Şiâ’nın temel inanç ilkelerinden biri olan ricʿat doktrini potansiyel olarak radikal yorumlara olanak sunmaktadır. Ricʿat inanışının arka planında gaybet anlayışı ve ona yüklenen insan üstü özel mana son derece hayati öneme sahiptir. Şiîlik içerisinde günümüze ulaşan ve Şiîlerin büyük çoğunluğunu oluşturan İmamiyye ya da On iki İmam (İsnâ aşeriyye) Şiîliğine göre, on ikinci imam Muhammed b. el-Hasan, 941 yılında büyük gaybete gitmiştir. Bu doktrinle, gizli imamın bir gün geri döneceğine, zulüm ve haksızlıklarla dolu olan tüm dünyayı adaletle hükmedeceğine ve refaha (...) ulaştıracağına inanılır. Esasında ricʿat inanışıyla ilgili ortaya atılan iddiaları daha erken dönemlere götürmek mümkündür. İslam tarihinin erken dönemlerinde, Ali b. Ebi Talib (ö. 40/661) ve oğlu Hüseyin (ö. 61/680) gibi önemli şahsiyetlerin ölümsüzlüğünü iddia eden bazı radikal mezhepler (gulât) ortaya çıkmıştır. Onuncu yüzyıl da yine Şiîler arasında gaybette olduğuna ve tüm insanlığa rehberlik etmek üzere bir gün yeniden ortaya çıkacağına inanılan gizli imam Muhammed b. el-Hasan'ın dönüşüne dair bu tür iddialara sahne olmuştur. Bu çalışmada Şiâ içerisinde ortaya çıkmış üç alt grup olan Nusayrîler, Dürzîler ile Bâbî ve Bahâîler’in ricʿat doktrinine yükledikleri anlam incelenmektedir. İlk ikisi eş zamanlı olarak onuncu yüzyılda, Bâbî ve Bahâîler ise on dokuzuncu yüzyılda ortaya çıkmıştır. Ricʿat doktrinine yaklaşımda bâb kavramının aracılık görevini üstlendiğini ifade etmek gerekir. Nusayrî fırkasının kurucusu Muhammed b. Nusayr en-Nemîrî (ö. 270/883), kendisini on birinci ve on ikinci imama açılan kapı olarak ilan ederek ricʿat doktrinine ezber bozan bir yaklaşım ortaya koymuştur. Buna ilaveten, tanrının ruhunun Hz. Ali’nin bedeninde zuhur ettiği, sonrasında da bu ruhun on ikinci imama gelinceye kadar imamların bedenlerine intikal ettiği inancı yayılmıştır. Dürzîler bâb kavramından ziyade doğrudan Hakim Biemrillah’ın ulûhiyyetine odaklanmışlardır. Bâbî ve Bahâîler ise bâb kavramı temel olmak üzere mehdilik ve yeni bir din olma iddiasıyla ricʿat doktrinini te’vil etmişlerdir. Özellikle Nusayrî ve Dürzîler ricʿat inanışını yorumlayarak bunu hulûl ve tenasühe dönüştürmüşlerdir. Bâbî ve Bahâîler ise nübüvvet vazifesinin Hz. Muhammed ile son bulduğu inanışını reddederek ricʿat anlayışını nübüvvete dönüştürmüşlerdir. Böylece onlar, önceki dinlerin hükümlerini ortadan kaldıran yeni bir din olma iddiasında bulunmaktadırlar. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Şiîlik içerisinden neş’et ederek ortaya çıkmış yukarda adı geçen mezheplerin ricʿat doktrinine nasıl yaklaştıklarını ve bu olguyu ne olarak yorumladıklarını ortaya koymaktır. (shrink)

Bu makale, 19. yüzyılın başlarında Kuzey Hindistan’da ortaya çıkan ve günümüze kadar devam eden, ilahî kudret hakkında önemli bir kelâmî ihtilafı ele alan ilk mantık araştırmasıdır. İhtilaf, birbiriyle bağlantılı iki tez içermektedir. İlk tez "imkān-i naẓīr" olarak bilinir ve bu, Allah’ın Hz. Muhammed'in aynısını yaratabilmesidir. İkinci tez ise "ikmān-i kızb" olarak adlandırılır ve Allah’ın yalan söyleme veya gerçeğe aykırı şeyler söyleme olasılığını hakkındadır. Makale, iki güçlü düşünürün argümanlarını inceleyecektir. İlk olarak, tartışmayı başlatan Shah İsmail Dihlawi (ö. 1831), Allah’ın benzer bir (...) Muhammed'i yaratabilme ve yalan söyleyebilme olasılığını savunan argümanlar sunar. İkinci olarak, karşıt görüşteki ve baş rakibi Fazl-e Haqq Khayrabadi (ö. 1861), her iki olasılığı da kesin bir şekilde reddeder. Makale, argümanların yapısının ve öncüllerinin yanı sıra tartışmada deruhte edilen temel modal kavramların ayrıntılı mantıksal analizine odaklanmaktadır. (shrink)

Allah’ın ilk insanı, ilk peygamber yapmak suretiyle, insanoğlu ile iletişim kurmayı ve ona hitap eden vahiyler göndermeyi amaçladığı anlaşılmaktadır. Söz gelimi Tevrât’ı İbranice, İncîl’i Süryanice ve Kur’ân’ı Arapça göndermek suretiyle insanlar tarafından anlaşılmak istemiştir. Bununla birlikte onun İbranice kelâmı, Süryanice sözünden ve Arapça kelâmı da diğer dillerdeki sözünden farklı bir tabiata sahiptir. Bu gerçeklikten hareketle İslâm düşünce-fikir tarihine bakıldığında ilim adamlarının ilâhî kelâmın mâhiyetini, tabiatını anlamak ve bunu anlamlandırmak konusunda bir çabanın içerisine girdikleri görülmektedir. Esasen Allah’ın nasıl bir kelâma sahip (...) olduğunu anlamak ve kavramak, cismanî/fizik âleminden gayrı cismanî/fizikötesine doğru bir bakış çabasıdır. Buna rağmen hakikatin yılmaz arayıcısı insan, bu konuda söyleyecek bir söz bulabilme çabası içindedir. “İlâhî kelâmı”, Allah’ın bir sıfatı olarak değerlendirenler olduğu gibi bunu “ilâhî bir fiil” olarak telakki edenler de bulunmaktadır. İlâhî kelâm sıfatının veya fiilinin tecellîsinin Kur’ân olduğu da ehlince müsellemdir. Kur’ân lafızlarının aidiyeti konusunda başlıca üç görüş ortaya konulmuştur. Bu görüşler içerisinde hâkim ve râcih bakış açısına göre Kur’ân metni, lafız ve mana itibariyle Allah’a aittir. Buna göre Hz. Muhammed’e nâzil olan Kur’ân vahyi hem lafız hem de manadan oluşmaktadır. Bu telakkîyi savunan müelliflere göre vahyin oluşumu ve iletimi konusunda ne Cebrâil’in ne de Hz. Muhammed’in herhangi bir müdahale veya katkısı olmuştur. Dolayısıyla peygamberin vahiy nüzûl sürecinde rolünün tamamen pasif olduğu söylenebilir. Cibrîl, Kur’ân’ı önceden yazılı olarak bulunan bir mekândan, yani levh-i mahfûzdan ezberleyerek veya Allah’tan işiterek ya da Allah’ın lafızları ona vahyetmesiyle Hz. Peygamber’e indirmiştir. İkinci yaklaşıma göre Kur’ân metninin manası Allah’a, lafızları Hz. Peygamber’e aittir. Bu yaklaşıma göre Cebrâil, sadece manaları Hz. Peygamber’e indirmiştir. Hz. Peygamber de kendisine bildirilen manaları kavramış ve onları Arapça ifade kalıplarında söylemiştir. Üçüncü yaklaşıma göre ise Kur’ân’ın manası Allah’a, lafızları Cebrâil’e ait olmaktadır. Yani Cebrâil’e yalnız mana ilkâ edildi ve o lafızları oluşturdu. Bu çalışmada İslâm düşünce tarihinde ilim adamlarının kelâmullâhın tabiatını anlamak ve bunu anlamlandırmak konusunda lafızların aidiyeti konusunda ortaya koydukları söz konusu yaklaşımlar öncelikle deskriptif (tasvîrî/betimleyici) bir üslupla incelenmektedir. Akabinde bu doğrultuda serdedilen yaklaşımlar Kur’ân’ın bütünlüğü ve klasik dönem tefsir merviyyâtı açısından analitik (tahlîlî/istidlâlî) bir bakış açısıyla irdelenmektedir. Denilebilir ki Kur’ân’ın mana yönüyle Allah’a aidiyeti konusunda ilim ehli arasında herhangi bir ihtilâf yoktur. Temel ihtilâf Kur’ân lafızlarının Allah’a mı Cebrâil’e mi yoksa Hz. Muhammed’e mi ait olduğu hususudur. Kur’ân’ın bütünlüğü ve vahyin nüzûl keyfiyetine dair klasik dönem tefsir rivayetleri dikkate alındığında hâkim görüşün diğer iki görüşe göre daha tutarlı olduğu kanaatine ulaşılmaktadır. (shrink)

Makale, yirminci yüzyılın 30’lu yıllarında Özbekistan’da ateizmin gelişme yollarının, mekanizmalarının ve yöntemlerinin geriye dönük bir analizini sunmaktadır. Özellikle o dönemin komünist dünya görüşünün insanların bilincini nasıl etkilediği ve SSCB'nin eski devletlerinin halklarının ateist eğitiminin ne kadar önemli bir rol oynadığı makalenin ana içeriğini oluşturmaktadır. Dinle mücadele, sosyalist bir toplum inşa etmek için gerekli bir durumdur. O dönemde dini fanatizm ve hurafeler kitlelerin siyasi bilincinin yükselmesine ve sosyalist inşaya aktif katılımlarına engel oluyormuş gibi gösteriliyordu. Modern Sovyet ateist literatüründe, bilimsel ateizm konusunun (...) daha derinlemesine anlaşılması ve sosyal ve doğa bilimleri sistemindeki, özellikle felsefi bilgi sistemindeki yerinin kesin bir tanımına yönelik çalışmalar yer almaktaydı. Bilimsel ateizm teorisinin sorunlarını inceleyen Sovyet filozofları sonuç olarak zor bir zorlukla karşı karşıyadır: Bilimsel ateizmin içeriğinin, yayılma biçimlerinin ve yöntemlerinin, gelişmiş bir dünyada meydana gelen insanların yaşamlarının tüm alanlarındaki derin dönüşümleri nasıl yansıttığını bulmak sosyalist toplum için önemliydi. Ülkemizin muazzam sosyo-ekonomik ve kültürel dönüşümleri önceden belirleyen sosyalist yolda gelişmesinin sonuçlarından biri de kitlesel ateizmin oluşması ve istikrarlı bir şekilde büyümesidir. Sovyetler Birliği'nde karşıt sınıfların ortadan kalkması, sınıf mücadelesinin sınırlarının dışa dönük olmasına yol açmıştır. Bilimsel ateizmin yayılmasında Komünist Partinin ideolojik faaliyeti çok büyük bir rol oynuyor. Son olarak, kitlesel ateizmin gelişiminin doğası, propagandasının içeriği, biçimleri ve yöntemleri, dini örgütlerin siyasi konumu tarafından uygulanmış ve uygulanmakta ve uygulanmaya devam etmektedir. Marksist-Leninist dünya görüşünün oluşumuna ilişkin sorunlar, önemli bir kısmı ateist eğitim olan Partinin ideolojik ve eğitimsel çalışmasının sürekli merkezinde yer almaktadır. Ateizmin gelişmesi sırasında ‘Tanrısızlar’ gazetesinin dostları topluluğunun hücrelerinden doğan Militan Ateistler Birliği’nin faaliyetleriyle ilişkilendirildi. Militan Ateistler Birliği, din karşıtı propagandanın teori ve pratiğinin geliştirilmesine büyük katkı sağladı. Problemin ele alınışı: Makale şu ana soruya odaklanıyor: Komünist Partinin ateist ideolojiyi geliştirmedeki amacı neydi? Orta Asya halklarının ideolojik dünya görüşünü hangi yöntem ve mekanizmalarla bozmak istediler? Özbekistan aydınları ateist ideolojilerin yayılmasında nasıl bir rol oynadı? Amaç: Özbekistan’da ateist ideolojinin yayılmasının sosyo-politik sonuçlarının incelenmesi ve analizi. Ateist ideolojinin Özbekistan halkının bilinci üzerindeki psikolojik etkisinin araştırmak. Özbekistan'daki kitlesel ateizmin sosyal epistemolojik ve psikolojik kökenlerinin araştırılması. Çalışmanın amacı, Ateizm kavramının kendisini belirlemek, bugüne kadar yeterince çalışılmamış olan laik ve dini kültür, bilim, felsefe, dini hoşgörü, özgür düşünce, hümanizm, şüphecilik, materyalizm kavramlarıyla ilişkisini ve karşılıklı etkisini kurmak. Yöntem ve çıktılar. Komünist Parti liderliğinin ataksik dünya görüşünü ve ideolojiyi hangi yöntem ve mekanizmalarla yaydığını analiz etme. Bunu açıklığa kavuşturmak için analiz, sentez, genelleme, tümevarım ve tümdengelim yöntemleri kullanıldı. (shrink)

Kelime olarak ‘öncekiler’ anlamında selef kökünden türetilen Salafism, ‘öncekilerin izini takip edenlerin yolu’ demektir ve bir tür dinsel tutuculuk ve muhafazakârlık anlamına gelmektedir. İslam geleneğinde Islamic tenetlara katı ve literal bağlılığı ve dinin saf asıllarına dönüşü ifade eden Salafism, günümüzde İslami ilimler, siyaset bilimi ve uluslararası ilişkiler gibi alanlarda dinsel radikalizm ve köktencilikle eşanlamlı olarak kullanılmaktadır. Geleneksel formuyla, dinsel akılcılığa ve yorum yanlısı olmaya karşı bir duruş üzerinden kendini kuran Salafism, din içi çoğulculuğa ve sekülerizme karşı öze dönüşcü bir tepkiyi (...) temsil etmektedir. Dinin özüne dönüşü savunan Salafi paradigma, Müslüman medeniyetinin düşünsel ve sanatsal başarı ve ürünlerine de kuşkuyla bakar, bu yönüyle de kültür karşıtı bir tutumu temsil eder. Selefi eylemci grupların İslam medeniyetine ve diğer kültürlere verdikleri zarar bunun somut örneklerini oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışma modern zamanlarda Salafism parlamasına yol açan nedenler üzerinde yoğunlaşmaktadır. Çalışmada, toplumsal değişim, modernleşme ve sekülerleşme karşısında hangi dinsel ve toplumsal kaygıları temsil ettiği analiz edilmektedir. Salafismin Sünnilik ile ilişkisi incelenmekte ve onu Sünnîliğin dışında göstermeye çalışan yaklaşımların yanıltıcı yanlarını vurgulamaktadır. Disiplinler arası yaklaşımla konuyu ele alan çalışma, teoloji ile siyaset bilimi ve uluslararası ilişkilerin kesişme alanında analizler içermektedir. Selefilik ile ilgili kavramsal analizler, bu kavramın İslam öncesi köklerini ortaya koymaktadır. Aslında her toplumda rastlanan ve geçmiş bir öz atfetme ve bugünü yönetme ihtiyacı Araplarda ‘ataların yoluna tâbi olma’ şeklinde belirir. Geçmişin kutsanması, yeniliklerden ve farklılıklardan kuşku duymayı doğurur. Selefîlik tarafından temsil edilen ‘İslamî özcülük’ değişime karşı sabitliği, çoğulculuğa karşı özcülüğü, akla karşı nassı, ibtida yerine ittiba’yı savunur. Dinî konularda katı nassçı ve literal tutumu benimsediği için kelam, felsefe ve tasavvufu dinden uzaklaşma sayar. Tarihe bakışta kötüye gidiş, özden uzaklaşma ve çürüme düşüncesine bağlıdır. Modern dönemlerde İslam dünyası çok yönlü bir kriz ve çöküş yaşamıştır. Siyasal alanda başlayan sorunlar kimlik ve değerler alanına doğru genişlemiştir. Kimliği, özü ve inancı koruma kaygıları radikal bir tutuculuk olarak selefiliği beslemiştir. Krizlerin artarak devam ettiği İslam dünyasında Selefilik bir düşünce, inanç, yaşam tarzı ve eylem türü olarak ilgi çekmektedir. Ancak yaşanabilir bir alternatif üretmek yerine tepkisel bir duruşu temsil etmekte, minimal ve sert bir dinî yaşantıyı savunmaktadır. Ayrıca kültüre ve sanata yönelik sert yaklaşımı, İslam medeniyeti açısından nihilist bir bakışı ifade etmektedir. Sünnî dünyada Selefilik ile ilgili bir kafa karışıklığı göze çarpmaktadır. Bu karışıklık tarihsel ve teolojik olarak selefiliğin Sünnilik tarafından benimsenmesi ile ilgilidir. Oysa güçlenen yeni Selefilik mevcut Sünnî kimliğini oluşturan unsurları reddetmektedir. Bu Sünnilik açısından kriz içeren bir durumdur. Kelam, fıkıh ve tasavvuf bilgisine dayalı kapsayıcı Sünnilik ile katı nasscı ve dışlayıcı Selefilik arasındaki teolojik gerilim hala devam etmektedir. (shrink)

Nefsin tanımı, mahiyeti, özellikleri, ilişkili olduğu alanların tespiti hem metafiziğin hem de teolojinin en temel problemlerinden biridir. Öyle ki nefs konusunun ele alınış tarzı, İslam düşünce geleneğini topyekûn bu konu üzerinden inceleme imkânı dahi sunmaktadır. Zira varlığı ve özel olarak insanı anlama noktasında, nefs konusunun kozmolojik, ontolojik, epistemolojik ve ahlâkî alanların tümünün temeline yerleştirildiği görülmektedir. Bu durum, nefs teorisinin kendi içinde bir bütün oluşturacak şekilde değerlendirildiğini göstermektedir. Literatürde hâkim olan anlayışa göre, nefsin; a) varlığın oluşumunda önemli bir yer teşkil ettiği, (...) b) bedenden ayrı ve farklı bir mahiyet taşıdığı, c) bilgi elde etmenin gerekçesi olduğu ve d) ahlâkî eylemlere kaynaklık ettiği vurgulanmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, “Neredeyim ve neyle ilişkiliyim?”, “Neyim?”, “Neyi, nasıl bilebilirim?” ve “Ne yapmalıyım?” sorularına nefs teorisi bağlamında cevap arandığı söylenebilir. İnsan varlığının temel belirleyeninin bedenden ayrı ve farklı bir varlık olarak sunulması, birtakım gerekçelerden hareket etmektedir. Kognitif süreçleri üst düzeyde işletebilmesi, ahlâkî eylem üretebilmesi; ayrıca vahye muhatap kılınması, insanın diğer varlıklardan farklı ve üstün olduğu sonucuna götürmüştür. Bu farklılık ve üstünlük ise insanın maddî olanla sınırlı olamayacağı fikrini beraberinde getirmiştir. Maddenin daima; değişme, bozulma, parçalanma, yok olma gibi niteliklerle ilişkilendirilmesi bu kanaati beslemiştir. Dolayısıyla –özellikle müteahhir dönemde- hem maddî olan hem de maddî olana sıkışmayan bir varlık tasavvuruna yer verilmemiştir. Bir başka ifadeyle, maddî olduğu halde gayrı maddî üretimler sağlayabilecek bir varlık fikrinden vazgeçilmiş, insanı nefs-beden düalitesi ardında irdeleme tercih edilmiştir. Bu tercih, teolojinin oluşum özünde yer alan bir anlayış değildir. Zira erken dönem Mu’tezilî, Eş’arî ve Mâtürîdî kelâm literatürünün, ortak bir şekilde, insanın bedenden ayrık nefse referansta bulunmadan tanımlanması gerektiği üzerinde durduğu görülmektedir. İnsan varlığını çözümleme noktasında düalist anlayışın tercih edilmesi, farklı kültürlerle karşılaşma sonucundaki etkinin bir ürünüdür. Bu doğrultuda Yunan, Hint, Mısır ve Sümer felsefelerinin İslam düşünce geleneği üzerinde etkili olduğu görülmektedir. Özü itibarıyla kelâmın düalist anlayıştan uzak yaklaşımının ise Kur’ân’dan temel aldığı söylenebilir. Çalışmamızda bu iddiamızın temeli kurulacaktır. Kur’ân’ın temel terimlerimden biri olan nefs kelimesi, bütünsel bir bakış açısıyla incelenecektir. Bu inceleme, bu konuda oluşturulmuş literatürün nasıl değerlendirilmesi gerektiğiyle ilgili de zemin oluşturacaktır. (shrink)

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)

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

Imām Māturīdī, who is one of the symbolic names of Ahl as-Sunnah kalām and draws attention with his original ideas and striking determinations, revealed his views regarding kalām in his works called Kitāb al-tawhīd and Ta’wīlāt. Although the first one is in the field of kalām and the other is in the field of tafsīr, the second one has gained the identity of a work in which he declared many theological views. One of the theological issues in which his tafsīr (...) is the primary authority is the imamate and accordingly the companions. The Shīʿa’s making the imamate a part of the Islamic belief system and the takfı̄r of companions, who have a key role in this matter, paved the way for Ahl as-Sunnah theologians to put this issue on their agenda, so the issue has now become a matter of belief in its relevant dimension. The imagination of the companions, which took its place as a sub-topic of the imamate issue in the theological field, also entered the works of the theologians who expressed their views in this field, and a structure was formed that would respond to the perceptions of the Shīʿa, some other theological sects and some personalities that demean companions. Imām Māturīdī, who is undoubtedly one of the most important stones of Ahl as-Sunnah, also explained the subject with different dimensions and made statements that placed the companions in the position they deserved. Although Māturīdī did not reveal the concept of imamate and, accordingly, the companions in his theological work, he made some suggestions. He made important explanations on this issue in his tafsīr. The theologians, in their works in this field, highlighted the issues related to the companions, and whatever issues they touched on this matter, he often mentioned them in his tafsīr. Although there are partial differences in the subjects that Imām Māturı̄dı̄ concentrates on or comes into contact with due to the fact that he reveals his views mostly in his work of tafsīr rather than theology, the results he reached overlapped with the theologians. Imām Māturı̄dı̄ made explanations on the subject that can be grouped under headings such as the superior characteristics of the companions, the attitude to be developed towards them, the answer to the Shiite perception of the companions, the claims of conflict and struggles among the companions, and finally, evaluating them in accordance with their positions. Among these, the second title was mostly usūl-i fiqh, the last one was almost entirely tafsīr, while the others were subjects that were dealt with intensively in kalām. In this study, Imām Māturīdī’s vision of the companions will be revealed and what the companions mean in the mind and heart of an Islamic scholar who never neglected the mind and gave it great importance will be revealed. (shrink)

The bond of faith that man has established with his creator was realized through the prophet. The problem of anti-prophecy, which is widely experienced at the intellectual level with its dimensions affecting our age, corresponds to a serious belief problem. The principles known via prophecy in monotheistic religions are summarized as beliefs in Allah, prophecy, and afterlife. The theology of monotheistic religions emerged within the framework determined by the prophethood. As a result, the prophethood, as the starting point of religion, (...) appears as the most accurate way to obtain information about God and the afterlife. An anti-prophetic attitude has been observed in the anti-religious circles and names renowned for it have been seen in the historical path. This anti-prophetic attitude seen in the Iranian origin dualist traditions and in the Indian origin belief circles of Barāhima and Buddhism living in the lands acquired as a result of the Islamic conquests, has led to serious debates in the Islamic society. Scholars who wrote polemical works against them produced answers by staying in the scope of reason. In these works, which stand out with their erudition, the institution of prophethood in the person of the Prophet Muhammad is supported by historical and traditional arguments and then by verses of the Qurʾān. The basic arguments of the prophethood called ‘hujaj and a‘lām’ are included in apologetic works of the early period, which are mainly based on the traditional evidence of prophethood accepted by the People of the Book. The Works aiming to demonstrate the propehthood in muslim thought until the classical period diveded into two groups in terms of content. Firstly : works that deal with prophethood only through traditional evidence and narrations that narrate miracles and similar wonderful events that took place in the hands of the messenger. Secondly, works aiming to prove prophethood in historical and sociological terms, along with its traditional evidence. In the following period, scholars whose main purpose is to systematically prove the prophethood continued their writing activities on the same subject. During this activity, a special literary genre named Dalāʾil al-nubuwwa was formed in the literature. This article aims to introduce the essential examples of Dalāʾil al-nubuwwa Works, written against the anti-prophetic challenges emerged in the second century of the hijra and gradualy increased during the third and fourth centuries of the hijra and focus on their place and importance in the literature. (shrink)

A notion that the theologians consider as a physical explanation model while discussing the movement in accordance with their theological views on the comprehension and interpretation of the universe is i‘timād. In conclusion, this notion, which has various meanings in different contexts, has been used to express “the tendency of object in motion, potential energy, pressure or resistance of an object to another object”. Within this framework, including weight-lightness, ascent-descent, impulse-pull etc., many phenomena related to the unidirectional and compulsory movement (...) of objects have been explained. On the other hand, theologians dealt with i‘timād in the context of their own conceptions of the universe, in relation to their understanding of causality while discussing the movements of bodies in the universe and their changes-transformations, and the causality relationship between them. As a result of their discussions, they asked questions about i‘timād and tried to find answers to these questions in the perspective of their own views of the universe. Furthermore, in relation to the theory of i‘timād, Mu‘tazilite scholar Abû Ishâq Ibrâhîm al-Nazzâm (d. 231/845) discussed the theory of tafra (leaping) and put forward contrary arguments. One of those who sought answers to the questions discussed in this direction and expressed an opinion on i‘timād is the Ash’arî theologian Abû al-Maâlî al-Juwaynî (d. 478/1085). He discussed i'timād in terms of the accidents of spatial generation and used i'timād as a universal explanatory theory for the phenomena of movement, space, weight and lightness, and directional phenomena such as up and down. From this point of view, he also tried to interpret i'timād with examples from natural phenomena and objects. In doing so, he synthesized i'timād within his own system and presented it as an explanatory element by considering the Ash'arite metaphysical principles through the examples he frequently gave. Thus, he put forward views on whether the movements of objects give rise to i'timād or not, and drew attention to the usage of i'timād in the Muʿtazilite and Ashʿarī schools. In this context, he tried to prove with examples whether the Muʿtazilite understanding of iʿtimād overlaps with the Ashʿarī understanding of iʿtimād. On the other hand, al-Juwaynī put forward his proofs in the context of his criticisms of the Muʿtazilites in general and al-Naẓẓām in particular. His criticisms were generally in response to the views of Muʿtazilite scholars on the phenomenon of motion in the context of iʿtimād. In fact, al-Juwaynī criticized the arguments of Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī (d. 303/916) and Abū Ḥāshim (d. 321/933) in the context of the theory of tawlīd and al-Naẓẓām in the context of the theory of tafra through their arguments. In this direction, the paper concentrates on how Juwaynî stated the examples he put while proving the theory of i‘timād in terms of movement phenomenon and what he comprehended from it. In addition, the paper discusses his criticisms against Nazzâm’s theoretical and experimental arguments he brought in the context of tafra theory while elaborating Juwaynî’s explanation of movement phenomenon. (shrink)

Although different perspectives on the essence and qualities of the absolute existence have been put forward by the philosophers, theologians, and Sufī philosophers, in the context of this article, we will examine whether absolute existence has a causal efficacy in addition to special existence in the unity of the First Principle and the first effect. We will discuss the views of two Ottoman scholars, Baghdādīzāda (who lived in the second part of the 10th/16th century) and Arpacīzāda (d.1033/1623), who analyzed the (...) effect of absolute existence with its aforementioned qualities on the simplicity of the First Principle and its being a part of the complete cause as an incomplete cause. It is generally accepted by the philosophers that the First Principle is the simple complete cause of the first effect by virtue of its essence without the need for conditions, tools, or the removal of any obstacle. Therefore, the First Principle must be the cause of the first effect with its simple existence that does not consist of any sensory or intellectual parts. Therefore, the decisive issue in the discussions regarding the definition of the complete cause is the inclusion of both simple and compound entities. Because the definition of a complete cause that includes only simple or compound causes would be incomplete since it does not include all entities. The definition of complete cause preferred by philosophers such as al-Asīr al-Dīn al-Abharī (d.663/1265) and Najm al-Dīn al-Kātibī (d.675/1277), who made important contributions to the conceptualization of complete and incomplete causes, as the totality of the things on which the maʿlūl depends in its existence, can only include composite entities. As a matter of fact, al-Sayyīd Sharīf al-Jurjānī (d.816/1413), in his Sharh al-Mawāqif and Hāshiya al-Tajrīd, states that the aforementioned definition of complete cause, which was mentioned by his predecessors al-Abharī and al-Kātibī has the possibility of including only composite entities, but he expresses that this situation is not a necessity with the example that a simple substance can be formed from a simple complete cause. The Ottoman scholar al-Khatībzāda (d.901/1496), who supported al-Jurjānī's sentiment that the aforementioned definition of the complete cause could only include composite entities, emphasized in his commentary on Tajrīd al-iʿtikād the possibility of accepting absolute existence as a necessary element for the realization of the complete cause, which led to the writing of separate treatises following the traces of this problem. In the context of al-Jurjānī and al-Khatībzāda's explanations, al-Baghdādīzāda addressed the possibility of absolute existence being a part of the complete cause without damaging the simplicity of the First Principle and wrote a separate treatise emphasizing that absolute existence does not eliminate the First Principle”s being a simple complete cause. Arpacīzāda was another Ottoman scholar who wrote a critical text in response to this treatise, which analyzed the effect of absolute existence on the existence of the first effect as a part of the complete cause and its relation to the special existence of the First Principle. In this article, we will try to reveal the effect of absolute existence on the First Principle's being a simple complete cause and the possibility of accepting it as a part of the complete cause through these individuals and treatises. (shrink)

Man is a creature with an awareness of existence. One of the most important questions that human beings have been seeking answers to since ancient times is what kind of value they have in terms of being human and what rights and responsibilities they have in relation to this. The term “human rights” is one of the modern concepts that emerged in direct connection with this process of inquiry. The concept of human rights has a political, secular framework of meaning (...) in terms of its development. However, human rights are being discussed in a wide field of meaning, which includes many philosophical, moral, and theological dimensions. In this study, the concept of human rights is analyzed in terms of God-human relationship. The theological framework of human rights in the Qur'ān is drawn on the basis of mīsāq (the covenant) between God and man. As a requirement of the mīsāq, Allah has entrusted man with a trust, appointed him as a caliph and honored him with it. The nature of this honor is the duty to make Godʾs laws prevail on earth, and for this purpose, the earth has been given to manʾs service. After man has taken his place on the stage of existence in this way, manʾs rights have two dimensions. The first is the rights that human beings have in the worldly-social context in terms of being human. The concept of human rights, as conceptualized by Western societies, is directly related to this dimension. In the second dimension, human rights have a religious-spiritual content as the rights that arise when the relationship/obligation of man with God is in question. These rights, which can also be expressed as the theological dimension of human rights debates, are rights related to the divine commandment. From a religious and spiritual point of view, human rights are related to having knowledge about the matters that one is obliged to do, being able to do them (istiṭāat), acting with free will, and being rewarded and punished for all these. In this study, the theological foundations of human rights are discussed. In this respect, it is aimed to overcome the limitations caused by grounding the concept of human rights from a secular perspective and present a more holistic and comprehensive metaphysical grounding of human rights. (shrink)

In this article, disasters as a factual reality will be discussed within the framework of Allah's justice and human responsibility on the basis of husn-qubh. In this context, the ontic structure of man and the universe, man's being in the process of being tested, the definition of good-bad/goodness-evil that enables this process, the evaluations in the literature, and the meaning of taklīf within the scope of Allah's justice (‘adl) will be discussed. The problem of evil is the problem of reconciling (...) a God who is omniscient, omnipotent, and does good deeds with a universe in which evil exists. As a problem of evil, disaster is a phenomenon that must be addressed in relation to God, the universe, and human beings. While its relation with God in terms of creation appears as the legality of the universe, its relation with human beings in terms of dealing with the phenomenon and responsibility is within the scope of being subject to the offer. Therefore, a correct understanding of creation and justification of the reasonableness of the offer will answer many questions regarding disasters. The aforementioned issues and concepts in the theological literature have been discussed thoroughly (dakīk) in the schools of theology. Theologians defined God and divine action, human beings and human actions, and the universe in accordance with the paradigm of their discourse groups, and they made discussions based on the meaning they gave to these definitions and concepts. The basic determinants of the discussions are God's possession of knowledge, power, will, wisdom, and justice, and the creation of human beings in the nature of reason (‘akl). These concepts and definitions have been understood differently by the discourse groups, and the debates have moved back and forth between determination/compulsion and free will. It makes sense here that a person who experiences the phenomenon and wants to know what is happening theologically should know the Qur'anic conception of God and man. The relationship between God and man needs to be right and moral. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the topics that have been studied many times in terms of each concept together. In this respect, the article aims to seek answers to some questions about the human profile and the conception of Allah. There are three aspects to be questioned here: First, an ontological inquiry into the nature of the concepts of existence that contain moral value; second, an epistemological inquiry into whether moral value is determined by reason or revelation. In this context, the last inquiry is moral. Accordingly, what is good-bad and goodness-evil? What determines good and evil as a value? Who is the agent of the good-evil action? What is the position of the divine will if the perpetrator (fā‘ıl) is human? What is the relationship or boundary between divine will and human responsibility? What is the theological status of the perpetrator? On this basis, what is a disaster? What is the value judgment of disasters? What is the relation of disasters to God's actions? Who is the perpetrator of disasters? Are disasters a test? Are disasters a divine warning? Are disasters a divine punishment? If they are a divine punishment, what is the possibility of knowing it? These questions will be answered in the article, sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly. (shrink)

In Islamic theological writings, under the heading of sustenance, the focus is generally on issues such as who is the provider of sustenance, whether haram is considered sustenance, and whether Allah’s consent exists for haram sustenance. Another issue that can be found between the lines of the subject of sustenance is whether it is haram for a person to work for sustenance or not. In fact, the pursuit of means of livelihood in order to sustain one’s life is, according to (...) the general and predominant acceptance of Muslim scholars, permissible and, in cases of necessity, wajib. According to a record in Uṣūl al-niḥal, during the formative period of itizālī thought, there were Mu‘tazilite sufis (ṣūfiyyat al-Muʿtazila) such as Bishr b. al-Mu‘tamir’s disciple Abū Imrān Mūsā b. al-Raqqāshī, al-Naẓẓām’s apostate disciple Fadl al-Hadathī, and Husayn al-Kūfī, about whom no information is available. These names, who seem to have earned their livelihood through almsgiving, defended the forbiddenness (taḥrīm al-makāsib) of all kinds of endeavour for sustenance, contrary to the acceptance of Muslim thinkers. However, it should be noted that for them, the forbiddenness in making an effort for sustenance does not cover the definition of sustenance, which is ‘all the benefits’, but only the effort in obtaining sustenance through means such as trade and agriculture. It is interesting to find such an extreme tendency among the Mu‘tazilites, who came to the fore with their rationalist discourses. “How could a Mu‘tazilite defend tahrīm al-makāsib?”, the issue of abandonment of striving for sustenance (tark al-makāsib), from which the idea of tahrīm al-makāsib is thought to have evolved, is mentioned, and then the Mu‘tazilite sufis views on tahrīm al-makāsib are tried to be based mainly on Mu‘tazilite sources and the criticisms of Mu‘tazilite authors against them are included. It has been determined that Mu‘tazilite sufis justifications for defending tahrīm al-makāsib concentrate on three points: (i) the absence of a just order due to the absence of a just imam and the possibility of supporting the oppressors (rulers) intentionally or unintentionally, and as a result of this, some of them describe the land of Islam as dār al-kufr, (ii) again in relation to the issue of imamate, in an environment where there is no justice, i.e. legal/moral order, the halāl and harām are so intertwined that they cannot be separated from each other, and in order to protect oneself from harām, the things that are subject to sustenance can only be purified through charity and become halāl, and (iii) the fact that trust in Allah is obligatory and any effort to pursue sustenance is contrary to tawakkul. The Mu‘tazilite authors criticised the proponents of tahrīm al-makāsib on the grounds that it is permissible to trade while maintaining a rational and ethical attitude, that one’s intention and interest in trade are important, and that tawakkul cannot be built on the right ground. As a result, the proponents of tahrīm al-makāsib disappeared because they could not gain a foothold in the Mu‘tazilite intellectual climate due to their erroneous reasoning. (shrink)

In this article, the solution proposed by Osman Afīf Efendi, a late Ottoman scholar, to the problem of the creation of human actions in his Risālat al-irādat al-juzʾiyya will be discussed. Although the problem of the role of human beings in their actions, which has been debated since the early period of theology, has been the subject of works with different titles such as ḳaẓā wa ḳadar, ḫalḳu'l-aʿmāl, and efʿāl al-ʿibād, in the Ottoman scholarly tradition it was mostly dealt with (...) in the treatises on the particular will (al-irādah al-juz’iyyah). Osman Afīf Efendi's treatise is one of the last examples of this genre. In addition to al-Jabriyya, the majority of the Muʿtazilites, the famous view of the philosophers, Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (d. 324/935-36), Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāyīnī (d. 418/1027), Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī (d. 403/1013), and the Māturīdī school, the author mentions an eighth view. Osman Afīf Efendi touches only the main ideas of the well-known views of the Jabriyya, the majority of the Muʿtazilites, and the Philosophers. On the other hand, he gives relatively more space to the views of al-Ashʿarī, al-Isfarāyīnī, al-Bāqillānī, and the Māturīdī school. Osman Afīf Efendi states that the solutions proposed by Sunnī scholars are united in the common denominator of being the middle way in the faith and emphasizes the similarities rather than the differences between these solutions. There are some indications in the treatise that the author endeavored to bring a different perspective to Ashʿarī's idea of Kasb. His explanations in the context of al-Bāqillānī and al-Isferāyīnī's views are in the form of a response to the criticisms levelled against the approaches of these scholars. One of the most striking points in the treatise is the statement that the view of the Māturīdī school is the same as that of al-Bāqillānī. Osman Afīf Efendi also touches upon the issue of human will, that is, the universal and particular will. In this context, he states that the particular will is not created. However, he does not provide a clear explanation of the ontic structure of the particular will, and he mentions the different opinions expressed by later Māturīdī scholars, such as the juzī will being a dispositional or intizāʿī state. (shrink)

The subject of this study will be to analyze the contribution of an important figure of the period known as the period of new ilm al kalām in the history of kalām, which started in the mid-nineteenth century and included the first periods of the Republic. This person is Mehmet Şerafettin Yaltkaya (1880-1947). Yaltkaya stands out with his original aspects such as being both a school and a madrasa student, representing his scholar and government bureaucrat personality together and strongly, and (...) his open support for the changes and transformation periods of Republican Turkey. It is known that difficult and troubled times in history have been the source of the emergence of rich intellectual movements. Yaltkaya was also nourished by such a political and intellectual hinterland. As is known, the changes in Western thought in the nineteenth century led to the emergence of atheist and materialist worldviews, which was one of the important reasons that caused us to open a new era in kalām. It has even been interpreted that the Ottoman scholars' work on the criticism of materialism was the main reason for the opening of this new era in kalām. In this regard, before discussing Yaltkaya's point of view and his contributions, we have tried to briefly discuss the historical conditions, changes and transformations of the new period of kalām, accompanied by the views of some of its representatives, which will help us to recognize the period. Secondly, we have endeavored to deal with the main dynamics of Şerafettin Yaltkaya's theological views, especially his scholarly and actional aspects that came to the fore in the course of his life, and in particular his up to date understanding of isbāt al-wājib regarding the existence of God and the social theory of kalām (ictimaī ilm al-kalām) about which the debates intensified. As far as we have been able to determine, Yaltkaya's theological views are actually a multiple-polarized structure that draws from all schools of kalām, philosophy, and Sufism. His interest in different disciplines of Islamic sciences and his curiosity in modern sciences also contributed to his vigorous personality. On the other hand, it must be said that he was also influenced by Western intellectuals and evaluated the possibilities of reason and instinct. Yaltkaya's support for Ottoman modernization and Republic reforms are among the significant aspects of Yaltkaya, both an Islamist and a kind of cultural nationalist. He made great contributions to the world of scholarship and thought of his time with his knowledge and works in different disciplines such as kalām, philosophy, literature, sufism history of sects and history of medicine. In addition, we believe that his lectures on kalām, philosophy and history of sects in important high schools and universities that were newly opened at the time and his position as the second head of the Presidency of Religious Affairs supported the background of his ideas that we highlight in this article. We have determined that Yaltkaya, who criticized the theological views of the traditional scholars, was also closely familiar with and influenced by Western scholars and philosophers who were his contemporaries. (shrink)

This article aims to investigate and analyze Yusuf b. Muhammad Jān al-Karabāghī's (d. 1035/1626) treatise in which he discusses some issues related to existence (wujūd) and the Necessary Being (wājib al-wujūd). This study aims to bring this treatise of al-Karabāghī, which has not been studied yet, into the literature of the history of Islamic thought by investigating and analyzing its content. There is no information about Yusuf al-Karabāghī's birthplace and education in bio-bibliographical sources. It is known that he wrote works (...) in the fields of tafsīr and theology (kalām). Some of his works are Erbau' Ta'līkātin fi't-Tafsīr, Risāla fi'l-Mubāḥasa allatī waka'at fī surat al-Fath bayna al-ulamā, Hāshiya 'alā Sharhi'l-Aqā'id al-Adudiyya, Sharḥ Risāla Ithbāt al-wājib li al-Dawwānī. Three copies of this treatise, which is the subject of this study, have been identified in manuscript libraries. The first of these copies is listed as MS 791 in Selimiye Manuscript Library, the second is listed as MS 1210 in Suleymaniye Library, Carullah Efendi Collection, and the third is listed as 1960 in Suleymaniye Library, Manuscript Donations Collection. Among the mentioned copies, the copy registered in Selimiye Library ms. no 791 was preferred as the main one in the analysis both because it is very clear and readable, and because of the scribes’s collation note in the ferağ record. This is because the scribe wrote this copy in correspondence with other copies that existed in his period but have not survived to the present day. The author does not explicitly mention the name of this treatise in the introduction. In the introductory part of the treatise, he states that he has collected topics that will serve as a remedy for finding the right thought. When its content is analyzed, it is understood that the treatise includes some issues related to existence (wujūd) and especially the Necessary Being (wājib al-wujūd). It is seen that the author followed a different method in the treatise. Yusuf al-Qarabāghī divided the treatise into seven chapters, which he called "halwa". He also added subheadings to each section, sometimes one and sometimes two, which he called "waqf". In these sub-headings he added to each section, he included the views of a thinker who is an authority on the subject he examined. In the treatise, the author examines the methods of demonstration such as burhān al- tatbīq, burhān al- tazāyuf, burhān al-sullamī and concepts such as revolution, succession, wujūd, wājib al-wujūd, possible, qadīm, hadīth, cause, ma'lūl, complete cause, nūr, zulm, al-ālam al-misālī, berzāh, and juz al lā yetajjazā (jawhar al-fard). In this framework, he discusses Karabāğī's proof of the existence of the Necessary Being through the cancellation of the vicious circle and infinite regression (tasalsul), the unity of the Necessary Being (tawḥīd), the relation between essence and attribute, and the attribute of knowledge of the Necessary Being. As a result, in this treatise, Yusuf al-Karabāghī analyzed some debates and views on existence (wujūd) and the concept of Necessary Being, which is an important issue in the tradition of Islamic thought, employing his unique methodological approach. (shrink)

From the earliest moments in human history, the relationship between God, the universe, and humanity has been a subject of discussion, not only among followers of divine religions but also among representatives of positive sciences. Various theories have been put forth, and numerous evaluations have been made regarding the details of this relationship. The discussions around this topic continue to be relevant today From the perspective of divine religions, one of the most notable and fundamental aspects of the Quran-centered revelation (...) system in Islam is the clear distinction between the Creator and the created. According to this understanding, all entities outside of Allah are categorized as created beings, and they owe their existence and continuity to Allah, who is incomparable to anything else. Additionally, the Quran frequently emphasizes that the universe was created with precise measures, balance, and order. Indeed, these criteria form the starting point of the teleological argument, which extensively utilizes them to demonstrate the existence of Allah, especially His unity. All of this suggests that nothing in the universe is the result of random chance; rather, it implies that the universe embodies a sense of regularity or lawfulness. In our view, “Sunnatullah” is a term used in the Quran to express this regularity or lawfulness. The issue of the unchangeability of the “Sunnatullah” has brought forth discussions on determinism first through causality and then, within the context of determinism, debates on deism. Indeed, interpreting the concept of “Sunnatullah” through a rigid deterministic understanding may open the door to deism, while attributing events in the universe to chance rather than standard laws brings about a process leading to atheism by excluding the Creator. Therefore, it is crucial to approach the phenomenon of “Sunnatullah” in the context of the relationship between God, the universe, and humans in a way that eliminates these risks. For this reason, we have chosen to focus on the relationship between “Sunnatullah” and legality within the context of “immutability.” In addressing this topic, we have attempted to consider not only the data of revelation but also the factual domain. In doing so, our fundamental approach has been not to view the Quran as a purely scientific book and not to operate under the assumption that “everything happening in nature is detailed in the Quran.” However, we have endeavored not to overlook the fact that there is harmony between nature/physics, created by the same entity, and the Quran. In our opinion, this harmony has the potential to create an objective foundation for reaching belief in Allah based on the movement from nature/physics. While composing our text, we emphasized concept analysis and highlighted historical and empirical realities. Document analysis was chosen as the method for this qualitative research. We explored the framework of the concept of “Sunnatullah” and attempted to elucidate its relationship with causality. In our research, the term “Sunnatullah” has been used in a sense encompassing all laws pertaining to society and nature within the context of the relationship between God, humans, and the universe. Additionally, it has been argued that the introduction of different laws into the nature and operation of anything in various areas and conditions of life does not imply that the law is susceptible to change. In our view, the unchangeability of the law refers to the detail that the same law will come into effect under the same conditions. Conditions may change, but the law that comes into effect according to those specific/appropriate conditions remains unchanged. Indeed, in line with His infinite knowledge and power, Allah has not overlooked any detail and has established a law for every possible situation in the universe with its causes and effects. The relationship between “Sunnatullah” and causality occurs in this context. (shrink)

One of the most influential figures in the history of Islamic thought is Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210). The identities of mushakkik, which creates problems on many subjects, especially metaphysical and theological ones, the muhaqqiq who tries to solve the problems above the sects, and the jâmî who brings many different views together in the highest concepts, have seriously affected all the thinkers after him. Therefore, in the tradition, all schools had to inherit the philosophical and scientific dynamism that he (...) created and displayed an attitude about the problems he created and the solutions he offered. The real important motive that makes Râzî so indispensable and effective is his problematic identity (mushakkik), which carries the kalām to philosophy and philosophy to kalām, and criticizes philosophy on the basis of the kalām, and the kalām on the basis of philosophy. For this reason, when we look at the works of Râzî, who has been evaluated politically and sociologically within Ash'arism throughout his life, it is clearly seen that he is a thinker who is suitable to be embraced by different schools and to be interpreted in different ways. The fact that many Ahl as-sunnah theologians emphasized the works written by Râzî with a theological-Ash'ari theme, caused his supra-sectarian identity to be overshadowed. On the other hand, it is seen that some thinkers are making an effort to know and recognize Râzî as a philosopher-theologian and muhaqqiq. This effort is clearly seen especially in scientific figures who benefited from Kamaladdin Ibn Yûnus (d. 639/1242) in some way. Afḍal al-Dīn Khūnajī (d. 646/1248), Athir al-Din al-Abharî (d. 663/1265), Najm al-Din al-Qazwinî al-Kâtibî (d. 675/1277) can be given as examples. These personalities, on the one hand, played an active role in the spread of Râzî's scientific heritage and they were effective in bringing Râzî to the fore with his supra-sectarian identity on the other. Sirāj Al-Dīn Al-Urmawî (d. 682/1283), who inherited his scientific legacy, is among the important names who established his identity as a muhaqqiq who mostly solved supra-sectarian problems. Human actions are at the forefront of the issues in which this facility has clearly emerged. Urmawî tries to revise al-Arba'în's expressions, which seem to ignore the power and influence of human beings in terms of human actions as well as criticizing Razi's arguments very seriously. In his work Lübâb, on the one hand, he summarizes al-Erba'în of Razî he seriously criticizes Razi's Ash'ari attitude towards human actions on the other. He does this largely on the axis of the arguments that Râzî himself expressed from his encyclopedic works such as al-Matâlibu'l-'âliyya mina'l-'ilmi'l-ilâhi. It is clear that this is not an ordinary situation. Because human actions are at the forefront of the issues that determine the thinkers' conception of divinity and the relationship between God and man. In this study, Râzî's attitude on this issue and Urmavi's philosophical and theological criticisms will be tried to be determined. Thus, it is clearly seen that he is trying to establish Râzî as a muhaqqiq in the axis of human actions. (shrink)

Abu Muhammad Ali b. Ahmed b. Hazm al-Andalusi (d. 456/1064), the greatest exponent of the Ẓahiriyya school, was a scholar producing important works with his identity as a jurist, hadith scholar, historian, literary man, and poet. He also persistently defended the understanding of Ahl as-Sunna against the sects that emerged within Islamic thought as he defended the superiority of Islam against other religions. In his works, he covered almost every topic of the kalam science; in this context, he was especially (...) interested in topics related to the possibility of prophethood, the prophethood of Muhammad and his being the last representative of the prophethood chain. Therefore, this study, based mainly on his works such as al-Fasl, al-Usul wa'l-Furu, ad-Durr fi ma Yecibu i'tikaduhu and Ilm al-Kalam ala Mazhab Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Jama'a, deals with the topics of the possibility of prophecy, the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad, and the role and importance of miracles in proving it in the view of Ibn Hazm. Almost all Islamic scholars have based their systems for recognizing prophets on the evidence of miracles. According to them, a person who claims to be a prophet must bring extraordinary evidence to confirm his claim, and it is necessary for him to do so in order to make his opponents religiously responsible. For an event to be considered evidence that confirms the prophet's claim and to be called a miracle, it must have some characteristics, such as: it must be a divine act; it must appear in an extraordinary manner; it must occur together with the claim of prophecy and challenge; and it must occur immediately after the claim of the prophet. Therefore, it is believed that evidence that possesses these characteristics can prove the correctness of the claimant without needing any other evidence. The kalam scholars only call those events as miracles, which have the characteristic of challenging the dozens of evidences that prove the prophet's truthfulness. Therefore, it is without a doubt that the concept of miracle is a special concept invented by kalam scholars. When looking at Ibn Hazm’s views on the subject, which form the backbone of the study, it is necessary to state the following: Firstly, Ibn Hazm explains that prophecy is possible, that God chooses and sends messengers among the people, and that there is no difference among the prophets in terms of belief principles. Ibn Hazm emphasizes the role of miracles in identifying prophets and bases his system on this principle. However, he does not show much care in using the term "miracles" in the way that Kalam scholars accept it and does not aim to explain or list the characteristics or attributes of miracles as seen in Kalam books. He uses the term "miracles," which have been conceptualized over a long period of time, for every extraordinary event that belongs to the prophets, without considering these sensitivities. The most striking aspect of Ibn Hazm's understanding of miracles is that he does not consider the attribute of challenge, which is defined as a condition of a miracle, as necessary. He criticizes those who accept the attribute of a challenge as an essential part of miracles and argues that such an understanding would limit the miracles of the Prophet Muhammad. If the attribute of the challenge is accepted as a condition, then extraordinary events such as the blessing of food and drink, the moaning of wood in the mosque, and some animals coming and expressing their complaints would be excluded from the scope of miracles. This would mean limiting the evidence of Prophet Muhammad's prophecy. According to him, the creator of extraordinary events is God, and He creates them only to confirm His messengers. The events that occur in the hands of a person who claims to be a prophet should be considered a miracle. Therefore, he has named every event that occurred through the prophets as a miracle, regardless of its context and nature. In conclusion, according to Ibn Hazm, there are two types of events that occur in nature: Normal events and miraculous events. He refers to the latter as miracles and limits them to only occurring in the hands of prophets. He believes that events that occur in the hands of prophets, whether they possess the characteristic of tahaddî or not, should be referred to as miracles. Events that occur in the hands of people other than prophets do not possess the characteristics of miraculous events. If such events are claimed to be miraculous, the evidence of the prophets will be damaged. Therefore, Allah creates these events only for His messengers. Therefore, in the view of Ibn Hazm, concepts such as miracles of saints (karamat), magic, and divine help (maunat) do not have a counterpart. In fact, his attitude coincides with the Mu'tazilite tradition. He tries to prevent criticism that can be directed at miracles by assigning miraculous events only to prophets. (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)

Free will, which is dealt with under the title of "acts of the servants" in the Kalām literature, is one of the fundamental issues of the science of Kalām. Benjamin Libet's famous experiment, which he conducted in order to seek an answer to the question of free will, caused the free will debates to move to the field of neuroscience. The logic of Libet's experiment is to compare the neural activity in the brain with the moment when a person is (...) conscious while performing a voluntary act. In Libet's subjects, it was observed that brain activity in the decision-making process started at the moment of unconsciousness. The results of this experiment have long been interpreted in neuroscience as showing that free will is an illusion. Although Libet claimed that conscious intention creates a veto effect by stopping the action at the last moment, recent studies have shown that Libet's veto solution for free will does not work. The most vocal critics of the implications of the Libet experiment from the beginning have generally been philosophers. In this article, the criticisms of the Libet experiments by names such as Marcel Brass, Alfred Mele, and Peter Ulric Tse are presented. However, especially in recent years, neuroscientist Aaron Schurger's experimental and mathematical reinterpretation of the concept of readiness potential, which is key for Libet, and his proposal of an alternative model are mentioned. The article discusses Schurger's claim that the readiness potential may not actually reflect a brain that is ready. According to Schurger, the readiness potential is just random fluctuations that already exist in the brain and is not the sole cause of decisions. In fact, it has been argued that the readiness potential is related to neural noise in the brain rather than to the decision-making process. Thanks to Schurger's critique and the new model, it became clear that the Libet experiment did not rule out free will. But it does not constitute a proof of free will either. While the subject remains a mystery, it is unthinkable for Kalām to remain aloof from these debates. The article also touches upon the views of the Jabriyya, Ash'ariyya, Maturidiyya and Mu'tazilah in Kalām regarding the acts of the servants and questions what the Libet experiment can mean for these schools. Accordingly, while Jabriyya, with its deterministic view, may correspond to an erroneous interpretation of the Libet experiment, Mutazila may be the school that will have the most difficulty in explaining the Libet experiment. As a result, it seems that the views that consider both human agency and God's creation in voluntary acts are the most accurate. Moreover, despite the lack of a clear explanation of the theory of kasb in the Ash'ariyya, the Maturidiyya's assertion that the juz'i will is uncreated and that two influences affect voluntary acts suggests that this school provides the most solid foundation for free will. In order for such discussions to proceed on a healthy basis, it is very important to follow multidisciplinary methods. In addition, as much as Kalāmists should approach scientific studies seriously, it is important that they do not adopt a completely submissive attitude in the face of scientific claims, and that they learn the relevant critiques from experts in the field. Only in this way, we believe that the scientific inferences to be made will be based on a solid ground and that Kalāmists can make serious contributions to the solution. (shrink)

The common periodisation in Ash‘ari kalām is Ibn Khaldun's distinction between the early and late periods over al-Ghazālī. Although some consider this as an artificial and unrealistic periodisation, we do not think so. For, it is not possible to understand and make sense of the logic and necessity of periodisation without knowing what exactly distinguishes these periods from each other and what kind of great differences and changes occurred in the latter period. The most important factor that distinguishes the theological (...) activities of the two periods is undoubtedly the Peripatetic philosophy that left its mark on the second period. The direct relationship established by the Ash‘ari theologians of the late period with philosophy has been the source of many changes in theology. These changes have manifested themselves in many areas from the understanding of method in theology to the theory of definition, from the use of evidence to the theories of nature, intellect and soul, most importantly from the notion of the Omnipotent God (al-Fā‘il al-Mukhtār) to the metaphysics of possibility-necessity, and from the cosmology of substance-accident to al-umūr al-‘āmma as the main subject-matter of metaphysics. Finally, the changes in the process that started with al-Ghazālī and evolved with Fakhruddīn al-Rāzī brought theology to the brink of philosophization, and at the end of the process, theology turned into a universal (metaphysical) discipline. This situation naturally led to a convergence between the metaphysical thought and theological thought. It is one thing to say that theology is the most honourable and supreme science, and it is another to reveal that it is universal. In this context, al-Ghazālī declared and substituted the Islamic theology as a religious universal discipline for the first time. Actually, this substitution has a hidden philosophical/metaphysical meaning and message. Al-Ghazālī 's characterisation of theology as a universal science can also be interpreted as a challenge to both the sciences of the field it belongs to and the sciences outside itself, with its disciplinary encompassing and priority for theology. It should not be forgotten that theology, while confronting and coming to terms with philosophy and metaphysics, integrating with the subjects it has taken into the field of study, on the other hand, it has to maintain and protect the religious character it belongs to and represents. (shrink)

This article is about the place of kalām (theology) within the general structure of al-Fārābī's metaphysics. In this framework, the article consists of two parts. The first part examines the position of metaphysics within the framework of al-Fārābī's idea of perfection. In the second part, a close reading of al-Fārābī's al-Ibāna ʿan ġarażi Arisṭuṭālīs fī kitābi mā baʿda al-ṭabīʿa is made and al-Fārābī's approach to the theoretical aspect of theology within the theory of milla is analyzed. Since al-Fārābī's theories of (...) perfection and meaning are the theories that affect a major part of his philosophy, the article shows the effects of these two theories on al-Fārābī's analysis of metaphysics without examining their general position in al-Fārābī's philosophy. In this framework, the article examines the idea that al-Fārābī's metaphysics should be evaluated in view of the background of his theories of perfection and meaning, based on the secondary literature on the subject. As evidence for this claim, al-Fārābī's description of the philosophical sciences as the steps of intellectual perfection is shown in the article. The article emphasizes that al-Fārābī's evaluations of the relationship between kalām and metaphysics are based on the theory of perfection. A close reading of the relevant passages in Taḥṣīl al-saʿāda, Treatise on Intellect (Risāla fi-l ‘aql), and Kitāb al-Ḥurūf shows how al-Fārābī's theories of perfection and meaning form the background of his analysis of metaphysics through the philosopher's arguments. On the other hand, the article shows how al-Ibāna might be understood within al-Fārābī's metaphysical construct by showing the extensions of the theories of perfection and meaning in this work. For al-Fārābī, metaphysics, which constitutes the last step of intellectual perfection, is also the highest science. This process is indicated by the concept “al-naẓar al-ilāhī” (divine thinking/thought). In this framework, kalām cannot gain the title of metaphysics because it is a science that does not emerge in the course of intellectual perfection. In this article, this approach is justified by considering the relevant passages in al-Ibāna. Al-Fārābī's distinction between the science of divine oneness (tawḥīd) and metaphysics in this work has been a subject of debate among scholars. Regarding what al-Fārābī meant by the definition of universal knowledge, the article emphasizes that the relationship of metaphysics with the theories of perfection and meaning influenced al-Fārābī's approach to universal knowledge. In the last part of the article, al-Fārābī’s theory of milla is considered in the context of the theory of meaning. For this aim, the article suggests that al-Fārābī’s idea of milla as a copy or similitude of philosophy makes the science of kalām an intermediate science that acts between the verbal and the philosophical areas of meaning. (shrink)

The nature of the human being in general and the existence and nature of the soul in particular has been discussed throughout the history of thought. As a knowing subject, man firstly tried to know himself. While making this questioning, he not only wondered about his phenomenal existence (body), but also about his spiritual identity, which he did not doubt was out there somewhere. This curiosity has created an ongoing scientific journey from anatomy to physiology, from science to philosophy, from (...) medicine to sociology, from biology to neurobiology, from psychology to neuropsychology, from chemistry to neurochemistry. In the end, various human conceptions have been developed in accordance with the scientific and philosophical background of each civilization. The ancient tradition of thought, which is the common accumulation of humanity, has largely included man in a dualist definition. Along with modern science, many devices have been developed to study human beings physically. Numerous data have been reached with the opportunities provided by technology, and these data have provided great usefulness in understanding what aspects a human being has in terms of physics and metaphysics. However, with the increase in our knowledge of the natural world and human, which is a part of it, the perspectives of the period were forced into paradigmatic changes. The philosophical movements that developed and changed in parallel with scientific knowledge, the decline of religion, especially in the Western world, regressed the dominant models in the interpretation of knowledge. Notions of human have inevitably taken their share from this great change. Is the subject behind the actions separate/independent from the body/brain and completely autonomous and rational? Or is it just the body/brain or its functionality, as modern neuroscience suggests? Does this coherent functionality arise entirely or in part from natural causation? Is there an essence or a distinctive feature that makes us human? If so, is this essence/property physical or is it a metaphysical substance? What answers did the early theologians give to these questions? What are the points of overlap between the hypotheses developed mainly on religious knowledge, partly on medical knowledge of the period via largely logical reasoning, and the definitions of human and soul revealed by contemporary experimental science? This line forms the main frame of the article. In summary, this study; It aims to identify the parallels and similarities of approach between the spiritual theories of the early theologians and current scientific data, which we see as two important phases of the ongoing ancient investigation. It is thought that the theories developed in this first period, when the transformation due to the acculturation process is not sufficiently determinative on thought, are more original and valuable. After giving brief information about the definitions of soul, mind, self and consciousness, which are among the basic concepts of the problem, the thoughts of early Mu‘tazilī and Ahl al-Sunnah thinkers on the subject are presented comparatively with current scientific data. We tried to make a healthy descriptive inference by making analytical and semantic arguments on the data obtained during the research. (shrink)

This article takes as its basis the claim that the root cause of the ecological crisis is based on theological reasons, especially the monotheistic conception of God in traditional Christianity. The article aims to evaluate the claim that the monotheist understanding of the God-universe relationship is the main cause of the ecological crisis, in the context of ecofeminism, which is one of the leading representatives of this claim. In the literature, which includes examining the ecological crisis with its theological dimensions, (...) many studies evaluate the relationship between human beings and nature. In addition, some studies deal with the subject within the framework of the relationship between God and the universe, albeit relatively few. An important part of them consists of the studies done by ecofeminist theologians. The most distinctive feature of these studies is the critical attitude of ecofeminist theologians against traditional monotheism concerning the ecological crisis. At the center of the criticism is the emphasis on power and absolute transcendence among the attributes of God in the monotheist conception of God. According to ecofeminist theologians, the monotheist conception, which is claimed to represent the dominant understanding of God, especially in Western Christianity, supports a hierarchical God and universe relationship as a result of the application of the dualist perspective in explaining reality. In this hierarchical structure, God is portrayed as a being outside and beyond this world, who legitimizes power relations and enables the weak to be oppressed, therefore, the monotheistic God concept is strongly criticized by ecofeminist theologians. On the other hand, ecofeminist theologians propose pantheist and panentheist God conceptions, which are defended by two pioneer ecofeminist theologians Rosemary R. Ruether and Sally McFague, respectively, as an alternative to the traditional monotheist conception of God. In this study, in line with the mentioned purpose of the study, pantheist and panentheist interpretations proposed by ecofeminist theology and prominent among the God and universe relationship approaches in contemporary Christian philosophical theology are discussed in the context of ecological crisis. In this framework, this study evaluates some of the problems that arise in the application of ecofeminist discourse to the field of theology in terms of alternative God conceptions put forward by ecofeminist theologians. Based on this background, the study includes four chapters. First, the dimensions of the relationship between ecofeminism and theology have been revealed. Then, the main arguments of ecofeminist theology in its critique of the monotheist conception of God are evaluated. Then, pantheist and panentheist conceptions, the alternative God conceptions offered by ecofeminist theology against monotheism, are discussed. Finally, within the framework of the arguments it has put forward, an evaluation of ecofeminist theology and conceptions of God has been made in terms of contextual and methodological aspects. (shrink)

Bu makale, Ebu’l-Muʿîn en-Nesefî’nin peygamberliğin aklî olarak gerekçelendirilmesine yönelik ortaya koyduğu rasyonel argümanlarını ele almaktadır. Makale, tartışmaya en-Nesefî’nin peygamberlik kavramından ne anladığını ele alarak başlar ve onun tarafından kavramın lügavî, felsefî ve kelâmî anlamlarına dair sunulan görüşler tasnif edilir. Ardından, en-Nesefî’de nübüvvetin, aklî açıdan mümkün ve Allah’ın hikmeti açısından vâcib olmak üzere, iki farklı kategorik açıdan ele alınışı işlenir. En-Nesefî nübüvvetin hem aklen mümkün oluşuna hem de onun Allah’ın hikmeti gereği gerekli oluşuna dair birçok argüman sunar. İnsan aklının bilgiye ulaşma (...) kapasitesinin sınırlı oluşu, dini bilginin açık ve sarih bir şekilde ortaya konulmasının gerekliliği ve yine gelecek nesiller için bu bilginin korunmasına ve depolanmasına duyulan ihtiyaç peygamberlik müessesesinin makul, mümkün ve gerekli oluşuna dair çok değerli iç görüler sunar. En-Nesefî’ye göre “yıldızların ilmi veya bilgisi” ve tıp bilimine dair insanlığın sahip olduğu malumat, yine insanların yaşamlarını devam ettirebilmeleri için gerekli olan kimi sanat ve zanaatkarlığa dair önemli bilgilerin öğrenilip bu güne aktarılmış olması peygamberlik müessesesinin tarihte gerçekleşmiş bir vakıa olduğunu gösteren aklî çıkarımlardandır. Dahası en-Nesefî’ye göre insanlar arasındaki ilk dil de bir peygamber tarafından öğretilmiş ve diğer diller bu ilk dilden türemiştir. Makalenin ikinci kısmı, en-Nesefî’nin nübüvvet iddiasında bulunan birinin iddiasının geçerli olup olmadığına dair sunduğu kriterler ya da kıstaslar üzerine yoğunlaşır. En-Nesefî peygamberlik iddiasında bulunan birisinin iddiasını temellendirmesinin en etkili yolunu mucize olarak görür. Ardından mucizenin tanımına ve onun kelâmî ve felsefî gelenekler içerisinde nasıl anlaşıldığına dair bazı açıklamalar yapar ve mucizenin sıhhatine dair şartları tartışır. Örneğin mucizeler, becerilerini mükemmelleştirmek için yıllarını harcamış sihirbazlar tarafından gerçekleştirilen illüzyonlardan veya sihir numaralarından ayrılır. Bu kişiler, el çabukluğu kullanarak olağanüstü görünen numaralar sergileyebilirler çünkü onlar göz yanılması sayesinde izleyicileri aldatmaya yönelik zengin bir deneyim ve uzmanlığa sahiptirler. Bununla birlikte, daha yakından incelenip derinlemesine düşünüldüğünde, illüzyon numaralarının ardındaki nedenler keşfedildikçe, hilelerinin gizemi ve gücü yavaş yavaş azalır. Fakat, mucizeler araştırıldıkça ve üzerine düşünüldükçe giderek daha kesin ve güçlü hale gelirler. Sonuç olarak en-Nesefî’ye göre sadece entelektüel bir Tanrı anlayışı ya da inancı kişiyi din tarafından müjdelenen mutluluğa ulaştırmak için yeterli değildir. Kişinin dünya üzerindeki varlığını tatmin edici bir anlama (hikmet) bağlayabilmesinin, yine hem bu dünyaya hem de öbür dünyaya dair menfaatlerinin farkında olup onları elde etmeyi öğrenmesinin yegâne yolu peygamberlik müessesesidir. Özetle, bu makale, en-Nesefî’de nübüvvet kavramının kapsamlı bir analizini ortaya koyarak ve onun nübüvveti destekleyen rasyonel argümanlarını tartışarak, İslam düşüncesinde nübüvvet kavramının ve nübüvvete getirilen aklî savunuların daha derin bir şekilde anlaşılmasına katkıda bulunmayı ve yapılacak olan muhtemel modern aklî savunuların hangi hususlara odaklanması ya da mecralara yönelmesi gerektiğinin ipuçlarını ortaya koymayı hedeflemektedir. (shrink)

Sadr al-Sharīʿah (d. 747/1346) is one of the theologians representing the later period of the Māturīdī kalām. He based his system of thought on his criticisms of Avicenna, al-Rāzī, and Ṭūsī. His criticism of these names stems from his own understanding of being. He thinks differently from the theologians of the later period on issues such as the essence-existence division, the superaddition of existence to essence, and the acceptance of mental being, which are accepted by the majority of theologians of (...) the later period. His understanding of being in question also influenced his analysis of the idea of the wahdat al-wujūd. In the study, some aspects of the framework proposed by Muhammed Bedirhan will be given first. Then, in order to make sense of Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s criticism of wahdat al-wujūd, the major understandings of wahdat al-wujūd will be summarized briefly, and finally, Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s analysis of wahdat al-wujūd will be examined and clarified using Bedirhan’s framework. Although the framework has subheadings, it classifies criticisms into two categories: rationally-based and sharʻī-based objections. Rational objections are directed from the traditions of kalām and philosophy, while sharʻī-based objections come from Salafi thinkers, faqihs, and sufis. The framework is comprehensive in classifying criticisms against the theory of wahdat al-wujūd. This framework will clarify Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s approach, and the source of his criticisms should be identified. According to Bedirhan, the sufis’ theory is in conflict with the members of other schools in two aspects, practical and theoretical. While the first one considers sufism a religious state (ḥal), the second one is the point that shapes the view of other intellectual groups on sufism in terms of the fact that sufism is also a science. Bedirhan has based the theoretical conflict part of his framework on the triple classification of al-Jābiri: burhān, beyān and irfān. According to al-Jābiri’s classification, sufism, which is included under the title of irfān, deals with the previous two traditions mentioned. However, burhan and beyan traditions also offer their criticisms of the epistemological and ontological acceptances of the irfān tradition. Behind the criticism of the traditions of thought towards each other is the claim that the metaphysical theory of the opposite group is insufficient. According to the presented framework Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s criticisms can be considered within not only the kalām tradition but also the sufi tradition, because he is a sufi who accepts ittihād as one of the “sayr sulūk” degrees. Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s explains two proofs by which sufis defend their metaphysical theory, and also presents a counter-proof based on the verbal commonality of sense knowledge and being. He also aims to point out the weakness of the metaphysical theory of sufis with the view that the idea of ittihād is unique to a certain degree. By mentioning Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s criticisms and explanations of wahdat al- wujūd, the study identifies Sadr al-Sharīʿah’s stance on the rational and sharʻī-based objections. (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)

One of the problems regarding one of the breaking points in the history of Islamic thought is the presidency. Muslims did not only fall into a theoretical conflict on this issue, but unfortunately, they also engaged in actual battles. The disagreement among Muslims has retained its influence to the present day and has shaped both the religious and worldly views of Muslims. The debate on the identity of the candidate who will assume the role of Muhammad and organize the religious (...) and worldly affairs of Muslims has set the scene of historical conflicts that manifest themselves in the theoretical and practical fields. The religious references made in order to legitimize the political theses caused the said theses to be institutionalized, and matters basically of a political character were associated with religion. Among the Islamic sects, especially Shia, attributed an existential meaning to the problem of the presidency and shaped all their religious and worldly views on this axis. The Shia, who considered the presidency almost a basis of faith, assigned a rank close to prophethood to the heads of state. Zaydiyya stands out as the closest branch of the Shia to the Ahl al-Sunnah in terms of politics. They think more moderately about the characteristics of the head of state, heads of state other than Ali, and the Companions. Ahl as-Sunnah considers the presidency essentially as a juristically -political issue. Bringing this discussion into the field of belief, even with the aim of objecting to Shia, who sees the presidency as a problem of faith and systematizes this problem, shows the first effects of Shia on Sunni political thought. In order to defend Ali's presidency and to question the legitimacy of others, Shia brought the issue into the field of belief, and sought to prove that Ali was superior in the sight of Allah, and therefore, more worthy of the presidency, by referring to various religious texts. Shia examined the issue in a dogmatic way in order to prove his political theses strongly and establish absolute authority. As an inevitable consequence of this method, the institution of the presidency is endowed with divine powers. The theses that the heads of state are appointed with religious references and have the quality of ismah (infallibility) are the most concrete reflections of this approach. Ahl as-Sunnah tried to justify Abu Bakr's legitimacy by defending his superiority against Shia, who defended Ali's superiority. This approach reveals the methodical interaction as well as taking on the mission of responding to Shia effectively in its own way. Shamsaddin as-Samarqandī, whose political imagination we have examined, is a Sunni scholar belonging to the Hanafi - Maturidite kalam tradition. Due to his political views and style, he is also described as a Shiite by some. By examining Samarqandī's concept of politics in the context of his ideas on the general philosophy of theology, we can have clearer information about his sectarian belonging and political stance. He adopted the analytical method in politics, as in other issues, and revealed his own unique style and views, while adhering to the main vein of Ahl as-Sunnah. He adopted the analytical method in politics, as in other issues, and revealed his own unique style and views, while adhering to the main street of Ahl al-Sunnah. (shrink)

One of the fundamental debates that theologians have held to discuss the possibility of and to facilitate understanding of the bodily resurrection is iʿādat al-maʿdūm; that is, the restoration of the non-existent. Despite some differences in their perspectives, theologians, including the Muʿtazilites, have considered iʿādat al-maʿdūm possible. Avicenna, who opposed the classical views of theologians by rejecting iʿādat al-maʿdūm, provoked a new discussion and fuelled controversy about this issue. Later Islamic philosophers and theologians who were influenced by him took his (...) path and reformulated his arguments about the impossibility of iʿādat al-maʿdūm. Likewise, the theologians of the mutaʾakhkhirūn period, who defended the possibility of iʿādat al-maʿdūm, in support of the classical view, voiced new criticisms against these recontructed arguments. Thus, the debate turned into a highly controversial issue between Islamic philosophers and theologians. In fact, unlike the theologians who included the issue of iʿādat al-maʿdūm in the subsections of the samʿiyyāt chapters as an extension of the resurrection debates, Islamic philosophers did not consider it possible and preferred to address it under the subheadings of the umūr al-āmma chapters on existence and non-existence, in which metaphysical issues were discussed. This is because Avicenna considered iʿādat al-maʿdūm a metaphysical issue related to non-existence. On the one hand, some philosophers, who considered iʿādat al-maʿdūm impossible, deployed the new argument that things that existed and then disappeared could not be recreated in the same way. On the other hand, others expressed their criticisms against these arguments in the disputatious style (jadali) and tried to defend the restoration of the non-existent in the same way. Therefore, the theologians who addressed these issues in their works helped answer the question of whether it is possible to recreate the non-existent. This is because the texts provided detailed and important information about the course of the debate, such as who rejects and accepts iʿādat al-maʿdūm, the background and context of the debate between philosophers and theologians, the proofs put forward for the rejection of recreation, the criticisms in response to these proofs, and the evidence put forward for recreation. Therefore, the present study aims to discuss the arguments for iʿādat al-maʿdūm; that is, whether maʿdūm can be recreated in the same way, and the criticisms against these arguments, which have become a subject of debate between theologians and philosophers. Avicenna’s ideas are also highlighted in the study as he is the source of the arguments for the impossibility of iʿādat al-maʿdūm. In terms of its scope, the present study is based on the major works of the prominent theologians of the mutaʾakhkhirūn period and the main commentaries written on these works. (shrink)

It is widely acknowledged that two methods of writing have emerged in the history of usūl literature: Juristic method (usūl al-fuqahā) and theological method (usūl al-mutakallimīn). Although there are some attempts to determine the typical features of these methods, we do not have a comprehensive explanation regarding the criteria of this distinction, the motivation behind it and the period when these methods have become prevalent. This paper aims to shed light to certain dimensions of the issue and focuses especially on (...) the impact of juristic disputations and khilāfiyāt on the emergence of juristic method. The discussions about the sources and methods of religious knowledge were a significant part of the heated intellectual debates in the early period of Islamic scholarships. These discussions made by scholars interested in theological matters in kalām context were the matters of usūl, which would have turned into a separate discipline thereafter. The aforementioned period also witnessed Hanafīs completing the first fiqh compilation by recording the body of masā’il in fiqh that they had developed and codified. Hanafīs then involved in the methodological discussions of theologians in the context of justifying their juristic views. The tradition of scholarly discussion that had widely contributed to the earlier period took a new dimension by the introduction of jadal to the Islamic world. First theologians and later jurists adopted the method of jadal in their debates and scholarly works. By the 4th and 5th centuries AH, fiqh became popular more than ever and promoted the juristic disputations in such a way that those disputations turned into a common and significant performance among Islamic intellectuals. Meanwhile, the khilaf genre, in which the disputed juristic matters have been discussed and justified, improved in those centuries as well. Consequently, a new method of usūl writing, namely the method of fuqahā, which can be applied in the justification of the masā’il and in juristic disputations, emerged. Thus, the first and most typical work of that method, Taqwīm al-Adilla by Dabūsī, perfectly addressed the needs of the disputation tradition in the era, by including many chapters that could be regarded as related to the substantial law and many examples from substantial law, by treating the jadal topics in qiyas and ‘illa chapters in detail and by avoiding the speculative theological disputes. Later, the method developed by Dabūsī attracted attention and many jurisprudents wrote usūl works adopting the method before the end of 5th century AH. Especially the usūl work of Bazdawī served as a model for the later Hanafī usūl literature. However, the juristic method lost its popularity when the Islamic scholarships fell under the influence of philosophy and logic after al-Gazālī and al-Rāzī. Jadal and ‘ilm al-bahth wa’l-munāzara have been treated under the discipline of logic afterwards. Nevertheless, even after the evolution of the usūl perspective, some Hanafīs still wrote usūl works by juristic method and some of them, despite adopting the new philosophical perspective, referred to the usūl of Bazdawī in their “mamzūj” (combined) usūl works. (shrink)

The debate on the possibility of attaining metaphysical knowledge by the method of reasoning began with the ancient Greek philosophers and continues to this day. This article aims to examine how Râzî argues for the possibility of attaining metaphysical knowledge through the method of reasoning. He first argues that existence has two parts, the sensed and the thought, in order to demonstrate that metaphysical knowledge can be obtained through the method of reasoning. Then he tries to prove that existence is (...) not limited to the material. After presenting evidence for the existence of things other than the sensible in existence that can be perceived with the intellect, he tries to discuss our devices to relate to this sphere of existence in a comparative manner. In this comparison, two possible devices for attaining metaphysical knowledge emerge: the theoretical intellect and the purified soul. After revealing the positive and negative aspects of both in this comparison, he argues that the most reliable device is the theoretical intellect and the technique is the method of reasoning Râzî gives various answers to those who object to the possibility of obtaining metaphysical knowledge through the method of reasoning. Râzî tries to put forward the grounds on which the groups who object to the method of reasoning are based. He then evaluates their justifications in terms of accuracy and consistency. Thus, he tests both the relevance of each group's objection to the subject and its consistency with the group's other beliefs. He then presents the justifications for his own opinion on the method of reasoning and the consistency of this method with his other beliefs. Following this method, Râzî first divides those who object to the method of reasoning into two categories according to whether or not they accept a metaphysical sphere of existence. According to this division, those who object to the method because they do not accept a metaphysical sphere of existence are the Sophists, Sumeniyya, Mujasimah, Dhahriyya, and Hashawiyya. Although this group does not accept a metaphysical sphere of existence, they are divided into two classes: those who believe in God and those who do not. According to Râzî, the group that accepts the metaphysical sphere of existence but objects to the method of reasoning is the Talimiyya. They claim that metaphysical knowledge can only be attained through the teaching of an innocent instructor, not by the method of reasoning. The different approaches of these groups are the reason why Râzî sometimes emphasizes accuracy, sometimes consistency, and sometimes proving the metaphysical domain of existence in his answers to those who object to the method of reasoning. (shrink)