Şüpheye dayalı metodoloji çeşitli yönleriyle felsefenin en öne çıkan konularından biridir. Bu yöntem, Sofistlerin uyguladığına benzeyen gelişigüzel bir süreç olabileceği gibi, gizem ve belirsizlikten uzak, doğru bilgiye ulaşma çabası içinde bireyin yürüttüğü sağlam bir mekanizma da olabilmektedir. Ayrıca sadedinde olduğumuz metodik şüphe, (Sofistçe yapılan) mutlak şüphe ile çelişmekte ve hiçbir düşünürün hakikate ve kesinlik ifade eden görüşlere ulaşmak için kendisinden müstağni kalamayacağı bir olgudur. Her ne kadar mutlak şüphe, felsefe ve düşüncede kınanacak, faydasız bir olgu olup gerçek anlamda faydalı bilgiye (...) götürmese de, metodik şüphe yöntemi, bilgiye ulaşmanın ve gerçeği anlamanın yolu olarak öne çıkan bir araç olmaktadır. Bu metodoloji, filozofların ve bilgelerin ulaştığı birçok bilginin içeriğinde açıkça görülmektedir. Bu çalışmamızda şüphe kavramı ve onun felsefedeki yönleri kısaca ele alınmakla birlikte, mutlak şüphe gibi diğer şüphe türlerinin reddedilmesi anlamına gelen metodik şüphe üzerinde de durulmuştur. Bu yaklaşımı anlamak amacıyla 10. yüzyılda İslam medeniyetinin en önemli âlim ve filozoflarından biri olarak kabul edilen İmam Ebû Hâmid el-Gazzâlî hakkında da bilgiye yer verilmiştir. Nitekim Gazzâlî, felsefe, mantık, tasavvuf, İslam fıkhı ve diğer ilimler dâhil olmak üzere çeşitli alanlarda sunduğu zengin miras nedeniyle çeşitli alan ve çevrede büyük bir konuma sahiptir. Gazzâlî, şüpheci yaklaşımı benimseyen ve takip edenlerin en önde gelenlerinden biri olarak kabul edilir ve bunun tezahürleri de “el-Münkız Mine’d-Dalâl” isimli eserinde görülmektedir. Gazzâlî'nin ölümünden yaklaşık beş yüzyıl sonra bu yaklaşım, Fransız aydınlanma felsefesinin en önemli isimlerinden ve öncülerinden biri olan, aynı zamanda matematik, doğa bilimleri ve tıp ile de ilgilenen Fransız filozof René Descartes tarafından yeniden ortaya çıkmıştır. Descartes, “Metot Üzerine Konuşma” adlı eserinde görüldüğü gibi bu yaklaşımı, Avrupa'daki entelektüel rönesansın ışığında, mutlak şüphenin yayıldığı bir dönemde benimsemiştir. Bu araştırma, hem Gazzâlî'de hem de Descartes'ta metodik şüphenin özelliklerini tanımlamayı amaçlamakta ve onların hakikate ulaşmak için bilgiyi ele alma yöntemini incelemektedir. Ayrıca bu iki filozofun gerçeğe ulaşmanın en iyi yolunu oluşturdukları bilişsel temellerin yanı sıra, geleneksel, aklî ve duyusal bilgilere ilişkin görüşlerine de değinilmektedir. Bu bağlamda araştırmamız, metodik şüphenin özelliklerini tanımlamada, iki filozofun deneyiminden ve bilişsel yolculuğundan faydalanarak, yazdıkları iki kitabın incelenmesine ve analiz edilmesine dayanmaktadır. Makalenin sonunda Descartes'ın bu bağlamda Gazzâlî'den etkilenmiş olabileceğine ve metodik şüphe konusunda sahip olduğu görüşlerindeki benzerliklere de kısaca işaret edilmiştir. (shrink)

Orta Çağ’da, İslam düşüncesi içerisinde yazılmış olan İbn Sînâ’nın eş-Şifâ: İlahiyat’ı, Gazzâlî’nin Makâsıdu’l-Felâsife’si ve İbn Rüşd’ün, Aristoteles’in eserlerine yazmış olduğu şerhler gibi pek çok felsefî ve teolojik eser Latinceye çevrilmiştir. Söz konusu çeviri eserler vasıtasıyla, İslam düşüncesinde carî olan, Tanrı’nın tikelleri kendi zatlarında bilip bilmediği, Tanrı’nın zatı gereği fiilde bulunup bulunmadığı, din ve felsefenin uzlaşıp uzlaşmayacağı gibi tartışmalı pek çok mesele Batı’ya intikal etmiştir. Bunlara ilaveten Tanrı’nın mutlak kudretinin alanının ne olduğu sorunu da Batı düşüncesinde bilinir hale gelmiştir. Bu (...) çalışmada, “Tanrı mantıksal olarak mümkün olanı yapabilir ve bu durum Tanrı’nın mutlak kudretine halel getirmez” anlayışının Latin Batı dünyasına İbn Sînâ’nın eş-Şifâ’sı ve Gazzâlî’nin Makâsıdu’l-Felâsife’sinin çevrileri vasıtasıyla intikal ettiği ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır. Tespit edebildiğimiz kadarıyla, Gazzâlî’nin Makâsıdu’l-Felâsife’de bu konuya ilişkin serdettiği fikirler ile Hristiyan teolog/düşünür Thomas Aquinas’ın fikirleri arasında önemli ölçüde benzerlik söz konusudur. Söz konusu benzerlik temele alınarak, Thomas Aquinas’ın bu hususta İslam düşüncesinden beslendiğini söylemek kuvvetle muhtemeldir. (shrink)

Gerek felsefede gerekse teolojide Tanrı’nın ilim sahibi bir varlık olup olmadığı tartışma konusu olmuştur. Eğer Tanrı ilim sahibi bir varlık ise, bu durumda O’nun tikelleri bilmesi mümkün müdür? Tanrı’nın tikellerini bildiğini iddia etiğimizde bu durum O’nun zatında bir değişimi gerektirir mi? Tesitik düşüncede Tanrı kâmil bir varlıktır ve O, mutlak manada âlimdir, kâdirdir ve iyilik sahibidir. Dolayısıyla O’nun zatına bir değişim söz konusu olamaz. Tanrı’nın ilmi konusunda tartışılan mesellerden birisi de bu ilmin tikelleri kapsayıp kapsamadığıdır. Pek çok teist düşünür Tanrı’nın (...) mutlak manada kâmil olduğunu iddia etmekte ve bu kemali temele alarak O’nun kemal niteliklere sahip olması gerektiğini belirtmektedir. Bilmek ve iyilik gibi nitelikler kemal niteliklerdir. Cehalet ve kötülük ise nakıs hallerdir. Şayet Tanrı kâmil bir varlık ise bu tür kemal niteliklere de sahip olmalı, nakıs niteliklerden de hâli olmalıdır. Tanrı’nın ilmine dair Gazzālī ve İbn Meymûn’un görüşleri arasında birtakım paralellikler olduğu kanaatindeyiz. Bu çalışmada, Gazzālī ve İbn Meymun’un konuya yaklaşımını ele aldık ve Griffel ve Stroumsa’nın iddiasını temele alarak Tanrı’nın ilmi konusunda Gazzālī ve İbn Meymun’un görüşleri arasında benzerlikler olduğunu göstermeye çalıştık. (shrink)

This paper will offer a systematic reconstruction of al-Ġazālī’s Sceptical Argument in his celebrated Deliverer/Delivered from Going Astray (al-Munqiḏ/al-Munqaḏ min al-Ḍalāl). Based on textual evidence, I will argue that the concept of certainty (yaqīn) in play in this argument is that of the philosophers—most notably Ibn Sīnā—and that it is firmly tied to demonstration (burhān) and hence to the materials of syllogism (mawwād al-qiyās). This will show that contrary to what many scholars believe, this Sceptical Argument is al-Ġazālī’s discovery of (...) a latent sceptical problem in Muslim philosophers’ epistemological theories based on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics that escaped even the agile mind of aš-šayḫ ar-raʾīs Ibn Sīnā. This reconstruction will also shed some light on the widespread assumption that al-Ġazālī anticipates Descartes’s sceptical considerations in the First Meditation. I will argue that not only do the two thinkers use incompatible strategies to reach their respective sceptical conclusions, but both their conclusions and their use of God in refuting them are also essentially non-identical. The conclusion is that the two sceptical arguments are essentially different. (shrink)

This study focuses on the value of the logical universal in terms of being universal in the philosophy of Avicenna, and al-Ghazālī’s criticisms of Avicenna in the context of the logical universal. A philosophical analysis of al-Ghazālī’s criticisms of Avicenna is made by mentioning how these two thinkers explained the universal and its types, and by revealing the meaning that the universal corresponds to in their thought system. Accordingly, Avicenna talks about three types of universal. The intercourse between these universals (...) is based on an intrinsic relation. The one that determines this kind of relationship and gives a principle has to be an outsider of the universals. According to Avicenna the concept of being determines the meaning of universals and the personal relationship between universal types. In this respect, the rational universal is the reasonable of the universal; the rational universal may be necessary for the logical universal. Therefore, the concept of universal in Avicenna is related to existence. In al-Ghazālī’s thought, we can talk about three types of the universal. He does not name the types of the universal, but distinguishes them by describing them. In his distinction, the concept of partnership is considered in terms of being actual and potential, and being is divided based on these conceptual distinctions. In this respect, we cannot talk about a random distinction between the meaning attributed to universals by Avicenna and by al-Ghazālī but an inherent difference. Based on this separation, al-Ghazālī’s criticisms of Avicenna are also of a essential nature. One of the clearest signs of al-Ghazālī’s criticism of Avicenna lies in the meaning he attributes to the logical universal and the example he gives in the context of the logical universal. al-Ghazālī considers the logical universal as a meaning that does not accept commonality in terms of potential and actual, and attributes the commonality in it to a reason other than what it is. While Avicenna agrees that the meaning that al-Ghazālī’s attributes to the logical universal, saying that it is outside of approval, clearly emphasizes being the subject of conceptualization. al-Ghazālī, on the other hand, ignored this reference of Avicenna and emphasized that Avicenna would accept this, based on the example of “divine/dieu” he gave in the context of the logical universal. However, in Avicenna's philosophical system, it is not possible for the word "divine" to be the subject of imagination, because the “god” is not conceived, but perceived. According to him, the things which are the subjects of imagination potentially contain multiplicity. But the word "god” is not suitable to be the subject of imagination as it is a necessary being. In this respect, it can be analyzed whether al-Ghazālī’s criticisms are austere or nonsense in terms of the five arts (sophistry). The meaning that al-Ghazālī attributed to the logical universal and the examples he gave for this meaning constitute the inherent quality of his criticisms being of the kind of fallacy. (shrink)

The common periodisation in Ash‘ari kalām is Ibn Khaldun's distinction between the early and late periods over al-Ghazālī. Although some consider this as an artificial and unrealistic periodisation, we do not think so. For, it is not possible to understand and make sense of the logic and necessity of periodisation without knowing what exactly distinguishes these periods from each other and what kind of great differences and changes occurred in the latter period. The most important factor that distinguishes the theological (...) activities of the two periods is undoubtedly the Peripatetic philosophy that left its mark on the second period. The direct relationship established by the Ash‘ari theologians of the late period with philosophy has been the source of many changes in theology. These changes have manifested themselves in many areas from the understanding of method in theology to the theory of definition, from the use of evidence to the theories of nature, intellect and soul, most importantly from the notion of the Omnipotent God (al-Fā‘il al-Mukhtār) to the metaphysics of possibility-necessity, and from the cosmology of substance-accident to al-umūr al-‘āmma as the main subject-matter of metaphysics. Finally, the changes in the process that started with al-Ghazālī and evolved with Fakhruddīn al-Rāzī brought theology to the brink of philosophization, and at the end of the process, theology turned into a universal (metaphysical) discipline. This situation naturally led to a convergence between the metaphysical thought and theological thought. It is one thing to say that theology is the most honourable and supreme science, and it is another to reveal that it is universal. In this context, al-Ghazālī declared and substituted the Islamic theology as a religious universal discipline for the first time. Actually, this substitution has a hidden philosophical/metaphysical meaning and message. Al-Ghazālī 's characterisation of theology as a universal science can also be interpreted as a challenge to both the sciences of the field it belongs to and the sciences outside itself, with its disciplinary encompassing and priority for theology. It should not be forgotten that theology, while confronting and coming to terms with philosophy and metaphysics, integrating with the subjects it has taken into the field of study, on the other hand, it has to maintain and protect the religious character it belongs to and represents. (shrink)

Fıkıh usulünün dil ve yorum bahislerinde yer alan konulardan biri âmm lafızlardır. İlk dönemlerde umum ifadelerin tanımına, varlığına ve kapsamına dair tartışmalar yer alırken Gazzâlî sonrasında klasik mantığın konularından olan tümeller de tartışmada yerini aldı. Bu makale âmm lafızların gönderimde bulunduğu anlamın tümelliğini sorgulamakta ve klasik sonrası usul düşünürlerinin umum-tümel ilişkisine dair teorik açıklamalarını incelemektedir. Makalenin iddiası şudur: Fıkıh usulünün elfâz bahislerinde ele alınan umum ifadelerin tümellere delâletini savunan ve bunu dilin zihnî suretlere vaz olunmasına bağlayan ilk usulcü (...) class='Hi'>Gazzâlî’dir (ö. 505/1111). Fahreddin er-Râzî (ö. 606/1210) ve sonraki dönem usulcüler ise âmm lafızların tümelliğini kabul etmemiş sadece fertleri arasında tümel bir anlamın var olduğunu savunmuştur. Aynı düşünceyi devam ettiren Karâfî (ö. 684/1285), İsfahânî (ö. 688/1289) ve Sübkî (ö. 771/1370), İbn Sînâ’nın (ö. 428/1037) etkisiyle umum ifadeleri tümel önermeler olarak değerlendirirken Teftâzânî (ö. 792/1390) kapsam kavramı üzerinden hem tüm hem tümel olarak görmüştür. Her iki farklı anlayışın öğretilerini eklektik bir tavırla inceleyen Cem‘u’l-cevâmi‘ üzerine şerh ve haşiye yazan usulcüler ise tüm, tümel ve tümel önerme olmak üzere üç farklı kabul sergilemiştir. (shrink)

Kelâm tarihi göz önüne alındığında belli parametrelere göre farklı dönemlere ayrıldığı görülmektedir. Bunlardan en çok bilinen dönemlendirmeye göre Cüveynî ile başlayan kelâmın felsefileşme evresi Gazzâlî ile ivme kazanmış ve Fahreddîn er-Râzî ile kemale ermiştir. Felsefi dönem kelâm âlimlerinden birisi de Ebü’s-Senâ el-İsfahânî’dir. Kelâmın yönteminin kusursuzlaşması ve delillerinin kesinliğinin artması noktasında kaleme aldığı eserleriyle bu alana yaptığı katkı göz ardı edilemeyecek durumdadır. Kelâmın felsefileşmesiyle beraber içerik ve yöntem olarak değişen konulardan biri olan tenzîhî sıfatlar meselesinde İsfahânî’nin felsefi yöntemi kullandığı bariz (...) bir şekilde anlaşılmaktadır. Bu bağlamda o, tenzîhî sıfatları felsefi bir ifade olan “zorunlu varlık” kavramı üzerinden ispat etmeye çalışmaktadır. Ayrıca İbn Sînâcı gelenekten de haberdar olan İsfahânî, “Allah’ın zâtının aklî lezzetlerle vasıflanabileceği” şeklindeki görüşüyle bu hususta belli ölçüde de olsa kelâmcıların bakış açısını terk edip filozofların görüşünü benimsediği görülmektedir. Bu makalede İsfahânî’nin konu hakkındaki görüşleri ve Fahreddîn er-Râzî özelinde kelâmcılara itirazları değerlendirilecektir. (shrink)

Şems-i Sivâsî, Halvetiyye tarikatının ana şubelerinden biri olan Sivâsiyye kolunun müessisidir. On altıncı yüzyılın ilmî, siyâsî, kültürel ve dinî sahalarında derin izler bırakan Sivâsî, memleketi Zile’den Sivas’a hicret ettikten sonra ilk olarak İrşâdü’l-avâm adlı bir eser kaleme almış ve bu çalışmada nefsin ıslahı, mürşid-i kâmilin gerekliliği, mürşidlerin özellikleri ve nefsi ıslah konusundaki fonksiyonları gibi başlıklarla döneminde gözlemlediği ve zaman zaman istismar edildiğini düşündüğü mânevî yolculuğun kılavuzlarını konu edinmiştir. Eserin isminden de anlaşılacağı üzere Sivâsî, mânevî seyrin inceliklerini bilmedikleri için şekle aldanıp (...) süslü sözlere kanan ve layık olmadıkları halde şeyhlik makamını işgal edenleri kendilerine rehber edinenleri uyarmayı hedef olarak belirlemiştir. Sivâsî bu hedefine uygun olarak eserde sahte şeyhlerin itikâdî, amelî ve ahlâkî konulardaki sapmalarını âyetler, hadisler, naklettiği kıssalar ve kullandığı çeşitli metaforlarla gözler önüne sermiştir. O, tasavvufî sistemin istismar edilmesi noktasında şeyhlik/mürşid-i kâmillik konumunun son derece önemli olduğunu belirtmiş ve ilk dönemlerden itibaren bu konumun istismarına yönelik yapılan eleştiri ve uyarılara katkı sağlamıştır. Bu anlamda Hasan-ı Basrî, İmâm-ı Gazzâlî, Ahmed-i Yesevî, Mevlânâ, Necmeddîn-i Dâye ve Kâşânî’nin de ifade ettiği gibi, müteşeyyihlere dair uyarılarda bulunan bir geleneğin on altıncı asırdaki temsilcilerinden biri olmuştur. Günümüzde de çeşitli vesilelerle tartışma konusu haline gelen bu hususta Sivâsî’nin bir şeyh olarak yaptığı tespitler, uyarılar ve çözüm önerileri önem arz etmektedir. Bu makalede Sivâsî’nin müteşeyyih kimseler hakkındaki düşünceleri zikredilmekle birlikte kendinden önce bu konuda görüş bildiren isimlerle benzer ve farklı yönlerine de işaret edilmiştir. Çalışmada Sivâsî’nin sahte şeyhlere dair değerlendirmeleriyle tasavvufta bir iç tenkit geleneği olarak kabul edilebilecek bu usulün kendinden önceki ve sonraki isimler arasındaki konumuna da vurgu yapılmıştır. (shrink)

Averroes, un pensador cuyo legado sigue vivo -- Acerca de la felicidad y la amistad -- Sobre el deseo -- La crítica de Averroes al teólogo iraní al-Gazzali -- Los rostros del comentador -- Averroes, el filósofo andalusí que revolucionó Europa -- "Averroes recuperó el racionalismo griego olvidado en Europa" -- Apéndices.

Tarihte herhalde çok az soru Tanrı’nın varlığı sorusu kadar sık sorulmuş, çok yanıtlanmış ve verilen birbirinden farklı onca yanıta rağmen kesin bir sonuca ulaştırılamayıp tartışılmaya devam etmiştir. Yine de geçmişe dönüp baktığımızda bu soruya verilen farklı yanıtların farklı uygarlıkların inşa edilmesine, bazılarının yıkılmasına, acımasız çatışmalara ve her şeye rağmen kucaklaşmalara da vesile olduğunu görüyoruz. Tanrı var mı? Varsa onu nasıl bilebiliriz? Tanrı yoksa her şey mubah mı? İnsan aklı ilahi olanı kavrayabilir mi? Tanrı’nın varlığı ahlaklı olmanın şartı mı? Evren akıllı (...) bir tasarımcının imzasını taşıyor mu? Bu kitapta felsefeci William David Beck, bu sorulara tarihte verilen yanıtları ve bu konudaki tartışmaları ele alarak meselenin genel ve tarihsel bir tablosunu bize sunuyor. Platon, Aristoteles, Marcus Aurelius gibi Eski Yunan ve Roma düşünürlerinden Anselmus, Thomas Aquinas, Augustinus ve Yahudi-Hıristiyan geleneğine, Doğu’nun bilgelerine, İbni Rüşd, Fârâbî ve Gazzâlî gibi İslam düşünürlerinden Alvin Plantinga, Graham Oppy, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Max Tegmark gibi Batılı modern ilahiyatçılara, bilim insanlarına ve Yeni Ateizm hareketine kadar uzanan bir çizgide “Tanrı var mı?” sorusuna verilen çeşitli yanıtları ve bu yanıtlara sunulan akılcı gerekçeleri ortaya koyarak soruya felsefece bir yanıt vermenin nasıl bir iş olduğunu da gösteriyor. (shrink)

This article tries to show that Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, one of Ash‘arī theologians of the contracting period, showed a Mu‘tazila tendency regarding the ontic value of divine attributes and his successors followed him in this regard. The problem of divine attributes, a heated discussion area of theology, has been interpreted differently by the theological sects over centuries. Mu‘tazila scholars before Abu Hāshim al-Jubbāī regarded those attributes as nominally attributed to God. For the first time, with Abu Hāshim, this relation was (...) approached with a realistic attitude: Although divine attributes are not accepted as particular realities, they are viewed as states/ahwāl, the universal model of kalam atomism. The pre-Gazzālī Ash‘arī theologians, on the other hand, ascribed real existence to divine attributes as particular properties, whether they adopted this universal model or not. According to Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī, the founder of Ashʿarism, which does not include the universal category in any way, the attributes carried by God’s essence consist of particular qualities. al-Bāqillānī and al-Juwaynī, who, like Abu Hāshim, made room for universals under the name of states, accepted particular qualities that led to universal attributes in a system compatible with Ashʿarism. Muta’akhkhirūn Ash‘arī theologians, building their thought system within the framework of the particular-universal dichotomy, felt the need to apply the theories of universals and predication to overcome the paradox caused by the famous motto “Attributes are neither Him nor other than Him”. On the basis of universal properties that have a lower degree of existence compared to particular properties, Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī’s theory of particular attributes is intended to be associated with Abu Hāshim’s theory of universal (state). In this context, the value of divine attributes discussed on the ontic ground by the mutaqaddimūn theologians was drawn to the epistemic ground in the muta’akhkhirūn period. From the first kalām works of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī to the last kalām works, he was distant from the ontic value of divine attributes. The statement that the derived word “knower”, which is appropriate for being a predicate in the propositional structure, and the infinitive “knowledge”, which is not appropriate for being a predicate, meet the same purpose, and that divine attributes are considered divine essence are the most important indications of this distance. Reviewing the works of prominent theologians, scholars of the time such as Fakhr al- Dīn al-Rāzī, Aḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī, Sa‘d al-dīn al-Taftāzānī, al-Jurjānī, and al-Dawānī, this article aims to demonstrate that Abu Hāshim’s view of the divine attributes in the ontic context was welcomed and that the evaluation of divine attributes shifted from particular realities to universal ones in the ontic context. The meaning of “God is knower” proposition according to the pre-Mu‘tazila in the ontic context will be analyzed. Then, its meaning according to Ash‘arite theologians from their framework of universals, will be investigated. (shrink)

Ibn Sina, long known in the West as Avicenna, was at the center of the school of Islamic philosophy that inherited and adapted Greek thinking from pre-Socratic to late Hellenic times, says Jansson. The 17 essays he has collected here discuss such aspects as his heritage in the Islamic world and the Latin West, the problem of human freedom, al-Gazzali and his use of Avicennian texts, and some elements of Avicennian influence on Henry of Ghent's psychology. One is published here (...) for the first time; the others are reproduced--with original page numbers--from publication since 1987, but mostly the late 1990s. (shrink)

In the fatwas given today related to whether individual or social life, the area of jawāz either has been very wide or very narrow. Those, who feature the behavior making prohibited things lawful, have nearly defined even necessity within the pragmatism on the basis of need and they keep the area in question very wide. On the other hand, those who confine the evidence of maṣlaḥa to a methodological principle, have nearly disregarded needs in solving individual and social problems. Whereas, (...) in the fiqh, the needs have been categorized as necessary/ḍarūrī, human want/ḥājī and making beautiful/taḥsīnī, and many principles have been constructed for taking stock of them. One of the principles is the lex of “Need/al-Ḥāje, general or particular, is dealt with as to meet necessity/al-Ḍarūra.” When it is determined how this lex has come out since the first period and its conditions in the context of implementation are determined, it will be come out that necessary cannot be reduced to need. In the same way, it will be come out that the maṣlaḥa is not an evidence disconnected with life. So, in the article, we will discuss the concepts of necessary and need. Then, we will show what the conditions to be considered in implementation of this lex are, what its base is in the sharia, how it has come out since the first period, and how it has been used in actual issues of the fiqh as well as in a specific example. Thus, with this study, we purpose to contribute to the solution of the actual issues of the fiqh. -/- SUMMARY The notions of need and necessity (ḍarūra, ḥāje) which are of four notions cited in the lex were individually examined and the differences between them were explained. The notions of general or particular (umūmī, khuṣūṣī), because of their using as adjective of the notion of ḥāje, were explained in the context of it. In the literature, the conception of ḥāje was used in the meaning both for all needs containing ḍarūra and just for needs apart from ḍarūra. A similar situation applies to the conception of ḍarūra. Ḍarūra having two descriptions was used in the meaning of ḥāje at times. This closure in using has caused the idea that both concepts have the same notion. In fact, from this point of view, there are the implications about that the lex is unnecessary. In this study, it is purposed that the mentioned idea and implications are wrong. As a requirement, the differences between the mentioned concepts were also examined under a separate title. -/- As for the notions of umūmī and khuṣūṣī, the scope of umūmī and khuṣūṣī ḥāje were not transparently defined and were just explained through examples in the classical period. In the context of ḥāje, the descriptions about the scope of these notions have been done after the lex took its final shape and became popular in this shape. According to these descriptions, umūmī ḥāje is the needs regarding all community. Khuṣūṣī ḥāje is the needs regarding a certain group in the community. There are interpretations as well about that individual needs must be dealt with in the scope of khuṣūṣī ḥāje. This study has same opinion. Taking into consideration of the historical development of the lex, this situation has been more clearly understood. Taking into consideration of the historical development of the lex, it is seen that the first person to make the lex a current issue is Juweynī (d. 1085). Juweynī mentioned the lex in different shapes. These combine in the point of umūmī ḥāje: “Umūmī ḥāje is dealt with as khuṣūṣī ḍarūra.” Juweynī not mentioning the notion of khuṣūṣī ḥāje in the lex shows that there is the differentiation between umūmī and khuṣūṣī ḥāje in his mind. Juweynī has a clear attitude in umūmī ḥāje while is hesitant in khuṣūṣī ḥāje. Another point which he is clear is that the needs dealt with as ḍarūra is not pure advantage and relaxation and it must have some conditions. Likewise, Gazzalī (d. 1111) and ‘Izz b. ʿAbd al-salām (d. 1262) continued the clear attitude of him. Both asserted some conditions about ḥāje dealt with as ḍarūra. But both did not mention any notation to imply these conditions in the lex. However, Ibn al-Wakīl (d. 1317) seems to want to show all ḥāje not to be dealt with as ḍarūra by adding the notation of in some situation: “Umūmī ḥāje is dealt with as ḍarūra in some situation.” In the historical development, it is seen that the first person to mention the notion of “khuṣūṣī ḥāje” in a lex is Zarkashī (d. 1392). But he mentioned this notion in another lex not in the lex in question. It is claimed that the addition of “khuṣūṣī ḥāje” to the lex was done in time of Ibn al-Wakīl or before and Zarkashī divided the lex in two as umūmī ḥāje and khuṣūṣī ḥāje. But this study proves for the mentioned claims to be unsuitable the historical development. Because, the first person to mention the notions both of umūmī ḥāje and khuṣūṣī ḥāje in one lex is Suyūtī (d. 1505): “Ḥāje, umūmī or khuṣūsī, is dealt with as to meet ḍarūra.” The lex has been fixed and become popular as it is. After this, especially in the recent period, the clear definitions have started to be done regarding what scope the notions of umūmī and khuṣūsī ḥāje in question in the lex is and the conditions about ḥāje have been dwelled on. In this study, the conditions in question have been treated under four items. In this study, this conditions have been analyzed with regard to functionality of the lex. It has been determined that the idea claimed about that ḥāje must not oppose to a special base, in the context of the first conditions especially, will cancel the functionality of the lex. The current use of the lex, because of the study’s boundaries, has been dealt with over a specific example topic. The issue of being a resident has been preferred as an example topic. Though there is an alliance about having a residence as a need, there is a conflict about the buying a residence by bank credit. While some have not allowed this by claiming that credit is against to a special base, some have allowed it on the basis of this lex. According to the second group, when its conditions are met, the buying a residence by credit is permissible. Because, residence is among essential needs. In this study, it is stated that the preferred opinion is this. However, by taking into account the spirit of sharia it is expressed that every need for having a residence cannot be dealt with as necessity. It has been emphasized that instead of accepting everything as a need dictated especially by the consumerism that elevates human desires to an uncontrollable level, identifying a suitable need for our own values is important. This study deals with the lex of “Need, general or particular, is dealt with as to meet necessity” used in the fatwās today. The study determining the historical development and break points of the lex and the conditions argued about it examines daily use of it on the basis of a current example. So the study purposes to prove how the lex must come out in solving of the other problems. The study is of important to determine the break points of the lex in its historical development. Ḥāje must be appropriate to a base in the sharia. Ḥāje must contain a hardship over ordinary hardship. Ḥāje must not be possible to eliminate by a legitimate way. Ḥāje must be realized by conclusive evidence or near it. In this study, this conditions have been analyzed with regard to functionality of the lex. It has been determined that the idea claimed about that ḥāje must not oppose to a special base, in the context of the first conditions especially, will cancel the functionality of the lex. The current use of the lex, because of the study’s boundaries, has been dealt with over a specific example topic. The issue of being a resident has been preferred as an example topic. Though there is an alliance about having a residence as a need, there is a conflict about the buying a residence by bank credit. While some have not allowed this by claiming that credit is against to a special base, some have allowed it on the basis of this lex. According to the second group, when its conditions are met, the buying a residence by credit is permissible. Because, residence is among essential needs. In this study, it is stated that the preferred opinion is this. However, by taking into account the spirit of sharia it is expressed that every need for having a residence cannot be dealt with as necessity. It has been emphasized that instead of accepting everything as a need dictated especially by the consumerism that elevates human desires to an uncontrollable level, identifying a suitable need for our own values is important. (shrink)

İslam felsefesi geleneğinde Meşşâî filozoflar, görüşlerinin tutarsız olduğu iddiasıyla Gazzâlî’nin Tehâfüt adlı eserinde ciddi bir eleştiriye maruz kalmışlardır. İslâm felsefesinin yapısal dönüşümüne ön ayak olan bu eser İslâm düşüncesinde tehâfüt geleneğinin de kaynağı niteliğindedir. Osmanlı dönemi İslam felsefesi; kelâm, felsefe ve tasavvuf disiplinlerinin, konu, amaç ve metot bakımından yakınlaştığı multidisipliner bir yapı arz etmektedir. Bununla birlikte o, genel olarak Gazzâlî düşüncesinin baskın olduğu bir geleneğin devamıdır. Bu felsefe, Fatih Sultan Mehmed’in, Gazzâlî’nin Tehâfüt adlı eserini daha anlaşılır kılacak (...) bir eserin yazılmasını emrettiği bir yarışmayla ivme kazanmıştır. Söz konusu bu yarışmada Hocazâde’nin Tehâfütü’l-felâsife’si ile Ali et-Tûsî’nin Kitâbu’z-Zuhr’u rekabet etmiş, sonuçta Hocazâde’nin eseri büyük beğeni toplayarak yarışmayı kazanmıştır. Hocazâde’nin Tehâfütü’l-felâsife adlı eseri gerek İslâm felsefe geleneğine ve gerekse tehâfüt geleneğine yaptığı katkı açısından son derece müstesna bir yere sahiptir. Söz konusu bu eser, teorik yaklaşımı, konuları sistemli bir şekilde ele alma yöntemi ve derinlikli bakış sunan özelliği bakımından, Osmanlı dönemi İslam felsefesine tipik bir örnek teşkil etmiş ve hatırı sayılır bir ün kazanmıştır. Hocazâde, Tehâfüt’ünde aklı ve nakli birbirinin tamamlayıcısı olarak görmüştür. O, düşüncelerinin yerindeliği ile kelâm-felsefe tartışmalarının merkezinde yer almış ve tehâfüt geleneği içerisinde haklı bir konum elde ederek Osmanlı dönemi İslam felsefesinin önde gelen düşünürleri arasında yer almıştır. Hocazâde’nin eserinin orijinal adı “Kitâbû’t Tehâfüt fi el-Muhâkeme beyne’l Gazzâlî ve’l-Felâsife”dir. Eser, yirmi iki felsefi meseleden oluşmaktadır. Hocazâde bu yirmi iki mesele içerisinde bütün felsefi konular hakkındaki görüşünü açıklamış, Gazzâlî’nin de filozoflar ile çatıştığı konuları karşılaştırmalı olarak ele almıştır. Gazzâlî’nin, filozofları tekfir etmesinden sonra düşünce geleneğinde önemli hale gelen üç mesele, eserin ana konusunu oluşturmaktadır. Düşünce ve metot bakımından Osmanlı Dönemi İslâm felsefesinin önemli temsilcilerinden biri olan Hocazâde, eserinde Gazzâlî ve diğer filozofların görüşlerine yer vermiş, görüşler arasında mutabakat sağlamaya çalışmış ve en iyi tercihi yapmaya gayret etmiştir. Bu eser üzerine yazılan talikat ve haşiyeler Osmanlı düşünce geleneğinde felsefenin gelişmesine büyük bir katkıda bulunmuş dahası bir anlamda tozlanmış ya da küllenmiş tehâfüt tartışmalarının yeniden canlanmasını, harlanmasını sağlamıştır. Bu makalede literatür ve veri analizi yöntemleri kullanılmak suretiyle Osmanlı dönemi İslam felsefesinin seyrini yansıtan tehâfüt geleneği ve bu gelenek içerisinde Hocazâde’nin tehâfüt adlı eserinin yeri ve önemi ortaya konacaktır. Bu çalışmayla amaçlanan bir diğer husus ise Hocazâde’nin entelektüel kişiliği ile Osmanlı düşünce geleneğinin yapısal özellikleri arasındaki muhtemel ilişkilerdir. (shrink)

Bu makalede İşrakî felsefe geleneğinin önemli bir düşünürü olan İbn Tufeyl’in, Hayy b. Yakzan isimli eserinde ortaya koymuş olduğu dini tecrübeyi ve mahiyetini ele aldık. Konuyu temellendirmek için öncelikle dini tecrübeden ne anladığımızı ve çeşitlerinin ne olduğunu tespit etmeye çalıştık. Daha sonra İbn Tufeyl’in felsefi ve teolojik arka planının ne olduğunu tespit ettik. Burada kilit rolü, İbn Sina oynamaktadır. Ancak Sühreverdî’nin görüşleri de önemli bir yer tutmaktadır. İbn Tufeyl’in en önemli kaynaklarından biri şüphesiz Gazzâlî’dir. Ancak İslam tasavvuf geleneğinde dînî (...) tecrübe konusu farklı çalışmalarda ele alındığı için Gazzâlî düşüncesine yer vermedik. Sonuç olarak İbn Tufeyl, doğal teoloji üzerinden felsefi bir dînî tecrübeyi konu edinmektedir. (shrink)

The The sustainability of social life is based on social values. The manifestation of these values also takes place within the society. On the other hand, the realization of individuals is possible in society because a non-social human being is not a "human" in the philosophical sense. With human-oriented conditions that manifest themselves in the network of social relations, the criteria (moral values) related to the purpose of creation crystallize and become known so that the construction of a social paradigm (...) becomes possible. However, the society in which individuals live is also surrounded by an external world (material world). For this reason, the social paradigm also indirectly relies on a perception of the outside world. Thus, no matter what period of history, people's endeavor for an ideal society is accompanied by an interpretation of the external world, and with this "cumulative" knowledge, a "reducing" simulation of being is derived (cosmology). In fact, causality, which is the subject of physics, becomes the subject of philosophy in this mediation. As it can be understood, a significant problem here is the correlation between the fixed values (unconditional imperatives) that form the core of the social paradigm and the variable external world knowledge that is culturally effective in the manifestation of these values. Consequently, while determining the rules in the social order, one should act on the basis of values, not as if they have absolute knowledge of the material world. Whether we believe that the universe consists of "seven heavens" and is geocentric or heliocentric; Existential values such as justice, equality, and freedom are essential regardless of time and space. However, as historical facts show, those who have problems with this value system, which is accompanied by an interpretation of the external world, have raised objections through ever-developing knowledge of nature instead of universal values. For this reason, the geocentric perception of the universe, which forms the basis of the political paradigm in the class-based society of medieval Europe, was strongly desired to be maintained by the ruling classes. Ultimately, although this model of the universe collapsed, moral pursuits of human life continued to be sabotaged for the same political reasons, and disinformation began. Thus, scientific studies and the search for the truth (philosophy) were accompanied by endless polemics disguised as "philosophy." In fact, this situation reveals two opposing attitudes that repeat themselves in history, either in the East or the West: paradigmatic attitude (paradigmism) and enigmatic attitude (enigmatism). As a reflection of these two attitudes, the dominant discourse, which categorically accuses even the interest in understanding Western modernization in the Islamic world as heresy, did not occasionally hesitate to refer to some Western references by confirming with a vulgar pragmatism. For instance, Newtonian physics has been ignored. On the other hand, an attempt has been made to jump directly from Aristotelian physics to quantum physics by assuming an overlapping in classical texts. However, facing the new knowledge of nature has more actual consequences than polemics. To face these results and to show the legitimacy of Islamic values in the modern era, which are in conformity with the creation of human beings, the developments in the current knowledge of the universe (modern cosmology) cannot be ignored. This endeavor can be possible only when the philosophical and historical foundations of the subject are examined throughout the Western experience. (shrink)

This study analyzes Siyāsatnāma tradition in Sunnī political thought in terms of exploring the problem of just ruling. In the relevant literature, the dominant approach considers Siyāsatnāmas as ethical advice in general and regards them as ineffective against an unjust ruler who has no ethical concern. This study criticizes this dominant view by claiming that in addition to the religious/ethical argument to promote a just rule, the Siyāsatnāma tradition develops a second argument designed specifically for an unjust ruler who ignores (...) ethical advice. This second argument is ignored by the dominant position about the Siyāsatnāma tradition. I have called it self-interest argument in this study. An unjust ruler’s self-interest is to maintain, empower, and hand down his power to his descendants. The self-interest argument tries to convince a ruler who dismisses ethical advice to adopt just ruling by revealing that even for an unjust ruler the best strategy is just ruling to reach for his worldly aims. Summary: Earlier civilizations generated a Siyāsatnāma tradition to provide ethical and practical advice to rulers about a just and efficient ruling in a society. This tradition played an important role in classical Islamic political thought. Muslim rulers and thinkers who are acquainted with this tradition as a result of early Islamic conquests. In the beginning, some Siyāsatnāmas were translated into Arabic but later Muslim administrators and thinkers wrote original Siyāsatnāmas by including their experiences and other Islamic sources. The Siyāsatnāmas put forward both ethical advice and practical methods for rulers to rule justly and efficiently their states. While ethical advises are mainly derived from religious sources and individuals considered to be holy, practical methods are gathered from experiences of rulers who became successful in establishing just, efficient, and strong states in history. The Siyāsatnāma tradition does not seek theoretical, abstract, and philosophical models of just ruling. Rather it relies on experimental reason, common sense, historical wisdom, and ethical reasoning. This tradition is called “Mirrors for Princes” in Western political thought. In the relevant literature, the Siyāsatnāma tradition is seen as ethical advice in essence. This approach argues that this tradition simply relies on ethical and religious arguments to promote just ruling without devising any institutional measures such as a check and balance system to constraint the authority of the ruler. In the absence of any institutional control over the power of the ruler, the ethical argument means that: If the ruler rules justly, he would be awarded in the afterlife, while if he rules unjustly he would be punished in the afterlife. According to this approach, without any institutional measure, the Siyāsatnāma tradition, in reality, leaves the problem of just ruling to personal preference and the conscious of the ruler. It is up to the ruler whether he rules justly or unjustly, for there is not any external constraint over his power, given that he does not care about the afterlife. If he has a concern about his salvation in the afterlife, ethical advice would be effective, otherwise, those advice would not have any influence over him. As a result, according to this approach, the ethical argument fails in the final analysis against the unjust ruler who has no ethical concern. This dominant view ignores a second approach developed in the Siyāsatnāma tradition specifically to convince the ruler who has not any ethical concern to rule justly. I call it self-interest argument in this study. Unlike the dominant approach’s claim, the Siyāsatnāma tradition takes the problem of unjust ruler seriously and appeals to his self-interest to convince him to rule justly. The self-interest argument is clearly aware of the limits of the ethical argument against the ruler who does not care about the afterlife. An unjust ruler’s self-interest is to maintain, empower, and then hand down his dynasty to his descendants. The self-interest argument tries to convince a ruler ignoring ethical advice to adopt the just ruling by revealing that even for an unjust ruler the best strategy is just rule to reach for his worldly aims. Many historical examples are given to make it clear that unjust rules are short-lived.The essence of the self-interest argument is that: The just rule creates trust both among individuals and the state and society, then this widespread trust awakens the desire of attaining a comfortable life in human nature. The efforts of the individuals with the purpose of attaining a comfortable life lead to social and economic development in society, which in turn increases the financial sources of the state. That is why a just rule is the only solution to create a strong state as well as a developed society. The unjust ruling on the other hand, leads to distrust between the state and society and among individuals. This distrust and fear from the state lead to deterioration of the economic situation, for the desire embedded in human nature to attain a comfortable life would not awaken in such a society. As a result, the ruler could not have the necessary financial resources, which would weaken his power. That is why the just ruling is the only solution that serves to the interest of a ruler who only wants worldly power. This study analyzes Mâwardî’s and Ghazâlî’s political theories to reveal the self-interest argument in the Siyāsatnāma tradition. This self-interet argument could be seen in Hobbes’ political theory also. Hobbes, as one of the founders of modern political thought, takes the civil wars created by different religious sects and ideologies in the 17th century Europe as his starting point to formulate his model of the state. Hobbes thinks that without social peace and order, there would not be a society. He offers a strong monarchy which relies on the unity of powers as a solution to establish a peaceful society. The only responsibility of Leviathan as a strong and effective state is to establish and maintain peace and order in society. Any restriction over individuals is acceptable to reach that goal according to Hobbes. The source of the authority of the ruler is not just rule but social peace and order. Yet, after securing peace and order, Hobbes argues, it is the best policy for the ruler to rule justly, for a just rule leads to both social and economic development and increases financial sources of the state. The Hobbesian argument is also self-interest argument that we could find within the Siyāsatnāma tradition. He tells the ruler that even though he does not have to rule justly, it is the best policy to serve his self-interest. (shrink)

Whether God has a knowledge is a controversial issue both philosophy and theology. Does God have a knowledge? If He has, does He know the particulars? When we assume that God knows particulars, is there any change in God’s essence? In the theistic tradition, it is accepted that God is wholly perfect, omniscience, omnipotent and wholly good. Therefore, it is not possible to say that there is a change in God. Because changing is a kind of imperfection. On God’s knowledge, (...) another controversial issue is whether God knows particulars or not. Most of theist thinkers argued that God is wholly perfect; because of perfectness, He must have perfect attributes. Knowing and goodness are a kind of perfect attributes. Ignoring and evil are a kind of imperfectness. If God is perfect being, He should have the perfect attributes and must know the particulars. For me in this subject, there are some similarities between al-Ghazālī and Maimonides. In this study I took into consideration the idea of al-Ghazālī and Maimonides on this subject. Based on Griffel and Stroumsa’s argument, I tried to show similarity between al-Ghazālī and Maimonides on God’s knowledge. Summary: Whether God has a knowledge is a controversial issue both philosophy and theology. Does God have a knowledge? If He has, does He know the particulars? When we assume that God knows particulars, is there any change in God’s essence? In this study I took into consideration the idea of al-Ghazālī and Maimonides on this subject. Based on Griffel’s and Stroumsa’s arguments, I tried to show similarity between al-Ghazālī and Maimonides on God’s knowledge.In the theistic tradition, it is accepted that God is wholly perfect, omniscience, omnipotent and wholly good. Therefore, it is not possible to say that there is a change in God because changing is a kind of imperfection. On God’s knowledge, another controversial issue is whether God knows particulars or not. Most of theist thinkers argued that God is wholly perfect; because of perfectness, He must have perfect attributes. Knowing and goodness are a kind of perfect attributes. Ignoring and evil are kinds of imperfectness. If God is perfect being, He should have the perfect attributes and must know the particulars. Based on God’s immutability, some thinkers argued that God does not knows particulars. Particulars occurs due to the matter. Matter and its functions are continually changing. Therefore, to know the particulars requires changing in God’s essence. If God is the most perfect being, it is impossible that He is subject to affection. Thus, God does not know the particulars. Other thinkers, like Avicenna, argued that God knows the particulars as a universal way. For example, God knows only humanity and He cannot know Zayd as a particular person. al-Ghazālī criticizes Avicenna’s idea in Tahafut al-Falasifa (The Incoherence of the Philosophers) and argues that God is a perfect being and He should know particulars as a particulars. For al-Ghazālī, God should know everything, and His knowledge is different from our knowledge. In order to explain this matter, he says in Ninety-Nine Names of God;“But this can be understood only through an example. Perhaps you have seen the clock which informs one of the hour of worship. If you have not seen it, then, generally speaking, (it is constructed in this manner). There must be a mechanism in the form of a cylinder which contains a known amount of water. There must also be another hollow mechanism which is placed within the cylinder (but) above the water, and a string which has one of its ends tied to this hollow mechanism. The other end is tied to the part of a small container which is placed above the hollow cylinder. In (this container) there is a ball. Under the ball there is another bowl (placed) in such a manner that if the ball drops will fall into the bowl, and its jingle will be heard. Then the bottom of the cylindrical mechanism must be pierced to a determined extent so that the water can escape through it little by little…. All of this can be determined by a determination of the extent of cause which neither increases nor decreases. It is possible to make the falling of the ball into the bowl a cause of another action and this other action a cause of a third action, and to continue this process indefinitely so that from it are generated remarkable and predetermined movements (actions) of circumscribed extent. The first cause was the falling of the water in a determined quantity…. All of that happens in a determined quantity and to a determined extent which causes the determination of all of it by (adding at this point) the determination of the first movement which is the movement of the water. When you understand that these mechanisms are the principles from which movements must result, and that the movement must be determined if the result is to be regulated, then certainly that which has been determined must proceed from them….Even as the movement of the mechanism, the string, and the ball are not external to the will of the inventor of the mechanism -on the contrary, that is what He willed when He invented the mechanism- so also all the events which occur in the world, both the evil and the good and the beneficial and harmful, are not external to the will of God Most High. Rather (all of) that is the intention of God Most High for the sake of which He has planned its causes.” For Maimonides, as in al-Ghazālī, God is a perfect being and He must have the perfect attributes. Because of knowing is a perfect attribute, He should know everything, and His knowledge is different from human knowledge. In order to explain the difference between God’s knowledge and human knowledge Maimonides gives a parable in The Guide of the Perplexed. “Suppose a thing is produced in accordance with the knowledge of the producer, the producer was then guided by his knowledge in the act of producing the thing. Other people, however, who examine this work and acquire a knowledge of the whole of it, depend for that knowledge on the work itself. An artisan makes a box in which weights move with the running of the water, and thus indicate how many hours have passed of the day and of the night. The whole quantity of the water that is to run out, the different ways in which it runs, every thread that is drawn, and every little ball that descends -all this is fully perceived by him who makes the clock; and his knowledge is not the result of observing the movements as they are actually going on; but, on the contrary, the movements are produced in accordance with his knowledge. But another person who looks at that instrument will receive fresh knowledge at every movement he perceives; the longer he looks on, the more knowledge does he acquire; he will gradually increase his knowledge till he fully understands the machinery…Our knowledge is acquired and increased in proportion to the things known by us. This is not the case with God. His knowledge of things is not derived from the things themselves; if this were the case, there would be change and plurality in His knowledge…” As can be seen from above, when Maimonides is explaining the difference of God’s and human knowledge, he uses the same example what al-Ghazālī used. Even though Maimonides does not mention al-Ghazālī’s name in his works, it could be seen that there are a lot of similarities between al-Ghazālī’s and Maimonides’s ideas. Based on Griffel and Stroumsa’s argument, in this paper, I tried to show that there is a similarity between al-Ghazālī’s and Maimonides’s ideas on God’s knowledge. In my opinion, therefore, in the formation of Maimonides’s thought, as he thanks to Muslim philosophers like al-Farābī, Avicenna and Averroes, he also thanks to al-Ghazālī. (shrink)

İslam’ın toplum hayatındaki tezahürlerinin mahiyet ve işlevi hakkındaki tartışmalar neredeyse Hz. Peygamber’in vefatından hemen sonraya kadar uzanır. Kelamın ehl-i hadisi eleştirisinde, Müslüman filozofların kelamcıları eleştirisinde, Gazzâlî’nin (ö. 1111) filozofları eleştirisinde daima İslam’ın “nasıl” anlaşılması gerektiği sorusunu görmek mümkündür. Gazzâlî ve İbn Rüşd (ö. 1198) gibi birbirine muhalif olan iki âlimin dahi kendi dönemlerindeki fukahayı eleştirmede müttefik olmasında yine İslam’ın “nasıl” anlaşılması gerektiği ve toplum hayatında “nasıl” uygulanacağı sorusu görülebilir. Son yüz yıllık dönemde ise bu tartışmalar ve uğraşların zirve (...) yaptığını söyleyebiliriz. Müslümanlar olarak küçük bir köye dönüşen dünyaya kayıtsız kalamayız, kendimizi merkeze aldığımız bir dünya tasavvur edemeyiz. Sosyolojimizin, psikolojimizin, siyaset, ekonomi, eğitim ve kültürümüzün diğer milletler ve din mensupları ile etkileşim halinde olduğu gerçeğini yok sayamayız. Durum böyle olunca maalesef Müslüman ülkelerin birçok alanda yaşamış olduğu sorunlar her geçen gün yüzümüze vurulmaktadır. Konuya vakıa tespiti yaparak başladığımız takdirde incelemesini yapacağımız İslam Işığında Müslümanlığımızla Yüzleşme eserinin önemi daha belirgin olacaktır. (shrink)