Salafism is one of the most important issues of the last few centuries. There are intense discussions on the issues related to Salafism, its emergence, how it was first used by whom and in what sense. Discussions about Salafism are sometimes experienced in relation to whether this concept corresponds to a mentality or to a sect, and sometimes this phenomenon is brought up in relation to a number of important names that have taken place in the history of Islamic thought. (...) Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) emerges as the most frequently mentioned name in this context. Therefore, in this article, we have examined how Salafism/Salafiyya concept is used in the works of Ibn Taymiyya who is accepted as the theorist and the most powerful representative of Salafism. We have discussed the issue in a comprehensive manner by including the concept of Salaf, which is one of the most used concepts of Ibn Taymiyya. When we consider Ibn Taymiyya's use of the concepts of Salaf and Salafiyya, the concept of Salaf is seen to be used much more than the concept of Salafiyya. Thus, the concept of Salaf in the thought of Ibn Taymiyya refers to the Islamic society that lived in the early centuries and the conception of religion revealed by this society. The concept of Salafiyya, however, appears to have been used in a way that reflects a mentality and a way of thinking rather than a particular school or sect.Summary: Sects are human made structures that emerged with the institutionalization of differentiations in the conception of religion. The production of systematic theology and fiqh, the formation of its own literature, its dissemination and dissociation from other systems of thought are the most important turning points for the emergence of sects. One of the most important variables that determine the formation process of sects is the mentality of sect. It is known that the sects come into the realm of existence when the mindsets with the implicit reference system become visible. Therefore, there is a mentality on which every sect is based, but not every mentality has come to the point of being a sect. While some mentalities have influenced different sects in different shades, some of them have been confronted with only one sect.In fact, Salafism is one of the ways of thinking which is a mindset and it is a subject of important debates about whether it is a sect. Although the use of salafiyya is seen in the literature in the past, the fact that Salafism felt its existence as a kind of religion or mentality was realized in the 18th and 19th centuries. It is also known that the discussions about the definition of Salafism have started since these periods. From the second half of the 20th century, Salafism began to take a place in the agenda of both the Islamic world and the West. This has naturally led to efforts to define Salafism. Thus, Salafism is subjected to attempts to identify and associate with structures, such as denomination, ideology, religious understanding and mentality. In this direction, it is seen that Salafism is tried to be defined by establishing close link with the structures, such as Ahl al-Sunnah, Ahl-i Hadith, Hanbalism and Wahhabism or by reducing them directly to one of these structures. Thus, Salafism is sometimes backed up to the early stages of Islamic thought and sometimes associated with multilayered structures, such as the Ahl al-Sunnah, which embodies many political-mythic and fiqh structures.In line with the efforts of defining Salafism, it is also seen that many names that have had a say in classical Islamic thought or have been mentioned in modern times have been brought to the agenda. In addition to the names, such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, the names of Emir al-Saneyani, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Muhammad al-Shawkani, Shaykh Abdulaziz ibn Baz and Muhammad Nasir al-din al-Albani are frequently mentioned in this process. It should be noted that there is a special place of Ibn Taymiyya among these names. Ibn Taymiyya took the place of both in history of Islamic thought and Ahl al-Hadith-Hanbalite tradition and made a name for himself in the context of many subjects. It is claimed that Ibn Taymiyya, who was the theorist of the Hanbalite conception of religion, and the missionary of the New Hanbalism, was also the founding figure and the most important representative of Salafism. In modern times, most of those who declare ideas about Salafism place Ibn Taymiyya at the center of Salafism and present him as the founding name of this mentality. However, the question of what kind of relationship between the mentality called Salafism and Ibn Taymiyya's world of thought and religion is not the subject of academic studies. However, the works of Ibn Taymiyya, who is an author of a very velocity, should be analyzed from this point of view and all kinds of words about Ibn Taymiyya-Salafism relationship should be left behind this effort. Our study, which aims to fulfill this gap, was designed to explain topics, such as whether the concept of salafiyya was used in the works of Ibn Taymiyya, whether and how the past was used, and the extent to which the meaning attributed to the salafiyya coincided with the current Salafism. Understanding of the concept of the salafiyya in the works of Ibn Taymiyya depends on the explanation of how the term salaf was derived and used by Ibn Taymiyya. When the works of Ibn Taymiyya are scanned, it is seen that he used the word salaf much more than the word salafiyya. In fact, the word of salafiyya, which Ibn Taymiyya has rarely included, has been placed in some places in a way that refers to the meaning field of the word salaf. When we consider the use of the word salaf in the works of Ibn Taymiyya, we first see the generations who lived in the early historical periods of Islamic thought and the conception of religion which these generations have revealed. Other names that have taken place in the history of Islamic thought have similar opinions about the generation of the predecessors and the religious understanding of this generation. In other words, according to the general opinion of the predecessor, especially the first three centuries came to mind. However, it is seen that Ibn Taymiyya made some attempts to periodize both the generation of the predecessors and to define the understanding of religion of this generation. Nevertheless, Ibn Taymiyya could not provide a clear picture on this issue, and he occasionally contradicted his findings regarding his involvement in the predecessor generation. Nevertheless, he generally adopted generalizations and an attitude to limit the meaning of the predecessor to the first generations. The word salafiyya, which Ibn Taymiyya placed on the meaning of the word salaf, is used less compared to the word salaf and is given in more complete terms. This indicates that the main factor that influenced Ibn Taymiyya's salafi thought was salaf, not salafiyya as a systematic structure. These findings make it necessary to reconsider the claims of Salafism being a sect and it is being represented at the time of Ibn Taymiyya. (shrink)

İslam hukuku tarihine baktığımızda fıkıh usûlünün bir süreç içerisinde geliştiğini söylemek mümkündür. Bu süreç içerisinde, mezhep imamları de-diğimiz müçtehitler başta olmak üzere birçok âlimin, fıkıh usûlü ilminin yapısını oluşturan katkılarından bahsedilebilir. Örneğin İmam Ebû Hanîfe’nin istihsana başvurması, İmam Mâlik’in amel-i ehli Medine ile amel etmesi ve İmam Şafiî’nin hem Ehl-i rey hem de Ehl-i hadisin fıkhını mezcederek elde ettiği formasyonla “er-Risâle” adlı eserinde bir usûl ortaya koyması fıkıh usûlü ilminin yapısını oluşturan katkıların başında gelmektedir. Bu katkıların yanında özellikle mezheplerin kurumsallaştığı (...) dönem ve sonrasında Gazalî, İbn Teymiyye, öğrencisi İbn Kayyım ve Şâtıbî gibi âlimlerin, fıkıh usulüne dinamizm kazandırmak adına söz konusu ilme yönelik birtakım yenileme çabaları ortaya koydukları bilinmektedir. Modern dönemde ise fıkıh usûlünü yenileme çabalarının klasik döneme göre daha net ve yaygın olduğu görülmektedir. Bu dönemde fıkıh usulüne yönelik yenileme çabalarını iki merhalede değerlendirmek mümkündür. Bu merhalelerin birincisi, fıkıh usûlünü yenilemeye çağrı merhalesi, ikincisi ise fıkıh usûlünü yenilemenin amelî merhalesidir. İkinci merhalede âlimlerin dinî, siyasî, sosyal ve felsefî eğilimlerine bağlı olarak kendi içinde de farklı tezler içeren “fıkhî ve usûlî yaklaşım” ve “fikrî ve felsefî yaklaşım” olmak üzere iki temel yaklaşımdan bahsedilebilir. Bu çalışmada kendi içinde de farklı eğilimlere sahip fikrî ve felsefî yaklaşımın fıkıh usûlünü yenilemeye dair görüşlerini, Fazlurrahman,, Hasan Turabî ve Muhammed Müctehid Şebusterî örnekliğinde sunmaya çalıştık. (shrink)

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

In this study, the rational criticism directed by Ibn Tayymiyya (d. 1338) to the philosophical evidence used to prove the unity of the necessary existent in the book Kitāb al-Is̲h̲ārāt wa al-tanbīhāt, which is accepted as a constitutive text in the history of Islamic philosophy, is examined. Author of the aforementioned book Avicenna (d. 1037) tries to prove the unity of the necessary existent from different ways in his books. Kitāb al-Is̲h̲ārāt wa al-tanbīhāt is a book that includes one of (...) these ways. The evidence that Avicenna uses in that book comprises of two preliminaries. The first preliminary is made up of specifying the relation between the thing that the different perceptible particular entities are common and are different. The second one is based on proving the existence not to be the cause of essence by centering the difference of existence and essence. Ibn Taymiyya, who criticizes philosophers in many ways, criticizes this evidence used by Avicenna in his work Mes’eletün fî tevḥîdi’l-felâsife. Rejecting the logic of Mashshaiyyun as science, Ibn Taymiyya also tried to refute the philosophical and logical rules that philosophers accept and use. In this context, Ibn Taymiyya argues that not only the preliminary presuppositions of the philosopher's argument to prove the unity of the necessary being, but also that the logical principles and rules previously accepted by the philosopher are false. One of the most important issues criticized by the thinker in relation to the subject is the reality of concepts, the existence of universals, how universals are moved to particulars, and the state of quiddity. According to him, concepts are mental and universals do not have a reality in the external world. Again, he thinks that universals like humanity are attributed to particulars as attributes, and therefore, in a way, he denies the universal being universal. Because, according to Ibn Taymiyya, a certain attribute of a being that is particular cannot be universal unlike itself. According to the thinker, the commonality in the concepts that logicians call universal consists only of a linguistic partnership. Undoubtedly, it can be said that Ibn Taymiyya's thought on the issue of concepts is close to nominalistic approach in a way. But he does not directly deny the reality of the concepts. For, according to him, the concepts that are universally formed in the minds are actually realized particularly. That is to say, the universal humanity has been realized particularly in individuals such as Ahmet and Mehmet. In other words, because the humanity in individuals is particular, Ahmet's humanity is different from Mehmet's humanity. For this reason, there can be no real partnership among the examples given. In this context, the unity distinction made by Ibn Taymiyya in understanding his thoughts is helpful. According to him, unity is of two types, real and qualitative. Real unity is the unity that exists in the essence of the individual. The qualitative unity is the unity that exists between the things under the concept of the universal. However, the qualitative unity is not considered as a unity since it does not occur in the external world. In fact, this is what distinguishes Ibn Taymiyya from nominalist thinkers. If we turn back to the evidence of Avicenna, based on the objections that Ibn Taymiyya made to the logic and philosophical principles of Mashshaiyyun in general, we can say that the thinker criticized the precedents of this argument by emphasizing the knowledge that universal concepts are intellectual entities. He emphasizes the examples that Avicenna uses to show the affiliation among the things are only made up of universal notions and alleges them not to have perceptible entity. Thus, he says that there is not a real affiliation among different particular entities that have perceptible existence. As to the second preliminary, Ibn Taymiyya says that this preliminary is also inaccurate for the reason that it is, like the first preliminary, based on the knowledge that the intellectual entities had come true in the physical world. According to him, the essence is made up of intellectual conceptualization. Therefore, it has not physical reality. After criticizing the preliminaries in this manner, Ibn Taymiyya says that the analogy that consists of these preliminaries is also erroneous. Because the analogy that is based on erroneous preliminaries does not give a correct result. (shrink)

This thesis explores the epistemology and theology of a Sufi theorist Ibn al-ʿ Arabī (d. 1240) and one of the most controversial Muslim scholars Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328) comparatively. Although scholars have long emphasized the differences between these two influential and significant figures, the purpose of this thesis is to focus on their potential similarities. The present work at the outset shows that both Ibn al-ʿ Arabī and Ibn Taymiyya regard revelation, the human intellect, and inspiration – unveiling (ilhām – (...) kashf) to be the main epistemological means for acquiring religious knowledge. However, they differ over the relative value of these means or tools. Both Ibn al-ʿ Arabī and Ibn Taymiyya place revelation at the top of the hierarchy, but after that Ibn al-ʿ Arabī places inspiration – unveiling ahead of reason while Ibn Taymiyya reverses the order. The other main subject elaborated in this thesis is the theological issue of the divine names and attributes. This subject is connected to many other theological problems, and both Ibn al-ʿ Arabī and Ibn Taymiyya pay considerable attention to it. Just as many similar approaches, ideas, and interpretations may be seen concerning their epistemological stances, it is possible to see similarities in their theological positions although there are crucial distinctions as well. The unique way of finding out this similarity is to keep in mind the existence of the duality found in the thought and expression of Ibn al-ʿ Arabī. Briefly, the main finding of the thesis is that Ibn al-ʿ Arabī and Ibn Taymiyya are more similar in their epistemologies and theologies than many scholars have thought. They are benefitting from the same epistemological means while putting them in different order. Also, they share similar theological points concerning the divine names and attributes, creation, the divine will, and the incomparability of God while expressing them through different conceptions and styles. (shrink)

This article aims to study Sufism (taṣawwuf) and inspiration (ilhâm), which is the main means of the mystical knowledge, in the thought of Ibn Taymiyya who is known generally as an exponent of a tradition grounded on the understanding of Salaf. He is considered by majority to be a rigid opponent of Sufism because of his unconventional interpretations of Sufi terminology. Also, since Ibn Taymiyya constantly offers the Qur’ān, ḥadīth, and the opinions of Salaf as the base of religious knowledge, (...) the idea that he does not lean toward inspirational and rational knowledge and he does not give a place for them in his epistemology came out and has grown in the course of time. As a result of our research, however, we realize Ibn Taymiyya admits the epistemological value of inspiration along with Sufism conditionally. While he divides Sufism into Early and Later periods, he examines inspiration in the context of knowledge (bâb al-ʿilm) which is considered to be a subcategory of supernatural events. Ibn Taymiyya, who believes that inspirational knowledge must be tested by means of the Qur’ān, Sunna, and the opinions of Salaf, without rejecting its reality, assesses the subject matter in detail through his own criteria. Therefore, this article, in which the subject is elaborated critically and descriptively, focuses on the approach of Ibn Taymiyya to Sufism and inspiration that is the basic element of Sufi knowledge. (shrink)

There is a prevailing opinion in the literature that the first name to mention the interpretation of the Qur'an with the Qur'an as a method is Ibn Taymiyya. He puts it at the forefront in the hierarchy of evidence in his Muqaddima. However, Abu Bakr Ibnu'l-Arabi, who lived two centuries before Ibn Taymiyya, also refers to the same method in the first place among the tafsir methods he suggested. Based on this finding, in the article, after briefly mentioning the aforementioned (...) tafsir method, a brief information about Ibn al-Arabi's Qânûn al-Ta'wîl is given and his approach to this method is examined. Within the scope of this subject, the common and different aspects of both authors' methods of interpreting the Qur'an with the Qur'an are presented. In addition, the findings regarding the problems arising from the authors' putting this method in the first place are shared. Finally, the possible reasons why both authors put this method in the first place are discussed. The aim of the study in this background is to reveal that there was another scholar mentioning the method in the first place before Ibn Taymiyya among the exegetical methods in the classical period and to perform an analysis within this framework. By the application of "data and content analysis", the content in Ibn al-Arabi's Qânûn al-Ta'wîl and Ibn Taymiyya's Muqaddimah in the context of the Qur'an's interpretation with the Qur'an has been analyzed. This content has been subjected to comparative analysis in terms of commonality and differences. (shrink)

The Arabic philosophical fable _Hayy Ibn Yaqzan _is a classic of medieval Islamic philosophy. Ibn Tufayl, the Andalusian philosopher, tells of a child raised by a doe on an equatorial island who grows up to discover the truth about the world and his own place in it, unaided—but also unimpeded—by society, language, or tradition. Hayy’s discoveries about God, nature, and man challenge the values of the culture in which the tale was written as well as those of every contemporary society. (...) Goodman’s commentary places _Hayy Ibn Yaqzan _in its historical and philosophical context. The volume features a new preface and index, and an updated bibliography. “One of the most remarkable books of the Middle Ages.”—_Times Literary Supplement_ “An enchanting and puzzling story.... The book transcends all historical and cultural environments to settle upon the questions of human life that perpetually intrigue men.”—_Middle East__ Journal_ “Goodman has done a service to the modern English reader by providing a readable translation of a philosophically significant allegory.”—_Philosophy East and West_ “Add[s] bright new pieces to an Islamic mosaic whose general shape is already known.”—_American Historical Review_. (shrink)

The Exalted Fath: Ha-Emunah ha-Ramah Transleted by Solomon Ibn Lavi, Ha-Emunah ha-Nissaʼah Transleted by Samuel Ibn Matut, The Anonymous Commentary to HaEmunah ha-Ramah.

Solomon Ibn Gabirol The Fountain of Life (Fons Vitae) TRANSLATED BY Harry E. Wedeck WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY Theodore ...

A translation of the Fons vitae of Solomon ibn Gabirol (born 1021/1022), who was the first Jewish philosopher in Spain. In the Fons vitae, Gabirol argues that there is a sensible and an intelligible world. These doctrines profoundly influenced medieval Christian thinkers. Because of the Fons vitae, Gabirol is today widely recognized as one of the greatest Jewish Neoplatonists.

Classical work on logic by a Muslim scholar ; includes comments and explanations by Sheikh Muḥammad ʻAbduh, edited and introduced by a modern scholar.

صدر عن المركز العربي للأبحاث ودراسة السياسات كتاب المنطق الإسلامي: حضور المنطق الأرسطي لدى مفكري المشرق الإسلامي، وهو من تأليف محمد بن يعيش. يقع الكتاب في 272 صفحة، شاملةً ببليوغرافيا وفهرسًا عامًّا. أمام ما يعرِّفه مؤلفُ الكتاب بـ "حقيقتين تاريخيتين"؛ هما أوّلًا: كثرة من اشتغلوا بعلم المنطق في الحضارة العربية الإسلامية من أفذاذ العلماء، وانتشارهم في أصقاع البلاد الإسلامية، وتنوّع أديانهم، وأصناف تخصصاتهم العلمية ونتاجاتهم، تأليفًا وحواشيَ مسهبةً وترجماتٍ ومختصراتٍ وشروحًا وأرجوزات، وثانيًا: إقراره بما لقيه هؤلاء العلماء من مضايقات وتجريح (...) واتهامات وملاحقات. يطرح الكتاب إشكاليةَ البحث، المتمثلةَ بالحيثيات التي رافقت استقبال المسلمين علمًا دخيلًا على العلوم الإسلامية كالمنطق وتعاملهم معه، ومراحل تردده بين الرفض والقبول في البيئة الجديدة، وأوجه الجِدّة لدى العلماء الذي ساهموا في تكريسه لغويًّا (الفارابي وابن سينا) ودينيًّا (الغزالي). وقد دفع "الحضور" الأرسطي لدى مناطقة الشرق الإسلامي الكاتبَ إلى تبيان مساهمة أرسطو - ضمن عناصرَ مساهِمة كثيرة - في تكريس خطاب إسلامي عقلاني جديد، وتشكيل المعالم الكبرى والجزئية لفلسفة هؤلاء المناطقة، التي تعبّر برأيه عن "تواصل" بين الفكرين اليوناني والإسلامي بدلًا مما يُحكى عن الانفصال والقطيعة والطلاق البائن، متجنِّبًا الانحياز إلى أحد طرفي الأزمة، المشنِّعين الذين يقذفون المنطق بشتى التهم، كإثارة الشبهات والباطل والرجم بالغيب من جهة، والقائلين بمادية فيلسوف اليونان وعقلانيته في مقابل لاعقلانية المسلمين وظلامية فكرهم، مع تشديده على تميز خطاب مفكري المشرق ضمن تاريخ الفلسفة المرافِق لهذا التواصل. وقد أتاح الجهد البحثي المبذول الانفتاحَ على أفق منطقي غير مدرسي اتبعته مجموعة من مفكري العالم الإسلامي، في محاولة لتكريس نظرة جديدة إلى التراثين اليوناني والإسلامي، متوسِّلًا لبلوغها كثرة الاستشهاد بنصوص المناطقة المشرقيين التي يُستدعى فيها أرسطو وسيلةً لإثبات حقيقة العلاقة بين الخطابين بطريقة علمية أمينة. (shrink)

Qurʼan; hermeneutics; criticism, textual; criticism, interpretation, etc.

Aristotle's De interpretatione; logic; Islamic philosophy; criticism and interpretation; early works to 1800.