Deism, which is known for denying the belief in prophethood and the hereafter while accepting the existence of a deity who is understood through reason but does not interfere with the universe while, has gained increasing popularity especially in positive scientific circles in Europe with the Enlightenment period. The development of deism in Europe has been significantly influenced by the ideas of philosophers and scientists such as Descartes, Newton, Voltaire, David Hume, and Kant. Although there is no word in Islamic (...) terminology that corresponds with the meaning of deism, terms such as Dahriyya, Barāhima, ilhad and heresy have been used to refer to different types of denial, including deism and atheism. However, it can be said that “Dahriyyah” is closer to atheism in meaning, while “Barāhima” is used in a more specific sense to deny prophethood. The words “ilhad” and heresy are used to express any kind of denial that rejects the principles of Islam. Parallel to deism being a subject of interest in our country and around the world, there has been a significant increase in studies conducted both in favour and against it. In this article, the rational proofs mentioned by Māturīdī regarding the existence of the hereafter, which deism rejects, have been discussed. In particular, the evidence found in the exegesis of relevant verses of the Qur’ān in Kitab al-Ta’wilat have been subject to examination. Māturīdī has emphasized the importance of providing rational proof for those who do not believe in the Qur’ān, stating that they will not accept any evidence derived from it. Māturīdī, who researched the reasons why people deny the afterlife, explained that people’s attempt to understand everything by comparing them to their own abilities is an important reason for the denial of the afterlife. According to him, people deny the afterlife because they believe that the power to resurrect the dead is beyond their own abilities and assume that their power is not enough for such an act. If they had contemplated the creation of the heavens and the earth, they would have realised that Allāh’s power is different from the power of His creatures. Furthermore, Imam Māturīdī pointed out that it would be absurd and pointless for Allāh, the Creator of the universe, to have created it solely for the purpose of its destruction. He emphasised that there must be a purpose for its creation, and that this purpose indicates the existence of the afterlife, where the actions of the created beings will be accounted for. In addition, Māturīdī, who said “If the world was eternal, it would not be possible to repay the deeds done,” emphasised the necessity of distinguishing between virtuous and evil individuals and giving everyone the reward or punishment they deserve. He acknowledged that human beings live in this world as a test, and the true consequences of their actions will be revealed in the hereafter. (shrink)

Māturīdism is an Ottoman identity and this identity was not limited, as is commonly believed, to the last period of the Empire. It maintained its formal existence throughout the Ottoman history. Nevertheless, the context in which the Māturīdism was located or with which it was associated changed in the course of time. In the early period when the eclectic way of thinking was dominant, Māturīdism as a creed was apparent mainly in the jurists whose ascetic identity was prominent and partly (...) in the mystical currents that were essentially continuations of Yasawiyya. At this point, the Bukhara-centered Ḥanafī legal literature played a distinctive role. At the time of Meḥmed II and in the following period during which the philosophical kalām dominated the scene, the Māturīdism was relatively passive and was in search of a position against the Ash‘arism. The new Rāzian paradigm of thought that began to be felt strongly in the Ottoman lands with Meḥmed II as an attempt of integration into the global circulation of knowledge prevented to a certain extent the visibility of Māturīdism. However, even in this period, Māturīdism was remarkably reflected in the muqaddimāt-i arba‘a literature which was directly sponsored by Meḥmed II. The tradition of philosophical kalām in the Ottoman scholarship, just when it was about to yield significant results, was interrupted due to the struggle against the Ṣafawids. Transformation of this political tension, at the same time, into a fight against Shiism also brought about a constriction in the religious thought of the Ottomans. Shiism and its all other variants were bitterly attacked under the main heading of Rāfiḍa. Unfortunately such a refutational approach proved a boomerang and returned in time striking the Ottoman Ṣūfīs who stood near the line of the Ardabil Shrine before its Shiitization. Ḥanafī fatwā literature was used extensively in the refutation texts against Ṣafawids. This brought to the fore at first the Ḥanafite and then the Māturīdite identity. This paper attempts to analyze this changing emphasis on Māturīdism in the Ottoman period and the political and intellectual factors that supported and nourished it. -/- SUMMARY It can be argued that the debates around Ash‘arism and Māturīdism in the Ottoman period and the resulting meant more than attempts of the members of the two sides to understand each other and that Māturīdism, particularly from the 16th century onwards, was gradually brought fore as the identity of Ottomans. In fact, this identity was not limited, as is commonly believed, to the last period of the Empire; it maintained, in form, its existence throughout the Ottoman history. Nevertheless, the context in which the Māturīdism was located or with which it was associated changed in the course of time. In the early period when the eclectic way of thinking was dominant, Māturīdism as a creed was apparent mainly in the jurists whose ascetic identity was prominent and partly in the mystical currents that were essentially continuations of Yasawiyya. At this point, the Bukhara-centered Ḥanafī legal literature played a distinctive role. At the time of Meḥmed II and in the following period during which the philosophical kalām dominated the scene, the Māturīdism was relatively passive and was in search of a position against the Ash‘arism. In this period, Ottoman scholars still embraced the Māturīdī-Ḥanafī line in their theological views. Ḫiḍir Beg’s al-Qaṣīda al-Nūniyya, and al-Khayālī’s commentary upon it, and the commentary written by Aḥmad b. Oġuz Dānishmand al-Aḳshahrī on al-I‘timād of Abū al-Barakāt al-Nasafī were the most noticeable Māturīdite texts from that time. Besides, al-Khayālī’s supercommentary (ḥāshiya) upon the commentary of al-Taftāzānī written on al-‘Aqā’id of Najm al-Dīn ‘Umar al-Nasafī was also of central importance. However, the new Rāzian paradigm of thought that began to be felt strongly in the Ottoman lands with Meḥmed II as an attempt of integration into the global circulation of knowledge prevented to a certain extent the visibility of Māturīdism. But, this should not be taken to mean that Māturīdism lost its ground of existence. That the Ash‘arite works produced in this new paradigm were transferred to and fully integrated in the madrasa curriculum was not because they were Ash‘arite texts but because they were the most original and highest achievements of the philosophical theology. These texts that aimed at combining all fields of knowledge on a single platform, despite the Ash‘arism they included, constituted the peak of the Islamic thought of the time. In the preference of these texts, the fact that the Māturīdī tradition generally stood, in course of time, distant to the philosophy and chose to continue the kalām in the classical line also played a role. Māturīdī theologians Muḥammad b. Ashraf al-Samarqandī, partly, but Ṣadr al-Sharī‘a al-Maḥbūbī, to a greater extent, were notable exceptions to this general Māturīdī tendency. These figures were theologically Māturīdite, but their framework of producing discourse was the combination of philosophy and kalām as with their Ash‘arī counterparts. Therefore, Ṣadr al-Sharī‘a’s criticism of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, and through him, of against the Ash‘arism in the context of muqaddimāt arba‘a was wholeheartedly supported by the Ottoman ulama. Even it was Meḥmed II who sponsored the debates regarding muqaddimāt arba‘a. The works written by such scholars as Muṣliḥ al-Dīn al-Kastallī, al-Ṣamṣūnī, ‘Alā’ al-Dīn al-‘Arabī, Mollā ‘Arab al-Anṭākī, Khaṭībzāde, Sa‘dī Chalabī during his and his son Bāyazid II’s reigns were the supercommentaries written upon the related chapter of al-Talwīḥ, al-Taftāzānī’s commentary on Ṣadr al-Sharī‘a’s al-Tawḍīḥ where the former responded to the criticism of the latter from an Ash‘arī point of view. The Ottoman ulama, in their workswere forced to choose between the two scholars and they mostly supported Ṣadr al-Sharī‘a and Māturīdism. The tradition of philosophical kalām in the Ottoman scholarship, just when it was about to yield significant results, was interrupted due to the struggle against the Ṣafawids. Transformation of this political tension, at the same time, into a fight against Shiism also brought about a constriction in the religious thought of the Ottomans. The reflex of of identifying oneself through ‘the other’ made, to a certain extent, the theological and philosophical debates regarding faith meaningless, and gradually gave the Ottoman Sunnism a doctrinal and political tone. In such a context, the Ottomans’ paradigm of producing thought in line with the philosophical kalām began to lose its function, and, the focus of scholarhsip shifted; Shiism with its all variants were began to be bitterly attacked under the main heading of Rāfiḍa. When the refutation texts composed from the reign of Bāyazid II onward to criticize the Ṣafawids are chronologically analyzed, it is seen that the contents of the texts evolved from criticism of Rāfiḍa to criticism of Sūfism. Ḥanafī fatwā literature was used extensively in these refutations. So the fatwās issued against Rāfiḍa and Ṣūfīs in malāmatī line in earlier centuries in different contexts for different reasons were employed to criticize the new opponents. This caused two important results: First, such an approach proved a boomerang and returned in time striking the Ottoman Ṣūfīs who stood near the line of the Ardabil Shrine before its Shiitization. Ḫalwatīs, Bayrāmīs, Gulshanīs, Baktāshīs and Mawlawīs were the sufi groups influenced by this situation in varying degrees. Second, Sunnism was exposed to the narrowization and centered around the fiqh, particularly Ḥanafī fiqh, in the context of Ḳāḍīzādelīs who were the main adversaries of above mentioned groups. The culture of catechism (‘ilm-i ḥāl) that came to the fore through the efforts of Ḳāḍīzādelīs was a crystallization and was mainly fuelled from this tension. Such a crystallization led the Ṣūfīs, the opponents of Ḳāḍīzādelīs, to a higher level of discourse deemphasizing the Ḥanafī aspect: They underscored the discourse of Ahl al-Sunna and four madhhabs, and mostly turned towards the Shāfiʿī and Ash‘arī traditions to look for support fortheir views. This process during which the emphasis of sharī‘a and tradition began to come to the fore once again paved the way for the zuhd and fiqh-centered religious thought that was maintained from the time of the Seljukids in Anatolia and was influential until Meḥmed II’ reign. Therefore in the Ottomans, particularly starting with the reign of Suleymān I, an intensive emphasis on Abū Ḥanīfa was witnessed. Abū Ḥanīfa was at the very center of the debates revolving around zuhd and fiqh which came about in the same period and in which the sharī‘a sensitivity was a determining factor. Al-Māturīdī, whose name was overshadowed for a long time by the name of Abū Ḥanīfa, but who became prominent in the tradition with Abū al-Mu‘īn al-Nasafī, had to transfer his gains for a period of time to Abū Ḥanīfa. Emphasis on Abū Ḥanīfa looks like a rope that when pulled, all the tradition comes with it. When the topics began to be discussed in a manner that would also include the theological context, the contribution of the works ascribed to Abū Ḥanīfa, namely al-Fiqh al-Akbar, al-Waṣiyya and al-‘Ālim wa al-Muta‘allim to the discussions would be limited. For this reason, the need to refer to al-Māturīdī or to the theological formation bearing his name was inevitable. So, the literature on the points of disagreements between the Ash‘arism and the Māturīdism developed both vertically and horizontally in the 18th century and, corollary to that, the debates of free will as a corolloary to that, once again brought Māturīdism to the fore. (shrink)

Abū Ishāq al-Ṣaffār was one of scholars of the Western Qarakhānids’ period who followed the Kalām thought of al-Māturīdī (d. 333/944). His theological works Talkhīs al-adilla and Risāla fī al-kalām, his method in kalām, and frequent reference to his works by Ottoman and Arab scholars indicate that al-Ṣaffār is a respected and authorative Māturīdī theologian. The article focuses on his defense of the kalām. By adding a long introduction to Talkhīs about the naming, importance, and religious legitimacy of (...) the science of kalām, Saffār asserted that the kalām should be learned. When systematical vindication of the science of kalām is examined, it is understood that al-Ṣaffār is the first theologian who reserved a private and voluminous part for defensing the kalām among Ḥanafī-Māturīdīs. Even though he does not state its systematic, it can be understood that vindication of kalām in al-Ṣaffār divides into three parts as of explanation, demonstration and refutation. Al-Ṣaffār’s defending the science of kalām shows that there were opposite thoughts against kalām in the 4th/10th and 5th/11th centuries throughout in Transoxania. In this period Aṣḥāb al-Ḥadīth and Ikhwān al-Ṣafāʾ were the opposite fronts of kalām. In addition, he was trying to go beyond the oppositions of Ḥanafī jurists. His vindication is consistent and has scholarly depth because it is able to be against a strong opposition. -/- SUMMARY: Abū Ishāq Ibrahīm b. Ismāil Zāhid al-Ṣaffār al-Bukhārī is a scholar belonging to the Ḥanafī theological tradition which was improved by the contribution of Ḥanafī theologians who used thinking system of Abū Ḥanīfa (d. 150/767) as base and adopted Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī (d. 333/944) and his thoughts in historical process. The contents of his theological works Talkhīs al-adilla li-qawāʿid al-tawḥīd and Risāla fī al-Kalām, the method that he used, and references to his works made by Ottoman and Arab scholars indicate that he is an important Māturīdī theologian. The article focuses on his defense of the science of Kalām. -/- In Talkhīs al-adilla, there are two sections including the subject of naming, and importance and necessity of Kalām discipline. Here, the necessity of learning Kalām and its value are defended in detail. -/- Besides, rumors “Abū Ḥanīfa turned away from the science of Kalām in his doomsdays” and that “He prohibited to make occupation with Kalām completely” are evaluated. -/- When systematical vindication of the science of Kalām is examined, it is understood that al-Ṣaffār is the first theologian who reserved a private and voluminous part for defensing the Kalām among Ḥanafī Māturīdīs. Even if Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī, Abū al-Yusr al-Bazdawī (d. 493/1100) and Abū Muʿīn al-Nasafī (d. 508/1115) defend that the science of Kalām is not wrong for religion; yet, the vindication of Kalām does not take a place under a separate title and in a detailed manner in any of Māturīdī theologians works. -/- The method that al-Ṣaffār used when he is defending the science of Kalām, differs from strategy of Abū Ḥanīfa. While Abū Ḥanīfa has mentioned that there is a need for the science of Kalām under these new circumstances, al-Ṣaffār has defended theologians who were charged with being Ahl al-Bidaʿ, by trying to prove that the prophets especially the Prophet Ibrāhīm, even the Companions of the Prophet Muḥammad (Ṣaḥāba) and the Successors of the Companions (Tābiʿūn) scholars use their minds and make arguments in religious matters. In this respect, he emphasizes that the Qurʾān orders to think and discuss gently, not to be stay in silence: “And dispute with them, using what is best” (16.125-126). Therefore, he states that this discipline which took a mission to explain and defend the creed of Islam (ʿaqīda), cannot be characterized as an innovation (bidʿah) or illicit. -/- His vindication method can be defined as a more developed type of method that Abu’l-Ḥasan al-Ash’arī’s (d. 324/935) used in Risāla fī istiḥsān al-khawḍ fī ʿilm al-kalām. Even though he does not state its systematic, it can be understood that vindication of Kalām in al-Ṣaffār divides into three parts as of explanation, demonstration and refutation: -/- a) Explanation: Explaining the necessity and importance of the science of Kalām by giving information about its definition, names, value and place among other principles. -/- b) Demonstration: Revealing the religious basics of the science of Kalām from the Qurʾān, the Sunna of the Prophet Muḥammad, the Companions of the Prophet, and the Successors of the Companions thus specifying that it is legitimate for religion. -/- c) Refutation: Replying the claims having aim to weaken the value of Kalām principle and its religious legality. -/- Al-Ṣaffār describes ‘the science of Kalām’ as ‘Knowing the Real with the evidences which help to reach the absolute information’. By allocating the concept of 'Ḥaqq', he repeats the definition of Kalām as “it is to know God with certain evidences” in a part of his work, and “it is to know the principles of religion (uṣūl al-dīn) with certain evidences” in another part. He describes Kalām as “Knowing ḥaqq / God / uṣūl al-dīn by depending on evidence”, and tries to prove that it is wrong to consider a science which performs the stated duty, as illicit and abominable and thus turn away from it. -/- Al-Ṣaffār thinks that it is right to call this principle as ‘Kalām’ because of the certain evidences leading to the truth that this science has used. This thought was defended by other theologians as well. -/- For example, according to Saʿd al-Dīn Masʿūd al-Taftazānī (d. 792/1310) it seems like to say “This is the word (kalām), not the other knowings” by the way of the power of evidences used in Kalām.Thus, it is appropriate to give name Kalām for this science which based on certain evidences. -/- Al-Ṣaffār’s explanations revealed in scope of vindication of the Kalām are adopted by some of following scholars. Ḥusām al-Dīn al-Sighnāqī (d. 714/1314) in his book called al-Tasdīd sharḥ al-Tamhīd fī qawāʿid al-tawḥīd quotes Saffâr’s explanations as the same. -/- Al-Ṣaffār indicates that the method told in the Qurʾān is to reply questions about religion, beliefs and rejection instead of remaining in silence. The duty taken on by Kalām is this vindication activity performed by the prophets whose examples are described in the Qurʾān and which is legal and demanded. His way of thinking and vindication of the Kalām resembles that of Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī. Al-Māturīdī says, “Prophets and we were ordered to invite infidels to Islam. When this invitation happens, the respondents will ask for evidence and explanation, and discussion will be inevitable. Therefore, discussing and talking about subjects of Kalām is not objectionable”. -/- Thoughts of al-Māturīdī and al-Ṣaffār regarding the vindication of the Kalām were repeated by Nūr al-Dīn al-Ṣābūnī (d. 580/1184), and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210) later. According to al-Ṣābūnī, the evidences put against deniers and especially the discussion made by the Prophet Ibrāhīm to defend his own belief, prove the legality of Kalām discipline. Likewise, according to al-Rāzī, the duty of Kalām is just an activity performed already in the Qurʾān and ordered to the prophets. At this point of view, since the prophets were leading to Kalām, banning this activity is nonsense. -/- According to al-Ṣaffār, the reason for why Abu Hanifa avoids his son Hammād from these discussions is that Abu Hanifa does not like discussions based on obstinate. Otherwise, it cannot be that Abū Ḥanīfa prohibits to learn Kalām and make discussion about Kalām. According to him, this behavior of Abū Ḥanīfa results from that people discussing with him are ignorant about the subject of Kalām, discussion turns to an obstinate, and coming to an end of discussion seems impossible. This comment of al-Ṣaffār is quoted in Miftāḥ al-saʿāda wa-miṣbāḥ al-siyāda by ʿIṣām al-Dīn Aḥmed b. Muṣṭafā Tashköprüzāde (d. 968/1561) and in Minaḥ al-rawḍ al-azhar fī sharḥ al-Fiqh al-akbar by ʿAlī b. Sulṭān Muḥammad al-Qārī (d. 1014/1606) as same as his words. -/- Al-Ṣaffār’s defending the science of Kalām shows that there were opposite thoughts against Kalām in the 4th/10th and 5th/11th centuries throughout in Transoxania.In this period Aṣḥāb al-Ḥadīth and Ikhwān al-Ṣafāʾ were the opposite fronts of Kalām. In addition, he was trying to go beyond the oppositions of Ḥanafī jurists (fuqahāʾ). Because some of the Ḥanafī jurists thought that Abū Ḥanīfa forsook occupation with the science of Kalām and even he prohibited his son to have interest in this discipline. But some of Ḥanafī theologians such as al-Māturīdī, al-Nasafī and al-Ṣaffār protested this thought which describes Abū Ḥanīfa as a banner for Kalām. -/- His vindication is consistent and has scholarly depth because it is able to be against a strong opposition. -/- His book Talkhīs al-adilla li-qawāʿid al-tawḥīd is a unique source in terms of containing vindication of the Kalām in detail and also influencing the approaches of the next period scholars. (shrink)

Abu Ishaq al-Saffar was one of scholars of the Western Qarakhanids' period who followed the Kalam thought of al-Maturidi (d. 333/944). His theological works Talkhis al-adilla and Risala fi al-kalam, his method in kalam, and frequent reference to his works by Ottoman and Arab scholars indicate that al-Saffar is a respected and authorative Maturidi theologian. The article focuses on his defense of the kalam. By adding a long introduction to Talkhis about the naming, importance, and religious legitimacy of the science (...) of kalam, Saffar asserted that the kalam should be learned. When systematically vindication of the science of kalam is examined, it is understood that al-Saffar is the first theologian who reserved a private and voluminous part for defending the kalam among Hanafi-Maturidis. Even though he does not state its systematic, it can be understood that vindication of kalam in al-Saffar divides into three parts as of explanation, demonstration and refutation. Al-Saffar's defending the science of kalam shows that there were opposite thoughts against kalam in the 4th/10th and 5th/11th centuries throughout in Transoxania. In this period Ashab al-Hadith and Ikhwan al-Safa were the opposite fronts of kalam. In addition, he was trying to go beyond the oppositions of Hanafi jurists. His vindication is consistent and has scholarly depth because it is able to be against a strong opposition. (shrink)

Kalam Research & Media tarafından John Templeton Foundation işbirliğiyle organize edilen "Understanding Matüridi Kalam - Legacy, Present & Future Challanges" başlıklı sempozyum 28-29 Ekim 2017 tarihlerinde Ürdün'ün başkenti Amman'da Olive Tree Hotel'de gerçekleştirildi. İki gün süren sempozyumda ABD, İngiltere, Avustralya, Filistin, Ürdün ve Türkiye'den bir araya gelen araştırmacılar Mâtüridî mezhebinde öne çıkan çeşitli konularda Arapça ve İngilizce tebliğler sundu. Açılış, kapanış ve beş oturum şeklinde düzenlenen sempozyum toplam on üç tebliğden oluşmaktaydı. Paralel oturumların olmaması katılımcıların bütün sunumları dinleyip müzakere edebilmesine (...) imkân sağladı. (shrink)

The promise and the threat (al-wa’d wa al-wa‘īd) issue, which has been debated among theological sects, is primarily related to the problem of grave sin. This critical issue discussed in the framework of the problem of grave sin and in the context of the faith-action relationship has been shaped based on the definitions of faith of the emerging sects. Through examining the Qur’ān verses about al-wa’d and al-wa‘īd, answers to such questions whether the Qur’ān verses about to indicate generality (‘umūm) (...) or specification (khusūs) and whether divine promise and threat can change have been sought. In the beginning, the disputations occurring between Murji’ah and Mu‘tazilah, afterward, have become one of the essential matters of debate among Māturīdīs and the Mu‘tazilī scholars. Even though Imām Māturīdī expresses common criticisms against Khawārij and Mu‘tazilah, he mainly condemns the Mu‘tazilī doctrine. Mu‘tazilah treats the principle in question based on the idea that, by force of divine justice, it is necessary for God to reward the faithful and punish the disobedient. According to them, because a grave sin that is not repented requires to stay permanently in the hell, intercession (shafā‘ah) is not possible for such a person. However, Māturīdī argues that a claim of this kind cannot be valid from the point of justice by emphasizing that faith, which is a state of constant assent, prevents the punishment. In this essay, Māturīdī’s criticisms have been discussed with regard to directly related issues such as justice, grave sin, and intercession. (shrink)

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

Love is one of the essential concepts of Maturidi's understanding of Morality. Although his conception of morality comprises will of act, there is remarkable linkage between love and action in his conceptualization. Maturidi's understanging of love is based on conscious of "love" which comes from God. Therefore, nature of humankind has love as part of his/her creation and seeks for beyond that love. Maturidi points out that each of us has inborn tendency for beauty and love for beauty. Each has (...) love of God, naturally. This natural sense becomes fundamental part of one's morality to seek God's love and His sake. The idea of a loving God is seen as an important element that directs people's moral actions that are praised. Knowing this fundamental understanding of love brings the groundwork for the person to turn into a virtue through which he can be exalted. In addition, the virtue of love (al-Fadl fi'l-Mavedde) includes the thought of doing it lovingly to please the Creator while performing an action, and to stay away from an action that he does not like because he will not be pleased. In general, in Māturīdī 's explanations, it is emphasized that "taqwa" in the sense of fear of Allah and in words derived from this root, this fear contains love. In addition, the situation of those who leave the middle way by falling into excess and understatement is equal to moving away from conformity with 'taqwa'. So, the deed that is suitable for "taqwa" is far from the excess and in the middle. It needs to be balanced. In addition, Māturīdī defines justice as "the middle way" and describes the middle way as being just. From another point of view, we can call it acting wisely in practice. According to Māturīdī, 'Wisdom' means grasp of things' purposes. He sees good behavior away from extremes. While Māturīdī states that the truth of the love in the heart cannot be known, he states that the feeling of affection in a person will only be for the person from whom he benefits, and that he cannot feel love for the person from whom he does not benefit. For him, it is an entity that tries to determine what it should be and is responsible for understanding how to live a virtuous life. When we look at the moral structure of the human being, we see that the important points such as the purpose of life, the determination of good and bad, duties and responsibilities are based on or should be based on a moral purpose which has divine roots in human existence. In this study, we will try to examine Māturīdī's understanding of morality, specifically his conceptualization of "love" from a philosophical perspective. (shrink)

In the history of İslāmic thought, Māturīdī is a famous scholar both in the field of kalām and tafsir. Being approved by Māturīdī, the distinction of tafsir and ta’wīl, which makes possible to take the comments made about the verses into sistematic framework, is quite important. There is an important information both about content of the distinction approved by Māturīdī and the main reasons that necessiated this distinction in the introduction of Samarqandī’s Sharh at Ta’wīlāt. From this (...) information, it is understood that the distinction of tafsir and ta’wīl had dated back to older time than Māturīdī and previous scholars dealed with the problem that necessiated this distinction and Māturīdī inherited this distinction from his predecessors. Information in the Sharh at Ta’wīlāt reveals that according to Māturīdī the companions had made interpretation (ta’wīl) in addition to tafsir and the explanations made by certain evidences is tafsir too. Therefore this information gives us the opportunity flexing the acceptance of the idea “tafsir, is dedicated to the companions, ta'wīl is dedicated to fuqaha (jurists)” and asserting that companions and scholars made both tafsir and ta’wīl. In this paper, we will research whether the distinction tafsir and ta’wīl regarded by Māturīdī completely belonged to his or not and content of the distinction and its reasons. We will also analyze this distinction according to examples in the Ta’wîlāt. Summary: An important distinction is made between the concepts of tafsir and ta’wīl in the short preface of Māturīdī's tafsir, and this distinction is particularly prominent in contemporary tafsir studies. Because from the point of view of the value they carry, the explanations for these differences and concepts express the legitimacy of the following mufassirūn (writers of a commentary on the Qur’an) to be able to perform tafsir, as well as the value of the explanations found in tafsir literature in terms of certainty. In Ta'wīlāt, tafsir is described as the precise determination of what is intended. Determination of what is exactly intended in verse/wording is bound to certainly know the conditions under which it was revealed. Because they are the first to be addressed directly and they witnessed the context, the tafsir is only for the companions (ṣaḥābah pl. aṣḥāb). On the other hand, ta’wīl is not a definite determination of what is intended, but rather it is explained as putting the possibilities forward. In this case, ta’wīl is dedicated to the scholars after the companions. When we look at the other tafsir sources that include his views, it can be understood that this brief information in the preface of the tafsir which survived to our day is partially incomplete. Samarqandī's Sharhu’t-ta'wīlāt is the most important of these sources. According to the information here, Māturīdī states that some scholars distinguish tafsir and ta’wīl from each other. In these distinctions, tafsir is either described in relation to a definitive statement or in relation to being familiar with the conditions of revelation, while ta’wīl is described as extracting meanings from the verses and making possible meanings without claiming certainty. These explanations show that the distinction between tafsir and ta’wīl in Ta'wīlāt's preface was mainly based on the period before Māturīdī. These statements, which Māturīdī transmitted from some scholars in the beginning of Sharhu’t-ta'wīlāt, were then transmitted by Omar al-Nasafī, Mahāyimī and Molla Husrev. In some sources, it was also transmitted that similar explanations were made by scholars such as an-Nadr b. Shumayl, al-Hussein b. Fadl al-Bacelī and Ibn Durayd before Māturīdī.Some explanations of Māturīdī in Ta'wīlāt enables the theory of tafsir-ta’wīl to be understood at a wider level. When the examples are examined, it is observed that Māturīdī exhibited two types of attitude against the tafsir of the companions. He states that one of these is that if the transmission is true, what is intended is exactly what is stated in the narrated. The second is that he sometimes does not accept these explanations and suggests additional opinions. The reason he refuses is that sometimes he does not find the transmission reliable, and sometimes he thinks that companions performed ta'wīl. If this is the case, the dedication of ta’wīl to those coming later should not be absolutized. Because the companions can perform both tafsir and ta’wīl. The examples in Ta'wīlāt clearly reveal what areas tafsir, which is defined as a definite statement, covers. According to this, first, tafsir is related to the field of “invisible” about the past and the future. Secondly, its meaning and practice is only about the information of the “statement” about the issues that can be revealed by the Prophet (pbuh). In the third aspect, it is related to “revelation” information reporting the context in which the verses descended. In the beginning of Sharhu’t-ta'wīlāt, Māturīdī says that the explanations made based on the definitive evidences such as mutawātir (repetition; narration reported by large number reporters) and ijmā (consensus) also fall under the category of tafsir. However, it is also necessary to add intellectual evidence to these evidences. Because intellectual evidence is also important in the epistemology of Māturīdī. In fact, the truthfulness of nass (text) is primarily based on intellectual evidence. First, the issues of theology are proven by certain intellectual evidence, and then, on the basis of this, the meanings expressed by the nass acquire the value of certainty and truthfulness. With the definitive acceptance of reason in theology, what some nass express confirm each other and are used as evidence in the process of interpretation. Therefore, since some of the intellectual evidence, ijmā and mutawātir news provide definitive information, explanations based on them are also seen as tafsir. Considering the fact that the above-mentioned evidence was also used by those coming after the companions, it can be concluded that tafsir can be performed by not only the companions but also those coming after them. In this case, it should be accepted that tafsir is not performed only by the companions, and that the succeeding mufassirūn can also perform tafsir as well as ta’wīl. When we look at the examples based on these evidence, there are two different situations in Ta'wīlāt. The first is that Māturīdī sometimes has views on evidence based on mutawātir and ijmā and sometimes suggests different opinions from the assumptions that he said there was ijmā in particular. Because these evidences are certain, it is understandable that he remains bound to them. However, as a possible reason for his opposition to ijmā, it can be said that he thinks only the following generations enter the scope of ijmā. Because, according to Samarqandī, Māturīdī's objection to such information does not seem possible, since ijmā of the companions in a matter is accepted. Although he sometimes said that there was ijmā, the reason why no such ijmā was mentioned in other tafsir sources and sometimes, it may be considered that he did not respect other views in the face of ijmā as a reason for including different views or it may be thought that he was unaware of the different views that were transmitted. The second remarkable situation is that according to Māturīdī, intellectual evidence, in particular, can reveal only the “knowledge of existence” of the issues related to theology. Māturīdī thinks that their nature cannot be certainly known, and that the explanations made regarding their nature are only ta’wīl. For this reason, he firmly rejects the interpretation of the khabarī attributes about Allah in accordance with the idea of tashbīh and tajsīm (anthropomorphism). (shrink)

The vast majority of theologians accept true news, sound senses and healthy working mind as sources of knowledge. Due to the fact that the mind is counted among the sources of knowledge, reason-based evidence has been used in many subjects. It is known that Māturīdī was the first theologian who dealt with the mentioned sources of knowledge in his work. At the very beginning of his Kitāb al-Tawhīd, he determined the ways of acquiring knowledge as correct news, sound senses (...) and reason, and elaborated them in detail. Māturīdī mostly prefers the term inference to describe the use of reason. He has proven his views on theological issues with many types of inference as well as true news and sense knowledge. These include matters related to the hereafter, too. The visible over the invisible, which is a type of inference, was used as evidence by Māturīdī to prove almost every subject. Many definitions of the method of the method the visible as an evidence for the invisible have been made. However, it is possible to understand the structure on which it is built as follows: There are areas that human beings cannot comprehend and have will no definite knowledge about. These areas called as al-ghaib “the invisible” may be related to ontological differences or may be due to differences in time and space. The difference between humans and Allah is ontological difference, and Allah is an ontological invisible for humans. While events that have not yet happened are invisible in terms of time, happenings what beyond the mountain for example, are invisible in terms of spatial difference. It is not possible for human beings to fully understand (perceive) the attributes of Allah, who is ontologically invisible. For this reason, many theologians have used the method the visible as an evidence for the invisible especially in making the attributes of Allah understandable and have tried to explain the divine attributes with this method. Belief in the hereafter is also related to the realm of the unvisible. There are a lot of revelations (true knowledge) about the hereafter. However, because of the conditions of the hereafter are different from this world, it is necessary to make the revelations about that place comprehensible. Accordingly, it is interesting how Māturīdī uses the aforementioned method to understand the nature of reward and punishment in the hereafter, which is the area of the unvisible. Māturīdī sometimes understood the verses about reward and punishment in the hereafter with their real meanings, and sometimes attributed different meanings to these verses. In this context, while dealing with the verses about the afterlife, he listed the possibilities regarding what they might mean, and included interpretations based the method the visible as an evidence for the invisible. Thus, Māturīdī tried to make the hereafter, intelligible based on human being’s experiences in this world. According to Māturīdī, the mind also has a function in understanding the hereafter. The mind has the capacity to go beyond the senses and gives us information about that field. Our mind, based on what we can perceive and understand, can go beyond itself and make inferences about the issues that are incapable of understanding. Knowing the pleasures and tortures of the world in order to understand the reward and punishment that will be given to humans in the hereafter happens in a similary way. In addition, he makes inferences based on events, situations, characteristics, etc. (visible) that people know from worldly life in order to better understand the expressions in such verses, which is quite remarkable for our study. In this context, while interpreting many verses, Māturīdī bases on the aspects of the realm of the visible similar to the realm of the hereafter. He explains the similarities of the hereafter to the worldly life, mostly through human nature, the Arabs’ perception of reward and punishment, and people’s perception of color and direction. In addition to these, he takes our knowledge, which has increased to the knowledge of observation, as a basis even though we learn through news, and evaluates the divine narrations for the hereafter on these principles. For the hereafter can be understood through things known, visible, lived and experienced in the life of this world. Māturīdī emphasizes the similarity of the world and the hereafter as well as the different aspects of the hereafter and uses these differences as a basis for his inferences. Our study is aimed at understanding how Māturīdī brings evidence to what people know from worldly life while explaining the nature of reward and punishment in the hereafter. In this context, methods such as interpretation, comparison, concept analysis, and literature review were used, and the study was limited to the books of Kitāb al-Tawhīd and Ta’wīlāt of Māturīdī. (shrink)

This study focuses on the narration, "Whoever makes a tafsīr the Qur'an according to his own opinion, let him prepare his place in Hell," which Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī (d. 333/944) considered as a basis while defining the terms tafsīr and tawīl in the introduction of his work titled "Ta'wilatu'l-Qur'an." Various scholarly studies have examined al-Māturīdī's distinction between the terms tafsīr and tawīl from both theoretical and practical perspectives. However, it has not been examined in terms of the narration, (...) authenticity status, and its impact on subsequent works when explaining the difference between these words, while making a choice among the various wordings and containing the verb "فَسَّر". In this study, initially, an investigation of how the terms tafsīr and tawīl were used in dictionaries, ḥadīth literature, and exegesis works before al-Māturīdī’s time a diachronic reading was conducted to comprehend the intellectual background that led al-Māturīdī to distinguish between them. Explanations and narrations related to these words found in dictionaries and exegesis works after al-Māturīdī were excluded from the scope of the study. Subsequently, other narration variants distinct from the one al-Māturīdī utilized in his argumentation, which prohibited making interpretations about the Qur'an through personal opinion and which differed from al-Māturīdī’s preferred variant, were examined. The study also presents the approach of early Islamic scholars to this issue. Finally, al-Māturīdī's interpretation, defined as "the only and definitive explanation made with Allah as a witness regarding the verses," and his preference for the variant of the narration, "Whoever makes a tafsīr the Qur'an according to his own opinion, let him prepare his place in Hell," are analyzed in terms of their authenticity, their impact on Islamic sciences, and the possible reasons behind al-Māturīdī's choice of this particular variant. (shrink)

This article aims to analyze the views of two pioneering Ḥanafī scholars, Abū Manṣūr al- Māturīdī and Abū Zayd al-Dabūsī, on the meaning of death and life in terms of their general doctrine of religion. In the first part, the general framework of Māturīdī and Dabūsī’s evidentialist conception of religion are drawn. In the second part, Māturīdī's views on the meaning of death and life and are explored. In the third part, the views of Abū Zayd al-Dabūsī (...) on the meaning of death and life, who establishes a striking connection between the divine order and existence, divine prohibition and non-existence, are examined, and a general evaluation is offered in the last section. Al-Māturīdī proposed a very original and systematic example of doing philosophy of religion, which still promising for the modern problems of the field, by opening the phenomenon of religion itself to discussion, and analyzing the nature and elements of religion. Māturīdī aims to place the problems on a universal and theoretical basis and to present a holistic, metaphysical understanding while discussing specific and particular issues in religion. Just as there are main notes in classical Western music that repeat throughout the symphony in baroque style, there are universal principles in al-Māturīdī’s metaphysics that cut all particular debates vertically. The basic principle of the al-Māturīdī’s metaphysics is based on this idea: God is a wise being, he does not do anything wise. Accordingly, it is absurd to create something to destroy; God did not create man to perish. The love of life and the fear of death are the deepest existential problems facing man as a finite being that goes towards death. Religion can be regarded as a powerful alternative to other worldviews to the extent that it provides a reasonable explanation for man’s deep concern about finitude. For al-Māturīdī, neither pessimistic understandings that emphasize only the fear of death nor hedonistic understandings that ignore death offer a reasonable solution. God created death as something that people fear the most and avoid, and life as something they love and desire. The testing of man is about being between the fear of death and the desire to live in the world. According to al-Māturīdī, this dilemma that man is facing also shows him the way out. If people do good and useful deeds because of their love for life, and avoid nonsense and ugly deeds because of their afraid of death, they can make their life eternal with their own efforts and escape from eternal/permanent death. The other Hanafī thinker, a philosopher of law Abū Zayd al-Dabūsī’s views on the meaning of death and life are parallel to Māturīdī's. According to al-Dabūsī, to test man, what God has placed in human nature is not only the soul and reason but also the spirit (al-nafs) and whim (al-hawa). While the spirit and whim invites man to the temporary by ignorance, it calls the soul and reason to the permanent by knowledge. The test for human beings is to choose between the temporary and the eternal life. For al-Dabūsī, man’s saving himself from falling into nothingness and gaining the eternal life depends on his use of reason. In other words, the reason binds human beings to life, and the whim leads them to nothingness. Drawing a parallel between reasoning and existence, ignorance and absence, Dabūsī defines the terms divine command and divine prohibition in a very original way. For him, the divine command is the things that must exist, and the divine prohibition is the things that must not exist. If the man helps exist the things that God wills to exist, he can make his own existence eternal. If the man helps exist the things that God does not will to exist, he puts himself into nothingness. Lastly, both for al-Māturīdī and al-Dabūsī, life is a divine grace bestowed on human being to gain eternal life through the good deeds he does at any moment. In short, reason is necessary in religion because its use is a preference of existence to non-existence. This metaphysical system, which sees goodness as a bridge from this finite world to heaven and eternity and makes a connection between faith and deeds on the ontological and ethical level is the essence of the worldview of the Hanafī-Māturīdī tradition. (shrink)

Abu Hanifa's theological ideas were not represented at the same level in every region where Hanafism spread. Although Iraq is the region where Abu Hanifa's jurisprudence views were systematized, Abu Hanifa's theological views were largely developed in the Transoxiana region. However, followers of Abu Hanifa in different regions adopted and defended the distinctive views of Hanafism. However, while in some regions these views were limited to basic theological ideas, in others a systematization was made based on this and thus a (...) comprehensive theological structure was formed. The followers of Abu Hanifa in the Transoxiana region are among the leading Hanafis who established a traditional theological structure around his views. This theological structure, which was called Maturidism in the process, was limited to the region where it was born for a long time and was spread to the west from the 11th century. When the Maturidis, who had a rich literature, came to the west, they encountered small and scattered Hanafi masses who regarded the theological views of the sect as consisting of basic theological ideas. Although they belong to the same fiqh tradition, this theological difference between them has created a new ground on which the two Hanafi factions will interact. With the power of their theological knowledge, the Maturidis tried to include the Hanafis in Iraq and Syria in their theological traditions with the texts they wrote as well as their teaching activities. Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Ghaznawi (d. after 593/1197), one of the Maturidis who migrated to the west, draws attention as one of the names that took part in this effort. His works called Usul al-din and al-Hawi al-qudsi are the first examples where this effort is clearly reflected in the texts. In these works, al-Ghaznawi uses the phrases of al-Aqīdah al-Tahawiyyah either exactly or with some minor changes, and adds Maturidi-specific views, especially the attribute of takwin. With this, al-Ghaznawi, on the one hand, reveals the compatibility of al-Aqīdah, which is the main text of non-Maturidi Hanafis, with Maturidi views, on the other hand, carries the Maturidi views to them with the expressions he added to the text. In this study, this activity of Ghaznawi, which can be described as a synthesis of al-Aqīdah al-Tahawiyyah and Maturidism, will be tried to be revealed in detail through the mentioned works. (shrink)

Juridical councils that render rulings on bioethical issues for Muslims living in non-Muslim lands may have limited familiarity with the foundational concept of wilāyah (authority and governance) and its implications for their authority and functioning. This paper delineates a Sunni Māturīdi perspective on the concept of wilāyah, describes how levels of wilāyah correlate to levels of responsibility and enforceability, and describes the implications of wilāyah when applied to Islamic bioethical decision making. Muslim health practitioners and patients living in the absence (...) of political wilāyah may be tempted to apply pragmatic and context-focused approaches to address bioethical dilemmas without a full appreciation of significant implications in the afterlife. Academic wilāyah requires believers to seek authentication of uncertain actions through scholarly opinions. Fulfilling this academic obligation naturally leads to additional mutually beneficial discussions between Islamic scholars, healthcare professionals, and patients. Furthermore, an understanding derived from a Māturīdi perspective provides a framework for Islamic scholars and Muslim health care professionals to generate original contributions to mainstream bioethics and public policy discussions. (shrink)

Mâturîdî’nin istidlâle verdiği önem bilinmektedir. Onun düşünce sisteminde istidlâle dayalı yorumlamanın ayrı bir yeri vardır. İstidlâli doğru haber ve sağlam duyularla birlikte bilgi edinmenin temel yolları arasında gören Mâturîdî’nin düşüncesinde istidlâlin bilgi edinme aracı olarak kullanılmasının reddi mümkün görünmemektedir. Zira istidlâli reddetmek için bile istidlâle ihtiyaç duyulurken, doğru haber ve duyulardan gelen bilginin test edilmesi için de gereken yine istidlâldir. Mâturîdî’ye göre insanlar için istidlâle dayalı yorumlamaya elverişli alanlar bulunmaktadır. Bu alanlarla ilgili istidlâller, genelde duyulur âlemden hareket ederek duyular ötesinin (...) bilgisine ulaşma şeklinde kurgulanır. O, istidlâllerini Allah’ın varlığı ve birliği, ahiretin varlığı, âlemin hudusü gibi konularda görüşlerini delillendirmek maksadıyla kullanmıştır. Bu alanların bilgisine duyulur âlemde elde edilen bilgilerin delâletiyle ulaşmak mümkündür. Ancak Mâturîdî’nin düşüncesinde kişinin olaylara bağlı olarak değişkenlik gösterebilen ruhî yapısı, kimi zaman onun istidlâlde bulunmasını engelleyebilir. İnat ve kibir bu türden ruhî durumlara örnektir. Çalışmamız; literatür taraması, karşılaştırma ve yorumlama yöntemleriyle işlenecektir. Mâturîdî’nin Kitâbü’t-Tevhid ve Te’vîlât, adlı eserleri bu yöntemlerle taranarak Mâturîdî’nin özellikle bu iki eseri çerçevesinde istidlâli hangi açılardan ele aldığı, görüşlerini temellendirirken ondan nasıl yararlandığı, istidlâlin kapsamını ve işlev alanlarını nasıl belirlediği gibi sorular etrafında şekillendirilecektir. (shrink)

Öz Mâtürîdî, dinin anlaşılmasında akla verilen değer açısından Eş‘arîler ile Mu‘tezile arasında konumlandırılmaktadır. Mâtürîdî’nin akıl yürütme anlayışında, gerçekliği beş duyu ile algılanabilen ve şehâdet âlemi olarak adlandırılan dış dünyanın ayrı bir yeri vardır. Mâtürîdî’ye göre bu dünya, beş duyunun algı alanına girmeyen ve gayb âlemi olarak bilenen duyular ötesi âlemin varlığına delil teşkil etmektedir. Kitâbu’t-Tevhid’de bu delillendirme “Delâletü’ş-Şâhid ale’l-Gâib” terkibiyle ifade edilmiştir. “Görünür âlem” veya “duyular âlemi” de denilen bu âlem, bizzat varlığıyla onu var edenin varlığına şahitlik etmektedir. Ancak görünür (...) âlemin, görünmezin varlığına şahitliğinin her zaman mümkün olup olmadığı tartışmalıdır. Şayet bu mümkünse hangi şartlarda gerçekleşeceği, üzerinde durulması gereken konulardandır. Söz gelimi görünür âlemin kendisinin özelliklerini taşıyan bir âleme şahitlik ettiği kabul edildiğinde bu durum Allah hakkında nasıl uygulanacaktır? Yani Allah’ın da bu âlem gibi fizik kurallarına bağlı bir varlık olduğu mu kabul edilecektir? Zira görünür âlemin kendisi gibi bir âleme şahitlik ettiğini kabul etmek böyle bir sonuca götürebilir. Öte yandan Allah ve sıfatları ile ahiret âlemi gibi konularda bu metodun kullanılmaması durumunda bilgi elde edilebilecek başka bir yol var mıdır? Mesela duyu organları bu sahada ne kadar etkindir? Veya “doğru haber”den elde edilen bilgi kendi başına yeterli midir? Çalışmamız, Mâtürîdî’nin görünür âlemi temel alarak görünmez âlemle ilgili yorumlamalarında nasıl bir yol takip ettiğini ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, literatür taraması, kavram tahlili, metin yorumlama yollarıyla yapılmış ve Mâtürîdî’nin Kitâbu’t-Tevhid ve Te’vîlat adlı eserleriyle sınırlandırılmıştır. (shrink)

Öz (150-250 kelVAHİY ve İLHAM BAĞLAMINDA HANEFÎ-MÂTÜRÎDÎ KELÂM SİSTEMİNİN TASAVVUFLA İLİŞKİSİ Özet Modern zamanlarda Hanefî-Mâtürîdî kelâm sistemi ilham konusundaki ihtiyatlı tavrından dolayı genellikle tasavvuf karşıtı ya da tasavvufa karşı mesafeli olarak algılanmıştır. Ancak gerek Mâtürîdî gerekse Hanefî-Mâtürîdî kelâmcıları eserlerinde ilham konusunu geniş bir anlam yelpazesinde sunarak, ilhamın varlığını kabul etmişlerdir. Bununla birlikte ilhamı objektif bir bilgi kaynağı olarak kabul etmemişlerdir. Ancak Mâverâünnehir coğrafyasında etkili olan sûfîlerin de Hanefî-Mâtürîdî kelâmcılarının ilhamın bağlayıcılığı ve objektif bilgi kaynağı olmadığı yönündeki düşüncelerine paralel bir anlayış (...) içerisinde oldukları görülmektedir. Ayrıca Hanefî-Mâtürîdî kelâm sisteminin ilham konusundaki eleştirilerinin asıl hedefinin tasavvuf ve sûfîler olmadığı anlaşılmaktadır. Tasavvuf içinde onların eleştirilerini haklı çıkaracak şekilde bir düşünce içine giren bazı sûfîler olsa da, bu eleştirilerin hedefinin Şiî-Bâtınî fırkalar olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Bu makalede başta Mâtürîdî olmak üzere Hanefî-Mâtürîdî kelamcılarının ilham kavramına yükledikleri anlam ve ilhamın bilgi değeri, vahiyle irtibatlı bir şekilde incelenecektir. Bununla birlikte Hanefî-Mâtürîdî kültür havzasında varlık gösteren sûfîler ile Şiî-Bâtınî akımların konuyla ilgili değerlendirmelerine yer verilmek suretiyle Hanefî-Mâtürîdî kelamcılarının ilham konusundaki tavırlarının sebepleri incelenecektir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Hanefî-Mâtürîdî, vahiy, ilham, tasavvuf. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HANAFĪ- MĀTURĪDĪ KALAM SYSTEM AND SUFISM IN THE CONTEXT OF REVELATION AND INSPIRATION Abstract In modern times, the Hanafī- Māturīdī kalam system was generally perceived as anti-Sufi or distant from Sufism because of its cautious attitude towards inspiration. However, both Māturīdī and Hanafī-Māturīdī theorists have accepted the existence of inspiration by presenting the subject of inspiration in a wide range of meanings in their works. However, they did not accept inspiration as an objective source of information. However, Sufis who are influential in the geography of Maveraunnehir also have a parallel understanding of the Hanafī-Māturīdī theorists thought that inspiration is not a binding and objective source of information. It is also understood that the main target of the criticism of the Hanafī- Māturīdī kalam system on inspiration was not Sufism and Sufis. While there are some Sufis in Sufism who fall into a way of justifying their criticism, it is understood that the target of these criticisms are the Shiite-Bātınī groups. In this article, the meaning and the value of knowledge that the Hanafī-Māturīdī theorists, especially Māturīdī, have uploaded to the concept of inspiration, will be examined in a way that is connected with revelation. However, the reasons of the attitude of Hanafī-Māturīdī theorists towards inspiration will be examined by evaluating the Sufis and Shiite-Bātınī groups that exist in the Hanafī-Māturīdī culture geography. Keywords: Hanafī-Māturīdī, revelation, inspiration, Sufism. ime) ve yukarıdaki kutucuğa anahtar kelimeler (5-7 kelime)İngilizce öz ve anahtar kelimeler de aynı sınırlar çerçevesinde yazılmalıdır. (shrink)

Bu araştırma Mâtürîdîlerin iman alanındaki temel görüş ve kabullerine dayanarak, bu anlayışın imanı örtülü, kapalı bir temelde ele almaya imkân verip vermediğini tartışmaktadır. İmanı akledilebilenlerin en güzel ve değerlisi olarak gören Mâtürîdîler, Allah’a inanmayı aklî bir gereklilik kabul ederler. Onlar açısından sorumluluğun temel şartı akıldır ve imanın hakikati de ancak düşünme ve akıl yürütme yoluyla bilinebilir. Mâtürîdîlere göre iman, özü itibarıyla kalbin tasdikinden ibarettir ve öncelikli olarak o, bir kalp işidir. Bilgiye dayanması nedeniyle tasdik, önemli bir açıklık ve kesinlik unsurudur. (...) Bununla birlikte Mâtürîdîlerin imanı kalbin tasdiki olarak tanımlamaları ve onu tek başına yeterli görmeleri, imanı bir yönüyle açık ve şeffaf hale getirse de özellikle insana bakan yönü itibarıyla kapalı bir alan kalmaktadır. Mâtürîdîler de bunun farkındadırlar, Allah’a ve ahirete bakan yönüyle tek başına kalbin tasdikini yeterli görseler de dünyaya ve insana bakan yönüyle oluşan kapalılığın üste-sinden gelmek adına, dil ile ikrarın da imana eşlik etmesini gerekli görürler. Mâtürîdîlerin çoğunluğu imanın dünyaya ve insana bakan yönü itibarıyla tasdi-ki öncelerler ve ikrarı da önemserler. Onlara göre iman, dünya ve ahiret açısından, en açık tanımına da “kalp ile tasdik ve dil ile ikrar” olarak erişmiş oluyor ki, böyle bir anlayış bir kapalılık ihtiva etmez ve herhangi bir kapalılık durumunu da reddeder.Özet: Ebû Mansûr el-Mâtürîdî, Ehl-i Sünnet’in iki ana damarından birini temsil eden, Hanefî-Mâtürîdî geleneğin önemli düşünürlerinden biridir. Ebû Hanîfe’nin görüşlerini açıklama ve sistematik hale getirmesinin yanında o, hem ele aldığı konular hem de takip ettiği metodoloji açısından orijinaldir. Hanefî-Mâtürîdî geleneğin iman anlayışı, günümüz dünyasının gizli, kapalı (takiyyeci) iman anlayışlarına önemli bir cevap olma özelliği taşır. Onların iman davranış ilişkisi konusundaki söylemleri de günümüzün dışlayıcı iman anlayışlarına anlamlı bir cevaptır.Mâtürîdî düşüncesinde iman, Allah katından geldiği kesin olarak bilinen şeylerin anlaşılması, kabulü ve tasdik edilmesi olarak görülür. Mâtürîdîlere göre açıklık ve kesinlik, imanda önemli unsurlardır. Aynı açıklık ve kesinliğin, bireylerin iman anlayışlarına da yansıması gerekir. Bir müminin imanı, olabildiğince kesin, olabildiğince açık ve şeffaf olmalıdır. İmanı akli bir zorunluluk olarak Mâtürîdî’ye göre varlıkların güzelliğini aklî olarak bilmek mümkün olduğu gibi, benzer şekilde imanın güzelliğini de aklen bilebilmek mümkündür. Bu araştırma Mâtürîdîlerin iman alanındaki temel görüş ve kabullerine dayanarak, bu anlayışın imanı örtülü, kapalı bir temelde ele almaya imkân verip vermediğini tartışmaktadır. İmanı akledilebilenlerin en güzel ve değerlisi olarak gören Mâtürîdîler, Allah’a inanmayı aklî bir gereklilik kabul ederler. Onlar açısından sorumluluğun temel şartı akıldır ve imanın hakikati de ancak düşünme ve akıl yürütme yoluyla bilinebilir. Mâtürîdîlere göre iman, özü itibarıyla kalbin tasdikinden ibarettir ve öncelikli olarak o, bir kalp işidir. Bilgiye dayanması nedeniyle tasdik, önemli bir açıklık ve kesinlik unsurudur. Mâtürîdî’ye göre imanın kararlı ve ayrılmaz ögesi, tasdiktir. Tasdikin pek çok türü mevcuttur. Bununla birlikte Mâtürîdîlere göre imanın en kararlı ve önemli unsuru, kalbin tasdikidir. Kalbin tasdikine dayanmayan bir iman, Allah katında geçerli olmadığı gibi ahirette de kurtarıcı bir iman değildir.İmanın kalbin tasdiki olarak tanımlanması önemlidir. Mâtürîdîler açısından tasdik, bilgiye dayanır ve bu nedenle de kesinlik ve kararlılık ifade eder. Başka bir deyişle o, inanılması gereken şeylerin kesin bir bilgisi ve onayıdır. Mâtürîdîlere göre açıklık ve kesinlik iman söz konusu olduğunda hayatîdir ve bu nedenden dolayı da kalbin tasdikine güçlü vurgu yaparlar. Bu nedenle iman, en güçlü, en kesin ve açık anlamını kalbî tasdikte bulur ve öncelikli olarak bir kalp işidir. Mâtürîdî’ye göre iman bir inanç meseledir; inanç ise ancak kalp ile olur. Bu nedenle de imanı kalbin tasdiki olarak tanımlamak aklî bir gerekliliktir. İmanın kalbin tasdikine dayanması anlamında, birey ile Allah arasındaki ilişki açıktır ve kuşku barındırmaz. Mâtürîdîlere göre tek başına kalbin tasdiki yeterlidir. Kalbin tasdikine dayanan böyle bir iman, geçerli imandır ve daha çok ahiret hayatına yöneliktir. Ancak onun insana ve dünyaya bakan yönü kapalı ve belirsiz kalmaktadır. Böyle bir inancı insanların bilebilmesi mümkün değir, zira kalpteki imanın varlığı onlar açısından kapalıdır. Yalnızca kalpte olan bir imanı yalnızca Allah bilebilir. Bir mümin için kalbin tutumu tek başına yeterli ve tasdikin diğer boyutları da gerekli değilse, o zaman iman bireysel ve kişiye özgü kalmaktadır. Bunu bir çeşit kapalı (insana açık olmaya) iman türü olarak görmek mümkündür. Bu durum ise tasdikin ihtiva ettiği açıklık ve kesinlik boyutuyla çelişir.Bununla birlikte Mâtürîdîler de imanın yalnızca kalp ile tasdik ve ahirete bakan yönüyle tanımlandığında ortaya çıkan bu riskin farkındadırlar. Ancak şu acıktır ki, onlar imanın yalnızca kalbin tasdiki olarak açıklanmasını, ahirete dönük ve teknik anlamda bir doğrulama türü olarak görürler. Mâtürîdîlerin büyük çoğunluğu, imanın insana bakan yönünü de hesaba katarlar ve bu açıdan onlar, imana kalbin tasdiki kadar dilin ikrarının da eşlik etmesi gerektiğini düşünürler. Bu durumda imanın en açık ve en şeffaf anlamına, kalb ile tasdik ve dil ile ikrar olarak tanımlandığında kavuştuğunu söylemek mümkün olacaktır. Mâtürîdîlere göre iman hem ahiret hem de dünya hayatı açısından en açık ve en kesin anlamına “kalb ile tasdik ve dil ile ikrar” olarak tanımlandığında erişir. Böyle bir anlaşım bir kapalılık barındırmaz ve herhangi bir kapalılık durumunu da reddeder. Diyebiliriz ki, Mâtürîdî düşünürler, imanın dünya hayatına bakan yönünü dikkate aldıklarında, kalbin tasdikinin ötesinde, imanın diğer boyutlarını da hesaba katarlar ve iman anlayışlarını bu açıdan inşa ederler. Kalbin tasdiki, dil ve davranış vasıtasıyla nesnel alana taşınır ve gözlemlenebilir duruma gelir. Diğer taraftan Mâtürîdîler, kalp ile tasdike dayanmayan salt bir dil ile ikrarı, imanın geçersiz bir biçimi olan nifaka özdeş görürler. Böyle bir iman Allah katında da ahiret hayatı açısından da geçerli bir iman değildir. (shrink)

Despite the hadiths and narratives that warn about the interpretation of the Qur’ān by opinion, the question of how Qur’ānic verses can be understood is about the nature of Qur’ānic exegesis. These narratives, which limit the interpretation to the exact field and indicate the invalidity of the specification of the intention with the imprecise information, bring with it the question of how to understand the Qur’ān in each period and society. The issue that has been questioned in the frame of (...) the commentary from the earliest periods is based on the possibility of commenting besides the narration and defining the area that the thought belongs to the commentator. In this context, it is seen that the distinction between the conceptualization of tafsīr-taʾwīl words in classical commentary literature deals with the subject of the tafsīr, their belongings, epistemological values and contexts. Mainly, this study will question whether authors who do not distinguish between tafsīr-taʾwīl categorize the information about commentary in a different context, then it will analyze two basic approaches on tafsīr and taʾwīl. In the paper, it will be suggested that these classifications in the classical literature should be evaluated together within the framework of the search for methodology in exegesis. Summary: The Prophet, who was the first glossator of the Qur’ān, forbade people to talk about the Qur’ān with their own judgments. The prominent people of the companions refused to comment on some words that were closed in meaning (garīb). The words quoted from Abū Bakr and ʿUmar on this subject are quite famous. However, the Qur’ān is a universal book revealed to be understood in all ages and geographies till the doomsday. The fact that all the verses were not interpreted by the Prophet, and the expansions of meaning observed in the Qur’ān wording necessitate the interpretation of the Qur’ān. The fact that the Prophet forbade people to talk with their own judgments about the Qur’ān and the necessity of understanding the Qur’ān in every era constitutes a dilemma that must be explained. The resolution of this issue will both determine the legitimacy of tafsīr (interpretation) and reveal the difference between the Prophet's tafsīr and the tafsīrs by other people. In this context, a distinction was made between the interpretations of the Prophet and of the companions who witnessed the revelation period from the Tabarī (d. 310/923) in the classical tafsīr literature and the interpretations by glossators in terms of their bindingness and information values. Thus, before even starting the interpretation, glossators questioned the possibility of interpretation of the Qur’ān without the tafsīr of the Prophet and the narratives from the companions that have the force of hadith marfūʿ.It is seen in classical tafsīr literature that distinctions between the tafsīr of the Prophet and the interpretations of the glossator are usually constructed on the terms of tafsīr and ta'wil, to which terminological meanings are attributed. In this regard, the methodology of Māturīdī (d. 333/944) is quite specific and clear. According to Māturīdī, tafsīr is an exact field. Only the tafsīr of the Prophet and the narratives of the companions that have the force of marfūʿ can be included in this field. Taʾwīl, on the other hand, is an area based on supposing. Preferences to be made from possible meanings are supposition and related to taʾwīl. The fact that Māturīdī included the explanations of the Prophet and his companions in the tafsīr field and stated that they expressed exact information shows that he regarded this information in the value of the statement of mutakallim. The data included in the field of taʾwīl are not as the data included in the field of tafsīr in terms of their bindingness and information value. The interpretations made in the field of taʾwīl include supposition; so they cannot be attributed to the desire of God. The field that the Prophet forbade people from declaring their own views is the field of tafsīr in the methodology of Māturīdī. The exactness of this field is an indication that the tafsīr is related to God's desire. It is not right to declare an opinion with supposition in the field that is exact and definite. Even though the interpretation in the field of tafsīr is in accordance with the truth, this cannot eliminate the responsibility of the interpreter that make determinations based on supposition in the exact and definite field. Some scholars, such as Qushayrī (d. 465/1072), also classify the narrative-sagacity areas by means of tafsīr-taʾwīl concepts. This classification deals with the data that is the subject of tafsīr in terms of their belongingness. Indeed, tafsīr science includes both the data that are linked with transmission and non-transmittable elements that can be achieved by following a methodology. Non-transmittable elements included in the taʾwīl field by those who make a distinction between tafsīr and taʾwīl based on narrative-sagacity are the meanings reached through linguistic efforts. Language is an element that holds possibilities in itself. Considering closeness of meaning, multi-meanings, metaphors and allusions in the wording, it can be thought that the meanings reached by linguistic methods include supposition. In the methodology of Māturīdī, the field of tafsīr is composed of the explanations of the Prophet and the narratives of the companions who witnessed the revelations while in the classifications of those who make a distinction between tafsīr and taʾwīl based on narrative-sagacity, tafsīr generally includes narratives. When the issue is handled within the framework of the desire of God and the statements of the mutakallim, it seems that the classification of Māturīdī is more punctual. However, it is understood that this approach does not give a satisfactory answer to the subsequent situations and bindingness of the mentioned data. In the classifications based on narrative-sagacity, the narratives in the field of tafsīr are taken as a whole without analyzing their health grades and their signification. However, some of these narrations are not authentic; so, in this respect it is a problematic issue that they are the subjects of the field of tafsīr. Besides, sometimes there can be different narrations about the tafsīr of verses from the companions. The evaluation these narratives in a field attributed to the desire of God may also pose a problem. The linguistic data that both Māturīdī and those who make a distinction between tafsīr and taʾwīl based on narrative-sagacity include in the field of taʾwīl does not appear to have a homogeneous structure -as is the case with the narratives-. Indeed, among this data, there are elements whose meanings are quite hard to determine as well as firm ones that possibly have only one meaning. It is controversial that these expressions, which have only one meaning and to the validity of whose meaning other evidence point out are included in the field of taʾwīl.The distinction between meaning and interpretation fields in tafsīr is very important in terms of tafsīr methodology. This field designation is in a way a description of nature of the science of tafsīr. Thus, in matters where the human intelligence remains insufficient with the tafsīr narratives from the Prophet, the bindingness of the narratives from the companions are clarified; furthermore, beyond the narrative, the validity and the information values of interpretations of the glossator are determined. In this regard, the tafsīr-taʾwīl distinctions made in the classical tafsīr literature provide us with a rich content and a multifaceted point of view. However, when addressed separately, these distinctions present a number of problems in terms of scope and applicability. Our study proposes the evaluation of tafsīr-taʾwīl distinctions in classical literature together while the meaning-interpretation fields are specified in the framework of the search for methodology in tafsīr. Thus, the incomplete aspects of the classification will be eliminated and a much more comprehensive and functional classification will be achieved. At this point, the methodologies of some figures as Tabarī, who is known to have used the terms of tafsīr and taʾwīl in the same meaning, must also be evaluated separately. Indeed, when the works of these names are analyzed, it is seen that these names also distinguish the meaning-interpretation fields in tafsīr, but they do not do this through the tafsīr-taʾwīl concepts. (shrink)

İnsanı diğer varlıklardan ayıran en önemli özelliği bilinç (akıl) sahibi ve seçme hürriyetine sahip olmasıdır. İnsanlık tarihi boyunca insanın hürriyeti, bu hürriyetin sınırları, mahiyeti sorgulana gelmiştir. İnsan özgürlüğü konusunda genellikle iki çeşit yaklaşım söz konusudur: Bunlardan birincisi filozofların getirmiş oldukları yaklaşım diğeri ise dinlerin getirmiş oldukları yaklaşımdır. Hürriyet kavramı katı bir tarif/tanımlama kalıbına kolayca sığabilen bir kavram değildir. Mantıkçıların “ağyârını mâni‘ efrâdını câmi‘” diye nitelendirdikleri tam ve tümel bir tanım yapılamamıştır. Dolayısıyla filozoflar, bilginler kendi çağlarının düşünce ortamına, entelektüel birikime göre (...) hürriyet kavramını temellendirmeye çalışmışlardır. Yukarıda da ifade edildiği gibi hürriyet meselesi çözümü zor bir konudur. Bu nedenden dolayı bu çalışmamızda öncelikle hürriyet kavramının etimolojik tahlilini, tanımını yaptıktan sonra Mâtürîdî kelâm düşünürlerinin hürriyet problemine yaklaşım tarzları, çözüm önerileri ve tanımlama biçimleri değerlendirilmeye çalışılacaktır. Mâtürîdî kelâm düşünürleri derken kastımız spesifik anlamda İmam Mâtürîdî ve onun en güçlü takipçisi olan Ebü’l-Muîn en-Nesefî’nin çözüm şekilleri üzerinde durulacaktır. (shrink)

Klasik Sünnî kelâmın sıfatların ‘ne Tanrı’nın aynı ne de Tanrı'dan ayrı' olduğunu iddia eden ilâhî sıfatlar teorisi, üçüncü halin imkansızlığı yasasının inkarı anlamına gelecek şekilde yorumlanmıştır. Nitekim bu iddiada olan yazarlar, böyle bir teoriyi dışarıda bırakacak şekilde yeni bir kelâm inşa etme iddiasındadır. Yazar, böyle bir iddiayı kendinde anlamsız görmekle birlikte, klasik kelâm nazariyesinde de bir temeli olmadığını iddia etmektedir. Bu makale, ‘gayr’ın anlamı hakkında ayrıntılı bir inceleme sunmakta ve birçok metinsel kanıtla, klasik ilâhî sıfatlar teorisinin yalnızca özdeşliğin ve ilâhî (...) zâttan ayrılabilirliğin inkarı anlamına geldiğini öne sürmektedir. Bu makale, gayr teriminin metafizik, teoloji ve doğa felsefesi bağlamlarında da geçerli olduğunu göstermektedir. “Bir şey bir diğerinin ne aynı ne de ayrıdır” formülü, bir öznenin kendisinden zorunlu ve ayrılmaz olan herhangi bir özelliğine eşit şekilde uygulanır. Bir diğer ifade ile söz konusu ilke, mümkün varlıklar için de aynı şekilde geçerlidir. Araştırma “gayr” kavramının Arap dilbiliminde aslî olarak olumsuzlama anlamına gelmediğini, aslında bir sıfat olduğunu ve aynı zamanda istisnaî cümle oluşturma işlevi gördüğünü iddia eden dilbilimsel bir tartışmayla başlamaktadır. Bu da ilâhî sıfatlara ilişkin ilkenin, temel dilbilimsel düzeyde bile üçüncü halin imkânsızlığı anlamına gelmediğini kanıtlamaktadır. Akabinde “gayr” kavramı kelâmî n. Söz konusu inceleme kendisini herhangi bir ekolle sınırlı değildir, ancak inceleme dört ana kaynağa dayanmaktadır: (1) Mu'tezileden Ka‘bî'nin Makâlât'ı; (2) Eş‘arî'nin Makâlât'ı ve (3) Mâtürîdî'nin Kitâbu't-Tevhîd ve (4) Te’vîlât. Bazı yazarların Mâtürîdî'nin üçüncü halin imkânsızlığı yasasının inkârını îmâ eden özgün bir duruşa sahip olduğunu iddia etmeleri nedeniyle, sonuncusu üzerinde daha fazla duruldu. Böylesi bir ilkenin mantık yasalarının inkârını îmâ ettiğine dair hiçbir belirti yoktur. Aksini iddia edenler, böyle mantıksız bir görüş için felsefi gerekçelendirme bir yana, yorumları için herhangi bir dilbilimsel veya metinsel kanıt bile sunamamıştır. (shrink)

Çalışmada İslam tefsir geleneğinin erken dönem müfessirlerinden biri olan Mâtürîdî’nin (ö.333/944) İbn Abbas (ö. 68/687-688) rivayetlerine yaklaşımı incelenmektedir. Bilindiği üzere onun kaleme aldığı Te’vîlâtü’l-Kur’an, dirayet ağırlıklıdır. Ancak eserdeki dirayet içerikli yorumları rivayetten yoksun değildir. Zira tefsirinde az da olsa Hz. Peygambere isnad edilen rivayetlere, bolca sahabe ve tabiine ait rivayetlere rastlanır. Sahabe nesli içerisinde tefsirde ilk sırada yer alan İbn Abbas, Te’vîlâtü’l-Kur’an’da da rivayet sayısı bakımından ilk sırayı korumaktadır. Tespitimize göre bu eserde İbn Abbas’a ait 579 rivayet vardır. Bu sayıyla (...) İbn Abbas Te’vîlâtü’l-Kur’an’da sahabe arasında ilk sırada yer almaktadır. Bu eserde İbn Abbas’ın önemi aslında rivayet bakımından ilk sırada yer almasıyla ilgili değildir. Mâtürîdî’ye göre genelde sahabenin, özelde İbn Abbas’ın tefsirde ayrı bir önemi vardır. Zira o, tefsiri sahabeye özgü bir alan olarak görmektedir. Bilindiği üzere Mâtürîdî, tefsir te’vil ayrımı yapmakta, tefsirin sahabeye te’vilin ise alimlere ait olduğunu söylemektedir. Onun bu yaklaşımı çalışmada Te’vîlâtü’l-Kur’an’daki İbn Abbas’a ait 579 rivayet üzerinden incelenmektedir. Çalışma iki kısımdan oluşmaktadır. İlk kısımda Mâtürîdî tefsirindeki İbn Abbas rivayetleri biçim ve içerik açısından tanıtılmaktadır. Rivayetlerin uzun veya kısa oluşu, ayet içerip içermemesi, İbn Abbas’ın senedde her zaman sözün sahibi değil, Hz. Peygamberin sözünü aktaran biri olarak yer alması ona ait rivayetlerin biçimsel yönü olarak görülebilir. Rivayetlerin Te’vîlâtü’l-Kur’an’daki görünümü de bu bağlamda ele alınabilir. Bu hususta önce Mâtürîdî’nin İbn Abbas rivayetleri için hem te’vil hem tefsir ifadesini kullandığını belirtmeliyiz. O tefsirinin genelinde sadece sözü söyleyenin ismini zikrederek senedin geriye kalan kısmını hazfettiği için tefsirinde senedin yer alış biçimi üzerinde durma imkânı yoktur. Rivayetin metin kısmını ise Mâtürîdî bazen olduğu gibi alıntılamakta bazen özetlemekte bazen de başkasına ait sözü zikrettikten sonra İbn Abbas’a ait sözün, aktardığı söze benzediğini söylemekle yetinmektedir. Te’vîlâtü’l-Kur’an’da İbn Abbas’a ait rivayetlerin içeriğine gelince rivayetler, hurûf-ı mukattaa, sebeb-i nüzul, kıraat, nesh gibi Kur’an ilimleri, kelime açıklamaları, ayet yorumları şeklinde sınıflandırılabilir. O ayetin bazen bir kesitini bazen bütününü yorumlamakta, yorumlarını nüzul dönemi veya sonrası olaylar ile ilişkilendirebilmektedir. Çalışmanın ilk kısmı bu çerçevededir. İkinci kısımda ise Mâtürîdî’nin İbn Abbas rivayetlerini ayeti yorumlamada kullanışı ele alınmaktadır. Te’vîlâtü’l-Kur’an’a bu açıdan bakıldığında Mâtürîdî’nin farklı tavırlar sergilediği rahatlıkla görülebilir. Zira o, bir âyetin yorumu için İbn Abbas’ın görüşünü bazen benimsemekte, kendi görüşüne dayanak etmekte, bazen başka rivayet zikretmeksizin onun rivayetiyle yetinmekte, bazen onun rivayetini diğer rivayetler içerisine almakta ancak bunlara ilişkin bir değerlendirme yapmamaktadır. Bunun yanı sıra o bazen İbn Abbas tefsirini tercih etmemekte hatta eleştirmektedir. Mâtürîdî’nin İbn Abbas’ın yaptığı yorumu gereksiz gördüğü yerler de bulunmaktadır. (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)

Bu makalede Giritli Sırrı Paşa’nın (1844-1895) Şerhu’l-Akāid Tercümesi analiz edilmektedir. Makalede öncelikle Sırrı Paşa’nın entelektüel arka planı ve diğer eserlerine değinilerek tercüme tarihsel bağlamına yerleştirmeye çalışıldı. Özellikle mütercimin kelâm tasavvurunu yansıtan mukaddime kısmına dikkat çekildi. Mâtürîdî kelâmına dair klasik bir metnin on dokuzuncu yüzyıl Osmanlı okuyucusu için Şerhu’l-Akāid’in diğer şerh ve haşiyelerindeki farklı yorumları içerecek şekilde tercümenin nasıl genişlediği gösterildi. Tercümede farklı görüşlerin bir araya toplanması, aynı mesele karşısında farklı yaklaşımların birbirleriyle karşılaştırılabilmesini sağlamaktadır. Sırrı Paşa sadece metni tercüme edip diğer (...) yorumları nakletmekle kalmamış, kendi yorumlarını da ortaya koymuştur. Bu nedenle bu tercümeyi “yorumlu tercüme” olarak adlandırmaktayız. Örnek olarak bu çalışma Mâtürîdî ve Eşʿarî ekolleri arasındaki temel ihtilaflardan biri olarak görülen irâde-i cüzʾiyye kavramı üzerine odaklanmaktadır. Sırrı Paşa ve faydalandığı kaynaklardan Cevdet Paşa bu meselede Mâtürîdî görüşü benimsemişlerdir. (shrink)

Bu makalede, müşriklerle sosyal ilişkinin mahiyetine dair Müslüman düşünce geleneğinde ortaya konulan literatür genel hatlarıyla ele alınmaktadır. Söz konusu literatür, “müşrikler bu yıldan sonra Mescid-i Harâm’a yaklaşmasınlar” (Tevbe 9/28) ayeti temelinde şekillenmiştir. Bu bağlamda âlimler şirkin mahiyeti, Mescid-i Harâm bölgesinin sınırları ile bu bölgeye yaklaşmamayı ifade eden fiilin içeriği ve özellikle de ayetteki uyarının Hac ibadeti ile sınırlı/kayıtlı olup olmadığı gibi hususları tartışma konusu yapmışlardır. Bu ayet çerçevesinde ortaya konulan literatürde iki görüşün ön plana çıktığı görülmektedir. Bunlardan ilki, Mescid-i Harâm (...) ifadesiyle kastedilen mananın tüm mescitleri kapsayacağı düşüncesinden hareketle “yaklaşmama” yasağın sınırlarını genişletirken diğer görüş, maslahatçı bir yaklaşımla söz konusu bölgenin Kâbe ve çevresiyle sınırlı olduğu iddiasına dayanmaktadır. Bu bağlamda ilk görüşte, harem bölgesine müşriklerin hiçbir surette giremeyeceği savunulurken ikinci görüşte, müşriklerin cahiliye döneminde yaptıkları tarzda hac ve umre ibadeti yapmak amacıyla söz konusu bölgeye giremeyecekleri ancak ticaret, seyahat vb. farklı maksatlarla gelebilecekleri vurgulamaktadır. Makalede konu H. VII. yüzyıla kadar kaleme alınan rivayet, dirayet, ahkâm ve Şiî tefsirler temelinde irdelenmiştir. Bu bağlamda Mukātil b. Süleymân, İmâm Şâfiî, Cassâs, Ebû Bekir İbnü’l-Arabî ve Kurtubî’nin kaleme aldığı ahkâm tefsirleri; Taberî, İbn Ebî Hâtim, Ebû İshak es-Sa‘lebî ve İbn Kesîr’in yazdığı rivayet tefsirleri; Mâtürîdî, Zemahşerî, Fahreddin er-Râzî, Beyzâvî ve Ebu’l- Berakât en-Nesefî’nin dirayet tefsirleri ile Şiî müfessirler Kummî, Ayyâşî, Ebû Ca‘fer et-Tûsîve Tabersî’nin tefsirleri incelenmiştir. Konunun bahsi geçen tefsirler temelinde ele alınmasındaki amaç ayetin anlaşılmasına bağlı olarak ortaya konulan fıkhî hükümleri ve gerekçelerini tespit ederek mukayese yapmaktır. Zira Tevbe suresi 28. ayetin anlaşılmasında, dini anlama tarzları bakımından Ashâbu’l-Hadis ve Ashâbu’r-Rey olarak nitelenen âlimlerin görüşlerinin belirleyici olduğu görülmektedir. Konu bağlamında Şiî tefsirlerin incelenmesindeki amaç ise söz konusu literatürde Tevbe suresi 28. ayetin ele alınmasına ilişkin bakış açısının Ashabu’l Hâdis’e mi Ashabu’r-Rey’e mi yakın olduğunu tespite yöneliktir. İncelenen tefsirlerde ilk görüşün İmâm Mâlik ve İmam Şâfiî’ye ait olduğu belirtilirken ikinci görüş Ebû Hanîfe’ye nispet edilmiştir. İmâm Mâlik ve İmam Şâfiî’ye ait olan görüş genel kabul görürken Ebû Hanîfe ve Mâtürîdî’nin benimsediği, Hanefî-Mâtürîdî âlimler tarafından kabul gören ikinci görüş, tarihsel süreçte şaz olarak nitelendirilmiş ve dikkate alınmamıştır. Makalede, H.7. yüzyıl’a kadar yazılan rivayet, dirayet, ahkâm ve Şiî tefsirleri özelinde bu görüşlerin temel mantığı, ortaya çıkış süreçleri ve bu çerçevede üretilen fıkhî hükümler analitik bir bakış açısıyla irdelenmeye çalışılmıştır. Makalede sonuç olarak Ashabu’l-Hadis’e mensup âlimlerden İmâm Mâlik ve İmâm Şâfiî’nin konuyu sadece müşrikleri değil tüm gayr-i müslimleri içerecek şekilde ele aldıkları ve bu gruplarla kurulacak sosyal, ekonomik ve siyasi ilişkinin mahiyeti hakkında fıhkî hükümler koydukları görülmektedir. Bu hükümlerle, Müslüman düşünce geleneğinde gayr-i Müslimlerin özellikle sosyo-kültürel açıdan ötekileştirilmeleri meşrulaştırılmıştır. Bu bakış açısı Müslümanların birlikte yaşama kültürüne katkı sağlamalarını engellediği gibi insana saygıyı temel alan Kur’an’ın bakış açısı ile de çelişmektedir. Bu bağlamda Ashabu’r-Rey’in önemli temsilcilerinden biri olan Ebu Hanîfe’nin yasaklama emrini cahiliye döneminde yapılan hac fiili ile sınırlaması konuya ilişkin bakış açısında ciddi farklılıklara imkân tanımaktadır. Ebû Hanîfe’nin bu anlama biçimi, gayr-ı Müslimlere ilişkin olumsuz bir uygulamaya imkân vermediği gibi takipçisi Mâtürîdî tarafından geliştirilerek ahlakî bir boyutta ela alınmıştır. Süreç içerisinde söz konusu anlama biçimi, aynı düşünce geleneğine mensup olan Cassâs ve Ebû’l-Berekât en-Nesefî tarafından devam ettirilerek geliştirilmiştir. (shrink)

Abu Man ur al-Maturidi (gest. 333/944) gilt neben seinem Zeitgenossen Abu l- asan al-AS ari (gest. 324/936) als eine der prägenden Figuren des sunnitischen Islams und geniesst bis heute eine grosse Autorität. Die Denkschule der Maturidiyya fand breite Anerkennung in der islamischen Welt und ist heute vom Balkan über die Türkei bis nach Zentralasien prominent vertreten. Dennoch ist unser Wissen über sein Denken sehr begrenzt, da seine Schriften lange Zeit als verschollen galten, bis in den 70er Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts (...) sein massgebliches kalam-Werk, das Kitab at-Taw id, ediert wurde und neue Forschungen anregte.Das Theodizeeproblem ist eine zentrale und hochkomplexe Fragestellung für jede monotheistische Religion. Wie kann im angesichts eines omnipotenten und absolut guten Gottes die Existenz von Bösem erklärt werden? Die islamische Theologie hat seit ihren Anfängen Antworten auf dieses Problem gesucht, wobei auch naturwissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse und weltanschauliche Überlegungen für die Apologie bemüht wurden. Während die meisten Antworten auf eine Leugnung oder Bonisierung des Bösen in der Welt hinausliefen, ist al-Maturidis Ansatz bis heute einzigartig in der Geschichte der islamischen Theologie und wartet noch immer darauf weitergedacht zu werden: Das Böse in der Welt ist ein Hinweis auf die Existenz eben des einen, allweisen und allmächtigen Gottes."-- Back cover. (shrink)

Partial/particular will (al-irādah al-juz’iyyah) and the creation of human acts are two issues related to the predestination belief. Nowadays, it is unarguably accepted that humans have volition. However, the controversy over the formation steps of human will and act does not seem to be settled. Māturīdīs’ approach, taken with the intent to allow some space for freedom for humans in their actions and based on the partial will and postulation that there is a part in human actions that are not (...) created nor subject to creation, could not be understood at times. When it comes to misunderstandings of this kind, Sadr al-Sharī‘a and Ibn al-Humām, who are among the Hanafī-Māturīdī kalam scholars, are mentioned. Both mutakallims are some of the eminent figures who left their marks on the Hanafī-Māturīdī school. They affected a significant number of scholars coming after them by the authentic ideas they presented. However, even though neither Sadr al-Sharī‘a nor Ibn al-Humām did regard humans as creators of their own actions, they are confronted with an accusation as if they vitiated the fact that God is the Absolute Creator. Therefore, it is of grave importance to reveal Sadr al-Sharī‘a’s ideas, which are represented in his “Four Premises” concerning the formation of an act and Ibn Humām’s thoughts put forward in his “Ījādu al-‘Azm al-Musammamah” and “Takhsīsu Irādah al-Juz’iyyah.”. (shrink)

The traditions about isrāʾīliyyāt that were seen almost in all the types of Islamic sciences appeared in the sources of tafsīr from early periods. These traditions that were generally used to explain the Qurʾān were seen problem and critisized by some exegetical specialists. Even though corresponding to a relative later period in the classical era, an approach was tried to put forward in view of the traditions about isrāʾīliyyāt. This methodological concern for isrāʾīliyyāt in classical period has increased and been (...) influential for many researchers from east and west to work on this issue in modern times. There has been reached to important results about the issues of the definition of isrāʾīliyyāt, the source of it, its spread in Islamic sciences, its aim of usage, the progress of these positive-negative attitudes against these traditions in historical process. But it is important to discuss some evaluations and analysis again that put forward in this process when different cases about the issue are taken into consideration. According to this, a series of problem, such as how the isrāʾīliyyāt can be defined in tafsīr, when the criticism of isrāʾīliyyāt started, whether Biqāʿī was the first exegete who made reference to Bible or not will be discussed considering relevant resources in this article.Summary: Since the early periods, isrā’īliyyāt narratives were used as a source of information in tafsīrs. These narratives, which are transmitted in various tafsīrs of the Qur’ān, one of the main sources of Islamic religion, have also taken the methodological interests of some exegete since the early periods. This interest continued in the modern period, and both Western and Eastern researchers made research on isrā’īliyyāt. Some of the findings, analyses, and claims available in researches on this subject will be reexamined in this article. The first of these is the problem of the definition of isrā’īliyyāt. In contemporary research, inclusive definitions are made for isrā’īliyyāt, seen in all sources. These definitions do not allow for a refined description of isrā’īliyyāt which is handled in terms of different intentions in the sources of each different field and which varies in terms of the issues it covers, leading to the underestimation of some of its aspects in relevant fields. In the definitions, it is stated that isrā’īliyyāt is mostly learned from the Ahl al-Kitāb, (the People of the Book) it became widespread along with Islām and it included narratives about caliphs, dynasties, and Mahdī, as well. Another issue is to be emphasized that they are fictive or mythological. In classical tafsīrs, isrā’īliyyāt is observed to be related mainly with the history of the Ahl al-Kitāb or with the subjects they know about. In the modern era, the narratives about the ancestors of the Arabs have been identified as isrā’īliyyāt. If some of the isrā’īliyyāt narratives are related to the history of Arabs, then their resource should be the historical-cultural memory of Arabs. However, as almost all Qur’ānic stories were somewhat known before the revelation period and relations with the Ahl al-Kitāb dated back to times long before the Islamic period, the claim that these narratives became widespread along with Islām should be revised. It is also problematic to emphasize the legendary nature of some of the isrā’īliyyāt and to make that as a reason to reject all. Such emphasis also leads to the underestimation of the functions of narratives in tafsīrs. In isrā’īliyyāt, tafsīr was used for i) interpreting the ambiguous words in the stories, ii) to bring evidence to the Ahl al-Kitāb, and ii) tarhīb-targhīb (encouragement-warning). These narratives can be used as a source in tafsīr unless they are explicitly falsified by the data of fields such as history, history of religions and archaeology as well as the Qur’ān and the true Sunnah. The first criticisms of isrā’īliyyāt are claimed to belong to exegete like Ibn al-‘Arabī (d. 543/148) or Ibn ‘Aṭīyah (d. 541/1147). However, criticism of isrā’īliyyāt is also observed in the tafsīrs of earlier exegete, such as al-Māturīdī (d. 333/944), al-Māwardī (d. 450/1058) or al-Ṭūsī (d. 460/1067). They do not necessarily have to use the term isrā’īliyyāt explicitly in their criticism like the later ones. If the narratives they criticize and the reasons for their criticism are the same as those of the later exegete, it will be necessary to date the criticism of isrā’īliyyāt back to the 4th Century of the Hegira. The understanding that "the expression in the story is sufficient, it is unnecessary to deal with the ambiguities; instead, it is necessary to deal with the lesson and wisdom in the story" is one of the criteria that Muḥammad ‘Abduh (d. 1905), who is deemed to be the pioneer of the strict criticism of isrā’īliyyāt in the modern period, took as basis in this criticism, is valid for the exegete of the classical period, as well. Although exegete, such as al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), al-Māturīdī, al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210), and Abū Ḥayyān (d. 745/1344) who had this understanding, gave place to isrā’īliyyāt, these people recognized that "these narratives were not final, binding or necessary”, indeed. The understanding that such expression in the story is sufficient, which is one of the reasons for such awareness in the classical period, seems to have turned into a strict rejection in the modern period. Another issue is the claim that Biqā‘ī (d. 885/1480) was the first exegete to systematically benefit from the Bible in tafsīr in the classical period. However, al-Daylamī (d. 593/1197) before Biqā‘ī, is also observed to have used the Old Testament systematically in tafsīr. He cited the Tanakh in his period in two ways. He either directly quoted from the translation of Tanakh or the Hebrew text written in Arabic letters. Another exegete who used the Tanakh as a source in his tafsīr was al-Ṣafadī (d. 696/1296). He enriched his tafsīr with systematic quotations from the Tanakh. Therefore, the use of the Bible as a source of interpretation in the classical period should not be started with Biqā‘ī. The reason why the pioneer exegete of the classical period did not directly use the Bible is claimed to be the fact that they falsified it and deemed the isrā’īliyyāt narrated from the predecessors to be more reliable. However, it is known that a significant portion of the isrā’īliyyāt, which was orally transferred from the predecessors, is based on written sources, particularly including the apocryphal texts. So just like the Bible, isrā’īliyyāt, which was orally transferred from the predecessors, is problematic in terms of authenticity. This allows us to argue that classical exegete have an inconsistent attitude, indeed. On the other hand, when we take into account the fact that classical exegetes criticize these narratives from time to time and believe that they are not final or binding, the problem of potential inconsistency disappears. Accordingly, they did not deem chain transmission of these narratives from the predecessors by reliable transmitters to be a sufficient reason for their acceptance and adoption for good and all. (shrink)

The present paper focuses on the Arabic theological work al-Tamhīd fī bayān al-tawḥīd, authored by the Transoxanian scholar, Abū Shakūr al-Sālimī. A jurist and theologian, he belonged to the kalām -school in the succession of Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī, and which, based on Ḥanafī tradition, forms the second pillar of the Sunni confession alongside the doctrines of Abū l-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī and his followers. Despite increasing activities in the field of editions during the last few decades, details of Māturīdī speculative (...) theology still remain insufficiently studied. This deficiency applies, on the one hand, to the utilization of texts, partially or not yet available in text-critical and analytically focused editions. On the other hand, a profound and pressing need for systematic research remains, particularly with regards to the relationship between Māturīdism and Ashʿarism, given that the latter has been studied in much greater detail. Against this background, al-Sālimī is presented in his historical and intellectual milieu. It is shown that his treatise is in the Ḥanafī–Māturīdī tradition, but his doctrines sometimes differ from other Māturīdī teachings. Subsequently, some key topics of the Tamhīd are addressed. A special focus is on the beginning of the dispute between Māturīdī theologians and the Ashʿariyya, where issues of epistemology, prophecy, the doctrine of God’s names and attributes, and the conception of faith that serve as typical examples of Ḥanafī jurisprudence and theology are also treated. Finally, a case study illuminates important issues at the heart of Māturīdī theology, as well as the integration of juridical topics into kalām. Through this approach, this paper intends to introduce the text as a valuable source for the study of Sunni theology in a more comprehensive sense than has previously been considered. (shrink)

This article examines tafsir (interpretation of the Qurʾān) - translation relationship in the example of the translation of verse 184 of the Surat al-Baqara into Turkish. Undoubtedly, when the verses are translated into another language, it is necessary to reflect to translate what the first interlocutors understood from them. The fact that the rules (hukm) in some verses were repealed (naskh) or allocated (takhsis) later does not change this requirement. In verse 184 of surat al-Baqara, those who can afford to (...) fast but choose not to fast are ordered to pay ransom (fidya) for every day, that is, to pay the daily amount to feed a poor person. According to the detailed information and rumors in the tafsir literature; this rule was applied when the fast was made obligatory (fard) for the first time, and then it was abrogated. However, this practice, which was canceled for healthy and unexcused people, remained as a permission (rukhṣa) for those who were too old and sick to fast. Both the narrations conveyed from the companions (sahaba) and the general opinions of the mufassirs confirm the abrogation of this rule and that it remains a rukhṣa. The fact that the situation is described as naskh or takhsis does not make a difference in terms of transferring the verse to Turkish or another language. The verses on the subject were examined in the light of the most basic tafsir sources. To give an example that reflects the general opinion; It is stated in the thirty-five narrations reported by Tabari from the companions and tābiʿūn that the 184th verse expresses the option (takhyir) of not fasting in return for fidya for those who can fast. This option has been canceled in the next verse but it has remained for, -some people with special conditions-, as the elderly who cannot afford to fast, pregnant women and breastfeeding women who worry about harm to themselves or their childrens. According to the qirāʾa that is "وعلى الذين يُطوَّقونه", it is said that the verse is not abrogated, it is meant for old men and women. But as emphasized by Abū Ḥayyān, it is understood that this qirāʾa is not actually a qirāʾa but a kind of interpretation of the expression "وَعَلَى الَّذِينَ يُطِيقُونَهُ" in terms of rukhṣa. Therefore, the claim that it has not been repealed is probably due to the continued practice of fiqh. On the other hand, also rational evidence shows that the right to choose (takhyir), which was given initially, was later repealed. For example, in verse 184, it is stated that those who are sick and travelers should perform fasting on other days with the expression "فَمَنْ كَانَ مِنْكُمْ مَرِيضًا أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ فَعِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَيَّامٍ أُخَرَ"; The same issue is stated in verse 185 with the expression "وَمَنْ كَانَ مَرِيضًا أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ فَعِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَيَّامٍ أُخَرَ". The repetition in question shows that the two verses were sent not together but at different times. This state of affairs confirms that the second verse has repealed the right of choosing (takhyir) in first one. In addition, as Imam Māturīdi's determined by hit, if those who cannot endure fasting were meant in verse 184, it would be unwise to call these people at the end of the verse as "However, that you fast is better for you, if you only knew!" In the overwhelming majority of Turkish translations of the Qurʾān, it is seen that there is no emphasis on the meaning of the verse when it was first sent. Even the expression “Upon those who are able to fast...” in the verse is translated as “Upon those who aren’t able to fast...”. Whereas it is more consistent and appropriate to reflect the literal meaning of the verse in the translation and explain the situation with additional notes. In this way, it will be understood that two verses that contain the same words and come one after another are sent different times and about different things, hence the reader will be given accurate information. In the nearly thirty examples of translations in the article, it is seen that the translations belonging to Mehmet Akif and Süleyman Tevfik and the translation of the delegation chaired by Hüseyin Kazım are in full harmony with the data in tafsir literature and the general opinion of mufassirs. Rifat Börekçi, the first president of Religious Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, has criticized the translation committee headed by Hüseyin Kazım extremely harshly. Then, with the choice made by Elmalılı Hamdi, almost the direction of the wind changed and the translators could not surpass it. Although there have been some translations in line with the text of the verse, the relevant explanations of these authors reveal that they did not understand the issue in detail and did not make a conscious translation. Meantime the analysis made in the aforementioned verse example shows that reliable translations cannot be made without referring to detailed tafsir information and therefore a correct Qurʾān translation is often not possible without tafsir. (shrink)

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

The first part of this article presents al-Mustamlī al-Buḫārī and his work, a voluminous commentary on al-Kalābāḏī’s compendium of Sufi doctrines, al-Ta‘rruf limaḏhab al-taṣawwuf. Both al-Kalābāḏī and al-Mustamlī had strong tendencies to the discussions of kalām, and of the two al-Mustamlī wrote extensively on theological issues in his commentary, Šarḥ al-Ta‘arruf. In light of the presence of topics of kalām in al-Mustamlī’s book, this article will demonstrate that despite his geographical proximity to Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī’s theological school, al-Mustamlī was (...) probably a follower of Abū l-Ḥasan al-Aš‘arī. The second part of the article concerns al-Mustamlī’s discussion of the nature of spirit. It will be argued that in dealing with the nature of the spirit, al-Mustamlī goes beyond the physicalist anthropology of the kalām and presents an argument for the existence of the spirit that has some affinities with Avicenna's proof of the existence of human rational soul, as it appears in the context of his famous thought experiment, the “flying man”. In both parts, the main claim of this article is that al-Mustamlī’s book is a valuable source for understanding the intellectual history of Transoxiana, and the intricate interactions of different disciplines, kalām, falsafa, taṣawwuf with each other. (shrink)

The main framework of this study will take into account the Thanawīya/dualism belief within Islamic sources and the criticism of the Māturīdiya tradition to such doctrines. Firstly, an overview of the Thanawīya belief and its sects have been taken into account with a general perspective from kalām and history of religion works. Thereafter certain early, middle and late period works of the Māturidī tradition regarding the Thanawīya transformation has been analysed throughout the study. Abū Manṣūr al-Māturidīs Kitāb al-Tawhīd and Abū (...) Shakūr al-Sālimīs Tamhīds examples are among such works chosen from the mutaqaddimīn (early) period. In terms of the muteakhkhirīn (late) period which is accepted to be 6/12. Century, works considered to be of the middle period such as Abū-l’Mu‘īn al-Nasafīs Tabṣirat al-‘Adillah and Abū’l-Thanā al-Lāmishīs al-Tamhīd li Qawa‘id al-Tawhīd are also taken into account. Nūr al-Dīn al-Ṣabūnīs al-Kifayah has also been included due to it being an important and influential work. With regards to the latter period, Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandīs al-Ṣaḥāif al-ilāhiyyah work has been given as an example. Additionally, a brief information from works of the New Science of Kalām era has been mentioned. Upon researching the entire mentioned works regarding the Thanawīya or one of its sects, related sections from these works will be mentioned briefly by comparing with each other. The extent of criticism to the Thanawīya belief in such cases will be analysed. (shrink)

This study will examine how Dāvūd al-Qarṣī, an 18th-century Ottoman scholar, resolved the paradox between human freewill and God being the creator of everything in his work Risālâh fi’l-ikhtiyārāt al-juzʾiyyah wa’l-irādāt al-qalbiyyah. In addition, in this study, the critical edition and translation of the risālah will also be provided. The treatise which is the subject of the present study is a link in the series of works written under the title of human acts in the Islamic thought tradition regarding al-irādah (...) al-juzʾiyyah, afʿāl al-ʿibād, khalq al-aʿmāl, qaḍā, and qadar. This risālah is one of the rare examples prepared with the method of “mamzūj annotation (sharḥ)”, which is a method in which “text” and “annotation” are intertwined. Qarṣī examines in detail a total of seven views, four of which are famous (mashhūr) and three of which are non-famous, about voluntary acts. Qarṣī interprets the approaches and views of the non-famous sects and includes them in the famous sects and allocates approximately 4/3 of the work to these sects. In the final stage of the work, the author states that the view of Māturīdīs is parallel with the predecessor’s (Salaf) view of “Neither jabr nor tafwīḍ; rather, it is merely a situation between these two approaches.” Qarṣī, who was inspired by Athīrī Maḥmad Afandī (d. 1092/1681), says that voluntary acts come about by the sum of “two powers (qudrat)”, “two wishes (mashīʾat)” and “one taqwīn”. Also, according to this, the first four of them are proximate causes, while the attribute taqwīn is the influencing factor. Qarṣī acts from the meanings of the term action (fiʿl) and the “theory of state (ḥāl)” in order to prove that human beings are true agents (fāʿil) on the one hand and to protect God’s attribute of creation on the other. In fact, the concept of “state (ḥāl)”, used in understanding divine attributes and some ontological issues, was applied to acts by the Māturīdī mutakallim Ṣadr al-Sharīʿa al-Thānī (d. 747/1346). Thus, a doctrine of action was developed, and this doctrine was accepted and used by the later period Māturīdī mutakallims. With reference to Ṣadr al-Sharīʿa, Qarṣī tries to justify the issue based on the meanings of the the term action and the modes of existence of these meanings. He says that action has two implications; one of them is the “infinitive meaning” (al-maʿnā al-maṣdarī) and the other is “the thing that comes with this infinitive meaning (al-ḥāṣıl bi-maṣdar)”. The infinitive meaning of the act constitutes the “non-thing aspect” of the action, and the meaning of the action that is created with the infinitive indicates “the thing aspect” thereof. Thus, because the aspect of the action that is not existentand therefore not a thing is not subject to creation, the agency and responsibility of human beings are grounded. Similarly, Qarṣī maintains that the mashīʾat, which means will, qaṣd and al-irādah al-juzʾiyyah, was not created because its existence in humans is in the form of succession and it is of a state-like (ḥāl) existenceOn this account. Qarṣī manages to preserve both human freewill and the absolute creativity of God due to the non-existent and non-thing aspect of the act on the one hand, and will (irādah), mashīʾat and qaṣd not being subjected to creation on the other. (shrink)

The subject of human acts has been one of the controversial topics of kalām since the first centuries of Islam. A lot of concerning human acts –from divine attributes to divine decree and destiny, from the issue of good and evil (ḥusn and Qubḥ) to the boundaries of the reasoning, from the accountability with impossible things to the rational accountability, from the topics of substance and accident to causality- has been said and written in the history of Islamic tought. In (...) this study, the subject was discussed especially within the scope of man’s on his own action in connection with the divine knowledge, will, and power. On this issue, the Muʻtazila argues that human beings are independent in doing their good and evil acts with the power that God has given to them because of His will and wisdom, and that the evil actions that they have done cannot be associated with the divine attributes in any way. Sunnī theologians assert that God creates human actions through man’s orginated power. They also arguethat evil acts are not independent of the Divine Creation although human beings are the reason of evil in terms of thier acquisition (kasb) and will (irāda). Nevertheless, the representetives of the Sunnī kalām (Asharites and Māturīdis) differ on their account of acquisition, which expresses man’s agency in his acts. In contrary to the Mātūrīdiya, the Ashʻariya holds that acquisition is a created act of God. On the other hand, the Mashshai (peripatetic) philosophers, who are opposed by teologians on some issues such as divine attributes and the working of activity/acts in nature, consider human’s actions part of the eternal chain of cause-effect that emanate (al fayḍ) from the First Principle. However, according to them, every link of this chain is formed by the divine providence (al-ināyah). They also attribute morally evil acts not to the First Principle which is complete (tām) and full good (hayr), but to agents in the cause-effect chain. In summary, according to both teologians and philosophers, the ultimate source of human acts is the divine will and power. The acts that are morally or religiously evil, are not independent of man’s will. Thus, human beings are accountable for their actions. Philosophers and teologians, who agree on these issues, have explained their views and build their opinions on different concepts and principles. They have shown a very different attitude in their discourse and secondary principles, while all of them basically try to express the same idea. This difference has revealed within the frame of the following questions: Is man’s accountability for his actions because of his created power or will? Can evil actions, which are willed by human beings and therefore created by God, attributed to Him? Does the fact that the world emanates from God, the First Principle, due to His knowledge and essence, necessitate Him to be a willless and ineffective agent, and therefore to be a cause cause that has no effect on man's actions?Although teologians and philosophers have put forward different views in the context of the answers to these questions, they agree on the issues we have mentioned above. As this study shows, there is actually a common purpose in this subject, man’s actions, which causes deep divisions between theologians and philosophers in Islamic history. Primary sources of the study are the basic texts of the schools mentioned above. Additionally, the study were limited to the subject the effect of human on acts. It consists of two parts: the main part and the conclusion part. In the main section, the approaches of schools were examined from two aspects, in in terms of divine attribute and human effectiveness, and in the conclusion section, the common purposes behind the discussions were determined. (shrink)

Belief in destiny is one of the principles of faith. Although the belief in fate is not explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an, there are many verses that indicate this belief. There are many hadiths about fate that have reached us from the Prophet. Although there are schools that deny destiny, Ahl al-Sunnah schools Ash‘aris and Maturidis accept the existence of belief in destiny. The definitions of destiny of these schools are expressed with words that can be used interchangeably. However, fate (...) should not be evaluated in a single category. It also has varieties. If destiny is perceived as only one kind of Forced destiny, it is inevitable to cause misunderstandings. Forced fate; it is destiny that does not give freedom to beings; It happens with the knowledge, will, power and creation of Allah. Some destinies of inanimate substances, plants, animals and humans are of this type. Jabr and responsibility are incompatible. Although some actions take place in their own bodies, people are not responsible for their forced destiny. Man is a freely created being within certain limits. The ability of intellect, will, power, and carrying out actions has been granted to them. By using them, a person performs his acts of will, and as a result, he becomes responsible for his actions. Having free will and freedom distinguishes humans from other living things. Where there is no human freedom, there is no responsibility. Human life is not uniform, it is in a state of constant change and transformation. In addition to these two types of fate, there is also a type of fate that turns into willful fate, although it was forced in the beginning. In addition to this, there are some actions that start with the will of man and later turn into forced fate. There are also types of disability that we have examined in connection with the belief in destiny and its types. Allah has sent humans to the world to be tested. Illness and disability are also part of the test. Diseases; they may be due to genetic, environmental factors, and food-related. Congenital diseases and disabilities can sometimes cause the world test to be difficult. The biological rules set by Allah are also valid for humans. Genetic hereditary diseases and disabilities occur when the genes carried by the parents are passed on to the child. While some genes are recessive, some genes are dominant. Genes that cause hereditary diseases and disabilities show an uneven distribution depending on their geographical habitats, sharing the same environment in the historical process, and the extent of intermingling of their lineages through marriages. While recessive genes can be passed on from generation to generation, dominant genes that cause death generally do not have the opportunity to pass on to the next generation. In today’s context, the diagnosis of genetic diseases and disabilities is attainable, enabling the implementation of necessary precautions accordingly; furthermore, partial or even complete treatment opportunities can be available depending on the circumstances. In this respect, all of the congenital diseases and disabilities due to genes are a forced fate that is not in the hands of man. As for those diseases and disabilities for which treatment opportunities exist, they fall under the category of fate that transitions from forced fate to willful destiny. Some genetic diseases and disabilities of people may appear in later ages. However, non-genetic diseases and disabilities are also facts of life. Every individual can become ill and experience disability during certain periods of their life. Diseases and disabilities can occur with a number of factors that do not depend on an individual's will, actions, or behaviors. Such diseases are also within the scope of forced fate. A person can also be disabled due to one’s own mistakes and negligence. However, it is a behavior befitting a Muslim to be treated in cases of all kinds of diseases and disabilities. The treatment of diseases for which there is a cure is a willed destiny. Diseases and obstacles that cannot be cured are forced fate. (shrink)

In the period that began with the death of the Prophet Hz Muhammad, the martyrdom of Hz. Othmān and the Battles of Camel and Siffin which took place during the caliphate of Hz. Ali, caused Muslims to have confronted each other. The debates that started after these incidents had been carried out within the frame of killing a Muslim in particular and the issue of predestionation in general. The personal opinions that emerged in the first period became the doctrines of (...) the parties/sects over time. These parties/sects have criticized each other on this subject as well as all other subjects and they have written refutations to one another. This deep-rooted and complicated issue has been handled in the Ottoman period in both Arabic and Turkish works as either a chapter or a separate risālah (epistles). Khalil Shukru’s risālah on qaḍā and qadar is one of those risālahs that we have discussed in this article. In his separately written risālah, he tried to refuse the opinions of some parties regarding qaḍā, and qadar by explaining his own opinions with examples. This study is based on Khalil Shukru Afandī's risālah qaḍā and qadar. A brief information about the author's life and scientific personality was given based on archive documents and then the epistle was analyzed. The author has handled the subject in a unique way, interpreting the situations ordained by Allah and human acts as a separate qadar. Khalil Shukru Afandī examines human acts in two different groups as acquisition (kasb) and creation (khalq), qaḍā and makzī, and analyzes the actions in terms of agency. Khalil Shukru Afandī did not use any subtitles in his risālah. However, in the analysis of the treatise, sub-headings have been included in the relevant places in order to make the subject easier to understand by us. The epistle tackles the issues qaḍā and qadar, God’s action and human acts, responses to the Jabriyya and Muètazilite. The author offers his views on the issues of hidāyat (guidance) and misguidance, justice, and cruelty, which is discussed under the heading of qadar and makes interesting points about human accountability for their actions. Khalil Shukru Afandī argues that human will (irādah) and accountability are separate things, which are independent of one another. In other words, according to Khalil Shukru Afandī, who stated that there will be no belief or disbelief because it is an offer, the offer has no binding on human will (irādah) or choices at this point. Accordingly, it can be said that Khalil Shukru Afandī was in close agreement with the views of Abū Mansur Māturīdī regarding human will (irādah). (shrink)

It is necessary to take into account the data of science in the theoretical debates conducted by scientists contributing ontological theories in order to develop new approaches to theological issues in Islamic thought. Even, Kalam scholars with the duty of defending and basing the principles of Islam in the classical sense have established a theological understanding intertwined with science in understanding both existence philosophically and the Script theologically. With its discoveries and theories in the last century, it can be argued (...) that modern science has made a serious progress compared to the past. Maintaining its own methodology and paradigm, every scientific discipline has the opportunity to benefit from the methods and data of other disciplines. Consequently, it is possible to assert that Kalam can enjoy the same opportunity too, as long as staying in its own problem area. According to modern science, the motion system is the unity of structures that enable living things to move. Moreover, Bones and joints, which are the structures of the skeletal system, are passive elements of the movement system. Muscles, on the other hand, are the active elements of the movement system and provide the movement of the body by affecting the bones and joints. Muscle tissue shapes the body by adhering to the bones, besides enabling movement activity to occur. One of the most important systems that provide movement is the nervous system. Because for a person to have movement, the muscles must contract, and the muscles must be stimulated for the contraction of the muscles. The system that enables this contraction to occur is the nervous system. Energy is also required for contraction to occur in the human body. Muscles create energy for movement by first providing their energy from the ATP molecule present in the muscle cells. Considering the movement theories of classical theology scholars, it is seen that they shaped the occurrence of human actions through the concept of potency. While the scholars classify power as spiritual/mental and physical strength in terms of its structure, they have characterized it as accident in terms of its nature. In this context, we can say that the equivalent of the power, which is regarded as necessary for the formation of human acts by the theologians, is the movement system in today's science. The spirit/mental that scholars regard as a structure of power for the occurrence of human action can be regarded as the electrical activity that activates muscles when considered within the framework of the movement system of today's science. It is seen that Kalam scholars emphasize physical competence in their definitions of power as well. At this point, Ash'arians defined the power as the soundness of organs, Mu’tazila expressed it as the presence of organs and their being away from disasters, and the Mâturîdîs stated it as the organs being healthy. With these definitions, Kalam scholars mean that a person should also be physically competent to make a movement. The structures scientifically accepted as biological and physical competence in the movement system are the skeletal system, muscles and nervous system. Therefore, we can say that the strength of the physical fitness/well-being emphasized in the definition of power by theologians corresponds scientifically to the skeletal system, muscles and nervous system. One of the issues that Kalam scholars discuss about power is the issue of the accident of power. The reason why they describe power as an accident is to emphasize its impermanence and to show that it was created by Allah. So, in modern science, electrical activity must occur in the brain in order for human organs to move. The occurrence of this electrical activity is independent of the human being. The fact that electrical activity occurs independently from human beings shows that it conforms to Kalam scholars’ definition of the accident. As a result, we can say that the theory of power created by scholars for human movement has a counterpart in the movement system put forward by today's science. (shrink)

This article covers the critical edition, translation and analysis of the epistle on creed, al- Muʿtamad min al-muʿtaqad, written by the famous Hanafī jurist ʿAlāʾ al-dīn Abū Bakr b. Masʿūd al-Kāsānī. In his work, which can be evaluated in the literature of creed, al-Kāsānī explains the basics of Hanafī-Māturīdī belief in a brief and concise manner without any discussion. This study consists of three main parts: examination, critical edition and translation. In the examination part of the study, the life (...) of the author is handled with various aspects, and at the same time information is given about the relation of the work to the author, its position in the literature, its method and content as well as its manuscripts. Then, based on the six manuscript copies of the work which are available in various manuscript libraries, the critical edition and the translation of the work is given. It is aimed that this work, which is discussed in Turkish for the first time in an academic article, will contribute to the studies on Hanafī-Māturīdī creed literature to some extent. (shrink)

Ijmā is ranked as the third shariah evidence after the Qur’ān and Sunnah in the science of Uṣūl. Shafi was the first one who made Uṣūl which had been known and used by the Islamic scholars, into a written document and who ascertained that Ijmā was the third of the shariah evidences. Kalām is one of the sciences in which Ijmā evidence is used. The scholars of Kalām used this evidence as far as the science of Uṣūl made it possible. (...) They always used it without changing any basics of religious beliefs and acceptances. That the aqidah of Ahl al-Sunnah has been supported with Ijmā which is regarded as one of naqly evidences, played an important role in eliminating suspicions which were tried to be aroused in momins’ mind. In this article, the function and importance of Ijmā evidence, which is one of the primary sources of the science of Uṣūl, in the science of Kalām and Aqidah of Ahl al-Sunnah has been studied.SummaryWhat the Qur’ān demands from us is to emphasize the spirit of unity among ummah and to keep out the factors that could trigger separation and division. Indeed, Allah emphasizes in the following verses in the Qur’ān on the protection of the unitary structure of the ummah: “And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided” (Āl a-Imrān 3/103) and “And do not be like the ones who became divided and differed after the clear proofs had come to them” (Āl al-Imrān 3/105). Allah has commanded the Ulul ‘Azm Prophets to hold the religion upright and to avoid division. (al-Shūrā 42/13). The command of holding the religion upright and not to be divided in this religion means to certify what needs to be confirmed in the religion of Allah and to obey those that must be obeyed. This is also the proclamation of the principle of religion that all the prophets have consensus over.Ahl al-Sunnah understanding of Islam is identical to the understanding of the Prophet and his companions. For this reason, Ahl al-Sunna is the school that represents the main backbone of Islam. In Ahl al-Sunna, in many subjects, be it usūlî / primary or furū’ī / secondary, there has been ijmā. These ijmās are Sahaba ijmās and deductive ijmās that come from mutakallimūn (theologians) ijtihāds. Therefore, ijmā and ijtihād are closely connected to each other. Ijmā is supported by ijtihād and ijtihād is also the source of ijmā. Thus, the issue is no longer just a pure ijtihād; it turns out to be a degree that gives a solid knowledge after it has risen to some degree just after the nass/texts.Ahl al- Sunnah theologians are talking about two kinds of ijmā. The first is “ijmā taṣdīqī” (approval consensus) which is the consensus based on Sahaba İjmā. These are the ijmās that occur on the principles called ḍaruratal-diniyya (necessities of the religion), and accepted as solid proofs in religion. Issues such as the principles of faith, obligation of prayer and the fasting are the subjects that are determined by the solid/definite ijmā. Such ijmās are valid approvals on existing provisions. These ijmās based on solid nass (verses and hadiths). Such ijmās do not give any new information. The existing information is strengthened by the alliance of Muslims. In these areas, ijtihād cannot be done and Muslims do not need ijtihād on these issues. There is an consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah scholars about the unfaithfulness of the one who denies one or more of the principles which are accepted as the main obligatory principles in Islam. The other is the “deductive ijmā which the ijtihāds have roles over. This kind of ijmās, are formed as a result of mujtahids’ consensus over the same opinion on the issue of theological secondary issues. The issues related to the secondary theological issues which were open to the ijtihāds and the different results obtained on matters are not accepted as the cause of takfīr. However, depending on the subject he/she can be a sinner. Istidlālī/deductive ijmās are not considered as an independent proofs in ‘Ilm al-Kalām, rather a supportive ones and are considered as textual evidences.Since, texts that are accepted as sources give supposed information. In this regard, the Ahl al-Sunnah scholars accepted other members of the sect who have in secondary theological issues opposed the ijmā of the salaf / predecessor as Ahl al-Qibla, but named them as Ahl al-Bid’a (innovator in religion) because of their opposition to Salaf’s İjmās. Moreover, the scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnah did not see them appropriate to participate in the Ijmās, which could occur between the generations that come after Sahābas/companions.Not all disputes have been criticized in Islam. It is a blessing for the ummah to claim different opinions on the issues subject to ijtihād. Since the ummah, in this way, will bring new solutions to emerging issues and as a result, Islam will have a mechanism to produce a dynamic solution. This can only be possible through ijtihād. Dispute is to propose different views on a subject. If this view is not in the actual matters that could harm the unity of the Ummah, rather in the case of ijtihādi issues, this conflict could turn to be mercy.The reason why the methodists evaluate the ijmā within the scope of the authorized evidence is that because they think it is essential that the ijmā be based on a proof. From this point of view, the alliances that occurred in mental matters were not considered as ijmā. The theologians always tried to support their claims with nass/textual proofs. When the ijmā is realized, whether known or not, they have stated that there is certainly a religious proof behind it. Because, the provisions that were reached through ijmā, cannot be against the provisions of the Prophet.Many issues in Islamic Belief and Kalām works are supported by the mental and textual evidences as well as by deductive ijmā. However, many of the claims of Ijmās in these works reflect the inter-sect ijmās of the Ahl al-Sunnah. The sects outside the Ahl al-Sunnah were excluded. This attitude is, above all, the aim of ensuring the integrity within the sect, and trying to protect the Ahl al-Sunnah belief. Since the ijmā evidence has a function that prevents all kinds of arbitrary and divisive thoughts and turns the supposed knowledge into the qat’ī/certain one, it raises the provision to the next level just after the nass, rather than merely being a ijtihādi provision. In the case of the forerunner of the Ahl al-Sunnah, the Māturīdes and Ash‘arites have not differed in in understanding of ijmā in terms of methodology.Although they have different views on the definition and content of the ijmā, they have a common understanding of alliances of Mujtahids on the same view. The mutakallims (theologians) of Māturīdī and Ash’arī schools have used the proof of ijmā as supportive evidence in the cases related to Kalām. al-Ash’arī not only adopted the proof of ijmā but also used it in practice in. He did not make any distinction in proof of ijmā as practical, theological, methodological or sub-divisional; he used it freely in every field. Māturīdī and Ash’arī scholars decided that the ijmā could occur in religious matters and that there would be evidence when it was formed; In the case of mental issues, they have required the knowledge to be based on solid information. In the case of ijmā in purely mental issues, they have disputed over the issue. While some Ahl al-Sunnah scholars stated that since purely mental matters were certain knowledge and therefore don’t need ijmā, they also ruled that because the mujtahids could get this knowledge from religious texts, therefore ijmā could occur in mental matters as well. (shrink)

Kur’ân ve hadislerde geçen müteşâbih ifadelerin nasıl anlaşılacağına dair kelâm geleneğinde ciddi tartışmalar yaşanmış ve farklı ekollere mensup âlimler tarafından birçok eser yazılmıştır. Mâtürîdî bir âlim olan Nâsırüddîn es-Semerkandî de bu çalışmada tenkitli neşri sunulan Fethu’l-ğalak fi’t-tevhîd adlı eseri kaleme almıştır. Günümüze ulaşan Arapça elyazması Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi Fatih koleksiyonunda 3142 demirbaş numarasıyla bulunmaktadır. Bildiğimiz kadarıyla bu alanda müstakil olarak kaleme alınmış olup günümüze ulaşan tek Mâtürîdî eser olma özelliğine sahiptir. Akıl ve şeriatten hareketle yapılması gerektiğini savunduğu te’vîlin belirli ilkeler çerçevesinde (...) özellikle de luğavî anlamın dışına çıkmadan müteşâbih ifadelerin muhkemlere hamlederek yapılması gerektiğini belirtmektedir. Bu noktada çizdiği çerçevede olmayan ve uç noktalar olarak gördüğü Bâtinîlerin ve Hanbelîlerin te’vîl anlayışlarını da eleştirmektedir. Müteşâbih ifadeleri te'vîl etmeyi uygun gören Mâtürîdî-Hanefî geleneğin yaklaşımını ortaya koymasının yanında geç bir dönemde yazılan eser bu konuda ele alınan ifadelerin yorumuna dair zengin ve bilgilendirici bir içerik sunmakta ve müteşâbihlerin bütünsel anlaşılması yönünde imkân sağlamaktadır. Bu çalışma kapsamında müteşâbihe dair bir giriş, es-Semerkândî’nin hayatı ve eserin tenkitli neşri dikkatlere sunulacaktır. (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)

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)

Human actions have been one of the most discussed topics in the science of kalām since the first centuries of Hijra. Many scholars from different schools of kalām have tried to solve this problem. Efforts to solve the problem have brought different views. In this framework, three main views emerged Jabrī, Qadarī/Muʿtazilī and Salafī/Sunnī. The views of Islamic philosophers were added to these and this number was increased to four. Nevertheless, Sunnī scholars, who agree on the basic propositions, disagreed on (...) the nature of kasb. While there are differences of opinion between Ashʿarī and Māturīdī schools, there are also those who put forward different views among scholars belonging to the same school. Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī (d. 403/1013), Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāyīnī (d. 418/1027) and Juwaynī (d. 478/1085), Sadr al- Shrīʿa (d. 747/1346) and Ibn al-Humām (d. 861/1457) are the most obvious examples of this. These views on human actions have been mentioned in their works by scholars of kalām. One of these scholars is Gelenbevî Ismāʿil (d. 1205/1791). In this article, the views on human actions will be examined in the context of Gelenbevî’s work named Ḥāshiya ʿalā Sharḥ al ʿAqāʾid al ʿAḍudiyya. Gelenbevî makes concise or detailed explanations about the views mentioned in his work with the exception of Ibn al-Humām. In addition, he also mentions the views of al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111). While Gelenbevî mentions these views and the discussions that took place around them, He makes use of his works Ījī’s (d. 756/1355) named Mawāqif, Taftāzānī’s (d. 792/1390) Sharḥ al Maqāṣ̣ıd and Jurjānī’s (d. 816/1413) Sharḥ al - Mawāqif. Gelenbevî states that Ashʿari’s view is middle jabr (jabr al muṭavaṣṣıṭ) and even he is accused of being pure jabr (jabr al- maḫẓ). Based on the concept of partial will (al-irādah al-juzʾiyyah), he says that the views of Bāqillānī and Māturīdī school are the same and states that this view is more successful than Ashʿari’s in explaining human responsibility. This thought indicates that he is closer to the Māturīdī view of human actions than to Ashʿarī. He points out that Isfarāyīnī’s views are open to criticism in some respects. He implicitly states that he does not agree with the idea that Juwayni agrees with the Islamic philosophers. Rather than Muʿtazila’s views, it focuses on whether their views and the views of Islamic philosophers are the same. (shrink)

Such questions that may it be essential, necessary, recommended, or free to believe in some matters will be addressed in the article. It is concluded that such an approach is possible for Māturīdis and Ash'arīs. In the study, it was thought that the following two problems should be solved first. The first problem is how can a definitive confirmation be made with speculative information (zannī). Second, if it is a contradiction that the ulema of the relevant school construct the subject (...) of belief with an āḥād report (khabar) even though they explain the true report as mutawātir in the works of Kalām? In the article, three different solutions are proposed for the first problem, and the second problem is tried to be solved with the proposition that tawātur is compulsory for the universal or essential subjects of theology. Then, by giving two examples for each decree (hukm), it was tried to determine what this idea means in practice. It has been determined that the main controversial issues between the Ahl al-sunnah and the Mu'tazila arise in the category of wājib to be believed. It has been determined that the scholars of the aforementioned sects fall into dispute among themselves in matters presented as sunnah to be believed. As a result, in terms of the principles set forth by the Ahl al-Sunnah, it has been deemed possible to implement ʾafʿālu al-mukallafīn (deeds of those obligated) to theological issues. (shrink)

The Shams al-dīn al-Samarqandī who is the first scholar to adopt the method of the philosophical theology in the Hanafī-Māturīdī tradition, is an important Turkish-Islamic thinker who has proven himself in rational and transmitted sciences by giving works in various fields such as theology, logic, mathematics, astronomy, tafsir, ādāb al-bahth wa al-munāzara. Placing the science of logic at the center of his system, al-Samarqandī analyzed every opinion and evidence put forward logically and aimed to reach the truth. Divine attributes, (...) the temporality of the universe, and the God-universe relationship are at the forefront of the subjects that he aims to reach certain and real knowledge. In this respect, al-Samarqandī analyzed the ontological character of divine and universal attributes. The concept of the hypothetical existential essence plays a key role for the author, who begins by analyzing the types of quiddity. defining the concept of existential as As “that which is without any negativity in its essence and truth", al-Samarqandī, who stipulates to exist as a block and not to have any negativity in its existence, brings a unique expansion to this concept. al-Samarqandī, who defines determination as "an adjective that distinguishes the existent from all mental and external beings", claims that this concept has an existential essence. As a result of his concerns about necesarry existence, Samarqandi, who does not deny the philosophers who accept the necessary existence and determination as identical, also overcomes the problems of multiplicity and causality that may arise about God, with the concept of "hypothetical", if he considers determination as "existential". As a matter of fact, al-Samarqandī divides existence into two parts as real and hypothetical, and defines the real existence as "existing in the real sense and not based on any rational assumption"; defines hypothetical existence as "based on rational assumption". In this case, it is not possible to talk about a real multiplicity or causality. al-Samarqandī claims that the concept of necessity falls within the scope of the hypothetical existential essence. Because wujûb means “the essence necessarily necessitates existence”. It is deduced that wujûb must also be existential, since something necessitating existence must take the judgment of existence. By characterizing the concept of wujûb with hypothetical essence, in the sense of a mental formation that is immune to objective existence, he also avoids the doubt of plurality. Concerned that the regard of possibility as an existential essence may require God to be necessary per se and the universe to be eternal, theologians accepted possibility as an absent essence. al-Samarqandī states that possibility can be accepted within the scope of true non-existent or hypothetical existential essence. As a matter of fact, evaluating the possibility in this way also eliminates the possibility that God is necessary and the universe is ancient. Attributes that can be attributed to God and can create a multiplicity in His essence or that can be attributed to the universe and cause the universe to be eternal are evaluated within the scope of the concept of the hypothetical existential essence, and, the idea that God is unique and that he is the only eternal entity is based on this concept. (shrink)

Discussions on the concept of Marifatullah as the foundation of belief hold a significant place in theology. There are different opinions among schools of theology regarding whether those who do not receive divine messages must know God. The majority of scholars belonging to the Mu'tazila and Māturīdī schools, including Imam Māturīdī, state that human beings must know God. Although al-Ashʿarī accepts that the most prominent obligatory duties are the methods of reasoning that lead to marifatullah, he states that (...) responsibility in this matter is formed by transmission. However, we can say that whether the human mind is sufficient to reach the knowledge of God, the method of reasoning has reached a different dimension today from the sciences of psychology, genetics, and neurobiology. This study explored whether individuals can achieve marifatullah from a holistic perspective. Whether human beings can be held responsible for this issue has been evaluated through the sciences of psychology, genetics, and neurobiology, and the opinions of schools of theology on this issue have been criticized. When we think in terms of Marifatullah, we can say that man’s psychological sense of obligation to adapt to society leaves him intellectually under the influence of society. In terms of genetic determinism, human personality, behavior, and intellectual adventure are completely determined by genes. Therefore, it is impossible for men to reach marifatullah in the context of their mental abilities. From an epigenetic perspective, we see that human thought structure, behavior, and personality are formed as a result of interactions with the environment. Serious hesitation arises in this idea in terms of intellect being a source of responsibility. Humans are genetically influenced by the environment and society, and they have a suitable nature for this, revealing that their genetic structure is open to environmental influences. In terms of brain plasticity, factors such as the society, environment, and family in which people live can change their brains and enable them to live accordingly. Although life adventures appear to be within the framework of social harmony, there must also be intellectual and religious harmony within social harmony. This reinforces the idea that individuals tend to align more with the thoughts and beliefs instilled by culture given the adaptable nature of the human brain influenced by cultural factors. When the views of the schools of theology are considered considering these evaluations, it becomes clear that the Mu'tazilites and Māturīdīs' belief that the source of the wujūb of marifatullah is intellect is at a point that needs to be reconsidered in terms of human biology and psychology. Although the Asharites emphasize human beings attaining knowledge of God through intellect, their focus on prophethood indicates that a revelation offer appears more accurate concerning human nature in the context of Marifatullah. (shrink)