الفكر، والتَّفكير، والتَّفكُّر، والتَّدبُّر، والتَّذكُّر،... مفاهيمُ أساسية رافقت الوجود الإنساني، منذ بدء الخليقة، وسوف تبقى معه إلى نهايتها، دون أن تثبت مادتها وموضوعاتها ومستوياتها عند حد معين، في حياة الفرد البشري أو الجيل البشري. فكيف يمكن لكتاب أن يستقصي ذلك؟! هذا الكتاب إذاً، مدخل إلى الفكر وحسب؛ مدخل في مفاهيمه ومستوياته وخرائطه... تضمن تجوالاً فكرياً: في موضوع الفكر؛ وفي مصادره في الأصول والتراث والخبرة المعاصرة، وموضوعاته، وأدواته، ونصيب أصناف أهله منه، والمؤسسات المتخصصة فيه، وعلاقته بالعلم جملة، وبالعلوم النفسية والتربوية والاجتماعية (...) واللغوية والسياسية... وهو كذلك مدخل إلى عملية البناء الفكري؛ كيف تبدأ، ثم تتواصل مرحلة بعد أخرى؟ وكيف تترقى من مستوى إلى آخر؟ وكيف تتنوع في المحتوى الذي تبنيه؟ وهو قبل ذلك وبعده، أسئلة كثيرة، وإجابات قليلة؛ فقيمةُ التَّفكُّر في إثارة الأسئلة لا تقلُّ عن التفكر في البحث عن إجاباتها، وبعض الإجابات عارضة مؤقتة، تتغير وتتعمق مع مزيد من الفكْر والذِّكْر، والتَّفكُّر والتَّذكُّر. قد يجد القارئ في الكتاب بعض مواطن المتعة والطرافة، لكنه سوف يجد كذلك مواطن كثيرة تضطره إلى التَّفكُّر والتَّدبُّر، فإذا نجح الكتاب في الأمرين، فذلك ما كان يهدف إليه!. (shrink)

Knowledge; information; learning, philosophy of; teaching and study.

الفكر، والتَّفكير، والتَّفكُّر، والتَّدبُّر، والتَّذكُّر،... مفاهيمُ أساسية رافقت الوجود الإنساني، منذ بدء الخليقة، وسوف تبقى معه إلى نهايتها، دون أن تثبت مادتها وموضوعاتها ومستوياتها عند حد معين، في حياة الفرد البشري أو الجيل البشري. فكيف يمكن لكتاب أن يستقصي ذلك؟! هذا الكتاب إذاً، مدخل إلى الفكر وحسب؛ مدخل في مفاهيمه ومستوياته وخرائطه... تضمن تجوالاً فكرياً: في موضوع الفكر؛ وفي مصادره في الأصول والتراث والخبرة المعاصرة، وموضوعاته، وأدواته، ونصيب أصناف أهله منه، والمؤسسات المتخصصة فيه، وعلاقته بالعلم جملة، وبالعلوم النفسية والتربوية والاجتماعية (...) واللغوية والسياسية... وهو كذلك مدخل إلى عملية البناء الفكري؛ كيف تبدأ، ثم تتواصل مرحلة بعد أخرى؟ وكيف تترقى من مستوى إلى آخر؟ وكيف تتنوع في المحتوى الذي تبنيه؟ وهو قبل ذلك وبعده، أسئلة كثيرة، وإجابات قليلة؛ فقيمةُ التَّفكُّر في إثارة الأسئلة لا تقلُّ عن التفكر في البحث عن إجاباتها، وبعض الإجابات عارضة مؤقتة، تتغير وتتعمق مع مزيد من الفكْر والذِّكْر، والتَّفكُّر والتَّذكُّر. قد يجد القارئ في الكتاب بعض مواطن المتعة والطرافة، لكنه سوف يجد كذلك مواطن كثيرة تضطره إلى التَّفكُّر والتَّدبُّر، فإذا نجح الكتاب في الأمرين، فذلك ما كان يهدف إليه! (shrink)

Philosophy; philosophical theology; philosophical anthropology; history.

Bennabi, Malek; Islamic civilization; Islamic renewal; philosophy.

Education; philosophy; Islamic education; Qatar.

al-juzʼ 1. al-Mushkilāt al-falsafīyah -- al-juzʼ 2. Taṭawwur manāhij al-ʻulūm.

On the pedagogic views of Muslim theologians, and their influence in individual and societal development.

On the pedagogic views of Muslim theologians, and their influence in individual and societal development.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:“We all love with the same part of the body, don’t we?”Iuliia Voznesenskaia’s Zhenskii Dekameron, New Women’s Prose, and French Feminist TheoryYelena Furman (bio)Starting out as a poet who eventually turned to fiction, Iuliia Voznesenskaia was also one of the main figures of the Soviet feminist movement, a fact that makes her biography both unusual and courageous. In the 1970s, Voznesenskaia’s involvement with the dissident movement in Leningrad resulted (...) in several arrests, imprisonment, and time in the camps.1 Although she was not initially interested in women’s issues, her incarceration in all-women’s camps and prisons convinced her that “the situation of women in our country demands special attention” (“Zhenskoe dvizhenie v Rossii” [“The Women’s Movement in Russia”] 41). Along with several other women dissidents, she founded the Soviet feminist movement, putting out the samizdat women’s journal Zhenshchina i Rossiia (Woman and Russia), which precipitated immediate reprisals from the KGB. A women’s club, Mariia, and a journal by the same name followed, as did more KGB reprisals. For her feminist activity, Voznesenskaia was expelled from the Soviet Union in 1980, settling in West Germany.2In 1985, in West Germany, Voznesenskaia wrote her first and best-known novel, Zhenskii Dekameron (The Women’s Decameron). The novel is set in a Leningrad maternity ward containing ten new mothers from different backgrounds with different life experiences: Larisa, Emma, Natasha, Nelia, Galina, and Valentina are educated and all have careers except Galina, whose occupation, admittedly strange for a feminist novel, seems to be a dissident’s wife; Ol’ga works in a shipyard; Irishka is a secretary; Al’bina is an Aeroflot flight attendant doubling as an escort on the KGB’s payroll; Zina is homeless and has served time in the camps; Valentina is a Party worker, whereas Galina is part of the dissident community. Quarantined together for ten days because of a spreading infection and inspired by Emma’s reading of Boccaccio’s Decameron, the women begin to tell each other stories to pass the time. As its title makes clear, Voznesenskaia’s novel is heavily indebted to Boccaccio’s, borrowing its structure and many of its themes, such as an emphasis on storytelling and sexual explicitness. The humor and poignancy of the women’s stories make it a highly enjoyable read, and the focus on female sexuality and the author’s play with the narrative set this novel apart from other Soviet writers’ works.3 The novel also features what is surely a unique occurrence in Russian and Soviet literature: an openly feminist character (Larisa), referred to by the authornarrator as “zhenshchinoi vpolne emansipirovannoi, mogushchei ukrasit’ soboi liuboe zapadnoe feministicheskoe obshchestvo” [“a completely emancipated woman, capable [End Page 95] of adorning any Western feminist group”] (13), who is moreover depicted in a wholly positive light.4Yet despite enjoying a modicum of success, including being translated into several languages and staged as a play, Zhenskii Dekameron remains an under-read and underrated work.5 The reasons for its relative obscurity are closely allied with Voznesenskaia’s political activities in the 1980s. Exiled abroad for being politically undesirable to Soviet authorities, she could not have her work published in the Soviet Union; rather, the novel came out in Russian in Israel in 1987 (Curtis 186n2).6 The lack of visibility from which she suffered in her native country changed only in the (post)glasnost’ period: in 1991, the novel was published in Russian in Tallinn, and in 1992, in Moscow.7 Despite being able to be published, however, Zhenskii Dekameron seems not to have made a strong impact on either readers or critics, and there does not appear to be any discussion of it in Soviet/ Russian literary journals.The novel likewise suffers from a lack of familiarity in the West. The interest Voznesenskaia generated among Western European and American feminists in the early 1980s was for her feminist activism in the Soviet Union, which preceded her novel writing. Zhenskii Dekameron seems to have made a modest impact on readers; scholars, too, discuss it only occasionally. The most comprehensive treatment of the work to date has been Jerzy Kolodziej... (shrink)

Dâwûd al-Qarisî (Dâvûd al-Karsî) was a versatile and prolific 18th century Ottoman scholar who studied in İstanbul and Egypt and then taught for long years in various centers of learning like Egypt, Cyprus, Karaman, and İstanbul. He held high esteem for Mehmed Efendi of Birgi (Imâm Birgivî/Birgili, d.1573), out of respect for whom, towards the end of his life, Karsî, like Birgivî, occupied himself with teaching in the town of Birgi, where he died in 1756 and was buried next to (...) Birgivî. Better known for his following works on Arabic language and rhetoric and on the prophetic traditions (hadith): Sharḥu uṣûli’l-ḥadîth li’l-Birgivî; Sharḥu’l-Ḳaṣîdati’n-nûniyya (two commentaries, in Arabic and Turkish); Şarḥu’l-Emsileti’l-mukhtalifa fi’ṣ-ṣarf (two commentaries, in Arabic and Turkish); Sharḥu’l-Binâʾ; Sharḥu’l-ʿAvâmil; and Sharḥu İzhâri’l-asrâr, Karsî has actually composed textbooks in quite different fields. Hence the hundreds of manuscript copies of his works in world libraries. Many of his works were also recurrently printed in the Ottoman period. One of the neglected aspects of Karsî is his identity as a logician. Although he authored ambitious and potent works in the field of logic, this aspect of him has not been subject to modern studies. Even his bibliography has not been established so far (with scattered manuscript copies of his works and incomplete catalogue entries). This article primarily and in a long research based on manuscript copies and bibliographic sources, identifies twelve works on logic that Karsî has authored. We have clarified the works that are frequently mistaken for each other, and, especially, have definitively established his authorship of a voluminous commentary on al-Kâtibî’s al-Shamsiyya, of which commentary a second manuscript copy has been identified and described together with the other copy. Next is handled his most famous work of logic, the Sharhu Îsâghûcî, which constitutes an important and assertive ring in the tradition of commentaries on Îsâghûcî. We describe in detail the nine manuscript copies of this work that have been identified in various libraries. The critical text of Karsî’s Sharhu Îsâghûcî, whose composition was finished on 5 March 1745, has been prepared based on the following four manuscripts: (1) MS Kayseri Raşid Efendi Kütüphanesi, No. 857, ff.1v-3v, dated 1746, that is, only one year after the composition of the work; (2) MS Bursa İnebey Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Genel, No.794B, ff.96v-114v, dated 1755; (3) MS Millet Kütüphanesi, Ali Emiri Efendi Arapça, No. 1752, ff.48v-58r, dated 1760; (4) MS Beyazıt Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Beyazıt, No. 3129, ff.41v-55v, dated 8 March 1772. While preparing the critical text, we have applied the Center for Islamic Studies (İslam Araştırmaları Merkezi, İSAM)’s method of optional text choice. The critical text is preceded by a content analysis. Karsî is well aware of the preceding tradition of commentary on Îsâghûcî, and has composed his own commentary as a ‘simile’ or alternative to the commentary by Mollâ Fanârî which was famous and current in his own day. Karsî’s statement “the commentary in one day and one night” is a reference to Mollâ Fanârî who had stated that he started writing his commentary in the morning and finished it by the evening. Karsî, who spent long years in the Egyptian scholarly and cultural basin, adopted the religious-sciences-centered ‘instrumentalist’ understanding of logic that was dominant in the Egypt-Maghrib region. Therefore, no matter how famous they were, he criticized those theoretical, long, and detailed works of logic which mingled with philosophy; and defended and favored authoring functional and cogent logic texts that were beneficial, in terms of religious sciences, to the seekers of knowledge and the scholars. Therefore, in a manner not frequently encountered in other texts of its kind, he refers to the writings and views of Muhammad b. Yûsuf al-Sanûsî (d.1490), the great representative of this logical school in the Egyptian-Maghrib region. Where there is divergence between the views of the ‘earlier scholars’ (mutaqaddimûn) like Ibn Sînâ and his followers and the ‘later scholars’ (muta’akhkhirûn), i.e., post-Fakhr al-dîn al-Râzî logicians, Karsî is careful to distance himself from partisanship, preferring sometimes the views of the earliers, other times those of the laters. For instance, on the eight conditions proposed for the realization of contradiction, he finds truth to be with al-Fârâbî, who proposed “unity in the predicative attribution” as the single condition for the realization of contradiction. Similarly, on the subject matter of Logic, he tried to reconcile the mutaqaddimûn’s notion of ‘second intelligibles’ with the muta’akhkhirûn’s notion of ‘apprehensional and declarational knowledge,’ suggesting that not much difference exists between the two, on the grounds that both notions are limited to the aspect of ‘known things that lead to the knowledge of unknown things.’ Karsî asserts that established and commonly used metaphors have, according to the verifying scholars, signification by correspondence (dalâlat al-mutâbaqah), adding also that it should not be ignored that such metaphors may change from society to society and from time to time. Karsî also endorses the earlier scholars’ position concerning the impossibility of quiddity (mâhiyya) being composed of two co-extensive parts, and emphasizes that credit should not be given to later scholars’ position who see it possible. According to the verifying scholars (muhaqqîqûn), it is possible to make definition (hadd) by mentioning only difference (fasl), in which case it becomes an imperfect definition (hadd nâqis). He is of the opinion that the definition of the proposition (qadiyya) in al-Taftâzânî’s Tahdhîb is clearer and more complete: “a proposition is an expression that bears the possibility of being true or false”. He states that in the division of proposition according to quantity what is taken into consideration is the subject (mawdû‘) in categorical propositions, and the temporal aspect of the antecedent (muqaddam) in hypothetical propositions. As for the unquantified, indefinite proposition (qadiyya muhmalah), Karsî assumes that if it is not about the problems of the sciences, then it is virtually/potentially a particular proposition (qadiyya juz’iyyah); but if it is about the problems of the sciences, then it is virtually/potentially a universal proposition (qadiyya kulliyyah). This being the general rule about the ambiguous (muhmal) propositions, he nevertheless contends that, because its subject (mawdû‘) is negated, it is preferable to consider a negative ambiguous (sâliba muhmalah) proposition like “human (insân) is not standing” to be a virtually/potentially universal negative (sâliba kulliyyâh) proposition. He states that a disjunctive hypothetical proposition (shartiyya al-munfasila) that is composed of more than two parts/units is only seemingly so, and that in reality it cannot be composed of more than two units. Syllogism (qiyâs), according to Karsî, is the ultimate purpose (al-maqsad al-aqsâ) and the most valuable subject-matter of the science of Logic. For him, the entire range of topics that are handled before this one are only prolegomena to it. This approach of Karsî clearly reveals how much the ‘demonstration (burhân)-centered’ approach of the founding figures of the Muslim tradition of logic like al-Fârâbî and Ibn Sînâ has changed. al-Abharî, in his Îsâghûjî makes no mention of ‘conversion by contradiction’ (‘aks al-naqîd). Therefore, Karsî, too, in his commentary, does not touch upon the issue. However, in his Îsâghûjî al-jadîd Karsî does handle the conversion by contradiction and its rules. Following the method of Îsâghûjî, in his commentary Karsî shortly touches on the four figures (shakl) of conjuctive syllogism (qiyâs iqtirânî) and their conditions, after which he passes to the first figure (shakl), which is considered ‘the balance of the sciences’ (mi‘yâr al-‘ulûm), explaining the four moods (darb) of it. In his Îsâghûjî al-jadîd, however, Karsî handles all the four figures (shakl) with all their related moods (darb), where he speaks of fife moods (darb) of the fourth figure (shakl). The topic of ‘modal propositions’ (al-muwajjahât) and of ‘modal syllogism’ (al-mukhtalitât), both of which do not take place in the Îsâghûjî, are not mentioned by Karsî as well, either in his commentary on Îsâghûjî or in his Îsâghûjî al-jadîd. Karsî proposes that the certainties (yaqîniyyât), of which demonstration (burhân) is made, have seven, not six, divisions. After mentioning (1) axioms/first principles (awwaliyyât), (2) observata/sensuals (mushâhadât), (3) experta/empiricals (mujarrabât), (4) acumenalia (hadthiyyât), (5) testata (mutawâtirât), and (6) instictives (fitriyyât), that is, all the ‘propositions accompanied by their demonstrations,’ Karsî states that these six divisions, which do not need research and reflection (nazar), are called badîhiyyât (self-evidents), and constitute the foundations (usûl) of certainties (yaqîniyyât). As the seventh division he mentions (7) the nazariyyât (theoreticals), which are known via the badîhiyyât, end up in them, and therefore convey certainty (yaqîn). For Karsî, the nazariyyât/theoreticals, which constitute the seventh division of yaqîniyyât/certainties, are too numerous, and constitute the branches (far‘) of yaqîniyyât. Every time the concept of ‘Mughâlata’ (sophistry) comes forth in the traditional sections on the five arts usually appended to logic works, Karsî often gives examples from what he sees as extreme sûfî sayings, lamenting that these expressions are so widespread and held in esteem. He sometimes criticizes these expressions. However, it is observed that he does not reject tasawwuf in toto, but excludes from his criticism the mystical views and approaches of the truth-abiding (ahl al-haqq), shârî‘â-observant (mutasharri‘) leading sufis who have reached to the highest level of karâmah. (shrink)

Hüseyin Atay’ın akademik çabasının merkezinde, insanı, içine doğduğu geleneğin tahakkümüne karşı akıl ve Kur’an’a dayanarak özgürleştirme ve özgünleştirme amacı bulunmaktadır. Onun temel motivasyonunu, Müslümanların içinde bulunduğu mevcut durumdan rahatsız olması ve bu duruma bir çözüm üretme amacı oluşturmaktadır. O, bu çabasıyla mevcut Müslüman düşünce geleneğinin hak ve hakikat zeminine dayanıp dayanmadığını tahkik ve tespit etmeyi hedeflemektedir. Söz konusu tahkik sürecinin metodolojisini din ile kültür ayrımı oluşturmaktadır. Bu bağlamda Atay’ın halkın, ulemanın ve Kur’an’ın dini şeklinde yaptığı tasnif, geleneksel din anlayışları içerisinde (...) meşrulaşan yanlışların tespiti ve ayıklanmasına imkân sağlayacak niteliktedir. Ona göre Kur’an, akla, ilme, fıtrata, yaşamın farklı boyutlarında insanın karşılaşabileceği problemlere çözüm sunan bir din getirmektedir. Bu yapısıyla Kur’an, insanlara akıl ve fıtrat temelinde iradi davranışlarını şekillendirmesi için doğru-yanlış, maruf-münker, sevap-günah kavramları ile belirlenmiş bir ahlak önerisinde bulunmaktadır. Akıl ile din arasında tam bir mutabakat olduğunu kabul eden Atay’ın din anlayışının sacayağını bilgi, iman ve ahlak oluşturmaktadır. Ona göre İslam’ın getirdiği tüm iyilikler ve güzellikler din, dil, renk, etnik köken, coğrafya farkı gözetmeksizin herkesi kuşatacak şekilde adalet ve hakkaniyete, hukuk ve ilkeye göre davranmayı gerektirmektedir. Kur’an’ın amacının, insan ve onun mutluluğu olduğunu belirten Atay, insanın kendini gerçekleştirmesi ve mutluluğu elde etmesinin iki boyutu olduğunu belirtmektedir. Bu boyutlardan ilki, birey olarak insanın yetkinleşmesi; ikincisi ise toplum içinde hem cinsleri ile olan ilişkisinde adalet temelinde kendi varlığını gerçekleştirebilmesidir. Atay, birey olarak insanın yetkinleşmesini, kendi varlığını borçlu olduğu yaratıcıyı bilmesi, tanıması, O’nun dışında hiçbir varlık önünde eğilmemesi ve kendisini özgür kılan Allah’ın verdiği onuru korumasına bağlamaktadır. Toplumsal boyutta insanın yetkinleşmesinin ise yaşamsal fonksiyonlarını gerçekleştirmek ve ihtiyaçlarını gidermek amacıyla insanın hem cinsleriyle ve doğayla kurduğu ilişkide adalet ilkesine uygun davranmasıyla mümkün olacağını belirtmektedir. Bu çalışma Hüseyin Atay’ın, Kur’anî ilkelerden hareketle “İslam” kelimesi üzerine bina ettiği ahlak anlayışını irdelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu çerçevede, Atay’ın bireysel ve toplumsal boyutuyla ahlaki özne olan insanın yapıp etmelerine yön veren, ahlakın kesişim noktasını oluşturan bilgi ve iman arasındaki ilişkiye dair görüşleri, Kur’an’da insan doğasına uygun bir formda sunulan ahlakî kök değerler çerçevesinde ele alınmıştır. (shrink)

Çatı, eylemin özne veya nesneyle ilişkisinin niteliğini açıklayan bir kavramdır. Türkçede çatıya ilişkin kavramlar, özne ve nesne esas alınarak oldukça işlevsel bir biçimde sınıflandırılmıştır. Türkçedeki çatı kavramlarının Arapçadaki karşılıkları ise fiil kalıplarının anlamları başlığı altında yer alır. Bu anlamların ve ilgili kavramların Arapçada kendine özgü bir sistematiği ve mantığı vardır. Anadili Arapça olanlar için bu sistematik, tutarlı ve anlamlı bir yapı arz eder. Ancak anadili Türkçe olanların, Arapçada fiil kalıplarının anlamlarını ve çatı kavramlarını anlama ve anlamlandırmalarına katkı sunacak bir sınıflandırmaya (...) ve yaklaşıma da ihtiyaç vardır. Fiil kalıplarının anlamları çeşitli çalışmalara konu edilmiştir. Ancak çatı kavramları iki dilde karşılaştırılmamıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Arapçadaki çatı kavramlarını, Türkçedeki çatı tasnifi üzerinden sınıflandırarak, onları Türkçeleriyle karşılaştırmaktır. Ayrıca Arapçadaki fiil kalıplarının çatı dışındaki anlam ve işlevlerine, Türkçe dilbilgisi kavramları perspektifinden bir yaklaşım geliştirmektir. Bu çalışmada, Arapçada çatı karşılığında kullanılan bina kavramının, Türkçedeki çatı kavramını da içeren daha geniş bir kavram olduğu, müteaddî teriminin, Türkçedeki geçişli, oldurgan ve ettirgen kavramlarının karşılığı olarak kullanıldığı, dönüşlülük olgusunun ise iki dildeki tarifinin farklı yapıldığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Türkçedeki çatı tasnifinin esas alınarak Arapçadaki çatı kavramlarını sınıflandırmanın Arapça çatı kavramlarını anlama ve anlamlandırma açısından da işlevsel olduğu değerlendirilmektedir. (shrink)

The dominant approach to understanding Islamic Business Ethics has been based almost exclusively on either interpretations of the Qur’an and Sunna or influenced by Western understanding of Islam and ethics. However, there is a rich—largely ignored-tradition of ethical analysis conducted by Muslim philosophers which would broaden our understanding of Islamic ethics and hence IBE. We seek to correct this imbalance by examining works of Al-Ghazali, an early Muslim philosopher, scholar, and mystic. His approach to Sufism, combining an interpretation of revelation (...) with reason, can contribute to new developments in business ethics scholarship and practice especially in Muslim communities. His thought portrays a vibrant work ethic that, while based in Sufism, has important practical implications for business. We argue that including such historically and contextually recognized perspectives in our understanding of BE, both in theory and in practice, would work well with an audience that looks to Islam as a source of justice and proper moral conduct. (shrink)

‘Abd al-Laṭīf al-Baghdādī’s _Book on the Science of Metaphysics_ is an important work that contains the influence of both Alexander of Aphrodisias and Themistius in the interpretation of Aristotle. Only chapters 13-16 belong to the Lambda. The limitation results first of all from the main purpose of the work, namely to present a new witness for the reception of Arabic metaphysics. As can be seen from the introduction of the work, the work is conceived as a unified whole and may (...) be meant as a kind of summa of metaphysics, a synopsis of four writings that hold high rank among medieval metaphysical works - especially since 'Abd al-Latif apparently regarded not only the Metaphysics but also his other sources as originating from Aristotle, the First Teacher. This translation includes only the eighth chapter of the Book Lamda. (shrink)

The present book contains a number of articles dipicting religion in the present age, a re-telling of Bīzhan ʻAbd al-Karīmī's account of religion, Iran.

Islamic religious educations; Islamic ethics; conduct of life.