The matter of the soul has been one of the most important and central matters in the history of Islamic science and thought. For the soul constitutes one of the two elements that make up the human being, and the issue of the human being has undoubtedly been one of the most prominent matters in Islamic civilization and has been a major preoccupation for Islamic intellectuals. In this context, the Islamic basin of knowledge and thought has constructed two main definitions (...) of the soul, one based on the Qur’anic teachings and the other inspired by Ancient Greek philosophy. Theologians conceived of the soul as a “subtle body”. Philosophers, on the other hand, conceived it as an “abstract substance”. This dispute between kalām and philosophy over the soul has not only been confined to the physical realm, but has also extended to the eschatological dimension, leading to a polemic that has lasted for centuries. As with many issues in post-classical Islamic thought, the influence of philosophy on this issue has been seen to be greater than that of other traditions. In fact, in the aforementioned period and later on, works on the soul from a theological perspective could not bypass the philosophical perspective. Within this framework, the theological perspective criticized the philosophers because they disagreed with it and especially because one end of the issue extended to the eschatological axis, and found it important to refute their conceptions in this regard. One of the most prominent figures of the aforementioned period, i.e., post-classical Islamic science and thought, was Abū Muhammad Rukn al-Dīn Ubaydallāh b. Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Samarqandī (d. 701/1301), a member of the Māturīdī and Hanafī sects. Samarqandī wrote many works and treatises on kalām, Qur’anic sciences, tafsīr, fiqh, hadīth, and mysticism. Among the author’s works/risālas/treaties that have reached the present day, there is a work titled “Risālat al-rūḥ” on the humanitarian-nātik (speaking) rational human soul (al-rūh al-nātiq al-insānī). Comprising an introduction and ten chapters, al-Samarqandī used a theological and mystical style, drawing on the teachings of the Qur’ān on the one hand, and partly on rational arguments on the other. The work includes the subject of the soul and the essence of the human being in this context, the definition and essence of the soul, the comparison between the views of the Ahl al-Sunnah and the philosophers in this regard, and the criticisms against the philosophers, the issue of ma‘ād (the end) in eschatology, the thoughts of the Sufis on the soul, the perception of Allah through the saying “Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord”, which the author considered as a hadith, and similar issues. As a mutakallim and following the line of Ahl al-Sunnah, the main problem of al-Samarqandī’s treatise revolves around what should be understood when it comes to “human being”, the nature of the soul, the manner in which ma‘ād will be realized, and his criticisms of philosophers over these issues. Based on our research and studies, it has been observed that the aforementioned treatise has not yet been analyzed and published. Furthermore, two manuscript copies of the treatise in question were found as a result of our investigations. This study covers the critical edition and review of al-Samarqandī’s Risālat al-rūḥ. (shrink)

In this study, some postscripts (Ḥashiyah) written on Sharḥ al-Aqâid in the Ottoman Empire were examined and their sectarian identities were tried to be determined in the context of the Takwīn. Our aim is to determine the correctness of the opinion that the Ottoman Empire adopted the Ash’arism based on the reading of Ash’arian kalâm books in the Ottoman madrasahs. The book of al-Taftâzânî named Sharḥ al-Aqâid is an important kalâm book that was read together with its postscripts in the (...) time of the Ottoman Empire. This book, in which the views of Omar al-Nasafī in his book named Aqâid is evaluated from the perspective of Ash’ari, is one of the important examples of the commentary and postscript period. In this book, al-Taftâzânî explained both the views of al-Nasafī, who adopted the school of Mâturidism, and his own evaluations together. This structure of the book led to the writing of postscripts and to discuss the views of the two theological schools of Ahl al-Sunnah through this book. In this study, the postscripts written by the Ottoman period famous kalâm scholars such as Ahmad b. Mûsâ al-Khayâlî (875/1470), Muṣliḥ al-dîn Moṣtafâ al-Kastalî (901/1496) and Ramaḍân b. Moḥammad (1017/1608) on the views of al-Taftâzânî were examined. In order to understand the views of al-Khayâlî, the postscripts of Ḳûl (or Ḳavl) Aḥmad b. Ḫıżır al-Kâzarûnî (950/1543) and Abd al-Ḥakîm al-Siyâlkûtî (1067/1657) are also included. (shrink)

Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1838-97) was a pan-Islamic thinker, political activist, and journalist, who sought to revive Islamic thought and liberate the Muslim world from Western influence. Many aspects of his life and his background remain unknown or controversial, including his birthplace, his religious affiliation, and the cause of his death. He was likely born in Asadabad, near present-day Hamadan, Iran. His better known history begins when he was 18, with a one-year stay in India that coincided with the Sepoy Mutiny (...) of 1857-59. In what would become a life of constant travel, he soon went to Mecca to perform Hajj, before returning to Afghanistan to join the service of the country's ruler, Dost Mohammad Khan (1793-1863). He later sided with Dost's son Mohammad Aʻzam, who ultimately lost in a power struggle with his British-supported brother Sher Ali. Al-Afghani's political activism eventually took him to Paris, London, Tehran, Saint Petersburg, and Constantinople. It was during his second stay in Egypt (1871-79) that he cemented his role as a reformer. He found in Cairo a class of young intellectuals who gathered around him, established newspapers, and used these papers to disseminate his ideas. Chief among al-Afghani's Egyptian disciples were scholar Muhammad ʻAbduh, journalist ʻAbd Allah al-Nadim, and nationalist politicians Mustafa Kamil and Saʻd Zaghlul. Al-Afghani's influence on both modernist and traditionalist Islamic thought continues to the present. An activist who sought to effect change through political journalism and public speaking, he did not write many books. This treatise, entitled al-Radd ʻalā al-dahrīyīn (Refutation of the materialists), was a rebuttal of the views of the pro-British Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, who had argued that science is more important than religion in the rise of civilizations. First written in Persian following al-Afghani's exile from Egypt to India, it was translated into Arabic by his student Muhammad ʻAbduh, with the help of al-Afghani's assistant Arif Efendi. (shrink)

Este artículo estudia un corto tratado de polémica en contra del judaísmo escrito por el conocido erudito otomano Aḥmad Muṣṭafā Ṭāšhkubrīzāde. El autor utiliza los mismos argumentos que conocemos de la polémica religiosa medieval, tales como que la Torah, abrogada por el Islam, contenía referencias al Profeta Muḥammad a pesar de que su texto fue corrompido por los judíos. Además de la Biblia, Ṭāšhkubrīzāde cita una serie de fuentes judías tardías que añaden una importante dimensión a este trabajo. Después de (...) una breve introducción en que se discute la posibilidad de la deuda del autor respecto a la obra de Ibn Abī ‘Abd al-Dayyān, un converso del judaísmo al Islam, se presenta una edición y traducción del texto. (shrink)

1. Les philosophes théologiens.--2. Les philosophes purs.

It would not be an overstatement to say that Mulla Sadra’s metaphysical system—commonly known as transcendent philosophy or transcendent wisdom (hikmat muta‘aliyyah)—is founded on the fundamentality of existence and the subjectivity of quiddity or whatness. I will begin this essay by drawing a rather simple picture of this principle under the title “A Common Error.” Then I will proceed by explaining its background and the reasoning supporting it, while offering a more detailed elucidation of the problem. The essay will end (...) by examining two recent interpretations that have gone to extremes in describing quiddity’s subjective nature. (shrink)

How did life come into existence on Earth? Although many scientific theories and hypotheses have been drawn, we have not yet been able to provide a detailed answer to this fundamental question. What if intelligent computers would someday be in a condition to postulate their own evolution theory which would explain how they came into the world, how would this theory look like? And how would it stand in comparison to the humans’ theory? Let us suppose that a thousand years (...) from now, intelligent and self-aware computers who, for any reason whatsoever, had lost all contacts with humans, and had continued to self-develop and improve by themselves, slowly began to wonder about how they came into the world? These intelligent computers may eventually develop a coherent theory of evolution, which would seemingly explain their existence. How would their theory stand in comparison to our theory of evolution? Would it be less comprehensive or viable? Taking into consideration the inorganic nature of computers, their relative simplicity compared to the human body, and the closeness of their components to the surrounding inorganic environment, it would not be a surprise if their theory would be more plausible than that of the humans. So, what would this signify and mean to our scientific theories in general? (shrink)