Özet Şii-İmamiyye’nin usûlde Mu’tezilenin etkisinde kaldığı iddiaları, hicri dördüncü asırdan itibaren dile getirilmektedir. Buna karşılık usûlî düşüncenin ilk mümessili sayılan Şeyh Müfîd’den itibaren mezhep içinden yükselen sesler bu iddiaları şiddetle reddetmişlerdir. Biz bu çalışmada Mu’tezile kelamına sistematik hüviyet kazandıran ve yazdığı eserlerle Mu’tezile kelamının bugüne ulaşmasında büyük pay sahibi olan Kâdî Abdülcebbâr ile İmamiyye’nin kelam düşüncesinin istikrar bulmasında ve Şeyh Müfîd’le başlatılan usûlî yaklaşımın benimsenip yaygınlaşmasında büyük bir yeri olan Ebû Ca’fer et-Tûsî arasında adalet ilkesi üzerinden bir karşılaştırma yaparak, söz (...) konusu iddiaların ne kadar sübut bulduğunu tespit etmeye çalıştık. Kısmi farklı izahları bir kenara bırakırsak, adalet ilkesinin ispat ve yorumlanmasında iki kelamcı arasında kayda değer bir farklılığın olmadığı görülmektedir. Abstract The claim that the Shi’i Imamite thought is heavily influenced by the Mu’tazilite outlook has been alleged since the fouth century of hijra. However, beginning with Shaikh Mufid, the first representative of the Usuli branch of Shi’a, the Shi’is vehemently denied this allegation. In this article, this issue is dealt with by making a comparison between the idea of Qadi Abd al-Jabbar, the prominent Mu’tazilite scholar who made a major contribution to the consolidation of the schools’ theaching and that of al-Tusi, who also made a contrubitued to the integration of the Shi’ite kalam and the spreading of the usuli approach initiated by Shaikh Mufid. Leaving aside the differences in deatil, it seems that there is no noteworthy difference between their approcah to the issue of justice. Key Words: Qâdî Abd al-Jabbâr, Abû Ja’far al-Tûsî, Husn-Qubh, Divine Justice, Free Will. (shrink)

Imāmiyya holds that the theory of imāmate must rely on scriptural evidence and designation and that the Imām, the successor to Muḥammad, is in charge of all political and religious issues. The authority of the Imām includes some religious and social duties such as executing the legal punishments, collecting almsgiving, sustaining social order and declaring holy war. The fulfillment of these duties requires actual leadership of the Imām or his deputy. With the beginning of the great occultation in 329/941, there (...) was an uncertainty among the Imāmiyya followers about who would uphold these responsibilities. In this period, Shīʿī ʿulamā began to undertake the duties of the Imām in order to overcome this uncertainty and to avoid the possible schism. In the beginning, this delegation of authority was limited to the religious sphere; but, later, its scope gradually became wider. This process of delegation of power, which covers a long process, needs to be examined in its various periods. In this study, this subject will be considered with special reference to the scholars of the fifth century of hijra (hijrī). An effort is made in this article to reveal how the issues of the Imām’s powers are discussed in the context of the problem of expanding or narrowing the authority of the scholars who played significant roles in systemization of Uṣūlī (rationalist) thought in the period after Shaykh al-Mufīd.Summary: In the issues of Imām/Caliphate which led to political division among Muslims after the Prophet Muḥammad, Imāmī Shīʿa opines that the Imāmate theory relies on scriptural evidence and designation. According to this theory, apart from scriptural evidence and designation, personal qualities such as immaculacy, knowledge, bravery, and vantage are found in Ali, Ḥasan, Ḥusayn and nine people from the lineage of Ḥusayn. The Imām as a successor to the Prophet Muḥammad is a person who has both religious and political power which includes implementation of punishments, collecting alms, ensuring justice, declaring holy war. For the Imāmī Shīʿa, there is a need for imām or his deputy who has absolute power to fulfill these duties.Imāmī Shīʿa, who held that the disappeared twelfth Imām would return back to restore justice in the world, had to confront various problems in finding solutions to some issues related to the existence of Imām himself, as well as theological issues during the period of great occultation. Particularly, the period of great occultation (329/941), in which the link with the Imām was severed completely, the Shīʿī community were uncertain on how to fulfill the responsibilities of the Imām probably due to the lack of religious sources. Shaykh al-Mufīd draws attention to the issue of khums (a one-fifth share of the spoils of war and of other specified forms of income). In this period of uncertainty, the Shiite scholars came into prominence in order to fill the gap and to prevent the social disorder. Referring to a tawqī‘ (rescript) from the Twelfth Imām, they claimed that they would take responsibility for the Twelfth Imām on his behalf. In the beginning, the delegation of the power was limited to the religious sphere. It was gradually extended to other spheres by the contribution of some scholars. It reached the largest dimension with the implementation of “wilāyat al-faqīh” theory.From that period until our times, the era when Sharīf al-Murtaḍā and his disciples lived can be considered as the beginning of this period. In the fifth century when Sharīf al-Murtaḍā and his disciples lived the delegation of power was limited to the religious sphere. In this article, how the scholars who played a role in the systematization of Uṣūlī thought dealt with the issue of the limits of the authority of Imām and how they defined the role of the Imāmī jurists (faqīh) will be examined.Sharīf al-Murtaḍā and his disciples were sometimes cautious on the issue of the delegation of the power of Imām. They, however, pointed out the role of the faqīh in the occultation period in order to overcome the uncertainty. As a matter of fact, Shaykh al-Ṭūsī and al-Qādī Ibn al-Barrāj made significant contributions to the issues of collection and distribution of khums. However, Sallār al-Daylamī’s contribution to the subject is more crucial. He considered khums as the grace of God and believed that it can be allocated by taking into account the share of the Imām. They put forward the views that explained in details the role of the faqīh in the collection and distribution of alms. Even Ibn al-Barrāj opined that in the absence of Imām and his deputy alms are to be allocated to the Faqihs on the ground that they know better how to distribute it. Therefore, in the absence of Imām and his deputy, by suggesting that faqīh must be in charge of collecting and distributing alms, they proposed a remedy in an early period.On the issue of leading the Friday prayer (ṣalāt al-jum‘a), which is one of the social duties of Imām, Sharīf al-Murtaḍā and his disciples considered the presence of the Imām or his deputy as a condition for a valid Friday prayer. In addition to this condition, Al-Ḥalabī, also added that a person who meets the necessary conditions can be also considered in leading Friday prayer. This addition by Ḥalabī was an important contribution to the solution of the problems encountered during the period of great occultation on both Friday prayer and delegation of Imām religious and political authorities to faqīh. On the other hand, Sallār, another disciple of Sharīf al-Murtaḍā, opposed the idea of the faqīh leading the Friday prayer in the absence of the Imām even when the necessary conditions are met. It can be said that this approach of Sallār led to the opinion of some Imāmis which considered Friday prayer unlawful in the absence of Imām. In the occultation period, Sharīf al-Murtaḍā and his disciples showed a cautious attitude about the implementation of the punishments. They argued that only Imām could implement the punishments. However, the major step was taken by Shaykh Ṭūsī on the issue of who implements the punishments in the occultation period. He argued that the Imām’s designated the faqihs to implement the punishments. In addition to this subject, Shiite scholars discussed the issue of whether a Shiite officer under the reigning rule in the occultation period implemented the punishments. On this issue, Sharīf al-Murtaḍā compiled a treaty untitled Mas’ala fi’l-‘amal ma‘a’al-sulṭan. For him, the main criteria are whether such person has necessary responsibilities and qualifications. Sharīf al-Murtaḍā and his disciples also continued their master’s conciliatory attitude. In the final analysis, the contribution of Sharīf al-Murtaḍā and his disciples on the issue of who will undertake the duties and responsibilities of the Imām is crucial in the systematization of the idea of transferal of the power of the Imām to faqīh including political one. In fact, Sharīf al-Murtaḍā’s advice to take part in the existing administrations has been considered a way out for the scholars who want to establish relations with the authorities in the later periods. (shrink)

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

Bu çalışmada İslam düşünce tarihinde çokça ele alınan yönetime gelmede “nass ile tayin” anlayışına yönelik genelde Mu‘tezile’nin özelde ise bir Mu‘tezilî âlim Ebû Tâhir Rüknüddin et-Tureysisî’nin eleştirileri konu edinilmektedir. “Nass ile tayin” anlayışı Kur’ân âyetleri ve hadisler üzerinden temellendirilmeye çalışılan bir husustur. Şii çevrelerle özdeşleşen bu anlayış bazı Sünnî ekollerde de dillendirilmiştir. Genelde dördüncü halife Ali’nin imâmeti çerçevesinde konu tartışılsa da bazı çevrelerde birinci halife Ebû Bekir’in imâmeti için de nass ile tayin iddia edilmiştir. Mu‘tezile temelde Şîa’nın imâmet anlayışına birçok (...) eleştiri yöneltmiştir. Bu iddialar doğrudan Kur’ân metni üzerinden yapıldığı için âyetler bağlamında yeniden konunun değerlendirilmesi gerekmektedir. Bu noktada Mu‘tezilî bilgin Tureysisî’nin yaklaşımı önem arz etmektedir. O, mezheplerin görüşlerini temellendirmede esas aldıkları âyetleri dilin ve aklın sınırında anlama çabası içerisinde olduğu Müteşâbihü’l-Kur’ân adlı eserinde “nass ile tayin” fikrine yönelik eleştirilerini sürdürmektedir. Hem İmâmiyye’nin hem de Bekriyye’nin iddialarını âyetler bağlamında ele almakta ve bu fırkaları tenkid etmektedir. (shrink)

Although there are fundamental differences between Ahl al-Sunnah and Shī‘a on the issue of Mahdī, one of the controversial issues among Islamic sects, Shī‘a has attached much greater importance to the issue. In this study, after the information about Mahdiship in the primary sources of Islam is conveyed, the opinions of the Ahl al-Sunnah and Shī‘a will be given and an evaluation will be made about the evidence and opinions put forward by the two sects. The Shiites, who formed the (...) principles of belief based on the theory of imamate, explained the issue of Mahdism in the axis of imamate and gave it a religious dimension, but the Shi‘ī sects disagreed on the subject of Mahdī. Shi‘ī sources tried to show that the claim of Mahdiship is an important issue, which has preoccupied Muslims, by dating the claim of Mahdiship back to Ali ibn Abi Talib's son, Muhammad ibn Hanafiyah. In a very early period, it was claimed that Muhammad ibn Hanafiyya did not die but was still living on a mountain called Razva in Madinah, and he was the anticipated (muntaẓar) Mahdī. Most of the Zaydiyya did not consider the issue of Mahdiship an important fundamental basis of belief. Ismailiyya maintain that Muhammad ibn Ismail did not die and will come and amend the world one day. Imāmiyya believe that Hasan, whom they accept as the last imam, will reappear as the Mahdī in the latest days of the world, and in line with this belief, they have made great efforts to find proof from the Qur’ānic verses and hadiths and interpreted them. In this way, they attached more importance to the understanding of Mahdiship on the axis of imamate than the other Shi‘ī sects. According to Imāmiyya, since the world cannot be left without a prophet, an open, or a secret imam, Muhammad b. Hasan will remain hidden as long as he wants and appear as the Mahdī near the Doomsday. Based on the clear statement of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) that twelve caliphs would come after him, the Imāmiyya restricted the number of Imams from Ahl al-Bayt to twelve and claimed that the twelfth imam would come again as Mahdī. Although the Imāmiyya believe that the Mahdī will be from the Ahl al-Bayt, just like the other imams, they have not been able to provide valid evidence for the belief that the twelfth imam will be hidden and appear near Judgment Day. Although Imāmiya tried/have been trying to prove that it is possible for a person to live for centuries (more than a thousand years), which is called al-Ghaybat al-Kubrā by Imamiyya, it cannot be said that they have succeeded in doing so. (shrink)

This study discusses the classifications of sects in a treatise named Firqa-ye Nājīye, written in Persian by a Shiite scholar in 982/1574. In this treatise, which is in the Merkez-i İḥyâʾi Heritage Library and has no other copy as far as we know, it has been tried to prove that the Twelver Shiʿa is the saved sect (firqa-yi nājiya) through seventy-three sects classification. The author summarized the seven doubts raised by the devil, the first events that caused the Muslim community (...) (umma) to disagree, and the general information about the sects from al-Milal wa-l-niḥal, the classifications of the sects from Sharḥ al-Mawāqif, but reconstructed the data in these texts according to the Shiite understanding. On the other hand, the main reason for writing this treatise is to respond to Jalāl al-Dīn Davānī’s claims rather than the classification of sects. Nasīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī determined a method for the identification of the saved sect as "differentiating from all sects in matters of theology". He claimed that the Twelver Shīʿīsm differed from the other sects in all matters of theology and was therefore the saved sect. Davānī stated that Twelver Shīʿīsm differed from other sects only with the belief in imamate, which is not the subject of creed, and that it generally agrees with Mu'tazila in other creeds, thus claiming that Tusi's claim is baseless. He also said that, when considered through the same method, Ashʿarīsm is more worthy of being the saved sect, because this sect differs from all sects in matters related to the creeds. Contrary to Davānī's claim, the author of Firqa-ye Nājīye stated that imamate was one of the most important principles of religion and also claimed that the Twelver Shīʿīsm differed from other sects in matters of creed other than imamate. However, he failed to provide sufficient data to justify this claim. (shrink)