Abū Lahab (d. 2/624), one of the notables of Mecca, was one of the Prophet’s four uncles who reached the Islamic period. Abū Lahab who had generally good relations with the Prophet before the Islamic period developed bad attitudes towards his nephew when his prophethood was proclaimed and maintained these until his death. He, known for loyalty to his ancestor’s religion, did not believe in his nephew’s prophecy and was one of the chief antagonist and enemy of the Prophet in (...) Mecca. In addition to the fact that Abū Lahab had an identity devoted to his ancestor, by force of emphasis of social justice, the Prophet’s new religion defending equality among people and ordering to the faith of afterlife caused to have a strong opposition to his nephew. In the development of Abū Lahab’s opposing attitude his wife Umm Jamīl (d.?/?) plays a crucial role. In this article, Abū Lahab and the reasons which prompted to oppose to the Prophet and his religion were examined in detail. In addition, his life and relations with the Prophet before and after nubuwwa were detailed.Summary: bū Lahab is one of the four uncles of the Prophet Muḥammad, who reached the time of his prophethood. There is no information in the sources related to his birth, childhood and youth. His real name is known as ‘Abd al-‘Uzzā, and his nickname is Abū ‘Utba or, according to a weak opinion, Abū ‘Utayba. In most of the sources, it is noted that the (second) nickname of Abū Lahab was given by his father because he was so handsome, that he was shining like a fire or his cheeks were reddish as if they were fevering. Detailed information about Abū Lahab belongs to the post-prophetic period; information about his life before prophethood is less. Among these rare information there are findings that he was among the richest and most respected people of Mecca; saved by paying his diet a Meccan aristocrat who was held hostage by a caravan he met on the road to Mecca- al-Ṭāʾif; was involved with his friends in the theft incident against the golden gazelle statue in the Kaaba to supply his drinking money. The sources record that he was delighted with the birth of the Prophet and allowed his concubine to breastfeed the Prophet. Relations with the Prophet during this period, except for the anger of the Prophet because the supported Abū Ṭālib (d. 619) in a fight with Abū Ṭālib, generally followed a positive course. So much that he asked the two daughters of the Prophet to marry his two sons. However, these positive relations were broken and replaced by hostility after the Prophet was given the duty of prophethood and the Messenger of Allāh started to serve this duty.Abū Lahab, who can be regarded as a filiopietist, made every attempt to eliminate this new belief, which he saw as contrary to his ancestors' beliefs. He watched his nephew, did everything he could to deny what he was saying and prevent him from getting a response. He would grind him by throwing feces, carrion, animal droppings and stinking things to the door of his house to disturb him. He did not hesitate to increase the severity of this hostility. So much that he was among those who sentenced him to hunger by applying a socio-economic boycott to Muḥammad and his close relatives, Banū Hāshim and Banū Muṭṭalib, who supported him. However, in the pre-Islamic period, a sense of tribalism was dominant in Mecca and its nearby basin. This understanding was also dominant in the lower arms of the Quraysh tribe, who was a resident of Mecca. These communities, especially Banū Umayya and Banū Makhzūm, who represent the Mecca aristocracy, strongly opposed the prophecy of one of the Banū Hāshim. On the other hand, the Banū Hāshim adopted the Prophet with the same understanding. However, there was only one person who acted against this understanding among all Banū Hāshim, and this was Abū Lahab. He treated his nephew so much in hostility that he became the only person among the Mecca polytheists who was condemned by the Qur'ān. Perhaps the most important and influential factor in his persistence in a stubborn and systematic opposition to the Prophet, was his ancestral identity. In addition, in the pre-Islamic Mecca, the people were divided into social strata, inequality among people, and the aristocratic segment was the highest level of society. Islam advocated equality among people due to its vision of social justice. The Mecca aristocrats, including Abū Lahab, considered themselves superior to other people and thought that they were in no way equal to those who were lower in terms of property, position and nobility. This understanding was one of the most important factors that enabled Abū Lahab to take place in the block against this new belief system communicated by the Prophet. Again, one of the important factors in his displaying a stubborn and systematic opposition to the Prophet is that Islam accepts the belief in the hereafter as one of the basic principles of religion. Like the other polytheist Meccans, Abū Lahab did not believe in the resurrection. His wife Umm Jamīl was another factor of his opposition stance. The traditional rivalries between Umm Jamīl’s family Banū Umayya and Abū Lahab’s family Banū Hāshim, lead to a sense of competition against. This feeling prompted her to oppose the prophecy of one of the Banū Hāshim. So she always provoked her husband and Abū Lahab’s hatred toward his nephew never stopped to such an extent that it was mentioned in the surah Tabbat/al-Masad by a metaphor of carrying wood to feed the fire of hatred. Actually it was only Abū Lahab who was hostile to Muḥammad's prophethood among all the Banū Hāshim. With the prophethood of Muḥammad, beginning to display a stubborn and systematic opposition to Islam, Abū Lahab continued this opposition intensely in the following periods and died in the second year of the hijra with this attitude. His wife, Umm Jamīl, died with the same understanding and shared the same contractual fate with him. However, all her children -except for ‘Utayba (d.? /?) - were honored with Islam and were among the Prophet's distinguished companions. (shrink)

This is the proceedings of the "1st Turkish Conference on AI and ANNs," K. Oflazer, V. Akman, H. A. Guvenir, and U. Halici (editors). The conference was held at Bilkent University, Bilkent, Ankara on 25-26 June 1992. -/- Language of contributions: English and Turkish.

This article discusses the identification of the wajhs regarded as weak in Kâsım b. Fîrruh esh-Shâtıbî’s poetical book Ḥırzu’l-emânî wa wajhu’t-tehânî that he wrote to make the differences of seven recitations (kırâ’ât-i sebaʻ) easy to memorize and the status of the practice of these wajhs in the Recitation Education. It is understood that Shatibi weakened these wajhs, sometimes explicitly with expressions such as leyse müʻavvelâ (لَيْسَ مُعَوَّلاَ) and lem yeṣıḥḥa fe yuḥmelâ (لَمْ يَصِحَّ فَيُحْمَلاَ), and sometimes indirectly with words such (...) as yüftelâ (يُفْتَلاَ)”, helhelâ (هَلْهَلاَ), uḫmilâ (اُخْمِلَا)” and mâce (مَاجَ)”. It is seen that there are eight of these wajhs in total; two of them are about method and six of them are about farshi differences. First of all, in the article the relevant wajhs are divided into two as the differences in the method and fersh. Afterwards it is narrated how these wajhs were handled in the significant sources of the qiraat field in addition to the interpretation style of the shârihs whom were accepted as authority in Ḥırzu’l-emânî. Finally, it is remarked that the wajhs of the tarîqs of Istanbul and Egypt which are in circulation in our country moreover the conditions of the practice of these wajhs in the qiraat education activities which are run in Arab world. (shrink)

This article extends Georg Lukács’s theorization pertaining to historical fiction by considering a novel written in response to colonial conditions. It treats Abdulhalim Sharar’s Urdu Malik al-‘Aziz and Virginia (1888) as a case where a fictional version of the encounter between Muslims and Christians during the crusades in the twelfth century is used to counter the colonial Indian present in the nineteenth century. I suggest that novels such as Sharar’s exemplify a vein of global thought since the nineteenth century (...) that resisted historicism but without abandoning the notion that the past was real. Deploying a genre that came to the fore in colonial conditions, Sharar imagines an alternative future by narrating the past otherwise via fiction. (shrink)