This volume provides a thorough investigation of the theological views of the Twelvershī‘ite Ibn Abī Jumhūr al-Aḥsā’ī who combined traditional Mu‘tazilite thought with the philosophical tradition of Ibn Sīnā, with the Illuminationist tradition and with speculative mysticism.

bakhsh-i 1. Majmūʻah-i 874, shāmil-i 6 risālah -- bakhsh-i 2. Majmūʻah-i 855, shāmil-i 3 risālah.

On Islam and state, and Islamic philosophy.

al-juzʼ al-awwal. Fī al-manṭiq.-- al-juzʼ al-thānī wa-al-thālith. Fī al-ṭabīʻīyāt wa-al-ilāhīyāt.

bakhsh-i 1. Muqaddamah, Manṭiq, Umūr-i ʻāmmah, Ṭabīʻyāt, Ilāhīyāt.

1. al-Tajurbah al-Ṣūfīyah -- 2. Khuṣūṣīyah al-khiṭāb al-Ṣūfī wa lughatahu -- 3. al-Ashkāl al-ramzīyah wa waẓāʼifhā ʻinda al-Shaīkh al-Ākbar.

Rāzī, Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Zakarīyā,865?-925?; criticism and interpretation.

Tras una rápida revisión de los escasos datos conocidos sobre la vida y la obra de Ibn Abi l-Riyal (fl. Túnez c. 996-1048), se analiza el contenido de su Uryuza fi a?kam al-nuyum comparándola con su célebre al-Kitab al- Bari� fi a?kam al-nuyum concluyéndose que se trata de dos obras independientes y que la Uryuza no es un resumen del Bari�. El trabajo continúa con datos biobibliográficos del historiador, matemático y astrólogo Ibn Qunfu? al-Qusan?ini (1339-1407), autor de un comentario a (...) la Uryuza de Ibn Abi l-Riyal dedicado a Abu Bakr b. Abi Muyahid Gazi Ibn al-Kas, visir de los sultanes meriníes Abu Faris (1366-1372) y Abu Zayyan (1372-1374). La obra parece haber sido redactada durante el breve reinado de este último y antes de la deportación del dedicatario a Mallorca en 1375. Se analiza el contenido del comentario, las fuentes citadas en el mismo, las técnicas astrológicas utilizadas tanto por Ibn Qunfuu? como por Ibn Abi l-Riyal y el uso, por parte del comentarista de un ziy derivado del de Ibn Is?aq. El artículo termina con un comentario detallado de los horóscopos contenidos en la obra de los que uno corresponde al equinoccio vernal del año 571 de JC, en el que se produjo una conjunción de Saturno y Júpiter que anunció el advenimiento del Islam, mientras que los once restantes constituyen una historia astrológica del Marruecos meriní entre 1348 y 1366. Dos de ellos habían sido publicados en un artículo anterior. En lo que respecta a los nueve restantes, en seis de ellos se identifica el sujeto o acontecimiento al que aluden, quedando tres por identificar. (shrink)

al-Mujallad al-awwal. Fī al-manṭiq -- al-mujallad al-thānī. Fī al-ṭabīʻīyāt -- al-mujallad al-thālith. Fī al-Ilāhīyāt.

jild-i 1. Manṭiq -- jild-i 2. Falsafah (ṭabīʻīyāt - ilāhīyāt) va ʻirfān.

al-juzʼ 1. al-Manṭiqīyāt -- al-juzʼ 2. al-Ṭabīʻīyāt -- al-juzʼ 3. al-Ilāhīyāt.

One of the most important issues that distinguishes the Baghdādī branch of the Muʿtazila from the Baṣran branch is their view on ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 40/661). Basra branch accepts the order of virtue of the first four caliphs as their order of coming to office, while the Baghdad branch considers the first three caliphs legitimate, but considers Ali more virtuous than them. The Baghdādī Muʿtazilīs who outspokenly defended this idea were Abū Jaʿfar al-Iskāfī (d. 240/854), Abū al-Qāsim al-Kaʿbī (...) (d. 319/931) and Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd (d. 656/1258). Among them, Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd was renowned as “the greatest scholar of the Muʿtazila” and was considered one of the last representatives of this school. He ardently defended ʿAlī's superiority in his commentary on Nahj al-Balāgha, the famous collection of Ali’s sermons, letters and wisdom sayings. In his defense, he rebutted some criticisms about ʿAlī’s political decisions from his school’s point of view. Many items of Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd’s rebuttal are worthy of analysis in terms of their content, style and approach. This article aims to present a detailed account of Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd’s aforementioned refutations. In addition to the descriptive method, the interpretative method was also employed in the article. Although Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd did not consider Ali's infallibility necessary (wājib), unlike Imamiyya, he accepted it. Therefore, he responded to the criticisms directed at Ali, starting from the point of Ali's innocence. According to Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd: (a) After the death of the Prophet, ʿAlī insisted on becoming the new leader of the Muslim community. He did not act hastily to assume the caliphate because he was not expecting any opposition to that. However, when the events took a different turn, he did not escalate the situation, rather accepted the status quo. (b) ʿAlī also did the right thing by participating in ʿUmar b. Al-Khaṭṭāb’s (d. 23/644) electoral shūrā. This was an opportunity for him to become the next caliph, and reinstitute a system in accordance with the Qurʿānic principles and sunna of the Prophet. (c) It was also not an error when ʿAlī decided to stay in Medina during the events of ʿUthmān’s murder (d. 35/656). He played an active role in dissuading the rebels from their attempt to kill ʿUthmān, but he was in no position to know that his activity would be used against him later by the Umayyads who accused ʿAlī of being complicit in ʿUthmāns’s murder. (d) ʿAlī took the caliphate after ʿUthmān because of his popularity among the people. In this way, he managed to prevent an unqualified person to occupy the seat of the caliphate. (e) When the Battle of Camel broke out, those who demanded justice and opposed ʿAlī were in error. (f) When ʿAlī became the new caliph, his decision to remove Muʿāwīya (d. 60/680) from the governorship of Syria was correct. This is because Muʿāwīya would have refused to accept ʿAlī’s leadership even had he stayed in office as a governor. ʿAlī understood that the conflict would end only through fighting, so he did not lose time in marching against Muʿāwīya. (g) During the battle he abided by the sharīʿa and allowed the Syrian army to access water. (h) It was not ʿAlī, but those defectors in his army who obliged him to end the fighting through arbitration. (i) When ʿAlī agreed to sign the Ṣiffīn ceasefire agreement and did not use his title amīr al-muʾminīn, he followed the Prophet's example since the latter also refrained from using his title during the Ḥudaybiyya agreement. (j) ʿAlī also cannot be blamed for those among his supporters, such as the poet al-Najāshī, who defected and joined the ranks of Muʿāwīya. The motivations for the defectors were either to attain worldly gains or to escape from punishment for the crimes which they had committed. (k) When Muʿāwīya managed to conquer Egypt, ʿAlī’s governors of the province, Qays b. Saʿd (d. 60/680) or Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr (d. 38/658), did nothing for which they could be blamed. (l) And finally, ʿAlī never had guards to protect him because he was never afraid of being assassinated. Although Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd took Ali's innocence as a basis while presenting these views, he did not make inconsistent comments in general and did not say things contrary to historical facts. Therefore, it is necessary to acknowledge historical value of his views in question. (shrink)

This volume provides a thorough investigation of the theological views of the Twelversh ite Ibn Ab Jumh r al-Ah s (d. after 906/1501) who combined traditional Mu tazilite thought with the philosophical tradition of Ibn S n, with the Illuminationist tradition and with speculative mysticism.

صدر عن المركز العربي للأبحاث ودراسة السياسات كتاب الكشف والبيان عن أوصاف خصال شرار أهل الزمان الذي ألّفه محمد الحافظ بن حسين الصيداوي النجار وحقّقه مهند مبيضين. ويُعدّ هذا الكتاب من أدب المواعظ والأخلاق والتاريخ، وقد جمع فيه صاحبه ثقافة أدبية ودينية واسعة مكّنته من صوغ النص بلغة محكمة منضبطة، وبطريقة منظمة. يأخذنا المؤلف في كتابه إلى دمشق خلال النصف الأول من القرن الثامن عشر، ويصلنا بها حتى عام 1172هـ (1758م). ويُعدّ كلٌّ من الناس والمدينة مدارَ التأليف في هذا الكتاب (...) الذي يبحث فيه مؤلفه عن المجتمع الأمثل والزمان الخالي من الفساد. لكنّ البحث عن شكل أفضل للمجتمع ليس دافع التأليف الوحيد بالنسبة إلى المؤلف؛ فدمشق تستحق زمانًا أفضل مما كانت عليه في عصره الذي جعل الناس سبب سوئه، وهي عنده الظرف والناس هم المظروف، فإنْ صلح المظروف صلح زمان المدينة؛ لذلك نجده يذكّر بدمشق وفضلها وفضائلها. (shrink)

This paper presents a unique manuscript copy of a fifth/eleventh-century Maghribī commentary on al-Bāqillānī’s Kitāb al-Tamhīd. The work, entitled al-Tasdīd fī sharḥ al-Tamhīd, was written by ‘Abd al-Jalīl b. Abī Bakr al-Dībājī —also known as Ibn al-Ṣābūnī— who had studied the Kitāb al-Tamhīd with al-Bāqillānī’s disciples in Qayrawān. The present study first reviews the transmission of al-Bāqillānī’s work to the Islamic west. It then continues to present the author of the commentary, to reconstruct the work’s genesis and to describe its (...) content. The final section focuses on a sample chapter and argues that al-Dībājī follows al-Bāqillānī’s later position on a specific theory —the so-called theory ofaḥwāl— of which the Tamhīd strongly disapproved. The Tasdīd is one of the oldest texts of Maghribī Ash‘arism that has come down to us and provides valuable new insights into the school’s early history in the Islamic west. (shrink)

This study seeks to investigate the treatise of Abū al-Hasan b. Abd al-Rahman b. Muhammad al-Khatīb al-Shirbīnī al- Shāfiʻī (d. after 1028/1619) entitled Fatḥ al-Raḥīm al-Raḥmān fī tafsīr Āyat "inna Allāha yaʼmuru bi al-ʻadl wa al-iḥsān" based on the manuscript of the author. Shedding light on the translation of this unknown scholar, as it is evident from the title of the treatise that it contains the interpretation of this verse, which is well known among scholars and commentators as the most (...) comprehensive verse in the Qur’ān. In this tafsīr, Shirbīnī used many exegetical methods such as exegesis of the Qur'ān with the Qur'ān, exegesis of the Qur'ān with the Sunnah, exegesis of the Qur'ān with the sayings of the Companions, and al-tafsīr bi-al-raʼy, as well as tafsīr approaches such as linguistic tafsīr, the science of munāsabāt, and causality of nuzūl to analyze the meanings of the verse in depth. Another feature that increases the importance of this treatise is that al-Shirbīnī refers to the primary source tafsīr books together with their glosses, sometimes quoting from the commentators verbatim, and sometimes making meaning-based quotations from them, which is the most obvious indication of his exegetical ability and scholarly competence. In this work, he adopted a syncretic approach while emphasizing the meanings of the verse and followed an analytical-critical method while examining the subject. For this reason, he analyzed all the words in the verse one by one, dwelt on the meanings and interpretation of the words, and criticized their views after including the views of the commentators. Therefore, he applied the analytical exegesis method very successfully in this work. Accordingly, he analyzed the narrations related to tafsīr and mentioned the Companions' names during the narration. In particular, he analyzed the narrations from Ibn 'Abbas (d. 68/687-88) about the words al-ʻAdl and al-iḥsān, and stated that there was a dispute between the narrations about the phrase al-iḥsān. He took a scientific stance on the derivation of the word "Allah,” debated between those who accepted it and those who rejected it. He stated that the derivation of the word was not satisfactory and reliable. In the tafsīr of the words al-ʻAdl and al-iḥsān, he discussed the isnāds in Muqātil b. Sulayman’s (d.150/767) tafsīr emphasizing that he received the tafsīr of al-ʻAdl from Ibn 'Abbas and the tafsīr of al-iḥsān from 'Ali b. Abī Tālib. This approach is an important example for the isnād analyses of Muqātil b. Sulayman who was criticized for neglecting isnād chains in his tafsīr. He also criticized al-Baydāwī for being influenced by some of Zamakhsharī's sectarian and theological views. He classified the issue of kinship according to usūl, furū', and hawāshī, expanded the meaning of the verse, and insisted that the message of this verse encompasses all relatives, regardless of the degree of kinship. He was influenced by Latāʾif al-Ishārāt, al-Kashshāf, Mafātīhu al-ghayb, al-Baydawī, Hāshiya al-Jurjānī ala al-Kashshāf, and his grandfather al-Khatīb al-Shirbīnī’s (d.977/1570) al-Sirāj al-munīr. (shrink)