The great chain of being is an ontological conception in which all beings, from inanimate things to God, are ranked on a scale according to their perfectness. This hierarchical scheme, though widely known in the history of ideas, was systematically addressed by Arthur Lovejoy in 1936. The great chain of being as formulated by Lovejoy is composed of three main principles, whose roots can be found in Plato and Aristotle’s philosophies. These principles are “the principle of plenitude”, “the principle of (...) gradation” and “the principle of continuity.” The first principle, the principle of plenitude, was pointed out in Plato’s philosophy and the latter two, the principle of gradation and the principle of continuity, were addressed in Aristotle’s philosophy. According to Lovejoy, these three principles were systematically addressed in Plotinus’s philosophy and became an essential part of Neo-Platonic cosmology. Platon explains the abundance of beings with reference to the absolute goodness of the God in his famous book Timaios. Accordingly, God has absolute goodness and this attribution has given rise to an abundance of beings as goodness requires the existence of things. The other two principles, the principle of gradation and the principle of continuity, were forwarded by Aristotle and through his works affected Western thought. While the principle of gradation refers to the ranking of beings in a chain based on the criteria of their perfection, the principle of continuity is the natural consequence of that ranking in that all beings share at least a minimum level of similarity. Plotinus synthesized and systematized those three principles as an expression of ranked beings specific to emanation theory and added three hypostasis -One, Nous, and Soul- in addition to the natural world addressed in Aristotle’s works. Therefore, we see that beings were ranked from inanimate things to God in Plotinus’s works. This concept of hierarchical order of beings, the great chain of being, affected many cultures and philosophical ideas from Classical Islamic philosophy to the Western tradition. In this article, we confine our subject to only Western thought, including Medieval Christian theology and philosophy, the Renaissance period, and the Age of Enlightenment as well as a peculiar implication and interpretation of the great chain of being specific to modern times. In every period we will deal with just one thinker and their ideas to demonstrate the effect of the great chain of being on those thinkers’ philosophies and systems. In this context, we examined how Thomas Aquinas used the great chain of being to justify some theological and philosophical matters and tried to show how he utilized the principle of continuity effectively to explain the relationship between matter and soul. Marcilio Ficino, a Neo-Platonist philosopher of the Renaissance period, also used the great chain of being to explain the hierarchical order of beings and their ontological relationship to the perfect being, which is God, placing them in a rising line according to their closeness to God. On the other hand, when we come to the Age of Enlightenment we see that the great chain of being continues to be apparent in some philosophical works. One example is John Locke’s famous book An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Here Locke tries to make sense of the existence of many species of spirits with reference to the great chain of being, especially by using the principle of continuity. This attempt of justification shows us that the great chain of being, as an old philosophical and ontological concept, was still used even in the Enlightenment. Finally, it would be beneficial to address how the chain of being in question was presented and understood in modern times. Unlike the justification of some philosophical or theological subjects, in modern times the hierarchical structure of the great chain of being has been anachronistically read into the theory of evolution with reference to some medieval Muslim philosophers’ works. This approach, however, springs from the figural similarities between the great chain of being and the theory of evolution, although the contents of both theories are completely different. It would be accepted easily that similarities in figure do not necessitate similarities in content. In short, the great chain of being has been very effectively used in the history of philosophy to justify different subjects in different areas such as philosophy and theology. In this article, we address the usages of the chain in question and trace its effects specific to the Western tradition from the ancient period to modern times. (shrink)

Büyük varlık zinciri felsefe tarihinde özellikle ontolojik bir tasvir olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Bu kavram her ne kadar düşünce tarihinde bir “mefhum” olarak yer alsa da 1936’da Arthur Lovejoy tarafından kökenlerine inilmek suretiyle sistematize edilmiş ve düşünce tarihindeki izi Lovejoy’un çalışmasından itibaren daha detaylı olarak sürülebilmiştir. Her düşünürde farklı nüanslarla ele alındığını müşahede ettiğimiz büyük varlık zinciri ana hatlarıyla; cansızlıktan bitkilere oradan sırasıyla hayvanlar ve insanlar alemine daha sonra ise melekler, gayr-ı maddi varlıklar alemi ve nihayetinde ana gaye olan Tanrı’ya değin (...) varlıkları en düşük mertebeden en yüksek mertebeye değin hiyerarşik bir düzene tabi tutan ontolojik bir sistem olarak tanımlanabilir. Çokluk, mertebeleşme ve devamlılık ilkelerinden müteşekkil hiyerarşik bir şema olarak karşımıza çıkan büyük varlık zinciri felsefi, teolojik ve hatta edebi bağlamlarda pek çok filozof ve düşünür tarafından epistemik düzeyde çeşitli problemlere cevap üretebilmek adına etkili bir şekilde kullanılmıştır. Bu bağlamda hakkında Türkçe literatürde çok fazla çalışma olmadığını müşahede ettiğimiz büyük varlık zincirinin, Lovejoy’un ortaya koyduğu prensiplerden hareketle ilk olarak kökenlerini tespit edecek akabinde ise ilgili hiyerarşinin; Antik Dönem, Orta Çağ, Rönesans Dönemi, Aydınlanma Dönemi ve modern zamanda Batı düşüncesindeki etkilerinin izini sürmeye çalışacağız. Bu açıdan bahsi geçen dönemlerde ilgili hiyerarşinin tüm etkilerini ele almak bir makalenin sınırlarını aşacağı için her. (shrink)

This paper is critically engaged in the elaboration of the securitization and stigmatization of migration and Islam in the West, which is believed to be leading to the rise of Islamophobic sentiments and to the backlash of both multiculturalism and republicanism. Migration has been framed as a source of fear and instability for the nation-states in the West in a way that constructs ‘communities of fear’. It will be claimed that both securitization and Islamophobia have recently been employed by the (...) neo-liberal states as a form of governmentality in order to control the masses in ethno-culturally and religiously diverse societies at the expense of deepening the already existing cleavages between majority and minorities with Muslim background. (shrink)

The issue of gender is one of the important indicators for understanding religious interpretations at the individual and social levels. One of the responsible institutions in shaping the gender approach in Turkey are the Faculty of Theologies. The majority of the students who are studying in theology faculties and who will take part in the religious services of the society after completing their education are women. It is clear that the religion and gender understanding of female students of theology faculties (...) will have various levels of influence on the religious and social life of women and men in society, now and in the future. This article, which is studied with a qualitative research method, focuses on the religious and gender understanding of female students of theology faculty. The most basic conclusion reached in this article; the female students of the faculty of theology do not have a homogeneous understanding of religion and gender, they have traditional and modern approaches together. The students are mentally inconsistent and indecisive about many issues related to gender.Summary: Gender perceptions are One of the areas that have changed rapidly with the modernization processes. The issues concerning gender and religion recently have become a matter which is the subject of intense debate in Turkey. Theology faculties also take part as a party to the debates and tensions about gender and religion. This study focuses on the gender and religious understanding of the female students of the Faculty of Theology and to examine the intellectual and material factors that nurture them. The scope of the study was limited to Dicle University Theology Faculty female students. The data of the study was obtained by the qualitative research method. In this article, which takes the religion and gender understanding of female students of Theology Faculty as the main problem; the ontological value of women, the authority of men over women, the paid work and management of women in the public, the change of the Shari'ah provisions on gender with social change, the beating of women and the themes formed in this context are examined.The religious and social status of women in Muslim societies was not shaped by the Qur'an or practices of the Prophet, but by the discourse created by hadith narrations and the influence of economic and political conditions. The development of this discourse was also influenced by the image of the ‘seductive’ Eve and the patriarchal culture of Mesopotamia, which were inherited from the Jewish and Christian tradition.Women's social position within the traditional society structure was legitimized by religious traditions, some of which date back to pre-Islamic times, and by the contribution of the rising jurisprudence and ascetic movements in the historical process and has resisted change for centuries.Nearly all of the female students of the Faculty of theology consider that there is no difference between men and women ontologically in the context of the value that Allah gives to both sexes.According to them, the physical and emotional naivety of women cannot be interpreted as the ontological worthlessness of women or as their lack of intellect and religion.About half of female students think the final decision in the family should not always be in the male.According to them The Prophet's practices on this subject are a very important example. In some cases, he consulted his wives and followed their suggestions. Therefore, narrations that trivialize the thoughts and demands of women in the family have cultural and not religious influences.All female students think that women can work outside the home on a paid basis. Moreover, according to the vast majority of female students, women can be managers in the public sector. The students who are in this view think that the narrations stating that the woman cannot be a manager in the public can be ignored for reasonable reasons. About one-third of female students think that the Shari'a provisions in Islamic law regarding women and family may be able to changed with new jurisprudence, while one-third think that some of them may be able to changed with the change of social conditions. Another view shared by nearly a third of students is that Sharia provisions on gender will not be changed over time. Nearly two-thirds of the female students in the research sample do not approve of beating women under any circumstances. A third of female students think that a woman can be beaten if she disobeys her husband. Some of them are confused about how to interpret the verse about the beating of women.It is unthinkable that the Faculties of Theology, which cannot be an actor of religious social change, stay away from the wind of change of a rapidly modernizing society. The rapid flow of time of change on the one hand, and the absence of a tradition or strategy of the Faculties of Theology on the other, resulted in the Faculties of Theology becoming the object of social change in many contexts. This situation made the Faculty of Theology's understanding of religion hybrid, fragmented and unstable between traditional and modern approaches and quite open to the effect of political conjuncture. In this context, although the understanding of gender in theological faculties is not at the same level in all, it can be said that traditional understandings are in the form of a softened form in favor of modernity.The students of the Faculty of Theology at Dicle University are mostly grown up in the Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia regions and are generally members of the lower-middle societies. In most of the female students who come from a social structure where the social status of women is quite low and girls are regarded as worthless compared to boys, an awareness be formed about the social position of women during the education of the Faculty of Theology. Through the study of the Faculty of theology, female students realize that religion is not responsible for the otherized position of women, but for religionized traditions. Two main factors determining the gender understanding of women students of the Faculty of theology can be mentioned. These can be roughly categorized as the main sources of religion and their interpretation by denominations, as well as the socio-cultural habitats of the students and their individual experiences. On the subject of gender, there is a tension between verse, Hadith and their interpretations made by sects and the values and norms of modernity internalized by female students. At Dicle University Faculty of Theology, it is not possible to talk about a learning system and intellectual accumulation that would allow to overcome this tension. This causes mental and emotional bifurcation in female students and leads them to become caught up in a vortex between religious and social reality on many issues. An important consequence of this is the lack of updated religious norms to guide them in many issues that have emerged as an alternative to religious beliefs and practices in the context of gender and have become established values and have common practices in modern life, and have led them to modern secular tendencies and this leads to an internal secularization. The lack of updated religious norms to guide female students in many subjects that are widely practiced in Modern life leads them to modern secular tendencies, which lead to an insider secularization. The fact that female students are mostly traditional in discourse but modern in action on gender and religion makes this situation testable. (shrink)

Hadiths that have been discussed in this paper consist of narrations regarding divine attributes and having some problematic meanings between supporters of Bişr al-Marīsī and ʿUthmān al-Dārimī. These narrations were mostly accepted denounced (munkar) by Bişr al-Marīsī and his sopporters due to having an anthropormophist and corporealist content about God. They rejected divine attributes according to their understanding of God based on incomparability (tanzīh) which provided by Mutazilite approach towards divine attributes even though they conveyed some features of Ahl al-Ra’y. (...) They found contradicted of attributing human features to God based on their tanzīh understanding, therefore, they interpreted such this kind of narra-tions in terms of their approach or rejected at all. At the other hand, a hard Hadith scholar Uth-man al-Darimi believed that one should accept divine attributes as they are in the Qur’an and Sunna. According to his belief, he considered the explicit meanings of the narrations without interpretation of divine attributes, and based on his perpective he denied Bişr al-Marīsī and his supporters’ interpretations claiming they would cause divesting God of all attributes (ta‘tīl). He argues that these narrations should be taken into considerations based on their explicit mea-nings. The discussions on these hadiths are important due to showing different approaches of scholars from the schools of Ahl al-Ra’y and the ones from Ahl al-Hadith towards the hadith du-ring the period when the main Hadith works were collected. Discussions on the narrations stu-died in this paper reveal two schools’ understandings of divine issues, their approaches to divi-ne attributes, as well inform us their perspectives of hadith in general.Summary: The present paper examines the debates between ʿUthmān al-Dārimī (d. 280/894) and the supporters of Bishr al-Marīsī (d. 218/833) on the divine attributes mentioned in some hadiths in the period when the main hadith books were composed (i.e., III/IXth century). These debates that took place between the scholars of Ahl al-Hadith and Ahl al-Ra’y concern the un-derstanding and interpretation of the hadiths in a certain way.It could be stated that the debates focus on how the hadiths should be understood, or whether it is the explicit meaning of the words or the possible methaphorical meanings beyond them that should be considered.It is worth briefly introducing the parties who discussed the hadiths studied here. The aforementioned discussions about some hadith narrations are between the supporters of Bishr al-Marīsī and ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, one of the important figures of the Ahl al-Hadith who wrote a separate work on these hadiths. This work was written as a rejection of the views of Bishr al-Marīsī and his two students on the attributes of God and some issues regarding hadith.Bishr al-Marīsī was regarded as an important scholar of Kalam who received fiqh education from Abū Yūsuf (d. 182/798). He is a scholar of Ahl al-Ra’y who made scientific dis-cussions with many scholars including Imam al-Shafiʿī (d. 204/820). He was on the council of the Caliph Al-Mamūn (d. 218/833) and had a significant role in the adoption of the idea of the createdness of the Qurʾān (khalq al-Qurʾān).Uthmān al-Dārimī,on the other hand, was a scholar of Ahl al-Hadith who learned ha-dith from the authorities of his era such as Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn (d. 233/847), ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī (d. 234/848), Isḥāq b. Rāhawayh (d. 237/851), and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241/855). Having visited all the important cities for the training of hadith, he learned the hadiths and conveyed them.With the understanding of proving the divine attributes and the opposition of the misin-terpretation of the narratives related to them, the groups advocating the appropriation of these lines in accordance with the understanding of incomparability (tanzīh) have complied the works since the first period. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, the rejection of the divine attributes by Mu'tazila was influential in the emergence of the criticism literature of the Ahl al-Hadith and many authors wrote works in this direction.Regarding a narration by Abū Hurayra, an opponent reports that this narration gives the impression that God has the eyes and ears as we know. ʿUthmān al-Dārimī reports that this hadith proves sight and hearing not the eyes and ear organs. He indicates that God has no like by no means. Therefore, it is slanderous to refer the claim that Allah is made of organs to the Ahl al-Hadith. Abū Dāwūd states that with this hadith the attributes of sight and hearing for God are proved and Jahmiyya’s denial of the divine attributes are rejected.The opponent also considered Abū Hurayra's narration referring to the Prophet: "Faith is from Yemen, wisdom is from Yemen! I feel the breath of your Lord from Yemen!" as denounced (munkar). Because, according to Bishr al-Marīsī and his companions, breath can only come from those with an abdominal cavity, and Allah is free from it. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, the opponent misunderstood. What is meant here is the wind that blows from Yemen and comforts people. In the context of this narration, we see that supporters of Bishr al-Marīsī evaluate the narrative literally, while ʿUthmān al-Dārimī interpret the narrative.Regarding the narration, "You can not approach Allah with something more virtuous than what comes out of it (the Qur'ān)" Ibn al-Saljī reports that Mushabbiha understands this as one with an abdominal cavity and from whom speech comes out. This understanding is in-valid since God is "samad" in the sense that He has no void. With this hadith, it is meant that the Qur'ān comes out of Allah’s presence rather than Allah. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, the real aim of Ibn al-Saljī is to deny God's attribute of speech. There is no doubt that the Qur'ān comes from Him, and those who do not accept it merely deny His attribute of speech.Attributed to Ibn Abbas; The meaning of "yamīn Allah" (the right hand of Allah) in narration "Black Stone (al-ḥajar al-aswad) is the right hand of Allah on earth, handshakes with the people" is not the right hand that we know according to Ibn al-Saljī, it is blessing and grace of Allah. According to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, who acknowledges that Black Stone is not meant to be a hand, the purpose of Ibn al-Saljī is to deny the two hands mentioned in the verses and ha-diths about Allah with invalid interpretations.ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, who criticized that Ibn al-Saljī quoted from another narration which Ibn Abbās heard from the Prophet, says that such poor narrations should not be spread. In addition, he points out that Ibn al-Saljī's interpretation is ugly and he criticizes it. Because Allah who is mentioned in the narrative is depicted as a young man with curly hair in a green suit. Such a narration is also an untrustworthy narration as it contradicts the authentic narrations of the Prophet. ʿUthmān al-Dārimī, who made this assessment of the narration, rejects the com-ments that the opponent made about the narration. According to the opponent, the phrase "I have come to Allah" means "to come into the presence of Allah in the Garden of Eden." Accor-ding to ʿUthmān al-Dārimī’s understanding, such complicated hadiths should not be only narra-ted.About the narration that are based on the Prophet and he does not know the answer to what he has come to know of himself, then he feels the coolness of his fingers as he puts his hand on his back and learns everything, the opponent evaluates the following: He was not Allah who came to the Prophet, but a well-behaved angel who was being directed by Allah and he was the angel who put his hand. ʿUthmān al-Dārimī rejects this interpretation of that oppo-nent. This comment is also contrary to other authentic hadiths. After he refused to the com-ment of the opponent about relevant narration, ʿUthmān al-Dārimī stated that he could not trust this comment on the basis of the authentic narrations he mentioned.Salaf scholars have preferred to be silent in this regard, as it is seen among the most difficult subjects to talk about divine attributes. However, subsequent generations have held dif-ferent paths in this regard. The basic approaches to understanding the divine attributes can be summarized in three main titles: tafwīd, tashbīh, and ta’wīl. Tafwīd is the path adopted by the early salaf scholars and means to leaving the knowledge about Allah’s entity and attributes to His knowledge. Tashbīh means to compare Allah to the created or the created to Allah. Ta'wīl is to interpret the Qur'ānic verses and hadiths that give the impression that Allah is like the crea-tures with semantics and rational deduction. The ones who deny the adjectives are called as Muʿattila and those who prove their attributes are called as Sifatiyya. According to Ahl al-Ra’y, it is necessary to appropriately make interpretation (ta'wīl) of the attributes giving the impression of anthropomorphism in terms of the dictionary. In the divine attributes, Muʿtazila advoca-ted the incomparability (tanzīh), whereas Ashʿariyya and Māturīdiyya adopted interpretation in accordance with incomparability. Mushabbiha and the Wahhābī-Salafī understanding has also taken the expressions regarding divine attributes with their explicit meanings.The debate between the scholars who lived in the ages II/VIII and III/IX, when the most important works are composed in the science of hadith, is important in that it is the first turn. In addition to this, the debate also contains important information on the approach to the Qur'ānic verses and hadiths, in that it shows two basic approaches, one of which represents the school of Ahl al-Ra’y, and the other represents the school of Ahl al-Hadith.ʿUthmān al-Dārimī generally advocates adhering to the explicit meaning of the narra-tion, while Bishr al-Marīsī and his companions criticize the narration labeling it as denied (mun-kar) or making an interpretation. On rare occasions, the places where ʿUthmān al-Dārimī re-jects the narration and makes interpretation, or where Bishr al-Marīsī and his companions de-fend the narrative can be seen.Interpretations made by Bishr al-Marīsī on the problematic narratives have influenced on the next scholars. Alongside Muʿtazilite scholars such as al-Jubbāʾī (d. 303/916), Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār (d. 415/1024) and Abū l-Ḥusayn al-Baṣrī (d. 436/1044), his interpretations have been quoted by Sunni scholars such as al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111), Ibn ʿAqīl (d. 513/1119) and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210).The fact that the truth can be put forward in the science of hadith, which is based on the narration, does not favor one of the "narration" and "ra’y", it should be kept in mind that both of these depend on the proper and balanced use of both. To reveal the truth, the narration is in need of the opinion and the opinion (ra’y) is in need of the narration. Narration and opinion sho-uld be seen as complementary elements, not each other's opponents. (shrink)

Bişr el-Merîsî taraftarları ile Osman ed-Dârimî arasında burada tartışma konusu yapılan hadisler haberî sıfatları konu alan ve müşkil nitelikte olan rivayetlerden oluşmaktadır. Bu rivayetleri genelde Bişr el-Merîsî ve taraftarlarının tecsîm ve teşbîh içerdiği iddiasıyla münker kabul ettikleri görülmektedir. Ehl-i re’y özellikleri taşımakla birlikte ilahî sıfatlar konusunda Mu’tezilî bir anlayışa sahip olduklarından tenzih anlayışları gereği sıfatları reddetmektedirler. Yaratılmışlara ait niteliklerin yaratıcıya nisbet edilmesini tenzîh anlayışlarına aykırı gördüklerinden bu tür müşkil rivayetleri ya kendi anlayışları doğrultusunda te’vîl ya da reddettikleri gözlenmektedir. Sert bir (...) ehl-i hadîs âlimi olan Osman ed-Dârimî ise, ayet ve hadislerde bildirilen ilahî sıfatlara iman edilmesi gerektiğini kabul etmektedir. Bu anlayışı sebebiyle bu rivayetlerde bildirilen haberî sıfatlara da te’vîl etmeksizin lafzî anlamıyla yaklaşmakta; kendi görüşü doğrultusunda Bişr el-Merîsî ve taraftarlarının yaptığı te’vîlleri reddetmekte, bu te’vîllerin ta’tîle yol açacağını ileri sürmektedir. Bu rivayetlerin lafzî (literal) anlamları doğrultusunda anlaşılması gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Bu hadisler üzerinde yapılan tartışmalar, temel hadis eserlerinin yazıldığı dönemde Ehl-i re’y ve Ehl-i hadîs ekollerine mensup âlimlerin hadislere yaklaşımlarını göstermesi bakımından önem arzetmektedir. Burada vermiş olduğumuz hadisler üzerindeki tartışmalar bu iki ekolün uluhiyet anlayışını, haberî sıfatlara yaklaşımlarını ortaya koyduğu gibi bunların genel anlamda hadis perspektifi hakkında bizlere bilgi vermektedir.ÖzetBu araştırma, temel hadis kitaplarının yazıldığı dönemde, yani III./IX asırda, haberî sıfatlar ihtiva eden bazı hadisler üzerinde yapılan tartışmaları ele almaktadır. Tartışma Osman ed-Dârimî (ö. 280/894) ile Bişr el-Merîsî’nin (ö. 218/833) taraftarları arasında geçmektedir. Hadisler üzerinde Ehl-i hadîs ile Ehl-i re’y mensubu âlimler arasında gerçekleşen bu tartışmalar bir yönüyle hadislerin anlaşılması ve yorumlanmasını ilgilendirmektedir. Tartışmanın, burada ele alınan hadislerin nasıl anlaşılması gerektiği; lafızların kelime anlamı mı (literal) yoksa bu lafızların ötesindeki muhtemel mecazî anlamları dikkate alınarak mı anlaşılması gerektiği noktasında odaklandığı söylenebilir. İnceleme konusu yapılan hadisleri tartışan tarafları kısaca tanıtmak yerinde olacaktır. Sözünü ettiğimiz rivayetlerle ilgili tartışmalar Bişr el-Merîsî taraftarları ile Osman ed-Dârimî arasında geçmektedir. Ehl-i hadîs’in önemli simalarından biri olan Osman ed-Dârimî, hadislerle ilgili bu tartışmaları içeren ayrı bir eser yazmıştır. Bu eser, Allah’ın sıfatları ve bazı hadis meseleleri konusunda Bişr el-Merîsî ve onun iki talebesinin görüşlerine reddiye olarak yazılmıştır. Bişr el-Merîsî, Ebû Yusuf’tan (ö. 182/798) fıkıh tahsil etmiş, önemli bir kelâmcı olarak tanınmıştır. O, kelâmla ilgili konularda aralarında İmâm Şâfiî’nin (ö. 204/820) de bulunduğu pek çok âlimle ilmî tartışmalar yapmış bir ehl-i re’y âlimdir. Halife Me’mûn’un (ö. 218/833) danışma meclisinde bulunmuş, Kur’ân’ın yaratılmışlığı (Halku’l-Kur’ân) görüşünün benimsenmesinde önemli payı olmuştur. Osman ed-Dârimî ise, Yahyâ b. Ma’în (ö. 233/848), Ali b. Medînî (ö. 234/848-49), İshâk b. Râhûye (ö. 238/853) ve Ahmed b. Hanbel (ö. 241/855) gibi döneminin otoritelerinden hadis öğrenmiş bir ehl-i hadîs âlimidir. Hadis tahsili için önemli bütün şehirleri dolaşarak hadis öğrenmiş ve rivayette bulunmuştur.Haberi sıfatları ispat ve bunlarla ilgili rivayetlerin teviline karşı çıkan anlayış ile, bu rivayetlerin tenzih anlayışına uygun biçimde tevilini savunan kesimler ilk dönemden itibaren eserler telif etmişlerdir. Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre, ehl-i hadîs’in eleştiri edebiyatının ortaya çıkmasında, Mu’tezile’nin ilahî sıfatları reddetmesi etkili olmuş ve pek çok müellif bu yönde eserler yazmışlardır. Ebû Hüreyre’den nakledilen bir rivayetle ilgili olarak muârız, bu rivayetin Allah için bildiğimiz göz ve kulak organlarından oluştuğu izlenimi verildiğini söyler. Osman ed-Dârimî, bu hadisin göz ve kulak organlarını değil görme ve işitmeyi ispat ettiğini söyler. Hiçbir konuda Allah’ın benzerinin bulunmadığını belirtir. Dolayısıyla Allah’ın organlardan oluştuğu iddiasını ehl-i hadîs’e nisbet etmek iftiradır. Ebû Dâvûd, bu hadis ile Allah için görme ve işitme sıfatlarının ispat edildiğini ve Cehmiyye’nin ilahî sıfatları inkar görüşüne reddiye olduğunu belirtir. Ebû Hüreyre’in Hz. Peygamber’e nispet ederek naklettiği: "İman Yemenlidir, hikmet Yemenlidir! Ben Rabbi’nizin nefesini Yemen tarafından hissediyorum!" rivayetini de muârız münker kabul etmiştir. Çünkü Bişr el-Merîsî ve ashâbına göre nefes ancak karın boşluğu olanlardan çıkar, Allah ise bundan münezzehtir. Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre, muârız yanlış anlamıştır. Burada kastedilen, Yemen tarafından esen ve insanı rahatlatan rüzgardır. Bu rivayet bağlamında bakıldığında, Bişr el-Merîsî taraftarlarının rivayeti literal değerlendirdiğini, Osman ed-Dârimî’nin ise rivayeti yorumladığını görmekteyiz. İbnü’s-Selcî, "Siz, Allah’a ondan çıkandan (Kur’ân’dan) daha faziletli bir şeyle yaklaşamazsınız!" rivayeti hakkında, Müşebbihe’nin bunu, karın boşluğu olan, kendisinden kelâm çıkan şeklinde anladıklarını belirtir. Allah boşluğu olmayan anlamında "samed" olduğundan bu anlayış geçersizdir. Bu hadisle, Kur’ân’ın Allah’tan değil O’nun katından çıkması kastedilmiştir. Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre, İbnü’s-Selcî’nin asıl maksadı Allah’ın kelâm sıfatını inkâr etmektir. Kur’ân’ın O’ndan çıktığında bir şüphe yoktur, bunu sadece kelâm sıfatını kabul etmeyenler inkâr etmektedir. İbn Abbâs’a atfedilen; "Rükn (Hacerülesved) yeryüzünde Allah’ın sağ elidir, halk ile onunla musafaha eder" rivayetinde geçen "yemînullah" (Allah’ın sağ eli) sözünün anlamı, İbnü’s-Selcî’ye göre bildiğimiz sağ el değil, Allah’ın nimeti ve ikrâmıdır. Hacerülesved ile elin kastedilmediğini kabul eden Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre, İbnü’s-Selcî’nin maksadı, geçersiz te’villerle Allah hakkında ayet ve hadislerde belirtilen iki eli inkar etmektir. İbn Abbâs’ın Hz. Peygamber’den naklettiği başka bir rivayeti İbnü’s-Selcî’nin eserine alıp nakletmesini eleştiren Osman ed-Dârimî, bu tür zayıf rivayetlerin yayılmaması gerektiğini söyler. Buna ilave olarak İbnü’s-Selcî’nin yaptığı yorumun da çirkin olduğunu belirtir ve eleştirir. Çünkü sözü edilen rivayette Allah, yeşil bir takım elbise giymiş kıvırcık saçlı bir genç olarak tasvir edilmektedir. Böyle bir rivayet Hz. Peygamber’den gelen sahih rivayetlerle çeliştiği için de güvenilmez bir rivayettir. Rivayetle ilgili bu değerlendirmeyi yapan Osman ed-Dârimî, rivayet hakkında muârızın yaptığı yorumları da reddeder. Muârıza göre, "Rabbimin yanına girdim" sözü, "Adn cennetinde Rabbimin huzuruna girdim" demektir. Osman ed-Dârimî’ye göre bu gibi müşkil (problemli) hadisler re’y ile tefsir edilmemeli, rivayet edilip bırakılmalıdır. Hz. Peygamber’e dayandırılan ve Allah’ın kendisine geldiğinden bahisle cevabını bilemediği bazı sorulan sorduğundan, sonra Rabbinin elini sırtına koymasıyla parmaklarının serinliğini hissettiğinden ve her şeyi öğrendiğinden bahseden rivayetle ilgili olarak muarız şu değerlendirmede bulunur: Allah Resûlü’ne gelen Rabbi değil güzel suretli bir melekti, o melek Allah tarafından yönledrilmekteydi ve elini koyan da o melekti. Osman ed-Dârimî, muârızın bu yorumunu reddeder. Bu yorum aynı zamanda diğer sahih hadislere de aykırıdır. Osman ed-Dârimî, sözkonusu rivayet hakkında muârızın yorumunu reddettikten sonra zikrettiği sahih rivayetlere dayanarak buna güvenilemiyeceğini ifade etmiştir. İlahî sıfatlar hakkında konuşmak en zor konular arasında görüldüğünden, selef âlimleri bu konuda susmayı tercih etmişlerdir. Ancak sonraki nesiller bu konuda farklı yollar tutmuşlardır. İlahi sıfatları anlama konusundaki temel yaklaşımları tefvîz, teşbîh ve te’vîl şeklinde üç ana başlıkta toplamak mümkündür. Tefvîz, selef alimlerinin benimsediği yol olup, Allah’ın zâtı ve sıfatlarının mahiyetine ilişkin bilgiyi ilâhî ilme havale etmek demektir. Teşbîh, Allah’ı yaratılmışlara veya yaratılmışları Allah’a benzetmek anlamına gelir. Te’vil, Allah’ın yaratılmışlara benzediği izlenimini veren ayet ve hadisleri dil bilimi ve aklî bilgilerle yorumlamaktır. Sıfatları inkar edenlere Muattıla denilmiş, sıfatları ispat edenler Sıfâtiyye diye anılmıştır. Ehl-i re’y’e göre Allah’a atfedilen ve sözlük anlamı bakımından teşbîh ve tecsîm izlenimi veren sıfatları uygun biçimde te’vil etmek gerekir. İlâhî sıfatlarda Mu’tezile tenzihi öne çıkarmış, Eş’ariyye ve Mâtürîdiyye ise tenzihe uygun te’vili benimsemiştir. Müşebbihe, Vehhâbî-Selefî anlayış da ilahî sıfatlardaki lafızları zahiri anlamlarıyla almışlardır. Hadis ilminde en önemli temel eserlerin telif edildiği II./VIII. ve III./IX. asırda yaşamış olan âlimler arasında cereyan eden inceleme konusu yaptığımız tartışma, ilk döneme ait olması bakımından önemlidir. Bunun yanında tartışma, âyet ve hadislerden oluşan naslara yaklaşımda, iki temel yaklaşımı göstermesi bakımından da önemli bilgiler ihtiva etmektedir. Bu iki temel yaklaşımdan biri ehl-i re’y ekolünü, diğeri ise Ehl-i hadîs anlayışını temsil etmektedir. Osman ed-Dârimî genel olarak rivayetin lafzına bağlı kalmayı savunmakta, Bişr el-Merîsî ve ashâbı ise münker olduğu gerekçesiyle rivayeti eleştirmekte ya da te’vil etmektedir. Nadir de olsa Osman ed-Dârimî’nin rivayeti ret ya da te’vil ettiği, Bişr el-Merîsî ve ashâbının ise rivayeti savunduğu yerler de görülebilmektedir. Müteşâbih (problemli) rivayetler hakkında Bişr el-Merîsî’nin yaptığı te’viller sonraki âlimler üzerinde etkili olmuştur. Onun te’villeri, Cübbâî (ö. 303/916), Kādî Abdülcebbâr (ö. 415/1025), Ebü’l-Hüseyin el-Basrî (ö. 436/1044) gibi Mu’tezilî âlimlerin yanı sıra, İbn Fûrek, Gazâlî (ö.505/1111), İbn Akîl (ö. 513/1119), Fahreddîn er-Râzî (ö. 606/1210) gibi sünnî âlimler tarafından da iktibâs edilmiştir. Rivayete dayalı olan hadis ilminde hakikatin ortaya konulabilmesi, "rivayet" ve "re’y" seçeneklerinden birini tercih etmekle değil; bunların her ikisini de yerinde ve dengeli olarak kullanılmasına bağlı olduğunu hatırda tutmak gerekir. Hakikatin ortaya çıkarılmasında rivayet re’ye, re’y de rivayete muhtaçtır. Rivayet ve re’y birbirinin rakibi değil tamamlayıcı unsurları olarak görmek gerekir. (shrink)

This article integrates empirical and normative discussions about why global economic inequalities matter in critically examining an approach known as derivative global egalitarianism (DGE). DGE is a burgeoning perspective that opposes excessive global economic inequality not based on the intrinsic value of equality but inequality's negative repercussions on other values. The article aims to advance the research agenda by identifying and critically evaluating four primary varieties of DGE arguments from related but distinct literatures, which span a number of disciplines, including (...) economics, international relations, and political philosophy. Overall, DGE offers a number of persuasive arguments as to why current levels of global inequality are of concern, but aspects of DGE beg further philosophical and empirical examination. By situating DGE within the wider theoretical and empirical contexts, this article provides resources for its critical assessment and theoretical development. (shrink)