Partial/particular will (al-irādah al-juz’iyyah) and the creation of human acts are two issues related to the predestination belief. Nowadays, it is unarguably accepted that humans have volition. However, the controversy over the formation steps of human will and act does not seem to be settled. Māturīdīs’ approach, taken with the intent to allow some space for freedom for humans in their actions and based on the partial will and postulation that there is a part in human actions that are not (...) created nor subject to creation, could not be understood at times. When it comes to misunderstandings of this kind, Sadr al-Sharī‘a and Ibn al-Humām, who are among the Hanafī-Māturīdī kalam scholars, are mentioned. Both mutakallims are some of the eminent figures who left their marks on the Hanafī-Māturīdī school. They affected a significant number of scholars coming after them by the authentic ideas they presented. However, even though neither Sadr al-Sharī‘a nor Ibn al-Humām did regard humans as creators of their own actions, they are confronted with an accusation as if they vitiated the fact that God is the Absolute Creator. Therefore, it is of grave importance to reveal Sadr al-Sharī‘a’s ideas, which are represented in his “Four Premises” concerning the formation of an act and Ibn Humām’s thoughts put forward in his “Ījādu al-‘Azm al-Musammamah” and “Takhsīsu Irādah al-Juz’iyyah.”. (shrink)

The purpose of this essay is to examine the relationship between belief in predestination and trust in God in terms of the disciplines of kalām and mysticism. Tawakkul is regarded in Islamic ethics as one of the positive characteristics of faith. Considering that humans cannot be all-powerful, they need to depend on and trusting another. As to religion, the being described is God. Notably, in Sūfism, tawakkul is a significant indicator of worshipping with reference to the human-God relationship. Moreover, the (...) content of the concept is closely associated with the tenet of predestination in kalām. There is a fine line between being responsible and fulfilling the tasks given and the belief in destiny. In the Sūfī understanding of tawakkul, relinquishing the will described as the final state of the worshipping and the state of submission to and trust in God, which is a positive attitude, when combined with the kalām belief that everything happens by a divine decree, can turn into a problematic phenomenon. The impact of the problem in question on the underdevelopment of the Islamic societies in the last two centuries. However, it should be kept in mind that a sound interpretation of the traditional perception of the belief in destiny in both Sūfism and Sunnī kalām literature may lead to a tawakkul understanding encouraging and strengthening the human and the society. In the present study, the concept of tawakkul has been discussed with regard to the doctrines of will, power (qudrah), preordination-destiny (qāzā-qadar) within kalām discipline, and the positive relation of tawakkul with the belief in destiny has been investigated. (shrink)

In this article, the solution proposed by Osman Afīf Efendi, a late Ottoman scholar, to the problem of the creation of human actions in his Risālat al-irādat al-juzʾiyya will be discussed. Although the problem of the role of human beings in their actions, which has been debated since the early period of theology, has been the subject of works with different titles such as ḳaẓā wa ḳadar, ḫalḳu'l-aʿmāl, and efʿāl al-ʿibād, in the Ottoman scholarly tradition it was mostly dealt with (...) in the treatises on the particular will (al-irādah al-juz’iyyah). Osman Afīf Efendi's treatise is one of the last examples of this genre. In addition to al-Jabriyya, the majority of the Muʿtazilites, the famous view of the philosophers, Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (d. 324/935-36), Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāyīnī (d. 418/1027), Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī (d. 403/1013), and the Māturīdī school, the author mentions an eighth view. Osman Afīf Efendi touches only the main ideas of the well-known views of the Jabriyya, the majority of the Muʿtazilites, and the Philosophers. On the other hand, he gives relatively more space to the views of al-Ashʿarī, al-Isfarāyīnī, al-Bāqillānī, and the Māturīdī school. Osman Afīf Efendi states that the solutions proposed by Sunnī scholars are united in the common denominator of being the middle way in the faith and emphasizes the similarities rather than the differences between these solutions. There are some indications in the treatise that the author endeavored to bring a different perspective to Ashʿarī's idea of Kasb. His explanations in the context of al-Bāqillānī and al-Isferāyīnī's views are in the form of a response to the criticisms levelled against the approaches of these scholars. One of the most striking points in the treatise is the statement that the view of the Māturīdī school is the same as that of al-Bāqillānī. Osman Afīf Efendi also touches upon the issue of human will, that is, the universal and particular will. In this context, he states that the particular will is not created. However, he does not provide a clear explanation of the ontic structure of the particular will, and he mentions the different opinions expressed by later Māturīdī scholars, such as the juzī will being a dispositional or intizāʿī state. (shrink)

Human actions have been one of the most discussed topics in the science of kalām since the first centuries of Hijra. Many scholars from different schools of kalām have tried to solve this problem. Efforts to solve the problem have brought different views. In this framework, three main views emerged Jabrī, Qadarī/Muʿtazilī and Salafī/Sunnī. The views of Islamic philosophers were added to these and this number was increased to four. Nevertheless, Sunnī scholars, who agree on the basic propositions, disagreed on (...) the nature of kasb. While there are differences of opinion between Ashʿarī and Māturīdī schools, there are also those who put forward different views among scholars belonging to the same school. Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī (d. 403/1013), Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāyīnī (d. 418/1027) and Juwaynī (d. 478/1085), Sadr al- Shrīʿa (d. 747/1346) and Ibn al-Humām (d. 861/1457) are the most obvious examples of this. These views on human actions have been mentioned in their works by scholars of kalām. One of these scholars is Gelenbevî Ismāʿil (d. 1205/1791). In this article, the views on human actions will be examined in the context of Gelenbevî’s work named Ḥāshiya ʿalā Sharḥ al ʿAqāʾid al ʿAḍudiyya. Gelenbevî makes concise or detailed explanations about the views mentioned in his work with the exception of Ibn al-Humām. In addition, he also mentions the views of al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111). While Gelenbevî mentions these views and the discussions that took place around them, He makes use of his works Ījī’s (d. 756/1355) named Mawāqif, Taftāzānī’s (d. 792/1390) Sharḥ al Maqāṣ̣ıd and Jurjānī’s (d. 816/1413) Sharḥ al - Mawāqif. Gelenbevî states that Ashʿari’s view is middle jabr (jabr al muṭavaṣṣıṭ) and even he is accused of being pure jabr (jabr al- maḫẓ). Based on the concept of partial will (al-irādah al-juzʾiyyah), he says that the views of Bāqillānī and Māturīdī school are the same and states that this view is more successful than Ashʿari’s in explaining human responsibility. This thought indicates that he is closer to the Māturīdī view of human actions than to Ashʿarī. He points out that Isfarāyīnī’s views are open to criticism in some respects. He implicitly states that he does not agree with the idea that Juwayni agrees with the Islamic philosophers. Rather than Muʿtazila’s views, it focuses on whether their views and the views of Islamic philosophers are the same. (shrink)

İbn Sînâ, Yeter Sebep İlkesi’ni (YSİ), yani her şeyin bir sebebi olduğu ve sebepsiz hiçbir varlığın var olamayacağı iddiasını savunan modern dönem öncesi filozoflarından biridir. YSİ’nin sonuçlarından biri de zorunlulukçuluktur (necessitarianism); yani gerçekte var olan her şeyin aynı zamanda zorunlu olarak var olduğu iddiasıdır. Bu fikre göre sebepler zincirinin her bir üyesi kendinden önceki sebepler tarafından belirlenir. Dolayısıyla YSİ, olayların başka türlü de olabileceğini telkin eden insan sezgisine karşı çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışmadaki amacım, İbn Sînâ sonrası yazarların insan iradesini dışlamak suretiyle (...) YSİ’nin zorunlulukçu sonuçlarını hafifletmeye çalışıp çalışmadıklarını araştırmaktır. Nasîrüddin Tûsî’nin (ö. 672/1274) Cebr ve Kader adlı Farsça risalesi ile Tecrîdü’l-i‘tikâd adlı kelâm kitabı arasında bir karşılaştırma yapmaya odaklanacağım. Bu konuyu seçmemin öncelikli sebebi, insanların eylemlerinin bağımsız fâilleri olduklarını sezgisel olarak bildiklerine dair Tûsî’nin iddialarıdır ki bu, YSİ‘nin evrensel uygulanabilirliği ile çelişiyor gibi görünmektedir. Tûsî’nin özgür irade konusunda, metinlerin karakterine ve yazıldıkları döneme bağlı olarak, bazen İbn Sînâ ile tutarlılık arzeden bazen de Mu‘tezile’ye angaje olan farklı görüşler benimsediğini savunacağım. Tûsî’nin, bazen nedensel olarak etkin olmamasına rağmen insan özgürlüğüne nasıl yer bıraktığını göstereceğim. O, insan özgürlüğünü, insanın karşı karşıya kaldığı fiziksel veya ilahî diğer belirlenim türlerinden bağımsız olarak hareket edebilen farklı bir belirlenim türü olarak anlar. Genel olarak bu mesele, Tûsî’nin İbn Sînâ felsefesine ya da Şiî kelâmına bağlılığını test etmekte ve hatta onu bazı eserlerinde İbn Sînâ’nın bilgi görüşüne karşı bir duruş sergilemeye zorlamaktadır. (shrink)