştıran Nasîrüddin Tûsî olması gerektiği iddia edilmektedir. Tûsî, İbn Sînâ’nın bazı ifadelerinden esinlenip mūcib bi’z-zāt kavramını genişleterek, Zorunlu Varlık’ın “dilemeseydi, yapmazdı” anlamında muhtâr olduğunu ama dilemediği bir durumun gerçekleşmediği için eserinin kadîm olduğunu savunmuştur. Bu uzlaştırıcı yaklaşıma, İbn Kemâlpaşa gibi düşünürler tarafından mûcib nazariyesine dinî meşruiyet kazandırmak suretiyle atıfta bulunulmuştur. Pseudo-Âmidî ve Tûsî’nin uzlaştırıcı müdahalelerinin bir izdüşümü de Molla Câmî’nin ed-Durretü’l-fâḫire’sinde nazarî tasavvufun yaratma teorisi olarak formüle edilmesidir. Molla Câmî, sûfîlerin Pseudo-Âmidî’ye dayanarak muhtâr olup da eseri kadîm olan bir yaratma nazariyesini benimsediklerini iddia eder. (shrink)

The Hanafi Sect was the first among the fiqh sects that completed its formation and codification. Abu Hanifa, the founding imam of the sect, raised many students. His most prominent students were Abu Yusuf, Muhammed al-Shaybani and Zufar. While teaching his students, Abu Hanifa created a free environment and was pleased that his students adopted opposing views to his. Accordingly, different views emerged among the imams in question for reasons such as interpreting the texts, taking into account the changes in (...) customs and time, and approaching the issues from different perspectives. After the death of Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf served as a kadi, i.e. a judge. Muhammad al-Shaybani played an important role in the formation of the sect. Zakat is one of the subjects where different opinions and disagreements occurred among the imams of the madhhab, or sect. Hanafi books exhibited different approaches in revealing these differences of opinion. For example, there were jurists who mentioned and discussed their differences of opinion in detail, as in Ka-sana’s work Bedai al-sanai fi tertib al-sharai, as well as in Mawsili’s work el-Ihtiyar li-talil al-Muhtar. There were also jurists who took a middle way on the subject. In this study, the differences of opinion of the sect imams Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, Muhammed al-Shaybani and Zufar on zakat will be explained based on the book al-Hidaye by Burhaneddin al-Merginani, which is one of the most popular books of the Hanafi sect. However, the commentaries of al-Hidaye and the books of the sect on fiqh will also be consulted occasionally. In this study, the subjects that are considered more important than the others in regard to the fiqh of zakat will be analyzed. (shrink)

Yûsuf b. Hussein al-Kirmāstī (d. 900/1494), a figure who lived in the 15th century, studied under scholars of his time such as Khujazāda Muṣliḥuddīn Efendi (d. 893/1488). Kirmāstī was from the district of Kirmāstī (Mustafakemalpaşa) in Bursa. Yûsuf b. Hussein al-Kirmāstī was a qadi (judge) during the reign of Sultan Bâyezid II (1481-1512). Kirmāstī, originally from Kirmāstī (Mustafakemalpaşa), Bursa, established a medrese (theological school) in Istanbul named Kirmâstî. After serving as a lecturer in various madrasahs, he transitioned to the judicial (...) field, carrying out qadi duties in Bursa and Istanbul. His just decisions and courageous stance during his tenure as a qadi earned him the appreciation of Sultan Bâyezid II. Kirmāstī, who had a mosque, a madrasah, and a school in Istanbul, is known to have had an additional school in his hometown of Kirmāstī. He passed away in 900/1494 and was buried next to the school he built in Fatih Mosque. This study aims to reintroduce Kirmāstī to the contemporary academic world from a fresh perspective, considering his proficiency in religious and linguistic sciences of the time, including rhetoric, badiʿ, bayān, uṣūl, fiqh, debate and ʿaqāid. The focus is on this study the stylistic elements of literary technique styles (al-muḥassināt al-maʿnewiyyah) within his specific work titled “al-Mukhtār fi-l-maʿānī wa-l-bayān”. Through this exploration, the significant Ottoman scholar and his works are presented, followed by an analysis of the literary technique styles in “al-Mukhtār fi-l-maʿānī wa-l-bayān” bringing attention to interested parties. (shrink)

The science of Kalām aims to prove the existence and attributes of Allah. For this purpose, the theologians adopted a method that turns from the sensible universe to the unseen universe. This method, named as qiyāṣ al-ğāib alā alā al-shāḥid, created a common ground in the discussions with the dissenters. Because the sensible universe is open to human perception in a way that does not allow for denial. From this point of view, the universe, which is defined as "everything other (...) than Allah" in Ashʿarite Kalām, has been discussed in terms of both structure and functioning. Based on the principles determined by the theologians, the universe is said to be composed of substance, accidents and bodies. The said entities are basically constructed in a way that is dependent on each other and on a higher will. Based on this construct, the Ashʿarite tradition preferred to explain the functioning of the universe with the theory of custom. In fact, their basic assumptions about the universe and Allah necessitated this preference. This is because they envision Allah as a fāil al- mukhtār deity with absolute will and power. Everything in the universe, except for the events or situations deemed impossible by the mind, is within His power. In this respect, the universe is described as an area of possibilities. The Ashʿarite tradition, which is based on the nonpermanent nature of accidents, insists that accidents should be recreated at every moment. This basic defense completely reveals the dependence of the universe on Allah. Built on these basic assumptions, the theory of custom uniquely explains the functioning of the universe without imposing any limitations on Allah, who has absolute will and power. This theory, which reflects the Ashʿarite tradition exactly, enables them to explain all theological issues, especially the relationship between Allah and the universe, in a consistent manner. This study aims to examine the basic principles that led the early Ashʿarite tradition to accept the theory of custom by analyzing them under several headings. For this aim, the views of the early Ashʿarite theologians have been identified through a literature review analyzed and interpreted in the context of the matter. (shrink)